I agree that pollution should be reduced where it can, I just think that we should be able to accept that some amounts of pollution are necessary to support a reasonable standard of living.
"Don't buy the latest and greatest as you can get a lot of great stuff secondhand. Use power saving, don't leave it running unnecessarily and, admittedly much more difficult, dispose of old or broken computers responsibly."
That's the sort of stuff I can agree with. Less garbage, conserve energy where you can, use a fuel efficient car, walk when you can, et cetera.
Rise by how much? That's the question.
I didn't say that we have no relation to global warming - it's just vastly overrated.
I don't dispute the greenhouse gasses cause *some* difference. I think it's just a slight difference - what with humans producing a mere 2% of the worlds CO2.
I don't have to earn the right to talk down to you. Just like you didn't have to earn the right to label me negatively.
If we ruin our economy doing something that does nothing to help us, we're as dumb the average lefty.
I have no allies in the oil industry, but I do have leftist enemies.
And lastly, that quote is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself, and your quote there is merely an opinion, even if the opinion of the author of the study. I'm not in favour of polluting the atmosphere... but some pollution is inevitable. You're typing on a computer. You know what kind of damage merely producing that computer did to the environment? Hypocrite.
We could destroy all meaningful life on earth with the weapons we have now. Therefore this is very unlikely to be bad, and at the same time very likely to be good.
The weapons that the military wants are smaller but more precise ones. Not huge nuclear ones that they hope they never have to use.
The consequences of his actions? Possibly providing cheaper, safer energy for billions of people around the world. Doesn't sound so terrible to me.
I don't know if the word is really "forced". Although they've certainly forced the US to re-think a lot of what they do.
However, if we (the western world, but especially the States) allow a few uber-fundementalist Islamists whithout even mainstream support by their religion to dictate what can and will be researched, they get that much closer to their goal. Tough call, risk stagnation or distaster?
What the hell are you talking about? Defense is an army that is capable of fighting. Collateral damage is an unfortunate but inevitable result of having to use that Army.
That, by the way, is true whether or not you think one particular fight was wrong.
You just don't get it. There will always be people out there who will take advantage of the defenseless. It would be irresponsible to not try to stay ahead of their enemies.
There is extemely little uranium in the average farmers soil. By averaging it out, you're putting more in that soil, while taking uranium out of places it naturally accumulated (and was mined from).
That would be a bad thing. It would be far more practical, in my opinion, to concentrate it all in one place. The centre of the Earth. Sound impractical? More practical than spreading it evenly out, and much safer too.
Yes, technically, but the connotation is much different. So there IS a difference. People associate (ok, pretty much all uses of the phrase are like this) "out of context" with "used in a different context" instead of "with no context".
Sheesh. Didn't think I'd have explain that one...
There's a difference between saying out of context and without context you know. Unless of course you happened to hear those comments and know that this IS out of context.
Or you could use trained monkeys to do the same thing. This accomplishes two things:
1) Saves lives by clearing out dangerous landmine and other unexploded ordinance.
2) Pisses off PETA
Well I don't know about you, but I'm off to kill a cute animal to make into a bag.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, geez. Copying success. The bastards are trying to make money! Why are you angry about Apple having a competitor? Competition is a bad thing now?
I agree that pollution should be reduced where it can, I just think that we should be able to accept that some amounts of pollution are necessary to support a reasonable standard of living. "Don't buy the latest and greatest as you can get a lot of great stuff secondhand. Use power saving, don't leave it running unnecessarily and, admittedly much more difficult, dispose of old or broken computers responsibly." That's the sort of stuff I can agree with. Less garbage, conserve energy where you can, use a fuel efficient car, walk when you can, et cetera.
Rise by how much? That's the question. I didn't say that we have no relation to global warming - it's just vastly overrated. I don't dispute the greenhouse gasses cause *some* difference. I think it's just a slight difference - what with humans producing a mere 2% of the worlds CO2.
What a stupid comment. Do you suggest nobody drive because we don't know if we'll die in a car crash?
I don't have to earn the right to talk down to you. Just like you didn't have to earn the right to label me negatively. If we ruin our economy doing something that does nothing to help us, we're as dumb the average lefty. I have no allies in the oil industry, but I do have leftist enemies. And lastly, that quote is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself, and your quote there is merely an opinion, even if the opinion of the author of the study. I'm not in favour of polluting the atmosphere... but some pollution is inevitable. You're typing on a computer. You know what kind of damage merely producing that computer did to the environment? Hypocrite.
It has not been proven that global warming has been mostly caused by CO2/other greenhouse gasses.
take this, for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
You see? Science isn't about who has the most politically correct theory.
(disclaimer: I'm not saying that article proves global warming to be beyond our control, but it does provide strong evidence.)
How about both of you stop flinging sensationalized rhetoric and say something meaningful and well thought out?
nascar: rednecks driving in circles
And while we're at it, I'd just like to say congrats to Calgary on their first snowfall of the season! :)
We could destroy all meaningful life on earth with the weapons we have now. Therefore this is very unlikely to be bad, and at the same time very likely to be good.
The weapons that the military wants are smaller but more precise ones. Not huge nuclear ones that they hope they never have to use.
The consequences of his actions? Possibly providing cheaper, safer energy for billions of people around the world. Doesn't sound so terrible to me.
"would lead be a better material than tinfoil if I were making a hat? "
Depends on how strong your neck is.
I don't know if the word is really "forced". Although they've certainly forced the US to re-think a lot of what they do.
However, if we (the western world, but especially the States) allow a few uber-fundementalist Islamists whithout even mainstream support by their religion to dictate what can and will be researched, they get that much closer to their goal. Tough call, risk stagnation or distaster?
" it contains nothing of fundamental importance for people." Err... what about people who could be sued for sending in this "amnesty" form?
What the hell are you talking about? Defense is an army that is capable of fighting. Collateral damage is an unfortunate but inevitable result of having to use that Army. That, by the way, is true whether or not you think one particular fight was wrong.
You just don't get it. There will always be people out there who will take advantage of the defenseless. It would be irresponsible to not try to stay ahead of their enemies.
How about the part about avoiding radar detection. You know, the "stealth" part.
Because they don't have as many posters, and so they have far less crap to sift through. Settle down...
It was rated troll, actually.
There is extemely little uranium in the average farmers soil. By averaging it out, you're putting more in that soil, while taking uranium out of places it naturally accumulated (and was mined from). That would be a bad thing. It would be far more practical, in my opinion, to concentrate it all in one place. The centre of the Earth. Sound impractical? More practical than spreading it evenly out, and much safer too.
Just because you don't agree with a comment does not mean that the comment is a troll...
It seems my job here is done :)
Yes, technically, but the connotation is much different. So there IS a difference. People associate (ok, pretty much all uses of the phrase are like this) "out of context" with "used in a different context" instead of "with no context". Sheesh. Didn't think I'd have explain that one...
There's a difference between saying out of context and without context you know. Unless of course you happened to hear those comments and know that this IS out of context.
I tend not to click on links posted by anonymous cowards :)
Or you could use trained monkeys to do the same thing. This accomplishes two things: 1) Saves lives by clearing out dangerous landmine and other unexploded ordinance. 2) Pisses off PETA Well I don't know about you, but I'm off to kill a cute animal to make into a bag.