More to the point, we do have one Earth-like planet to experiment with - but only one. To the sensible, that recommends caution.
I don't argue that that dumping polutants into the land/air/water is a good thing, and there are no adverse affects.
However, I do argue that the wide-spread political 'global warming' message is we are all going to die and the Earth will be useless, unless we start doing something differently. And this is a scam, as this group is using fear backed by lies and propaganda in order to get money. That sounds like a scam to me.
Is it inevitable or even probable that the Earth will come to this non-life supporting clump of dirt? Probably not, but the 'global warming' propaganda would have you believe that the entire scientific community is in agreement that it is inevitable. In fact, the group of scientists that actually believes this is actually in the minority, and the people pushing this message are being rewarded handsomely with research grants to come to pre-conceived conclusions and / or politcal and financial advancement(Al Gore).
Finally, I admit the possability that cars could cause the Earth to become inhabitable; however, I dispute the probability. By your argument, anything that is possible of destroying the ability for Earth to substain life should be given billions of dollars of research and caution. This includes alien invasion, meteorite bombardment, sun explosion, California falling into the Ocean, and Michael Jackson's career revival. All of these are possible, not probable, and certainly not worth wasting trillions in investigation to a solution. For decades, the 'global warming' crowd has 'warned' that the Earth will become inhabitable in 20 years. Hasn't happened... not going to happen... 'global warming' science is vaporware, never able to prove it's statements; and in fact allowing time to prove it wrong.
Proof through negation
I think
If I don't exists, I couldn't think. Therefore, because I think, I exists.
However, the first statement relies on the fact that there is an 'I' that thinks. This hasn't been proven. It just has to be true. You have to make the assumption in order to come to the conclusion. Therefore, there is at least one thing you just HAVE to believe. "I" exists. Therefore, there might be other things that just have to be true.
A common scam is to send out 1000 e-mails telling them how good a stock broker you are. 500 you send out says Microsoft stock will rise. 500 say Microsoft rise will fall.
Microsoft stock falls.
Out of those 500 people, the scammer sends out 500 more e-mails. 250, he tells them Dell Stock will rise. 250, he tells Dell stock will fall.
Now, He sends out 250 e-mails. 125, he tells Bob Evans stock will rise. 125, he tells Bob Evans stock will fall.
Now, to those 125 people, he sends an e-mail, asking them to give him large amounts of money to invest in the stock market, because, obviously he can see the future.
Now, if you can let these 125 people talk to each other, and they will all swear by how good this stock broker is.
If you would have applied the scientific method of proof to this guys predictions, you would quickly see that he is a fraud. However, if you rely on what seems logical 4 correct out of 4, you will become a sucker to the scame.
Nothing should be believed until subjected to a scientific method of proof. It might just be a scam. Example, global warming. (Prove that global warming is a)happening, b) caused by humans, c) is inconsistent with the 10,000 year climate cycle. It will be very hard to today, especially since we don't have any Earth-like planets sitting around to expirement with.
Corrolation does not prove a causal realtionship. ie, just because carbon monoxide levels are rising and temparatures are rising doesn't indicate that carbon monoxide is causing higher temperatures. Only when you eliminate the factor of rising carbon monoxide 100,000 times, can you safely assume that one is causing the other.
Actually, in Des Cartes's meditations, he talks about some things just have to be believed. There is fundamental truth, and not provable truth. For example, 'I think, therefore I am.' There is no way to prove this, it is just true.
Therefore, things can be true without proof. Some things just are. They have to be. There is no other way. Some things are true based on past experience. The sun will rise today. And some things are derived from a combination of fundamental truths and past experience, ie, science.
I hate it when people use there limited exposure to establish the existance of a trend. You interact with less than a hundred smart people in a very limited geographical region. Why do you think this exposure allows you to make a conclusion about most people. Your statement proves that 'you' base your opinions on non-scientific studies.
Most people buying computers these days don't give a damn whether their printer is an HP, Lexmark, Generic
How come if one guy has an opinion on something, he automatically believes everyone feels the same way? This majority may be true in the 15 people you have intereacted with about computer printers, but why in the world do you think you can generalize this? There are millions of printers sold ever year. Do you think it's possible that your experience with 15 customers out of millions has any chance of actually validating your statement about "Most people..."
Again, mostly wrong. Why again do people believe that retailers are responsible for servicing the products they sell? When did this belief start? Of course you have to get Best Buys/Circuit City's extended warranties for them to service it.
Didn't you read his post? He said he bought an extended warranty, and it was useless because he still had to ship it around the country.
I absolutely agree. But I hate the, "The whole world could be one big cooperative group, and all the fighting and war would go away" attitude.
Although, we like to clump up into well defined groups and work cooperatively, we also very much like to place these groups into competition with each other. (ie, sports, company market competition, national wars, republicans vs. democrats). The group gives us power, while the competition gives us a purpose.
Which finally leads to my conclusion that the only way world peace would ever exists is if we can compete against some non-earth entity or solve an earth threatening dilemna. (ie, Discovery of Vulcans, world-wide plaque, immenant doom from asteroids, moon/mars colonization, etc.) We have purpose as Americans; however, an organization of terrestrials would have no purpose.
I have an Ibook, and I think the backlit apple logo looks cool. (Well, that is after explaining to non-computer people that Macs aren't just for idiots any more now that it's based on Unix)
It would be pretty hard to rip that out as well, as the logo is pretty much a hole in the shape of an apple, with a translucent apple. I could get rid of the translucent apple, but would still have an apple shaped hole.
But you can't argue against the productivity that occurs when you think your enemy is going to smoosh you into the ground if you don't keep up. Yes, we like to work with other people; however, competition motivates increased inidivual productivity. Also, you shouldn't learn science from TV. I always catch the road runner.
Actually, it is law that anything that is in space, and lands on American soil is considered property of the United States Government.
I know this because of a 1997 Ohio State University week long conference on space. The SETI people there half-joked about this as the reason why the private American space program has never taken off.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a 'Processor' usage argument when comparing harddrive types.
The most important things are, disk access time, bandwidth of the bus (ie SCSI or IDE), the number of disks that can be accessed at the same time, reliability, etc. Never processor usage. It just isn't a factor.
It seems to me that every attempt for an AI set to pass the turring test has been to 'game' the English language. Why not instead try to write a system that emulates human emotion and thought process instead of playing language trickts?
Actually, AI technology has been very useful. AI does not neccesarly mean a thing which can talk to you in english intelligently. It however describes the process of a computer to solve problems automatically, adjusting to 'learn' new solutions. In short, a fancy algorythm to solve dynamic problems. In this arena, AI has improved drastically from being able to solve quite simple problems to solving very complex problems. (Game Logic, Expert Systems, the Google Search Engine, Hardware Plug and Play, Voice Recognition Systems, are great examples of AI in use.)
I remember repeatedly being told in elementary school when the first settlers reached Ohio, the forrest was so dence, a squirell could cross the state, jumping from branch to branch, never touching the ground.
This was probably part of the ecologic soccer mom mentality of this place was great, but all this advancement fucked it up. However, I like this place, called Ohio, and I think the country/world is a better place because of the advancement that became possible in Ohio (and places like it, ie the rest of the United States) after the de-forrestation of the land. (Our country, in fact has the competative edge because we so easily feed the masses... look at history. The people who control the food control the world, or at least the part around it.
There were three Indian 'countries' of the Americas, the Incas, the Maya's and the Aztecs. Two of them were a collection of city states, each controlled by individual governors who warred internally with each other. The third (Maya, I believe) was a country as we think of it today, where all the cities and states were controlled by a single government, and the armies of this country kept the peace. This was only possible through their ability to farm the land, and produce enough food to feed the non-food producing army.
Now, if the cutting down the rain forrest of Brazil means that they'll have less snakes, bugs, and monkey's, but the Brazillians have a future similar to the United States, where the people of that country can keep the peace in the entire region, and promote peace, prosperity, and individual freedom, then thank good for chain-saws.
And finally, I never understood the argument that we should preserve our resources, because soon the will be out. So the argument is, we have the power to not use these (trees, oil, and fresh water) resources. So what is the difference if we stop using them now, or we stop using them in 10 years? For example, if we are capable of replacing all cars that run on gasoline in order to not use up the oil in the world, won't we still be capable of that in 10-100 years when it is neccesary and economically driven? (ie, when we start to run out of oil, the price will go up, and it will become cheaper to run your car off (fill in alternative energy source) than oil based energies?)
Finally, before I get off soap box, if you hate yourself, that's fine. If you are mad at yourself for having such an easy luxurious middle class American life, that's just fine. However, stop associating me with you, and direct your self-loathing to your self. Leave me and the rest of productive world alone. Hell, if you really need comfort for your self loathing, go hug a tree.
Have you really decreased on-the-clock wankers? That would make for a great executive presentation...
As you can see here, Pointing to bar graphs with penis shaped bars on-the-clock wank time has decreased 35%. I think if we fire all the young female college interns, we can shrink this pen...Bar another 50%
Do you regret longer lifespans, being able to travel 60 miles in a single hour, computers, electricity, internet, refrigeration, air conditioners, food freezers, cold drinks, all the things plastic, carpets that last for years and years and years, etc. etc. etc.
People who fear science becauase of their religion, are in fact showing their lack of faith. They are afraid that some day, some how, science will prove the non-existance of God. However, someone with strong faith will encourage science, as they know for fact, that it will prove God.
Example: Evolution. Most religious people fight evolution, because they think it may help prove the non-existance of God. However, those with true faith embrace the theories, as the Genesis is God's process. Most Christians believe that God is truth, light, and love. Then why would God want you to not seek the truth? God Doesn't. Who are we to say, "No, God did not use evolution to ensure the unwatched preservation of his creation. God did not use evolution to create man's body from those that already existed.
I don't want to turn this into an evolution discussion, because no matter how many of those I have had, no-one ever seems to change anyone's mind.
However, no where have I ever read in the Bible the part about how humans should not try to discover God's ways and use them to manipulate our environment. (If so, everything, including Calendars that track the seasons are sac-religious).
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point, we do have one Earth-like planet to experiment with - but only one. To the sensible, that recommends caution.
I don't argue that that dumping polutants into the land/air/water is a good thing, and there are no adverse affects.
However, I do argue that the wide-spread political 'global warming' message is we are all going to die and the Earth will be useless, unless we start doing something differently. And this is a scam, as this group is using fear backed by lies and propaganda in order to get money. That sounds like a scam to me.
Is it inevitable or even probable that the Earth will come to this non-life supporting clump of dirt? Probably not, but the 'global warming' propaganda would have you believe that the entire scientific community is in agreement that it is inevitable. In fact, the group of scientists that actually believes this is actually in the minority, and the people pushing this message are being rewarded handsomely with research grants to come to pre-conceived conclusions and / or politcal and financial advancement(Al Gore).
Finally, I admit the possability that cars could cause the Earth to become inhabitable; however, I dispute the probability. By your argument, anything that is possible of destroying the ability for Earth to substain life should be given billions of dollars of research and caution. This includes alien invasion, meteorite bombardment, sun explosion, California falling into the Ocean, and Michael Jackson's career revival. All of these are possible, not probable, and certainly not worth wasting trillions in investigation to a solution. For decades, the 'global warming' crowd has 'warned' that the Earth will become inhabitable in 20 years. Hasn't happened... not going to happen... 'global warming' science is vaporware, never able to prove it's statements; and in fact allowing time to prove it wrong.
Proof through negation I think If I don't exists, I couldn't think. Therefore, because I think, I exists.
However, the first statement relies on the fact that there is an 'I' that thinks. This hasn't been proven. It just has to be true. You have to make the assumption in order to come to the conclusion. Therefore, there is at least one thing you just HAVE to believe. "I" exists. Therefore, there might be other things that just have to be true.
A common scam is to send out 1000 e-mails telling them how good a stock broker you are. 500 you send out says Microsoft stock will rise. 500 say Microsoft rise will fall. Microsoft stock falls. Out of those 500 people, the scammer sends out 500 more e-mails. 250, he tells them Dell Stock will rise. 250, he tells Dell stock will fall.
Now, He sends out 250 e-mails. 125, he tells Bob Evans stock will rise. 125, he tells Bob Evans stock will fall.
Now, to those 125 people, he sends an e-mail, asking them to give him large amounts of money to invest in the stock market, because, obviously he can see the future.
Now, if you can let these 125 people talk to each other, and they will all swear by how good this stock broker is.
If you would have applied the scientific method of proof to this guys predictions, you would quickly see that he is a fraud. However, if you rely on what seems logical 4 correct out of 4, you will become a sucker to the scame.
Nothing should be believed until subjected to a scientific method of proof. It might just be a scam. Example, global warming. (Prove that global warming is a)happening, b) caused by humans, c) is inconsistent with the 10,000 year climate cycle. It will be very hard to today, especially since we don't have any Earth-like planets sitting around to expirement with.
Corrolation does not prove a causal realtionship. ie, just because carbon monoxide levels are rising and temparatures are rising doesn't indicate that carbon monoxide is causing higher temperatures. Only when you eliminate the factor of rising carbon monoxide 100,000 times, can you safely assume that one is causing the other.
Actually, in Des Cartes's meditations, he talks about some things just have to be believed. There is fundamental truth, and not provable truth. For example, 'I think, therefore I am.' There is no way to prove this, it is just true.
Therefore, things can be true without proof. Some things just are. They have to be. There is no other way. Some things are true based on past experience. The sun will rise today. And some things are derived from a combination of fundamental truths and past experience, ie, science.
I hate it when people use there limited exposure to establish the existance of a trend. You interact with less than a hundred smart people in a very limited geographical region. Why do you think this exposure allows you to make a conclusion about most people. Your statement proves that 'you' base your opinions on non-scientific studies.
Actually, it is against the law to use the SS# as an ID. However, it is rarely enforced.
Most people buying computers these days don't give a damn whether their printer is an HP, Lexmark, Generic
How come if one guy has an opinion on something, he automatically believes everyone feels the same way? This majority may be true in the 15 people you have intereacted with about computer printers, but why in the world do you think you can generalize this? There are millions of printers sold ever year. Do you think it's possible that your experience with 15 customers out of millions has any chance of actually validating your statement about "Most people..."
Again, mostly wrong. Why again do people believe that retailers are responsible for servicing the products they sell? When did this belief start? Of course you have to get Best Buys/Circuit City's extended warranties for them to service it.
Didn't you read his post? He said he bought an extended warranty, and it was useless because he still had to ship it around the country.
I absolutely agree. But I hate the, "The whole world could be one big cooperative group, and all the fighting and war would go away" attitude.
Although, we like to clump up into well defined groups and work cooperatively, we also very much like to place these groups into competition with each other. (ie, sports, company market competition, national wars, republicans vs. democrats). The group gives us power, while the competition gives us a purpose.
Which finally leads to my conclusion that the only way world peace would ever exists is if we can compete against some non-earth entity or solve an earth threatening dilemna. (ie, Discovery of Vulcans, world-wide plaque, immenant doom from asteroids, moon/mars colonization, etc.) We have purpose as Americans; however, an organization of terrestrials would have no purpose.
I have an Ibook, and I think the backlit apple logo looks cool. (Well, that is after explaining to non-computer people that Macs aren't just for idiots any more now that it's based on Unix)
It would be pretty hard to rip that out as well, as the logo is pretty much a hole in the shape of an apple, with a translucent apple. I could get rid of the translucent apple, but would still have an apple shaped hole.
MMMMMM.... PRON TOAST!
But you can't argue against the productivity that occurs when you think your enemy is going to smoosh you into the ground if you don't keep up.
Yes, we like to work with other people; however, competition motivates increased inidivual productivity.
Also, you shouldn't learn science from TV. I always catch the road runner.
I have some moonrock to sell to you then. E-mail me. Very reasonable prices.
I accept VISA, CERTIFIED CHECKS, or MONEY ORDERS. (Pay Pal rips you off)
Actually, it is law that anything that is in space, and lands on American soil is considered property of the United States Government.
I know this because of a 1997 Ohio State University week long conference on space. The SETI people there half-joked about this as the reason why the private American space program has never taken off.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a 'Processor' usage argument when comparing harddrive types.
The most important things are, disk access time, bandwidth of the bus (ie SCSI or IDE), the number of disks that can be accessed at the same time, reliability, etc. Never processor usage. It just isn't a factor.
It seems to me that every attempt for an AI set to pass the turring test has been to 'game' the English language. Why not instead try to write a system that emulates human emotion and thought process instead of playing language trickts?
Actually, AI technology has been very useful. AI does not neccesarly mean a thing which can talk to you in english intelligently. It however describes the process of a computer to solve problems automatically, adjusting to 'learn' new solutions. In short, a fancy algorythm to solve dynamic problems. In this arena, AI has improved drastically from being able to solve quite simple problems to solving very complex problems. (Game Logic, Expert Systems, the Google Search Engine, Hardware Plug and Play, Voice Recognition Systems, are great examples of AI in use.)
I remember repeatedly being told in elementary school when the first settlers reached Ohio, the forrest was so dence, a squirell could cross the state, jumping from branch to branch, never touching the ground.
This was probably part of the ecologic soccer mom mentality of this place was great, but all this advancement fucked it up. However, I like this place, called Ohio, and I think the country/world is a better place because of the advancement that became possible in Ohio (and places like it, ie the rest of the United States) after the de-forrestation of the land. (Our country, in fact has the competative edge because we so easily feed the masses... look at history. The people who control the food control the world, or at least the part around it.
There were three Indian 'countries' of the Americas, the Incas, the Maya's and the Aztecs. Two of them were a collection of city states, each controlled by individual governors who warred internally with each other. The third (Maya, I believe) was a country as we think of it today, where all the cities and states were controlled by a single government, and the armies of this country kept the peace. This was only possible through their ability to farm the land, and produce enough food to feed the non-food producing army.
Now, if the cutting down the rain forrest of Brazil means that they'll have less snakes, bugs, and monkey's, but the Brazillians have a future similar to the United States, where the people of that country can keep the peace in the entire region, and promote peace, prosperity, and individual freedom, then thank good for chain-saws.
And finally, I never understood the argument that we should preserve our resources, because soon the will be out. So the argument is, we have the power to not use these (trees, oil, and fresh water) resources. So what is the difference if we stop using them now, or we stop using them in 10 years? For example, if we are capable of replacing all cars that run on gasoline in order to not use up the oil in the world, won't we still be capable of that in 10-100 years when it is neccesary and economically driven? (ie, when we start to run out of oil, the price will go up, and it will become cheaper to run your car off (fill in alternative energy source) than oil based energies?)
Finally, before I get off soap box, if you hate yourself, that's fine. If you are mad at yourself for having such an easy luxurious middle class American life, that's just fine. However, stop associating me with you, and direct your self-loathing to your self. Leave me and the rest of productive world alone. Hell, if you really need comfort for your self loathing, go hug a tree.
Have you really decreased on-the-clock wankers? That would make for a great executive presentation...
As you can see here, Pointing to bar graphs with penis shaped bars on-the-clock wank time has decreased 35%. I think if we fire all the young female college interns, we can shrink this pen...Bar another 50%
If O'reilly has a book on it, it's probably the best book on the subject, IMHO, no matter what the language is.
Besides that, they put a new animal on each one, and if you collect enough, you can open a zoo to try and recoup the costs of the books.
Do you regret longer lifespans, being able to travel 60 miles in a single hour, computers, electricity, internet, refrigeration, air conditioners, food freezers, cold drinks, all the things plastic, carpets that last for years and years and years, etc. etc. etc.
I dont'.
Science is the discovery of God's ways.
People who fear science becauase of their religion, are in fact showing their lack of faith. They are afraid that some day, some how, science will prove the non-existance of God. However, someone with strong faith will encourage science, as they know for fact, that it will prove God.
Example: Evolution. Most religious people fight evolution, because they think it may help prove the non-existance of God. However, those with true faith embrace the theories, as the Genesis is God's process. Most Christians believe that God is truth, light, and love. Then why would God want you to not seek the truth? God Doesn't. Who are we to say, "No, God did not use evolution to ensure the unwatched preservation of his creation. God did not use evolution to create man's body from those that already existed.
I don't want to turn this into an evolution discussion, because no matter how many of those I have had, no-one ever seems to change anyone's mind.
However, no where have I ever read in the Bible the part about how humans should not try to discover God's ways and use them to manipulate our environment. (If so, everything, including Calendars that track the seasons are sac-religious).
He does have an aircraft carrier!
Because Ohio is so heavenly?
huhked okn fonnix wurckd fur me!