The fact that you use the same language that is associated with the holocaust shows the irrationality of your side of the subject.
Suggest that global warming might not even be happening. That was his first point. Note the careful use of the phrase "appears to be".
I see, so suggesting that a scientific theory might not be true is wrong?
Suggest that it's due to factors besides humans. Most of his post was geared towards that strategy
You mean he actually proposed that a certain event might be occuring for different reasons than what you believe and cited his sources! Yes, that is quite unacceptable!
Suggest that either it's too late to do anything about it, or that we can't do anything about it because others (e.g., China) won't do anything about it.
The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
The more you try to shout down and silence people, the more it looks like you have something to hide. You'd be much better off just stating scientific fact linked from solid resources then subtly trying to compare people who don't believe in global warming to Nazi's.
Just looking at the moderation on this comment is a good way to figure out which side is constantly attempting to censor the other. The ecofundamentalists threaten Nuremberg style trials for global warming skeptics. Meanwhile weather channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants global warming skeptics who are meteorologists decertified. Who is trying to silence whom here?
What exactly do the ecofundamentalists have to hide? It seems to me that one side is saying 'We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons" and the other side is threating trials and decertifications.
Which is why they strenuously oppose all spending on things like the military, police, fire departments and anti-terrorism. After all, why should they have to pay to keep someone else safe. If someone wants to be safe then that person can either buy the necessary safety equipment and learn how to use it or hire a private corporation.
Some Libertarians think like that. I'm not a libertarian, but I personally I think you should be able to check off what your taxes go to. That way people don't have to pay for programs they don't like, and they would die a proper death. In America for example, if one person believes that paying for the Iraqi war is unjust, then they should be able to direct their tax money elsewhere. By the same token, if a religious person is against abortion, they should not have to pay for planned parenthood to stay open.
Things like the military, police, etc would continue to exist. It's hard to view income taxes today as anything but thievery by force. The founding fathers would not be proud.
Call center employees, fresh out of school, get 10,000 - 15,000 rupees per MONTH these days. Skilled IT workers and engineers earn 100,000 rs/month and up... sometimes waaay up. With the rupee currently sitting at 50rs/US$, you do the math.
Wow, they pay them in money from the Legend of Zelda? I thought all the money was in world of warcraft gold farming...
That's right, but you can easily plug in your PC mouse (assuming it's not PS/2). Any USB mouse works - I use a Logitech one myself.
I actually picked up a ps/2 to USB converter to use one of my old mice, but I'm hooked on the mighty mouse, so now I just suffer through it.
Shift-command-3 puts a PNG image of your screen on your desktop.
This works in windows 0_0 I should have specified I was talking about windows games (ie wow). Taking screenshots in OSX is great though, it beats the printscreen -> Paste to notepad in windows.
So if I get a Core2Duo Mac with a good video card, and boot into Windows, will it run my games as well as a similarly configured PC? I really would like to switch over to Mac, but I've gotta be able to run a few Windows programs (games and Sonar, mainly).
Yup, I haven't had any problems with Steam/Counterstrike, etc. I also play World of Warcraft on the PC side since Ventrillo isn't working correctly or isn't available on OS X from what I hear. The only problems I've had so far are:
1. The mighty mouse sucks for gaming.
2. Certain buttons aren't on the mac keyboard (like print screen) and the equivlents (f15?) don't get regonized with stuff. This isn't a big deal, you just have to rebind them to something else.
3. My iMac came with 3 dead pixels on the screen. Again, this isn't a big deal, but apple doesn't take them back unless you have 5. If you get a cinema display, I've never seen dead pixels on those so I don't think it is an issue there.
4. If you duel boot XP with boot camp, you can't use the same copy of XP with Parellels (emulation inside of OS-X). You could probably clear that up with a call to microsoft though.
Despite the above nitpicking, being able to boot into OS-X makes up for the few problems.
Also if you buy a Mac, load up on the ram (I got 2GB, it worked out well) but don't go up to 3GB. There is some kind of issue with nVidia cards addressing large amounts of memory on the mac.
Correct. In 2001, there wasn't much there. By 2002 [10.2], it was pretty good. Stuff just worked, so Vista was only bested by 5 years, or almost 2 years if you count the current features in OS X mimicked by Vista in their unique, crudely inferior way.
Really, Tiger did it for me along with boot camp. Dashboard and Expose were clinchers. It's not that they are essential in any way, they just have a cool factor to them. I pretty much use OS X for everything, except playing games (ie counterstrike) which I boot into windows for.
Secondly, let me point out that sometime in the 70's early 80's, can't remember, there were scientist crying about global COOLING!
They were crying about the population bomb too, and now birthrates have dropped so badly in the 'western civilizations' that man isn't even reproducing himself.
Utter nonsense. If you actually look at who the guests are, and include all the channels, about 60% are conservative and about 35% are moderate. Liberal voices account for only about 5%.
That really depends on your point of view. To me, Rudy Guliani, McCain, Bush, etc aren't real conservatives. Buchanan, Tancredo and such are. However I have the sense to realize my bias accounts for that, and most people do percieve Guliani, McCain, Bush as conservatives. Unfortuantly, you haven't grown into that point.
Just a hint: Joe Lieberman doesn't count as either a Liberal or a Moderate. Joe Biden doesn't count as a liberal, and Hillary Clinton doesn't either. Barak Obama does, sometimes.
Sure, just don't count O'Reilly, Bush, etc as conservatives then. Deal?
I say, let consenting adults do what they want with each other, and keep the government out of our bedrooms and churches.
The fed shouldn't even be allowed to decide these types of issues. They should be left up to the states so that people can govern themselves. It's a lot easier to be heard at a state level, or even local. If gays in California want to marry, they should be able to, and if the mormons in Utah or the moon worshipping throat slashers in Michigan want to marry multple wives then let them if they have enough votes to get it done.
Hell if New York, California, or whatever state wants to set up universal health care, they should be able to.
Having a huge federal government telling you what to do is exactly what our founding fathers didn't want, and it leads to a lack of freedom.
Back in the day, I believe they did just that. IIRC when the fairness doctrine first came out, the networks were scrambling trying to find some conservative spokesmen in order to satisfy the rule. I specifically remember one hilarious episode of All In The Family that had this as a plot premise where Archie was tabbed as a conservative spokesman by a local TV station. On his first show, Archie came out with his plan to end airline hijackings. Archie wanted to give every passenger a hand gun when they entered the plane because then any potential hijacker "would be insane to try anything".
Yeah that sounds crazy! Silly right wing nutjobs! Imagine if every passeenger had a handgun on 9/11! Oh wait, that proves his point......
You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.
Republicans believe in free markets, not government regulation even if it favors them.
Right, because the current system of 9+ hours of conservative talking heads all in a row on radio and tv is a perfect system.
Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.
There is certain media that the right has a monopoly over, AM radio being one of them. Pretty much all of the desirable media (ie movies, television, network news) is fueled by people who's politics lean to the left. Want to talk about how many college professors lean to the left? Will a fairness doctrine apply to them?
The fairness doctrine is silly, both sides get their messages out in different ways, over different media. Some of it is subtle, some isn't. If you are looking for a democratic talking head at 8pm EST, turn on MSNBC. Are you looking for someone who leans to the right? Turn on Fox News.
I have nothing against WOW players, current or past. I have, in fact, played WOW more than any other video game, ever - more than 500 hours, which puts me in the "semi-serious" category.
That is like 20 days played, nobody thinks you are serious until you've got 75-100 days played.:)
I've never had a free pass to insult users to their faces. As for insulting them behind their back, pretty much everyone regardless of job bitches about their 'users' or customers. If they don't have customers they bitch about their boss.
If the lower class in the US made 100,000 a year, how much do you think would a loaf of bread cost?
It's a hypothetical situation to illustrate that the low amount in inequality matters, not just the inequality. For example, poor people in the US aren't so poor compared to other countries. I don't advocate a minimum wage of $100K.
Not really, the type of income inequality drives crime. Consider this...If the lower/middle class in the US made 100,000 while the upper class made an average of 10 million a year, you wouldn't see much crime.
When everyone is poor, no one steals from each other.
This isn't true, see Africa, or any ghetto in the US. It isn't income inequality that contributes to it as much as lack of income. A person who makes $0 will steal from someone who makes $15k, but we don't consider 15k to be anywhere near rich.
When everyone is rich, everyone steals from each other, but there are rules.
Not really, but I'm sure that will appeal to the marxist crowd.
When some people are very, very rich and some are poor, the poor feel justified in evening out the unfairness through direct action. If everyone had their basic needs met, I don't think income inequality would matter as much.
There will always be crime of some type, but yes poverty does fuel it. It doesn't matter that others are rich, so much as that you are poor and have nothing to lose. If you have stuff to lose (ie a middle class living, a family, your freedom) then crime isn't as 'worth it'. That doesn't eliminate crime, there are people who make a decent living who still steal or cheat, they just have less motivation to do so.
But as long as some people are desperare and feel they are being screwed, and they can find an easy target in a rich person, there will be crime.
'Rich' people aren't always easy targets, and there are a lot more factors that go into crime than just economics. To name a few: Race, Religion, Gender, Boredom, Drugs, Mental state, etc.
It seems out of place the way microsoft is using it, I always thought it only applied to java applets. Ahh, I remember the glory days of craplets before flash.....The scrolling starfield of links, reflective water type banners, and other obscene things that populated geocites pages. It was like a precursor to the shithole design of myspace.
It has been ridiculously warm here in New York this winter. It is NEVER warm in new york in the winter. The last few days it has gotten mildly cold, but up until then, it has been almost spring like. It is simply amazing how different the weather has been this winter here in the north east. This is the warmest winter i've ever experienced here in NY in 30 years.
As someone who lives in the NYC area, yes it's been very warm this winter. We haven't even had snow since last Spring, and it's almost the middle of January! Do you know when the last time that happened was? The the winter of 1877-1878. I guess there was some global warming going on back then too..or wait, it's called Climate Change now right? Although the weathermen seem to think it's El Nino preventing us from getting any artic air.
As someone who works in NYC, I can tell you it was much colder just two years ago. It must be the global warmi....err...climate change! I remember just two years ago around mid January, Al Gore came to New York City to give a speech on global warming. Of course, that was one of the coldest days on record in NYC, -1 degrees without windchill.
You will have to forgive me for being skeptical about the politicization of Global Warming. Heck, they went from calling it global warming to 'climate change' just so they could point to anything and claim it was occuring. Most of the arguments used in the political arena to 'prove' global warming/climate change are circumstantial. It is to the point where any time there is a record high, a record low, or a small or large number of storms, we hear 'IT MUST BE THE CLIMATE CHANGE BOOGYMAN AGAIN!". Some of the assements in Gore's movie that are taken for granted are incorrect. Most notably the assessment that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest on record.
I'm not saying that Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever is or isn't happening. I am saying the issue has been politicized to the point of foolishness. The name change to 'Climate Change" has driven the debate to the point where people are using anecdotal data to support it, like 'wow it's really warm/cold this winter!' or "there were 14 hurricanes last year, and none this year! IT MUST BE THE CLIMATE CHANGE"!
Of course, either side can make anecdotal points, for example, I could ask you to talk to James Kim about Global Warming and how it's working out for him.
Slashdot Mirror
global warming deniers.
The fact that you use the same language that is associated with the holocaust shows the irrationality of your side of the subject.
Suggest that global warming might not even be happening. That was his first point. Note the careful use of the phrase "appears to be".
I see, so suggesting that a scientific theory might not be true is wrong?
Suggest that it's due to factors besides humans. Most of his post was geared towards that strategy
You mean he actually proposed that a certain event might be occuring for different reasons than what you believe and cited his sources! Yes, that is quite unacceptable!
Suggest that either it's too late to do anything about it, or that we can't do anything about it because others (e.g., China) won't do anything about it. The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
The more you try to shout down and silence people, the more it looks like you have something to hide. You'd be much better off just stating scientific fact linked from solid resources then subtly trying to compare people who don't believe in global warming to Nazi's.
Just looking at the moderation on this comment is a good way to figure out which side is constantly attempting to censor the other. The ecofundamentalists threaten Nuremberg style trials for global warming skeptics. Meanwhile weather channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants global warming skeptics who are meteorologists decertified. Who is trying to silence whom here?
What exactly do the ecofundamentalists have to hide? It seems to me that one side is saying 'We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons" and the other side is threating trials and decertifications.
I don't know about machine guns, but I'm sure they dropped some big bombs. I'm glad I don't have to clean that off my windshield!
Which is why they strenuously oppose all spending on things like the military, police, fire departments and anti-terrorism. After all, why should they have to pay to keep someone else safe. If someone wants to be safe then that person can either buy the necessary safety equipment and learn how to use it or hire a private corporation.
Some Libertarians think like that. I'm not a libertarian, but I personally I think you should be able to check off what your taxes go to. That way people don't have to pay for programs they don't like, and they would die a proper death. In America for example, if one person believes that paying for the Iraqi war is unjust, then they should be able to direct their tax money elsewhere. By the same token, if a religious person is against abortion, they should not have to pay for planned parenthood to stay open.
Things like the military, police, etc would continue to exist. It's hard to view income taxes today as anything but thievery by force. The founding fathers would not be proud.
Call center employees, fresh out of school, get 10,000 - 15,000 rupees per MONTH these days. Skilled IT workers and engineers earn 100,000 rs/month and up ... sometimes waaay up. With the rupee currently sitting at 50rs/US$, you do the math.
Wow, they pay them in money from the Legend of Zelda? I thought all the money was in world of warcraft gold farming...
It's a sad thing to see - RFID is essentially a stock tracking system, add it to people and you too are stock to be tracked.
Hmm, how about we just put it on my girlfriend? My ex is going to get it as is, god knows that bitch was a heffer.
That's right, but you can easily plug in your PC mouse (assuming it's not PS/2). Any USB mouse works - I use a Logitech one myself.
I actually picked up a ps/2 to USB converter to use one of my old mice, but I'm hooked on the mighty mouse, so now I just suffer through it.
Shift-command-3 puts a PNG image of your screen on your desktop.
This works in windows 0_0 I should have specified I was talking about windows games (ie wow). Taking screenshots in OSX is great though, it beats the printscreen -> Paste to notepad in windows.
So if I get a Core2Duo Mac with a good video card, and boot into Windows, will it run my games as well as a similarly configured PC? I really would like to switch over to Mac, but I've gotta be able to run a few Windows programs (games and Sonar, mainly).
Yup, I haven't had any problems with Steam/Counterstrike, etc. I also play World of Warcraft on the PC side since Ventrillo isn't working correctly or isn't available on OS X from what I hear. The only problems I've had so far are:
1. The mighty mouse sucks for gaming.
2. Certain buttons aren't on the mac keyboard (like print screen) and the equivlents (f15?) don't get regonized with stuff. This isn't a big deal, you just have to rebind them to something else.
3. My iMac came with 3 dead pixels on the screen. Again, this isn't a big deal, but apple doesn't take them back unless you have 5. If you get a cinema display, I've never seen dead pixels on those so I don't think it is an issue there.
4. If you duel boot XP with boot camp, you can't use the same copy of XP with Parellels (emulation inside of OS-X). You could probably clear that up with a call to microsoft though.
Despite the above nitpicking, being able to boot into OS-X makes up for the few problems.
Also if you buy a Mac, load up on the ram (I got 2GB, it worked out well) but don't go up to 3GB. There is some kind of issue with nVidia cards addressing large amounts of memory on the mac.
Correct. In 2001, there wasn't much there. By 2002 [10.2], it was pretty good. Stuff just worked, so Vista was only bested by 5 years, or almost 2 years if you count the current features in OS X mimicked by Vista in their unique, crudely inferior way.
Really, Tiger did it for me along with boot camp. Dashboard and Expose were clinchers. It's not that they are essential in any way, they just have a cool factor to them. I pretty much use OS X for everything, except playing games (ie counterstrike) which I boot into windows for.
Bruce Willis
Secondly, let me point out that sometime in the 70's early 80's, can't remember, there were scientist crying about global COOLING!
They were crying about the population bomb too, and now birthrates have dropped so badly in the 'western civilizations' that man isn't even reproducing himself.
Utter nonsense. If you actually look at who the guests are, and include all the channels, about 60% are conservative and about 35% are moderate. Liberal voices account for only about 5%.
That really depends on your point of view. To me, Rudy Guliani, McCain, Bush, etc aren't real conservatives. Buchanan, Tancredo and such are. However I have the sense to realize my bias accounts for that, and most people do percieve Guliani, McCain, Bush as conservatives. Unfortuantly, you haven't grown into that point.
Just a hint: Joe Lieberman doesn't count as either a Liberal or a Moderate. Joe Biden doesn't count as a liberal, and Hillary Clinton doesn't either. Barak Obama does, sometimes.
Sure, just don't count O'Reilly, Bush, etc as conservatives then. Deal?
I say, let consenting adults do what they want with each other, and keep the government out of our bedrooms and churches.
The fed shouldn't even be allowed to decide these types of issues. They should be left up to the states so that people can govern themselves. It's a lot easier to be heard at a state level, or even local. If gays in California want to marry, they should be able to, and if the mormons in Utah or the moon worshipping throat slashers in Michigan want to marry multple wives then let them if they have enough votes to get it done.
Hell if New York, California, or whatever state wants to set up universal health care, they should be able to.
Having a huge federal government telling you what to do is exactly what our founding fathers didn't want, and it leads to a lack of freedom.
And the occasional moderate liberal on Fox News
Uhh, Alan Colmbs and Shepard Smith are on every night. You don't know what you are talking about.
Back in the day, I believe they did just that. IIRC when the fairness doctrine first came out, the networks were scrambling trying to find some conservative spokesmen in order to satisfy the rule. I specifically remember one hilarious episode of All In The Family that had this as a plot premise where Archie was tabbed as a conservative spokesman by a local TV station. On his first show, Archie came out with his plan to end airline hijackings. Archie wanted to give every passenger a hand gun when they entered the plane because then any potential hijacker "would be insane to try anything".
Yeah that sounds crazy! Silly right wing nutjobs! Imagine if every passeenger had a handgun on 9/11! Oh wait, that proves his point......
You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.
Republicans believe in free markets, not government regulation even if it favors them.
Right, because the current system of 9+ hours of conservative talking heads all in a row on radio and tv is a perfect system.
Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.
There is certain media that the right has a monopoly over, AM radio being one of them. Pretty much all of the desirable media (ie movies, television, network news) is fueled by people who's politics lean to the left. Want to talk about how many college professors lean to the left? Will a fairness doctrine apply to them?
The fairness doctrine is silly, both sides get their messages out in different ways, over different media. Some of it is subtle, some isn't. If you are looking for a democratic talking head at 8pm EST, turn on MSNBC. Are you looking for someone who leans to the right? Turn on Fox News.
I think I was most disapointed with no hero classes and no new classes. The PvP arena's are cool though.
I have nothing against WOW players, current or past. I have, in fact, played WOW more than any other video game, ever - more than 500 hours, which puts me in the "semi-serious" category.
:)
That is like 20 days played, nobody thinks you are serious until you've got 75-100 days played.
Why does IT get a free pass to insult users?
I've never had a free pass to insult users to their faces. As for insulting them behind their back, pretty much everyone regardless of job bitches about their 'users' or customers. If they don't have customers they bitch about their boss.
If the lower class in the US made 100,000 a year, how much do you think would a loaf of bread cost?
It's a hypothetical situation to illustrate that the low amount in inequality matters, not just the inequality. For example, poor people in the US aren't so poor compared to other countries. I don't advocate a minimum wage of $100K.
income inequality drives crime.
Not really, the type of income inequality drives crime. Consider this...If the lower/middle class in the US made 100,000 while the upper class made an average of 10 million a year, you wouldn't see much crime.
When everyone is poor, no one steals from each other.
This isn't true, see Africa, or any ghetto in the US. It isn't income inequality that contributes to it as much as lack of income. A person who makes $0 will steal from someone who makes $15k, but we don't consider 15k to be anywhere near rich.
When everyone is rich, everyone steals from each other, but there are rules.
Not really, but I'm sure that will appeal to the marxist crowd.
When some people are very, very rich and some are poor, the poor feel justified in evening out the unfairness through direct action. If everyone had their basic needs met, I don't think income inequality would matter as much.
There will always be crime of some type, but yes poverty does fuel it. It doesn't matter that others are rich, so much as that you are poor and have nothing to lose. If you have stuff to lose (ie a middle class living, a family, your freedom) then crime isn't as 'worth it'. That doesn't eliminate crime, there are people who make a decent living who still steal or cheat, they just have less motivation to do so.
But as long as some people are desperare and feel they are being screwed, and they can find an easy target in a rich person, there will be crime.
'Rich' people aren't always easy targets, and there are a lot more factors that go into crime than just economics. To name a few: Race, Religion, Gender, Boredom, Drugs, Mental state, etc.
It's been in the Jagon File [catb.org] for ages..
It seems out of place the way microsoft is using it, I always thought it only applied to java applets. Ahh, I remember the glory days of craplets before flash.....The scrolling starfield of links, reflective water type banners, and other obscene things that populated geocites pages. It was like a precursor to the shithole design of myspace.
It has been ridiculously warm here in New York this winter. It is NEVER warm in new york in the winter. The last few days it has gotten mildly cold, but up until then, it has been almost spring like. It is simply amazing how different the weather has been this winter here in the north east. This is the warmest winter i've ever experienced here in NY in 30 years.
As someone who lives in the NYC area, yes it's been very warm this winter. We haven't even had snow since last Spring, and it's almost the middle of January! Do you know when the last time that happened was? The the winter of 1877-1878. I guess there was some global warming going on back then too..or wait, it's called Climate Change now right? Although the weathermen seem to think it's El Nino preventing us from getting any artic air.
As someone who works in NYC, I can tell you it was much colder just two years ago. It must be the global warmi....err...climate change! I remember just two years ago around mid January, Al Gore came to New York City to give a speech on global warming. Of course, that was one of the coldest days on record in NYC, -1 degrees without windchill.
You will have to forgive me for being skeptical about the politicization of Global Warming. Heck, they went from calling it global warming to 'climate change' just so they could point to anything and claim it was occuring. Most of the arguments used in the political arena to 'prove' global warming/climate change are circumstantial. It is to the point where any time there is a record high, a record low, or a small or large number of storms, we hear 'IT MUST BE THE CLIMATE CHANGE BOOGYMAN AGAIN!". Some of the assements in Gore's movie that are taken for granted are incorrect. Most notably the assessment that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest on record.
I'm not saying that Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever is or isn't happening. I am saying the issue has been politicized to the point of foolishness. The name change to 'Climate Change" has driven the debate to the point where people are using anecdotal data to support it, like 'wow it's really warm/cold this winter!' or "there were 14 hurricanes last year, and none this year! IT MUST BE THE CLIMATE CHANGE"!
Of course, either side can make anecdotal points, for example, I could ask you to talk to James Kim about Global Warming and how it's working out for him.
That sounds qite cool.