So, I'm just going to go with the assumption you mean to search torrent trackers for scans of print textbooks: this in no way adheres to the qualification "without a textbook". If you've ever tried to actually use a DjVu or PDF textbook in any reasonably advanced field (senior year Physics classes are painful, proper textbook regardless), you quickly realize that a lot is lost in translation. That, and the chances of bringing your digital textbook in for an open-book exam are nil.
Just to add to the endless litany of "...zeroes and ones..." comments:
"We're talking about [exchanging oscillations through the air], if you will, [continuously]. So some notion that this is a horrible invasion of content reading is wrong. It is not even close to that."
So, we should be able to ask Rogers to read off his medical history to a full audience and not expect him to care, right?
You tell us you can read the minds of the publisher?
I might as well bite the low-hanging fruit: do you think said publisher would react in the manner as above if their intent was not to antagonize? Do you think they would have not redacted said publication as soon as they realized how it was perceived? You don't have to be a mind-reader to read peoples' reactions. Instead, you apparently claim to be the reactionary mind-reader, considering I stated that I was not prepared to argue any position but the very singular one of ethics that I made, but yet you prattle about things completely unrelated to my argument. Additionally, another post mentioned this, but it bears reiteration: anonymity is powerful. By my observation, those threats don't necessarily originate from gun owners. Unless you're privy to information unbeknownst to the rest of us, I think you might have some soothsayers in your ancestry.
But the truth here is that a gun owner has a huge responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon, and they are obligated to be "above" and to be wiser than than others, just as a black belt is obligated to avoid a fight until he or she is attacked.
I believe somebody famous once said that the pen is mightier than the sword. Therefore, would it not be salient that anyone who wields a "pen" (in the sense of public visibility) be even wiser than anyone who wields a "sword"? That's all my query asks, nothing more.
And you create a false equivalency.
Go study some ethics. Or maybe just watch how people act, because that equivalency is very much not false. If we take wisdom and restraint out of the picture, no self-respecting person would ever allow their ego to survive aggression or humiliation without some equal or greater response of force. It's human nature.
the gun owners demonstrate why they should not own guns
Similarly, we could turn this around...
The newspapers demonstrate why they should not publish public records.
This is not to say I'm prepared to argue either point, but I think people are a bit obsessed with "rights" when we should be thinking about "obligation". Should one aggregate and publish with intent to criminalize law-abiding citizens in the eyes of the public? Is it proper to threaten people with force? Neither of these things are criminal, but they're both aggressive and provoke a response of equal or greater force.
No M16 variant has ever had a four-position selector switch, which is what would be needed to provide semi, three-round burst, full auto and a safety position.
Details appreciated, but the point still stands: the "assault" classification has more to do with image and form than mechanics or function. Exact instances of weaponry is irrelevant; nobody said a rifle with a four-position selector can't exist.
So, chill a bit on splitting those hairs, I hear they're getting thinner these days...
...ignoring the fact that the parent is obviously an offtopic troll: you're forgetting the part where it says his only son rose from the grave. If this claim is true, who's to say anything in the rest of said book is absurd? Besides, who said the Bible is without morsels of wisdom? People have turned to far lesser literature for their life lessons.
Anyhow, to get back on topic, this whole "nostalgia" thing is pure, unadulterated silliness, simply because it's a nostalgia of something that never really went away. The web just got diluted by "normal" people who don't have as much interest in fiddling or tinkering with the Internet as they do with utilizing the systems and services developed by those who were. Nothing's keeping anybody from tinkering with the Internet.
...namely the Firebird series. I really like the way she control of information and reveals plot-lines. That and she tackles some very interesting moral issues associated with human augmentation.
No science is not "merely a structure for generating beliefs". Rather it is an approach for distinguishing among "generated beliefs" (ie hypotheses) and discarding those that do not fully explain or are unable to explain quantifiable observations.
Ouch, my hairs, you have split them! I agree, but the point still remains that science deals with belief, not knowledge or facts. I reiterate: it's easy to delve quite deep into epistemological arguments to claim otherwise.
The fact that many great scientists have been religious men with "sober approaches to faith" is hardly material to the difference between science and religion. Science is all about HOW WE KNOW, not what we think we know. Good sophism is never a substitute for science. Neither is religion.
Oh boy, I think you've got me all wrong. Assuming a modicum of philosophy, I'm trying to say that there's less of a difference between science and religion than we'd like to think. They are both systems by which we establish belief and they are both prone to error and misinterpretation. Descartes and Newton, for instance, both created extensive philosophical and religious writings which mutually benefited their theories of mathematics and physics. Scientific theories are a collection of discrete data points, but we live in a continuous universe. Dare I say, to be a good scientist, it takes a certain amount of faith-based value to fill the gaps between and beyond the data, of which there are an infinitude. For the atheist, that value might come in the form of believing science will limit to absolute knowledge. For the theologian, that value might come in the form of believing in the existence of an omniscient being.
As far as your "fun philosophical question" is concerned, neurobiology tells us that there are all kinds of stimuli our nervous systems perceive and interpret inappropriately all the time and that there are often many ways and circumstances in which the "brain" can "fool itself". However, none of this is really material to the question of which is more valuable to humanity, science or religion. Excellently crafted sophism is no substitute for science.
...nor is good sophism a substitute for thinking for yourself. I never mentioned or alluded to "which is more valuable," so, once again, you've completely misread. Whether our nervous system is prone to "fooling" us or not, there's only so many things, 4 to be exact, our physical bodies can directly interpret: visible light (sight), audible sound (hearing), appreciable physical interaction (touch, including heat) and significant chemical concentrations (smell/taste). Everything else stringently requires we engineer methods of translating into those 4 media. My question posits that, if there is something which we cannot actually perceive, neither directly nor indirectly, science would not be able to extract beliefs about it. Dark energy, for instance, although not exactly entirely imperceptible, has no real perceivable quality; it's just a massive fudge-factor for a discrepancy in our predictions of the universe's expansion rate and the data. Eventually, our theories and paradigms will shift enough to accommodate this discrepancy. But what if there's something that truly is imperceptible by our senses? If we can't perceive it, we can't take data. If we can't take data, we can't use science to refine our beliefs regarding it. That is the question I'm proposing.
Yes, but remember that science is merely a structure for generating beliefs about the observable universe. Whether we can call it knowledge or factual is an exercise in epistemology. A fun philosophical question of the devil's advocate: will there ever be a point where our belief in the validity of the scientific process is shown to be wrong? We may never know, as science is so deeply rooted in our own abilities--or inabilities--to perceive.
But, more on the topic: what bothers me is that people even consider "religion" and "science" to be at odds with each other to begin with. Some of the greatest men in science have also been great men of faith; a prudent and sober approach to faith can guide theories and paradigms accordingly, and vice versa.
It appears that the OP merely wishes his side of the battle to be a little more enlightened about hypocrisy. I, for one, am inclined to join him at the wishing well.
...but it seems like this material's usefulness as a sensor is still very limited.
If you can see it, so can an electric circuit. You see, there are these fancy things called photodiodes...
I mock, but in all seriousness, if you can map a measurable physical state to an unmeasurable physical state, then you might as well just skip the step and say, in this situation, something like "liquid chemical composition is measurable." The form the measurable information takes is irrelevant relative to the ability to measure it.
The point the article seems to be making is that the power output is a function of the mass involved in the reaction, similar to the phenomenon of critical mass in a fission reaction. More mass means more chance of a proton hitting a nucleus means more average energy released per proton means more energy per time means more power.
You've obviously lost your edge as a physicist, because this is coming from an undergrad Physics student...and software is also my hobby.
That's not bias. It's called context and the Scientific Method: the theory that the article is basing its conclusions off is as the article states. Our understanding of the human brain is rather pitiful, so claiming a theory here as "unfair" is unfair to the theory itself.
Don't assume bias simply because a theoretical conclusion that is made doesn't agree with your own hypotheses. Science is full of opinions that evolve and shift, and this may be no exception. However, taking insult based upon a theory is exactly what ruins Science as a field; ignoring models because they violate "political correctness" is just bad Science. Maybe PC needs to step it up and join ranks for a paradigm shift.
Now I'm completely confused what you're trying to argue. Your previous argument provides no appreciable evidence beyond an inkling of anecdote in attempts to seal the convenient assumption that "most honest and intelligent people are left leaning", hence the "No true Scotsman" reference. The same can be said for the association between/. and "honest and intelligent people" and "what has happened over the years..." Actually, I'm pretty sure the entirety of your original argument is convenient assumption on top of more assumptions.
XNA, as a framework and development tools, is completely free (obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA). However, the XNA Creators Club, the only way to distribute XNA games developed for the Xbox, requires a yearly subscription.
The point I was making was not of linguistic permutations or social whimsy. I was trying to express the implications of casually abusing vulgarity's abstract perceived meaning, irregardless of any particular language or dialect (or even accent, for that matter). Believe it or not, the same problem exists in cultures other than the literate, Western Anglo-Saxon world.
It's only vulgar because we have collectively agreed to consider it as vulgar.
If the definition of vulgarity relies purely upon a social collective, then it's natural, and reasonable, for violations of such a collective to recursively deteriorate social structure.
"Fuck" is only profane if you keep considering it to be profane.
Is the action defined within a word an action you desire to covertly imbue upon your children? If so, then, by all means, most literally, spread the word. However, I know of few good parents who would approach the subject of sex lightly. Trusting a safe, civilized understanding of the world to surface within a child entirely through the context and connotation of vulgar language, and not overt explanation, is just asking for problems; kids already learn enough through observation to get themselves into trouble all the way through adulthood, why add insult to injury?
As an advertising model, I really have no problem with it. There's a safety measure built in: the advertiser isn't the one deciding how to do the advertising. That's the artist's job. I reckon that -- within limits -- it's a perfectly decent and moral way for an artist to make a living.
Although I fundamentally agree with your argument and conclusion, I think it's important to play devil's advocate and address exactly why so many people find this business model disturbing.
As it seems to me, this advertising model to implies that cultural development (specifically pertaining to pop culture) is trending towards commercial promotion more than artistic creation. The involvement of corporate influences in music seems akin to violating the hallowed ground of original inspiration--instead of enriching listeners with the organic nature of cultural development, the masses are fed with deliberate attempts at control. Generally speaking, when people realize that their perception is not reflective of reality, but an engineered facade of which they have no control, they tend to panic.
On another note (and to go out on a fairly shaky limb...), even though product placement isn't a particularly new concept, the concept of 'Mass Culture' is rather recent. Pop culture exists for the exact reason why communication is such a hot-bed of development: the desire for availability; pop culture is significantly more readily available than high culture, which is usually reserved for those who can afford it. Needless to say, as communication becomes cheaper and easier, so does the transmission of culture. In response to this, however, the availability of pop culture becomes disproportionately greater than the availability of current 'high culture' (e.g.: indie labels/artists, artistic reinterpretations, etc.), simply because the demand for immediate, cheap entertainment usually ends up significantly greater than the demand for expensive, quality enrichment (a la Maslow's pyramid), as evidenced by TPB's top 100 list (private trackers are fairly inaccessible to the general public, thus are considerably irrelevant). This is a frightful thought for those who are concerned with the growth of culture, as it seems that pop culture will dilute intellectually stimulating media to the point where all that's left to consume is canned, catchy tunes that everybody can nod their head to.
Personally, I have a hard time believing that it will ever come to this end -- the urge for personality, creativity and originality are too primal and intrinsic to our nature to be extinguished any time soon. However, people will continue to consume that which takes the least effort to consume. As long as our current economic model prevails, we will continue to see the corporations making huge profits off of Mass Culture.
I meant no dis-respect and no insult intended (dry humor)
Well, then, please accept my apologies for the accusation.
I reference new technology that is currently not included in wikipedia.
Then that would explain a lot. In fact, if what you say is true, I'd be pretty excited to see it further developed. However, with any new technology, there are inherent side-effects (not to say they're always terminal, or even negative at all), and that's particularly where I've been focusing on all of these supposedly 'green' or 'eco-friendly' solutions; all too often they're more politically driven than well engineered...</rant>
...and my new favorite: "Because most liquid biofuels are of significantly lower energy density, you'd need quite a bit more to burn, thus almost completely nullifying whatever ecological benefit they might have had with regards to carbon emissions."
Sir, I respect your opinions, however, if you wish to insult me, try to back it up with data. I'm going on the numbers presented, not blind preconceptions (did you see the table on the wikipedia article I linked? It has a column dedicated to 'Energy per kg CO2')
I mean no harm, and am a skeptic for the sake of exposing details that, due to the fact most people don't spend the time to specialize in environmental science/mechanical engineering/chemistry/etc, are not obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Torrent search my friend.
So, I'm just going to go with the assumption you mean to search torrent trackers for scans of print textbooks: this in no way adheres to the qualification "without a textbook". If you've ever tried to actually use a DjVu or PDF textbook in any reasonably advanced field (senior year Physics classes are painful, proper textbook regardless), you quickly realize that a lot is lost in translation. That, and the chances of bringing your digital textbook in for an open-book exam are nil.
Oh, and never mind the ethical conflict.
Now where's an off-topic mod when you need it?
Just to add to the endless litany of "...zeroes and ones..." comments:
"We're talking about [exchanging oscillations through the air], if you will, [continuously]. So some notion that this is a horrible invasion of content reading is wrong. It is not even close to that."
So, we should be able to ask Rogers to read off his medical history to a full audience and not expect him to care, right?
You tell us you can read the minds of the publisher?
I might as well bite the low-hanging fruit: do you think said publisher would react in the manner as above if their intent was not to antagonize? Do you think they would have not redacted said publication as soon as they realized how it was perceived? You don't have to be a mind-reader to read peoples' reactions. Instead, you apparently claim to be the reactionary mind-reader, considering I stated that I was not prepared to argue any position but the very singular one of ethics that I made, but yet you prattle about things completely unrelated to my argument. Additionally, another post mentioned this, but it bears reiteration: anonymity is powerful. By my observation, those threats don't necessarily originate from gun owners. Unless you're privy to information unbeknownst to the rest of us, I think you might have some soothsayers in your ancestry.
But the truth here is that a gun owner has a huge responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon, and they are obligated to be "above" and to be wiser than than others, just as a black belt is obligated to avoid a fight until he or she is attacked.
I believe somebody famous once said that the pen is mightier than the sword. Therefore, would it not be salient that anyone who wields a "pen" (in the sense of public visibility) be even wiser than anyone who wields a "sword"? That's all my query asks, nothing more.
And you create a false equivalency.
Go study some ethics. Or maybe just watch how people act, because that equivalency is very much not false. If we take wisdom and restraint out of the picture, no self-respecting person would ever allow their ego to survive aggression or humiliation without some equal or greater response of force. It's human nature.
the gun owners demonstrate why they should not own guns
Similarly, we could turn this around...
The newspapers demonstrate why they should not publish public records.
This is not to say I'm prepared to argue either point, but I think people are a bit obsessed with "rights" when we should be thinking about "obligation". Should one aggregate and publish with intent to criminalize law-abiding citizens in the eyes of the public? Is it proper to threaten people with force? Neither of these things are criminal, but they're both aggressive and provoke a response of equal or greater force.
No M16 variant has ever had a four-position selector switch, which is what would be needed to provide semi, three-round burst, full auto and a safety position.
Details appreciated, but the point still stands: the "assault" classification has more to do with image and form than mechanics or function. Exact instances of weaponry is irrelevant; nobody said a rifle with a four-position selector can't exist.
So, chill a bit on splitting those hairs, I hear they're getting thinner these days...
...ignoring the fact that the parent is obviously an offtopic troll: you're forgetting the part where it says his only son rose from the grave. If this claim is true, who's to say anything in the rest of said book is absurd? Besides, who said the Bible is without morsels of wisdom? People have turned to far lesser literature for their life lessons.
Anyhow, to get back on topic, this whole "nostalgia" thing is pure, unadulterated silliness, simply because it's a nostalgia of something that never really went away. The web just got diluted by "normal" people who don't have as much interest in fiddling or tinkering with the Internet as they do with utilizing the systems and services developed by those who were. Nothing's keeping anybody from tinkering with the Internet.
In other news: have a Merry Christmas!
...namely the Firebird series. I really like the way she control of information and reveals plot-lines. That and she tackles some very interesting moral issues associated with human augmentation.
No science is not "merely a structure for generating beliefs". Rather it is an approach for distinguishing among "generated beliefs" (ie hypotheses) and discarding those that do not fully explain or are unable to explain quantifiable observations.
Ouch, my hairs, you have split them! I agree, but the point still remains that science deals with belief, not knowledge or facts. I reiterate: it's easy to delve quite deep into epistemological arguments to claim otherwise.
The fact that many great scientists have been religious men with "sober approaches to faith" is hardly material to the difference between science and religion. Science is all about HOW WE KNOW, not what we think we know. Good sophism is never a substitute for science. Neither is religion.
Oh boy, I think you've got me all wrong. Assuming a modicum of philosophy, I'm trying to say that there's less of a difference between science and religion than we'd like to think. They are both systems by which we establish belief and they are both prone to error and misinterpretation. Descartes and Newton, for instance, both created extensive philosophical and religious writings which mutually benefited their theories of mathematics and physics. Scientific theories are a collection of discrete data points, but we live in a continuous universe. Dare I say, to be a good scientist, it takes a certain amount of faith-based value to fill the gaps between and beyond the data, of which there are an infinitude. For the atheist, that value might come in the form of believing science will limit to absolute knowledge. For the theologian, that value might come in the form of believing in the existence of an omniscient being.
As far as your "fun philosophical question" is concerned, neurobiology tells us that there are all kinds of stimuli our nervous systems perceive and interpret inappropriately all the time and that there are often many ways and circumstances in which the "brain" can "fool itself". However, none of this is really material to the question of which is more valuable to humanity, science or religion. Excellently crafted sophism is no substitute for science.
Yes, but remember that science is merely a structure for generating beliefs about the observable universe. Whether we can call it knowledge or factual is an exercise in epistemology. A fun philosophical question of the devil's advocate: will there ever be a point where our belief in the validity of the scientific process is shown to be wrong? We may never know, as science is so deeply rooted in our own abilities--or inabilities--to perceive.
But, more on the topic: what bothers me is that people even consider "religion" and "science" to be at odds with each other to begin with. Some of the greatest men in science have also been great men of faith; a prudent and sober approach to faith can guide theories and paradigms accordingly, and vice versa.
It appears that the OP merely wishes his side of the battle to be a little more enlightened about hypocrisy. I, for one, am inclined to join him at the wishing well.
...but it seems like this material's usefulness as a sensor is still very limited.
If you can see it, so can an electric circuit. You see, there are these fancy things called photodiodes... I mock, but in all seriousness, if you can map a measurable physical state to an unmeasurable physical state, then you might as well just skip the step and say, in this situation, something like "liquid chemical composition is measurable." The form the measurable information takes is irrelevant relative to the ability to measure it.
The point the article seems to be making is that the power output is a function of the mass involved in the reaction, similar to the phenomenon of critical mass in a fission reaction. More mass means more chance of a proton hitting a nucleus means more average energy released per proton means more energy per time means more power.
You've obviously lost your edge as a physicist, because this is coming from an undergrad Physics student...and software is also my hobby.
Aye, but my point is, although the article proposes only that one theory, it never claims that it's the only one.
That's not bias. It's called context and the Scientific Method: the theory that the article is basing its conclusions off is as the article states. Our understanding of the human brain is rather pitiful, so claiming a theory here as "unfair" is unfair to the theory itself.
Don't assume bias simply because a theoretical conclusion that is made doesn't agree with your own hypotheses. Science is full of opinions that evolve and shift, and this may be no exception. However, taking insult based upon a theory is exactly what ruins Science as a field; ignoring models because they violate "political correctness" is just bad Science. Maybe PC needs to step it up and join ranks for a paradigm shift.
The summary unfairly rewards low-grade abuse-resistant machines/brains.
It should've been "Focused, Productive People May Have 'Not Enough Brain'.
The article reconciles what you see as a discrepancy with the line:
...the brain's grey matter is pruned of neurons in order to work more efficiently.
He suggests that a greater volume of grey matter may indicate a less mature brain, perhaps reflecting a mild developmental malfunction.
Now I'm completely confused what you're trying to argue. /. and "honest and intelligent people" and "what has happened over the years..." Actually, I'm pretty sure the entirety of your original argument is convenient assumption on top of more assumptions.
Your previous argument provides no appreciable evidence beyond an inkling of anecdote in attempts to seal the convenient assumption that "most honest and intelligent people are left leaning", hence the "No true Scotsman" reference. The same can be said for the association between
Nope. My family actually comes from Aberdeenshire, but they have been Americanized since about 1716.
In case you're missing out and not just trolling, I'll take the dive on the obligatory wiki link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
XNA, as a framework and development tools, is completely free (obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA). However, the XNA Creators Club, the only way to distribute XNA games developed for the Xbox, requires a yearly subscription.
...immense social complications.
Isn't that what Shuttleworth is trying to assess?
I'm pretty sure you mean arxiv.org (the 'x' is the greek letter "chi", hence why it's procounced like "archive")
The point I was making was not of linguistic permutations or social whimsy. I was trying to express the implications of casually abusing vulgarity's abstract perceived meaning, irregardless of any particular language or dialect (or even accent, for that matter). Believe it or not, the same problem exists in cultures other than the literate, Western Anglo-Saxon world.
It's only vulgar because we have collectively agreed to consider it as vulgar.
If the definition of vulgarity relies purely upon a social collective, then it's natural, and reasonable, for violations of such a collective to recursively deteriorate social structure.
"Fuck" is only profane if you keep considering it to be profane.
Is the action defined within a word an action you desire to covertly imbue upon your children? If so, then, by all means, most literally, spread the word. However, I know of few good parents who would approach the subject of sex lightly. Trusting a safe, civilized understanding of the world to surface within a child entirely through the context and connotation of vulgar language, and not overt explanation, is just asking for problems; kids already learn enough through observation to get themselves into trouble all the way through adulthood, why add insult to injury?
As an advertising model, I really have no problem with it. There's a safety measure built in: the advertiser isn't the one deciding how to do the advertising. That's the artist's job. I reckon that -- within limits -- it's a perfectly decent and moral way for an artist to make a living.
Although I fundamentally agree with your argument and conclusion, I think it's important to play devil's advocate and address exactly why so many people find this business model disturbing.
As it seems to me, this advertising model to implies that cultural development (specifically pertaining to pop culture) is trending towards commercial promotion more than artistic creation. The involvement of corporate influences in music seems akin to violating the hallowed ground of original inspiration--instead of enriching listeners with the organic nature of cultural development, the masses are fed with deliberate attempts at control. Generally speaking, when people realize that their perception is not reflective of reality, but an engineered facade of which they have no control, they tend to panic.
On another note (and to go out on a fairly shaky limb...), even though product placement isn't a particularly new concept, the concept of 'Mass Culture' is rather recent. Pop culture exists for the exact reason why communication is such a hot-bed of development: the desire for availability; pop culture is significantly more readily available than high culture, which is usually reserved for those who can afford it. Needless to say, as communication becomes cheaper and easier, so does the transmission of culture. In response to this, however, the availability of pop culture becomes disproportionately greater than the availability of current 'high culture' (e.g.: indie labels/artists, artistic reinterpretations, etc.), simply because the demand for immediate, cheap entertainment usually ends up significantly greater than the demand for expensive, quality enrichment (a la Maslow's pyramid), as evidenced by TPB's top 100 list (private trackers are fairly inaccessible to the general public, thus are considerably irrelevant). This is a frightful thought for those who are concerned with the growth of culture, as it seems that pop culture will dilute intellectually stimulating media to the point where all that's left to consume is canned, catchy tunes that everybody can nod their head to.
Personally, I have a hard time believing that it will ever come to this end -- the urge for personality, creativity and originality are too primal and intrinsic to our nature to be extinguished any time soon. However, people will continue to consume that which takes the least effort to consume. As long as our current economic model prevails, we will continue to see the corporations making huge profits off of Mass Culture.
I meant no dis-respect and no insult intended (dry humor)
Well, then, please accept my apologies for the accusation.
I reference new technology that is currently not included in wikipedia.
Then that would explain a lot. In fact, if what you say is true, I'd be pretty excited to see it further developed. However, with any new technology, there are inherent side-effects (not to say they're always terminal, or even negative at all), and that's particularly where I've been focusing on all of these supposedly 'green' or 'eco-friendly' solutions; all too often they're more politically driven than well engineered...</rant>
...and my new favorite: "Because most liquid biofuels are of significantly lower energy density, you'd need quite a bit more to burn, thus almost completely nullifying whatever ecological benefit they might have had with regards to carbon emissions."
Sir, I respect your opinions, however, if you wish to insult me, try to back it up with data. I'm going on the numbers presented, not blind preconceptions (did you see the table on the wikipedia article I linked? It has a column dedicated to 'Energy per kg CO2')
I mean no harm, and am a skeptic for the sake of exposing details that, due to the fact most people don't spend the time to specialize in environmental science/mechanical engineering/chemistry/etc, are not obvious.