No it's just that rich people are more likely to be liars when the truth will effect their wealth. Somebody like me is more likely to lie about the size of their dick or the size of the fish they caught for the same reason.
I read this explanation someplace, I don't remember where exactly.
The elevated tempratures were the result of mass burning of forests in order to make land suitable to agriculture. After a while the burning activity stopped and agriculture went into production and the CO2 levels stabilized or reduced by being absorbed into the ocean. CO2 levels started going up again as a result of increased population, more burn offs of forests, the industrial revolution and of course the internal combustion engine.
"First, can you prove that man made greenhouse gases are the sole reason behind global temp. increases, can you prove it isn't volcanos or decomposing plant matter?"
Does it have to be the sole reason? Can it be a significant reason?
By the way it has been proven the humans put more CO2 into the air then all the volcanoes put together by orders of magnitude. You really should read up some of the research.
It looks like some progress is happening here. A few years ago the republicans ( a handy term for people opposed to CO2 reduction efforts) were saying that global warming wasn't happening. Later they tried the "it's happening but it's good for you" argument for a little while. Now the argument is "it's happening but it's not our fault, we can't do anything about it, so let's get back to making lots of money" argument.
Recently there was a study conducted on ice cores that tracked the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere throught history. It correlated very well with burning off of the forrests for agriculture. I think this argument will also be relegated to the dustbin pretty soon. It will be interesting to see what argument they come up with next.
I think yours is the exact reaction oil companies and republicans are hoping for. Buy simply buying enough research to instill confusion in the public they can keep their profits up and prevent stricter regulations on emissions.
As for me I always look at the car. If a guy is drving a fice year old honda or a subaru (or even biking) he is more likely to tell me the truth then if he is driving a brand new BMW or a Mercedes.
Yes I know both BMW and Mercedes make junky cheap cars too now but you get the idea. Take a look at the car.
I don't think it would be too difficult for them to design a license which prevents GPLed software from being signed. MS wants developers but they want the GPL to die and they want people to stop developing GPLed code.
AOL bought netscape for the exact same reason. They thought all those eyeballs focused on the (default) netscape.com web page would be a great asset. It didn't work that way.
As long as google is better able to target and get a better click through they have nothing to worry about.
This is a corporate R&D arm. Everything they do must go towards a product. Otherwise MS could spend all their R&D dollars trying to cure cancer or something.
We'll get right on that. No, no, don't get up, there is no need for YOU to do anything. It's my pleasure to work to make you happy and not charge you a dime.
So all that great research is just useless in the end then? WHy should I have respect for all that research if ends up as a crap operating system that I am forced to use at work?
1) Does anybody call MS because their driver crashes the system?
2) Exactly what does it mean to say that a driver is MS approved or "works with windows"? Surely the makers of the video cards are not publishing drivers that don't work or haven't been tested.
If I could buy OSX server to run on my existing intel servers I would. It's worth a thousand dollars to get a pre-configured ldap, samba, apache, php, jabber, java, remote desktop, etc would certainly be worth it.
Hell if there was a linux distro like that it would be worth it.
YOu can always tell so much about a person when link to the washington times as an authority. It tells me the person in incabable of thought and is unable to think any thought that is not allowed by the fundamentalist republican dogma.
So let me get this straight. There is a person out there. The police have no evidence whatsoever that he is a terrorist. But they want to throw him in jail without charges because ????????.
So why? Is it because he is a muslim? Because the police have a funny feeling? Because they are dark skinned on a sunny day?
If you have any evidence at all you can charge him and bag him. Judges don't really stand in the way of muslims going to jail in the US do they?
"You need evidence to be able to do that. Police and politicians want to be able to hold people without evidence."
Well some do. Those pesky things like freedom, due process, trials, and evidence and shit are just not for some police and politicians. They prefer the olden days when the king said "off with his head" and out came to guillotine. There are some countries in the world where the el-presidente can point at some one and say "bad man" and have that guy disappear. Sad to say the US is one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's just that rich people are more likely to be liars when the truth will effect their wealth. Somebody like me is more likely to lie about the size of their dick or the size of the fish they caught for the same reason.
I read this explanation someplace, I don't remember where exactly.
The elevated tempratures were the result of mass burning of forests in order to make land suitable to agriculture. After a while the burning activity stopped and agriculture went into production and the CO2 levels stabilized or reduced by being absorbed into the ocean. CO2 levels started going up again as a result of increased population, more burn offs of forests, the industrial revolution and of course the internal combustion engine.
The anon users has an informative post.
"First, can you prove that man made greenhouse gases are the sole reason behind global temp. increases, can you prove it isn't volcanos or decomposing plant matter?"
Does it have to be the sole reason? Can it be a significant reason?
By the way it has been proven the humans put more CO2 into the air then all the volcanoes put together by orders of magnitude. You really should read up some of the research.
None of them have. Clearly you are smarter then all the scientists. They are too stupid to consider natural cycles.
It looks like some progress is happening here. A few years ago the republicans ( a handy term for people opposed to CO2 reduction efforts) were saying that global warming wasn't happening. Later they tried the "it's happening but it's good for you" argument for a little while. Now the argument is "it's happening but it's not our fault, we can't do anything about it, so let's get back to making lots of money" argument.
Recently there was a study conducted on ice cores that tracked the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere throught history. It correlated very well with burning off of the forrests for agriculture. I think this argument will also be relegated to the dustbin pretty soon. It will be interesting to see what argument they come up with next.
I think yours is the exact reaction oil companies and republicans are hoping for. Buy simply buying enough research to instill confusion in the public they can keep their profits up and prevent stricter regulations on emissions.
As for me I always look at the car. If a guy is drving a fice year old honda or a subaru (or even biking) he is more likely to tell me the truth then if he is driving a brand new BMW or a Mercedes.
Yes I know both BMW and Mercedes make junky cheap cars too now but you get the idea. Take a look at the car.
I think linux has made it if all you have to complain about is ugly icons and the fact that it's a little offset.
I don't think it would be too difficult for them to design a license which prevents GPLed software from being signed. MS wants developers but they want the GPL to die and they want people to stop developing GPLed code.
This seems like an odd analysis. Isn't TW trying to get rid of AOL? Why would they also hand over all of their content along with the sale?
By the way if google looses this fight you know they are going to go the justice dept and tie up the deal for years right?
AOL bought netscape for the exact same reason. They thought all those eyeballs focused on the (default) netscape.com web page would be a great asset. It didn't work that way.
As long as google is better able to target and get a better click through they have nothing to worry about.
This is a corporate R&D arm. Everything they do must go towards a product. Otherwise MS could spend all their R&D dollars trying to cure cancer or something.
Are you saying iraq offers more protection of rights then france?
Two great evils even more evil together.
We'll get right on that. No, no, don't get up, there is no need for YOU to do anything. It's my pleasure to work to make you happy and not charge you a dime.
So all that great research is just useless in the end then? WHy should I have respect for all that research if ends up as a crap operating system that I am forced to use at work?
Two questions.
1) Does anybody call MS because their driver crashes the system?
2) Exactly what does it mean to say that a driver is MS approved or "works with windows"? Surely the makers of the video cards are not publishing drivers that don't work or haven't been tested.
If I could buy OSX server to run on my existing intel servers I would. It's worth a thousand dollars to get a pre-configured ldap, samba, apache, php, jabber, java, remote desktop, etc would certainly be worth it.
Hell if there was a linux distro like that it would be worth it.
Intestingly enough they are copying open source products in IE, visual studio and SQL server.
YOu can always tell so much about a person when link to the washington times as an authority. It tells me the person in incabable of thought and is unable to think any thought that is not allowed by the fundamentalist republican dogma.
So let me get this straight. There is a person out there. The police have no evidence whatsoever that he is a terrorist. But they want to throw him in jail without charges because ????????.
So why? Is it because he is a muslim? Because the police have a funny feeling? Because they are dark skinned on a sunny day?
If you have any evidence at all you can charge him and bag him. Judges don't really stand in the way of muslims going to jail in the US do they?
It's no where near as secular as the Turkish constitution.
Not all citizens either. Search for Jose Padillo if you need a place to start.
"You need evidence to be able to do that. Police and politicians want to be able to hold people without evidence."
Well some do. Those pesky things like freedom, due process, trials, and evidence and shit are just not for some police and politicians. They prefer the olden days when the king said "off with his head" and out came to guillotine. There are some countries in the world where the el-presidente can point at some one and say "bad man" and have that guy disappear. Sad to say the US is one of them.
Are you aware that you can charge people and then deny them bail? It's been going on for a long time now.