They're not really known as a paradigm of investigative journalism in the realms of foreign policy or international relations... But I guess if it supports your viewpoint, they are! Yay!
You simply have no idea how much we can learn about ourselves, or things that are beneficial to ourselves, by studying other animals or other seemingly-unrelated things. That's the whole problem. What might seem inconsequential or nonsensical can have incredibly useful benefits for mankind. You sound like Palin laughing about how useless fruit fly research is. This is the beauty of research - you don't usually know what you're going to discover.
Or, just maybe, the people you get your science understanding from don't know shit, are trying to make climate change seem incorrect, or more likely both?
There are dozens of countries with more than enough money to engage in that level of spying, and yet they don't. You're just making excuses so you don't have to think your country isn't the bastion of freedom it claims to be.
When Brazil gets caught spying on millions of people around the world, you'd have a point. Or bugging the phones of dozens of allied leaders. Just spying on a few diplomats in their own country is hardly the same. But I'm sure to you they're identical, as that easily allows your simmering brain to relax slightly, safe in the knowledge that even if the US is doing something bad (which you'd sorely hate, and refuse to believe even in the face of evidence), someone else is doing something too, even if it doesn't compare to what the US is doing in the slightest.
I was beginning to doubt your post, but your repeated use of "M$" instead of "MS" shows you are both erudite and a wonderful writer: a combination sorely lacking elsewhere in this discussion.
Where the hell do you live where that is even a consideration in daily life?? You do realise most of the developed world lives every single day without having any sort of fear from anyone, right? That they live happy, safe lives without being scared? So weird. You sound like you still live in the wild west.
The mining and transportation is miniscule in comparison. Plus coal plants dump more than just CO2 into the atmosphere, such as radioactive material in rather large quantities. Most nuclear plants have not failed, so your use of "when" is slightly strange.
The healthcare spending is pretty silly, as it includes the money made by insurance companies. If you saw how much was actually spent on healthcare, things wouldn't look so rosy. And just by looking at numbers is no indication of what those numbers mean. Throwing money into a broken system doesn't magically stop the broken system being broken. US wages might be high, but the quality of life of an average worker is nowhere near as good as for one in, say, Europe. Outcomes indeed are where it's at, and the US is nowhere near #1 in any of those categories.
That does nothing to explain why US cities have generally terrible internet access. How does the population density of Alaska explain why New York's internet is so poor? It doesn't. You're just making excuses so you don't have to feel bad that the US isn't the paradigm of wonder and awesomeness you seem to think it is. No-one is suggesting one should be able to walk into the wilderness in New Mexico or Arizona, turn over a rock, and find an RJ45 with 100/100 internet service.
This excuse doesn't wash. If that was the case, then US cities would have excellent broadband, and the towns not. As it is, practically all of the US, with some obvious exceptions, have terrible internet access. It is as simple as the Europeans paint it - covering a metropolis with access is technologically the same regardless of the country it's in. Population density in the US is not the same everywhere, so this "but... but... US so biiiig!" argument simply doesn't wash.
This proposed study was not scientific. They would have been nuts to accept it. How can you study one thing in a vacuum? Even worse - how can you make up something, then ask people to study it and only it? That's not science. It's positions like yours which are junk - you've ignored what's actually happened because you like the sound of what you think has happened enough to get upset and righteous.
If they were the only things which affected the climate, you might have a point... Being told to focus only on them, and ignore the vast system in which they exist, is not science, but wishful thinking.
Actual science has happened. I guess biologists should accept grant money to work on studies on how evolution is nonsense? Or how germ theory is some sort of fantasy? The best they can demonstrate is what we already know - they can't improve our understanding of the current theories. There are better things to be spending money on.
Reaction Engines Ltd. have been working on a hybrid rocket/jet engine which uses only hydrogen and oxygen as fuels. It's capable of space flight, or just simply going really fast in the atmosphere. They have recently secured funding from various EU governments and agencies, but they started their work on their own. The way I see it, it's wonderful to have a lone genius forge a path towards some measurable success, then have governments step in and help him on his way to his vision. It also helps to have dispassionate government research into fields which society simply needs to better. The two aren't mutually exclusive, so why not have both?
Slashdot Mirror
Suspicious in what sense? The big gulp is actually bad for you...
buuuuuuurn
They're not really known as a paradigm of investigative journalism in the realms of foreign policy or international relations... But I guess if it supports your viewpoint, they are! Yay!
You simply have no idea how much we can learn about ourselves, or things that are beneficial to ourselves, by studying other animals or other seemingly-unrelated things. That's the whole problem. What might seem inconsequential or nonsensical can have incredibly useful benefits for mankind. You sound like Palin laughing about how useless fruit fly research is. This is the beauty of research - you don't usually know what you're going to discover.
Or, just maybe, the people you get your science understanding from don't know shit, are trying to make climate change seem incorrect, or more likely both?
I think the sudden, massive drop might trigger some alarms... Or do you think they've not thought of that?
So that's the single benefit of this? Instead of launching a 1MB binary, it's just done in the browser? Wow. The future is here.
There are dozens of countries with more than enough money to engage in that level of spying, and yet they don't. You're just making excuses so you don't have to think your country isn't the bastion of freedom it claims to be.
So you are saying that the US should be not as bad as Iran and Russia, and then it's all cool. Really? You think that's a good stand to take??
When Brazil gets caught spying on millions of people around the world, you'd have a point. Or bugging the phones of dozens of allied leaders. Just spying on a few diplomats in their own country is hardly the same. But I'm sure to you they're identical, as that easily allows your simmering brain to relax slightly, safe in the knowledge that even if the US is doing something bad (which you'd sorely hate, and refuse to believe even in the face of evidence), someone else is doing something too, even if it doesn't compare to what the US is doing in the slightest.
I was beginning to doubt your post, but your repeated use of "M$" instead of "MS" shows you are both erudite and a wonderful writer: a combination sorely lacking elsewhere in this discussion.
Hint: grow up.
Where the hell do you live where that is even a consideration in daily life?? You do realise most of the developed world lives every single day without having any sort of fear from anyone, right? That they live happy, safe lives without being scared? So weird. You sound like you still live in the wild west.
The mining and transportation is miniscule in comparison. Plus coal plants dump more than just CO2 into the atmosphere, such as radioactive material in rather large quantities. Most nuclear plants have not failed, so your use of "when" is slightly strange.
The healthcare spending is pretty silly, as it includes the money made by insurance companies. If you saw how much was actually spent on healthcare, things wouldn't look so rosy. And just by looking at numbers is no indication of what those numbers mean. Throwing money into a broken system doesn't magically stop the broken system being broken. US wages might be high, but the quality of life of an average worker is nowhere near as good as for one in, say, Europe. Outcomes indeed are where it's at, and the US is nowhere near #1 in any of those categories.
The moment the economy relies on people shooting guns in order to function, you'd have a point.
"Cake" is a noun, too. Coincidence?
They have all the choice you do, but pay far less, and get the same level of care. Your ignorance just killed your argument.
That does nothing to explain why US cities have generally terrible internet access. How does the population density of Alaska explain why New York's internet is so poor? It doesn't. You're just making excuses so you don't have to feel bad that the US isn't the paradigm of wonder and awesomeness you seem to think it is. No-one is suggesting one should be able to walk into the wilderness in New Mexico or Arizona, turn over a rock, and find an RJ45 with 100/100 internet service.
Nonsense. Why are you making such piss-poor excuses? New York's internet is shit "because the midwest"? Is that it now? Wow.
This excuse doesn't wash. If that was the case, then US cities would have excellent broadband, and the towns not. As it is, practically all of the US, with some obvious exceptions, have terrible internet access. It is as simple as the Europeans paint it - covering a metropolis with access is technologically the same regardless of the country it's in. Population density in the US is not the same everywhere, so this "but... but... US so biiiig!" argument simply doesn't wash.
This proposed study was not scientific. They would have been nuts to accept it. How can you study one thing in a vacuum? Even worse - how can you make up something, then ask people to study it and only it? That's not science. It's positions like yours which are junk - you've ignored what's actually happened because you like the sound of what you think has happened enough to get upset and righteous.
If they were the only things which affected the climate, you might have a point... Being told to focus only on them, and ignore the vast system in which they exist, is not science, but wishful thinking.
Actual science has happened. I guess biologists should accept grant money to work on studies on how evolution is nonsense? Or how germ theory is some sort of fantasy? The best they can demonstrate is what we already know - they can't improve our understanding of the current theories. There are better things to be spending money on.
Mahatma wasn't even his name. That simply means "great soul" or similar. His real name was Mohandas Gandhi. But close.
Reaction Engines Ltd. have been working on a hybrid rocket/jet engine which uses only hydrogen and oxygen as fuels. It's capable of space flight, or just simply going really fast in the atmosphere. They have recently secured funding from various EU governments and agencies, but they started their work on their own. The way I see it, it's wonderful to have a lone genius forge a path towards some measurable success, then have governments step in and help him on his way to his vision. It also helps to have dispassionate government research into fields which society simply needs to better. The two aren't mutually exclusive, so why not have both?