This sort of thing combined with Chinaâ(TM)s very questionable use of banned pesticides and other sketchy farming chemicals is why I do not by food products marked as being from China. I know that many of the other âoeready madeâ food that I eat probably has ingredients from China, but at least I can reduce the amount of poisons I intake. I try to buy local produce, organic when I can, but this tends to be a little spendy. And of course avoiding processed foods and actually making real food in the kitchen goes a long way to avoid the poisonous crap that China exports.
Of course, there are some of the same issues here, but far far fewer.
Without the kind of government regulation that the Republicans and Tea Baggers want to do away with, this is how the United States would be as well.
Um... yeah! Because China is the right-wing "city on the hill" that all "teabaggers" wish to emulate.
Actually, what TEA Party members want is less government power. The example you ares seeing in China is fine example of why less government is a good idea. See, the all-powerful government that leftists like you want allows a government to set up all the regulations required to keep a population safe from those evil capitalist pigs. Unfortunately, it includes government power to choose who to apply those regulations to and when.
TEA Partiers are very similar to Libertarians when comes to central government power. They both want the 10'th Amendment followed. The Constitution grants the federal government to regulate trade, meaning that the TEA Partiers agree that the federal government has the power to inspect and regulate trade with China. In other words, your entire argument against those greedy "teabaggers" is nothing more than a red herring. If you argument was sound, you wouldn't need to resort to lies and distortions to make your point.
will this be available up stream for oh say Ubuntu or will i have to switch distro? perhaps there could even be a unity variant.
I'm running Ubuntu 11.10 and installed Gnome. It installed Gnome3 and something called Gnome Classic. It has the same look and feel as Gnome2, but it's still Gnome3. In other words, I can't right click on the bar up top and add system monitors or any "widget" like items. I am able to drag applications up there, however, but as far as I can tell, that's about it.
Knock Knock! Who's there? An Endless Loop! An Endless Loop Who? Knock Knock!...
What's the square root of 69? Ate something...
An infinite crowd of mathematicians enters a bar. The first one orders a pint, the second one a half pint, the third one a quarter pint... "I understand", says the bartender - and pours two pints....
Nerd jokes are the best, even if they don't fit the convention.
If you're going to use Compiz for your eye-candy at least install the Compiz manager by default
If you're going to take 3 icons to display 'office' programs at least spare one for a menu.
I'm writing this from 11.10. Installed Saturday. My biggest complaint is that processes are allowed to take 100% of the CPU and freeze the user.
Compiz works great once you get 3D working. Unfortunately, when I try to enable 3D, my system locks. It's not my X-session that locks up, but the entire system locks up. My video card is an HD Radeon 6000 series. Not a bad card, but it's over a year old and fairly popular. I've tried drivers from AMD as well as both drivers supplied with Ubuntu. Nothing works for 3D.
Now here's the kicker:
I guess in order to make the system more simple to use they removed the safe graphics mode boot option. Yep! It's gone. My only option is to boot to a root shell, which doesn't mount any drives. Since they quit using the way we used to mount drives, I don't know what drive is what any more. I know that all my drives have long ass character strings, but I don't even know how to get a list of drives any more as "sudo mount" doesn't do shit. I had to look it up on my "other" machine which is a headless workstation running XFCE4. Found how to boot in single mode to remove/ect/X11/xorg.conf and reboot. Unfortunately this alone does not fix the problem. I also have to literally remove the fglrx driver from the system AND remove the xorg.conf file or the system won't boot. Now, remember, kids. this could have all been done in the safe graphics mode of Ubuntu 10.10. I could have also used the graphics mode to research a solution to my problem. Not so in the new, easier to use Ubuntu. I literally used cat to pull up the xorg.log file, looked over my shoulder at one monitor, typing the data in the log on another machine's search box. You know, because this way is easier.
I have seen Unity, in 2d mode of course, and I don't get it. When I wanted to open a text document I clicked on the applications menu, clicked accessories, and found gedit. Or I could press ALT-F2 and type "gedit". Or I could click on the button in the tool bar where I had dragged the icon earlier. There were any number of ways I could easily put this application wherever I wanted it.
Now, I have to move the mouse to the let of the screen. Nothing happens. I move it to the top left... nothing. Minimize my current application and move the mouse to the top left of the screen, still nothing. I have to minimize my application, click twice on an empty area of the desktop and then move the mouse to the top left.. The "menu" appears. There is no grouping or organization. It's just a bunch of icons. While it's possible to add and remove applications to this bar, I have not yet figured out how to reorder them. I have the email app I never use, a firefox icon (I use chrome), three open office icons, I'll never use any of those, and a desktop, window looking icon, which for some reason, I only have 1 desktop, so this does nothing. Still, no gedit. So, I click on the first icon and it pulls out a menu. I see porn view, image viewer, Pan and other stuff I was using to look at porn the last time I had X working. Yeah! That's exactly what I want my wife to find when she needs to look up something real quick and doesn't feel like booting her machine. OK, so there are most recently used apps, and a few suggestions from the "App Store", although they call it"Software Center" and I call it advertising, which is something I've never seen in my OS before. Finally, I give up and type gedit in the box and it appears. By now, I forgot why I wanted it in the first place...
Oh yeah! I wanted to copy the xorg.log file and use it to search the web for answers as to why X doesn't work in 3d. At this point, I give up on 3d, install XFCE4, get it working and configured, then I reboot in to Windows and play Starcraft2 and won't reboot Linux for at least a couple of months, if ever again.
Thanks Mark! Good job! You've taken a someone who used Linux 90% of the time and turned me into someone who uses Windows 95% of the time.
Your post implies that "usable is Unity". Somehow I don't think that's what you wanted. Soviet Russia jokes aren't about negation, they're about inverting.
Let's go back and see what has been said here: Person1: YOU want OTHERS to change THEIR behavior while you won't change your own. You: Deniers are made up of several conservative groups who deny GW because it goes against their political beliefs. Me: It's not just conservative groups. Liberal groups do the same thing. You: It doesn't matter than liberals do it to. It doesn't change the fact that when conservatives do it, they are wrong. My goal is to use this single out that conservatives are say that they are wrong because their views are different than mine. I agree with liberals, so I don't care when they do something wrong. It's when those that have differing views from my own that I have a problem with it.
BTW, what does tobacco have to do with this?
Either way, your point is of little revelance when you accuse group A of doing something that group B does. It doesn't make them any more or less wrong than the opposition. By accusing one group and fending another of the same action, you are proving that you are basing this on partisanship rather than facts or logic. It would be like you accuse "deniers" of telling lies while you justify lies from the Global Warmongers. Lies like, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic"
I'm sorry that this isn't the kind of "skeptic" you wanted.
What I want is irrelevant. The kind of skeptic TFA claimed this guy was is a "Global Warming Skeptic". Those words are taken directly from the title of TFA. What you did was take a bunch of other stuff, much of which I agree with, and used that to counter my point. My point, of course, is that this guy is not a "Global Warming Skeptic", as TFA points him out to be.
As to the rest of your post, well, the premise is shot so rest is simply negated.
You would have done better to point out the TFA is on The Huffington Post, which is well known for being full of crap. Unfortunately, it's not just HuffPo that is the problem. Take this article from The Washington Post
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data (Lack of capitalization is all theirs) Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.
What do you think they mean by "self-proclaimed climate skeptic"? Did they intend to make the reader think this guy denies climate? Of course not. They want you to believe that this was a Global Warming Denialist (much like a Holocaust denier), who denies that Global Warming is real.
The only thing that Muller "denied" was proxy data. He explains it all HERE. He also explains the research project that this article is about as he's doing it and what he intends to learn from it.
When you come down to it deniers are always deniers because of conflicts with their political beliefs. It's never really down to science. Deniers are invariably Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, believers in small government, believers in the free market and other right wing groups. They feel that any attempt to do something about AGW conflicts with their ideology. So they will grasp at anything to deny it
Yeah. Because Democrats, Greenies, Hippies, Liberals, Socialists and Communists would NEVER do such a thing.
From Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
"I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. "
Right. You don't care whether he backs denier papers -- all you care about is grabbing a couple random quotes with no context (something that can be done for pretty much any denier). As if the latter is what matters and the former is irrelevant.
1) I will place more value on direct quotes from someone more than the papers they supposedly back up. For example, you could say that Muller is a denier because he quite the Sierra Club in the early 80's while, in truth, he quit the Sierra Club because they opposed Nuclear Energy which Muller believes is the answer to Global Warming. 2) I provided context by linking the article.
The only thing left to argue about is how much do we contribute...
Nope, there are 3 fronts here:
Global Warming isn't happening
Humans are not a significant cause of Global Warming
Global Warming isn't bad
It's like playing whack-a-mole.
You forgot one:
Global Warming Alarmist keep getting caught telling lies.
For example, claiming that "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real" when Richard Muller has never been a "Global Warming Skeptic".
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. He was a global warming supporter in the 80's when he quite the Sierra Club and still that way when he did the interview in the link as recently as 2008. That's 1 year before this "Global Warming Skeptic" started the study that this very article is about. He had his reasons for backing whatever studies he backed, but being a GW Skeptic is not one of them. Read his own words.
He was skeptical of the science being claimed to prove the issue, not the issue itself. The two are very separate things - it's possible to say "Yeah, I think global warming is happening, but I don't believe the science being done thus far is of decent enough quality to prove it so we can't say for sure".
OK, but TFA is claiming that he is a Global Warming Skeptic. That's TFA, not me.
Why do the global warming denialists need to make things up and jump to false conclusions if their belief is as solid as they say it is?
Pot, meet kettle. There is a false premise in the article itself. I'm not making things up, TFA is. READ THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!
Nothing will help someone like you though, you're clearly set in your ways and not one of those people who will ever change their mind despite being faced with mounting evidence contrary to your claim, and no evidence supporting your claim. So stick to the straw man arguments, if they really make you feel better. I'm sure that's what flat earth theorists did to make themselves feel better too
Straw man? What straw man? Go read TFA. Here is the title, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real". I can't get past the title without being lied to. How can I believe the "evidence" if the title itself is dishonest. And you claim I have "no evidence"?
Look, I'm not here to debate AGW. I'm here to point out that the article is full of shit, which is something you don't refute. Instead, you attack me as a denialist when my only point is that I can't believe the article when there is a blatant lie in the title itself. I'm gonna call bullshit wherever I see it. The fact that you DON'T proves that YOU are the one with the closed mind.
Um, Muller was one of the main people who supported McKitrick and McIntyre's paper against the "Hockey Stick Graph". Before that, he was a big backer of Soon and Baliunas's denialist work.
What we're seeing here is a lovely bit of revisionist history. *Most* of the denialist scientists accept at least some tenets of global warming, so you can dig up old quotes for almost any of them. But it's simply a fact that Muller was one of the leading critics of the "Hockey Stick Graph", and now he's gone and published a graph that confirms the Hockey Stick.
Denying the hockey stick graph does not make one a global warming skeptic. It makes him a hockey stick denier. The title of TFA is, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real".
1) The article is dishonest by claiming that Muller is a Global Warming Skeptic. 2) I find it sad that if a scientist, even one environmentally conscious as Muller is labeled as a AGW denier simply because he had issues with the Hockey Stick Graph. It's like the environmentalists are saying, "You are either 100% with us or you are against us. If you are against us, we will label you a denier and destroy you."
maybe not, but if he were trying to make a buck on all of this, it's a damned good start for him. he could now write a book that his former enemies would buy and scour.
This guy used to be president of the Sierra Club and in 2008, a year before this supposed skeptic started his study, said:
In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
Maybe they are "denialists" because they see dishonesty coming from the Global Warming crowd. You know, like saying that "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real" when Richard Muller was never a "Global Warming Skeptic". Read an interview with him HERE.
If the science is as solid as you believe it is, why would you need to lie about Richard Muller being a "Global Warming Skeptic"? Here is a quote from this "skeptic":
What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
The prominent skeptic in question was the author of the research that was revealed last week.
Title of the TFA: Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
The problem is that the supposed skeptic is not a skeptic at all. Here is what he said in 2008:
The bottom line is that there is a consensus -- the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] -- and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we're responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don't cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.
I'm not a climatologist. All I can base my opinion on is what I read and what I make of what I read. On one side, I see global warmongers saying that those that don't believe in Global Warming are flat-earthers and science obviously proves that GW is happening and it's all man's fault. On the other side, I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power. Who is telling the truth?
I find it really difficult to believe that Global Warming believers are telling me the truth when they trot out guys like this claiming that a skeptic has seen the light and all who are non-believers should follow his lead. After all, who can give a more non-biased story than a climate skeptic to begin with, right. The problem is, as I've stated, is that this guy was NEVER a climate skeptic and those that say he was are lying to my face. Why should I believe anything else the warmongers tell me?
More:
Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
Yeah... This guy is no "skeptic". Why do the Global Warming believers need to lie to me if the science is as solid as they say it is?
With articles like this, you would think it really mattered who made more of what in a quarter... Never mind that geographies are different, carriers are different, and features are different. Time to buckle down for the hordes of apple and android gang-bangers to fill another thread with vitriol and made up words.
Well, according to Apple and Samsung, these guys are stealing so many of each other's ideas they are practically selling the same phones, if you believe the testimony.
Excellent question. Death by bawls? Choking on a cheeto? Drowning in mom's basement?
Personally, if I were to go, I would want to be like those Korean Starcraft guys that died after a marathon session of their favorite video game. They literally played themselves to death. That's a nerd's suicide!
Electric car investment is clearly necessary. Without the investment, no electric cars... Only when the public bailed out the US car industry (to save the rest of the US economy and industrial base) did it start to turn to serious electric product development.
Did Toyota take a government hand out to make the plug Prius? Yet, the Prius exists. I recall that the Volt was on the drawing board long before government bailouts. Also, Ford didn't take any bailouts, yet they make several hybrids.
I didn't read the rest since your first paragraph was so full of shit, I didn't care to see what you buried underneath it.
You Republicans never said a word while Bush/Cheney and your Republican Congresses were stealing $TRILLIONS. Except to blame everyone else, if you did admit it. You would vote for Bush/Cheney again. And indeed you will, when the Rombot or whatever standin comes up for auction next November.
You Republicans are stupid and evil. Proven every chance you open your mouths or cast a vote.
Citation Needed. I know, I know, you are going to say Haliburton, right? Can you name another company that could do Haliburton's job? Didn't think so.
Also, I find it strange that I could graduate with 3.5 GPA without breaking a sweat and I give my money and time to various charities. Yet, here I am a Republican, which means I am "stupid and evil."
Finally, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if I were to grant your point that Republicans did the same thing and that Republicans were "stupid and evil" for continuing to vote Republican while remaining silent to blatant corruption, wouldn't that make you and other Democrats equally "stupid and evil"?
I also find it suspicious that the summary doesn't mention that this is a sports car. The price and fuel efficiency suddenly look a lot better when you compare it to a Corvette instead of a Civic. It may in fact be very successful in that market. But this point gets no mention... it's almost as if the submitter is a right-wing troll.
Are you friggin kidding me? The Obama administration gives a SECOND half billion dollar loan to a "green" company that has ties to Democratic contributors and bundlers. The first one failed. The second is building it's product overseas.
And you're seriously OK with this? Something tells me you'd be throwing a fit if this "loan guarantee" was given to Haliburton when Bush was in office.
BTW, can you point me to a single company that has received this type of half billion dollar "loan guarantee" that has ties to Republican contributors and bundlers?
From the Loan Guarantee Wiki Page:
The term can be used to refer to a government to assume a private debt obligation if the borrower defaults. Most loan guarantee programs are established to correct perceived market failures by which small borrowers, regardless of creditworthiness, lack access to the credit resources available to large borrowers.
Right. This guy can go to the bank and say "gimme a loan. The US taxpayer has cosigned". If he defaults, the US taxpayer pays it. Just as if the US government loaned him the money, if he defaults, the US taxpayer pays it. There is no difference other than that the US taxpayer doesn't have to put the money upfront and won't see any interest in the event that the loan is paid back. Meaning we take all the responsibility and see none of the benefit.
So, it's "a flat out lie to make" it seem like a loan guarantee all that different than a direct loan.
No, the point of the program is free money from the federal government. And the politicians can say they've invested $int64 billion dollars in environmental programs. They don't really care what those programs are, they just need to get rid of the money.
They looked at environmental spending and said, "Something must be done!" Someone said, "Here, is something." Everyone said, "Then it must be done!"
Does this mean that CFL bulbs will be banned as well? We've already banned incandescent lights in many places. If CFL bulbs get banned, what's left? LED? If you can find and afford them I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
This sort of thing combined with Chinaâ(TM)s very questionable use of banned pesticides and other sketchy farming chemicals is why I do not by food products marked as being from China. I know that many of the other âoeready madeâ food that I eat probably has ingredients from China, but at least I can reduce the amount of poisons I intake. I try to buy local produce, organic when I can, but this tends to be a little spendy. And of course avoiding processed foods and actually making real food in the kitchen goes a long way to avoid the poisonous crap that China exports.
Of course, there are some of the same issues here, but far far fewer.
Without the kind of government regulation that the Republicans and Tea Baggers want to do away with, this is how the United States would be as well.
Um... yeah! Because China is the right-wing "city on the hill" that all "teabaggers" wish to emulate.
Actually, what TEA Party members want is less government power. The example you ares seeing in China is fine example of why less government is a good idea. See, the all-powerful government that leftists like you want allows a government to set up all the regulations required to keep a population safe from those evil capitalist pigs. Unfortunately, it includes government power to choose who to apply those regulations to and when.
TEA Partiers are very similar to Libertarians when comes to central government power. They both want the 10'th Amendment followed. The Constitution grants the federal government to regulate trade, meaning that the TEA Partiers agree that the federal government has the power to inspect and regulate trade with China. In other words, your entire argument against those greedy "teabaggers" is nothing more than a red herring. If you argument was sound, you wouldn't need to resort to lies and distortions to make your point.
will this be available up stream for oh say Ubuntu or will i have to switch distro? perhaps there could even be a unity variant.
I'm running Ubuntu 11.10 and installed Gnome. It installed Gnome3 and something called Gnome Classic. It has the same look and feel as Gnome2, but it's still Gnome3. In other words, I can't right click on the bar up top and add system monitors or any "widget" like items. I am able to drag applications up there, however, but as far as I can tell, that's about it.
I believe THIS is what I'm talking about.
Knock knock!
Who's there?
A malformed joke!
'A malformed joke' who?
A malformed joke!
Knock Knock! ...
Who's there?
An Endless Loop!
An Endless Loop Who?
Knock Knock!
What's the square root of 69? ...
Ate something
An infinite crowd of mathematicians enters a bar. ...
The first one orders a pint, the second one a half pint, the third one a quarter pint...
"I understand", says the bartender - and pours two pints.
Nerd jokes are the best, even if they don't fit the convention.
If you're going to use Compiz for your eye-candy at least install the Compiz manager by default
If you're going to take 3 icons to display 'office' programs at least spare one for a menu.
I'm writing this from 11.10. Installed Saturday. My biggest complaint is that processes are allowed to take 100% of the CPU and freeze the user.
Compiz works great once you get 3D working. Unfortunately, when I try to enable 3D, my system locks. It's not my X-session that locks up, but the entire system locks up. My video card is an HD Radeon 6000 series. Not a bad card, but it's over a year old and fairly popular. I've tried drivers from AMD as well as both drivers supplied with Ubuntu. Nothing works for 3D.
Now here's the kicker:
I guess in order to make the system more simple to use they removed the safe graphics mode boot option. Yep! It's gone. My only option is to boot to a root shell, which doesn't mount any drives. Since they quit using the way we used to mount drives, I don't know what drive is what any more. I know that all my drives have long ass character strings, but I don't even know how to get a list of drives any more as "sudo mount" doesn't do shit. I had to look it up on my "other" machine which is a headless workstation running XFCE4. Found how to boot in single mode to remove /ect/X11/xorg.conf and reboot. Unfortunately this alone does not fix the problem. I also have to literally remove the fglrx driver from the system AND remove the xorg.conf file or the system won't boot. Now, remember, kids. this could have all been done in the safe graphics mode of Ubuntu 10.10. I could have also used the graphics mode to research a solution to my problem. Not so in the new, easier to use Ubuntu. I literally used cat to pull up the xorg.log file, looked over my shoulder at one monitor, typing the data in the log on another machine's search box. You know, because this way is easier.
I have seen Unity, in 2d mode of course, and I don't get it. When I wanted to open a text document I clicked on the applications menu, clicked accessories, and found gedit. Or I could press ALT-F2 and type "gedit". Or I could click on the button in the tool bar where I had dragged the icon earlier. There were any number of ways I could easily put this application wherever I wanted it.
Now, I have to move the mouse to the let of the screen. Nothing happens. I move it to the top left... nothing. Minimize my current application and move the mouse to the top left of the screen, still nothing. I have to minimize my application, click twice on an empty area of the desktop and then move the mouse to the top left.. The "menu" appears. There is no grouping or organization. It's just a bunch of icons. While it's possible to add and remove applications to this bar, I have not yet figured out how to reorder them. I have the email app I never use, a firefox icon (I use chrome), three open office icons, I'll never use any of those, and a desktop, window looking icon, which for some reason, I only have 1 desktop, so this does nothing. Still, no gedit. So, I click on the first icon and it pulls out a menu. I see porn view, image viewer, Pan and other stuff I was using to look at porn the last time I had X working. Yeah! That's exactly what I want my wife to find when she needs to look up something real quick and doesn't feel like booting her machine. OK, so there are most recently used apps, and a few suggestions from the "App Store", although they call it"Software Center" and I call it advertising, which is something I've never seen in my OS before. Finally, I give up and type gedit in the box and it appears. By now, I forgot why I wanted it in the first place...
Oh yeah! I wanted to copy the xorg.log file and use it to search the web for answers as to why X doesn't work in 3d. At this point, I give up on 3d, install XFCE4, get it working and configured, then I reboot in to Windows and play Starcraft2 and won't reboot Linux for at least a couple of months, if ever again.
Thanks Mark! Good job! You've taken a someone who used Linux 90% of the time and turned me into someone who uses Windows 95% of the time.
Your post implies that "usable is Unity". Somehow I don't think that's what you wanted. Soviet Russia jokes aren't about negation, they're about inverting.
I got his joke and thought it was funny.
Lighten up!
Let's go back and see what has been said here:
Person1: YOU want OTHERS to change THEIR behavior while you won't change your own.
You: Deniers are made up of several conservative groups who deny GW because it goes against their political beliefs.
Me: It's not just conservative groups. Liberal groups do the same thing.
You: It doesn't matter than liberals do it to. It doesn't change the fact that when conservatives do it, they are wrong. My goal is to use this single out that conservatives are say that they are wrong because their views are different than mine. I agree with liberals, so I don't care when they do something wrong. It's when those that have differing views from my own that I have a problem with it.
BTW, what does tobacco have to do with this?
Either way, your point is of little revelance when you accuse group A of doing something that group B does. It doesn't make them any more or less wrong than the opposition. By accusing one group and fending another of the same action, you are proving that you are basing this on partisanship rather than facts or logic. It would be like you accuse "deniers" of telling lies while you justify lies from the Global Warmongers. Lies like, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic"
I'm sorry that this isn't the kind of "skeptic" you wanted.
What I want is irrelevant. The kind of skeptic TFA claimed this guy was is a "Global Warming Skeptic". Those words are taken directly from the title of TFA. What you did was take a bunch of other stuff, much of which I agree with, and used that to counter my point. My point, of course, is that this guy is not a "Global Warming Skeptic", as TFA points him out to be.
As to the rest of your post, well, the premise is shot so rest is simply negated.
You would have done better to point out the TFA is on The Huffington Post, which is well known for being full of crap. Unfortunately, it's not just HuffPo that is the problem. Take this article from The Washington Post
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data (Lack of capitalization is all theirs)
Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.
What do you think they mean by "self-proclaimed climate skeptic"? Did they intend to make the reader think this guy denies climate? Of course not. They want you to believe that this was a Global Warming Denialist (much like a Holocaust denier), who denies that Global Warming is real.
The only thing that Muller "denied" was proxy data. He explains it all HERE. He also explains the research project that this article is about as he's doing it and what he intends to learn from it.
When you come down to it deniers are always deniers because of conflicts with their political beliefs. It's never really down to science. Deniers are invariably Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, believers in small government, believers in the free market and other right wing groups. They feel that any attempt to do something about AGW conflicts with their ideology. So they will grasp at anything to deny it
Yeah. Because Democrats, Greenies, Hippies, Liberals, Socialists and Communists would NEVER do such a thing.
From Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
Of course he's not a real skeptic. His opinion was swayed by facts and reason.
In the early 1980's? That's when he quite the Sierra Club because they opposed nuclear energy, which he believed was the solution to Global Warming.
In other words, this guy was Global Warming before Global Warming was cool!
"I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. "
Right. You don't care whether he backs denier papers -- all you care about is grabbing a couple random quotes with no context (something that can be done for pretty much any denier). As if the latter is what matters and the former is irrelevant.
1) I will place more value on direct quotes from someone more than the papers they supposedly back up. For example, you could say that Muller is a denier because he quite the Sierra Club in the early 80's while, in truth, he quit the Sierra Club because they opposed Nuclear Energy which Muller believes is the answer to Global Warming.
2) I provided context by linking the article.
The only thing left to argue about is how much do we contribute...
Nope, there are 3 fronts here:
It's like playing whack-a-mole.
You forgot one:
For example, claiming that "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real" when Richard Muller has never been a "Global Warming Skeptic".
Um, hello -- Muller's backing of Soon and Balinuas? And there's lots of others, too. He's stuck up for denier papers pretty consistently.
OK. Read this article. In it, Muller says:
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. He was a global warming supporter in the 80's when he quite the Sierra Club and still that way when he did the interview in the link as recently as 2008. That's 1 year before this "Global Warming Skeptic" started the study that this very article is about. He had his reasons for backing whatever studies he backed, but being a GW Skeptic is not one of them. Read his own words.
He was skeptical of the science being claimed to prove the issue, not the issue itself. The two are very separate things - it's possible to say "Yeah, I think global warming is happening, but I don't believe the science being done thus far is of decent enough quality to prove it so we can't say for sure".
OK, but TFA is claiming that he is a Global Warming Skeptic. That's TFA, not me.
Why do the global warming denialists need to make things up and jump to false conclusions if their belief is as solid as they say it is?
Pot, meet kettle. There is a false premise in the article itself. I'm not making things up, TFA is. READ THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!
Nothing will help someone like you though, you're clearly set in your ways and not one of those people who will ever change their mind despite being faced with mounting evidence contrary to your claim, and no evidence supporting your claim. So stick to the straw man arguments, if they really make you feel better. I'm sure that's what flat earth theorists did to make themselves feel better too
Straw man? What straw man? Go read TFA. Here is the title, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real". I can't get past the title without being lied to. How can I believe the "evidence" if the title itself is dishonest. And you claim I have "no evidence"?
Look, I'm not here to debate AGW. I'm here to point out that the article is full of shit, which is something you don't refute. Instead, you attack me as a denialist when my only point is that I can't believe the article when there is a blatant lie in the title itself. I'm gonna call bullshit wherever I see it. The fact that you DON'T proves that YOU are the one with the closed mind.
Um, Muller was one of the main people who supported McKitrick and McIntyre's paper against the "Hockey Stick Graph". Before that, he was a big backer of Soon and Baliunas's denialist work.
What we're seeing here is a lovely bit of revisionist history. *Most* of the denialist scientists accept at least some tenets of global warming, so you can dig up old quotes for almost any of them. But it's simply a fact that Muller was one of the leading critics of the "Hockey Stick Graph", and now he's gone and published a graph that confirms the Hockey Stick.
Denying the hockey stick graph does not make one a global warming skeptic. It makes him a hockey stick denier. The title of TFA is, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real".
1) The article is dishonest by claiming that Muller is a Global Warming Skeptic.
2) I find it sad that if a scientist, even one environmentally conscious as Muller is labeled as a AGW denier simply because he had issues with the Hockey Stick Graph. It's like the environmentalists are saying, "You are either 100% with us or you are against us. If you are against us, we will label you a denier and destroy you."
maybe not, but if he were trying to make a buck on all of this, it's a damned good start for him. he could now write a book that his former enemies would buy and scour.
This guy used to be president of the Sierra Club and in 2008, a year before this supposed skeptic started his study, said:
In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
which is the reason why I call them "denialists".
Maybe they are "denialists" because they see dishonesty coming from the Global Warming crowd. You know, like saying that "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real" when Richard Muller was never a "Global Warming Skeptic". Read an interview with him HERE.
If the science is as solid as you believe it is, why would you need to lie about Richard Muller being a "Global Warming Skeptic"? Here is a quote from this "skeptic":
What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
The prominent skeptic in question was the author of the research that was revealed last week.
Title of the TFA: Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
The problem is that the supposed skeptic is not a skeptic at all. Here is what he said in 2008:
The bottom line is that there is a consensus -- the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] -- and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we're responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don't cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.
I'm not a climatologist. All I can base my opinion on is what I read and what I make of what I read. On one side, I see global warmongers saying that those that don't believe in Global Warming are flat-earthers and science obviously proves that GW is happening and it's all man's fault. On the other side, I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power. Who is telling the truth?
I find it really difficult to believe that Global Warming believers are telling me the truth when they trot out guys like this claiming that a skeptic has seen the light and all who are non-believers should follow his lead. After all, who can give a more non-biased story than a climate skeptic to begin with, right. The problem is, as I've stated, is that this guy was NEVER a climate skeptic and those that say he was are lying to my face. Why should I believe anything else the warmongers tell me?
More:
Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
Yeah... This guy is no "skeptic". Why do the Global Warming believers need to lie to me if the science is as solid as they say it is?
With articles like this, you would think it really mattered who made more of what in a quarter... Never mind that geographies are different, carriers are different, and features are different. Time to buckle down for the hordes of apple and android gang-bangers to fill another thread with vitriol and made up words.
Well, according to Apple and Samsung, these guys are stealing so many of each other's ideas they are practically selling the same phones, if you believe the testimony.
Beaten to death in a federal prison after being sent there for releasing software to allow people to backup their DVDs.
"...they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order."
What would be the way most befitting a nerd?
Excellent question. Death by bawls? Choking on a cheeto? Drowning in mom's basement?
Personally, if I were to go, I would want to be like those Korean Starcraft guys that died after a marathon session of their favorite video game. They literally played themselves to death. That's a nerd's suicide!
Electric car investment is clearly necessary. Without the investment, no electric cars... Only when the public bailed out the US car industry (to save the rest of the US economy and industrial base) did it start to turn to serious electric product development.
Did Toyota take a government hand out to make the plug Prius? Yet, the Prius exists. I recall that the Volt was on the drawing board long before government bailouts. Also, Ford didn't take any bailouts, yet they make several hybrids.
I didn't read the rest since your first paragraph was so full of shit, I didn't care to see what you buried underneath it.
You Republicans never said a word while Bush/Cheney and your Republican Congresses were stealing $TRILLIONS. Except to blame everyone else, if you did admit it. You would vote for Bush/Cheney again. And indeed you will, when the Rombot or whatever standin comes up for auction next November.
You Republicans are stupid and evil. Proven every chance you open your mouths or cast a vote.
Citation Needed. I know, I know, you are going to say Haliburton, right? Can you name another company that could do Haliburton's job? Didn't think so.
Also, I find it strange that I could graduate with 3.5 GPA without breaking a sweat and I give my money and time to various charities. Yet, here I am a Republican, which means I am "stupid and evil."
Finally, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if I were to grant your point that Republicans did the same thing and that Republicans were "stupid and evil" for continuing to vote Republican while remaining silent to blatant corruption, wouldn't that make you and other Democrats equally "stupid and evil"?
Logic is a bitch, ain't it?
I also find it suspicious that the summary doesn't mention that this is a sports car. The price and fuel efficiency suddenly look a lot better when you compare it to a Corvette instead of a Civic. It may in fact be very successful in that market. But this point gets no mention... it's almost as if the submitter is a right-wing troll.
Are you friggin kidding me? The Obama administration gives a SECOND half billion dollar loan to a "green" company that has ties to Democratic contributors and bundlers. The first one failed. The second is building it's product overseas.
And you're seriously OK with this? Something tells me you'd be throwing a fit if this "loan guarantee" was given to Haliburton when Bush was in office.
BTW, can you point me to a single company that has received this type of half billion dollar "loan guarantee" that has ties to Republican contributors and bundlers?
From the Loan Guarantee Wiki Page:
The term can be used to refer to a government to assume a private debt obligation if the borrower defaults. Most loan guarantee programs are established to correct perceived market failures by which small borrowers, regardless of creditworthiness, lack access to the credit resources available to large borrowers.
Right. This guy can go to the bank and say "gimme a loan. The US taxpayer has cosigned". If he defaults, the US taxpayer pays it. Just as if the US government loaned him the money, if he defaults, the US taxpayer pays it. There is no difference other than that the US taxpayer doesn't have to put the money upfront and won't see any interest in the event that the loan is paid back. Meaning we take all the responsibility and see none of the benefit.
So, it's "a flat out lie to make" it seem like a loan guarantee all that different than a direct loan.
No, the point of the program is free money from the federal government. And the politicians can say they've invested $int64 billion dollars in environmental programs. They don't really care what those programs are, they just need to get rid of the money.
They looked at environmental spending and said, "Something must be done!"
Someone said, "Here, is something."
Everyone said, "Then it must be done!"
Does this mean that CFL bulbs will be banned as well? We've already banned incandescent lights in many places. If CFL bulbs get banned, what's left? LED? If you can find and afford them I guess.
Time to break out the whale oil lantern I guess.