I don't know. Just off the top of my head, it would be easier for me to simply drink a glass of water than to go to the trouble of faking it. It would be easier for me to drive to work tomorrow than to somehow fake it. There are plenty of examples where faking it would be harder than just doing it.
So now your argument is "responsibly". At least you've stopped trying to redefine "ad hominem".
Convincing is so much harder than just pointing a gun, isn't it? Why go to the trouble if you can seize the levers of state and force everyone to join your religion?
No, I am countering that an argument based *solely* on there being "scientific concensus" is invalid. You are trying to reframe the argument. This started because one of you whipped out the standard "climate scientists have already figured it out, so there's no use questioning them" argument. The poster did not link to any articles about that, but rather asserted it without proof. Then the poster went on to chide the person he was talking to for not backing up his assertions - introducing the double-standard I also criticized. If it was you, I'm sorry being called on your behavior hurt your feelings, but it doesn't excuse resorting to mere namecalling.
Well that's certainly in line with the environmentalist viewpoint. "Overpopulation causes environmental problems, so we should winnow down the human race somehow." Of course, the environmentalists don't mean *themselves*, they mean everyone else - especially those that have the temerity to disagree with them. Stamping out the mass-murder of their fellow humans certainly seems to be further down the list of priorities, but that would be in line with a "hey, less people" philosopy.
One final comonality that touches back on my original critic's comments, is your suggestion that I am more religious and less rational than you. (his inviting me to pray to god for the sun not to hurt me and your suggestion relating to human sacrifice) I am, in fact, agnostic - but it does show a bias in your community to lump all dissenters into a "retarded bible-thumper" motif. Or perhaps a "retarded bible-thumping oil-company-shill" motif. All the while holding yourselves up as paragons of rationality.
You said: "Now calling you and idiot would have been an ad hominem..." Which is, of course, exactly what he did - so I suppose in a way you are arguing with yourself.
Also, since you appear to favor correcting people, let me return the favor: "unfunded" would mean that my claims are not receiving any funds (so I'm not an oil company shill!) - I believe you meant "unfounded" - as in not having a foundation - in which case you can review my quote above of the ad hominem attack. Also, "in fact" has a space in it, as it is two words. You will find that in your own ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack is namecalling. If disagreeing with someone is an ad hominem attack then the term has no meaning. Your examples are me criticizing an argument from authority, me pointing out a double-standard in your community, and me calling imaginary scientists witholding an imaginary computer an obviously whimsical name. On the other hand, that guy called me personally an "idiot". So I called him on his namecalling and then you redifined namecalling to include all forms of criticising another's argument.
Fine - I'll grant sarcasm isn't going to win any friends or influence people, but at least it requires more effort than simple namecalling.
Also, I am not an "oil company shill" (more namecalling) - I am someone who is not convinced by the evidence presented. Have I spent 10 years in intensive research honing my grasp of the subject matter? Hell no - but since I'm one of the people you have to convince to stop using gas (like all of you have, I assume) and stop buying unnecessary consumer goods (like all of you have, I assume - ie: computers), and cut back on energy consumption(like all of you have, I assume - ie: power to run your computers) then someone is going to have to make more of an effort to convince me and people who share my position. Chiding us about our expertise in the field of climatology and arguing that scientists are infalliable is not going to work. The scientific "community" has had "concensus" on very very many things throughout the history of science that turned out to be wrong, while there have been plenty of instances of "fringe researchers" with "unconventional theories" who turned out to be right. So concensus amoung the mainstream researchers is not by itself proof.
Point taken. I'm afraid that after reading dozens of "don't argue with scientists" posts, I unfairly took it out on your argument. Which was, after all, only saying that the scientists do take the sun into account, not necessarily that they are right, per se.
I still do, however, have reservations about the word "fact" in ongoing scientific inquiry. Newton's gravity was a "fact" until Einstein (and, to be fair, Newton is still a good enough approximation for getting rovers to Mars.) So I don't see science as establishing "fact", but rather producing theories that are closer and closer appoximations of reality. As in the Standard Model of Quantum Physics, which has been confirmed to as high a degree of accuracy as we can muster, but still has those annoying unexplained constants that suggest there is a higher-order theory out there.
Or in other words, the "march of science" as opposed to the "we're all done of science".
But so as not to detract from my original intent: Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa.
Very interesting information you presented. The argument about volcanos was always pretty convincing to me because, hey, VOLCANO, right? They're pretty impressive, after all. But it does make sense that the continuous drip, drip, drip of anthropogenic emissions could outpace geologic activity.
By the way, I might have still found it interesting without the insult, but now we'll never know, you inveterate cocksucker.
How can it be "current" climate science and also a fact? Either way, like it or not, your post was an argument from authority. Feel free to call it an "argument from fact" if it makes you feel better. I know the truth, because leading logicians said it was so.
Well why didn't you resort to ad-hominem attacks earlier? Now I'm convinced. You'll find your efforts at persuasion are much enhanced with extensive use of insults and name-calling. (See how I came around to define the term "ad-hominem" just in case a humorless tool like yourself didn't know what it meant?) Let me have one last go at your persuasive technique: "You are an an asshole" Do you agree with me now? If not, let me know and I can certainly call you more names. Things like "self-important gasbag" or "martial-arts-referencing dickweed" or "joke-about-weather-forecasting-misapprehending asshat" ("misapprehending" is fancy-talk for "you treated my sarcasm like an argument") or perhaps "condescending twit".
Ok, I think I'm getting the hang of this. Even though I've dug through numerous posts by climate-change advocates that read: "Don't question scientists!", I am now going to reply like a true environmentalist and say: "This guy is obviously not a proper scientist, because proper scientists don't doubt human caused climate change" And, so in one fell swoop, I invalidate your skeptical scientist. As a "climate change advocate", I can do this to any scientist you care to produce that deviates from orthodoxy.
It's kind of like when a member of a minority group is a Republican and is therefore declared to not be a "real" member of that minority group, because any "real" member of that group would be a Democrat.
Way to use argument from authority! How indeed can any of us question climate experts? They're EXPERTS for Pete's sake. They've been doing this for years! That'll shut down debate. But if not, don't forget argument from concensus ("Everyone believes it") or if necessary, implied insults ("Only an idiot would question the experts. You're not an *idiot*, are you?")
Ah, those warm and fuzzy environmentalists, just looking out for the common good. I assume they are aliens from another planet, because genuinely doing things for the common good doesn't fit the profile for human beings. They have their own selfish agenda just like any other group. I trust the profit motivated much more than I trust the power motivated. At least an oil company (dun-dun-DUNNN) provides me what I want at the end of the day (just like you: gas). All we get from environmental groups - discounting the outright violent factions - is a bunch of FUD and a requirement that we perform their religion's rituals (sorting trash) and of course the shrill shouting down of anyone who doesn't believe in their god.
Golly, I hadn't realised that an "International Consortium of Climatologists" (ICC) had made their verdict. How dare he doubt such an august group! I never took a course in the "statistical analysis of experimental data", but if I agree with the ICC, I imagine no coursework is required. We should only hold the skeptics of global warming to impractically high academic standards. Also, that's quite an achievement by the ICC (accounting for the increase in solar radiation in such a complex system as the earth's atmosphere) - what I can't grasp is how they can model that so definitively but can't go ahead and give me the weather forcast more than a week out. Or maybe they're not sharing their supercomputer with the meteorologists, the selfish prigs.
Or, the short, all-caps version: WHAT HAS MORE IMPACT ON CLIMATE, OUR ACTIVITIES THAT PALE IN COMPARISON TO A SINGLE VOLCANIC ERUPTION, OR THAT MONSTROUS HYDROGEN BOMB WE CALL THE SUN THAT SUPPLIES ALL THE ENERGY THAT THE EARTH RECIEVES?
Ok, that wasn't all that short, but surely I get credit for the all-caps, right? I mean, it's a good strategy in a discussion, because after all, who can disagree with ALL CAPS?
Some point: My graphics card does cost more than the entry-level 360, but costs only about 2/3 of a "real" 360. Most of the computer games I've seen lately have a pretty wide range in terms of system requirements. My wife's video card is about 3 years old and I don't have a single solitary game that *won't* work on her computer - and none of them will require "extensive tweaking", other than the exhausting task of clicking the "autodetect settings" button in the game. Certainly computer games are a bit more work than a console - after all, a console doesn't require installation - I find this is offset by faster load times since the fastest optical device is still way slower than a hard drive.
But hey, I'm not saying a Mac and a console aren't right for *you* - If I were more into racing games or fighting games, I'd get a console too. But I've found FPS games to be either extremely irritating using a console controller or extremely easy (autoaim). My whole point when I made my initial post was that the assertion that Macs are "fun" while PCs are "boring" is bulls**t. PCs are plenty fun, even if you don't agree with my cost/benefit analysis. So, sure a "Mac+Console" might be more fun than a PC, but no way in hell is a Mac by itself more fun than a PC - and that's what they're trying to say in the commercials.
I wouldn't say any console is any more "optimized" than a decent PC is. I've read plenty of articles about console games having framerate problems. Personally I'll stick with "PC" instead of "Mac+Console" for these reasons: The asskicking PC I just built is cheaper than that combo. I play FPS games quite frequently and so a console is useless to me. I can upgrade my PC when necessary. Say what you want about the 360, but it's already been eclipsed by my A64 X2 4200+ and my 5900 GTX. Maybe I'll get a Mac one day if I want to look at pictures, because god knows I can't do that on my PC.
My rebuttal to the "Work vs. Home" ad
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Original Ad:
M: "Hello, I'm a Mac"
P: "And I'm a PC"
M: "I'm gonna be doing fun stuff like movies, music podcats - stuff like that."
P: "I also do fun stuff - like timesheets and spreadsheets and piecharts."
M: "Ok - uh - no, by 'fun' I mean more in terms of... for example, it'd be kinda hard to capture a family vacation, say, in a pie chart - you know..."
P: "Not true."
M: "No?"
P: "For example, this light grey area could represent hang-out time - whereas this dark grey area could represent 'just kicking it'."
M: "Yeah! No, I... feel like I was... there"
My Version:
M: "Hello, I'm a Mac"
P: "And I'm a PC"
M: "I'm gonna be doing fun stuff like movies, music, podcats - stuff like that."
P: "Well, I can do all of those things as well, and also fun stuff like playing all of the latest games."
M: "Oh, I have games! They just released the Mac version of Starcraft, so..."
P: "Yeah, well I'm playing games like FEAR and Prey"
M: "Oh, I can play those - I just dual-boot into Windows!"
P: "Wow, super - so all someone has to do is pay for Windows anyway and then reboot you into Windows to play games. So why ever boot into OSX, then?"
M: "So they can enjoy the elitist rush of using a Mac"
P: "Well, I guess I'll stick with doing everything at half the cost."
The second solution is to divert manpower to remove the bloated parts and fix existing problems. In political terms, that would probably imply that you would have to have two seperate legislative parts. One that create laws, and another that removes laws.
I believe the term you're looking for is "Supreme Court". So one problem we have is the judiciary is no longer striking down laws on constitutional grounds (where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to establish a Department of Education?) and is, in fact, inventing federal powers from nothing at all - from "emanations from penumbras".
Any time a corporation can get its hands on the machinery of state, we often end up with anti-competitive outcomes. At which point leftists point to this as an example of how evil corporations are and how we need the government to protect us from them. All the while failing to understand that it is the government and its monopoly on force that allows the corporations to do naughty things with our freedoms. ("Freedom of Speech, can you show me where the mean Senator touched you?")
There are plenty of captains of industry that have no more respect for rule of law and a properly functioning competitive capitalist economy than the bandana-wearing anarchist at your local Move-On rally. The key, since we the people ultimately make the hiring and firing decisions in the legislature, is for us to work to keep some people's grubby hands off of the controls of the "do it or I'll shoot you" machinery. The problem we encounter is that we can hardly agree whose hands are grubby and whose are pure.
I propose we limit the powers of the national government to a very limited list of roles we can all agree on, and leave all other powers to the states or the people themselves. (We used to call this "The Constitution") This includes limiting the power of the judiciary to invent new, controversial federal powers by "interpreting" the "living Constitution", and chucking those earmarking career politicians out of office. And yes, that means voting out the likes of Robert Byrd if you're a West Virginian even though he does "so much good" for your particular state. (Read: "he takes everyone elses money and funnels it to us"). Ask yourself: Why do politicians start their careers rich and end them spectacularly, obscenely wealthy? Politicians should not be allowed to make *any* income other than their salary. And that salary should be equal to the national average. Eliminate the lucrative career path.
Great, now all we need is a ready supply of hydrogen. Crack water, you say? Well that takes energy to do, but if we are going to go that route then we should build more nuclear plants.
Hydrogen is pretty inefficient. Outside of finding some raw hydrogen, the net effect is for hydrogen to become an energy transport medium. One less efficient than electricity, gas, or ethanol, etc.
I don't know - do you have to learn the secret handshake to join the Buffalo Lodge? Of course you do. Back in highschool, a friend of mine was angry about a perceived slight. See, she had interviewed for Yale and the next day a friend of hers interviewed with the same guy. Her friend had mentioned her and the Yale guy was like "Ohhh, the girl with the um..." and then pointed at his nose, referring to her nose stud. I related this tale of bigotry to my father who replied, "Hey, you don't try to join the Hell's Angels wearing a tuxedo." And that's the point: We humans naturally band together into clubs, packs, guilds and cohorts. Most professions have their own lingo - doctors, engineers, lawyers, waitstaff, etc. If you want to get into the higher-paid management "clique" in your company, you should probably emulate them to whatever extent the extra money is worth the whoring of your "true self".
Re:could this be the xbox "killer app"?
on
Xbox Live Goes Online
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
This is the 1.0 product, though. Microsoft doesn't even come close to getting it right until 4.0 or 5.0...
I agree - Brian Green's "The Elegant Universe" is one of my favorite superstring popularisations. He builds up to his review of superstring theory with some of the best explanations of relativity and quantum theory I have yet read. Though I have to mention that when he gets to explaining superstrings, some of it slips over my head - weird stuff.
I for one am glad we already have the weekly Mozilla story out of the way. In past weeks we've had:
Mozilla alllllmost out
Mozilla Out in Two Days
Mozilla Out in One Day
Mozilla Out in One Hour
Mozilla Reported to Be Out!
Mozilla Out!
Mozilla Out for One Day
etc...;)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. Just off the top of my head, it would be easier for me to simply drink a glass of water than to go to the trouble of faking it. It would be easier for me to drive to work tomorrow than to somehow fake it. There are plenty of examples where faking it would be harder than just doing it.
So now your argument is "responsibly". At least you've stopped trying to redefine "ad hominem".
Convincing is so much harder than just pointing a gun, isn't it? Why go to the trouble if you can seize the levers of state and force everyone to join your religion?
No, I am countering that an argument based *solely* on there being "scientific concensus" is invalid. You are trying to reframe the argument. This started because one of you whipped out the standard "climate scientists have already figured it out, so there's no use questioning them" argument. The poster did not link to any articles about that, but rather asserted it without proof. Then the poster went on to chide the person he was talking to for not backing up his assertions - introducing the double-standard I also criticized. If it was you, I'm sorry being called on your behavior hurt your feelings, but it doesn't excuse resorting to mere namecalling.
Well that's certainly in line with the environmentalist viewpoint. "Overpopulation causes environmental problems, so we should winnow down the human race somehow." Of course, the environmentalists don't mean *themselves*, they mean everyone else - especially those that have the temerity to disagree with them. Stamping out the mass-murder of their fellow humans certainly seems to be further down the list of priorities, but that would be in line with a "hey, less people" philosopy.
One final comonality that touches back on my original critic's comments, is your suggestion that I am more religious and less rational than you. (his inviting me to pray to god for the sun not to hurt me and your suggestion relating to human sacrifice) I am, in fact, agnostic - but it does show a bias in your community to lump all dissenters into a "retarded bible-thumper" motif. Or perhaps a "retarded bible-thumping oil-company-shill" motif. All the while holding yourselves up as paragons of rationality.
How about: "That's because you are an idiot..."
You said: "Now calling you and idiot would have been an ad hominem..." Which is, of course, exactly what he did - so I suppose in a way you are arguing with yourself.
Also, since you appear to favor correcting people, let me return the favor: "unfunded" would mean that my claims are not receiving any funds (so I'm not an oil company shill!) - I believe you meant "unfounded" - as in not having a foundation - in which case you can review my quote above of the ad hominem attack. Also, "in fact" has a space in it, as it is two words. You will find that in your own ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack is namecalling. If disagreeing with someone is an ad hominem attack then the term has no meaning. Your examples are me criticizing an argument from authority, me pointing out a double-standard in your community, and me calling imaginary scientists witholding an imaginary computer an obviously whimsical name. On the other hand, that guy called me personally an "idiot". So I called him on his namecalling and then you redifined namecalling to include all forms of criticising another's argument.
Fine - I'll grant sarcasm isn't going to win any friends or influence people, but at least it requires more effort than simple namecalling.
Also, I am not an "oil company shill" (more namecalling) - I am someone who is not convinced by the evidence presented. Have I spent 10 years in intensive research honing my grasp of the subject matter? Hell no - but since I'm one of the people you have to convince to stop using gas (like all of you have, I assume) and stop buying unnecessary consumer goods (like all of you have, I assume - ie: computers), and cut back on energy consumption(like all of you have, I assume - ie: power to run your computers) then someone is going to have to make more of an effort to convince me and people who share my position. Chiding us about our expertise in the field of climatology and arguing that scientists are infalliable is not going to work. The scientific "community" has had "concensus" on very very many things throughout the history of science that turned out to be wrong, while there have been plenty of instances of "fringe researchers" with "unconventional theories" who turned out to be right. So concensus amoung the mainstream researchers is not by itself proof.
I'm sorry. I didn't realise that responding to people who INITIATE ad-hominem slurs is trolling. I will be sure to fire the first shot from now on.
Point taken. I'm afraid that after reading dozens of "don't argue with scientists" posts, I unfairly took it out on your argument. Which was, after all, only saying that the scientists do take the sun into account, not necessarily that they are right, per se.
I still do, however, have reservations about the word "fact" in ongoing scientific inquiry. Newton's gravity was a "fact" until Einstein (and, to be fair, Newton is still a good enough approximation for getting rovers to Mars.) So I don't see science as establishing "fact", but rather producing theories that are closer and closer appoximations of reality. As in the Standard Model of Quantum Physics, which has been confirmed to as high a degree of accuracy as we can muster, but still has those annoying unexplained constants that suggest there is a higher-order theory out there.
Or in other words, the "march of science" as opposed to the "we're all done of science".
But so as not to detract from my original intent: Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa.
Very interesting information you presented. The argument about volcanos was always pretty convincing to me because, hey, VOLCANO, right? They're pretty impressive, after all. But it does make sense that the continuous drip, drip, drip of anthropogenic emissions could outpace geologic activity.
By the way, I might have still found it interesting without the insult, but now we'll never know, you inveterate cocksucker.
How can it be "current" climate science and also a fact? Either way, like it or not, your post was an argument from authority. Feel free to call it an "argument from fact" if it makes you feel better. I know the truth, because leading logicians said it was so.
Well why didn't you resort to ad-hominem attacks earlier? Now I'm convinced. You'll find your efforts at persuasion are much enhanced with extensive use of insults and name-calling. (See how I came around to define the term "ad-hominem" just in case a humorless tool like yourself didn't know what it meant?) Let me have one last go at your persuasive technique: "You are an an asshole" Do you agree with me now? If not, let me know and I can certainly call you more names. Things like "self-important gasbag" or "martial-arts-referencing dickweed" or "joke-about-weather-forecasting-misapprehending asshat" ("misapprehending" is fancy-talk for "you treated my sarcasm like an argument") or perhaps "condescending twit".
Ok, I think I'm getting the hang of this. Even though I've dug through numerous posts by climate-change advocates that read: "Don't question scientists!", I am now going to reply like a true environmentalist and say: "This guy is obviously not a proper scientist, because proper scientists don't doubt human caused climate change" And, so in one fell swoop, I invalidate your skeptical scientist. As a "climate change advocate", I can do this to any scientist you care to produce that deviates from orthodoxy.
It's kind of like when a member of a minority group is a Republican and is therefore declared to not be a "real" member of that minority group, because any "real" member of that group would be a Democrat.
Way to use argument from authority! How indeed can any of us question climate experts? They're EXPERTS for Pete's sake. They've been doing this for years! That'll shut down debate. But if not, don't forget argument from concensus ("Everyone believes it") or if necessary, implied insults ("Only an idiot would question the experts. You're not an *idiot*, are you?")
Ah, those warm and fuzzy environmentalists, just looking out for the common good. I assume they are aliens from another planet, because genuinely doing things for the common good doesn't fit the profile for human beings. They have their own selfish agenda just like any other group. I trust the profit motivated much more than I trust the power motivated. At least an oil company (dun-dun-DUNNN) provides me what I want at the end of the day (just like you: gas). All we get from environmental groups - discounting the outright violent factions - is a bunch of FUD and a requirement that we perform their religion's rituals (sorting trash) and of course the shrill shouting down of anyone who doesn't believe in their god.
Golly, I hadn't realised that an "International Consortium of Climatologists" (ICC) had made their verdict. How dare he doubt such an august group! I never took a course in the "statistical analysis of experimental data", but if I agree with the ICC, I imagine no coursework is required. We should only hold the skeptics of global warming to impractically high academic standards. Also, that's quite an achievement by the ICC (accounting for the increase in solar radiation in such a complex system as the earth's atmosphere) - what I can't grasp is how they can model that so definitively but can't go ahead and give me the weather forcast more than a week out. Or maybe they're not sharing their supercomputer with the meteorologists, the selfish prigs.
Or, the short, all-caps version: WHAT HAS MORE IMPACT ON CLIMATE, OUR ACTIVITIES THAT PALE IN COMPARISON TO A SINGLE VOLCANIC ERUPTION, OR THAT MONSTROUS HYDROGEN BOMB WE CALL THE SUN THAT SUPPLIES ALL THE ENERGY THAT THE EARTH RECIEVES?
Ok, that wasn't all that short, but surely I get credit for the all-caps, right? I mean, it's a good strategy in a discussion, because after all, who can disagree with ALL CAPS?
But hey, I'm not saying a Mac and a console aren't right for *you* - If I were more into racing games or fighting games, I'd get a console too. But I've found FPS games to be either extremely irritating using a console controller or extremely easy (autoaim). My whole point when I made my initial post was that the assertion that Macs are "fun" while PCs are "boring" is bulls**t. PCs are plenty fun, even if you don't agree with my cost/benefit analysis. So, sure a "Mac+Console" might be more fun than a PC, but no way in hell is a Mac by itself more fun than a PC - and that's what they're trying to say in the commercials.
I wouldn't say any console is any more "optimized" than a decent PC is. I've read plenty of articles about console games having framerate problems. Personally I'll stick with "PC" instead of "Mac+Console" for these reasons: The asskicking PC I just built is cheaper than that combo. I play FPS games quite frequently and so a console is useless to me. I can upgrade my PC when necessary. Say what you want about the 360, but it's already been eclipsed by my A64 X2 4200+ and my 5900 GTX. Maybe I'll get a Mac one day if I want to look at pictures, because god knows I can't do that on my PC.
Original Ad:
My Version:
I believe the term you're looking for is "Supreme Court". So one problem we have is the judiciary is no longer striking down laws on constitutional grounds (where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to establish a Department of Education?) and is, in fact, inventing federal powers from nothing at all - from "emanations from penumbras".
There are plenty of captains of industry that have no more respect for rule of law and a properly functioning competitive capitalist economy than the bandana-wearing anarchist at your local Move-On rally. The key, since we the people ultimately make the hiring and firing decisions in the legislature, is for us to work to keep some people's grubby hands off of the controls of the "do it or I'll shoot you" machinery. The problem we encounter is that we can hardly agree whose hands are grubby and whose are pure.
I propose we limit the powers of the national government to a very limited list of roles we can all agree on, and leave all other powers to the states or the people themselves. (We used to call this "The Constitution") This includes limiting the power of the judiciary to invent new, controversial federal powers by "interpreting" the "living Constitution", and chucking those earmarking career politicians out of office. And yes, that means voting out the likes of Robert Byrd if you're a West Virginian even though he does "so much good" for your particular state. (Read: "he takes everyone elses money and funnels it to us"). Ask yourself: Why do politicians start their careers rich and end them spectacularly, obscenely wealthy? Politicians should not be allowed to make *any* income other than their salary. And that salary should be equal to the national average. Eliminate the lucrative career path.
Great, now all we need is a ready supply of hydrogen. Crack water, you say? Well that takes energy to do, but if we are going to go that route then we should build more nuclear plants. Hydrogen is pretty inefficient. Outside of finding some raw hydrogen, the net effect is for hydrogen to become an energy transport medium. One less efficient than electricity, gas, or ethanol, etc.
I don't know - do you have to learn the secret handshake to join the Buffalo Lodge? Of course you do. Back in highschool, a friend of mine was angry about a perceived slight. See, she had interviewed for Yale and the next day a friend of hers interviewed with the same guy. Her friend had mentioned her and the Yale guy was like "Ohhh, the girl with the um..." and then pointed at his nose, referring to her nose stud. I related this tale of bigotry to my father who replied, "Hey, you don't try to join the Hell's Angels wearing a tuxedo." And that's the point: We humans naturally band together into clubs, packs, guilds and cohorts. Most professions have their own lingo - doctors, engineers, lawyers, waitstaff, etc. If you want to get into the higher-paid management "clique" in your company, you should probably emulate them to whatever extent the extra money is worth the whoring of your "true self".
This is the 1.0 product, though. Microsoft doesn't even come close to getting it right until 4.0 or 5.0...
I agree - Brian Green's "The Elegant Universe" is one of my favorite superstring popularisations. He builds up to his review of superstring theory with some of the best explanations of relativity and quantum theory I have yet read. Though I have to mention that when he gets to explaining superstrings, some of it slips over my head - weird stuff.
I for one am glad we already have the weekly Mozilla story out of the way. In past weeks we've had: Mozilla alllllmost out Mozilla Out in Two Days Mozilla Out in One Day Mozilla Out in One Hour Mozilla Reported to Be Out! Mozilla Out! Mozilla Out for One Day etc... ;)
I would say that the record companies will never have a monopoly as long as there are independent bands that release their songs over the net.
They might have a "monopoly" on Britney Spears, but who cares?