However, until it's clear whether human activity or climatic cycles are causing the warming, doesn't it make sense to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases?
Not necessarily. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses may, in fact, have no significant effect on global climate. They may, however, be significantly disruptive to the economy, particularly in poorer nations. Oddly, only the very wealthy are concerned about climate change and the environment. Poor people are usually more concerned about clean drinking water, basic health services (ever see a third world childbirth kit?), and food.
I think that the ultimate answers to climate change are:
(1) to continue to study it, (2) to reduce sensibly the amount greenhouse emissions in a manner that is not tremendously disruptive to the economy (trading emissions rights, reducing automobile subsidies, offering tax incentives for non-greenhouse electrical generation alternatives (including nuclear), encouraging forest regrowth, etc.), and (3) encourage economic growth.
This need not be a "left"/"right" issue. The goal may be somewhat "left" (reducing greenhouse emissions), but market tools could make it work.
In response to the parent post, I guess that I am averse to the notion that "Hey, it can't hurt to reduce greenhouse gasses, so why not do it?" on the basis that reducing greenhouse gasses in the wrong way could be more harmful than continuing with the status quo. The "insurance policy" the parent referenced is not a bad idea per se, but my point is that it must come at the right price.
I hardly believe that a space station is a waste of money. There is much we still don't know about how humans react in 0 gravity and without an ozone layer. If we ever hope to have any type of manned exploration vehicles for our solar system we've got to "do our homework" first.
I used to buy books from my local library's used section and sell them on Amazon until they wised up and started doing it themselves. I actually made a reasonable chunk of cash (maybe a hundred a month) undertaking this arbitrage. Now, the only things I see on the used shelf are the junk titles that are so overproduced that they sell for a buck or so at Amazon.
How do we know that the interview is with the Turing Award winner? Maybe the interview was just with a computer?
GF.
Obligatory disclaimer for the Comic Book Guys out there: I know, I know -- the Turing Prize isn't the Loebner Prize. It's the day before a holiday -- give it a rest and laugh a little.
Everyone is ignoring the good part about this story -- the twits who are bitching about hard drive terminology are bitching about hard drive terminology. That's actually (relatively) good news.
Think about it: They could be meddling elsewhere in a way that could cause real damage.
Tempests in teapots (which is what the above controversy really is) constitute self-inflicted meatspace denial of service attacks (or maybe honeypots) for people who don't know any better. Remember -- when they get wound up about something like hard drive terminology, it prevents them from doing something really dangerous, like passing Patriot Act 2 or 3 or whatever we're up to now.
Well, I certainly don't think of myself as a porcine, red-necked fascist. I'm just portrayed that way by an unsympathetic movie industry that frowns on us Mississippi sheriff's deputies. We're just trying to protect the innocent and enforce the law, but the stereotypes we have to overcome are tremendous.
You make a little progress, and then something like Cool Hand Luke comes out, and you're screwed for another generation. Talk about "failure to communicate"! Geez!
I link to MP3.com's website from a number of websites I host as a legit place to pick up some MP3 content, and I got a notice about this in my mail this morning. I have gotten celtic music and Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie from the site, and I sort of liked it. Enough to link to the site anyway. We'll have to see what happens to it, but this probably falls into the Napster/death of dotcom type notice category.
Actually, teachers don't get in the trade for money. The money sucks!!!! They get into it because THEY CARE!!!!!
Then they wouldn't mind working for free. Or giving up the right to strike. Or losing health care. Or losing tenure. Teacher's salaries in my state greatly exceed the median income level. PLus they have health care benefits and tremendous job security.
If they love teaching so much and do it for the love of the game alone, why aren't they teaching in private schools where the pay and the benefits suck?
They are against taking funds for EVERYBODY and redistributing them for a few.
Actually, every voucher plan I have seen talks about taking an amount *less* than the per pupil spending amount and making that amount portable. So actually, a school district that loses all its kids to vouchers would end up with probably 20% of its budget left and no kids to educate. If a marginal number of kids leave (say 5%) then the per pupil amounts available to the school actually increases.
The only wrinkle is debt service, but if the assets are liquidated, much of that could be wiped out.
Oh no, they certainly aren't pure either. And notice I never said "Republican" in my post. This book rips into both parties, and irresponsible/evil people everywhere in politics.
I take it that you've never actually watched "Lou Dobbs Moneyline".
Actually, I can tell you every shade of yellow/blonde/white-ish that his hair has been over the last several years. I also can tell you that I liked Stewart Varney better when Lou was out doing the space.com thing. Lou is the "balance" on the network. Plus, it's a business show, and you don't attract Wall Street guys without being in favor of lower taxes and free trade.
What about the big guns? Christiane? Bernard? King? Crowley? Woodruff?
Give me a break. Lou is a drop of wine in CNN's barrel of sewage.
I'm sure that the conservative Mr. Gumbel would take offence at being called a house nigger. Way to show your true colors -- if someone speaks standard English and dresses conservatively in order to advance his career in broadcasting, he is attacked in one of the most vicious ways a black man in america can be attacked. Lovely. Nice to know what it's like on your side of the fence, Mr. Liberal.
It's always about race baiting and keeping blacks in their ghetto where they have to vote for democrats.
You're disturbed and disgusting. It's not surprising that, given the nature of the racial invective you used, that you want to hide behind an AC post.
The recounts were a distraction from the real problem: the butterfly ballot.
Which the Bush campaign had nothing to do with, obviously.
But I've never seen a serious denial that the butterfly ballot didn't cost Gore Florida.
Won't argue that point. OTOH, the talk about stealing the election is absurd. If the real problem was the BB, then democrat-run and heavily democrat populated PBC is to blame. George Bush is not, and Gore Vidal's whole spiel about Bush being a fraud is BS.
A final thought on this -- I predict that in thirty years, nobody will care. It will be a footnote, just like JFK stealing the election because of outright and actual fraud in Illinois in 1960. Nobody really cares about that now. It'll be a burr under the saddles of the democrats for a few years, but it'll go away. The republic is in no danger.
The second scenario presented is the one that would have obtained if the Supreme Court had not stopped the partial recounts already underway in Florida. Again, Gore loses, by a margin very slightly smaller than the certified result-- 493 votes (Bush 2,916,559; Gore 2,916,066). So far, two "Bush wins" results, both coming from what Democrats were seeking (Gore's request for a recount of 4 specific counties, plus completion of the partial recounts already in progress).
So. Let's ask ourselves again. How did Bush "steal" the election? How did the Supremes "select" Bush? How was the Constituion thwarted? Just because the guy with the most votes lost does not mean that anything broke. The Consitution is not a democratic document.
Plus, this guy was mentioning hollywood people who actually obtained office as repbulicans. As opposed to your weak observation of some folks who simply vote democrat. So, his example has teeth, yours has, well, nothing.
Most links are to info on the y2k election, but I don't think that much has changed since then. If you RTFA, you will note far, far more names that the eight I thought of off the top of my head earlier today. And no, they don't "just vote". They give huge bucks and they lend their celebrity to the causes, which is something that business leaders mostly can't do. Hollywood is money *and* celebrity, and the latter is essentially a circumvention of campaign laws, as it is a significant "in-kind" contribution. Like it or not, people (sadly) care what Oprah thinks. Or Fat Rosie.
GF.
P.S. You'll note that I only linked to "conservative" mouthpieces like Salon, Opensecrets.org, and CNN, but you have to remember that I'm just a sheep who follows the orders of a drug-addled Rush Limbaugh. Sorry I can't meet your high standards.
Mayor Clint Eastwood, Rep Sonny Bono, Sen. Fred Thompson, Rep. Fred Grandy, Gov Arnold Swarztenegger, and um.. Pres. Ronald Reagan.
Wow. I guess you sure showed me. Hollywood is obviously a well-balanced community that contains roughly proportionate numbers of GOP and Democrat supporters. Whew. Thanks for correcting me on that one.
The fact that some people who were in Hollywood at one time went on to political success as part of the GOP does not settle the issue of whether "Hollywood" is, politically liberal or conservative. In fact, it's a non sequitur. You fail it. Try again.
And explain to me exactly how Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel, or Dan Rather (et al) are promoting their "Liberal" agenda?
Why...they're *not* promoting their liberal agenda. Neither is Bill O'Reilly promoting a conservative agenda. I'm shocked *shocked* to hear anyone even suggest that one's political leanings can affect their journalistic integrity.
That's not your SAT score, fucktard. That's an IQ score. Also, as you get older, there is a reversion to the mean. A score when you were 8 years old does not prove that you have an adult IQ of 154. It's almost meaningless, in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
However, until it's clear whether human activity or climatic cycles are causing the warming, doesn't it make sense to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases?
Not necessarily. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses may, in fact, have no significant effect on global climate. They may, however, be significantly disruptive to the economy, particularly in poorer nations. Oddly, only the very wealthy are concerned about climate change and the environment. Poor people are usually more concerned about clean drinking water, basic health services (ever see a third world childbirth kit?), and food.
I think that the ultimate answers to climate change are:
(1) to continue to study it,
(2) to reduce sensibly the amount greenhouse emissions in a manner that is not tremendously disruptive to the economy (trading emissions rights, reducing automobile subsidies, offering tax incentives for non-greenhouse electrical generation alternatives (including nuclear), encouraging forest regrowth, etc.), and
(3) encourage economic growth.
This need not be a "left"/"right" issue. The goal may be somewhat "left" (reducing greenhouse emissions), but market tools could make it work.
In response to the parent post, I guess that I am averse to the notion that "Hey, it can't hurt to reduce greenhouse gasses, so why not do it?" on the basis that reducing greenhouse gasses in the wrong way could be more harmful than continuing with the status quo. The "insurance policy" the parent referenced is not a bad idea per se, but my point is that it must come at the right price.
GF.
I hardly believe that a space station is a waste of money. There is much we still don't know about how humans react in 0 gravity and without an ozone layer. If we ever hope to have any type of manned exploration vehicles for our solar system we've got to "do our homework" first.
Does "Mir" ring a bell with you at all?
GF.
she was showing it to me hosted off her dorm room Mac.
Dickinson College -- home to many amazing women: Jenni of Jennicam, Rosie O'Donnell (who played on the softball team), and.....my mom.
Heh.
GF.
I used to buy books from my local library's used section and sell them on Amazon until they wised up and started doing it themselves. I actually made a reasonable chunk of cash (maybe a hundred a month) undertaking this arbitrage. Now, the only things I see on the used shelf are the junk titles that are so overproduced that they sell for a buck or so at Amazon.
GF.
How do we know that the interview is with the Turing Award winner? Maybe the interview was just with a computer?
GF.
Obligatory disclaimer for the Comic Book Guys out there:
I know, I know -- the Turing Prize isn't the Loebner Prize. It's the day before a holiday -- give it a rest and laugh a little.
SuSE aquisition is complete.
The acquisition is obviously incomplete at this point.
GF.
Everyone is ignoring the good part about this story -- the twits who are bitching about hard drive terminology are bitching about hard drive terminology. That's actually (relatively) good news.
Think about it: They could be meddling elsewhere in a way that could cause real damage.
Tempests in teapots (which is what the above controversy really is) constitute self-inflicted meatspace denial of service attacks (or maybe honeypots) for people who don't know any better. Remember -- when they get wound up about something like hard drive terminology, it prevents them from doing something really dangerous, like passing Patriot Act 2 or 3 or whatever we're up to now.
Count your blessings.
GF.
How Crackers View Themselves
Well, I certainly don't think of myself as a porcine, red-necked fascist. I'm just portrayed that way by an unsympathetic movie industry that frowns on us Mississippi sheriff's deputies. We're just trying to protect the innocent and enforce the law, but the stereotypes we have to overcome are tremendous.
You make a little progress, and then something like Cool Hand Luke comes out, and you're screwed for another generation. Talk about "failure to communicate"! Geez!
GF.
I link to MP3.com's website from a number of websites I host as a legit place to pick up some MP3 content, and I got a notice about this in my mail this morning. I have gotten celtic music and Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie from the site, and I sort of liked it. Enough to link to the site anyway. We'll have to see what happens to it, but this probably falls into the Napster/death of dotcom type notice category.
GF.
Actually, teachers don't get in the trade for money. The money sucks!!!! They get into it because THEY CARE!!!!!
Then they wouldn't mind working for free. Or giving up the right to strike. Or losing health care. Or losing tenure. Teacher's salaries in my state greatly exceed the median income level. PLus they have health care benefits and tremendous job security.
If they love teaching so much and do it for the love of the game alone, why aren't they teaching in private schools where the pay and the benefits suck?
They are against taking funds for EVERYBODY and redistributing them for a few.
Actually, every voucher plan I have seen talks about taking an amount *less* than the per pupil spending amount and making that amount portable. So actually, a school district that loses all its kids to vouchers would end up with probably 20% of its budget left and no kids to educate. If a marginal number of kids leave (say 5%) then the per pupil amounts available to the school actually increases.
The only wrinkle is debt service, but if the assets are liquidated, much of that could be wiped out.
GF.
Why are you afraid to spell "nigger"? You sure aren't shy about using it or calling people niggers. You may as well go whole hog.
Oh no, they certainly aren't pure either. And notice I never said "Republican" in my post. This book rips into both parties, and irresponsible/evil people everywhere in politics.
Fair enough.
GF.
I take it that you've never actually watched "Lou Dobbs Moneyline".
Actually, I can tell you every shade of yellow/blonde/white-ish that his hair has been over the last several years. I also can tell you that I liked Stewart Varney better when Lou was out doing the space.com thing. Lou is the "balance" on the network. Plus, it's a business show, and you don't attract Wall Street guys without being in favor of lower taxes and free trade.
What about the big guns? Christiane? Bernard? King? Crowley? Woodruff?
Give me a break. Lou is a drop of wine in CNN's barrel of sewage.
GF
Bryant Gumbel is a house n****r
I'm sure that the conservative Mr. Gumbel would take offence at being called a house nigger. Way to show your true colors -- if someone speaks standard English and dresses conservatively in order to advance his career in broadcasting, he is attacked in one of the most vicious ways a black man in america can be attacked. Lovely. Nice to know what it's like on your side of the fence, Mr. Liberal.
It's always about race baiting and keeping blacks in their ghetto where they have to vote for democrats.
You're disturbed and disgusting. It's not surprising that, given the nature of the racial invective you used, that you want to hide behind an AC post.
And the democrats are as pure as the driven snow, I presume? Ever hear of 1960 and Illinois?
The recounts were a distraction from the real problem: the butterfly ballot.
Which the Bush campaign had nothing to do with, obviously.
But I've never seen a serious denial that the butterfly ballot didn't cost Gore Florida.
Won't argue that point. OTOH, the talk about stealing the election is absurd. If the real problem was the BB, then democrat-run and heavily democrat populated PBC is to blame. George Bush is not, and Gore Vidal's whole spiel about Bush being a fraud is BS.
A final thought on this -- I predict that in thirty years, nobody will care. It will be a footnote, just like JFK stealing the election because of outright and actual fraud in Illinois in 1960. Nobody really cares about that now. It'll be a burr under the saddles of the democrats for a few years, but it'll go away. The republic is in no danger.
GF.
Very good post.
The second scenario presented is the one that would have obtained if the Supreme Court had not stopped the partial recounts already underway in Florida. Again, Gore loses, by a margin very slightly smaller than the certified result-- 493 votes (Bush 2,916,559; Gore 2,916,066).
So far, two "Bush wins" results, both coming from what Democrats were seeking (Gore's request for a recount of 4 specific counties, plus completion of the partial recounts already in progress).
So. Let's ask ourselves again. How did Bush "steal" the election? How did the Supremes "select" Bush? How was the Constituion thwarted? Just because the guy with the most votes lost does not mean that anything broke. The Consitution is not a democratic document.
Plus, this guy was mentioning hollywood people who actually obtained office as repbulicans. As opposed to your weak observation of some folks who simply vote democrat. So, his example has teeth, yours has, well, nothing.
I suggest that you fuck yourself.
Most links are to info on the y2k election, but I don't think that much has changed since then. If you RTFA, you will note far, far more names that the eight I thought of off the top of my head earlier today. And no, they don't "just vote". They give huge bucks and they lend their celebrity to the causes, which is something that business leaders mostly can't do. Hollywood is money *and* celebrity, and the latter is essentially a circumvention of campaign laws, as it is a significant "in-kind" contribution. Like it or not, people (sadly) care what Oprah thinks. Or Fat Rosie.
GF.
P.S. You'll note that I only linked to "conservative" mouthpieces like Salon, Opensecrets.org, and CNN, but you have to remember that I'm just a sheep who follows the orders of a drug-addled Rush Limbaugh. Sorry I can't meet your high standards.
If you don't have a point to make just stop posting!
Is that an AC I hear whining? No...can't be. I don't give a flying fuck about ACs. Come out and play, piss boy.
PARENT WAS MODDED FUNNY so he wouldnt get karma
I have so much karma I can fill the goatse.cx guy's ass with it and have some left over. Do your worst.
Mayor Clint Eastwood, Rep Sonny Bono, Sen. Fred Thompson, Rep. Fred Grandy, Gov Arnold Swarztenegger, and um.. Pres. Ronald Reagan.
Wow. I guess you sure showed me. Hollywood is obviously a well-balanced community that contains roughly proportionate numbers of GOP and Democrat supporters. Whew. Thanks for correcting me on that one.
The fact that some people who were in Hollywood at one time went on to political success as part of the GOP does not settle the issue of whether "Hollywood" is, politically liberal or conservative. In fact, it's a non sequitur. You fail it. Try again.
And explain to me exactly how Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel, or Dan Rather (et al) are promoting their "Liberal" agenda?
Why...they're *not* promoting their liberal agenda. Neither is Bill O'Reilly promoting a conservative agenda. I'm shocked *shocked* to hear anyone even suggest that one's political leanings can affect their journalistic integrity.
GF.
the US has the smallest middle class of any developed country
I beg to differ. Have you been to the beach recently? Look around, man!
GF.
After all the last election wasn't actually won by Bush,
Please point me to a link to one recount effort by the press that would have resulted in a Gore victory in Florida.
That's not your SAT score, fucktard. That's an IQ score. Also, as you get older, there is a reversion to the mean. A score when you were 8 years old does not prove that you have an adult IQ of 154. It's almost meaningless, in fact.
Bush's was 1206. Here is an effort to correlate SAT performance to IQ. Clearly, anyone who says Bush is a moron is incorrect. It's simply defamation.
GF.