many french people do not really like Parisians because most of the time, they're pretentious, believe than everything belong to them, and do not try any time to understand why people don't like them... Moreover, they're wealthier, so their presence tend to create balance problems, mainly real-estate related
Everything a country does internationally is for self-serving interests. The US didn't go to Vietnam because they gave two jots about the people, they were there because of the communist threat. Likewise with Iraq--spreading freedom and democracy my ass.
I happen to believe those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Having a free and democratic Iraq is definitely in the US's and the world's best interest.
That's exactly where the money would go if we kept more of it (assuming you don't keep your money in your mattress). It's even more efficiently used if it doesn't have to go through the hands of the government first.
Fortunately there's more to life than running Linux. I'm currently at the best job of my life where I can make a difference in the lives of all Americans and their allies. There's no way I'm going to give up the job for an inferior one just so I can run Linux.
My point was, if we are going to tell people, "We appreciate your interest in Linux, but we just can't help you unless you convince the CIO of your company to redo all of their backoffice.", how are we going to grow Linux's userbase? We need to convert the IT and the business people, but lets not neglect the users while we're doing it.
My one contention with your post is that not everyone is in the IT department or can make IT related decisions. This guy is trying to use Linux within the framework of the company that he works for. I'm a software developer within a large company that uses Exchange. I don't have the option of replacing Exchange with an open source alternative. So if I want to use Linux in my enterprise environment, I have no options and I will forever be a Windows user while I work here.
Can global warming be attributed to this you ask? Well, it's a matter of sitting down and runnign the numbers. Luckily people have - it's not like people aren't bothering to measure and track the amount of solar radiation that actually reaches the surface of the earth. We can then calculate how much that might contribute to warming. The IPCC, in the Third Assessment Report, put it at about 30% of observed warming. They also concluded that the warming of the last 50 years cannot be explained without considering anthropogenic effects - that is, solar explanations alone are not enough.
There are some that think that the temperature projections are being overstated. Steven Milloy Did the math with the experts' formulas and came up with vastly smaller temperature increases. It's an interesting read with numbers to back it up.
It's a long standing joke that the best thing that can happen to a country is to lose a war against the US and then get foreign aid pumped into your country. See The Mouse that Roared as an example.
I saw an episode of Future Weapons where they had a company developing a gps guided artillery round fired from a tank. Their biggest hurdle was getting the electronics to survive. These things only go 1/10th of the distance that this rail gun is talking about so I would think it's a pretty big hurdle.
when is the last time you were able to hear the opinions of a labor leader, explaining the benefits of joining a union?
Just last week on a conservative radio show. A barista from Starbucks explaining why he thought they should be able to unionize. Now get this, he was an Ivy league college graduate but decided he'd rather just pour coffee for a living and was saying how unfair it was that he was only making $10 - $14 (with tips) per hour pouring cofee while the owner of the company was making millions and could even afford opening more starbucks stores in more areas.
All this is is a way to get rid of AM Talk Radio and conservative talking heads. Dems want to go back to the "good ol' days" when only NPR was on the AM dial and if anyone got out of hand with an opinion, they could fine them. This is an assault on the 1st Amendment.
Cringely suspects that the whole thing is a marketing stunt. They had 2 major announcements at mac world:
1) iPhone
2) iTV
They both had trademark issues. iPhone was with Cisco and iTV was with eyeTV. They changed the iTV to Apple TV. They could have just as easily changed iPhone to Apple Phone or something else. Why didn't they do it? Cringely writes that he thinks it's for its marketing value. It guarantees that iPhone and the lawsuit will stay in the news long enough for everyone in the country to have heard of it. I don't know if this is the real reason but it does fit the facts. I wonder if the cost of a lawsuit is less than a TON of commercials and other advertisements.
And the second that a US Navy vessel tells you to stand down and be boarded, and you refuse, and they shoot at you, and you fire back with missiles and try to sink their ship, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?
Try this one out. This guy puts out a very good argument that many are over-estimating the effects of the CO2 in the atmosphere has on temperature increases. He does the math.
On balance of available evidence then the current model-estimated range of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide should probably be reduced from 1.4 - 5.8 C to about 0.4 C to suit observations or 0.8 C to accommodate theoretical warming -- and that's including F of 3.7 Wm-2 from a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a figure we suspect is also inflated.
The bottom line is that climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin. The median estimate 3.0 C warming cited by the IPCC for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is physically implausible
OK, I'll give you that. I agree without a doubt that CO2 levels are rising which is a greenhouse gas. I'm just reserved in deciding to change all of western civilization and potentially decimating our economy based on some opinions of what it could mean. I just want all sides considered instead of a knee-jerk, reactionary, "we're all going to die" reaction.
I actually haven't seen the movie yet, though I plan to when life slows down.
I see your point. I guess it's just in my nature to look at something that's stated as fact and try to find what's not included but might be important. For example, I have heard that in the movie it shows the ice shelves in antarctica falling into the sea yet it doesn't mention the fact that further inland the ice is thickening. Does one negate the other? I don't know. Is it something worthwhile to know? Absolutely. Maybe they're both caused by global warming but maybe it's part of the self-regulation of the earth. I don't know but anyone that takes a documentary with an agenda (they all have them, of course) and thinks that that is the whole story is really missing out.
I have no problem with the responses being venomous, it's just a telling observation. You seem to be able to read a lot more into my posts than intended. Personal attacks never an argument make.
I was hypothesizing. I was throwing out the question as to whether things like reputation and grant money and livelihood have an influence as to whether they would back a big money production supporting their research. Perhaps they'd be willing to overlook parts because of the "overall message." Is it a legitimate question? If not, just go back to your dogma and give it no more credence.
I can't believe how venomous the responses I've received on this post have been. Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you can't see any kind of logical questioning without such hostility?
There was no attack. There was no implication that any scientist was being untruthful. I didn't even make a statement on whether global warming is true or not. Isn't it still ok to take information with a grain of salt? Or is this too holy of a cause for that to be allowed now?
The question mark was meant to make people think about the proposition and not make it a statement of fact. If you're saying that I can't even make an hypothesis based off of logical thought, where does that leave your belief in science? It is unfounded in this instance because I have made no study on it and so I wouldn't dream of asserting it as fact. I believe I was being up front in how I framed the post.
I never drew a moral equivalence. You did. Just because you can cite someone else that may be more dishonest doesn't negate my statement.
I just threw out a thought I had that our expectations that all science should be apolitical is naive. Scientists have to pay the bills just like everyone else. My father-in-law was a scientist at a government lab. If you couldn't justify your research, you could find yourself out of funding and out of a job.
I'm not saying that these scientists are being dishonest. I'm just saying that they would probably support any kind of film or propoganda that will help bring in research money.
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to believe those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Having a free and democratic Iraq is definitely in the US's and the world's best interest.
That's exactly where the money would go if we kept more of it (assuming you don't keep your money in your mattress). It's even more efficiently used if it doesn't have to go through the hands of the government first.
Fortunately there's more to life than running Linux. I'm currently at the best job of my life where I can make a difference in the lives of all Americans and their allies. There's no way I'm going to give up the job for an inferior one just so I can run Linux.
My point was, if we are going to tell people, "We appreciate your interest in Linux, but we just can't help you unless you convince the CIO of your company to redo all of their backoffice.", how are we going to grow Linux's userbase? We need to convert the IT and the business people, but lets not neglect the users while we're doing it.
My one contention with your post is that not everyone is in the IT department or can make IT related decisions. This guy is trying to use Linux within the framework of the company that he works for. I'm a software developer within a large company that uses Exchange. I don't have the option of replacing Exchange with an open source alternative. So if I want to use Linux in my enterprise environment, I have no options and I will forever be a Windows user while I work here.
I thought Novell owns and develops evolution. What's keeping Novell from developing this functionality?
It's a long standing joke that the best thing that can happen to a country is to lose a war against the US and then get foreign aid pumped into your country. See The Mouse that Roared as an example.
I saw an episode of Future Weapons where they had a company developing a gps guided artillery round fired from a tank. Their biggest hurdle was getting the electronics to survive. These things only go 1/10th of the distance that this rail gun is talking about so I would think it's a pretty big hurdle.
when is the last time you were able to hear the opinions of a labor leader, explaining the benefits of joining a union?
Just last week on a conservative radio show. A barista from Starbucks explaining why he thought they should be able to unionize. Now get this, he was an Ivy league college graduate but decided he'd rather just pour coffee for a living and was saying how unfair it was that he was only making $10 - $14 (with tips) per hour pouring cofee while the owner of the company was making millions and could even afford opening more starbucks stores in more areas.
All this is is a way to get rid of AM Talk Radio and conservative talking heads. Dems want to go back to the "good ol' days" when only NPR was on the AM dial and if anyone got out of hand with an opinion, they could fine them. This is an assault on the 1st Amendment.
Cringely suspects that the whole thing is a marketing stunt. They had 2 major announcements at mac world:
1) iPhone
2) iTV
They both had trademark issues. iPhone was with Cisco and iTV was with eyeTV. They changed the iTV to Apple TV. They could have just as easily changed iPhone to Apple Phone or something else. Why didn't they do it? Cringely writes that he thinks it's for its marketing value. It guarantees that iPhone and the lawsuit will stay in the news long enough for everyone in the country to have heard of it. I don't know if this is the real reason but it does fit the facts. I wonder if the cost of a lawsuit is less than a TON of commercials and other advertisements.
People still have their TVs repaired?
And the second that a US Navy vessel tells you to stand down and be boarded, and you refuse, and they shoot at you, and you fire back with missiles and try to sink their ship, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?
It worked against the USS Cole.
Wasn't the CPPA overturned by the 9th circuit court of appeals in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition and the Effect of the Decision??
Hehe. Apple: Where "think different" means make everything look the same.
What do you think if this. What constant does your model use to convert Watts sq meters to average temperature? I'm really curious about this.
OK, I'll give you that. I agree without a doubt that CO2 levels are rising which is a greenhouse gas. I'm just reserved in deciding to change all of western civilization and potentially decimating our economy based on some opinions of what it could mean. I just want all sides considered instead of a knee-jerk, reactionary, "we're all going to die" reaction.
I actually haven't seen the movie yet, though I plan to when life slows down.
I see your point. I guess it's just in my nature to look at something that's stated as fact and try to find what's not included but might be important. For example, I have heard that in the movie it shows the ice shelves in antarctica falling into the sea yet it doesn't mention the fact that further inland the ice is thickening. Does one negate the other? I don't know. Is it something worthwhile to know? Absolutely. Maybe they're both caused by global warming but maybe it's part of the self-regulation of the earth. I don't know but anyone that takes a documentary with an agenda (they all have them, of course) and thinks that that is the whole story is really missing out.
I have no problem with the responses being venomous, it's just a telling observation. You seem to be able to read a lot more into my posts than intended. Personal attacks never an argument make.
I was hypothesizing. I was throwing out the question as to whether things like reputation and grant money and livelihood have an influence as to whether they would back a big money production supporting their research. Perhaps they'd be willing to overlook parts because of the "overall message." Is it a legitimate question? If not, just go back to your dogma and give it no more credence.
I can't believe how venomous the responses I've received on this post have been. Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you can't see any kind of logical questioning without such hostility?
There was no attack. There was no implication that any scientist was being untruthful. I didn't even make a statement on whether global warming is true or not. Isn't it still ok to take information with a grain of salt? Or is this too holy of a cause for that to be allowed now?
The question mark was meant to make people think about the proposition and not make it a statement of fact. If you're saying that I can't even make an hypothesis based off of logical thought, where does that leave your belief in science? It is unfounded in this instance because I have made no study on it and so I wouldn't dream of asserting it as fact. I believe I was being up front in how I framed the post.
I never drew a moral equivalence. You did. Just because you can cite someone else that may be more dishonest doesn't negate my statement.
I just threw out a thought I had that our expectations that all science should be apolitical is naive. Scientists have to pay the bills just like everyone else. My father-in-law was a scientist at a government lab. If you couldn't justify your research, you could find yourself out of funding and out of a job.
I'm not saying that these scientists are being dishonest. I'm just saying that they would probably support any kind of film or propoganda that will help bring in research money.
Summary of discussion:
Blah blah blah Global Warming is true and you're stupid blah blah blah
Blah blah blah Global Warming is not true and you're stupid blah blah blah