Exactly. Being environmentally concious is something we could all spend more time and, pardon the pun, energy on. It is not tree-hugging-lefty political concept; but a rational and pragmatic way of dealing with the world. That's not to say that the environmental movement, in its many incarnations, haven't said or done things that were irrational; but that is no argument against the idea itself.
A social/political system should keep the good ideas and remove the bad ones; regardless of how that idea have been tagged politically. And not spending resources on planet research and management is a bad one.
"Quick, incremental updates, along with heavy user involvement, are key characteristics of the emerging software development methods championed by a new generation of Web 2.0 start-ups. "
"...development teams could benefit from Web 2.0 techniques, specifically the incremental feature releases, quick user feedback loops and quality assurance programs that include users."
The hope would be to do the most good with the least harm, and lime is probably much safer for most marine life than many of the other suggestions I've read. I just hope they're right.
As do I, nothing would be better. Using Limestone is the best idea, on this subject, that I have read about so far. Anything is better than dumping more toxic/chemical waste into ocean, which certainly can't help the solution.
But I do feel that in general we as a society is very good at doing things and then just not thinking about, or ignoring studies, the possible negative long term effects of what we are doing. It is not about belief really, it just about having a sensible attitude; and not base opinions on emotions and political slogans. But I digress and I apologize.
Becoming more energy efficient and reducing our emission in any sensible way we can is a very reasonable path to take. Saying we shouldn't do it because China isn't doing anything isn't an argument.
Despite the political rhetoric we have no proof as to how much human activity is contributing to any warming trends
If it contributes or not first of all pretty irrelevant when discussing the effects of global warming (of which there is proof); since the effects of global climate change isn't necessarily a positive thing for us. It is at least responsible to study the effects of climate change, as well as the possible effect of human activity upon the climate and ecosystem.
Spreading pollution, sending co2 and chemical compounds into the air, water and ground without carefully studying the effects of this and contemplating ways to minimize waste is unreasonable and short-sighted.
The sheer hubris of some people today who assume we have such great control over climate just amazes, and scares, me.
When I see pictures of smog covered Chinese cities and read about Microscopic Pollution May Trigger Heart Attacks/Strokes" http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/09/mutlu.html It scares me that people don't take the problems and side-effects of the energy inefficiency seriously. This is not a political issue, it is about taking responsibility for our actions. Understanding the effects and causes of the actions we take; and creating a healthy environment (literally) for us to live (and hopefully prosper) in.
Oh nothing I reckon. After all we didn't see much of an outrage when many nations were dumping toxic and radioactive waste in international waters. "It sinks to the bottom; what could possible go wrong." Who knew that such waste actually move with the current and affect the species in it. Like with tuna and mercury http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23sushi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"
I guess you can't fault them for trying to find ways to mitigate the damage caused by irresponsible overconsumption. But I agree, focusing on reducing overall waste of energy (and consequently reducing pollution) should be the main concern. But it really can't hurt to find solutions to the problems we are now facing (or possible facing varies between news publishers). We just have to make sure that those solutions are understood and researched properly; to ensure that there is no unforeseen side-effects. Then again, we are human, so I don't really see that happening.
There is still a way to change this through the democratic system. But it requires people to actively vote for independent candidates; and to actively research the people running for office. Instead of thinking that you can only vote for democrats or republican. There are other parties out there, they are small, but if people are able to disengage themselves from the dogma of the two party system; perhaps things can change.
When thinking about the history of humanity, the development of civilization and the evolution of man; there are still old dogmas influencing our thinking. When I studied history at University I remember a lecture where our professor talked about dogmas. And how historians throughout time had been shaped by their society; interpreting finds to suit their world view. One concept is the idea that the reason we find no, or little, evidence of any organised society before the Egyptians; is simple that there were none; that there people living then were too primitive.
This of course is a dogma that has lost much credence today. We simply know that 5000-1000 years is too short a time for there to have been much change in the way our brain is structured. But still, it is easy to imagine our early ancestors as savage or stupid. Even if you have to push back the line between us and "them" further as archaeological evidence emerges.
It is my personal believe that the lack of evidence when it comes to anything older than say 10.000 years; is not evidence of anything. It doesn't prove that there were no organized society, or a advance language. And it doesn't prove that there was. We know that finding many, or good, fossils is hard. And we know that the Earth erodes pretty much anything given enough time.
So when people think about history they should always make sure that their thinking is reflected and objective; and not influenced by personal beliefs.
Aye I have read the document, now, though making the post I had only read the view points presented by the link. Though I do appreciate the fact this issues such as this, even when they are blown out of proportions; does cause some debate on the issue.
Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.
What it comes down to I reckon is the fact that internet is a media that can be very hard to control (as in manipulate to favour a particular candidate). Because of that some politicians see it as a threat to their political power and position (and it is).
I guess having members of congress, or other elected officials, available for comments and statements online would make communication too efficient.
Seriously though; good or bad, gagging the political leaders of a country is down right anti-democratic. Internet is the way to engage in debate and arguing over different viewpoints (and having massive flamewars) in this day and age.
Indeed. It is pretty ironic that a submission about words is that badly writen.
I guess I might also be a bit of a language nerd. Rarely do I use "new" words when I write something, unless it is so someone I know very well. If I write something on the internet I try to be as easy to understand as I can make it. Often using new or complex words seem to distract or confuse; and language is supposed to inform and enlighten.
However adding new words is good, no doubt about that. But the word have to be commonly known for it to be viable for practical use. Unless of course you know that the only ones reading your post/article is already in the know.
Hm, I do think he/she was responding to my post, and not to the original question. That being said, I have read A song of Ice and Fire, though only the first two (or three books); maybe I should check it out again.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Being environmentally concious is something we could all spend more time and, pardon the pun, energy on. It is not tree-hugging-lefty political concept; but a rational and pragmatic way of dealing with the world. That's not to say that the environmental movement, in its many incarnations, haven't said or done things that were irrational; but that is no argument against the idea itself.
A social/political system should keep the good ideas and remove the bad ones; regardless of how that idea have been tagged politically. And not spending resources on planet research and management is a bad one.
"Quick, incremental updates, along with heavy user involvement, are key characteristics of the emerging software development methods championed by a new generation of Web 2.0 start-ups. "
"...development teams could benefit from Web 2.0 techniques, specifically the incremental feature releases, quick user feedback loops and quality assurance programs that include users."
Is it just me, or is this a bit redundant.
The hope would be to do the most good with the least harm, and lime is probably much safer for most marine life than many of the other suggestions I've read. I just hope they're right.
As do I, nothing would be better. Using Limestone is the best idea, on this subject, that I have read about so far. Anything is better than dumping more toxic/chemical waste into ocean, which certainly can't help the solution.
But I do feel that in general we as a society is very good at doing things and then just not thinking about, or ignoring studies, the possible negative long term effects of what we are doing. It is not about belief really, it just about having a sensible attitude; and not base opinions on emotions and political slogans. But I digress and I apologize.
Becoming more energy efficient and reducing our emission in any sensible way we can is a very reasonable path to take. Saying we shouldn't do it because China isn't doing anything isn't an argument.
Which is why the ad should be Mao, Regan and Kennedy taking the bus together arm in arm.
Despite the political rhetoric we have no proof as to how much human activity is contributing to any warming trends
If it contributes or not first of all pretty irrelevant when discussing the effects of global warming (of which there is proof); since the effects of global climate change isn't necessarily a positive thing for us. It is at least responsible to study the effects of climate change, as well as the possible effect of human activity upon the climate and ecosystem.
Spreading pollution, sending co2 and chemical compounds into the air, water and ground without carefully studying the effects of this and contemplating ways to minimize waste is unreasonable and short-sighted.
The sheer hubris of some people today who assume we have such great control over climate just amazes, and scares, me.
When I see pictures of smog covered Chinese cities and read about Microscopic Pollution May Trigger Heart Attacks/Strokes" http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/09/mutlu.html It scares me that people don't take the problems and side-effects of the energy inefficiency seriously. This is not a political issue, it is about taking responsibility for our actions. Understanding the effects and causes of the actions we take; and creating a healthy environment (literally) for us to live (and hopefully prosper) in.
Oh nothing I reckon. After all we didn't see much of an outrage when many nations were dumping toxic and radioactive waste in international waters. "It sinks to the bottom; what could possible go wrong." Who knew that such waste actually move with the current and affect the species in it. Like with tuna and mercury http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23sushi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"
News: Replying with snide comments, or drink related jokes, new thought to be easier than actually RTFA!
I guess you can't fault them for trying to find ways to mitigate the damage caused by irresponsible overconsumption. But I agree, focusing on reducing overall waste of energy (and consequently reducing pollution) should be the main concern. But it really can't hurt to find solutions to the problems we are now facing (or possible facing varies between news publishers). We just have to make sure that those solutions are understood and researched properly; to ensure that there is no unforeseen side-effects. Then again, we are human, so I don't really see that happening.
In 10,000 years humans will all be cybernetically enhanced consuming radioactive waste like it was candy. "Aged for proper flavour."
This just proves that old Republicans can learn new tricks.
Or just spend some of their money on people that already know and can do these so called tricks for them.
There is still a way to change this through the democratic system. But it requires people to actively vote for independent candidates; and to actively research the people running for office. Instead of thinking that you can only vote for democrats or republican. There are other parties out there, they are small, but if people are able to disengage themselves from the dogma of the two party system; perhaps things can change.
When thinking about the history of humanity, the development of civilization and the evolution of man; there are still old dogmas influencing our thinking. When I studied history at University I remember a lecture where our professor talked about dogmas. And how historians throughout time had been shaped by their society; interpreting finds to suit their world view. One concept is the idea that the reason we find no, or little, evidence of any organised society before the Egyptians; is simple that there were none; that there people living then were too primitive.
This of course is a dogma that has lost much credence today. We simply know that 5000-1000 years is too short a time for there to have been much change in the way our brain is structured. But still, it is easy to imagine our early ancestors as savage or stupid. Even if you have to push back the line between us and "them" further as archaeological evidence emerges.
It is my personal believe that the lack of evidence when it comes to anything older than say 10.000 years; is not evidence of anything. It doesn't prove that there were no organized society, or a advance language. And it doesn't prove that there was. We know that finding many, or good, fossils is hard. And we know that the Earth erodes pretty much anything given enough time.
So when people think about history they should always make sure that their thinking is reflected and objective; and not influenced by personal beliefs.
As we know if enough people believe it it becomes true. Just like what happened with global warming!
Now if we could just make more people believe in world peace and free cheddar we might actually get somewhere civilized.
Though I guess that will never happen as long as people still believe that the mail in their inbox isn't spam.
I've always wondered why it is that abandonware doesn't automatically become public domain.
You my friends are obviously a communist infiltrator. Public domain is only a way for the parasite to leech of the creativity of the strong...
... too... much... Bioshock...
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
And to think that it only took them eleven years to wake up and smell the coffee.
Aye I have read the document, now, though making the post I had only read the view points presented by the link. Though I do appreciate the fact this issues such as this, even when they are blown out of proportions; does cause some debate on the issue.
Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.
What it comes down to I reckon is the fact that internet is a media that can be very hard to control (as in manipulate to favour a particular candidate). Because of that some politicians see it as a threat to their political power and position (and it is).
I guess having members of congress, or other elected officials, available for comments and statements online would make communication too efficient.
Seriously though; good or bad, gagging the political leaders of a country is down right anti-democratic. Internet is the way to engage in debate and arguing over different viewpoints (and having massive flamewars) in this day and age.
Also for some reason people seem to neglect the fact we are speaking about housewives and geeks from Taiwan here.
Just hope your Friendly avatar doesn't get infected with the "sarcastic-meanie-virus" and start making snarky comments about your websurfing habits.
Indeed. It is pretty ironic that a submission about words is that badly writen.
I guess I might also be a bit of a language nerd. Rarely do I use "new" words when I write something, unless it is so someone I know very well. If I write something on the internet I try to be as easy to understand as I can make it. Often using new or complex words seem to distract or confuse; and language is supposed to inform and enlighten.
However adding new words is good, no doubt about that. But the word have to be commonly known for it to be viable for practical use. Unless of course you know that the only ones reading your post/article is already in the know.
Hm, I do think he/she was responding to my post, and not to the original question.
That being said, I have read A song of Ice and Fire, though only the first two (or three books); maybe I should check it out again.