If you look for an astronomy club in Pennsylvania, the teeny little 30-member site I run is #2. The only reason for that, that I can think of, is because it's in my/. sig.
Quite possible; but I'd love to see some hard science to show that. In particular, it has no affect on my point is that the climate change experts have consistently failed to make reliable predictions about the future. This implies a fault in their models, which makes me concerned that their claims about the causes of climate change might also be wrong.
And, of course, if they are wrong about the causes of climate change anything we do to "correct" it could end up making things worse, or just not having any affect.
More generally, you've got the whole "boy who cried wolf" syndrome - I'm old enough to remember being told we were headed for an ice age. I'm old enough to remember being told that we would be facing global famine and the collapse of civilization due to the population explosion. I remember being told that South America was going to be completely deforested in just a few years and the result would be a collapse of the planet's atmosphere. Now, for the past 5 years I'm told that it's warmer now than it's been for hundreds of thousands of years, and the poles are melting and the coastlines are shifting and it's humanity's fault. What makes that more reliable than the other predictions?
Now, just today I listened to a podcast where an astronomer pointed out that the sun really is getting warmer and will keep doing so until, a few billion years from now, the oceans boil away.
So, how much of the current warming cycle is our fault and how much is simply a shadow of the future?
Let me get this straight. You produced a list of 5 web pages of which prove my point and not yours and a sixth which demonstrates film critics can be bigots, too, and you say this is my fault.
I didn't "straw man" anything. You said:
For a long time I always wondered why religious groups have been heavy sceptics of global warming.
Which is pure unadulterated ignorance on your part. You shouldn't be surprised when reality doesn't conform to your prejudices.
Since the standard model for global warming experts is that global warming means stronger hurricanes, like, oh, Katrina, what should we make of the complete failure of this year's hurricane season?
Doesn't the failure of the model imply a problem with the theory?
you're saying that there can't be a conspiracy on the left to squelch dissent about global warming, because Bush is conspiring to force science journals to publish dissenting articles?
Ow.
So, what's your opinion of Senator Rockefeller threatening Exxon with Congressional action if they don't stop funding scientists who don't believe in global warming? (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/ details/rockefeller-snowe-exxon/)
You have to wonder if he even remembers where his family's money came from...
then why are you using an ASCII encoding in the first place? Those tags just lower the signal to noise ratio. Even Apple's given up and started saving their meta data in a "compiled" version of XML.
1. The CS Monitor article is talking about the effects of global warming, not denying it. In any case, the Christian Science Monitor isn't a religious publication and doesn't represent any religion - despite the name.
2. The second article is about evangelicals talking about how important it is to fight global warming. Yeah, they're real skeptics.
3. The website called "Answers in Genesis" does not represent the position of any church - which is what I specified, remember? In any case, it's an editorial complaining that Christianity Today - which does represent a national christian organization - wants Christians to do more to fight global warming.
4. An article in "Grist" - which turns out to be another editorial complaining about Christians, but not actually representing the position of any Christian organization.
5. You cite a blog about films!?! as evidence that Christians don't believe in global warming?
6. A timeline quoting headlines related to environmental news. Okay. Topics include Pat Robertson announcing that he believes in global-warming.
Holy Shit, dude. This is your evidence that mainstream Christian organizations don't believe in global warming?!?
So, Hemos, how did you survive this year's record breaking hurricane season?
I mean, that's what the global warming experts predicted, and they're right about global warming, so their predictions about the effects of global warming mush also be right, right?
Secondly, Apple's OS is closed source, which you can never trust.
is just wrong, which anyone who frequents slashdot should know by now. Apple Open Source includes most of the operating system, and much of the rest is built on other open source projects such as Apache and Mysql.
Heck, if you had looked at the list of fixes, many of them are actually updates to newer versions of open source packages, such as ClamAV.
a press dedicated to making their fortunes and reputations by discovering new things for these parents to worry about, and a government dedicated to making their fortunes and reputations by taking strong action to deal with these new worries.
Makes you long for some real crises to give people a sense of proportion.
what comes to mind are her careful notes documenting how she could hold a chunk of radium up to her forehead, and she could still see it even if she closed her eyes. Also, IIRC, the pair of them would purify uranium and radium from pitchblende right on the countertop in their lab. No shielding, no special hygiene or cleaning procedures - so everywhere they went, they shed radioactive dust.
Remember, they had no idea what radiation was, it was just another cool phenomena to observe, document and fool around with.
So, you're saying Babbage was actually studying for his Compiler Theory class?
I don't think they were Turing complete, but
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 1
They certainly had "loops" - the cards were arranged in a looped chain, IIRC.:-)
But, I still think the looms - the inspiration for all the programmable devices that followed - qualify as programmable devices themselves. I think that your setting the bar too high - especially since Babbage never built his analytical engine at all.
Her notebooks are horrifying.
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You read descriptions of what she and her husband would do with samples of radium and you want to cry. They had no idea what they were doing to themselves.
Doh. The Lords of Grammar strike me down.
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
The reference only makes sense if you were reading books about globalization in 1999.
OTOH, if you were still in high school in 1999, the reference might not make sense.
If you look for an astronomy club in Pennsylvania, the teeny little 30-member site I run is #2. The only reason for that, that I can think of, is because it's in my /. sig.
You know, if you google for either obvioustroll or porkchop_d_clown, I'm the first hundred or so hits.
But the real question is, who's going to sue me?
Worse, they talk about "repeaters" to extend the range past 120km - which is scary, because it implies they are decrypting/recrypting at the repeater.
Can you say "Physical Security"? I knew you could.
Isn't there a law requiring telecom providers to make their lines available for government monitoring?
Are companies really going to buy "private fiber" or is this really only for DoD use?
Quite possible; but I'd love to see some hard science to show that. In particular, it has no affect on my point is that the climate change experts have consistently failed to make reliable predictions about the future. This implies a fault in their models, which makes me concerned that their claims about the causes of climate change might also be wrong.
And, of course, if they are wrong about the causes of climate change anything we do to "correct" it could end up making things worse, or just not having any affect.
More generally, you've got the whole "boy who cried wolf" syndrome - I'm old enough to remember being told we were headed for an ice age. I'm old enough to remember being told that we would be facing global famine and the collapse of civilization due to the population explosion. I remember being told that South America was going to be completely deforested in just a few years and the result would be a collapse of the planet's atmosphere. Now, for the past 5 years I'm told that it's warmer now than it's been for hundreds of thousands of years, and the poles are melting and the coastlines are shifting and it's humanity's fault. What makes that more reliable than the other predictions?
Now, just today I listened to a podcast where an astronomer pointed out that the sun really is getting warmer and will keep doing so until, a few billion years from now, the oceans boil away.
So, how much of the current warming cycle is our fault and how much is simply a shadow of the future?
I didn't "straw man" anything. You said:
For a long time I always wondered why religious groups have been heavy sceptics of global warming.
Which is pure unadulterated ignorance on your part. You shouldn't be surprised when reality doesn't conform to your prejudices.
Doesn't the failure of the model imply a problem with the theory?
you're saying that there can't be a conspiracy on the left to squelch dissent about global warming, because Bush is conspiring to force science journals to publish dissenting articles?
/ details/rockefeller-snowe-exxon/)
Ow.
So, what's your opinion of Senator Rockefeller threatening Exxon with Congressional action if they don't stop funding scientists who don't believe in global warming? (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw
You have to wonder if he even remembers where his family's money came from...
then why are you using an ASCII encoding in the first place? Those tags just lower the signal to noise ratio. Even Apple's given up and started saving their meta data in a "compiled" version of XML.
Oh, and, "Hi! How you doing? Long time no see!"
1. The CS Monitor article is talking about the effects of global warming, not denying it. In any case, the Christian Science Monitor isn't a religious publication and doesn't represent any religion - despite the name.
2. The second article is about evangelicals talking about how important it is to fight global warming. Yeah, they're real skeptics.
3. The website called "Answers in Genesis" does not represent the position of any church - which is what I specified, remember? In any case, it's an editorial complaining that Christianity Today - which does represent a national christian organization - wants Christians to do more to fight global warming.
4. An article in "Grist" - which turns out to be another editorial complaining about Christians, but not actually representing the position of any Christian organization.
5. You cite a blog about films!?! as evidence that Christians don't believe in global warming?
6. A timeline quoting headlines related to environmental news. Okay. Topics include Pat Robertson announcing that he believes in global-warming.
Holy Shit, dude. This is your evidence that mainstream Christian organizations don't believe in global warming?!?
I'd be more worried about the 50% of the world with 3 digit IQs and what they've been hiding from you.
Please provide cites of major religious organizations that oppose global warming theory.
Mainstream Christian theology is positively environmentalist since they believe God holds Man responsible for the condition of the world.
They must be right! Just look at how The Man is trying to supress them!
So, Hemos, how did you survive this year's record breaking hurricane season?
I mean, that's what the global warming experts predicted, and they're right about global warming, so their predictions about the effects of global warming mush also be right, right?
Except, of course, they weren't.
Sheesh.
I've been writing C code for almost 25 years now. Including device drivers for OS X.
Did you have your sense of humor shot off in the war?
Errrr....
Right. Because running dual head on a Mac just doesn't work. Oh, wait, it does.
the funniest vulnerability I've ever seen. OS X is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution via a carefully crafted font !?!
On the other hand, the recently announced problem with DMG files is down right scary.
You've got some good points, but this:
Secondly, Apple's OS is closed source, which you can never trust.
is just wrong, which anyone who frequents slashdot should know by now. Apple Open Source includes most of the operating system, and much of the rest is built on other open source projects such as Apache and Mysql.
Heck, if you had looked at the list of fixes, many of them are actually updates to newer versions of open source packages, such as ClamAV.
a press dedicated to making their fortunes and reputations by discovering new things for these parents to worry about, and a government dedicated to making their fortunes and reputations by taking strong action to deal with these new worries.
Makes you long for some real crises to give people a sense of proportion.
what comes to mind are her careful notes documenting how she could hold a chunk of radium up to her forehead, and she could still see it even if she closed her eyes. Also, IIRC, the pair of them would purify uranium and radium from pitchblende right on the countertop in their lab. No shielding, no special hygiene or cleaning procedures - so everywhere they went, they shed radioactive dust.
Remember, they had no idea what radiation was, it was just another cool phenomena to observe, document and fool around with.
So, you're saying Babbage was actually studying for his Compiler Theory class?
They certainly had "loops" - the cards were arranged in a looped chain, IIRC. :-)
But, I still think the looms - the inspiration for all the programmable devices that followed - qualify as programmable devices themselves. I think that your setting the bar too high - especially since Babbage never built his analytical engine at all.
You read descriptions of what she and her husband would do with samples of radium and you want to cry. They had no idea what they were doing to themselves.
was been? Heh.