If you watch the movie again you will see that Gore just uses Manhatten to show the effect of the Greenland ice or antartic ice melting. Gore does not say that science predicts this to happen soon. Gore's point is as far as I understand that the economic consequences in the long run are huge if we don't do something about global warming.
I assume that you have seen the movie and just misunderstood, i.e. I hope you are not a troll.
Microsoft wants you to pay for being beta tester for Vista and tries to take away XP so that you don't have a choice but to pay up for a beta OS to run your lock-in Windows software.
KDE lets you download and install for free if you feel like testing the new version out and are more than happy if you use KDE 3.
In this month's case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.
So for Scalia with his twisted understanding of history and the "true" meaning of the constitusion, habeas corpus can be thrown under the bus while hand guns are sacred. I personally find habeas corpus to be much more important than guns flowing on the streets in poor neighborhoods.
Just curious, how do you actually know that people did not pay for the software? Another thing, I understand that it does not make sense to do support for non-paying customers, but if there are bugs in the software, isn't it good for the company to know about it? I clearly understand it being a bit offensive when people who don't pay but want the company to spend money and effort to help, but I was just wondering if you also got something back from the free-loaders.
Environmentalists were around long before global warming. GW is just their latest tactic.
Environmentalism as a modern movement is usually said to start around the industrial revolution, i.e. around 1800.
Global warming was first discussed by Svante Arrhenius before 1900 (Svante considered GW a good thing, being a Swede, but of course he did not know about chaos theory and run away temperatures).
The war on science where all science that don't fit a fundamentalist view is smeared, seems to be a quite new tactic, invented in the USA.
Because, frankly, the stated aims of environmentalists - improving the forests, saving the fuzzy animals, and so on, is actually served by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as plants grow better in richer CO2 atmospheres and that leads to a stronger biosphere all round.
Wow. At least you understand that CO2 are good for plant growth. The problem is massive increase in CO2 leads to exponential increase in temperature which is bad for plants and fuzzy animals who cannot adapt to such changes, and therefor bad for us who stay alive by eating those two categories. How hard is that to understand?
The only species that are going to really be adversely affected by this sort of change are those who have set up permanent settlements right next to the water and can't easily retreat further inland as the water rises. Or has critical infrastructure that can be easily destroyed by hurricanes and tornadoes as the weather becomes more chaotic. Or relies on things staying the same, year in, year out, just because they have been for the last 200 years.
LOL, 200 years. You are clearly USAian. Now, when was it ever hard for us humans to retreat inland? We have been migrating and been moving around since the dawn of time (even the nut-cases accept that is at least 5000 years ago). Yes, abanding major cities close to the sea is going to wreak the economy, together with the cost of increase storms and freak weather, but what kills large amount of people is lack of food. The rest we will adapt to out of necessity.
I'm a moderate rightist, and I approve this message.
You clearly don't even understand what is being discussed. I feel sorry for you.
I guess what we have established is that you fall into the group of people who should not read philosophy.
To cover some of your thoughts here, Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved by modern math and its concept of limits. Karl Popper's book I have not read, but I can see that it would be an interesting comparision Popper could make between Einstein's general relativity and Parmenides philosophy. It seems like the elitist Popper talked above your head though.
Last, Einstein's general relativity is beauty itself in combining several phenomena into one model, together with simplisity of arguments. Not to forget that the model by Einstein explains phenomena that Newton's gravity model had problems to explain.
Even scientists who think Einstein lost his marbles by not accepting quantum mechanics, don't have a problem to recognise this. If you want to feel suprior to Einstein by trying to make phony philosophical arguments to deny motion in a space-time continium, then more power to you.
It was Einstein that first observed that electrical charge could be represented mathematically as a curled up 5th dimension. Electrical charge is an observable.
Since you claim to have read some philosophy, at least Feyeraben, then you can ponder how a mathematical representation should be interpretated philosophically. For instance, there are several different mathematical identical ways of representing quantum mechanics, that seems to give different philosophical interpretations. You mentioned parallel univers or Schrodinger's cat, which are two of the more famous examples of several.
I for one would call Einstein one of the best examples of a scientist not brainwashed by his contemporaries view of physics. Still, Einstein accepted the peer review of his peers, and he studied hard at university to learn why some views have become accepted by his days physics community.
If I belong to the same group of brainwashed people like Einstein who feel curled up dimensions is a very interesting interpreation of experimental data, I have no problem with that.
Yes, it is better to just use your gut feeling to find the truthiness of a statement. Instead of studying hard to understand elitist views about why curled up dimensions explains certain phenomena or why Shrodingers dead cat points to apparent paradoxes in modern physics, just think about it for a few seconds and determined what makes sense. And then fight like hell to promote your five seconds insight on the internet, like on slashdot.
More fun than reading elitist propaganda in reviewed scientific boring papers, and one don't need to worry about elitist bias like facts and data. Me, no worry!
You cannot be serious that you mean the Democrats should cut the funding for the war in Iraq and leave the troops there in a limbo without money.
The population in the US certainly are fed up with Bush's war, but they would not accept that military personell would be in danger or lose their life because of some political battle.
The only way forward would be for the Democrats to tie funding of troops to troop withdrawel, so that Bush would either veto and risk troops lives or accept that his failed policies in Iraq would have to change.
The only problem is that the Democrats don't have a large enough majority in Congress to override any veto and also such a slim majority that getting conditions added to the funding is almost impossible against Republican opposition in Congress.
And no, not all politicians are liars even though Bush lied, and the two parties are not equal just because the Republicans have failed the US.
The ones that are interested in commercial games on linux, should start buying the ones available. Then there will be more. If few want to spend money on games on linux then there will be less new and exciting games available, it is that simple.
New technologies will render some industries obsolete or unsustainable.
The thing is that *AA have gained huge benefits from the new technology. The production of good quality sound and film have become so much cheaper. The printing cost of CD's/dvd's close to zero. The internet and globalisation have opened new markeds for their artists.
The cost for the industry is now to pay for creative minds (artists and production people), marketing and to bribe radio/MTV to play their videos. Production costs are low.
The problem for *AA is that the general crap they produced is now more than ever challenged by creative individuals who have access to the same technology. Artists no longer need to sign on their slave contracts. A home studio with good sound can be created with reasonable money. Internet gives everyone with a great talent (or not) the chance to spread the word easily. If your stuff is good you don't need to bribe anyone to be played on YouTube. And burning CD's every Joe can do and even print a fairly nice cover.
*AA's brilliant solution is to try to stop the consumer from getting access to the same technology that they benifit from. CD/DVD burning cheap and easy: make DRM restriction on burners and hd players. Globalisation in the marked place, creating new oportunities to sell a product: region locks, consumer should buy at "right price". Independent promotion points: try to make life hard for YouTube and internet radio.
The problem for *AA is that companies like Apple and Google are making money today by embrassing the new technology and making it accessible for the regular Joe. The second problem is that regular Joe is getting used to internet and the ease of the new technology. Why buy a Eur 15,- CD with only one good song that my mp3 player needs? Why am I not allowed to make a back-up of my dvd? The *AA answer that they want to make more profit by making their product less convinient and valuable to use is not sustainable.
I guess the implication is that the Earth's climate has always been static.
Who would be stupid enough to think that? Oh, you mean the climate scientists!
A while ago I was reading about the history of Japan, specifically the Jomon period. It turns out that between 4000BC and 2000BC temperatures tended to be several degrees Celsius higher then they are today and the seas are believed to have been 5m higher. The fascinating part was [..]
The fascinating part is that our confidence in predicting the climate conditions existing more than 4000 years ago, i.e. before written history, is based on the same climate science and climate models that you are trying to make fun off by using knowledge created by this same branch of science. But don't let that infinite loop bother you, I guess only flat earthers and creationists would listen to what these climate scientists are saying about how our climate is changing fast today because of man made emissions.
So now we have these eskimo pulling what is essentially a publicity stunt.
Yes, that the land that they and their forfathers lived on for thousands of years suddenly just starts to fall into the sea is just a publicity stunt.
Think about what we've been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President's insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of his disrespect for honest dialogue and for the rule of law.
It's painfully clear what the President's request for retroactive immunity is really about. It's a self-serving attempt to avoid legal and political accountability and keep the American public in the dark about this whole shameful episode. Like the CIA's destruction of videotapes showing potentially criminal conduct, it's a desperate attempt to erase the past.
In spite of all the wishful thinking going on here and in the right wing media, the fact is that the Democratic party has two very strong and impressive candidates. The biggest problem for the Democratic voters is to decide which one they like better, knowing that both will make excellent presidents. I feel sorry for the state of the republican party, but what can I say, Bush destroys everything in his path it seems.
Both Chamberlain and Bush were weak when it came to diplomacy. Both were fools in their peculiar way, and people die because of it.
International law exists. It is the reference frame for nations interacting. What kind of idiot are you who mixes international law with public opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
If you watch the movie again you will see that Gore just uses Manhatten to show the effect of the Greenland ice or antartic ice melting. Gore does not say that science predicts this to happen soon. Gore's point is as far as I understand that the economic consequences in the long run are huge if we don't do something about global warming.
I assume that you have seen the movie and just misunderstood, i.e. I hope you are not a troll.
But that old wrinkly guy is running.
I am not sure the QT developers are happy to be compared to republicans ...
Linux also saves companies money since it consumes less energy!
Microsoft wants you to pay for being beta tester for Vista and tries to take away XP so that you don't have a choice but to pay up for a beta OS to run your lock-in Windows software.
KDE lets you download and install for free if you feel like testing the new version out and are more than happy if you use KDE 3.
So for Scalia with his twisted understanding of history and the "true" meaning of the constitusion, habeas corpus can be thrown under the bus while hand guns are sacred. I personally find habeas corpus to be much more important than guns flowing on the streets in poor neighborhoods.
the major combat operations against memory leaks are over.
Just curious, how do you actually know that people did not pay for the software? Another thing, I understand that it does not make sense to do support for non-paying customers, but if there are bugs in the software, isn't it good for the company to know about it? I clearly understand it being a bit offensive when people who don't pay but want the company to spend money and effort to help, but I was just wondering if you also got something back from the free-loaders.
Environmentalism as a modern movement is usually said to start around the industrial revolution, i.e. around 1800.
Global warming was first discussed by Svante Arrhenius before 1900 (Svante considered GW a good thing, being a Swede, but of course he did not know about chaos theory and run away temperatures).
The war on science where all science that don't fit a fundamentalist view is smeared, seems to be a quite new tactic, invented in the USA.
Wow. At least you understand that CO2 are good for plant growth. The problem is massive increase in CO2 leads to exponential increase in temperature which is bad for plants and fuzzy animals who cannot adapt to such changes, and therefor bad for us who stay alive by eating those two categories. How hard is that to understand?
The only species that are going to really be adversely affected by this sort of change are those who have set up permanent settlements right next to the water and can't easily retreat further inland as the water rises. Or has critical infrastructure that can be easily destroyed by hurricanes and tornadoes as the weather becomes more chaotic. Or relies on things staying the same, year in, year out, just because they have been for the last 200 years.LOL, 200 years. You are clearly USAian. Now, when was it ever hard for us humans to retreat inland? We have been migrating and been moving around since the dawn of time (even the nut-cases accept that is at least 5000 years ago). Yes, abanding major cities close to the sea is going to wreak the economy, together with the cost of increase storms and freak weather, but what kills large amount of people is lack of food. The rest we will adapt to out of necessity.
I'm a moderate rightist, and I approve this message.You clearly don't even understand what is being discussed. I feel sorry for you.
I guess what we have established is that you fall into the group of people who should not read philosophy.
To cover some of your thoughts here, Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved by modern math and its concept of limits. Karl Popper's book I have not read, but I can see that it would be an interesting comparision Popper could make between Einstein's general relativity and Parmenides philosophy. It seems like the elitist Popper talked above your head though.
Last, Einstein's general relativity is beauty itself in combining several phenomena into one model, together with simplisity of arguments. Not to forget that the model by Einstein explains phenomena that Newton's gravity model had problems to explain.
Even scientists who think Einstein lost his marbles by not accepting quantum mechanics, don't have a problem to recognise this. If you want to feel suprior to Einstein by trying to make phony philosophical arguments to deny motion in a space-time continium, then more power to you.
It was Einstein that first observed that electrical charge could be represented mathematically as a curled up 5th dimension. Electrical charge is an observable.
Since you claim to have read some philosophy, at least Feyeraben, then you can ponder how a mathematical representation should be interpretated philosophically. For instance, there are several different mathematical identical ways of representing quantum mechanics, that seems to give different philosophical interpretations. You mentioned parallel univers or Schrodinger's cat, which are two of the more famous examples of several.
I for one would call Einstein one of the best examples of a scientist not brainwashed by his contemporaries view of physics. Still, Einstein accepted the peer review of his peers, and he studied hard at university to learn why some views have become accepted by his days physics community.
If I belong to the same group of brainwashed people like Einstein who feel curled up dimensions is a very interesting interpreation of experimental data, I have no problem with that.
Yes, it is better to just use your gut feeling to find the truthiness of a statement. Instead of studying hard to understand elitist views about why curled up dimensions explains certain phenomena or why Shrodingers dead cat points to apparent paradoxes in modern physics, just think about it for a few seconds and determined what makes sense. And then fight like hell to promote your five seconds insight on the internet, like on slashdot.
More fun than reading elitist propaganda in reviewed scientific boring papers, and one don't need to worry about elitist bias like facts and data. Me, no worry!
You cannot be serious that you mean the Democrats should cut the funding for the war in Iraq and leave the troops there in a limbo without money.
The population in the US certainly are fed up with Bush's war, but they would not accept that military personell would be in danger or lose their life because of some political battle.
The only way forward would be for the Democrats to tie funding of troops to troop withdrawel, so that Bush would either veto and risk troops lives or accept that his failed policies in Iraq would have to change.
The only problem is that the Democrats don't have a large enough majority in Congress to override any veto and also such a slim majority that getting conditions added to the funding is almost impossible against Republican opposition in Congress.
And no, not all politicians are liars even though Bush lied, and the two parties are not equal just because the Republicans have failed the US.
To sume up, the Republicans have f*cked up, so let's blame the Democrats?!
REM is played in elevators these days, so I don't know exactly what that quote proves.
I don't understand why Linux Game Publishing don't get more credit on this page.
The ones that are interested in commercial games on linux, should start buying the ones available. Then there will be more. If few want to spend money on games on linux then there will be less new and exciting games available, it is that simple.
The thing is that *AA have gained huge benefits from the new technology. The production of good quality sound and film have become so much cheaper. The printing cost of CD's/dvd's close to zero. The internet and globalisation have opened new markeds for their artists.
The cost for the industry is now to pay for creative minds (artists and production people), marketing and to bribe radio/MTV to play their videos. Production costs are low.
The problem for *AA is that the general crap they produced is now more than ever challenged by creative individuals who have access to the same technology. Artists no longer need to sign on their slave contracts. A home studio with good sound can be created with reasonable money. Internet gives everyone with a great talent (or not) the chance to spread the word easily. If your stuff is good you don't need to bribe anyone to be played on YouTube. And burning CD's every Joe can do and even print a fairly nice cover.
*AA's brilliant solution is to try to stop the consumer from getting access to the same technology that they benifit from. CD/DVD burning cheap and easy: make DRM restriction on burners and hd players. Globalisation in the marked place, creating new oportunities to sell a product: region locks, consumer should buy at "right price". Independent promotion points: try to make life hard for YouTube and internet radio.
The problem for *AA is that companies like Apple and Google are making money today by embrassing the new technology and making it accessible for the regular Joe. The second problem is that regular Joe is getting used to internet and the ease of the new technology. Why buy a Eur 15,- CD with only one good song that my mp3 player needs? Why am I not allowed to make a back-up of my dvd? The *AA answer that they want to make more profit by making their product less convinient and valuable to use is not sustainable.
Who would be stupid enough to think that? Oh, you mean the climate scientists!
The fascinating part is that our confidence in predicting the climate conditions existing more than 4000 years ago, i.e. before written history, is based on the same climate science and climate models that you are trying to make fun off by using knowledge created by this same branch of science. But don't let that infinite loop bother you, I guess only flat earthers and creationists would listen to what these climate scientists are saying about how our climate is changing fast today because of man made emissions.
Yes, that the land that they and their forfathers lived on for thousands of years suddenly just starts to fall into the sea is just a publicity stunt.
You mean waterboarding?
Ted Kennedy on FISA:
Kennedy on YouTube.
In spite of all the wishful thinking going on here and in the right wing media, the fact is that the Democratic party has two very strong and impressive candidates. The biggest problem for the Democratic voters is to decide which one they like better, knowing that both will make excellent presidents. I feel sorry for the state of the republican party, but what can I say, Bush destroys everything in his path it seems.
Parent is an informative post that gives some important background about Hillary Clinton but is of course only acknowledge by one moderator.
The GP which is telling half truths and making some truely misleading statements about the "bitch" gets modded 5+.
Wake up, if the voters can't handle the truth they get to vote a guy like Bush into office again...
International law exists. It is the reference frame for nations interacting. What kind of idiot are you who mixes international law with public opinion?