You opened with some unsubstantiated claims about the Asian climate (love to see some sources on that just out of intellectual curiosity) that one might think would be significantly more championed by the global warming crowd but is in and of itself irrelevant given I already mentioned most of my skepticism hinges on mankind's responsibility for climate change rather than whether or not its happening or if its a total/net positive.
You continued with a clever straw man, trying to discredit me due to my skepticism and insinuating I must not believe anything that hasn't been 100% proven. This is interesting because you created your own false dichotomy and applied it to me, whereby there are only two kinds of scientific theories (proven vs. not proven). We both know there are significantly varying degrees of postulates, theories, laws, conclusions, etc. Even most climatologists will tell you the field is still in its infancy and there exist an ungodly number of variables we don't yet understand or even know about, versus, say, the science of dealing with light refraction.
You continued on to state some facts that while true in and of themselves, paint but a tiny picture of the entire issue. Cute how you tried to oversimplify it into "proving" whatever it was you intended to, and mildly ironic how you proved my point for me as you attempted to rip on it.
You're much like the rest of the loonies who have heard an idea that sounds good, and since you've started carrying its banner, you've now got some weird egotistical vested interest in coming out perceived as "right," going so far as to waste words on those who merely question your cause, and you did it all while making yourself sound like the kind of arrogant jackass every college student fears getting as a teacher.
We live in a (sort of) free market country. It is in the airline industry's best interests to operate at their lowest possible costs both short term and long, therefore I believe that if it were a long term economic advantage to cut emissions as you say, they would already be doing it (as they might well be), and we wouldn't need the government to step in to tell everyone what to do.
My analogy was neither an argument for nor against anything. My comparison's intent was to point out that while the Civic certainly has better horsepower per liter numbers, it will get stomped by the other car with more sheer power, similar to the climate if you compare gross output of greenhouse gases.
Again, how is the per capita figure at all relevant then as anything beyond a "how bad we're doing" metric? It matters about as much as a Civic's horsepower per liter does compared to a Corvette.
Call me crazy, but (again) assuming carbon dioxide is the rancid poison to mother nature the greenies claim, I doubt she will care much about the per capita figures involved in the production of her demise.
I'm all for the free market and have no issues with anyone voluntarily attempting to decrease their impact.
If people find a way to make money off going green, more power to them, as it certainly won't hurt anything. My problem comes in when the government steps in like they have here. We all know what paves the road to hell, generic idioms, etc.
It seems somewhat counterintuitive that airlines would ignore such an obvious way to save fuel if there weren't tradeoffs involved, considering its one of their single greatest expenditures.
I've got family of my own in the industry, and I've never heard of any easy fixes for fuel consumption, but I do know airlines have implemented fuel-saving procedures such as taxiing with only one engine on. Given the meager fuel savings that provides but their strong advocacy of it, it just doesn't stand to reason that they would ignore other such easy ways to conserve.
Do you have any data, studies, reports, anything to back up your claims besides some appeals to authority?
is getting insane. With China the new carbon dioxide emissions leader we need to focus on finding actual new sources of energy. You know, so China will have some economic incentive to stop polluting so much, not that it would hurt for the USA to cut its emissions drastically as well.
We need to face facts: Assuming the global climate is as fragile as all of the chicken littles claim, the US and Europe ceasing all greenhouse emissions right now would do nothing to save us from our gradual slide into superhurricane seasons and worldwide desert conditions, simply because India and China are still developing and couldn't give two shits about all of our initiatives if any cost them money.
I'm still waiting on a testable model (no, not a replica of the globe, trolls) before I jump on this "global warming is both horrible and human-mediated" that so many people seem to have blindly latched onto, drawing absurd conclusions after equating correlation with causation and screaming as shrilly as the most terrifying of harpies when someone expresses so much as a single iota of skepticism at their grand new movement.
My point is this: Cutting our planes' emissions will do nothing but place further financial strains on us, leading to a relative inability to compete with other countries less concerned about the illusory monster of global warming. In addition to this, it will do nothing to make a marked decrease in our own production of carbon dioxide and other gases.
This is more government micromanagement that will do nothing but further bring us down.
Lately, IBM and AMD have been the only firms out there capable of keeping up with Intel's process advances, with most of AMD's due in significant part to IBM. This move could well usher in an era of consumer level technology stagnation. We saw what Intel did while AMD was a non-competitor (how many damn generations did they ride the basic pentium pro architecture??) and how badly they react to renewed competition (Yeah, great job on both the 1.13ghz P3 and the whole Netburst architecture). Intel has just in the past year or so bothered to give consumers worthy processors, and now if IBM doesn't decide to take a look at the consumer market and keep Intel on its toes, well, we're fucked.
Awesome news! Next up, Torvalds indicted on murder charges when a mailing list discussion gets so heated he sticks a pointer straight through a face? Netcraft confirmation of BSD's death? Ron Paul is assassinated as republicrats cheer in the streets?:'(
It's called Tongue in Cheek humor. It can require some ability to recognize nuances in language or technique, and given the number of self-proclaimed Asperger's syndrome patients on Slashdot, I'm not entirely surprised it has been modded troll.
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Interne
on
How to Save the Internet
·
· Score: 0, Troll
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Internet is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered internet community when IDC confirmed that internet market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the internet has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The internet is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *The internet faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the internet because it is dying. Things are looking very bad for the internet. As many of us are already aware, the internet continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Google is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Google developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Google is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. Internet leader Al Gore states that there are 7000 users of the internet. How many users of the internet are there? Let's see. The number of internet versus tin can phone posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 anus users. Internet posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of porn posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of cocaine. A recent article put the internet at about 80 percent of the porn market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 slashdot users. This is consistent with the number of scene Usenet posts.
but if the music keeps selling, the labels are providing exactly what the cloth-eared idiot masses want, and in the end they're out to make a profit, not "quality music."
Hollywood has always functioned on its own rules of what could be loosely referred to as "logic," but you're right: The actions of movie studios, actors, and Uwe himself all serve to confuse the everloving crap out of me.
It's a short submission on a relatively new technology. Regardless of our collective information gathering technologies, the lack of any explanation demonstrates nothing beyond laziness on the submitter's part.
In addition, this isn't even news. It's an announcement of a delay of a product I'm guessing the vast majority of people hadn't even heard of until this post. Delays of little known products aren't news, no matter how hard you try to spin it with your generic and unfounded "a lot of us are interested" appeals to nebulous popularity, which falls flat on its face when you notice the number of comments the story has generated thus far.
A front page, full text synopsis about a product delay, and the summary doesn't even bother going a little further into depth what this mystical "turbo memory" is?
Is this FoxNewsDot now? LOLOLOLOLOLOLO Yeah mod me troll, whatever.
I read the articles and didn't see a reason why they're moving their marketing department away from headquarters.
Marketing seems to me to be one of those departments that would be about as effective regardless of the geographic location of its employees. Is this just a thinly veiled way to lay off a lot of people without making themselves look like the bad guys?
Slashdot Mirror
that pirates represent such a huge threat to society we should spend tax dollars jailing them.
Give me a fucking break. Can we not come up with a better punishment than jail for non-violent "criminals?"
The crimson red color representing the blood of the oppressed proletariat used to oil the evil war machine of capitalism?
That's the answer you wanted to hear, right?
You opened with some unsubstantiated claims about the Asian climate (love to see some sources on that just out of intellectual curiosity) that one might think would be significantly more championed by the global warming crowd but is in and of itself irrelevant given I already mentioned most of my skepticism hinges on mankind's responsibility for climate change rather than whether or not its happening or if its a total/net positive.
You continued with a clever straw man, trying to discredit me due to my skepticism and insinuating I must not believe anything that hasn't been 100% proven. This is interesting because you created your own false dichotomy and applied it to me, whereby there are only two kinds of scientific theories (proven vs. not proven). We both know there are significantly varying degrees of postulates, theories, laws, conclusions, etc. Even most climatologists will tell you the field is still in its infancy and there exist an ungodly number of variables we don't yet understand or even know about, versus, say, the science of dealing with light refraction.
You continued on to state some facts that while true in and of themselves, paint but a tiny picture of the entire issue. Cute how you tried to oversimplify it into "proving" whatever it was you intended to, and mildly ironic how you proved my point for me as you attempted to rip on it.
You're much like the rest of the loonies who have heard an idea that sounds good, and since you've started carrying its banner, you've now got some weird egotistical vested interest in coming out perceived as "right," going so far as to waste words on those who merely question your cause, and you did it all while making yourself sound like the kind of arrogant jackass every college student fears getting as a teacher.
Bravo, sir.
We live in a (sort of) free market country. It is in the airline industry's best interests to operate at their lowest possible costs both short term and long, therefore I believe that if it were a long term economic advantage to cut emissions as you say, they would already be doing it (as they might well be), and we wouldn't need the government to step in to tell everyone what to do.
I had no idea why we were mutual foes, but now I see its your fondness for amusingly pedantic hypotheticals and fallacies.
My analogy was neither an argument for nor against anything. My comparison's intent was to point out that while the Civic certainly has better horsepower per liter numbers, it will get stomped by the other car with more sheer power, similar to the climate if you compare gross output of greenhouse gases.
Again, how is the per capita figure at all relevant then as anything beyond a "how bad we're doing" metric? It matters about as much as a Civic's horsepower per liter does compared to a Corvette.
Call me crazy, but (again) assuming carbon dioxide is the rancid poison to mother nature the greenies claim, I doubt she will care much about the per capita figures involved in the production of her demise.
Sir, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I look forward to being downmodded by the same kneejerk retarderators you will face.
I'm all for the free market and have no issues with anyone voluntarily attempting to decrease their impact.
If people find a way to make money off going green, more power to them, as it certainly won't hurt anything. My problem comes in when the government steps in like they have here. We all know what paves the road to hell, generic idioms, etc.
It seems somewhat counterintuitive that airlines would ignore such an obvious way to save fuel if there weren't tradeoffs involved, considering its one of their single greatest expenditures.
I've got family of my own in the industry, and I've never heard of any easy fixes for fuel consumption, but I do know airlines have implemented fuel-saving procedures such as taxiing with only one engine on. Given the meager fuel savings that provides but their strong advocacy of it, it just doesn't stand to reason that they would ignore other such easy ways to conserve.
Do you have any data, studies, reports, anything to back up your claims besides some appeals to authority?
is getting insane. With China the new carbon dioxide emissions leader we need to focus on finding actual new sources of energy. You know, so China will have some economic incentive to stop polluting so much, not that it would hurt for the USA to cut its emissions drastically as well.
We need to face facts: Assuming the global climate is as fragile as all of the chicken littles claim, the US and Europe ceasing all greenhouse emissions right now would do nothing to save us from our gradual slide into superhurricane seasons and worldwide desert conditions, simply because India and China are still developing and couldn't give two shits about all of our initiatives if any cost them money.
I'm still waiting on a testable model (no, not a replica of the globe, trolls) before I jump on this "global warming is both horrible and human-mediated" that so many people seem to have blindly latched onto, drawing absurd conclusions after equating correlation with causation and screaming as shrilly as the most terrifying of harpies when someone expresses so much as a single iota of skepticism at their grand new movement.
My point is this: Cutting our planes' emissions will do nothing but place further financial strains on us, leading to a relative inability to compete with other countries less concerned about the illusory monster of global warming. In addition to this, it will do nothing to make a marked decrease in our own production of carbon dioxide and other gases.
This is more government micromanagement that will do nothing but further bring us down.
Lately, IBM and AMD have been the only firms out there capable of keeping up with Intel's process advances, with most of AMD's due in significant part to IBM. This move could well usher in an era of consumer level technology stagnation. We saw what Intel did while AMD was a non-competitor (how many damn generations did they ride the basic pentium pro architecture??) and how badly they react to renewed competition (Yeah, great job on both the 1.13ghz P3 and the whole Netburst architecture). Intel has just in the past year or so bothered to give consumers worthy processors, and now if IBM doesn't decide to take a look at the consumer market and keep Intel on its toes, well, we're fucked.
:'(
Awesome news! Next up, Torvalds indicted on murder charges when a mailing list discussion gets so heated he sticks a pointer straight through a face? Netcraft confirmation of BSD's death? Ron Paul is assassinated as republicrats cheer in the streets?
You know, if Slashdot hadn't long ago taken my mod points due to frequent trolling, I'd have modded you up.
Instead, all I can do is voice a hearty agreement, note my laughter at your strong and effective language, and wish you well.
You're new here, aren't you?
5 2
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=13913
It's called Tongue in Cheek humor. It can require some ability to recognize nuances in language or technique, and given the number of self-proclaimed Asperger's syndrome patients on Slashdot, I'm not entirely surprised it has been modded troll.
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: The Internet is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered internet community when IDC confirmed that internet market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the internet has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The internet is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *The internet faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the internet because it is dying. Things are looking very bad for the internet. As many of us are already aware, the internet continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Google is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Google developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Google is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Internet leader Al Gore states that there are 7000 users of the internet. How many users of the internet are there? Let's see. The number of internet versus tin can phone posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 anus users. Internet posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of porn posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of cocaine. A recent article put the internet at about 80 percent of the porn market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 slashdot users. This is consistent with the number of scene Usenet posts.
I told my kids to stay away from the clock, but it keeps pushing its ignorant linear 24-hour day on them.
but if the music keeps selling, the labels are providing exactly what the cloth-eared idiot masses want, and in the end they're out to make a profit, not "quality music."
Hollywood has always functioned on its own rules of what could be loosely referred to as "logic," but you're right: The actions of movie studios, actors, and Uwe himself all serve to confuse the everloving crap out of me.
Far from it. It's a wonder the man has enough self-respect... or lack of shame to continue making films.
He's a disgrace to the notion of art, and humanity.
It's a short submission on a relatively new technology. Regardless of our collective information gathering technologies, the lack of any explanation demonstrates nothing beyond laziness on the submitter's part.
In addition, this isn't even news. It's an announcement of a delay of a product I'm guessing the vast majority of people hadn't even heard of until this post. Delays of little known products aren't news, no matter how hard you try to spin it with your generic and unfounded "a lot of us are interested" appeals to nebulous popularity, which falls flat on its face when you notice the number of comments the story has generated thus far.
A front page, full text synopsis about a product delay, and the summary doesn't even bother going a little further into depth what this mystical "turbo memory" is?
Is this FoxNewsDot now? LOLOLOLOLOLOLO Yeah mod me troll, whatever.
I read the articles and didn't see a reason why they're moving their marketing department away from headquarters.
Marketing seems to me to be one of those departments that would be about as effective regardless of the geographic location of its employees. Is this just a thinly veiled way to lay off a lot of people without making themselves look like the bad guys?
Yeah, I considered that you jackass, but weather is a universal term not specifically related to the oceans or this story, so I passed on it.