A good point. I also wonder about some of these hydrogen powered cars - most of which usually have a tank of hydrogen under high pressure. What could possibly go wrong? I guess all of the different new technologies have their drawbacks.
One method I've heard of that would check against electronic fraud in the voting machines starts by requiring the Voting machine print a receipt with his selections marked in a human and machine readable form, such as having dots filled in by candidates names. Next, the voter leaves the booth, checks his vote on the receipt and then enters it into a second system (like a subway ticket reader) that reads his vote and gives his receipt back to him.
Any differences between the votes in the two systems would be suspect as one would check on the other. The votes in the second system would be 'matched' to those in the first via primary keys and compared individually for accuracy. Even if some voters refuse to enter their receipt into the second system, it would be easy to have a worker at the polls enter a note in the second system with the time it happened. That way the discrepancy would not be considered suspicious in the audit.
Face it, we're never going to have complete confidence in electronic voting machines. So many of us know how easy it is to write code that would "adjust" the final totals. We need a system like the one above or similar that will provide checks and balances for the voting public.
So has Senator Byrd for West Virginia. He's channeled mega-millions of dollars into that state. Some (not all) of his pork barrel projects for WV would probably have been better done elsewhere or not at all from a nationwide perspective. Now Hillary is one very sharp lady. Also, during her short political career, she's built a strong political foundation by forging connections with others of similar liberal views and demonstrating her political savy during her time as first lady. It think it's served her well as a senator.
But despite her political ability and connections, I don't don't like her as president. Her intentions appear (to me) to be more focused on showing her greatness wielding power as Commandress in Chief than serving the Constitution to provide for the public good. I believe if she becomes president, her first focus will be to take action on issues she has strongly supported before but are often downplayed during election time. That is, registration of all firearms (followed by laws convenient for confiscation), homosexual rights, and children's rights.
The biggest reason the present (Bush) administration made it back into office for a second term after making some very dubious decisions in the first term is because of the high level of distrust built up from some of the aforementioned issues during the Clinton administration. I don't like some of the issues on the Republican side, either. But many times people vote against something at an election rather than for something.
I'm sure Hillary has some good looking accomplishments to bring to the board for the election. She's been helped. But when it comes to what kind of president she will be, I'd actually prefer Senator Byrd. I'm no longer a WV resident and Byrd may have state bias, but at least he has a much better grasp and respect for the Constitution. Hillary is all smoke and mirrors.
I think the biggest thing I get from your blog is how much politics can come into the equation at a particular time. Special interests change somewhat every generation. Would the same decision have been made 30 years ago if there were no special interests to make suggestions like, "Uhhh, Mr. Senator (or President), it's funny you should mention energy because we have an awesome energy plan all made up!" Though I'm sure some good things may have come from Carter's Energy initiative (which was mostly for coal), there was one that would have been great had it been included. It was in its infancy at the time and had no political backing.
That technology was thorium. At the time they were experimenting with using it breeder style reactors. Placing a layer of thorium in a breeder reactor (I believe it is around the core) causes it to change into Uranium 234 (U-234) which is fissionable like U-235. But U-234 burns a lot cleaner in a reactor than U-235 and produces a fraction of the waste products. Very little plutonium is made like in other breeders. Maybe the U-234 can be used for bombs, maybe not, I don't know.
But the technology is there. I just wonder why it isn't ramped up a bit more - thorium is cheap and there's a lot more of it than Uranium. Maybe there are other technologies that are available now, orphans with no political clout. Do you know of any others?
Though Atomic Reactors are cleaner than Fossil fuels, using Thorium would make them even cleaner. The technology is there. Putting a thorium layer around the core causes it to change into uranium 234 as it absorbs neutrons. Like Uranium 235, it is also fissionable. Unlike 235, it is much cleaner. The U-234 reaction produces a fraction of the waste and very little plutonium. Very little of the same type of waste is generated and very plutonium. Of course, the plutonium can be useful, but it is also much easier to make into a bomb than trying to purify U-235 reactor rods into U-235 bomb-grade material.
Has anyone heard anything as to why more hasn't been done with Thorium?
True. As I understand it, that interpretation does go back quite a ways when in reference to phone calls. Perhaps as far as Reagan or Carter. As long as half of the communication is from a foreign source outside the country they can tap the call. But they are only supposed to be able to use the half that comes from the foreign source. If they want to use the other side of the call, they have to get a subpoena.
Grammar Police - Notice of Ticket: I'm Sorry Sir, but use of the possessive pronoun "its" does not require an apostrophe. Your use of the contraction "it's" is improper and is normally restricted to situations where it shortens the common two word phrase "it is". Your blog is classified as improper usage by the Grammar Police Authority.
Show up at your local Grammar Police office within the next 30 days to be booked for your infraction. Fail to do so and your every letter will be audited for punctuation errors.
Since MS was so quick to pay Eolas, and Balmer suggests In the Article that Eolas might start going after Open Source, one has to wonder. Maybe they're getting Eolas ready to be the next SCO.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I agree. Heck, even if they increased it to, say, $20 the first song and $10 for each song after that (the first would easily pay for all that expensive paper used in sending letters out) most people would still interpret it as being reasonably fair. These could be the settlement rates - they could charge for greater fees if they had to bring it to trial and the defendent were proven guilty. Since it wouldn't be such a cash cow, they would be more careful about who they brought to trial. Don't think it's worth holding one's breath for, though.
By reading this sig, you are agreeing to be in total agreement with the aforewritten words.
I find your response fascinating. Recently I purchased an HP laptop from a CompUSA store. When the salesperson suggested I get the extended warranty, I was at first, uncertain. I told him I intended to put a dual boot so it could go to Ubuntu as well as Vista. He said that that should be no problem with it as the hardware would not be affected by the change in operating systems. I purchased it but decided to follow-up with their service manager within the next few days to get confirmation.
Speaking with their Service Manager, He said it would NOT be a problem and gave me an example using the same type of car analogy. But this time it was used in a way to show that having a dual boot would NOT affect the service warranty for hardware. It was something along the lines that just as wear on say, a windshield wiper or electric car window do not relate to problems with the engine or transmission, so also a broken computer screen would have no relationship to whether there is a different operating system.
Though some shops may be more honest than others in how they apply the analogy, I find it interesting that computer shops like to use the car analogy. Yet the more one thinks about it, the less accurate it becomes in real life. New Cars cost about 10 to 20 times what a computer costs. If a car dealership brazenly ignores or makes excuses about covering their expensive warranty (often thousands of dollars) a customer is much more likely to get legal assistance and take them to court. In the case of a computer or laptop, the cost would be prohibitive. Without the threat of loosing money through litigation, many believe they can see how far they can stretch the rules. The analagy may change when you go back with a problem and you put Linux on the machine.
IMHO, extended warrantees on computers are given more lip service by service centers than those for cars. You probably should not get one unless you really know the people. I'm not trying to flame anyone - I do not expect to have to use mine - I think the laptop itself is pretty sound. But having checked around - two people I know who purchased a computer warranty both were refused proper service for odd reasons, I can't help but come to the conclusion that perhaps purchasing an extended warranty in the computer business, is often wasted money. You have to decide based upon whether you trust someone.
Are corporations the only thing? What about religeon? Religeon is a very big category of influence. Each religeon holds influence over different groups of people. Some Christian groups insist abortion is murder and try to make a one-issue election with it. I wouldn't agree that it's always the best thing to do but I don't believe it fits an accurate definition of murder.
And don't the more extreme environmentalists fit the definition of a religeon? Some of the more hardcore types openly admit that they propose agenda based on the worship of Gaia (Mother Earth) and that their present proposals are just the beginning before more radical laws can be implemented with them in charge. Plenty of other groups that could be classified as religeons (or quasi religeons -my term) if you check them out. They all have "love of money".
What the heck! Sure - aren't most of us in favor of being environmentally friendly and having good moral ethics? But I think there has to be some moderation and less of this wanting to always have power and influence over everyone's life.
I never really thought about taking sandpaper or a wood file to my head before this but having read the article it should be nicer than the turtlewax thing.
Agreed. Not to mention how easy it would be to falsely accuse someone of a crime by putting their RFID signature on a copied card and having it "wander in and out" of the location a crime about to be committed. Such an idea is repugnant to the vast majority of government employees, true. But there's usually a few who have access and believe, "the end (or gain) justifies the means", to whom it might be considered a justifiable option.
I know what you mean - Visa and Mastercard do have policies in place that discourage merchants from requiring photo ID if the Card is signed. Generally, I phrase it like this, "May I check your ID for you?" I don't make it a requirement. In most cases, the customer has been happy to show it. If they don't, I can always view their signature.
To some degree, one has to consider that there are also customer security policies. When one sees, "See Photo ID" or "Photo ID Required", to me that's a customer policy. And even though they may be ignoring their card agreement, the credit card company will not be dropping them. They still make money off of their purchases! Do I violiate anything by asking them, "May I check your ID for You?"? They can refuse. And some who have had their identity stolen before (and told me their story) have been very happy to have someone finally ask.
But like you suggest in your reply, there is a balance in how you do this thing.
As one who has worked part-time in a retail store for extra cash on top of my day job, I've found most customers now days prefer that you ask for ID. Up until now, store policy has been lax or even negative on the subject. For example, "if it's less than a hundred dollars or so (depends on season), don't bother the customer and ask ID unless it's AE or the card isn't signed."
Maybe some of these retail stores will finally make it policy to ask for ID when making a purchase. Wouldn't you like it that way?
What I'd really like to see is pre-installed Linux with Wireless! Isn't there any wireless card out there with a driver that works seemlessly with Linux? If it was pre-installed, it would save a lot of people a lot of time.
Still, having it pre-installed and pre-tested to work with all the other hardware on the computer would help a lot of people who are just starting out with Linux. Dell should have the resources and expertise to make it happen.
The Spongebob Squarepants cartoon was accurate all the time when it showed that there ARE beaches on the bottom of the ocean!!! We now know for sure that they have waves and everything. Who need Atlantis? If we could only find Bikini Bottom.
It's not just the "Climate Skeptics" that should have issues with conflict of interest. It was on March 19th of this year that "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml. At the time, Hansen was given a one-sided glowing profile.
The 60 Minutes segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vise President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heniz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf.
Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to any so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://222.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6. I guess ketchup money is different from oil money.
You tell me. I haven't seen any easy answers. My point was that the argument that fluorocarbons caused the ozone hole was minimized when scientists showed that volcanic activity produced far more chemicals to deplete ozone than we ever could. Perhaps a study should be done comparing the ozone hole with volcanic activity in the southern hemisphere. Changing to shorter lived fluorocarbons doesn't seem to have changed anything.
I'm sorry and don't like to hear about a higher rate of cancer or anything in any area any more than I would like to hear about an unusually high rate of leukemia in my area. Like you, I would like to have an answer and get to the bottom of it.
Dorpus, It's OK to have a -1 moderation on occasion. On some subjects in Slashdot, if you don't agree with the group, you will be modded down considerably. It doesn't matter if some of your arguments have merit. And I do remember the prediction that 2006 will be a "record year for hurricanes". And it was suggested that global warming was part of the cause. If it had been a record year, one can be sure that proponents of GW would have remembered the "record year" statement and used it as an argument. Obviously, some were hoping for massive destruction so that they could have more support for their ideas.
Does anybody remember the "ozone hole" problem that was prevalent in the late 80's and early 90's? No one talks about it much anymore. It went something like this: Because of the massive amount of air conditioning fluorocarbons being released into the atmosphere, we are making an ozone hole in the southern hemisphere. This hole will soon grow so large it will eventually cover most of the planet and we will all get sunburned and have skin cancer. The proving scientists showed that freon did indeed break down ozone, that humans made freon, therefore humans made the ozone hole and would have to take action to close it. Laws were passed. Selling older Freon refrigerants was strictly regulated in this country and replaced by newer refrigerants that broke down. Air conditioners were replaced by units that ran the newer refrigerants. According to a friend I knew in the AC business, the companies that made freon and similar products were about to do a massive lawsuit and expose on the whole idea stating that their scientists could show that most of the stats were pure bunk! But then they sat down with the government (and other insiders), and when they realized that a can of freon would go from $.99 to about $21.00 and how much money they would make by complying (and how much it would cost if they fought), they went along. Low and behold, a few years later, a scientific study showed that volcanoes released chemicals in quantities that would be thousands of times more effective in breaking down the ozone layer than freon. There was little fanfare or media attention as the cause was dropped. The laws stayed on the books.
Now I wouldn't want to stay in the way of progress or learning about the global climate, but let's cut the bull. A lot of scientists and their organizations will get a lot of kudos and make a lot of $money$ if Kyoto and future proposed legislation goes through. Why not hold these scientists LIABLE for these predictions. Money and status are big in scientific circles. If what they say comes to pass, why not reward them (if it can be proven by > 1 unbiased groups over > 5-10 years) that test their standards. If shown correct, give them $rewards and status. If not, kick them out of their scientific organizations and fine them.
Many managers in companies are held liable for their monetary predictions not coming true. They get bonuses or get fired. The fact that a person is smart or has multiple degrees is no proof of honesty. Truth is, it often shows that some of these people have cleverer ways of being dishonest. One should be suspicious if met with a condescending tone and an explanation of, "These are things only people with X number of doctorates can understand." Maybe. What I do understand is when predictions are made and don't come to pass and cost people $billions worldwide, someone ought to answer for it. If scientists had to sign contracts of reward/liability for predictions of gloom and doom, I bet a lot would walk. Global warming has to prove (1) That it really is happening and will continue to increase(2) That People are causing it (3) That it is bad (4) If 3==True, then something [what] can be done about it. I've seen lots of controversy on #1, little proof on #2 - which is where the ozone hole theory collapsed, nothing but assumptions on #3 (On a global level, Canada and Siberia might benefit), and I'd hate to see the cost estimates on #4, when treaties and legislation is approved.
Feel free to mod according to opinion - no one will know, but have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
A good point. I also wonder about some of these hydrogen powered cars - most of which usually have a tank of hydrogen under high pressure. What could possibly go wrong? I guess all of the different new technologies have their drawbacks.
One method I've heard of that would check against electronic fraud in the voting machines starts by requiring the Voting machine print a receipt with his selections marked in a human and machine readable form, such as having dots filled in by candidates names. Next, the voter leaves the booth, checks his vote on the receipt and then enters it into a second system (like a subway ticket reader) that reads his vote and gives his receipt back to him.
Any differences between the votes in the two systems would be suspect as one would check on the other. The votes in the second system would be 'matched' to those in the first via primary keys and compared individually for accuracy. Even if some voters refuse to enter their receipt into the second system, it would be easy to have a worker at the polls enter a note in the second system with the time it happened. That way the discrepancy would not be considered suspicious in the audit.
Face it, we're never going to have complete confidence in electronic voting machines. So many of us know how easy it is to write code that would "adjust" the final totals. We need a system like the one above or similar that will provide checks and balances for the voting public.
"And the truth shall set you free" - http://www.theway.org/
But despite her political ability and connections, I don't don't like her as president. Her intentions appear (to me) to be more focused on showing her greatness wielding power as Commandress in Chief than serving the Constitution to provide for the public good. I believe if she becomes president, her first focus will be to take action on issues she has strongly supported before but are often downplayed during election time. That is, registration of all firearms (followed by laws convenient for confiscation), homosexual rights, and children's rights.
The biggest reason the present (Bush) administration made it back into office for a second term after making some very dubious decisions in the first term is because of the high level of distrust built up from some of the aforementioned issues during the Clinton administration. I don't like some of the issues on the Republican side, either. But many times people vote against something at an election rather than for something.
I'm sure Hillary has some good looking accomplishments to bring to the board for the election. She's been helped. But when it comes to what kind of president she will be, I'd actually prefer Senator Byrd. I'm no longer a WV resident and Byrd may have state bias, but at least he has a much better grasp and respect for the Constitution. Hillary is all smoke and mirrors.
I think the biggest thing I get from your blog is how much politics can come into the equation at a particular time. Special interests change somewhat every generation. Would the same decision have been made 30 years ago if there were no special interests to make suggestions like, "Uhhh, Mr. Senator (or President), it's funny you should mention energy because we have an awesome energy plan all made up!" Though I'm sure some good things may have come from Carter's Energy initiative (which was mostly for coal), there was one that would have been great had it been included. It was in its infancy at the time and had no political backing.
That technology was thorium. At the time they were experimenting with using it breeder style reactors. Placing a layer of thorium in a breeder reactor (I believe it is around the core) causes it to change into Uranium 234 (U-234) which is fissionable like U-235. But U-234 burns a lot cleaner in a reactor than U-235 and produces a fraction of the waste products. Very little plutonium is made like in other breeders. Maybe the U-234 can be used for bombs, maybe not, I don't know.
But the technology is there. I just wonder why it isn't ramped up a bit more - thorium is cheap and there's a lot more of it than Uranium. Maybe there are other technologies that are available now, orphans with no political clout. Do you know of any others?
My Sig is Here
Though Atomic Reactors are cleaner than Fossil fuels, using Thorium would make them even cleaner. The technology is there. Putting a thorium layer around the core causes it to change into uranium 234 as it absorbs neutrons. Like Uranium 235, it is also fissionable. Unlike 235, it is much cleaner. The U-234 reaction produces a fraction of the waste and very little plutonium. Very little of the same type of waste is generated and very plutonium. Of course, the plutonium can be useful, but it is also much easier to make into a bomb than trying to purify U-235 reactor rods into U-235 bomb-grade material.
Has anyone heard anything as to why more hasn't been done with Thorium?
My sig is here
True. As I understand it, that interpretation does go back quite a ways when in reference to phone calls. Perhaps as far as Reagan or Carter. As long as half of the communication is from a foreign source outside the country they can tap the call. But they are only supposed to be able to use the half that comes from the foreign source. If they want to use the other side of the call, they have to get a subpoena.
Grammar Police - Notice of Ticket: I'm Sorry Sir, but use of the possessive pronoun "its" does not require an apostrophe. Your use of the contraction "it's" is improper and is normally restricted to situations where it shortens the common two word phrase "it is". Your blog is classified as improper usage by the Grammar Police Authority.
Show up at your local Grammar Police office within the next 30 days to be booked for your infraction. Fail to do so and your every letter will be audited for punctuation errors.
Viewing this sig signifies reception of this Sig
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I agree. Heck, even if they increased it to, say, $20 the first song and $10 for each song after that (the first would easily pay for all that expensive paper used in sending letters out) most people would still interpret it as being reasonably fair. These could be the settlement rates - they could charge for greater fees if they had to bring it to trial and the defendent were proven guilty. Since it wouldn't be such a cash cow, they would be more careful about who they brought to trial. Don't think it's worth holding one's breath for, though.
By reading this sig, you are agreeing to be in total agreement with the aforewritten words.
I find your response fascinating. Recently I purchased an HP laptop from a CompUSA store. When the salesperson suggested I get the extended warranty, I was at first, uncertain. I told him I intended to put a dual boot so it could go to Ubuntu as well as Vista. He said that that should be no problem with it as the hardware would not be affected by the change in operating systems. I purchased it but decided to follow-up with their service manager within the next few days to get confirmation.
Speaking with their Service Manager, He said it would NOT be a problem and gave me an example using the same type of car analogy. But this time it was used in a way to show that having a dual boot would NOT affect the service warranty for hardware. It was something along the lines that just as wear on say, a windshield wiper or electric car window do not relate to problems with the engine or transmission, so also a broken computer screen would have no relationship to whether there is a different operating system.
Though some shops may be more honest than others in how they apply the analogy, I find it interesting that computer shops like to use the car analogy. Yet the more one thinks about it, the less accurate it becomes in real life. New Cars cost about 10 to 20 times what a computer costs. If a car dealership brazenly ignores or makes excuses about covering their expensive warranty (often thousands of dollars) a customer is much more likely to get legal assistance and take them to court. In the case of a computer or laptop, the cost would be prohibitive. Without the threat of loosing money through litigation, many believe they can see how far they can stretch the rules. The analagy may change when you go back with a problem and you put Linux on the machine.
IMHO, extended warrantees on computers are given more lip service by service centers than those for cars. You probably should not get one unless you really know the people. I'm not trying to flame anyone - I do not expect to have to use mine - I think the laptop itself is pretty sound. But having checked around - two people I know who purchased a computer warranty both were refused proper service for odd reasons, I can't help but come to the conclusion that perhaps purchasing an extended warranty in the computer business, is often wasted money. You have to decide based upon whether you trust someone.
Though marked informative - I think with your last comment I'd have given it a funny +1. Thanks.
Excellent Overview! Just the facts.
And don't the more extreme environmentalists fit the definition of a religeon? Some of the more hardcore types openly admit that they propose agenda based on the worship of Gaia (Mother Earth) and that their present proposals are just the beginning before more radical laws can be implemented with them in charge. Plenty of other groups that could be classified as religeons (or quasi religeons -my term) if you check them out. They all have "love of money".
What the heck! Sure - aren't most of us in favor of being environmentally friendly and having good moral ethics? But I think there has to be some moderation and less of this wanting to always have power and influence over everyone's life.
I never really thought about taking sandpaper or a wood file to my head before this but having read the article it should be nicer than the turtlewax thing.
Agreed. Not to mention how easy it would be to falsely accuse someone of a crime by putting their RFID signature on a copied card and having it "wander in and out" of the location a crime about to be committed. Such an idea is repugnant to the vast majority of government employees, true. But there's usually a few who have access and believe, "the end (or gain) justifies the means", to whom it might be considered a justifiable option.
They've already been done. Remember Jordy on Star Trek, the Next Generation?
Doesn't look like any of the movie links work.
If nothing else, they could label it as "Suitable for Ethanol Production."
I know what you mean - Visa and Mastercard do have policies in place that discourage merchants from requiring photo ID if the Card is signed. Generally, I phrase it like this, "May I check your ID for you?" I don't make it a requirement. In most cases, the customer has been happy to show it. If they don't, I can always view their signature.
To some degree, one has to consider that there are also customer security policies. When one sees, "See Photo ID" or "Photo ID Required", to me that's a customer policy. And even though they may be ignoring their card agreement, the credit card company will not be dropping them. They still make money off of their purchases! Do I violiate anything by asking them, "May I check your ID for You?"? They can refuse. And some who have had their identity stolen before (and told me their story) have been very happy to have someone finally ask.
But like you suggest in your reply, there is a balance in how you do this thing.
As one who has worked part-time in a retail store for extra cash on top of my day job, I've found most customers now days prefer that you ask for ID. Up until now, store policy has been lax or even negative on the subject. For example, "if it's less than a hundred dollars or so (depends on season), don't bother the customer and ask ID unless it's AE or the card isn't signed."
Maybe some of these retail stores will finally make it policy to ask for ID when making a purchase. Wouldn't you like it that way?
What I'd really like to see is pre-installed Linux with Wireless! Isn't there any wireless card out there with a driver that works seemlessly with Linux? If it was pre-installed, it would save a lot of people a lot of time.
Still, having it pre-installed and pre-tested to work with all the other hardware on the computer would help a lot of people who are just starting out with Linux. Dell should have the resources and expertise to make it happen.
The Spongebob Squarepants cartoon was accurate all the time when it showed that there ARE beaches on the bottom of the ocean!!! We now know for sure that they have waves and everything. Who need Atlantis? If we could only find Bikini Bottom.
It's not just the "Climate Skeptics" that should have issues with conflict of interest. It was on March 19th of this year that "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml. At the time, Hansen was given a one-sided glowing profile.
The 60 Minutes segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vise President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heniz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf.
Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to any so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://222.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6. I guess ketchup money is different from oil money.
You tell me. I haven't seen any easy answers. My point was that the argument that fluorocarbons caused the ozone hole was minimized when scientists showed that volcanic activity produced far more chemicals to deplete ozone than we ever could. Perhaps a study should be done comparing the ozone hole with volcanic activity in the southern hemisphere. Changing to shorter lived fluorocarbons doesn't seem to have changed anything.
I'm sorry and don't like to hear about a higher rate of cancer or anything in any area any more than I would like to hear about an unusually high rate of leukemia in my area. Like you, I would like to have an answer and get to the bottom of it.
Dorpus, It's OK to have a -1 moderation on occasion. On some subjects in Slashdot, if you don't agree with the group, you will be modded down considerably. It doesn't matter if some of your arguments have merit. And I do remember the prediction that 2006 will be a "record year for hurricanes". And it was suggested that global warming was part of the cause. If it had been a record year, one can be sure that proponents of GW would have remembered the "record year" statement and used it as an argument. Obviously, some were hoping for massive destruction so that they could have more support for their ideas.
Does anybody remember the "ozone hole" problem that was prevalent in the late 80's and early 90's? No one talks about it much anymore. It went something like this: Because of the massive amount of air conditioning fluorocarbons being released into the atmosphere, we are making an ozone hole in the southern hemisphere. This hole will soon grow so large it will eventually cover most of the planet and we will all get sunburned and have skin cancer. The proving scientists showed that freon did indeed break down ozone, that humans made freon, therefore humans made the ozone hole and would have to take action to close it. Laws were passed. Selling older Freon refrigerants was strictly regulated in this country and replaced by newer refrigerants that broke down. Air conditioners were replaced by units that ran the newer refrigerants. According to a friend I knew in the AC business, the companies that made freon and similar products were about to do a massive lawsuit and expose on the whole idea stating that their scientists could show that most of the stats were pure bunk! But then they sat down with the government (and other insiders), and when they realized that a can of freon would go from $.99 to about $21.00 and how much money they would make by complying (and how much it would cost if they fought), they went along. Low and behold, a few years later, a scientific study showed that volcanoes released chemicals in quantities that would be thousands of times more effective in breaking down the ozone layer than freon. There was little fanfare or media attention as the cause was dropped. The laws stayed on the books.
Now I wouldn't want to stay in the way of progress or learning about the global climate, but let's cut the bull. A lot of scientists and their organizations will get a lot of kudos and make a lot of $money$ if Kyoto and future proposed legislation goes through. Why not hold these scientists LIABLE for these predictions. Money and status are big in scientific circles. If what they say comes to pass, why not reward them (if it can be proven by > 1 unbiased groups over > 5-10 years) that test their standards. If shown correct, give them $rewards and status. If not, kick them out of their scientific organizations and fine them.
Many managers in companies are held liable for their monetary predictions not coming true. They get bonuses or get fired. The fact that a person is smart or has multiple degrees is no proof of honesty. Truth is, it often shows that some of these people have cleverer ways of being dishonest. One should be suspicious if met with a condescending tone and an explanation of, "These are things only people with X number of doctorates can understand." Maybe. What I do understand is when predictions are made and don't come to pass and cost people $billions worldwide, someone ought to answer for it. If scientists had to sign contracts of reward/liability for predictions of gloom and doom, I bet a lot would walk.
Global warming has to prove (1) That it really is happening and will continue to increase(2) That People are causing it (3) That it is bad (4) If 3==True, then something [what] can be done about it. I've seen lots of controversy on #1, little proof on #2 - which is where the ozone hole theory collapsed, nothing but assumptions on #3 (On a global level, Canada and Siberia might benefit), and I'd hate to see the cost estimates on #4, when treaties and legislation is approved.
Feel free to mod according to opinion - no one will know, but have a nice day.