We're pushing the CO2 levels higher than they usually go - higher than they've ever been in human evolutionary history. To assert otherwise, or to assert that won't have consequences, is to engage in denial.
Sure, but for right or wrong, people react to how stuff like this is delivered/reported as much as they do to the stuff itself. Those who are skeptical of the neutrality of the research have been given a reason to doubt.
It would be better for those that want something done to not sound alarmist. Sure, we need to do something, but it's not going to happen without the help of the skeptics.
Again you ascribe to me that which I have not asserted. I don't deny anthropogenic causes to CO2 increase (at least, none of the data I've seen so far gives me cause for that). To say that the increases are the result of human industry is a narrow view of what is actually happening. Human industry is one component of several. The self-righteous seem to think that if someone doesn't ascribe to the "it's all us" philosophy, they must be in denial. There are other sources of CO2 -- increases in respiration due to human and farm animal population increases being examples.
I would assert that wholesale agreement with the "it's all us" thesis is not necessary to support doing something about industrial causes of global warming. People are burning too much energy on arguing how much of it is industry. More effort should be spent on reducing whatever those industrial causes are.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change, at this point, is as strong as the evidence that your brain is located in your skull and not in your abdomen.
See, this is the type of irrational statement that causes the conflict. I can cut open your skull and see your brain sitting there. I can sample the atmosphere and see that CO2 is there in abundance and, through repeated measurements, can see that it is increasing over time. However, none of those CO2 molecules carries a marker that says "I'm here because of human activity." It is not observable that the increases are the result of human behavior -- you have to reach that conclusion through an analysis of the data.
Don't take this to mean that I'm skeptical of that conclusion. What I'm saying is that the self-righteousness with which the conclusions are asserted is a cause of skepticism -- the belief that the conclusions were reached by making the data fit the conclusion, rather than coming to a conclusion after analyzing the data. It is not an unreasonable skepticism.
I'll grant you that. However, there are a number of researches who interpret data in ways that make the conclusion appear irrefutable. There are meteorologists who say that any meteorologist who doubts global warming or that it is a result of human activity should have their license revoked.
No, there's a difference between being excited about something and being self-righteous. The objectivity of research done by the self-righteous is always in question, regardless of the political or scientific bent.
Did I say I opposed the research? No, I said the self-righteous nature of those who advance that research gives others an excuse to question is efficacy.
Perhaps you should try more reading and less assuming.
The fact of the matter is that those that support the notion that global warming is predominantly caused by human activities are so self-righteous about the fact that one has to question the objectivity of their research. If the outcome looks like an assumption, then it looks more like the pushing of an agenda. Moreover, news that these researches are trying to stifle dissent (by removing funding for research projects) doesn't give their arguments any more credibility.
The premise of the customer's comment is that their current Windows infrastructure cost less than their current Linux infrastructure, which uses multiple distros. The point Novell supports is that a mishmash of Linux is more expensive than Windows and that standarizing their Linux usage on one distro will save money.
What would be stupid to support is if the customer asserted that the standardized usage still costs more than Linux.
The Democrats are just as beholden to special interest groups (in this case, big media companies -- liberals in Hollywood donate to liberals in Washington) as the Republicans. At least the Republicans had a (dubious) principle upon which they based their decision. The Democrats are so afraid of getting cut off from their campaign donations that they won't do anything to upset the MPAA or RIAA.
to facilitate a competitor (that is, to make changes to its software so that a competitor's software will run). It does, however, have the moral and legal obligation as a monopoly to not change its license in anti-competitive means.
If VMWare can show that it's as much about anti-competition as it is anti-piracy, they have a valid argument.
The quality of light emitted by standard fluorescent bulbs is much yellower than the "Reveal" type bulbs emit. For those with Seasonal Affective Disorder, the more natural light of the Reveal-type bulbs can help reduce the symptoms.
What if (like usual) we're wrong?
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
You can do all the observations you want from many light years away, but until you actually get there, you won't know if it will be able to sustain life.
What if "we" get there, and it won't support life? Will they then have to do a "Battlestar Galactica" turn around and try to make their way home?
The program code is copyrighted content, clearly being used in violation of the license. I think the author should get a lawyer and do a DMCA take-down to the MPAA's ISP.
The Microsoft agreement was a bone-headed move on Novell's part, but they've been on the right side more often than not. They've worked to protect the Linux community from SCO by asserting their rights to UNIX. If the FSF tries to cut them off from Linux, their fiduciary responsibility will force them to defend themselves and create a new SCO-like action.
Most of the reason that Sun couldn't open source Java 6 is because there is a large quantity of code in there that is licensed from 3rd parties. They're working on resolving the issues now, so that they can completely open-source it by the summer.
Republicans are dumb. Democrats are dumb. The Republicans have engaged in far worse stupidity than the Democrats have lately, but this should be a clue that the lawn isn't exactly green on the Democratic side of the fence.
Yeah, call me a shill. You've provided a complete lack of support for your position and I'm a shill.
To say that fascism is endemic to Republicans requires more than saying fascism is a merging of corporate and state power. a) There's more to fascism than that (and even if you do manage to define it, you have to add the disclaimer that historians disagree on the exact definition of fascism and so how you define fascism is your opinion of how it should be defined, not a factual and verifiable argument). b) You provide no examples of how your theoretical definition of fascism is a systemic part of the Republican party.
To say that backlash against gay marriage is hate-mongering is an opinion, so saying "no it's not" is a valid counter-argument. It is particularly valid since responding to hate hatefully is particularly stupid, and responding to hateful hate response hatefully is even more stupid.
I'm not a partisan shill. I have an intense distrust of anyone who would place their glorified clique above their own conscience. The Republicans and Democrats are both full of stupid ideas and stupid actions and the only thing that keeps this country from going to hell is that they don't like each other and are in roughly equal numbers.
Your generalized indictment of calling the party fascists and hate-mongers is in no way, shape, or form backed up by facts. Seriously, get a freaking clue. Engaging in hyperbole only increases the standoffish-ness of the discussion and shuts down the possibility that anyone but the like-minded would listen to what you have to say.
None of the incidents you describe are factual examples of fascism or hate-mongering. They're either opinions or not supportive of your terminology. Seriously, go read a dictionary and lookup "fascism" and "hate". (As far as the last one, regarding hate speech, that's symptomatic of the entire political spectrum now and epitomized by your pathetic vitriol).
Grandparent of this post was a response to great-grandparent of this post. Maybe you should read and understand the GGP before criticizing the GP.
Re:Mod parent down.
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You can't say that Bush wasn't chosen by the people. Every recount up until the Supreme Court stopped the last one had Bush as the winner. Every single one. The subsequent newspaper independent recount found that only by using the most extreme (and unlikely) of vote-counting standards would Gore have overtaken Bush. In the most likely scenarios, Bush won.
The problem was not that the Supreme Court cut off the process. The problem was that the process got so out of hand that SCOTUS thought it needed to intervene to put an end to the madness. I place the blame solely on Gore and those who convinced him to keep requesting different types of recounts.
You spew vitriol where discourse is needed. That's just what I expect from a Bush antagonist.
How is your statement, or my response, helpful to the overall discourse? It isn't. This is an increasingly standoffish society, and we have people who go around spewing hateful words where we need thoughtful conversation and action.
In many respects, I think internet forums have served to decrease the quality of the political discussion, by being a place for idiots to semi-anonymously spew whatever hateful half-rhetoric they want without fear of reprisal.
No, the idiot is the class of people that overreacts to what people are doing.
Rational discourse requires the use of facts to establish a clear pattern. Labeling a party fascist hate-mongers, when there are no facts to support that extreme of a generalized indictment, is incendiary and unhelpful.
Republicans have lost their way by clinging to a leader that insists on unilateral action. However, the Democrats have lost their way by claiming a party identity of being "not Bush".
Re:the reality-based community
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
If only people would avoid stereotyping, we could avoid an even bigger mess.
The biggest screw-ups are the mistakes of individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
We're pushing the CO2 levels higher than they usually go - higher than they've ever been in human evolutionary history. To assert otherwise, or to assert that won't have consequences, is to engage in denial.
Sure, but for right or wrong, people react to how stuff like this is delivered/reported as much as they do to the stuff itself. Those who are skeptical of the neutrality of the research have been given a reason to doubt.
It would be better for those that want something done to not sound alarmist. Sure, we need to do something, but it's not going to happen without the help of the skeptics.
What you're doing is denial.
Again you ascribe to me that which I have not asserted. I don't deny anthropogenic causes to CO2 increase (at least, none of the data I've seen so far gives me cause for that). To say that the increases are the result of human industry is a narrow view of what is actually happening. Human industry is one component of several. The self-righteous seem to think that if someone doesn't ascribe to the "it's all us" philosophy, they must be in denial. There are other sources of CO2 -- increases in respiration due to human and farm animal population increases being examples.
I would assert that wholesale agreement with the "it's all us" thesis is not necessary to support doing something about industrial causes of global warming. People are burning too much energy on arguing how much of it is industry. More effort should be spent on reducing whatever those industrial causes are.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change, at this point, is as strong as the evidence that your brain is located in your skull and not in your abdomen.
See, this is the type of irrational statement that causes the conflict. I can cut open your skull and see your brain sitting there. I can sample the atmosphere and see that CO2 is there in abundance and, through repeated measurements, can see that it is increasing over time. However, none of those CO2 molecules carries a marker that says "I'm here because of human activity." It is not observable that the increases are the result of human behavior -- you have to reach that conclusion through an analysis of the data.
Don't take this to mean that I'm skeptical of that conclusion. What I'm saying is that the self-righteousness with which the conclusions are asserted is a cause of skepticism -- the belief that the conclusions were reached by making the data fit the conclusion, rather than coming to a conclusion after analyzing the data. It is not an unreasonable skepticism.
I'll grant you that. However, there are a number of researches who interpret data in ways that make the conclusion appear irrefutable. There are meteorologists who say that any meteorologist who doubts global warming or that it is a result of human activity should have their license revoked.
No, there's a difference between being excited about something and being self-righteous. The objectivity of research done by the self-righteous is always in question, regardless of the political or scientific bent.
Agreed!
Everyone needs to look past their own agendas for the betterment of everyone.
Did I say I opposed the research? No, I said the self-righteous nature of those who advance that research gives others an excuse to question is efficacy.
Perhaps you should try more reading and less assuming.
The fact of the matter is that those that support the notion that global warming is predominantly caused by human activities are so self-righteous about the fact that one has to question the objectivity of their research. If the outcome looks like an assumption, then it looks more like the pushing of an agenda. Moreover, news that these researches are trying to stifle dissent (by removing funding for research projects) doesn't give their arguments any more credibility.
The premise of the customer's comment is that their current Windows infrastructure cost less than their current Linux infrastructure, which uses multiple distros. The point Novell supports is that a mishmash of Linux is more expensive than Windows and that standarizing their Linux usage on one distro will save money.
What would be stupid to support is if the customer asserted that the standardized usage still costs more than Linux.
The Democrats are just as beholden to special interest groups (in this case, big media companies -- liberals in Hollywood donate to liberals in Washington) as the Republicans. At least the Republicans had a (dubious) principle upon which they based their decision. The Democrats are so afraid of getting cut off from their campaign donations that they won't do anything to upset the MPAA or RIAA.
to facilitate a competitor (that is, to make changes to its software so that a competitor's software will run). It does, however, have the moral and legal obligation as a monopoly to not change its license in anti-competitive means.
If VMWare can show that it's as much about anti-competition as it is anti-piracy, they have a valid argument.
The quality of light emitted by standard fluorescent bulbs is much yellower than the "Reveal" type bulbs emit. For those with Seasonal Affective Disorder, the more natural light of the Reveal-type bulbs can help reduce the symptoms.
You can do all the observations you want from many light years away, but until you actually get there, you won't know if it will be able to sustain life.
What if "we" get there, and it won't support life? Will they then have to do a "Battlestar Galactica" turn around and try to make their way home?
The program code is copyrighted content, clearly being used in violation of the license. I think the author should get a lawyer and do a DMCA take-down to the MPAA's ISP.
The Microsoft agreement was a bone-headed move on Novell's part, but they've been on the right side more often than not. They've worked to protect the Linux community from SCO by asserting their rights to UNIX. If the FSF tries to cut them off from Linux, their fiduciary responsibility will force them to defend themselves and create a new SCO-like action.
Is it pragmatic to take that risk?
Most of the reason that Sun couldn't open source Java 6 is because there is a large quantity of code in there that is licensed from 3rd parties. They're working on resolving the issues now, so that they can completely open-source it by the summer.
That's not true. The source code has already been opened as a project:
https://jdk.dev.java.net/
The fact that they haven't made their first release from that product changes nothing.
Republicans are dumb. Democrats are dumb. The Republicans have engaged in far worse stupidity than the Democrats have lately, but this should be a clue that the lawn isn't exactly green on the Democratic side of the fence.
We need something better.
Yeah, call me a shill. You've provided a complete lack of support for your position and I'm a shill.
To say that fascism is endemic to Republicans requires more than saying fascism is a merging of corporate and state power. a) There's more to fascism than that (and even if you do manage to define it, you have to add the disclaimer that historians disagree on the exact definition of fascism and so how you define fascism is your opinion of how it should be defined, not a factual and verifiable argument). b) You provide no examples of how your theoretical definition of fascism is a systemic part of the Republican party.
To say that backlash against gay marriage is hate-mongering is an opinion, so saying "no it's not" is a valid counter-argument. It is particularly valid since responding to hate hatefully is particularly stupid, and responding to hateful hate response hatefully is even more stupid.
I'm not a partisan shill. I have an intense distrust of anyone who would place their glorified clique above their own conscience. The Republicans and Democrats are both full of stupid ideas and stupid actions and the only thing that keeps this country from going to hell is that they don't like each other and are in roughly equal numbers.
Your generalized indictment of calling the party fascists and hate-mongers is in no way, shape, or form backed up by facts. Seriously, get a freaking clue. Engaging in hyperbole only increases the standoffish-ness of the discussion and shuts down the possibility that anyone but the like-minded would listen to what you have to say.
None of the incidents you describe are factual examples of fascism or hate-mongering. They're either opinions or not supportive of your terminology. Seriously, go read a dictionary and lookup "fascism" and "hate". (As far as the last one, regarding hate speech, that's symptomatic of the entire political spectrum now and epitomized by your pathetic vitriol).
Grandparent of this post was a response to great-grandparent of this post. Maybe you should read and understand the GGP before criticizing the GP.
You can't say that Bush wasn't chosen by the people. Every recount up until the Supreme Court stopped the last one had Bush as the winner. Every single one. The subsequent newspaper independent recount found that only by using the most extreme (and unlikely) of vote-counting standards would Gore have overtaken Bush. In the most likely scenarios, Bush won.
The problem was not that the Supreme Court cut off the process. The problem was that the process got so out of hand that SCOTUS thought it needed to intervene to put an end to the madness. I place the blame solely on Gore and those who convinced him to keep requesting different types of recounts.
You spew vitriol where discourse is needed. That's just what I expect from a Bush antagonist.
How is your statement, or my response, helpful to the overall discourse? It isn't. This is an increasingly standoffish society, and we have people who go around spewing hateful words where we need thoughtful conversation and action.
In many respects, I think internet forums have served to decrease the quality of the political discussion, by being a place for idiots to semi-anonymously spew whatever hateful half-rhetoric they want without fear of reprisal.
No, the idiot is the class of people that overreacts to what people are doing.
Rational discourse requires the use of facts to establish a clear pattern. Labeling a party fascist hate-mongers, when there are no facts to support that extreme of a generalized indictment, is incendiary and unhelpful.
Republicans have lost their way by clinging to a leader that insists on unilateral action. However, the Democrats have lost their way by claiming a party identity of being "not Bush".
If only people would avoid stereotyping, we could avoid an even bigger mess.
The biggest screw-ups are the mistakes of individuals.