Except that it was just a very few number of scientists who said this at the time. I believe it was one magazine who decided to make this its cover story to sell copies.
Eh. Scientists have just gotten more savvy about how to get grant money than they were before. "Hmmm... I want to do research on the mating behavior of centipedes. Grant denied? WTF? Okay.... I want to do research on the mating behavior of centipedes.... IN RELATION TO GLOBAL WARMING. Cha-ching!"
You see fit to slander science when you see fit, but you are taking advantage of prior scientific research right now (computers) to type out that diatribe. Pathetic.
Climatologists use past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to support global warming and predict future results, and everyone calls it strong science based on facts. If the models are off, it's just a part of the scientific process, but the overall claim is still valid.
But if a statistician uses past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to predict baseball results, it's dismissed as some crack job's phony science. If the models are off, it's proof that he has no idea what he's doing and how these kinds of models don't work.
That's because the Kyoto protocol was more about siphoning money out of the capitalist American pigs than it was about reducing greenhouse emissions. Naturally most non-Americans considered it a great idea.
Morals are relative. Some people may die if we do nothing and allow global warming to continue (assuming that man-made global warming is in fact the dominant factor). But remember that "doing something" means curbing and possibly scaling back development, which has its own moral implications as well.
While you can probably live by using less electricity and using public transportation, tell starving African villagers than they are not entitled to burn the oil and coal in their own country. For every person who could die from "global warming flooding" or whatever, there's another person who will die from starvation due to scaling back development or, if they're lucky enough to eat, from breathing in pollutants caused by cooking their food indoors with fire because they have no electricity.
There's a romanticism involved with "going back to being one with nature" or living a more peasant-like life. Explain that to those actually living it.
It's kind of funny to me, as an American, that the outside view is that US Media is almost exclusively pro-government and that dissent isn't given a large voice. In fact, dissent is almost the only voice that is given.
Anti-government rallies are covered across all the major news stations. Anti-war advocates are given ceremonial status. A famous mother of a killed Iraqi soldier who has done nothing but viciously criticize the administration was invited to sit at the State of the Union address. Granted, she got kicked out for making a spectacle of herself.
It's not just that the bad things are almost only covered, but all news is always slanted against the administration. News that economic numbers come back better than expected? We are reminded that unemployment is still at an all-time low due to cuts the Bush administration has done. Stock market goes down? We're reminded that this is Bush's economy. Stock market goes up? Technology is credited, but we're reminded that stem cell technology is not doing well because of the Bush administration.
And then there's the non-news media. Music, comedy, movies, award shows, etc. These commonly take an anti-government stance. A famous rapper tells us that Bush hates black people. Our actresses tell us to vote for Bush if you want to vote for a murderer.
It's almost laughable how anti-government our media is and just how loud and pervasive it is, but it's supposed to be that way. In the US, the press and government have a very adversarial role with one another to help balance things out.
As for saying it's gotten better in the last 12 months... it's been exactly as it is for the last eight years and beyond. After 9/11, the press got a little forgiving and pro-military, but that was completely spent by 2003.
Are you talking about your personal "freedom" taken away by your so-called patriot laws?
Yes. These were ratified by our senators in a majority twice -- both the left and the right. It has had literally zero effect on me and every single person I know. Do I want them there? Of course not, but I always wonder why people point at this as proof that we've turned fascist. A few anecdotal examples on the Internet do not count as evidence that we're now officially fascist.
Or perhaps the freedom to make everyone else in the world wonder about U.S. mental sanity when they issued the Guantanamo joke?
Yes. We like to use our freedom to make ourselves a laughing stock just as much as France and anybody else does. Live with it -- it's our right to do as we want and take the consequences of it. Once the consequences are bad enough, we'll also have the freedom to fix it.
Or it is the freedom to use torture, indirectly backed by U.S. officials?
Yes. I hate how our military and journalists and charitable organizers are kidnapped, raped, and actually tortured (you know, like real torture -- involving real pain), and then we're berated for making those suspected of attempting to kill us skip a few meals or deal with some offensive language and bad music.
Or it is the freedom to use CIA-controlled jails around the world, to avoid legal issues when "interrogating" war prisonners?
Yes. Although, I'm mostly saying yes to keep the parallelism in my post.:P I don't agree with this one nor do I see how it affects the freedom of American citizens. But we do have the freedom to be hypocrites, yes.
Or perhaps the famous "freedom" fries that make everyone in the world laugh at the whole ridiculousness of the idea?
Yes. You can laugh at our freedom fries (I've yet to personally see any for myself) as long as we can laugh at your lame movies. See? Everybody has an opinion.
Or perhaps it's the freedom to redefine history (remember the "french victories/defeats" scam? or perhaps the ridiculous "Saddam Hussein is allied with Osama Ben Laden"?) as it pleases the U.S. people?
Yes. These are precisely the things that freedom should protect. A satirical website poking fun at a government? Yeah, that should be 100% protected all the time. I've never heard anybody say "Saddam is allied with Osama" other than people claiming that Bush said that. I never heard it directly nor did I go looking for it. Anybody else who said it should have their freedom to say it -- even if it's wrong. That's what freedom is for. You can say whatever you want -- even if it makes you look like a moron (see the parent post).
And what about the freedom of having the worst debt in the known world history?
Yes. And another favorite. I love how the world's largest economy is expected not to have the world's largest debt. My current debt with my income is about $110,000 (house, car, etc.). My father's debt is about $600,000 with the same items. My father and his wife have a combined income and assets easily twenty times what mine is. Who's more in debt? If you want to look at debt by percentage of GDP, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ public_debt
You'll have to scroll down a bit, though... the US is all the way down at #32. Tied with France, interestingly enough.
Or perhaps the freedom to plain arrogance despite evidence (Who in the world, but the U.S. people, swallowed the "Crusade Against the Axis of Evil" sperm?)
Yes. Our politicians have the freedom to say stupid things. Besides, if you're going to criticize all Americans for the actions of some stupid politicians, then at least lend me the opportunity to remind you where the whole concept of a crusade comes from. Yeah, maybe it's unfair to call France a bunch of crusade
That, and the millions of deaths caused by starvation when the world goes into a terrible economic depression and food can no longer be shipped across the world.
Especially because it really wasn't a bad game by NES standards. I played that game a lot as a kid, and it was a lot of fun. We weren't even Christian growing up -- I got it as a gift from a Christian uncle.
I didn't play the David & Goliath mini-game as much as the Noah's Ark one... but it was fairly challenging, had a whole bunch of levels, and decent replay value.
Oh well. If you read the rest of his "reviews" (see the CDI Zelda one), you'll see this was just some idiot 16 year old.
Don't give up so easily.
You're right that there is still a fundamental difference between the old and new systems. They changed the system, pure and simple, and people are allowed to make a fuss about it if they don't like it. When you used to do X, Y would happen. Now when you do X, Y and Z both happen. Some people want just Y to happen without Z.
You can say how similar Y and Z are all you want, but there is *still* a difference. Let's say that you have information you want people to find out but you don't want to tell them. I have plenty of friends who mark Gay on their Orientation. I'm sure they feel perfectly fine with people knowing they are gay if they look (just like they'd be okay letting people know they're gay if they ask.. this is essentially an automated Q&A), but they don't want to just go spam everyone with an update saying, "Hey guys, I'm gay! Just wanted to let you know!"
There's simply a difference in the way the information is handled, and that means that people should and will behave differently knowing that. There's nothing wrong if people don't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember learning about this in 5th grade US History. I went to public school in New Jersey.
Well what'd you expect if you were doing the nasty with sick people?!
Yeah, damn those lazy 80-hour-a-week developers dedicated to bringing as much content to the players as fast and as polished as they can!
Except that it was just a very few number of scientists who said this at the time. I believe it was one magazine who decided to make this its cover story to sell copies.
Eh. Scientists have just gotten more savvy about how to get grant money than they were before. "Hmmm... I want to do research on the mating behavior of centipedes. Grant denied? WTF? Okay.... I want to do research on the mating behavior of centipedes.... IN RELATION TO GLOBAL WARMING. Cha-ching!"
You see fit to slander science when you see fit, but you are taking advantage of prior scientific research right now (computers) to type out that diatribe. Pathetic.
::eyeroll::
Yeah... spending the time to write up a single page of abbreviations so that everyone is on the same page on your project is hard!
So let me get this straight..
Climatologists use past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to support global warming and predict future results, and everyone calls it strong science based on facts. If the models are off, it's just a part of the scientific process, but the overall claim is still valid.
But if a statistician uses past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to predict baseball results, it's dismissed as some crack job's phony science. If the models are off, it's proof that he has no idea what he's doing and how these kinds of models don't work.
Am I missing something here?
That's because the Kyoto protocol was more about siphoning money out of the capitalist American pigs than it was about reducing greenhouse emissions. Naturally most non-Americans considered it a great idea.
While you can probably live by using less electricity and using public transportation, tell starving African villagers than they are not entitled to burn the oil and coal in their own country. For every person who could die from "global warming flooding" or whatever, there's another person who will die from starvation due to scaling back development or, if they're lucky enough to eat, from breathing in pollutants caused by cooking their food indoors with fire because they have no electricity.
There's a romanticism involved with "going back to being one with nature" or living a more peasant-like life. Explain that to those actually living it.
It's kind of funny to me, as an American, that the outside view is that US Media is almost exclusively pro-government and that dissent isn't given a large voice. In fact, dissent is almost the only voice that is given.
Anti-government rallies are covered across all the major news stations. Anti-war advocates are given ceremonial status. A famous mother of a killed Iraqi soldier who has done nothing but viciously criticize the administration was invited to sit at the State of the Union address. Granted, she got kicked out for making a spectacle of herself.
It's not just that the bad things are almost only covered, but all news is always slanted against the administration. News that economic numbers come back better than expected? We are reminded that unemployment is still at an all-time low due to cuts the Bush administration has done. Stock market goes down? We're reminded that this is Bush's economy. Stock market goes up? Technology is credited, but we're reminded that stem cell technology is not doing well because of the Bush administration.
And then there's the non-news media. Music, comedy, movies, award shows, etc. These commonly take an anti-government stance. A famous rapper tells us that Bush hates black people. Our actresses tell us to vote for Bush if you want to vote for a murderer.
It's almost laughable how anti-government our media is and just how loud and pervasive it is, but it's supposed to be that way. In the US, the press and government have a very adversarial role with one another to help balance things out.
As for saying it's gotten better in the last 12 months... it's been exactly as it is for the last eight years and beyond. After 9/11, the press got a little forgiving and pro-military, but that was completely spent by 2003.
Are you talking about your personal "freedom" taken away by your so-called patriot laws?
Yes. These were ratified by our senators in a majority twice -- both the left and the right. It has had literally zero effect on me and every single person I know. Do I want them there? Of course not, but I always wonder why people point at this as proof that we've turned fascist. A few anecdotal examples on the Internet do not count as evidence that we're now officially fascist.
Or perhaps the freedom to make everyone else in the world wonder about U.S. mental sanity when they issued the Guantanamo joke?
Yes. We like to use our freedom to make ourselves a laughing stock just as much as France and anybody else does. Live with it -- it's our right to do as we want and take the consequences of it. Once the consequences are bad enough, we'll also have the freedom to fix it.
Or it is the freedom to use torture, indirectly backed by U.S. officials?
Yes. I hate how our military and journalists and charitable organizers are kidnapped, raped, and actually tortured (you know, like real torture -- involving real pain), and then we're berated for making those suspected of attempting to kill us skip a few meals or deal with some offensive language and bad music.
Or it is the freedom to use CIA-controlled jails around the world, to avoid legal issues when "interrogating" war prisonners?
Yes. Although, I'm mostly saying yes to keep the parallelism in my post. :P I don't agree with this one nor do I see how it affects the freedom of American citizens. But we do have the freedom to be hypocrites, yes.
Or perhaps the famous "freedom" fries that make everyone in the world laugh at the whole ridiculousness of the idea?
Yes. You can laugh at our freedom fries (I've yet to personally see any for myself) as long as we can laugh at your lame movies. See? Everybody has an opinion.
Or perhaps it's the freedom to redefine history (remember the "french victories/defeats" scam? or perhaps the ridiculous "Saddam Hussein is allied with Osama Ben Laden"?) as it pleases the U.S. people?
Yes. These are precisely the things that freedom should protect. A satirical website poking fun at a government? Yeah, that should be 100% protected all the time. I've never heard anybody say "Saddam is allied with Osama" other than people claiming that Bush said that. I never heard it directly nor did I go looking for it. Anybody else who said it should have their freedom to say it -- even if it's wrong. That's what freedom is for. You can say whatever you want -- even if it makes you look like a moron (see the parent post).
And what about the freedom of having the worst debt in the known world history?
Yes. And another favorite. I love how the world's largest economy is expected not to have the world's largest debt. My current debt with my income is about $110,000 (house, car, etc.). My father's debt is about $600,000 with the same items. My father and his wife have a combined income and assets easily twenty times what mine is. Who's more in debt? If you want to look at debt by percentage of GDP, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ public_debt
You'll have to scroll down a bit, though... the US is all the way down at #32. Tied with France, interestingly enough.
Or perhaps the freedom to plain arrogance despite evidence (Who in the world, but the U.S. people, swallowed the "Crusade Against the Axis of Evil" sperm?)
Yes. Our politicians have the freedom to say stupid things. Besides, if you're going to criticize all Americans for the actions of some stupid politicians, then at least lend me the opportunity to remind you where the whole concept of a crusade comes from. Yeah, maybe it's unfair to call France a bunch of crusade
That, and the millions of deaths caused by starvation when the world goes into a terrible economic depression and food can no longer be shipped across the world.
You mean chowdah!
Especially because it really wasn't a bad game by NES standards. I played that game a lot as a kid, and it was a lot of fun. We weren't even Christian growing up -- I got it as a gift from a Christian uncle. I didn't play the David & Goliath mini-game as much as the Noah's Ark one... but it was fairly challenging, had a whole bunch of levels, and decent replay value. Oh well. If you read the rest of his "reviews" (see the CDI Zelda one), you'll see this was just some idiot 16 year old.
First post? :) -Matt
Don't give up so easily. You're right that there is still a fundamental difference between the old and new systems. They changed the system, pure and simple, and people are allowed to make a fuss about it if they don't like it. When you used to do X, Y would happen. Now when you do X, Y and Z both happen. Some people want just Y to happen without Z. You can say how similar Y and Z are all you want, but there is *still* a difference. Let's say that you have information you want people to find out but you don't want to tell them. I have plenty of friends who mark Gay on their Orientation. I'm sure they feel perfectly fine with people knowing they are gay if they look (just like they'd be okay letting people know they're gay if they ask.. this is essentially an automated Q&A), but they don't want to just go spam everyone with an update saying, "Hey guys, I'm gay! Just wanted to let you know!" There's simply a difference in the way the information is handled, and that means that people should and will behave differently knowing that. There's nothing wrong if people don't like it.