Come now, sure it's not your standard text book doubly linked list (each node linked to 2 nodes, the next and the previous), but how could one possibly consider arbitrary multiple linking within a list to be new and non-obvious?
I use linked lists of all kinds of various forms all the time. I also have absolutely zero dillusions that this is in any way unique or novel. I _know_ I didn't do it first, and I also know it doesn't matter who did. It is simply an extension to known internal linking structures. How hard was it to figure out once linked lists were 'invented', that one could doubly link lists? Or arbitrarily link lists? Or build n-dimensional lists with multi-dimensional and arbitrary internal linkages? I could come up with a thousand 'new' linked list types if this idea is truly new and novel, which it isn't.
Google hits for "Linked List": ~1030000 Google hits for "Doubly Linked List": ~202000
5:1 ratio for something like this implies to me that it indeed is well documented. I was tought these in my 2nd semester C++ course in college.
It's well known, well documented, well used, completely obvious, and completely and utterly non-patentable...other than the fact that a patent was actually issued on it that is...
That's not that strange, I'm mildly allergic to it myself, along with cantaloupe, honeydew and other similar fruits. Don't know exactly what it is, never bothered to check it out in detail as it's merely an irritant to me so I simply avoid these foods for the most part...every once in a while though I'll trade off some minor discomfort for some delicious moussaka or a good fruit salad with some melon in it.
This isn't a new way of doing the same thing. This isn't a redesign of a standard input field. This isn't a new fancier mouse.
This is a new controller. There is no parallel for 99% of the people out there that will try it.
A parallel would be to expect a 16 year old that has only ever seen cars in pictures to be able to hop in a car and drive it off the lot with zero issues the first time through.
And you've got your meme wrong anyways. MS is the one we typically flog for trying to foist the 'right' way to do things on their users.
Really, why are there 2 articles on GoW, on the front page, both posted by the same person, within less than 2 hours? Only 2 articles between them.
Worse, I fully expect to be modded into oblivion for even mentioning such a thing, despite having the balls to post this from my account rather than flaming as an AC.
This reply is for you and the other asshole that thinks I have some sort of materialistic agenda.
You're conveniently choosing to target me personally based on...Hmm...nothing...for what end?
The only reason I can come up with at all is that it's easier to be a blind asshole than to address the actual problems involved. Unfortunately, this is simply further indication that we're completely fucked. If we as a people are too stupid and arrogant to allow ourselves to acknowledge our mistakes, let alone deal with them, there is simply no hope whatsoever. With that in mind, myself and many others would consider it a personal favor if you'd all just put a hole in your head. Then the rest of us that give a flying fuck about our future can carry on trying to ensure that we have one.
How the fuck TWO of you turned into 'Yeah, you just wish YOUR materialistic life was as wasteful as OURS'.
Whereas you both chose to target me personally and directly, all I'm trying to do is to get some of you to see the Big Picture. I know, it's hard, because to look at the Big Picture requires two things:
1) The ability to realize and accept that you as an individual mean FUCK ALL. (Myself included) 2) The further ability to realize that if you are not a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem.
Thank you for being a part of the problem. It's highly appreciated.
This has just about nothing to do with global warming, but what is killing our ability to address the plethora of problems we currently know we have is that people are trying to make global warming the be-all, end-all of the discussion. Which ensures there will never be a consensus on the subject because it's simply too vast, and by the time we can prove that that particular possibility is actually a very real threat to the satisfaction of all, it will be too late because it will necessarily HAVE to have come to pass by that point.
HOWEVER, it's not the advocates of global warming being a problem that is doing the damage, it is people arguing against global warming that are causing the biggest problem...because people are listening on both sides to an unsolvable argument instead of going: "Hmm, ok, maybe global warming won't happen, BUT, of this list of 100 things that COULD be contributing to global warming if it's real...all of them on their own are very obviously Bad Things and can NOT be good for us in the long term...so regardless of global warming being real or not, maybe we'd better actually DO something about these things instead of endlessly arguing about the theoretical end game.
Sorry if I come across a bit heavy, I realize there are a lot of knowledgeable and well meaning people on both sides of the argument...I'm just advocating that people start looking at the 'forest' that is beyond this particular 'tree'. If we don't, it doesn't matter if global warming is real or not, we will kill ourselves off one way or the other.
The debate WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is over. We absolutely know, beyond a doubt, that we are causing damage to our planet. We can not say what exactly is going to happen when, but that doesn't matter.
What DOES matter is that people like YOU refuse to take ANY of it seriously unless we prove it to YOUR satisfaction.
Guess what? I don't give a FUCK what you think...pollution is a BIG PROBLEM, and just one of MANY problems we're causing for ourselves.
If we had to 'show' every person on this planet absolute proof...it's TOO FUCKING LATE THEN.
You might just prove yourself to be Right, but very likely you'll be Dead Right.
Man, where do they find them? It's not technology or pollution that is going to kill us, it's stupid fucking people that think they're so fucking important that they are the center of the universe.
I feel for you. It may prove nigh on impossible to supplant the web browser as it stands today, even if it is the right thing to do.
Though, there may be a way.
What is going to have to happen is an obvious and completely transparent and hassle free transition point needs to be provided. If an implementation of the client for this could be created that worked INSIDE IE and FF...then you have a low impact migration path. Then you can say 'Hey, check this web app out, go here: http://blah.../ Then simply provide some info there as to how it works, how it provides a better application experience, and how all of this would be improved (metrics here) x more if you were to download this 'app' browser or whatever and run the app natively there.
The browser can not be usurped directly, it simply has too much mindshare now, good or bad. The only chance is to provide something that is 'the same', but noticeably different...and those differences MUST be obvious tangible improvements.
Your best bet would probably be to get the ears of the mozilla team. Really, for this to truly work, it's going to have to be integrated into existing browsers. From the end user, whether they're using a rich web app, or just viewing a static web page, is going to have to be of ZERO consequence to the end user...or they just won't bother.
Keep it up, don't let it go. You're on the right track, and we really truly do NEED something like this. I live in web app land, and it sucks, and it's definitely NOT getting better.
No one is telling you to trust a climatologist. No one is trying to force you to accept anything you don't want to.
You're completely sidestepping the argument, AGAIN.
Why do you need a climatologist to tell you that we're doing Bad Things to the planet before you'll accept some level of responsibility and DO something about it? Pollution is a MAJOR problem, does it matter if it will result in killing off the human race directly or not?
Or are you the kind of asshole that pisses in the pool regularly, cause no one will know for sure.
Mass deforestation is a known major problem. Shall we keep stripping lumber at our current pace until we've shown with a provable 10% that it is directly related to the (unprovable...thus 10% of zero...thus you ARE indeed asking for absolute proof) end of humal life.
Burning of fossil fuels.
Radiation contamination.
Ground water pollution.
Loss of habitat, loss of species.
Increased solar radiation.
Are you going to do ANYTHING within your lifetime? Or keep waiting for the all knowing irrefutable (non-existent) magic climatologist to come along that you can put your full trust in?
I retract my previous suggested choices for you, PLEASE go stick your head in the sand and don't say another word, you'll be doing more to help the problem than you know.
By making the arguments you are, you're essentially saying 'I choose to ignore any possible problems and do nothing to change these possible problems until the sky actually falls'.
Buying stock based on speculation has NOTHING to do with this, what a contrived bullshit counter example.
Let me put it to you in another way, you have a choice here: a) Assume the worst and take actions now to ensure the worst won't occur b) Assume the best and take actions now to ensure the worst doesn't happen c) Assume the worst and stick your head in the sand d) Assume the best and change nothing
So are you an a-b kind of person or a c-d kind of person? And why do you choose this? Tell me, what good can come of choosing to Do Nothing?
WE as a society could do a hell of a lot worse than acting on an a-b mentality. However, you'd have to be pretty ignorant or self absorbed to thing we should be following a c-d mentality. Think about what you're asking for...Absolute proof before acting. Don't you think it might be a little late by then?
Let me put it another way, if you were told by your Dr that you had the early stages of Colon Cancer and that you'd die within 2 years if you didn't do something about it...would you wait until you start bleeding profusely before you choose to do something about it? Would you wait for absolute Proof before taking it seriously?
Ahh, but you might say that you'd 'trust' your Dr because this has been proven before, and observed and measured, so you have some certainty that he is right.
OK, no problem. But me personally? I'm not willing to hinge the future of the human race on an argument that boils down to 'You might be right, but you might be Dead right'.
Go stick your head in the sand if you like, but PLEASE, for the love of humanity, STOP trying to convince people that they have to wait for 'Proof' before we stop killing our planet.
Did you miss the article yesterday on Victoria BC's sewage dumping practices? Do we need to 'prove' that our atmosphere is going to be burned up on some specific date in the future, and that this practice has something to do with it, before we decide that this is a Bad Thing and DO something about it?
Either get your head out of your ass and wake up, or stick it in the sand and shut up. Your current tact is not helping ANYONE in ANY way shape or form.
So you're saying we haven't taken the abstraction far enough?
Makes sense to me.
How about we change it to the term 'communication'. What's the difference whether the act is in person, via snail mail, IM, email, phone, text message....And we wonder what could be wrong with our system of law. Sheesh.
The lawyers are the ones that are able to abuse the system via pedantry, but they are only acting within the confines of a system of rules we laid out for them...it's to be expected really. The real problem is the fallacy that to define law, one must be as explicit as possible at all times...this is a catch 22...Gee, I wonder why laws continue to get more verbose, more complicated, more laws covering the same or similar issues....
What's wrong with 'Murder Is Illegal', 'Solicitation of Minors Is Illegal'....etc etc...
We laid this trap for ourselves...thank god there's at least one Judge out there that gets this. Now on the the real problem, fixing the completely borked system we're currently trying to use.
I'd rather see one person stand up and do the right thing at some point in this process, than to see it passed off in the hope that someone else would fix the problem.
More than that, I'd like to see the system fixed. Pedantry at the expense of common sense...how did we let things go so far?
If this particular issue remains so divided, to put it bluntly, we're completely and utterly fucked, period. That's really what I'm arguing here.
We absolutely know enough to know that we should be doing something about the sources of these problems, even though we don't know everything about the problems or the effects they are having or will have in the future. But we damned well can work towards stopping the damage we are doing, even WHILE the scientific community continues looking into the plethora of issues related to this particular topic.
The problem is we've been set up to believe that this is an all-or-nothing problem. It either exists or it doesn't. It will either kill us all within 100 years or it won't. If we can't get past this completely retarded viewpoint as a society, again putting it bluntly, we're completely and utterly fucked. Period.
The worst is Big Business and Politics for propagating this problem...first, they have the most to 'lose' (Lose in their nearsighted view...it can easily be argued that there would be much to gain in the long term...but that's for another discussion) if people take this issue seriously. To fix this problem, Ford et al would either have to cease to exist, OR change completely. Not something big business is ever going to voluntarily take on. Politicians have zero interest in pushing the subject with big business because chances are very good that their career will be over if they piss off the wrong businesses.
Worse, the general public is inundated with input from these 2 entities. What percentage of factual information on this kind of subject do you think your average person is exposed to? Riight. Good luck changing the general publics mind when the 2 entities that have the (perceived) most to lose are the same ones that have the general publics ear?
I hate arguments related to this that detract from the very obvious big picture. The proof that we're in trouble is right out your doorstep. Stop convincing yourselves that because this one particular fact or this other particular fact aren't completely valid in your book, that that means we're actually living in the garden of eden and will never have anything bad come to us.
Re:Scientific consensus not quite there yet...
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and what does that prove about global warming?
Maybe polar bears have a predisposition to prefer slightly warmer temperatures and as such are thriving with the minor changes that have occurred in their ecosystem.
The counterpoints presented in the gp, while interesting and valid, are not helping either. Individually, or as a whole, they neither disprove or prove global warming whatsoever. Neither do the facts presented by Al Gore in the movie.
That does not change the fact that the general consensus in the scientific community that our pollution habits ARE having a measurable impact on our planet...whether that be global warming, global cooling, ecosystem contamination...whatever.
The problem this entire conversation is demonstrating is the whole trees/forest issue. People are throwing so many 'trees' into the discussion that it becomes increasingly difficult to see the 'forest'. This is particularly a problem for the general public, and big business and politics KNOW this and find it exceptionally easy to use this to their advantage to ensure the general public DOESN'T all get on board and 'see' the forest for what it is.
None of the plethora of minutia matter in the end result. We ARE causing massive damage to our environment. Does it really matter to what exact degree? Does it really matter what exact series of events are going to occur in the future as a result of this? Are we really so bloody ignorant that we won't look at the big picture, and damned well choose to do SOMETHING about it before it's too late?
All I have to say to you 'non-believers' is wake the fuck up. Look out your front fucking door and take a good fucking look at the world you live in. It's not good and you are doing NO one any favors by taking the stance of 'Since you can't prove to me HOW bad it is beyond a doubt, I'll choose to ignore the entire thing thank you very much'. Yeah, it's the informed scientific community with their heads buried in the sand worshiping their 'god' of 'science'. That argument is close...just completely backwards.
The debate among informed parties IS over. That's the whole freaking point here, sheesh. The problem is that politics and the general populace are still insisting on acting as if this is not the case, DESPITE the facts provided by the scientific community.
Or did you miss that in the synopsis above? Christ, even Al Gore knows this! This movie is about the problem that the people that Know this for fact are having a HELL of a time getting those that do NOT know to LISTEN.
It's not about whether it is true or not, it's whether people will ACCEPT it or not. Business and Politics do NOT want to accept this, because to accept it would REQUIRE major change...major change being an understatement. It would REQUIRE business and politics as we know it to COMPLETELY reevaluate how they work. Never mind our consumerist society.
People don't want to give up their SUV's or their PS2049's, or whatever other crap they don't need...Business doesn't want to stop selling you the crap you don't need...Politics doesn't want to rock this boat...
Accepting or Not Accepting the facts has NOTHING to do with the facts. Global Warming is REAL. Self Induced Climate Change is REAL. These are FACTS.
Whether you are too attached to your consumerist lifestyle to hear the facts or not is what the real issue is. Herein lies the real debate...unfortunately no one wants to have that debate because you might just end up having to take some level of responsibility for where we are at right now and actually DO something about it. It's easier to just keep driving that suv into the sunset until the day the sun doesn't rise again...then we can deal with it, cause at that point at least you'll have that 'proof' you needed won't you.
We can only make accurate predictions for the future based on accurately measuring similar events that have occurred in the past.
Shall we wait until all the effects of our self inflicted global warming can be measured before we attempt to do anything about it?
Just because we don't 'know' with 100% certainty what will definitely happen in the future does NOT mean we'd be wisest to do Nothing...when we DO know with 100% certainty that we ARE indeed having a negative effect on our planet.
Why did I bother responding though, comparing the holocaust and slavery to global warming. Lay off the crack man.
Your points are sound, but you've taken your example to the extreme just for the sake of argument. I think you know that though.
We're talking about a set of movies where there's really no blood or explicit gore, tonnes of fuzzy little critters, lots of fantasy...almost entirely appropriate for kids in a way that is for the most part not going to be confused with reality, even by younger children.
And then a child is burned alive.
It disturbed me when I saw it. Seeing someone burned alive is Disturbing. A child might deal with it fine, or a child might be disturbed by that forever. Sure, you can try to explain that it's in a fictional movie so there's nothing to worry about...but other than the setting, everything about that particular event is very real.
People SHOULD be disturbed by seeing something like that. Something is wrong with you if you aren't. Something is REALLY wrong if your child has been desensitized to things like this.
You're taking the overprotection argument WAY beyond what is sane and rational. Unfortunate because your arguments would hold merit if you weren't to undermine them so by coming off as a kook that thinks children SHOULD be exposed to violence of this level.
There will be a time, and it will come at a different age for all children, when the child will be ready to watch things like this and understand them in a rational way, without either being desensitized OR being deeply disturbed. Most 12 year olds will fall in this category. I'd be surprised to find a 6 year old that would fall in this category.
What did your parents do to you when you were a child to make you end up with such overboard views on this particular issue? Were you locked in a rubber room and only allowed to watch Sesame Street until you were 17 or something? I strongly suspect this conversation stems more from some personal history of yours than from the actual merits of the topic at hand.
You are truly suggesting that we should desensitize our children to a point where a young child wouldn't even bat an eye at seeing someone's head blown off?
You're a real piece of work. Have fun raising those little psychopaths of yours.
I'd suggest you read up just a wee little bit on child psychology. I assure you that you are completely and utterly wrong. I wouldn't usually care, but it's not you this affects, it is your children. I truly feel for them.
Aside from the facts and psychology of the matter, in this day and age, WHY would you push children to 'grow up' while they are still children? Let them BE children while they can. If you don't, they're going to end up resenting and/or hating you later in life.
Just because your parents let you stay up watching rocky and terminator when you were 4 doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
You either have no children and never will, OR, your poor children lie awake all night staring in terror at the ceiling, cringing at the slightest puff of air or faintest of sounds.
Congratulations, you're the worlds Best Parent without a doubt!
As contrasted with the "play the same main quest for every new character" part?
Lol, it's a Single Player Storyline. It already has more content than just about any other single player game ever, and now you want new storylines and quests every time you start again?
Hehe, funny stuff.
Re:Not the type of "fraidy cat gamer I was expecti
on
Fraidy Cat Gamer
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Appealing because 30 days isn't enough time to make a phone call or two? Riiight.
30 days to start talking about possible remedies for the situation is plenty reasonable.
Come now, sure it's not your standard text book doubly linked list (each node linked to 2 nodes, the next and the previous), but how could one possibly consider arbitrary multiple linking within a list to be new and non-obvious?
I use linked lists of all kinds of various forms all the time. I also have absolutely zero dillusions that this is in any way unique or novel. I _know_ I didn't do it first, and I also know it doesn't matter who did. It is simply an extension to known internal linking structures. How hard was it to figure out once linked lists were 'invented', that one could doubly link lists? Or arbitrarily link lists? Or build n-dimensional lists with multi-dimensional and arbitrary internal linkages? I could come up with a thousand 'new' linked list types if this idea is truly new and novel, which it isn't.
Google hits for "Linked List": ~1030000
Google hits for "Doubly Linked List": ~202000
5:1 ratio for something like this implies to me that it indeed is well documented. I was tought these in my 2nd semester C++ course in college.
It's well known, well documented, well used, completely obvious, and completely and utterly non-patentable...other than the fact that a patent was actually issued on it that is...
That's not that strange, I'm mildly allergic to it myself, along with cantaloupe, honeydew and other similar fruits. Don't know exactly what it is, never bothered to check it out in detail as it's merely an irritant to me so I simply avoid these foods for the most part...every once in a while though I'll trade off some minor discomfort for some delicious moussaka or a good fruit salad with some melon in it.
OK, I'll bite, coward.
This isn't a new way of doing the same thing. This isn't a redesign of a standard input field. This isn't a new fancier mouse.
This is a new controller. There is no parallel for 99% of the people out there that will try it.
A parallel would be to expect a 16 year old that has only ever seen cars in pictures to be able to hop in a car and drive it off the lot with zero issues the first time through.
And you've got your meme wrong anyways. MS is the one we typically flog for trying to foist the 'right' way to do things on their users.
Really, why are there 2 articles on GoW, on the front page, both posted by the same person, within less than 2 hours? Only 2 articles between them.
Worse, I fully expect to be modded into oblivion for even mentioning such a thing, despite having the balls to post this from my account rather than flaming as an AC.
This stinks of a number of bad practices.
This reply is for you and the other asshole that thinks I have some sort of materialistic agenda.
You're conveniently choosing to target me personally based on...Hmm...nothing...for what end?
The only reason I can come up with at all is that it's easier to be a blind asshole than to address the actual problems involved. Unfortunately, this is simply further indication that we're completely fucked. If we as a people are too stupid and arrogant to allow ourselves to acknowledge our mistakes, let alone deal with them, there is simply no hope whatsoever. With that in mind, myself and many others would consider it a personal favor if you'd all just put a hole in your head. Then the rest of us that give a flying fuck about our future can carry on trying to ensure that we have one.
How the fuck TWO of you turned into 'Yeah, you just wish YOUR materialistic life was as wasteful as OURS'.
Whereas you both chose to target me personally and directly, all I'm trying to do is to get some of you to see the Big Picture. I know, it's hard, because to look at the Big Picture requires two things:
1) The ability to realize and accept that you as an individual mean FUCK ALL. (Myself included)
2) The further ability to realize that if you are not a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem.
Thank you for being a part of the problem. It's highly appreciated.
You're starting to see my point.
This has just about nothing to do with global warming, but what is killing our ability to address the plethora of problems we currently know we have is that people are trying to make global warming the be-all, end-all of the discussion. Which ensures there will never be a consensus on the subject because it's simply too vast, and by the time we can prove that that particular possibility is actually a very real threat to the satisfaction of all, it will be too late because it will necessarily HAVE to have come to pass by that point.
HOWEVER, it's not the advocates of global warming being a problem that is doing the damage, it is people arguing against global warming that are causing the biggest problem...because people are listening on both sides to an unsolvable argument instead of going: "Hmm, ok, maybe global warming won't happen, BUT, of this list of 100 things that COULD be contributing to global warming if it's real...all of them on their own are very obviously Bad Things and can NOT be good for us in the long term...so regardless of global warming being real or not, maybe we'd better actually DO something about these things instead of endlessly arguing about the theoretical end game.
Sorry if I come across a bit heavy, I realize there are a lot of knowledgeable and well meaning people on both sides of the argument...I'm just advocating that people start looking at the 'forest' that is beyond this particular 'tree'. If we don't, it doesn't matter if global warming is real or not, we will kill ourselves off one way or the other.
Gee, wow, you're starting to get my point. It's like you actually read my post, agreed, but then decided to argue with me anyways.
;)
Kudos, that's quite the feat.
I said none of that and you damned well know it.
The debate WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is over. We absolutely know, beyond a doubt, that we are causing damage to our planet. We can not say what exactly is going to happen when, but that doesn't matter.
What DOES matter is that people like YOU refuse to take ANY of it seriously unless we prove it to YOUR satisfaction.
Guess what? I don't give a FUCK what you think...pollution is a BIG PROBLEM, and just one of MANY problems we're causing for ourselves.
If we had to 'show' every person on this planet absolute proof...it's TOO FUCKING LATE THEN.
You might just prove yourself to be Right, but very likely you'll be Dead Right.
Man, where do they find them? It's not technology or pollution that is going to kill us, it's stupid fucking people that think they're so fucking important that they are the center of the universe.
I feel for you. It may prove nigh on impossible to supplant the web browser as it stands today, even if it is the right thing to do.
Though, there may be a way.
What is going to have to happen is an obvious and completely transparent and hassle free transition point needs to be provided. If an implementation of the client for this could be created that worked INSIDE IE and FF...then you have a low impact migration path. Then you can say 'Hey, check this web app out, go here: http://blah.../ Then simply provide some info there as to how it works, how it provides a better application experience, and how all of this would be improved (metrics here) x more if you were to download this 'app' browser or whatever and run the app natively there.
The browser can not be usurped directly, it simply has too much mindshare now, good or bad. The only chance is to provide something that is 'the same', but noticeably different...and those differences MUST be obvious tangible improvements.
Your best bet would probably be to get the ears of the mozilla team. Really, for this to truly work, it's going to have to be integrated into existing browsers. From the end user, whether they're using a rich web app, or just viewing a static web page, is going to have to be of ZERO consequence to the end user...or they just won't bother.
Keep it up, don't let it go. You're on the right track, and we really truly do NEED something like this. I live in web app land, and it sucks, and it's definitely NOT getting better.
Bullshit, and you know it.
No one is telling you to trust a climatologist. No one is trying to force you to accept anything you don't want to.
You're completely sidestepping the argument, AGAIN.
Why do you need a climatologist to tell you that we're doing Bad Things to the planet before you'll accept some level of responsibility and DO something about it? Pollution is a MAJOR problem, does it matter if it will result in killing off the human race directly or not?
Or are you the kind of asshole that pisses in the pool regularly, cause no one will know for sure.
Mass deforestation is a known major problem. Shall we keep stripping lumber at our current pace until we've shown with a provable 10% that it is directly related to the (unprovable...thus 10% of zero...thus you ARE indeed asking for absolute proof) end of humal life.
Burning of fossil fuels.
Radiation contamination.
Ground water pollution.
Loss of habitat, loss of species.
Increased solar radiation.
Are you going to do ANYTHING within your lifetime? Or keep waiting for the all knowing irrefutable (non-existent) magic climatologist to come along that you can put your full trust in?
I retract my previous suggested choices for you, PLEASE go stick your head in the sand and don't say another word, you'll be doing more to help the problem than you know.
You are choosing to sidestep my point completely.
By making the arguments you are, you're essentially saying 'I choose to ignore any possible problems and do nothing to change these possible problems until the sky actually falls'.
Buying stock based on speculation has NOTHING to do with this, what a contrived bullshit counter example.
Let me put it to you in another way, you have a choice here:
a) Assume the worst and take actions now to ensure the worst won't occur
b) Assume the best and take actions now to ensure the worst doesn't happen
c) Assume the worst and stick your head in the sand
d) Assume the best and change nothing
So are you an a-b kind of person or a c-d kind of person? And why do you choose this? Tell me, what good can come of choosing to Do Nothing?
WE as a society could do a hell of a lot worse than acting on an a-b mentality. However, you'd have to be pretty ignorant or self absorbed to thing we should be following a c-d mentality. Think about what you're asking for...Absolute proof before acting. Don't you think it might be a little late by then?
Let me put it another way, if you were told by your Dr that you had the early stages of Colon Cancer and that you'd die within 2 years if you didn't do something about it...would you wait until you start bleeding profusely before you choose to do something about it? Would you wait for absolute Proof before taking it seriously?
Ahh, but you might say that you'd 'trust' your Dr because this has been proven before, and observed and measured, so you have some certainty that he is right.
OK, no problem. But me personally? I'm not willing to hinge the future of the human race on an argument that boils down to 'You might be right, but you might be Dead right'.
Go stick your head in the sand if you like, but PLEASE, for the love of humanity, STOP trying to convince people that they have to wait for 'Proof' before we stop killing our planet.
Did you miss the article yesterday on Victoria BC's sewage dumping practices? Do we need to 'prove' that our atmosphere is going to be burned up on some specific date in the future, and that this practice has something to do with it, before we decide that this is a Bad Thing and DO something about it?
Either get your head out of your ass and wake up, or stick it in the sand and shut up. Your current tact is not helping ANYONE in ANY way shape or form.
So you're saying we haven't taken the abstraction far enough?
Makes sense to me.
How about we change it to the term 'communication'. What's the difference whether the act is in person, via snail mail, IM, email, phone, text message....And we wonder what could be wrong with our system of law. Sheesh.
The lawyers are the ones that are able to abuse the system via pedantry, but they are only acting within the confines of a system of rules we laid out for them...it's to be expected really. The real problem is the fallacy that to define law, one must be as explicit as possible at all times...this is a catch 22...Gee, I wonder why laws continue to get more verbose, more complicated, more laws covering the same or similar issues....
What's wrong with 'Murder Is Illegal', 'Solicitation of Minors Is Illegal'....etc etc...
We laid this trap for ourselves...thank god there's at least one Judge out there that gets this. Now on the the real problem, fixing the completely borked system we're currently trying to use.
Yes, the system is broken, very very broken.
I'd rather see one person stand up and do the right thing at some point in this process, than to see it passed off in the hope that someone else would fix the problem.
More than that, I'd like to see the system fixed. Pedantry at the expense of common sense...how did we let things go so far?
If this particular issue remains so divided, to put it bluntly, we're completely and utterly fucked, period. That's really what I'm arguing here.
We absolutely know enough to know that we should be doing something about the sources of these problems, even though we don't know everything about the problems or the effects they are having or will have in the future. But we damned well can work towards stopping the damage we are doing, even WHILE the scientific community continues looking into the plethora of issues related to this particular topic.
The problem is we've been set up to believe that this is an all-or-nothing problem. It either exists or it doesn't. It will either kill us all within 100 years or it won't. If we can't get past this completely retarded viewpoint as a society, again putting it bluntly, we're completely and utterly fucked. Period.
The worst is Big Business and Politics for propagating this problem...first, they have the most to 'lose' (Lose in their nearsighted view...it can easily be argued that there would be much to gain in the long term...but that's for another discussion) if people take this issue seriously. To fix this problem, Ford et al would either have to cease to exist, OR change completely. Not something big business is ever going to voluntarily take on. Politicians have zero interest in pushing the subject with big business because chances are very good that their career will be over if they piss off the wrong businesses.
Worse, the general public is inundated with input from these 2 entities. What percentage of factual information on this kind of subject do you think your average person is exposed to? Riight. Good luck changing the general publics mind when the 2 entities that have the (perceived) most to lose are the same ones that have the general publics ear?
I hate arguments related to this that detract from the very obvious big picture. The proof that we're in trouble is right out your doorstep. Stop convincing yourselves that because this one particular fact or this other particular fact aren't completely valid in your book, that that means we're actually living in the garden of eden and will never have anything bad come to us.
Yes, and what does that prove about global warming?
Maybe polar bears have a predisposition to prefer slightly warmer temperatures and as such are thriving with the minor changes that have occurred in their ecosystem.
The counterpoints presented in the gp, while interesting and valid, are not helping either. Individually, or as a whole, they neither disprove or prove global warming whatsoever. Neither do the facts presented by Al Gore in the movie.
That does not change the fact that the general consensus in the scientific community that our pollution habits ARE having a measurable impact on our planet...whether that be global warming, global cooling, ecosystem contamination...whatever.
The problem this entire conversation is demonstrating is the whole trees/forest issue. People are throwing so many 'trees' into the discussion that it becomes increasingly difficult to see the 'forest'. This is particularly a problem for the general public, and big business and politics KNOW this and find it exceptionally easy to use this to their advantage to ensure the general public DOESN'T all get on board and 'see' the forest for what it is.
None of the plethora of minutia matter in the end result. We ARE causing massive damage to our environment. Does it really matter to what exact degree? Does it really matter what exact series of events are going to occur in the future as a result of this? Are we really so bloody ignorant that we won't look at the big picture, and damned well choose to do SOMETHING about it before it's too late?
All I have to say to you 'non-believers' is wake the fuck up. Look out your front fucking door and take a good fucking look at the world you live in. It's not good and you are doing NO one any favors by taking the stance of 'Since you can't prove to me HOW bad it is beyond a doubt, I'll choose to ignore the entire thing thank you very much'. Yeah, it's the informed scientific community with their heads buried in the sand worshiping their 'god' of 'science'. That argument is close...just completely backwards.
The debate among informed parties IS over. That's the whole freaking point here, sheesh. The problem is that politics and the general populace are still insisting on acting as if this is not the case, DESPITE the facts provided by the scientific community.
Or did you miss that in the synopsis above? Christ, even Al Gore knows this! This movie is about the problem that the people that Know this for fact are having a HELL of a time getting those that do NOT know to LISTEN.
It's not about whether it is true or not, it's whether people will ACCEPT it or not. Business and Politics do NOT want to accept this, because to accept it would REQUIRE major change...major change being an understatement. It would REQUIRE business and politics as we know it to COMPLETELY reevaluate how they work. Never mind our consumerist society.
People don't want to give up their SUV's or their PS2049's, or whatever other crap they don't need...Business doesn't want to stop selling you the crap you don't need...Politics doesn't want to rock this boat...
Accepting or Not Accepting the facts has NOTHING to do with the facts. Global Warming is REAL. Self Induced Climate Change is REAL. These are FACTS.
Whether you are too attached to your consumerist lifestyle to hear the facts or not is what the real issue is. Herein lies the real debate...unfortunately no one wants to have that debate because you might just end up having to take some level of responsibility for where we are at right now and actually DO something about it. It's easier to just keep driving that suv into the sunset until the day the sun doesn't rise again...then we can deal with it, cause at that point at least you'll have that 'proof' you needed won't you.
We can only make accurate predictions for the future based on accurately measuring similar events that have occurred in the past.
Shall we wait until all the effects of our self inflicted global warming can be measured before we attempt to do anything about it?
Just because we don't 'know' with 100% certainty what will definitely happen in the future does NOT mean we'd be wisest to do Nothing...when we DO know with 100% certainty that we ARE indeed having a negative effect on our planet.
Why did I bother responding though, comparing the holocaust and slavery to global warming. Lay off the crack man.
Your points are sound, but you've taken your example to the extreme just for the sake of argument. I think you know that though.
We're talking about a set of movies where there's really no blood or explicit gore, tonnes of fuzzy little critters, lots of fantasy...almost entirely appropriate for kids in a way that is for the most part not going to be confused with reality, even by younger children.
And then a child is burned alive.
It disturbed me when I saw it. Seeing someone burned alive is Disturbing. A child might deal with it fine, or a child might be disturbed by that forever. Sure, you can try to explain that it's in a fictional movie so there's nothing to worry about...but other than the setting, everything about that particular event is very real.
People SHOULD be disturbed by seeing something like that. Something is wrong with you if you aren't. Something is REALLY wrong if your child has been desensitized to things like this.
You're taking the overprotection argument WAY beyond what is sane and rational. Unfortunate because your arguments would hold merit if you weren't to undermine them so by coming off as a kook that thinks children SHOULD be exposed to violence of this level.
There will be a time, and it will come at a different age for all children, when the child will be ready to watch things like this and understand them in a rational way, without either being desensitized OR being deeply disturbed. Most 12 year olds will fall in this category. I'd be surprised to find a 6 year old that would fall in this category.
What did your parents do to you when you were a child to make you end up with such overboard views on this particular issue? Were you locked in a rubber room and only allowed to watch Sesame Street until you were 17 or something? I strongly suspect this conversation stems more from some personal history of yours than from the actual merits of the topic at hand.
You are truly suggesting that we should desensitize our children to a point where a young child wouldn't even bat an eye at seeing someone's head blown off?
You're a real piece of work. Have fun raising those little psychopaths of yours.
I'd suggest you read up just a wee little bit on child psychology. I assure you that you are completely and utterly wrong. I wouldn't usually care, but it's not you this affects, it is your children. I truly feel for them.
Aside from the facts and psychology of the matter, in this day and age, WHY would you push children to 'grow up' while they are still children? Let them BE children while they can. If you don't, they're going to end up resenting and/or hating you later in life.
Just because your parents let you stay up watching rocky and terminator when you were 4 doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
You either have no children and never will, OR, your poor children lie awake all night staring in terror at the ceiling, cringing at the slightest puff of air or faintest of sounds.
Congratulations, you're the worlds Best Parent without a doubt!
As contrasted with the "play the same main quest for every new character" part?
Lol, it's a Single Player Storyline. It already has more content than just about any other single player game ever, and now you want new storylines and quests every time you start again?
Hehe, funny stuff.
Apparently he's never heard of a grenade.
!VWMGather is your friend :)