Not all of us put up with it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because our government shit like that, that all of us here agree with it, or that we have the power to change it.
"Free Speech Zones" are an abomination created by people who want to control other people.
Find me a peer reviewed article that shows global warming is eating away at the ice,
Just what the bleep do you think is happening to it (and most of the glaciers around the world, and Antarctic ice)...??? Polar bears with hairdryers? Sheese.
The windows box only gets booted up once in a while, and I always have a ghosted copy of the install handy. Oh, and Avast! and SuperAntiSpyware, HijackThis, etc...
Fine, then. Rebut what I said, point by point. Pay attention.
Anyone who uses the phrase "Lord and Savior Obama" or anything of that sort does not earn my respect and isn't worthy of conversation. To put it in perspective, I'd think the same thing if the word "Obama" was replaced with the word "Bush".
I agree with you wrt lawyers. But that's outside the scope of this discussion.
Big dams aren't being built in this country today because we've already built them where they could be built. Smaller hydro installations are becoming more and more common, tho, especially with the newer technology that makes them profitable.
"eeeevil" nuclear plants? Did you even read my post? I support nuclear power.
You are welcome to your opinion about the Obama administration. I don't agree with you - but neither do I think he's some sort of saint - and your bias is showing you up as a fool.
If that's what you think I was thinking, then you are a damned fool kid.
I'm old enough to remember 3MI and when the moratorium was put on new nuclear power plants in this country.
You - and the other responder to this thread - seem to think that I'm some sort of Obama worshipper. Your responses just tell me that you didn't really read my post, nor did you understand it.
I feel sorry for you. You are so butt-blind partisan in your hatred of Obama you can't even respond intelligently to a post which questions your opinions.
Too bad for you. I'm done here. You are not worth my time.
Posts like this make me think that you've never done any tech support for the average home user in the real world.
Sure, those of who know what we're doing can avoid problems.
That doesn't hold true for the vast majority of windows users. If it did, it wouldn't be a problem.
It's the same kind of thinking that led to the problem being existent in the first place.
Don't get me wrong - I make a fairly nice side income doing tech support for home users on the side.
But I'd much rather go back to teaching people *how* to use their computers - actually making a difference - than fixing broken windows installations and removing viruses, even if it is much more profitable.
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but that's what I'd prefer.
I'm not necessarily bitching at you in particular. I just remember what it was like, a long time ago, to spend my computer support time solving problems that didn't involve malware infestations. *Teaching* people how to use their computers. I miss it. It was fun. This isn't.
So anyone who says "Oh, I can keep my machine virus free" - whoopdefuckingdoo, so what, so can I. Most people can't, and it's because Microsoft can't write a decent *secure* fucking operating system to save their stock options.
Oh, and get off my damned lawn;)
(Irritable? You bet. I'm a curmudge-only middle aged bastard...)
Are crazy things like scientology included in this? We all know there are many people who will grab onto this as an excuse to justify whatever they believe in, whether or not it makes any sense to anyone else.
When laws - or "resolutions" - are passed which outlaw the criticizing of belief or rhetoric of any kind that offends someone else, that's when freedom becomes a meaningless word.
All right, I misspoke. In my defense, when I was in college decades ago, it was referred to as two distinct regions.
The region you refer to is only called that because of the influence of tropical climate on the northern atlantic.
If you actually read the link you posted, and follow the other links there to more specific information, what's talked about is that any warming in the more tropical regions is likely to have massive effects on north atlantic weather patterns - hurricanes are one good example.
Seems to me you are just posting links you find without an understanding of what's being discussed. The Atlantic conveyor system still isn't very well understood, but it's been known for a long time that tropical storms tend to circulate along oceanic borders, as do the currents.
But that's beside the point you seem to be getting at. Since you are the one saying there are more links, and you feel confident that it isn't hard to find more of them, why don't you post some? Nobody else in this thread seems to have been able to, why don't you make a name for yourself here?
Nuclear power: You haven't been paying attention. For the first time in decades we are actually authorizing and putting into construction new nuclear power plants.
Just because Greenpeace et al don't support their construction doesn't mean that many environmental activists don't.
Your comment about Obama just shows your ignorance of the agenda he is trying to push - which is putting government funding into alternative energy solutions. That much is obvious to anyone following the fight with congress over it. I for one would much rather pay extra taxes for alternative energy solutions that are already in the pipeline than more taxes for oil or "cleaner" coal solutions.
(newer more powerful computers, things like the Kindle or iPhone) will instead be spent on paying those taxes. Sales decrease and some of those technologically advanced gadgets will no longer be available since they won't be profitable any more.
What do Kindle or iphones or more powerful laptops have to do with becoming energy independent? I fail to understand your reasoning, if there is any.
We don't need more powerful computers, we need more energy efficient homes and industry. Just because the mass market demands prettier gadgets doesn't mean the 'mass market' knows what is important.
Solar technology, by itself, is becoming massively profitable. If it wasn't there wouldn't be the explosion in companies doing it. You are probably too young to remember a few decades ago when it wasn't profitable at all because there weren't many people doing it.
Also, even if you take into account the technology that needs to be invented for us to purely use solar / wind / hydro power, it would require diverting resources from other research just to find ways to provide electricity, therefore slowing down (or bringing it to a screeching halt) the advancement of other technologies.
What the hell are you talking about? What "other research"? Hydro has been with us for hundreds of years - all those dams built over the last ten decades and some didn't come into being because someone thought they would make a nice way to sequester fish.
We aren't building wind farms all over because they "aren't profitable".
Solar tech is taking off in a big way - again, I think you are too young to have known a time when it wasn't worth doing. I do. There are many times more solar power installations, even here in the US, than there used to be. Those numbers will continue to increase as the technology gets better - and it's getting better because WE ARE PUTTING IT TO PRACTICAL USE AND FINDING BETTER SOLUTIONS THRU EXPERIENCE.
I won't even go into how the first part of your post contradicts the second part - I'll leave that as an exercise for the student you obviously are;)
You have a lot to learn. Quit listening to Fox news (a lot of your talking points sound like the crap I see on there) and start learning things for yourself.
Excuse me, but what exactly is the "tropical north atlantic"?
The north atlantic is hardly tropical.
Global climate contains the north atlantic and all other regional climates. What is happening there is not predictive of the global climate as a whole, although it is a part of the dataset.
No offense, but you don't have a damned clue what you are talking about.
# Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
A pittance compared to the many hundreds of millions and more that the opposition spends.
# Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.
So? If we are really going to discover what is going on, we NEED to spend more money on research into the problem. See another post I made in this article where I note that Dyson says the same thing.
# The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
Again, a pittance; especially considering the potential severity of the problem.
# In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institutionâ(TM)s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.
Considering that climatology is *the most important part* of atmospheric R&D, I honestly can't see the point the author is trying to make.
I agree with you in that it's too politicized. This should be an issue that is debated solely on scientific terms. Unfortunately the media and an awful lot of ignorant people out there make it an issue that is debated on emotional and monetary terms. In my estimation that makes them fools.
Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.
Evidence?
I'd like to point out to you that many global warming "advocates" (that's a loaded word, be careful of where you point it) are saying that we nuclear power in addition to solar/wind/hydro.
I'd also like to know why you think that alternative energy solutions would result in technology "stagnating". ALL of those alternative solutions require MORE research and MORE advanced technology, not less.
Which leads me to believe you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all of us put up with it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because our government shit like that, that all of us here agree with it, or that we have the power to change it.
"Free Speech Zones" are an abomination created by people who want to control other people.
SB
Find me a peer reviewed article that shows global warming is eating away at the ice,
Just what the bleep do you think is happening to it (and most of the glaciers around the world, and Antarctic ice)...??? Polar bears with hairdryers? Sheese.
SB
I run linux. :)
The windows box only gets booted up once in a while, and I always have a ghosted copy of the install handy. Oh, and Avast! and SuperAntiSpyware, HijackThis, etc...
SB
Is Outlook more secure than Thunderbird?
No.
SB
Teaching people how to use their computers and fixing hardware problems when they come up is a helluva lot better than repetitive malware removal.
More fun, anyway.
Frak. I'm getting old.
SB
Fine, then. Rebut what I said, point by point. Pay attention.
Anyone who uses the phrase "Lord and Savior Obama" or anything of that sort does not earn my respect and isn't worthy of conversation. To put it in perspective, I'd think the same thing if the word "Obama" was replaced with the word "Bush".
SB
I agree with you wrt lawyers. But that's outside the scope of this discussion.
Big dams aren't being built in this country today because we've already built them where they could be built. Smaller hydro installations are becoming more and more common, tho, especially with the newer technology that makes them profitable.
"eeeevil" nuclear plants? Did you even read my post? I support nuclear power.
You are welcome to your opinion about the Obama administration. I don't agree with you - but neither do I think he's some sort of saint - and your bias is showing you up as a fool.
SB
If that's what you think I was thinking, then you are a damned fool kid.
I'm old enough to remember 3MI and when the moratorium was put on new nuclear power plants in this country.
You - and the other responder to this thread - seem to think that I'm some sort of Obama worshipper. Your responses just tell me that you didn't really read my post, nor did you understand it.
I feel sorry for you. You are so butt-blind partisan in your hatred of Obama you can't even respond intelligently to a post which questions your opinions.
Too bad for you. I'm done here. You are not worth my time.
SB
Agreed wrt to anthropology. At least that has physical evidence that can be viewed by others and debated.
Psychology, tho? Come on ;)
SB
Posts like this make me think that you've never done any tech support for the average home user in the real world.
Sure, those of who know what we're doing can avoid problems.
That doesn't hold true for the vast majority of windows users. If it did, it wouldn't be a problem.
It's the same kind of thinking that led to the problem being existent in the first place.
Don't get me wrong - I make a fairly nice side income doing tech support for home users on the side.
But I'd much rather go back to teaching people *how* to use their computers - actually making a difference - than fixing broken windows installations and removing viruses, even if it is much more profitable.
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but that's what I'd prefer.
I'm not necessarily bitching at you in particular. I just remember what it was like, a long time ago, to spend my computer support time solving problems that didn't involve malware infestations. *Teaching* people how to use their computers. I miss it. It was fun. This isn't.
So anyone who says "Oh, I can keep my machine virus free" - whoopdefuckingdoo, so what, so can I. Most people can't, and it's because Microsoft can't write a decent *secure* fucking operating system to save their stock options.
Oh, and get off my damned lawn ;)
(Irritable? You bet. I'm a curmudge-only middle aged bastard...)
I can vent, can't I? *grin*
SB
Your first link doesn't discuss anything in enough detail to be meaningful.
From your second link:
Winds, Not Just Global Warming, Eating Away at the Ice Sheets
Keywords: "Not. Just." Winds circulate atmospheric temperatures...
Best you can do?
SB
That's right. We don't make laws like that here.
We do end runs around it in much more subtle ways.
SB
Which religion?
WHOSE religion?
Do we all now not talk about it at all?
Are crazy things like scientology included in this? We all know there are many people who will grab onto this as an excuse to justify whatever they believe in, whether or not it makes any sense to anyone else.
When laws - or "resolutions" - are passed which outlaw the criticizing of belief or rhetoric of any kind that offends someone else, that's when freedom becomes a meaningless word.
Monkey, monkey, monkey.
SB
Oh, I agree.
But economics at least has some basis in reality. Astrology doesn't.
SB
All right, I misspoke. In my defense, when I was in college decades ago, it was referred to as two distinct regions.
The region you refer to is only called that because of the influence of tropical climate on the northern atlantic.
If you actually read the link you posted, and follow the other links there to more specific information, what's talked about is that any warming in the more tropical regions is likely to have massive effects on north atlantic weather patterns - hurricanes are one good example.
Seems to me you are just posting links you find without an understanding of what's being discussed. The Atlantic conveyor system still isn't very well understood, but it's been known for a long time that tropical storms tend to circulate along oceanic borders, as do the currents.
But that's beside the point you seem to be getting at. Since you are the one saying there are more links, and you feel confident that it isn't hard to find more of them, why don't you post some? Nobody else in this thread seems to have been able to, why don't you make a name for yourself here?
SB
Nuclear power: You haven't been paying attention. For the first time in decades we are actually authorizing and putting into construction new nuclear power plants.
Just because Greenpeace et al don't support their construction doesn't mean that many environmental activists don't.
Your comment about Obama just shows your ignorance of the agenda he is trying to push - which is putting government funding into alternative energy solutions. That much is obvious to anyone following the fight with congress over it. I for one would much rather pay extra taxes for alternative energy solutions that are already in the pipeline than more taxes for oil or "cleaner" coal solutions.
(newer more powerful computers, things like the Kindle or iPhone) will instead be spent on paying those taxes. Sales decrease and some of those technologically advanced gadgets will no longer be available since they won't be profitable any more.
What do Kindle or iphones or more powerful laptops have to do with becoming energy independent? I fail to understand your reasoning, if there is any.
We don't need more powerful computers, we need more energy efficient homes and industry. Just because the mass market demands prettier gadgets doesn't mean the 'mass market' knows what is important.
Solar technology, by itself, is becoming massively profitable. If it wasn't there wouldn't be the explosion in companies doing it. You are probably too young to remember a few decades ago when it wasn't profitable at all because there weren't many people doing it.
Also, even if you take into account the technology that needs to be invented for us to purely use solar / wind / hydro power, it would require diverting resources from other research just to find ways to provide electricity, therefore slowing down (or bringing it to a screeching halt) the advancement of other technologies.
What the hell are you talking about? What "other research"? Hydro has been with us for hundreds of years - all those dams built over the last ten decades and some didn't come into being because someone thought they would make a nice way to sequester fish.
We aren't building wind farms all over because they "aren't profitable".
Solar tech is taking off in a big way - again, I think you are too young to have known a time when it wasn't worth doing. I do. There are many times more solar power installations, even here in the US, than there used to be. Those numbers will continue to increase as the technology gets better - and it's getting better because WE ARE PUTTING IT TO PRACTICAL USE AND FINDING BETTER SOLUTIONS THRU EXPERIENCE.
I won't even go into how the first part of your post contradicts the second part - I'll leave that as an exercise for the student you obviously are ;)
You have a lot to learn. Quit listening to Fox news (a lot of your talking points sound like the crap I see on there) and start learning things for yourself.
SB
Excuse me, but what exactly is the "tropical north atlantic"?
The north atlantic is hardly tropical.
Global climate contains the north atlantic and all other regional climates. What is happening there is not predictive of the global climate as a whole, although it is a part of the dataset.
No offense, but you don't have a damned clue what you are talking about.
SB
Self esteem and group think ;)
I don't have a lawn, I have a garden... at least if we get enough rain this year after the four feet of snow melts off ;)
SB
My point to the parent poster was that not all experts are fools.
SB
Let's take your link point by point:
# Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
A pittance compared to the many hundreds of millions and more that the opposition spends.
# Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.
So? If we are really going to discover what is going on, we NEED to spend more money on research into the problem. See another post I made in this article where I note that Dyson says the same thing.
# The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
Again, a pittance; especially considering the potential severity of the problem.
# In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institutionâ(TM)s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.
Considering that climatology is *the most important part* of atmospheric R&D, I honestly can't see the point the author is trying to make.
I agree with you in that it's too politicized. This should be an issue that is debated solely on scientific terms. Unfortunately the media and an awful lot of ignorant people out there make it an issue that is debated on emotional and monetary terms. In my estimation that makes them fools.
SB
Reminds me of a quote about the definition of allies being two nations with hands so deep in each other's pants that they cannot fight.
Fixed that fer ya ;)
SB
Even the Cylons had their slave class ;-)
SB
The Mac OS and Linux/BSD are much harder malware targets, for many reasons. Lack of an easy way to insert and run an executable file being one.
This has been discussed on this site MANY MANY times.
SB
Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.
Evidence?
I'd like to point out to you that many global warming "advocates" (that's a loaded word, be careful of where you point it) are saying that we nuclear power in addition to solar/wind/hydro.
I'd also like to know why you think that alternative energy solutions would result in technology "stagnating". ALL of those alternative solutions require MORE research and MORE advanced technology, not less.
Which leads me to believe you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
SB
My bone to pick with the whole thing is that its *only* political now. Even when discussing with fellow scientists. Which is a shame really.
Your opinion is that it's only political. Which is hardly scientific, is it?
Don't conflate the media hype and actions of a lot of fanatics on either side with what the scientists actually doing the research believe or think.
SB