If they are after financial gain, then they are still being stupid.
I only found out about Miro through Google's logo change. I may have been motivated into buying a print from what I saw of it. Now the only thing that comes into mind when I think of Miro are the idiotic self-righteous arrogance of his representatives.
In any case, it's absurd to suggest that adding even the tiniest bit of interactivity or fun removes all artfulness. In any case, Ebert's complaints are not issues of medium, but of genre. Games are only not art because they aren't trying hard enough.
Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.
And besides, the idea that the destruction was because of homosexuality isn't exactly emphasised. When angels are sent to Sodom, it's denizens threatened to rape them, and were appeased by being given young girls to rape instead. Having gays amongst them doesn't exactly sound like the worst of their problems.
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
So it is religious law, which we are bound to yadda yadda, so all seafood lovers are screwed. There's plenty of silly laws all over the place, and I kinda doubt Jesus handed out a list saying which passages were repealed.
Well, the point is that your pad can be sent at a time when you have secure communication - such as on an USB drive in face to face contact. Then, you can send the message later at any time without secure communication. It's a method of shifting the moment that messages have to be sent to be a time when you can guarantee security.
I don't see how such regulations can be enforceable, if they are talking about regulating content that audiences recieve, as opposed to content that European broadcasters can put out. In the latter case, well, it would have to be carefully formulated so as not to result in silly results, and probably wouldn't bring any advantages in any case.
The quote says that it is wrong to blame a single weather event specifically on global warming, full stop. Because weather is so complicated that there are dozens of possible input factors, the removal of any one of which would prevent that single specific event.
Would Katrina have happened without GW, based solely on a natural cycle effect? Probably not. Would Katrina have happened without a natural cycle effect, based solely on GW? Probably not. Would Katrina have happened without a small boy in Eastern Africa coughing at precisely 1300 on new year's day, 2000? Probably not.
So who's to blame? Is not blaming the third option an example of an evil pro-GW agenda? Is this a terrible lapse of logic? The statement is saying that if GW has any effect, it would be that of increasing the likelihood of Katrina, and so we could blame it for a long term trend of increased Hurricane frequencies. But if our data point is one single dot, then it would be fallacious to declare any single factor as 'the one'.
What the statement says is that asking 'was this caused by humans' is the wrong question, because if you are talking about single events in chaotic systems like the weather, you can ask 'was this caused by X' for practically any X and get 'yes' with a near 100% confidence interval.
As you said, there are multiple factors going into this - and we have little infomation on how prevalent cellphone use whilst driving is. The argument here isn't that it should be banned because everyone is doing it, and so there is this huge statistical effect, but that when it is done, it leads to a dramatic increase in risk - including to other innocent drivers around them who aren't using cellphones. Similarly, we don't ban murder because it makes a big difference overall to our death rate, or whatever.
The cost benefit analysis goes like this - would the small cost of this measure (in convenience to a small subset of people, and probably fairly light attempts at enforcement, mostly aiming at the deterrence effect) justify the small reduction in risk and general public perception of risk? If so, then it's a smart measure.
Well, of course. The hypothesis cited would be meaningless if it was just mentioning one year. What makes it interesting is the long term correlation they present:
One line is sea surface temperatures. The other is hurricane intensity (more or less). The matching of the squiggles does appear persuasive, but it can still be a conincidence.
Seriously. Is there a cabal of fanatically anti-GW mods in action, or something?
Let's dissect this piece by piece.
Isn't realclimate.org by the guy who fudged his analysis to generate the discredited "hockey-stick" graph of temperature predictions?
Ad hominem attack. And wrong, because realclimate is a group blog, and the author in question has nothing to do with the hockey stick. And the hockey stick isn't discredited, except in the eyes of a certain small group of people who are often accused of fudging their own maths.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns,[about a potential new ice age] perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available.
And then the page goes on to mention that the knowledge then available was in the absence of GW. i.e. scientists were considering that the Earth would be naturally cooling, if there wasn't a GW effect.
[and present climate knowledge still does not allow reliable predictions]
This line, or sentiment, isn't present in the article at all. It's a direct fallacy of inserting words into someone else's mouth.
So are you attempting to say that: because the concern was not unanimous (it never is) and scientists believed further study was warranted (they always say that) that the concern about global cooling was not common among climate researchers?... If press reports of the 1970s are not to be taken seriously, those of today regarding the nature and origins of climate change should also be viewed with healthy skepticism.
No. The point being made by the article was that such concerns were not exhibited in peer reviewed journals. Climate change is. Popular press does not equal peer reviewed journals. Hence, a direct argument that the present situation is identical to that of 'global cooling' is false.
And before some idiot mods this post as troll (like they did earlier to another of mine), can someone please justify precisely what information the parent offers that makes it so 'informative'?
The argument, IIRC, is centred on the intensity of hurricanes. Activity based on numbers of hurricanes do not capture such an effect, while intensity graphs show a pretty good correlation.
The hypothesis is that ocean temperature is affecting the intensity of the hurricanes, not the number of them. And global warming is affecting the ocean temperature.
Indeed. A far better representative of the evironmentalist movement on this James Lovelock, best known for the Gaia hypothesis. And Lovelock differs from Moore in that he actually commands the respect of the majority of self-declared environmentalists, even if they disagree with his nuclear position.
The argument, IIRC, is centred on the intensity of hurricanes. Activity based on numbers of hurricanes do not capture such an effect, while intensity graphs show a pretty good correlation. Though things are still sketchy at the moment, you can't make a handwave motion and suggest that all hurricane researchers are of the same opinion.
The only reason we are expected to hear what this guy has to say is because he's advertised as an environmentalist, and primarily identified as the cofounder of greenpeace - I mean, go read the summary to see what is being emphasised. Undermine that, as the GP has done, and he becomes just another average Joe, and one who has little to say that hasn't been said, and who doesn't really have enough experience in the field to make professional judgements. If he believes his arguments can stand on their own two feet, then he shouldn't have misled about his allegiance in the first place.
That said, I am personally ambivalent on the nuclear issue. I don't think there is alot of real information out there on what the full costs/benefits are - supporters and detractors seem to constantly give contradictory assertions, and there doesn't seem to be a strong scientific consensus on it.
There are different types of pollution, you know. CO2 or other greenhouse gas pollution increases GW. Smoke, particulate matter, sulphides etc cause cloud formations or darken the sky, (temporarily) reducing the effect of global warming. It's not a case of making no difference either way, but one of reducing one type of emmission whilst continuing to produce another would cause problems in this specific area. Your statement is like saying that because voting republican or not voting democrat would both get a republican president in office, your vote doesn't matter.
Hell, the article isn't even news. We've known about this for ages. The point in the end is that dust and so on don't hang around long in the atmosphere. In the long term, a strategy of polluting and hoping it all cancels out will always fail.
And crippling policies is according to those with vested interests. According to many studies, regulations enacted properly will in fact encourage growth - whilst the already stagnant and declining fossil fuel sector would suffer, the developing renewables sector would have new incentives to develop.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are after financial gain, then they are still being stupid.
I only found out about Miro through Google's logo change. I may have been motivated into buying a print from what I saw of it. Now the only thing that comes into mind when I think of Miro are the idiotic self-righteous arrogance of his representatives.
She was dead serious, and of course a fanatical right wing republican.
One wonders what the hell happened to the right wing.
I hear ya. I'm curious, is accidental finding of 'nudity' on the web while surfing THAT big of a problem???
I think it's an excuse many politicians make to their wives. Looks like one of them called their bluff.
A big and supportive community. Everything follows from that, really.
At least you'll know that you aren't free.
I'd suggest that alot of the better Interactive Fiction works are also artistic. Galatea is a good example:
http://www.mindspring.com/~emshort/galatea.htm
In any case, it's absurd to suggest that adding even the tiniest bit of interactivity or fun removes all artfulness. In any case, Ebert's complaints are not issues of medium, but of genre. Games are only not art because they aren't trying hard enough.
Erm, Sodom was wiped out because:
Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.
And besides, the idea that the destruction was because of homosexuality isn't exactly emphasised. When angels are sent to Sodom, it's denizens threatened to rape them, and were appeased by being given young girls to rape instead. Having gays amongst them doesn't exactly sound like the worst of their problems.
Well, no. For the foods, see
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/11.html
This is prefixed with
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
So it is religious law, which we are bound to yadda yadda, so all seafood lovers are screwed. There's plenty of silly laws all over the place, and I kinda doubt Jesus handed out a list saying which passages were repealed.
Well, the point is that your pad can be sent at a time when you have secure communication - such as on an USB drive in face to face contact. Then, you can send the message later at any time without secure communication. It's a method of shifting the moment that messages have to be sent to be a time when you can guarantee security.
I don't see how such regulations can be enforceable, if they are talking about regulating content that audiences recieve, as opposed to content that European broadcasters can put out. In the latter case, well, it would have to be carefully formulated so as not to result in silly results, and probably wouldn't bring any advantages in any case.
Well, one more step towards making Linux ready for the desktop.
Um, no.
The quote says that it is wrong to blame a single weather event specifically on global warming, full stop. Because weather is so complicated that there are dozens of possible input factors, the removal of any one of which would prevent that single specific event.
Would Katrina have happened without GW, based solely on a natural cycle effect? Probably not.
Would Katrina have happened without a natural cycle effect, based solely on GW? Probably not.
Would Katrina have happened without a small boy in Eastern Africa coughing at precisely 1300 on new year's day, 2000? Probably not.
So who's to blame? Is not blaming the third option an example of an evil pro-GW agenda? Is this a terrible lapse of logic? The statement is saying that if GW has any effect, it would be that of increasing the likelihood of Katrina, and so we could blame it for a long term trend of increased Hurricane frequencies. But if our data point is one single dot, then it would be fallacious to declare any single factor as 'the one'.
What the statement says is that asking 'was this caused by humans' is the wrong question, because if you are talking about single events in chaotic systems like the weather, you can ask 'was this caused by X' for practically any X and get 'yes' with a near 100% confidence interval.
Enh.
As you said, there are multiple factors going into this - and we have little infomation on how prevalent cellphone use whilst driving is. The argument here isn't that it should be banned because everyone is doing it, and so there is this huge statistical effect, but that when it is done, it leads to a dramatic increase in risk - including to other innocent drivers around them who aren't using cellphones. Similarly, we don't ban murder because it makes a big difference overall to our death rate, or whatever.
The cost benefit analysis goes like this - would the small cost of this measure (in convenience to a small subset of people, and probably fairly light attempts at enforcement, mostly aiming at the deterrence effect) justify the small reduction in risk and general public perception of risk? If so, then it's a smart measure.
Maybe the phone call persuaded him to take drugs, and finally made him fall asleep?
Yeah. There isn't enough data for this one. (Unlike, I would say, for GW). At this point, it's an interesting possibility, that is all.
Well, of course. The hypothesis cited would be meaningless if it was just mentioning one year. What makes it interesting is the long term correlation they present:
m ages/nature03906-f1.2.jpg
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/i
One line is sea surface temperatures. The other is hurricane intensity (more or less). The matching of the squiggles does appear persuasive, but it can still be a conincidence.
Seriously. Is there a cabal of fanatically anti-GW mods in action, or something?
... If press reports of the 1970s are not to be taken seriously, those of today regarding the nature and origins of climate change should also be viewed with healthy skepticism.
Let's dissect this piece by piece.
Isn't realclimate.org by the guy who fudged his analysis to generate the discredited "hockey-stick" graph of temperature predictions?
Ad hominem attack. And wrong, because realclimate is a group blog, and the author in question has nothing to do with the hockey stick. And the hockey stick isn't discredited, except in the eyes of a certain small group of people who are often accused of fudging their own maths.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns,[about a potential new ice age] perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available.
And then the page goes on to mention that the knowledge then available was in the absence of GW. i.e. scientists were considering that the Earth would be naturally cooling, if there wasn't a GW effect.
[and present climate knowledge still does not allow reliable predictions]
This line, or sentiment, isn't present in the article at all. It's a direct fallacy of inserting words into someone else's mouth.
So are you attempting to say that: because the concern was not unanimous (it never is) and scientists believed further study was warranted (they always say that) that the concern about global cooling was not common among climate researchers?
No. The point being made by the article was that such concerns were not exhibited in peer reviewed journals. Climate change is. Popular press does not equal peer reviewed journals. Hence, a direct argument that the present situation is identical to that of 'global cooling' is false.
And before some idiot mods this post as troll (like they did earlier to another of mine), can someone please justify precisely what information the parent offers that makes it so 'informative'?
Um, what did I just say?
The argument, IIRC, is centred on the intensity of hurricanes. Activity based on numbers of hurricanes do not capture such an effect, while intensity graphs show a pretty good correlation.
The hypothesis is that ocean temperature is affecting the intensity of the hurricanes, not the number of them. And global warming is affecting the ocean temperature.
Indeed. A far better representative of the evironmentalist movement on this James Lovelock, best known for the Gaia hypothesis. And Lovelock differs from Moore in that he actually commands the respect of the majority of self-declared environmentalists, even if they disagree with his nuclear position.
Oh really?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
The argument, IIRC, is centred on the intensity of hurricanes. Activity based on numbers of hurricanes do not capture such an effect, while intensity graphs show a pretty good correlation. Though things are still sketchy at the moment, you can't make a handwave motion and suggest that all hurricane researchers are of the same opinion.
So really, the two things cancel out.
The only reason we are expected to hear what this guy has to say is because he's advertised as an environmentalist, and primarily identified as the cofounder of greenpeace - I mean, go read the summary to see what is being emphasised. Undermine that, as the GP has done, and he becomes just another average Joe, and one who has little to say that hasn't been said, and who doesn't really have enough experience in the field to make professional judgements. If he believes his arguments can stand on their own two feet, then he shouldn't have misled about his allegiance in the first place.
That said, I am personally ambivalent on the nuclear issue. I don't think there is alot of real information out there on what the full costs/benefits are - supporters and detractors seem to constantly give contradictory assertions, and there doesn't seem to be a strong scientific consensus on it.
As they say, Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.
Elementary school children also thought the Spice Girls made good music.
I doubt many would suggest that was the scientific consensus.
Exactly. Eisenhower warned us about this shit.
Because it's stupid. Really very stupid.
There are different types of pollution, you know. CO2 or other greenhouse gas pollution increases GW. Smoke, particulate matter, sulphides etc cause cloud formations or darken the sky, (temporarily) reducing the effect of global warming. It's not a case of making no difference either way, but one of reducing one type of emmission whilst continuing to produce another would cause problems in this specific area. Your statement is like saying that because voting republican or not voting democrat would both get a republican president in office, your vote doesn't matter.
Hell, the article isn't even news. We've known about this for ages. The point in the end is that dust and so on don't hang around long in the atmosphere. In the long term, a strategy of polluting and hoping it all cancels out will always fail.
And crippling policies is according to those with vested interests. According to many studies, regulations enacted properly will in fact encourage growth - whilst the already stagnant and declining fossil fuel sector would suffer, the developing renewables sector would have new incentives to develop.