In a way I agree with the "romantic" side of things, it would even the playing field, it would mean a lot of dead people too of course.
Series like "Jeremiah" I find fascinating because they are set in this world.
I am wondering if we are so fascinated with our own destruction that we just let it happen?
Reality is that we all have become way too lazy for our own good, and I don't think we'll be overcoming this in the near future, unless we're forced to.
I agree that from a statistical point we do not have the data to say it with certainty just by measuring the temperature alone.
BUT, I think you can conclude quite a few things if you pull different sources together:
- Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere. - Emission of "Greenhouse Gases". - Destruction of the Ozone Layer - Saturation of the oceans with CO2 - Depletion of Livestock - Changed Nesting / Migration behaviour of wild animals.
Are all strong indicators of changes that are happening.
Sure, it could just be coincidence, but to think that we have nothing to do with it is just as bad.
The fact is: We do have the ability to change the weather, but as the world is a rather complex system it is not that easy to draw a line between something we did and the reaction it caused.
One thing you forget in your little diatribe is that we "bought our way out of it" over the last couple of decades.
We pretty much are eating oil and this has negated the need for food rationing, so far. Oil goes into way more than just your gas tank. Fertilizer etc. are all also oil based.
Next time you're in your local supermarket try to find out how far your food has travelled before it ended up on your table. Then try to think of what is growing / raised near where you live, what would you be eating today if it wouldn't have been carted to your local supermarket?
With the increase in industrialization of many countries (in part because of consumer culture) and also because of economic expansion and the lower cost of the automobile (namely, in India and China) what can we do to help stop, slow down or perhaps (if possible?) reverse this trend?
I hate to say it: Nothing. The problem is that even a "fast" global change will take decades to show signs, by then the damage has already been done and it will continue.
So unless someone really steps on it now (highly unlikely) we're in for a rough ride.
You know, the 40 years that you have spent on this planet won't even register as a blip in the entire history of this planet.
Just because it didn't happen yesterday doesn't mean we cannot observe real change.
True, the current warming (I am in Edmonton and have +5 today?) could just be a blip (because of the large timeframe changes take on the planet) but it could also be a sign of things really getting screwed.
As another poster pointed out: The planet will survive, we may not, at least not as cushy as it is right now.
One need not be a "homophobe" to have serious reservations about the ethics of homosexual practice.
What is unethical about it? Seriously, two people consent, so what is the unethical thing about it?
One need not be a "homophobe" to feel that marriage is an institution designed to provide for the having and rearing of children.
Interestingly enough you don't need to be married to get a woman pregnant. Thus the logic: Marriage == Children does not compute.
One need not be a "homophobe" in order to feel that a two-parent, heterosexaul household provides children with the best opportunity of developing positive relationships with men AND women
Why? If there is only one Gender present does that mean the kid will never have any interaction with the "other" sex?
"Homophobe" and "homophobic" are nothing but name-calling - terms used to avoid engaging serious discussion on a topic that the new liberal orthodoxy has declared decided, even as the vast bulk of Americans simply disagree.
I am always curious about the "vast part" that is stated.
Even if you look at the states that enacted laws against same sex marriage, if you look at the overall voter turnout it doesn't seem to be the majority: Or differently: The majority of people just don't seem to care, one way or the other.
As far as your comparison of Homosexuals and Mormons - are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between religious faith and sexual practice? Are you seriously suggesting that we have a freedom of sexual practice comparable to our freedom of religious conviction? Are you seriously under the delusion that the status of homosexuality as a civil rights issue rather than a moral issue is settled?
Ah, now there's a catch 22.
If Homosexuality is a CHOICE then it would be falling in the same part as religion, thus the religious right who talks of a homosexual agenda might be right and you can have your moral discussion.
BUT, if you do NOT have a choice, if it is genetic, if you are "made" that way (by god, the genes, whatever), then it clearly falls into the civil / human rights category, if that's the case than there won't be any moral discussion, because they do not at amoral, as they were "made" that way.
Pick your poision, how ever you want to twist it you can't get out of it. They win.
The bottom line is that YOU are the innovator here, not Card. To act as though he must, necessarily, agree with your orthodoxy when your orthodoxy has thrown the orthodoxy of 30 years ago out the window, and that any failure to do so must only be because he is "homophobic", is downright insulting.
Then tell me: What is his motivation? If he is not "homophobic" if he isn't "afraid" of the homosexual men and women out there, if it isn't a distaste for their "lifestyle", then what is it that makes him say those things?
That's nice, but the problmem with the VCR I have is that it doesn't play nice with my digital receiver... Well, I probably go back to basic cable soon anyways.
Global is the worst kind of example (especially in Toronto) they try to be an american network in Canada, they take their cues from there.... They're just a bit softer.
It's almost frightening if you compare "The National" with Global News. You could sometimes swear that they are not reporting on the same story.
The media concentration though I agree is a problem. Especially with Canwest / Globe Media who pretty much control the majority of the newspapers in the country (Globe and Mail for Bell together with CTV and the National Post and Global for CanWest. Not to forget all the smaller local papers that especally CanWest has bought over the last couple of years).
Sure, if you compare it to the American Broadcasters the CBC is extremly to the left, but I haven't seen the CBC trott out the NDP on every occasion, blasting the Conservatives and only tolerating the Liberals.
It seems to me that they tend to bash on everybody rather equally.
If you mean tha the CBC is activly critizising(sp?) the big corporations and the government, then you're right. If you think that's wrong by the CBC than you are wrong.
The media (even in the US) is supposed to be the third power, the voice of the people, not the blowhorn for commerical or political interests.
If anything the CBC could use more funding (guranteed like the BBC) to get some more teeth.
I don't want a broadcaster who tells me how great the world and the government is (unless it's about terrorism) instead of telling me what's really going on.
Watch Global News if you want that, they still hope that their "news" helicopter in Toronto will find some car chases along the 401.
Yes, the BBC is clearly years ahead of what the CBC is doing.
But considering the media landscape in North America I still rather choose to watch / listen to the CBC (as I can't get the BBC in my car).
There are some good shows on CBC, and I tend to get stuck (when I watch TV) on CBC Newsworld quite a bit. CBC Radio 1 is excellent when it comes to news and current affairs (and no ads either).
As for TV, The handful of shows that interest me (I admit it) I tend to download, then delete them. It's just not worth for me to bend MY schedule around the TV stations AND have to endure stupid advertising.
Wouldn't the question be if an email is "material"? A car clearly has a material value, but email (especially on a free service) does not have a value attached, does it? So to claim it has the same rights as the car in storage is dangerous, because what price would you put on.
"Dude that rox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111"
?
Also, what do the Yahoo TOS state? Do they have a provision for the death of an account holder?
This situation needs to be changed-when someone dies, those who are left behind have every right to access whatever they can, including their email. Everything left behind, no matter how minor, becomes invaluable in holding onto the memories of them.
I am not sure I agree with this. If I really want people to have access to things I will make sure they can.
A company like Yahoo cannot simply relinquish the login info just because you would like to have access to.
It might be your desire to know everything about that person, but in essence it is their call to make sure that you have access to it. Put it in their will or find another way, but you don't have a (legal, and moral is debatable) right to see those informations.
Yes, it sucks to lose someone and it is understandable that you want to have as much as you can, but at the end of the day shouldn't you respect the way they have lived, secrets and all?
Shutting down a torrent sites which feature copyrighted movies and music
Since when is the.torrent file the actual movie or music?
I am not a Lawyer, but I think one might be able to argue that the.torrent file in an on itself is not illegal. The data that gets downloaded then might be, but from a technical standpoint a.torrent file is nothing but a link.
And last I checked linking (in most parts of the world) wasn't illegal yet.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way I agree with the "romantic" side of things, it would even the playing field, it would mean a lot of dead people too of course.
Series like "Jeremiah" I find fascinating because they are set in this world.
I am wondering if we are so fascinated with our own destruction that we just let it happen?
Reality is that we all have become way too lazy for our own good, and I don't think we'll be overcoming this in the near future, unless we're forced to.
I agree that from a statistical point we do not have the data to say it with certainty just by measuring the temperature alone.
BUT, I think you can conclude quite a few things if you pull different sources together:
- Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
- Emission of "Greenhouse Gases".
- Destruction of the Ozone Layer
- Saturation of the oceans with CO2
- Depletion of Livestock
- Changed Nesting / Migration behaviour of wild animals.
Are all strong indicators of changes that are happening.
Sure, it could just be coincidence, but to think that we have nothing to do with it is just as bad.
The fact is: We do have the ability to change the weather, but as the world is a rather complex system it is not that easy to draw a line between something we did and the reaction it caused.
One thing you forget in your little diatribe is that we "bought our way out of it" over the last couple of decades.
We pretty much are eating oil and this has negated the need for food rationing, so far. Oil goes into way more than just your gas tank. Fertilizer etc. are all also oil based.
Next time you're in your local supermarket try to find out how far your food has travelled before it ended up on your table. Then try to think of what is growing / raised near where you live, what would you be eating today if it wouldn't have been carted to your local supermarket?
I hate to say it: Nothing. The problem is that even a "fast" global change will take decades to show signs, by then the damage has already been done and it will continue.
So unless someone really steps on it now (highly unlikely) we're in for a rough ride.
You know, the 40 years that you have spent on this planet won't even register as a blip in the entire history of this planet.
Just because it didn't happen yesterday doesn't mean we cannot observe real change.
True, the current warming (I am in Edmonton and have +5 today?) could just be a blip (because of the large timeframe changes take on the planet) but it could also be a sign of things really getting screwed.
As another poster pointed out: The planet will survive, we may not, at least not as cushy as it is right now.
Actually the Atlantis Episodes seem to be coming out of Canada (The Movie Network), while SG1 comes from SkyOne.
It's odd, really, it seems that SciFi is asleep at the wheel.
Curry says in his introduction clearly that it isn't a really "new" idea but that the iPod made it more feasable than before.
Having said that. The name of the Product is iPod not Pod, a "pod" in and on itself is not a product, is it?
Bluetooth most likely not (neither Airport) I think you have to order it that way because it is a completly different Board.
That's one of those things I didn't know when I bought my last iBook, so now I am still using a Bluetooth Dongle.
Oh well. Lesson learned.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not thinking the CBC is the answer to everything. But I think that at least they are trying the hardest.
I can't take networks serious that seem to be more interested in selling ads than informing people.
I also believe that the majority of TV Journalism is crap anyways.
Did I write anywhere that it is better in the US?
I didn't follow them enough, and quite frankly I never meant him directly. I was refering more to the overall tone in the "honest" media.
Indeed one can, but tell me: Why is the right commentary always dragging the discussion into areas that involve "amoral" "Homosexual Agenda" etc.?
This clearly is not a discussion but fear mongering.
If you have a good reason why you think that is a bad idea please do share, just try to steer away from any fear mongering.
What is unethical about it? Seriously, two people consent, so what is the unethical thing about it?
Interestingly enough you don't need to be married to get a woman pregnant. Thus the logic: Marriage == Children does not compute.
Why? If there is only one Gender present does that mean the kid will never have any interaction with the "other" sex?
I am always curious about the "vast part" that is stated.
Even if you look at the states that enacted laws against same sex marriage, if you look at the overall voter turnout it doesn't seem to be the majority: Or differently: The majority of people just don't seem to care, one way or the other.
Ah, now there's a catch 22.
If Homosexuality is a CHOICE then it would be falling in the same part as religion, thus the religious right who talks of a homosexual agenda might be right and you can have your moral discussion.
BUT, if you do NOT have a choice, if it is genetic, if you are "made" that way (by god, the genes, whatever), then it clearly falls into the civil / human rights category, if that's the case than there won't be any moral discussion, because they do not at amoral, as they were "made" that way.
Pick your poision, how ever you want to twist it you can't get out of it. They win.
Then tell me: What is his motivation? If he is not "homophobic" if he isn't "afraid" of the homosexual men and women out there, if it isn't a distaste for their "lifestyle", then what is it that makes him say those things?
That's nice, but the problmem with the VCR I have is that it doesn't play nice with my digital receiver... Well, I probably go back to basic cable soon anyways.
ZED is actually a rather highly addictive TV show on CBC.
Runs for around an hour every night at ~11:30pm.
It shows short movies, clips, interviews.... Pretty much "clustered" around "themes".
The content comes from all over the world, and if they can they put the stuff online at zed.cbc.ca
Also the community on ZED can contribute, publish their own movies, stories, photos and some of those are even put on the air.
Global is the worst kind of example (especially in Toronto) they try to be an american network in Canada, they take their cues from there.... They're just a bit softer.
It's almost frightening if you compare "The National" with Global News. You could sometimes swear that they are not reporting on the same story.
The media concentration though I agree is a problem. Especially with Canwest / Globe Media who pretty much control the majority of the newspapers in the country (Globe and Mail for Bell together with CTV and the National Post and Global for CanWest. Not to forget all the smaller local papers that especally CanWest has bought over the last couple of years).
Leftist bias?
Okay, explain to me where?
Sure, if you compare it to the American Broadcasters the CBC is extremly to the left, but I haven't seen the CBC trott out the NDP on every occasion, blasting the Conservatives and only tolerating the Liberals.
It seems to me that they tend to bash on everybody rather equally.
If you mean tha the CBC is activly critizising(sp?) the big corporations and the government, then you're right. If you think that's wrong by the CBC than you are wrong.
The media (even in the US) is supposed to be the third power, the voice of the people, not the blowhorn for commerical or political interests.
If anything the CBC could use more funding (guranteed like the BBC) to get some more teeth.
I don't want a broadcaster who tells me how great the world and the government is (unless it's about terrorism) instead of telling me what's really going on.
Watch Global News if you want that, they still hope that their "news" helicopter in Toronto will find some car chases along the 401.
Yes, the BBC is clearly years ahead of what the CBC is doing.
But considering the media landscape in North America I still rather choose to watch / listen to the CBC (as I can't get the BBC in my car).
There are some good shows on CBC, and I tend to get stuck (when I watch TV) on CBC Newsworld quite a bit. CBC Radio 1 is excellent when it comes to news and current affairs (and no ads either).
As for TV, The handful of shows that interest me (I admit it) I tend to download, then delete them. It's just not worth for me to bend MY schedule around the TV stations AND have to endure stupid advertising.
The NAT problem is interesting, I never had that problem.
One person I regularly talk to is behind a Microsoft Proxy / firewall while I am behind a Smoothwall. No problems whatsoever for either of us.
You might want to check the FW configurations.
I use skype regularly to call from Edmonton (Canada) to Germany and sometimes Japan.
Occasionally I have some choppy connection, but even calls to places like Venezuela had pretty clear voice quality (On MacOS X).
I don't think I've made a long distance phone call personally in a long long time.
?
Also, what do the Yahoo TOS state? Do they have a provision for the death of an account holder?
I am not sure I agree with this. If I really want people to have access to things I will make sure they can.
A company like Yahoo cannot simply relinquish the login info just because you would like to have access to.
It might be your desire to know everything about that person, but in essence it is their call to make sure that you have access to it. Put it in their will or find another way, but you don't have a (legal, and moral is debatable) right to see those informations.
Yes, it sucks to lose someone and it is understandable that you want to have as much as you can, but at the end of the day shouldn't you respect the way they have lived, secrets and all?
Since when is the
I am not a Lawyer, but I think one might be able to argue that the
And last I checked linking (in most parts of the world) wasn't illegal yet.
I grew up in Europe and lived for a while in the states... It was interesting to come back to Europe and suddenly FEEL freer at least.
There are so many small things in the states that tie you down / control / limit you that are just not there in Europe.
I think in part it also has to do with the way people see / perceive life (work for a living, not live for work).
Even though the paper cups are "waxed" you can still compost them, not "recover" them as in making new cups, but still.
And yes i agree with your Starbucks idea, but that's not how it works, is it?