It is an awareness campaign, isn't it? Yes, Windows has always been guilty of these things to some extent - but most Windows users don't know about them. The fact is, the FSF are still a very marginal voice within the whole community of PC users (outside professionals and nerds, most people don't know who they are or what they stand for). If they want to raise their profile, they are going to have to repeat a lot of things that may be obvious to you or I, and keep repeating them lots. I believe PR types call it 'staying on message'
Also, you shouldn't watch the presentation because downloading music is 'probably' dangerous to your computer. Obviously the federal government have heard of some mp3 based viruses I was not aware of.
Why is an infrastructure tax anything to do with filesharers? Record companies better not get one penny of that tax if it is levied; it should all be going towards bringing us at least up to the standard of our European neighbours in terms of broadband connectivity. At the moment BT is using circuit-switching trained hamsters instead of routers.
Lord Mandelson of Sith went to dinner with a corporate interest, and came back with a policy that suited that interest without regard to either citizens rights or even practicality.
How do you stop illegal torrents without crippling the UK Internet? I mean, more than BT has managed to do?
Factually wrong. 2008 was the second warmest year since average global temperatures started being recorded. Furthermore, no climate models predict consistent, year-on-year warming, so occasinally having a year cooler than the last is no problem for these models. Suggesting it is, is a straw man fallacy.
You then go on to equate yourself with 'all reasonable people' - but personally I think reasonable people would check their fucking facts before arrogantly mouthing off as you have done.
For a start, I assume you are posting as AC so you can use mod points from your account to 'shape' the debate in your favour. Pathetic.
Statement (2) does not logically follow from (1). In fact, it only follows inevitably from (1) if you suppose that there are no consequences of reduced emissions except the reduction of emissions AND that the reduction in emissions will improve some long term human outcome.
This is cargo-cult logic. You've seen other people speak from reason and you imitate it, without understanding what reason is.
It doesn't suppose any of the things you claim it does. That is a total straw man. You lose.
In reality, any drastic reduction in emissions will have significant immediate costs to human welfare and the benefits are long term and speculative (because of significant uncertainty over the extent of the consequences of global warming; the worst case scenarios which are often used to scare the world into action are just that: worst case scenarios of low probability). Finally, the proposed solution (2) presumes a false dichotomy between drastic cuts in emissions and no action to avert or modulate the consequences of global warming. In reality, people will respond to mitigate the consequences; at a cost that would almost certainly be lower than the most radical solutions currently on the table.
You are a retard. You completely, and deliberately, ignore the existence of source of energy and chemicals which do not produce a net increase in CO2. Wind, solar, wave, nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric can all be harnessed to replace the energy shortfall we will experience by dropping fossil fuels. And we will have to make the switch anyway when fossil fuels become too expensive to extract economically.
Unless you honestly think everyone should move to a pre-industrial level of development (in which case you really shouldn't be on slashdot) you concede that there is a cost-benefit calculus between economic output and environmental protection. If you accept that there must be such a calculus, then any 'solution' to global climate change that one touts ought to at least attempt such a calculus.
A measure of how much of a fucking idiot you are should be the fact you just tried to accuse me of advocating a return to pre-industrial levels of development despite the fact I just advocated the building of more nuclear plants, wind farms and hydroelectric dams.
Before mashing your fists on the keyboard once more, you should consider how badly you got a handle on what I said. Your first instinct, as a fucktard, will to blame me. It is not my fault. I shouldn't have to enumerate my positions on every topic whenever I say anything just to prevent you from making shit up about me.
What you need is introspection, not more online venting.
Woah, the climate change conspiracy theorists are out in force today, with their mod points at hand to smack down any evidence which contradicts their insanity.
An unsubstantiated, downright false slur against climate science gets modded interesting and a sources disection of why it is bullshit is a troll? Grow up you guys.
As a follower of Objectivism (more properly called Opinionism, unless you can explain the method by which you guys are sure your view on the world corresponds directly to the reality of it...) you obviously think that a minority opinion is better than a majority opinion.
However, in the real world scientists require a basis of consensus to build the next level of research on. Physics would get nowhere if we constantly had to prove the laws of gravity to retarded cranks such as yourself in the name of inclusiveness.
What is and is not scientific is far better defined by a global consensus of scientists than some conservative twat ranting on Slashdot. Science accepts man-made climate change as being as much a reality as quantum mechanics at this point. Just because it doesn't fit your bullshit ideology (whatever that might be) does not mean that it isn't scientific.
OK, here are the reasons why you are a retarded fuckwit:
1. You are engaging in a straw man fallacy, because no model of man made climate changes predicts an increase in global temperatures every single year; there will be fluctuations
2. You are opening your idiotic noise hole without citing any evidence of 'consistent temperature declines from 2002-2009'. You expect us to just take the word of some AC wanker.
3. You are in fact, plain wrong about there being a 'consistent temperature decline from 2002-2009': http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm - 2008 was the second warmest year after 2002, meaning that it was hotter than 2003-2007 and thus there cannot possibly have been 'consistent temperature declines'
So you've opened your mouth, spouted off something factually incorrect, the admonished scientists for not predicting your factually incorrect information despite the fact that, even if it were true, it wouldn't actually impact on the correctness of their real life models.
Is to try to overrule the verdict of the scientific community because they don't like what it says. The climate change battle is over, and it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it. We need to slash our emissions dramatically, these guys just want other people to do it.
Billions of dollars could indeed have been saved, if only NASA had visited 2009 and asked Gary W. Longsine how the ISS ought to have been coordinated.
Doing anything the first time is always difficult (perhaps you've heard of this little project called the LHC?) and the fact that the majority of planned modules for the ISS have been delivered and work, and that there have been no major accidents or really bad interface problems between the modules, means it was as much a success as it could reasonably expected to be. Furthermore, any management hiccups have provided insight into the pitfalls of such a project that will save us more money in the future than they cost us.
Slashdot Mirror
It is an awareness campaign, isn't it? Yes, Windows has always been guilty of these things to some extent - but most Windows users don't know about them. The fact is, the FSF are still a very marginal voice within the whole community of PC users (outside professionals and nerds, most people don't know who they are or what they stand for). If they want to raise their profile, they are going to have to repeat a lot of things that may be obvious to you or I, and keep repeating them lots. I believe PR types call it 'staying on message'
Bloody hell, not a big mystery what your favourite film is, is it?
Also, you shouldn't watch the presentation because downloading music is 'probably' dangerous to your computer. Obviously the federal government have heard of some mp3 based viruses I was not aware of.
Well, there is precedent... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG23bVpw65o
Why is an infrastructure tax anything to do with filesharers? Record companies better not get one penny of that tax if it is levied; it should all be going towards bringing us at least up to the standard of our European neighbours in terms of broadband connectivity. At the moment BT is using circuit-switching trained hamsters instead of routers.
Lord Mandelson of Sith went to dinner with a corporate interest, and came back with a policy that suited that interest without regard to either citizens rights or even practicality.
How do you stop illegal torrents without crippling the UK Internet? I mean, more than BT has managed to do?
Meh, it was the first link on google. In any case, I don't feel the need to justify myself to a fucking AC who hasn't produced any evidence himself.
Not making the prediction you claim they do != not making any testable predictions.
You fail.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm
Who are you, AC?
Someone citing the Register questions my sources? How fucking funny. I have already posted a link to my source, by the way.
In other news, King Canute is offering economic incentives for the tide to turn back.
Do you have any idea who IPCC are you fucking retard?
And I've drank two bottles of tequila and seen pink fucking elephants. Cite your sources or STFU you pissy little AC twat.
Factually wrong. 2008 was the second warmest year since average global temperatures started being recorded. Furthermore, no climate models predict consistent, year-on-year warming, so occasinally having a year cooler than the last is no problem for these models. Suggesting it is, is a straw man fallacy.
You then go on to equate yourself with 'all reasonable people' - but personally I think reasonable people would check their fucking facts before arrogantly mouthing off as you have done.
For a start, I assume you are posting as AC so you can use mod points from your account to 'shape' the debate in your favour. Pathetic.
This is cargo-cult logic. You've seen other people speak from reason and you imitate it, without understanding what reason is.
It doesn't suppose any of the things you claim it does. That is a total straw man. You lose.
You are a retard. You completely, and deliberately, ignore the existence of source of energy and chemicals which do not produce a net increase in CO2. Wind, solar, wave, nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric can all be harnessed to replace the energy shortfall we will experience by dropping fossil fuels. And we will have to make the switch anyway when fossil fuels become too expensive to extract economically.
A measure of how much of a fucking idiot you are should be the fact you just tried to accuse me of advocating a return to pre-industrial levels of development despite the fact I just advocated the building of more nuclear plants, wind farms and hydroelectric dams.
Before mashing your fists on the keyboard once more, you should consider how badly you got a handle on what I said. Your first instinct, as a fucktard, will to blame me. It is not my fault. I shouldn't have to enumerate my positions on every topic whenever I say anything just to prevent you from making shit up about me.
What you need is introspection, not more online venting.
The Cato institute? Seriously?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
No wonder you post as AC when you want to cite such a retarded source.
The IPCC is a far more reputable source than some foaming-at-the-mouth conservative thinktank, perhaps you should look them up before you mouth off?
Trials in Stalinist Russia didn't last very long either.
Woah, the climate change conspiracy theorists are out in force today, with their mod points at hand to smack down any evidence which contradicts their insanity.
An unsubstantiated, downright false slur against climate science gets modded interesting and a sources disection of why it is bullshit is a troll? Grow up you guys.
As a follower of Objectivism (more properly called Opinionism, unless you can explain the method by which you guys are sure your view on the world corresponds directly to the reality of it...) you obviously think that a minority opinion is better than a majority opinion.
However, in the real world scientists require a basis of consensus to build the next level of research on. Physics would get nowhere if we constantly had to prove the laws of gravity to retarded cranks such as yourself in the name of inclusiveness.
What is and is not scientific is far better defined by a global consensus of scientists than some conservative twat ranting on Slashdot. Science accepts man-made climate change as being as much a reality as quantum mechanics at this point. Just because it doesn't fit your bullshit ideology (whatever that might be) does not mean that it isn't scientific.
Assumption? No, it is not an assumption, it is science, boy!
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
Just because you don't like the scientific consensus, doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist.
OK, here are the reasons why you are a retarded fuckwit:
1. You are engaging in a straw man fallacy, because no model of man made climate changes predicts an increase in global temperatures every single year; there will be fluctuations
2. You are opening your idiotic noise hole without citing any evidence of 'consistent temperature declines from 2002-2009'. You expect us to just take the word of some AC wanker.
3. You are in fact, plain wrong about there being a 'consistent temperature decline from 2002-2009' :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm - 2008 was the second warmest year after 2002, meaning that it was hotter than 2003-2007 and thus there cannot possibly have been 'consistent temperature declines'
So you've opened your mouth, spouted off something factually incorrect, the admonished scientists for not predicting your factually incorrect information despite the fact that, even if it were true, it wouldn't actually impact on the correctness of their real life models.
You, sir, are a complete retard.
The ATV is not 'fully automatic'
Its launch in the Ariane 5 rocket is controlled from the ground
It is told by human operators when to move from one stage of its approach to the ISS to the next
It is closely monitored by the crew of the ISS on its final approach.
Unlike you, I actually know how the ATV works. You see I've had people who actually worked on the fucking thing explain it to me.
Is to try to overrule the verdict of the scientific community because they don't like what it says. The climate change battle is over, and it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it. We need to slash our emissions dramatically, these guys just want other people to do it.
Billions of dollars could indeed have been saved, if only NASA had visited 2009 and asked Gary W. Longsine how the ISS ought to have been coordinated.
Doing anything the first time is always difficult (perhaps you've heard of this little project called the LHC?) and the fact that the majority of planned modules for the ISS have been delivered and work, and that there have been no major accidents or really bad interface problems between the modules, means it was as much a success as it could reasonably expected to be. Furthermore, any management hiccups have provided insight into the pitfalls of such a project that will save us more money in the future than they cost us.