I buy the independent - it's one of the better, if not the best national newspaper in the uk, but in recent years the amount of editorialising on the front page has become ridiculous. their science coverage is often very very poor, like the wifi articles recently, and before that various stories about mobile phones - including the one one about them killing bees.
they do just about make up for it with their excellent middle east coverage (Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk) and decent columnists, but really the only reason i continue to read it is that the other papers are so shockingly bad.
Europeans would say the same about you having given up the right to universal health care and education. And maybe we might comment on allowing gun fanatics to run your society. I'm not sure your 'freedom' is that intact anymore either...
Its also worth pointing out that Tony Blair is practically a laughing stock in the UK now. he has little time left before he leaves, and trying to push any controversial legislation through would probably lead to a massive rebellion in his own party. Even his own cabinet ministers are no longer behind him.
Those who don't learn from history are condemmed to repeat it. We didn't declare war, they did. We decided to fight it over there instead of over here. Thanks for noticing.
and who might 'they' be? the people of iraq? no, they had nothing to do with any of those bombings. the government of iraq? no - they also had nothing to do with 9/11 and the other attacks mentioned by the GP.
yes, that was a stupid mistake, im back at home at the moment and people keep distracing me.
personaly i am convinced by the current models (this graph is quite convincing for me: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/ 05.18.jpg ). but more importantly i think even if you are skeptical, it would be hugely immoral not to reduce our carbon dioxide emmisions and just hope that the modals are wrong. we are gambling with the lives of hundreds of millions of people if we do this.
it's not anbout if the research is real - i don't doubt that for a second. the question is if it means that all previous theories about global warming being due to humans are invalid and it turns out it was the sun causing the temperature changes all along - i very much doubt this is the case.
this new resuearch may mean models need to be refined and adjusted but makes little difference to the things that affect the public - legislation is still needed to reduce carbon emissions or millions of people will die.
its the interpretation which takes one single bit of reasearch and blows it was out of proportion which is the problem- this happens all the time, nearly all media compaies do it, even more respected institutions like the bbc are atrocious at reporting science because of the desire to make every new paper sound groundbraking with big implications for how we live our lives.
i like to think that i kow a bit about climate change, and just reading the fox article posted the bias is quite simply outrageous. when you say 'the most centrist, accurate show on TV' i assume they meant american TV and, no offence intended, thats not exactly an endorsement.
can you explain why the views of the public should matter when attemting to determin if a news chanel has systematic bias? on an issue like global warming there are not two sides to the debate that should both be given equal air time - one side is wrong, no matter how many members of the american public think global warming is made up. many things are not to do with left/right they are to do with lies/truth.
just wanted to add that the theories/research they were reporting on does actually sound interesting and i'm going to read the original paper when i get a chance.
also, i don't want anyone to take my post as a criticism of their lifestyle, i'm sure i could do a lot better at saving energy ect. my enthusiasm is diminished by the fact that i think its already inevitable that global warmig is going to alter our climate to a point where millions will die (lets just say i'm not going to be buying any porperty in bangladesh in the next 50 years)
firstly, that the earth is getting warmer is not disputable. secondly the idea that there is debate about whether this is caused by humans is false. there is no doubt within the scientific community that the effects are largely caused by humans. you are clearly aware that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere. a graph of the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last several hundren thousand years should be enough to convince you that the current situation is unprecedented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ 400kyr-2.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature -plot.png
i can't find the graph right now showing the models of the importance of different effects on the temperature - but it was only when they factored in the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that their models matched the way the temperature has increased.
the level of bias in the fox news page is quite stagering (keep in mind that this is from a UK perspective, and as a student of geography). they seem to imply some media conspiracy to exagerate the effect of global warming seemingly forgeting that murdoch owns hugh portions of the media
do you really believe that the editors at fox news know more about the science behind global warming, i have not heard a single scientist claim that global warming does not have a largely human cause, and i am lectured by some of them
this new data does nothing to change the central facts that humans have massively increased levels of carbon monoxide and that this is known to raise the temperature
the effect of gobal warming is going to be much more dramatic than the public realises - the atmosphere is a non linear system, large ice caps can (and have in the past) melt in a matter of decades. this can (and has in the past, read about the younger dryas cooling event) lead to dramatic changes in temperature, not always in obvious ways e.g the younger dryas was a result of warming which lead to large quantities of fresh water being released into the atlantic and the ocean conveyor shutting down and leading to another ice age in europe, this happened in the space of only a few decades.
Why do i always see the best posts when i dont have any mod points. bah. I totally agree with your point. creating jobs/money is not the most important thing when determining the legality/morality of an activity. unfortunately many activites that harm other are allowed because (ironically) they harm everyone. pollution is the classic example - the polluter takes all the financial gains from not desposing of the waste properly/not producing the wast in the first place. everyone on the planet is affected by the negative results, but only a little bit each. The gains are concentrated with those who cause the problem and the damage is spread over many people. the idea is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Common s
i think this is a good way of looking at the problem of SEO/junk mail/spam for each individual it might only be a slight annoyance, and it is always logical for a company to do it but eventually the 'environment' is damaged to a point where it is not usable. i.e. email becomes unusable because of the levels of spam, search engines become useless because of the artificial results some of these things are already happening... how many google searches have you done where the first page was just a load of rubbish - price comparison sites, fake 'reviews', review sites where nobody has even reviewed the thing your looking for. and of course the classic ebay results which seem to fill most searches (get a clue - if i wanted to buy it on ebay i would search on ebay!)
Thats not totally fair, if the trend for the last 10 years had been an annual increase of 5% then i would say the figures were significant. ie just becasue there was not a statisticly significant change does not mean the data is meaningless - no change might be a big improvement from what was going on before. (i have not RTFA and i dont know how much the number of miles increased in previous years). for me i think the fact it didnt increase (or at least not a statisticly significant increase) is the important point.
i do agree that its a bit meaningless to give 5 sig figs. without some error calculations and without comparing it to the increases that occured in previous years.
so, the main point: we need more data!
I think the point is: if people don't care enough to even vote (or vote sensibly...) then there is no way they are going to take up arms against the government. If people did start to care enough then they could just vote the government out. Obviously if there was ever a government that decided to delay/cancel the election (for 'security reasons' of course... ) then it would be different. I still think its an unlikely situation that the government would become that 'bad' quick enough that people wouldn't have a chance to vote them out before they cancelled elections.
I think saying that the population needs arms to overthrow the government is basicly saying they're to stupid to realise what the goverment is doing before it's to late. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the american public is this stupid or not......... i think i need to buy a gun...
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried MPlayer Extended: http://mplayerosx.sttz.ch/
though i do agree that overall the video player lineup on os x is pretty weak
they do just about make up for it with their excellent middle east coverage (Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk) and decent columnists, but really the only reason i continue to read it is that the other papers are so shockingly bad.
thank you, a very good point!
its a good thing i was just awarded the patent on 'thick patent based armor'.....
Europeans would say the same about you having given up the right to universal health care and education. And maybe we might comment on allowing gun fanatics to run your society. I'm not sure your 'freedom' is that intact anymore either... Its also worth pointing out that Tony Blair is practically a laughing stock in the UK now. he has little time left before he leaves, and trying to push any controversial legislation through would probably lead to a massive rebellion in his own party. Even his own cabinet ministers are no longer behind him.
yes, that was a stupid mistake, im back at home at the moment and people keep distracing me./ 05.18.jpg ). but more importantly i think even if you are skeptical, it would be hugely immoral not to reduce our carbon dioxide emmisions and just hope that the modals are wrong. we are gambling with the lives of hundreds of millions of people if we do this.
personaly i am convinced by the current models (this graph is quite convincing for me: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large
it's not anbout if the research is real - i don't doubt that for a second. the question is if it means that all previous theories about global warming being due to humans are invalid and it turns out it was the sun causing the temperature changes all along - i very much doubt this is the case.
this new resuearch may mean models need to be refined and adjusted but makes little difference to the things that affect the public - legislation is still needed to reduce carbon emissions or millions of people will die.
its the interpretation which takes one single bit of reasearch and blows it was out of proportion which is the problem- this happens all the time, nearly all media compaies do it, even more respected institutions like the bbc are atrocious at reporting science because of the desire to make every new paper sound groundbraking with big implications for how we live our lives.
i like to think that i kow a bit about climate change, and just reading the fox article posted the bias is quite simply outrageous. when you say 'the most centrist, accurate show on TV' i assume they meant american TV and, no offence intended, thats not exactly an endorsement.
can you explain why the views of the public should matter when attemting to determin if a news chanel has systematic bias? on an issue like global warming there are not two sides to the debate that should both be given equal air time - one side is wrong, no matter how many members of the american public think global warming is made up. many things are not to do with left/right they are to do with lies/truth.
just wanted to add that the theories/research they were reporting on does actually sound interesting and i'm going to read the original paper when i get a chance.
also, i don't want anyone to take my post as a criticism of their lifestyle, i'm sure i could do a lot better at saving energy ect. my enthusiasm is diminished by the fact that i think its already inevitable that global warmig is going to alter our climate to a point where millions will die (lets just say i'm not going to be buying any porperty in bangladesh in the next 50 years)
firstly, that the earth is getting warmer is not disputable. secondly the idea that there is debate about whether this is caused by humans is false. there is no doubt within the scientific community that the effects are largely caused by humans. you are clearly aware that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere. a graph of the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last several hundren thousand years should be enough to convince you that the current situation is unprecedented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ 400kyr-2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature -plot.png
i can't find the graph right now showing the models of the importance of different effects on the temperature - but it was only when they factored in the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that their models matched the way the temperature has increased.
the level of bias in the fox news page is quite stagering (keep in mind that this is from a UK perspective, and as a student of geography). they seem to imply some media conspiracy to exagerate the effect of global warming seemingly forgeting that murdoch owns hugh portions of the media
do you really believe that the editors at fox news know more about the science behind global warming, i have not heard a single scientist claim that global warming does not have a largely human cause, and i am lectured by some of them
this new data does nothing to change the central facts that humans have massively increased levels of carbon monoxide and that this is known to raise the temperature
the effect of gobal warming is going to be much more dramatic than the public realises - the atmosphere is a non linear system, large ice caps can (and have in the past) melt in a matter of decades. this can (and has in the past, read about the younger dryas cooling event) lead to dramatic changes in temperature, not always in obvious ways e.g the younger dryas was a result of warming which lead to large quantities of fresh water being released into the atlantic and the ocean conveyor shutting down and leading to another ice age in europe, this happened in the space of only a few decades.
Why do i always see the best posts when i dont have any mod points. bah.n s
I totally agree with your point. creating jobs/money is not the most important thing when determining the legality/morality of an activity.
unfortunately many activites that harm other are allowed because (ironically) they harm everyone. pollution is the classic example - the polluter takes all the financial gains from not desposing of the waste properly/not producing the wast in the first place. everyone on the planet is affected by the negative results, but only a little bit each. The gains are concentrated with those who cause the problem and the damage is spread over many people.
the idea is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commo
i think this is a good way of looking at the problem of SEO/junk mail/spam
for each individual it might only be a slight annoyance, and it is always logical for a company to do it but eventually the 'environment' is damaged to a point where it is not usable.
i.e. email becomes unusable because of the levels of spam, search engines become useless because of the artificial results
some of these things are already happening...
how many google searches have you done where the first page was just a load of rubbish - price comparison sites, fake 'reviews', review sites where nobody has even reviewed the thing your looking for. and of course the classic ebay results which seem to fill most searches (get a clue - if i wanted to buy it on ebay i would search on ebay!)
Thats not totally fair, if the trend for the last 10 years had been an annual increase of 5% then i would say the figures were significant. ie just becasue there was not a statisticly significant change does not mean the data is meaningless - no change might be a big improvement from what was going on before. (i have not RTFA and i dont know how much the number of miles increased in previous years). for me i think the fact it didnt increase (or at least not a statisticly significant increase) is the important point. i do agree that its a bit meaningless to give 5 sig figs. without some error calculations and without comparing it to the increases that occured in previous years. so, the main point: we need more data!
I think the point is: if people don't care enough to even vote (or vote sensibly ...) then there is no way they are going to take up arms against the government. If people did start to care enough then they could just vote the government out. Obviously if there was ever a government that decided to delay/cancel the election (for 'security reasons' of course ... ) then it would be different. I still think its an unlikely situation that the government would become that 'bad' quick enough that people wouldn't have a chance to vote them out before they cancelled elections.
I think saying that the population needs arms to overthrow the government is basicly saying they're to stupid to realise what the goverment is doing before it's to late. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the american public is this stupid or not ..... .... i think i need to buy a gun ...
The people here will be able to help, its a great place to find out about portable audio/headphones: http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/