Perhaps what you're really trying to say is: "why should I care if bad shit happens - as long as it doesn't happen to me..."
"Fuck the squirl [sic], it's about people." ok. I essentially agree with this tho. Climate change has the potential to kill billions of people. You can bet that they won't be the wealthy elite though... those kind of people are very good at looking out for themselves.
If you like American lit, read 'The Grapes of Wrath' to see how people react to their starving kin.
Oh Please! How do you *know* this?
What if large changes *within* the next 50 years result in massive wars, starvation and disease? Do you think that could potentially have an impact on your predicted utopia??
You shouldn't assume that we can dig ourselves out of this using technology.
Ok. I apoligise for my 'get over it' comment - that was inflammatory. The fact is, I'm not US-bashing, or rubbing my hands with glee waiting for it's demise. There are 'good' and 'bad' things about the US, just like every other country.
Having said that, I really do believe that the US is becoming (relatively) less powerful internationally, and that quoting expenditure on R&D is a red-herring. Of course research is more expensive in the US - labour costs are much higher.
You really should have a look at that book I mentioned - it's written by a quite famous prof in politics and international relations, and is really interesting (it was quite contreversial). It's definitely *not* anti-US, or anti-West.
Re nukes: "immediately and completely destroyed" - I think there are nations out there for whom 'mutual assured destruction' would not be a deterrent. (obviously, this is not a good thing!)
I don't want to start a flame-war, but here are some points to consider
Firstly, the US is *not* doing "everything we can to make sure this [loss of power] doesn't happen".
Secondly, the cessation of the US as a superpower does not necessarily imply that it will be replaced by another superpower.
Thirdly, there's probably not much that can be done about it. An excellent book is "Clash of Civilizations & the remaking of world order" by Samuel P. Huntington. I personally don't agree with everything he says, but it's an amazing read.
If we're talking about arms in space, what's to stop [insert nuclear-capable country here] from declaring that their airspace extends above geostationary orbit levels, and that any transgression thereof will result in terrestrial nuclear retaliation?
The US is waning as a global superpower. Get over it.
The US *could* set an honourable standard of behaviour for superpowers while they still can, but I suspect that greed will get in the way. Oh well...
However, there are two other aspects you fail to acknowlege.
Firstly, most people, most of the time, are not waiting for their computer to do something. It's the chair-to-computer interface that is the bottleneck (people interacting with their software), so an increase in efficiency here is a big boost in (what I would call) performance. There's a lot more to performance than GFLOPS - remember, a computer is a tool, not an end in itself.
Secondly (and perhaps less importantly), although the specs of Macs might not be as great as PCs, the quality of their componentry is arguably better. Macs, in general, have a low hardware fail rate, and this could be attributed to better (albeit, less powerful) hardware. Many 'high-performance' PCs, especially those that are relatively cheap, are not made by Tier 1 companies from reliable hardware*.
*This is my opinion only, and hasn't been extensively researched.;-)
Firstly, as has been mentioned many times, the ipod is able to play mp3s, so if other sites were prepared to sell them, there would be no problem. This is a no-brainer.
The second angle is IMO more important. Apple should licence the DRMd AAC spec, to allow other manufacturers to play music from ITMS. I know Apple doesn't *have* to do this, but I think we'd all be better off if they did. Also, it would quash some of the comments about their 'monopoly'...
Why do so many people correlate being an environmentalist with being left-wing?
So a 'consensus of.. experts' supported the invasion of Iraq? That's funny - I thought the UN and EU (at least) didn't support it? In fact, the only experts who did were in the UK and the US - for example Australia just went along with what they said. It seems to me that Iraq was invaded contrary to the advice of the experts! And then you use this as an arguement against climate change?!? WTF?!?
Anyway, the words 'global warming' are a misnomer. Anyone who thinks that altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere would result in something as simple as 'global warming', has not thought very long or hard on the issue. (or is blinkered or biased)
I didn't read the scientific papers in question, though I did RTFA. In general, papers/books/scientists who criticise the concept of human-caused climate-change seem to get much more publicity (in main-stream media) than those which do support it. This is probably because the owners of those media also have vested interests. Perhaps the journals are being political, and have an agenda or trying to counter this (which is poor, IMO).
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps this is a bad reflection on me, but my immediate reaction was:
;-)
'heh - I've oftentimes placed my trust in a bottle...'
but I've been known to drink rather heavily, I guess
"But if Denmark sinks who cares ..."
Perhaps what you're really trying to say is: "why should I care if bad shit happens - as long as it doesn't happen to me..."
"Fuck the squirl [sic], it's about people." ok. I essentially agree with this tho.
Climate change has the potential to kill billions of people. You can bet that they won't be the wealthy elite though... those kind of people are very good at looking out for themselves.
If you like American lit, read 'The Grapes of Wrath' to see how people react to their starving kin.
Oh Please! How do you *know* this? What if large changes *within* the next 50 years result in massive wars, starvation and disease? Do you think that could potentially have an impact on your predicted utopia?? You shouldn't assume that we can dig ourselves out of this using technology.
Ok. I apoligise for my 'get over it' comment - that was inflammatory. The fact is, I'm not US-bashing, or rubbing my hands with glee waiting for it's demise. There are 'good' and 'bad' things about the US, just like every other country.
Having said that, I really do believe that the US is becoming (relatively) less powerful internationally, and that quoting expenditure on R&D is a red-herring. Of course research is more expensive in the US - labour costs are much higher.
You really should have a look at that book I mentioned - it's written by a quite famous prof in politics and international relations, and is really interesting (it was quite contreversial). It's definitely *not* anti-US, or anti-West.
Re nukes: "immediately and completely destroyed" - I think there are nations out there for whom 'mutual assured destruction' would not be a deterrent. (obviously, this is not a good thing!)
I don't want to start a flame-war, but here are some points to consider
Firstly, the US is *not* doing "everything we can to make sure this [loss of power] doesn't happen".
Secondly, the cessation of the US as a superpower does not necessarily imply that it will be replaced by another superpower.
Thirdly, there's probably not much that can be done about it. An excellent book is "Clash of Civilizations & the remaking of world order" by Samuel P. Huntington. I personally don't agree with everything he says, but it's an amazing read.
If we're talking about arms in space, what's to stop [insert nuclear-capable country here] from declaring that their airspace extends above geostationary orbit levels, and that any transgression thereof will result in terrestrial nuclear retaliation?
The US is waning as a global superpower. Get over it.
The US *could* set an honourable standard of behaviour for superpowers while they still can, but I suspect that greed will get in the way. Oh well...
There is some truth to what you say.
;-)
However, there are two other aspects you fail to acknowlege.
Firstly, most people, most of the time, are not waiting for their computer to do something. It's the chair-to-computer interface that is the bottleneck (people interacting with their software), so an increase in efficiency here is a big boost in (what I would call) performance. There's a lot more to performance than GFLOPS - remember, a computer is a tool, not an end in itself.
Secondly (and perhaps less importantly), although the specs of Macs might not be as great as PCs, the quality of their componentry is arguably better. Macs, in general, have a low hardware fail rate, and this could be attributed to better (albeit, less powerful) hardware. Many 'high-performance' PCs, especially those that are relatively cheap, are not made by Tier 1 companies from reliable hardware*.
*This is my opinion only, and hasn't been extensively researched.
Firstly, as has been mentioned many times, the ipod is able to play mp3s, so if other sites were prepared to sell them, there would be no problem. This is a no-brainer.
The second angle is IMO more important. Apple should licence the DRMd AAC spec, to allow other manufacturers to play music from ITMS. I know Apple doesn't *have* to do this, but I think we'd all be better off if they did. Also, it would quash some of the comments about their 'monopoly'...
Why do so many people correlate being an environmentalist with being left-wing?
So a 'consensus of.. experts' supported the invasion of Iraq? That's funny - I thought the UN and EU (at least) didn't support it? In fact, the only experts who did were in the UK and the US - for example Australia just went along with what they said. It seems to me that Iraq was invaded contrary to the advice of the experts! And then you use this as an arguement against climate change?!? WTF?!?
Anyway, the words 'global warming' are a misnomer. Anyone who thinks that altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere would result in something as simple as 'global warming', has not thought very long or hard on the issue. (or is blinkered or biased)
I didn't read the scientific papers in question, though I did RTFA. In general, papers/books/scientists who criticise the concept of human-caused climate-change seem to get much more publicity (in main-stream media) than those which do support it. This is probably because the owners of those media also have vested interests.
Perhaps the journals are being political, and have an agenda or trying to counter this (which is poor, IMO).