Guess what, you've only heard one side of the story from the biased media.
Guess what, China's still a fucked up fascist dictatorship feebly trying to pass itself off as a working communist state. No amount of internet blocking will ever change that fact.
Thanks, Jack, but dictatorships don't deserve respect. And neither do the people who support them.
China's government censores things. Why should google go against them?
I think that's part of the "don't be evil" mantra. Censorship in support of a dictatorship is generally considered to be a bad thing, at least among those who value freedom.
It means we all have to be a bit more flexible with each other these days.
He wasn't attacking flexibility in the work schedule, but taking time off from work and not counting it against vacation and/or sick leave. When you do that you foist your work off on your fellow employees - that work just doesn't disappear into the ether. If you fail to count it against vacation/sick hours then you end up getting the same amount of hours as everyone else in the office AND additional, paid hours that single folks and parents with an actual work ethic don't.
He's right in asserting that being a parent doesn't entitle one to extra paid hours off. Breeding doesn't come with an additional set of perks, as it isn't a particularly special accomplishment (barring medical difficulties, anyone can do it).
Did anyone actually bother to read to the fucking article? Y'all are yammering on about the very diversion that news.com engaged in: that the educational process is to blame. Didn't the 'whooshing' sound over your head clue you in to the fact that perhaps you missed the point?
The problem isn't education, as the article pointed out. The problem is the simultaneous importation of cheap, skilled foreign labor (H-1B work visas) and the exportation of the tech industry overseas. The whole 'education shtick' is nothing more than a campaign of hype used to convince Congress that H-1Bs and overseas outsourcing are Great Things(TM) for the American economy. When in fact they're sucking the life out of the tech industry and are directly responsible for the ability of other countries to compete with the U.S. in the market. First we train their workers up to the expert standards of American workers, then we ship the jobs overseas...great national economic strategy, that.
So cut the crap about education being to blame. You've been hoodwinked just as easily as Congress and news.com have. Try rubbing a few brain cells together, think a few seconds over H1-Bs, overseas outsourcing, and the joblessness in the American tech sector, and see if you can actually zero in on the real problems here.
The American Civil War was as much about slavery as it was anything else, regardless of what some neo confederates say.
And the bullshit goes on....
What was being determined was whether or not the states or the federal government would reign supreme over the U.S. of A. The feds settled the issue by burning most of the South to the ground.
Just a point here: most fundamentalist Christians would point out that's Old Testament. Jesus said it was mostly null and void.
The creationists insist that Genesis (Old Testament) is fact and must be taken literally, yet conveniently ignore any other part of the Old Testament which casts them in a psychotic light. It's a nice trick, that.
I have a number of NT quotes as well. Here are two good ones directly contradicting Jesus' "peace, love, ganja" message, right out of the horse's mouth:
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. Mt.10:35-37
Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves. Lk.14:26
Seems that ol' Jesus can't make up his mind about what message he wants to preach.
and voters as a whole don't tend to be intellectually curious OR well informed.
Our founding fathers were well aware of the horrors of democracy, which is why they opted for a republic bounded by a nearly absolute set of over-arching rules (the Constitution). What they didn't count on is that people would sit on their butts when their elected representatives decided it was okay to use the Constitution to wipe their asses with, especially when taking payoffs from vested special interests. A weekend on a sunny tropical island with a couple of teenage hookers is enough to get virtually any law passed....
People can go on about getting active and voting all they like, but folks have been trying to subvert the Republic since before the ink dried on the Constitution, and lately they've been getting quite good at it. Hell, I run into people who regularly argue that in "today's world" the Bill of Rights is something we can't afford! That's how well the bullshit is being sold.
I'd argue that the system itself is broken. It's a good idea, but it only works if the vast majority of folks care, work to keep informed, and vote - which they don't and won't. If that's the case then the system needs to be replaced with something else that'll work to keep the Constitution intact and actually force the government to pay attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments (not to mention a few of the others before those two).
Perhaps universal suffrage is a really bad idea after all.
maybe we can get past the hate and learn to agree to disagree.
Here are a few other things your bible has to say:
"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" Psalms 137:9
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Moses-Numbers 31:17
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity." bible god-Deuteronomy 25:11
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." Dt.13:6-10
If you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die." Dt.21:18-21
Don't associate with nonchristians. Don't receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 Jn.10
God explains how to go about selling your daughter -- and what to do if she fails to please her new master. 21:7
Rape of a slave woman is to be punished by scourging the victim (the slave woman) -- but the rapist's sins "shall be forgiven him." 19:20-22
Kill rape victims if they fail to cry out loud enough. Dt.22:23-34
A rapist must buy his victim from her father for 50 shekels. Dt.22:28-29
There's more of this bullshit. I just picked these ones at random.
Now if the bible is the word of your god then you don't have any business whatsoever picking and choosing what parts of it you're going to follow and what parts of it you're going to ignore. You MUST treat the whole thing as the word of god and follow it, ahem, religiously. If you don't you're a blasphemer and damned to eternal hellfire.
So no, I won't agree to disagree. Your bible is full of fucking lunacy and if you actually practiced what it preached the entire lot of you would end up in jail, or dead.
Jesus, Guns, and Bigotry. All staples of an ignorant society.
Religion and bigotry I'll grant you. A means of personal self-defense is nothing more than common sense, unless you like playing the role of victim - or are so delusional that you somehow think you'll be forever exempt from being the target of violent crime.
If you can explain to me how evolution = science, I will concede. Is it science because it is a widely held opinion?
Try picking up a textbook on evolution and actually reading it. If you're at all rational you'll discover an abundance of proof in terms of genetics, the fossil record, core samples, and so forth.
If you aren't rational then no amount of evidence will sway you and you aren't worth arguing with in the first place.
These proponents of "intelligent design" are doing nothing more than pushing their particular brand of religion in schools, invariably some form of Christianity. I say that if they can pull this shit off, they should have to teach the creation myths of every religion out there. I mean, if they can stomache that crap about their god doing the whole shebang in six days then what's to say that the universe didn't start from the cataclysmic meeting of fire and ice, and that the first man wasn't licked out of a giant ice cube by an even larger cow?
Who's to say that Odin isn't the "intelligent designer" and their christian god is nothing more than a johnny-come-late charlatan?
Are the polluters paying for the expense of fixing the environment, and the expense of disease caused by pollution?
In case you missed the boat on Economics 101, *you* are the polluter here. Companies wouldn't be producing goods that result in pollution unless *you* demanded them in the first place. Just about every good in your home, including the computer you're posting from to Slashdot, generated pollution during the manufacturing process.
But even if you're laboring under the delusion that you're somehow exempt from blame, guess who pays for pollution cleanup legislation? You do, that's who. Business concerns don't create money out of thin air, they get that money from you when you buy their products. Which means *any* cost for cleanup or pollution restriction is passed on directly to you, the customer.
You are the polluter. And you will be the one that pays to clean up the mess.
I see you have no concept of what a scientific journal is.
If you think the human element is devoid from publication - regardless of the journal - then you're living in a fantasy world. Politics and plain ol' sensationalism are alive and well in the scientific community. This is especially true with 'hot button' topics like global warming.
Candidly, there is plenty of solid evidence that we are at least contributing to climate change. Faith is not required. A little reading and some science is required. If you are simply unaware of this, it might be a good time to do a little reading.
I've done more than "a little reading" on the topic. Fact is there isn't anything remotely approaching a consensus that human activity is in any significant fashion "contributing to climate change". The jury is still out, primarily because we don't have the data required to construct a global climactic model, much less point to specific causes of change. The system is so complex that constructing such a model is at present beyond our capabilities. Any decent scientist will admit as much.
Without an accurate model you can't even begin to present evidence that humans are causing, or accelerating, global warming. It's simply impossible; trying to do so flies in the face of empiricism and leaps directly to unsupported faith. It's not science, it's not even bad science; it's a guess being misrepresented as science.
Before anyone gets the idea that I'm arguing that humans are having no effect on the global climate let me make it clear that I don't believe any such thing. What I do believe is that there is insufficient evidence to make or refute the claim, and that more evidence - more SCIENCE - needs to be conducted before anything valid on the topic can be stated. For that reason I'm in favor of significantly increasing funding (with tax dollars) in this area of study (oceanic, atmospheric, climactic, ecological, etc.).
The kind of crap that's going on with global warming isn't new; it's a rehash of the global cooling hysteria that dominated the media in the '70's. And just like global warming today, a number of scientists jumped the gun and made wild claims that later proved to be a crock. Oddly enough, some of the same scientists who bemoaned the coming ice age are now handwringing over the coming global heat wave.
I don't think it's possible to intelligently direct or reverse climate change even if we do get around to constructed a decent global climate model. However, such a model could be predictively useful and allow for planning over decades as to how to best cope with climate change.
It's all causing pollution. and even if you live as cleanly as possibly, for each person like you there are thousands of people who you will never convince to look up from their big mac.
Says the person typing this via computer, the construction of which is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Not to mention the fossil fuels being burned at the local coal-based power plant to produce the electricity he needs to post to Slashdot and surf for porn.
While you're wasting valuable natural resources on this internet thingie, I suggest you meander on over to some place like dictionary.com and look up the word "hypocrite".
I hope that things change, that people in general wake up to the impending climate catastrophe.
Change might be coming. But to call it a "catastrophe" is just braying alarmism, the sort of hype that so-called environmental movements use to scare people into sending them money.
And there is no solid evidence whatsoever - not a smidgeon - that human beings have caused this change, or are contributing to it. Even if you accept the idea that humans are contributing to climate change (based on faith, since you have nothing else to support this view) there's no idea what the human contribution is. It could be tiny, absolutely inconsequential compared to natural causes.
Assuming you could ever prove such a connection, you'd still have to prove that whatever tactic you've dreamed up to combat this change is going to be effective. And not just effective, but cost-effective as well. That is, if it's not already too late to do anything about it.
I'm all for studying global climate change. Clearly the science involved in the debate is just one step above voodoo, which is testament to the fact that we need to put more effort into comprehending the system. But without comprehension there can be no talk of cause and certainly no talk of manipulation. It's all blather and baseless speculation until enough science has been done to describe how the system works and how it can be altered.
Anyway, just wanted to add to what you said above - from a quick (admittedly incomplete) search, it appears that Dr. Peiser has no history of contributing to serious research, nor of working with people that do, which may make the editors of a major publication like Science still less likely to want to publish his work.
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that a failed google search somehow 'proves' that a person hasn't done any serious research?
I ran two google searches myself on people that I know: one a relatively famous astronomer, and another on a researcher in fisheries and fish biology. Guess what? None of the papers they've published or contributed to come up on google at all. That doesn't mean that they aren't serious scientists doing serious research; all it means is that the stuff they do is too esoteric to be distributed in a way that google tracks.
Real hard science isn't flashy and often doesn't end up on web sites. While the hormonal effects of stress on Columbia river salmon might make for interesting reading to scientists that work in fisheries or biology, it usually isn't the sort of thing that'll see any sort of distribution outside of those who actually find it to be of value (or even understand it in the first place).
Either way, I see no sin in reducing the profligate amount of pollution we contribute to the environment, and think that a reduction can only have a positive effect on the future.
And I suppose that you're perfectly willing to pay for these efforts out of your own pocket?
You're right on this. One possible reason why Nature rejects certain papers on global warming could be that those papers are flawed to begin with. Or (heaven forbid), biased.
Or perhaps that alarmism sells, and papers which reject alarmism in favor of actual, boring science aren't good for subscription rates.
Honestly he would be better off living in china or russia where he could really have something to complain about.
Regurgitating the argument of people in favor of increasing government power, I see. Whenever someone complains you just point to some other country in worse shape and say "hey! Don't whine! It isn't anywhere near as bad as what those guys have to put up with!"
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what, you've only heard one side of the story from the biased media.
Guess what, China's still a fucked up fascist dictatorship feebly trying to pass itself off as a working communist state. No amount of internet blocking will ever change that fact.
Thanks, Jack, but dictatorships don't deserve respect. And neither do the people who support them.
Max
I'm sure you have good intentions, but the implementation of sudden riotious overthrowing never did anybody any good.
Tell that to the founding fathers of the United States of America.
Max
China's government censores things. Why should google go against them?
I think that's part of the "don't be evil" mantra. Censorship in support of a dictatorship is generally considered to be a bad thing, at least among those who value freedom.
Max
It means we all have to be a bit more flexible with each other these days.
He wasn't attacking flexibility in the work schedule, but taking time off from work and not counting it against vacation and/or sick leave. When you do that you foist your work off on your fellow employees - that work just doesn't disappear into the ether. If you fail to count it against vacation/sick hours then you end up getting the same amount of hours as everyone else in the office AND additional, paid hours that single folks and parents with an actual work ethic don't.
He's right in asserting that being a parent doesn't entitle one to extra paid hours off. Breeding doesn't come with an additional set of perks, as it isn't a particularly special accomplishment (barring medical difficulties, anyone can do it).
Max
Did anyone actually bother to read to the fucking article? Y'all are yammering on about the very diversion that news.com engaged in: that the educational process is to blame. Didn't the 'whooshing' sound over your head clue you in to the fact that perhaps you missed the point?
The problem isn't education, as the article pointed out. The problem is the simultaneous importation of cheap, skilled foreign labor (H-1B work visas) and the exportation of the tech industry overseas. The whole 'education shtick' is nothing more than a campaign of hype used to convince Congress that H-1Bs and overseas outsourcing are Great Things(TM) for the American economy. When in fact they're sucking the life out of the tech industry and are directly responsible for the ability of other countries to compete with the U.S. in the market. First we train their workers up to the expert standards of American workers, then we ship the jobs overseas...great national economic strategy, that.
So cut the crap about education being to blame. You've been hoodwinked just as easily as Congress and news.com have. Try rubbing a few brain cells together, think a few seconds over H1-Bs, overseas outsourcing, and the joblessness in the American tech sector, and see if you can actually zero in on the real problems here.
Max
The American Civil War was as much about slavery as it was anything else, regardless of what some neo confederates say.
And the bullshit goes on....
What was being determined was whether or not the states or the federal government would reign supreme over the U.S. of A. The feds settled the issue by burning most of the South to the ground.
Slavery was the excuse, not the reason.
Max
Just a point here: most fundamentalist Christians would point out that's Old Testament. Jesus said it was mostly null and void.
The creationists insist that Genesis (Old Testament) is fact and must be taken literally, yet conveniently ignore any other part of the Old Testament which casts them in a psychotic light. It's a nice trick, that.
I have a number of NT quotes as well. Here are two good ones directly contradicting Jesus' "peace, love, ganja" message, right out of the horse's mouth:
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. Mt.10:35-37
Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves. Lk.14:26
Seems that ol' Jesus can't make up his mind about what message he wants to preach.
Max
and voters as a whole don't tend to be intellectually curious OR well informed.
Our founding fathers were well aware of the horrors of democracy, which is why they opted for a republic bounded by a nearly absolute set of over-arching rules (the Constitution). What they didn't count on is that people would sit on their butts when their elected representatives decided it was okay to use the Constitution to wipe their asses with, especially when taking payoffs from vested special interests. A weekend on a sunny tropical island with a couple of teenage hookers is enough to get virtually any law passed....
People can go on about getting active and voting all they like, but folks have been trying to subvert the Republic since before the ink dried on the Constitution, and lately they've been getting quite good at it. Hell, I run into people who regularly argue that in "today's world" the Bill of Rights is something we can't afford! That's how well the bullshit is being sold.
I'd argue that the system itself is broken. It's a good idea, but it only works if the vast majority of folks care, work to keep informed, and vote - which they don't and won't. If that's the case then the system needs to be replaced with something else that'll work to keep the Constitution intact and actually force the government to pay attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments (not to mention a few of the others before those two).
Perhaps universal suffrage is a really bad idea after all.
Max
maybe we can get past the hate and learn to agree to disagree.
Here are a few other things your bible has to say:
"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137:9
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Moses-Numbers 31:17
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity."
bible god-Deuteronomy 25:11
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." Dt.13:6-10
If you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die." Dt.21:18-21
Don't associate with nonchristians. Don't receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 Jn.10
God explains how to go about selling your daughter -- and what to do if she fails to please her new master. 21:7
Rape of a slave woman is to be punished by scourging the victim (the slave woman) -- but the rapist's sins "shall be forgiven him." 19:20-22
Kill rape victims if they fail to cry out loud enough.
Dt.22:23-34
A rapist must buy his victim from her father for 50 shekels. Dt.22:28-29
There's more of this bullshit. I just picked these ones at random.
Now if the bible is the word of your god then you don't have any business whatsoever picking and choosing what parts of it you're going to follow and what parts of it you're going to ignore. You MUST treat the whole thing as the word of god and follow it, ahem, religiously. If you don't you're a blasphemer and damned to eternal hellfire.
So no, I won't agree to disagree. Your bible is full of fucking lunacy and if you actually practiced what it preached the entire lot of you would end up in jail, or dead.
Max
Jesus, Guns, and Bigotry. All staples of an ignorant society.
Religion and bigotry I'll grant you. A means of personal self-defense is nothing more than common sense, unless you like playing the role of victim - or are so delusional that you somehow think you'll be forever exempt from being the target of violent crime.
Max
If you can explain to me how evolution = science, I will concede. Is it science because it is a widely held opinion?
Try picking up a textbook on evolution and actually reading it. If you're at all rational you'll discover an abundance of proof in terms of genetics, the fossil record, core samples, and so forth.
If you aren't rational then no amount of evidence will sway you and you aren't worth arguing with in the first place.
Max
These proponents of "intelligent design" are doing nothing more than pushing their particular brand of religion in schools, invariably some form of Christianity. I say that if they can pull this shit off, they should have to teach the creation myths of every religion out there. I mean, if they can stomache that crap about their god doing the whole shebang in six days then what's to say that the universe didn't start from the cataclysmic meeting of fire and ice, and that the first man wasn't licked out of a giant ice cube by an even larger cow?
Who's to say that Odin isn't the "intelligent designer" and their christian god is nothing more than a johnny-come-late charlatan?
Max
Are the polluters paying for the expense of fixing the environment, and the expense of disease caused by pollution?
In case you missed the boat on Economics 101, *you* are the polluter here. Companies wouldn't be producing goods that result in pollution unless *you* demanded them in the first place. Just about every good in your home, including the computer you're posting from to Slashdot, generated pollution during the manufacturing process.
But even if you're laboring under the delusion that you're somehow exempt from blame, guess who pays for pollution cleanup legislation? You do, that's who. Business concerns don't create money out of thin air, they get that money from you when you buy their products. Which means *any* cost for cleanup or pollution restriction is passed on directly to you, the customer.
You are the polluter. And you will be the one that pays to clean up the mess.
Max
I see you have no concept of what a scientific journal is.
If you think the human element is devoid from publication - regardless of the journal - then you're living in a fantasy world. Politics and plain ol' sensationalism are alive and well in the scientific community. This is especially true with 'hot button' topics like global warming.
Max
Candidly, there is plenty of solid evidence that we are at least contributing to climate change. Faith is not required. A little reading and some science is required. If you are simply unaware of this, it might be a good time to do a little reading.
I've done more than "a little reading" on the topic. Fact is there isn't anything remotely approaching a consensus that human activity is in any significant fashion "contributing to climate change". The jury is still out, primarily because we don't have the data required to construct a global climactic model, much less point to specific causes of change. The system is so complex that constructing such a model is at present beyond our capabilities. Any decent scientist will admit as much.
Without an accurate model you can't even begin to present evidence that humans are causing, or accelerating, global warming. It's simply impossible; trying to do so flies in the face of empiricism and leaps directly to unsupported faith. It's not science, it's not even bad science; it's a guess being misrepresented as science.
Before anyone gets the idea that I'm arguing that humans are having no effect on the global climate let me make it clear that I don't believe any such thing. What I do believe is that there is insufficient evidence to make or refute the claim, and that more evidence - more SCIENCE - needs to be conducted before anything valid on the topic can be stated. For that reason I'm in favor of significantly increasing funding (with tax dollars) in this area of study (oceanic, atmospheric, climactic, ecological, etc.).
The kind of crap that's going on with global warming isn't new; it's a rehash of the global cooling hysteria that dominated the media in the '70's. And just like global warming today, a number of scientists jumped the gun and made wild claims that later proved to be a crock. Oddly enough, some of the same scientists who bemoaned the coming ice age are now handwringing over the coming global heat wave.
I don't think it's possible to intelligently direct or reverse climate change even if we do get around to constructed a decent global climate model. However, such a model could be predictively useful and allow for planning over decades as to how to best cope with climate change.
Max
I did a quick journal article search for Benny Peiser (really quicik - only used scholar.google)
Right there.
Max
It's all causing pollution. and even if you live as cleanly as possibly, for each person like you there are thousands of people who you will never convince to look up from their big mac.
Says the person typing this via computer, the construction of which is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Not to mention the fossil fuels being burned at the local coal-based power plant to produce the electricity he needs to post to Slashdot and surf for porn.
While you're wasting valuable natural resources on this internet thingie, I suggest you meander on over to some place like dictionary.com and look up the word "hypocrite".
Max
I hope that things change, that people in general wake up to the impending climate catastrophe.
Change might be coming. But to call it a "catastrophe" is just braying alarmism, the sort of hype that so-called environmental movements use to scare people into sending them money.
And there is no solid evidence whatsoever - not a smidgeon - that human beings have caused this change, or are contributing to it. Even if you accept the idea that humans are contributing to climate change (based on faith, since you have nothing else to support this view) there's no idea what the human contribution is. It could be tiny, absolutely inconsequential compared to natural causes.
Assuming you could ever prove such a connection, you'd still have to prove that whatever tactic you've dreamed up to combat this change is going to be effective. And not just effective, but cost-effective as well. That is, if it's not already too late to do anything about it.
I'm all for studying global climate change. Clearly the science involved in the debate is just one step above voodoo, which is testament to the fact that we need to put more effort into comprehending the system. But without comprehension there can be no talk of cause and certainly no talk of manipulation. It's all blather and baseless speculation until enough science has been done to describe how the system works and how it can be altered.
Max
Create your own FUD, it's easy!
Brought to you by the Proponents of Global Warming and Other Forms of Mass Hysteria!
Max
Anyway, just wanted to add to what you said above - from a quick (admittedly incomplete) search, it appears that Dr. Peiser has no history of contributing to serious research, nor of working with people that do, which may make the editors of a major publication like Science still less likely to want to publish his work.
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that a failed google search somehow 'proves' that a person hasn't done any serious research?
I ran two google searches myself on people that I know: one a relatively famous astronomer, and another on a researcher in fisheries and fish biology. Guess what? None of the papers they've published or contributed to come up on google at all. That doesn't mean that they aren't serious scientists doing serious research; all it means is that the stuff they do is too esoteric to be distributed in a way that google tracks.
Real hard science isn't flashy and often doesn't end up on web sites. While the hormonal effects of stress on Columbia river salmon might make for interesting reading to scientists that work in fisheries or biology, it usually isn't the sort of thing that'll see any sort of distribution outside of those who actually find it to be of value (or even understand it in the first place).
Max
Either way, I see no sin in reducing the profligate amount of pollution we contribute to the environment, and think that a reduction can only have a positive effect on the future.
And I suppose that you're perfectly willing to pay for these efforts out of your own pocket?
Max
You're right on this. One possible reason why Nature rejects certain papers on global warming could be that those papers are flawed to begin with. Or (heaven forbid), biased.
Or perhaps that alarmism sells, and papers which reject alarmism in favor of actual, boring science aren't good for subscription rates.
Max
Honestly he would be better off living in china or russia where he could really have something to complain about.
Regurgitating the argument of people in favor of increasing government power, I see. Whenever someone complains you just point to some other country in worse shape and say "hey! Don't whine! It isn't anywhere near as bad as what those guys have to put up with!"
Real bright argument, that.
Max
Well, I know my version is counterfeit. The OS doesn't crash or bluescreen and it comes with all this stuff I didn't have to pay for! I got it from:
www.suse.com
Go for it, MS! Nail these bastards to the wall!
Max
piracy is still illegal
So is copyright infringement, for that matter.
Max