Huh? Are you saying people in developing countries should take it upon themselves to overthrow tyrants before the Americans can get them? Or that America should elect passive leaders who let the tyrants roam free? Either way, it's a paradox.
I could give you 100x examples of friendly countries that we support, and plenty of examples of corrupt countries that we do not support. You read something in a book you agree with and state it like it is fact. Never trust some schmuck writing a book, he's trying to make money off of it for crying out loud.
Here in America we want to engage in free trade with other nations, our military is second to our world class economy. That's a key point there, think it over for a bit.
Don't ask people to "please don't be offended". It is a simple matter of judgement, and as you said, it means absolutely nothing, to anyone, and personally, I don't think it matters whether or not you offend people. Sometimes the minority is right, in fact I'm sure it happens quite often.
Liberal journalism is the equivalent of subdual damage. It won't alone kill you, but will only put you into the red, where the slightest hint of real damage (real nerd news) will take it home.
I think the SUV thing has been distorted. People in the U.S. will stop buying SUV's once gasoline costs $10/gallon, they're automotive investment will have been a waste. We trust the free market over here. Personally, I strongly DISTRUST social pressures.
I'd like to see more personal mass transit. The investment in underground tunnels will pay for itself within a few years, and cities will look nicer.
The same pumping goes on in Long Beach, CA. Although from my recollection, it's steam they pump underground. It became a problem a while back. My neighbor was a telephone lineman, he said when he got up on a telephone pole he could see that the land was sinking.
I thought someone told me once that "The Matrix" was based on a book called neuromancer? What book was it that the Matrix was based off of? I thought it was either neuromancer or terminal man, but neither of those seem to fit:P
I propose a hypothesis! People become physicists so that they can apply some totally abstract mathematical description to reality and confuse everybody, and tell them their stated english is incorrect.
I think the original statement was, more accurately stated, that the particles inside the "reactor" have kinetic energy, with a potential for heat energy, and in the specific case of the reactor (which we seem to have forgotten about completely!) this heat potential is realized. This is an aspect of physics that many educated people understand without having to know every detail about the quantum world, which you physics majors are always SO eager to blather about.
I don't see what point you are trying to convey here. The energy translates into heat, are you saying that a bullet hitting a metal plate doesn't translate some of that kinetic energy into heat? In this case, the particles aren't being shot into a void, like your gas cloud in space example. Take a nuclear bomb for example, the neutrons are bouncing all around within a beryllium sphere, the thing explodes into a fireball. What is the difference?
No really, what is your point? I don't claim to be a genius on the subject, but it appears you misinterpreted what he was saying.
Look at you Stephan, you took that quote entirely out of context to fit the point you're trying to make. You didn't even lead on with any... or anything like that. Very unprofessional.
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"
There is no difference between supporters and researchers that support one theory over another. There is certainly an abundance of anti-globalization activists within the scientific community. By supporters, I take that the article is referring to researchers who've taken a position on the issue. That report was funded by the UN and obviously has an agenda, job security being the most obvious aspect.
Hey, whatever gets the votes, right? Personally, I like John McCain, not for such simple reasons as that, but because he's a maverick, doesn't play by the party rules, I like that. I think that article about the Christians is funny, one because they're convinced 'global warming' is going to have some harmful effect on their children, and two because they think god can do anything to stop it.
Check out wikipedia's entry on global warming, I love it...
Goes on and on and on about the CO2 theory, then we get to the opposing viewpoints:
Various other hypotheses have been proposed, including but not limited to:
The warming is within the range of natural variation.
The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period -- the Little Ice Age.
The warming trend itself has not been clearly established.
At present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community.
That pretty much illustrates a problem, if you ask me. That little attention is paid to the possibility that it may be natural variation. There was an ice age in the not-too-distant past, remember
You've interpreted this as proof of something with a political message. What I like about this report is that it isn't politicized at all. It's stating the facts, not going to extreme left positions and saying humans are causing the earth to heat up.
You all know the real reason why they're doing this, don't you? We're photographing the moon because of reports that the soviets have a lunar base where they're harvesting human embryo's. Bush intends to nuke them.
And they'll probably use it to deploy images of a fake landing site, like anybody's ever going to believe that we really landed on the moon. Everybody knows that was made up.
I don't know where you were in 2002, but the war WE were all sold was to be a few months long, we were to be greeted as liberators, and within a year Iraq's oil sales would pay us back every penny for the cost ---------
Maybe you should check your reading comprehension. I never said we'd take oil from Iraq. Iraq's oil exports were to be paying for the costs of reconstruction
I did prejudge you about thinking the war was lost, you seem like a reasonable person.
I hope for your sake that if you intend to remain a neo-con, you find much better mentors than any of the current influential neo-cons. They seem to be so lost in the theory of what they're doing, they never bother to open the door and see what the real world is like. Tragic that they've fallen victim to the same major failure they once condemned liberal "ivory tower intellectuals" for.
I think the use of economic sanctions is far more harmful than strategic military action, I think it is important to keep a grip of foreign affairs, to keep our military on it's toes, adaptive, and to keep other nations accountable for their actions, whether they are democratically elected leaderships or no. We've already learned that a non-interventionist policy doesn't work. I see the the world through the lense of war, so to speak. I'll have my opinions on the way war should be conducted, but I'm not going to accept anybody who says war is bad and we should avoid it at all costs; they haven't studied their history well enough.
You're the smartest, greatest person I have never met. Do you have an official false idol I can lift on high? Or shall I simply tune into Fox News daily to exalt your obvious and vast greatness?
I love how you liberals can fill in for each other like the Olsen twins and give your nutrageous conspiracy theories. Yes this is you I was talking to the whole time, NMerriam didn't look as stupid as you, your first response made you look like a bafoon. I could point out some more obvious facts for you, but I know you wouldn't believe it. You'd rather sit around with your buddies smoking pot and talking about the temperature that steel girders melt at.
And I love how at the center of your rambling you embolden your central thesis, that the Iraqi development strategy was "authored more then 2 years after the invasion was 'complete'", had you actually opened your mind and read the thing, which is very interesting I might add and I would encourage you to read it, the first paragraph starts with: "This is the first National Development Strategy produced by a democratically elected
government of Iraq." See what I mean? I can make you look like a complete bafoon with just a few keystrokes!
You're an embarassment to liberals everywhere dude.
Which has what, exactly, to do with the international monetary market?
When you just repeat arguments you hear from pundits you look really silly, you know that don't you?
Go find the pundit that said that, I challenge you, and then take a little of your own advice.
You're the one who brought up national debt. "It's certainly far more likely than that we can just keep borrowing and spending and it will all magically work out forever as has been our policy for a long time now."
I think it's funny you have this picture in your head of the neoconservativism capital, with our neoconservative leader Bill Kristol running the world. What happened to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney running everything?
You sound like John Kerry, campaign hero. The only person making inferences here is you. You have inferred that Bush is just about the worst person on earth, which you know isn't true, and you can't offer any support for that argument. I have showed you concrete numbers, yet the OBVIOUSNESS of everything still isn't getting into your skull. You know some people think Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Then again, some people think we never landed on the moon. You're not even a very smart liberal man, why bother? You're just some ignorant schmuck. Some guys can hold their ground, but I've reduced you to this? Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
I could give you 100x examples of friendly countries that we support, and plenty of examples of corrupt countries that we do not support. You read something in a book you agree with and state it like it is fact. Never trust some schmuck writing a book, he's trying to make money off of it for crying out loud.
Here in America we want to engage in free trade with other nations, our military is second to our world class economy. That's a key point there, think it over for a bit.
Don't ask people to "please don't be offended". It is a simple matter of judgement, and as you said, it means absolutely nothing, to anyone, and personally, I don't think it matters whether or not you offend people. Sometimes the minority is right, in fact I'm sure it happens quite often.
Well if that isn't a nerdy analogy....
Nice to see some respectable discussion here all of a sudden.
Great question you raise. Always be skeptical of statistics, always.
They could throw it into it's own category, like doping. "He was disqualified for spamming".
I'd like to see more personal mass transit. The investment in underground tunnels will pay for itself within a few years, and cities will look nicer.
The same pumping goes on in Long Beach, CA. Although from my recollection, it's steam they pump underground. It became a problem a while back. My neighbor was a telephone lineman, he said when he got up on a telephone pole he could see that the land was sinking.
I thought someone told me once that "The Matrix" was based on a book called neuromancer? What book was it that the Matrix was based off of? I thought it was either neuromancer or terminal man, but neither of those seem to fit :P
I think the original statement was, more accurately stated, that the particles inside the "reactor" have kinetic energy, with a potential for heat energy, and in the specific case of the reactor (which we seem to have forgotten about completely!) this heat potential is realized. This is an aspect of physics that many educated people understand without having to know every detail about the quantum world, which you physics majors are always SO eager to blather about.
No really, what is your point? I don't claim to be a genius on the subject, but it appears you misinterpreted what he was saying.
Thanks, interesting comments. Could you site some sources?
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"
There is no difference between supporters and researchers that support one theory over another. There is certainly an abundance of anti-globalization activists within the scientific community. By supporters, I take that the article is referring to researchers who've taken a position on the issue. That report was funded by the UN and obviously has an agenda, job security being the most obvious aspect.
Hey, whatever gets the votes, right? Personally, I like John McCain, not for such simple reasons as that, but because he's a maverick, doesn't play by the party rules, I like that. I think that article about the Christians is funny, one because they're convinced 'global warming' is going to have some harmful effect on their children, and two because they think god can do anything to stop it.
I hate them pinkos.
Oh come on now, you hate everybody, admit it.
Goes on and on and on about the CO2 theory, then we get to the opposing viewpoints:
That pretty much illustrates a problem, if you ask me. That little attention is paid to the possibility that it may be natural variation. There was an ice age in the not-too-distant past, remember
In response to your other comments, when did you wake up and realize you were a troll? (an extreme left troll)
Must have glossed over that.
You've interpreted this as proof of something with a political message. What I like about this report is that it isn't politicized at all. It's stating the facts, not going to extreme left positions and saying humans are causing the earth to heat up.
... because we already know everything there is to know about the universe
And they'll probably use it to deploy images of a fake landing site, like anybody's ever going to believe that we really landed on the moon. Everybody knows that was made up.
What could possibly make you think that Wikipedia is a better source than the actual people whose movement it is is beyond me though.
What makes you think those people represent the neocon movement?! Look at what the people around you (in the real world) are saying!
No, my comprehension is just fine:
I did prejudge you about thinking the war was lost, you seem like a reasonable person.
You're the smartest, greatest person I have never met. Do you have an official false idol I can lift on high? Or shall I simply tune into Fox News daily to exalt your obvious and vast greatness?
Yeah I have a perfect idol for you, her name is Barbara Streisand.
I love how you liberals can fill in for each other like the Olsen twins and give your nutrageous conspiracy theories. Yes this is you I was talking to the whole time, NMerriam didn't look as stupid as you, your first response made you look like a bafoon. I could point out some more obvious facts for you, but I know you wouldn't believe it. You'd rather sit around with your buddies smoking pot and talking about the temperature that steel girders melt at.
And I love how at the center of your rambling you embolden your central thesis, that the Iraqi development strategy was "authored more then 2 years after the invasion was 'complete'", had you actually opened your mind and read the thing, which is very interesting I might add and I would encourage you to read it, the first paragraph starts with: "This is the first National Development Strategy produced by a democratically elected government of Iraq." See what I mean? I can make you look like a complete bafoon with just a few keystrokes!
You're an embarassment to liberals everywhere dude.
Which has what, exactly, to do with the international monetary market? When you just repeat arguments you hear from pundits you look really silly, you know that don't you?
Go find the pundit that said that, I challenge you, and then take a little of your own advice.
You're the one who brought up national debt. "It's certainly far more likely than that we can just keep borrowing and spending and it will all magically work out forever as has been our policy for a long time now."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(Un ited_States)
I think it's funny you have this picture in your head of the neoconservativism capital, with our neoconservative leader Bill Kristol running the world. What happened to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney running everything?
You sound like John Kerry, campaign hero. The only person making inferences here is you. You have inferred that Bush is just about the worst person on earth, which you know isn't true, and you can't offer any support for that argument. I have showed you concrete numbers, yet the OBVIOUSNESS of everything still isn't getting into your skull. You know some people think Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Then again, some people think we never landed on the moon. You're not even a very smart liberal man, why bother? You're just some ignorant schmuck. Some guys can hold their ground, but I've reduced you to this? Sad.