Let's not forget overseas military votes that were counted even though they missed the legal deadline.
You know what, these people fight and die so you can sit on your ass and post stupid comments like that. Frankly, I don't mind bending the voting rules a little because their letter was "accidently" mishandled by the Post Office.
Thats (sic) why the Justice Department is taking some florida (sic) counties to court for voting rights violations.....
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/3309859.htm
Good. Let it all be finalized one and for all.
Do you realize who's suing, right? The Department of Justice? Since they didn't cover that in civics either, I'll fill you in. The Department of Justice is under the executive brach -- President Bush is suing. But I'm sure you just ignore pesky facts like that.
The joke was that you had no brain at all, and that a person with a lobotomy was still able to out-think you. And thank you for further proving my point with your eloquent post.
Elected? Thats a good one! I seem to remember the supreme court appointing him....
I see high school civics has again failed you. Time to face reality, even if they had recounted a thousand more times, Bush still would have won. Even the liberal newspapers who did their own recount came to the same conclusion.
Gore gave up because he lost legally. Get over it.
Q: What's the difference between George Bush and Mussolini?
Mussolini was a appointed fascist dictator, with total power. George Bush is a legally elected president, with constitutionally set powers and limits. Get over it.
Q: What's the difference between isotope23 and a person who had a full-frontal lobotomy?
The person with the lobotomy still has a major part of her brain left.
So MS was going to enter the CAD market, and put them out of business? That's the best one I've heard in months.
Is it any worse than Microsoft writing an entire Java compiler/runtime, only to bastardize it to only use Windows-specific libraries?
Does the name XBox ring a bell?
Any person who's been in IT long enough will not discount anything like this Autocad threat as merely a rumor, given Microsoft's past and current behavior.
Former President George Bush, father of President George W., once said "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
A few points: 1) What is a camaro? 2) I'm not married, and if I were, I certainly wouldn't strike my wife. 3) I thought you weren't going to waste your time responding. Tsk tsk.
Lucky for me, I have enormous feet. You're just another hypocrite: you want to dismiss the research of scientists based on some highly dubious profit motive with one hand and on with the other hand cite the work of an economist author as refutation of this whole field of research? How many people care to read what a meteorologist has to say about macroeconmics?
Sigh. When you're done stomping around, take the time to actually read Dr. Lomborg's web site:
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D., associate professor in statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark, is a concerned environmentalist, a former Greenpeace member, a left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals. When Lomborg started investigating the statistics behind the current gloomy view of the environment, he was genuinely surprised. As the facts clearly pointed towards an ever-improving world, he published these statistics as four lengthy articles in a leading Danish newspaper, unleashing the biggest post-war debate with more than 400 articles in all the major papers.
Hardly just an economist. And you can't honestly believe that we scientists have such a higher morality than everyone else, that we'd never massage our data to get funding. Give me a break.
And thanks for stooping to insults to get your point across.
I didn't use insults to make my point. The facts did that. I merely added the insults because it made me feel good.
I see I no longer need to waste my time in this discussion. I'll take
Good. Take your holier-than-thou attitude, hop on your environment saving bicycle, and ride off into the sunset.
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D., associate professor in statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark, is a concerned environmentalist, a former Greenpeace member, a left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals. When Lomborg started investigating the statistics behind the current gloomy view of the environment, he was genuinely surprised. As the facts clearly pointed towards an ever-improving world, he published these statistics as four lengthy articles in a leading Danish newspaper, unleashing the biggest post-war debate with more than 400 articles in all the major papers.
The military is hardly the primary source of funding for this research. Think DOE. The military's bottomless trust fund certainly makes barons out of its contractors, but few if any of those are pursuing global warming/climate change inititiatives. In any case, I'll suspect the profit motive when a climatologist runs me down in a Escalade. Maybe I'm too old, but my peers all drove bicycles.
Wow. You managed to almost completely miss the point of what I said, and instead responded with a rant about military spending. Admittedly that was not the best analogy, but still.
What the folks with an IQ greater than their shoe size probably realized from my post, is that I was pointing out the conflict of interest between supposedly objective scientists and the need to get funding for their research. That money doesn't fall from the sky you know. And to get funding, you have to sell yourself/your research. So naturally, it's in the climate researchers best interest to talk big about global warming, even in the face of dubious evidence, to get that next grant. Get it now?
An example: The CFC's emitted as propellant and leaked as coolant nearly wiped out the ozone layer. Enforced by international treaty, we changed the chemical compounds used for these purposes to a similar, but benign cousin of CFC's and we are now making progress undoing that damage. In terms of global warming, raising the CAFE standards would be a major step in the right direction.
Nevermind that the ozone hole is a naturally occurring phenomenon. And you carefully avoided answering the question. Good work.
With respect to the CAFE standards, rubbish. Show me a study supporting that assertion.
I'm tired of hearing this "junk science" rap. It's entirely too much like Dubya's "fuzzy math". If you're willing to dismiss an enormous field of study, and each of its thousands of scientists in a single, trite phrase, you're not part of the discussion. Show me some valid, non fossil fuel industry sponsored research that counters research published by the likes of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Skeptical Environmentalist. Just the first example that pops into my head. Note, this man is an environmentalist, who after researching for a pro-global warming book, found out that the facts just don't stand up to reality.
As a former knowledge-craving, research-grant-supplicant, I assure you profit is nary a motive among the world's climate researchers. Only politicians, pundits and preachers profit from scare tactics.
Profit is not a motive?? You don't get the research grant if you don't show a reason. As a current researcher myself, I know how difficult it is to shake down the military for cash, unless you have a solution to their problems.
Global warming is a great excuse to scare millions out of the establishment. I can almost hear them saying "What's a few million now, compared to the trillions that will be lost with global warming?"
To frostall (sic) this, we could make just minor changes in our so-called American "lifestyle." What is a little less gluttony in light of the bounties of future climate stability?
If we're making such drastic changes, which is arguable at best, then how can minor changes help one damn bit?
Slashdot Mirror
...make the Bush administration seem inept and disorganized.
Wait... you mean it isn't?
Would you rather have the administration criminal?
Thanks to those idiots the GAO may now institute a check-out policy for the White House. Sorry, the Motel Six was that way.
Let's not forget overseas military votes that were counted even though they missed the legal deadline.
You know what, these people fight and die so you can sit on your ass and post stupid comments like that. Frankly, I don't mind bending the voting rules a little because their letter was "accidently" mishandled by the Post Office.
Thats (sic) why the Justice Department is taking some florida (sic) counties to court for voting rights violations.....
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/3309859.htm
Good. Let it all be finalized one and for all.
Do you realize who's suing, right? The Department of Justice? Since they didn't cover that in civics either, I'll fill you in. The Department of Justice is under the executive brach -- President Bush is suing. But I'm sure you just ignore pesky facts like that.
It must have been the lobotomy kicking in!
The joke was that you had no brain at all, and that a person with a lobotomy was still able to out-think you. And thank you for further proving my point with your eloquent post.
Elected? Thats a good one! I seem to remember
the supreme court appointing him....
I see high school civics has again failed you. Time to face reality, even if they had recounted a thousand more times, Bush still would have won. Even the liberal newspapers who did their own recount came to the same conclusion.
Gore gave up because he lost legally. Get over it.
Q: What's the difference between George Bush and Mussolini?
Mussolini was a appointed fascist dictator, with total power. George Bush is a legally elected president, with constitutionally set powers and limits. Get over it.
Q: What's the difference between isotope23 and a person who had a full-frontal lobotomy?
The person with the lobotomy still has a major part of her brain left.
Hell, they can't even predict the weather.
But they can sure predict global warming!
Yeah, right.
So MS was going to enter the CAD market, and put them out of business? That's the best one I've heard in months.
Is it any worse than Microsoft writing an entire Java compiler/runtime, only to bastardize it to only use Windows-specific libraries?
Does the name XBox ring a bell?
Any person who's been in IT long enough will not discount anything like this Autocad threat as merely a rumor, given Microsoft's past and current behavior.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
That's George Bush Sr., not the current U.S. president. Just so people know.
From Freethought Radio News:
Former President George Bush, father of President George W., once said "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
I don't even have a car. I take the bus, since I live in a city.
:-)
However, I have been eyeing up a nice SUV for after I get my Ph.D.
j/k
Scientific American Threatens to Sue Bjorn Lomborg for Daring to Defend Himself.
A few points:
1) What is a camaro?
2) I'm not married, and if I were, I certainly wouldn't strike my wife.
3) I thought you weren't going to waste your time responding. Tsk tsk.
Lucky for me, I have enormous feet. You're just another hypocrite: you want to dismiss the research of scientists based on some highly dubious profit motive with one hand and on with the other hand cite the work of an economist author as refutation of this whole field of research? How many people care to read what a meteorologist has to say about macroeconmics?
Sigh. When you're done stomping around, take the time to actually read Dr. Lomborg's web site:
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D., associate professor in statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark, is a concerned environmentalist, a former Greenpeace member, a left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals. When Lomborg started investigating the statistics behind the current gloomy view of the environment, he was genuinely surprised. As the facts clearly pointed towards an ever-improving world, he published these statistics as four lengthy articles in a leading Danish newspaper, unleashing the biggest post-war debate with more than 400 articles in all the major papers.
Hardly just an economist. And you can't honestly believe that we scientists have such a higher morality than everyone else, that we'd never massage our data to get funding. Give me a break.
And thanks for stooping to insults to get your point across.
I didn't use insults to make my point. The facts did that. I merely added the insults because it made me feel good.
I see I no longer need to waste my time in this discussion. I'll take
Good. Take your holier-than-thou attitude, hop on your environment saving bicycle, and ride off into the sunset.
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D., associate professor in statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark, is a concerned environmentalist, a former Greenpeace member, a left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals. When Lomborg started investigating the statistics behind the current gloomy view of the environment, he was genuinely surprised. As the facts clearly pointed towards an ever-improving world, he published these statistics as four lengthy articles in a leading Danish newspaper, unleashing the biggest post-war debate with more than 400 articles in all the major papers.
The military is hardly the primary source of funding for this research. Think DOE. The military's bottomless trust fund certainly makes barons out of its contractors, but few if any of those are pursuing global warming/climate change inititiatives. In any case, I'll suspect the profit motive when a climatologist runs me down in a Escalade. Maybe I'm too old, but my peers all drove bicycles.
Wow. You managed to almost completely miss the point of what I said, and instead responded with a rant about military spending. Admittedly that was not the best analogy, but still.
What the folks with an IQ greater than their shoe size probably realized from my post, is that I was pointing out the conflict of interest between supposedly objective scientists and the need to get funding for their research. That money doesn't fall from the sky you know. And to get funding, you have to sell yourself/your research. So naturally, it's in the climate researchers best interest to talk big about global warming, even in the face of dubious evidence, to get that next grant. Get it now?
An example: The CFC's emitted as propellant and leaked as coolant nearly wiped out the ozone layer. Enforced by international treaty, we changed the chemical compounds used for these purposes to a similar, but benign cousin of CFC's and we are now making progress undoing that damage. In terms of global warming, raising the CAFE standards would be a major step in the right direction.
Nevermind that the ozone hole is a naturally occurring phenomenon. And you carefully avoided answering the question. Good work.
With respect to the CAFE standards, rubbish. Show me a study supporting that assertion.
I'm tired of hearing this "junk science" rap. It's entirely too much like Dubya's "fuzzy math". If you're willing to dismiss an enormous field of study, and each of its thousands of scientists in a single, trite phrase, you're not part of the discussion. Show me some valid, non fossil fuel industry sponsored research that counters research published by the likes of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Skeptical Environmentalist. Just the first example that pops into my head. Note, this man is an environmentalist, who after researching for a pro-global warming book, found out that the facts just don't stand up to reality.
As a former knowledge-craving, research-grant-supplicant, I assure you profit is nary a motive among the world's climate researchers. Only politicians, pundits and preachers profit from scare tactics.
Profit is not a motive?? You don't get the research grant if you don't show a reason. As a current researcher myself, I know how difficult it is to shake down the military for cash, unless you have a solution to their problems.
Global warming is a great excuse to scare millions out of the establishment. I can almost hear them saying "What's a few million now, compared to the trillions that will be lost with global warming?"
To frostall (sic) this, we could make just minor changes in our so-called American "lifestyle." What is a little less gluttony in light of the bounties of future climate stability?
If we're making such drastic changes, which is arguable at best, then how can minor changes help one damn bit?