It is. And yet no one has found similar errors in the actual science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, despite the millions of Fox-followers out there doing their best to find it.
No, instead, they nitpick on the projected impacts of AGW... and not even the important ones, like coastline destruction figures, movement of growing zones, and so forth. Nope, it's stuff like this.
Interesting, that.
This changes nothing however, Climate Change is still real!
Good, I'm glad you at least get that.
Oh, wait you were probably being sarcastic. Oh well, there was a glimmer of hope...
The thing is, none of these things are going to happen overnight.
Nope. But humans, particularly poor humans subsisting on farming or fishing with no resources to relocate, are notoriously slow at reacting to changes in their environment.
Even in the worst case scenarios (hundreds of miles of coastland flooded, large areas of arable land gone) it will happen over decades.
Yup. So over decades, you'll have millions of people suddenly displaced. Yeah, that's gonna work out *really* well...
People living on the coastline would have to move, but they'd fine new homes inland.
You say that as if it's no big deal. Presumably you have absolutely no idea how many people live on or near coastlines. Answer roughly 600 *million* people would be affected by coastline destruction. And over 2 *billion* people live within 100km of a coastline. That's a *lot* of people who would either be directly displaced by, or whose food and livelihood would be directly affected by, rising sealevels.
Now, suppose it takes, oh, 50 years for sea levels to rise 1 meter. Do you *really* thing we're equipped to handle over half a billion people being forced to migrate during that time? Not to mention the destruction of docks, ports, etc, that would drastically affect those other 1.6 billion? Somehow, I doubt it...
The sad thing is that idiotic, mindlessly reactionary articles like this one will end up overshadowing and de-legitimizing very legitimate concerns like this. ie, yes, it sounds like journalists are being barred from reporting on what's happening on those beaches. But this safety zone thing has absolutely nothing to do with that.
we are talking about a meter of ocean rise in a hundred years, or moving climate zones maybe
A 1 meter sea-level rise, roughly 3 feet, would destroy enormous amounts of coastline. It would completely wipe out every ocean beach you've ever been to. It would displace hundreds of millions of people who live along coastlines and subsist on the ocean. Think Orleans after Katrina, except world-wide.
Movement of climate zones could completely wipe out breadbaskets that feed millions more, and forcing yet more migration for those who live and work in those areas.
But yeah, you're right... I'm sure it'll be no big deal at all.
That *is* a solvable problem. In fact, I'd argue it's to your detriment that you haven't solved it already. Curiosity and self-drive are important in a software developer.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's some horrible, fundamental detriment, and I'm definitely not trying to troll or flame you, here. It's just weird that, in all these years, you haven't picked up C/C++ just, you know, for the fun of it.
And how do expect that nations that aspire to have an industrial base as big or bigger than the first world nations to do?
We have the technology, today, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. There is absolutely no excuse, other than laziness or, in this case, a misplaced victim complex.
"Oh, that so great, I don't have a job, I live in a hut but ours rivers don't catch fire!"
Wait, wait... you would *prefer rivers catching fire*?? Holy shit, dude. No, really, that's the most idiotic, short-sighted thing I've read in a long time. Amazing...
I'll kill every single tree in the Amazon if that means a sizable industrial base and jobs to people.
Congratulations, you are an enormous fucking douchebag.
But if anything ever needed the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this was it.
Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!
The mind boggles.
Oddly, mine doesn't.
Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it. Why would you expect people back in the dawning days of the nuclear age to think any differently?
Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.
Meh, it's no different than pollution. Back in the day, the now-first-world nations were polluting like there was no tomorrow. Today, we expect the developing world to behave better. But is that hypocrisy? IMHO, no.
Why? Because back in those days, we *didn't know what the fuck we were doing*. No, seriously. People thought radiation was *good* for you, ffs. Hell, we had chemists like the Curie's exposing themselves to massive amounts of radiation every day (their notes are so irradiated that, *today*, they're considered too dangerous to handle), not to mention dangerous chemicals and so forth. Meanwhile, as recently as *1969* the Cuyahoga River actually *caught fire* because there was so much industrial pollution being dumped into it.
Fortunately, we've come a long way as a species since those days and have learned a great deal about the dangers of things like nuclear arms. Why the hell would we want other nations to repeat those same mistakes, now that we know how bad the consequences can be?
Oh come on... how, exactly, is the Mac platform (no, not the iPad, not the iPhone, the Mac, ie Mac OS X) "more closed than Windows"? At best it's exactly as closed, though I'd argue somewhat less so (thanks to the existence of Darwin, their work on the ObjC gcc backend, Webkit, etc).
She is making an unauthorized copy, which is a violation of copyright law.
Actually, the important bit is that she's *distributing* an unauthorized copy. She's perfectly free to make and immolate as many copies of the sheet music as she would like. However, the minute she hands one of those copies to a friend, she's violating the law.
"Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass. Go look up the definition of compulsory, it seems you need to review what that term means.
Otherwise, everything the government requires you to do from paying taxes to doing time is, "not compulsory, and you simply have to X [if you want the government to not force Y]."
False analogy. Congratulations, you fit right in here at Slashdot.
Those things are compulsory because if you don't do them, you're punished for it. The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor. They simply assume you want to be one unless you demonstrate otherwise.
ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".
Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?
What the hell does that have to do with a "Federal empire"? Christ, that's *specifically* a state-level law, enacted by a state, on behalf of the state's people. It's literally the antithesis of federalism (as the term is typically used in the US).
Actually no, you jumped to a conclusion. What I was saying is that more needs to be done than simply going green.
And did anything in this announcement say "Well, our work is done, jobs are created, time for a vacation"? No.
This is a piece of the puzzle. And a small one. But it's a piece nonetheless, and it *does* create some jobs for some people, which is better than no jobs for any people.
So, what you're saying is, unless Obama can come up with one single, perfect jobs solution that will blanket "the socio-economic stratem" with high-paying, permanent positions, there's absolutely no point in doing anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems like a glaring error.
It is. And yet no one has found similar errors in the actual science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, despite the millions of Fox-followers out there doing their best to find it.
No, instead, they nitpick on the projected impacts of AGW... and not even the important ones, like coastline destruction figures, movement of growing zones, and so forth. Nope, it's stuff like this.
Interesting, that.
This changes nothing however, Climate Change is still real!
Good, I'm glad you at least get that.
Oh, wait you were probably being sarcastic. Oh well, there was a glimmer of hope...
The thing is, none of these things are going to happen overnight.
Nope. But humans, particularly poor humans subsisting on farming or fishing with no resources to relocate, are notoriously slow at reacting to changes in their environment.
Even in the worst case scenarios (hundreds of miles of coastland flooded, large areas of arable land gone) it will happen over decades.
Yup. So over decades, you'll have millions of people suddenly displaced. Yeah, that's gonna work out *really* well...
People living on the coastline would have to move, but they'd fine new homes inland.
You say that as if it's no big deal. Presumably you have absolutely no idea how many people live on or near coastlines. Answer roughly 600 *million* people would be affected by coastline destruction. And over 2 *billion* people live within 100km of a coastline. That's a *lot* of people who would either be directly displaced by, or whose food and livelihood would be directly affected by, rising sealevels.
Now, suppose it takes, oh, 50 years for sea levels to rise 1 meter. Do you *really* thing we're equipped to handle over half a billion people being forced to migrate during that time? Not to mention the destruction of docks, ports, etc, that would drastically affect those other 1.6 billion? Somehow, I doubt it...
The sad thing is that idiotic, mindlessly reactionary articles like this one will end up overshadowing and de-legitimizing very legitimate concerns like this. ie, yes, it sounds like journalists are being barred from reporting on what's happening on those beaches. But this safety zone thing has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Some of us who are old enough still remember the imminent threat of the upcoming ice age. Just because scientists say it...
They never said it. Do a little research and quit listening to Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox talking heads, they're clearly leading you astray.
we are talking about a meter of ocean rise in a hundred years, or moving climate zones maybe
A 1 meter sea-level rise, roughly 3 feet, would destroy enormous amounts of coastline. It would completely wipe out every ocean beach you've ever been to. It would displace hundreds of millions of people who live along coastlines and subsist on the ocean. Think Orleans after Katrina, except world-wide.
Movement of climate zones could completely wipe out breadbaskets that feed millions more, and forcing yet more migration for those who live and work in those areas.
But yeah, you're right... I'm sure it'll be no big deal at all.
55% to 26% is a small error? Sounds like double to me.
Yes, that's right. They got the sea level of the Netherlands wrong, and therefore anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.
Yup, that's perfectly sound logic, that is.
And, as an aside, this:
Using lower level languages just forces you to reinvent the wheel again and again, just for the sake of it.
Is utterly false. Last I checked, C/C++ supports these fancy things called "libraries"...
Why?
Because a broad skillset is important. You clearly have a broad skillset. The OP clearly doesn't.
Really, how is that event remotely controversial?
That *is* a solvable problem. In fact, I'd argue it's to your detriment that you haven't solved it already. Curiosity and self-drive are important in a software developer.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's some horrible, fundamental detriment, and I'm definitely not trying to troll or flame you, here. It's just weird that, in all these years, you haven't picked up C/C++ just, you know, for the fun of it.
If you're a developer like me who is uncomfortable using a low level language...
*sigh* Kids these days. This statement makes me a sad panda...
Good thing scientists would never do anything that stupid today *cough*miniature blackholes*cough*...
And how do expect that nations that aspire to have an industrial base as big or bigger than the first world nations to do?
We have the technology, today, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. There is absolutely no excuse, other than laziness or, in this case, a misplaced victim complex.
"Oh, that so great, I don't have a job, I live in a hut but ours rivers don't catch fire!"
Wait, wait... you would *prefer rivers catching fire*?? Holy shit, dude. No, really, that's the most idiotic, short-sighted thing I've read in a long time. Amazing...
I'll kill every single tree in the Amazon if that means a sizable industrial base and jobs to people.
Congratulations, you are an enormous fucking douchebag.
If you judge a planet based on how and by whom its governed, then we are really not as intelligent we might pride ourselves with.
So you believe that those in governance are *dumber* than average?
Really?
No, seriously, really??
But if anything ever needed the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this was it.
Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!
The mind boggles.
Oddly, mine doesn't.
Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it. Why would you expect people back in the dawning days of the nuclear age to think any differently?
Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.
Meh, it's no different than pollution. Back in the day, the now-first-world nations were polluting like there was no tomorrow. Today, we expect the developing world to behave better. But is that hypocrisy? IMHO, no.
Why? Because back in those days, we *didn't know what the fuck we were doing*. No, seriously. People thought radiation was *good* for you, ffs. Hell, we had chemists like the Curie's exposing themselves to massive amounts of radiation every day (their notes are so irradiated that, *today*, they're considered too dangerous to handle), not to mention dangerous chemicals and so forth. Meanwhile, as recently as *1969* the Cuyahoga River actually *caught fire* because there was so much industrial pollution being dumped into it.
Fortunately, we've come a long way as a species since those days and have learned a great deal about the dangers of things like nuclear arms. Why the hell would we want other nations to repeat those same mistakes, now that we know how bad the consequences can be?
Oh come on... how, exactly, is the Mac platform (no, not the iPad, not the iPhone, the Mac, ie Mac OS X) "more closed than Windows"? At best it's exactly as closed, though I'd argue somewhat less so (thanks to the existence of Darwin, their work on the ObjC gcc backend, Webkit, etc).
But, ITFA she states that she is making the copy for distribution AND is distributing it.
Yup, agreed, my post was just terminological nitpicking. *shrug*
She is making an unauthorized copy, which is a violation of copyright law.
Actually, the important bit is that she's *distributing* an unauthorized copy. She's perfectly free to make and immolate as many copies of the sheet music as she would like. However, the minute she hands one of those copies to a friend, she's violating the law.
the donation system is compulsory
"Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass. Go look up the definition of compulsory, it seems you need to review what that term means.
Otherwise, everything the government requires you to do from paying taxes to doing time is, "not compulsory, and you simply have to X [if you want the government to not force Y]."
False analogy. Congratulations, you fit right in here at Slashdot.
Those things are compulsory because if you don't do them, you're punished for it. The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor. They simply assume you want to be one unless you demonstrate otherwise.
So it's morally justifiable if most people don't have objections.
Excellent.
Given the organ donation system in NYC is (apparently now) not compulsory, and simply opt-out, yes, precisely.
Or were you trying to make some kind of point? Because if so, I'm afraid I've missed it.
ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".
Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?
What the hell does that have to do with a "Federal empire"? Christ, that's *specifically* a state-level law, enacted by a state, on behalf of the state's people. It's literally the antithesis of federalism (as the term is typically used in the US).
Actually no, you jumped to a conclusion. What I was saying is that more needs to be done than simply going green.
And did anything in this announcement say "Well, our work is done, jobs are created, time for a vacation"? No.
This is a piece of the puzzle. And a small one. But it's a piece nonetheless, and it *does* create some jobs for some people, which is better than no jobs for any people.
So, what you're saying is, unless Obama can come up with one single, perfect jobs solution that will blanket "the socio-economic stratem" with high-paying, permanent positions, there's absolutely no point in doing anything at all.
Uhuh.
May I introduce you to the Nirvana fallacy.