For fear that you were miss-informed rather than just stupid: the incident you are referring to was one weather person's blog referring to other weather people Partially true:
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
But not limited to a single blog and not just decertification. Could this be considered a death threat?:
Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics
In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
I realize Republicans have a real problem with the difference between weather and climate. In the "court of public opinion", there is no difference. While it may be fun to call me ignorant or stupid, you should really open your eyes to both sides to prevent yourself from being guilty of both. It's wrong for Exxon/Mobil to pay for scientific opinions, but it's perfectly OK for Universities to fire those that don't hold up the group think and for Virgin Air's Richard Branson to give a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
I'll see you dailykos link and raise you one senate.gov:
The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
What about the scientist who took money to say that global warming IS problem? It seems to me that cash is flowing both ways, but a whole lot more of it is flowing the "alarmists".
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
No, it doesn't mean their scientific findings aren't valid. But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated.
Well, threatening climatologists with decertification doesn't invalidate their findings either, but it sure as hell means they are being forcibly "motivated".
Instead, we see the weather channel threatening climatologists' jobs for the predetermined outcome of 'scientific' research. And that, my friend, is why I feel compelled to keep "making cheap ad hominem attacks." Because the Weather Channel is pissing science down their leg and the public is paying not attention to it when they should. It's as if the Weather Channel is offering the $10,000 for the report proving global warming is our fault?
Not only are CO2 levels at around 370 ppmv (cf. historical levels over the last 800,000 years ranging from 170 ppmv (ice ages) to 270 ppmv (previous "record" highs)), but we can also measure the amount of CO2 that we're putting into the atmosphere vs. the rate at which it is reabsorbed and measure the C13/C14 ratio in the atmosphere and compare it against the C13/C14 ratio coming from both living courses and fossil fuels. That ratio is a "smoking gun" that makes it quite clear that we're responsible for that increased CO2.
I'm too tired to Google so I'll grant you the numbers as you don't seem the type to make stuff up. I do have UD concerning the cause and the effect, however. Are the higher CO2 levels caused by SUV's and private planes, or the shrinking of the rain forests around the world? Either way, what can we do? Since water vapor is a much more effective green house gas than CO2, won't ideas like fuel cells, which have water vapor as exhaust, make the problem worse? (not to mention places like Miami, Houston and LA much more humid!) Won't more CO2 be beneficial to plant life around the world, causing more plants to grow... thus releasing more O2 and balancing things back out. I'm not saying that'll happen, but who knows? I guess no one does for sure, which is why I don't want to trade my Toyota in for a bicycle just yet!
Actually, one idea I've heard floated was to cut down trees and replant new ones. Younger trees convert more CO2 to O2 as they grow than older established trees. Good luck getting that one passed.
As a result, I often attend our local vegetarian festival. It's amazing how many crazies come out to this thing! If you've never been to one, you should go. Unfortunately, it might just reinforce your current world-view, but at least you should find it entertaining. I think I will check that out. I love loonies-watching! I was in New York during the Republican National Convention (for work that was completely unrelated to the convention). I started and finished my work work early so I could walk around all day checking out all the protests. I even took part in a few (Helping out the Protest Warriors and helping another guy set up and man a display where he spread about two pounds of rice on a black cloth, each grain to represent about 10 Iraqi's killed before the war to contrast the 1000 pairs of boots representing American lives. (He had printed materials that backed up his math))
Well, I'm also against drilling in ANWR, for two reasons - neither one of which is the caribou. First of all, I see very little gain (except for a few oil companies - definitely not for the average American when you look at the small size of the ANWR reserve compared to how much oil we consume annually) and a not insignificant risk. There are estimated to be between 3.2 and 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Another way to look at is the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia. As to the environmental impact, I say ask the people who live there. They have to look at it, none of us will ever see it so it honestly won't effect our life either way. Besides, it's not like there is a shortage of land for national parks in Alaska. I guess it is safe to say that we will never agree on this issue, without finding some middle ground. It seems to me that giving an addict temporary access to a cheaper, safer supply of his drug of choice really doesn't help him much. The same can be said for ANWR and US's addiction to oil. Yeah, it may knock about $5/barrel off the price, but it's only temporary. However, since there will be quite a large profit coming out of ANWR, and it is a national park (owned by the US gov't), why doesn't the US Gov't: 1) contract out a company to pump out the oil for a set, flat price 2) use the oil to increase and fill the strategic reserves before opening ANWR oil to the market 3) use a portion of the profits to clean up any mess created during drilling 4) use another portion of the profits to protect and expand national parks around the country 5) use the rest of the profits to fund research for "greener" forms of energy 6) ??? 7) profit
(OK, 6 and 7 were a joke) Now, everyone is happy. ANWR is protected better than before. National parks around the country get much needed funding. A boat load of $$$ goes into researching green energy that should cut down on CO2 emissions in the long run. We save $5 a barrel. No one gets rich off the deal so we should be able to get a more trusted estimate of the reserves there. Everyone gets something to be happy about.
...is often an attempt to put the UD in FUD. (Not accusing you of this, just mentioning why it's so often mentioned.) No, you can accuse me of that. Uncertainty and Doubt is what I have. That would be a fair accusation.
Here's a useful analogy: people have died from natural causes for thousands of years. If someone had their fingers around your throat and you felt your life-force leaving you, would you say, "oh, it can't be this person causing my death, because he's only been here for a short while, and people have been dying for thousands of years?" Likewise with global warming. Yes, it's happened in the past and we were not responsible. That in no way implies that we are not responsible now. OK, here's the reverse analogy: A family buys a gun. A year later, a child dies. They know that guns kill people and they own a gun, therefor the gun must have killed the child. (man produces cars, cars produce CO2, the earth is warming, it must be man's fault).
Although I think Bush is the worst president in my lifetime with respect to the environment ("clear skies" initiative, "healthy forests" initiative, redefining water ways, supporting the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, etc.), I'm always in favor of trying to confuse people who want to pigeon-hole others. I like to call myself a "Charlottesville Conservative". (Charlottesville is an extremely blue dot in the red state of Virginia.) Funny! I'm an Austin Conservative. Austin, of course, is the blue dot in Texas. I'm just tired of the environment being used as an excuse to stop whatever liberals don't like. Walmart is all but banned from building new stores in Austin and the protesters use the parking lot's impact on the environment as the excuse. Of course, a Starbucks, Whole Foods or some other store with somehow environmentally friendlier customers is usually build instead of the Walmart. AMD wanted to move their Austin offices to West Austin, where most of the employees lived. Environmentalists blocked the move citing environmental impact. AMD agreed to go beyond what they required to build there and pointed out that it would actually serve the environment by cutting down on driving. Finally, they had to fess up and admit that they blocked it to prevent any development in the area.
It seems that when people don't like something, they make excuses as to why we shouldn't have it. I see that same happening with global warming and the villain is usually someone or thing that liberals don't like. Dick Cheney spoke at my wife's graduation at Michigan State U. There was a protester there handing out fliers that told of the evils of Halliburton and oil. No one seemed to mind Halliburton until Cheney became the VP, then, all of a sudden, Halliburton is worthy of this girl's attention. We can't drill in ANWR because of caribou. Do you really think that liberals care about caribou? Do they take trips to go see the migration of the caribou or follow their progress on the Internet? Of course not. They don't want someone making money by drilling for oil. They use caribou as an excuse. Now they seem to have a winner with global warming.
I know this rambles on, but you can see why I am a bit skeptical of "scientific" claims, especially when they have such strong political motivations.
Yes, I've heard such things as well. The Venus stuff is pure hogwash, to the best of my knowledge. agreed
The problem, as I understand it, comes from the fresh water in the ice caps diluting the salinity of the oceans. I can't say I understand how this plays in with the conveyor belts. I've read enough to know that it's not ludicrous, but not universally accepted, either. When salt water freezes, it dumps its salt. This makes the water have a higher saline concentration and it drops to sea floor where it can go any direction. Since this happens close to the poles, it really can only go in one direction which creates the current. There's more to it, but this is how the process starts as I understand it.
As for actual solutions, I don't know what they are. Kyoto obviously has flaws. However, acknowledging that there is a problem is an important first step. (That doesn't mean others can't be working on steps 2, 3, etc.) What amazes me is people who go straight from saying that there is no problem to saying that it's too late to do anything about the problem. Unfortunately, part of that latter sentiment is fueled by the FUD from global warming "believers". Agreed. I'm not going to deny that global warming is happening because I don't have weather stations set up all over the world. However, it appears to me that the earth is getting warmer from much of what I read, but where I have disagreements is "why". I've seen no compelling evidence that shows that man is the cause of global warming. Yes, I know that cars release CO2 and that CO2 is a global warming agent. However, CO2 levels have been higher at times when the average global temperature was lower that it is today. I also understand that the reason we are not still in one of the many ice-ages of the past is that the earth warmed, also known as Global Warming. My car was not around during any of the previous warming trends, why is it suddenly responsible now?
Either way, I think that breaking our dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing and I gladly sold my Explorer for a small Toyota. I want to put a Bush sticker on a plug-in hybrid or hydrogen powered car (the Bush sticker is to really confuse the tree-huggers). I want to see a nuclear plant built in my city to power my LED illuminated house. But I don't want to be have my intelligence insulted, be accused of ignoring the evidence, or flat out shouted down or otherwise silence because my views don't flow with the "Group Think" of the moment. Why is it cool to question authority, but not question popular science?
Forgive me for implying that that YOU chose the word "deny" maliciously. However, I do believe that it was chosen for you maliciously. Phrases become common when they are heard and repeated so many times that they just seem to flow together. "Bush's failed policy in Iraq" is one example. How can a policy be declared a failure when it is still ongoing? Yet, it is assumed that Iraq is a failure. Such phrases also get accepted as fact when repeated enough times. "The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves" and "The economy was good under Clinton, but bad under Bush" are more examples. This is how I see Global Warming. It is said enough times that it is accepted as truth.
Personally, I've looked at both sides. I'm not a climatologist so I am not qualified to to say who is right. I've heard predictions that say once we pass a tipping point, the earth will continue to warm until the earth looks like Venus, and we are almost there! I've also seen charts where the earth's CO2 level was exponentially higher than it is today (still, we are not Venus!) I've heard how melting the ice caps will cause the oceanic current conveyor to stop... causing large ice caps (uh... wouldn't that restart the conveyor?).
What makes up my mind is the hypocrisy of it all. I see people like John Kerry blame the Bush administration for keeping the US from Kyoto only to find out that John Kerry voted against Kyoto in 1997. I see people want to decertify the scientific credentials of climatologists who question the cause of global warming while at the same time, claim that the US gov't is silencing them or that Exxon/Mobil is pressuring them to form a view. I see people claiming that global warming will cause the end of man kind and then accuse others Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (specifically the FEAR part).
I wonder if he knows that the word deny actually has a long history that predates Nazi Germany by hundreds of years, and that most of us are capable of using the word without thinking of Nazis or the holocaust.
Just like climate change (of which global warming is a part of) predates human history by millions of years. Yet, for some reason, you can't see the phrase "Global Warming" without thinking that man is responsible for it.
I use the phrase precisely. There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference.
Why don't you call them global warming non-believers or global warming infidels? To "deny" something implies dishonesty or guilt. To not believe something is to reject an idea. Is it because "denier" has a negative connotation associated with, such as "holocaust denier" and "non-believer" has a anti-religious connotation to it (anti-religious being a good thing on slash-dot, of course unless the religion involves spaghetti)?
Apology denied! You have nothing to apologize for. I was in the Army and learned to appreciate corrections and even criticism when (and only when) I'm wrong. My post had some incorrect information, you corrected me, I looked it up and saw that you were right. I know more now then I did when I made the first post. I read slashdot to learn stuff and people like you help to make it happen. Besides, I'd rather be corrected than wander around like a fool thinking I know everything when I'm really just spouting incorrect crap.
Um, 386's were 32-bit. They were the first 32-bit Intel processors, actually
I stand corrected. I was thinking of the 386sx and did not know that it came out AFTER the original 386, which was renamed to 386dx. The 386sx would not run Win95 as it only had a 16-bit external data bus even though it was 32-bit internally.
I wonder if this means that MS will stop requiring floppies to install a 3rd party RAID controller during the installation.
(I bring this up because I had to install a floppy on a computer I was reinstalling XP on the other day so I could use the SATA drive! I kinda felt dirty after doing that!)
It's not about multi-core processors, it's about the Cell architecture, for parts of which IBM holds many patents and makes a lot of money on licensing.
You are correct. But I should point out that IBM is not the only company producing the Cell either. Sony and Toshiba also own rights to the Cell, but I doubt they will start putting them into servers.
The programs don't have to be specifically written to be multi-core aware as long as the OS is smart enough to send process to the idle cores.
While that is true of multi-core general purpose processors like the x86, but I don't think that works too well when talking about the Cell processor. The OS can't just assign a Power-PC compiled app to a SPU and expect it to run. Apps have to be specifically coded to take advantage of the SPU's on the Cell.
In other words, a spokesperson from $COMPANY is trying to convince the market that they'll soon need to use $PRODUCT if they want best results, conveniently which is sold by the $COMPANY?
IBM is not the only company releasing multi-core processors. Single core processors will soon go out the same way the 386SX did when 32-bit computing became the norm.
Exactly! Old 16-bit Windows apps didn't die win Win95, NT and OS/2 came out. I don't see single threaded apps dying either. What I do see is all future apps will be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores, just like few companies released 16-bit apps after 1996. I don't see software at a dead-end, but I do see single threaded apps becoming legacy very soon.
Don't mod posts as offtopic when they are in response to another post. Mod the parent as offtopic!
By the way, I hope they make an example out of a few of these punks. I would really like to see them let loose in a room full of the IT departments that they attacked.!
Slashdot Mirror
Partially true: But not limited to a single blog and not just decertification. Could this be considered a death threat?: And not just decertification: I realize Republicans have a real problem with the difference between weather and climate.
In the "court of public opinion", there is no difference.
While it may be fun to call me ignorant or stupid, you should really open your eyes to both sides to prevent yourself from being guilty of both. It's wrong for Exxon/Mobil to pay for scientific opinions, but it's perfectly OK for Universities to fire those that don't hold up the group think and for Virgin Air's Richard Branson to give a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
(citation)
Interestingly enough, the author is also a proponent of intelligent design.
Holy Shit! He believes in God!??!! What a crackpot! Why would anyone take with religion seriously.
From Here:
No, it doesn't mean their scientific findings aren't valid. But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated.
Well, threatening climatologists with decertification doesn't invalidate their findings either, but it sure as hell means they are being forcibly "motivated".
Instead, we see the weather channel threatening climatologists' jobs for the predetermined outcome of 'scientific' research. And that, my friend, is why I feel compelled to keep "making cheap ad hominem attacks." Because the Weather Channel is pissing science down their leg and the public is paying not attention to it when they should. It's as if the Weather Channel is offering the $10,000 for the report proving global warming is our fault?
With card readers, at least when democrats win, we won't have to recount.
That's because Republicans don't demand rule changes and recounts until they win!
Not only are CO2 levels at around 370 ppmv (cf. historical levels over the last 800,000 years ranging from 170 ppmv (ice ages) to 270 ppmv (previous "record" highs)), but we can also measure the amount of CO2 that we're putting into the atmosphere vs. the rate at which it is reabsorbed and measure the C13/C14 ratio in the atmosphere and compare it against the C13/C14 ratio coming from both living courses and fossil fuels. That ratio is a "smoking gun" that makes it quite clear that we're responsible for that increased CO2.
I'm too tired to Google so I'll grant you the numbers as you don't seem the type to make stuff up. I do have UD concerning the cause and the effect, however. Are the higher CO2 levels caused by SUV's and private planes, or the shrinking of the rain forests around the world? Either way, what can we do? Since water vapor is a much more effective green house gas than CO2, won't ideas like fuel cells, which have water vapor as exhaust, make the problem worse? (not to mention places like Miami, Houston and LA much more humid!) Won't more CO2 be beneficial to plant life around the world, causing more plants to grow... thus releasing more O2 and balancing things back out. I'm not saying that'll happen, but who knows? I guess no one does for sure, which is why I don't want to trade my Toyota in for a bicycle just yet!
Actually, one idea I've heard floated was to cut down trees and replant new ones. Younger trees convert more CO2 to O2 as they grow than older established trees. Good luck getting that one passed.
As a result, I often attend our local vegetarian festival. It's amazing how many crazies come out to this thing! If you've never been to one, you should go. Unfortunately, it might just reinforce your current world-view, but at least you should find it entertaining.
I think I will check that out. I love loonies-watching! I was in New York during the Republican National Convention (for work that was completely unrelated to the convention). I started and finished my work work early so I could walk around all day checking out all the protests. I even took part in a few (Helping out the Protest Warriors and helping another guy set up and man a display where he spread about two pounds of rice on a black cloth, each grain to represent about 10 Iraqi's killed before the war to contrast the 1000 pairs of boots representing American lives. (He had printed materials that backed up his math))
Well, I'm also against drilling in ANWR, for two reasons - neither one of which is the caribou. First of all, I see very little gain (except for a few oil companies - definitely not for the average American when you look at the small size of the ANWR reserve compared to how much oil we consume annually) and a not insignificant risk.
There are estimated to be between 3.2 and 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Another way to look at is the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia. As to the environmental impact, I say ask the people who live there. They have to look at it, none of us will ever see it so it honestly won't effect our life either way. Besides, it's not like there is a shortage of land for national parks in Alaska. I guess it is safe to say that we will never agree on this issue, without finding some middle ground.
It seems to me that giving an addict temporary access to a cheaper, safer supply of his drug of choice really doesn't help him much. The same can be said for ANWR and US's addiction to oil. Yeah, it may knock about $5/barrel off the price, but it's only temporary. However, since there will be quite a large profit coming out of ANWR, and it is a national park (owned by the US gov't), why doesn't the US Gov't:
1) contract out a company to pump out the oil for a set, flat price
2) use the oil to increase and fill the strategic reserves before opening ANWR oil to the market
3) use a portion of the profits to clean up any mess created during drilling
4) use another portion of the profits to protect and expand national parks around the country
5) use the rest of the profits to fund research for "greener" forms of energy
6) ???
7) profit
(OK, 6 and 7 were a joke)
Now, everyone is happy. ANWR is protected better than before. National parks around the country get much needed funding. A boat load of $$$ goes into researching green energy that should cut down on CO2 emissions in the long run. We save $5 a barrel. No one gets rich off the deal so we should be able to get a more trusted estimate of the reserves there. Everyone gets something to be happy about.
...is often an attempt to put the UD in FUD. (Not accusing you of this, just mentioning why it's so often mentioned.)
No, you can accuse me of that. Uncertainty and Doubt is what I have. That would be a fair accusation.
Here's a useful analogy: people have died from natural causes for thousands of years. If someone had their fingers around your throat and you felt your life-force leaving you, would you say, "oh, it can't be this person causing my death, because he's only been here for a short while, and people have been dying for thousands of years?" Likewise with global warming. Yes, it's happened in the past and we were not responsible. That in no way implies that we are not responsible now.
OK, here's the reverse analogy: A family buys a gun. A year later, a child dies. They know that guns kill people and they own a gun, therefor the gun must have killed the child. (man produces cars, cars produce CO2, the earth is warming, it must be man's fault).
Although I think Bush is the worst president in my lifetime with respect to the environment ("clear skies" initiative, "healthy forests" initiative, redefining water ways, supporting the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, etc.), I'm always in favor of trying to confuse people who want to pigeon-hole others. I like to call myself a "Charlottesville Conservative". (Charlottesville is an extremely blue dot in the red state of Virginia.)
Funny! I'm an Austin Conservative. Austin, of course, is the blue dot in Texas. I'm just tired of the environment being used as an excuse to stop whatever liberals don't like. Walmart is all but banned from building new stores in Austin and the protesters use the parking lot's impact on the environment as the excuse. Of course, a Starbucks, Whole Foods or some other store with somehow environmentally friendlier customers is usually build instead of the Walmart. AMD wanted to move their Austin offices to West Austin, where most of the employees lived. Environmentalists blocked the move citing environmental impact. AMD agreed to go beyond what they required to build there and pointed out that it would actually serve the environment by cutting down on driving. Finally, they had to fess up and admit that they blocked it to prevent any development in the area.
It seems that when people don't like something, they make excuses as to why we shouldn't have it. I see that same happening with global warming and the villain is usually someone or thing that liberals don't like. Dick Cheney spoke at my wife's graduation at Michigan State U. There was a protester there handing out fliers that told of the evils of Halliburton and oil. No one seemed to mind Halliburton until Cheney became the VP, then, all of a sudden, Halliburton is worthy of this girl's attention. We can't drill in ANWR because of caribou. Do you really think that liberals care about caribou? Do they take trips to go see the migration of the caribou or follow their progress on the Internet? Of course not. They don't want someone making money by drilling for oil. They use caribou as an excuse. Now they seem to have a winner with global warming.
I know this rambles on, but you can see why I am a bit skeptical of "scientific" claims, especially when they have such strong political motivations.
Yes, I've heard such things as well. The Venus stuff is pure hogwash, to the best of my knowledge.
agreed
The problem, as I understand it, comes from the fresh water in the ice caps diluting the salinity of the oceans. I can't say I understand how this plays in with the conveyor belts. I've read enough to know that it's not ludicrous, but not universally accepted, either.
When salt water freezes, it dumps its salt. This makes the water have a higher saline concentration and it drops to sea floor where it can go any direction. Since this happens close to the poles, it really can only go in one direction which creates the current. There's more to it, but this is how the process starts as I understand it.
As for actual solutions, I don't know what they are. Kyoto obviously has flaws. However, acknowledging that there is a problem is an important first step. (That doesn't mean others can't be working on steps 2, 3, etc.) What amazes me is people who go straight from saying that there is no problem to saying that it's too late to do anything about the problem. Unfortunately, part of that latter sentiment is fueled by the FUD from global warming "believers".
Agreed. I'm not going to deny that global warming is happening because I don't have weather stations set up all over the world. However, it appears to me that the earth is getting warmer from much of what I read, but where I have disagreements is "why". I've seen no compelling evidence that shows that man is the cause of global warming. Yes, I know that cars release CO2 and that CO2 is a global warming agent. However, CO2 levels have been higher at times when the average global temperature was lower that it is today. I also understand that the reason we are not still in one of the many ice-ages of the past is that the earth warmed, also known as Global Warming. My car was not around during any of the previous warming trends, why is it suddenly responsible now?
Either way, I think that breaking our dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing and I gladly sold my Explorer for a small Toyota. I want to put a Bush sticker on a plug-in hybrid or hydrogen powered car (the Bush sticker is to really confuse the tree-huggers). I want to see a nuclear plant built in my city to power my LED illuminated house. But I don't want to be have my intelligence insulted, be accused of ignoring the evidence, or flat out shouted down or otherwise silence because my views don't flow with the "Group Think" of the moment. Why is it cool to question authority, but not question popular science?
Forgive me for implying that that YOU chose the word "deny" maliciously. However, I do believe that it was chosen for you maliciously. Phrases become common when they are heard and repeated so many times that they just seem to flow together. "Bush's failed policy in Iraq" is one example. How can a policy be declared a failure when it is still ongoing? Yet, it is assumed that Iraq is a failure. Such phrases also get accepted as fact when repeated enough times. "The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves" and "The economy was good under Clinton, but bad under Bush" are more examples. This is how I see Global Warming. It is said enough times that it is accepted as truth.
Personally, I've looked at both sides. I'm not a climatologist so I am not qualified to to say who is right. I've heard predictions that say once we pass a tipping point, the earth will continue to warm until the earth looks like Venus, and we are almost there! I've also seen charts where the earth's CO2 level was exponentially higher than it is today (still, we are not Venus!) I've heard how melting the ice caps will cause the oceanic current conveyor to stop... causing large ice caps (uh... wouldn't that restart the conveyor?).
What makes up my mind is the hypocrisy of it all. I see people like John Kerry blame the Bush administration for keeping the US from Kyoto only to find out that John Kerry voted against Kyoto in 1997. I see people want to decertify the scientific credentials of climatologists who question the cause of global warming while at the same time, claim that the US gov't is silencing them or that Exxon/Mobil is pressuring them to form a view. I see people claiming that global warming will cause the end of man kind and then accuse others Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (specifically the FEAR part).
I wonder if he knows that the word deny actually has a long history that predates Nazi Germany by hundreds of years, and that most of us are capable of using the word without thinking of Nazis or the holocaust.
Just like climate change (of which global warming is a part of) predates human history by millions of years. Yet, for some reason, you can't see the phrase "Global Warming" without thinking that man is responsible for it.
I use the phrase precisely. There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference.
Why don't you call them global warming non-believers or global warming infidels? To "deny" something implies dishonesty or guilt. To not believe something is to reject an idea. Is it because "denier" has a negative connotation associated with, such as "holocaust denier" and "non-believer" has a anti-religious connotation to it (anti-religious being a good thing on slash-dot, of course unless the religion involves spaghetti)?
I think the conclusion is obvious:
Human produced CO2 causes sun-spots!
f by 'solar radiation' you mean 'light', it is not deflected by the magnetic field of the Earth at all, since photons are neutral particles.
No, I think the meant 'solar radiation'.
Light!=Heat
I'm sorry
Apology denied! You have nothing to apologize for. I was in the Army and learned to appreciate corrections and even criticism when (and only when) I'm wrong. My post had some incorrect information, you corrected me, I looked it up and saw that you were right. I know more now then I did when I made the first post. I read slashdot to learn stuff and people like you help to make it happen. Besides, I'd rather be corrected than wander around like a fool thinking I know everything when I'm really just spouting incorrect crap.
So, Thanx again.
Um, 386's were 32-bit. They were the first 32-bit Intel processors, actually
I stand corrected. I was thinking of the 386sx and did not know that it came out AFTER the original 386, which was renamed to 386dx. The 386sx would not run Win95 as it only had a 16-bit external data bus even though it was 32-bit internally.
Reference
So I'm going to say something you never ever read on slashdot or any other comment-based site, so pay attention.
By God you are right and I was wrong. You have successfully changed my mind!
Seriously, thanx for the correction.
I wonder if this means that MS will stop requiring floppies to install a 3rd party RAID controller during the installation.
(I bring this up because I had to install a floppy on a computer I was reinstalling XP on the other day so I could use the SATA drive! I kinda felt dirty after doing that!)
It's not about multi-core processors, it's about the Cell architecture, for parts of which IBM holds many patents and makes a lot of money on licensing.
You are correct. But I should point out that IBM is not the only company producing the Cell either. Sony and Toshiba also own rights to the Cell, but I doubt they will start putting them into servers.
The programs don't have to be specifically written to be multi-core aware as long as the OS is smart enough to send process to the idle cores.
While that is true of multi-core general purpose processors like the x86, but I don't think that works too well when talking about the Cell processor. The OS can't just assign a Power-PC compiled app to a SPU and expect it to run. Apps have to be specifically coded to take advantage of the SPU's on the Cell.
In other words, a spokesperson from $COMPANY is trying to convince the market that they'll soon need to use $PRODUCT if they want best results, conveniently which is sold by the $COMPANY?
IBM is not the only company releasing multi-core processors. Single core processors will soon go out the same way the 386SX did when 32-bit computing became the norm.
Exactly! Old 16-bit Windows apps didn't die win Win95, NT and OS/2 came out. I don't see single threaded apps dying either. What I do see is all future apps will be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores, just like few companies released 16-bit apps after 1996. I don't see software at a dead-end, but I do see single threaded apps becoming legacy very soon.
Don't mod posts as offtopic when they are in response to another post. Mod the parent as offtopic!
By the way, I hope they make an example out of a few of these punks. I would really like to see them let loose in a room full of the IT departments that they attacked.!
Wired fat people! Will they shake, or jiggle?
You don't need to show your driver's license to the cops every time you start the car, tell them where you're going, and get permission.
True. But how is a nationalized ID standard going to change this?