Soooo..... do you have any data to back up your criticism? Any analysis? Any support? Alternatively, what's wrong with every other link? Or do you just like to judge scientific ideas by whether the proponent is cute and cuddly?
I'm pleased as punch to see that you haven't cited a single data source. Your lack of knowledge about basic absorption physics and CO2 data (CO2 levels are way below planetary norms - hah!) indicates you're a basic, clueless troll. Shrug. Fortunately, you're in the minority now, and won't be able to significantly mess up my planet for me.
Ohhh... that's a fun one. You know why the ozone layer isn't gone? Because we did something about it! Remember CFCs? No? Good! That's because they were banned after it was found that they are the main source of the ozone degradation over the antarctic. If you want to use counter examples to environmentalist hysteria, at least get a good one. The global cooling scare is popular, even if its description is inaccurate.
Sadly, I can't find the graph that superposes the temperature record over the CO2 record. I'm sure another 30 minutes of googling for it will yield it.
The spike is over the last 150 years or so, and basic modeling techniques show you that it is abnormal. All your questions can be answered by looking through the two graphs I provided you.
Alright, I exaggerated when I said that our CO2 output dwarfs all natural emissions. You're right, that's probably wrong. However, our emissions are currently not being absorbed as fast as they are generated, and total concentrations are rising quite nicely. That's the key part - we are putting stuff into the regular cycle that doesn't get absorbed.
I know you don't think that it's affecting the earth. You still haven't given a reason why, despite the well known physics of infrared absorption, which are described quite nicely here: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/ molspec/irspec1.htm The data about CO2 affecting infrared radiation from earth can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142, and at the Wikipedia article about greenhouse gases. If you object to the sources, you can always check the referenced literature.
I've got plenty of data. I can pull data for days. Where's yours? Where's your peer reviewed article? All you have is a few people who had to get a BBC documentary made, because people kept laughing at their theories and wouldn't bother publishing their papers. BTW, I've seen the BBC documentary - the data referenced in there, as well as the analysis thereof, has been widely discredited. For something real, read the IPCC reports: start here (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/pub.htm), and don't stop until the end. Then come back.
The article is a nice try to put some good spin on Global Warming. To some extent, they're right. There will be positive effects from an overall warmer climate: Siberia won't be quite so forbidding. Canada could get some better agricultural areas. Cold spells will kill hundreds less of homeless people in nothern latitudes.
The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks. Is it a necessary part of the discussion? Of course. Does it change the negative aspects of Global Warming? No. Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes. The cost of Global Warming is still going to be in the trillions, because people generally already accounted for this.
Fewer deaths from flu spells will be offset by increasing deaths by malaria (which is already migrating north). Actually, reading through the article, it seems that the author has no idea about what has already happened, and is content with merely posting speculation about what could happen. I'm reminded of the troll piece recently posted on C|Net about intellectual property. Same lack of content, same latching onto vague promises that have not materialized, same complete lack of evidence for their position.
For the last 100000 years or so, you're right. The only problem is that in the last 150 years or so, CO2 concentration has changed its correlation pattern with temperature. Now, there's a massive CO2 spike that is not explained by temperature dependencies.
Besides, since you are so sure, riddle me this: we can calculate our CO2 output (it dwarfs natural emissions). We know the physics behind CO2 absorption of solar radiation. What makes you think that this is affecting the earth?
I'm always amazed by how easily people believe things they want to believe.
Game "p/reviews" that are written by the PR or marketing team of the game developer. They are essentially sent to the gaming mags with the understanding that they are to be printed largely as is, in exchange of a sum of money or continued advertising. The reason this is worse? No editor can influence this. It's essentially an ad disguised as an independent opinion piece, and only controlled by PR/marketing people in the two companies.
My experience has no bearing on yours.:) I would simply argue that your personal experience supports the study, while mine doesn't - and which is why I'm suspicious of it, while you use it to support your position. Furthermore, I'd argue that the large majority of males are being exposed to porn on a semi-regular basis, which calls into question the setup of the study.
As for the moderators.... well, I guess there's some truth to it. I get a similar effect when posting about Global Warming. Some of my posts undergo wild fluctuations from +5 informative to -1 troll several times over the course of the day. I still wouldn't take it too seriously. Yes, ideally the tags would mean what they do, but as I said earlier: even dicks get mod points. If you feel your post was good, leave it at that. Personally, I just read the responses and ignore the modding.
Browsing at -1 can make my eyes bleed, but at least I can quickly filter stuff.
"Pedophiles are the great boogeymen of our age, but when it comes down to it, pedophilia is just another kink, albeit one that cannot be indulged in for real."
The problem is that this particular kink has the potential to perpetuate itself. Pedophiles often make pedophiles out of the kids they abuse, especially if the kid is male.
Well... I would have to agree that *some* mods just don't like what they see. However, I would take my lumps on this one. I personally enjoyed your posts on this topic (even if I'm still highly suspicious of the study - personal experience;) ) and would have modded you up. Chalk it up to having posted on the day when a few idiots got their mod points.
I'm very curious to know what they think the mechanism at play was, especially since I highly doubt that that exposure to porn was new or exclusive. Do you have the reference for the article? I'd like to find out more about its details.
No, I replied to the right comment. If you didn't try to flame... well, the nazi substitution mechanism is a common flame technique. I still think your post is neither a disagreement nor an endorsement - it is an example of a form of protected speech.
The distinctions are drawn - actual child abuse harms someone, virtual child abuse doesn't. Whether virtual child abuse leads to actual child abuse is a different story. I still say that SecondLife should be used to expose these fuckers, rather than drive them underground.
You're making one mistake in your analysis - no one invented anything in a vacuum. Everything built on the inventions that came before. That is what makes patents so egregious - they pretend that everything that contributed to the invention does not exist.
Patents are exactly what they are stated to be: legal constructs designed to encourage the advancement of the arts and sciences. Anything that inhibits this (and we're starting to see the effects of asinine patents and overly broad copyrights) needs to be removed.
It's very easy to distinguish a patent troll from others. The patent troll will not produce any products based on the patent. The patent troll will, however, file lawsuits against people not entering into licensing agreements with them (and sometimes even then). Finally, patent trolls generally file lawsuits against established players, rather than new products.
Finally, there is a difference between legal and legitimate. The patent troll will ignore that.
The problem is their impenetrable armor made of millions and billions of green paper bills. It seems to cushion those blows quite well. I suspect that the problem will only stop once we relieve them of their green little bills.
Yes folks, piracy is not only the result of DRM, but also its cure.
Sigh. I'm not even sure if I'm kidding anymore. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the people who endorse this stuff are giant sociopaths whose only goal in life is to make a bigger pool filled with money. The only thing they understand is whether that pool is getting larger or smaller..
I have no interest in creating a nanny state, nor in creating a state that tells me what is good for me. There is a fine line between looking out for the rights of helpless victims and trampling all over free speech and criminalizing bad thoughts. This line starts right here.
"But with all due respect, that is predicated on the rather naive assumption that people will keep these predatorial fantasies locked within the rather unsatisfying realm of virtual reality."
No, it is predicated on the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that thought crimes are an Orwellian horror.
I'm alternately amused and horrified by how easily people are willing to throw others in jail without due process and clamp down on free speech that they disagree with.
I'm glad to hear from someone who has seen this stuff first hand. I also believe that the people engaging in this kind of stuff are probably pedophiles themselves. But I think that the best way to deal with them is to leave them alone in the virtual world, where they are out in the open, and no one gets hurt. Then anyone can keep an eye on them, get their info, and do a cross check on what they're doing in their first life. If someone's an actual pedophile - bam, slammer for you.
To some extent, this is like people advertising that they're pedophiles. It makes it that much easier to figure out if they really are pedophiles, and to deal with them for what they've done in real life. Making this stuff illegal just makes it harder to track these people.
The part that referred to "trading in virtual child pornography is punishable by up to three years"?
I'm as horrified as anyone by real child abuse and pornography, but virtual one? Age-play? That's just dumb. If anything, it might be possible to identify whether the people acting out their fantasies have either engaged in real child abuse or have been victims of it. But to criminalize virtual role-playing is indeed a complete thought crime.
I wish that someone would mod this up - it took me a while to figure out what I was looking at in the link, but this is fascinating.
It shows Richard Armitage's calendar from June 13th, 2003. The calendar was shown with respect to the Plame leak investigation, but the real - and largely overlooked - nugget is a 30 minute appointment with Tom Cruise, Tom David and Kurt Weiland. Weiland is one of the top legal bigwigs at Scientology, and Tom Davis is a presenter at meetings/trainings.
It's fascinating the kind of access and influence that Scientology has.
You've got that exactly right.
I know you were probably just trying to flame, but you actually stumbled upon an example that illustrates very nicely what freedom of speech is.
It's possible it's the West Coast, though I haven't seen much of it in PA either. NYC is pretty much hopeless anyway.
Thanks for teh suggestion to push the local planning commission... though I don't know how much they'll like a cheap renter giving them suggestions on what to do with their commission.:)
I'm not saying never turn the lights red - just turn them red after the proper time interval *on the expressway* has elapsed. What I see is - stop at red light - drive 200 yards - stop at another red light because a car triggered the road sensors on the feeder road - drive 200 yards - stop again - etc. etc. etc.
The point is that you stop only once every couple of lights, not at every single intersection.
Coordinate the damn traffic lights. Yes, maybe I do have a knack for triggering a red light when I drive up to it. But what I don't understand is why on major expressways (essentially freeways through urban areas with traffic lights), red lights are triggered when a single car comes to a stop at a small cross road. The net effect is that in order to get a single car across the road in less than 20 seconds, 10 cars have to come to a stop for 20 seconds.
Seriously, is it that hard to tie the road sensors to timing chips? It doesn't even have to be done on all roads - but anything labeled an expressway, as well as a major roads with known traffic patterns should all have coordinated lights at all times. Expressway cuts through residential areas for 3 miles? Have a green wave run one way in the morning and the other way in the evening. Major road intersects with expressway? All lights on that major road are timed according to the same mechanism, except the one that controls the intersection with the expressway. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be. Any improvement over the current idiocy of stopping 10 cars to prevent one car from idling for more than 20 seconds will result in a dramatic improvement in gas mileage.
How do I know? My car computer shows average gas mileage, as well as current. I can improve my gas mileage from 27 mpg to 32 mpg if I manage to coast through major roads at 45 mph, instead of having to stop at every friggin red light. All it takes is to have a timing chip control each light, program it according to traffic patterns and expected (or even desired!) speed of cars, and you're done. Instant improvement in gas mileage, and instant reduction in oil imports.
It boggles my mind how Europe had those things down pat 20 years ago, but here they still don't get the concept of a green wave on major roads.
Slashdot Mirror
Soooo..... do you have any data to back up your criticism? Any analysis? Any support? Alternatively, what's wrong with every other link? Or do you just like to judge scientific ideas by whether the proponent is cute and cuddly?
I'm pleased as punch to see that you haven't cited a single data source. Your lack of knowledge about basic absorption physics and CO2 data (CO2 levels are way below planetary norms - hah!) indicates you're a basic, clueless troll. Shrug. Fortunately, you're in the minority now, and won't be able to significantly mess up my planet for me.
Ohhh... that's a fun one. You know why the ozone layer isn't gone? Because we did something about it! Remember CFCs? No? Good! That's because they were banned after it was found that they are the main source of the ozone degradation over the antarctic. If you want to use counter examples to environmentalist hysteria, at least get a good one. The global cooling scare is popular, even if its description is inaccurate.
Vostok ice core data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/ vostok/vostok.html
/ molspec/irspec1.htm
/ warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
CO2 concentrations over the last 600000 years: http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Sadly, I can't find the graph that superposes the temperature record over the CO2 record. I'm sure another 30 minutes of googling for it will yield it.
The spike is over the last 150 years or so, and basic modeling techniques show you that it is abnormal. All your questions can be answered by looking through the two graphs I provided you.
Alright, I exaggerated when I said that our CO2 output dwarfs all natural emissions. You're right, that's probably wrong. However, our emissions are currently not being absorbed as fast as they are generated, and total concentrations are rising quite nicely. That's the key part - we are putting stuff into the regular cycle that doesn't get absorbed.
I know you don't think that it's affecting the earth. You still haven't given a reason why, despite the well known physics of infrared absorption, which are described quite nicely here: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials
The data about CO2 affecting infrared radiation from earth can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142, and at the Wikipedia article about greenhouse gases. If you object to the sources, you can always check the referenced literature.
I've got plenty of data. I can pull data for days. Where's yours? Where's your peer reviewed article? All you have is a few people who had to get a BBC documentary made, because people kept laughing at their theories and wouldn't bother publishing their papers. BTW, I've seen the BBC documentary - the data referenced in there, as well as the analysis thereof, has been widely discredited. For something real, read the IPCC reports: start here (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/pub.htm), and don't stop until the end. Then come back.
Oh, and just for the heck of it, because I like Woods Hole and a friend of mine worked there, here's a little summary they threw together about the CO2 data collected: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications
Again - where's your data?
The article is a nice try to put some good spin on Global Warming. To some extent, they're right. There will be positive effects from an overall warmer climate: Siberia won't be quite so forbidding. Canada could get some better agricultural areas. Cold spells will kill hundreds less of homeless people in nothern latitudes.
The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks. Is it a necessary part of the discussion? Of course. Does it change the negative aspects of Global Warming? No. Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes. The cost of Global Warming is still going to be in the trillions, because people generally already accounted for this.
Fewer deaths from flu spells will be offset by increasing deaths by malaria (which is already migrating north). Actually, reading through the article, it seems that the author has no idea about what has already happened, and is content with merely posting speculation about what could happen. I'm reminded of the troll piece recently posted on C|Net about intellectual property. Same lack of content, same latching onto vague promises that have not materialized, same complete lack of evidence for their position.
I'm off to tagging the article flamebait.
For the last 100000 years or so, you're right. The only problem is that in the last 150 years or so, CO2 concentration has changed its correlation pattern with temperature. Now, there's a massive CO2 spike that is not explained by temperature dependencies.
Besides, since you are so sure, riddle me this: we can calculate our CO2 output (it dwarfs natural emissions). We know the physics behind CO2 absorption of solar radiation. What makes you think that this is affecting the earth?
I'm always amazed by how easily people believe things they want to believe.
Game "p/reviews" that are written by the PR or marketing team of the game developer. They are essentially sent to the gaming mags with the understanding that they are to be printed largely as is, in exchange of a sum of money or continued advertising. The reason this is worse? No editor can influence this. It's essentially an ad disguised as an independent opinion piece, and only controlled by PR/marketing people in the two companies.
My experience has no bearing on yours. :) I would simply argue that your personal experience supports the study, while mine doesn't - and which is why I'm suspicious of it, while you use it to support your position. Furthermore, I'd argue that the large majority of males are being exposed to porn on a semi-regular basis, which calls into question the setup of the study.
As for the moderators.... well, I guess there's some truth to it. I get a similar effect when posting about Global Warming. Some of my posts undergo wild fluctuations from +5 informative to -1 troll several times over the course of the day. I still wouldn't take it too seriously. Yes, ideally the tags would mean what they do, but as I said earlier: even dicks get mod points. If you feel your post was good, leave it at that. Personally, I just read the responses and ignore the modding.
Browsing at -1 can make my eyes bleed, but at least I can quickly filter stuff.
"Pedophiles are the great boogeymen of our age, but when it comes down to it, pedophilia is just another kink, albeit one that cannot be indulged in for real."
The problem is that this particular kink has the potential to perpetuate itself. Pedophiles often make pedophiles out of the kids they abuse, especially if the kid is male.
Well... I would have to agree that *some* mods just don't like what they see. However, I would take my lumps on this one. I personally enjoyed your posts on this topic (even if I'm still highly suspicious of the study - personal experience ;) ) and would have modded you up. Chalk it up to having posted on the day when a few idiots got their mod points.
I'm very curious to know what they think the mechanism at play was, especially since I highly doubt that that exposure to porn was new or exclusive. Do you have the reference for the article? I'd like to find out more about its details.
No, I replied to the right comment. If you didn't try to flame... well, the nazi substitution mechanism is a common flame technique. I still think your post is neither a disagreement nor an endorsement - it is an example of a form of protected speech.
The distinctions are drawn - actual child abuse harms someone, virtual child abuse doesn't. Whether virtual child abuse leads to actual child abuse is a different story. I still say that SecondLife should be used to expose these fuckers, rather than drive them underground.
You're making one mistake in your analysis - no one invented anything in a vacuum. Everything built on the inventions that came before. That is what makes patents so egregious - they pretend that everything that contributed to the invention does not exist.
Patents are exactly what they are stated to be: legal constructs designed to encourage the advancement of the arts and sciences. Anything that inhibits this (and we're starting to see the effects of asinine patents and overly broad copyrights) needs to be removed.
It's very easy to distinguish a patent troll from others. The patent troll will not produce any products based on the patent. The patent troll will, however, file lawsuits against people not entering into licensing agreements with them (and sometimes even then). Finally, patent trolls generally file lawsuits against established players, rather than new products.
Finally, there is a difference between legal and legitimate. The patent troll will ignore that.
The problem is their impenetrable armor made of millions and billions of green paper bills. It seems to cushion those blows quite well. I suspect that the problem will only stop once we relieve them of their green little bills.
Yes folks, piracy is not only the result of DRM, but also its cure.
Sigh. I'm not even sure if I'm kidding anymore. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the people who endorse this stuff are giant sociopaths whose only goal in life is to make a bigger pool filled with money. The only thing they understand is whether that pool is getting larger or smaller..
I have no interest in creating a nanny state, nor in creating a state that tells me what is good for me. There is a fine line between looking out for the rights of helpless victims and trampling all over free speech and criminalizing bad thoughts. This line starts right here.
"But with all due respect, that is predicated on the rather naive assumption that people will keep these predatorial fantasies locked within the rather unsatisfying realm of virtual reality."
No, it is predicated on the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that thought crimes are an Orwellian horror.
I'm alternately amused and horrified by how easily people are willing to throw others in jail without due process and clamp down on free speech that they disagree with.
I'm glad to hear from someone who has seen this stuff first hand. I also believe that the people engaging in this kind of stuff are probably pedophiles themselves. But I think that the best way to deal with them is to leave them alone in the virtual world, where they are out in the open, and no one gets hurt. Then anyone can keep an eye on them, get their info, and do a cross check on what they're doing in their first life. If someone's an actual pedophile - bam, slammer for you.
To some extent, this is like people advertising that they're pedophiles. It makes it that much easier to figure out if they really are pedophiles, and to deal with them for what they've done in real life. Making this stuff illegal just makes it harder to track these people.
The part that referred to "trading in virtual child pornography is punishable by up to three years"?
I'm as horrified as anyone by real child abuse and pornography, but virtual one? Age-play? That's just dumb. If anything, it might be possible to identify whether the people acting out their fantasies have either engaged in real child abuse or have been victims of it. But to criminalize virtual role-playing is indeed a complete thought crime.
I wish that someone would mod this up - it took me a while to figure out what I was looking at in the link, but this is fascinating.
It shows Richard Armitage's calendar from June 13th, 2003. The calendar was shown with respect to the Plame leak investigation, but the real - and largely overlooked - nugget is a 30 minute appointment with Tom Cruise, Tom David and Kurt Weiland. Weiland is one of the top legal bigwigs at Scientology, and Tom Davis is a presenter at meetings/trainings.
It's fascinating the kind of access and influence that Scientology has.
You've got that exactly right. I know you were probably just trying to flame, but you actually stumbled upon an example that illustrates very nicely what freedom of speech is.
It's possible it's the West Coast, though I haven't seen much of it in PA either. NYC is pretty much hopeless anyway.
:)
Thanks for teh suggestion to push the local planning commission... though I don't know how much they'll like a cheap renter giving them suggestions on what to do with their commission.
I'm not saying never turn the lights red - just turn them red after the proper time interval *on the expressway* has elapsed. What I see is
- stop at red light
- drive 200 yards
- stop at another red light because a car triggered the road sensors on the feeder road
- drive 200 yards
- stop again - etc. etc. etc.
The point is that you stop only once every couple of lights, not at every single intersection.
Coordinate the damn traffic lights. Yes, maybe I do have a knack for triggering a red light when I drive up to it. But what I don't understand is why on major expressways (essentially freeways through urban areas with traffic lights), red lights are triggered when a single car comes to a stop at a small cross road. The net effect is that in order to get a single car across the road in less than 20 seconds, 10 cars have to come to a stop for 20 seconds.
Seriously, is it that hard to tie the road sensors to timing chips? It doesn't even have to be done on all roads - but anything labeled an expressway, as well as a major roads with known traffic patterns should all have coordinated lights at all times. Expressway cuts through residential areas for 3 miles? Have a green wave run one way in the morning and the other way in the evening. Major road intersects with expressway? All lights on that major road are timed according to the same mechanism, except the one that controls the intersection with the expressway. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be. Any improvement over the current idiocy of stopping 10 cars to prevent one car from idling for more than 20 seconds will result in a dramatic improvement in gas mileage.
How do I know? My car computer shows average gas mileage, as well as current. I can improve my gas mileage from 27 mpg to 32 mpg if I manage to coast through major roads at 45 mph, instead of having to stop at every friggin red light. All it takes is to have a timing chip control each light, program it according to traffic patterns and expected (or even desired!) speed of cars, and you're done. Instant improvement in gas mileage, and instant reduction in oil imports.
It boggles my mind how Europe had those things down pat 20 years ago, but here they still don't get the concept of a green wave on major roads.