I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action. If we assume man has no effect and global warming is a natural phenomenon, what's so wrong with taking steps to (a) reduce pollution and (b) reduce dependency on fossil fuels?
(a) Pollution does f*cked up things quite apart from global warming. Remember those picture of forest in Germany and Sweden, algae blooms, "clean" rivers and streams etc etc, so what's wrong with trying to reduce it?
(b) Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing. Developing new tech and their associated industries, this is a good thing. What's the problem?
Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.
That's been one of the funniest things about the whole dispute; Microsoft list, EU pick, expert said Microsoft's docs where shite, Microsoft "attack Mr. Barrett's competence and accuse him of colluding with its rivals". Marvelous Previous slashdot article
Is it just me the smells the faint but distinctive odour of PR about the original post? It reads like something straight out of an agents profile of a client...
The lycos thing was a reaction to spam, i.e. something pushed on to the user. Personally I didn't agree with it, but I could understand why people got involved.
The 419 scam, however, only works because the sucker, oops, victim, are after something for nothing. They only have themselves to blame and this kind of vigilante action is utterly unjustified. Don't blame the scammers, blame the idiots that fall for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply because Exxon offered them money to produce a specific outcome, rather than giving them money to research a hypothesis. BIG difference.
I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action. If we assume man has no effect and global warming is a natural phenomenon, what's so wrong with taking steps to (a) reduce pollution and (b) reduce dependency on fossil fuels?
(a) Pollution does f*cked up things quite apart from global warming. Remember those picture of forest in Germany and Sweden, algae blooms, "clean" rivers and streams etc etc, so what's wrong with trying to reduce it?
(b) Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing. Developing new tech and their associated industries, this is a good thing. What's the problem?
Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.
Gibberish, just gibberish
more specifically, from "pony and trap" rhymed with "crap"
That's been one of the funniest things about the whole dispute; Microsoft list, EU pick, expert said Microsoft's docs where shite, Microsoft "attack Mr. Barrett's competence and accuse him of colluding with its rivals". Marvelous
Previous slashdot article
Fed-ex? You need to stop listening to so much Velvet Underground
Is it just me the smells the faint but distinctive odour of PR about the original post? It reads like something straight out of an agents profile of a client...
The lycos thing was a reaction to spam, i.e. something pushed on to the user. Personally I didn't agree with it, but I could understand why people got involved. The 419 scam, however, only works because the sucker, oops, victim, are after something for nothing. They only have themselves to blame and this kind of vigilante action is utterly unjustified. Don't blame the scammers, blame the idiots that fall for it.