As others have noted he's a republican, and not on the left.
Apart from that, you call him a liar and yet provide no evidence. How exactly has he lied? He may have made mistakes with the benefit of hindsight, but then he's also apologised (has anyone else?) One of your damning pieces of evidence is that he "sounds like a guy who is BSing"... so shouldn't your comment more properly have been titled "*I* think Richard Clarke is a liar".
Personally I thought he was extremely eloquent and surprisingly honest when I watched him giving evidence. I was very impressed.
Okay, well we can both agree that politicizing science is bad, and we probably both agree that scientists isn't as apolitical as they should be. And I take on board that the situation now has become very political.
Nevertheless, because this may have happened once (I really don't know enough about the history of eugenics to comment whether the scientific consensus matched what the governments were doing), it doesn't mean that it is happening now.
When a large body of experts (I'm carefully not saying the majority, even though my impression is it IS the majority in this case!) agree on one thing, I think it's reasonable to decide that they're worth listening to. If you disagree then you need excellent arguments and evidence.
Really it was a plea for argument backed up by facts (for a change on threads related to kyoto). I'm not dogmatic about this - I believe that the world is warming, and I think we probably caused it (or at least accelerated it) but I'd LOVE to here compelling evidence to the contrary.
On another note, I'd like to thank you for replying civilly and intelligently. It's a refreshing change to some of the other comments!
1) yes, on the basis of my (admittedly non-expert) knowledge, the evidence that global warming is happening so clear-cut that you're probably an idiot if you claim otherwise. Of course whether it's due to humans is much more open, which is probably what you meant? Right?
2) I specifically said that I was interested in people who disagreed with the consensus, especially if they have expertise in the area! So, no it's nothing like your examples and bringing race into it is pathetic.
3) I'm asking for links to scientists who say it isn't happening. I just want opionated fuckers who know nothing about it to shut up.
4) See, what I'll do here is provide link to evidence that shows (with considerably more statistics than one day) that the world is warming. If you are a rational, reasonable adult you will (politely) link to other evidence that shows I'm wrong, or educate me. I suspect you'll just be a tosser and say "it's from the bbc and we all know that the left-wing media lies!" rather than answer the question.
5) I'm was being precise to try to avoid pointless nit-picking. Clearly I failed.
Firstly, humans aren't special. Clearly it *is* from a *scientific* point of view possible to "improve" the human race by selective breeding. So, you have not proven that the science was bad, merely that when science is applied without recourse to morality, or without carefully consideration of what "improve" really means, then we have a disaster on our hands. The same could be said of atomic bombs, GM etc. It has bugger all to do with whether the science is correct.
Now, I agree that science has inertia, and if you have a different view from the majority of scientists in your field then you may well be ignored/laughed at... whatever. It's human nature, and it's a reasonable response to the number of cranks who think that THEY and only THEY have seen why Einstein is wrong, and why THEIR wonderful new theory explains everything. I work at CERN. We get this. But if you have PROOF then eventually you will swing the consensus... scientists in their hearts are interested in the truth. See Einstein and Special Relativity for example - he was a typical crackpot (a patent clerk, with crazy ideas) but in the end his predictions matched reality just too well.
"There are just as many scientists that have reached a consesus that global warming isn't happening as those who have."
See - this is what I mean! Do you have any PROOF. Are there peer-reviewed papers that challenge it? I simply don't know - it isn't my field. But without links then I'm sorry but I'm going to dismiss you as exactly the sort of uninformed 'expert' that I find so exasperating.
"The U.S. was among the first nations to be industrialized. That is a lot of installed framework to simply throw away and build all new."
Europe was industrialised before the US (it started in Britain). It's Europe that's pushing kyoto.
Every time we get a story like this, a bunch of people write in about how global warming isn't happening, or if they accept that, then they write about how it's not certain* that it's caused by us.
Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).
I'm not a climate scientist myself and so I feel a bit hestitant about posting anything on these topics. It would be nice if the self-appointed 'experts' who take over these threads would behave in the same way, and let those of us who are interested in learning more read comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. This does not mean you have to agree with Kyoto (it's clearly flawed in some areas), nor that you have to believe that global warming is our fault, but you should have some damn good facts and links!;-)
*of course nothing can ever be proven to be certain in science, only disproven, but you all know what I mean.
1st off, Yes, they do hate all christians, each and every single one. Apparently you don't pay attention to anything. Al coward has also said many times they attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of "money hungry capitalists"
That is hilarious! Since when does christian equal capitalist?!? I strongly, strongly suspect that Jesus (assuming he existed) would have been appalled by the lack of morality of corporate america (corporations being the most extreme example of capitalism, forced by law as they are to consider profit above everything else).
Also, it's possible to disagree with the "war against terror", and thus to not want to serve in the army and to not be a coward. In some cases that would take more courage than just following orders.
It's also possible to disagree with the decisions of your government and not to be a traitor. It's tolerance that makes the western world (in my opinion) better than some of the more extreme examples in the middle east, and it's tolerance for other viewpoints that you seem to lack.
Are you from the US? Probably more people have just died than died in 9/11... did you see *anyone* say anything as crass and insensitive then? Whether it affects you directly or not it affects a lot of slashdot readers.
There are two ways in which I think you're wrong: firstly, for people to be weaned off windows they need to be presented with something better. This is trickier on windows, because as Aaron says MS hold all the keys... they can arbitrarily change the OS to break KDE apps
Secondly: the effect of all this will be to slow development, since a lot of effort will be spent on making KDE work on two wildly different OSs. It is simply not obvious that you can make something like a Desktop work brilliantly on Windows and Unices. Design compromises may be necessary, and I for one would rather have KDE work as well as possible on Linux (BSD?) than kludge it to work on windows as well.
Not wanting to sound like a Sony apologist but my (launch) PS2 still works (though the drive sounds very unhappy in GTA:SA I must admit). I don't actually know of anyone whose PS2 has broken.
Why is the U not required? We pronounce it with the U (as you state), and so spelling it with the U seems refreshingly sensible for english.
So, summing up, the discoverer of the element decides he's made a mistake, and renames it to match the other elements he named. The US follows this for a hundred years, then decides to rename it to one of his earlier suggestions, but leaves sodium, potassium, magnesium, lithium, etc. as they are. And you think this makes sense, and that using "aluminium" is "inexcusable"?
You do realise that this is a story about ITER, a fusion research facility which is most likely going to be built in France? Bush has nothing to say in the matter.
Can you show one example of this? I'm not even going to say in mainstream british media, because I'm so convinced that you'll fail! I am British and I have never, ever, heard or read that word.
Re:Shouldn't this be posted Anonymously...
on
Preview of KDE 3.4
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, the site is down already and if he hadn't posted that then I wouldn't have been able to read the article. So I don't really think it's karma whoring.
What, because it's impossible to play HL today? Come on, from the evidence we have Valve are incredibly supportive when it comes to running years later. They were patching HL, long, long after it came out.
Do you have anything to back up your statement that "Steam is doing absolutely nothing to piracy"? Because it doesn't seem that everyone else agrees with you link.
Quote from that article: "Valve is taking really effective steps against people using illegitimate copies of Half-Life 2 "
I don't own a PC powerful enough for HL2, and so it doesn't really affect me, but surely each time a game goes online for multiplayer sessions, it identifies itself? In which case, Valve can do all sorts of checks.
Er, not the smart you mean, but a roadster instead (I own one now;-) It was very, very, very impressive. The traction control is extremely effective.
We had an amazing snow storm last winter and I was passing car after car that had got stuck. The traction control was making a godawful noise, but it kept me going (snow was actually coming up over the bonnet!). And this was in summer tyres. It's even more impressive with proper winter tyres.
Try one - you'll be surprised at how nippy even the bottom end ones are.
> In England, a 50 mile commute would be total insanity
Not really. Loads of people commute that far into london. My ex-girlfriend did that every day to work (outside london).
I think you're wrong about the motivation though, as I strongly suspect it's more about eco-friendliness rather than money: at least for the people who buy the roadster/brabus smarts (which aren't that cheap).
Oh, and having a car which is a bit more interesting.
One thing people often don't get about Smart's by the way is how stuffed full of technology they are. The traction control for one is excellent (straight from vastly more expensive mercedes), and that tiny little engine puts out a big whack.
There are many, many smarts with 140km on the clock now as well, so I agree with your point about properly designed turbos lasting (there are also stories about the turbo developing cracks but I think that this is rare, and fixed in newer models)
The point that you're completely missing is that it is *not* like a man murdering 1/4 of the people on his block and then expecting his neighbours to be friends.
What it is like is someone saying "I hate you and will not speak to you because you come from the same block as someone who 50 years ago killed people on my block". This takes no account of you as an individual, but is instead condemning you on the basis of where you were born.
The fact remains that the japanese visiting china now are incredibly unlikely to have been in any way involved in those atrocities. To hate them because they come from the same country, and are the same race, as people who did terrible things all those years ago is as bad as hating someone because they're black. In both cases you are ignoring that these are individuals, and judging them on racial grounds... which they have no control over.
Of course we can have sympathy for the chinese who suffered, and we can even understand why they feel the way they do, but that makes no difference: it *is* racism.
racism PPronunciation Key(rszm) n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Slashdot Mirror
As others have noted he's a republican, and not on the left.
... so shouldn't your comment more properly have been titled "*I* think Richard Clarke is a liar".
t rated
Apart from that, you call him a liar and yet provide no evidence. How exactly has he lied? He may have made mistakes with the benefit of hindsight, but then he's also apologised (has anyone else?) One of your damning pieces of evidence is that he "sounds like a guy who is BSing"
Personally I thought he was extremely eloquent and surprisingly honest when I watched him giving evidence. I was very impressed.
P.S.
naivety
ridiculous
acknowledges
orches
Now THAT is what I mean by a reasoned and sensible answer. Take note ACs and trolls.
Thanks MourningBlade!
And yes, word-pollution makes this sort of stuff very hard to discuss sensibly.
Okay, well we can both agree that politicizing science is bad, and we probably both agree that scientists isn't as apolitical as they should be. And I take on board that the situation now has become very political.
Nevertheless, because this may have happened once (I really don't know enough about the history of eugenics to comment whether the scientific consensus matched what the governments were doing), it doesn't mean that it is happening now.
When a large body of experts (I'm carefully not saying the majority, even though my impression is it IS the majority in this case!) agree on one thing, I think it's reasonable to decide that they're worth listening to. If you disagree then you need excellent arguments and evidence.
Really it was a plea for argument backed up by facts (for a change on threads related to kyoto). I'm not dogmatic about this - I believe that the world is warming, and I think we probably caused it (or at least accelerated it) but I'd LOVE to here compelling evidence to the contrary.
On another note, I'd like to thank you for replying civilly and intelligently. It's a refreshing change to some of the other comments!
Oh for the love of ...
1) yes, on the basis of my (admittedly non-expert) knowledge, the evidence that global warming is happening so clear-cut that you're probably an idiot if you claim otherwise. Of course whether it's due to humans is much more open, which is probably what you meant? Right?
2) I specifically said that I was interested in people who disagreed with the consensus, especially if they have expertise in the area! So, no it's nothing like your examples and bringing race into it is pathetic.
3) I'm asking for links to scientists who say it isn't happening. I just want opionated fuckers who know nothing about it to shut up.
4) See, what I'll do here is provide link to evidence that shows (with considerably more statistics than one day) that the world is warming. If you are a rational, reasonable adult you will (politely) link to other evidence that shows I'm wrong, or educate me. I suspect you'll just be a tosser and say "it's from the bbc and we all know that the left-wing media lies!" rather than answer the question.
5) I'm was being precise to try to avoid pointless nit-picking. Clearly I failed.
Actually AC, when I posted that there *WERE* no other quotes.
I very carefully said that I was interested in other viewpoints, as long as they had links and proof.
But then you were probably too busy being disgusted to look at posting-dates, and read my comment weren't you?
Firstly, humans aren't special. Clearly it *is* from a *scientific* point of view possible to "improve" the human race by selective breeding. So, you have not proven that the science was bad, merely that when science is applied without recourse to morality, or without carefully consideration of what "improve" really means, then we have a disaster on our hands. The same could be said of atomic bombs, GM etc. It has bugger all to do with whether the science is correct.
... whatever. It's human nature, and it's a reasonable response to the number of cranks who think that THEY and only THEY have seen why Einstein is wrong, and why THEIR wonderful new theory explains everything. I work at CERN. We get this. But if you have PROOF then eventually you will swing the consensus ... scientists in their hearts are interested in the truth. See Einstein and Special Relativity for example - he was a typical crackpot (a patent clerk, with crazy ideas) but in the end his predictions matched reality just too well.
Now, I agree that science has inertia, and if you have a different view from the majority of scientists in your field then you may well be ignored/laughed at
"There are just as many scientists that have reached a consesus that global warming isn't happening as those who have."
See - this is what I mean! Do you have any PROOF. Are there peer-reviewed papers that challenge it? I simply don't know - it isn't my field. But without links then I'm sorry but I'm going to dismiss you as exactly the sort of uninformed 'expert' that I find so exasperating.
"The U.S. was among the first nations to be industrialized. That is a lot of installed framework to simply throw away and build all new."
Europe was industrialised before the US (it started in Britain). It's Europe that's pushing kyoto.
Gah - sorry for the bad english. I clearly need more coffee!
"If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area)."
should be
"If they have specific points to rebutt in the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in this area)."
And the rest of it isn't much better, but hopefully slashdot readers are smart enough to sift the meaning out of my jumbled words.
Every time we get a story like this, a bunch of people write in about how global warming isn't happening, or if they accept that, then they write about how it's not certain* that it's caused by us.
;-)
Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).
I'm not a climate scientist myself and so I feel a bit hestitant about posting anything on these topics. It would be nice if the self-appointed 'experts' who take over these threads would behave in the same way, and let those of us who are interested in learning more read comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. This does not mean you have to agree with Kyoto (it's clearly flawed in some areas), nor that you have to believe that global warming is our fault, but you should have some damn good facts and links!
*of course nothing can ever be proven to be certain in science, only disproven, but you all know what I mean.
Sorry - messed up the quoting... the first paragraph was from not-so-bright GI Joe (in case anyone didn't work it out)
Ed
1st off, Yes, they do hate all christians, each and every single one. Apparently you don't pay attention to anything. Al coward has also said many times they attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of "money hungry capitalists"
That is hilarious! Since when does christian equal capitalist?!? I strongly, strongly suspect that Jesus (assuming he existed) would have been appalled by the lack of morality of corporate america (corporations being the most extreme example of capitalism, forced by law as they are to consider profit above everything else).
Also, it's possible to disagree with the "war against terror", and thus to not want to serve in the army and to not be a coward. In some cases that would take more courage than just following orders.
It's also possible to disagree with the decisions of your government and not to be a traitor. It's tolerance that makes the western world (in my opinion) better than some of the more extreme examples in the middle east, and it's tolerance for other viewpoints that you seem to lack.
Are you from the US? Probably more people have just died than died in 9/11 ... did you see *anyone* say anything as crass and insensitive then? Whether it affects you directly or not it affects a lot of slashdot readers.
You, matey, are an arsehole.
There are two ways in which I think you're wrong: firstly, for people to be weaned off windows they need to be presented with something better. This is trickier on windows, because as Aaron says MS hold all the keys ... they can arbitrarily change the OS to break KDE apps
Secondly: the effect of all this will be to slow development, since a lot of effort will be spent on making KDE work on two wildly different OSs. It is simply not obvious that you can make something like a Desktop work brilliantly on Windows and Unices. Design compromises may be necessary, and I for one would rather have KDE work as well as possible on Linux (BSD?) than kludge it to work on windows as well.
Not wanting to sound like a Sony apologist but my (launch) PS2 still works (though the drive sounds very unhappy in GTA:SA I must admit). I don't actually know of anyone whose PS2 has broken.
My brother's PS still works as well.
(just presenting the other side of the picture)
Why is the U not required? We pronounce it with the U (as you state), and so spelling it with the U seems refreshingly sensible for english.
So, summing up, the discoverer of the element decides he's made a mistake, and renames it to match the other elements he named. The US follows this for a hundred years, then decides to rename it to one of his earlier suggestions, but leaves sodium, potassium, magnesium, lithium, etc. as they are. And you think this makes sense, and that using "aluminium" is "inexcusable"?
Bizarre!
You do realise that this is a story about ITER, a fusion research facility which is most likely going to be built in France? Bush has nothing to say in the matter.
Can you show one example of this? I'm not even going to say in mainstream british media, because I'm so convinced that you'll fail! I am British and I have never, ever, heard or read that word.
Well, the site is down already and if he hadn't posted that then I wouldn't have been able to read the article. So I don't really think it's karma whoring.
And you *did* see that the quote I used was from gamesindustry.biz, right?
What, because it's impossible to play HL today? Come on, from the evidence we have Valve are incredibly supportive when it comes to running years later. They were patching HL, long, long after it came out.
Do you have anything to back up your statement that "Steam is doing absolutely nothing to piracy"? Because it doesn't seem that everyone else agrees with you link.
Quote from that article: "Valve is taking really effective steps against people using illegitimate copies of Half-Life 2 "
I don't own a PC powerful enough for HL2, and so it doesn't really affect me, but surely each time a game goes online for multiplayer sessions, it identifies itself? In which case, Valve can do all sorts of checks.
Er, not the smart you mean, but a roadster instead (I own one now ;-) It was very, very, very impressive. The traction control is extremely effective.
We had an amazing snow storm last winter and I was passing car after car that had got stuck. The traction control was making a godawful noise, but it kept me going (snow was actually coming up over the bonnet!). And this was in summer tyres. It's even more impressive with proper winter tyres.
Try one - you'll be surprised at how nippy even the bottom end ones are.
> In England, a 50 mile commute would be total insanity
Not really. Loads of people commute that far into london. My ex-girlfriend did that every day to work (outside london).
I think you're wrong about the motivation though, as I strongly suspect it's more about eco-friendliness rather than money: at least for the people who buy the roadster/brabus smarts (which aren't that cheap).
Oh, and having a car which is a bit more interesting.
One thing people often don't get about Smart's by the way is how stuffed full of technology they are. The traction control for one is excellent (straight from vastly more expensive mercedes), and that tiny little engine puts out a big whack.
There are many, many smarts with 140km on the clock now as well, so I agree with your point about properly designed turbos lasting (there are also stories about the turbo developing cracks but I think that this is rare, and fixed in newer models)
The Smart roadsters have a mercedes engine (at least mine does). I think it's only the ForFour that is different.
The point that you're completely missing is that it is *not* like a man murdering 1/4 of the people on his block and then expecting his neighbours to be friends.
What it is like is someone saying "I hate you and will not speak to you because you come from the same block as someone who 50 years ago killed people on my block". This takes no account of you as an individual, but is instead condemning you on the basis of where you were born.
The fact remains that the japanese visiting china now are incredibly unlikely to have been in any way involved in those atrocities. To hate them because they come from the same country, and are the same race, as people who did terrible things all those years ago is as bad as hating someone because they're black. In both cases you are ignoring that these are individuals, and judging them on racial grounds... which they have no control over.
Of course we can have sympathy for the chinese who suffered, and we can even understand why they feel the way they do, but that makes no difference: it *is* racism.
racism PPronunciation Key(rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.