Are you suggesting they implement some sort of windows quicklauncher that loads up when you boot the machine and then just sits in memory ready to launch Firefox at the drop of a hat?
I hate quicklaunchers. If I want to launch something I'll launch it myself. If I want something to begin at startup, I'll add it to my startup menu.
Nobody is suggesting giving the UN control over what communication is permissable. The idea is that we have an internal forum manage internet standards in such a way that we can create our own technical solutions to spam.
goddamn straight. they couldn't win the cold war fair and square and now they're trying to punish us with environmental regulations. Pollution is the last of the great communist mythologies up there with Lenin is a great leader and Stalin. Global warming my ass -- seriously it is "warming" so goddamn much why is the car seat in my egregiously large truck always freezing my big balls in the morning??? YEAH u herd me i SAID I WASTEFULLY DRIVE A LARGE TRUCK WITH A BIGASS AMERICAN FLAG take that u libral fuxs!!!. What u expect me to take a commuter train?? HA let me tell u a little secrete: commuter = communist. Get it? That's u, Go listen 2 ur NPR AND assfuk fatass Michael More and DIE U FUX!!!!!
Our own weather forecasters can't even get the weather correct 48 hours in advance most of the time (save for areas like the equator and extreme north/south, of course). Yet, we're supposed to believe that the climate can be accurately simulated for millions or billions of years by having a few hundred years of data and some simulations?
I'm going to skip over this guy's self-imagined refutation of science and get right to the point: Predicting climate is not about predicting the weather --even though climate and weather are obviously inter-related.
Let me put it this way: nobody knows how much a house is going to sell for. They can make guesses but those guesses can be way off -- just like weather reports. Nonetheless, we know that when crime goes up in a neighborhood (all other factors remaining constant) that property values will decrease.
How do we know this? We can't perform controlled experiments. I heard about one guy's house price doubling even though crime in his neighborhood had risen 20%. Wouldn't that sort of anecdotal evidence discredit the crime hypothesis of property devaluation? How can we even venture to make guesses about factors in property values when we can't even predict the price of a single house?
Here's the answer: We don't need to be able to predict individual dynamics to predict aggregate behavior. When I heat a pot of water, many molecules will move faster, though some will slow down and I won't be able to predict which ones. In a storm lightning will strike, though I'll never be able to tell you where. And as soon as I saw the global warming discussion, I knew a number of slashdotters would reguritate the misleading weather-analogy even if I couldn't have predicted which ones would commit the crime.
The California Highway is not a "tradgedy of the commons" problem. Nobody is trying to drive a few more miles on the road each day just to get an economic edge. There already exist disincentives that encourage people to drive as little as possible:
a) gas is expensive b) car maintainence is expensive c) traffic is horrible
True, the proposal would add additional disincentives for highway driving, but so would a gas tax which would be trivial to implement. What's the advantage of the proposal over a simple gas tax? People could cheat the gas tax system by adopting more fuel-efficient vehicles -- what a shame that would be.
Nowhere in your wikipedia link does it say there hasn't been any study on international opinions regarding creationism.
Your citation is, in fact, not.
Notice that Earth and Mars are different planets. Mars is 142 million miles away from the Sun whereas Earth is only 93 million miles away from the Sun. Consequently, the intensity of the light from the Sun on Mars compared to Earth is only 93^2/142^2 = 43.0 %
That's a lot less light. less light => less energy
That's why its a hell of a lot colder on Mars than it is on Earth. And that's why we would need to make Mars warmer for it to be habitable.
The 2005 weather projection is not the facile observation "somewhere on the planet one location will experience their hottest year on record". The projection is that the planet's average temperature will be highest every recorded.
That's why they call it "global warming" and not "local warming"
What impresses me is how eagerly the MPAA resorts to using fear and totalitarianism to dissuade potential movie downloaders. The MPAA's message is both a threat to the consumer and a warning that they are being watched. Furthermore, the threat is not that the US government will enforce the law and crack-down on the downloaders, but rather the Motion Picture Association itself intends to dispense vigilante justice to protect their business model. The use of the fascist red-white-and-black color scheme is also a nice touch.
First, I will take for granted that its obvious that I'm not endorsing Stalin's merely by saying "Hitler was worse" (I could hardly imagine more meager praise).
But I think you're mistaken when you claim Stalin used starvation as a form of execution. The liquidation of the Kulaks as a class was performed with traditional methods: property was redistributed, farms were collectivized, and, when necessary, force was used to reign in rebellious Kulaks and the Orthodox church officials who deliberately sabotaged Russia's agricultural future knowing thousands would starve because of their actions.
(During a famine orthodox priests claimed farm collectivization was a sign of apocalypse and encouraged peasants to binge on livestock while workers in the cities starved. Because the livestock (horses, cows, pigs, chickens) are not just food but a vital component in the broader agricultural system their actions would propigate the famine into the next decade).
Also USSR choose to deport grain during the famine in order to speed up their industrialization. This necessarily was going to kill people, but they believed (rightly as it turns out) that industrialization was necessary for them to endure against hostile neighbors.
So, yeah USSR starved people but they would have fed them if they had more food -- It wasn't an "execution". The situation was exacerbated in WWII when large tracts of fertile land were destroyed to prevent their cooption by Nazi forces. During the Nazi invasion many people were forced to subsist on sawdust. As they reconquered lands they became aware of the annhilation the Nazis perpetrated against their people. I don't think its a moral offense that they didn't squander their precious little food supply sustaining Nazi POWs and the POWs of Nazi collaborators.
Excuse me, but your primary "source" of information regarding death tolls is an article without any citations from a propagana website. It also happens to be highly exaggerated.
I agree with the following statement from wikipedia:
"How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
When comparing death tolls, its important to keep in mind that the 8 to 20 million of people "killed" by Stalin for the most part are not people who were deliberately killed in the purges between 1936 and 1938. The 8 to 20 million is overwhelmingly people who incidentally died in famines that were partially the result of Stalin's economic policies.
I think including the famine numbers in the "death toll" figure is legitimate, even if those deaths were unintentional. If you don't think that's its reasonable to compare Hitler's Holocaust to Stalin's unintended economic blunders, then Hitler's death toll is far, far greater.
If you do think its perfectly fair to attribute deaths that are a direct if unintentional result of their actions to somebody's death toll, then I contend that nearly all fatalities of WWII (excepting China, Japan, and other Pacific casualties) are on Hitler's shoulder's. That would bring Hitler's death toll to about 70 million.
I read that entire study. Nowhere does it say "women make more errors than men in driving." N-o-w-h-e-r-e. The entire report is about how men drive more dangerously than women and how this distinction is not simply the result of gender socialization but due to primal evolutionary instincts from our hunter-gather past.
"Plus, wind power is the only mitigation of global warming, because if the whole world converted to wind power in 15 years, the amount of power being extracted from the atmosphere would be more than the increase in greenhouse gas atmospheric energy forcing since 1600."
Wind power isn't a unique solution.
We can use wind to take energy out of the atmosphere and mitigate global warming. We can use solar to prevent energy from going into the atmosphere and mitigate global warming. Or we can stop pumping catastrophic levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to mitigate global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting they implement some sort of windows quicklauncher that loads up when you boot the machine and then just sits in memory ready to launch Firefox at the drop of a hat? I hate quicklaunchers. If I want to launch something I'll launch it myself. If I want something to begin at startup, I'll add it to my startup menu.
Nobody is suggesting giving the UN control over what communication is permissable. The idea is that we have an internal forum manage internet standards in such a way that we can create our own technical solutions to spam.
goddamn straight. they couldn't win the cold war fair and square and now they're trying to punish us with environmental regulations. Pollution is the last of the great communist mythologies up there with Lenin is a great leader and Stalin. Global warming my ass -- seriously it is "warming" so goddamn much why is the car seat in my egregiously large truck always freezing my big balls in the morning??? YEAH u herd me i SAID I WASTEFULLY DRIVE A LARGE TRUCK WITH A BIGASS AMERICAN FLAG take that u libral fuxs!!!. What u expect me to take a commuter train?? HA let me tell u a little secrete: commuter = communist. Get it? That's u, Go listen 2 ur NPR AND assfuk fatass Michael More and DIE U FUX!!!!!
I'm going to skip over this guy's self-imagined refutation of science and get right to the point: Predicting climate is not about predicting the weather --even though climate and weather are obviously inter-related.
Let me put it this way: nobody knows how much a house is going to sell for. They can make guesses but those guesses can be way off -- just like weather reports. Nonetheless, we know that when crime goes up in a neighborhood (all other factors remaining constant) that property values will decrease.
How do we know this? We can't perform controlled experiments. I heard about one guy's house price doubling even though crime in his neighborhood had risen 20%. Wouldn't that sort of anecdotal evidence discredit the crime hypothesis of property devaluation? How can we even venture to make guesses about factors in property values when we can't even predict the price of a single house?
Here's the answer: We don't need to be able to predict individual dynamics to predict aggregate behavior. When I heat a pot of water, many molecules will move faster, though some will slow down and I won't be able to predict which ones. In a storm lightning will strike, though I'll never be able to tell you where. And as soon as I saw the global warming discussion, I knew a number of slashdotters would reguritate the misleading weather-analogy even if I couldn't have predicted which ones would commit the crime.
The California Highway is not a "tradgedy of the commons" problem. Nobody is trying to drive a few more miles on the road each day just to get an economic edge. There already exist disincentives that encourage people to drive as little as possible:
a) gas is expensive
b) car maintainence is expensive
c) traffic is horrible
True, the proposal would add additional disincentives for highway driving, but so would a gas tax which would be trivial to implement. What's the advantage of the proposal over a simple gas tax? People could cheat the gas tax system by adopting more fuel-efficient vehicles -- what a shame that would be.
Nowhere in your wikipedia link does it say there hasn't been any study on international opinions regarding creationism. Your citation is, in fact, not.
Notice that Earth and Mars are different planets. Mars is 142 million miles away from the Sun whereas Earth is only 93 million miles away from the Sun. Consequently, the intensity of the light from the Sun on Mars compared to Earth is only 93^2/142^2 = 43.0 % That's a lot less light. less light => less energy That's why its a hell of a lot colder on Mars than it is on Earth. And that's why we would need to make Mars warmer for it to be habitable.
The 2005 weather projection is not the facile observation "somewhere on the planet one location will experience their hottest year on record". The projection is that the planet's average temperature will be highest every recorded. That's why they call it "global warming" and not "local warming"
What impresses me is how eagerly the MPAA resorts to using fear and totalitarianism to dissuade potential movie downloaders. The MPAA's message is both a threat to the consumer and a warning that they are being watched. Furthermore, the threat is not that the US government will enforce the law and crack-down on the downloaders, but rather the Motion Picture Association itself intends to dispense vigilante justice to protect their business model. The use of the fascist red-white-and-black color scheme is also a nice touch.
First, I will take for granted that its obvious that I'm not endorsing Stalin's merely by saying "Hitler was worse" (I could hardly imagine more meager praise). But I think you're mistaken when you claim Stalin used starvation as a form of execution. The liquidation of the Kulaks as a class was performed with traditional methods: property was redistributed, farms were collectivized, and, when necessary, force was used to reign in rebellious Kulaks and the Orthodox church officials who deliberately sabotaged Russia's agricultural future knowing thousands would starve because of their actions. (During a famine orthodox priests claimed farm collectivization was a sign of apocalypse and encouraged peasants to binge on livestock while workers in the cities starved. Because the livestock (horses, cows, pigs, chickens) are not just food but a vital component in the broader agricultural system their actions would propigate the famine into the next decade). Also USSR choose to deport grain during the famine in order to speed up their industrialization. This necessarily was going to kill people, but they believed (rightly as it turns out) that industrialization was necessary for them to endure against hostile neighbors. So, yeah USSR starved people but they would have fed them if they had more food -- It wasn't an "execution". The situation was exacerbated in WWII when large tracts of fertile land were destroyed to prevent their cooption by Nazi forces. During the Nazi invasion many people were forced to subsist on sawdust. As they reconquered lands they became aware of the annhilation the Nazis perpetrated against their people. I don't think its a moral offense that they didn't squander their precious little food supply sustaining Nazi POWs and the POWs of Nazi collaborators.
yes, that is exactly what my post just disproved.
Excuse me, but your primary "source" of information regarding death tolls is an article without any citations from a propagana website. It also happens to be highly exaggerated.
I agree with the following statement from wikipedia:
"How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
When comparing death tolls, its important to keep in mind that the 8 to 20 million of people "killed" by Stalin for the most part are not people who were deliberately killed in the purges between 1936 and 1938. The 8 to 20 million is overwhelmingly people who incidentally died in famines that were partially the result of Stalin's economic policies.
I think including the famine numbers in the "death toll" figure is legitimate, even if those deaths were unintentional. If you don't think that's its reasonable to compare Hitler's Holocaust to Stalin's unintended economic blunders, then Hitler's death toll is far, far greater.
If you do think its perfectly fair to attribute deaths that are a direct if unintentional result of their actions to somebody's death toll, then I contend that nearly all fatalities of WWII (excepting China, Japan, and other Pacific casualties) are on Hitler's shoulder's. That would bring Hitler's death toll to about 70 million.
Either way, Hitler was the worse of the monsters.
I read that entire study. Nowhere does it say "women make more errors than men in driving." N-o-w-h-e-r-e. The entire report is about how men drive more dangerously than women and how this distinction is not simply the result of gender socialization but due to primal evolutionary instincts from our hunter-gather past.
"Plus, wind power is the only mitigation of global warming, because if the whole world converted to wind power in 15 years, the amount of power being extracted from the atmosphere would be more than the increase in greenhouse gas atmospheric energy forcing since 1600." Wind power isn't a unique solution. We can use wind to take energy out of the atmosphere and mitigate global warming. We can use solar to prevent energy from going into the atmosphere and mitigate global warming. Or we can stop pumping catastrophic levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to mitigate global warming.