"Ok, techie, give me the jist of it." "It seems the problem was with the NC9828A chip" "Oh? And what was the problem?" "It melted, basically. It went bonkers." "Ah, and then what happend?" "Err... it caused the shutdown." "But how?" "Well, I presume the AH-982's got deluged with data, so they shut off." "Ah, so it was some sort of data thing." "Kind of, the failing chip would start sending data in the network t--" "Hey, it's like a storm of data! Hah! I get it!" "Umm, basically." "Oh man. A data storm! I better tell the NRC" "Ok, sure."
Later...
"Sir, I have the cause of the shutdown, it was caused what the tech guys here would call a data storm." "A data storm? Wow. So your reactors got a bunch of bad datas, right?" "Errr.. kind of, the microchips melted." "Data can do that?" "Yeah, it's like a storm on our, uh, logic networks. I guess that can melt the microchips" "Uh oh. Maybe this storm came from outside the plant! One of those hacker attacks!" "Hmmmm, the guy said it melted, but I suppo--" "Oh crap I better inform Homeland Security!" "Ok, sure."
Later still...
"Yeah, we had a data storm and it melted the reactor networks." "How did this data storm happen?" "I don't think they know yet, but it messed up big time." "My God. Do you realize this could be Al Qaeda?!!" "Could realize wha--" "Al Qaeda! Terrorists. Internets terrorists." "I don't know if the reactors are hooked up to the Interne--" "Listen. Keep this quiet, but make sure you tell everyone you know. These reactors are not safe! No one is safe from the terror!" "Well, it was a data storm. Can terrorists make data storms?" "Yes. They caused your meltdown." "No, no, the microchips melted down because of the storm. A meltdow--" "In the terror business, there's more than one type of meltdown, you just let us handle this." "Ok, sure."
like, this britannica book doesn't have like *anything* about Britney Spears, so like what good is it? Wikipedia has a 5,000 word article on her and the music she writes. If I wanted to learn about science things I'd go to a science school. Get a life LOSER and go learn about your hydrogen star trek machine boooooring crap somewhere else lol!!! This is OPEN SOURCE. Do u now what that means? anyway i only came to your stoopid site to learn more about the IDIOTS who are on Wikipedia attacking that article. Do you know what POV means? Like, I didn't think so. talk about a personal attack, really, you weirdos.
and like, u can go to Britannica all you want, fine by me. try editing the harp seal page so you can make sure everyone knows about the horrible Canadians murdering helpless baby seals. How are you going to give people the facts about harp seals if you don't tell them how horrible it is to kill them?
not that it matters. once Rachel makes me admin i'll make sure you stay off wikipedia.
The way you replied pretty much sums up Wikipedia "discussion": Insult your opponent's argument, say there's an agenda against you, and then dismiss the person with a disdainful wave of your hand.
Instead of you know, actually "getting the point," and possibly even "arguing the point."
/How do you like my Fark-style! Sarcasmality! //thinks Fark is stupid
The way I see it, is that people who praise film remakes of books, is that they just don't want to read the book--or at least want someone else to do that whole pesky "imagination" part for them. I mean, not all film remakes are bad, but I thought Lord of the Rings (I only saw the first one) was pretty bad. I liked it as I watched it, but was disappointed in the end.
I didn't like the movie because it wasn't how I imagined it (I've read the books through maybe 5 times), and I don't expect anyone else to imagine it the same way I do. And to say the special effects weren't overdone and that the movie focused on the characters is ridiculous.
In the book, the first time they see a Black Rider, they see him on the road, and they go into the bushes because Frodo gets nervous. The rider stops, sort of sniffing around, and Frodo gets a strange urge to put on the ring, but they don't get a good look at him, and then he trots off.
In the movie, a gigantic computer generated hissing cloaked monster rears his horse up as he smells the evilness that is the ring. He wraps his tentacle like fingers around the roots they are hiding under mere inches from their faces as Frodo battles his own arms trying to put the ring on him all while omnious scary music plays and his cloak blows around in the wind and the hobbits cower in terror.
That's not what happend. Not the second time they see one either. The second time they are far away from the Rider and they watch him from down in the treed gully, just a silhouette at the top of the hill. After looking and snuffling around The Rider starts to make his way down the hill towards them, but he only gets a few steps before the Elves scare him off (iirc).
And the House of Elrond in the movie is some giant magical fantasy castle in a 10,000 feet deep gorge. It is a somewhat like a out of the way village in a forested valley, or a sort of secluded garden. Sure it has Elvish characteristics, but one thing is for sure, I did not picture it as a huge castle built into the side of a mountain.
That is how I imagined it, of course, other people will have different ideas. The thing is, I think the visuals in my imagination is more true to the story than the movie is, and I think the book supports that. I re-read it after watching the movie, and it's taking me a long time to not think of the House of Elrond as a giant castle because the stupid movie wrecked my own personal take.
CNN initially ran a story that said Wal-Mart was going to stop selling VHS tapes... based entirely on an article in the "Hollywood Reporter" which cited "industry sources." Wal-Mart said to stop selling VHS. Apparently they think this news is so important that they just can't wait 24 hours to confirm the story.
I'd expect this from a blog, but not a news network.
(of course, blogs can still be worse, because you have people editing the stories on-line as they write them, covering-up their shoddy reporting and taking no ownership of their article until it is 'finished,' meanwhile people are spreading rumours like wildfire.)
15 years of innovation and a completely new engine design, and we end up with a somewhat safer version of the Geo Metro (40% heavier... and with half the cargo space.)
...what about my church, that says homosexuality is a sin. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't. I think my church, as an organization, has a free speech right to teach this.
And it does have the right to teach this.
Note, for the third time, that sexual preference is not included in the law.
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
Also note, again for the third time, that, even if sexual preference denotes an identifiable group, arguing an on opinion an a religious subject is still a valid defence.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)...
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
I believe using the N word is pretty stupid and bigoted, but it must be free... It MUST be. Plain and simple.
I agree, and, though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that it is (and actually I shouldn't have used it in the example; it confuses the issue). I think the law is pretty straightforward. Don't tell people to kill everyone of an identifiable group ("Kill the Jews"), don't preach hate in public and cause a breach of the peace (a la Falwell*), and don't write hate propaganda and distribute it publically--unless it's relevant to public discussion and you believe it's true, or a good faith argument on a religious subject. Falwell can write "God Hates Fags" in brochures and distribute them all he wants, as he is simply an asshole arguing a religious subject and believes it to be true. I'm pretty sure one can even write "The white menace is destroying our society" or "Blacks cause all crime" if one thinks it's true.
*sexual preferences are not even included in the current law, so in theory he could--but would probably be charged with inciting a riot if one broke out.
I understand the "all speech must be free, no matter what" view however, and I respect it and am glad to have it. It's definitely a grey issue. But it's quite annoying to have people screaming "Canada hates freedom of speech!!11eleven" who can't even discuss it (and I mean the first guy, not you).
This I found on the 'net is actually a good short read on the subject and it seems to touch on and explain many of the concerns people have that are for or against the hate propaganda law. The quote at the bottom best represents my view. Though I wouldn't say it in such grandiose terms as "[hate propaganda] is an attack on democracy," I do believe that it has the purpose of actively denying identifiable groups their freedom.
And here is a much longer discussion on the law itself by a lawyer who talks about the law with respect to Internet forums and such (and with good discussion on its interpretation in general).
You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Don't tell me what I see.
You didn't read the law. Therefore a) you haven't even bothered to think even the tiniest bit about you're reason, and b) you're a troll.
Did you miss the part where sexual orientation is not even included in the current law, and you just forgot to mention that? And considering your link, did you miss the part where attempting, in good faith, to argue a religious subject is a valid defence?
It's obvious that you did. Therefore, you are a troll. Come back when you've actually thought about it. Unless, of course, you believe "Kill the dirty niggers" is just "speaking out against" them in a way which just "seems bigoted."
They already have legislation that dictates what free speech is and isn't (veiled as 'hate speech' legislation).
For those that are curious, you can read the hate propaganda law here (it's short).
Personally, I see no reason to advocate genocide based on someone's colour, race, religion or ethnic origin (if I even would ever consider advocating genocide of all things, characteristics and/or beliefs a group are not the same thing as the actions of a group). I also see promoting hatred in public where such hatred will lead to a breach of the peace (riot) as a good idea. I don't want Falwell coming down here and trying to start a riot. I also see that promoting hatred in public communication, where that communication is not established to be true, nor in good faith someone is expressing an argument on a religious subject, nor is it relevant to the public interest and on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true, nor is in good faith pointing out--for the purposes of removal--matters tending to produce feelings of hatred, protects people from hatred.
I see it as protecting freedom in terms of protecting those in an identifiable group from others would advocate killing them.
I see it as keeping the peace in terms of not allowing people to publically incite a breach of the peace based on their views of an identifiable group.
I see it as protecting those from others who would publically encourage people to hate those in an identifiable group based on things that are untrue, irrelevant, and not a religious belief.
I see the penalties, the first being imprisonment up to five years, the other two being imprisonment of up to two years or a fine, as reasonable.
Fifth, after something is clicked on the main page, the connection is kept alive, as is shown by the message "Transferring data from www.fordvehicles.com..." which remains there forever and can't be made to go away by hitting the Escape key.
That's probably a bug in Firefox, and doesn't have to do with Flash. I gather the status bar getting stuck on "Transferring data from" (after transfer is complete) is quite common.
Granted, studying this and the effects is good, but to herald it and comment on it as if it were some new amazing discovery is ridiculous. Scientists have known for years that the Sun destroys ozone. The Sun's rays also produce ozone. Sure solar flares have an effect and it's good to study the extent of that effect but this is the kind of media that makes stupid people just a little stupider, as evidenced by a lot of the posts on the thread. Slashdot is supposed to be for nerds. If you're not a nerd and just some political wackjob with a grudge who thinks science is accomplished by "just thinking about things" then get off.
Sadly, I fear Slashdot will go the way of FARK if the real nerds here aren't careful.
I consider myself a tree-hugger. That said, the whole ozone thing is a scam by scientists who see bad news as a way to obtain research grants and funding and - dare I say - notoriety masquerading as prestige. Consider: 1) 90% of industrialization and associated emissions is in the northern hemisphere 2) The coriolis effect keeps the earth's northern and southern airstreams seperate (very little mixing)
So why is the ozone hole over Antarctica? Why not the North Pole seeing as this is the hemisphere supposedly cursed by industry? Use Occams' Razor - it ain't our fault... Regards...
Wow. You sir, are a genius. You've straightened it all out for me. However, more people need to know of this obvious fact. Please call NASA and let them know what you have discovered.
NASA's phone number is (202) 358-0001.
Then again, they may be in on it just like how they faked the moon landings. In that case, I don't know what we can do. Call the news networks like CNN and FOX and NBC. I tried to look up their phone numbers but I think NASA is blocking them somehow. It says my computer is too slow and I may have spyware--when I don't have spyware. Occam's razor is that NASA is blocking their phone numbers.
is this the article or did I click on the wrong link?
Scientists Prove Ozone thinning caused by Solar Flares
Scientists at NASA have proven that thinning of the ozone layer is a natural cycle caused by solar flares. The ozone layer protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays and it was previously thought that ozone thinning was caused by chlorofluorocarbons which were banned because of this in the 90's.
"We have determined that this is not, in fact, the case." says Dr. Scion. "Solar flares cause all ozone thinning. Simply thinking about it scientifically proves that this is the case." Dr. Scion says he thought about it for a long time before coming to the conclusion. "We had determined that solar flares were damaging the ozone, but we could not determine how much of an effect this had. However, we realized that Earth must go through natural cycles, so therefore solar flares must be causing the majority damage and CFC's have little, if any, effect."
Evidence of the extent of the effect of solar flares on the ozone layer was presented at a press conference Saturday. Scientists have shown that, due to the composition of CFC's, they cannot possibly make their way into the upper atmosphere. NASA reported that "if one thinks about it, obviously they cannot get up there, especially all the way to the Arctic" and hence, "any CFC's that we have found are being created by the Sun somehow converting ozone into chlorine, which is simply a chemical mechanism we do not understand."
NASA says they will continue researching how the Sun creates CFC's, and suggests that the CFC's themselves are possibly the product of a "liberal conspiracy."
Slashdot Mirror
"Ok, techie, give me the jist of it."
"It seems the problem was with the NC9828A chip"
"Oh? And what was the problem?"
"It melted, basically. It went bonkers."
"Ah, and then what happend?"
"Err... it caused the shutdown."
"But how?"
"Well, I presume the AH-982's got deluged with data, so they shut off."
"Ah, so it was some sort of data thing."
"Kind of, the failing chip would start sending data in the network t--"
"Hey, it's like a storm of data! Hah! I get it!"
"Umm, basically."
"Oh man. A data storm! I better tell the NRC"
"Ok, sure."
Later...
"Sir, I have the cause of the shutdown, it was caused what the tech guys here would call a data storm."
"A data storm? Wow. So your reactors got a bunch of bad datas, right?"
"Errr.. kind of, the microchips melted."
"Data can do that?"
"Yeah, it's like a storm on our, uh, logic networks. I guess that can melt the microchips"
"Uh oh. Maybe this storm came from outside the plant! One of those hacker attacks!"
"Hmmmm, the guy said it melted, but I suppo--"
"Oh crap I better inform Homeland Security!"
"Ok, sure."
Later still...
"Yeah, we had a data storm and it melted the reactor networks."
"How did this data storm happen?"
"I don't think they know yet, but it messed up big time."
"My God. Do you realize this could be Al Qaeda?!!"
"Could realize wha--"
"Al Qaeda! Terrorists. Internets terrorists."
"I don't know if the reactors are hooked up to the Interne--"
"Listen. Keep this quiet, but make sure you tell everyone you know. These reactors are not safe! No one is safe from the terror!"
"Well, it was a data storm. Can terrorists make data storms?"
"Yes. They caused your meltdown."
"No, no, the microchips melted down because of the storm. A meltdow--"
"In the terror business, there's more than one type of meltdown, you just let us handle this."
"Ok, sure."
like, this britannica book doesn't have like *anything* about Britney Spears, so like what good is it? Wikipedia has a 5,000 word article on her and the music she writes. If I wanted to learn about science things I'd go to a science school. Get a life LOSER and go learn about your hydrogen star trek machine boooooring crap somewhere else lol!!! This is OPEN SOURCE. Do u now what that means? anyway i only came to your stoopid site to learn more about the IDIOTS who are on Wikipedia attacking that article. Do you know what POV means? Like, I didn't think so. talk about a personal attack, really, you weirdos.
and like, u can go to Britannica all you want, fine by me. try editing the harp seal page so you can make sure everyone knows about the horrible Canadians murdering helpless baby seals. How are you going to give people the facts about harp seals if you don't tell them how horrible it is to kill them?
not that it matters. once Rachel makes me admin i'll make sure you stay off wikipedia.
The way you replied pretty much sums up Wikipedia "discussion": Insult your opponent's argument, say there's an agenda against you, and then dismiss the person with a disdainful wave of your hand.
/How do you like my Fark-style! Sarcasmality!
//thinks Fark is stupid
Instead of you know, actually "getting the point," and possibly even "arguing the point."
Now Cogent is having a completely random and unrelated failure. What a total coincidence.
It seems to me that they are really millionaire entrepeneurs looking for business proposals for THEIR idea.
Get out of here troll.
The way I see it, is that people who praise film remakes of books, is that they just don't want to read the book--or at least want someone else to do that whole pesky "imagination" part for them. I mean, not all film remakes are bad, but I thought Lord of the Rings (I only saw the first one) was pretty bad. I liked it as I watched it, but was disappointed in the end.
I didn't like the movie because it wasn't how I imagined it (I've read the books through maybe 5 times), and I don't expect anyone else to imagine it the same way I do. And to say the special effects weren't overdone and that the movie focused on the characters is ridiculous.
In the book, the first time they see a Black Rider, they see him on the road, and they go into the bushes because Frodo gets nervous. The rider stops, sort of sniffing around, and Frodo gets a strange urge to put on the ring, but they don't get a good look at him, and then he trots off.
In the movie, a gigantic computer generated hissing cloaked monster rears his horse up as he smells the evilness that is the ring. He wraps his tentacle like fingers around the roots they are hiding under mere inches from their faces as Frodo battles his own arms trying to put the ring on him all while omnious scary music plays and his cloak blows around in the wind and the hobbits cower in terror.
That's not what happend. Not the second time they see one either. The second time they are far away from the Rider and they watch him from down in the treed gully, just a silhouette at the top of the hill. After looking and snuffling around The Rider starts to make his way down the hill towards them, but he only gets a few steps before the Elves scare him off (iirc).
And the House of Elrond in the movie is some giant magical fantasy castle in a 10,000 feet deep gorge. It is a somewhat like a out of the way village in a forested valley, or a sort of secluded garden. Sure it has Elvish characteristics, but one thing is for sure, I did not picture it as a huge castle built into the side of a mountain.
That is how I imagined it, of course, other people will have different ideas. The thing is, I think the visuals in my imagination is more true to the story than the movie is, and I think the book supports that. I re-read it after watching the movie, and it's taking me a long time to not think of the House of Elrond as a giant castle because the stupid movie wrecked my own personal take.
I don't have kids but I'm not stupid enough to leave, say, a 5 and 7 year old alone in the house for the night. That's really ignorant.
I thought he was still alive. This is just like that Brazilian guy that was shot in exactly the same way!!!
CNN initially ran a story that said Wal-Mart was going to stop selling VHS tapes... based entirely on an article in the "Hollywood Reporter" which cited "industry sources." Wal-Mart said to stop selling VHS. Apparently they think this news is so important that they just can't wait 24 hours to confirm the story.
I'd expect this from a blog, but not a news network.
(of course, blogs can still be worse, because you have people editing the stories on-line as they write them, covering-up their shoddy reporting and taking no ownership of their article until it is 'finished,' meanwhile people are spreading rumours like wildfire.)
15 years of innovation and a completely new engine design, and we end up with a somewhat safer version of the Geo Metro (40% heavier... and with half the cargo space.)
1990 Geo Metro XFI Specs & Mileage
Weight: 1694 lbs
Cargo Volume: 31.4 cu. ft.
Front leg room (Max): 42.5 in.
Rear leg room (Min): 32.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver ***, Passenger ****
City: 53 MPG
Highway: 58 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG
2005 Toyota Prius Specs & Mileage
Weight: 2890 lbs
Cargo Volume: 16.1 cu. ft.
Front leg Room (Max): 41.9 in.
Rear leg Room (Min): 38.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver *****, Passenger ****
City: 60 MPG
Highway: 51 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG
A little off-topic (but interesting) bit of trivia, is that Osama's code-name in the CIA was Tim Osman.
[I'm pretty sure Hitler spoke words like that.]
congratulations! according to popular interpretation of godwin's law, you just lost the argument.
Zere are laws against zeese type of speech, you know? Zis man Godwin, he wrote zees law, and you must follow it or be branded a fool.
Now make yourself useful and help get ze Jews onto ze train.
...what about my church, that says homosexuality is a sin. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't. I think my church, as an organization, has a free speech right to teach this.
...
And it does have the right to teach this.
Note, for the third time, that sexual preference is not included in the law.
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
Also note, again for the third time, that, even if sexual preference denotes an identifiable group, arguing an on opinion an a religious subject is still a valid defence.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
Aren't you reading my posts???
If this were Fark...
...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *breath* OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm... Let's see:
"Wacky News?" check.
Flamebait headline?... check.
Single link to short article?... check.
Trolling?... check.
I believe using the N word is pretty stupid and bigoted, but it must be free... It MUST be. Plain and simple.
I agree, and, though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that it is (and actually I shouldn't have used it in the example; it confuses the issue). I think the law is pretty straightforward. Don't tell people to kill everyone of an identifiable group ("Kill the Jews"), don't preach hate in public and cause a breach of the peace (a la Falwell*), and don't write hate propaganda and distribute it publically--unless it's relevant to public discussion and you believe it's true, or a good faith argument on a religious subject. Falwell can write "God Hates Fags" in brochures and distribute them all he wants, as he is simply an asshole arguing a religious subject and believes it to be true. I'm pretty sure one can even write "The white menace is destroying our society" or "Blacks cause all crime" if one thinks it's true.
*sexual preferences are not even included in the current law, so in theory he could--but would probably be charged with inciting a riot if one broke out.
I understand the "all speech must be free, no matter what" view however, and I respect it and am glad to have it. It's definitely a grey issue. But it's quite annoying to have people screaming "Canada hates freedom of speech!!11eleven" who can't even discuss it (and I mean the first guy, not you).
This I found on the 'net is actually a good short read on the subject and it seems to touch on and explain many of the concerns people have that are for or against the hate propaganda law. The quote at the bottom best represents my view. Though I wouldn't say it in such grandiose terms as "[hate propaganda] is an attack on democracy," I do believe that it has the purpose of actively denying identifiable groups their freedom.
And here is a much longer discussion on the law itself by a lawyer who talks about the law with respect to Internet forums and such (and with good discussion on its interpretation in general).
You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Don't tell me what I see.
You didn't read the law. Therefore a) you haven't even bothered to think even the tiniest bit about you're reason, and b) you're a troll.
Did you miss the part where sexual orientation is not even included in the current law, and you just forgot to mention that? And considering your link, did you miss the part where attempting, in good faith, to argue a religious subject is a valid defence?
It's obvious that you did. Therefore, you are a troll. Come back when you've actually thought about it. Unless, of course, you believe "Kill the dirty niggers" is just "speaking out against" them in a way which just "seems bigoted."
They already have legislation that dictates what free speech is and isn't (veiled as 'hate speech' legislation).
For those that are curious, you can read the hate propaganda law here (it's short).
Personally, I see no reason to advocate genocide based on someone's colour, race, religion or ethnic origin (if I even would ever consider advocating genocide of all things, characteristics and/or beliefs a group are not the same thing as the actions of a group). I also see promoting hatred in public where such hatred will lead to a breach of the peace (riot) as a good idea. I don't want Falwell coming down here and trying to start a riot. I also see that promoting hatred in public communication, where that communication is not established to be true, nor in good faith someone is expressing an argument on a religious subject, nor is it relevant to the public interest and on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true, nor is in good faith pointing out--for the purposes of removal--matters tending to produce feelings of hatred, protects people from hatred.
I see it as protecting freedom in terms of protecting those in an identifiable group from others would advocate killing them.
I see it as keeping the peace in terms of not allowing people to publically incite a breach of the peace based on their views of an identifiable group.
I see it as protecting those from others who would publically encourage people to hate those in an identifiable group based on things that are untrue, irrelevant, and not a religious belief.
I see the penalties, the first being imprisonment up to five years, the other two being imprisonment of up to two years or a fine, as reasonable.
Fifth, after something is clicked on the main page, the connection is kept alive, as is shown by the message "Transferring data from www.fordvehicles.com..." which remains there forever and can't be made to go away by hitting the Escape key.
That's probably a bug in Firefox, and doesn't have to do with Flash. I gather the status bar getting stuck on "Transferring data from" (after transfer is complete) is quite common.
It should serve as a lesson to you that your actions can have effects beyond your backyard. That's impossible.
This is flamebait??!!!
Granted, studying this and the effects is good, but to herald it and comment on it as if it were some new amazing discovery is ridiculous. Scientists have known for years that the Sun destroys ozone. The Sun's rays also produce ozone. Sure solar flares have an effect and it's good to study the extent of that effect but this is the kind of media that makes stupid people just a little stupider, as evidenced by a lot of the posts on the thread. Slashdot is supposed to be for nerds. If you're not a nerd and just some political wackjob with a grudge who thinks science is accomplished by "just thinking about things" then get off.
Sadly, I fear Slashdot will go the way of FARK if the real nerds here aren't careful.
I consider myself a tree-hugger. That said, the whole ozone thing is a scam by scientists who see bad news as a way to obtain research grants and funding and - dare I say - notoriety masquerading as prestige.
Consider:
1) 90% of industrialization and associated emissions is in the northern hemisphere
2) The coriolis effect keeps the earth's northern and southern airstreams seperate (very little mixing)
So why is the ozone hole over Antarctica? Why not the North Pole seeing as this is the hemisphere supposedly cursed by industry? Use Occams' Razor - it ain't our fault...
Regards...
Wow. You sir, are a genius. You've straightened it all out for me. However, more people need to know of this obvious fact. Please call NASA and let them know what you have discovered.
NASA's phone number is (202) 358-0001.
Then again, they may be in on it just like how they faked the moon landings. In that case, I don't know what we can do. Call the news networks like CNN and FOX and NBC. I tried to look up their phone numbers but I think NASA is blocking them somehow. It says my computer is too slow and I may have spyware--when I don't have spyware. Occam's razor is that NASA is blocking their phone numbers.
is this the article or did I click on the wrong link?
Scientists Prove Ozone thinning caused by Solar Flares
Scientists at NASA have proven that thinning of the ozone layer is a natural cycle caused by solar flares. The ozone layer protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays and it was previously thought that ozone thinning was caused by chlorofluorocarbons which were banned because of this in the 90's.
"We have determined that this is not, in fact, the case." says Dr. Scion. "Solar flares cause all ozone thinning. Simply thinking about it scientifically proves that this is the case." Dr. Scion says he thought about it for a long time before coming to the conclusion. "We had determined that solar flares were damaging the ozone, but we could not determine how much of an effect this had. However, we realized that Earth must go through natural cycles, so therefore solar flares must be causing the majority damage and CFC's have little, if any, effect."
Evidence of the extent of the effect of solar flares on the ozone layer was presented at a press conference Saturday. Scientists have shown that, due to the composition of CFC's, they cannot possibly make their way into the upper atmosphere. NASA reported that "if one thinks about it, obviously they cannot get up there, especially all the way to the Arctic" and hence, "any CFC's that we have found are being created by the Sun somehow converting ozone into chlorine, which is simply a chemical mechanism we do not understand."
NASA says they will continue researching how the Sun creates CFC's, and suggests that the CFC's themselves are possibly the product of a "liberal conspiracy."
This isn't a troll.
Sure it is.
Your tone gives it away. C'mon, just "think for a second," idiot.