"I tell them I used to do "security consultation for companies" in the pre-dotcom days. I never get questioned.....I walked into my last job interview and wrote a sendmail ruleset....At 22 it landed me a project management position
PHB to Dilbert: "The kid is cheaper and more experienced than you, he's been writing rootkits since the day he was born!!!"
That question has been bugging me for ages, and I've never set foot in the US! There is and old saying that goes: "Forgivness is easier to obtain than permission" but I just can't see that being applicable to political adversaries, compromise maybe, but forgiveness?
This behaviour is not just in the US, most western countries are similar, two main parties with whisker of a gap between them. And although R.Murdoch and Bill Gates are infuential, I don't belive the conspiracy theory. The only conclusion I can come to is that politicians and the general population live in different worlds that often grind against each other. When you look at it that way, it becomes politicians vs people, rather than politician vs politician ( or should I replace the word politician with party? ). But that is not particularly suprising when you think about it, after all, when we vote for a goverenment we are saying we want "someone" to restrain and even put to death "other people" who are a "social menace", right?
I don't have any answers, extremist of all stripes are just plain fucking scary, we already have mulitiple parties but we tend to pick on just two. If we ban parties, we lose stability and reduce the chances of actually acomplishing anything at all. In the grand scheme of things, the problem can only be solved by time and nature (evolved or extinct).
Acknowledging that "we are the problem" brings some comfort but it doesn't offer a satisfying escape from ourselves. With all the shitty things there are about living in the west, at 50 I don't want to live antwhere else, I like the ways things are in my corner of "the general population", I live on the beach in Melbourne (Australia), work is a 10-15 minute trip, I'm well paid, and I don't need that much anyway.
Why the fuck would I want to change that?
The illogical but passionate answer I get back from the "monkeysphere" is that I have some vauge connection with "occupied cultures". I have seen blown up, incinerated and starving children on the TV since the 60's, the only thing that has changed is that it is now in glorious colour. The more powerfull "westeners" get the more culpable we become for the carnage carried out in our name.
What I want (but can't have) is for this shit that is being done in our name to stop, I want politicians to approach international politics with more than a fist full of dung/dollars, I want all humans to enjoy "creature comforts" free from harrasment, regardles of culture. I want all this "apple pie" and I want it NOW!!! Not because I fear/love [insert diety here], and it's not that I even like the "general population" or some of the "other cultures", particularly up close, it's just because universal dignity and respect "feels right".
The reason "we" are different is because "we" are in the nuke club treehouse and "they" are not. Modern technology mixed with ape like politics (they gang up, fling dung and rip each others balls off), dictates that nukes bring international "respect", look at Pakistan's recent history and no matter how "sane" Mushy is, he is still a Military dictator. "Ima-Dinner-Jacket" may look like "Ineeda-Stright-Jacket" but he is correct in his analysis of the security council as an "undemocratic cartel". Ironically the "balance of power" between the UNSC and the general assembly is not disimilar to Iran's political setup (ignoring religion).
I used to belive mankind could and would free the world of nukes, (hey I was raised in the 60's ok), nowadays I realise oil and nukes are gateways to power and by a twist of fate I was born to one of the tribes that won WW2 (plenty of oil and nukes). The ME is a battleground because of two things, oil (particularly around the caspian sea), and the "power vacum" from the end of the cold war. The same five tribes that are fighting these proxy oil wars are the only vetos on the UNSC. What is needed is some sort of "global magna carta" to devolve the power of the permenant five, but it "ain't happening".
You don't need to belive in good and evil to realise modern "all out" warfare is a futile waste of lives, limbs, minds and resources. However you do need to belive in fairies if you think politics will suddenely stop using a tactic that has survived for millenia.
It is ironic but I'm not sure about the bitter part, the $3B he has pledged is roughly equivalent to the profit he expects to make from his transport companies over the next 10yrs.
"The costs of the kyoto treaty and the *lack of those costs* on one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world can be found in any article about the treaty."
I did not suggest that kyoto was THE answer, in fact I didn't even mention kyoto. I am questioning the economic models used (if any) by the pundits in those articles to back up their bald assertions. I have not read every article about kyoto so could be mistaken, if so can you point me to the models/studies and the "historical data readings" they use? If not then it's all just a pile of unsubstansiated waffle from think tanks.
"Lots of respectable scientists talked about how we were going to freeze when I was young. It was a scientific "fact." The news anchors and talking heads all believed it. We even had some darn cold winters-- 12 degrees for almost a week one time." (my emphasis).
I busted that myth elsewhere in this thread. I remember the 70's quite vividly, you obviously didn't pay much attention when you were a kid. Being an old fart, I realize memory can play tricks but nobody has yet been able to offer me an example of a "respectable scientist" predicting an ice age. Perhaps you will be the first but I doubt it.
"To be redundant with my other posts..."
I agree that GW is not the most pressing medium to long term problem, it is overshadowed by "the sixth great extinction" and "peak oil", all three problems are directly related to the "population explosion". Having said that, this thread is about climate change and I think the "were all gonna die anyway" argument is just a pathetic excuse for sloppy thinking and inaction. If you don't think GW is an important issue then STFU and post on another subject that you do feel is important.
Your right, it's easy to pinpoint "major breakthroughs" after several decades, quite another to recognise them when they happen. When I was a kid a "transistor" was the "thing" that made portable radios work, mine had nine of them. The first calculator I saw was worth a months wages (my dad was an engineer). I couldn't see them catching on except maybe for engineers, same with the first CD burner I saw. I even thought the simpsons was a "bad flintstones ripoff" until my kids got me to sit down and watch it.
How many "breakthroughs" did it take to create the internet or is it a single "breakthrough" in it's own right? - I find these kind of sematic questions make for a boring article, I would rather read about peoples discoveries, breakthrough or otherwise.
This worthless AC has an informative answer to an observant geek who posed a deliciously nerdy question about the camera's operation. TFA is about the camera, slashdot is for nerds, how the hell is it OT?
I could go on, but I am busting to play with my balls and camera!
RealClimate.org is an excellent source for busting the myths that appear with nauseating regularity in every climate related thread on slashdot.
RealClimate was started and is run by some of the best climate researchers on the planet, the study in TFA is by Hansen, yet another respected scientist that claims politicians have recently attempted to gag him.
The scientists predicted an ice age myth was made popular by a novel (ie: a work of fiction). A certain senator was so impressed with the novel that he intoduced the authour to a senate committee as an "expert on climate change" and asked him to advise them on the subject.
"What happens if she's "motivated" to support certain drugs? Or my insurance company? What if she believes..."
Google the phrases "second opinion" and "hippocratic oath".
"So what if scientists, journalists or politicians are motivated by..."
Google the phrases "scientific method", "republic of science" and throw in "machivilian" for balance.
It may come as a surprise to you but you are not the first person on the planet to ask these questions and you certainly won't be the last. You are wasting everyones time here until you take some small steps to educate yourself on how others have dealt with the same dilemma. You can start with the phrases above and get back to us, maybe then you can post something that actually deserves an insightfull mod.
"If you'd rectified the AC you 'd have been in good shape to kill yourself"
Maybe, but as a 10yro I didn't think about electrocution or nasty chemicals and fortunately knew even less about diodes than the little I knew about capacitors. After the explosion I realized the shrapnel from the metal container could be a hazard and made a mental note to get a longer lead "next time". After fixing the fuse and cleaning the sticky yellow shit from the ceiling, I started thinking: How am I going to find another "electric fire-cracker"? Another twist of fortune is that my parents found me out.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, that's why my kids were not allowed to play with power points while they were growing up. However, to quote Cat Stevens: "My boy was just like me". My dad gave me a hint when my son was a toddler, he said: "We use a lot less fuse wire since you left home".
"Consider certain scientific journals, many times they won't publish things they don't "like". Those are the preachers and not the scientists. The latter (journalists) knows as little as I do..."
There is a world of difference between "not liking" and "failing peer-review". If you wish to be more informed than the average journalist then you have to do the hard yards and educate yourself about the scientific method and some of the historically important findings from said method.
"Without 2 or 3 PhDs in biology or geography it's difficult to understand the "facts"."
It's not that difficult in the case of climate change, try this FAQ written by some of the worlds best minds on the subject. The basic facts are that GW is occuring and human CO2 emmissions are the main cause, only the lunatic fringe belive otherwise these days. What the effects of these basic facts will be is not as clear cut, what the collective "we" do about the most likely effects is a political question that has roughly six billion different answers, all of which by definition have some validity.
"I'm not ready to turn the world upside down and impose huge costs on it to satisfy the latest scientific fad."
OTOH: You seem perfectly willing to belive an economic fad to such an extent that you don't even think to question it's validity or origin. In other words you have choosen blind faith in economic dogma as justification to ignore the logical consequences of scientific fact.
"I've seen "solid" scientific facts turned over several times in my life time. Each time the folks who were wrong just went "oh well, OOPS! My bad!""
Can you give an example/link where solid facts have changed? BTW: Theories are not facts, they are supposed to change over time. If theory didn't evolve over time we would all be stuck in a civilization based soley on our turd throwing ability.
"The automatic assumption that anyone who isn't certain about global warming is a republican is one of the aspects of the debate that makes me so suspicious."
True, it is a weak minded assumption and nobody is certain about anything unless we are talking blind faith, but when you have republican senators blatantly hijacking science, it is obvious many people will follow thier lead and resort to partisan dogma themselves. Perhaps if you aquainted yourself with the science instead of the politics you would be less "suspicious".
"I (and the parent poster) have lost the ability to trust or identify any "real credible" sources."
Your argument about moral decay is both irrelevant to science and historically incorrect. You don't simply "lose the ability to identify credible sources" unless there is some sort of head injury involved, my guess is you never had the ability to start with. As for trust, the scientific method was developed not because trust is naive but because it is blind.
"Society is fine with a small number of people who are different or who are immoral- but when everyone is - you lose cohesion."
A zenophobic control freak couldn't have said it better, personally I would rather "lose cohesion" than see everyone forced into line dancing.
GP: "No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore."
"I would have to agree with this....[slashdotters] completely believe a scientific report on a political issue like global climate change"
How can people be so ignorant about the line between science and politics. In case you have trouble I will spell it out...Science informs Policy. The science is sound and if people like the above two posters actually understood the difference between scientific findings and the (sometimes dishonest) action taken as a response to the findings they may see a reason for hope. However I doubt it, it is much simpler to throw your arms in the air and shout "you are all money hungry liars" or "I'm too stupid to understand".
"- and yes, these days, it is a political issue"
There is nothing new about this, take a look at the political and legal shitfight between Edison and the Gas companies in the early 1900 or Galileo and the Pope if you want something older. The reason that it is a "political issue" is because the conclusion that mankinds CO2 emmissions are causing the globe to rapidly warm is scientifically very strong (much stronger than the economic models used as justification for political inaction). Certain powerfull groups are looking down the barrel of significant change to their profitable status quo (fossil fuels on one side, insurance on the other), of course there will be political dishonesty, psuedo-science and FUD but how is any of that a reason for joe-public to ignore genuine findings?
Those who argue against the conclusion that anthropogenic climate warming is occuring at an unprecedented rate are either ignorant, intellectually lazy or belong in the same camp as the creationists. The reason I say that is because the science does not back them up, not one single paper in the last 10yrs has dipsputed the basic fact that we are warming the planet via our emmissions. And yes, what governments and corporations do or don't do about that conclusion is by definition political. There are still plenty of things science doesn't know about the climate, studying these things will make our understanding (and thus our predictions) stronger, burrying ones head in the sand crying "it's all too hard, I can't trust anyone" is a pathetic excuse for intellectual apathy.
When I was a kid (during the 60's) I "discovered" that you could charge a small cap with a battery and make a spark, the bigger the cap the more satisfying the spark was. I was delighted when I found a large cap on someone's junk pile, it was about 6" long and 2" in diameter and was in a metal case. It quickly drained all my batteries so I wired it up to a houshold plug with some screws and a piece of wood and pluged it into a 240v/10amp household socket (Australia) and flicked the switch. There was a loud bang and silver paper confetti filled the room.
"I don't think restricting guns in America can happen."
Given time, any culture will change it's views on much more fundemental issues than gun control, it happens so often that it has a name: "generation gap".
"Of course, if guns weren't available, the number of hunting knife-induced deaths would skyrocket, as would home-made explosives"
Knife attacks may increase, but you have to stab someone an average of 5 times to kill them plus you need to get "up close" to the victim. Stabing and slashing is very different and much more difficult than shooting someone from a safe distance. Most deaths from guns come from accidents, suicides and "heat of the moment" attacks. All these would decrease if guns were less accessible because there is more time for the "killer" to defuse and accidents with knives are rarely fatal.
"People will always find a way to kill each other."
Yep.
BTW: I'm not arguing against hunters, we have plenty here in Australia using single shot rifles or shotguns without magazines. We also have a considerable "safari" industry where tourists can go and hunt water buffalo, pigs, donkeys, goats, camels, deer and all the other pest and game species wandering around the bush.
Armed "home invasions" are so rare in Australia that when it does happen it becomes national news.
I know that the US has a love affair with guns and I do not wish to tell you how to live or what your constitution should say. However, there are other ways to live that both work and have the support of the poulation, to suggest otherwise (as the GP did) is ignorance.
"The only reduction it would cause is that it would raise the barrier of entry"
Precisely! In Australia it is very difficult to get hold of an unregistered handgun. In the US you have porous borders and supply is already very high, it would be much more difficult to control without first reducing the availability. OTOH: The US exports a large number of small arms to (almost) anyone who wants one.
BTW: Handgun collectors are catered for in Australia, you need a police approved safe and you must allow inspection on demand. My brother-in-law had 30+ handguns including a magnum 44 when the laws were tightened 15-20yrs ago. The safe, the cops and my herion addicted nephew became a PITA, so he moved them to a gun club.
Slashdot Mirror
"I tell them I used to do "security consultation for companies" in the pre-dotcom days. I never get questioned.....I walked into my last job interview and wrote a sendmail ruleset....At 22 it landed me a project management position
PHB to Dilbert: "The kid is cheaper and more experienced than you, he's been writing rootkits since the day he was born!!!"
That question has been bugging me for ages, and I've never set foot in the US! There is and old saying that goes: "Forgivness is easier to obtain than permission" but I just can't see that being applicable to political adversaries, compromise maybe, but forgiveness?
This behaviour is not just in the US, most western countries are similar, two main parties with whisker of a gap between them. And although R.Murdoch and Bill Gates are infuential, I don't belive the conspiracy theory. The only conclusion I can come to is that politicians and the general population live in different worlds that often grind against each other. When you look at it that way, it becomes politicians vs people, rather than politician vs politician ( or should I replace the word politician with party? ). But that is not particularly suprising when you think about it, after all, when we vote for a goverenment we are saying we want "someone" to restrain and even put to death "other people" who are a "social menace", right?
I don't have any answers, extremist of all stripes are just plain fucking scary, we already have mulitiple parties but we tend to pick on just two. If we ban parties, we lose stability and reduce the chances of actually acomplishing anything at all. In the grand scheme of things, the problem can only be solved by time and nature (evolved or extinct).
Acknowledging that "we are the problem" brings some comfort but it doesn't offer a satisfying escape from ourselves. With all the shitty things there are about living in the west, at 50 I don't want to live antwhere else, I like the ways things are in my corner of "the general population", I live on the beach in Melbourne (Australia), work is a 10-15 minute trip, I'm well paid, and I don't need that much anyway.
Why the fuck would I want to change that?
The illogical but passionate answer I get back from the "monkeysphere" is that I have some vauge connection with "occupied cultures". I have seen blown up, incinerated and starving children on the TV since the 60's, the only thing that has changed is that it is now in glorious colour. The more powerfull "westeners" get the more culpable we become for the carnage carried out in our name.
What I want (but can't have) is for this shit that is being done in our name to stop, I want politicians to approach international politics with more than a fist full of dung/dollars, I want all humans to enjoy "creature comforts" free from harrasment, regardles of culture. I want all this "apple pie" and I want it NOW!!! Not because I fear/love [insert diety here], and it's not that I even like the "general population" or some of the "other cultures", particularly up close, it's just because universal dignity and respect "feels right".
"Now the DMCA doesnt say you have to do the obvious, but judges and courts usually do."
Ummm, things are bit different on this planet.
Ummm, yeah, for decades they have noticed and made use of the host finding behaviour of the dodder.
1. And assumed the dodders behaviour was explained by "random twisting".
2. This experiment found that "random twisting" can not explain the dodders behaviour.
3. Iff the experiment can be repeated, the assumption is broken. Science will look for a stronger explaination as to how the dodder finds a host.
4. RTFA before "arse spraying" it with that boiling alkaline excretion of yours.
5. ????
6. Profit!
Okay sport...you just go right on working on those drapes.
And I encourage you to keep working on the population problem, preferably by refusing to breed.
I appreciate the insightfull humour.
The reason "we" are different is because "we" are in the nuke club treehouse and "they" are not. Modern technology mixed with ape like politics (they gang up, fling dung and rip each others balls off), dictates that nukes bring international "respect", look at Pakistan's recent history and no matter how "sane" Mushy is, he is still a Military dictator. "Ima-Dinner-Jacket" may look like "Ineeda-Stright-Jacket" but he is correct in his analysis of the security council as an "undemocratic cartel". Ironically the "balance of power" between the UNSC and the general assembly is not disimilar to Iran's political setup (ignoring religion).
I used to belive mankind could and would free the world of nukes, (hey I was raised in the 60's ok), nowadays I realise oil and nukes are gateways to power and by a twist of fate I was born to one of the tribes that won WW2 (plenty of oil and nukes). The ME is a battleground because of two things, oil (particularly around the caspian sea), and the "power vacum" from the end of the cold war. The same five tribes that are fighting these proxy oil wars are the only vetos on the UNSC. What is needed is some sort of "global magna carta" to devolve the power of the permenant five, but it "ain't happening".
You don't need to belive in good and evil to realise modern "all out" warfare is a futile waste of lives, limbs, minds and resources. However you do need to belive in fairies if you think politics will suddenely stop using a tactic that has survived for millenia.
"And if more than fifty percent of the country turns their key at the same time, BOOM!"
I predict it goes BOOM at 7:00am on the first Monday after the system goes live.
It is ironic but I'm not sure about the bitter part, the $3B he has pledged is roughly equivalent to the profit he expects to make from his transport companies over the next 10yrs.
"The costs of the kyoto treaty and the *lack of those costs* on one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world can be found in any article about the treaty."
I did not suggest that kyoto was THE answer, in fact I didn't even mention kyoto. I am questioning the economic models used (if any) by the pundits in those articles to back up their bald assertions. I have not read every article about kyoto so could be mistaken, if so can you point me to the models/studies and the "historical data readings" they use? If not then it's all just a pile of unsubstansiated waffle from think tanks.
"Lots of respectable scientists talked about how we were going to freeze when I was young. It was a scientific "fact." The news anchors and talking heads all believed it. We even had some darn cold winters-- 12 degrees for almost a week one time." (my emphasis).
I busted that myth elsewhere in this thread. I remember the 70's quite vividly, you obviously didn't pay much attention when you were a kid. Being an old fart, I realize memory can play tricks but nobody has yet been able to offer me an example of a "respectable scientist" predicting an ice age. Perhaps you will be the first but I doubt it.
"To be redundant with my other posts..."
I agree that GW is not the most pressing medium to long term problem, it is overshadowed by "the sixth great extinction" and "peak oil", all three problems are directly related to the "population explosion". Having said that, this thread is about climate change and I think the "were all gonna die anyway" argument is just a pathetic excuse for sloppy thinking and inaction. If you don't think GW is an important issue then STFU and post on another subject that you do feel is important.
Your right, it's easy to pinpoint "major breakthroughs" after several decades, quite another to recognise them when they happen. When I was a kid a "transistor" was the "thing" that made portable radios work, mine had nine of them. The first calculator I saw was worth a months wages (my dad was an engineer). I couldn't see them catching on except maybe for engineers, same with the first CD burner I saw. I even thought the simpsons was a "bad flintstones ripoff" until my kids got me to sit down and watch it.
How many "breakthroughs" did it take to create the internet or is it a single "breakthrough" in it's own right? - I find these kind of sematic questions make for a boring article, I would rather read about peoples discoveries, breakthrough or otherwise.
This worthless AC has an informative answer to an observant geek who posed a deliciously nerdy question about the camera's operation. TFA is about the camera, slashdot is for nerds, how the hell is it OT?
I could go on, but I am busting to play with my balls and camera!
Hint: His tag is "BadAnalogyGuy", you'll get used to him after a while.
RealClimate.org is an excellent source for busting the myths that appear with nauseating regularity in every climate related thread on slashdot.
RealClimate was started and is run by some of the best climate researchers on the planet, the study in TFA is by Hansen, yet another respected scientist that claims politicians have recently attempted to gag him.
The scientists predicted an ice age myth was made popular by a novel (ie: a work of fiction). A certain senator was so impressed with the novel that he intoduced the authour to a senate committee as an "expert on climate change" and asked him to advise them on the subject.
"What happens if she's "motivated" to support certain drugs? Or my insurance company? What if she believes..."
Google the phrases "second opinion" and "hippocratic oath".
"So what if scientists, journalists or politicians are motivated by..."
Google the phrases "scientific method", "republic of science" and throw in "machivilian" for balance.
It may come as a surprise to you but you are not the first person on the planet to ask these questions and you certainly won't be the last. You are wasting everyones time here until you take some small steps to educate yourself on how others have dealt with the same dilemma. You can start with the phrases above and get back to us, maybe then you can post something that actually deserves an insightfull mod.
"If you'd rectified the AC you 'd have been in good shape to kill yourself"
Maybe, but as a 10yro I didn't think about electrocution or nasty chemicals and fortunately knew even less about diodes than the little I knew about capacitors. After the explosion I realized the shrapnel from the metal container could be a hazard and made a mental note to get a longer lead "next time". After fixing the fuse and cleaning the sticky yellow shit from the ceiling, I started thinking: How am I going to find another "electric fire-cracker"? Another twist of fortune is that my parents found me out.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, that's why my kids were not allowed to play with power points while they were growing up. However, to quote Cat Stevens: "My boy was just like me". My dad gave me a hint when my son was a toddler, he said: "We use a lot less fuse wire since you left home".
"Consider certain scientific journals, many times they won't publish things they don't "like". Those are the preachers and not the scientists. The latter (journalists) knows as little as I do..."
There is a world of difference between "not liking" and "failing peer-review". If you wish to be more informed than the average journalist then you have to do the hard yards and educate yourself about the scientific method and some of the historically important findings from said method.
"Without 2 or 3 PhDs in biology or geography it's difficult to understand the "facts"."
It's not that difficult in the case of climate change, try this FAQ written by some of the worlds best minds on the subject. The basic facts are that GW is occuring and human CO2 emmissions are the main cause, only the lunatic fringe belive otherwise these days. What the effects of these basic facts will be is not as clear cut, what the collective "we" do about the most likely effects is a political question that has roughly six billion different answers, all of which by definition have some validity.
"I'm not ready to turn the world upside down and impose huge costs on it to satisfy the latest scientific fad."
OTOH: You seem perfectly willing to belive an economic fad to such an extent that you don't even think to question it's validity or origin. In other words you have choosen blind faith in economic dogma as justification to ignore the logical consequences of scientific fact.
"I've seen "solid" scientific facts turned over several times in my life time. Each time the folks who were wrong just went "oh well, OOPS! My bad!""
Can you give an example/link where solid facts have changed? BTW: Theories are not facts, they are supposed to change over time. If theory didn't evolve over time we would all be stuck in a civilization based soley on our turd throwing ability.
"they won't switch to a different viewpoint in 20 years!"
Who has "switched viewpoints", and please don't bring up the scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's crap, I am also old enough to remember the "hysteria".
"The automatic assumption that anyone who isn't certain about global warming is a republican is one of the aspects of the debate that makes me so suspicious."
True, it is a weak minded assumption and nobody is certain about anything unless we are talking blind faith, but when you have republican senators blatantly hijacking science, it is obvious many people will follow thier lead and resort to partisan dogma themselves. Perhaps if you aquainted yourself with the science instead of the politics you would be less "suspicious".
"I (and the parent poster) have lost the ability to trust or identify any "real credible" sources."
Your argument about moral decay is both irrelevant to science and historically incorrect. You don't simply "lose the ability to identify credible sources" unless there is some sort of head injury involved, my guess is you never had the ability to start with. As for trust, the scientific method was developed not because trust is naive but because it is blind.
"Society is fine with a small number of people who are different or who are immoral- but when everyone is - you lose cohesion."
A zenophobic control freak couldn't have said it better, personally I would rather "lose cohesion" than see everyone forced into line dancing.
GP: "No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore."
"I would have to agree with this....[slashdotters] completely believe a scientific report on a political issue like global climate change"
How can people be so ignorant about the line between science and politics. In case you have trouble I will spell it out...Science informs Policy. The science is sound and if people like the above two posters actually understood the difference between scientific findings and the (sometimes dishonest) action taken as a response to the findings they may see a reason for hope. However I doubt it, it is much simpler to throw your arms in the air and shout "you are all money hungry liars" or "I'm too stupid to understand".
"- and yes, these days, it is a political issue"
There is nothing new about this, take a look at the political and legal shitfight between Edison and the Gas companies in the early 1900 or Galileo and the Pope if you want something older. The reason that it is a "political issue" is because the conclusion that mankinds CO2 emmissions are causing the globe to rapidly warm is scientifically very strong (much stronger than the economic models used as justification for political inaction). Certain powerfull groups are looking down the barrel of significant change to their profitable status quo (fossil fuels on one side, insurance on the other), of course there will be political dishonesty, psuedo-science and FUD but how is any of that a reason for joe-public to ignore genuine findings?
Those who argue against the conclusion that anthropogenic climate warming is occuring at an unprecedented rate are either ignorant, intellectually lazy or belong in the same camp as the creationists. The reason I say that is because the science does not back them up, not one single paper in the last 10yrs has dipsputed the basic fact that we are warming the planet via our emmissions. And yes, what governments and corporations do or don't do about that conclusion is by definition political. There are still plenty of things science doesn't know about the climate, studying these things will make our understanding (and thus our predictions) stronger, burrying ones head in the sand crying "it's all too hard, I can't trust anyone" is a pathetic excuse for intellectual apathy.
Never has my sig seemed so appropriate.
When I was a kid (during the 60's) I "discovered" that you could charge a small cap with a battery and make a spark, the bigger the cap the more satisfying the spark was. I was delighted when I found a large cap on someone's junk pile, it was about 6" long and 2" in diameter and was in a metal case. It quickly drained all my batteries so I wired it up to a houshold plug with some screws and a piece of wood and pluged it into a 240v/10amp household socket (Australia) and flicked the switch. There was a loud bang and silver paper confetti filled the room.
"I don't think restricting guns in America can happen."
Given time, any culture will change it's views on much more fundemental issues than gun control, it happens so often that it has a name: "generation gap".
"Of course, if guns weren't available, the number of hunting knife-induced deaths would skyrocket, as would home-made explosives"
Knife attacks may increase, but you have to stab someone an average of 5 times to kill them plus you need to get "up close" to the victim. Stabing and slashing is very different and much more difficult than shooting someone from a safe distance. Most deaths from guns come from accidents, suicides and "heat of the moment" attacks. All these would decrease if guns were less accessible because there is more time for the "killer" to defuse and accidents with knives are rarely fatal.
"People will always find a way to kill each other."
Yep.
BTW: I'm not arguing against hunters, we have plenty here in Australia using single shot rifles or shotguns without magazines. We also have a considerable "safari" industry where tourists can go and hunt water buffalo, pigs, donkeys, goats, camels, deer and all the other pest and game species wandering around the bush.
"but the fact remains that it COULD be correct"
Yep, and 4 elephants in a mini could be correct, but it's still funny.
It's a joke, the photon is light, get it?
Armed "home invasions" are so rare in Australia that when it does happen it becomes national news.
I know that the US has a love affair with guns and I do not wish to tell you how to live or what your constitution should say. However, there are other ways to live that both work and have the support of the poulation, to suggest otherwise (as the GP did) is ignorance.
"The only reduction it would cause is that it would raise the barrier of entry"
Precisely! In Australia it is very difficult to get hold of an unregistered handgun. In the US you have porous borders and supply is already very high, it would be much more difficult to control without first reducing the availability. OTOH: The US exports a large number of small arms to (almost) anyone who wants one.
BTW: Handgun collectors are catered for in Australia, you need a police approved safe and you must allow inspection on demand. My brother-in-law had 30+ handguns including a magnum 44 when the laws were tightened 15-20yrs ago. The safe, the cops and my herion addicted nephew became a PITA, so he moved them to a gun club.