From the CNN Article: However, South Korean intelligence officials said a seismic wave of magnitude-3.58 had been detected in North Hamkyung province, according to Yonhap.
They don't really have a lot of reasons to lie about it, and the US monitoring stations have picked it up. If this turns out to be false, I will be very much surprised.
Depends on the living thing, actually. Higher CO2 levels would be good for most life which relies on photosynthesis, for example - which in the end means just about all of it, because almost everything that doesn't rely on photosynthesis directly relies on it indirectly. There is little evidence to suggest that increased levels of CO2 has significant adverse effects on life which relies on aerobic respiration either - it acts pretty much as a neutral participant, like nitrogen (unlike clearly destructive pollutants, such as CO).
However, global warming is bad for humans because of the instability it would create in the climate globally, as well as the obvious effects of the rising sea levels. The environment doesn't need our help in this, and this should be a humanist movement rather than an environmental one - all of the significant reasons to prevent global warming are to do with saving ourselves.
From the article: "It was very interesting to see the technology in action and learn about its possible implementation in natural disasters," said Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr., a Republican from Florida whose hurricane-prone district includes Fort Lauderdale.
"It was delicious," Shaw said.
...
I'm sorry, but when did politicians start eating machines, and why didn't I get the memo?
Sort of. Physics is the most essential science - without it, we make no significant advances, and development of new areas of scientific research is slowed. It being constrained to an area with what now seems to be little chance of being useful is a serious damper to scientific advancement, and is certainly an issue which society needs to debate. The physicists are, of course, in the best position to see the facts of the debate, but their work has impacts on all of modern civilisation, so everyone deserves some (if smaller) say.
Perhaps you missed the memo, but the last time that the US had a conservative fiscal policy was between 1993 and 2001 - the only period in the last 50-odd years with a government budget surplus. Since 2001, it's been extremely liberal - that's why there's so much debt being accrued. It's amazing how many people miss this.
Let's make it perfectly clear: Republicans: Socially conservative, economically liberal. Democrats: Socially liberal, economically conservative.
That's wierd. I've always thought of the US system as a terrible example for emerging democracies - with a president whose powers were modelled on a monarch, a electoral system which has been proven to be mathematically almost the worst possible, and a political system whose flaws are continually patched over rather than properly fixed, the American system is certainly beginning to show its age. This is a side-effect of it being one of the oldest democracies on the globe, and it's only because they had the American mistakes to learn from that other countries produced a better system, but I would certainly not say that the US has the greatest democractic system in the modern world.
All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago. Actually, my experience is that this assertion is wrong. Ever since the lying to the UN and the subsequent Iraq war, and definitely after all these reports of US-sanctioned torture, most people outside the country feel that the US have lost the moral high-ground, and are just belligerent bullies trying to maintain their economic position - something quite different from the Cold War era, when the US was looked to as the moral leader.
Climate change due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is real enough - one of the primary reasons for differences in climate over the years is different amount of CO2. But here's the part which throws just about everyone into a spin: Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is good for the environment. In fact, large scale, it's probably the best thing that humans have done for it. Over the past few million years the level of CO2 has declined dramatically - compared to when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, there is very little (see here). That's why, when they were around, Antarctica was covered in lush forests. Increases in CO2 is great for plants, which has a flow-on effect to be great for the entire ecology - in the end, more life all round.
So if CO2 is all good for the environment, what's the problem? Well, if we were still hunter/gatherers, more CO2 would be great - we'd just be part of the ecology, and would benefit with all the other animals. But as we are, we rely on predictable climate for farming and have vested, immovable interests on the shore - exactly the two things which are going to be worst struck by the Earth warming up. At the current rate, we might even be able to colonise Antarctica. But by that stage a lot of people will have lost their land, and entire cities will have been submerged - some pretty dire changes are going to happen, and odds are pretty good that we can't even change that anymore. There's not a lot to do to prevent it, and it's difficult to plan for it - we can't predict at this stage what the effects are going to be on the current weather systems. We here in Australia could, for example, get no more La Nina weather patterns - just neverending drought. Or it could end up the other way. But we should start planning for worst-case scenarios.
The warnings about CO2-induced climate change aren't about saving the environment. They're about saving humanity.
Indeed. One thing I like about Lunar Genesis for the DS is that you can pick it up mid-game after a couple of months, and there's an easy button which causes the characters to talk to each other, to remind you what happened last and where to go next. Somewhat similar (if simpler) to the journal system you see in western RPGs.
Ha. Most companies' idea of mitigating this kind of disaster is to try and get an injunction put on the hacker who told them so that the public never finds out, and then not change a thing because it's too expensive.
And you wonder why Grey Hats rarely tell the company directly.
Hell, this isn't even the left. This is the Republican controlled California government, remember. And this is Reuters who is misreporting - an organisation which is generally considered reasonably left-leaning. It's quite simply poor journalism - failing to read beyond the corporate press releases and media conferences; they were as thoroughly fooled as the Slashdot community seems to be.
Certainly a piece of spin worth learning from.
Huh. Going from the comments here, this has been given such a cunning spin that even most people here are fooled by it.
Let's make it a little bit more clear. California are not launching the lawsuit on the basis that "They're producing too much greenhouse gases". They're launching it on the basis that the automakers are not complying with regulations laid down by the Californian government - regulations which have been tied up by multiple lawsuits from the involved automakers. This is a countersuit - an attempt to get the courts on the government's side so that the automakers have nowhere left to turn and have to comply if they are to continue selling in the state. By most people's estimations, a government forcing companies to comply with their laws for the good of its constituents is fine and entirely within their right, but even most people who would have no problems with it when laid out like that are arguing against it here because it's been presented just so.
A very impressive (and simple, too) piece of spin - technically true, and makes the other party look like a fool.
Meh, so far the Democrats have seemed the most economically conservative - after all, it was Clinton who was the first president to being the government's account into the black for 40 years (and significantly so - to the tune of around 200B). The Republicans are best described at the moment as economically liberal (Spend! Who cares about tomorrow?) and socially conservative (No gay marriages!) at the moment.
Fair point. Why don't you start a class-action? (I might if it involved me, but I'm not from the US) If you can convince the courts that running copper and fibre is a different industry from providing the associated services (such as dialtone), then they're prime targets for anti-trust break-up.
Man, geeks suck at spin; this is probably why we're in our current position. Let's try a real ad:
HUSBAND and WIFE are watching fondly as a procession of household items float down a road. They are approached by THUG.
THUG: That's quite a nice internet business you've got there.
HUSBAND: Yeah, our website has really taken off. Things are looking up.
THUG: Aww, ain't that sweet. In that case, it'd be bad if I did this. (Stops floating items)
HUSBAND: What are you doing?!
THUG: You come in here, you gots to pay the toll.
HUSBAND: But we already pay our server costs.
THUG: No, no, that's paying Jimmy's gang. But your stuff is comin' into our turf. So you gots to pay the toll.
WIFE: But we've never had to do that before!
THUG: Times're changing, little lady. Cough up, or your little e-store comes crashin' to a halt.
Husband and wife look resigned, and husband pulls out his wallet.
OVERLAY: Stop the extortion; Vote FOR Net Neutrality.
The Telco companies will still have the first-to-market advantage (for people who believe whatever they see first), but this might make up some of the ground.
It is illegal to beg in Australia. You rarely see people living in the streets, as housing is provided to them.
The welfare you get when you're unemployed is easily enough to live on. Nonetheless, the unemployment rate is only ~5%.
With very few people owning a gun, the homicide rate in Austalia is 1.6 for every 100,000. The homicide rate in the US is ~5 for every 100,000.
The majority of the drug problem here seems to be centred around the party scene - young people with too much dispensible income popping pills in nightclubs and shooting up in private parties.
The gaping exception to this are the aboriginal communities (generally geographically secluded from the others): more often than not there is poverty, booze, drugs and violence all round. They get given cars, they sell it for crack. They get houses built for them, they riddle them with holes. They don't work even if work is available, they don't show much desire to get an education (people of aboriginal descent get free tertiary education, but you rarely see them there). Not particularly surprisingly, the many governments over the years who have tried to solve the problem by throwing money at it have all been less than successful. There have yet to be any solid suggestions for a real solution, however. Aboriginals make up about 2.5% of the population, though almost all of them live in the Northern Territory.
Most people find it easy to ignore that issue, though, since those aboriginals who live in the cities are rarely like those in the remove communities described above (although still have a higher crime rate). For the vast majority of people, life is pretty good.
Time was you could immigrate to Australia. Some juicy pieces from the relevent Wikipedia article: (In a country of 20 million) Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said that between 130,000 and 140,000 non-humanitarian migrants would be taken, with a skilled migrant component of 97,500. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates that Australia took 16,000 refugees through its resettlement program. This is the second largest program in the world after that of the United States and Australia takes 19% of those refuges being assisted by the UNHCR.
Australia has only itself to blame for its protectionism Actually, over the last 30 years Australia has reduced its protectionist policies to the point where it is now one of the most open economies of all developed nations*. Which was why Australia couldn't get many concessions in the US-Aus FTA - they had little to offer which wasn't already available already.
*Unprocessed grown food excepted: There are strict rules on importing natural foods as there are relatively few agriculture dieseases in Australia and the idea is to keep it that way.
Yep, this is pretty much the direction I see most creative medias taking. For an example, take a look at webcomics. Lots and lots of comics, all of them released for free - most of the creators do it for the fun of it. The better webcomic makers make a reasonable amount of money off it. The best make enough to live on. If you applied that model to music, then you'd get a similar result, but better: Artists would be making money from donations and swag, and the rest from touring. It seems like a good model which works for all involved - except the music labels, of course, but that's life, I'm afraid.
Programming is like writing in any language. Once you're sufficiently familiar with it, you don't need to think of which word to use and where to put the punctuation - you just know what you're trying to express and take the most natural path through the language to express it. The human brain is designed to work with language, and while programming is not the most natural type for it, we can use much of the wiring used for human language in coding.
It's not for programmers - the contestents only present a concept, and the idea is that the winners will have their concepts converted into shareware applications. It's an interesting experiment, although I would guess that a fair number of people would be reluctant to put their ideas into such a public forum.
Slashdot Mirror
The real CNN article.
Check link, then post - I always get that out of order.
From the CNN Article:
However, South Korean intelligence officials said a seismic wave of magnitude-3.58 had been detected in North Hamkyung province, according to Yonhap.
They don't really have a lot of reasons to lie about it, and the US monitoring stations have picked it up. If this turns out to be false, I will be very much surprised.
Depends on the living thing, actually. Higher CO2 levels would be good for most life which relies on photosynthesis, for example - which in the end means just about all of it, because almost everything that doesn't rely on photosynthesis directly relies on it indirectly. There is little evidence to suggest that increased levels of CO2 has significant adverse effects on life which relies on aerobic respiration either - it acts pretty much as a neutral participant, like nitrogen (unlike clearly destructive pollutants, such as CO).
However, global warming is bad for humans because of the instability it would create in the climate globally, as well as the obvious effects of the rising sea levels. The environment doesn't need our help in this, and this should be a humanist movement rather than an environmental one - all of the significant reasons to prevent global warming are to do with saving ourselves.
From the article:
...
"It was very interesting to see the technology in action and learn about its possible implementation in natural disasters," said Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr., a Republican from Florida whose hurricane-prone district includes Fort Lauderdale.
"It was delicious," Shaw said.
I'm sorry, but when did politicians start eating machines, and why didn't I get the memo?
Sort of. Physics is the most essential science - without it, we make no significant advances, and development of new areas of scientific research is slowed. It being constrained to an area with what now seems to be little chance of being useful is a serious damper to scientific advancement, and is certainly an issue which society needs to debate. The physicists are, of course, in the best position to see the facts of the debate, but their work has impacts on all of modern civilisation, so everyone deserves some (if smaller) say.
Perhaps you missed the memo, but the last time that the US had a conservative fiscal policy was between 1993 and 2001 - the only period in the last 50-odd years with a government budget surplus. Since 2001, it's been extremely liberal - that's why there's so much debt being accrued. It's amazing how many people miss this.
Let's make it perfectly clear:
Republicans: Socially conservative, economically liberal.
Democrats: Socially liberal, economically conservative.
Now, who were you voting for, again?
Well, I'll offer 100-to-1 odds that it passes.
Of course, I run a legal establishment here - if the law changes, I will of course obey it and will no longer be able to honor any wagers laid.
That's wierd. I've always thought of the US system as a terrible example for emerging democracies - with a president whose powers were modelled on a monarch, a electoral system which has been proven to be mathematically almost the worst possible, and a political system whose flaws are continually patched over rather than properly fixed, the American system is certainly beginning to show its age. This is a side-effect of it being one of the oldest democracies on the globe, and it's only because they had the American mistakes to learn from that other countries produced a better system, but I would certainly not say that the US has the greatest democractic system in the modern world.
All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.
Actually, my experience is that this assertion is wrong. Ever since the lying to the UN and the subsequent Iraq war, and definitely after all these reports of US-sanctioned torture, most people outside the country feel that the US have lost the moral high-ground, and are just belligerent bullies trying to maintain their economic position - something quite different from the Cold War era, when the US was looked to as the moral leader.
Climate change due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is real enough - one of the primary reasons for differences in climate over the years is different amount of CO2. But here's the part which throws just about everyone into a spin: Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is good for the environment. In fact, large scale, it's probably the best thing that humans have done for it. Over the past few million years the level of CO2 has declined dramatically - compared to when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, there is very little (see here). That's why, when they were around, Antarctica was covered in lush forests. Increases in CO2 is great for plants, which has a flow-on effect to be great for the entire ecology - in the end, more life all round.
So if CO2 is all good for the environment, what's the problem? Well, if we were still hunter/gatherers, more CO2 would be great - we'd just be part of the ecology, and would benefit with all the other animals. But as we are, we rely on predictable climate for farming and have vested, immovable interests on the shore - exactly the two things which are going to be worst struck by the Earth warming up. At the current rate, we might even be able to colonise Antarctica. But by that stage a lot of people will have lost their land, and entire cities will have been submerged - some pretty dire changes are going to happen, and odds are pretty good that we can't even change that anymore. There's not a lot to do to prevent it, and it's difficult to plan for it - we can't predict at this stage what the effects are going to be on the current weather systems. We here in Australia could, for example, get no more La Nina weather patterns - just neverending drought. Or it could end up the other way. But we should start planning for worst-case scenarios.
The warnings about CO2-induced climate change aren't about saving the environment. They're about saving humanity.
Indeed. One thing I like about Lunar Genesis for the DS is that you can pick it up mid-game after a couple of months, and there's an easy button which causes the characters to talk to each other, to remind you what happened last and where to go next. Somewhat similar (if simpler) to the journal system you see in western RPGs.
Ha. Most companies' idea of mitigating this kind of disaster is to try and get an injunction put on the hacker who told them so that the public never finds out, and then not change a thing because it's too expensive.
And you wonder why Grey Hats rarely tell the company directly.
Uh, if you only buy one game for their system then they don't want you anyway. Sony would be losing money on that deal.
...I really hope this is a joke. Otherwise, try reading at least the first sentence of the summary. Here's a hint: the ESA isn't part of NASA.
Hell, this isn't even the left. This is the Republican controlled California government, remember. And this is Reuters who is misreporting - an organisation which is generally considered reasonably left-leaning. It's quite simply poor journalism - failing to read beyond the corporate press releases and media conferences; they were as thoroughly fooled as the Slashdot community seems to be. Certainly a piece of spin worth learning from.
Huh. Going from the comments here, this has been given such a cunning spin that even most people here are fooled by it.
Let's make it a little bit more clear. California are not launching the lawsuit on the basis that "They're producing too much greenhouse gases". They're launching it on the basis that the automakers are not complying with regulations laid down by the Californian government - regulations which have been tied up by multiple lawsuits from the involved automakers. This is a countersuit - an attempt to get the courts on the government's side so that the automakers have nowhere left to turn and have to comply if they are to continue selling in the state. By most people's estimations, a government forcing companies to comply with their laws for the good of its constituents is fine and entirely within their right, but even most people who would have no problems with it when laid out like that are arguing against it here because it's been presented just so.
A very impressive (and simple, too) piece of spin - technically true, and makes the other party look like a fool.
Meh, so far the Democrats have seemed the most economically conservative - after all, it was Clinton who was the first president to being the government's account into the black for 40 years (and significantly so - to the tune of around 200B). The Republicans are best described at the moment as economically liberal (Spend! Who cares about tomorrow?) and socially conservative (No gay marriages!) at the moment.
Fair point. Why don't you start a class-action? (I might if it involved me, but I'm not from the US) If you can convince the courts that running copper and fibre is a different industry from providing the associated services (such as dialtone), then they're prime targets for anti-trust break-up.
Man, geeks suck at spin; this is probably why we're in our current position. Let's try a real ad:
HUSBAND and WIFE are watching fondly as a procession of household items float down a road. They are approached by THUG.
THUG: That's quite a nice internet business you've got there.
HUSBAND: Yeah, our website has really taken off. Things are looking up.
THUG: Aww, ain't that sweet. In that case, it'd be bad if I did this. (Stops floating items)
HUSBAND: What are you doing?!
THUG: You come in here, you gots to pay the toll.
HUSBAND: But we already pay our server costs.
THUG: No, no, that's paying Jimmy's gang. But your stuff is comin' into our turf. So you gots to pay the toll.
WIFE: But we've never had to do that before!
THUG: Times're changing, little lady. Cough up, or your little e-store comes crashin' to a halt.
Husband and wife look resigned, and husband pulls out his wallet.
OVERLAY: Stop the extortion; Vote FOR Net Neutrality.
The Telco companies will still have the first-to-market advantage (for people who believe whatever they see first), but this might make up some of the ground.
- It is illegal to beg in Australia. You rarely see people living in the streets, as housing is provided to them.
- The welfare you get when you're unemployed is easily enough to live on. Nonetheless, the unemployment rate is only ~5%.
- With very few people owning a gun, the homicide rate in Austalia is 1.6 for every 100,000. The homicide rate in the US is ~5 for every 100,000.
The majority of the drug problem here seems to be centred around the party scene - young people with too much dispensible income popping pills in nightclubs and shooting up in private parties.The gaping exception to this are the aboriginal communities (generally geographically secluded from the others): more often than not there is poverty, booze, drugs and violence all round. They get given cars, they sell it for crack. They get houses built for them, they riddle them with holes. They don't work even if work is available, they don't show much desire to get an education (people of aboriginal descent get free tertiary education, but you rarely see them there). Not particularly surprisingly, the many governments over the years who have tried to solve the problem by throwing money at it have all been less than successful. There have yet to be any solid suggestions for a real solution, however. Aboriginals make up about 2.5% of the population, though almost all of them live in the Northern Territory.
Most people find it easy to ignore that issue, though, since those aboriginals who live in the cities are rarely like those in the remove communities described above (although still have a higher crime rate). For the vast majority of people, life is pretty good.
Time was you could immigrate to Australia.
Some juicy pieces from the relevent Wikipedia article:
(In a country of 20 million) Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said that between 130,000 and 140,000 non-humanitarian migrants would be taken, with a skilled migrant component of 97,500.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates that Australia took 16,000 refugees through its resettlement program. This is the second largest program in the world after that of the United States and Australia takes 19% of those refuges being assisted by the UNHCR.
Australia has only itself to blame for its protectionism
Actually, over the last 30 years Australia has reduced its protectionist policies to the point where it is now one of the most open economies of all developed nations*. Which was why Australia couldn't get many concessions in the US-Aus FTA - they had little to offer which wasn't already available already.
*Unprocessed grown food excepted: There are strict rules on importing natural foods as there are relatively few agriculture dieseases in Australia and the idea is to keep it that way.
Yep, this is pretty much the direction I see most creative medias taking. For an example, take a look at webcomics. Lots and lots of comics, all of them released for free - most of the creators do it for the fun of it. The better webcomic makers make a reasonable amount of money off it. The best make enough to live on. If you applied that model to music, then you'd get a similar result, but better: Artists would be making money from donations and swag, and the rest from touring. It seems like a good model which works for all involved - except the music labels, of course, but that's life, I'm afraid.
Programming is like writing in any language. Once you're sufficiently familiar with it, you don't need to think of which word to use and where to put the punctuation - you just know what you're trying to express and take the most natural path through the language to express it. The human brain is designed to work with language, and while programming is not the most natural type for it, we can use much of the wiring used for human language in coding.
Heh, I actually meant to say it's not only for programmers, but failed. Should've remembered the preview button...
It's not for programmers - the contestents only present a concept, and the idea is that the winners will have their concepts converted into shareware applications. It's an interesting experiment, although I would guess that a fair number of people would be reluctant to put their ideas into such a public forum.