horses, riverboat casinos (I think, out on the Ohio river), an appaling number of Bingo parlors. It's a little hypocritical to go ballistic on the internet services. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is a state claiming jurisdiction over the internet. That's f**king crazy and has to be stopped.
14 2 star reviews
420 1 star reviews
A lot of these people may be flash mob herd thinkers, but it looks to me so far like there are genuinely more people saying the game play sucks than there are people giving it 5-stars. I've been curious for a long time...but I don't think I'll be shelling out $50 for this one.
Animal Science (or Animal Sciences) is a valid term. It's a major at large US universities. Hard to tell emotional tone from text; were you being funny by pretending to misunderstand GP, or were you just being a dick?
At any rate, although it is a valid term, I still suspect it might not have been what the GP really meant...here's a snip from the University of Florida undergrad catalog entry on animal science:
"Potential careers for animal sciences majors include various aspects of livestock production (beef cattle, dairy cattle and horses), livestock processing and utilization (meat, milk, performance and recreation), allied service industries (feed, health care, genetics, equipment, supplies, marketing, promotion, finance and education) and preparation for graduate school or the College of Veterinary Medicine.
By choosing appropriate electives, students can earn a minor or a dual major in agribusiness management, extension education or agricultural operations management while completing the degree requirements for the animal industry option.
To graduate with this major, students must complete all university, college and major requirements.
Specialization: Animal Biology
Specialization: Animal Industry"
I've noticed that as well; it would be an interesting program of research for a cognitive psychology lab, to try to explain that effect. I think an EEG might be a good place to start looking for that "sampling frequency" effect.
In studying for my licensing exam for Psychology I was repeatedly exposed to the following information, which I believe to be true but I have no references handy to back it up: for a while, shortly after the successful linking of "type A personality" (actually just a few of the type A traits) to heart disease, researchers thought they were seeing a pattern emerge linking another personality type (or, again, a few traits) to cancer. The idea at the time was that there may be a set of traits that predispose people to cancer, or at least certain types of cancer. After several years more data collection, it looks like that isn't true. However, there does seem to be an enduring relationship between having certain traits (things like optimism and openness) and _prognosis_ for cancer. So the positive attitude won't help you avoid cancer, but might indeed help you survive it.
Tone is so hard in text. I can't tell if the MOD Parent Up message here is sarcasm from someone who is aware that ozone depletion was a serious problem that responded well to the actions taken as a result of the so-called "scare mongering," or whether the message is as completely sincere as the sender is deluded.
For instance, there's ozone depletion and CFCs, and cooling from sulfate aerosols temporarily balancing out warming from GHGs from ~1940 to ~1970. Long before there were 6 billion of us, we were influencing global climate. I find it strange that people are using the argument that our species is too small to change global climate. We've been measurably doing it for years.
Except it's not 51% of scientists, it's something close to 90% of about 30,000 published studies. And the "follow the money" advice shows that the most obvious conflicts of interest, i.e. funding from industry groups with vested interests in preventing or delaying legislation, are on the skeptics' side. Your vehement sarcasm doesn't make your falsehoods true.
Asserting that the "medieval warm period" provides evidence against current anthropogenic warming, claiming solar irradiance as the main cause of recent warming, claiming the overall power of water vapor as a GHG somehow makes CO2 irrelevant, these have all been debunked repeatedly, mostly several years ago. Realclimate.org has a good collection of the evidence against these claims, and the faulty logic often applied in them. The parent is missing only a very few of the old chestnuts, like the "Mars and Jupiter are warming, too, so Earth's warming can't be our fault" line, another old standard, also debunked. The repitition of these ideas is sounding increasingly similar, to my ear at any rate, to the arguments that the Grand Canyon was carved in a single flood event, and that same flood explains marine fossils on what are now mountains, etc. I.e., there are some people who don't want to believe what the science is consistently showing because of their ideologies, and they'll seize on any fairly plausible-sounding supposed evidence and never let it go, despite the more plentiful and reliable evidence to the contrary.
The film referenced in the parent relied heavily on the same already disproven ideas, and threw in some fake graphs to boot. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propag anda_the.php If "spot on" means "totally without merit," then I agree with the author of the parent on that final point.
Basically, I'm asserting that there's a BTKWB-type effect among people who think that mainstream climate science is a liberal conspiracy. But at some point, can the rest of us stop having to address the same old B.S. over and over?
Slashdot Mirror
horses, riverboat casinos (I think, out on the Ohio river), an appaling number of Bingo parlors. It's a little hypocritical to go ballistic on the internet services. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is a state claiming jurisdiction over the internet. That's f**king crazy and has to be stopped.
14 2 star reviews 420 1 star reviews A lot of these people may be flash mob herd thinkers, but it looks to me so far like there are genuinely more people saying the game play sucks than there are people giving it 5-stars. I've been curious for a long time...but I don't think I'll be shelling out $50 for this one.
Animal Science (or Animal Sciences) is a valid term. It's a major at large US universities. Hard to tell emotional tone from text; were you being funny by pretending to misunderstand GP, or were you just being a dick? At any rate, although it is a valid term, I still suspect it might not have been what the GP really meant...here's a snip from the University of Florida undergrad catalog entry on animal science: "Potential careers for animal sciences majors include various aspects of livestock production (beef cattle, dairy cattle and horses), livestock processing and utilization (meat, milk, performance and recreation), allied service industries (feed, health care, genetics, equipment, supplies, marketing, promotion, finance and education) and preparation for graduate school or the College of Veterinary Medicine. By choosing appropriate electives, students can earn a minor or a dual major in agribusiness management, extension education or agricultural operations management while completing the degree requirements for the animal industry option. To graduate with this major, students must complete all university, college and major requirements. Specialization: Animal Biology Specialization: Animal Industry"
I've noticed that as well; it would be an interesting program of research for a cognitive psychology lab, to try to explain that effect. I think an EEG might be a good place to start looking for that "sampling frequency" effect.
In studying for my licensing exam for Psychology I was repeatedly exposed to the following information, which I believe to be true but I have no references handy to back it up: for a while, shortly after the successful linking of "type A personality" (actually just a few of the type A traits) to heart disease, researchers thought they were seeing a pattern emerge linking another personality type (or, again, a few traits) to cancer. The idea at the time was that there may be a set of traits that predispose people to cancer, or at least certain types of cancer. After several years more data collection, it looks like that isn't true. However, there does seem to be an enduring relationship between having certain traits (things like optimism and openness) and _prognosis_ for cancer. So the positive attitude won't help you avoid cancer, but might indeed help you survive it.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/aids-didnt-come.html Presented for the record. It's not a crazy theory, but it happens to be wrong.
Which is why underground coal mining no longer exists.
Tone is so hard in text. I can't tell if the MOD Parent Up message here is sarcasm from someone who is aware that ozone depletion was a serious problem that responded well to the actions taken as a result of the so-called "scare mongering," or whether the message is as completely sincere as the sender is deluded.
For instance, there's ozone depletion and CFCs, and cooling from sulfate aerosols temporarily balancing out warming from GHGs from ~1940 to ~1970. Long before there were 6 billion of us, we were influencing global climate. I find it strange that people are using the argument that our species is too small to change global climate. We've been measurably doing it for years.
Except it's not 51% of scientists, it's something close to 90% of about 30,000 published studies. And the "follow the money" advice shows that the most obvious conflicts of interest, i.e. funding from industry groups with vested interests in preventing or delaying legislation, are on the skeptics' side. Your vehement sarcasm doesn't make your falsehoods true.
Asserting that the "medieval warm period" provides evidence against current anthropogenic warming, claiming solar irradiance as the main cause of recent warming, claiming the overall power of water vapor as a GHG somehow makes CO2 irrelevant, these have all been debunked repeatedly, mostly several years ago. Realclimate.org has a good collection of the evidence against these claims, and the faulty logic often applied in them. The parent is missing only a very few of the old chestnuts, like the "Mars and Jupiter are warming, too, so Earth's warming can't be our fault" line, another old standard, also debunked. The repitition of these ideas is sounding increasingly similar, to my ear at any rate, to the arguments that the Grand Canyon was carved in a single flood event, and that same flood explains marine fossils on what are now mountains, etc. I.e., there are some people who don't want to believe what the science is consistently showing because of their ideologies, and they'll seize on any fairly plausible-sounding supposed evidence and never let it go, despite the more plentiful and reliable evidence to the contrary.
g anda_the.php If "spot on" means "totally without merit," then I agree with the author of the parent on that final point.
The film referenced in the parent relied heavily on the same already disproven ideas, and threw in some fake graphs to boot. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propa
Basically, I'm asserting that there's a BTKWB-type effect among people who think that mainstream climate science is a liberal conspiracy. But at some point, can the rest of us stop having to address the same old B.S. over and over?
Debunk away? No problem.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi ves/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/
He may be reputable within his area of expertise, but on this he's demonstrably wrong.
Ummm...there's no "dark side of the moon," Geoff. But the nights are really long, since a lunar "day" or light/dark cycle takes about 28 days.