Not at all the same thing. For starters there is no rational reason to believe or not in God. It is just a matter of faith. There is no credible evidence for the existence of God or credible evidence that Jesus is the son of God (if you posit God in the first place). Likewise there is no credible evidence to the contrary. However there is evidence that human activity has changed temperatures on earth over the last 100 years.
I don't see how using less fossil fuels could possibly make climate change accelerate. It just doesn't fit with anything we know about CO2 affects on heat absorption as against Oxygens or Nitrogens. You can always say, 'well we might learn different in the future', which could be true. However, an acceleration in global temperatures has coincided with massive use of fossil fuels in modern history, not vice versa.
And we know that consensus is exactly how proper science is done, right? We all know the consensus is never wrong, right?
Consensus has been wrong about major issues. Such as the shape of the world, the safety of chemicals such as formaldehyde, the lethality of others, etc..
Yes, a million scientists can be wrong. So can a billion, or a trillion. What you, and others, are doing by arguing that "consensus says" is committing the fallacy argument of appeal to majority. Scientific "truth" (such as it exists) is truth regardless of the numbers who agree or disagree, believe or not.
This is the consensus of people who are actually qualified and research (i.e in most cases probably conducting proper science) in the area of climatology. Yes they might be wrong. I somehow doubt it though.
Well if the climate change deniers are correct they will eventually be shown to be so. In the mean time they should quite wingeing about not being heard. If they have something worthy of being heard then they'll just have to work hard at having it heard, through good science (not taking money from oil companies might also help). As for the warming Mars bit, I completely agree, there probably are multiple factors in global warming. However we must do our bit to ensure that it is as limited as possible.
Then we've saved the fossil fuels from running out for a bit longer. If we are wrong, better that and look silly than be right and not doing anything in time. That would have to qualify the whole human species for a Darwin award.
In fear of being modded overrated or troll again (who cares really, I got karma to burn), I'll let you know that I am certainly not a rabid greeny. I've seen this Timothy Ball guy in a couple of doco's in the past and he literally does quite a bit of, going for conference to conference (sponsored by oil/car companies and others with an interest in the continued use of oil) to speak to a very narrow group of people (i.e. other climate change deniers). My usage of the term denier is in no way an attempt to associate these group of people with holocaust deniers, it's only their sensitivity which associates it. Also according to the docos I've seen his Ph.D was not in the area of climatology (although it was in some scientific field, just can't remember which one right now).
people deriding them when they complain about 'both sides of the argument not being heard'. 'both sides of the argument being heard' implies that there is equal support/strength on both sides, which is simply not the case in this issue. The overwhelming consensus on this issue is that climate change is a phenomena brought about chiefly by societies burning of fossil fuels.
"I really wish we could de-politicize the whole process"
If the process was de-politicized something would of probably been done about global worming 10 - 15 years ago, however due to lobbying from very wealthy interest groups it's only now that something is starting to be done about it.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd think that I didn't do enough testing on a product that already has a codename for it's SP1 within a few months of its release.
Actually, neither 'right' with regards to anonymnity is enumerated in the Constitution, nor is any right to privacy outside of unlawful searches.
The US constitution is neither the first nor the last word on what can be spoken of as rights, if you submit to being able to have a meaningful conversation of such things in the first place.
Does that include journalistic sources? If someone were to follow up on Woodward and Bernstein and expose "Deep Throat", would that be fine by you? After all, he had his secret agenda as well... (Anger at not being promoted to be head of FBI after Hoover left).
He might very well of had an agenda, but he did not publish. That took a decision or not of a journalist.
The kids, you would find out if you RTFA, weren't prosecuted for having sex. They were prosecuted for documenting it. A completely different argument, which has more justification. But perhaps not enough justification for prosecuting the teens the story relates to.
Your stats could easily be influenced by the type of sites you run. For example I'm sure that slashdot.org has a higher proportion of people reading it with Firefox than microsoft.com does.
It would take something truly remarkable for this to have any impact, with Netscape's repeated failed starts over the last few years I can't see many people being willing to give them much of a go.
It shouldn't be a marketing advantage, releasing patches with so little testing onto the general population. Yes patches should be released in a timely manner, but that would just be taking it to opposite extreme.
The BSD license doesn't mean that you have to release the source code to any modification/redistributions. It just says that modifications/redistributions (weather that is source, binary or both) have to be released under the BSD license. In that regard I don't think it would have much impact on Apple (I presume you are referring to Mac OS X) or Microsoft (I presume you are talking about their FTP app.
I think that one of the major problems with the world is the number of people running around, doing this that or the other, who think that they are doing it for the right reasons. Put more simply, the number of people who think that they are in the right. You get two groups from conflicting perspective, both of whom think that they are right and put them together and the trouble starts.
Three OSs for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Man doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord in his dark throne In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them all,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all the same thing. For starters there is no rational reason to believe or not in God. It is just a matter of faith. There is no credible evidence for the existence of God or credible evidence that Jesus is the son of God (if you posit God in the first place). Likewise there is no credible evidence to the contrary. However there is evidence that human activity has changed temperatures on earth over the last 100 years.
I don't see how using less fossil fuels could possibly make climate change accelerate. It just doesn't fit with anything we know about CO2 affects on heat absorption as against Oxygens or Nitrogens. You can always say, 'well we might learn different in the future', which could be true. However, an acceleration in global temperatures has coincided with massive use of fossil fuels in modern history, not vice versa.
And we know that consensus is exactly how proper science is done, right? We all know the consensus is never wrong, right?
Consensus has been wrong about major issues. Such as the shape of the world, the safety of chemicals such as formaldehyde, the lethality of others, etc..
Yes, a million scientists can be wrong. So can a billion, or a trillion. What you, and others, are doing by arguing that "consensus says" is committing the fallacy argument of appeal to majority. Scientific "truth" (such as it exists) is truth regardless of the numbers who agree or disagree, believe or not.
This is the consensus of people who are actually qualified and research (i.e in most cases probably conducting proper science) in the area of climatology. Yes they might be wrong. I somehow doubt it though.
Well if the climate change deniers are correct they will eventually be shown to be so. In the mean time they should quite wingeing about not being heard. If they have something worthy of being heard then they'll just have to work hard at having it heard, through good science (not taking money from oil companies might also help). As for the warming Mars bit, I completely agree, there probably are multiple factors in global warming. However we must do our bit to ensure that it is as limited as possible.
Then we've saved the fossil fuels from running out for a bit longer. If we are wrong, better that and look silly than be right and not doing anything in time. That would have to qualify the whole human species for a Darwin award.
In fear of being modded overrated or troll again (who cares really, I got karma to burn), I'll let you know that I am certainly not a rabid greeny. I've seen this Timothy Ball guy in a couple of doco's in the past and he literally does quite a bit of, going for conference to conference (sponsored by oil/car companies and others with an interest in the continued use of oil) to speak to a very narrow group of people (i.e. other climate change deniers). My usage of the term denier is in no way an attempt to associate these group of people with holocaust deniers, it's only their sensitivity which associates it. Also according to the docos I've seen his Ph.D was not in the area of climatology (although it was in some scientific field, just can't remember which one right now).
I tried a search of several online journal databases and I found nada, zip, nothing that he had published.
and where did a lot of PR firms find new business when the facts were fully out in the open about smoking? With oil companies.
people deriding them when they complain about 'both sides of the argument not being heard'. 'both sides of the argument being heard' implies that there is equal support/strength on both sides, which is simply not the case in this issue. The overwhelming consensus on this issue is that climate change is a phenomena brought about chiefly by societies burning of fossil fuels.
"I really wish we could de-politicize the whole process"
If the process was de-politicized something would of probably been done about global worming 10 - 15 years ago, however due to lobbying from very wealthy interest groups it's only now that something is starting to be done about it.
from oil companies to speak at conferences full of other climate change deniers.
Well to me that would make it doubly obvious that I needed to do more testing before I went Gold.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd think that I didn't do enough testing on a product that already has a codename for it's SP1 within a few months of its release.
Actually, neither 'right' with regards to anonymnity is enumerated in the Constitution, nor is any right to privacy outside of unlawful searches.
The US constitution is neither the first nor the last word on what can be spoken of as rights, if you submit to being able to have a meaningful conversation of such things in the first place.
Does that include journalistic sources? If someone were to follow up on Woodward and Bernstein and expose "Deep Throat", would that be fine by you? After all, he had his secret agenda as well... (Anger at not being promoted to be head of FBI after Hoover left).
He might very well of had an agenda, but he did not publish. That took a decision or not of a journalist.
My thoughts exactly. Do we not, by publishing something in the public domain, by definition invite a lack of anonymity?
The kids, you would find out if you RTFA, weren't prosecuted for having sex. They were prosecuted for documenting it. A completely different argument, which has more justification. But perhaps not enough justification for prosecuting the teens the story relates to.
Your stats could easily be influenced by the type of sites you run. For example I'm sure that slashdot.org has a higher proportion of people reading it with Firefox than microsoft.com does.
It would take something truly remarkable for this to have any impact, with Netscape's repeated failed starts over the last few years I can't see many people being willing to give them much of a go.
#include
#define SIX "1 + 5"
#define NINE "8 + 1"
int main()
{
printf("SIX multiplied by NINE is %d\n", SIX * NINE);
return 0;
}
Thus it is proven that 6 * 9 = 42
It shouldn't be a marketing advantage, releasing patches with so little testing onto the general population. Yes patches should be released in a timely manner, but that would just be taking it to opposite extreme.
The BSD license doesn't mean that you have to release the source code to any modification/redistributions. It just says that modifications/redistributions (weather that is source, binary or both) have to be released under the BSD license. In that regard I don't think it would have much impact on Apple (I presume you are referring to Mac OS X) or Microsoft (I presume you are talking about their FTP app.
mod parent up.
I think that one of the major problems with the world is the number of people running around, doing this that or the other, who think that they are doing it for the right reasons. Put more simply, the number of people who think that they are in the right. You get two groups from conflicting perspective, both of whom think that they are right and put them together and the trouble starts.
Three OSs for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Man doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord in his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them all,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.