Not disagreeing with you as I didn't discover the books until I'd heard the series was coming to the small screen but that wasn't what my comment was about.
Rather it was that slashdotter solanum, who's likely been coming here for over 10 years, posted a dumb comment without actually bothering to check the link.
That said, I have finished the books and am enjoying the series immensely. Overall, the casting is terrific. Lena Headey - best work to date; Peter Dinklage - role of a lifetime; Maisie Williams - delightful, hard to believe this is her 1st screen role; Jack Gleeson & Sophie Turner - really bring the characters to life.
But I have several fears for the series - expense, departure from the books and GRR Martin's writing speed ( and ruthlessness). He's shown in the books that no one is safe and I'm not sure how the audience will react to the death of some of the popular characters.
Pretty much any talk by Alex Jones about global warming makes my case. I particulary liked when he said "I'm not trying to demonize them but they are soulless vampire commies"
And Monckton's rants, especially the one on Jones' show when his knickers were all a-twisted after being shredded by John Abraham is a milder case - Jones is hard to top for being over the top.
The politicization began with the deniers and politicians with rigid ideologies, not the mainstream climate scientists. Richard Lindzen, and later Roy Spencer were quick to harp on this. The truth is both of them, while being accomplished scientists, are deeply political.
Lindzen, has ties to oil and tobacco dating back seveal decades and Spencer, the official climatologist of Rush Limbaugh ( it's left as an exercise to the reader to determine how political he is) famously said, "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government."
Thank you. But he does fly quite a bit and those emissions are hard to offset. Also, from what I've now been able to find, he's made considerable improvements in the last few years - but, what about before then?
He's been a believer in AGW for decades - how long has he been working at keeping his emissions low and mitigating his footprint.
That said, I'm waiting for hairyfeet or some of the other posters who hate hypocrites to respond to my previous post. Should be interesting.
Did you even bother to check the link? Or did you toss off a quickie one-liner?
The link is to a critique of one economist by another's rebuttal of a letter published in a popular newspaper written by a bunch of skeptics who are not climate experts.
So? The scientific debate is separate from the cost. Chasing fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson, is quite expensive but I don't see rightwing "economic" sites proxying the scientific debate on that.
On the surface, this appears to be the latest round of opposition that started with the tobacco controversy and moved on to acid rain, pollution, climate change,etc, And many of the same "experts" on the side of the deniers are the VERY same men.
Yes, climate will change, but how? And, even if we aren't the cause of any of the current changes, which seems VERY UNLIKELY, given the research, we've always sought to predict, control and mitigate it.
There have been plenty who've been living like that for decades and most people have not been listening. Aside from Ed Begley, there's Bill Nye, Dennis Weaver, Larry Hagman, etc.
I'm not crazy about Gore being something of a hypocrite but it would be pretty hard, especially when he started, to spread the word without lots of traveling.
But it seems to me that you're only looking for an excuse, a way to not have to change.
What's your tipping point - what ratio of AGW-proponents have to be saintly for you to agree to change? 50%? 99.9999%? 5%? Only the rich ones?
McKibben and Hansen have been walking and talking longer than Gore? Why wasn't that enough for you to change?
And how quickly would you change? What excuse would you latch onto then to change as slowly as possible?
Well, it's no longer true of Mexico, which has probably been the single largest source of immigrants, legal or otherwise. I believe that will not remain that way for very long, but it's significant that it has happened at all.
The problem for the US is how much money leaves the country to pay for imported oil - I believe the figure has been ~ 1B $US per day for years.
If nukes could replace a significant amount of that oil, building more plants would be a slam dunk. But most of the fuels for electricity generation are locally abundant and very cheap, notwithstanding their deleterious effects.
I would hope that you and those same people are the ones who bitch and moan about gas prices and insist that the government, who, just a minute ago was too controlling, should go secure more cheap oil.
Because those people deserve a great big Go Fuck Yourself. But I'm sure you're not at all like that.
Kindly have your own reading comprehension checked.
Non-Windows does NOT automatically and exclusively mean Linux.
Also, once that reactionary rash of yours stops flaring up, go investigate what ZFS and its tools, such as scrub, can do for people who care about data integrity.
Also, in your detailed reading of the article, did you note, for example, "NTFS detects", "NTFS attempts", "NTFS validates", "healing feature built into NTFS", "introduced a new file system (emphasis added) ReFS"
You must spend more time actually working with non-Windows systems. Multiple filesystems, most free, some commercial have been doing these sorts of things, and more for YEARS.
Any bets on how long it'll before they start swarming in here claiming that 17xx / 18xx / 19xx was so much hotter; how this was really the coldest period on record and that James Hansen is a commie?
Slashdot Mirror
Way to go, picking only on the poor, you Anonymous Jackass.
Hahaha!! Your bum buddies modded you up to Insightful?!?
Well done!
You should be lucky to do as well with reading comprehension
Not disagreeing with you as I didn't discover the books until I'd heard the series was coming to the small screen but that wasn't what my comment was about.
Rather it was that slashdotter solanum, who's likely been coming here for over 10 years, posted a dumb comment without actually bothering to check the link.
That said, I have finished the books and am enjoying the series immensely. Overall, the casting is terrific. Lena Headey - best work to date; Peter Dinklage - role of a lifetime; Maisie Williams - delightful, hard to believe this is her 1st screen role; Jack Gleeson & Sophie Turner - really bring the characters to life.
But I have several fears for the series - expense, departure from the books and GRR Martin's writing speed ( and ruthlessness).
He's shown in the books that no one is safe and I'm not sure how the audience will react to the death of some of the popular characters.
I can't believe I live in a world where so many people who can read, can't actually READ.
Try again.
Pretty much any talk by Alex Jones about global warming makes my case. I particulary liked when he said "I'm not trying to demonize them but they are soulless vampire commies"
And Monckton's rants, especially the one on Jones' show when his knickers were all a-twisted after being shredded by John Abraham is a milder case - Jones is hard to top for being over the top.
The politicization began with the deniers and politicians with rigid ideologies, not the mainstream climate scientists.
Richard Lindzen, and later Roy Spencer were quick to harp on this.
The truth is both of them, while being accomplished scientists, are deeply political.
Lindzen, has ties to oil and tobacco dating back seveal decades and Spencer, the official climatologist of Rush Limbaugh ( it's left as an exercise to the reader to determine how political he is) famously said,
"I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government."
Is that the statement of an apolitical scientist?
Thank you. But he does fly quite a bit and those emissions are hard to offset. Also, from what I've now been able to find, he's made considerable improvements in the last few years - but, what about before then?
He's been a believer in AGW for decades - how long has he been working at keeping his emissions low and mitigating his footprint.
That said, I'm waiting for hairyfeet or some of the other posters who hate hypocrites to respond to my previous post.
Should be interesting.
What? Oh, please.
Did you even bother to check the link? Or did you toss off a quickie one-liner?
The link is to a critique of one economist by another's rebuttal of a letter published in a popular newspaper written by a bunch of skeptics who are not climate experts.
What is your "view of science"?
Sorry, kid. It's economists all the way down.
So? The scientific debate is separate from the cost. Chasing fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson, is quite expensive but I don't see rightwing "economic" sites proxying the scientific debate on that.
On the surface, this appears to be the latest round of opposition that started with the tobacco controversy and moved on to acid rain, pollution, climate change,etc,
And many of the same "experts" on the side of the deniers are the VERY same men.
Yes, climate will change, but how? And, even if we aren't the cause of any of the current changes, which seems VERY UNLIKELY, given the research, we've always sought to predict, control and mitigate it.
There have been plenty who've been living like that for decades and most people have not been listening. Aside from Ed Begley, there's Bill Nye, Dennis Weaver, Larry Hagman, etc.
I'm not crazy about Gore being something of a hypocrite but it would be pretty hard, especially when he started, to spread the word without lots of traveling.
But it seems to me that you're only looking for an excuse, a way to not have to change.
What's your tipping point - what ratio of AGW-proponents have to be saintly for you to agree to change? 50%? 99.9999%? 5%? Only the rich ones?
McKibben and Hansen have been walking and talking longer than Gore? Why wasn't that enough for you to change?
And how quickly would you change? What excuse would you latch onto then to change as slowly as possible?
Well, it's no longer true of Mexico, which has probably been the single largest source of immigrants, legal or otherwise.
I believe that will not remain that way for very long, but it's significant that it has happened at all.
The problem for the US is how much money leaves the country to pay for imported oil - I believe the figure has been ~ 1B $US per day for years.
If nukes could replace a significant amount of that oil, building more plants would be a slam dunk. But most of the fuels for electricity generation are locally abundant and very cheap, notwithstanding their deleterious effects.
Don't kid yourself - the denialist camp, at all levels, is full of people who fit that description
I would hope that you and those same people are the ones who bitch and moan about gas prices and insist that the government, who, just a minute ago was too controlling, should go secure more cheap oil.
Because those people deserve a great big Go Fuck Yourself. But I'm sure you're not at all like that.
Kindly have your own reading comprehension checked.
Non-Windows does NOT automatically and exclusively mean Linux.
Also, once that reactionary rash of yours stops flaring up, go investigate what ZFS and its tools, such as scrub, can do for people who care about data integrity.
Also, in your detailed reading of the article, did you note, for example, "NTFS detects", "NTFS attempts", "NTFS validates", "healing feature built into NTFS",
"introduced a new file system (emphasis added) ReFS"
Here, have another look: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/09/redesigning-chkdsk-and-the-new-ntfs-health-model.aspx
It seems the lighting under your troll bridge is, well, a bit dim.
I fully understand the importance and am very familiar with the issues, from both sides.
But finding a economics site backed by the right-wing Liberty Fund claiming to accurately simmarise the SCIENTIFIC debate is incongruous.
You must spend more time actually working with non-Windows systems. Multiple filesystems, most free, some commercial have been doing these sorts of things, and more for YEARS.
How exactly is Juggs a "smaller" magazine?
What does it say when the archive of a CLIMATOLOGIC debate is on an ECONOMICS website.
I think the moderation of the parent post makes my case.
I have faith that most regular Slashdotter know what it mean and most of the rest do pray to teh Google
Deniers have mod points, too. But I gave them a good beating on their own favorite pandering blogs so it's all good fun until some denier pops a vein.
Any bets on how long it'll before they start swarming in here claiming that 17xx / 18xx / 19xx was so much hotter; how this was really the coldest period on record and that James Hansen is a commie?
It's a pity the US and the West didn't think about Chinese dominance before they started shipping their hi-tech manufacturing there.
It was basically the original Gentoo