What, 1 house per person? Come off it. 1 house per family then, but seriously how many houses do you think would be required?
Also, if they need all these "modern conveniences", then they are no longer "practicing their culture" as it existed before the "European invaders" showed up - they've been assimilated, and can settle in a town of their choosing. If they don't need these modern amenities, then it will be dirt cheap to set them up, since you won't need much in the way of infrastructure. You know, for a troll you're not even particularly good at it, you're suppose to subtlety try to misrepresent information, not fire random shots in the dark. We're talking about the cost required to relocate a village. It's of no matter what you suppose they might be due. It's not up to you, the cost required is to replace and/or modernize what they have now.
Just how much "infrastructure" do you think there was before the "white euro-trash" showed up, anyway? Irrelevant to the discussion!
There were no roads, no radio generators, no heavy equipment, no snowmobiles, no 4x4s, no rifles, no hospitals, no antibiotics, etc. Before Europeans arrived I assume? Still irrelevant to the cost of moving what's there now!
Cultural sensitivity is all very well and good, but in this case, we're looking at what doctors call the "green poultice" - the application of money makes the hurt go away... You seem to have jumped to another topic. Your original post claimed that $400 million was far too much to relocate a town of 390 people and, with a rough calculation, you figured that less than 1 million would suffice. I disagreed and said it might be a conservative estimate then explained why, but you've shown no willingness to defend your claim. This makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously.
I don't know what planet you live on but this may be a cheap estimate. 390 people = 390 new houses + new town infrastructure (schools, roads, medical services, radio generators and the list goes on). Even if you move them to an existing site, you will likely have to pay to upgrade the above infrastructure on that site to handle the extra people. Finally, don't forget that all of this must be done at northern prices, which could range anywhere from 2X - 10X what you might pay down here.
Calling me a troll is just another way of saying "please do not disturb by belief system, I made my mind up already". Not at all. It was trolling because all the information you posted had been discussed to death on/. previously. The only reason I responded was on the off chance that you really didn't know.
I just used popular mechanics as the link, not the source. the source is the peer reviewed paper it is based on because the raw NASA release was unreadable. Refute the findings of the paper, then attack those findings. "Attacking the messenger" is a common logical fallacy. Unfortunately you didn't, because their is no peer-reviewed paper written on which the article was based. It is an article based on an interview. Even then, the article contributes nothing to the knowledge around climate change because it makes no claims that can be either proved or disproved, it simply states that 'some people think X and others think Y', or 'historically event W has been related to event Z so if event W is underway we might be in store for event Z'. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against popular mechanics, in fact I've enjoyed many an hour reading about the day when I can take my hover car to my undersea villa. Unfortunately, it's just not a good source for reference material.
As for your last statement, you must be joking. (The hypothesis that the sun has no effect is laughable on it's face) Controls are not 50/50 unless you are doing a statistical H0 test, or 90% if you are doing an H1 test. That is not the standard here, that standard is used for statistical analysis of a dataset where you have no control to compare as is the case in most non-scientific fields.
Here we have a classic control (mars) plus a variable item (humans). The climate with and without the variable have the same behavior, therefore it is not the variable. QED. You appear to have misunderstood me completely. Regardless of your feelings toward the hypothesis that the sun has no effect on climate, there are only two hypothesis's available
1. Changes in the Sun are having an effect.
2. Changes in the Sun are not having an effect.
In the first case, The Sun is having an effect, we would naturally expect to find nearly 100% of planets warming slightly. (Unless something else interferes).
In the second case, The Sun is not having an effect, then we would expect to find roughtly 50% of planets in our solar system warming slightly and the other half cooling slightly (biased on natural cyles, nothing to do with the Sun).
Now the trouble is 1 planet (Mars) is not a large enough sample size to determine whether the sun is having an effect or not because it is easily conceivable that Mars and the earth could be warming together purely by chance. In fact, the same could be said for a sample size of All the planets in our solar system.
We do not have a reliable control in Mars because there are so many factors that could be in play that we have no way to control, not to mention that we barely have 20 years of climate data on Mars, so we have no idea what the climate on mars is suppose to look like, and therefor no way to judge what sort of effects any change in the sun may be having. Next, even with a control, 1 experiment is not enough to reliably determine a result. Now if you could take the two planets, apply CO2 to the earth, witness a change, then take it away. Witness a reversal of the previous change. Apply it again, witness the change and so on. Then you would have a repeatable experiment. Alternately you could do the same with the Sun: Change the sun, observe any changes in the planets. Put the Sun back, watch the changes reverse. Reapply the changed sun, watch for the change and so on. Obviously this would be difficult for us to do. The upshot of all this is that Mars is not a good scientific control, because the experiment has almost no reliability and we have Zero repeatability in this experiment.
Don't be surprised, while the scientific consensus in in place (and has been since Kyoto was signed in '89), the media still talks about climate change like it's an ongoing debate. I'll reserve my comments on the motivations of some of the posters here on/.;)
No, all that has been agreed upon is the planet is getting/slightly/ warmer. Thats it. No cause...however other scientists think that it could be cows that caused this. Slightly is a bit of a misnomer here. In absolute terms the planet is barely warming, however, to life (as we know it) the planet is warming enough to start making things less pleasant for us. And since, contrary to your opinion, we do know the cause (Here's a hint, it's largely CO2!), the more we deposit in the atmosphere the more the planet will warm and the more unpleasant life will become.
Is CO2 the only greenhouse gas? Of course not. Others, like methane (both from cows and other sources) and water vapor are both more powerful greenhouse gases. The difference is the time that each of these gases spends in the atmosphere. Water vapor can be measured in days, methane in years/decades, but CO2 lasts centuries. This means that a great percentage of the CO2 that we're now pumping into the atmosphere will remain there for multiple generations, contributing to a cumulative warming effect on top of all the other previously mentioned sources. Yes, the planet has a capacity to absorb some excess CO2, however, we've long since surpassed the planets ability to absorb the quantities we are releasing.
And finally, yes, there is a scientific consensus. The VAST majority of scientists (like >95%) agree that CO2 bares principal responsibly for the current climate change underway on earth. If you disagree with that, please provide the names of scientists who don't and the peer-reviewed research that they base their opinions on.
I realize that you may be trolling since all this has been covered at length before, but here goes:
First: Global cooling was a real concern that was largely eliminated as a concern when we cleaned up the pollution we were dumping in the atmosphere, I.E. aerosols and other fine particle sources that reflected the suns light before it made it to the ground. Basically, we took action and fixed the problem.
Second: stay away from Popular mechanics as a source of sound scientific theory, stick to the peer-reviewed journals.
Third: warming or cooling on Mars, and the other inner planets are of no real use to judge the suns effect on climate. Very quick explanation: Start with the hypothesis that the Sun is having no effect. In that case we would still expect 50% of the planets to be slightly warming and 50% to be slightly cooling. Therefore in order to draw any type of inference between the Sun and the other planets warming or cooling trends, we would have to have a much larger sample, otherwise random error is huge and rules out any meaningful scientific conclusions.
A very apt observation, (I liked the Polar bears too). Personally I believe this 'announcement' has less to do with Canada's real or perceived level of IP infringement and more to do with applying political pressure to help force Canada to tow-the-line by way of passing strict IP legislation. Especially since the last attempt by the governing party was shot down in flames by the public.
'Course I didn't RTA, I jumped right to the point where I start shooting my mouth off.
That just proves that, no matter how tough the Gameboy may be, your head is harder!
(Come to think of it, We shouldn't be surprised at the density of your noggin, being that you chose to use your head as a hammer as opposed to the wall or some other, non-organic instrument of destruction;) .
That is essentially correct, although it would be somewhat presumptuous of me to ask other countries to change the way they do things;). In Canada, drug companies do still market to doctors and do market things like decongestants and Viagra other over-the-counter medicines directly to the patient.
I think a better question is why can't the taxpayer benefit monetarily from the research they have paid for? I don't think that I'll get much argument if I state that much of the 'pure' research is done largely through public funding and yet if that research is commercialized, it is largely done so by private companies who then reap the rewards. Now, I'm not suggesting that those private interests who have taken this research to market don't deserve to make money, however, what level of compensation is due to the public purse?
In Canada pharma-marketing directly to the general public is limited mainly for ethical reasons. Rightly or wrongly, it's felt that it's too prejudicial to try and directly sell to those who are in a vulnerable state (already sick), and who may have very little medical knowledge. Experience has shown that many 'new' drugs don't offer significantly greater benefits than generics they aim to replace, yet they are much more expensive.
I believe it also applies to not incriminating ones' spouse, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think that not incriminating your own child would fall under the 5th amendment. Although I agree that a lie is not covered, just silence.
You're full of it:
No, I'd pay attention when I see someone with a ton of money live like a pauper to maintain a truly carbon neutral or carbon negative footprint. Right now, he's just a hypocrite and a liar. Again, I refer to the point that some people out there (even those with money) do choose to live like this. However, the fact that you are trying to set up a polar argument whereby the only two choices are the environment and abject poverty speaks to your motives.
Stop right there. Tsunamis are NOT a result of GW, although this is not the first time I've heard that. Tsunamis are caused by EARTHQUAKES!!! NOW do you see why I don't believe? As for the rest, we've always had heat waves and extreme weather. For that matter, extreme weather is on the decline, but I've heard THAT blamed on GW as well. Well, I have to grant you the Tsunami, I misspoke, Tsunami's are caused by earthquakes. I was thinking of the intensity of tropical storms and the resulting storm surge they bring.
As for not believing me, I see exactly why you don't believe me, you don't like me. But no matter, I'll let the science speak for itself, http://www.realclimate.org/. although I fully realize that this will do nothing to convince you: You're simply opposed to reason, and will try to find any excuse to Wiesel out of facing reality. This is easily evidenced by the rest of your statement which neatly skips the consequences of Climate Change, I.E. the increasing intensity of extreme weather, by asserting that we have always had extreme weather. So here's my challenge to you: If you assert that extreme weather is on the decline, prove it.
So you listen to the Pentagon? Do you listen when they say that active sonar has no effect on marine life? Do you listen when they say that waterboarding is NOT torture? Do you listen when they say that we should be tapping phone lines? Then why would you listen when they talk about GW? Besides..., Of course I listen. I evaluate each issue on a case by case basis according to the surrounding science and learned commentary surrounding each issue.
...the report said IF GW is a problem, the ramifications could be a threat to global stability. The same could be said for global cooling, plague, famine or whatever. Ok, so if/or/when we are in danger of global cooling, plague, famine or whatever it would seem prudent for a reasonable person to take action to minimize the risks posed from each danger, rather than simply deny the existence of the danger.
First, driving my car, provided I'm safe and sober, does NOT have a negative impact on others... No, you alone driving your car does not have a measurable impact on other. However, the combined total of everyone driving their cars plus all other sources of fossil fuel combustion does. This is the problem.
Next, like I've said, the environment is NOT in danger... That's a mighty bold assertion, care to offer some tangible scientific proof? I think it's only fair since that's what this whole discussion is about and even Mister Bush has now admitted as much.
Next, after accusing me of straw man, you try to equate driving to toxic waste, burning down my house and killing my kids. THAT is a strawman argument (Pot, meet kettle). Freedom is the topic here. How can it be a strawman if that is the point of this discussion? You were attempting to frame the debate by setting up a non-nonsensical choice of 'freedom' or the 'environment'. I asked you to define what you meant by 'freedom', (which you have thus far failed to do. A curious thing, since you assert that it's the point of this argument). The above example was one of the possible freedoms I was inquiring as to.
As a final note, lets see if you have the guts to respond to this. I suspect that you won't, now that it's a couple days old very few people are likely to read your nonsense.
Why is this modded insightful? While the parent obviously disagrees with the research paper, he has offered no relevant criticism of the paper other than to make a couple ad hominem style attacks on the paper.
is it pop psychology(?)
this first would have to lend credence that the thesis warrants comparison to psychology in any way, let alone "pop" psychology which tends to be a few rungs down from the imprimatur of truly researched psychology. It isn't. It's not even close.
masquerading(?)
You bet! No matter what this is trying to be in any genuine sense other than phooey, it's masquerading.
And a personal anecdote (under the category of science no less.)
science(?)
Not a chance. Anecdotally I would expect to be able to be able to think of a number of fellow engineers who match the description and thesis. I'm not sure I can even think of a single example. I can think of some peers from the past who I may describe as of a similar mindset, but those I would hardly describe as real engineers.
While the parent is certainly entitled to have and express his opinions, the parent has made no real insightful contribution to the discussion because the parent neglected to include any evidence to support his statements. Therefore, the parent should be modded down, at least until such time that he more fully supports his assertions.
If Al Gore stops flying in private planes, starts using the sail as his primary means of transportation and moves out of his huge-ass house and into a 100% organic, carbon neutral home, them I'll pay attention. No you wouldn't. You'd call him a pot smoking, sandal wearing, socialist, Democrat hippie in a lame attempt to dismiss him. The fact of the matter is that there are people who live like this out there. So by you're own words, why aren't you listening to them? Oh right, you will only listen if it is Al Gore SPECIFICALLY who does this
I've seen people die from terrorism. Global warming hasn't killed anyone. Tsunamis, freak heat waves, increasingly extreme weather around the globe. When the Pentagon has previously labeled the biggest threat to global stability as climate change, I pay attention and I'm not even an American. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
And even if the environment were in danger... what is more important; freedom, or the environment? Firstly, define what you mean by freedom.
Secondly, no one appreciates your attempting to set up straw man arguments. As we've already covered, if you 'freedom' is code for national security, I refer back to the Pentagon's own report. If 'freedom' is code for I get to do whatever I want regardless of it's impact on others, then yes, the environment is more important than your unmitigated ability to harm others. Reasonable people should be able to see the necessity for regulations to limit somebody's 'freedom' and stop them from doing things like dumping toxic waste into your drinking water, burning your house down and/or murdering your children.
First off let me take this opportunity to thank you for your reply. Honestly, I figured I would be modded flamebait and that would be the end of it. It's good to see someone out there who hasn't let their theological thought processes atrophy.
Perfection can be defined as without lacking, but that would mean that everybody needs to agree that the item/entity/ideal is perfect as there has to be no lacking for anyone/anything involved. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, let me try to paraphrase what you have said as I am understanding it - feel free to correct me if I get away from your intent. If one defines perfection as without lacking, then in order for there to be a perfect being, one of the requirements of that being is that everyone else necessarily has to agree that such a being is perfect. Is this right? For my own interests sake, how would you define perfection?
A perfect God is not only good but also evil, since perfection implies no lacking, including not lacking that which is evil. A lacking of evil would imply that there is something external to his all-encompassing perfection.
I could be wrong but I figured that this limitation was, at least in part, designed not anger the big players (like Intel and Microsoft) by appearing to go after their profitable market share. Now that Intel is being such a %@&!, I guess they decided not to disadvantage American youth anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I don't understand how voting bodies work, but how can anyone take these folks seriously with all the nonsense surrounding this vote?
You appear to be correct, I apologize for attributing the wrong post to the wrong user.
Perhaps I don't understand you, but how could Nuclear not include a cost to operate? At base, You have to mine and process the nuclear fuel.
As for cost of disposal, don't forget you also have to factor the eventual cost to decommission a nuclear power plant.
Actually Geothermal would then be the cheapest and cleanest way to go. Nuclear is a non-starter everywhere but /.
I don't know what planet you live on but this may be a cheap estimate. 390 people = 390 new houses + new town infrastructure (schools, roads, medical services, radio generators and the list goes on). Even if you move them to an existing site, you will likely have to pay to upgrade the above infrastructure on that site to handle the extra people. Finally, don't forget that all of this must be done at northern prices, which could range anywhere from 2X - 10X what you might pay down here.
Not this again...
I just used popular mechanics as the link, not the source. the source is the peer reviewed paper it is based on because the raw NASA release was unreadable. Refute the findings of the paper, then attack those findings. "Attacking the messenger" is a common logical fallacy. Unfortunately you didn't, because their is no peer-reviewed paper written on which the article was based. It is an article based on an interview. Even then, the article contributes nothing to the knowledge around climate change because it makes no claims that can be either proved or disproved, it simply states that 'some people think X and others think Y', or 'historically event W has been related to event Z so if event W is underway we might be in store for event Z'. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against popular mechanics, in fact I've enjoyed many an hour reading about the day when I can take my hover car to my undersea villa. Unfortunately, it's just not a good source for reference material.
As for your last statement, you must be joking. (The hypothesis that the sun has no effect is laughable on it's face) Controls are not 50/50 unless you are doing a statistical H0 test, or 90% if you are doing an H1 test. That is not the standard here, that standard is used for statistical analysis of a dataset where you have no control to compare as is the case in most non-scientific fields. Here we have a classic control (mars) plus a variable item (humans). The climate with and without the variable have the same behavior, therefore it is not the variable. QED. You appear to have misunderstood me completely. Regardless of your feelings toward the hypothesis that the sun has no effect on climate, there are only two hypothesis's available
1. Changes in the Sun are having an effect.
2. Changes in the Sun are not having an effect.
In the first case, The Sun is having an effect, we would naturally expect to find nearly 100% of planets warming slightly. (Unless something else interferes).
In the second case, The Sun is not having an effect, then we would expect to find roughtly 50% of planets in our solar system warming slightly and the other half cooling slightly (biased on natural cyles, nothing to do with the Sun).
Now the trouble is 1 planet (Mars) is not a large enough sample size to determine whether the sun is having an effect or not because it is easily conceivable that Mars and the earth could be warming together purely by chance. In fact, the same could be said for a sample size of All the planets in our solar system.
We do not have a reliable control in Mars because there are so many factors that could be in play that we have no way to control, not to mention that we barely have 20 years of climate data on Mars, so we have no idea what the climate on mars is suppose to look like, and therefor no way to judge what sort of effects any change in the sun may be having. Next, even with a control, 1 experiment is not enough to reliably determine a result. Now if you could take the two planets, apply CO2 to the earth, witness a change, then take it away. Witness a reversal of the previous change. Apply it again, witness the change and so on. Then you would have a repeatable experiment. Alternately you could do the same with the Sun: Change the sun, observe any changes in the planets. Put the Sun back, watch the changes reverse. Reapply the changed sun, watch for the change and so on. Obviously this would be difficult for us to do. The upshot of all this is that Mars is not a good scientific control, because the experiment has almost no reliability and we have Zero repeatability in this experiment.
Don't be surprised, while the scientific consensus in in place (and has been since Kyoto was signed in '89), the media still talks about climate change like it's an ongoing debate. I'll reserve my comments on the motivations of some of the posters here on /. ;)
Name these 'serious climatologists' who don't consider CO2 to be the principal driving factor of the current climate change.
Is CO2 the only greenhouse gas? Of course not. Others, like methane (both from cows and other sources) and water vapor are both more powerful greenhouse gases. The difference is the time that each of these gases spends in the atmosphere. Water vapor can be measured in days, methane in years/decades, but CO2 lasts centuries. This means that a great percentage of the CO2 that we're now pumping into the atmosphere will remain there for multiple generations, contributing to a cumulative warming effect on top of all the other previously mentioned sources. Yes, the planet has a capacity to absorb some excess CO2, however, we've long since surpassed the planets ability to absorb the quantities we are releasing.
And finally, yes, there is a scientific consensus. The VAST majority of scientists (like >95%) agree that CO2 bares principal responsibly for the current climate change underway on earth. If you disagree with that, please provide the names of scientists who don't and the peer-reviewed research that they base their opinions on.
I realize that you may be trolling since all this has been covered at length before, but here goes:
First: Global cooling was a real concern that was largely eliminated as a concern when we cleaned up the pollution we were dumping in the atmosphere, I.E. aerosols and other fine particle sources that reflected the suns light before it made it to the ground. Basically, we took action and fixed the problem.
Second: stay away from Popular mechanics as a source of sound scientific theory, stick to the peer-reviewed journals.
Third: warming or cooling on Mars, and the other inner planets are of no real use to judge the suns effect on climate. Very quick explanation: Start with the hypothesis that the Sun is having no effect. In that case we would still expect 50% of the planets to be slightly warming and 50% to be slightly cooling. Therefore in order to draw any type of inference between the Sun and the other planets warming or cooling trends, we would have to have a much larger sample, otherwise random error is huge and rules out any meaningful scientific conclusions.
Not to mention that SCO will now have the money to pay all the legal judgments against them.
A very apt observation, (I liked the Polar bears too). Personally I believe this 'announcement' has less to do with Canada's real or perceived level of IP infringement and more to do with applying political pressure to help force Canada to tow-the-line by way of passing strict IP legislation. Especially since the last attempt by the governing party was shot down in flames by the public.
'Course I didn't RTA, I jumped right to the point where I start shooting my mouth off.
That just proves that, no matter how tough the Gameboy may be, your head is harder!
;) .
(Come to think of it, We shouldn't be surprised at the density of your noggin, being that you chose to use your head as a hammer as opposed to the wall or some other, non-organic instrument of destruction
Still, made for a funny anecdote...
That is essentially correct, although it would be somewhat presumptuous of me to ask other countries to change the way they do things ;). In Canada, drug companies do still market to doctors and do market things like decongestants and Viagra other over-the-counter medicines directly to the patient.
I think a better question is why can't the taxpayer benefit monetarily from the research they have paid for? I don't think that I'll get much argument if I state that much of the 'pure' research is done largely through public funding and yet if that research is commercialized, it is largely done so by private companies who then reap the rewards. Now, I'm not suggesting that those private interests who have taken this research to market don't deserve to make money, however, what level of compensation is due to the public purse?
In Canada pharma-marketing directly to the general public is limited mainly for ethical reasons. Rightly or wrongly, it's felt that it's too prejudicial to try and directly sell to those who are in a vulnerable state (already sick), and who may have very little medical knowledge. Experience has shown that many 'new' drugs don't offer significantly greater benefits than generics they aim to replace, yet they are much more expensive.
I believe it also applies to not incriminating ones' spouse, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think that not incriminating your own child would fall under the 5th amendment. Although I agree that a lie is not covered, just silence.
Stop right there. Tsunamis are NOT a result of GW, although this is not the first time I've heard that. Tsunamis are caused by EARTHQUAKES!!! NOW do you see why I don't believe? As for the rest, we've always had heat waves and extreme weather. For that matter, extreme weather is on the decline, but I've heard THAT blamed on GW as well. Well, I have to grant you the Tsunami, I misspoke, Tsunami's are caused by earthquakes. I was thinking of the intensity of tropical storms and the resulting storm surge they bring.
As for not believing me, I see exactly why you don't believe me, you don't like me. But no matter, I'll let the science speak for itself, http://www.realclimate.org/. although I fully realize that this will do nothing to convince you: You're simply opposed to reason, and will try to find any excuse to Wiesel out of facing reality. This is easily evidenced by the rest of your statement which neatly skips the consequences of Climate Change, I.E. the increasing intensity of extreme weather, by asserting that we have always had extreme weather. So here's my challenge to you: If you assert that extreme weather is on the decline, prove it.
So you listen to the Pentagon? Do you listen when they say that active sonar has no effect on marine life? Do you listen when they say that waterboarding is NOT torture? Do you listen when they say that we should be tapping phone lines? Then why would you listen when they talk about GW? Besides..., Of course I listen. I evaluate each issue on a case by case basis according to the surrounding science and learned commentary surrounding each issue.
...the report said IF GW is a problem, the ramifications could be a threat to global stability. The same could be said for global cooling, plague, famine or whatever. Ok, so if/or/when we are in danger of global cooling, plague, famine or whatever it would seem prudent for a reasonable person to take action to minimize the risks posed from each danger, rather than simply deny the existence of the danger. First, driving my car, provided I'm safe and sober, does NOT have a negative impact on others... No, you alone driving your car does not have a measurable impact on other. However, the combined total of everyone driving their cars plus all other sources of fossil fuel combustion does. This is the problem. Next, like I've said, the environment is NOT in danger... That's a mighty bold assertion, care to offer some tangible scientific proof? I think it's only fair since that's what this whole discussion is about and even Mister Bush has now admitted as much. Next, after accusing me of straw man, you try to equate driving to toxic waste, burning down my house and killing my kids. THAT is a strawman argument (Pot, meet kettle). Freedom is the topic here. How can it be a strawman if that is the point of this discussion? You were attempting to frame the debate by setting up a non-nonsensical choice of 'freedom' or the 'environment'. I asked you to define what you meant by 'freedom', (which you have thus far failed to do. A curious thing, since you assert that it's the point of this argument). The above example was one of the possible freedoms I was inquiring as to.As a final note, lets see if you have the guts to respond to this. I suspect that you won't, now that it's a couple days old very few people are likely to read your nonsense.
is it pop psychology(?)
this first would have to lend credence that the thesis warrants comparison to psychology in any way, let alone "pop" psychology which tends to be a few rungs down from the imprimatur of truly researched psychology. It isn't. It's not even close. masquerading(?)
You bet! No matter what this is trying to be in any genuine sense other than phooey, it's masquerading.
And a personal anecdote (under the category of science no less.)
science(?)
Not a chance. Anecdotally I would expect to be able to be able to think of a number of fellow engineers who match the description and thesis. I'm not sure I can even think of a single example. I can think of some peers from the past who I may describe as of a similar mindset, but those I would hardly describe as real engineers.
While the parent is certainly entitled to have and express his opinions, the parent has made no real insightful contribution to the discussion because the parent neglected to include any evidence to support his statements. Therefore, the parent should be modded down, at least until such time that he more fully supports his assertions.
I've seen people die from terrorism. Global warming hasn't killed anyone. Tsunamis, freak heat waves, increasingly extreme weather around the globe. When the Pentagon has previously labeled the biggest threat to global stability as climate change, I pay attention and I'm not even an American. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
And even if the environment were in danger... what is more important; freedom, or the environment? Firstly, define what you mean by freedom.
Secondly, no one appreciates your attempting to set up straw man arguments. As we've already covered, if you 'freedom' is code for national security, I refer back to the Pentagon's own report. If 'freedom' is code for I get to do whatever I want regardless of it's impact on others, then yes, the environment is more important than your unmitigated ability to harm others. Reasonable people should be able to see the necessity for regulations to limit somebody's 'freedom' and stop them from doing things like dumping toxic waste into your drinking water, burning your house down and/or murdering your children.
A perfect God is not only good but also evil, since perfection implies no lacking, including not lacking that which is evil. A lacking of evil would imply that there is something external to his all-encompassing perfection.
I could be wrong but I figured that this limitation was, at least in part, designed not anger the big players (like Intel and Microsoft) by appearing to go after their profitable market share. Now that Intel is being such a %@&!, I guess they decided not to disadvantage American youth anymore.