Where on wikipedia (or in school) did you learn that socialism is defined by the tax you pay? Princeton:
socialist economy: (an economic system based on state ownership of capital) When the state takes ownership of half capital and redistributes it as it sees fit, It's socialist by this definition (or half anyway). Any more and it teeters on communism.
Actually there are no true socialist states in Europe. They are all social democracies. Basically more or less liberal economies with safety nets of varying sizes.
OK, where is a Socialist state outside of Europe?
How did you get onto this subject? The climate change one is far more important. What does socialism have to do with you and your president acting responsibly? I mentioned that it seems that the real goal of environmentalists is to turn the US into a European style socialist state. Someone, probably you, corrected me and told that there is no such thing as a European socialist state... and we've gone downhill from there.
As for me and my president. We act responsibly when compared to global warming champions like Al Gore or Europe itself.
(I drive the most efficient Toyota I can afford, btw)
From where I sit, any country that takes away 28-51.3% of your personal income s socialist (that figure was second only to Denmark, btw). But then again, I guess I'm just an ignorant redneck who couldn't afford a plane ticket to Germany in the 80's, as I was still in high school.
Please, educate me. What country, or countries in the world would YOU consider to be Socialist?
By the way, if all the Scandinavian countries are such a paradise, why are you in Florida?
Second, efficiency would do most of it. We can drive five Priuses for the amount of gasoline used by one Hummer or Escalade or Yukon. Increase fuel efficiency by 10% nationwide, and it would equal the estimated contents of the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Replace our entire fleet of gas guzzlers with hybrids and electrics, and we WOULD be energy independent.
How about if we stopped driving all petroleum powered vehicles altogether. Since about 50% of our petroleum is used to power automobiles and the rest going to airlines, rail, home heating and so on, we would still need to import oil. And since that Priuses do not get infinite miles to the gallon, we would still need to import THAT much more oil if everyone drove one. Granted, we would import less, but still not be energy independent. So automobile efficiency alone won't do it. We need to increase production. I know it's not popular, but maybe we could come up with some sort of compromise. Maybe grease the wheels with some incentives like placing a slight tariff on imported oil and used 100% of that money to research alternative forms of energy while offering an incentive to produce and purchase domestic oil.
ROFLMAO. Another American who has no idea what socialism means and no clue about Europe and the result is mindless drivel without foothold in reality, good job.
Evidently, I'm not the only clueless one without a foothold on reality.
There are many countries that have been ruled by socialist political parties for extended periods of time - most notably Sweden, Norway, and Denmark - without ever adopting socialism as an official ideology in their names or constitutions. Ruled by Socialist, but not named as such. Hmmm. I guess that makes the old East Germany, officially called the DDR, Democratic Deutchlandt Republic, a Democracy?
Who says it would wreck the economy? The US Department of Energy under President Clinton (from HERE):
[T]he introduction of such reduction would affect both consumers and businesses. Households would be faced with higher prices for energy and the need to adjust spending patterns. Nominal energy expenditures would rise, taking a larger share of the family budget for goods and service consumption and leaving less for savings. Higher prices for energy would cause consumers to try to reduce spending not only on energy, but on other goods as well. Thus, changes in energy prices would tend to disrupt both savings and spending streams. Energy services also represent a key input in the production of goods and services. As energy prices increase, the costs of production rise, placing upward pressure on the nominal prices of all intermediate goods and final goods and services in the economy, with widespread impacts on spending across many markets. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports.
I agree with increasing efficiency standards with the goal of reducing energy imports. But efficiency alone won't do it. We also need to increase energy production as well. This means nuclear, solar, wind, as well as more coal and oil production with research in making them cleaner and more efficient.
The only road to survival will be to kiss Chinese ass, or surrender to Europe..
Which is exactly what the "environmentalists" want!
Nation. A 19th-century notion of national sovereignty allows sub groups to pursue agendas without regard for their effects on the whole. But this wrongly assumes that the health of the whole is a matter of indifference to the group. The United States has long refused to temper its claim to radical independence from all other nations, but that both defines the source of America's disproportionate ecological destructiveness and impedes every effort to mitigate it. There will be no stopping environmental degradation until nations stop thinking of independent sovereignty as an absolute. Climate change respects no borders.
Property. In America, where full citizenship was originally granted only to property owners, we are what we have. The pursuit of happiness equals the accumulation of possessions. This cult of "more" drives an economy that defines its health by growth, its market by the globe. In families, the success of a second generation is defined only by its surpassing in affluence the first. This merciless consumption divides people into "haves," "the have less," and "have nots," but it also eats the environment alive. Sufficiency, simplicity, and a sense that the treasures of the earth are the property of all people must become notes of the new America. Let's see, no borders, no property rights... sounds like no America to me. I think you'll find that many environmentalist are using their environmentalism as a cover for trying to forward socialist ideals over capitalism. Surrendering to a socialist Europe and communist China is exactly what these people want!
The trouble with Americans is that we devalue science education. Creationism is making a comeback in parts of the deep south. Several presidential candidates claim that evolution is a lie.
With this attitude, naturally we Americans reject scientific conclusions: e.g., the warming of the globe due to human activity.
Here is a little something from that evangelical magazine, Newsweek:
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...
So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!
In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.
The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.
Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.
Compared to Gore's House
According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's
The tanker truck was carrying gasolene, which would have about the same flame temperature as jet fuel. Good point in bringing that up with respect to the WTC conspiracy theories.
Yeah, I got a journal entry to that effect. Something to note though, jet fuel is much like diesel. It burns much hotter than gasoline. Also, fully loaded airliners carry much more than what you would find on a tanker truck.
Then again, why do I bother. I could point you to an al Jazeera video that shows Osama Bin Laden meeting with 9-11 hijackers and you still wouldn't believe it.
"Big media's" choosing not to report these stories, it has nothing to do with any deals they have set up with men in black, but them wanting to protect whatever credibility they have left. Trust me, if any main stream media outlet thought any of these larger stories had any shred of truth in them, they would have pounced all over it. Watergate, Monicagate and even Dan Rather's Memogate should be prove enough that media outlets have no problems trying to take down the big guys.
The reason you don't hear about these stories is because they can not be corroborated. Of course, the main reason that they can not be corroborated is that are more than likely false. I'm sure there may be some truth to some of them, but the ones you mentioned are most certainly BS.
You mentioned #24 and I think it is a fine example: #24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
Great story, except Cheney does not work for Halliburton any more and is therefor, not on Halliburton's payroll. I mean, in seven years of public tax statements, don't you think that some gumshoe reporter would have noticed Cheney reporting Halliburton on his income taxes? As for Cheney's stock portfolio, Cheney doesn't even know what he is invested in. It is called a blind trust. No one knows where his investments lie. More than likely, something very safe and stable. More than likely something that will not come back and bite him in the ass later.
As for #2, Jason Leopold is the same guy who said that Karl Rove was indictment in 2006. He is now the senior editor of truthout.org, which reads very much like prisonplanet.org. This guy seems to be about as credible as Art Bell when it comes to reporting the facts.
As for the rest... well lets just say this story has no credibility. I find it sad that slashdotters just assume that all these stories much be true. Otherwise, why were they "censored"?
Those racists bastards! How dare they call black racists "racists". Don't they know that saying anything negative against anyone but whities is racists!!??!!
And to have all those "people of color" on there that say such bad things about their own people like, "too many black people are having children out of wedlock."
How dare they ask a black man if it is OK to say that a black man is articulate. Everyone knows that using white words to describe a black man is racists. Black people "talk good". White people are "articulate". Get it right!
Also, they shouldn't have so many black...er...negr...um...African American people on there. It is racist to compete with BET! They should let the black networks tell the black news and Fox should keep to reporting the "white news". The nerve of these people!
Finally, Border Controll. Everyone that wants our country to have borders is a racist... PERIOD!
I know a lot of slashdotters seem paranoid about this kind of stuff, but the truth is if the government/police/"the man" wants to screw you over, he doesn't need an elaborate camera system. It is a lot easier just to fabricate charges or plant evidence or whatever. If the powers that be want to screw you, then you are pretty much screwed.
Something that people fail to realize is that the cameras can prevent law enforcement from screwing you over. You don't have to look very far past Rodney King to see that.
Yeah, I read it. Here's a quote from it:
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years. Also this:
Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. So I guess the cooling trend they referred to that lasted up to 50 years, or any warming trends that were caused by this increased solar activity was less than 0.2 degrees C warmer or cooler? Are these guys so accurate that they are able to measure within 0.2 degrees C, up to 1150 years ago, and then consider that minuscule amount to be a warming or cooling trend?
Yeah, I read the article, and like I do anytime I read something like that, I apply common sense. Any scientist now-a-days that says that man is not causing global warming is immediately rejected as either incompetent or accused of being on Exxon's payroll. If you really want to know what is going on in this scientist's head, I present these two quotes:
"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," and
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
Windows Vista and Server 2008 will be the last versions of Windows capable of booting on 32-bit CPUs such as Intel Pentium 4 and Core Duo Before anyone falls into the trap I almost fell into, please note that the Core Duo is not the 64-bit capable Core2 Duo.
Oh, and what you're missing is that Mars and Pluto are supposedly heating up, the other planets aren't.
Well, I think we found our solution to global warming. All we have to do is find out why all the other planets are staying cool when:
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. (From here)
Seriously, there are many factors that cause planets to heat and cool, but they DO HEAT AND COOL, all on their own and all the time. As a matter of fact, all planets with an atmosphere are either heating or cooling 100% of the time. There is no such thing as a static climate (provided, a planet has a climate). This includes Earth. Still, all planets are different and react differently to solar variations. Jupiter, for example, has its own internal heat source so it may not be affected as much by solar cycles. Mercury does not have enough of an atmosphere to trap solar energy. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Venus have thick atmospheres that can affect how much solar radiation is absorbed vs how much is reflected vs how much heat a planet can actually hold. Mars and Earth have similar enough environments so that both are affected in pretty much the same way. As for Pluto and Neptune, we don't really have the data to say which way the climate change is going.
But to say that the primary heat source of the solar system is not and can not be responsible for global warming is ludicrous. That's like saying the burner on a stove is not responsible for cooking food!
Frankly their opinions mean nothing to me. It's a handful of people from random fields of science. Very few Climatologists at all. I'm sure those some guys are trotted out by every other conservative zealot who feels the need to prop some real live scientists behind his point. Well, here's a few
# Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. # Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. # Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa. # Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa. # Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards. # Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario. # Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario. # Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant. # Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology. # Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa. # Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. # Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta. # Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. # Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria. # Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
The point in question is that people are drawing a correlation between what's happening here and what's happening there, and that, in fact, there is no evidence of any such relationship, so anyone who claims that there is a relationship is talking out his ass. If Mars is heating up, and Pluto is heating up, and we can't find any evidence that other planets are not heating up as well (I don't think we have the data either way), and we know that Earth is heating up, I think anyone that claims that there is NOT a correlation is talking out of their ass. Isn't it natural to think that when you see the same thing happening to related objects that maybe the same thing is causing the action? Of course we can't prove a correlation, yet, but I think that it is safe to say that it is very likely. Is it more likely that at least three planets that share the same heat source are heating up for different reasons than to assume that maybe it's the primary source of energy shared by all the planets?
So how do you prove the correlation between what's happening there and what's happening here? I think we're all curious to know.
I'm not trying to prove any correlation. I was pointing out that the article says that X is a myth and then claims that astronomers are baffled because they don't know why X is happening. Nothing more.
You already shot your credibility above where you referenced Jim Inhofe as a reliable source.
Regardless of your opinion of the source, I don't think his personal views are what caused the scientists listed to change their mind on the cause of GW. Inhofe's views may be why he is reporting on it, but in this case, the opinions of the reporter do not change the opinion of the subjects.
You do have a point. I could have picked a better source. Is Wiki a better source? How about Citizens Review (I've never heard of them either... they're Canadian, I think)? It doesn't matter as I was just showing that what one article claims as myth, another claims as fact. There are two sides to the story and people smarter than us on both sides. I feel that you can't present one side without presenting the other.
My favorite was the "Mars and Pluto are warming too" myth. The last paragraph for each planet reads as follows:
Images of Mars suggest that between 1999 and 2005, some of the frozen carbon dioxide that covers the south polar region turned into gas (sublimated). This may be the result of the whole planet warming. and for Pluto
Observations of the thickness of Pluto's atmosphere in 2002 suggested the dwarf planet was warming even as its orbit took it further from the Sun. The finding baffled astronomers, and the cause has yet to be determined. So, it's a myth, but it's happening. You don't claim something is a myth and then say that it is happening! TFA is a joke!
Funny. I see this in TFA
Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.
Also, in TFA, I see this:
Myth: Polar bear numbers are increasing Then I see this.
So, other than the standard response of "Global warming deniers are liars", can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy? It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to.
No, we have confirmed the existence of water on other planets in our own solar system. Even Jupiter has water vapor in its clouds and Europa is covered in it. Even comets have a bunch of it. It's liquid water that's harder to come by. We're not so much looking for water as much as we are looking for water that can harbor life.
Yeah it's faster. but how much time do you spend building software? Maybe 15 mins every three or four days at most.
Very true; all processors wait at the same speed. However, back in my college days while taking programming courses, when putting the polish on my applications, I dreaded the wait between each compile, especially when I only changed a line or two.
Still, you are correct in that you can type just as fast on an 8-core system as you can on an old P2. So yeah, for the most part, dual cores are a waste for most.
I think the parent is referring to those computers with built-in MPG displays. The oil-change computer would grab THAT displayed number, which is readily available.
Unfortunately, I can't say how accurate those things are. My wife's minivan as well as her last vehicle (a 4-runner), both have this display. Both pad the average gas mileage by a mile or two. I know this because we always reset the trip meter after every fill up. Whenever we get gas, we divide the number on the trip meter by the number of gallons we used to fill the tank. While the display usually reads about 21 mpg, we calculate 19-20 mpg. These differences are consistent across both vehicles and have been consistently off at every fill-up.
So either the car miscalculates the average mpg or the odometer is wrong.
I had a 2P dual-core opteron 2.6GHz box as my workstation for several months. To be honest I couldn't really find a legitimate use for it. And I was running gentoo and doing a lot of my own OSS development [re: builds].
While I don't write my own stuff, as someone who runs a Gentoo based system (Sabayon) I do spend a lot of time compiling. I see a significant improvement of compile times with dual cores. Do you not see the same improvements when you compile your own stuff? Are you using the right switches to take advantage of the dual cores?
Slashdot Mirror
But I thought Microsoft was all about a sweaty bald guy screaming, "Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers (gasp) Developers Developers..."
Princeton: socialist economy: (an economic system based on state ownership of capital) When the state takes ownership of half capital and redistributes it as it sees fit, It's socialist by this definition (or half anyway). Any more and it teeters on communism.
Actually there are no true socialist states in Europe. They are all social democracies. Basically more or less liberal economies with safety nets of varying sizes.
OK, where is a Socialist state outside of Europe?
How did you get onto this subject? The climate change one is far more important. What does socialism have to do with you and your president acting responsibly?
I mentioned that it seems that the real goal of environmentalists is to turn the US into a European style socialist state. Someone, probably you, corrected me and told that there is no such thing as a European socialist state... and we've gone downhill from there.
As for me and my president. We act responsibly when compared to global warming champions like Al Gore or Europe itself.
(I drive the most efficient Toyota I can afford, btw)
From where I sit, any country that takes away 28-51.3% of your personal income s socialist (that figure was second only to Denmark, btw). But then again, I guess I'm just an ignorant redneck who couldn't afford a plane ticket to Germany in the 80's, as I was still in high school.
Please, educate me. What country, or countries in the world would YOU consider to be Socialist?
By the way, if all the Scandinavian countries are such a paradise, why are you in Florida?
Second, efficiency would do most of it. We can drive five Priuses for the amount of gasoline used by one Hummer or Escalade or Yukon. Increase fuel efficiency by 10% nationwide, and it would equal the estimated contents of the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Replace our entire fleet of gas guzzlers with hybrids and electrics, and we WOULD be energy independent.
How about if we stopped driving all petroleum powered vehicles altogether. Since about 50% of our petroleum is used to power automobiles and the rest going to airlines, rail, home heating and so on, we would still need to import oil. And since that Priuses do not get infinite miles to the gallon, we would still need to import THAT much more oil if everyone drove one. Granted, we would import less, but still not be energy independent. So automobile efficiency alone won't do it. We need to increase production. I know it's not popular, but maybe we could come up with some sort of compromise. Maybe grease the wheels with some incentives like placing a slight tariff on imported oil and used 100% of that money to research alternative forms of energy while offering an incentive to produce and purchase domestic oil.
ROFLMAO. Another American who has no idea what socialism means and no clue about Europe and the result is mindless drivel without foothold in reality, good job.
Evidently, I'm not the only clueless one without a foothold on reality. There are many countries that have been ruled by socialist political parties for extended periods of time - most notably Sweden, Norway, and Denmark - without ever adopting socialism as an official ideology in their names or constitutions. Ruled by Socialist, but not named as such. Hmmm. I guess that makes the old East Germany, officially called the DDR, Democratic Deutchlandt Republic, a Democracy?
The US Department of Energy under President Clinton (from HERE): [T]he introduction of such reduction would affect both consumers and businesses. Households would be faced with higher prices for energy and the need to adjust spending patterns. Nominal energy expenditures would rise, taking a larger share of the family budget for goods and service consumption and leaving less for savings. Higher prices for energy would cause consumers to try to reduce spending not only on energy, but on other goods as well. Thus, changes in energy prices would tend to disrupt both savings and spending streams. Energy services also represent a key input in the production of goods and services. As energy prices increase, the costs of production rise, placing upward pressure on the nominal prices of all intermediate goods and final goods and services in the economy, with widespread impacts on spending across many markets. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports.
I agree with increasing efficiency standards with the goal of reducing energy imports. But efficiency alone won't do it. We also need to increase energy production as well. This means nuclear, solar, wind, as well as more coal and oil production with research in making them cleaner and more efficient.
Which is exactly what the "environmentalists" want! Nation. A 19th-century notion of national sovereignty allows sub groups to pursue agendas without regard for their effects on the whole. But this wrongly assumes that the health of the whole is a matter of indifference to the group. The United States has long refused to temper its claim to radical independence from all other nations, but that both defines the source of America's disproportionate ecological destructiveness and impedes every effort to mitigate it. There will be no stopping environmental degradation until nations stop thinking of independent sovereignty as an absolute. Climate change respects no borders.
Property. In America, where full citizenship was originally granted only to property owners, we are what we have. The pursuit of happiness equals the accumulation of possessions. This cult of "more" drives an economy that defines its health by growth, its market by the globe. In families, the success of a second generation is defined only by its surpassing in affluence the first. This merciless consumption divides people into "haves," "the have less," and "have nots," but it also eats the environment alive. Sufficiency, simplicity, and a sense that the treasures of the earth are the property of all people must become notes of the new America. Let's see, no borders, no property rights... sounds like no America to me. I think you'll find that many environmentalist are using their environmentalism as a cover for trying to forward socialist ideals over capitalism. Surrendering to a socialist Europe and communist China is exactly what these people want!
With this attitude, naturally we Americans reject scientific conclusions: e.g., the warming of the globe due to human activity.
Here is a little something from that evangelical magazine, Newsweek
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.
Really?
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...
So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!
In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.
The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.
Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.
Compared to Gore's House
According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's
The tanker truck was carrying gasolene, which would have about the same flame temperature as jet fuel. Good point in bringing that up with respect to the WTC conspiracy theories.
Yeah, I got a journal entry to that effect. Something to note though, jet fuel is much like diesel. It burns much hotter than gasoline. Also, fully loaded airliners carry much more than what you would find on a tanker truck.
Here, for the last time.
Then again, why do I bother. I could point you to an al Jazeera video that shows Osama Bin Laden meeting with 9-11 hijackers and you still wouldn't believe it.
"Big media's" choosing not to report these stories, it has nothing to do with any deals they have set up with men in black, but them wanting to protect whatever credibility they have left. Trust me, if any main stream media outlet thought any of these larger stories had any shred of truth in them, they would have pounced all over it. Watergate, Monicagate and even Dan Rather's Memogate should be prove enough that media outlets have no problems trying to take down the big guys.
The reason you don't hear about these stories is because they can not be corroborated. Of course, the main reason that they can not be corroborated is that are more than likely false. I'm sure there may be some truth to some of them, but the ones you mentioned are most certainly BS.
You mentioned #24 and I think it is a fine example: #24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
Great story, except Cheney does not work for Halliburton any more and is therefor, not on Halliburton's payroll. I mean, in seven years of public tax statements, don't you think that some gumshoe reporter would have noticed Cheney reporting Halliburton on his income taxes? As for Cheney's stock portfolio, Cheney doesn't even know what he is invested in. It is called a blind trust. No one knows where his investments lie. More than likely, something very safe and stable. More than likely something that will not come back and bite him in the ass later.
As for #2, Jason Leopold is the same guy who said that Karl Rove was indictment in 2006. He is now the senior editor of truthout.org, which reads very much like prisonplanet.org. This guy seems to be about as credible as Art Bell when it comes to reporting the facts.
As for the rest... well lets just say this story has no credibility. I find it sad that slashdotters just assume that all these stories much be true. Otherwise, why were they "censored"?
Those racists bastards! How dare they call black racists "racists". Don't they know that saying anything negative against anyone but whities is racists!!??!!
And to have all those "people of color" on there that say such bad things about their own people like, "too many black people are having children out of wedlock."
How dare they ask a black man if it is OK to say that a black man is articulate. Everyone knows that using white words to describe a black man is racists. Black people "talk good". White people are "articulate". Get it right!
Also, they shouldn't have so many black...er...negr...um...African American people on there. It is racist to compete with BET! They should let the black networks tell the black news and Fox should keep to reporting the "white news". The nerve of these people!
Finally, Border Controll. Everyone that wants our country to have borders is a racist... PERIOD!
Thank you for the link!
I know a lot of slashdotters seem paranoid about this kind of stuff, but the truth is if the government/police/"the man" wants to screw you over, he doesn't need an elaborate camera system. It is a lot easier just to fabricate charges or plant evidence or whatever. If the powers that be want to screw you, then you are pretty much screwed.
Something that people fail to realize is that the cameras can prevent law enforcement from screwing you over. You don't have to look very far past Rodney King to see that.
Yeah, I read the article, and like I do anytime I read something like that, I apply common sense. Any scientist now-a-days that says that man is not causing global warming is immediately rejected as either incompetent or accused of being on Exxon's payroll. If you really want to know what is going on in this scientist's head, I present these two quotes: "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," and "Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
Well, I think we found our solution to global warming. All we have to do is find out why all the other planets are staying cool when: A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. (From here)
Seriously, there are many factors that cause planets to heat and cool, but they DO HEAT AND COOL, all on their own and all the time. As a matter of fact, all planets with an atmosphere are either heating or cooling 100% of the time. There is no such thing as a static climate (provided, a planet has a climate). This includes Earth. Still, all planets are different and react differently to solar variations. Jupiter, for example, has its own internal heat source so it may not be affected as much by solar cycles. Mercury does not have enough of an atmosphere to trap solar energy. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Venus have thick atmospheres that can affect how much solar radiation is absorbed vs how much is reflected vs how much heat a planet can actually hold. Mars and Earth have similar enough environments so that both are affected in pretty much the same way. As for Pluto and Neptune, we don't really have the data to say which way the climate change is going.
But to say that the primary heat source of the solar system is not and can not be responsible for global warming is ludicrous. That's like saying the burner on a stove is not responsible for cooking food!
Well, here's a few # Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
# Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
# Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
# Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
# Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
# Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
# Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
# Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
# Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
# Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
# Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
# Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
# Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
# Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
# Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax. The point in question is that people are drawing a correlation between what's happening here and what's happening there, and that, in fact, there is no evidence of any such relationship, so anyone who claims that there is a relationship is talking out his ass.
If Mars is heating up, and Pluto is heating up, and we can't find any evidence that other planets are not heating up as well (I don't think we have the data either way), and we know that Earth is heating up, I think anyone that claims that there is NOT a correlation is talking out of their ass. Isn't it natural to think that when you see the same thing happening to related objects that maybe the same thing is causing the action? Of course we can't prove a correlation, yet, but I think that it is safe to say that it is very likely. Is it more likely that at least three planets that share the same heat source are heating up for different reasons than to assume that maybe it's the primary source of energy shared by all the planets?
So how do you prove the correlation between what's happening there and what's happening here? I think we're all curious to know.
I'm not trying to prove any correlation. I was pointing out that the article says that X is a myth and then claims that astronomers are baffled because they don't know why X is happening. Nothing more.
You already shot your credibility above where you referenced Jim Inhofe as a reliable source.
Regardless of your opinion of the source, I don't think his personal views are what caused the scientists listed to change their mind on the cause of GW. Inhofe's views may be why he is reporting on it, but in this case, the opinions of the reporter do not change the opinion of the subjects.
You do have a point. I could have picked a better source. Is Wiki a better source? How about Citizens Review (I've never heard of them either... they're Canadian, I think)? It doesn't matter as I was just showing that what one article claims as myth, another claims as fact. There are two sides to the story and people smarter than us on both sides. I feel that you can't present one side without presenting the other.
Did you read the whole polar bear article? The population of bears in a specific area is increasing, and that is partially explained by...
OK, fine. But TFA said that numbers increasing was a myth. It appears that it is not, whatever the reasons.
Also, in TFA, I see this: Myth: Polar bear numbers are increasing Then I see this.
So, other than the standard response of "Global warming deniers are liars", can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy? It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to.
No, we have confirmed the existence of water on other planets in our own solar system. Even Jupiter has water vapor in its clouds and Europa is covered in it. Even comets have a bunch of it. It's liquid water that's harder to come by. We're not so much looking for water as much as we are looking for water that can harbor life.
Yeah it's faster. but how much time do you spend building software? Maybe 15 mins every three or four days at most.
Very true; all processors wait at the same speed. However, back in my college days while taking programming courses, when putting the polish on my applications, I dreaded the wait between each compile, especially when I only changed a line or two.
Still, you are correct in that you can type just as fast on an 8-core system as you can on an old P2. So yeah, for the most part, dual cores are a waste for most.
I think the parent is referring to those computers with built-in MPG displays. The oil-change computer would grab THAT displayed number, which is readily available.
Unfortunately, I can't say how accurate those things are. My wife's minivan as well as her last vehicle (a 4-runner), both have this display. Both pad the average gas mileage by a mile or two. I know this because we always reset the trip meter after every fill up. Whenever we get gas, we divide the number on the trip meter by the number of gallons we used to fill the tank. While the display usually reads about 21 mpg, we calculate 19-20 mpg. These differences are consistent across both vehicles and have been consistently off at every fill-up.
So either the car miscalculates the average mpg or the odometer is wrong.
I had a 2P dual-core opteron 2.6GHz box as my workstation for several months. To be honest I couldn't really find a legitimate use for it. And I was running gentoo and doing a lot of my own OSS development [re: builds].
While I don't write my own stuff, as someone who runs a Gentoo based system (Sabayon) I do spend a lot of time compiling. I see a significant improvement of compile times with dual cores. Do you not see the same improvements when you compile your own stuff? Are you using the right switches to take advantage of the dual cores?