Obviously their former predictions weren't 100% accurate or nowhere near it, as it always happens when you try to predict the future. That said, the article you linked isn't that far off. There are at least as many rights as there are wrongs.
If you don't want to read the article, at least read the summary before posting. Answering your question US Government did, 17 US intelligence agencies.
Nope. The cost of lawyers in the places that keep with this stupidity will be passed to consumers. Meanwhile the countries that ignore it, like China will keep gaining more and more space in the World market.
Absence of conflict can only be achieved by the complete suppression of human instinct and individuality. It is nigh impossible outside some kind of Orwellian Dystopia.
The GGP request was mine, and no my previous post was not supposed to provide the evidences I asked myself. I found the Forbes and Heartland Institude articles and they were certainly very biased and one sided. I decided not to link them. If someone wants to read their bullshit google is your friend, though.
The link in my previous post was actually a NY Times article talking about the claim that there is a global cooling and showing viewpoints from several scientists about it. By reading the article it becomes clear that the cooling data was severely overblown, misinterpreted and used as propaganda to dismiss the effects of AGW.
The problem is that the demand of energy must be met with catastrophic economical results at a much shorter term than AGW if it is not. So you have a hard choice. Keep using fossil fuels and take the chance of AGW going out of control, or replace a significant part of it for the only alternative that exists, nuclear power. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Well, considering I work in the front of a computer 8 hours or more a day (like most people who post in this site) and play games (even games without much text), the time spent reading books and dialogs on screen is hardly significant. And my vision is actually a little better now than it was a few years ago. My Astigmatism degree went from 1.5 in both eyes to 0.75 and 0.5. It is at the point where I don't need glasses anymore.
Still, 10 years ago everybody, even the "visual inclined ones" wanted to play games with similar graphics and thought their graphics the most beautiful thing in the world. Obviously the visual stimuli aren't bad. The problem is the way you see it and it is not instinctive as you may seem to think, it is learned. You feel the graphics are bad because you have seem better, more realistic graphics in today's games, but the graphics are not unpleasant at all. You just have to stop being picky and enjoy the story and the old but pleasant art.
The misery and poverty lines are taught in Geography at least here in my country. I didn't invent them. I reckon that Geography is taught very differently from country to country, though.
It is not that the same problems have less meaning in a First World country than it has in a Third World one. It is that the usual problems in the former are considerably less grave. You severely underestimate African countries' problems by comparing them to US big cities. US doesn't have 30%+ of its population dying from tuberculosis (a disease that is far from being untreatable), there are no ethnic massacres of whole towns there.
Although there is a significant amount of Americans bellow the line of poverty, very few of them are bellow the line of misery and that makes all the difference in the world. It is the difference between living bearing difficulties and dying from starvation and disease at a very young age.
There are no absolutes in this world. In this case what you call an "extremist" is far from real extreme. Even an idealist that has strong opinions and refuses to compromise them is not necessarily incapable of making pragmatic decisions. The GNU license was a very pragmatic approach to a problem, for example. Using copyright against itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Poe's Law at its best...
Obviously their former predictions weren't 100% accurate or nowhere near it, as it always happens when you try to predict the future. That said, the article you linked isn't that far off. There are at least as many rights as there are wrongs.
If you don't want to read the article, at least read the summary before posting. Answering your question US Government did, 17 US intelligence agencies.
Nope. The cost of lawyers in the places that keep with this stupidity will be passed to consumers. Meanwhile the countries that ignore it, like China will keep gaining more and more space in the World market.
Sure, but a large enough collection of them at least has some meaning.
Absence of conflict can only be achieved by the complete suppression of human instinct and individuality. It is nigh impossible outside some kind of Orwellian Dystopia.
And probably the end. in all likelihood there will never be absolute peace. What we have today is probably the best we can get.
US is the coward big bully. It only fucks up with smaller guys. They will never even try to do anything against Russia or China, rest assured.
On the other hand, other increasingly oppressive governments like US, UK, and European countries at large are well served by these excuses.
Try Mint. You will never go back to Ubuntu.
The GGP request was mine, and no my previous post was not supposed to provide the evidences I asked myself. I found the Forbes and Heartland Institude articles and they were certainly very biased and one sided. I decided not to link them. If someone wants to read their bullshit google is your friend, though.
The link in my previous post was actually a NY Times article talking about the claim that there is a global cooling and showing viewpoints from several scientists about it. By reading the article it becomes clear that the cooling data was severely overblown, misinterpreted and used as propaganda to dismiss the effects of AGW.
That was a great read. Thank you. :)
A pity. It is an exceptionally clever and interesting story.
To be fair I found the link on Forbes and the Heartland Institute, and replicas from scientists in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html
The problem is that the demand of energy must be met with catastrophic economical results at a much shorter term than AGW if it is not. So you have a hard choice. Keep using fossil fuels and take the chance of AGW going out of control, or replace a significant part of it for the only alternative that exists, nuclear power. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Link to the "actual data", please?
Well, considering I work in the front of a computer 8 hours or more a day (like most people who post in this site) and play games (even games without much text), the time spent reading books and dialogs on screen is hardly significant. And my vision is actually a little better now than it was a few years ago. My Astigmatism degree went from 1.5 in both eyes to 0.75 and 0.5. It is at the point where I don't need glasses anymore.
Still, 10 years ago everybody, even the "visual inclined ones" wanted to play games with similar graphics and thought their graphics the most beautiful thing in the world. Obviously the visual stimuli aren't bad. The problem is the way you see it and it is not instinctive as you may seem to think, it is learned. You feel the graphics are bad because you have seem better, more realistic graphics in today's games, but the graphics are not unpleasant at all. You just have to stop being picky and enjoy the story and the old but pleasant art.
So what? I could read the text perfectly without effort and my vision is not even top notch.
The game didn't fail. It wasn't exactly a blockbuster, but it sold well.
You must have a hell lot of a hard time reading books, my friend. That is, if you try doing so at all.
Here is an interesting essay on the differences between poverty and misery, in case you are interested:
http://www.paulgoodmanfilm.com/decent-poverty-report-poverty-and-misery/
The misery and poverty lines are taught in Geography at least here in my country. I didn't invent them. I reckon that Geography is taught very differently from country to country, though.
It is not that the same problems have less meaning in a First World country than it has in a Third World one. It is that the usual problems in the former are considerably less grave. You severely underestimate African countries' problems by comparing them to US big cities. US doesn't have 30%+ of its population dying from tuberculosis (a disease that is far from being untreatable), there are no ethnic massacres of whole towns there.
Although there is a significant amount of Americans bellow the line of poverty, very few of them are bellow the line of misery and that makes all the difference in the world. It is the difference between living bearing difficulties and dying from starvation and disease at a very young age.
There are no absolutes in this world. In this case what you call an "extremist" is far from real extreme. Even an idealist that has strong opinions and refuses to compromise them is not necessarily incapable of making pragmatic decisions. The GNU license was a very pragmatic approach to a problem, for example. Using copyright against itself.