However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity. I repeat, "God is One". Assuming God is all powerful, is it not feasible for him/her to manifest himself/herself in as many ways as he/she wishes?...
You should really learn just a wee bit about what you are spouting out before you look like a complete idiot.
Maybe you should learn a bit more about the history of the Church before you go all-out on someone like that? The whole point of the the Trinity is that it's a compromise - in the Church's history, there was a powerful group of people who were convinced that God really did have three separate forms, and there was a group of people (who currently had official power) who were convinced that God having three separate forms was a polytheistic heresy.
In order to prevent a giant schism, they essentially made a compromise by fiat - God is three separate things (to appease the first group), but God is also one thing (to appease the second group). It makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever in any way, like many compromises do; and in fact, every logical way of explaining the concept of the Trinity has been deemed heretical, because by definition it will either fall on the side of God is one thing, or God is three things - and by definition, He must be both. It's like trying to straddle the line between 1 and 0 in discrete binary, there exists no correct middle ground. It's so bad that the Catholic Church officially considers the Trinity a "Mystery", which is code for "don't try to explain this or else you'll figure out the whole thing is kind of a scam".
There were a number of reasons, I didn't like constantly defending myself against what other crazier Christians were doing, and I didn't like wasting my time going to church every week when 99% of what they preached didn't make any sense or didn't apply to me. My faith is still there, I just learned that organized religion does nothing but puts up barriers.
So what you're saying is that, to an outside observer, you are indistinguishable from an atheist? Even more so than your fellow Christians who go to church, but don't actually behave in ways that could be explained by the existence of God?
Funny, that. It's almost like God affects your life about as strongly as Xenu does.
They occasionally have actual answers. The thing is, Google won't give you any credit for answers browsers can't see - which would mean the paywall would knock your page rank to shit.
How does Expert Sex Change get around this? They pretend that the answer is behind a paywall, when in fact the answer is actually all the way at the bottom of the page. The Google search bot is much more patient than you are, and will not care about the pretend-paywall.
So yeah. Whenever it looks like Expert Sex Change has your answer, just follow the link and scroll all the way down.
If you don't know how to use root access in a way that doesn't screw up your box, you don't deserve to have a job as an admin, period. Its not like its easy to bumble around on a command line and screw something up. There's really only one really easy thing to do that will potentially demolish a box and that's rm -rf * in the wrong directory and it is a rare sudoers file indeed that prevents a sysadmin from running 'rm'.
Uh huh. Okay. How about this?
rm -rf . /
Normal user: "Oh shit access denied, ctrl-c ctrl-c"
... The movie companies claim to lose money on piracy, despite their revenues continuing to increase steadily throughout most of the 2000's, and despite research showing that pirating often stimulates sales....
Actually, I would argue that those studies are exactly why the film industry hates piracy.
Look at it like this: they're a business. Businesses want a steady revenue stream. Ideally, entertainment becomes a machine - 1x money goes in one end, and 1.5x money comes out the other end, no matter what. If sometimes, unpredictably, when you put 1x money in 1.1x money comes out, that's bad - but so is putting 1x money in and getting 2x money out. Unpredictability in general is bad, even if it ends up working out in your favor.
How do businesses combat unpredictability? With marketing. By molding how people perceive your product, you tune the machine; yes, you make its output higher, but you also make the output range narrower - you remove the unpredictability from the market. I bet that one of marketing's greatest victories in the modern era has been to convince people that its goal is simply to improve sales at any cost, not to stabilize them.
This is clearly very important to almost every business, but especially entertainment. I mean, just look at the budget for any major game or movie - there's quite frequently an even split in resources allocated to making the thing and advertising the thing - which, to a business, means that they think advertising is at least as important as the actual product.
So where does piracy come in? It's the equivalent of millions of dollars spent on marketing, that the business has absolutely no control over. That makes type-A CEOs flip out - not because they're losing sales, but because, in essence, they've lost control of something. And they have good reason to, a lot of the time - instead of consumers being hit with a carefully crafted marketing message that frames the product in exactly the right way, they're just exposed directly to the product itself. Remember that budget allocation? Piracy literally makes half of what the company spent on bringing the product to market useless.
So yeah. Those studies that say piracy might actually increase sales? Businesses don't give a shit. What they care about is the unauthorized marketing, which adds unpredictability to their income and makes a large part of the resources they spend meaningless.
Actually I think it would be better to keep a job. Be honest, you wouldn't quit a paying job. Of course you meant that you'd start looking at the employment sites during your off time.
Uhm yeah, if you're an American. See, Americans generally have 1. No (or little) savings and 2. Almost no safety net.
This means that if you object to something your company does, the only recourse is to passive-aggressively start sneaking around looking for other work - because you must be employed at all times, and not having a job is simply not an option. You can't actually, you know, make a stand or anything - your current life literally depends on the good graces of the company you work for, which means that you simply cannot do anything to piss them off unless you already have another company ready to take you in.
I mean, there's a reason why people call our current society "neo-feudalism".
Well see, that's the thing - trying to change company policy by walking out like this works best when there's a social safety net for you to fall back on.
In the USA, if you walk out on your job like this (and you'd have to walk out, because chances are you don't have flex time) you'd be, essentially, screwed.
Almost makes you wonder why this capitalist paradise has such gaping holes in the social safety net, doesn't it?
However if you built a robot with all your memories, emotions, thoughts and personality then no matter how accurate it was there is no way to transfer the you-ness of you - the real you, the soul or whatever - into the machine. It may think, feel and act exactly like you but there would be no way to experience it.
You are assuming that such a "you-ness" exists, when in fact it most likely does not. The "you-ness" you are describing is, as far as we can tell, simply a large amount of information and just as amenable to copying as any other piece of information.
Yes, if we created a person-duplicator and created a robot clone of you, the new version would eventually diverge from biological you and the "you" that's implemented in flesh wouldn't magically get transferred over to the robot version; it's like a source code branch that never gets merged back in to the main trunk, but keeps on being developed.
But so what? When you have children, your "you-ness" doesn't magically transfer over to them either, and yet people still have children. This would be like having children, except your "child" would be a perfect copy of yourself.
The new RC build includes a Tracking Protection feature, which gives users the option to control what third-party site content can track them when they're online...
Third-party tracking is disabled, but I bet you first-party tracking gets cranked up a notch - after all, now IE knows you're doing something you don't want other people knowing about, and that's definitely a "signal", as the Microsoft representative said:)
Hey you know what? We have this amazing new technology called "Google maps", you can actually see what a route between Borden and Corcoran would look like!
And you know what? If you were building a new rail line from LA to San Fransisco, you'd almost certainly build it through that area at some point (the other option is the coastal route, which already has a train). It's almost like this is just one segment of what will eventually be a fully working railroad! It's almost like they're planning this out years in advance, instead of just doing whatever looks good right now!
Also: That laptop is an HP Pavillion. I've owned two of those, because for some reason whenever I went out to buy a laptop they were the only ones with a decent mobile graphics card.
The reason why I've owned two of them is because they fall apart if you have the temerity to (God forbid) use them on your lap. The build quality on those things is so terrible that consistently using them on any sort of unstable surface leads to things just falling apart.
Compare that to, say, an iPad or a MacBook - you can actually use those suckers on your lap, or while walking around, without them falling apart in a year.
I guess you have a much looser definition of "informed consent" than I do; I'm pretty sure the Bing toolbar install process doesn't say in a place that people actually read "we will spy on where you click on other websites".
We have a name for people who can hear music nobody else can. It's called "schizophrenia".
The thing is, I bet that if you really study this, the vast majority of people who claim to believe in astrology do not act in a manner that differs in an appreciable sense from people who make no such belief claims.
In other words, I bet you that everyone's dancing to the same tune - it's just that some people claim that they can hear the music of the stars, and it just so happens that they end up dancing the same way as the people who listen to reality. After all, evolution is not forgiving of genes that ignore reality to their detriment.
Do you not think that that is bad behavior? To, in essence, spy on Joe User's interactions with another company, with neither knowledge nor informed consent from either party?
Bing wasn't just watching Google - they outright stole Google's faked data. In the car analogy, Toyota would have watched to see what Ford was building, but Ford would have caught on, and set up a parking lot full of plywood cars without motors.
No no no! I don't know why people keep on saying "Bing copied the results"! It was not Bing, it was Microsoft. The only way it would be just "Bing" that did this would be if the information was gathered from people who both have the Bing toolbar, yet still search from the Google home page - and even then, I'm not sure it would work; I mean, do Internet Explorer toolbars really have enough power to see what you're typing and what you end up clicking on an arbitrary page? If so that's kind of scary.
While I'm sure it's possible that that's the only source of data they have, I doubt they'd be able to get very much high-quality information from that (after all, the people who would do that are probably not the most clueful people in the world). It's way, way more likely that they're coordinating with whatever team handles the information Internet Explorer gathers about users.
The thing I never quite understood about ignition interlocks is why repeat DUI offenders are even allowed to drive a car at all.
Fundamentally, we let people become repeat DUI offenders because our public infrastructure is absolute shit.
Look: consider someone who drinks and drives, and gets arrested and hauled into court. What do we do with them? In general, there's about two options, which get mixed and matched:
1. The judge may force them to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, or a sister 12 step program. 2. The judge may suspend their driver's license.
What happens in case 1? Well, AA has about the same five-year success rate as going untreated, so it's essentially a useless option; I haven't heard any stats on its sister programs, which probably means that they're equally worthless (that's the thing about these stats - all those organizations have them, so if they don't bandy them about you know they're shitty).
Furthermore, there's some constitutional problems involved in a judge forcing someone to go to AA; it's a fundamentally religious organization with kind of ridiculous Christian overtones, which rather seems to violate people's first amendment rights. I know they try to get around it by saying "oh the higher power in step 2 doesn't have to be God!" but come on, that's a bullshit excuse and you know it. Why don't we have a proper, secular, working treatment for alcoholism? Because nobody feels like investing public money in it; they're all worthless alkies, after all.
If the judge tries option number 2, in this country he's essentially consigned the drunk driver to losing his job. Public transit is shit, alternate transit is generally unsupported (you try going anywhere on a bike most places in the USA - it's fucking scary), and walking is generally unfeasible, since a 20 minute drive would turn in to at least an hour long walk.
So, what's left to do? The judge basically has to let the guy keep his car and his license. Most states have a sort of restricted license deal, where you're still allowed to drive, but only to and from work - which works great, as long as the alcoholic doesn't oh I don't know get drunk again and decide to go for a drive.
Basically, we let people who drink and drive keep on drinking and driving because the alternative is to invest in infrastructure like public transit and rehabilitation programs, and that's just socialist - we can't have any of that society stuff here in the USA, oh no!
What's so hard to understand about the Schultze method? The interface it exposes to the voter is very simple - "rank the candidates on this list, with 1 being your preferred candidate, 2 being your second preference, etcetera. You may use the same number more than once. You may leave candidates unranked; they will be considered as ranked N*. If you wish to vote in the old fashion, mark a 1 next to your preferred candidate and leave the rest blank".
Now I agree that, after people have voted, reading the numbers will probably be difficult; but in terms of what the voter has to understand it's very very simple - and if you expect them to understand the mechanics of the voting system, well, most of the current crop of voters don't understand how our electoral college works anyway, so you're not losing anything there:)
*where N is the total number of candidates, to allow for people to more easily vote against someone (e.g, I like A and B so I give them 1 and 2, I don't care about D E F so I leave them blank, but I definitely do not like G so I give it rank 7)
They view humans as utterly expendable and particularly those humans who happen to disagree with their eco-religion. See the "No Pressure" videos created by the eco-militant 10:10 group as a fairly recent example. It's a twisted and evil worldview and any sane reason-based person should reject it utterly.
Or, at the very least, demand that they avoid hypocrisy and off themselves first as an example to the rest of us.
Umm... I just wanted to point out that you're misinterpreting those videos, which isn't that surprising given how easy they make it.
See, what's going to happen is this: as of right now, something on the order of several million people are probably going to die due to the side-effects of global warming (their villages will flood, higher-energy hurricanes will blow away their villages, mosquitos and other parasites will suddenly find their lands hospitable...). If we start reducing carbon emissions right now, we might be able to limit the number of future deaths, but at this point a serious number is all but guaranteed.
The thing is, almost all of the people who kick the bucket due to global warming side-effects are going to be brown or yellow. So we white people don't really give a shit - it's going to be some poor Ethiopian farmer who gets poleaxed by a hurricane-driven motorbike, not some English or American dude. What those videos are saying is, well, if you don't start cutting back, you're going to be causing deaths - and they represent this by blowing up the person who doesn't cut back. It's a poorly made video, I agree, because it implies that "we will kill you if you don't cut back" - not "you will cause deaths if you don't cut back", which is the message they should have been trying to get across.
The thing is, though, fundamentally it is people like you who take this attitude - that humans are utterly expendable. By saying "you know what? I'm gonna keep on doing these things that really screw third-world countries", you are literally saying "The lives of a thousand Ethiopian villagers are meaningless in the face of my burning need to drive a gigantic car".
This isn't anti-abortion vs pro-choice - this is "babies come from storks" vs "babies come from sex", and the story with the storks keeps on winning because people don't want to face the fact that if you have a lot of unprotected sex, you're going to end up with babies.
Now, let's say the chances of that happening are 1-in-100 million. Well, the level of disruption and the odds of it happening are so poor that a terrorist wouldn't bother. But there are around 100,000 commercial flights, planet-wide, per day. That would mean that every three years you would have an incident like this.
Umm... You know, I'm actually totally okay with something like that happening every three years if it means we can let the airline stewards stop being Nazis about "your phone must be off".
Seriously, don't do this "living standard" crap. At the very least use minor version numbers to identify a given set of standards. Don't force me to guestimate how a web page I write today is going to behave in browsers 5 years from now; let me specify what behaviour I want.
So which do you want right now: the way IE 9 interprets HTML5, the way Chrome interprets HTML5, the way Firefox interprets HTML5, or the way Opera interprets HTML5? They're all slightly different, after all.
Oh and how exactly do you specify that in an HTML document? Is that the purpose of those silly little "Viewed best with Internet Explorer" badges?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should learn a bit more about the history of the Church before you go all-out on someone like that? The whole point of the the Trinity is that it's a compromise - in the Church's history, there was a powerful group of people who were convinced that God really did have three separate forms, and there was a group of people (who currently had official power) who were convinced that God having three separate forms was a polytheistic heresy.
In order to prevent a giant schism, they essentially made a compromise by fiat - God is three separate things (to appease the first group), but God is also one thing (to appease the second group). It makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever in any way, like many compromises do; and in fact, every logical way of explaining the concept of the Trinity has been deemed heretical, because by definition it will either fall on the side of God is one thing, or God is three things - and by definition, He must be both. It's like trying to straddle the line between 1 and 0 in discrete binary, there exists no correct middle ground. It's so bad that the Catholic Church officially considers the Trinity a "Mystery", which is code for "don't try to explain this or else you'll figure out the whole thing is kind of a scam".
So what you're saying is that, to an outside observer, you are indistinguishable from an atheist? Even more so than your fellow Christians who go to church, but don't actually behave in ways that could be explained by the existence of God?
Funny, that. It's almost like God affects your life about as strongly as Xenu does.
They occasionally have actual answers. The thing is, Google won't give you any credit for answers browsers can't see - which would mean the paywall would knock your page rank to shit.
How does Expert Sex Change get around this? They pretend that the answer is behind a paywall, when in fact the answer is actually all the way at the bottom of the page. The Google search bot is much more patient than you are, and will not care about the pretend-paywall.
So yeah. Whenever it looks like Expert Sex Change has your answer, just follow the link and scroll all the way down.
Uh huh. Okay. How about this?
rm -rf . /
Normal user: "Oh shit access denied, ctrl-c ctrl-c"
Root: "Huh, why is this delete taking so long?"
Actually, I would argue that those studies are exactly why the film industry hates piracy.
Look at it like this: they're a business. Businesses want a steady revenue stream. Ideally, entertainment becomes a machine - 1x money goes in one end, and 1.5x money comes out the other end, no matter what. If sometimes, unpredictably, when you put 1x money in 1.1x money comes out, that's bad - but so is putting 1x money in and getting 2x money out. Unpredictability in general is bad, even if it ends up working out in your favor.
How do businesses combat unpredictability? With marketing. By molding how people perceive your product, you tune the machine; yes, you make its output higher, but you also make the output range narrower - you remove the unpredictability from the market. I bet that one of marketing's greatest victories in the modern era has been to convince people that its goal is simply to improve sales at any cost, not to stabilize them.
This is clearly very important to almost every business, but especially entertainment. I mean, just look at the budget for any major game or movie - there's quite frequently an even split in resources allocated to making the thing and advertising the thing - which, to a business, means that they think advertising is at least as important as the actual product.
So where does piracy come in? It's the equivalent of millions of dollars spent on marketing, that the business has absolutely no control over. That makes type-A CEOs flip out - not because they're losing sales, but because, in essence, they've lost control of something. And they have good reason to, a lot of the time - instead of consumers being hit with a carefully crafted marketing message that frames the product in exactly the right way, they're just exposed directly to the product itself. Remember that budget allocation? Piracy literally makes half of what the company spent on bringing the product to market useless.
So yeah. Those studies that say piracy might actually increase sales? Businesses don't give a shit. What they care about is the unauthorized marketing, which adds unpredictability to their income and makes a large part of the resources they spend meaningless.
Uhm yeah, if you're an American. See, Americans generally have 1. No (or little) savings and 2. Almost no safety net.
This means that if you object to something your company does, the only recourse is to passive-aggressively start sneaking around looking for other work - because you must be employed at all times, and not having a job is simply not an option. You can't actually, you know, make a stand or anything - your current life literally depends on the good graces of the company you work for, which means that you simply cannot do anything to piss them off unless you already have another company ready to take you in.
I mean, there's a reason why people call our current society "neo-feudalism".
Well see, that's the thing - trying to change company policy by walking out like this works best when there's a social safety net for you to fall back on.
In the USA, if you walk out on your job like this (and you'd have to walk out, because chances are you don't have flex time) you'd be, essentially, screwed.
Almost makes you wonder why this capitalist paradise has such gaping holes in the social safety net, doesn't it?
You are assuming that such a "you-ness" exists, when in fact it most likely does not. The "you-ness" you are describing is, as far as we can tell, simply a large amount of information and just as amenable to copying as any other piece of information.
Yes, if we created a person-duplicator and created a robot clone of you, the new version would eventually diverge from biological you and the "you" that's implemented in flesh wouldn't magically get transferred over to the robot version; it's like a source code branch that never gets merged back in to the main trunk, but keeps on being developed.
But so what? When you have children, your "you-ness" doesn't magically transfer over to them either, and yet people still have children. This would be like having children, except your "child" would be a perfect copy of yourself.
Third-party tracking is disabled, but I bet you first-party tracking gets cranked up a notch - after all, now IE knows you're doing something you don't want other people knowing about, and that's definitely a "signal", as the Microsoft representative said :)
Hey you know what? We have this amazing new technology called "Google maps", you can actually see what a route between Borden and Corcoran would look like!
And you know what? If you were building a new rail line from LA to San Fransisco, you'd almost certainly build it through that area at some point (the other option is the coastal route, which already has a train). It's almost like this is just one segment of what will eventually be a fully working railroad! It's almost like they're planning this out years in advance, instead of just doing whatever looks good right now!
Remind me again what happened at the end of the Great Depression?
Also: That laptop is an HP Pavillion. I've owned two of those, because for some reason whenever I went out to buy a laptop they were the only ones with a decent mobile graphics card.
The reason why I've owned two of them is because they fall apart if you have the temerity to (God forbid) use them on your lap. The build quality on those things is so terrible that consistently using them on any sort of unstable surface leads to things just falling apart.
Compare that to, say, an iPad or a MacBook - you can actually use those suckers on your lap, or while walking around, without them falling apart in a year.
I guess you have a much looser definition of "informed consent" than I do; I'm pretty sure the Bing toolbar install process doesn't say in a place that people actually read "we will spy on where you click on other websites".
I know, Lacy referring it to the licensing committee is essentially saying "your argument is too good, I'm going to have you investigated for it".
We have a name for people who can hear music nobody else can. It's called "schizophrenia".
The thing is, I bet that if you really study this, the vast majority of people who claim to believe in astrology do not act in a manner that differs in an appreciable sense from people who make no such belief claims.
In other words, I bet you that everyone's dancing to the same tune - it's just that some people claim that they can hear the music of the stars, and it just so happens that they end up dancing the same way as the people who listen to reality. After all, evolution is not forgiving of genes that ignore reality to their detriment.
Yeah it appears you see what's going on here.
Do you not think that that is bad behavior? To, in essence, spy on Joe User's interactions with another company, with neither knowledge nor informed consent from either party?
No no no! I don't know why people keep on saying "Bing copied the results"! It was not Bing, it was Microsoft. The only way it would be just "Bing" that did this would be if the information was gathered from people who both have the Bing toolbar, yet still search from the Google home page - and even then, I'm not sure it would work; I mean, do Internet Explorer toolbars really have enough power to see what you're typing and what you end up clicking on an arbitrary page? If so that's kind of scary.
While I'm sure it's possible that that's the only source of data they have, I doubt they'd be able to get very much high-quality information from that (after all, the people who would do that are probably not the most clueful people in the world). It's way, way more likely that they're coordinating with whatever team handles the information Internet Explorer gathers about users.
Fundamentally, we let people become repeat DUI offenders because our public infrastructure is absolute shit.
Look: consider someone who drinks and drives, and gets arrested and hauled into court. What do we do with them? In general, there's about two options, which get mixed and matched:
1. The judge may force them to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, or a sister 12 step program.
2. The judge may suspend their driver's license.
What happens in case 1? Well, AA has about the same five-year success rate as going untreated, so it's essentially a useless option; I haven't heard any stats on its sister programs, which probably means that they're equally worthless (that's the thing about these stats - all those organizations have them, so if they don't bandy them about you know they're shitty).
Furthermore, there's some constitutional problems involved in a judge forcing someone to go to AA; it's a fundamentally religious organization with kind of ridiculous Christian overtones, which rather seems to violate people's first amendment rights. I know they try to get around it by saying "oh the higher power in step 2 doesn't have to be God!" but come on, that's a bullshit excuse and you know it. Why don't we have a proper, secular, working treatment for alcoholism? Because nobody feels like investing public money in it; they're all worthless alkies, after all.
If the judge tries option number 2, in this country he's essentially consigned the drunk driver to losing his job. Public transit is shit, alternate transit is generally unsupported (you try going anywhere on a bike most places in the USA - it's fucking scary), and walking is generally unfeasible, since a 20 minute drive would turn in to at least an hour long walk.
So, what's left to do? The judge basically has to let the guy keep his car and his license. Most states have a sort of restricted license deal, where you're still allowed to drive, but only to and from work - which works great, as long as the alcoholic doesn't oh I don't know get drunk again and decide to go for a drive.
Basically, we let people who drink and drive keep on drinking and driving because the alternative is to invest in infrastructure like public transit and rehabilitation programs, and that's just socialist - we can't have any of that society stuff here in the USA, oh no!
What's so hard to understand about the Schultze method? The interface it exposes to the voter is very simple - "rank the candidates on this list, with 1 being your preferred candidate, 2 being your second preference, etcetera. You may use the same number more than once. You may leave candidates unranked; they will be considered as ranked N*. If you wish to vote in the old fashion, mark a 1 next to your preferred candidate and leave the rest blank".
Now I agree that, after people have voted, reading the numbers will probably be difficult; but in terms of what the voter has to understand it's very very simple - and if you expect them to understand the mechanics of the voting system, well, most of the current crop of voters don't understand how our electoral college works anyway, so you're not losing anything there :)
*where N is the total number of candidates, to allow for people to more easily vote against someone (e.g, I like A and B so I give them 1 and 2, I don't care about D E F so I leave them blank, but I definitely do not like G so I give it rank 7)
When was the last time you saw God providing manna to feed the hungry?
Note: cop-outs like "He moved the people of this church to do it" will not be accepted.
And there are no theists in hospitals or soup kitchens :)
Umm... I just wanted to point out that you're misinterpreting those videos, which isn't that surprising given how easy they make it.
See, what's going to happen is this: as of right now, something on the order of several million people are probably going to die due to the side-effects of global warming (their villages will flood, higher-energy hurricanes will blow away their villages, mosquitos and other parasites will suddenly find their lands hospitable...). If we start reducing carbon emissions right now, we might be able to limit the number of future deaths, but at this point a serious number is all but guaranteed.
The thing is, almost all of the people who kick the bucket due to global warming side-effects are going to be brown or yellow. So we white people don't really give a shit - it's going to be some poor Ethiopian farmer who gets poleaxed by a hurricane-driven motorbike, not some English or American dude. What those videos are saying is, well, if you don't start cutting back, you're going to be causing deaths - and they represent this by blowing up the person who doesn't cut back. It's a poorly made video, I agree, because it implies that "we will kill you if you don't cut back" - not "you will cause deaths if you don't cut back", which is the message they should have been trying to get across.
The thing is, though, fundamentally it is people like you who take this attitude - that humans are utterly expendable. By saying "you know what? I'm gonna keep on doing these things that really screw third-world countries", you are literally saying "The lives of a thousand Ethiopian villagers are meaningless in the face of my burning need to drive a gigantic car".
This isn't anti-abortion vs pro-choice - this is "babies come from storks" vs "babies come from sex", and the story with the storks keeps on winning because people don't want to face the fact that if you have a lot of unprotected sex, you're going to end up with babies.
Umm... You know, I'm actually totally okay with something like that happening every three years if it means we can let the airline stewards stop being Nazis about "your phone must be off".
So which do you want right now: the way IE 9 interprets HTML5, the way Chrome interprets HTML5, the way Firefox interprets HTML5, or the way Opera interprets HTML5? They're all slightly different, after all.
Oh and how exactly do you specify that in an HTML document? Is that the purpose of those silly little "Viewed best with Internet Explorer" badges?