Ignoring Fox's propaganda, the list of tasks a scout has to do to earn this is pretty decent. Considering these kids are gonna be playing anyway, why not teach them to play right...I see nothing to complain about in the following list.
Belt Loop
Complete these three requirements:
1. Explain why it is important to have a rating system for video games. Check your video games to be sure they are right for your age.
2. With an adult, create a schedule for you to do things that includes your chores, homework, and video gaming. Do your best to follow this schedule.
3. Learn to play a new video game that is approved by your parent, guardian, or teacher.
Academics Pin
Earn the Video Games belt loop and complete five of the following requirements:
1. With your parents, create a plan to buy a video game that is right for your age group.
2. Compare two game systems (for example, Microsoft Xbox, Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii, and so on). Explain some of the differences between the two. List good reasons to purchase or use a game system.
3. Play a video game with family members in a family tournament.
4. Teach an adult or a friend how to play a video game.
5. List at least five tips that would help someone who was learning how to play your favorite video game.
6. Play an appropriate video game with a friend for one hour.
7. Play a video game that will help you practice your math, spelling, or another skill that helps you in your schoolwork.
8. Choose a game you might like to purchase. Compare the price for this game at three different stores. Decide which store has the best deal. In your decision, be sure to consider things like the store return policy and manufacturer’s warranty.
9. With an adult’s supervision, install a gaming system.
What makes you think there are "zero large-scale, successful predictive models"? What do you think the hundreds of papers published every year are based on? What do you think the IPCC collated into the AR4?
If it was real science, then when I ask "What do you estimate the average temperature for next solar cycle to be? What factors could throw a wrench in this estimate, and how much would they affect the outcome? (Volcanoes, solar flares, etc.)" and then in about 10 years, we could check their work. If they just say "no way to tell!" that's because they don't have a good enough grasp on what they do to make a predictive model or trying to enforce power over others. "4 degrees increase in temperatures, which could increase by.2 degrees for each solar flare or decrease.4 degrees for each year without major solar flare activity. This can also be modified by subtracting.001 degrees for every reduced percent of annual human carbon output." would be, for example, a proper, observable, testable prediction -- the sort of prediction that COULD be made by any idiot on a computer who had the data that climate scientists have at their disposal. At least then they could find out what sort of data we're MISSING. We could get more "That's odd..." moments when the data should fit but doesn't. Lately, the best they've done is "temperatures will probably rise next year" during a warming trend.
Do you honestly think the scientists are so stupid as to not have some way to check their models? Why do you think historical data is so important? You create a model, and wait for it, you run it for past conditions, and compare with what was actually measured at that time in the real world! Astounding! No need to wait for 10 years into the future, when possibly it doesn't matter anymore! Believe it or not, scientists have been doing this ever since computer modelling of the climate was possible 30 years ago. If the models were shit, we'd know. They aren't perfect but we have a pretty good idea of what they are missing already and that is why we are able to place error bounds on the future predictions. The "That's odd..." moments have already happened, with clouds, solar activity, volcanoes, everything. The climate modellers aren't just pulling numbers out of their ass.
Just remember, its their job. They WILL do it better than you can, otherwise why the hell are you posting on Slashdot when you could be doing useful research.
LOTRO had quite a bit of hype behind it on launch, but never really took off (wasn't sufficiently different from WoW to make an impact...)
LotR:Conquest could have been great was rushed out before it was finished...
LotR:White Council died quietly.
They weren't spectacular, but my favorites Battle for Middle-Earth I and II (from back when EA held the license) were pretty solid RTS's, since they were essentially reskins of C&C. Considering what EA have done to C&C since then, its probably a good thing that there won't be a BfME3.
So EA/Turbine made fairly good use of the license, but didn't make anything spectacular. So I'm not sad to see their turn over.
Remember that WB (specifically Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment) is (somewhat indirectly) behind Arkham Asylum and LEGO Batman... so I'm willing to give them a chance.
LotR: War in the North
and
LotR: Aragorn's Quest
look pretty mediocre...
but as several other people had pointed out elsewhere, this does open up the possibility of Lego Lord of the Rings. Which could be amazing.
Drag is a good thing on reentry, where you are slowing down as fast as the heat shield will let you. The shuttle acts a glider only for the very last part, and hence doesn't need to be a very good one. It may look like a plane but it really spends more time acting like a rocket.
Yup, they're just using the old tactic of pushing the comfort boundaries. This is what really worries me... they'll "water this down" so that its "fair in comparison to the original proposal" after much debate, but in absolute terms it will still be ridiculous.
Having a working but out-of-date antivirus solution can be considered to be worse than having no antivirus solution at all, because it gives pretense of security that isn't really there. You might never have upgraded if they hadn't killed the old version forcibly.
And if you bothered to RTFA you would learn that there was a bug in old versions that was basically eating their bandwidth. Considering that you aren't contributing to their upkeep costs, they definitely have the right to do something about it unilaterally.
Considering the updates are FREE, and they gave you SIX MONTHS warning, they did the right thing.
I've been waiting five years for BT in the UK to fix my line. I can still sometimes hear other people making phone calls, and signal to noise ratio on my ADSL line varies by 10-12dB throughout the day. ADSL2+ is not an option as my line to the exchange is too noisy, I have to live with my 2.5Mb/s line for another ten plus years until they put fibre to the kerb.
Agreed, broadband is one of the many areas where the UK lags behind the continent... BT lines are absolute crap more than a couple of miles from the exchange and while they advertise 20Mbps you'll be lucky to get more than 2.
And there is no motivation for them to upgrade the lines at all, and Virgin's cable rollout will take ages to get anywhere except London...
I agree that "Grown-up" games aren't the ones with "M" on the cover.
But I think you confuse storytelling (which is great, but only if you identify with the story, otherwise its boring as hell) with games that try to convey a meaning or provoke thought (which is what I would call a deep game).
I think there have been some very good "deep" games, or games where the interpretation of the story is left up to the player. Some recent (including to a certain extent successful games like Portal, Braid, World of Goo) have been compact enough to fit into a busy adult life, and while a kid could certainly play them, a lot of the subtleties would be lost on them. That is my definition of "grown-up" game.
Depth is not about whether you're left weeping because some main character has died. It's about whether it makes you think about what the message of the game is.
I have no doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is.
That's what it does. It always has and always will. If it were not warming, it
would be cooling, and there would be politicians claiming that man was
responsible.
There is also no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its
percentage in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. What is debatable is
how much of an effect that is. Within that debate, the amount of CO2 that man
is directly responsible for must be considered as well.
As to your source,
it's a video, so it's not like I can copy and paste from it. But the title
itself is telling, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's
Climate History. From everything I've read, water vapor, not C)2 is the
"Biggest Control Knob" affecting the Earth's climate. So it would appear that
this video is wrong starting with the title itself.
What's the point of pretending you are debating if you've already decided the
conclusion? A futile exercise if I ever saw one. But what the heck, I'll humour
you. I have actually read both the pieces, and FWIW I am a scientist
(physicist).
You quote two opinion/personal webpages, dated 7 and 9 years ago, by people
who aren't even climatologists (one is an engineer, the other is appears to be a
geologist or archaeologist). Not that that makes their opinions wrong - just it
means you should take extra care when accepting what they say. Just as you
should double check medical advice from people who aren't doctors.
This is a viewpoint piece, just because it is on a journal website doesn't
mean it was peer-reviewed or otherwise considered good science. Also dated 9
years ago. Specifically, his presentation of the Arctic Ocean model is
not backed up by anything other than his assertion that "this is sufficient to
explain the cycle", which is in direct conflict with actual data, for example
referenced in the video I linked. The Arctic Ocean model was, as he says,
developed 30 years ago then (40 years ago now!) and the general opinion today is
that it has been shown that it cannot explain the warming cycles. This
pretty much invalidates every conclusion he purports to reach.
In other words, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's concentration
is minuscule in
the atmosphere and its effect even less so.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is
99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to
change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only
about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This
is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the
total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in
water vapor).
This is a false analysis of the situation. Natural greenhouse gases,
including water vapour, contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect - but
a majority of this effect is simply keeping the earth habitable. The question
of how much _additional_ effect is man-made.
When the articles you reference (this one is 7 years old) were written, there
were indeed significant questions about the magnitude of the contribution by
water vapour, and any honest climatologist would have told you that. It's one of
the reasons the first few IPCC reports were so vague. Knowing this was a weak
point in our understanding, however, it has been a major focus of effort since
then and modern climatologists are now much much happier about water vapour.
Here's a quote from AR4:
Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the
amount of atmospheric water
Like throwing out data that doesn't fit the models? Like deleting data that could be used to refute your outrageous claims (hockey stick)? Like shunning those publications that would publish critical peer review articles? Like including wild claims from biased sources without verifying the sources?
Every investigation into the CRU scientists' actions has given them a verdict of innocent of any actual scientific fraud. They were careless in their communication and were probably overly defensive about their work, and possibly even broke the law in fighting FOI requests, which I do not condone. But to claim that affects their data is absurd and the definition of an ad-hominem argument.
In any case, even if you disregard CRU data, there are other sources. I'll admit there aren't enough large independent data sets but that's not a point either way.
Like when the CRU "scientists" tried to block peer review articles from being published? Like when "skeptics" are accused of working for "big oil"? Like when alarmists refute skeptics' claims by saying "their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad hominem attacks and fearmongering."?
Some skeptics accuse global warming scientists of being in it for the gravy train, some global warming activists accuse skeptics of being paid by big oil. More ad hominem attacks, some people say stupid things. News at 11.
I thought you cared about data? As for me "refuting your claims", I don't see a single "claim" in your post besides that SCIENTISTS ARE BAD PEOPLE. (Disclaimer: I have connections to big oil)
Like when alarmists claim that NY and Florida will be underwater? Like the claims that the Himalayan mountains will be ice free? Like the claims of an ice free N. Pole? Like the claims of more and deadlier hurricanes?
While the IPCC AR4 mistake is bad, it's not as if the glaciers melting was the major headline of the entire, multiple-thousand-page report. It was a minor point, completely wrong, but it wasn't used as a data point anywhere and to claim it invalidates every other piece of data in the IPCC report is plainly ridiculous, and again, the definition of ad hominem.
The reason the IPCC attempted to predict the things you mention is because they were asked to. They can't be held responsible for the media just picking up on the first sentence of each paragraph and ignoring the detailed statistical analysis that follows. That's just journalism these days.
So yes, I am entirely justified in saying science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering, and your reply was just an example of that, without a single reference to any data.
For what it's worth I support actual science, not science as it is portrayed in the mainstream media, and global warming "activists" are just as despised by me as "deniers". I have no hope of getting through to the parent, but to any interested readers, Richard B. Alley gave a very cogent talk at the American Geophysical Union, about the strength of the evidence that CO2 has a significant effect on the climate based solely on geological record data. It's long, but based on solid data and presents a very convincing and honest argument about what is known and what isn't. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"? And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.
No, the major argument against AGW "skeptics" is that their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering.
Everything in TFA shows me he's nothing but an attention-grabbing script kiddie.
What kind of real criminal needs the publicity of being interviewed in the NYT?
What kind of real cracker shows off to journalists by inserting the word "hacked" on a web page?
What kind of real programmer needs a C# book on their desk?
He even claims to be working for "the government" at the end. Wow.
Killing a product at its peak is an exceedingly brave thing to do but the only way to safeguard its legacy and reputation. Most TV producers don't have the guts to even air interesting shows, let alone allow the successful ones to die a decent death before they run out of ideas.
I'd say that unintentionally, Firefly suffered/benefited from the early-termination effect - just as it started getting good, the end.
Take Heroes as another recent example. It could have been classic if they had stopped after season one; but each new season just drags the average down further.
Long live Calvin & Hobbes. I just wish there was some way of gradually feeding the strips to the next generation in the same way that I was...
Slashdot Mirror
Just reduce the price accordingly. Don't charge me $60 for something that has a quarter of the content.
ActiveX makes IE* vulnerable
+1, just end the sentence there
What you say is believable, but citation please, I'd like to investigate more
Ignoring Fox's propaganda, the list of tasks a scout has to do to earn this is pretty decent. Considering these kids are gonna be playing anyway, why not teach them to play right ...I see nothing to complain about in the following list.
Belt Loop
Complete these three requirements:
1. Explain why it is important to have a rating system for video games. Check your video games to be sure they are right for your age.
2. With an adult, create a schedule for you to do things that includes your chores, homework, and video gaming. Do your best to follow this schedule.
3. Learn to play a new video game that is approved by your parent, guardian, or teacher.
Academics Pin
Earn the Video Games belt loop and complete five of the following requirements:
1. With your parents, create a plan to buy a video game that is right for your age group.
2. Compare two game systems (for example, Microsoft Xbox, Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii, and so on). Explain some of the differences between the two. List good reasons to purchase or use a game system.
3. Play a video game with family members in a family tournament.
4. Teach an adult or a friend how to play a video game.
5. List at least five tips that would help someone who was learning how to play your favorite video game.
6. Play an appropriate video game with a friend for one hour.
7. Play a video game that will help you practice your math, spelling, or another skill that helps you in your schoolwork.
8. Choose a game you might like to purchase. Compare the price for this game at three different stores. Decide which store has the best deal. In your decision, be sure to consider things like the store return policy and manufacturer’s warranty.
9. With an adult’s supervision, install a gaming system.
What makes you think there are "zero large-scale, successful predictive models"? What do you think the hundreds of papers published every year are based on? What do you think the IPCC collated into the AR4?
If it was real science, then when I ask "What do you estimate the average temperature for next solar cycle to be? What factors could throw a wrench in this estimate, and how much would they affect the outcome? (Volcanoes, solar flares, etc.)" and then in about 10 years, we could check their work. If they just say "no way to tell!" that's because they don't have a good enough grasp on what they do to make a predictive model or trying to enforce power over others. "4 degrees increase in temperatures, which could increase by .2 degrees for each solar flare or decrease .4 degrees for each year without major solar flare activity. This can also be modified by subtracting .001 degrees for every reduced percent of annual human carbon output." would be, for example, a proper, observable, testable prediction -- the sort of prediction that COULD be made by any idiot on a computer who had the data that climate scientists have at their disposal. At least then they could find out what sort of data we're MISSING. We could get more "That's odd..." moments when the data should fit but doesn't. Lately, the best they've done is "temperatures will probably rise next year" during a warming trend.
Do you honestly think the scientists are so stupid as to not have some way to check their models? Why do you think historical data is so important? You create a model, and wait for it, you run it for past conditions, and compare with what was actually measured at that time in the real world! Astounding! No need to wait for 10 years into the future, when possibly it doesn't matter anymore! Believe it or not, scientists have been doing this ever since computer modelling of the climate was possible 30 years ago. If the models were shit, we'd know. They aren't perfect but we have a pretty good idea of what they are missing already and that is why we are able to place error bounds on the future predictions. The "That's odd..." moments have already happened, with clouds, solar activity, volcanoes, everything. The climate modellers aren't just pulling numbers out of their ass.
Just remember, its their job. They WILL do it better than you can, otherwise why the hell are you posting on Slashdot when you could be doing useful research.
Seriously.
There are about five links to the "raw unaltered data" on this Slashdot comments page alone. Here's another one.
NOAA GHCN
Have fun, its about 6GB of numbers.
Stop spreading this ridiculous story of "the data isn't available" ... for anyone who can be bothered the data has ALWAYS been available.
Screen size is not the complaint, its DPI. Eyefinity improves screen size, not DPI. Each screen still only displays at its native resolution.
LOTRO had quite a bit of hype behind it on launch, but never really took off (wasn't sufficiently different from WoW to make an impact ...)
LotR:Conquest could have been great was rushed out before it was finished ...
LotR:White Council died quietly.
They weren't spectacular, but my favorites Battle for Middle-Earth I and II (from back when EA held the license) were pretty solid RTS's, since they were essentially reskins of C&C. Considering what EA have done to C&C since then, its probably a good thing that there won't be a BfME3.
So EA/Turbine made fairly good use of the license, but didn't make anything spectacular. So I'm not sad to see their turn over.
Remember that WB (specifically Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment) is (somewhat indirectly) behind Arkham Asylum and LEGO Batman ... so I'm willing to give them a chance.
LotR: War in the North and LotR: Aragorn's Quest look pretty mediocre ...
but as several other people had pointed out elsewhere, this does open up the possibility of Lego Lord of the Rings. Which could be amazing.
Drag is a good thing on reentry, where you are slowing down as fast as the heat shield will let you. The shuttle acts a glider only for the very last part, and hence doesn't need to be a very good one. It may look like a plane but it really spends more time acting like a rocket.
Yup, they're just using the old tactic of pushing the comfort boundaries. This is what really worries me ... they'll "water this down" so that its "fair in comparison to the original proposal" after much debate, but in absolute terms it will still be ridiculous.
Having a working but out-of-date antivirus solution can be considered to be worse than having no antivirus solution at all, because it gives pretense of security that isn't really there. You might never have upgraded if they hadn't killed the old version forcibly.
And if you bothered to RTFA you would learn that there was a bug in old versions that was basically eating their bandwidth. Considering that you aren't contributing to their upkeep costs, they definitely have the right to do something about it unilaterally.
Considering the updates are FREE, and they gave you SIX MONTHS warning, they did the right thing.
I've been waiting five years for BT in the UK to fix my line. I can still sometimes hear other people making phone calls, and signal to noise ratio on my ADSL line varies by 10-12dB throughout the day. ADSL2+ is not an option as my line to the exchange is too noisy, I have to live with my 2.5Mb/s line for another ten plus years until they put fibre to the kerb.
Agreed, broadband is one of the many areas where the UK lags behind the continent ... BT lines are absolute crap more than a couple of miles from the exchange and while they advertise 20Mbps you'll be lucky to get more than 2.
And there is no motivation for them to upgrade the lines at all, and Virgin's cable rollout will take ages to get anywhere except London ...
I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample
There's support groups for this kind of thing, don't keep it hidden all your life.
I agree that "Grown-up" games aren't the ones with "M" on the cover.
But I think you confuse storytelling (which is great, but only if you identify with the story, otherwise its boring as hell) with games that try to convey a meaning or provoke thought (which is what I would call a deep game).
I think there have been some very good "deep" games, or games where the interpretation of the story is left up to the player. Some recent (including to a certain extent successful games like Portal, Braid, World of Goo) have been compact enough to fit into a busy adult life, and while a kid could certainly play them, a lot of the subtleties would be lost on them. That is my definition of "grown-up" game.
Depth is not about whether you're left weeping because some main character has died. It's about whether it makes you think about what the message of the game is.
I have no doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is. That's what it does. It always has and always will. If it were not warming, it would be cooling, and there would be politicians claiming that man was responsible.
There is also no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its percentage in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. What is debatable is how much of an effect that is. Within that debate, the amount of CO2 that man is directly responsible for must be considered as well.
As to your source, it's a video, so it's not like I can copy and paste from it. But the title itself is telling, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. From everything I've read, water vapor, not C)2 is the "Biggest Control Knob" affecting the Earth's climate. So it would appear that this video is wrong starting with the title itself.
What's the point of pretending you are debating if you've already decided the conclusion? A futile exercise if I ever saw one. But what the heck, I'll humour you. I have actually read both the pieces, and FWIW I am a scientist (physicist).
You quote two opinion/personal webpages, dated 7 and 9 years ago, by people who aren't even climatologists (one is an engineer, the other is appears to be a geologist or archaeologist). Not that that makes their opinions wrong - just it means you should take extra care when accepting what they say. Just as you should double check medical advice from people who aren't doctors.
I'll provide the source:
This is a viewpoint piece, just because it is on a journal website doesn't mean it was peer-reviewed or otherwise considered good science. Also dated 9 years ago. Specifically, his presentation of the Arctic Ocean model is not backed up by anything other than his assertion that "this is sufficient to explain the cycle", which is in direct conflict with actual data, for example referenced in the video I linked. The Arctic Ocean model was, as he says, developed 30 years ago then (40 years ago now!) and the general opinion today is that it has been shown that it cannot explain the warming cycles. This pretty much invalidates every conclusion he purports to reach.
In other words, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's concentration is minuscule in the atmosphere and its effect even less so.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
This is a false analysis of the situation. Natural greenhouse gases, including water vapour, contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect - but a majority of this effect is simply keeping the earth habitable. The question of how much _additional_ effect is man-made.
When the articles you reference (this one is 7 years old) were written, there were indeed significant questions about the magnitude of the contribution by water vapour, and any honest climatologist would have told you that. It's one of the reasons the first few IPCC reports were so vague. Knowing this was a weak point in our understanding, however, it has been a major focus of effort since then and modern climatologists are now much much happier about water vapour. Here's a quote from AR4:
Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water
Like throwing out data that doesn't fit the models? Like deleting data that could be used to refute your outrageous claims (hockey stick)? Like shunning those publications that would publish critical peer review articles? Like including wild claims from biased sources without verifying the sources?
Every investigation into the CRU scientists' actions has given them a verdict of innocent of any actual scientific fraud. They were careless in their communication and were probably overly defensive about their work, and possibly even broke the law in fighting FOI requests, which I do not condone. But to claim that affects their data is absurd and the definition of an ad-hominem argument. In any case, even if you disregard CRU data, there are other sources. I'll admit there aren't enough large independent data sets but that's not a point either way.
Like when the CRU "scientists" tried to block peer review articles from being published? Like when "skeptics" are accused of working for "big oil"? Like when alarmists refute skeptics' claims by saying "their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad hominem attacks and fearmongering."?
Some skeptics accuse global warming scientists of being in it for the gravy train, some global warming activists accuse skeptics of being paid by big oil. More ad hominem attacks, some people say stupid things. News at 11.
I thought you cared about data? As for me "refuting your claims", I don't see a single "claim" in your post besides that SCIENTISTS ARE BAD PEOPLE. (Disclaimer: I have connections to big oil)
Like when alarmists claim that NY and Florida will be underwater? Like the claims that the Himalayan mountains will be ice free? Like the claims of an ice free N. Pole? Like the claims of more and deadlier hurricanes?
While the IPCC AR4 mistake is bad, it's not as if the glaciers melting was the major headline of the entire, multiple-thousand-page report. It was a minor point, completely wrong, but it wasn't used as a data point anywhere and to claim it invalidates every other piece of data in the IPCC report is plainly ridiculous, and again, the definition of ad hominem.
The reason the IPCC attempted to predict the things you mention is because they were asked to. They can't be held responsible for the media just picking up on the first sentence of each paragraph and ignoring the detailed statistical analysis that follows. That's just journalism these days.
So yes, I am entirely justified in saying science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering, and your reply was just an example of that, without a single reference to any data.
For what it's worth I support actual science, not science as it is portrayed in the mainstream media, and global warming "activists" are just as despised by me as "deniers". I have no hope of getting through to the parent, but to any interested readers, Richard B. Alley gave a very cogent talk at the American Geophysical Union, about the strength of the evidence that CO2 has a significant effect on the climate based solely on geological record data. It's long, but based on solid data and presents a very convincing and honest argument about what is known and what isn't. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
suggesting politicians get paid
So that's who's responsible for the downfall of sensible government ... THE AUSTRALIANS!
I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"? And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.
No, the major argument against AGW "skeptics" is that their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering.
Well, why doesn't DARPA fund this then so they could at least gain more knowledge into shooting down things like missiles with fricken laser beams?
Because missiles don't buzz at a characteristic frequency?
And because its a bit too late to leave shooting down a missile till its a few meters away?
I agree, ridiculous ... and not just the article, even the summary is patronizing. Editors, it may not be what it once was, but this is still /.
Calling Anonymous "a group"? WTF? This is almost as bad as that FOX news report.
YES, editors, I just compared the quality of your journalism to FOX.
We horde from others
because we assume they will horde from us.
I play Alliance, you insensitive clod!
Menubar: View -> uncheck "Lock Layout" -> uncheck "Context".
Done.
Seriously, make an effort.
Everything in TFA shows me he's nothing but an attention-grabbing script kiddie.
What kind of real criminal needs the publicity of being interviewed in the NYT?
What kind of real cracker shows off to journalists by inserting the word "hacked" on a web page?
What kind of real programmer needs a C# book on their desk?
He even claims to be working for "the government" at the end. Wow.
Killing a product at its peak is an exceedingly brave thing to do but the only way to safeguard its legacy and reputation. Most TV producers don't have the guts to even air interesting shows, let alone allow the successful ones to die a decent death before they run out of ideas.
...
I'd say that unintentionally, Firefly suffered/benefited from the early-termination effect - just as it started getting good, the end.
Take Heroes as another recent example. It could have been classic if they had stopped after season one; but each new season just drags the average down further.
Long live Calvin & Hobbes. I just wish there was some way of gradually feeding the strips to the next generation in the same way that I was
That's control-alt-backspace, you insensitive clod!