The latter may even be sincere in so far as they believe that God's hand is in the mix somehow, but the former are only using ID cynically as a way around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and don't actually buy into any of it. In fact, as witnessed by the rubes in Dover, they don't even really care about ID, they just want to get Creationism in the classroom. They aren't even Theistic Evolutionists, they're out and out Creationists.
So, is your only problem with ID the idea that it's a pathway to get religion taught in schools? If that's your only concern, then the simple solution is to NOT TEACH RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. There, problem solved.
Either way, you seem to be judging the validity of an idea based on who supports it. If . The Discovery Institute started using the big bang as proof of the existence of God, or a God, would you support a ban on teaching the big bang theory? Of course not. You would continue to teach the theory as you always have and simply omit the part where DI says, "...and therefor, God exists."
There's much more to ID than simple evolution or irreducible complexity. The "fine tuned universe" is another pathway to get ID taught in schools. Should we ban the teaching of the gravitational constant because it may be used to justify the existence of a God or other "designer"? Maybe we should teach idea of a multiverse as an evolution level proven theory to explain the astronomically narrow range of the physical constants that make up the laws of physics. We wouldn't want kids to see "finely tuned universe" and ask, "Who tuned it?"
Intelligent Design is an attempt to absolve the scriptures of ever being wrong in their creation story and salvage what is possible when presented with fossil evidence and short-term evolution evidence in smaller celled organisms.
No, Intelligent Design is looking at our current theories and finding that they don't always answer our questions. For example, to some, evolution does not explain what ID proponents call irreducible complexity. Evolution states that those with favorable traits survive where those without them die off. Species have traits that require more than one evolutionary step to create a beneficial feature, but none of the steps required to gain that benefit are beneficial in themselves. A quick example:
The giraffe's neck is obviously a benefit to its species, but none of the steps needed to "evolve" that neck would be beneficial. The veins in their neck need to be able to restrict blood flow when the giraffe bends down to take a drink while at the same time, the heart needs to be strong enough to pump blood all the way to the brain. Without either of these features, a giraffe with its long neck would never survive, yet none of these features are beneficial without the long neck. The giraffe's neck is not just a neck, but an entire system of organs and features that are all worthless or even fatal without all of the required components being in place.
Darwinian evolution requires slight variation from generation to generation to drive evolution. White fur would help a bunny survive in snow while all the brown ones get eaten, but this is a single trait. There is nothing in evolution that explains how biological systems can evolve into being without each of the system's components having a benefit to the species on their own, before the entire system functions as a complete, working system.
Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?
It's not just Christians that believe in ID. Don't confuse ID with Creationism. Still, Creationism is not exclusively Christian. However, Christians do take offense when evolution is used to ridicule their religion. While many say that evolution has nothing to do with religion and Christians should get offensive, your post proves otherwise.
Besides, discussing a theory, ANY theory is part of the scientific process, regardless of how ridiculous a challenge to a theory may be. Don't let the title of article fool you. While the title is "Intelligent design to be taught...", if you read a bit further down, you see, "In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies"." There is a difference between "discussion" and "taught".
I'm English you insensitive clod! My bag of chips is hot, greasy and with no writing on it.
I'm in Texas. Our chips are large, brownish-green and steamy when fresh. After rainy days, you will find hippies from the Austin area looking for mushrooms growing on them.
Do cheap, new (not used and refurbished) laser printers exist for consumers?
Go to Okidata.com. There you will find a B4600 for $299.00. Sure, that's not the $90.00 you'll pay for an inkjet, but you would go through at least 10 inkjet refills by the time your first $30.00 toner cartridge runs out.
You can find better deals online than what you can find by going to the company's website. I remember a Brother Laser printer with wireless networking for $100 about a year ago.
I mention Oki because it's what I use. But HERE is another Brother.
Re:It's not all in the ending
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Ending to epic shows like this inevitably end bad in the eyes of some and I would argue it's impossible to write the perfect ending. Lost, Battlestar Galatica, and The Sopranos are a few recently. Too much emphasis is put on the ending, but it's the entire series that make it great.
You know what makes a great series better?
A great ending! A poor ending can ruin an otherwise great series.
Anyone who gets pissed when receiving presents is someone seriously spoiled and best avoided.
I see your point and I see hers as well. She thought I used her birthday to buy her something for myself. I used the Simpsons as an example. There was an episode where Homer bought Marge a bowling ball for her birthday. It was engraved, "Homer". Obviously, it wasn't intended for her to use. She felt the same way. She thought I bought the soundcard for my own purposes, and even though I had loaded the software and hooked the keyboard up to the midi port, she still didn't get it. All she saw was her keyboard hooked up to my computer and me playing with the different sounds I could load into the wave table.
So, I see your point as well as hers. She now sees my point as well. (And I get to do her on occasion, so it worked out well.)
I remember how amazing the AWE64 Gold was...worth every penny I spent on it way back in the day. I still have the glossy cover that came on the front of the box, it's hanging up in my gaming room:-)
When we were dating, I bought my wife an AWE64 for her birthday with a MIDI capable keyboard w/ cables and some MIDI software. She was pissed. She saw it as me buying her computer equipment, much like Homer buying Marge a bowling ball. It wasn't until years later that I explained that it was the best gift I had ever given anyone. She was a music major and I was a computer geek. This hardware would have allowed her to create her own symphonies if she so desired, right there from my living room.
The gift was the perfect "marriage" of our talents but she was so pissed that I didn't dare explain the hint until many years later.
I agree that you shouldn't have been modded "Troll" just for voicing your opinion, even though I somewhat disagree with it. You were right that MS usually takes two tries to make a good OS though, but I believe you were wrong on the versions you called crap. Win98 was the second go of the 9x (SE was the true release of 98 IMHO). Win2k was the second attempt at using the NT kernel with the 9x GUI. Windows7 is the second attempt at the NT Kernel with the Vista GUI. All the second attempts were fine OS's in their time.
WNT = VMS (Take VMS and add one letter to each. V+1=W, M+1=N, S+1=T. Coincidence?) The NT kernel was written by the same guy that wrote the kernel for VAX/VMS, Dave Cutler. At the time, the code was being worked for OS/2, before the MS/IBM breakup. Both companies got the code. IBM turned into OS/2. MS made NT. The original project was called NT OS/2.
Oh, and VAX/VMS is one hell of an OS. Saying that NT runs much of the same code is a credit to NT, not a problem. The same kernel is the basis for all NT based OS's from NT 3.51 all the way to Windows7.
And yes, I meant W98SE. Just like when someone says XP, they usually mean XP, SP2. Win98 (pre SE) was a dog and basically offered nothing over 95.
Finally, yes, these OS's sucked by modern standards and usually didn't come into their own until a few service packs fixed them up. But for their day, they were excellent OS's. Win95 was a leap over DOS. Win2k was a leap over NT4. XP was just Win2k with a couple of tweaks, a few new features and a prettier GUI (pre SP2).
MS always take two goes to make a new OS - but apparently, this is somehow news
I keep hearing that Win2k was crap. Win2k was awesome! It not only took all the GUI from the more modern 98 line (over the basic 95 that NT4 used) but it also incorporated the "home user" experience that was sorely lacking from NT4. USB, Direct X (for games) and PnP were all part of Win2k and it still had the stability and relative security of NT4 (while lacking, it was still light years ahead of the 9x line. Need I say NTFS?)
NT3.51 was MS's fork of OS2. While it sucked when compared to modern OS's, it was still much better than any MS OS to date. Keep in mind that the top MS OS at this point was Windows 3.1 and DOS. NT's only server competition was Netware, which was stable, but nowhere near as scalable as OS2/NT3.51.
Win98 was the best 9x OS released. It offered working PnP, USB and even FAT32 (second edition). Again, a very nice OS for its day.
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.
The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.
NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."
How long have accurate temperature readings been kept? When I say "accurate", I mean with 0.76C margin of error? Is that really long enough to make a trend?
Arctic ice lowest since 1967? Why that's a whole 43 years ago. Is 43 years of climate change really long enough to indicate a trend? Since it's the 4th lowest in the past 40 years, I'd say that it is only in the low 10% range. Climate changes. That's what it does. Every 10 years or so, you can expect it to be in the bottom 10%. That's how statistics work.
10 years is too short of a time span to be statistically significant. You're not thinking long term enough. It's just as bad of an argument as saying, I walked outside today and it was cooler than it was yesterday by 1 degree, in a month it'll be cooler by 30 degrees.
I could say the same for the 100 years used by the IPCC guys. How long does it take to make at trend? 1000 years? 50000 years? 2 billion years? Go back far enough and you'll find that the earth was devoid of oxygen and water and radically different than today. It was organisms and cosmic bombardment that made this place inhabitable by us. Thank God for anthropogenic (bio made) climate change!
Why do you believe that you have an inherent right to not have to pay for damage that your actions cause? If burning Coal to power your home causes property damage due to acid rain and erodion etc. from global warming, you are most definitely liable to pay for that damage. Society has no obligation to shield you from the consequences of environmental damage caused by your actions.
Says the guy using a coal powered computer to say it. Rather than worry about the electricity used to AC homes in Florida or the power used to heat homes in Michigan, why don't you turn your computer off so that those of us who truly need the power to not die from heat stroke or hypothermia can use it.
That is because half the country essentially believes that they have an unlimited right to piss in the pool without consequence. The problem is that if they even remotely believed in the ideal capitalism that they claim they do, they wouldn't be so keen to pollute the air and thus violate others' property rights. Of course, they don't; they believe in everyone out for themselves.
Let's see. You just wasted a whole bunch of coal powered electricity to post that comment and God knows how many more as you sit there and waste your time and energy browsing the web, playing games or doing whatever else it is you do all day, and you have the balls to try to lecture the rest of us that have to drive to work in order to feed our families?
You need perspective. If you truly believe the BS you are spitting out of your keyboard, you would have turned your computer off long ago. Since you haven't, I assume that you only want everyone ELSE to follow these rules and be completely exempt yourself.
Its weird that I am not allowed to drop rubbish in the street but disposing of some types of effluent in the atmosphere which we all need to breathe is perfectly okay.
Says the guy wasting time and energy powering his computer, the Slashdot servers, the routers and wires to post a comment saying that we are using too much energy.
Bush was in fact elected in a very undemocratic manner.
Bush was elected legally. He did not steal the election, although an attempt to steal the election was made, but it failed.
Bush did in fact expand the power of the government, and restrict indivdual liberties more than any president in living memory.
Um... I believe the current president is considered "in living memory". Yet, all those who screamed that Bush was taking liberties are now strangely silent. It makes me believe that those people were not worried about losing their liberties. They were simply using it as a club to beat the 'R' over the head with.
And as for Bush taking liberties away... I could do everything I could do in 2001 that I could do in 2009. Exactly zero of my liberties were taken. For that matter, I don't know of anyone who lost any freedoms whatsoever under Bush. I do know that I am now no longer able to provide my own health coverage, however.
Bush's foreign policy did in fact benefit Haliburton a lot more than it did the US.
Obama's domestic spending has done more to benefit unions a lot more than it does the US. (Modified that for you)
Of course, we have to remember that Bush is the bad guy, Obama is not. It doesn't matter that they do the same stuff or even if Obama does worse, Bush (R)=Bad.
"Folks who think for themselves and tend not to vote Republican?"
Really? Let's look at that statement logically: You are saying that the people who think for themselves tend not to vote for the people who allow them to make their own decisions? In other words, "People who think for themselves tend to vote for people to do the thinking for them", right?
We need government to protect the weak from the powerful
No, YOU need government to protect YOU from the powerful. (FTFY)
We need to protect ourselves from the government. That is what the founders intended.
(the only true function of government in Libertarian eyes is protecting the haves from the have-nots.)
You shouldn't speak of things you know nothing about. Libertarians believe the only roll of government is to follow and enforce the Constitution. You know, like all government officials swear to do. Read the 10th Amendment for an idea as to what Libertarians believe. You'll find it in the Constitution.
No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform.
True. REFORM, not takeover.
The Democrats have tried to APPEAR bipartisan
Fixed that for you. Obama's meeting with conservatives was nothing more than Obama giving a speech to conservatives. Democrats had to pull back on their healthcare takeover plans because some DEMOCRATS opposed it.
The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?
Rage? Where you in a coma from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009? Do you not remember the protests and the snowballs being thrown at Bush's motorcade ON THE WAY TO his inauguration? That alone proves that it was not Bush's policies that people were pissed about. It was nothing more than the 'R' after his name.
Conspiracies? Did you not hear all the Bush stole the election, Bush=Hitler, Bush=Haliburton, Bush caused 9/11, Bush started the Iraq war to enrich is buddies, and other bullshit conspiracies over the past 10 years?
I'd say YOU are being the deceptive fuckhead right now.
Spun is past tense for Spin. I guess your name is accurate although the tense is off a bit.
Conservatives love to get angry at liberals, which is why they read liberal viewpoints: simply to have something to justify their anger.
Liberals think that everything is open to debate, and that both new laws and old must be weighed in terms of utility and effectiveness, whereas conservatives think the old ways must not be questioned. But that's just my experience, take from it what you will.
Bullshit. How many people who think differently than say, Keith Olbermann, are allowed on his show for an honest to goodness debate? Compare that to Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity.
I am happily a member of a government because I band together with my fellow men to create a union in which we protect each other and our common interests.
If you want the government to get out of your face, there are plenty of 3rd world countries you can go live it. Enjoy the quality of the roads, the lack of police, and having no power lines.
LOCAL governments provide all the things you mention. The Feds have little, if anything to do with it.
Understand that those who want the government out of their lives are speaking almost exclusively of the FEDERAL government. We can have a much greater control over our local government than we can over the big, powerful feds. You can go bitch at the city council directly. Good luck trying to get the mic on Capitol Hill.
In other words, your argument is full of shit. I'm sick and tired of people saying, "You think the government should not control every aspect of your life? Why do you hate the fire department?" All we want is the government to follow the 10th Amendment.
How about someone else who should know- John Adams and the Senate of the unites states? The tripoli treaty, article 11 states "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This was signed by the president John Adams and ratified by the Senate.
This is not a Christian nation, now or ever. Its founders were no doubt influenced by Christianity and many of them were Christians, but that does not make this a Christianm nation.
Fair enough, and I agree. We are not a Christian Nation in the sense that Christianity not mandated by law and other religions are not forbidden. However, we not a secular nation either (using the secular definition: of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations).
That stated, the idea that we are a Christian Nation is not what I would call "laughable", as the GGxP asserted. The Constitutional Convention started and ended with prayer. Every congressional session has been opened with a prayer. Presidents are sworn in on a Bible and every inauguration is started with a prayer. So, sure, the Senate may have signed a bill stating that we are not a nation founded on Christianity, but they did so after ending a prayer with "In Jesus' name we pray, Amen."
And you'd love it if we did, wouldn't you? Great job hijacking the discussion away from what raving lunatics Texans are being today, and refocusing it on an historically irrelevant distinction. Wow. I am in awe of your propaganda skills.
The point was to show that many of the people bitching about what Texas is doing to history books have no knowledge of history to begin with. Let the historians decide if what Texas is doing to textbooks is wrong. So far, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that anything in these textbook proposals is wrong. I have seen several instances of people here claiming historically inaccurate rumors and lies as absolute fact. The two posts I responded to in this thread were fine examples of people completely ignorant of the topic bitching about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The latter may even be sincere in so far as they believe that God's hand is in the mix somehow, but the former are only using ID cynically as a way around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and don't actually buy into any of it. In fact, as witnessed by the rubes in Dover, they don't even really care about ID, they just want to get Creationism in the classroom. They aren't even Theistic Evolutionists, they're out and out Creationists.
So, is your only problem with ID the idea that it's a pathway to get religion taught in schools? If that's your only concern, then the simple solution is to NOT TEACH RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. There, problem solved.
Either way, you seem to be judging the validity of an idea based on who supports it. If . The Discovery Institute started using the big bang as proof of the existence of God, or a God, would you support a ban on teaching the big bang theory? Of course not. You would continue to teach the theory as you always have and simply omit the part where DI says, "...and therefor, God exists."
There's much more to ID than simple evolution or irreducible complexity. The "fine tuned universe" is another pathway to get ID taught in schools. Should we ban the teaching of the gravitational constant because it may be used to justify the existence of a God or other "designer"? Maybe we should teach idea of a multiverse as an evolution level proven theory to explain the astronomically narrow range of the physical constants that make up the laws of physics. We wouldn't want kids to see "finely tuned universe" and ask, "Who tuned it?"
Intelligent Design is an attempt to absolve the scriptures of ever being wrong in their creation story and salvage what is possible when presented with fossil evidence and short-term evolution evidence in smaller celled organisms.
No, Intelligent Design is looking at our current theories and finding that they don't always answer our questions. For example, to some, evolution does not explain what ID proponents call irreducible complexity. Evolution states that those with favorable traits survive where those without them die off. Species have traits that require more than one evolutionary step to create a beneficial feature, but none of the steps required to gain that benefit are beneficial in themselves. A quick example:
The giraffe's neck is obviously a benefit to its species, but none of the steps needed to "evolve" that neck would be beneficial. The veins in their neck need to be able to restrict blood flow when the giraffe bends down to take a drink while at the same time, the heart needs to be strong enough to pump blood all the way to the brain. Without either of these features, a giraffe with its long neck would never survive, yet none of these features are beneficial without the long neck. The giraffe's neck is not just a neck, but an entire system of organs and features that are all worthless or even fatal without all of the required components being in place.
Darwinian evolution requires slight variation from generation to generation to drive evolution. White fur would help a bunny survive in snow while all the brown ones get eaten, but this is a single trait. There is nothing in evolution that explains how biological systems can evolve into being without each of the system's components having a benefit to the species on their own, before the entire system functions as a complete, working system.
Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?
It's not just Christians that believe in ID. Don't confuse ID with Creationism. Still, Creationism is not exclusively Christian. However, Christians do take offense when evolution is used to ridicule their religion. While many say that evolution has nothing to do with religion and Christians should get offensive, your post proves otherwise.
Besides, discussing a theory, ANY theory is part of the scientific process, regardless of how ridiculous a challenge to a theory may be. Don't let the title of article fool you. While the title is "Intelligent design to be taught...", if you read a bit further down, you see, "In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies"." There is a difference between "discussion" and "taught".
You can have faith and still make your own decisions.
Yes. God is the ultimate Libertarian.
I'm English you insensitive clod! My bag of chips is hot, greasy and with no writing on it.
I'm in Texas. Our chips are large, brownish-green and steamy when fresh. After rainy days, you will find hippies from the Austin area looking for mushrooms growing on them.
Agreed - this is Texas, of course, which bans the sale of dildos state-wide,.
Are you sure? I had an ex-GF buy one a few years ago in downtown Austin.
Do cheap, new (not used and refurbished) laser printers exist for consumers?
Go to Okidata.com. There you will find a B4600 for $299.00. Sure, that's not the $90.00 you'll pay for an inkjet, but you would go through at least 10 inkjet refills by the time your first $30.00 toner cartridge runs out.
You can find better deals online than what you can find by going to the company's website. I remember a Brother Laser printer with wireless networking for $100 about a year ago.
I mention Oki because it's what I use. But HERE is another Brother.
Ending to epic shows like this inevitably end bad in the eyes of some and I would argue it's impossible to write the perfect ending. Lost, Battlestar Galatica, and The Sopranos are a few recently. Too much emphasis is put on the ending, but it's the entire series that make it great.
You know what makes a great series better?
A great ending! A poor ending can ruin an otherwise great series.
Anyone who gets pissed when receiving presents is someone seriously spoiled and best avoided.
I see your point and I see hers as well. She thought I used her birthday to buy her something for myself. I used the Simpsons as an example. There was an episode where Homer bought Marge a bowling ball for her birthday. It was engraved, "Homer". Obviously, it wasn't intended for her to use. She felt the same way. She thought I bought the soundcard for my own purposes, and even though I had loaded the software and hooked the keyboard up to the midi port, she still didn't get it. All she saw was her keyboard hooked up to my computer and me playing with the different sounds I could load into the wave table.
So, I see your point as well as hers. She now sees my point as well. (And I get to do her on occasion, so it worked out well.)
I remember how amazing the AWE64 Gold was...worth every penny I spent on it way back in the day. I still have the glossy cover that came on the front of the box, it's hanging up in my gaming room :-)
When we were dating, I bought my wife an AWE64 for her birthday with a MIDI capable keyboard w/ cables and some MIDI software. She was pissed. She saw it as me buying her computer equipment, much like Homer buying Marge a bowling ball. It wasn't until years later that I explained that it was the best gift I had ever given anyone. She was a music major and I was a computer geek. This hardware would have allowed her to create her own symphonies if she so desired, right there from my living room.
The gift was the perfect "marriage" of our talents but she was so pissed that I didn't dare explain the hint until many years later.
I agree that you shouldn't have been modded "Troll" just for voicing your opinion, even though I somewhat disagree with it. You were right that MS usually takes two tries to make a good OS though, but I believe you were wrong on the versions you called crap. Win98 was the second go of the 9x (SE was the true release of 98 IMHO). Win2k was the second attempt at using the NT kernel with the 9x GUI. Windows7 is the second attempt at the NT Kernel with the Vista GUI. All the second attempts were fine OS's in their time.
WNT = VMS (Take VMS and add one letter to each. V+1=W, M+1=N, S+1=T. Coincidence?) The NT kernel was written by the same guy that wrote the kernel for VAX/VMS, Dave Cutler. At the time, the code was being worked for OS/2, before the MS/IBM breakup. Both companies got the code. IBM turned into OS/2. MS made NT. The original project was called NT OS/2.
Oh, and VAX/VMS is one hell of an OS. Saying that NT runs much of the same code is a credit to NT, not a problem. The same kernel is the basis for all NT based OS's from NT 3.51 all the way to Windows7.
And yes, I meant W98SE. Just like when someone says XP, they usually mean XP, SP2. Win98 (pre SE) was a dog and basically offered nothing over 95.
Finally, yes, these OS's sucked by modern standards and usually didn't come into their own until a few service packs fixed them up. But for their day, they were excellent OS's. Win95 was a leap over DOS. Win2k was a leap over NT4. XP was just Win2k with a couple of tweaks, a few new features and a prettier GUI (pre SP2).
MS always take two goes to make a new OS - but apparently, this is somehow news
I keep hearing that Win2k was crap. Win2k was awesome! It not only took all the GUI from the more modern 98 line (over the basic 95 that NT4 used) but it also incorporated the "home user" experience that was sorely lacking from NT4. USB, Direct X (for games) and PnP were all part of Win2k and it still had the stability and relative security of NT4 (while lacking, it was still light years ahead of the 9x line. Need I say NTFS?)
NT3.51 was MS's fork of OS2. While it sucked when compared to modern OS's, it was still much better than any MS OS to date. Keep in mind that the top MS OS at this point was Windows 3.1 and DOS. NT's only server competition was Netware, which was stable, but nowhere near as scalable as OS2/NT3.51.
Win98 was the best 9x OS released. It offered working PnP, USB and even FAT32 (second edition). Again, a very nice OS for its day.
>because you haven't sufficently proven that CO2 is the cause, thats why. the current 10 year trend is actually cooling.
Oh, Really?
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.
The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.
NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."
How long have accurate temperature readings been kept? When I say "accurate", I mean with 0.76C margin of error? Is that really long enough to make a trend?
Arctic ice lowest since 1967? Why that's a whole 43 years ago. Is 43 years of climate change really long enough to indicate a trend? Since it's the 4th lowest in the past 40 years, I'd say that it is only in the low 10% range. Climate changes. That's what it does. Every 10 years or so, you can expect it to be in the bottom 10%. That's how statistics work.
10 years is too short of a time span to be statistically significant. You're not thinking long term enough. It's just as bad of an argument as saying, I walked outside today and it was cooler than it was yesterday by 1 degree, in a month it'll be cooler by 30 degrees.
I could say the same for the 100 years used by the IPCC guys. How long does it take to make at trend? 1000 years? 50000 years? 2 billion years? Go back far enough and you'll find that the earth was devoid of oxygen and water and radically different than today. It was organisms and cosmic bombardment that made this place inhabitable by us. Thank God for anthropogenic (bio made) climate change!
Why do you believe that you have an inherent right to not have to pay for damage that your actions cause? If burning Coal to power your home causes property damage due to acid rain and erodion etc. from global warming, you are most definitely liable to pay for that damage. Society has no obligation to shield you from the consequences of environmental damage caused by your actions.
Says the guy using a coal powered computer to say it. Rather than worry about the electricity used to AC homes in Florida or the power used to heat homes in Michigan, why don't you turn your computer off so that those of us who truly need the power to not die from heat stroke or hypothermia can use it.
[Citation Provided]
Nice!
That is because half the country essentially believes that they have an unlimited right to piss in the pool without consequence. The problem is that if they even remotely believed in the ideal capitalism that they claim they do, they wouldn't be so keen to pollute the air and thus violate others' property rights. Of course, they don't; they believe in everyone out for themselves.
Let's see. You just wasted a whole bunch of coal powered electricity to post that comment and God knows how many more as you sit there and waste your time and energy browsing the web, playing games or doing whatever else it is you do all day, and you have the balls to try to lecture the rest of us that have to drive to work in order to feed our families?
You need perspective. If you truly believe the BS you are spitting out of your keyboard, you would have turned your computer off long ago. Since you haven't, I assume that you only want everyone ELSE to follow these rules and be completely exempt yourself.
Its weird that I am not allowed to drop rubbish in the street but disposing of some types of effluent in the atmosphere which we all need to breathe is perfectly okay.
Says the guy wasting time and energy powering his computer, the Slashdot servers, the routers and wires to post a comment saying that we are using too much energy.
Bush was in fact elected in a very undemocratic manner.
Bush was elected legally. He did not steal the election, although an attempt to steal the election was made, but it failed.
Bush did in fact expand the power of the government, and restrict indivdual liberties more than any president in living memory.
Um... I believe the current president is considered "in living memory". Yet, all those who screamed that Bush was taking liberties are now strangely silent. It makes me believe that those people were not worried about losing their liberties. They were simply using it as a club to beat the 'R' over the head with.
And as for Bush taking liberties away... I could do everything I could do in 2001 that I could do in 2009. Exactly zero of my liberties were taken. For that matter, I don't know of anyone who lost any freedoms whatsoever under Bush. I do know that I am now no longer able to provide my own health coverage, however.
Bush's foreign policy did in fact benefit Haliburton a lot more than it did the US.
Obama's domestic spending has done more to benefit unions a lot more than it does the US. (Modified that for you)
Of course, we have to remember that Bush is the bad guy, Obama is not. It doesn't matter that they do the same stuff or even if Obama does worse, Bush (R)=Bad.
"Folks who think for themselves and tend not to vote Republican?"
Really? Let's look at that statement logically:
You are saying that the people who think for themselves tend not to vote for the people who allow them to make their own decisions? In other words, "People who think for themselves tend to vote for people to do the thinking for them", right?
You mastery of logic amazes me.
We need government to protect the weak from the powerful
No, YOU need government to protect YOU from the powerful. (FTFY)
We need to protect ourselves from the government. That is what the founders intended.
(the only true function of government in Libertarian eyes is protecting the haves from the have-nots.)
You shouldn't speak of things you know nothing about. Libertarians believe the only roll of government is to follow and enforce the Constitution. You know, like all government officials swear to do. Read the 10th Amendment for an idea as to what Libertarians believe. You'll find it in the Constitution.
No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform.
True. REFORM, not takeover.
The Democrats have tried to APPEAR bipartisan
Fixed that for you. Obama's meeting with conservatives was nothing more than Obama giving a speech to conservatives. Democrats had to pull back on their healthcare takeover plans because some DEMOCRATS opposed it.
The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?
Rage? Where you in a coma from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009? Do you not remember the protests and the snowballs being thrown at Bush's motorcade ON THE WAY TO his inauguration? That alone proves that it was not Bush's policies that people were pissed about. It was nothing more than the 'R' after his name.
Conspiracies? Did you not hear all the Bush stole the election, Bush=Hitler, Bush=Haliburton, Bush caused 9/11, Bush started the Iraq war to enrich is buddies, and other bullshit conspiracies over the past 10 years?
I'd say YOU are being the deceptive fuckhead right now.
Spun is past tense for Spin. I guess your name is accurate although the tense is off a bit.
Conservatives love to get angry at liberals, which is why they read liberal viewpoints: simply to have something to justify their anger.
Liberals think that everything is open to debate, and that both new laws and old must be weighed in terms of utility and effectiveness, whereas conservatives think the old ways must not be questioned. But that's just my experience, take from it what you will.
Bullshit. How many people who think differently than say, Keith Olbermann, are allowed on his show for an honest to goodness debate? Compare that to Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity.
I am happily a member of a government because I band together with my fellow men to create a union in which we protect each other and our common interests.
If you want the government to get out of your face, there are plenty of 3rd world countries you can go live it. Enjoy the quality of the roads, the lack of police, and having no power lines.
LOCAL governments provide all the things you mention. The Feds have little, if anything to do with it.
Understand that those who want the government out of their lives are speaking almost exclusively of the FEDERAL government. We can have a much greater control over our local government than we can over the big, powerful feds. You can go bitch at the city council directly. Good luck trying to get the mic on Capitol Hill.
In other words, your argument is full of shit. I'm sick and tired of people saying, "You think the government should not control every aspect of your life? Why do you hate the fire department?" All we want is the government to follow the 10th Amendment.
How about someone else who should know- John Adams and the Senate of the unites states? The tripoli treaty, article 11 states "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This was signed by the president John Adams and ratified by the Senate.
This is not a Christian nation, now or ever. Its founders were no doubt influenced by Christianity and many of them were Christians, but that does not make this a Christianm nation.
Fair enough, and I agree. We are not a Christian Nation in the sense that Christianity not mandated by law and other religions are not forbidden. However, we not a secular nation either (using the secular definition: of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations).
That stated, the idea that we are a Christian Nation is not what I would call "laughable", as the GGxP asserted. The Constitutional Convention started and ended with prayer. Every congressional session has been opened with a prayer. Presidents are sworn in on a Bible and every inauguration is started with a prayer. So, sure, the Senate may have signed a bill stating that we are not a nation founded on Christianity, but they did so after ending a prayer with "In Jesus' name we pray, Amen."
And you'd love it if we did, wouldn't you? Great job hijacking the discussion away from what raving lunatics Texans are being today, and refocusing it on an historically irrelevant distinction. Wow. I am in awe of your propaganda skills.
The point was to show that many of the people bitching about what Texas is doing to history books have no knowledge of history to begin with. Let the historians decide if what Texas is doing to textbooks is wrong. So far, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that anything in these textbook proposals is wrong. I have seen several instances of people here claiming historically inaccurate rumors and lies as absolute fact. The two posts I responded to in this thread were fine examples of people completely ignorant of the topic bitching about it.