Ad-blockers work on URLs for the most part don't they? If a company starts using ads from a new URL they aren't blocked by default.
I've always allowed ads that come from the site I'm viewing. I block on principle ads that come from remote servers. If an online company wants to invest in ads they are willing to host, I'll deal with the ads.
Science theory. Based on observable evidence of other bodies, physical properties and elapsed time they can theorize with a fair bit of confidence, what the conditions were given the age of the earth at the time.
That said, theories are only theories. I just saw an TV show that suggested the earth didn't become completely molten 'until' the impact by the other planet. This is what gave us the iron dense core we have as it settled out into the center while the earth was molten.
the generally accept meaning is that to perform a 2 person dance, you need 2 people.
If Israel doesn't exist there is no current conflict. Certainly the conflicts of the region go back 1000s of year, but this current conflict is due to the creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.
I don't believe Palestine in any incarnation was party to the UN mandate. Did they have any voice at all in the UN?
It was *decided* that portions would be carved up and given to the Jewish people who had settled there. But the disaffected parties weren't given any say in the matter; just 'accept this'.
Little wonder they didn't care for it much...
I completely agree blame is well spread in this case. That was my original point, it takes 2 parties. Or as others commented, just one to start the problem, which was the UN/Israel who started it.
Yes and Israel is the 'hostile' group in question here...the Palestinians/Hamas/PLO etc are only defending themselves against being displaced by Israel's creation...
indeed...and who started the problem? oh that's right, Israel...
Obviously a wildly simplified snarky answer, but Israel didn't exist 60 years ago and the Palestinians were forced out of their lands and homes when it was created.
Next time they start shooting at each other, just sit back and let them shoot. When one side is beaten into oblivion, they surrender, unconditionally.
that's like letting a cancerous melanoma 'work itself out'. Israel can obliterate the Palestinians without so much as working up a sweat. They choose not too because the wrath that would come down from around the world and from the region just isn't worth it.
The results of blowing away the Palestinians would be a large scale regional catastrophe that would end with Israel using their nukes since they don't have the numbers to take on the whole middle east.
You don't attack the bear cub unless you're ready to deal with Mom.
well to be more accurate "Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected." emphasis mine.
So it wasn't in writing. i.e. it didn't exist. Not fun, not cool on the part of the Lt. but they have zip to stand on IMO. I'm amazed SCOTUS upheld this. All it would take is a promotion or retirement and that Lt. is no longer there to uphold the 'informal policy'.
that's assuming MS actually lets you save documents in the older format. Back when 97 came out, initially (i.e. for months) there literally was no way to read a 97 format in 95 or earlier and no way to save in 95 format from 97. After a while they came out with the ability to save back into 95 format.
But the message was clear, you shall upgrade whether you like it or not.
Actually any layman with concerns is qualified to question science.
Science, if truly based on fact should have no trouble defending itself.
I have no argument with the concept. However, the time for this questioning was a decade ago. The Denier's simply refused to believe anything and wouldn't debate. Now that they are being proven factually wrong, they want to go back and debate the issue.
This is not to say the average 'layman' should just sit down and be quiet. I am more speaking about the clearly corporate funded interests who are stirring up fake grassroots 'outrage' on the issue. That is only FUD being used to create confusion and delay on the process for short term corporate gains.
What is hard though, is that progress can't be made when it is required to explain from the beginning every time. This is where 'science' is supposed to support the future advancement; by providing easily obtainable and verified results of past theories for those who wish to learn.
Rabid apologists are part of the problem, that only increase laymens distrust due to centuries of propaganda from government,industry and religion.
Distrust of actual 'science' is indeed a fallout from the dishonest presentations being put forth.
60 some MB of expose should be addressed in public seriously and not poo- pooed by apologists with a personal stake. When the evidence is this damning in a laymans eyes, some pretty forthright talk from investigation by more neutral parties is definitely in order.
Indeed it should be and I have clearly said so. It does not, however, blatanly taint *all* the climate change data that has been collected. The appearance though is the problem and as such does need to be thoroughly vetted out.
This fiasco is really a good thing and iconic infallibility being accorded to the liberal wing of science studying climate is in bad need of 10ccs of reality.
In the long run, I agree. Dogma in any form eventually falls under it's own weight. Not taking anything on 'faith', but using accurate, verified and repeatable tests and results is the only way to keep things 'reality based'.
If they are using standard, trusted scientific techniques for handling and verifying their data there is no reason to trust it less than anybody elses.
On the contrary it is *exactly* why you don't trust it. It has an inherent conflict of interest. If you are funded by one side of a debate and you come out in favor of that side, only fools would think there isn't the reasonable possibility of it being tainted research.
"Seeing Alaska from your house" doesn't exactly qualify you for much either.
You can disagree with Al Gore and climate change, that is your right.
You can't claim Palin is even remotely equal to him in standing on the environmental issue. He's got quite a few scientists who agree with him. The list of scientists who disagree with global warming gets smaller and smaller with every close inspection of the list...
As I've said in posts here, fact based debate is most welcomed, but most Deniers don't have 'facts' that can stand up to scrutiny.
funny, Al Gore has been working environmental issues for at least the better part of 2 decades. People may or may not agree with him, but he's got substantial history on the subject.
Al Gore says the Climategate messages are 10 years old. Some of the messages are less than 30 days old. So Al Gore's 2 decades of work is actually 60 days of work?
How do the dates of the emails have any bearing at all on how long Al Gore has been working on climate issues?
How long he's been working does not mean he is right. Many mistakes have been identified in his work, and he has silently removed some of his errors from his show.
As I said, you may or may not agree with him, but it doesn't allow you to claim he hasn't been working on the issues involved for the last 2 decades.
As for removing stuff from a program, which is worse: doing that or spouting off on subjects you don't have any appreciable knowledge of on like Palin frequently seems to do?
(1) Greenland used to be green....
Actually it didn't, it was called GREENLand to lure people there...marketing in action. Or perhaps a translation error.
(4) Astronomers have been pointing out *forever* that Major and Minor Ice Ages are dependent on the precession and nutation of the Earth's orbit.
I don't dispute this. However, there is *no* proof of this causing the *rate* at which we are seeing change today. Something else is effecting the system that wasn't around previously...like us.
The recent disclosures that some scientists may not have followed accepted processes for handling data (ignored more complete data sets for smaller data sets that better supported their ideas etc.) are serious things to investigate and rightly should be investigated. I don't know of any climate change proponents who disagree with that.
It doesn't, however, change the other *vast* accumulated data that show a very marked divergence from historical norms at rates not seen previously.
funny, Al Gore has been working environmental issues for at least the better part of 2 decades. People may or may not agree with him, but he's got substantial history on the subject.
it doesn't, but the vast majority of climate change deniers aren't showing any data proving their point.
The mad rush to claim 'Climategate' over the email disclosures proves they don't have any data of their own to stand on.
If people have valid reproducible data, I, and any 'scientific' person would be happy to debate the issue. There have been a shameful few if any that have anything like that to contribute to the discussion.
Also in referencing their arguments against Global Warming, first it was "It isn't happening" and now it's gone to "well maybe it is but it's not Human's fault". (reasons Ms. Palin claimed both of in her Op-Ed, which in itself is astounding).
The data as we know it is alarmingly out of scale with anything in recorded history. The models we used 30 years ago to predict the situation today have proved horribly conservative. The realities are much more severe than forecast.
Now take the claim by the deniers that it won't really be that bad. Blindly ignoring the fact that proven history has shown it will in fact be worse than the models predict.
They aren't contributing anything useful to the conversation as a whole, so as whole, sadly, the get represented by the wingnuts and crazies.
and while it stated earlier, Dubya cemented the belief that 'science' can't be trusted because he appointed political hacks and cronies into technical positions so they could override actual science with political motivations.
The only saving grace is that 'science' abhors the falsification and politicalization of data just as much as the deniers do. The difference is the Deniers generally won't think twice about falsifying their data to prove their point. case in point, Faux News showing a Rasmussen poll with 120%. linky
This isn't to say that some scientists don't do such things, just that it's against the very nature of 'science' itself. And it is self correcting in the long run.
agreed. My point was not whether 'unlimited' contracts should or should not have 'unlimited' usage (they shouldn't), but that the Telco's use the 'limits' to apply to everyone instead of just the people they claim are the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
doh!
being one of those 'Evil-lution' types myself...
Do you have another plausible definition for the fossil records discovered that pretty well show 'evilution' happening?
Ad-blockers work on URLs for the most part don't they? If a company starts using ads from a new URL they aren't blocked by default.
I've always allowed ads that come from the site I'm viewing. I block on principle ads that come from remote servers. If an online company wants to invest in ads they are willing to host, I'll deal with the ads.
Science theory. Based on observable evidence of other bodies, physical properties and elapsed time they can theorize with a fair bit of confidence, what the conditions were given the age of the earth at the time.
That said, theories are only theories. I just saw an TV show that suggested the earth didn't become completely molten 'until' the impact by the other planet. This is what gave us the iron dense core we have as it settled out into the center while the earth was molten.
the generally accept meaning is that to perform a 2 person dance, you need 2 people.
If Israel doesn't exist there is no current conflict. Certainly the conflicts of the region go back 1000s of year, but this current conflict is due to the creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.
Um...yes.
From your post:
"When ONE wants the OTHER..."
That's 2 parties.
I don't believe Palestine in any incarnation was party to the UN mandate. Did they have any voice at all in the UN?
It was *decided* that portions would be carved up and given to the Jewish people who had settled there. But the disaffected parties weren't given any say in the matter; just 'accept this'.
Little wonder they didn't care for it much...
I completely agree blame is well spread in this case. That was my original point, it takes 2 parties. Or as others commented, just one to start the problem, which was the UN/Israel who started it.
Yes and Israel is the 'hostile' group in question here...the Palestinians/Hamas/PLO etc are only defending themselves against being displaced by Israel's creation...
indeed...and who started the problem? oh that's right, Israel...
Obviously a wildly simplified snarky answer, but Israel didn't exist 60 years ago and the Palestinians were forced out of their lands and homes when it was created.
Next time they start shooting at each other, just sit back and let them shoot. When one side is beaten into oblivion, they surrender, unconditionally.
that's like letting a cancerous melanoma 'work itself out'. Israel can obliterate the Palestinians without so much as working up a sweat. They choose not too because the wrath that would come down from around the world and from the region just isn't worth it.
The results of blowing away the Palestinians would be a large scale regional catastrophe that would end with Israel using their nukes since they don't have the numbers to take on the whole middle east.
You don't attack the bear cub unless you're ready to deal with Mom.
They're basically living in a war zone, all the time.
It does take 2 to tango though...
well to be more accurate "Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected." emphasis mine.
So it wasn't in writing. i.e. it didn't exist. Not fun, not cool on the part of the Lt. but they have zip to stand on IMO. I'm amazed SCOTUS upheld this. All it would take is a promotion or retirement and that Lt. is no longer there to uphold the 'informal policy'.
that's assuming MS actually lets you save documents in the older format. Back when 97 came out, initially (i.e. for months) there literally was no way to read a 97 format in 95 or earlier and no way to save in 95 format from 97. After a while they came out with the ability to save back into 95 format.
But the message was clear, you shall upgrade whether you like it or not.
I have no argument with the concept. However, the time for this questioning was a decade ago. The Denier's simply refused to believe anything and wouldn't debate. Now that they are being proven factually wrong, they want to go back and debate the issue.
This is not to say the average 'layman' should just sit down and be quiet. I am more speaking about the clearly corporate funded interests who are stirring up fake grassroots 'outrage' on the issue. That is only FUD being used to create confusion and delay on the process for short term corporate gains.
What is hard though, is that progress can't be made when it is required to explain from the beginning every time. This is where 'science' is supposed to support the future advancement; by providing easily obtainable and verified results of past theories for those who wish to learn.
Distrust of actual 'science' is indeed a fallout from the dishonest presentations being put forth.
Indeed it should be and I have clearly said so. It does not, however, blatanly taint *all* the climate change data that has been collected. The appearance though is the problem and as such does need to be thoroughly vetted out.
In the long run, I agree. Dogma in any form eventually falls under it's own weight. Not taking anything on 'faith', but using accurate, verified and repeatable tests and results is the only way to keep things 'reality based'.
I'm not writing Op-Ed's in the Post espousing on the subject. I'm simply responding to someone comparing Al Gore to Sarah Palin on climate change.
If they are using standard, trusted scientific techniques for handling and verifying their data there is no reason to trust it less than anybody elses.
On the contrary it is *exactly* why you don't trust it. It has an inherent conflict of interest. If you are funded by one side of a debate and you come out in favor of that side, only fools would think there isn't the reasonable possibility of it being tainted research.
"Seeing Alaska from your house" doesn't exactly qualify you for much either.
You can disagree with Al Gore and climate change, that is your right.
You can't claim Palin is even remotely equal to him in standing on the environmental issue. He's got quite a few scientists who agree with him. The list of scientists who disagree with global warming gets smaller and smaller with every close inspection of the list...
As I've said in posts here, fact based debate is most welcomed, but most Deniers don't have 'facts' that can stand up to scrutiny.
Equally convenient how the majority of funding of Climate Change Denial comes from Big Oil.
Not like they don't have an even more massive stake in keeping things just as they are.
Going Green is the right choice AND the most economical one long term. Oil prices are only going up. We will see $200/barrel within 20 years.
Green tech won't appreciably increase in price since the *fuel* is free.
Al Gore says the Climategate messages are 10 years old. Some of the messages are less than 30 days old. So Al Gore's 2 decades of work is actually 60 days of work?
How do the dates of the emails have any bearing at all on how long Al Gore has been working on climate issues?
As I said, you may or may not agree with him, but it doesn't allow you to claim he hasn't been working on the issues involved for the last 2 decades.
As for removing stuff from a program, which is worse: doing that or spouting off on subjects you don't have any appreciable knowledge of on like Palin frequently seems to do?
ignorance indeed:
(1) Greenland used to be green....
Actually it didn't, it was called GREENLand to lure people there...marketing in action. Or perhaps a translation error.
(2) Medieval Warm Period
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
2000 year temp graph
(3) Rome used to import ENGLISH wine
correlation vs causation
(4) Astronomers have been pointing out *forever* that Major and Minor Ice Ages are dependent on the precession and nutation of the Earth's orbit.
I don't dispute this. However, there is *no* proof of this causing the *rate* at which we are seeing change today. Something else is effecting the system that wasn't around previously...like us.
(5) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf where proxy data shows the global warming folks are seriously out to lunch
The Heartland Institute? seriously? they are such a blatant shill for Big Oil and Big Business it's not funny.
The recent disclosures that some scientists may not have followed accepted processes for handling data (ignored more complete data sets for smaller data sets that better supported their ideas etc.) are serious things to investigate and rightly should be investigated. I don't know of any climate change proponents who disagree with that.
It doesn't, however, change the other *vast* accumulated data that show a very marked divergence from historical norms at rates not seen previously.
funny, Al Gore has been working environmental issues for at least the better part of 2 decades. People may or may not agree with him, but he's got substantial history on the subject.
it doesn't, but the vast majority of climate change deniers aren't showing any data proving their point.
The mad rush to claim 'Climategate' over the email disclosures proves they don't have any data of their own to stand on.
If people have valid reproducible data, I, and any 'scientific' person would be happy to debate the issue. There have been a shameful few if any that have anything like that to contribute to the discussion.
Also in referencing their arguments against Global Warming, first it was "It isn't happening" and now it's gone to "well maybe it is but it's not Human's fault". (reasons Ms. Palin claimed both of in her Op-Ed, which in itself is astounding).
The data as we know it is alarmingly out of scale with anything in recorded history. The models we used 30 years ago to predict the situation today have proved horribly conservative. The realities are much more severe than forecast.
Now take the claim by the deniers that it won't really be that bad. Blindly ignoring the fact that proven history has shown it will in fact be worse than the models predict.
They aren't contributing anything useful to the conversation as a whole, so as whole, sadly, the get represented by the wingnuts and crazies.
and while it stated earlier, Dubya cemented the belief that 'science' can't be trusted because he appointed political hacks and cronies into technical positions so they could override actual science with political motivations.
The only saving grace is that 'science' abhors the falsification and politicalization of data just as much as the deniers do. The difference is the Deniers generally won't think twice about falsifying their data to prove their point. case in point, Faux News showing a Rasmussen poll with 120%. linky
This isn't to say that some scientists don't do such things, just that it's against the very nature of 'science' itself. And it is self correcting in the long run.
two words - Sarah Palin.
how exactly is she *qualified* in *any* respect to comment on this? her basic statement was rather instructive I thought.
Because of some possible (and if so quite serious) data shenanigans, Obama should boycott the talks entirely to send a message. i.e. Quit.
Rather than go and use the world stage to call serious attention to the shenanigans and work towards improving the process and scientific data.
Instructive, very instructive.
agreed. My point was not whether 'unlimited' contracts should or should not have 'unlimited' usage (they shouldn't), but that the Telco's use the 'limits' to apply to everyone instead of just the people they claim are the problem.