The PC guy looks like the sort of person who has a wife, children, a mortgage, and mows his lawn. The mac guy looks like he needs a shave, a meal, a girlfriend, and a life.
As someone with a CS degree, I can state quite confidently that the correct answer is never bubble sort. That decision actually took me considerably less than two days. I hope I never have the misfortune of using any of the code written by your ITT code monkeys.
Actually the problem is that we can't really offer or threaten anything, which is why they want to only negotiate with us. The only thing we can offer is aid that we probably wouldn't give anymore, and we can't really threaten anything less than total annihilation. China can make all sorts of economic modifications relative to North Korea though, and that could actually matter to them.
A mediocre TV show that got cancelled is a poor thing to have as a "culture". I think I'll build my "culture" around that one where they try to pick which briefcase has all of the money in it.
Interestingly, around the time that gasoline prices went up the dollar vs euro rate went down. Consequently our gasoline prices did not really increase that much. Currently you'd pay a bit less than 5 euros for a gallon of gasoline in the Netherlands, which is about $6.
I just payed $1.979 per gallon, and that seemed too high.
I think the Romulans would be a better choice. The Klingons have been rather thoroughly explored already. But yeah, a Klingon movie would have a lot better chance of not sucking than Kirk in his frat days.
You keep saying the same line of reasoning repeatedly...
And it remains true no matter how often I write it.
you're asserting things that are clearly false (I claim the statement I quote from above is clearly false.), and you are asserting your opinions without and any supporting evidence or proof at all.
The existance of the Little Ice Age is not "clearly false", it is a well-documented historical fact. The Thames River froze over many of the winters during the Little Ice Age. New York Harbor froze over. The canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over. These things were not considered normal then, and they don't happen now. The article you yourself cite specifies a drop as much a 1 or 2 degrees Celsius in Europe. While this doesn't seem like much, remember that the "global warming" experienced during the Twentieth Century that everyone is getting worked up about was around a half a degree Celsius raise.
Here, with this post, you propagate more FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt:
F = "in spite of what Al Gore might say"
U = "It is entirely possible"; "to have ended somewhere around"
D = "It is still disputed if humans actually,"
Here, with this post, you propagate more FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt:
F = "humans have caused and are causing significant changes to the environment"
U = "I'd say that's a dispute"
D = "What ever happened to the value in truth?"
What ever happened to the value in truth? Somewhere over the last 6 years it became in vogue to NOT connect ones reasoning as close as possible to objective reality.
Six years? I am sure that is a completely arbitrary number, just pulled out of the top of your head. I am sure you aren't trying to imply that the Little Ice Age is a giant conspiricy by George Bush, invented purely to dispute The Universal Truth of Global Warming.
The debate is over.
I am not really sure there ever was one.
As I see it, rational discussion as to weather or not human pollution is a factor in global temperatures occurs now only with people who are significantly underinformed about the current scientific evidence in the story.
Rational discussion does not occur among the uninformed, on either side of the political debate. The people who believe in global warming don't debate it, they just believe it. The people who don't believe don't debate it either, they just continue to not believe. Rational discussion does not occur in political issues, which is all that this "science" has ever been.
Those who understand the science see the connection: humans have caused and are causing significant changes to the environment. These changes affect the temperature.
That sounds familiar: "Let he who hears, hear" perhaps?
You can choose not to see or believe it. I will stand up and cut through the obvious guilt-ridden FUD-driven drivelish. It will take a lot more people doing this to rid ourselves of the current tendency toward accepting blatant untruths.
Well, I am glad to see that you are willing to continue your religious crusade for "science".
The Little Ice Age is not a disputed idea. It started around AD 1,200 to AD 1,300, and it is generally considered to have ended somewhere around AD 1,800 to AD 1,900. It is entirely possible that we are just now actually getting out of it, and the observed global warming is just that. It is still disputed if humans actually make a noticable impact, in spite of what Al Gore might say, and I suspect we can't do so yet.
The basic concept is that AD 1,200 was before the Little Ice Age, and that the global warming we are now seeing is just the effects of the final end of the Little Ice Age. There is some evidence to support the possibility that the Vikings traveled through the Northwest Passage, which doesn't really exist anymore, but apparently may again soon. I don't claim that global warming doesn't exist: this reopening of the Northwest Passage is pretty sound evidence. I suggest that global warming is most likely not caused by humans, but instead a natural phenomenon, the results of us "returning to normal".
The phrases "probably", "may have", "suggests", "supports", and so on are what real science is built on, not hyperbole and unfounded assertions. There probably was and open northern passage between AD 1000 and AD 1200. They Vikings may have crossed it. I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know for certain, but they both seem very likely, and I have a good amount of confidence in those statements. If we assume those two statements are true (actually only the first one, the Vikings don't really matter at all here, except as supporting evidence of the first), then we can reach the conclusion that the global warming is actually just a return to normal conditions, and has nothing to do with human actions.
Drinkwater added: "If this anomaly continues, the Northeast Passage, or 'Northern Sea Route' between Europe and Asia will be open over longer intervals of time, and it is conceivable we might see attempts at sailing around the world directly across the summer Arctic Ocean within the next 10 to 20 years."
They don't mean that there isn't ice at the actual geographic north pole, but rather that a nortwest passage seems to be reopening.
I suspect it isn't a sign of anything human myself, or any of the "global warming" stuff. According to the Wikipedia article on the Northwest Passage, this was probably an open passage back around AD 1,000 through AD 1,200. Vikings may have crossed it. So all that is really happening is that we are finally fulling coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Being more evolved has absolutely nothing to do with being more intelligent, but instead an individual is more evolved when it is better suited to its environment.
This might not require much intelligence.
However, social interaction requires a great deal of thought, and is probably why humans are so intelligent: so that we can interact with each other more effectively in our very connected society.
The ability to be a social butterfly is a sign of intelligence, not of a lack thereof.
If the selective pressure on a genetic population is increased too greatly, it is prone for converging on suboptimal local solutions. Reducing the selecive pressure slightly is usually beneficial. Or at least that is what I usually find as the case when I run evolutionary computations. Perhaps reducing the simplistic selective pressure of "don't starve to death" will instead allow for optimization according to other selective measures? Remember, it isn't how long an individual lives that determines how well it serves in a genetic situation, but rather how effectively it manages to reproduce. I predict that social interaction skills will be the new selective pressure for most of the free world: it already mostly is true for the upper-middle class and above.
Slashdot Mirror
The PC guy looks like the sort of person who has a wife, children, a mortgage, and mows his lawn. The mac guy looks like he needs a shave, a meal, a girlfriend, and a life.
As someone with a CS degree, I can state quite confidently that the correct answer is never bubble sort. That decision actually took me considerably less than two days. I hope I never have the misfortune of using any of the code written by your ITT code monkeys.
Rocket propelled grenade.
You know, Eurasia is an actual real place, not just a made-up place in that book, right?
I would imagine that he was referring to their current Maoist communist regime, not all of China.
Actually the problem is that we can't really offer or threaten anything, which is why they want to only negotiate with us. The only thing we can offer is aid that we probably wouldn't give anymore, and we can't really threaten anything less than total annihilation. China can make all sorts of economic modifications relative to North Korea though, and that could actually matter to them.
Okay then, in that case I revise my question to: DIAF?
It is even worse than it seems, it is really "Reporters sans frontières", hence the RSF.org domain name. It's the French again!
DAIF?
A mediocre TV show that got cancelled is a poor thing to have as a "culture". I think I'll build my "culture" around that one where they try to pick which briefcase has all of the money in it.
I downloaded and installed it at work. It doesn't seem that bad really, but I will stick with Firefox (and Konqueror on unix).
It is not the customer's job to sell overpriced electronics to himself.
Interestingly, around the time that gasoline prices went up the dollar vs euro rate went down. Consequently our gasoline prices did not really increase that much. Currently you'd pay a bit less than 5 euros for a gallon of gasoline in the Netherlands, which is about $6.
I just payed $1.979 per gallon, and that seemed too high.
It is called "space opera". Like Buck Rogers.
I think the Romulans would be a better choice. The Klingons have been rather thoroughly explored already. But yeah, a Klingon movie would have a lot better chance of not sucking than Kirk in his frat days.
The Little Ice Age is not a disputed idea.
Yes, it is.
Great rebuttal. Well, whether the Earth is flat or not is still disputed too.
That is because the Little Ice Age wasn't a global event, it was "only" the Northern Hemisphere. They aren't claiming that it never happened, because that would be absurd. Here are a lot of more recent articles that seem to think the Little Ice Age happened after all, all more recent than that study.
You keep saying the same line of reasoning repeatedly ...
And it remains true no matter how often I write it.
you're asserting things that are clearly false (I claim the statement I quote from above is clearly false.), and you are asserting your opinions without and any supporting evidence or proof at all.
The existance of the Little Ice Age is not "clearly false", it is a well-documented historical fact. The Thames River froze over many of the winters during the Little Ice Age. New York Harbor froze over. The canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over. These things were not considered normal then, and they don't happen now. The article you yourself cite specifies a drop as much a 1 or 2 degrees Celsius in Europe. While this doesn't seem like much, remember that the "global warming" experienced during the Twentieth Century that everyone is getting worked up about was around a half a degree Celsius raise.
Here, with this post, you propagate more FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt:
F = "in spite of what Al Gore might say"
U = "It is entirely possible"; "to have ended somewhere around"
D = "It is still disputed if humans actually,"
Here, with this post, you propagate more FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt:
F = "humans have caused and are causing significant changes to the environment"
U = "I'd say that's a dispute"
D = "What ever happened to the value in truth?"
What ever happened to the value in truth? Somewhere over the last 6 years it became in vogue to NOT connect ones reasoning as close as possible to objective reality.
Six years? I am sure that is a completely arbitrary number, just pulled out of the top of your head. I am sure you aren't trying to imply that the Little Ice Age is a giant conspiricy by George Bush, invented purely to dispute The Universal Truth of Global Warming.
The debate is over.
I am not really sure there ever was one.
As I see it, rational discussion as to weather or not human pollution is a factor in global temperatures occurs now only with people who are significantly underinformed about the current scientific evidence in the story.
Rational discussion does not occur among the uninformed, on either side of the political debate. The people who believe in global warming don't debate it, they just believe it. The people who don't believe don't debate it either, they just continue to not believe. Rational discussion does not occur in political issues, which is all that this "science" has ever been.
Those who understand the science see the connection: humans have caused and are causing significant changes to the environment. These changes affect the temperature.
That sounds familiar: "Let he who hears, hear" perhaps?
You can choose not to see or believe it. I will stand up and cut through the obvious guilt-ridden FUD-driven drivelish. It will take a lot more people doing this to rid ourselves of the current tendency toward accepting blatant untruths.
Well, I am glad to see that you are willing to continue your religious crusade for "science".
The Little Ice Age is not a disputed idea. It started around AD 1,200 to AD 1,300, and it is generally considered to have ended somewhere around AD 1,800 to AD 1,900. It is entirely possible that we are just now actually getting out of it, and the observed global warming is just that. It is still disputed if humans actually make a noticable impact, in spite of what Al Gore might say, and I suspect we can't do so yet.
The basic concept is that AD 1,200 was before the Little Ice Age, and that the global warming we are now seeing is just the effects of the final end of the Little Ice Age. There is some evidence to support the possibility that the Vikings traveled through the Northwest Passage, which doesn't really exist anymore, but apparently may again soon. I don't claim that global warming doesn't exist: this reopening of the Northwest Passage is pretty sound evidence. I suggest that global warming is most likely not caused by humans, but instead a natural phenomenon, the results of us "returning to normal".
The phrases "probably", "may have", "suggests", "supports", and so on are what real science is built on, not hyperbole and unfounded assertions. There probably was and open northern passage between AD 1000 and AD 1200. They Vikings may have crossed it. I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know for certain, but they both seem very likely, and I have a good amount of confidence in those statements. If we assume those two statements are true (actually only the first one, the Vikings don't really matter at all here, except as supporting evidence of the first), then we can reach the conclusion that the global warming is actually just a return to normal conditions, and has nothing to do with human actions.
I have no trouble believe that global warming may be happening. I do have doubts that "Global Warming" (TM) is actually happening, i.e., SUVs = death.
From the article:
Drinkwater added: "If this anomaly continues, the Northeast Passage, or 'Northern Sea Route' between Europe and Asia will be open over longer intervals of time, and it is conceivable we might see attempts at sailing around the world directly across the summer Arctic Ocean within the next 10 to 20 years."
They don't mean that there isn't ice at the actual geographic north pole, but rather that a nortwest passage seems to be reopening.
I suspect it isn't a sign of anything human myself, or any of the "global warming" stuff. According to the Wikipedia article on the Northwest Passage, this was probably an open passage back around AD 1,000 through AD 1,200. Vikings may have crossed it. So all that is really happening is that we are finally fulling coming out of the Little Ice Age.
I think that is the problem. They are holding to THE standard, not some random de facto standard.
Being more evolved has absolutely nothing to do with being more intelligent, but instead an individual is more evolved when it is better suited to its environment. This might not require much intelligence. However, social interaction requires a great deal of thought, and is probably why humans are so intelligent: so that we can interact with each other more effectively in our very connected society. The ability to be a social butterfly is a sign of intelligence, not of a lack thereof.
If the selective pressure on a genetic population is increased too greatly, it is prone for converging on suboptimal local solutions. Reducing the selecive pressure slightly is usually beneficial. Or at least that is what I usually find as the case when I run evolutionary computations. Perhaps reducing the simplistic selective pressure of "don't starve to death" will instead allow for optimization according to other selective measures? Remember, it isn't how long an individual lives that determines how well it serves in a genetic situation, but rather how effectively it manages to reproduce. I predict that social interaction skills will be the new selective pressure for most of the free world: it already mostly is true for the upper-middle class and above.