"who continue the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to convince them that copying software is OK, because "it's not like we're actually stealing something"."
I missed that press release. Who are those people, or is this just unsophisticated smoke?
About this far >________________
Dongles are cracked routinely, so they won't make much of a difference to anyone but the 'security' manufacturers.
As for the leak; I'm still going to buy it and I'm not going to download.
"but these piracies are really hurting."
Who and how much? Bear in mind that Half Life 2 had a release date that was imminent when it was stolen, but it's still quite a way off. Why?
I can see that there's a fairly deplorable amount of games piracy out there, but there _ALWAYS_ was. It's just that the 'seeders' column gives them a way to find out. Incidentally, Eidos' recent profit warning didn't mention piracy...how large is the games industry?
"Then I became an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine and tried to get them to run an article about cyberterrorism."
Do they print fiction?
"Since then there have of course been billions of dollars in damage due to viruses"
Which isn't terrorism. Similar to the number of people admitted to hospital each year after stabbing themselves with forks isn't terrorism. Exactly in the same way that spam isn't terrorism.
"security situation has gotten so bad that a teenager in the Philippines could put together a virus using tools"
Or Minnesota. That's not really a problem with security per se, it's just that nobody has settled on what is the best way to stop dumb people contracting viral infections; large companies contracting viral infections should look towards spending their own money rather than government cash based on a fairly spurious 'clean up' fee, when it was probably cost-cutting that left them vulnerable in the first place.
"This is because of a general lack of understanding about computers among journalists and policymakers IMO."
Well you wouldn't have helped by characterising viruses as 'Cyberterrorism' any more than WMD should include methlabs. Why do you think that people have been generally underwhelmed by governmental response to computer problems?
It's not so much that their intentions aren't good, it's just they miss the mark so much that you can almost hear the noise of hands hitting foreheads across the globe when the latest 'idea' hits the legislative floor.
" here is the kind of email you can receive from a copyright holder. "
I had a couple once; they referred to a file that I'd never downloaded, which begs the question what kind of proof is actually produced. This was the first hint that I had that MD5 hashes weren't entirely unique.
"And can you inform us of exactly why people oppose pebble reactors? Other than the exaggerated fear factor?"
Yeah, but that's the level of ignorance that I'm fighting here. Personally I love pebble reactors as a replacement for PWRs because of the failure mode being a proper failsafe.
I spent an entertaining couple of weeks trying to stop people making prats of themselves when NASA was launching satellites containing SNAP-9 radiothermal reactors. They contain plutonium, which is horrendously poisonous, but the SNAP-9 reactor can pretty much survive a hard reentry.
Look, they had to change the name of NMR scanners because of the problem with the 'nuclear' word, likewise for RI tracing, but there is a valid reason for this fear in terms of the things that people have been taught over the years.
"Also you might find this journal entry enlightening:)"
Not particularly. This information has been bandied around for the past three years in the UK, because we were under the fallout path, but bear in mind that a large number of people were relocated that are moving back into the region to farm. This means that radionuclides will be entering the food chain and the interesting information will come from the next few decades. One of the main problems with the reports of deaths in the Ukraine region was down to psychosomosis and fear, but the area is _heavily_ polluted from industrial processes.
But...there is a thyroid cancer cluster in the region; Even Jaworowski admits this. Similar to luekemia clusters, it's not really enough to state that a 7,900% increase is a 'blip' and ignore the problem because it fails to actually get into the causes.
However, Pressurised Water Reactors are bad because their design involves complexity to ensure safety. If any of the complex systems required to moderate the reactions are compromised (and I include the human component in this), then catastrophic things can happen. Rarely does a gas power plant failing require the evacuation of a 30 mile radius, or fairly large amounts of acute medical treatment, let alone the economic costs of dumping contaminated produce.
"Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes."
If they give you bad news, then generally you can be sure that it's pretty truthful, especially when backed by peer-reviewed articles, but that's where the 'open source' model comes into it's own. Peer review is lots of people with their own opinions coming to the table to confirm or refute claims.
One of the bigger problems I've noticed in this thread is that there are people who build opinions from media, some that look at the reports themselves, and yet another section that are so caught in the rosy glow of their own 'righteousness' that they throw up sentences like the above as one line answers.
You don't like government reports, go look at the subject from the peer-review angle. Just don't sit on your arse and make clever comments about how you distrust the information therefore it MUST be bunk.
That smells like an opinion rather than something with carefully considered arguments. What are your objections to it?
"And you're right, GW might be for real. But we need more evidence."
What evidence do you need? Bear in mind that the cry 'we need more evidence' is generally pushed out by parties with a given opposition, and the _vast majority_ of evidence so far gathered points in the direction of the vast outpouring of byproducts having an effect on environment.
"why should scientists become the high-priests of socio-economic and politcal policy when they can't even agree on this issue?"
Explain to me exactly why the high priests of socio-economic and political policy should be lawyers and accountants; nobody is talking about scientists making those decisions, but actually having a say in them.
It might also come as a bit of a surprise, but the scientific method is geared towards debate. People mistake the disagreements for 'being unsure', but that's the very basis of it. Now it's come down to a majority that say that there's a human component to temperature increases, including the US Government eventually, but there's still this dumb ignorance applied to the data that has been collected.
You won't be convinced by an argument on Slashdot, though, so go look for the information yourself.
"The truth is, the political left is using GW to gain power."
Horseshit. The political left is going to have to deal with the problem once they're actually in power, so keep your political leanings out of the scientific argument.
"Remember that satellite photo of the 9/11 ground zero area that could show vehicles and people? Think that's the best the government has... lmao... think again."
Thanks, we already know how good KH and bigbird actually are. The problem is that satellites are in generally fixed orbits with a time to retask and given windows of operation. Afghanistan was a good indication of how bad this problem could become when they had two forty minute windows in a 24 hour period.
"The question we should be asking is whether it really matters if Florida drowns."
Not really to me, but I imagine people living down there might be a bit pissed.
"Its not as if the earth's oceans are going to go up 2 meter in one horrible night, it will take a few decades."
True enough, but go check out the mean temperatures of your farming belt and judge how long it will take to change over crop production from one type to another, in the meantime coping with producing enough food to feed people. Check out the amount of people in low-lying areas that will have to migrate to other areas. Check out the industrial and economic processes that would have to change very quickly. How far above sea-level is Manhatten?
Further to this, check out the stability of geological formations. You don't want large amounts of rock sliding into the ocean; water tables will rise and become salinated when aquifiers are directly exposed to seawater; forget the desalination plants, as they'll go pretty quickly.
Hey, I wonder how hurricanes are affected by moving over water compared with land, you think they could stay fairly powerful instead of blowing themselves out? What about the changing sea chemistry?
"Maybe we should look at things with a 15000 year timespan"
We're talking a century before the maps of the world change, bub. With that comes a significant change in albedo, and yes, it's a homocentric point of view, but that's the point. On geological scales we don't matter, but if you really thing of yourself as that insignificant, go drown yourself now and stop using resources.
"Correlations have been shown, and some effects have been linked to the temperature increases, but while many people, including some Slashdotters, have said that other ideas have all been debunked, I've still seen no evidence of it."
The major point is that the Bush Administration backed away from other nation's reports. Another poster in the thread mentioned other nation's motives, but this is a misnomer because this isn't a national issue, but a global one. Given Governmental speed in dealing with such things, it would have been an idea to entertain the notion in 2002 rather than roll out think-tank advisors, which is actually what happened.
"That bothers me, because it just seems that the people arguing against them don't want to deal with them as they might upset their worldview."
Likewise some of us trying to get people to avoid dismissing the whole idea of Global Warming on the basis that it's not proven find that worldviews or personal paradigms are the hardest thing to change. I'm personally willing for the whole thing to be bunk; I've frequently argued against the 1970s idea that the population of the world would increase to the point where it cannot support itself. Starvation and disease are a feedback loop in themselves, the latter looking more interesting in the light of recent avian flu's crossing species lines with startling ease.
Likewise there are problems with the green movement in terms of a lack of real knowledge, but to dismiss everything based on the label 'tree hugger' is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"That has much more to do with how American "environmentalists" go so far out to one side, and almost always refuse to compromise."
That's a worldwide problem. We recently had Greenpeace undertaking to disrupt the shipment of plutonium for reprocessing going to France because of 'the risk from terrorists'. Nothing scares the nuclear club more than Plutonium going missing, and it's a really big issue. Greenpeace has been going degenerate for years in terms of protesting perfectly reasonable measures.
"even though I'm not entirely sure that man-made global warming exists."
There was a report released during the RNC that shows that there is a corellation, but it's been fairly quiet on the subject; I suspect as a political exercise.
The thing is it's better to assume that there is a threat and take action to moderate than assume there isn't one and find out the hard way. Incidentally, this is pretty much the justification that waved through the PATRIOT act, although the indications that individual private Americans are undertaking terrorist planning is almost nil.
"But such should be approached carefully, evaluated, and planned well, instead of hurtling headlong into something that may not have a point."
See above. I'm with you on this, because if nothing the drive for efficiency will always help in the long run, both economically and socially, but the drive for better efficiency tends to involve a dollar cost that shows a return over a longer amount of time than the average governmental term; Someone has to have the bloody courage to tell campaign contributors the bad news, though.
"There are a lot of scientists on record as saying such. That they happen to be American, as you are, should not only make you proud, but should make you question the other nations' motives."
So national paranoia is the answer? FWIW, there are scientists in every nation that argue the issue, but only America has nationally mandated a refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty, mainly because as the highest consumer of oil and therefore one of the largest contributors to Co2 their representatives are too damned scared to tell their campaign contributors that they'll have to clean up their act.
"Yeah, and equally head-in-the-sand, you've banned genetically modified plants, too. Way to embrace technology."
Yoohoo. Over here. Yeah, the discussion about Global Warming. It's just that you appear to have wandered off into some kind of Luddite thing, and we'd hate to lose your attention.
I do. It was a PR blunder that suggested that the Labour party was petty enough to try a tactic like that in the first place. They lost points for that one in addition to getting Patricia Hewitt to apologise for Tony.
"As long as its clear that the sites aren't affiliated with the Conservative party or Mr. Howard"
If they had a _hint_ of that, they'd be slapped for it.
"There's not enough difference in the resolution of PAL and of NTSC to really matter at all."
625 - 525 lines or nearly 20% more lines. What would you consider a significant difference?
"PAL has a lower framerate, too, so nyah!"
According to your comparison, not enough to matter...but 20% faster in the US, but this does mean that PAL has a higher bandwidth.
Incidentally, we can actually drive most equipment from the past decade at higher refresh rates. 100Hz is not that uncommon from the past five years, but the real comparison comes from clamping colours, which NTSC has never really managed.
"I'm as liberal as the next guy, but if you look at the data from a scientific perspective"
You mean peer-reviewed, right? Not internet sources, but solid peer-reviewed papers?
"increased CO2 levels are causing a significant change in our atmosphere different from what the Earth has experienced in the past."
True, but you're missing the point that we have much more population in low-lying areas and there's a fairly tight boundary in terms of feeding populations, not to mention that there is a correlation between industrial output and a rise in Co2. To say that we don't have any data that it's rising is generally to state that we need indications of serious problems to even start curing a problem that could take centuries.
Oh, and this isn't a political issue. I wish people would get off that hobby horse.
"I think that environmentalists (amung which I count myself) do their cause a disservice by trying to "massage the data" to manufacture catastrophe."
I have serious problems with Greenpeace and other such organisations as 'degenerate' rather than being constructive, especially in terms of the fever-pitch 'we're destroying the planet', but the basic fact exists that we're affecting our environment to the point where we could end up with serious problems, and by that I mean deaths in the millions or a serious change in the amount of land available for living on. So we're generally in agreement.
"Easy, man like many silly people, he is mistaking the cause and the effect."
I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American. The EU has already issued warnings and the UK in particular has been engaged on sorting the Co2 output for _ten years_.
"Nearly all of this research shows global warming which makes people complain that it is an industry."
"Here's a graph of temperature vs. Carbon-dioxide levels. See a relationship? Neither do I."
Not surprisingly because they're measuring temperature in the Troposphere and Stratosphere without really exposing methodology, or using slightly more effective temperature methods such as mean continental shelf sea temperature, or factoring in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth.
But no, instead they use a set of temperature readings that are extremely liable to tiny changes in pressure...
Incidentally, go check out what the Government is saying; they don't think it's 'junk science', but the people behind that site may not have caught the message yet.
Slashdot Mirror
"who continue the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to convince them that copying software is OK, because "it's not like we're actually stealing something"."
I missed that press release. Who are those people, or is this just unsophisticated smoke?
"Rockstar aren't some faceless cartel."
No, faceless cartels tend to refer to themselves with simple geographic codes, whereas Rockstar...oh, wait...
"you're contributing to putting him out of a job just when he needs one the most."
Rockstar is doing great from the GTA series. You may have noticed them acquiring various studios.
While I sympathise with your sentiment, please understand that it's sentiment.
"but how far away are we from USB dongles?"
About this far >________________
Dongles are cracked routinely, so they won't make much of a difference to anyone but the 'security' manufacturers.
As for the leak; I'm still going to buy it and I'm not going to download.
"but these piracies are really hurting."
Who and how much? Bear in mind that Half Life 2 had a release date that was imminent when it was stolen, but it's still quite a way off. Why?
I can see that there's a fairly deplorable amount of games piracy out there, but there _ALWAYS_ was. It's just that the 'seeders' column gives them a way to find out. Incidentally, Eidos' recent profit warning didn't mention piracy...how large is the games industry?
"Then I became an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine and tried to get them to run an article about cyberterrorism."
Do they print fiction?
"Since then there have of course been billions of dollars in damage due to viruses"
Which isn't terrorism. Similar to the number of people admitted to hospital each year after stabbing themselves with forks isn't terrorism. Exactly in the same way that spam isn't terrorism.
"security situation has gotten so bad that a teenager in the Philippines could put together a virus using tools"
Or Minnesota. That's not really a problem with security per se, it's just that nobody has settled on what is the best way to stop dumb people contracting viral infections; large companies contracting viral infections should look towards spending their own money rather than government cash based on a fairly spurious 'clean up' fee, when it was probably cost-cutting that left them vulnerable in the first place.
"This is because of a general lack of understanding about computers among journalists and policymakers IMO."
Well you wouldn't have helped by characterising viruses as 'Cyberterrorism' any more than WMD should include methlabs. Why do you think that people have been generally underwhelmed by governmental response to computer problems?
It's not so much that their intentions aren't good, it's just they miss the mark so much that you can almost hear the noise of hands hitting foreheads across the globe when the latest 'idea' hits the legislative floor.
"If you're going to have cinema-realism in games, you're going to have to deal with the same cinema rating system."
Ah, so eventually all games will converge on a '12' rating?
" here is the kind of email you can receive from a copyright holder. "
I had a couple once; they referred to a file that I'd never downloaded, which begs the question what kind of proof is actually produced. This was the first hint that I had that MD5 hashes weren't entirely unique.
"And can you inform us of exactly why people oppose pebble reactors? Other than the exaggerated fear factor?"
:)"
Yeah, but that's the level of ignorance that I'm fighting here. Personally I love pebble reactors as a replacement for PWRs because of the failure mode being a proper failsafe.
I spent an entertaining couple of weeks trying to stop people making prats of themselves when NASA was launching satellites containing SNAP-9 radiothermal reactors. They contain plutonium, which is horrendously poisonous, but the SNAP-9 reactor can pretty much survive a hard reentry.
Look, they had to change the name of NMR scanners because of the problem with the 'nuclear' word, likewise for RI tracing, but there is a valid reason for this fear in terms of the things that people have been taught over the years.
"Also you might find this journal entry enlightening
Not particularly. This information has been bandied around for the past three years in the UK, because we were under the fallout path, but bear in mind that a large number of people were relocated that are moving back into the region to farm. This means that radionuclides will be entering the food chain and the interesting information will come from the next few decades. One of the main problems with the reports of deaths in the Ukraine region was down to psychosomosis and fear, but the area is _heavily_ polluted from industrial processes.
But...there is a thyroid cancer cluster in the region; Even Jaworowski admits this. Similar to luekemia clusters, it's not really enough to state that a 7,900% increase is a 'blip' and ignore the problem because it fails to actually get into the causes.
However, Pressurised Water Reactors are bad because their design involves complexity to ensure safety. If any of the complex systems required to moderate the reactions are compromised (and I include the human component in this), then catastrophic things can happen. Rarely does a gas power plant failing require the evacuation of a 30 mile radius, or fairly large amounts of acute medical treatment, let alone the economic costs of dumping contaminated produce.
"Your claim that real science stands on its own is roughly equivalent to a juror claiming that they can spot a guilty person just by looking at them."
He would do well to check Lord Kelvin's opinion on X-rays, or Einstein's on Quantum theory.
"Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes."
If they give you bad news, then generally you can be sure that it's pretty truthful, especially when backed by peer-reviewed articles, but that's where the 'open source' model comes into it's own. Peer review is lots of people with their own opinions coming to the table to confirm or refute claims.
One of the bigger problems I've noticed in this thread is that there are people who build opinions from media, some that look at the reports themselves, and yet another section that are so caught in the rosy glow of their own 'righteousness' that they throw up sentences like the above as one line answers.
You don't like government reports, go look at the subject from the peer-review angle. Just don't sit on your arse and make clever comments about how you distrust the information therefore it MUST be bunk.
"Actually, having the government inacurately querying these databases is what scares me."
Not only that, but finding out that you're apparently a terrorist's alias, despite being a senator.
If the security services are that clueless, it doesn't bode well for actually catching terrorists.
"Kyoto IS a joke."
That smells like an opinion rather than something with carefully considered arguments. What are your objections to it?
"And you're right, GW might be for real. But we need more evidence."
What evidence do you need? Bear in mind that the cry 'we need more evidence' is generally pushed out by parties with a given opposition, and the _vast majority_ of evidence so far gathered points in the direction of the vast outpouring of byproducts having an effect on environment.
"why should scientists become the high-priests of socio-economic and politcal policy when they can't even agree on this issue?"
Explain to me exactly why the high priests of socio-economic and political policy should be lawyers and accountants; nobody is talking about scientists making those decisions, but actually having a say in them.
It might also come as a bit of a surprise, but the scientific method is geared towards debate. People mistake the disagreements for 'being unsure', but that's the very basis of it. Now it's come down to a majority that say that there's a human component to temperature increases, including the US Government eventually, but there's still this dumb ignorance applied to the data that has been collected.
You won't be convinced by an argument on Slashdot, though, so go look for the information yourself.
"The truth is, the political left is using GW to gain power."
Horseshit. The political left is going to have to deal with the problem once they're actually in power, so keep your political leanings out of the scientific argument.
"But show me some independent studies."
Who would you like?
"Remember that satellite photo of the 9/11 ground zero area that could show vehicles and people? Think that's the best the government has ... lmao ... think again."
Thanks, we already know how good KH and bigbird actually are. The problem is that satellites are in generally fixed orbits with a time to retask and given windows of operation. Afghanistan was a good indication of how bad this problem could become when they had two forty minute windows in a 24 hour period.
"The question we should be asking is whether it really matters if Florida drowns."
Not really to me, but I imagine people living down there might be a bit pissed.
"Its not as if the earth's oceans are going to go up 2 meter in one horrible night, it will take a few decades."
True enough, but go check out the mean temperatures of your farming belt and judge how long it will take to change over crop production from one type to another, in the meantime coping with producing enough food to feed people. Check out the amount of people in low-lying areas that will have to migrate to other areas. Check out the industrial and economic processes that would have to change very quickly. How far above sea-level is Manhatten?
Further to this, check out the stability of geological formations. You don't want large amounts of rock sliding into the ocean; water tables will rise and become salinated when aquifiers are directly exposed to seawater; forget the desalination plants, as they'll go pretty quickly.
Hey, I wonder how hurricanes are affected by moving over water compared with land, you think they could stay fairly powerful instead of blowing themselves out? What about the changing sea chemistry?
"Maybe we should look at things with a 15000 year timespan"
We're talking a century before the maps of the world change, bub. With that comes a significant change in albedo, and yes, it's a homocentric point of view, but that's the point. On geological scales we don't matter, but if you really thing of yourself as that insignificant, go drown yourself now and stop using resources.
"Earth has survived mass extinctions and meteor strikes since the beginning."
I'm guessing that you wrote 'mass extinctions' before realising that you're a member of a species?
"Face it, humans have very little influence over the climate."
Everyone disagress with you. In fact you're so completely wrong it wouldn't surprise me if you'd married your sister.
"Correlations have been shown, and some effects have been linked to the temperature increases, but while many people, including some Slashdotters, have said that other ideas have all been debunked, I've still seen no evidence of it."
New Scientist
The New Scientist is the UK's preeminent scientific publication produced weekly.
Relevant Climate alteration page
The major point is that the Bush Administration backed away from other nation's reports. Another poster in the thread mentioned other nation's motives, but this is a misnomer because this isn't a national issue, but a global one. Given Governmental speed in dealing with such things, it would have been an idea to entertain the notion in 2002 rather than roll out think-tank advisors, which is actually what happened.
"That bothers me, because it just seems that the people arguing against them don't want to deal with them as they might upset their worldview."
Likewise some of us trying to get people to avoid dismissing the whole idea of Global Warming on the basis that it's not proven find that worldviews or personal paradigms are the hardest thing to change. I'm personally willing for the whole thing to be bunk; I've frequently argued against the 1970s idea that the population of the world would increase to the point where it cannot support itself. Starvation and disease are a feedback loop in themselves, the latter looking more interesting in the light of recent avian flu's crossing species lines with startling ease.
Likewise there are problems with the green movement in terms of a lack of real knowledge, but to dismiss everything based on the label 'tree hugger' is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"That has much more to do with how American "environmentalists" go so far out to one side, and almost always refuse to compromise."
That's a worldwide problem. We recently had Greenpeace undertaking to disrupt the shipment of plutonium for reprocessing going to France because of 'the risk from terrorists'. Nothing scares the nuclear club more than Plutonium going missing, and it's a really big issue. Greenpeace has been going degenerate for years in terms of protesting perfectly reasonable measures.
"even though I'm not entirely sure that man-made global warming exists."
There was a report released during the RNC that shows that there is a corellation, but it's been fairly quiet on the subject; I suspect as a political exercise.
The thing is it's better to assume that there is a threat and take action to moderate than assume there isn't one and find out the hard way. Incidentally, this is pretty much the justification that waved through the PATRIOT act, although the indications that individual private Americans are undertaking terrorist planning is almost nil.
"But such should be approached carefully, evaluated, and planned well, instead of hurtling headlong into something that may not have a point."
See above. I'm with you on this, because if nothing the drive for efficiency will always help in the long run, both economically and socially, but the drive for better efficiency tends to involve a dollar cost that shows a return over a longer amount of time than the average governmental term; Someone has to have the bloody courage to tell campaign contributors the bad news, though.
"There are a lot of scientists on record as saying such. That they happen to be American, as you are, should not only make you proud, but should make you question the other nations' motives."
So national paranoia is the answer? FWIW, there are scientists in every nation that argue the issue, but only America has nationally mandated a refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Treaty, mainly because as the highest consumer of oil and therefore one of the largest contributors to Co2 their representatives are too damned scared to tell their campaign contributors that they'll have to clean up their act.
"Global Warming just might be a joke."
Flip it round; what if it isn't?
"Yeah, and equally head-in-the-sand, you've banned genetically modified plants, too. Way to embrace technology."
Yoohoo. Over here. Yeah, the discussion about Global Warming. It's just that you appear to have wandered off into some kind of Luddite thing, and we'd hate to lose your attention.
"I think people should look at this before commenting."
I did. Chris Floyd is going to be a force to be reckoned with once he graduates from high school.
I mean, the only excuse for the complete lack of information and 'you're poopy' argument style has to be maturity, right?
"I see no problem."
I do. It was a PR blunder that suggested that the Labour party was petty enough to try a tactic like that in the first place. They lost points for that one in addition to getting Patricia Hewitt to apologise for Tony.
"As long as its clear that the sites aren't affiliated with the Conservative party or Mr. Howard"
If they had a _hint_ of that, they'd be slapped for it.
"There's not enough difference in the resolution of PAL and of NTSC to really matter at all."
625 - 525 lines or nearly 20% more lines. What would you consider a significant difference?
"PAL has a lower framerate, too, so nyah!"
According to your comparison, not enough to matter...but 20% faster in the US, but this does mean that PAL has a higher bandwidth.
Incidentally, we can actually drive most equipment from the past decade at higher refresh rates. 100Hz is not that uncommon from the past five years, but the real comparison comes from clamping colours, which NTSC has never really managed.
"I'm as liberal as the next guy, but if you look at the data from a scientific perspective"
You mean peer-reviewed, right? Not internet sources, but solid peer-reviewed papers?
"increased CO2 levels are causing a significant change in our atmosphere different from what the Earth has experienced in the past."
True, but you're missing the point that we have much more population in low-lying areas and there's a fairly tight boundary in terms of feeding populations, not to mention that there is a correlation between industrial output and a rise in Co2. To say that we don't have any data that it's rising is generally to state that we need indications of serious problems to even start curing a problem that could take centuries.
Oh, and this isn't a political issue. I wish people would get off that hobby horse.
"I think that environmentalists (amung which I count myself) do their cause a disservice by trying to "massage the data" to manufacture catastrophe."
I have serious problems with Greenpeace and other such organisations as 'degenerate' rather than being constructive, especially in terms of the fever-pitch 'we're destroying the planet', but the basic fact exists that we're affecting our environment to the point where we could end up with serious problems, and by that I mean deaths in the millions or a serious change in the amount of land available for living on. So we're generally in agreement.
"Easy, man like many silly people, he is mistaking the cause and the effect."
I'm just miffed that the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American. The EU has already issued warnings and the UK in particular has been engaged on sorting the Co2 output for _ten years_.
"Nearly all of this research shows global warming which makes people complain that it is an industry."
Meanwhile, Rome burns.
"Cue joke for "What do you call the entire population of Florida under water?""
One way to get rid of the niggling future medicare and pension problems.
"Here's a graph of temperature vs. Carbon-dioxide levels. See a relationship? Neither do I."
Not surprisingly because they're measuring temperature in the Troposphere and Stratosphere without really exposing methodology, or using slightly more effective temperature methods such as mean continental shelf sea temperature, or factoring in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth.
But no, instead they use a set of temperature readings that are extremely liable to tiny changes in pressure...
Incidentally, go check out what the Government is saying; they don't think it's 'junk science', but the people behind that site may not have caught the message yet.