Global warming theory is based on superstition for the most part, and bad science at best. It's not something any reasonable person would look at and think was true. The data doesn't support the conclusions given. More data may support it, but at best, it's a theory, not a fact.
This one statement proves you do NOT understand science. Science does not provide reasons that can be called facts - it provides theories. Quantum mechanics is a theory in place until it gets disproved as classical mechanics was by a better model and the "laws" of thermodyanics, gravitational theories, theories on the movements of electrons etc. may all be disproved. They will, however, never be proved - this is not mathematics, there is no test to show that physical and chemical theories work for all instances of the variables.
The whole point that you are missing though is that virtually all accepted climate models show that we are experiencing climatic change due to increased amounts of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Why should we risk that until we have absolute proof? Is it not more sensible to mitigate this risk? Why should my home town disapear under water whilst your head disapears up your own arse?
The only politics in this is certain countries (mainly the US) trying to deny the evidence to protect it's own interest.
Hmmm, wonder if threatening the extinction of a large number of species counts as biological warfare...
Interesting though that very few scientists in these fields agree that this a steaming bowl of crappola.
The only people that seem to disagree a very small proportion of scientists, the US administration (even though their own scientific advisers agree that global warming is a real threat), some people in big business and a strangley large proportion of Americans who seem to think it is all some communist plot to take away their freedom. I've seen climate change in my lifetime in my country, 9 out of 10 of the hottest summers and winters have been in the last 30 years, with most of those occuring in the last decade. Considering the UK has temperature records dating back a couple of centuries I think this is fairly good empirical evidence, but hey what do I matter, I'm not some fat ignoramous in Ohio who wants to drive a 10 tonne SUV.
"Only a U.K. marketer would endorse such a loser as a brand spokesman -- and let him explain sex explicitly to a 4-year-old"
Nice comment from the journalist on the Ad site. I would prefer to see it as the British having a self deprecating sense of humour and that we don't rely on seeing perfect looking people to boost our own self worth if we buy the product.
No offense mate but you are absolutely full of sh*t.
It is a bit rich that with your current government that you see fit to accuse the european government's of being corrupt - what about all the pork barrel politics, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's involvement in Enron/Haliburton/selling biological weapons precursors to Saddam.
It is also interesting to see that you accuse the "old" European nations of being innefficient - France produce more per person per hour than the US.
Work's well in Isreal/Palestine doesn't it. Also worked really well in Northern Ireland.
The only time that this kind of approach has ever worked is when people like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, several Roman leaders etc. wiped out entire populations - women and children as well. If you try using force you better kill every single person that may have a reason to fight back, otherwise one will.
If you are suggesting this approach then you are either one sick and twisted individual or a complete idiot.
Of course dropping big f*cking nuclear "balloons" on Japan were intended to frighten and demoralize the Japanese citizenry, and show how far reaching America's offensive could get. I'd call that state-supported terrorism.
Can anyone tell me the diference here? It seems to everyone outside the US that an attack on the US, it's interests or soldiers is terrorism but any attack by the US on anyone else is a "legal" war.
OK - so your argument is based on the premise that because we haven't found the WMDs that is no reason to suppose that they don't exist, therefore they do exist?
I hope you are not a techy - I can just imagine your conditional statements...
Is there any way that anyone could prove to you that the WMDs do not exist?
I'm assuming your are American, in which case your government and your countrymen HAVE sponsored international terrorism with large amounts of money and weapons.
Admitedly your country hasn't killed 40,000 of it's own people with nerve gas, but it has killed 10s of thousands of Vietnamese.
Typical Americam bollocks - the US supported the guy through the 80s when he committed some of his worst attrocities.
Then during the 90s US companies were active in Iraq and trying to work with Saddam - I have friends working in the oil industry who were working for US companies and had colleagues sent to Iraq. There was no big French or UN conspiracy to make money out the oppressed Iraqis whilst the wonderful, selfless Americans did everything they could to help. America had been as guilty as any other country over the last decade in Iraq and were probably more culpable before that.
If the US government has ethical issues and we don't why should we have to sacrifice our competitive edge? Should Europe and the UK care about American pharma companies profits? Does the US give a flying f*ck about our welfare? Nope. So why should WE care what they want...
1) I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that my personal view is hypocritical simply because it doesn't match your perception of the "common" view of Slashdot. If you find comments of mine that contradict each other then that may be a valid argument.
2) Manipulating share price is theft because it allows the execs to sell shares to the market at more than their true value, thus the execs gain real money and those that invest (small traders, pension funds, banks etc.) lose real money. This is known as fraud.
For example, if you buy a car with the odometer clocked the salesman is misrepresenting the item for sale to articially boost the price. If a corporate exec lies about the profits/losses of their company they are doing EXACTLY the same thing. In either case you are overpaying based on fraudalent information - this is theft of REAL money.
Nice to see you acknowledge your negative contribution to the insight on/.
There is a vast amount of evidence that large numbers of people were denied the right to vote because they had a similar name to that of a known criminal - sometimes just a surname and town in common could be enough. Those running the election (Katherine Harris) employed a company now owned by Diebold (I believe) to construct the list used. This list included people from other states who had prior criminal records but were allowed to vote under FLORIDA law - however they were removed from the voter's role.
Now due to demographics and crime rates in the US, where those who are poor and black are more likely to have a criminal record, this deliberate policy of ignoring FLORIDA state law by it's governer and the electoral commitees disadvantaged the Democrats as most poor and black voters vote democrat. The fact that they mis-matched on name also helped the Republicans as not many wealthy, white Republican voters have similar names to poor blacks. There are many, many cases of the wrong people being denied the right to vote.
Not when you are doing this to manipulate the share price. The directors commited fraud to artificially keep the company afloat and to keep the share price high so that they could continue to make money at the expense of their creditors and shareholders. Legally that IS theft.
The whole points of execs, i.e. directors, partners etc., is that they ARE responsible for the actions of their company. They make policy, they make the decisions and unltimately they have to take the fall if their company is involved in illegal actions. That IS corporate law.
The real travesty in this case is that Andersons was brought down to stop the investigation going any further up the food chain, alegedly to members of the current administration. Bizarely in the case of Andersons the responsible partner was able to get off scott free by turning state's evidence and the normal employees paid for it instead. I have worked at Andersons and I know how much power and control over information an individual partner has over his team/division. It was very easy for that partner to keep his behaviour secret from the rest of the company...
The very fact that the officials have signed contracts that forbid any investigation of the equipment and that there are no verifiable audit trails makes me think that there is some truth in these "conspiracy theories".
When government is not open and transparent it is usually because those people who make up the government are trying to hide something, usually fixing things in their own self interest.
Would you trust your money to a bank that had no audit trail and whose systems and accounts were not open to independant audit?
Just a question. Unfortunately it seems that all Americans are convinced that the sole role of the UN is to take away the rights and freedoms of the good ol' US of A.
Where does this view come from? Is it from the UNDHR - a document that promotes the rights of individuals to have free speech, free elections and equal opportunities? Is it from that evil organisation UNESCO which works evilly to eradicate disease and poverty? Is it from those oppressive peace keepers, putting their lives at risk around the world to prevent genocide?
Or is it because it refuses to bend and take it up the a*se from the US and agree with everything the current lunatics in the Whitehouse demand?
Absolute b**locks - in a recent study of the freedom of the media around the world the US came 14th. First, unsuprisingly, was Holland, followed by most of the Scandanavian nations and then many European nations.
Interesting as well how very few critical articles on the current US government are printed in the US. Try reading the British press to see how the media should be free to criticise the government at every opportunity.
Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.
Interesting view - of course individuals would have the opportunity to use any technology they wished even though they may be unsupported by a network carrier. I can use a CDMA phone in the UK if I want, provided I want to use it as a paperweight. I don't not have the choice because of evil government interference but because no companies support it.
Standards are useful - think of everyone using their own version of HTML. Would the internet have grown so quickly if no-one could read anyone else's webpages?
The simple fact is that in the case of mobile telephony agreeing on a standard early on has led to a much better customer experience and has helped the industry grow. Things we have taken for granted with respect to mobile telephony for several years in Europes are only now being rolled out in the US. With respect to CDMA, please learn some facts before just agreeing with the standard American is better line that we have come to expect from neo-Cons. It has advantages in some respects but not in others - on balance the choice of GSM (or GPRS these days) vs. CDMA really depends on a whole variety of factors ranging from roll out cost to population density to upgrade roadmaps - the senator that tried to push CDMA as the choice for Iraq's mobile network spouted incredible amounts of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Try riding a carbon-fiber bicycle around indoors, at a crowded convention, in a buisness suit. B-)
Lazy b*stard - what is wrong with walking around a crowded convention, that's what most of us would do.
but "America" gives a shit about global evironment (check international negotiations)
Would Kyoto be a good example on that?
Global warming theory is based on superstition for the most part, and bad science at best. It's not something any reasonable person would look at and think was true. The data doesn't support the conclusions given. More data may support it, but at best, it's a theory, not a fact.
This one statement proves you do NOT understand science. Science does not provide reasons that can be called facts - it provides theories. Quantum mechanics is a theory in place until it gets disproved as classical mechanics was by a better model and the "laws" of thermodyanics, gravitational theories, theories on the movements of electrons etc. may all be disproved. They will, however, never be proved - this is not mathematics, there is no test to show that physical and chemical theories work for all instances of the variables.
The whole point that you are missing though is that virtually all accepted climate models show that we are experiencing climatic change due to increased amounts of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Why should we risk that until we have absolute proof? Is it not more sensible to mitigate this risk? Why should my home town disapear under water whilst your head disapears up your own arse?
The only politics in this is certain countries (mainly the US) trying to deny the evidence to protect it's own interest.
Hmmm, wonder if threatening the extinction of a large number of species counts as biological warfare...
Interesting though that very few scientists in these fields agree that this a steaming bowl of crappola.
The only people that seem to disagree a very small proportion of scientists, the US administration (even though their own scientific advisers agree that global warming is a real threat), some people in big business and a strangley large proportion of Americans who seem to think it is all some communist plot to take away their freedom. I've seen climate change in my lifetime in my country, 9 out of 10 of the hottest summers and winters have been in the last 30 years, with most of those occuring in the last decade. Considering the UK has temperature records dating back a couple of centuries I think this is fairly good empirical evidence, but hey what do I matter, I'm not some fat ignoramous in Ohio who wants to drive a 10 tonne SUV.
Socialism is only regarded as a complete failure in the US - mainly because very few Americans actually know what it is and mistake it for communism.
You have just proved the point...
"Only a U.K. marketer would endorse such a loser as a brand spokesman -- and let him explain sex explicitly to a 4-year-old"
Nice comment from the journalist on the Ad site. I would prefer to see it as the British having a self deprecating sense of humour and that we don't rely on seeing perfect looking people to boost our own self worth if we buy the product.
No offense mate but you are absolutely full of sh*t.
It is a bit rich that with your current government that you see fit to accuse the european government's of being corrupt - what about all the pork barrel politics, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's involvement in Enron/Haliburton/selling biological weapons precursors to Saddam.
It is also interesting to see that you accuse the "old" European nations of being innefficient - France produce more per person per hour than the US.
Loose the anti-Europeanism....
What's worse is that now on some DVDs that you BUY (not just rent) you HAVE to sit through adverts. This really takes the p*ss...
Um, I think you'll find that Bloody Sunday refers to a riot in Northern Ireland, not something many Russians would necessarily care about...
Work's well in Isreal/Palestine doesn't it. Also worked really well in Northern Ireland.
The only time that this kind of approach has ever worked is when people like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, several Roman leaders etc. wiped out entire populations - women and children as well. If you try using force you better kill every single person that may have a reason to fight back, otherwise one will.
If you are suggesting this approach then you are either one sick and twisted individual or a complete idiot.
Of course dropping big f*cking nuclear "balloons" on Japan were intended to frighten and demoralize the Japanese citizenry, and show how far reaching America's offensive could get. I'd call that state-supported terrorism.
Can anyone tell me the diference here? It seems to everyone outside the US that an attack on the US, it's interests or soldiers is terrorism but any attack by the US on anyone else is a "legal" war.
OK - so your argument is based on the premise that because we haven't found the WMDs that is no reason to suppose that they don't exist, therefore they do exist?
I hope you are not a techy - I can just imagine your conditional statements...
Is there any way that anyone could prove to you that the WMDs do not exist?
I'm assuming your are American, in which case your government and your countrymen HAVE sponsored international terrorism with large amounts of money and weapons.
Admitedly your country hasn't killed 40,000 of it's own people with nerve gas, but it has killed 10s of thousands of Vietnamese.
Slight problem with your argument - Iraq is not in the US and is therefore not subject to US law.
By the same logic all any country has to do is pass an invasion in their internal parliament and it is legal.
This is why we have INTERNATIONAL law, much as the US likes to ignore it.
Typical Americam bollocks - the US supported the guy through the 80s when he committed some of his worst attrocities.
Then during the 90s US companies were active in Iraq and trying to work with Saddam - I have friends working in the oil industry who were working for US companies and had colleagues sent to Iraq. There was no big French or UN conspiracy to make money out the oppressed Iraqis whilst the wonderful, selfless Americans did everything they could to help. America had been as guilty as any other country over the last decade in Iraq and were probably more culpable before that.
on anyone else...
If the US government has ethical issues and we don't why should we have to sacrifice our competitive edge? Should Europe and the UK care about American pharma companies profits? Does the US give a flying f*ck about our welfare? Nope. So why should WE care what they want...
Couple of points in reply.
/.
1) I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that my personal view is hypocritical simply because it doesn't match your perception of the "common" view of Slashdot. If you find comments of mine that contradict each other then that may be a valid argument.
2) Manipulating share price is theft because it allows the execs to sell shares to the market at more than their true value, thus the execs gain real money and those that invest (small traders, pension funds, banks etc.) lose real money. This is known as fraud.
For example, if you buy a car with the odometer clocked the salesman is misrepresenting the item for sale to articially boost the price. If a corporate exec lies about the profits/losses of their company they are doing EXACTLY the same thing. In either case you are overpaying based on fraudalent information - this is theft of REAL money.
Nice to see you acknowledge your negative contribution to the insight on
There is a vast amount of evidence that large numbers of people were denied the right to vote because they had a similar name to that of a known criminal - sometimes just a surname and town in common could be enough. Those running the election (Katherine Harris) employed a company now owned by Diebold (I believe) to construct the list used. This list included people from other states who had prior criminal records but were allowed to vote under FLORIDA law - however they were removed from the voter's role.
Now due to demographics and crime rates in the US, where those who are poor and black are more likely to have a criminal record, this deliberate policy of ignoring FLORIDA state law by it's governer and the electoral commitees disadvantaged the Democrats as most poor and black voters vote democrat. The fact that they mis-matched on name also helped the Republicans as not many wealthy, white Republican voters have similar names to poor blacks. There are many, many cases of the wrong people being denied the right to vote.
Not when you are doing this to manipulate the share price. The directors commited fraud to artificially keep the company afloat and to keep the share price high so that they could continue to make money at the expense of their creditors and shareholders. Legally that IS theft.
The whole points of execs, i.e. directors, partners etc., is that they ARE responsible for the actions of their company. They make policy, they make the decisions and unltimately they have to take the fall if their company is involved in illegal actions. That IS corporate law.
The real travesty in this case is that Andersons was brought down to stop the investigation going any further up the food chain, alegedly to members of the current administration. Bizarely in the case of Andersons the responsible partner was able to get off scott free by turning state's evidence and the normal employees paid for it instead. I have worked at Andersons and I know how much power and control over information an individual partner has over his team/division. It was very easy for that partner to keep his behaviour secret from the rest of the company...
The very fact that the officials have signed contracts that forbid any investigation of the equipment and that there are no verifiable audit trails makes me think that there is some truth in these "conspiracy theories".
When government is not open and transparent it is usually because those people who make up the government are trying to hide something, usually fixing things in their own self interest.
Would you trust your money to a bank that had no audit trail and whose systems and accounts were not open to independant audit?
Just a question. Unfortunately it seems that all Americans are convinced that the sole role of the UN is to take away the rights and freedoms of the good ol' US of A.
Where does this view come from? Is it from the UNDHR - a document that promotes the rights of individuals to have free speech, free elections and equal opportunities? Is it from that evil organisation UNESCO which works evilly to eradicate disease and poverty? Is it from those oppressive peace keepers, putting their lives at risk around the world to prevent genocide?
Or is it because it refuses to bend and take it up the a*se from the US and agree with everything the current lunatics in the Whitehouse demand?
Absolute b**locks - in a recent study of the freedom of the media around the world the US came 14th. First, unsuprisingly, was Holland, followed by most of the Scandanavian nations and then many European nations.
Interesting as well how very few critical articles on the current US government are printed in the US. Try reading the British press to see how the media should be free to criticise the government at every opportunity.
Great comment, particularly as we have a Catholic Prime Minister and considering the current lawsuits against Catholic priests in Boston...
Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.
Interesting view - of course individuals would have the opportunity to use any technology they wished even though they may be unsupported by a network carrier. I can use a CDMA phone in the UK if I want, provided I want to use it as a paperweight. I don't not have the choice because of evil government interference but because no companies support it.
Standards are useful - think of everyone using their own version of HTML. Would the internet have grown so quickly if no-one could read anyone else's webpages?
The simple fact is that in the case of mobile telephony agreeing on a standard early on has led to a much better customer experience and has helped the industry grow. Things we have taken for granted with respect to mobile telephony for several years in Europes are only now being rolled out in the US. With respect to CDMA, please learn some facts before just agreeing with the standard American is better line that we have come to expect from neo-Cons. It has advantages in some respects but not in others - on balance the choice of GSM (or GPRS these days) vs. CDMA really depends on a whole variety of factors ranging from roll out cost to population density to upgrade roadmaps - the senator that tried to push CDMA as the choice for Iraq's mobile network spouted incredible amounts of crap.