> We aren't going to be 100% confident that global warming is a problem until it's probably too late.
Is this like the old adage that we should believe in a god just in case we die and there really is a heaven and hell? I would use Ockham's razor to answer the global warming theory as well as the god theory: the simplest answer that satisfies, and no more, is the one to choose (my horrible paraphrasing of the idea). Wikipedia cites Ockham's Razor as: "selecting those [theories] that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities". It's awful complicated to add god into the mix when trying to answer "why are we here?" or "what happens after death?". It adds a lot of baggage, just as global warming does to our more mundane questions such as "should we be using all these cars and factories and technological advances to live comfortably?".
Just in case you want to have another side from which to view this debate, here is a review of the Discovery Channel's special on global warming (it might be the show you saw). [The special, by the way, featured James Hansen from NASA, who is the author of the theory that started this thread.] The review mentions two prominent scientists, MIT's Richard S. Lindzen and William Gray, the "world's foremost expert on hurricanes", who disagree with global warming. Here's an essay written by Gray for laymen on the subject of global warming. From his essay:
"This small warming [over the last 100 yrs] is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood."
This pro-global warming theory is from the same James Hansen of NASA who used to agree with the warming skeptics, and before that he completely disagreed with the skeptics. So, who knows when he'll change sides next? This guy is great. From a previous Cato Institute article:
"NASA's James Hansen now predicts precisely the same, small amount of warming in the next 50 years that the much-derided 'climate skeptics' predicted all along. According to both the skeptics and Mr. Hansen, the planet is destined for a mere 0.7 degree Centigrade (1.25 degree Fahrenheit) warming between now and 2050."
more media hype than anything. Over the last 100 yrs (yes, since 1895), the media has flopped from global warming to global ice age scares. There seems to always be a scientist somewhere that believes one or the other theory, convenient for the media to pick up whenever they feel the winds of fear should change. Just read:
Okay, so they get one site, MySpace.com, to make people say they are 18+. Maybe it might work a little. But, people, we are talking about the INTERNET. There are potentially billions of places like this where predators can hunt young children. No one can stop up all the leaks. The only way to curtail this is for the parents to take more responsibility.
> MSNBC/CNN/NYT pride themselves with reporting unbiased news regardless of > their parent orgs.
I hope you aren't serious about this.;-)
I hope we can all agree that these "news organizations" have a HUUUUUUGE bias. I would say the same thing about Fox News. Everybody has a bias of some kind. The key is to understand what the bias is while you're reading, and read more than one source (one from the left, one from the right, you get the picture . ..)
Absolutely, I agree that learning more and at some points changing your mind about things that are incorrect is a great thing. No problem there.
What I dislike is not the guy, but the fanaticism he has about issues that he might not be correct on. I also dislike the blindness that the people who follow him have about the reality of what he is promoting.
The problem I see here, which his change in belief shows, is how these activist groups go off and blaze into the public, demanding changes, when they cannot be sure that these things are really the right things to do. There is no calm reflection and research into these things once the followers get into it; it's all mobs and protests and bullying. That changes our society, sometimes for the wrong, and then it's more difficult to retract later because these things are accepted and the 'norm'.
> Maybe people should use their own judgement, thoughtfully weigh all the
> facts, and consider the consequences instead of just doing whatever some
> environmental activists say.
All good advice, and not only about activists, but about everything in life.
Any one blindly following someone else without researching the facts themselves is little better than a robot.
If this guy can change so completely after finding proof, what else is he wrong about right now? Maybe whale killing isn't as bad as it's seemed to him either all those years ago . . .
"Hollywood" movies and "creative" used in the same sentence? Oh, no, no, no!
Usually, it's the small, indie flicks that have the real uniqueness, the real innovation. Just like the game industry. You're going to get really good and really bad games if you go to the underground, but on the surface, you'll only get the same 'ol same 'ol.
Not true; never is if you're actually interested in the game and not in just being around the guys. I've never been disrespected for my ability to play any game with guys--(Diplomacy and AD&D and chess--yes, non-computer games I played a long time ago), Ultima, Diablo, Dungeon Siege, Unreal Tourn., RoadKill, etc. I think actually that guys are fair and just to women. Oh sure, you'll see one or two who won't play against you out of some old-fashioned chivalrous idea of theirs, but otherwise guys are very cool and willing to have you join in, as long as you're serious about the game like they are.
>one of us IS, then we're seen as not as
>competent as a guy. If we prove to be
>competent, then we suddenly turn into a threat.
Yes, you really are going into stereotypes--of your own. It's rude to tell lies about anyone, and especially guys on this topic.
>Maybe, just maybe, more girls would confess to
>being gamers if they weren't insulted whenever
>they tried it.
Look around you. The serious gamers who are from the female sex are speaking up all over this board, and are playing all over the Net. We're not being discriminated against. You don't have to wear the feminist-colored glasses for EVERY topic you think about. We're not a second-class race here, we're gamers like the rest of them. Don't relegate the women to, "oh, maybe someday I'll speak out when I feel comfortable enough too, when the big, bad guys stop bullying me! boo-hoo." When I read words like yours, I DO start to feel discriminated against--by you!
Thanks, and try to have a cheery day, won't you???:-)
(Oh, yeah, did I mention I'm female? Why do I have to keep doing that?;-)
I, for one, do not want female-only tournies, and I think the whole subject is disgusting. I admit that I am female for this post because it is relevant. Otherwise, when I'm online, it has nothing to do with posting, gaming, etc.
Why would sex matter? I'm sick to death of the whole topic, and tired of women trying to put me in a box with them---I want to play with everyone, or guys, but not women only. I like to play shooters or RPGs, and I usually pick a male character or whatever, and I don't pick a female-sounding name. I've been mistaken many times for a guy player, which is just fine by me. My sex doesn't matter in a game; as long as we can team up and kill everything in site together, why would my teammates need or care to know my sex? Ridiculous.
Can't believe the women came up with this one. I thought that the internet gaming world would be sexless---I have always used it as such. That's how it should stay.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xoax.net/ for C++.
> We aren't going to be 100% confident that global warming is a problem until it's probably too late.
Is this like the old adage that we should believe in a god just in case we die and there really is a heaven and hell? I would use Ockham's razor to answer the global warming theory as well as the god theory: the simplest answer that satisfies, and no more, is the one to choose (my horrible paraphrasing of the idea). Wikipedia cites Ockham's Razor as: "selecting those [theories] that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities". It's awful complicated to add god into the mix when trying to answer "why are we here?" or "what happens after death?". It adds a lot of baggage, just as global warming does to our more mundane questions such as "should we be using all these cars and factories and technological advances to live comfortably?".
Just in case you want to have another side from which to view this debate, here is a review of the Discovery Channel's special on global warming (it might be the show you saw). [The special, by the way, featured James Hansen from NASA, who is the author of the theory that started this thread.] The review mentions two prominent scientists, MIT's Richard S. Lindzen and William Gray, the "world's foremost expert on hurricanes", who disagree with global warming. Here's an essay written by Gray for laymen on the subject of global warming. From his essay:
"This small warming [over the last 100 yrs] is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood."
The review of the Discovery Channel's global warming special: Brokaw Warns of Melting Glaciers, Greenhouse Gases: TV Review
This pro-global warming theory is from the same James Hansen of NASA who used to agree with the warming skeptics, and before that he completely disagreed with the skeptics. So, who knows when he'll change sides next? This guy is great. From a previous Cato Institute article:
"NASA's James Hansen now predicts precisely the same, small amount of warming in the next 50 years that the much-derided 'climate skeptics' predicted all along. According to both the skeptics and Mr. Hansen, the planet is destined for a mere 0.7 degree Centigrade (1.25 degree Fahrenheit) warming between now and 2050."
Full article: NASA Extinguishes Global-Warming Fire
more media hype than anything. Over the last 100 yrs (yes, since 1895), the media has flopped from global warming to global ice age scares. There seems to always be a scientist somewhere that believes one or the other theory, convenient for the media to pick up whenever they feel the winds of fear should change. Just read:
Fire and Ice
> My playing field greatly favors me because I am better at my job than
> most people.
That's what every programmer thinks.
Okay, so they get one site, MySpace.com, to make people say they are 18+. Maybe it might work a little. But, people, we are talking about the INTERNET. There are potentially billions of places like this where predators can hunt young children. No one can stop up all the leaks. The only way to curtail this is for the parents to take more responsibility.
> MSNBC/CNN/NYT pride themselves with reporting unbiased news regardless of
;-)
.)
> their parent orgs.
I hope you aren't serious about this.
I hope we can all agree that these "news organizations" have a HUUUUUUGE bias. I would say the same thing about Fox News. Everybody has a bias of some kind. The key is to understand what the bias is while you're reading, and read more than one source (one from the left, one from the right, you get the picture . .
> It's not common for a CEO to make such admission, which can only mean one
> thing -- they already have plans to regain those market shares.
Or, that Intel is looking to buy and consume AMD.
Absolutely, I agree that learning more and at some points changing your mind about things that are incorrect is a great thing. No problem there.
What I dislike is not the guy, but the fanaticism he has about issues that he might not be correct on. I also dislike the blindness that the people who follow him have about the reality of what he is promoting.
The problem I see here, which his change in belief shows, is how these activist groups go off and blaze into the public, demanding changes, when they cannot be sure that these things are really the right things to do. There is no calm reflection and research into these things once the followers get into it; it's all mobs and protests and bullying. That changes our society, sometimes for the wrong, and then it's more difficult to retract later because these things are accepted and the 'norm'.
> Maybe people should use their own judgement, thoughtfully weigh all the
> facts, and consider the consequences instead of just doing whatever some
> environmental activists say.
All good advice, and not only about activists, but about everything in life.
Any one blindly following someone else without researching the facts themselves is little better than a robot.
If this guy can change so completely after finding proof, what else is he wrong about right now? Maybe whale killing isn't as bad as it's seemed to him either all those years ago . . .
"Hollywood" movies and "creative" used in the same sentence? Oh, no, no, no!
Usually, it's the small, indie flicks that have the real uniqueness, the real innovation. Just like the game industry. You're going to get really good and really bad games if you go to the underground, but on the surface, you'll only get the same 'ol same 'ol.
>We simply do not get any respect.
Not true; never is if you're actually interested in the game and not in just being around the guys. I've never been disrespected for my ability to play any game with guys--(Diplomacy and AD&D and chess--yes, non-computer games I played a long time ago), Ultima, Diablo, Dungeon Siege, Unreal Tourn., RoadKill, etc. I think actually that guys are fair and just to women. Oh sure, you'll see one or two who won't play against you out of some old-fashioned chivalrous idea of theirs, but otherwise guys are very cool and willing to have you join in, as long as you're serious about the game like they are.
>one of us IS, then we're seen as not as>competent as a guy. If we prove to be
>competent, then we suddenly turn into a threat.
Yes, you really are going into stereotypes--of your own. It's rude to tell lies about anyone, and especially guys on this topic.
>Maybe, just maybe, more girls would confess to
>being gamers if they weren't insulted whenever
>they tried it.
Look around you. The serious gamers who are from the female sex are speaking up all over this board, and are playing all over the Net. We're not being discriminated against. You don't have to wear the feminist-colored glasses for EVERY topic you think about. We're not a second-class race here, we're gamers like the rest of them. Don't relegate the women to, "oh, maybe someday I'll speak out when I feel comfortable enough too, when the big, bad guys stop bullying me! boo-hoo." When I read words like yours, I DO start to feel discriminated against--by you!
Thanks, and try to have a cheery day, won't you??? :-)
(Oh, yeah, did I mention I'm female? Why do I have to keep doing that? ;-)
I, for one, do not want female-only tournies, and I think the whole subject is disgusting. I admit that I am female for this post because it is relevant. Otherwise, when I'm online, it has nothing to do with posting, gaming, etc.
Why would sex matter? I'm sick to death of the whole topic, and tired of women trying to put me in a box with them---I want to play with everyone, or guys, but not women only. I like to play shooters or RPGs, and I usually pick a male character or whatever, and I don't pick a female-sounding name. I've been mistaken many times for a guy player, which is just fine by me. My sex doesn't matter in a game; as long as we can team up and kill everything in site together, why would my teammates need or care to know my sex? Ridiculous.
Can't believe the women came up with this one. I thought that the internet gaming world would be sexless---I have always used it as such. That's how it should stay.