nsbb: Not Safe Before Breakfast nsbc: Not Safe Before Coffee nsbl: Not Safe Before Lunch nsfc: Not Safe in Female Company nspt: Not Safe to Print on a Tee nswc: Not Safe While drinking Coffee nswe: Not Safe While Eating wcwd: Warning Chick With a D**k dne: Do Not Eat
So you're saying there were no chemical weapons used in World War One?
I didn't mean to, but I guess I sort of implied that.
I knew about the chem weapons on WWI, but they weren't very effective, just really horrible. The nerve agents the Iraqi Gov't used were far more effective at killing people, but the corpses didn't look as ugly and the survivors weren't physically maimed like in mustard and chlorine gas attacks.
As a side note (and not directed at you), keep in mind when reading about 'casualties', they mean troops that were made 'ineffective'. Someone who loses a leg or is covered in blisters is considered a causality, even though they are not technically dead. Many mistakenly think the terms 'dead' and 'casualties' are the same.
What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!
Sources: 182,000 gassed in the late 80's by Saddam.
My beliefs were not the point of my post, I was just revealing my 'bias'. I will now further elaborate on my beliefs:
I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing. Meddling in the affairs of others is likely the most avoidable cause of terrorist attacks on this country and a poor public image in the eyes of other nations. All we have to do is nothing, and nobody can blame us for anything. Obviously, we don't have the cash to be doing this stuff anyway (look at our deficit), and we NEVER get paid. IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).
If the US had stayed out of WWI, there may have never been a WWII. If the US hadn't helped the Sudan kick Bin Laden out, he may not have been in Afghanistan. How big do we have to F'up, and how much money (which we don't have) do we have to waste before we stop with this foolishness?
What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?
How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?
He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'. The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons. Iran had some soldiers whose job it was to walk, unarmed and unequipped, over land mines to clear them out for armed personnel.
I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.
Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.
If you only care about American lives, nobody disagrees that more would have been spared if the US had stayed out (in the short term, at least).
I was against the invasion, but that's because I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own, unless it's of extreme strategic significance (obviously if Iraq had WMD to give to terrorists to kill us with, this would qualify).
Moreover, I doubt Americans have the attention span nor the understanding of geopolitics to support this 'police action' as is needed to prevent a civil war, and I think we WILL bail out either after the 2008 or 2010 elections (in the US). Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.
will it flop because its too much of an inconvenience?
It'll flop because paypal is the worst 'bank' to have to deal with. They have poor customer service, the fees are outrageous, phishing is out of control, and the Bank of America already has something like this.
Ever get accused of not delivering something on E-Bay? It works out pretty well because paypal will just automatically steal the money out of your account, or send debt collection on your ass if you don't have the balance.
This all happens before they even talk to you. This is why I use neither E-bay nor paypal.
I don't know about anyone else, but with satellite radio becoming more and more popular, both of the radio stations that I can stand to listen to here in Phoenix (KDKB and KSLX) have changed formats.
The competition from these sat companies has lead to fewer commercials, a FAR more extensive playlist on LOCAL stations. KDKB has "deep cuts" where they take songs off popular albums that they never play on the radio. On weekends, KSLX plays ENTIRE ALBUMS *gasp*!
Now that sat radio has changed everything, I hope they don't run these locals out of town; they're just starting to get good!
As a side note, does anyone else who's taken physics see the issue with calling it "Satellite Radio" being as how it uses microwaves and not 'radio' waves?
But it's really much worse, because any individual who did what Sony did could be convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and sent to jail for up to a decade. Instead, Sony has to give up what, 10% of their profits over a 3 month period? Less than 3% of their yearly profit (give or take)? How is that justice?
Perhaps the laws against individuals are too strict, rather than the laws against corporations being too light.
So? People on the wrong side of copyright lawsuits, inc. the ones Sony files, are likely to pay more than a quarter of their yearly income to the RIAA.
The average individual law suit was for $2000 or so. You're telling me most people (who own computers and presumably have broadband access) make less than $2000/quarter ($8000/year)?
People seem to think that corporations are evil, faceless, and have infinite amounts of money.
When a corporation is sued for a large sum of money, people lose jobs and it's almost never the ones who deserve it.
If you were to take $200 million from Sony BMG, which has been seeing declining sales almost constant since 1998 or so, you'd be putting hundreds of people out of work.
As another poster said, the people in the company who were responsible for the rootkit have probably either been fired, disciplined, embarrassed, or penalized in some other way. At any rate, Sony wont be doing it again.
As for the consumer, getting up to $180 for a computer virus is a pretty good deal. It may not "punish" them in the way us bloodthirsty Americans would want to see, but makes up for what they did wrong. When all is said and done, this really was just an inconvenience.
60 million would be an insult. They spend more than that on ad campagnes. 1.5 million? That's like a paper cut. On the low side it should have been 200 million to settle. There is some serious corruption going on. $200M would be over 112% of Sony BMG's 4th quarter 2005 profits.
Source: As part of coparent Sony's earnings report today, Sony BMG reported net income of $178 million on sales of $1.49 billion for the three months ended December 31. As was the case with Sony, the label giant's performance was bolstered by increased cost savings and reduced restructuring charges.
Yet another thing that Congress made illegal and which law enforcement makes no meaningful attempt to enforce. Which means it will go the same way as most of the rest of the US legal code: Never actually enforced until the cops (or the ones holding their leash) really, REALLY want to get someone (for reasons good or for bad); Then a careful search of the legal code is all but gauranteed to reveal something that makes you a criminal.
Here's a great quote from FDR's attorney general, Robert Jackson (mentioned in the video):
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm--in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Keep in mind, he made that speech, the body of federal criminal law was less than half the size it is today.
2. Renaming Isn't Easy. The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode.
You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive? The Mac way is to highlight the file and press Return or Enter.
If you are agnostic, you aren't an atheist. They are two different things. Don't try to speak for either. Especially if you don't know the difference.
From wikipedia:
Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities. It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities). However, others--including most atheistic philosophers and groups--define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well. (emphasis mine)
... we atheists always have to "respect" your beliefs... we express the feeling the story of Jesus and the story of Peter Pan are about as credible...
All I said in that short sentence was (1) express my conviction that religious people believe in fairies I need to have this framed.
Oh, PS: I'm agnostic.
I'm so glad that you have assumed the responsibility to speak for all atheists. It's too bad there are ignorant people on both sides, some of whom may read your post and assume we're all idiots.
Not all of us atheists are hateful adolescent anti-Christian reactionaries. You insult us more than you do them when you spout off ignorance and hate. You think you're going to change someone's mind by mischaracterizing their beliefs and calling them all bigots? What are you? 13?
The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders.
I ruined the internet while driving a chevy, thanks very much.
To gauge the Net's trajectory, the Pew Internet & American Life Project polled 742 experts for its Future of the Internet II study.... So I'm well aware that, like a lot of hardworking techies, they tend to be wacky geeks with unfettered imaginations. Throw 'em together in one survey, though, and they bell-curve right out.
Electrolysis on water with a high salt content (like sea water) will yield hydrogen gas, chlorine gas, and a solution of sodium hydroxide.
Yes, however, the H2 and Na+ ( -> NaOH) will come off the the cathode and the O2 and Cl2 will come off the anode. Since NaOH is solid at that temperature (presumably room temp), the only thing 'bubbling' out of the solution on the cathode will be the hydrogen.
Therefore, you simply discard the Cl2 and O2 (coming off the anode) and the lye solution (left in the container).
As for other pollutants in the seawater, none of the ones that form a gas should be positive so they'll come off the anode as well.
You may be able to do something with the O2 and Cl2 gas mixture, but in the case of seawater, there will be some halogen impurities.
Nicely trolled, sir. You've begged the question quite nicely, and you'd have effectively sand-bagged any reasoned response, except you forgot something: Your understanding doesn't matter.
Apparently, nobody's understanding matters.
I know a few things about global warming but I'm hardly a scientist. I do know what to look for when I'm gaging expertise, and total ignorance of evidence and blindly calling everyone a 'troll' who disagrees with you will definitely get your idea flushed down my mind's toilet.
The studies on this subject are not actually all that hard to read. When all is said and done, temperatures have only risen 0.6 degrees in the past 100 years. Yes I know it doesn't matter what happens globally, but in specific and dangerous locations like Greenland (whose ice loss we now know was exaggerated ).
This is all in addition to the standard gripes I have with the sensationalism and lies coming from the media, and the near silence of the scientific community unless confronted by inquisitive people. Peer review doesn't work if nobody's willing to speak. Essentially, the reported findings of the world's largest climate experiment stated "11 degrees"... the data really pointed to 3 degrees. "Peer review" was silent until a journalist ASKED them. Listen to the radio show link (earlier in this paragraph), it's chilling (note my brand new global warming pun!).
Your accusing me of "cheating" without even looking at the facts involved. Interestingly, all of the baseless bullshit anonymous blog entries he submits get an unreasonable amount of support - apparently he's an expert at gaming various sites; I'm not. I just write.
First of all, I was asking you to address those accusations, not accusing you myself.
I looked at the facts (which is the only reason I called you on it). I looked at 5 (randomly) of the list of 60 and went back to the first 'dugg' articles. All but 1 had a higher than 50% ratio of 'AlexW' articles vs others.
All of the accounts I looked at had at least 5 of your articles as the first 5 articles 'dugg' by them. Therefore, they probably joined specifically to digg your articles, or they went back and dugg your blogs. Put another way, the oldest articles dugg by these people were all yours.
At any rate, the guy who wrote the article probably did his homework. Who goes around digging articles by mainly 1 author?
I guess they could just be fans who saw your digg censorship article and wanted to 'fight the power', but I'm wondering why you're so defensive about it. I also thought it was very suspicious that you didn't mention the digg spamming in the GP post, you also were dismissive and somewhat arrogant in your response. If you're going to feed the trolls, you may as well have some humility.
Sorry if I've accused you of something that you didn't do, I just didn't like your attitude and it made me look into it further.
It's not as complicated as many make it out to be, encourage today's youth to think for themselves and experiment, not conform.
Everybody conforms, it just matters into what.
In my middle school, if you ditched class, the principle would personally bitch you out. It was a public school, but discipline was high on the list.
It was a public school, but it was full of the richest kids in the state of Arizona, and their parents knew how to make sure their kids got the best education possible (since private middle schools are a bit ostentatious, even for them).
There were under-performing kids like me were moved into 'special' classes where they *gasp* got more attention. It's not that those kids were stupid--I was getting in the 99th percentile on IOWA tests when I was thrown in there and routinely. However, I was a 'trouble maker' so I needed a smaller class size.
In other schools, kids like me would be repeatedly suspended or sent to 'the office'. In this school, they simply moved us into a more strict environment.
By 8th grade, all my friends were ditching class for weeks on end and we were all failing and probably should've been held back. In Arizona, the child's guardian must sign a form in order for the child to be held back. Our parents refused, and we all went on to high school.
My high school was typical for Phoenix: full of inner-city kids who dragged the discipline, class content, and test scores through the floor. It wasn't their fault, obviously. Me and my "didn't deserve to pass 8th grade" attitude got me A's on most of the tests even though I ditched 3-4 days a week and never did homework.
The middle schools these other kids went to were so devoid of efficacy, they all studied for tests and scribbled vast amounts of notes in class. This was a huge ego-boost for me, obviously. I went from an under-performing 8th grader to 'genius' in just 3 months!
My middle school, which I couldn't even pass, was so well-managed that even us losers cruised through high school. With a myriad of drug addictions and an attendance calendar so full of holes it's like we weren't even enrolled, we all got into college.
We thought we were going to be losers for life, but we conformed far more than we knew.
We were far above average in HS, which is a testament to both the poorly run nature of the Phoenix Union High School District and the discipline we got from the 'diamond in the rough' which was our middle school.
I'm simply pointing out what's possible if you have a real learning environment. With today's regulations, I hear the school I once went to has gone to hell. The new principle barely shows up and not even the discipline-cases know what she looks like. Show up, collect your pay check, and leave--it's the way of the American educational system. I'm glad I saw the best of it.
I'm going to call FUD on the "push by global warming scientists". We go through the same peer review process as any other branch of science, we don't publish our most "outlandish" theories, we publish what we find. Actually, a great deal of restraint is exercised by most scientists due to the political nature of the field.
If you listen to the radio program I posted (from the BBC), you'd hear an interview with one of the main researchers into the largest study on global warming ever performed.
The study's abstract (which was reported in the media) implied, and was reported to say, that temperatures would rise by 10 degrees if CO2 in the atmosphere doubled from current levels. The reality was that this was one of many scenarios that the researchers looked into, and most of them ended up with a change of 3 degrees, some indicated a change of only 1 degree.
The scientists themselves said that they reckoned that the 3-5 degree figure was the most likely, however did not seem to care that only their most extreme result was reported.
Why didn't they include the 1 degree figure in their abstract? Maybe they could've indicated what they themselves thought. Instead, they made it seem like the most important piece of data was actually this totally irrelevant 10 degree figure.
The peer review may look at the research as a whole, but when it comes to these abstracts, the scientists seem to word them specifically to grab attention (and it'd better be alarmist, or else). Moreover, after the alarmist newspaper story (filtered through the layman mind of a journalist who can't be bothered to read more than a half page) was printed on the front page of a UK newspaper, the scientists still had no reservations about their contribution to this mass-hysteria.
You're welcome to listen to the interview yourself. Here is a link (since my original post is now considered 'flamebait').
The BBC doesn't have to go very far to find repression in reporting.
Didn't I hear This Skeptical Piece on BBC Radio? (The piece points out that only the most sensationalist theories from the papers are actually reported by the media, and that the real data is almost never reported. Furthermore, there is a push by global warming scientists to publish irresponsibly the most outlandish theories in their 'abstracts' (which is all the media ever reads) so they can get publicity and therefore grants.).
It is more likely to be on the homepage of some fringe university researcher in danger of getting fired.
Don't forget the corporate tie-ins! That whole 6-degree of separation thing jumps into play real quick when dealing with these arguments.
Extreme example: I read about (in the WSJ) a skeptical climatologist whose sister had a mutual fund that was partially vested in an energy company. Somehow, that alone was enough to have his opinions shouted down in a flurry of group-think and FUD. Of course, this was the WSJ so you can choose to cherry-pick your facts as you please.
Personally (and for the sake of disclaiming this post), I don't think we'll get an accurate idea of what global warming is all about until it stops being a political issue. That won't happen until it is proven wrong (if it's never proven wrong, I don't think we'll ever see an end to it). I trust no one's opinion on the subject, and many of the biggest and most respected global warming studies either concluded next-to-nothing or had SERIOUS issues in data collection, methodology, or interpretation.
One thing all climatologists do agree on is that global warming is FAR from proven and any clue as to cause and consequence is mere conjecture, the reliability of which is anybody's guess.
Slashdot Mirror
They need a WCWD tag at stileproject.com
No amount of therapy will heal my fractured mind.
So you're saying there were no chemical weapons used in World War One?
I didn't mean to, but I guess I sort of implied that.
I knew about the chem weapons on WWI, but they weren't very effective, just really horrible. The nerve agents the Iraqi Gov't used were far more effective at killing people, but the corpses didn't look as ugly and the survivors weren't physically maimed like in mustard and chlorine gas attacks.
As a side note (and not directed at you), keep in mind when reading about 'casualties', they mean troops that were made 'ineffective'. Someone who loses a leg or is covered in blisters is considered a causality, even though they are not technically dead. Many mistakenly think the terms 'dead' and 'casualties' are the same.
What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!
Sources:
182,000 gassed in the late 80's by Saddam.
57,617 MAX Iraqi deaths in this war.
Your own what? Race? A more important human?
My beliefs were not the point of my post, I was just revealing my 'bias'. I will now further elaborate on my beliefs:
I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing. Meddling in the affairs of others is likely the most avoidable cause of terrorist attacks on this country and a poor public image in the eyes of other nations. All we have to do is nothing, and nobody can blame us for anything. Obviously, we don't have the cash to be doing this stuff anyway (look at our deficit), and we NEVER get paid. IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).
If the US had stayed out of WWI, there may have never been a WWII. If the US hadn't helped the Sudan kick Bin Laden out, he may not have been in Afghanistan. How big do we have to F'up, and how much money (which we don't have) do we have to waste before we stop with this foolishness?
What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?
How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?
He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'. The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons. Iran had some soldiers whose job it was to walk, unarmed and unequipped, over land mines to clear them out for armed personnel.
I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.
Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.
If you only care about American lives, nobody disagrees that more would have been spared if the US had stayed out (in the short term, at least).
I was against the invasion, but that's because I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own, unless it's of extreme strategic significance (obviously if Iraq had WMD to give to terrorists to kill us with, this would qualify).
Moreover, I doubt Americans have the attention span nor the understanding of geopolitics to support this 'police action' as is needed to prevent a civil war, and I think we WILL bail out either after the 2008 or 2010 elections (in the US). Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.
Nonsense! You can see at least 1 star during the day.
For those who don't wish to click on the link, here's the article text:
will it flop because its too much of an inconvenience?
It'll flop because paypal is the worst 'bank' to have to deal with. They have poor customer service, the fees are outrageous, phishing is out of control, and the Bank of America already has something like this.
Ever get accused of not delivering something on E-Bay? It works out pretty well because paypal will just automatically steal the money out of your account, or send debt collection on your ass if you don't have the balance.
This all happens before they even talk to you. This is why I use neither E-bay nor paypal.
I don't know about anyone else, but with satellite radio becoming more and more popular, both of the radio stations that I can stand to listen to here in Phoenix (KDKB and KSLX) have changed formats.
The competition from these sat companies has lead to fewer commercials, a FAR more extensive playlist on LOCAL stations. KDKB has "deep cuts" where they take songs off popular albums that they never play on the radio. On weekends, KSLX plays ENTIRE ALBUMS *gasp*!
Now that sat radio has changed everything, I hope they don't run these locals out of town; they're just starting to get good!
As a side note, does anyone else who's taken physics see the issue with calling it "Satellite Radio" being as how it uses microwaves and not 'radio' waves?
But it's really much worse, because any individual who did what Sony did could be convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and sent to jail for up to a decade. Instead, Sony has to give up what, 10% of their profits over a 3 month period? Less than 3% of their yearly profit (give or take)? How is that justice?
Perhaps the laws against individuals are too strict, rather than the laws against corporations being too light.
Oops, we already know that to be true.
Up to $180 per computer affected is reasonable, makes up for the damage they've done, and makes sure they'll never do it again. That IS justice.
So? People on the wrong side of copyright lawsuits, inc. the ones Sony files, are likely to pay more than a quarter of their yearly income to the RIAA.
The average individual law suit was for $2000 or so. You're telling me most people (who own computers and presumably have broadband access) make less than $2000/quarter ($8000/year)?
People seem to think that corporations are evil, faceless, and have infinite amounts of money.
When a corporation is sued for a large sum of money, people lose jobs and it's almost never the ones who deserve it.
If you were to take $200 million from Sony BMG, which has been seeing declining sales almost constant since 1998 or so, you'd be putting hundreds of people out of work.
As another poster said, the people in the company who were responsible for the rootkit have probably either been fired, disciplined, embarrassed, or penalized in some other way. At any rate, Sony wont be doing it again.
As for the consumer, getting up to $180 for a computer virus is a pretty good deal. It may not "punish" them in the way us bloodthirsty Americans would want to see, but makes up for what they did wrong. When all is said and done, this really was just an inconvenience.
Source:
As part of coparent Sony's earnings report today, Sony BMG reported net income of $178 million on sales of $1.49 billion for the three months ended December 31. As was the case with Sony, the label giant's performance was bolstered by increased cost savings and reduced restructuring charges.
Yet another thing that Congress made illegal and which law enforcement makes no meaningful attempt to enforce. Which means it will go the same way as most of the rest of the US legal code: Never actually enforced until the cops (or the ones holding their leash) really, REALLY want to get someone (for reasons good or for bad); Then a careful search of the legal code is all but gauranteed to reveal something that makes you a criminal.
For more information on this, there is a fantastic Cato Book Forum on this subject.
Here's a great quote from FDR's attorney general, Robert Jackson (mentioned in the video):
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm--in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Keep in mind, he made that speech, the body of federal criminal law was less than half the size it is today.
Finding lesser used apps is what Spotlight if for.
I just put a bunch of aliases (shortcuts) in a folder, put the folder in the dock, and right click for a "dock submenu"
You hit F2 in Windows to rename files? And that's supposed to be intuitive? The Mac way is to highlight the file and press Return or Enter.
From wikipedia: Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities. It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities). However, others--including most atheistic philosophers and groups--define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well. (emphasis mine)
... we atheists always have to "respect" your beliefsAll I said in that short sentence was (1) express my conviction that religious people believe in fairies I need to have this framed.
Oh, PS: I'm agnostic.
I'm so glad that you have assumed the responsibility to speak for all atheists. It's too bad there are ignorant people on both sides, some of whom may read your post and assume we're all idiots.
Not all of us atheists are hateful adolescent anti-Christian reactionaries. You insult us more than you do them when you spout off ignorance and hate. You think you're going to change someone's mind by mischaracterizing their beliefs and calling them all bigots? What are you? 13?
What's a "progressive Christian"?
Is it like a critical fairy tale believer?
Nah dude, it's totally OK to dis other people's religion.
Yeah yeah, I know--all Christians are pigheaded morons who take the bible literally.
And moreover, their whole religion is a fairy tale.
See because, it's OK for you to hate and belittle their religion, while at the same time damning all the Christian believers for being bigots.
I guess it's OK to be a bigot, as long as you're not Christian.
The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders.
... So I'm well aware that, like a lot of hardworking techies, they tend to be wacky geeks with unfettered imaginations. Throw 'em together in one survey, though, and they bell-curve right out.
I ruined the internet while driving a chevy, thanks very much.
To gauge the Net's trajectory, the Pew Internet & American Life Project polled 742 experts for its Future of the Internet II study.
Proof that 742 wrongs make a right!
$75 Million (dollars!)
Oh, DOLLARS.. Good thing they specified, because that $ symbol can also denote peanuts.
At first I was thinking "Holy swashbuckling legumes, Batman! That's a lot of peas!"
It's good that they specified, to avoid any confusion.
Electrolysis on water with a high salt content (like sea water) will yield hydrogen gas, chlorine gas, and a solution of sodium hydroxide.
Yes, however, the H2 and Na+ ( -> NaOH) will come off the the cathode and the O2 and Cl2 will come off the anode. Since NaOH is solid at that temperature (presumably room temp), the only thing 'bubbling' out of the solution on the cathode will be the hydrogen.
Therefore, you simply discard the Cl2 and O2 (coming off the anode) and the lye solution (left in the container).
As for other pollutants in the seawater, none of the ones that form a gas should be positive so they'll come off the anode as well.
You may be able to do something with the O2 and Cl2 gas mixture, but in the case of seawater, there will be some halogen impurities.
Nicely trolled, sir. You've begged the question quite nicely, and you'd have effectively sand-bagged any reasoned response, except you forgot something: Your understanding doesn't matter.
Apparently, nobody's understanding matters.
I know a few things about global warming but I'm hardly a scientist. I do know what to look for when I'm gaging expertise, and total ignorance of evidence and blindly calling everyone a 'troll' who disagrees with you will definitely get your idea flushed down my mind's toilet.
The studies on this subject are not actually all that hard to read. When all is said and done, temperatures have only risen 0.6 degrees in the past 100 years. Yes I know it doesn't matter what happens globally, but in specific and dangerous locations like Greenland (whose ice loss we now know was exaggerated ).
This is all in addition to the standard gripes I have with the sensationalism and lies coming from the media, and the near silence of the scientific community unless confronted by inquisitive people. Peer review doesn't work if nobody's willing to speak. Essentially, the reported findings of the world's largest climate experiment stated "11 degrees"... the data really pointed to 3 degrees. "Peer review" was silent until a journalist ASKED them. Listen to the radio show link (earlier in this paragraph), it's chilling (note my brand new global warming pun!).
Your accusing me of "cheating" without even looking at the facts involved. Interestingly, all of the baseless bullshit anonymous blog entries he submits get an unreasonable amount of support - apparently he's an expert at gaming various sites; I'm not. I just write.
First of all, I was asking you to address those accusations, not accusing you myself.
I looked at the facts (which is the only reason I called you on it). I looked at 5 (randomly) of the list of 60 and went back to the first 'dugg' articles. All but 1 had a higher than 50% ratio of 'AlexW' articles vs others.
All of the accounts I looked at had at least 5 of your articles as the first 5 articles 'dugg' by them. Therefore, they probably joined specifically to digg your articles, or they went back and dugg your blogs. Put another way, the oldest articles dugg by these people were all yours.
At any rate, the guy who wrote the article probably did his homework. Who goes around digging articles by mainly 1 author?
I guess they could just be fans who saw your digg censorship article and wanted to 'fight the power', but I'm wondering why you're so defensive about it. I also thought it was very suspicious that you didn't mention the digg spamming in the GP post, you also were dismissive and somewhat arrogant in your response. If you're going to feed the trolls, you may as well have some humility.
Sorry if I've accused you of something that you didn't do, I just didn't like your attitude and it made me look into it further.
So go roll in Digg and leave the bits of the web that are not yet as stupid alone.
You made no mention of the dig-spamming accusation (for which the author exposed some very compelling evidence).
Regardless of what you think of Digg, it isn't right to offset the votes of other users. Maybe they just don't like your writing.
I'm boycotting your site until you address this issue. I'm a writer myself, but I'm not about to 'cheat' just to get people to read my material.
It's not as complicated as many make it out to be, encourage today's youth to think for themselves and experiment, not conform.
Everybody conforms, it just matters into what.
In my middle school, if you ditched class, the principle would personally bitch you out. It was a public school, but discipline was high on the list.
It was a public school, but it was full of the richest kids in the state of Arizona, and their parents knew how to make sure their kids got the best education possible (since private middle schools are a bit ostentatious, even for them).
There were under-performing kids like me were moved into 'special' classes where they *gasp* got more attention. It's not that those kids were stupid--I was getting in the 99th percentile on IOWA tests when I was thrown in there and routinely. However, I was a 'trouble maker' so I needed a smaller class size.
In other schools, kids like me would be repeatedly suspended or sent to 'the office'. In this school, they simply moved us into a more strict environment.
By 8th grade, all my friends were ditching class for weeks on end and we were all failing and probably should've been held back. In Arizona, the child's guardian must sign a form in order for the child to be held back. Our parents refused, and we all went on to high school.
My high school was typical for Phoenix: full of inner-city kids who dragged the discipline, class content, and test scores through the floor. It wasn't their fault, obviously. Me and my "didn't deserve to pass 8th grade" attitude got me A's on most of the tests even though I ditched 3-4 days a week and never did homework.
The middle schools these other kids went to were so devoid of efficacy, they all studied for tests and scribbled vast amounts of notes in class. This was a huge ego-boost for me, obviously. I went from an under-performing 8th grader to 'genius' in just 3 months!
My middle school, which I couldn't even pass, was so well-managed that even us losers cruised through high school. With a myriad of drug addictions and an attendance calendar so full of holes it's like we weren't even enrolled, we all got into college.
We thought we were going to be losers for life, but we conformed far more than we knew.
We were far above average in HS, which is a testament to both the poorly run nature of the Phoenix Union High School District and the discipline we got from the 'diamond in the rough' which was our middle school.
I'm simply pointing out what's possible if you have a real learning environment. With today's regulations, I hear the school I once went to has gone to hell. The new principle barely shows up and not even the discipline-cases know what she looks like. Show up, collect your pay check, and leave--it's the way of the American educational system. I'm glad I saw the best of it.
I'm going to call FUD on the "push by global warming scientists". We go through the same peer review process as any other branch of science, we don't publish our most "outlandish" theories, we publish what we find. Actually, a great deal of restraint is exercised by most scientists due to the political nature of the field.
If you listen to the radio program I posted (from the BBC), you'd hear an interview with one of the main researchers into the largest study on global warming ever performed.
The study's abstract (which was reported in the media) implied, and was reported to say, that temperatures would rise by 10 degrees if CO2 in the atmosphere doubled from current levels. The reality was that this was one of many scenarios that the researchers looked into, and most of them ended up with a change of 3 degrees, some indicated a change of only 1 degree.
The scientists themselves said that they reckoned that the 3-5 degree figure was the most likely, however did not seem to care that only their most extreme result was reported.
Why didn't they include the 1 degree figure in their abstract? Maybe they could've indicated what they themselves thought. Instead, they made it seem like the most important piece of data was actually this totally irrelevant 10 degree figure.
The peer review may look at the research as a whole, but when it comes to these abstracts, the scientists seem to word them specifically to grab attention (and it'd better be alarmist, or else). Moreover, after the alarmist newspaper story (filtered through the layman mind of a journalist who can't be bothered to read more than a half page) was printed on the front page of a UK newspaper, the scientists still had no reservations about their contribution to this mass-hysteria.
You're welcome to listen to the interview yourself. Here is a link (since my original post is now considered 'flamebait').
The BBC doesn't have to go very far to find repression in reporting.
Didn't I hear This Skeptical Piece on BBC Radio? (The piece points out that only the most sensationalist theories from the papers are actually reported by the media, and that the real data is almost never reported. Furthermore, there is a push by global warming scientists to publish irresponsibly the most outlandish theories in their 'abstracts' (which is all the media ever reads) so they can get publicity and therefore grants.).
It is more likely to be on the homepage of some fringe university researcher in danger of getting fired.
Don't forget the corporate tie-ins! That whole 6-degree of separation thing jumps into play real quick when dealing with these arguments.
Extreme example: I read about (in the WSJ) a skeptical climatologist whose sister had a mutual fund that was partially vested in an energy company. Somehow, that alone was enough to have his opinions shouted down in a flurry of group-think and FUD. Of course, this was the WSJ so you can choose to cherry-pick your facts as you please.
Personally (and for the sake of disclaiming this post), I don't think we'll get an accurate idea of what global warming is all about until it stops being a political issue. That won't happen until it is proven wrong (if it's never proven wrong, I don't think we'll ever see an end to it). I trust no one's opinion on the subject, and many of the biggest and most respected global warming studies either concluded next-to-nothing or had SERIOUS issues in data collection, methodology, or interpretation.
One thing all climatologists do agree on is that global warming is FAR from proven and any clue as to cause and consequence is mere conjecture, the reliability of which is anybody's guess.