"The article point out that 60% of the country's electricity comes from burning dirtier coal"
So? You have limited emissions to a very few sources, instead of having to worry about tens of thousands of catalytic converters and pollution control systems. It is a lot easier to deal with one or very few sources.
"anyone think that the oil companies might have something to do with this not being adopted on a larger scale?"
Certainly. The same oil companies that tricked John DeLorean into buying cocaine, squashed the 500-mpg carburator, and killed the genius who invented the car that would run on snot.
"so fine, affirmative action is NOT inherently a racist policy...sure"
What other term can be used to describe affirmative action, which is a policy designed to deny individuals opportunity based on their skin color (at the expense of others who get a free pass for their skin color)?
"but not if bush actually tries to DO something about saddam..."
Clinton, like Bush, retaliated against Iraq with bombs and other methods many times. He also spoke of the necessity of stopping Saddam. Bush, in some ways, continued the policy. If Clinton had been elected to one or more additional terms, there is a good chance that he would have escalated the retaliation efforts to put an end to Saddam's ongoing attacks and promotion of terrorism. Not perhaps with a full ground invasion, but maybe with an intensive bombing campaign to enforce the violated cease fire agreements.
The Democrats, like Kerry and Dean, who spoke out against Saddam under Clinton but for Saddam under Bush would have likely sided with Clinton in these efforts: just because the Commander in Chief would be in their party.
"Hate to burst your bubble, but you ARE the minority/deviation. Since you think that is a valid point, please explain why you are not a Muslim. There are more Muslims in the world than Christians"
Right now, there are a lot more Christians than Muslims. However, there are more Muslims than there are Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics are just one sect.
Please see this, one of many references. I am not mentioning this to say that one is better than the other, but to correct a demographic statement that was not true.
Someone else has already mentioned this, but I really think that for now, it needs to be added to the steps. I'm leery of trusting Microsoft in the long run, and how they can make this worse, but for the time being, when I run it on spyware-infected systems, it finds a LOT more malware than Adaware and Spybot do.
"I don't see how you can post about the creation-evolution debate and missile defense in the same post."
I believe the most common recommendation is "RTFA". If you go back up to the very top of this discussion (yes, there was a beginning), you will creation and missile defense mentioned. Both of them, in the same news story.
In regards to the missile defense shield, it was first proposed as a reaction to the USSR's frequently and non-hidden announcements of global conquest (backed up with the presence of a military designed to carry out this plan). It had nothing to do with the US needing it because we "harmed" the Soviets.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/0 1/1359201&tid=99
"Mindlessly bash religion (mostly just christianity), things like saying anyone who believes in religion is a stupid uninteligent fool"
Quite often, those who do that are religious themselves (strong Atheists, which has a faith concerning God). They think they are logically superior to everyone else, when they are really no different from any other religious extremist who hates those of other faiths.
". People who truely believe that those of us who voted for Bush, any Republicans, or are left of center are evil corperate christian neocon's bent..."
For starters, their use of "neocon" in any sort of serious argument throws any notion that they are NOT acting on emotion out the window.
"so it was probably just a joke that I reacted to on a day that I was already anoyed."
I've been known to make many a joke about George W. Bush's misspellings and word-manglings, I mist admit. You might have seen some of these.
Brin is an excellent science fiction writer. His "Infinity's Shore" books are among the best science fiction I've ever read. "Glory" is truly glorious. However, his nonfiction writings on many things, including his silly pseudo-socialistic attack on fantasy literature in general, leave much to be desired. I was an early subscriber to his personal mailing list (i.e.: he ran and contributed to it), but dropped out early on.
Political science is supposed to be a discipline that is part of the social sciences, and applies the scientific method to the study of the political process. It is not supposed to mean, as per how SciAm operates, picking and choosing and coloring your science based on your political views.
I've said many things on many issues. At one time, I must have said something that really did offend you. What do you tend to discuss or feel about other than creationism and the Union of Concerned Scientists?
"Man, they sure got better once they dumped Water - that guy couldn't play trumpet worth a damn"
I was at some of those early EWFW gigs. Man, I tell you, it was awful. Water had this thing about never emptying the spitvalve on his trumpet. It had this awful gargly sound.
"Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists is more of a political action group than anything"
I would not trust them very much. They are basically a political pressure group that selectively uses science as part of their argument in favor of sides on some issues.
The BadBlocker. We have attached cable TV jacks to both ends of a wooden spool. If you insert this in your cable line, you can be 100% assured that you will not see anything that will offend you on TV. Not only is Fox blocked, but there goes Tom Brokaw and Barney too.
Water on Mars? Sorry. my bad. I was on my way home from a conference on Yuggoth. I really had to pee bad. I stopped off and used the martian desert as my personal lavatory.
With a million monkeys and a million Macs, eventually one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare. Also likely, one of them will produce "Windows ME" long before this, however.
"http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?stri n g=fox [mediamatters.org] 961 problems with fox and counting"
That is as profound as commenting that Rush Limbaugh has problems with CNN. Is it even worth pointing out that political pressure groups like to bash those who do not share their views?
"There is no liberal news on fox"
Their liberal personalities are quite numerous, even if they are outnumbered and overwhelmed by the conservatives (Hannity vs Colmes...). Your statement shows that you have: 1) never watched it and think that Hannity has one 24-hour show. or 2) think that Neal Gabler and David Corn are conservatives.
As for CNN, NPR, BBC, left wing, right wing, there are two problems. They have not changed. These three you mentioned are still a little to the left of the center, while Fox is to the right of center and Limbaugh/AM Talk more to the right. What has happened here is that you have moved away from the center and have used your point-of-view firmly in the left wing as the "new center". From this view, everything is right wing.
It is a common thing to see 'wingers proclaim that everything that is not in their extreme is part of the OTHER wing. I've seen many far right wingers call Rush Limbaugh a left-wing socialist.
"Which you don't recognize until you actually read/listen to some openly liberal stuff. Then you'll see how out of whack all "news" in this country is."
I have probably more than you ever have, along with the blatantly conservative stuff. Both reveal a lot about their own biases, and how out of the mainstream they are. They reveal little about "news" itself. How can they? They are just opinion-page ranters and pundits when you get right down to it.
"Like Terry Schiavo. Should have been a local/regional issue at most. Got picked up and pushed nationally by conservative right-to-lifers"
Rabid conservatives like Tom Harkin and Jesse Jackson? The problem with your phony conspiracy theories is that any whiff of fact blows them away in the wind. As for insisting on things being local issues, many things aren't and for good reason. The civil rights struggles in the soutn in the 1960s also come to mind. Many thought that this "Should have been a local/regional issue at most".
Slashdot Mirror
The secret is to only drive downhill.
So? You have limited emissions to a very few sources, instead of having to worry about tens of thousands of catalytic converters and pollution control systems. It is a lot easier to deal with one or very few sources.
Certainly. The same oil companies that tricked John DeLorean into buying cocaine, squashed the 500-mpg carburator, and killed the genius who invented the car that would run on snot.
Wasn't it really: "Men played Zork and MUDs and MOOs. Some of the men playing MUDs and MOOs said they were women."
PDF's are great for printing, but not as easy to view on the Internet as regular html files. The Google "viwe as html" tool will help greatly.
I figured the poor chap is laid up with a big bellyache. And the dino meat? You won't find it now! Put two and two together.
Is it your belief now that the Jesuits are not Roman Catholic?
What other term can be used to describe affirmative action, which is a policy designed to deny individuals opportunity based on their skin color (at the expense of others who get a free pass for their skin color)?
"but not if bush actually tries to DO something about saddam..."
Clinton, like Bush, retaliated against Iraq with bombs and other methods many times. He also spoke of the necessity of stopping Saddam. Bush, in some ways, continued the policy. If Clinton had been elected to one or more additional terms, there is a good chance that he would have escalated the retaliation efforts to put an end to Saddam's ongoing attacks and promotion of terrorism. Not perhaps with a full ground invasion, but maybe with an intensive bombing campaign to enforce the violated cease fire agreements.
The Democrats, like Kerry and Dean, who spoke out against Saddam under Clinton but for Saddam under Bush would have likely sided with Clinton in these efforts: just because the Commander in Chief would be in their party.
Right now, there are a lot more Christians than Muslims. However, there are more Muslims than there are Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics are just one sect.
Please see this, one of many references. I am not mentioning this to say that one is better than the other, but to correct a demographic statement that was not true.
That is a nice quote, but this catechism is part of the mere tradition of but one sect of the entire Christian Church.
Someone else has already mentioned this, but I really think that for now, it needs to be added to the steps. I'm leery of trusting Microsoft in the long run, and how they can make this worse, but for the time being, when I run it on spyware-infected systems, it finds a LOT more malware than Adaware and Spybot do.
I believe the most common recommendation is "RTFA". If you go back up to the very top of this discussion (yes, there was a beginning), you will creation and missile defense mentioned. Both of them, in the same news story.
here is a shortcut.
In regards to the missile defense shield, it was first proposed as a reaction to the USSR's frequently and non-hidden announcements of global conquest (backed up with the presence of a military designed to carry out this plan). It had nothing to do with the US needing it because we "harmed" the Soviets. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/0 1/1359201&tid=99
Whether or not any of those are myth is religious opinion. The inclusion of Warcraft shows you are not even being serious about the discussion.
I STILL can't find my car keys.
Quite often, those who do that are religious themselves (strong Atheists, which has a faith concerning God). They think they are logically superior to everyone else, when they are really no different from any other religious extremist who hates those of other faiths.
". People who truely believe that those of us who voted for Bush, any Republicans, or are left of center are evil corperate christian neocon's bent..."
For starters, their use of "neocon" in any sort of serious argument throws any notion that they are NOT acting on emotion out the window.
"so it was probably just a joke that I reacted to on a day that I was already anoyed."
I've been known to make many a joke about George W. Bush's misspellings and word-manglings, I mist admit. You might have seen some of these.
Brin is an excellent science fiction writer. His "Infinity's Shore" books are among the best science fiction I've ever read. "Glory" is truly glorious. However, his nonfiction writings on many things, including his silly pseudo-socialistic attack on fantasy literature in general, leave much to be desired. I was an early subscriber to his personal mailing list (i.e.: he ran and contributed to it), but dropped out early on.
Political science is supposed to be a discipline that is part of the social sciences, and applies the scientific method to the study of the political process. It is not supposed to mean, as per how SciAm operates, picking and choosing and coloring your science based on your political views.
I've said many things on many issues. At one time, I must have said something that really did offend you. What do you tend to discuss or feel about other than creationism and the Union of Concerned Scientists?
"Man, they sure got better once they dumped Water - that guy couldn't play trumpet worth a damn" I was at some of those early EWFW gigs. Man, I tell you, it was awful. Water had this thing about never emptying the spitvalve on his trumpet. It had this awful gargly sound.
I would not trust them very much. They are basically a political pressure group that selectively uses science as part of their argument in favor of sides on some issues.
The BadBlocker. We have attached cable TV jacks to both ends of a wooden spool. If you insert this in your cable line, you can be 100% assured that you will not see anything that will offend you on TV. Not only is Fox blocked, but there goes Tom Brokaw and Barney too.
Based on the bad spelling, I can only conclude that this is really George, and he is unhappy with his own "presidenty".
Water on Mars? Sorry. my bad. I was on my way home from a conference on Yuggoth. I really had to pee bad. I stopped off and used the martian desert as my personal lavatory.
With a million monkeys and a million Macs, eventually one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare. Also likely, one of them will produce "Windows ME" long before this, however.
That is as profound as commenting that Rush Limbaugh has problems with CNN. Is it even worth pointing out that political pressure groups like to bash those who do not share their views?
"There is no liberal news on fox"
Their liberal personalities are quite numerous, even if they are outnumbered and overwhelmed by the conservatives (Hannity vs Colmes...). Your statement shows that you have: 1) never watched it and think that Hannity has one 24-hour show. or 2) think that Neal Gabler and David Corn are conservatives.
As for CNN, NPR, BBC, left wing, right wing, there are two problems. They have not changed. These three you mentioned are still a little to the left of the center, while Fox is to the right of center and Limbaugh/AM Talk more to the right. What has happened here is that you have moved away from the center and have used your point-of-view firmly in the left wing as the "new center". From this view, everything is right wing.
It is a common thing to see 'wingers proclaim that everything that is not in their extreme is part of the OTHER wing. I've seen many far right wingers call Rush Limbaugh a left-wing socialist.
"Which you don't recognize until you actually read/listen to some openly liberal stuff. Then you'll see how out of whack all "news" in this country is."
I have probably more than you ever have, along with the blatantly conservative stuff. Both reveal a lot about their own biases, and how out of the mainstream they are. They reveal little about "news" itself. How can they? They are just opinion-page ranters and pundits when you get right down to it.
"Like Terry Schiavo. Should have been a local/regional issue at most. Got picked up and pushed nationally by conservative right-to-lifers"
Rabid conservatives like Tom Harkin and Jesse Jackson? The problem with your phony conspiracy theories is that any whiff of fact blows them away in the wind. As for insisting on things being local issues, many things aren't and for good reason. The civil rights struggles in the soutn in the 1960s also come to mind. Many thought that this "Should have been a local/regional issue at most".