It's a rarity in the human race, especially with government and military figures, to have a voice and demeanor that gives the appearance of thoughtfulness. It's why people would vote for him if he ran for public office.
So, in other words, for all the right reasons./flamebait
Carbon dioxide is one part carbon, two parts oxygen, right? It's a natural product of burning just about anything organic.
So you remove the carbon from the oxygen and stick the carbon back into in the ground where it presumably (as with fossil fuels) came from . As I tried to make clear in my original post: a lump of carbon is no more dangerous than diamond (which is carbon). Comparing the dangers of storing carbon to the dangers of storing nuclear waste (or any nuclear material) is completely idiotic.
And even if we were going to pump carbon dioxide into the ground (no one has proposed any such thing, were it even practically possible) it would still be better than pumping into the atmosphere (which is what you do every time you start your car).
I'm really surprised that the parent was modded up as insightful.
Carbon is the 6th most abundant element in the universe. It is all around you and in you (your body is 18% carbon, by mass). It is almost always released when you burn just about anything because it is just about everywhere.
There are already massive quantities of carbon in the ground already. In an of itself, it is stable and harmless; it only posses a danger (indirectly) when found in high concentrations in the atmosphere (greenhouse gas, global warming, yaddayadda). Putting it back in the ground is like making a landfill made of diamonds,
Ask yourself: would you rather swallow a diamond or a small chunk of uranium?
I can't believe anyone would ever be so foolish as to compare carbon to nuclear waste; the two couldn't be further apart.
"It's fascinating that there's a one-to-one relationship between those who don't believe in evolution and those that don't believe in global warming."
Fascinating, but not entirely surprising. I think that of people who reject global warming (or climate change etc etc), many do so because they make the implicit assumption that the earth is here for us; that it was somehow designed to accommodate us, no matter what. To imply that we are negatively affecting to human-hospitable climate of the planet would imply that God screwed up.
If you believe in evolution, and recall that 99% of every species that has walked the earth or swam in it's oceans is now extinct, and that the timeframe of human existence is rather paltry compared to the age of the planet well....one can concede a bit more readily that it is actually possible that we are the ones screwing things up and that no-one is going to come and save us.
However, 71% is only a comparison of the surfaces of the oceans and land. I remember reading somewhere that the oceans in their entirety actually comprise about 95% of the Earth's inhabitable space. Land-centric life, by populations, biomass, and diversity, are absolutely dwarfed by the life found in our oceans.
I found it interesting that it seems most people type in things like "information about -something- '" into a search engine.
It seems to me to be a somewhat naive way of searching given that many sites don't necessarily spell out that they are giving information about a given subject. It is an oblique reminder of how many people might view the Internet as a formal collection of officially produced, authoritative "Information" instead of the jumble of stuff that it is. Perhaps search engine logic commonly treats the string word "information about" in a special way given people's apparent proclivity to do this.....and if they don't, perhaps they should.
Regardless, I would drop those words from the data as they don't really help in showing what people are searching for. It's similar to including the word "and"; it conveys little about what people are searching for and more about *how* they are searching.
However, a *remake* of Torment that only updated the graphics + engine would be sweet.
I would buy Torment again (in a heartbeat) if they revamped the engine and left the story completely untouched. Same goes for Fallout, for that matter.
Excerpts: - "57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view." - "Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."
But, you're right, probably better to wipe them all out. Who cares about what the majority really thinks when you've got you're "beliefs":|
Sorry, I don't give two shits about their country, if it dissolves into civil war, or dissolves into thin air. I bet most Americans don't. All we want is for Muslims to not fly airplanes into our buildings anymore. (Spare me the "Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11" speel. I don't care. They were a convenient Muslim target to punch in the nose.)
That's "spiel" btw. Punching innocent people in the face for someone else's transgressions is definitely a great way to solve problems. You're a fucking genius. A world class citizen, and no doubt loved by all who know you.
But, next time you're done beating your wife for something the town whore did, take a moment, hunker your fat ass down on one of those cement blocks in your front yard, and just kill yourself.
Politicians have *always* been criticized about spending too much and providing too little, and usually when they aren't around to defend themselves. The problem listed by the parent have been around longer than 5 years---they are not new or worse because of the intraweb. That's a straw man.
The difference now is that people can point out governmental *lies* publicly, alongside a living, easily indexable history of what was said, by whom, and in light of whatever circumstantial facts. I think that whole argument about people just making unreasonable demands is true, but that it's a "problem" is hogwash. People's *unreasonable* demands have always been ignored by government (as they should be). No change there.
FTFA: "But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious" by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage." '
A conspiracy huh? Yeah. Hate those. Must be the terrorists that are pointing out the lies and inequities of politicians. Those all-to-often occurring corruption scandals are actually fabrications of some "conspiracy". "Self-righteous"? Well, yeah, in truly representative government, the voting public is righteous by definition---maybe Mr Taylor forgot that for a moment. The rage comes when the system doesn't serve them, or worse, flaunts their powerlessness with bold face lies, policy shifts that run contrary to election promises, and transparent war propaganda and fear mongering.
Sounds more to me like Mr Taylor doesn't like the fact that people have more access to information (and opinions) about their government's actions than ever before---in a way They can't control. Or maybe it's just the inevitable---and increasingly accurate---critique of government that's unpalatable.
Mr Taylor, is correct in one respect, however: something has to change. Unlike him, I'm not so sure it should be the public, their views, or how they chose to express them.
Given that its "relaxed" hardware change policies have already wasted my time and annoyed me, Windows XP will be the last M$ OS I use for my gaming rig.
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny!
on
Bob Saget 2.0
·
· Score: 1
"Like it is, youtube is painful to endure."
Um, implying AFHV wasn't?
Does Rumsfeld and Co. come to you for spin advice?
A 'chipped' passport would be susceptible to drive-by scanning, adds nothing a mag-stripe couldn't, and will likely be more expensive to implement. What's the point?
Well, for one, it will help lead to public acceptance of the fact there is a "chip" in passports at all.
So it's just an encrypted photo today. Any reasonable person would accept that: it makes the passport harder to forge. Big deal. The amount of data (a picture) is no different than what you currently have on your valid passport. Right?
But within 10 years: oh, there's biometrics too. Later revisions will offer far more: countries visited, government buildings visited, criminal record, bank account balances, credit history, assets, purchase histories. And, because it's *not* a mag stripe, all of this can be scanned without you even knowing (or more importantly: caring. If it doesn't incovenience you, the law abiding citizen, who cares, right?).
By then, privacy concerns could then be waved away with "look, we've had these chips in passports for years now, we're just adding more features to help protect you from the terrorists. It's ok. Go back to watching Oprah."
It's just one step towards greater Control. Feature creep. It only needs to be inoffensive, not 100% effective. You can't build a lasting police state in a day.
"when I invite Jack to take a nice vacation in the Sun. I mean physically inside the generally accepted diameter of the star."
You're obviously being influenced by video games and they're making you think violent thoughts. You're a big fan of Privateer and Wing Comander, I'll bet.
Before video games there was no violence. Ever. Well, maybe a bit because of Rock and Roll, but before that, not a lick.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonono, it's a Grande.
It's a rarity in the human race, especially with government and military figures, to have a voice and demeanor that gives the appearance of thoughtfulness. It's why people would vote for him if he ran for public office.
/flamebait
So, in other words, for all the right reasons.
Well, one answer: djbdns
Carbon dioxide is one part carbon, two parts oxygen, right? It's a natural product of burning just about anything organic.
So you remove the carbon from the oxygen and stick the carbon back into in the ground where it presumably (as with fossil fuels) came from .
As I tried to make clear in my original post: a lump of carbon is no more dangerous than diamond (which is carbon). Comparing the dangers of storing carbon to the dangers of storing nuclear waste (or any nuclear material) is completely idiotic.
And even if we were going to pump carbon dioxide into the ground (no one has proposed any such thing, were it even practically possible) it would still be better than pumping into the atmosphere (which is what you do every time you start your car).
I'm really surprised that the parent was modded up as insightful.
Carbon is the 6th most abundant element in the universe. It is all around you and in you (your body is 18% carbon, by mass). It is almost always released when you burn just about anything because it is just about everywhere.
There are already massive quantities of carbon in the ground already. In an of itself, it is stable and harmless; it only posses a danger (indirectly) when found in high concentrations in the atmosphere (greenhouse gas, global warming, yaddayadda). Putting it back in the ground is like making a landfill made of diamonds,
Ask yourself: would you rather swallow a diamond or a small chunk of uranium?
I can't believe anyone would ever be so foolish as to compare carbon to nuclear waste; the two couldn't be further apart.
"It's fascinating that there's a one-to-one relationship between those who don't believe in evolution and those that don't believe in global warming."
Fascinating, but not entirely surprising. I think that of people who reject global warming (or climate change etc etc), many do so because they make the implicit assumption that the earth is here for us; that it was somehow designed to accommodate us, no matter what. To imply that we are negatively affecting to human-hospitable climate of the planet would imply that God screwed up.
If you believe in evolution, and recall that 99% of every species that has walked the earth or swam in it's oceans is now extinct, and that the timeframe of human existence is rather paltry compared to the age of the planet well....one can concede a bit more readily that it is actually possible that we are the ones screwing things up and that no-one is going to come and save us.
Loved the parent post...a pity it was an AC.
....and still we have no gills. :)
However, 71% is only a comparison of the surfaces of the oceans and land.
I remember reading somewhere that the oceans in their entirety actually comprise about 95% of the Earth's inhabitable space. Land-centric life, by populations, biomass, and diversity, are absolutely dwarfed by the life found in our oceans.
I found it interesting that it seems most people type in things like "information about -something- '" into a search engine.
....and if they don't, perhaps they should.
It seems to me to be a somewhat naive way of searching given that many sites don't necessarily spell out that they are giving information about a given subject. It is an oblique reminder of how many people might view the Internet as a formal collection of officially produced, authoritative "Information" instead of the jumble of stuff that it is. Perhaps search engine logic commonly treats the string word "information about" in a special way given people's apparent proclivity to do this.
Regardless, I would drop those words from the data as they don't really help in showing what people are searching for. It's similar to including the word "and"; it conveys little about what people are searching for and more about *how* they are searching.
"such a move could destabilise the Middle East."
Well, that's a shame. It was so stable up till now.
Well, I'd probably start by looking at all of the other *real* global crises and them promptly get the fuck over it.
"Anyone want to guess how long before "qubit" gets compressed to "quit" (as "bigit" became "bit" in the last century)?"
...at least in my universe.
If it was shortened, I'd put my money on it being shortened to qbit, and then qit ("kit").
See, I get my mind on Chuck, and all of a sudden I go stupid. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
Nonono, you're off by an order of magnitude.
640k rounds of ammo ought be enough to kill anybody*.
* Except Chuck Norris.
I agree. Screw sequels.
However, a *remake* of Torment that only updated the graphics + engine would be sweet.
I would buy Torment again (in a heartbeat) if they revamped the engine and left the story completely untouched. Same goes for Fallout, for that matter.
Plus, I bet they don't even know what STAT means.
Of course they do, many of them are so old, latin was probably their mother-tongue.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110003991
:|
Excerpts:
- "57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view."
- "Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."
But, you're right, probably better to wipe them all out. Who cares about what the majority really thinks when you've got you're "beliefs"
Sorry, I don't give two shits about their country, if it dissolves into civil war, or dissolves into thin air. I bet most Americans don't. All we want is for Muslims to not fly airplanes into our buildings anymore. (Spare me the "Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11" speel. I don't care. They were a convenient Muslim target to punch in the nose.)
That's "spiel" btw. Punching innocent people in the face for someone else's transgressions is definitely a great way to solve problems. You're a fucking genius. A world class citizen, and no doubt loved by all who know you.
But, next time you're done beating your wife for something the town whore did, take a moment, hunker your fat ass down on one of those cement blocks in your front yard, and just kill yourself.
Politicians have *always* been criticized about spending too much and providing too little, and usually when they aren't around to defend themselves. The problem listed by the parent have been around longer than 5 years---they are not new or worse because of the intraweb. That's a straw man.
The difference now is that people can point out governmental *lies* publicly, alongside a living, easily indexable history of what was said, by whom, and in light of whatever circumstantial facts. I think that whole argument about people just making unreasonable demands is true, but that it's a "problem" is hogwash. People's *unreasonable* demands have always been ignored by government (as they should be). No change there.
FTFA: "But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious" by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage." '
A conspiracy huh? Yeah. Hate those. Must be the terrorists that are pointing out the lies and inequities of politicians. Those all-to-often occurring corruption scandals are actually fabrications of some "conspiracy".
"Self-righteous"? Well, yeah, in truly representative government, the voting public is righteous by definition---maybe Mr Taylor forgot that for a moment. The rage comes when the system doesn't serve them, or worse, flaunts their powerlessness with bold face lies, policy shifts that run contrary to election promises, and transparent war propaganda and fear mongering.
Sounds more to me like Mr Taylor doesn't like the fact that people have more access to information (and opinions) about their government's actions than ever before---in a way They can't control. Or maybe it's just the inevitable---and increasingly accurate---critique of government that's unpalatable.
Mr Taylor, is correct in one respect, however: something has to change. Unlike him, I'm not so sure it should be the public, their views, or how they chose to express them.
Reminds me of a recent clip I saw of Bill Maher saying it's time for a America to stop bragging about being #1 and start acting like it.
Mission Accomplished!
Given that its "relaxed" hardware change policies have already wasted my time and annoyed me, Windows XP will be the last M$ OS I use for my gaming rig.
"Like it is, youtube is painful to endure."
Um, implying AFHV wasn't?
Does Rumsfeld and Co. come to you for spin advice?
A 'chipped' passport would be susceptible to drive-by scanning, adds nothing a mag-stripe couldn't, and will likely be more expensive to implement. What's the point?
Well, for one, it will help lead to public acceptance of the fact there is a "chip" in passports at all.
So it's just an encrypted photo today. Any reasonable person would accept that: it makes the passport harder to forge. Big deal. The amount of data (a picture) is no different than what you currently have on your valid passport. Right?
But within 10 years: oh, there's biometrics too. Later revisions will offer far more: countries visited, government buildings visited, criminal record, bank account balances, credit history, assets, purchase histories. And, because it's *not* a mag stripe, all of this can be scanned without you even knowing (or more importantly: caring. If it doesn't incovenience you, the law abiding citizen, who cares, right?).
By then, privacy concerns could then be waved away with "look, we've had these chips in passports for years now, we're just adding more features to help protect you from the terrorists. It's ok. Go back to watching Oprah."
It's just one step towards greater Control. Feature creep. It only needs to be inoffensive, not 100% effective.
You can't build a lasting police state in a day.
"when I invite Jack to take a nice vacation in the Sun. I mean physically inside the generally accepted diameter of the star."
You're obviously being influenced by video games and they're making you think violent thoughts. You're a big fan of Privateer and Wing Comander, I'll bet.
Before video games there was no violence. Ever. Well, maybe a bit because of Rock and Roll, but before that, not a lick.
Wow. Jeepers. Glad that stuff was explained in layman's terms. Otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue.
Is this slashdot or CNN?