Actually it is not illegal for me to use your car without your permission, whether you leave it unlocked or not. If you leave your car in a parking lot, and I sit on it, using it as a chair, you will not be able to just call the police and have me arrested. Of course if I drove off with your car, denying you access to it, then, sure, you could have me arrested. If I broke the lock, and decided to sit IN the car, sure. Any lawyers out there want to comment on whether it would be illegal for me to open this guys car and sit inside it without permission?
The movie was factually wrong. For the "science" in the movie to be correct, there would be no point in trying to slow CO2 emissions, as we are already having 400 degree temperatures, or they will start withing the next few years, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
Of course here we are debating the merits of the movie instead of the actual scientific data. So at least we have real evidence for the part we agree on.
While it may be suspicious, the GP was absolutely claiming the hydrogen was a catalyst, and was not in the slightest bit even implying that this vehicle was running off of hydrogen split from water with power generated by the recombining the hydrogen with oxygen. While I encourage people to be skeptical, shouting "Thermodynamics!" every time someone presents and idea is neither factually correct, nor helpful. It basically makes you a faux-intellectual. You use the words, but don't understand them.
Agreed. If we found a planet that had an abundance of O2, and was even close to our temperature and light levels, I would be suprised if there wasn't life. And if there wasn't life, it would be trivial to transplant it there.
This is a good point, and one that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a perfect example. Al Gore "Framed" the subject. Also know as lying. This created a situation where the facts became irrelevant because one side of the discussion was holding up the movie as "proof", while the other side was pointing out the huge factual inaccuracies, or just plain stupidity of the content. Any actual scientific discussion got lost in the "framing".
Don't forget to limit your explanation to no more than 2 sentences. Most of the population simply cannot understand any concept that takes more than 2 sentences.
No, most of the accidents, and all of the traffic jams are caused by not having enough roads for the number of vehicles on them. I you are an eight lane highway, and there is only one other vehicle on that road, his driving slow will not impact you in any noticeable way. It's when you are on a 2 lane road and you have two cars in front of you that are pacing each other at 30 mph. Or, when you are on that same 8 lane highway, and traffic is so dense that when someone makes a lane change, the car that is now behind them has to slow down to keep a safe distance. When the next 3 cars merge on and cause the same slowing down, you have a traffic jam. It is a standing wave that is caused by adding more vehicles to the road, and there is no amount of "good" driving that will prevent this.
Your response makes no sense. The guy said the car was getting 46 mpg on gas. If that isn't adding energy, then every car on the road is a perpetual motion machine. If you know of some other reason that this wouldn't work, speak up, but you explanation that boils down to "law of thermodynamics" sounds like someone who doesn't really understand what it means.
Sure you could make an environmentally friendly car. It could just have a slow release poison, so that after about a year of driving, the owner will die of a "mysterious" illness. This would make it so that most drivers environmental footprint would be less than if he never bought the car in the first place. What isn't environmentally friendly about that? After all, the only way to make it so that humans don't have an impact on the environment is to not have humans.
Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.
I do agree with your analysis of what is happening today with the whole "consensus" thing. Just listen to the number of people who claim there is no debate concerning global warming, as their argument in a debate concerning global warming. They will follow this claim up with a claim of "consensus".
Of course, there is the line of thought that religion IS science. In that religion attempts to explain the natural world around us. A big fiery ball crosses the sky? Must be a fiery chariot driven by a god! Matter exists and we don't know where it came from? It must be vibrating strings! The problem is that people the people that wont give up their beliefs when faced with overwhelming evidence. These beliefs are what we call religion, and when people have crossed from taking a huge leap of faith to explain the world around them, to insanity. They are just not called insane because there are so many of them.
Wide spread insanity isn't limited to those believing in invisible people though. I have noticed that a major part of the population is insane in respect to dogs. It is actually scary the number of people that honestly cannot fully tell the difference between a human and a dog.
Why limit it to a "book". Clearly reading is an addiction, and we should be medicating people who do it. I can't even get from home to work without reading at least a dozen times. I read at home even when I don't realize it. Heck, I've even been know to read on the toilet. Reading addiction is so bad that people have commonly been known to resort to reading the direction on shampoo bottles. We do it in grocery stores, and even while watching TV or surfing the net. It is such a problem in America that I noticed that it even afflicts our children. I noticed that my three year old could not control his rampant reading. We would be driving down the road, and he would start reading road signs and billboards. What are we going to do? Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!?!
I blame this problem on the highly addictive chemical DiHydroOxide that has polluted virtually the entire planet. With the amount of DiHydroOxide that our children are exposed to in everything from milk to swimming pools, it isn't surprising that we have such a large problem with reading addiction.
Your confusion is in not counting all games, but only the kind of games that are on consoles. My son is running on a 6 year old hand me down PC, and he has literally thousands of games on the system. Here is an example of where you can find them. The cost of gaming on a PC in near $0 per game. This is the same situation that my mother and father are in. The PC is the only platform that is virtually free. So, while you CAN spend thousands of dollars to game on a PC, you CAN also spend nothing to have access to more games than you will ever have time to play.
'71 here. The fact that a marketing term became unpopular still does not make it a crash. Go back and look at many of the old consoles. Like the Atari 2600, many of them even said "Computer" right on the box. While many a kid conned their parents by saying that they could use their C64 to do their homework, the fact remains that it's #1 use was as a game system. It even took cartridges. Many of the early "Home Computers" took cartridges. Heck, look at the Odyssey that you are calling a console. It had a keyboard and said computer right on the box. No, the difference between computer and console was made up to rationalize certain companies losing money by making up an imagined crash.
Wow. Talk about failing at being a smart ass. I guess I'll have to pay better attention next time. Or should that be: I guess I'll have to pay more better attention next time?;)
This is not any worse PR than the running of the mouths we always hear. This situation would not have changed one bit if the software used was proprietary. The fact that it was F/OSS had no bearing on the situation, other than the fact that Verizon had a get out of free jail card that they decided not to play. With proprietary software, they would have HAD to pay on the lawsuit. With the F/OSS software they could have just published the source.
I'm not going to argue with the content, because I agree, but your subject is incorrect. A conspiracy is a group of people getting secretly agreeing to commit an illegal act, or more liberally, a group of people agreeing to join forces to accomplish a goal. A conspiracy is NOT an imagined plot. The word gets used incorrectly so much that most people don't seem to know it's definition anymore. It always strikes me when one person accuses another of being a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracies happen all of the time. They are regularly exposed, and I know very few people who do not accept them as an everyday occurrence. Virtually all of them are unaware that what they describe as having had happen is the definition of the word... "Conspiracy".
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is not illegal for me to use your car without your permission, whether you leave it unlocked or not. If you leave your car in a parking lot, and I sit on it, using it as a chair, you will not be able to just call the police and have me arrested. Of course if I drove off with your car, denying you access to it, then, sure, you could have me arrested. If I broke the lock, and decided to sit IN the car, sure. Any lawyers out there want to comment on whether it would be illegal for me to open this guys car and sit inside it without permission?
The movie was factually wrong. For the "science" in the movie to be correct, there would be no point in trying to slow CO2 emissions, as we are already having 400 degree temperatures, or they will start withing the next few years, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
Of course here we are debating the merits of the movie instead of the actual scientific data. So at least we have real evidence for the part we agree on.
While it may be suspicious, the GP was absolutely claiming the hydrogen was a catalyst, and was not in the slightest bit even implying that this vehicle was running off of hydrogen split from water with power generated by the recombining the hydrogen with oxygen. While I encourage people to be skeptical, shouting "Thermodynamics!" every time someone presents and idea is neither factually correct, nor helpful. It basically makes you a faux-intellectual. You use the words, but don't understand them.
Ok, it would still be hard to physically get there, but what we got there would likely grow.
Agreed. If we found a planet that had an abundance of O2, and was even close to our temperature and light levels, I would be suprised if there wasn't life. And if there wasn't life, it would be trivial to transplant it there.
Either I'm not getting what you think is exaggerated, or you don't know what the word exaggerated means. What in my post was exaggerated?
This is a good point, and one that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a perfect example. Al Gore "Framed" the subject. Also know as lying. This created a situation where the facts became irrelevant because one side of the discussion was holding up the movie as "proof", while the other side was pointing out the huge factual inaccuracies, or just plain stupidity of the content. Any actual scientific discussion got lost in the "framing".
Don't forget to limit your explanation to no more than 2 sentences. Most of the population simply cannot understand any concept that takes more than 2 sentences.
No, most of the accidents, and all of the traffic jams are caused by not having enough roads for the number of vehicles on them. I you are an eight lane highway, and there is only one other vehicle on that road, his driving slow will not impact you in any noticeable way. It's when you are on a 2 lane road and you have two cars in front of you that are pacing each other at 30 mph. Or, when you are on that same 8 lane highway, and traffic is so dense that when someone makes a lane change, the car that is now behind them has to slow down to keep a safe distance. When the next 3 cars merge on and cause the same slowing down, you have a traffic jam. It is a standing wave that is caused by adding more vehicles to the road, and there is no amount of "good" driving that will prevent this.
Cool, but in my house we know what the "laws of thermodynamics" means!
Your response makes no sense. The guy said the car was getting 46 mpg on gas. If that isn't adding energy, then every car on the road is a perpetual motion machine. If you know of some other reason that this wouldn't work, speak up, but you explanation that boils down to "law of thermodynamics" sounds like someone who doesn't really understand what it means.
Sure you could make an environmentally friendly car. It could just have a slow release poison, so that after about a year of driving, the owner will die of a "mysterious" illness. This would make it so that most drivers environmental footprint would be less than if he never bought the car in the first place. What isn't environmentally friendly about that? After all, the only way to make it so that humans don't have an impact on the environment is to not have humans.
I would like to hear how much you think the closure of your school, and thus your removal from public education, lead to your success in life.
A very good description of corporate security.
Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.
I do agree with your analysis of what is happening today with the whole "consensus" thing. Just listen to the number of people who claim there is no debate concerning global warming, as their argument in a debate concerning global warming. They will follow this claim up with a claim of "consensus".
Of course, there is the line of thought that religion IS science. In that religion attempts to explain the natural world around us. A big fiery ball crosses the sky? Must be a fiery chariot driven by a god! Matter exists and we don't know where it came from? It must be vibrating strings! The problem is that people the people that wont give up their beliefs when faced with overwhelming evidence. These beliefs are what we call religion, and when people have crossed from taking a huge leap of faith to explain the world around them, to insanity. They are just not called insane because there are so many of them.
Wide spread insanity isn't limited to those believing in invisible people though. I have noticed that a major part of the population is insane in respect to dogs. It is actually scary the number of people that honestly cannot fully tell the difference between a human and a dog.
Why limit it to a "book". Clearly reading is an addiction, and we should be medicating people who do it. I can't even get from home to work without reading at least a dozen times. I read at home even when I don't realize it. Heck, I've even been know to read on the toilet. Reading addiction is so bad that people have commonly been known to resort to reading the direction on shampoo bottles. We do it in grocery stores, and even while watching TV or surfing the net. It is such a problem in America that I noticed that it even afflicts our children. I noticed that my three year old could not control his rampant reading. We would be driving down the road, and he would start reading road signs and billboards. What are we going to do? Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!?!
I blame this problem on the highly addictive chemical DiHydroOxide that has polluted virtually the entire planet. With the amount of DiHydroOxide that our children are exposed to in everything from milk to swimming pools, it isn't surprising that we have such a large problem with reading addiction.
Hmmm... He has an "internet addiction", so the advice is to go to a get some booze? I'm not sure your someone this guy should be taking advice from.
I'm talking about the roof of my house. Not the roof of my car.
Your confusion is in not counting all games, but only the kind of games that are on consoles. My son is running on a 6 year old hand me down PC, and he has literally thousands of games on the system. Here is an example of where you can find them. The cost of gaming on a PC in near $0 per game. This is the same situation that my mother and father are in. The PC is the only platform that is virtually free. So, while you CAN spend thousands of dollars to game on a PC, you CAN also spend nothing to have access to more games than you will ever have time to play.
'71 here. The fact that a marketing term became unpopular still does not make it a crash. Go back and look at many of the old consoles. Like the Atari 2600, many of them even said "Computer" right on the box. While many a kid conned their parents by saying that they could use their C64 to do their homework, the fact remains that it's #1 use was as a game system. It even took cartridges. Many of the early "Home Computers" took cartridges. Heck, look at the Odyssey that you are calling a console. It had a keyboard and said computer right on the box. No, the difference between computer and console was made up to rationalize certain companies losing money by making up an imagined crash.
Wow. Talk about failing at being a smart ass. I guess I'll have to pay better attention next time. Or should that be: I guess I'll have to pay more better attention next time? ;)
Yes, I did mean "hoarding". That make makes four mistakes I've made.
This is not any worse PR than the running of the mouths we always hear. This situation would not have changed one bit if the software used was proprietary. The fact that it was F/OSS had no bearing on the situation, other than the fact that Verizon had a get out of free jail card that they decided not to play. With proprietary software, they would have HAD to pay on the lawsuit. With the F/OSS software they could have just published the source.
Actually the software was free. The expensive part was hording the source code. So, the correct statement is "That was pretty expensive hording."
I'm not going to argue with the content, because I agree, but your subject is incorrect. A conspiracy is a group of people getting secretly agreeing to commit an illegal act, or more liberally, a group of people agreeing to join forces to accomplish a goal. A conspiracy is NOT an imagined plot. The word gets used incorrectly so much that most people don't seem to know it's definition anymore. It always strikes me when one person accuses another of being a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracies happen all of the time. They are regularly exposed, and I know very few people who do not accept them as an everyday occurrence. Virtually all of them are unaware that what they describe as having had happen is the definition of the word... "Conspiracy".