We are witnessing the "birth" of a new slashdot tradition : "Let's blame bush" (LBB)
Because, quite frankly, democrats do the same (obviously, every politician in the west does what you've just described, as opposed to in the middle east, where they just stock up on bullets before election day, a much more efficient strategy there)
But over 97% of mass-murders are commited by muslim men (and women). See khartoem, sudan, mogadishu and ethiopia (and others) for the current big problems.
Then there is the question as to WHY this is the case. And then you check the muslim holy book, you know, the one they always tell you to check, and :
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the infidels wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Quran 9:5)
And then you say... hmmm. (btw there's tons more of statements like that in the koran)
Add to that that every muslim mass-murderer also says that he did it because of these verses and then you start seeing the problem.
--
Let's make a comparison. Why these 2 things. First nothing about racism you can easily compare any two things, especially 2 things that are basically ideas. Why these 2 ? Because it illustrates a glaring problem :
Islam - Nazism
1. Does the ideology inspire people to kill others ? Islam - Yes, as the londen bomber said "He who kills in the name of allah is excused", see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for a more complete list Nazism - Yes, see "Final Solution", amongst others
3. Is the ideology completely opposed to personal choice and democracy ? Islam - Yes, see http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15522 Nazism - Yes, see takeover and disbanding of parliament in Germany before the war
4. Does the ideology indoctrinate children with ideas of hate ? Islam - Yes, see http://www.pmw.org.il/schoolbooks.html (I couldn't find the link about the western "madrassas", that are at least equally bad) Nazism - This is how they "started" (if you are willing to accept that nazism started, while in reality it has always existed, and prevails even today, but this is what allowed it to expand enough to do damage)
Isn't this exactly what made nazism bad ? Why do we forgive muslims for forcing idiocies like this on their children ?
So you see "islamofascism" is not that bad a name for the ideology of terrorists/taliban/iran's mullahs(/saudis) (because they also match on the other points, the socialism part). It has the added advantage of implying that someone can be muslim without being an islamofascist. (btw, in every muslim country, like egypt, or morocco, they call the terrorists "islamists", also implying a direct connection between the religion and the terrorism)
So yes, if someone is muslim, we try check if they are an islamofascist or not. That's just common sense. A muslim and an islamofascist are 2 coins of the same ideology. If muslims did this themselves, like we try to prevent our own children from becoming nazi's or racists, there would be much less of a problem, and the checks would wither away and die.
They came aboard - ok... no problem They made a lot of noise - ok... happens They ordered - unecessary seatbelt extensions - which are heavy metal objects - ok.. no problem They stood up and started praying - ok... no problem... makes people nervous They sat back down ONE AT EACH EXIT OF THE PLANE - BIG problem
These people were trying to do one of 2 things -> terrorist attack -> get themselves removed from the plane so they could call "racist"
You're not going to tell me these people didn't have this coming.
And then you read your headline again... then think 5 seconds on who is more honest -> the policeman that can get fired when he steps a toe out of line and checks airline passengers -> or the reporter who is not checked by anyone, a sensationalist, and has a political affiliation
Then why does half the eco papers in nature claim to have found the "final proof" -> a good sign that this is not proven yet
Second, scientists may (mostly) agree that some things are warming up, relative to the last 1000 years (but not to the last 10000 years, and even less compared to the last 100 000 or million years, we're scarcily a blip on those temperature graphs), BUT the connection between CO2 and warming is defineately not proven, nor is there consensus about it.
The BBC is another story. For them it is proven, which is what's confusing you.
No it is an argument that people, who only succeed in organising because of the structure, population density, communication possibilities, and the absolute protection from the environment that a city provides (what it's target is) should not be complaining about the very structure that keeps them alive.
They are not good examples to follow in relation to carbon emissions. Not at all.
So unless 99% of these people want to become farmers in wide open spaces, completely out of reach of civilization (and obviously only using the car for the bare necessities), there is no solution to reducing energy consumption significantly.
Because this is what determines wether nature has a decent chance of repairing the damage done by the city.
Unlike humans, who can live many per square meter (especially in a city with skyscrapers and such), trees per surface area is a de-facto constant, they can not be put in skyscrapers as they need access to sunlight. So carbon reabsoption is constant per surface area. So carbon exhaust per surface area is what matters. And, in every human city, it's WAY too high.
Also there is no real environment in just about every city.
Does it really need to be said that saving energy will not help for a decent amount of time ? It will buy us 5, maybe 10 years, yes. But there's no way to tell.
The hybrid systems are in early stages of development. At least 10 years away from large-scale practical use. More likely 20 or 30 years.
For the other arguments, I give up, it's just not worth my time. There is no consensus. The hypothesis "global warming exists" is unproven by decent scientific standards.
1: As Gore points out in the movie, most of the "scientists" who don't believe in Global Warming are either those who have no right to speak(Non-Ecologists) or are astroturfing. 2: Actually, you might want to look into Fusion and even Solar power. 3: You crying about their crying about Global Warming *also* does nothing for the current situation. 4: I remember reading this somewhere but A disk a couple of miles wide in diameter between the Sun & Earth(LaGrange Point) will produce enough energy to power the world. Just a thought.
the answers, respectively (assuming a person who does not know the enter key can now the meaning of the word "respectively") 1. have you checked this ? I actually go to university. Trust me, or go check for yourself. 2. fusion - not operational for 30-40 years solar - not operational (by a much larger margin than fusion btw) 3. why are you attacking me ? respond to my points or shut up 4. "you remember reading somewhere" - in the "fiction" department of the library ? This is not a viable option. The use of a difficult word such as lagrange does not vindicate your idiocy
Or just about the left's inability to cope with itself.
Carbon exhaust is causing climate change. Okay. 1) there is no scientific consensus on this 2) I seriously doubt that consensus will be forthcoming withing less than 10 or 20 years
That's real inconvenient, for a truth.
Also the only viable solution to fossil power is... nuclear power. Obviously.
That's also real inconvenient.
The only "renewable" energy source, hydroelectric, has cost at least 6000% more human lives than nuclear power ever did.
Another inconvenient truth.
Truth :
1) we need energy. Lots of it. 2) 2 economically viable options for energy : a) fossil b) nuclear
This is real inconvenient for left-wing environmentalist nuts (all of them live in cities, obviously, which are the least environmental of surroundings imaginable, but hey, let's just disregard that).
So they cry. They cry for attention. They present problems, but no solutions. So they cry some more.
Truth :
No amount of politics will solve the energy crisis. Yet all they do is politics.
"Its expensive as hell to build, a real drag to maintain, and you end up with tons of stuff that there is no other way to discard then buring it deep down and hope for the best."
And still provides the cheapest power available from any technology with ZERO carbon emissions.
"There is allot of options that is way better then nucelar power, and have the potential to open up a new industry that produces not only clean energy in the end, but also work for allot of people."
Potential, potential, potential. We were talking about options available NOW. There are 2 : -> nuclear power -> fossil fuels (& coal) power (-> in some, very limited, places hydroelectric power)
That's it. No amount of crying foul is going to change that list, no amount of campaigning is going to change that list. This list is given by physical facts. Deal with it. And then take your pick between your 2 only options.
Neither did anyone who lived at more than 20 km from the plant. About 50 people lost their lives, due to completely disregarding safety procedures. Some number totaling about 2000 was "affected" in some way.
In comparison, when the Karahnjukar hydroelectric dam broke in China, 60000 people lost their lives, and the region is STILL not back to normal.
Accidents happen. Chernobyl happened because of massive disregarding of safety procedures, not because inherent "unsafety" of nuclear power.
Environmentalists hate the only real solution (nuclear power in case you're doubting that) even more.
It supposedly costs even more, because it costs "infinite" because of the supposed need to maintain storage infinitely. But that way of thinking just ignores progress completely.
And have you seen the movies about nuclear power ? Obviously it's evil !
At the very least, nuclear power can bridge the gap in energy supply until fusion power becomes available.
Let's see A4 - 256Gig. Let's say n different colors.
He'd need to store 256*1024*1024*1024*8 = 2199023255552 bits on A4 = 210 mm x 297 mm = 62370 mm^2 = 2456 inch
That makes 895 367 775 bits per inch. To encode that you'd need 895 367 775 / log2(n) dots. Increasing the number of colors can buy you some leeway, but not that much.
The surface area of such a dot would be 1/30 000 000 th of a millimeter.
Where will you find paper that has surface flaws significantly smaller than that ? No matter what the encoding, you're still going to need it. So this is a scam, plain and simple.
Indeed. How do you decide what's true ? I happen to have a degree in mathematics which, amongst other things, researches the notion of true and false.
Simple fact : every notion involving anything other than the basic logical symbols is unproveable. With the basic logical axioms.
(So for example everything involving numbers is, unfortunately, unproveable, unless you ASSUME the existence of numbers, and ignore a few problematic cases)
Another simple fact : being true, and being proveable is not the same.
(Fortunately)
Another theorem : There is NO way to "explain everything" without an infinite set of assumptions if you presuppose the existence of numbers
So wether science is correct is, strictly mathematically speaking, something that depends on very non-trivial and problematic assumptions.
One problem with the current understanding of numbers is that it supposes a concept of "infinite", which obviously supposes with it a concept of "larger than infinite". Consider :
1. numbers are collections of "something" (otherwise, applying logic to them is not doable, there are various things used for "something", but all have the same problem) 2. there exist numbers which do not have an end -> non-finite numbers 3. there exists a combination of a finite and a non-finite number, which is, obviously, somehow larger than "infinite" 4. worse, how "infinite" is the combination of 2 non-finite numbers ? (pi^e for example is a number that has strictly more decimal places than pi or e, but both have infinite decimal places) 5. how big is "everything" ? because "everything" obviously contains all numbers generated in step 4 6. therefore "everything" can, itself, not be a collection (because it is strictly bigger than anything else, including itself)
You need all the numbers generated in step 3 to do physics (and numbers from class 4 are useful to have), 3 leads to 6 and 6 is really problematic. So is it true ? Can physics be true ? Maybe. Can physics be proven ? No it can't.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I don't believe so. I believe most of all that "the mainstream media" is taking more and more advantage of us.
e ws/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml
War Crimes reported in the news in Iraq for the last 8 months were sourced by a non-existant "Captain" Jamil Hoessein :
http://www.floppingaces.net/jamil-hussein-story/
You can see the effect of their lies every day on slashdot unfortunately. The reality of the matter is, of course, very simple :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
However bad the americans are, the iraqi's themselves are infinitely worse. Nobody is reporting that of course.
We are witnessing the "birth" of a new slashdot tradition : "Let's blame bush" (LBB)
Because, quite frankly, democrats do the same (obviously, every politician in the west does what you've just described, as opposed to in the middle east, where they just stock up on bullets before election day, a much more efficient strategy there)
Okay ... for every non-muslim attack you can come up with I'll give you 19 muslim islam-motivated attacks.
... start.
Ready ? Set
But over 97% of mass-murders are commited by muslim men (and women). See khartoem, sudan, mogadishu and ethiopia (and others) for the current big problems.
... hmmm. (btw there's tons more of statements like that in the koran)
c le=6845
Then there is the question as to WHY this is the case. And then you check the muslim holy book, you know, the one they always tell you to check, and :
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the infidels wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Quran 9:5)
And then you say
Add to that that every muslim mass-murderer also says that he did it because of these verses and then you start seeing the problem.
--
Let's make a comparison. Why these 2 things. First nothing about racism you can easily compare any two things, especially 2 things that are basically ideas. Why these 2 ? Because it illustrates a glaring problem :
Islam - Nazism
1. Does the ideology inspire people to kill others ?
Islam - Yes, as the londen bomber said "He who kills in the name of allah is excused", see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for a more complete list
Nazism - Yes, see "Final Solution", amongst others
2. Does the ideology inspire people to repress large parts of their own population with extreme measures ?
Islam - Yes, see http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarti
Nazism - Yes, http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/people/victims.htm
3. Is the ideology completely opposed to personal choice and democracy ?
Islam - Yes, see http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15522
Nazism - Yes, see takeover and disbanding of parliament in Germany before the war
4. Does the ideology indoctrinate children with ideas of hate ?
Islam - Yes, see http://www.pmw.org.il/schoolbooks.html (I couldn't find the link about the western "madrassas", that are at least equally bad)
Nazism - This is how they "started" (if you are willing to accept that nazism started, while in reality it has always existed, and prevails even today, but this is what allowed it to expand enough to do damage)
Isn't this exactly what made nazism bad ? Why do we forgive muslims for forcing idiocies like this on their children ?
So you see "islamofascism" is not that bad a name for the ideology of terrorists/taliban/iran's mullahs(/saudis) (because they also match on the other points, the socialism part). It has the added advantage of implying that someone can be muslim without being an islamofascist. (btw, in every muslim country, like egypt, or morocco, they call the terrorists "islamists", also implying a direct connection between the religion and the terrorism)
So yes, if someone is muslim, we try check if they are an islamofascist or not. That's just common sense. A muslim and an islamofascist are 2 coins of the same ideology. If muslims did this themselves, like we try to prevent our own children from becoming nazi's or racists, there would be much less of a problem, and the checks would wither away and die.
Whom did slashdot blame for not having enough information to prevent 9/11 ? About "signs missed" and stuff like that.
Just for the record.
... no problem ... happens .. no problem ... no problem ... makes people nervous
They came aboard - ok
They made a lot of noise - ok
They ordered - unecessary seatbelt extensions - which are heavy metal objects - ok
They stood up and started praying - ok
They sat back down ONE AT EACH EXIT OF THE PLANE - BIG problem
These people were trying to do one of 2 things
-> terrorist attack
-> get themselves removed from the plane so they could call "racist"
You're not going to tell me these people didn't have this coming.
Monopoly - no
95% - yes
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
And would that be that bad ?
If muslims stopped blowing others up, it wouldn't take more than 1 or 2 years for them to start screening communists or just regular criminals again.
"oh but it isn't muslims that are terrorists"
Yes it is, it is not only muslims, it's muslims doing it for islam :
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Just read some of the statements these guys make before mass-murdering their fellow citizens.
We try to make better guesses on whether someone is a mass-murderer, based on past behavior ... well I really can't describe it any better than this : http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=6845
o n-of-media.html
... then think 5 seconds on who is more honest
They
And we also tell them that newspapers lie for political correctness, then don't fix the mess they create :
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006452.htm
Or worse :
http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php
Or worse :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corrupti
And then you read your headline again
-> the policeman that can get fired when he steps a toe out of line and checks airline passengers
-> or the reporter who is not checked by anyone, a sensationalist, and has a political affiliation
Then you think another 5 seconds.
Congratulations on becoming a father !
Then why does half the eco papers in nature claim to have found the "final proof" -> a good sign that this is not proven yet
Second, scientists may (mostly) agree that some things are warming up, relative to the last 1000 years (but not to the last 10000 years, and even less compared to the last 100 000 or million years, we're scarcily a blip on those temperature graphs), BUT the connection between CO2 and warming is defineately not proven, nor is there consensus about it.
The BBC is another story. For them it is proven, which is what's confusing you.
No it is an argument that people, who only succeed in organising because of the structure, population density, communication possibilities, and the absolute protection from the environment that a city provides (what it's target is) should not be complaining about the very structure that keeps them alive.
They are not good examples to follow in relation to carbon emissions. Not at all.
So unless 99% of these people want to become farmers in wide open spaces, completely out of reach of civilization (and obviously only using the car for the bare necessities), there is no solution to reducing energy consumption significantly.
Because this is what determines wether nature has a decent chance of repairing the damage done by the city.
Unlike humans, who can live many per square meter (especially in a city with skyscrapers and such), trees per surface area is a de-facto constant, they can not be put in skyscrapers as they need access to sunlight. So carbon reabsoption is constant per surface area. So carbon exhaust per surface area is what matters. And, in every human city, it's WAY too high.
Also there is no real environment in just about every city.
Does it really need to be said that saving energy will not help for a decent amount of time ? It will buy us 5, maybe 10 years, yes. But there's no way to tell.
The hybrid systems are in early stages of development. At least 10 years away from large-scale practical use. More likely 20 or 30 years.
For the other arguments, I give up, it's just not worth my time. There is no consensus. The hypothesis "global warming exists" is unproven by decent scientific standards.
the answers, respectively (assuming a person who does not know the enter key can now the meaning of the word "respectively")
1. have you checked this ? I actually go to university. Trust me, or go check for yourself.
2. fusion - not operational for 30-40 years solar - not operational (by a much larger margin than fusion btw)
3. why are you attacking me ? respond to my points or shut up
4. "you remember reading somewhere" - in the "fiction" department of the library ? This is not a viable option. The use of a difficult word such as lagrange does not vindicate your idiocy
So ? Total energy consumption per surface area (which is all that matters to the environment) is definitely NOT up to par with 1920.
These people are completely isolated from the environment.
Or just about the left's inability to cope with itself.
... nuclear power. Obviously.
Carbon exhaust is causing climate change. Okay.
1) there is no scientific consensus on this
2) I seriously doubt that consensus will be forthcoming withing less than 10 or 20 years
That's real inconvenient, for a truth.
Also the only viable solution to fossil power is
That's also real inconvenient.
The only "renewable" energy source, hydroelectric, has cost at least 6000% more human lives than nuclear power ever did.
Another inconvenient truth.
Truth :
1) we need energy. Lots of it.
2) 2 economically viable options for energy : a) fossil b) nuclear
This is real inconvenient for left-wing environmentalist nuts (all of them live in cities, obviously, which are the least environmental of surroundings imaginable, but hey, let's just disregard that).
So they cry. They cry for attention. They present problems, but no solutions. So they cry some more.
Truth :
No amount of politics will solve the energy crisis. Yet all they do is politics.
So they cry for attention.
"Its expensive as hell to build, a real drag to maintain, and you end up with tons of stuff that there is no other way to discard then buring it deep down and hope for the best."
And still provides the cheapest power available from any technology with ZERO carbon emissions.
"There is allot of options that is way better then nucelar power, and have the potential to open up a new industry that produces not only clean energy in the end, but also work for allot of people."
Potential, potential, potential. We were talking about options available NOW. There are 2 :
-> nuclear power
-> fossil fuels (& coal) power
(-> in some, very limited, places hydroelectric power)
That's it. No amount of crying foul is going to change that list, no amount of campaigning is going to change that list. This list is given by physical facts. Deal with it. And then take your pick between your 2 only options.
Actually I have.
No I did not get sick.
Neither did anyone who lived at more than 20 km from the plant. About 50 people lost their lives, due to completely disregarding safety procedures. Some number totaling about 2000 was "affected" in some way.
In comparison, when the Karahnjukar hydroelectric dam broke in China, 60000 people lost their lives, and the region is STILL not back to normal.
Accidents happen. Chernobyl happened because of massive disregarding of safety procedures, not because inherent "unsafety" of nuclear power.
I will agree with you there. This one is quite mild, generally these types of videos show public beheadings, and worse.
In palestina just about every shop rents these out, or sells them, 5 times cheaper than a normal movie, because they're "pro-religion".
Environmentalists hate the only real solution (nuclear power in case you're doubting that) even more.
It supposedly costs even more, because it costs "infinite" because of the supposed need to maintain storage infinitely. But that way of thinking just ignores progress completely.
And have you seen the movies about nuclear power ? Obviously it's evil !
At the very least, nuclear power can bridge the gap in energy supply until fusion power becomes available.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-680347401 7054041740&hl=en
Personally I find what the US military is trying to do shows of much more taste.
What does this bring that normal scanners can't ?
Let's see A4 - 256Gig. Let's say n different colors.
He'd need to store 256*1024*1024*1024*8 = 2199023255552 bits
on A4 = 210 mm x 297 mm = 62370 mm^2 = 2456 inch
That makes 895 367 775 bits per inch. To encode that you'd need 895 367 775 / log2(n) dots. Increasing the number of colors can buy you some leeway, but not that much.
The surface area of such a dot would be 1/30 000 000 th of a millimeter.
Where will you find paper that has surface flaws significantly smaller than that ? No matter what the encoding, you're still going to need it. So this is a scam, plain and simple.
Indeed. How do you decide what's true ? I happen to have a degree in mathematics which, amongst other things, researches the notion of true and false.
Simple fact : every notion involving anything other than the basic logical symbols is unproveable. With the basic logical axioms.
(So for example everything involving numbers is, unfortunately, unproveable, unless you ASSUME the existence of numbers, and ignore a few problematic cases)
Another simple fact : being true, and being proveable is not the same.
(Fortunately)
Another theorem : There is NO way to "explain everything" without an infinite set of assumptions if you presuppose the existence of numbers
So wether science is correct is, strictly mathematically speaking, something that depends on very non-trivial and problematic assumptions.
One problem with the current understanding of numbers is that it supposes a concept of "infinite", which obviously supposes with it a concept of "larger than infinite". Consider :
1. numbers are collections of "something" (otherwise, applying logic to them is not doable, there are various things used for "something", but all have the same problem)
2. there exist numbers which do not have an end -> non-finite numbers
3. there exists a combination of a finite and a non-finite number, which is, obviously, somehow larger than "infinite"
4. worse, how "infinite" is the combination of 2 non-finite numbers ? (pi^e for example is a number that has strictly more decimal places than pi or e, but both have infinite decimal places)
5. how big is "everything" ? because "everything" obviously contains all numbers generated in step 4
6. therefore "everything" can, itself, not be a collection (because it is strictly bigger than anything else, including itself)
You need all the numbers generated in step 3 to do physics (and numbers from class 4 are useful to have), 3 leads to 6 and 6 is really problematic. So is it true ? Can physics be true ? Maybe. Can physics be proven ? No it can't.
"the feds" ?
"how our country has aced over the last 5 years" ? (please DON'T tell me you're thinking of the iraq war or some such, this is education)
It's very easy to blame such a faceless evil as "the feds". If you can do better, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own, better, school.