Well, they _could_ spam you, if you respond to a posting thru their redirector addresses that they use to protect poster's addresses. Since their mail server sees your email, they could easily harvest the return address from every message.
I wasn't arguing about the issue, I was telling the parent that he was full of shit when he said that anyone who claims to be a 'climate change expert' would of course have to believe in global warming and its causes as being largely human related. The parent I replied to compared _his_ parent's 'global climate experts' to priests and how of course they believe in god, despite the evidence.
But this is getting far far off topic. As for my views, I saw the movie, and found it pretty convincing. Of course at this point, we only have correlation of CO2 and temps, we don't have proof of causality. Though we do have experimental evidence of mechanism. So, I believe in global warming, believe we should act or bad things are going to happen (though I can do without Florida, see my other post:-), and I believe we _can_ do something to help reduce/solve the problem. I don't think we _will_, at least not until we've seen the horrible effects, but I think we can.
On the other hand, my wife's instructor at Sonoma State University, a paleoclimatologist has misgivings about at least some of the peer-reviewed science that's published about global warming.
Odd that you would mention chinese cars, when the movie being discussed talks about the Chinese having much higher mileage standards for their cars than we have. It even talks about how in 12 years, California will have mileage standards approx. equal to China's today!
Some people are concerned with more than what's going on today. You know, like geologic history? There are people who are called paleoclimatologists who study climate change over time scales which far exceed your lifetime. These would be 'climate change experts' and yet would have no particular reason to believe in global warming at the current time, and whether it's attributable to human activities based solely on their vocation. Contrast this with your selection of a contrasting group of people who have been shown to believe in fairy tales and to promulgate their beliefs to make a living and control people.
In other words, stop talking out of your ass. Even on slashdot you look like an idiot.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists By Tom Harris Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers c
You post makes sense, but I'd got a bit further or a litle sideways, depending on how you look at it. Basically, I don't care what generation a chip is, I care about what its specs are, including price and power consumption. Learning about future chips might get me to hold off a purchase, but I'm still going to compare shipping, pricegrabber-able, 'real' chips, not results on engineering samples.
You know, 'speach' didn't look right, but I couldn't see why:-)
I'm not frothing at the mouth, I am wondering if you could possibly generate enough content so that your text would in a large part overlap my generated text, even though you never saw my text. Certainly copyright is designed to prevent me from copying you without your permission, but if I can generate _enough_ content that no matter what content you produce, I've generated it before you, would you be violating copyright? I think by the law you would. It's similar to the idea that if Pi has somewhere within it the entire bitstream of a CD, would it be a violation of copyright to publish the starting offset and length of the bitstream?
To write a program that generated _huge_ (TBs) amounts of content; speaches/essays/articles about the current state of politics including the real players out there today, and what's really going on and copyright them. Then sue anyone who you don't agree with politically who writes an article that comes close enough to your generated content that their 'political free speach' could be considered infringing.
Could it technically work? What would those cases do to the laws?
How can we convince people that copyright laws are out of wack when they legally can't sing 'happy birthday' to their kids at their birthday party without paying royalties...
I guess I should have re-read the thread before I responded:-) Two days after I post something I've forgotten all the context. I still say that if you can afford windows, you can 'afford' cardboard or sheets or something for 'blinds'.
Well, my wife doesn't have admin priv. on her OS-X box, so I don't have to worry too much about her installing things she shouldn't. The fact that the box is very usable for a non-admin user does help with resisting viral attacks.
Hey, I'm not saying it's 'ok' for someone with x-ray vision to hang out outside the women's locker room at a gym, I'm just talking about what is currently legal/illegal (in CA-US at least).
So it should be legal for me to use a night-vision scope to look into my neighbor's bedroom window at night?
Yes, definitely. In fact, if she can be seen from the street/sidewalk, she could possibly be charged with indecent exposure. If you want privacy, close the blinds. Now if you have to take a step even one foot on her property to have the necessary vantage point, then you would be a 'peeping tom' and in violation of the law.
I don't care about the look, but it doesn't work as well for me. I used to read in 'minimal' mode. Not sure how that corresponds to the new css layout, but I know the new layout wastes a lot more vertical space making reading more of a pain, the default font on Safari is too small to read, and the location of the 'score' on a comment is way over on the right which makes it more eye-movement to check out when deciding whether to read it or not.
You're right, that article _is_ idiotic. I don't comment on slashdot so the link I don't have in my.sig will increase the page-rank on my website where I have no ads nor sell anything.
Funny thing is, I've never heard of anyone losing data or being hacked due to Sendmail. Perhaps it's because the last place I saw it used widely was college?
This may be covered in other comments, but haven't you heard about the Morris Internet Worm? You know, the one that took out most of the internet?
That reminds me of when my friend came back from a year in japan. We used to mix it up a bit, friendly mostly. Anyway, he had a lot of judo instruction in Japan, so the first time we mixed it up after he came back I ended up flat on my back on the floor. HARD. That was the last time we mixed it up:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, good thing there's no networking on the MBP, otherwise I'd be able to get to slashdot and waste _all_ my time.
The 'best' job I ever had was when I worked for a military contractor. I got paid overtime, I _never_ had to (couldn't) take work home.
Of course the pay wasn't great and the work wasn't interesting, but my evenings and weekends were my own...
Well, they _could_ spam you, if you respond to a posting thru their redirector addresses that they use to protect poster's addresses. Since their mail server sees your email, they could easily harvest the return address from every message.
You are being completely unfair....
to the escaped mental patients.
Trying to use my formerly AT&T, now cingular phone on a cingular network has shown me just how disfunctional cellphone companies are.
I wasn't arguing about the issue, I was telling the parent that he was full of shit when he said that anyone who claims to be a 'climate change expert' would of course have to believe in global warming and its causes as being largely human related. The parent I replied to compared _his_ parent's 'global climate experts' to priests and how of course they believe in god, despite the evidence.
:-), and I believe we _can_ do something to help reduce/solve the problem. I don't think we _will_, at least not until we've seen the horrible effects, but I think we can.
But this is getting far far off topic. As for my views, I saw the movie, and found it pretty convincing. Of course at this point, we only have correlation of CO2 and temps, we don't have proof of causality. Though we do have experimental evidence of mechanism. So, I believe in global warming, believe we should act or bad things are going to happen (though I can do without Florida, see my other post
On the other hand, my wife's instructor at Sonoma State University, a paleoclimatologist has misgivings about at least some of the peer-reviewed science that's published about global warming.
Odd that you would mention chinese cars, when the movie being discussed talks about the Chinese having much higher mileage standards for their cars than we have. It even talks about how in 12 years, California will have mileage standards approx. equal to China's today!
Some people are concerned with more than what's going on today. You know, like geologic history? There are people who are called paleoclimatologists who study climate change over time scales which far exceed your lifetime. These would be 'climate change experts' and yet would have no particular reason to believe in global warming at the current time, and whether it's attributable to human activities based solely on their vocation. Contrast this with your selection of a contrasting group of people who have been shown to believe in fairy tales and to promulgate their beliefs to make a living and control people.
In other words, stop talking out of your ass. Even on slashdot you look like an idiot.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers c
_And_ I hope we don't do anything about it.
Just so we can get rid of Florida. Serve them right for 2000...
You post makes sense, but I'd got a bit further or a litle sideways, depending on how you look at it.
Basically, I don't care what generation a chip is, I care about what its specs are, including price and power consumption.
Learning about future chips might get me to hold off a purchase, but I'm still going to compare shipping, pricegrabber-able, 'real' chips, not results on engineering samples.
You know, 'speach' didn't look right, but I couldn't see why :-)
I'm not frothing at the mouth, I am wondering if you could possibly generate enough content so that your text would in a large part overlap my generated text, even though you never saw my text. Certainly copyright is designed to prevent me from copying you without your permission, but if I can generate _enough_ content that no matter what content you produce, I've generated it before you, would you be violating copyright? I think by the law you would.
It's similar to the idea that if Pi has somewhere within it the entire bitstream of a CD, would it be a violation of copyright to publish the starting offset and length of the bitstream?
To write a program that generated _huge_ (TBs) amounts of content; speaches/essays/articles about the current state of politics including the real players out there today, and what's really going on and copyright them. Then sue anyone who you don't agree with politically who writes an article that comes close enough to your generated content that their 'political free speach' could be considered infringing.
Could it technically work? What would those cases do to the laws?
How can we convince people that copyright laws are out of wack when they legally can't sing 'happy birthday' to their kids at their birthday party without paying royalties...
I guess I should have re-read the thread before I responded :-) Two days after I post something I've forgotten all the context. I still say that if you can afford windows, you can 'afford' cardboard or sheets or something for 'blinds'.
Well, my wife doesn't have admin priv. on her OS-X box, so I don't have to worry too much about her installing things she shouldn't. The fact that the box is very usable for a non-admin user does help with resisting viral attacks.
Hey, I'm not saying it's 'ok' for someone with x-ray vision to hang out outside the women's locker room at a gym, I'm just talking about what is currently legal/illegal (in CA-US at least).
So it should be legal for me to use a night-vision scope to look into my neighbor's bedroom window at night?
Yes, definitely. In fact, if she can be seen from the street/sidewalk, she could possibly be charged with indecent exposure. If you want privacy, close the blinds. Now if you have to take a step even one foot on her property to have the necessary vantage point, then you would be a 'peeping tom' and in violation of the law.
from watching movies.
If you want to not be bothered by someone and you have the time and opportunity, _ALWAYS_ double tap them to the head!
Are spreadsheets, on average, more or less accurate than Slashdot article summaries?
I don't care about the look, but it doesn't work as well for me. I used to read in 'minimal' mode. Not sure how that corresponds to the new css layout, but I know the new layout wastes a lot more vertical space making reading more of a pain, the default font on Safari is too small to read, and the location of the 'score' on a comment is way over on the right which makes it more eye-movement to check out when deciding whether to read it or not.
I don't want to come off as a gun nut, but my glock with 1000 rounds will probably trump at least 40 people attacking with chopsticks...
You're right, that article _is_ idiotic. I don't comment on slashdot so the link I don't have in my .sig will increase the page-rank on my website where I have no ads nor sell anything.
:-)
I do it to get chicks!
Funny thing is, I've never heard of anyone losing data or being hacked due to Sendmail. Perhaps it's because the last place I saw it used widely was college?
This may be covered in other comments, but haven't you heard about the Morris Internet Worm? You know, the one that took out most of the internet?
That reminds me of when my friend came back from a year in japan. We used to mix it up a bit, friendly mostly. Anyway, he had a lot of judo instruction in Japan, so the first time we mixed it up after he came back I ended up flat on my back on the floor. HARD. That was the last time we mixed it up :-)
Damn, and I'm usually the pedant here :-)
I knew I should have picked Eurasia!
the metropolis of Roswell is small enough to walk across.
:-)
Of course, so is the entire US.