| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2005/3/10 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:36632 Activity:nil |
3/10 Berkeley physicist Charles Townes wins Templeton prize for "advancing
knowledge in spiritual matters". News link:
http://www.physorg.com/news3317.html and here's a link to the
essay that is primarily responsible for him winning the prize:
http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/Articledetail.cfm?article_ID=13
The subject of the relationship between science and religion has come
up a few times on the motd, so this seems relevant. |
| 2005/3/10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36630 Activity:nil |
3/10 Mike Davis - "Planet Of Slums"
http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26001.shtml
Sometime in the next year, the world's urban population will outnumber
its rural population for the first time in history. |
| 2005/3/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36576 Activity:moderate |
3/8 Very cool cane for blind people:
http://techdigestuk.typepad.com/tech_digest/2005/03/ultracane_for_t.html
\_ Try being blind for a day, I don't think there is any cane in
the world that can make up for the gift of vision.
\_ I completely agree, however this is better than nothing
and in some ways it is proof that science and technology
can make the world a better place for the disadvantaged.
\_ YAERH, THAT D00FUS TRIVIAALIZED BLINDENESS!
\_ I think you've missed PP's point. Train harder, grasshopper.
\_ I doubt it. I fully understood pp's point.
\_ No, *I* doubt it. You completely missed it.
\_ Please see post from someone else below:
\_ Yup -- my point exactly. Maybe williamc will
pay for a permanent trip to canada for you if you
complain a little bit more.
\_ What in the world are you talking about?
\_ What in the world are /you/ talking about,
Mr "I fully understand the point but not
enough to tell the difference between
an attack on the utility of the cane and
an attack on my 'insensitivity'"?
\_ I think you lost it at "permanent trip to
canada" and randomly identifying
williamc. Buh-bye.
\_ I got one more out of you, though,
didn't I? Sucker.
\_ What are you talking about man? Didn't you know that people
go blind on purpose so they can get one of those "wicked
canes?" |
| 2005/3/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:36575 Activity:nil |
3/8 RIP Hans Bethe
http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/227610-2979-010.html |
| 2005/3/3-4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36512 Activity:kinda low |
3/3 took 3 days to fly around the world, question:
if world just takes 24 hours to rotate, why did it take 3 days?
\_ In terms of the questions and responses, this is one of the
dumbest threads I've ever seen on the motd. I certainly hope
that most of these are just jokes and nothing more.
\_ Troll successful! Mission Accomplished!
\_ Actually, it takes less than 24 hours to fly around the world,
you can fly around the world in as little as a couple hours.
It's also known as "going into orbit."
\_ This plane was made by Scaled Composites, right? WHy didn't
they think of that?
\_ cant u just stand up and not touch the ground and let the
earth rotate under your feet then 24 hours later touch the
same spot?
\_ Only if you were in a vacuum. But since the atmosphere
is pushing against things, we don't. Other wise we'd go
flying off the earth whenever we jump.
\_ Um... not to meantion inertia and gravity.
\_ Can't you just jump up on a train and let the train go by under
you?
\_ no cuz you'd get hit by trees and buildings
\_ It depends on which direction you fly. that's why it takes
longer to fly from US to Asia than from Asia to US.
\_ Wow, that's some pretty impressive ignorance. The wind currents
have a lot more to do with it.
\_ A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
\_ If the illuminati didn't suppress the information about the
hollow Earth, it would take a lot less time to get across
the globe.
\_ Um, hello? What about the sun in the middle? You'd
still have to go around that.
\_ Well, you could just go into the interstitial
space-time vortex.
\_ Nah, it's just a little game we like to play. It's called
trolling the nerds.
\_ When launching a satellite, yes, it is a good idea to launch in
the direction of rotation of the earth, and at the equator, where
the speed of rotation is greatest.
If you stay inside the atmosphere, wind matters much more,
as indicated by the non-trollers.
\_ Yea, if mother earth doesn't drag the atmosphere with it,
we can all fly faster.
\_ But then we can't stand on ground surface under constant 600mph
easterly wind.
\_ Amazing. Shouldn't high school physics be enough to understand this
issue correctly? How did those of you with wrong answers got
admitted to CS in Cal? This is not a community college.
\_ How much does the Illuminati pay you to coveR up the Truth?
Do they have good benefits?
\_ What are you talking about? It only takes me 24hrs to go around the
world by just sitting on my couch!
\_ Incorrect. It only takes you 24hrs to make a circuit equivalent
to the circumference of the world by just sitting on your couch.
There's no excuse for inaccurate language in your spurious
statements.
\_ I can go around the world in less than 5 seconds.
Go to the north pole, or wherever the earth rotates, and walk
around in a circle.
\_ Oh, the north pole, where everything goes south ...
\_ Dummy, you can do that anywhere. Just call whereever you
are the center of the world, and walk around it. |
| 2005/2/28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36452 Activity:nil |
2/28 Republican advisor to the Bush-Cheney energy plan claims that Saudi
oil has peaked:
http://csua.org/u/b74 [english.aljazeera.net]
"we may have already passed peak oil". |
| 2005/2/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36236 Activity:nil |
2/18 Oil traders kick Greenpeace butt
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1487741,00.html
\_ That's hillarious. Thanks. |
| 11/26 |
| 2005/2/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36230 Activity:nil |
2/18 Concrete evidence of human role in global warming from Scripps
Institute.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1489955-3,00.html
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/print_article.cfm?article_num=666
You may now commence the flame war.
\_ Why do you hate America? |
| 2005/2/17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36219 Activity:high |
2/17 2005 Motd Prediction Time Capsule. In 1, 5, and 10 years, we'll
look back at this very motd entry via the archiver and see how
accurate our predictions have been. Go ahead and put your prediction
(science, politics, anything). Make sure to put your name so that
we can give you proper credits. Here is my first prediction:
\_ In 2015, I will be ten years older.
\_ If you live that long.
\_ By 2015, the world will be 5 degrees hotter due to industrialization
of 3rd world countries giving out greenhouse gases -junior
\_ In the year 2015, people will have completely forgotten about
this post.
\_ Sadly, I think the post below proves you wrong.
\_ that is an illustration, not a proof. You can't prove a
prediction wrong at CURRENT TIME unless you can prove
that you have the ability to see the future.
\_ What makes you think I CAN'T?
\_ How's this for totally wrong predictions back in 1999?
http://csua.com/?entry=15570
http://csua.com/?entry=15711
\_ Oh my god, that's pathetic.
\_ I predict that Isrealis and Palestinians will be killing each
other, that the president of the United States will be a moron
and that people will flame each other on the motd. -psb fan #7
\_ I think the only safe prediction is that your predictions
will be wrong.
\_ soda will morph into a massive supercomputer which will take
over the world.
\_ I predict that in 2005, China will be the leading consumer of grain,
meat, coal, and steel! It will use more of these resources than the
United States does!
\_ By 2015, energy problems will become our #1 problem, with global
warming & pollution running close behind. There will be more
world hunger, high food prices and water shortages. There will
probably be some big resource wars going on, and inflation in
the US will either be over 5%, or there will be 5% deflation,
or it will swing wildly between the two points. |
| 2005/2/16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36192 Activity:kinda low |
2/15 Predicting the future:
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#121
\_ Wait! The numbers are becoming clearer...I see... a flame war--one
involving politics. I see the involvement of ilyas. I see deletions
and re-postings...now all is becoming cloudy.
\_ I knew you were going to say that. So predictable...
\_ Where are the WMDs?
\_ What?!? To canada with j00! |
| 2005/2/10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36128 Activity:nil |
2/10 You censored the link to freepers drooling about nuclear war? Shame
on you, boring one.
\_ It was one of those free speech hating liberals, I know it was.
\_ talk to jwang, he censored 80% of them |
| 2005/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36127 Activity:nil |
2/9 This must be Clinton's fault...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340241/posts |
| 2005/2/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36059 Activity:nil |
2/3 Toughest sport in the world?
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,10488,1404903,00.html |
| 2005/2/2-3 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36043 Activity:moderate |
2/2 Dear motd physicists, suppose I have a) 5 100W light bulbs and b) 500W
heater. Suppose put them in 2 different thermal tight boxes, each with
a liter of water. Will both liter of water have the exact same
temperature after time t?
\_ No, because 5 light bulbs have a different heat capacity than a
500W heater. If they were the same, then yes, the water would have
the same temperature. There are of course special cases where this
would be different, but 5x100W light bulbs create just as much heat
as a 500W heater.
\_ You just contradicted yourself.
\_ He didn't really. He said they create just as much heat, but
have different heat capacities. Although I'm curious about the
special cases she mentions.
\_ I was thinking stuff like differential evaporation rates
and transient higher electrical loads.
\_ One thing to note is that by saying a light bulb is X wats, it does
not mean that it puts out X watts of heat; it just means it draws
X watts of energy. What is does with those X watts depends on
the type of bulb and other details like that.
\_ It can basically only put off various forms of electromagnetic
energy and sound. If it's placed in a perfect calorimeter
(OP's 'thermal tight box') then all the energy it consumes will
be turned into heat.
\_ You're probably limited by the conductive heat transfer at the
air-water interface. Probably the only difference between the two
rigs is how much energy goes into visible vs. infrared, and that
probably won't matter as the water won't likely heat up very much.
\-to spell out the first reply:
the simple way to thinks of this is in terms of the Partition Of
Energy. the energy in the system will be divided between the
water and the heating apparatus. at T0, with energy E0 = Ew0 +
Eh0 (or Eb0) [total energy = energy of water + energy of bulb/
heater]. at T1, E1 = E0+dE = Ew1 + Eh1 (Eb1). Since we are
assuming dE is the same in both, Ew1 is identical iff the Eh1
and Eb1 are the same ... which is dictated by the heat capacity.
[and the heat capacity of the water is how you go from the
Ew to the water temp]. Note: in some cases the parition of
energy is more complicated and you have to taken into
consideration entropy factors. Like say you mix metal A and B
into an alloy ... as the compositoon goes from 100% A to 100% B,
the melting temp of AB doesnt go in a stright line from meltA
to meltB.
\- oh here is another one: you take a spring and spend energy E
to compress it. then you put it in an acid bath, where does
the energy go, if it dissolves from the end.
\_ In a compressed spring, the energy is stored in the bonds
between atoms. As it dissolves, these bonds get broken one
by one, and when that happens, the 2 atoms whoose bond was
dissolved convert that bond energy into heat. So a
dissolved compressed spring will be hotter than a dissolved
relaxed spring. |
| 2005/1/30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35979 Activity:nil |
1/30 Department of Energy in promoting drug use in children shocker!
http://www.eere.energy.gov/kids |
| 2005/1/28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35955 Activity:high |
1/28 NK might have a Pak nuke:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7452415
\_ The united states might also have a nuke.
\_ Dubya will attack Kim Jong-il with scathing rhetoric! |
| 2005/1/28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35944 Activity:high |
1/27 Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Or, how "nukular" became an official pronunciation in websters:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nuclear&x=0&y=0
\_ How is "nukular" any worse than "comfterble", which is now the
standard pronounciation of "comfortable"? Word pronounciations
change.
\_ sigh... why don't you browse m-w a little closer:
http://www.m-w.com/help/faq/pronounce.htm
\_ What do they mean "feb(y)were" is not "acceptable, just common"
I don't know any native speakers of English who pronounce
the "r" in February! (then again, i grew up in the south...)
\_ http://m-w.com is clearly incorrect, even with the disclaimer they have.
Oh well. Dumbasses. I bet there was a significant minority or
perhaps majority on the Merriam-Webster staff who disagreed or
would disagree strongly with how this was done, and I'll settle
for that notion. |
| 2005/1/22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35859 Activity:very high |
1/22 Does anyone here find the "nuclear oxide" alert a bit odd? On the one
hand they say it's uncorroborated (and indeed I found it comical
were it not for the serious implications), on the other hand the fed
is formally releasing the "plot" to mass media and keep making it
bigger. In the meantime conservative propanganda sites are spreading
the hyesteria faster than a wild fire.
\_ What the heck is "nuclear oxide?"
\_ That's what the fed is accusing them of possessing.
\_ No, that's what the anonymous accuser said they had, and
since it's being reported in quotes, I don't think the
Feds think that's a real substance either.
\_ so you know the "anonymous" accuser?
\_ Yeah, it was aaron.
\_ No, moron, I read the news article. Here's the
first one off google news:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-05/01-21-05/a14sr586.htm
\_ I read the news too. Even though I believe 100%
in what I read, I haven't seen any reporter claiming
to have talked to the anonymous accuser.
\_ Never said they did.
\_ What's odd is that the Feds have released as much info as they
have without thoroughly investigating the source. I mean, hell,
all I have to do is call the FBI desk in San Diego and say I've
got proof of a plot, then throw aaron's picture over the fence
and they'll lock him up? Why hasn't this been done before?
\_ An anonymous source told me that that there was no anonymous
accuser at all. The names on the list that are not fabricated
belong(ed) to illegal immigrants locked in dentention center.
One is in fact in a San Diego camp. Most others have either
been locked up for ages or alredy died there. |
| 2005/1/19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35786 Activity:nil |
1/19 Rice playing fast and loose with nuclear evidence, including
transcripts of her problem statements.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing
If such a smart and accomplished individual can't get this right ... |
| 2005/1/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35773 Activity:very high |
1/18 I just don't get it. We have enough nukes to nuke every major
city on this planet, yet we go around the world telling other
countries "no, you cannot have nukes", not to mention we are
the only country on the face of this planet in the course of
humanity to use a nuke. We said Iraq definitely have WMD, well
where the fuck is it? Now we say Iran definitely have it and
must be eliminated or the world will come to an end. It's like
a millionaire telling the poor guy on the street, "no, you
cannot have $10!!" All this shit, and there are still idiots
on the motd believing Bush and the lies that are coming out of
this administration. I just don't get it. Without Iran and NK,
BushCo would have you believe that China would be ready to
nuke us any minute now. Just tell me again why Iran cannot
have nukes but we can, and we have shit loads of them.
\_ Because why does an oil-rich country need nukes?
\_ Because Iran is ruled by a cabal of religious extremists.
\_ And the US is not?
\_ Your brain has been classified as: small.
\- you must pay me 5cents.
\_ No, it's a republic with 3 branches of government.
By the way you are stupid.
\_ I see it ruled by the republicans.
\_ Who were lawfully elected to the offices
which they hold. If they fail to properly
enact the will of the people they will be
voted out of office. Just b/c you didn't
vote for them doesn't make them a cabal.
\_ Do humanity a favor and jump off Evans.
\_ Do humanity a favor and go fuck yourself.
\_ Stop thinking! It is unpatriotic.
\_ The will of the people? Bah. Bush won
a popularity contest, not an election
based on an electorate rationally considering
the issues. Now, having his illusory "mandate",
he will do is own will, not ours.
\_ Clinton also won a popularity contest. That's
what elections are. Ar-nold.
\_ You don't understand the difference between Iran and the US? Try
living in Iran for a year and let us know how it goes.
\_ Even forgetting about the arguments about how we're morally
better than them or have a better form of government, we don't
want them to have nukes because they are not our friends and we
want to have more power than them. It has nothing to do with
being fair. It's a seperate argument to say that we are a
democracy and they are not. But the real answer to the op's
question is that we don't let them have nukes because we don't
want to be threatened by them. We want to be the ones pushing
them around, and not vice versa. Besides, they might be crazy
and use them for all we know. Even if this is unlikely, why
risk it?
\_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling.
\_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling. -liberal
\_ I think it might be Chicom troll. His English probably improved.
\_ no, it's not me, and FYI, i don't think he is trolling.
\_ I've got a gun. That bad guy down the street who hates my guts
and wants to kill me is trying to figure out how to get a gun.
He hasn't done it yet but he's getting pretty close. In your
little world, I should go knock on his door and give him my
gun so that he can shoot my head off. HINT: Its a jungle out
there and only the fittest survive. I'm not a saint, and I
won't be in this life so if its btwn me or the bad guys, I'm
chosing me.
\_ I don't have a gun. But the guy up the street has one and
hates me. He has not shot me yet but I am not going to
sit here and wait. But since he is trying to keep me from
getting a gun, obviously he is preparing to shoot me. In
your macro world, you would shoot everyone who you think may
shoot you. And yes, the guy just hates you because you're
free. Ever figure out why people hate each other?
\_ Good try, but you have made some key mistakes. The
critical one is that you assume the good guys want
to shoot the bad guy who is trying to get the gun.
This is not true. If the bad guy wasn't out to
get the good guy, he would leave them alone.
The second mistake is that you state that the guy
up the street hates you. This is also not true.
You are the hater who is going after the good guy
who lives up the street.
The reason why the bad guys hate us is quite simple.
It is the green eyed monster known as envy. Those
buggers hate the fact that a free and open society
leads to scientific progress and material gain.
They resent the fact that our freedoms have made us
the most important and prosperous nation in the
history of human civilization while their own
outmoded ideas have brought them nothing at all.
\_ I was with you for your first paragraph, but the second
one is bullshit. You really think the average Iranian
who shakes his fist at the Great Satan of the U.S.A.
is pondering where their civilization went wrong, and
becoming envious as a conclusion? When people live in
a dictatorship, they tend *not* to do much thinking,
which is the problem. Maybe the people *writing* the
propoganda think the way you say, but the average man
on the street is just spouting crap he heard from his
TV/radio/Cleric. I'm guessing that the real thinkers among
them hate the regime so much that they secretly like
America just because it's the opposite of what they hate.
I've sure met a lot of former soviet citizens who felt
that way about Reagan's America.
\_ Because Iran said they won't
\-You may wish to read the famous paper "the spread of nuclear
weapons: more may be better" [adelphi paper #171] by fmr/emeritus
ucb prof kenneth waltz. there is also a book by waltz and sagan
that is ok. --psb
\- oh this paper is online at:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
[i didnt check if it is complete. pretty much everything
by waltz is good.]
\_ Please explain why the world will be better with a nuclear
Iran.
\_ Someone to nuke Israel, duh!
\-are you more worried about nuclear "leakage" from
the ex-Soviet Union or an Iran bomb? How about Iran
vs. Pak? I think Pak is more likely to fall apart.
My concern w.r.t. nukes is not the ability of states
posessing them increase their ability to influence
outcomes beyond their borders, but their ability to
maintain good command and control systems. It makes
sense for Iran to chase the bomb. It probably didnt
make sense for South Africa. I dont think it makes
sense for Brazil at the moment, but who knows 10yrs
from now under the Jeb administration.
\_ Sodians are mostly white imperialist,
who uses different standard to judge others because
they think USA is morally/culturally superior. And
if you notice, it's not just nukes. Chemical weapon,
biological weapons, land mines... the theme is
consistant:
we got them all and free to use it, but no one else
should have it. *ESPECIALLY* if you are not Christian
Jews, and/or white. Did USA signed universal nuclear
test ban treaty? nope. is USA destroying stockpiles of
chemical/biological weapons nope.
\_ If the jackal asked the elephant to please give
up his trunk and his tusks, the elephant would
laugh. There is a universal law, it is called
survival of the fittest. If you foolishly give
your advantage away you are asking to get killed.
The TBT is a terrible idea. It ties our hands
but allows our enemies to to whatever they like.
It is a good thing that ADULTS run this world,
not fools like you.
\_ In other words, let's quash those Tibetans
since TI is bad for China and detrimental to
China's vital national intereset. It's
a matter of survival of the fittest. When
Americans complain about human rights, they
are just being a bunch of hypocrites and
Pharisees, just like in the Bible.
- Chicom troll
\-ObMelianDialog: The strong do what they can
and the weak suffer what they must. [nb i mean
that as an empirical not normative statement.
assessing the normative nature of the international
system is beyond the scope of the motd, but see
man, the state, and war, and the Stag Hunt example]
--psb
\- ObAbeLincolnQuotes:
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and
in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do
our duty as we understand it."
"The only assurance of our Nation's safety is
to lay our foundation in Morality and Religion"
-- chicom troll
\- Does the Melian Dialog fit with some kind of
Hindu or Buddhist karma world view? |
| 2005/1/13-14 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:35707 Activity:very high |
1/13 Can ordinary people still change the world with ingenious inventions
and patents (like Edison and light bulb) (or at least make themselves
rich) or is this now completely in the hands of large corp with
crackpots making noise on the side? This is a serious question, not
a troll about bad patents.
\_ http://66.70.64.5/news/0501,essay,59733,2.html [village voice]
\_ I know for a fact that there are independent inventors who make
good money, and occasionally millions off of their inventions.
As far as changing the world the way Edison or better yet
Tesla did? Probably not.
\_ On a vaguely related note, I hate Edison. I think he's a nasty
glory hound, and an ass. You forgot the google founders, you
can reasonably say google changed the world. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, don't you think these are precisely the quality that
made him a successful man in the real world?
\_ Probably. -- ilyas
\_ Not really. The preceding engines (altavista, webcrawler,
etc.) weren't dramatically different... Google just did
better, but also avoided making the main page an ugly adfest.
The concept of building a searchable web index is also a
rather natural extension of the world wide web which is the
underlying innovation.
\_ And the www was really just a friendly front end to
ftp, which is simple a way to move information around,
much like a pile of tapes in a truck or even books on
a horse drawn wagon, and there is no new thing under
the sun.
\_ ftp simple? have you looked at the protocol?
\_ By this reasoning the light bulb was just a natural
evolution of the candle which, in turn, the sun was the
underlying innovation. Heh, nothing new under the sun
indeed. If you're religiously inclined, the underlying
innovation was when God said ``Let there be light.''
\_ No, that's not my reasoning at all. My main point was
that Google didn't invent crawling search engines.
My secondary point is that even without that, I think
the interactive WWW would retain a big part of its
usability. It would take too long to defend that idea
to you motd rabble.
\_ Google's main contribution isn't crawling, but
using links to rank. That's what makes (made?)
google good. The problem is that link popularity
is succeptible to collusion, which is a nasty
can of worms. I don't know how you use the
net, but my usage would suffer a lot if
google went away. Of course, I use scholar
for 50% of my queries, and link ranking works
great for publications. -- ilyas
\_ I was used to using more terms/exclusions/phrases
to get results, and first switched to Google for
UI and speed. Google is good, and something like
scholar didn't exist I guess. But the ideas here,
well, I remember searching periodicals on the
library PC way back. The concepts don't seem like
genius to me but the execution is excellent.
\_ The concept of link ranking may not be
genius to you, but neither one of us thought of
it. It's easy to be a hindsight innovator.
-- ilyas
\_ Actually I don't know if I thought of it.
I can remember reading some stuff about
search engines and ranking schemes way back.
If it occurred to me that linking is a
measure of relevancy I wouldn't have done
anything with it... I mean there are only
so many basic parameters associated with
web pages. I know what you're saying but
look at the speed involved. If Google didn't
do that someone else would in short order.
\_ I think that's true for almost any
significant innovation. -- ilyas
\_ If Google went away you could use lycos,
hotbot, altavista, and so on. I actually
dislike using Yahoo! now compared to when it
ran Inktomi. I don't see any value-added in
Google over any other search engine.
\_ Recent people in history in IT who have changed the industry:
Jobs and Wozniak (Jobs was a slacker, Wozniak was an i
engineer at HP)
Mitch Kapor (he used to be a disc jockey and
entry level programmer)
The guy from napster (just a college kid)
Nolan Bushnell was supposedly just a second rate EE when
he stumbled onto Pong.
Linus Torvaldis - smelly kid from Finland who had too much time
on his hands and fate conspired to kill
BSD because of the lawsuits.
\_ What about coming up with a great idea that is not patented
(a couple times) already, then have someone else bring it to
market? All the above examples are people who got help from
VC and built the stuff they conceived. (Except Linus, but
he falls in a different category altogether.) They are more
entrepreneur than inventors. Not all inventors are or want
to be entrepreneurs.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison
Edison was an entrepreneur also.
\_ Bill Gates - Before Gates, everybody in IT thought only good
or okay products could dominate a market.
\_ Some other people who have changed the world w/ their ideas and
inventions are: K&R (no unix/c w/o K&R), James Gosling (most ugs
\_ unix was created primarily by ken thompson.
don't even learn C these days), Larry Wall, Seymour Cray (invented
the multi-proc concept), Shockley (no computers w/o transistors),
Tim Berners-Lee, &c.
\_ Ordinary people never change the world. That's why they're
ordinary. (BTW I'm ordinary)
\_ I think the OP meant "individual people".
\_ How about people like George Soros or Charles Schwab? Do people
who invent new understandings of economics or who invent new
ways of doing business count in your book?
\_ Burton G. Malkiel, author of A Random Walk Down Wall Street. He
didn't originate the efficient markets theory, but did a lot to
champion it, and arguably is responsible for Vanguard's creation
of index funds that `ordinary' (read people like you and me
without millions to invest) people could invest in. |
| 2004/12/30 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35500 Activity:nil |
12/30 EcoBot II eats flys as a source of energy:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/27/explorers.ecobot/index.html |
| 2004/12/29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35471 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32285-2004Dec28.html Nuclear Capabilities May Elude Terrorists, Experts Say So why isn't Iran or North Korea mentioned at all? |
| 2004/12/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35432 Activity:kinda low 62%like:35431 |
12/24 Evidence that there are some sane minds in the Islamic
World:
http://tinyurl.com/4my8u
\_ Umm.. this link goes to a porn site about big breasted women.
Huh?
\_ Augh! My eyes! The googles do nothing! |
| 2004/12/23-24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35417 Activity:insanely high |
12/23 Dear jrleek and emarkp, now that we know you're hardcore
Republicans, I'm wondering if you can give us some inputs
so that we can understand you better.
1) Was it a right decision to go to war in Iraq?
2) Do you support the war in Iraq and why?
3) Is privatizing SS a good thing, and why?
4) What do you think about the Patriot Act?
5) What do you think about the US policy?
\_ Actually, I've got some of my own questions to liberals:
1) Why do you think "tax and spend" is a good policy?
\_ My god, man! Are you really that brainwashed? Taxing
is how governments raise money, and spending is what happens
to that money. I can see saying that the government should
do less of both by being smaller, but to say you're against
both is eqivalent to being an anarchist. Hell, even
libertarians admit having an army is useful. Perhaps you
want an all-mercenary army paid for by donations from
corporations? What the fuck?
\_ because all the service we demanded come with a price.
\_ why do you think "cut tax and spend" is a good policy.
The tax-and-spend label is STUPID, and you know it.
2) Why did John Kerry vote for the war if he was against it?
\_ he voted authorize the war, he assumed that Bush will go to
war would be last resort. at the time, we need a threat
of force to back up our demands.
\_ Have you read the resolution? It was an authorization of
force in the event that all diplomatic recourse fails. It
required that they be consulted again after such diplomatic
attempts failed. Bush himself said that the resolution was
not a march to war, but a tool to leverage diplomacy. He
lied to you, me, Kerry, and everyone in this country.
3) Why should illegal immigrants get visas? Should we encourage
breaking the law?
\_ We could erect an American version of Great Wall equiped
with Machinegun tower. Then again, California's agreculture
depend upon these slave labors, so, you make the call.
4) Why do you continue to waste your energies on useless protests?
They accomplish nothing and only serve to cause mainstream
voters to be wary of you.
5) Why do you continue to lose power in government? What do you
actually plan to do to reconnect with the majority of Americans
who obviously you don't represent?
6) Why are you so against the average American? Yes, they might
not be as sophisticated as you or has gone to the best schools
or believe in what you view as outdated religions. Yes, they
might be close minded. Does that mean they deserve your scorn?
Don't you think it's important to talk to the average American
and find out what their concerns are instead of calling them
"Reddies" and mocking them? Do you actually believe that gets
you any voters?
\_ we are being hated because these "average americans" supports
our leader that does bad things. We are worried because
eventually we will be, unfortunately justifiably, being
hurt and killed for the policies those "average americans"
support. We are desperate to want to tell you the world
is not black and white.
7) Why are you so vitriolic against people who have different
general values than you do? Shouldn't you be the inclusive
party? I find it somewhat ironic that you claim to be open
minded but attack anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.
\_ i thought conservative were the one who invaded another
country because they worship differnt god than we are.
\_ Coming from the party of Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh,
Buchanan and Robertson, this is really a hoot.
8) Why are you so against nuclear power? It's probably the
most viable and safest alternative to fossil fuels. Why do
you automatically connect nuclear weapons to nuclear power?
\_ First of all, fuck you and your red herring about nuclear
weapons. Second of all, I am a liberal who is not against
nuclear power and neither are a good sampling of my liberal
friends. Third of all, I think you're wrong about it
being the best alternative in the longrun. I believe that
new technologies will allow us to actually use solar
in a cheap, efficient way by the middle of this century, and
that nothing is going to be able to really compete with
hydrocarbons for the next decade or two on a large scale.
the sheer numbers of reacctors that would have to be
built would be staggering.
\_ if you don't mind store nuclear waste in your backyard,
then, go ahead. Nuclear power is not safe nor economical
if you consider the cost of dealing with waste.
\_ People always make this argument and it is always
stupid. You don't want a coal mine, a refinery, or
a windmill farm in your backyard either.
\_ Personally, I think having a nuke plant, a coal mine,
a refinery or a windfarm in my backyard would all
be pretty cool, but I guess I have unusual tastes. I
live near a refinery and although I know it's not
healthy, I really love the smell, especially mixed with
salt air. And for the record, I consider myself to be
pretty much a liberal.
\_ Wow, do you actually believe what you are saying? Or are
you just saying it for the sake of argument? I am not
the op, and there are things about the democratic party
I don't like, such as their view on death penalty,
immigration, etc, the list is long. But overall I find
them much in line with my belief than the republican
party and what they are trying to do. I'd prefer a
middle ground, but what I dislike about the democratic
party and their policy far pales in comparison to my
disgust with the lies and corruption that is current
with the Bush administration. So you believe NOT issuing
visa to illegal Mexicans is more important than waging
an unjust war? While we are on the topic of social
security, do you know what the effect of dumping
billions of dollars into the stock market will do to
Bush and Cheney and most republican's portfolio? Do you
think they give fuck when it crashes down like it did in
2000 and people on social security is out of money to
feed their kids? There are things I do agree with the
republican party, like welfare, crimes, and things like
that, but what I disagree far outweighs what I agree
with them. I find it hard to believe people would value
their $xxx in tax return more than the innocent lives of
people in other country. But I guess this is what is
expected, after all, republican's "survival of the
fittest" is all about themselves. If country X cannot
defend themselves against an US invasion, then they only
have themselves to blame. Well, just don't go fucking
cry about it when the orphans in Iraq grow up and
retaliate.
\_ Now that you've decided to start your own bizarre motd crusade
targeted at two individuals I'm wondering...
1) Why the hell you don't just email them.
2) Why you've decided to single them out among all the republicans
on the motd.
Aside from emarkp's formerly itchy delete key, I find him and
jrleek to be among the least loathesome of the motd conservatives.
I'd still like to know who that fucking swiftboat troll was.
\_ 1)2)3) yes 4) it's just great 5) spectacular.
\_ Actually, I didn't see jrleek respond to that thread at all. At any
rate...
1) Yes
2) Yes, see #1
3) Yes, for many reasons including: a) higher expected rate of
return, b) ending a governmental ponzai scheme, c) owning the
account so that if you die early you can pass it on to your
children.
\_ Of your reasons, c) seems to be the only one that holds up under
scrutiny. Could you explain some of the factors that would
contribute to a)? Also, could you explain how a private ponzi
scheme based on people throwing their money at the stock market
and praying is an improvement over the current state of affairs?
-dans
4) Some of the scariest legislation ever, yet necessary IMO. I'm
glad that it requires regular congressional oversight.
5) Eh, I think foreign policy is doing well, but I'm not happy with
the expansion of Medicare, nor with both parties throwing our
borders wide open, nor with the energy policy (we need to free
ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and fossil fuels in
general if we can). -emarkp
\_ I think Bush should get more credit for the hydrogen fuel cell
funding. I think this is a great investment in improving the
way energy is bought, sold and used which is beneficial for the
economy, the environment and energy security, and that Bush
has gotten hozed as far as credit goes because most liberals
are blinded by hate and most conservatives(present company
excepted) are neandrathals about energy policy. I let out a
big war whoop when I heard that in the SOTU address. Also, I
believe that Bush's support of the national nanotechnology
initiative will pay off in the longrun in energy policy. The
technology required to have a sound energy policy has not
yet been invented. I don't think energy policy is anywhere
near Bush's weakpoint. -liberal
\_ Hydrogen is a neat energy STORAGE technology, but it is not an
energy SOURCE. On its own, hydrogen fuel cells actually make
our energy dependance worse because they require a lot of
electricity, much of which comes from fossil fuels. If we
ever switch to renewable, non CO2 emitting energy sources for
our electricity production, THEN hydrogen will be great.
The problem is that's very pie-in-the-sky and simple things
like improving fuel efficiency could make a lot of difference
right now, but are not being pursued for political reasons.
-liberal, who knows science
\_ I never implied otherwise. The point of the research is
to make hydrogen practical in situations where the
internal combustion engine presently dominates,
particularly cars. If cars were on hyrdogen, first of
all it would take away a major urban concentration of
pollution, and second of all it would mean that we
could gradually move off of fosil fuels, with cars reaping
the benefits the whole time. The automotive applications
alone make it worth it. And when you keep pointing out
the obvious fact that hydrogen is storage technology and
not an energy source, and hence implying that everyone
around you is totally ignorant, you just end up looking
like a jackass.
\_ FOr #3, why is it never mentioned this is OPTIONAL????
\_ because even if it is optional, it's a raid on the funds
of the system. As is, the system's viability is continually
extended because our economic growth exceeds the extrememly
conservative assumptions built into SS's metrics. The money
you put in now is not the money you will receive later. SS
is not an investment. It's an insurance policy with a guaran-
teed payout. The question is not whether or not to privatize
it. It's whether we have it or not.
\_ I might be interested in talking about this at a later date,
but I don't have time now. What makes you say I'm hard core
republican? I always kinda considered myself a right leaning
libertarian. Of course, I don't agree with emarkp on
everything either. -jrleek |
| 2004/12/16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35325 Activity:very high |
12/16 I guess Bush might not be destroying the environment after al.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-14-particle-pollution_x.htm
\_ more like he hasn't gotten arount to implementing his retarded
pollution credits scheme. i dislike stacked cost benefit
analysis on pollution. the study is for 1999-2003, so ok
i'll give bush credit for 2 years. - danh
\_ NO! BUSH IS THE ANTI-CHRIST! HE'S CORRUPTING MY BODILY FLUIDS!
ARGHHALAARAGHH!
\_ Also interesting, death due to traditional fossil fuel powerplants:
~30,000 per annum.
Death due to nuclear powerplants:
currently 0. Projected to be about 400 per annum if there was an
actual meltdown of the type experienced in Russia.
\_ NO! NUCLEAR POWER IS EEVIVIL! ARGHHALAARAGHH!
\_ Everyone likes nuclear power, they just disagree on how far
away it should be.
\_ No. Everyone agrees it should be near someone else. |
| 2004/12/15-16 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35308 Activity:high |
12/15 Anyone know how laser distance measurement work? Intensity of
reflected light? But doesn't that depend on the reflecting
surface? Curious. Thanks.
\_ I thought it was the time-to-travel of a beam of light. I assume
you mean far distances.
\_ I recently tried a Leica Disto laser measurement device, it
can measure from 1 ft up to 600 ft. Just wondering how it
works because it seems to be pretty accurate and works on most
surface I point it at, even tree leaves at night.
\_ It modulates the laser's strength to produce pulses, and then with
a high-resolution timer it can tell how long it took for the
roundtrip. An advantage of this is that the shininess and distance
of the target do not effect the measurement as long as they are not
too far and too dark. If you shone it on a smooth enough mirror
at the wrong angle, you could disrupt the measurement though.
\_ wow, how high resolution of a timer are we talking about?
This is speed of the light we are talking about. Something
comparable to timer used in GPS? But those are much further
away...
\_ For ~1-meter resolution, you need 3ns resolution. I know
higher-resolution timers are available, as for price, no idea.
\_ The clock period on a 2GHz Pentium is 0.5ns, and the chip
costs only a couple hundres dollars. So I guess a timer
with 0.5ns resolution would cost much less than that.
Come to think of it. Light is not really that fast.
\_ If you mapped all speeds onto the domain [0,1], light
would be 1.
\-"we have measured the charge of the electon ... and
it is 1" --psb
\_ I suppose it can be the fastest and still not be
"that fast". After all, the universe seems a lot
bigger than light seems fast. Or perhaps it's just
that our sense of time is too fast, since we live
so short.
\- gee what other free parameters seem too
big/too small?
\_ Size of universe = age * speed of light.
If you think the universe is bigger than light is
fast, then that's just saying the universe is old.
Your preception would remain the same no matter
how fast light it, because the universe would be
bigger.
\_ If size of univese = age * speed of light, why
\- hello, even without a discussion about
inflationary theories [i mean inflation
in the sence of alan guth et al] this
simple notion doesnt work because the
universe was not opaque for a long time,
meaning a photon would not have been
able to cross the diameter of the
universe [or even get far at all].
you can probably GOOGLE for "opacity
cosmology" or something like that.
so the speed of light in a vaccum was
not always the speed at which photons
moved through the universe. ok tnx.
\_ While the speed at which photons can
cross the universe is not always C,
with the exception of hyperinflation,
the outermost dimension of the
universe grows at C, modified by the
geometry of space.
\-saying "assuming expansion is space-
like, then it would fit inside the
light cone" is not 'interesting'.
positively asserting that inflation
is, always was, and always will be
spacelike, i suppose is interesting.
\_ I'm just trying to make the point
that opacity/optical depth has no
effect on the size of the universe.
Want 'interesting'? I like the
fact that assuming linear
expansion, the age of the universe
is the same as the inverse of the
Hubble Constant.
\- ok, now tell us about
zero-point energy.
\- one is a boundary condition
the other is an approach to
answering the empirical Q and
and attempt to do better. the
real point of course is we have
some observational data for size
so really what we are trying to
figure out is age.
is there debate among scientists on whether the
universe is growing at an accelerating rate,
constant rate, or decelerating rate?
\_ It *is* more complicated than that, but I
wanted to gloss over that fact because for
purposes of comparing non-comprable huge
values (light-speed vs. universe size), it's
about right. If you want to do actual
\_ You are assuming that the expansion
of space is limited by the speed
of light, correct?
cosmology, you need to think about tensors
of 4-dimensional non-euclidean geometry, but
that seemed beyond the scope of this debate.
\- um without looking for explanation that
involve really exotic theories and
fancy math like M-theory and supergravity
the two big Qs in cosmology today are
1. the missing mass question and the
2. the hubble constant/cosmological
constant question ... some recent
observation are seeing some curious
phenomenon in high red shift objects.
in both cases there has been a lot of
study to rule out dumb mistakes but now
a lot of physicists believe something
big is missing from our theories and
models. on a parochial note on topic #1
the dark matter studies are a major
funding priority for the govt and on #2
a lot of the seminal work is being done
at lbl (smoot, permutter, borrill etc).
there are a lot of decent and fairly
accessible books on these topics
as well as many good WEEB pages at
various levels. s. weinberg is a really
good writers if you are looking for a
specific recommendation. ok tnx.
\_ It turns out that time is what we're best at measuring.
\_ How do you tell pulse from one another? How do you identify
the return pause is the one you sent x time ago?
\_ Imagine you space your pulses out by, say 1ms. This lets you
measure up to 1000 pulses per second, each can have a maximum
roundtrip distance of 300km, which is way more than you can
measure in practice.
\_ I thought reflection is absorption and re-emission of photons.
Does that happen instantaneously? If not, does the delay depend
on the surface material of the target?
\_ It's not instantaneous, and it does depend on the elements
present in the surface, but except for a few special cases,
the delay is inconsequential in this type of measurement.
\_ Yes, if what you're pointing at is a black hole, you're scr00ed.
\_ Has scientists confirmed that black holes exist?
\-yes, essentially. --psb
\_ Black holes? Humbug! I've never seen one!
\_ Black holes, white holes, Asian holes. I've seen them all.
I've even gone inside a few Asian holes. |
| 2004/11/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35080 Activity:high |
11/26 Wikipedia entry on coca leaves. Money quote: "When the Spaniards
conquered South America, they at first ignored Indian claims that the
leaf gave them strength and energy, and declared the practice of
chewing it the work of the Devil. But after discovering that these
claims were true, they legalized and taxed the leaf, taking 10% of the
value of each crop. These taxes were for a time the main source of
support for the Catholic Church in the region."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#The_Coca_Leaf
\_ Taliban:Heroin::Catholic Church:Cocaine? |
| 2004/11/19-20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34982 Activity:high |
11/19 [ peak oil idiot deleted. ]
\_ ride bike and tuna over rice
\_ all seafood contains cancer causing mercury.
\_ Get a cat
\_ In Soviet Russia (and in the US, for that matter)
cat gets you.
\_ some won't. market forces will prevail.
\_ perhaps a better question would be how will all folks who've moved
to the suburbs get by, where they don't even have a shred of a
public transit system, and the people there live even further away
from work than those in the bay area. I can ride-bike+BART to work.
Someone with a 'cheap house' in say Tracy doesn't ahve that option.
\_ Never heard of the train, huh? (ACE train runs from Tracy into
the bay area.)
\_ somehow I doubt that train woud have the capacity to handle
even a tiny fraction of the area's drivers.
\_ What, are we imagining what would happen if all the oil ran
out tomorrow? What makes you think nothing would change?
\_ We have a very well-developed, efficient and high-
capacity public transit system in Zurich and its
suburbs, and there is no chance in hell it could handle
all commuters if gas ran out. -John
\_ Barring some unforseen disaster, oil's not going to up and
'run out'. What will happen is it will get progressively
more expensive. The question is will we be able to adapt
to the increasing cost as fast as the cost increases or not.
Large infrastructure like public transit systems are
notoriously slow to adapt.
\_ So... you think that BART could handle all the Bay
Area commuters? The poster said people in Tracy have
no way to get inside the Bay area besides car. I said
that's wrong. (It is) I never claimed ACE train
could handle all commuters. That's dumb.
\_ If that happens life will change. People will work closer to home
and will find ways to make that happen. If food prices double
people will stop eating out so damn much and learn how to cook
again. People adapt. Life goes on.
\_ And the world will always need fat sysadmins, so your complacency
is justified.
\_ I'm neither fat, a sysadmin, or complacent. I'm just saying
things will get solved. 2x transportation cost and food costs
will mean things will change. Life will change.
\_ Somehow people got by in the 70s. Like many people, if
my transportation and food bills doubled it would mean
tightening belts, but not economic collapse.
\_ The US imported only 30% of oil supplies in the 1970s,
it's 60% and growing now. And we are not talking a
temporary supply disruption, we're talking long-term
depletion -- Why are people who see this called "idiots"?
Have you done extensive research in this area, why is
there no counter-information except for the "market"
will fix the problem?
\_ Why can you not read? Who are you responding to? None
of you points have been brought up before. (Except
the 70s one)
\_ Because the market always does, Chicken Little. People
like you always show up, in every age, and see a crisis
in everything. And somehow the market makes everything
work. You d think you people would learn.
\_ The market "makes things work," only if you define
the term "work" in an insane way. The market can
and will destroy lives and countries if it is
allowed to, and I think it's fair to say that the
USA is in big trouble when oil gets scarce. I am
not convinced that this will happen in the next
few years, as some of the wingnuts do, but it will
few years, as some of the wingnuts are, but it will
certainly happen eventually. -tom
\_ Don't you know? "Makes things work" means
that everyone at least as rich as dubya
gets richer, the middle class disappears,
and the rest of America suffers. It's eerily
close to Ross Perot's vision of America.
\_ That's the magic of the invisible hand!
\_ By your "destroy lives and countries" standard
the industrial revolution and the information
revolution were both bad things b/c they put
lots of people out of work and destroyed the
economies of countries based on agriculture
and mass employment in menial labor. In the
free world (ie everywhere except for Bezerkely)
the industrial revolution is considered a
good thing.
BTW, it seems as though you don't understand
the most basic rule of economics: as a rsrc
gets scarce, people start looking for alt.
and usually the alt. are MUCH cheaper than
the origial product. The trend over time is
that things get cheaper, better and more
reliable. That is how the real world works,
perhaps someday you can visit it.
\_ The US can pump more oil if it wants to. There is
a huge supply of untapped oil and every argument
you make for the US applies just as well to China,
Japan, or Europe. The world economy will not
collapse without oil. It will adjust.
\_ The visigoths were just "free market forces"?
\_ Consider them "foreign investors"
\_ Why is the peak oil guy an idiot? Don't you think that eventually
we will start to run out? Why do you keep deleting this instead
of answering it, coward?
\_ You are an idiot because you don't understand how 'running out'
works. We ll never 'run out.' There will be a gradual decline
in cheaply obtainable oil, which will prompt people to move
to other sources of energy. Investments are already being
made in this direction by big energy companies, and such
investments will increase as oil becomes more expensive.
You = alarmist fool.
\_ "Start to run out" is not the same thing as "run out."
You have very poor English comprehension skills.
Your theory sounds almost exactly the same as the Peak
Oil guys, if you had bothered to read it, instead of
of just censoring it. Then again, maybe you did read
it and just didn't understand it. |
| 2004/11/15-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34889 Activity:moderate |
11/14 So including Agriculture and Energy, how many Bush cabinet people have
retired? Is this the normal amount?
\_ Aschcroft, now Powell, probably some more people will retire. I'd
say at the end of it all we'll see six-seven people go. This is
quite normal. Some presidents shake up the whole cabinet after
the first term so everyone goes.
\_ Why do presidents do that? If they get re-elected, doesn't it
usually mean there was something good about what their cabinets
did?
\_ Really? Who has done that? No one in the last 30 years. |
| 2004/11/8-9 [Transportation/Car, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34751 Activity:nil |
11/7 Rubber tends to crack with age (you know, esp the ones that
seal gaps in cars, or in electronics, pdas, watches, etc).
What materials are best to protect rubber? Veggie oil?
WD-40? Vasoline?
\_ Silicone spray, go to Home Depot/Ace Hardware/Pep Boys
and ask for it. Spray once a year. Do NOT use WD-40, it will
destroy the rubber.
\_ food grade silicone. veggie oil, wd-40, and vasoline
will all break down rubber.
\_ how about Armorall? I've been using that... |
| 2004/11/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34738 Activity:kinda low |
11/7 Dollar expected to fall amid China 's rumoured selling:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/257979a6-30f4-11d9-a595-00000e2511c8.html
\_ Not to worry, we will soon be driving our cars on the power
of Jesus, not oil. If only those damn libberuls would believe!
\_ You say Bush invaded Iraq for oil. Ok. Fine. What would Kerry
have done for oil?
\_ Help prepare the country for the inevitable peak in oil
production, which will occur in 25 years if we are really
lucky. If we are unlucky shortages will start occuring
in 2005-2010. Push alternatives, increase CAFE, actually
LISTEN to scientists as opposed to the faith-based belief
in the status quo. Keep Alaska as a ace in the hole to
use to power the transition to a post-oil society. |
| 2004/10/30-11/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:34464 Activity:insanely high |
10/30 How hard would it be to fake something like the recent Bin Laden tape?
Every time something like this happens, un-named "experts" declare it
to be authentic or not, but how hard would it be with modern computer
video equipment to fool people? It seems odd to me that the media
downplay this possibility. I'm asking this as a *technical* question,
not as some conspiracy theory question about what really happened in
this case.
\_ So you agree with Walter Cronkite that Karl Rove is somehow
involved in the creation and/or release of the OBL tape?
\_ It's possible to fake things to arbitrary fidelity with enough
money. The technology is there. Modern CGI is very powerful.
-- ilyas
\_ ok, that's interesting. Does such technology exist anywhere
outside hollywood? Could a bunch of people with a lot of money
in, say, Pakistan do something like this from scratch?
\_ It is serious tinfoil hat territory to think that an OBL tape
would be faked with CGI. If Pakistan were to try to fake it,
they would get a look-alike. -tom
\_ I agree 100%. The question is whether it's *possible*
technically for someone outside of hollywood to do this
convincingly.
\_ Tom is wrong. It's true that no one will bother to
spend the money in practice, but the feat is not
technically out of reach. Consider ff the movie.
They had essentially photorealistic quality, but the
faces/bodies moved in ... odd ways. That movie was
a while ago, and it wasn't better then because square
had a fixed budget. If a government commissioned a
fully photorealistic clip of someone, money being no
object, it would be done. The entire clip would be
special cased, there would be an army of 'animators'
involved, the tag might run in the billions, but it
could be done. The bottleneck is not the technology
but how far people are willing to go. Ask any
graphics/vision guy. -- ilyas
graphics/vision guy. Tom also needs help with reading
comprehension, as he seems to be answering a tinfoil
question, which op explicitly said he was not asking.
-- ilyas
\_ FF was *not* photorealistic. It would be obvious to
anyone looking at it that those faces were animated.
It was an impressive feat, but one which would fool
only an audience willing to suspend its disbelief.
Humans are *very* picky about what we will accept
in terms of facial appearance and movement. -tom
\_ FF faces certainly did not _move_ in a
photorealistic way, but the stills were quite
believable faces. Anyways, I still think what
I said is possible with enough money. -- ilyas
\_ yeah, if you just put billions of dollars into
inventing new technologies, in 10 or 15 years
you might be able to achieve the same thing as
$10K in plastic surgery. And then you can
spend another 20 years working on generating
a plausible computer-generated voice that
sounds like a particular person. Christ,
you're an idiot. -tom
\_ So, John, how many examples do you need?
-- ilyas
\_ Well, I wouldn't call people names, but
I don't know who's right or wrong, so
I'll pass :-) -John
\_ examples of what? you setting up a
strawman that's totally unrelated to
the original question? There's no
shortage of those. -tom
\_ FF? The Final Fantasy movie with the weird story
line about ghosts from an alien world on Earth?
Their big claim to fame was getting the character
hair to look right which I think they got 99%.
If someone is saying FF had photo realistic faces
then sorry, I'm with tom on this one. They did
good facial expressions but not good faces if that
makes any sense.
\_ I wonder if you took FF-quality CGI actors, and then
ran the video through filters to degrade it to VHS
quality, if it would look a lot more realistic
because the small errors get blurred out.
\_ You're an idiot. All of the movement was
motion-captured.
\_ Uh, so? Why is that not a valid technique?
\_ With CGI? No. Nor in Hollywood. -tom |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34447 Activity:moderate |
10/29 You know I actually agree with what Osama said. Our security is
in our own hands, and while it may make some difference
between who we pick as our leaders, our actions aboard is the
direct consequence of why we suffered 911. And unless we
fundamentally change the way we deal with the rest of the
world, we will never be safe. Competition and survival of the
fittest is good and all that, but we shouldn't take it to the
extreme that the other side simply can't survive. If we want
to be the world police, then we need to do so using a more
\_ America, fuck yeah!
balanced approach.
\_ you may want to rethink your use of the word "consequence"
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ I agree too. America's streets will run red with the blood of
infidels, God willing. America has held the world under its
merciless boot-heel for so long, it's too late for redemption.
\_ The problem is that there's always someone feeling oppressed in
the world, it doesn't matter how nice you are. There are also
a lot of people who are just jealous and always want to "take
down the big guy a peg or two."
\_ Nobody hates Sweden, or the Swiss or the Dutch. It is possible
to have material wealth without stomping on others.
\_ Dude, people hate the swiss, even I know that. And, uh,
the germans. -- ilyas
\_ Why do you hate CERN?
\_ These are very small countries. It is easy to maintain a
high standard of living with such a small populace
without pissing off too many people. |
| 2004/10/29-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34446 Activity:very high |
10/29 So I'm curious about the US Policy. Why doesn't the US simply
leave other countries alone? I mean, the world has a lot of
internal problems relating to food, money, civil war, etc.
Why can't we just leave them alone? Is it all about money and
oil? Is it about reconstruction companies? Loan corporations?
\_ Because our country works under a set of ideals and principles
(or at least, it's supposed to, silly me) that a lot of people look
up to. There is much murder & mayhem & badness in the world, and
we are the strong kid on the playground, you know, the one with the
power to put the bully in his place. I am morally revolted
and ashamed as an American about some of the things "we" do, but
more so about much of what we leave undone. -John
\_ Because isolation doesn't work, stupid. Because the world
is more interconnected than ever before. Because what
happens in one part of the world can have adverse affects
on the rest of us. C'mon, get with the program here buddy,
it's a world economy, and things like the environment,
energy, social welfare are GLOBAL problems. Were you
asleep during World History 101?
\_ Not to mention that we need to the rest of the world's
resources to support our level of consumption.
\_ This is very true. Consumption per head in the US is higher than
in most other industrialized countries.
\_ Let's take post-WWII. A lot of countries were turning Communist.
The rationale was that, unless the U.S. did something, the whole
world was going to turn Communist, there would be Communist
sympathizers in the U.S., and they would foment a revolution, and
then you wouldn't have Mom and Apple Pie anymore.
\_ Let's take post USSR. Everyone turns to capitalism. The
corporation has unprecedented power over the government.
The presence of US is felt everywhere in the world,
restricting freedom for the rulers of the other countries.
Unless the world did something, the US would have
no opposition and could do whatever it pleases.
\_ you know your post would be taken a lot more seriously if
your writing was coherent and didn't sound like random babbling
\_ Made perfect sense to me! America, fuck yeah!
\_ freedom for the rulers? isn't freedom for the people of other
countries what's important here?
\_ Yeah, we're "restricting" freedom, just like the Taliban
did for women and the right to education. Yeah, we made
Cisco put filters like the Chinese did. Yeah, we're the
bad guys.
\_ Because whitey is a proto-rapist penile-centric arch bigot
who wants to impregnate all the nubile brown women and kill all
whales and hurt the creatures of the forest.
Come on already you need to brush up on your Marx. |
| 2004/10/18-19 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34206 Activity:high |
10/18 sexy women kicking men's ass in Counter Strike: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/10/18/games.swedishgirls.ap/index.html \_ Wow, it's great that women today are judged on their abilities, not their short skirts. Nice legs, though. -John |
| 2004/10/15-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34145 Activity:very high |
10/14 Yet more global warming fraud. Is Dan Rather also
an atmospheric scientist?
Global Warming Bombshell
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
This story was posted over a year ago, several times.
\_ This is the *exact same bullshit* that you've already posted 10 or
20 times; "analysis" by an oil company businessman (not a
scientist) which, surprise surprise, shows what the oil companies
want. His objections have already been answered many times over.
-tom
\_ I don't think you are familiar with the author of the article
or paper in question. This leads me to conclude you are
not interested in science but in political agendas. Enjoy
your fantasy land.
\_ I am quite familiar with McIntyre and McKitrick, because
you've posted references to their crap numerous times before.
You know, the crap that was rejected by peer review, and now
is seized upon by global warming naysayers as definitive
proof of...something. (The paper doesn't say that global
warming doesn't exist, in fact its conclusion is that the
data being analyzed is essentially correct for this
century). This leads me to conclude that you haven't read
the source papers or the arguments against it. -tom
\_ Do you deny putting random data into Mann's model
produces hockey stick shapes? Because that is exactly
what they've shown. The rejection from Nature was
because their paper was 'too technical'. What a joke.
\_ I would refer you to Mann's refutation, except you've
already decided to ignore it. In any case, what
difference does it make? McIntyre and McKitrick agree
that global warming is happening. -tom
\_ What refutation - 2 paragraphs in Nature?
Mann does not address the issue above. I've
also read the entire correspondence between
Mann and M&M, in which Mann comes off as
arrogant, deceitful, and all around very
suspicious. I also agree that the globe has
warmed during the 20th century, primarily
during the first half. This has nothing to
do with the fraudulent nature of Mann's paper
or sound science. You expect countries to
adapt entire economies on this kind of science!?
Unbelievable and disgraceful.
\_ using statistics to determine whether there is a trend
in global warming produces answers that only expert
statisticians can evaluate and understand. when a statician
says "the probability of a trend is X" he really implicitly
adds on "according to my model." there is a huge number of
design decisions involved in statistical analysis. these
design decisions are based on value judgments such as
whether a certain trend should be linear, whether a certain
variable is gaussian, etc. different judgments of this kind
can yield drastically different results. Statistics is
still black magic, and it is no substitute for applying the
good old fashioned precautionary principle. Statistics is
only significant if most stistical methods employed come up
with the same answer. So far, this has not been the case
with global warming. it's a total tossup.
\_ Then there's the fact that you can't use statistics
to figure out causal links, unless you either
(a) make causal assumptions to begin with, or
(b) do not only statistics (i.e. observations and
inference), but empirical science (i.e. experiments)
as well. -- ilyas, causal guy
\_ that's not true. there are rigorous definitions
of causality that permit statistical determination.
for example, look at Judea Pearl's book 'Causality'.
such definitions are intuitively appealing and more
rigorous than classical definitions of causality
that go back to Hume. my point above is that all of
statistics should be treated with suspicion, including
causality. however, assessing causlity is not
significantly more difficult to determine than
correlation (compared to the scope of the issues
i'm raising with stats).
\_ Heh. You should read Judea's book more carefully.
For Judea, the graph embodies the causal assumptions.
Without the graph you just have the joint, and no
causality can come out from just the joint unless
you can experiment. Causality and statistics are
fundamentally different. Statistics is the
study of 'observations,' causality is the study of
'immutable laws,' or if you like of 'stability.'
Causality cannot be determined from just numbers,
because almost any set of numbers has multiple
consistent causal explanations (see 'identifiability
problem'). If you think determining causality
is a subset of statistics, ask any statistician
what he thinks about that. -- ilyas
\_ Fascinating. Muller was my Physics 7C professor, and has done
some pretty interesting stuff (he was AFAIK the first to suggest
the cometary impact model for dino extinction, but didn't follow
up. His mentor Louis Alvarez was more interested and George
Alvarez--a geologist--did the follow-up to find the iridium
layer, etc.). Unfortunately, I now think he's a bit of a nut:
http://www.richardmuller.com
\_ http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/01_Springtime.htm
Need I say anymore? This guy is a partisan.
\_ Or a good evaluator of Bush's character.
\_ Dan Rather is a 5-minute expert on everything.
\_ Dan Rather is the Big Burrito! -- Dan Rather #1 fan |
| 2004/10/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:34011 Activity:nil |
10/9 Regarding that Dyson dude on TV with the vacuum that doesn't lose
suction- what's the technology that keeps the dirt away from the
filter?
\_ Well I wrote a well thought-out reply but some douchebag overwrote
it. I was sort of right in that there can be no bag and that
airflow causing the dust to settle might be the mechanism. A little
googling produced:
http://workingfromhome.allinfoabout.com/dyson_pt4.html
So the airflow is designed to increase centrifugal force and stick
the dirt to the side of the cannister. |
| 2004/10/8 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33985 Activity:very high |
10/8 time to short Oil stocks.. you've been warned
\_ How about reading the thing below, and going from there?
http://economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262246
-- ilyas
\_ Do tell. Why do you think this?
\_ with oil selling for over $50 a barrel?
\_ Anonymous MOTD God knows all!
\_ Buy low, sell high! People still cannot figure this out?!
\_ Selling now if you actually have oil makes sense. Shorting
it is risky because it could rise further and stay there
for a long time.
\_ Cover the short when it falls again. It will fall.
\_ While it climbs you may be asked to cover the diff.
That's where you get fucked. You put in more money
or take the loss immediately. Why are you always
telling people to short? You want everyone broke?
\_ FWIW, I am not the original poster. So there
are several of us. We want to make money, bud.
You go long on a day of record prices, k?
\_ If you're so sure they'll fall, why not sign your post?
\_ nah, don't short. china will just buy more and more oil.
it's desperate.
it's desperate. rise in oil price still have some way to
go. gold 500 shall happen soon too.
\_ Gold $500? Why?
\_ dollar further room to drop, slightly higher inflation,
commodities prices higher, and according to wsj,
surprisingly, china is having a labor shortage (!!).
\_ Well those are all reasons to buy *any* commodity.
\_ I didn't say buy gold, I only said gold 500. |
| 2004/10/4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33907 Activity:low |
10/4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3686106.stm \_ If I was going to pick some random bbc web link to post, I'd have picked this one instead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3713134.stm Medicine Nobel prize awarded for learning how smell works. cool! \_ It's all because of flatulent cows, you vegetarian son of a bitch. Why do you hate humans? -John \_ "An estimated 1 in 6 people suffer from hunger and malnutrition while attempts to grow food are damaging swathes of productive land." Uh, if it damages it to "attempt to grow food" on it, what makes it "productive"? \_ Land can be kept productive if you don't overgrow things on it. You should let it rest once a while, or something like that, so that you can grow things over and over again. Otherwise when the land is exhaused, it's very hard to recover. People suffering from hunger don't have the time and probably the knowledge to rotate the farmland to use. \_ Rainforest is arguably productive, esp. of CO2. When you burn it down to grow crops of graze cattle, it is productive land for a few years until all the topsoil washes away. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33874 Activity:very high |
10/1 Let me ask a stupid question. Why can't NK and Iran have nuclear
weapon and nuclear power plant? The answer is obvious, because
they are terrorists! Well, by that logic, the majority of the
world (by population or number of country) right now view the
united states as the biggest threat to world peace, does that
mean we shouldn't have nuclear weapons too? So you say NK have
weapons aimed at SK that will level it in a few minutes. What
about the weapons we have in our stockpile that are aiming at
every major country in the world? I agree this would not make
a very interesting voting time topic, but everyone one of
these things we are going around telling NK and Iran they
can't do, we are doing it 10 times more. If you are NK or
Iran, what the fuck would you do? Do you really expect them to
reason with you? If you want other smaller countries not to go
nuclear, you need to at least show the rest of the world that
you will not consider nuclear yourself. But what do we do? We
are willing to use nuclear weapons on really really soft
targets like Iraq, I mean they can't even stand a chance
against us face to face, yet we want to use nuclear weapon on
them. You people voting for Bush honestly don't see something
wrong with this approach?
\_ Ah yes, moral equivalency. We are people, they are people. We
have certain weapons, they should be ok with the same weapons.
How about this one? My friend has two legs and drives a car, so
my child who also has two legs should be driving a car. The rest
of the world only understand raw raked power. They do not respect
anything else. Neither do we. It's what people are. You see the
world differently because you have been raised under the protective
umbrella of the most powerful military to ever exist on the planet.
It is easy to look out on the world from behind your barriers and
bunkers and proclaim peace in our time, if only everyone had the
same weapons we had, or better yet, we unilaterally disarmed to
show the world how friendly and nice and peaceful we are. Show
the world some love and they'll love you back, right? The rest
of the world respects weakness. Right? I won't reply further.
I think you're a troll but in case you're not, that's the reason.
\_ I don't think we should disarm, but I don't think we should
actively pursue new nuclear weapons at times when we tell
others to not pursue nuclear weapons. You view of the rest of
the world is twisted. Perhaps you should get out of your shell
in texas once in a while. -op
\_ The last nuclear warhead built was in GHWB 41 admin.- he issued
a order to stop making W88. In fact, we only test them thru
computer simulations.
\_ No!! Truth!! I'm melting... MELTING!! -Berkeley Liberal
\_ Just because you're only doing simulated weapons testing
doesn't mean you're not designing new weapons. True, they
aren't building new huge bombs like the W88, but they are
working on designing new smaller bombs that there will be
less political resistance to using. Computerized bomb
tests are just as much proliferation as real ones, it's
just more politically acceptable and clean.
\_ I guess you've never seen the W88.
\_ They aren't working very hard on it. As I understand
it, Bush was talking about starting to design the
smaller weapons you speak of, that doesn't mean
anyone is actually being paid to do so. Most of the
simulations are used for "stockpile stewardship."
That is, making sure the bombs still work and
refurbishing old bombs.
\_ bush got 6 million last year to begin work
on smaller conventional nuclear weapons. true
it's not 6 BILLION but i think it's still very
very evil.
http://www.electricityforum.com/news/nov03/nukes.html
- danh
\_ Why does an oil-rich nation like Iran need a nuclear power plant?
\_ America = Good, furriners = Evil. Might makes right.
\_ You are right. It is a stupid question.
\_ Consider that the average N. Korean is ~ 5 feet tall.
Any guess as to why? Here's a good article for you:
North Korean Gulag
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596
\_ So they fit better in artillery barrels?
\_ Fat arrogant americans deserves to be nuked.
\_ yeah sure, lets give everyone nukes and go for peace through
'mutually assured destruction'. You know this doesn't scale,
because it only takes one madman with his finger on the button to
knock down the whole house of cards for everyone. Dr Strangelove,
anyone?
\_ Which is exactly why letting "We will die for Allah" Iran have
them is a bad idea....
\_ You know, I am all for it, if we start to arrest all those
fucking drug dealers and fuckers in east palo alto or
oakland. Why don't we arrest those fuckers but wait for
them to commit a crime? I am all for it, if we apply the
same rules to domestic violence and crimes! If not, then
FUCK OFF!! -pissed off.
\_ Can anyone understand what this guy is saying? I can't.
\_ pissed off is making a comment about the assumption
of guilt of Iran because they are fundamentalists.
\_ What assumption? They DO fund terrorism, and
they DO send people of suicide missions, and
they're even proud of it. Is it ok to let the
criminally insane have assault weapons too?
\_ By that logic the US should give up its
nuclear weapons, being the only nation
to have ever used them, why should we
be trusted.
\_ What I am pissed off is we treat criminals here
like god (if you ever lived in a bad
neighborhood, you'll start to wonder why the
laws don't seem apply to them) and we treat
citizens of other countries like shit, blow
them up when we want to, kill them when we
pleases. And the worst part is, the very
fundamental laws and rules we are so proud of
(innocent until proven guilty), that we claim
is the best in the world, we throw it all out
when it does not work in our favor (preemptive
strike when we see fit) and we invent a new set
of rules. In fact, we invent/apply different
rules for different people. So there's nothing
so fucking great about our rules in the first
place because what we are doing only means it
sucks. That's the part I am really really
pissed about the current government. We tell
others you can't have nuclear weapon, we are
developing more nuclear weapons. The simple
fact is, most of the rules that we apply to
other countries because we can, because we have
bigger guns, we simply can' t apply it to
ourselves. Because we violate a lot of it.
There's a reason we have UN and international
laws and the like, precisely so that countries
don't just go about do their own business, just
like we have laws that governs what you and I
can and cannot do. If you believe our
government is doing the right thing, then you
should take justice into your own hands
whenever you wanted and just forget about the cops.
\_ Is there some kind of award we can give this guy?
How about an ASCII graphic of a shovel?
\_ Before you reply, remember what you said, it's
the idea that counts, not the language/debating
skill. |
| 2004/9/29 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:33835 Activity:high |
9/29 What an embarrassment for Nature. The editors and Mann of global
warming fame are beginning to look very suspicious.
http://www.climate2003.com
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html
\_ The editors of Nature are known to be jackasses. Talk to anyone
who has been in any field of science at a high level for long
enough to have dealt with them, and they'll all tell you this.
And it's not just sour grapes. I know pleny of people who've
been published in Nature multiple times who think this. As far
as this stupid "dogleg plot" controversy goes, peer review is
only as good as the peers of the person who submits the paper.
Some fields have a lot of jackasses in them. Just for shits and
grins, you should go through the old copies of Nature from a
hundred years ago or more in the stacks of a university
library and see how nasty scientific controversies were back
then. Believe it or not, they were worse.
\_ Were there scientific controversies 100 years ago that were
used as evidence to promote the wholesale realignment of
global industrial policy?
\_ Yeah, there are some pretty horriable peer review stories out
there. We had a talk here at LLNL a month or so back about
using bad computer data in published papers. The peer review
process let a lot of really bad science pass. (Like, you can
see that this graph increases linearly! When investigated, it
turns out they only plotted 2 points. etc.)
\_ Are you a Republican?
\_ Why do you ask? Because only Republicans require good data to
base their decisions on? -!op
\_ There's no such thing as "good data". There's only bias.
Once you have determined your bias, then you pick the data
to support your bias, and you form your conclusion based
on your data.
\_ There is good data. Because of good data, bridges stay
up, airplanes fly, and the Internet doesn't grind to a
halt. Nature is not forgiving to bias. You should
maybe read up on this invention called
'empirical science.' (Yes, my sarcasm detector is in
the shop). -- ilyas
\_ There is good data and there is bad data. The data in the
seminal paper "Electron-Band Structure in Germanium, My
Ass" was bad data.
\_ And there is even worse than bad data, which is
cooked data. At least the E-BSiGMA paper accurately
plotted what he observed.
\_ I prefer my cooked data with gravy made from the
blood of the working man.
\_ Mm, one of my favorite recipes from "To Serve
Man." |
| 2004/9/27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33767 Activity:moderate |
9/27 New method for storing nuclear waste:
http://csua.org/u/97x (Daily Telegraph, by way of Slashdot)
How safe is this method? Is there any appreciable radiation leakage?
If it really stores the waste safely for 200k years, what reason is
there not use nuclear plants all over the place?
\_ Yes, because nuclear power is eeeee-vil.
\_ Damn you, Coal Industry!
\_ The Three Mile Island and Chenobyl (sp?) incidents had nothing to do
with waste storage safety, for example.
\_ True, but they were also examples of old, obsolete technology
and lax oversight. Surely we've come a long way since then...
right?
\_ Tell that to the Japanese workers recently killed in a
nuclear power plant. Although that was from a worn high
\_ No, he'd be the full $28B richer, just not liquid. Do you
think his current net worth reflects the massive tax hit
he'd take if he sold all his MSFT? No, it's calculated by
addingu p the value of all his shares. Otherwise to
calculate rich people's net worth you'd have to track all
the purchase prices of their assets and estimate the tax
liability if liquidated.
temperature pipe which could happen in any power plant.
\_ The pipe hadn't been inspected in 28 years! w00t!
\_ Which was allowed by poor policy. Bad policy never
goes out of style.
\_ In the Nuclear Era we will end bad policy,
hairpieces and silly ties. Everything will
be bright and gleaming and brand new.
\_ Here's a Radon-laden wrist-watch for your
outfit. |
| 2004/9/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33681 Activity:insanely high |
9/21 So "liberal" guy, what do you think the US should do about
Iran's incipient nuclear program?
\_ I think we should violently rape and kill all non-US citizens.
Only then can we be SURE we won't be attacked!
\_ I don't have the whole answer, but this is part of it:
http://csua.org/u/959 (Yahoo! News)
Step 1: Elect Kerry (Bush is bad at coalitions)
\_ And he's good at what exactly? Looking
smug and stupid?
\_ Does step 1 include the "International tax" the UN wants
and GWB would never allow in a million years? Why did
Schroeder make a speech that essentially said, "Wait til
November because our boy Kerry will do it!"?
Step 2: Get Russia and Europe all on the same page
(Do you really want Iran to have nukes?)
\_ WTF does this mean? Get them? How? Why not just
say the answer to Iran's nuke program is "Get the
Iranians to stop having a nuke program"?
Step 3: Help Iran build nuclear power plants, but completely
restrict enriching uranium, even for peaceful purposes.
Russia can supply fuel for the power plants.
It doesn't matter if the NPT says Iran can enrich uranium
for peaceful purposes.
\_ There has been an open offer of help for years that
is even less restrictive than this but the Iranians
aren't interested. Now what? Please read a newspaper
every so often before deciding you have all the
answers.
You can still do 2 and 3 without 1, but I can't help but feel
Dubya will fuck it up again. -liberal
\_ what the hell do they need nuclear power for? What about oil?
\_ Iran will bewt the inspectors if we don't give em Step 3.
Europe and Russia will say they can live with Step 3;
but if the U.S. doesn't agree, then we're not using force
as the last possible option. We'll just look like warmongers
again.
\_ Huh? The US has offered the Iranians an even better
version of your "step 3" for several years. They are
not interested. Now what?
\_ Why does Iran need nuclear power??? It is sitting on massive
petroleum and natural gas reserves. A gallon of gas in Iran
is something like 0.30$. As for Europe, the Germans and
French were the same countries that sold Iran the illicit
refining equipment to begin with. It is Russia who is
is / has been building Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Haven't you figured out appeasement does not work.
Iran's foreign policy is not coexistence with the West,
it is elimination of the West. Iran has been the largest
state sponsor of terror over the last 30 years.
\_ Then why the hell did we invade IRAQ? "Oops, one letter typo"
\_ iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal. but it is
well accepted that its oil reserves will not produce enough
oil within 50 years.
\_ Well accepted? By whom? Do you have a source for this
statement?
\_ It is a geological fact for every country producing
oil. Many countries are now "post peak" and are
producing less oil every year, the US being a prime
example.
\_ "Iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal" ... Pakistan
has nukes and hasn't misused them. The only country to
use nukes so far is us.
\_ Of course Iran wants nukes; only a moron would think they
were only interested in nuclear power. No one tries to
squish a country with nukes without hestitating.
No one also doubts that they are at the top of list for
state sponsors of terror -- but it's also true we don't have
smoking gun evidence of an al Qaeda link.
Also, please provide a URL showing that Germany and France
sold "[nuclear] refining equipment" to Iran. I believe
Pakistan sold centrifuge equipment to Iran.
Also, WW2 showed that giving up a country to an invading
country doesn't work. This was the example of WW2, Korea,
and Kuwait. However, Vietnam and Iraq have been different
stories, and it might be again with Iran.
So, do we have enough people to invade Iran ...?
I told you what I'd do. Now what would you? -op
\_ He answered. He'd appease.
\-semi-tangential comment: while this doenst rise to
a "clash of civilizations" there are some instances
where it is hard to put yourself in the other guys
shoes ...
[continuation moved to ~psb/MOTD/AmericanDoubleStandards]
\_ When you're a super power there are no double
standards. You do what you want and make the rules
for everyone. That's what being a super power is
all about. The US is a rather benign super power
as these things go. What other country with this
kind of power would do so little with it?
\_ US is rather benign, but it's not because of
the current administration.
\_ I think a fair solution would be to allow Iran to use the nuclear
technologies for peaceful purposes, including the dual-use
technologies, as long as they allow UN's international atomic agency
to fully monitor their nuclear activities without any exceptions.
Iran's government has been working a lot in the recent times to
develop domestic manufacturing (including auto, aerospace) and IT
industries. Their nuclear ambitions might be viewed simply as yet
another step on the way to joining the "technologically advanced
nation" club. They also argue that meeting domestic energy needs
using solely fossil fuels will have a serious environmental impact.
Neither they have enough power generating capacity to meet energy
needs for future. This is probably why they have just started
building a gas pipeline to Armenia. They say they intend to export
gas to Armenia and import electricity produced there. I am not
saying that everything is well in Iran. They were definitely caught
red-handed handed with their undisclosed uranium enrichment
facilities but I would allow them to keep their reactors as long
as they agree to play by the rules.
\_ Wait a minute. Isn't our invasion of Iraq supposed to scare
countries like Iran and N. Korea into abandoning their WMD
programs? |
| 2004/9/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:33677 Activity:nil |
9/21 [re-posted with various changes]
So Iran today started to create uranium hexafluoride gas. They have
nuclear centrifuges already built to enrich this to nuclear plant fuel,
but can easily continue to weapons-grade concentrations. Their stock
of yellowcake is sufficient for several nukes. So, I read that it will
be about a year before Iran can build nukes without outside help. I
don't understand this; I believe that IF Iran kicked out the inspectors
today and IF they wanted to and IF no one did anything, they could have
a nuke between 6-24 months from now without outside assistance. Isn't
this accurate?
The difficult step in creating a nuke is obtaining weapons-grade
concentrations of uranium, while the weapon design is easy, and Iran
already has the centrifuges I believe. -liberal |
| 2004/9/13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33496 Activity:nil |
9/12 http://www.ourcoolhouse.com - totally cool house! |
| 2004/9/11-12 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33475 Activity:insanely high |
9/11 Is it practical to have, say, a large portion of CA or AZ running
on solar power? My coworker runs his entire household via solar
and it got me to wondering what would happen if everyone did this.
Obviously industrial plants need more power, but could we do away
with a lot of our polluting plants if everyone went solar? If so,
then why don't we? What are the technological obstacles, if any?
\_ My car runs on solar energy. It harnesses the solar energy
collected over millions of years and dug up by some guys
in the Middle East to be transported and refined.
\_ One word: Cost. For your typical house, you'll use about 400
kilowatts/hour per month (4800 per year). You will need a
system capable of producing about 3K Watts/hour to meet that
demand (realworld figure is about 1.7K kilowatt hour produce per
year per 1K watt of solar panel here in CA). The cost to acquire
and install a 3K system is about $20K (this is with a $3 per watt
rebate from CA already). If you buy your electricity from your
CA utility it costs about $0.17 / kilowatt. The return will
be about 15-20 years. This does not include the cost of money
for the initial $20K!
\_ I agree that cost makes solar impractical for almost everyone,
but your abuse of units is causing me physical pain.
kilowatts/hour per month? energy per time to the third?
$0.17/ kilowatt? you think they charge by power not energy?
I'm guessing you're someone who basically knows what they're
talking about about solar, but is careless with units.
google now does dimensional analysis for you. use it.
\_ Economy of scale would drive these prices down; it makes sense
for State/City government buildings to install the tech first
to prove it feasible and efficient.
\_ How about we prove it first, then install? -- ilyas
\_ bullshit. silcon solar cells are not new technology
and they've already been shown to be not economical
for most applications. wasting taxpayer dollars will
not change this. I'm guessing you're actually a libertarian
troll who know this.
\_ Your anger betrays you. Take a deep breath and remember
your basic economics.
\_ For heating stuff, yes. For powering everything else in your
home like the fridge, computer, TV, etc., probably not. It takes
a lot of surface area (even at 100% efficiency) to produce
that much electrical energy.
\_ My coworker powers everything in his house via solar, even
his A/C. The surface area is surprisingly small. Very little
of the roof is covered in panels - maybe 4'x8'.
\_ He must:
a) have maaaaagical solar panels
b) use less power than a 1bdrm apt.
\_ Expensive.
\_ My coworker will break even in 7-8 years. If every new
residence was mandated to be solar then in a decade the
owners would be in the black. In the long-run it is
*cheaper*.
\_ There was a /. article recently on plastic
solar panels, which are apparently a lot cheaper than
current ones. -- ilyas
\_ Pollution, replacement needs, seasonal.
\_ The batteries need to be replaced, but I am accounting
for those costs. It isn't seasonal in places like CA
and AZ. Even an overcast sky is fine.
\_ It's not seasonal ... until those times when it just
rains for a while, and you are suddenly without power.
Being without power sucks.
\_ That's why we have an electric grid
\_ It makes too much sense. -GWB ps: buy more oil and coal for
my energy buddies.
\_ Solar didn't exist prior to GWB admin?
\_ The oil protection adventure in Iraq has already cost $2000
for every household in the US (assuming avg household of 4,
$200B/375M) ... That could have paid for at least solar water
heating for the entire country.
\_ There's a lot of toxic by products involved in creating the solar
panels. The batteries are toxic of course also. 10-15% efficiency
is considered very good in the real world, so forget the 100% thing.
And finally, the panels need to be replaced so often your pay off is
really more like 50-75 years.
\_ At which point it's just better to just wait until better tech
comes along. But let's not let facts get in the way, let's
MANDATE SHIT WITH THE IRON JACKBOOT OF THE STATE!
\_ Are you ilyas, or do you merely subscribe to his newsletter?
\_ With this attitute, our air pollution would rival China's
and our cars would still be getting 10MPG. We are in the
beginnings of a natural gas shortage, and we
need to switch to alternatives or sit waist deep in nuclear
waste. You don't need to have batteries if you are connected
to the grid, that lowers the price considerably. You can
also just do solar water heating which has a very quick
packback.
\_ My parents have solar panels that just power the pool. We don't
use the pool much, so we probably wouldn't pay to keep the thing
heated all the time, but since the upfront cost has already been
paid for, it's easy to keep the pool warm.
\_ Solar make sense in some area where 1. population is dense and 2.
AC is required in the summer. Why? cuz AC is very inefficient andif
you got a lot of people using it, the peak power consumption is
crazy. So, Mid-Atlantic area such as New York and Washington DC are
ideal places for Solar power, not California metro.
Another problem. Solar power generated in the household can't sell
back to the grid. If it could, then, the ROI will be much better.
People are toying around the idea of using excess solar power to
produce hydrogen, which might be an intermediate solution before
power generated by normal household can be sell back to the grid.
\_ The lies and mistruths perpetuated here are ridiculous. You
*can* sell your power back to the grid. My coworker has done
this in some years. It does not cost $20K after rebates and
incentives and break-even *is* about 7-8 years. He can power
everything in his entire household. (He does have a gas
dryer.) Rain doesn't matter, because the batteries hold a
lot of energy - at least, not the rain we get in CA and AZ.
After seeing his success, I wish to try it and I was
wondering why this isn't mandated. Is there a technological
problem?
\_ You are an idiot. It isn't mandated because we don't live in
a fucking planned economy.
\_ Um, and we don't allow coal-stacks in residential
neighborhoods why?
\_ Were Berkeley students always this weak on logic or
is this a recent development? |
| 2004/8/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33161 Activity:kinda low |
8/26 How to write a best selling fantasy novel
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~imcfadyen/notthenet/fantasy.htm
\_ Diana Wynne Jones did this much better in her "Tough Guide to
Fantasyland" |
| 2004/8/25 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33130 Activity:high |
8/25 ilyas, what does your advisor, Judea Pearl have to say about his son,
Daniel Pearl?
\_ Do I know you? -- ilyas
\_ Troll alert! Troll alert!
\_ Why do you hate ilyas?
\_ I don't hate ilyas. I feel pity for ilyas.
\_ Do I know you? -- ilyas
\_ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003095
\_ what is it with this same religion/ethnicity advisor/student
relationship here? Like, Chinese professors have mostly Chinese
students, Iranian (ah ehm, PERSIAN) profs have Iranian students,
etc etc.
\_ what is it you find surprising about this? |
| 2004/8/15-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32911 Activity:very high |
8/15 A must-read for emotionally starved sodans, only 1 copy left.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1879967111
\_ "Many doctors refer to Gary Griffin as the Ralph Nader of penis
enlargement." Well, that just says it all, doesn't it?
\_ He is advocating a mean of sexual indepenence from foreign
object, much like energy independence from foreign oil.
\_ Gosh, some sodan alraedy ordered that copy. Now you must wait
1-3 weeks for the publisher. |
| 2004/8/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32722 Activity:high |
8/7 I'll say this again, terrorism is the only answer to superpower
oppression. Why do you think the Muslim world hates the US?
Just look at what we did to them. We either kill them all and
be done with it, like we did to the Native Americans, or treat
them with the proper respect. Anything else, you'll have
terrorism and it will never end. I am sure some of you would
like to do the former, but the world it is now, it's just not
possible. But we also don't want to go with the 2nd option,
because it's just so much better to rob (oil) than to buy.
\_ it's mercy that is preventing the US from nuking the
muslim world off the face of the earth
\_ lets see, the US wasn't around in 1000 AD when the
muslims slaughtered everything that didnt want to convert
to islam.
\_ It's obvious you have no real understanding of the
Middle East or the Muslim world. The problem with the Muslim
world is not the US, it is not Isreal, it is not Europe, it
is not Asia. The problem with the Muslim world is itself.
The 22 nations that comprise the Arab league has a population
about the size of Europe, yet it's combined GDP is about the size
of Belgium and Portugal combined. Their only real industry is
oil. Within these 22 countries there are no real democracies,
no real free press, no rights for women, an antiquated legal
\_ Factually incorrect statement
system that advocates stoning to death adulterous women, an
education system that harkens back to the 12th century,
an infrastructure in which some 25% of the general male population
is unemployed. The governments of these 22 are either autocratic
or corrupt. Dissent is dealt with swiftly and quietely, tolerance
for other religions is non-existant. In the 21st century when
all other nations on this planet (with few exceptions) have
at least attempted to establish basic civil rights for their
populations the Arab world continues to be completely intransigent.
Their states sponsor terrorism and encourages extremist thought.
They program their citizens by continously scapegoating the west
and spread their lies to the uninformed. If you do not believe me
you can try watching Al-Jezeera for a day.
The point is that the the middle east is dysfunctional, and
unless there are some fundmental changes in this part of the world
the suicide bombings will continue. By attempting to respect
the individuals who perpetuate the continued state of affairs
like Arafat, like Qadaffi, like the insurgents in Iraq who still
support Hussein you merely embolden them to continue their
tyrannical regimes.
\_ A neoconservative would probably argue that by spending hundreds
of billions of dollars of our money to try to construct a liberal
democracy in the middle east, we are (finally) treating them
with respect.
\_ The muslim world has been at war with the west since they met the
west in the middle ages. You might note this pre-dates the
existence of the US. And no, we didn't kill all the Native
Americans. As far as respect goes, if they treated their own
people with some, it might set an example for the rest of the
world in that regard. This is all standard blame the victim
mentality. What's next up on your list? We abandon the only
democracy in the middle east? The only place women are allowed
to vote? The only place where the court system holds the military
\_ Factually incorrect statement
in check despite the fact that security would be increased overall
if the military was allowed a completely free hand? Okey dokey!
\_ You're framing your argument toward potential jihadis, not
American voters. Terrorism isn't the only answer to superpower
oppression, but it is an expectable result. Look at the converse
of your argument: if there were no great injustices, there would be
far fewer terrorists- people making a decent living, with hope of
a better future for their children, simply cannot be persuaded to
strap a bomb to their chest and storm a bus. The way you phrased
your post grants your rhetorical opponent the opportunity to claim
that terrorists are fundamentally different (well, perhaps they are,
but they weren't always that way).
\_ The muslim "world" has been at war with the rest of civilization
for centuries (don't forget all the bad things they have done
and continue to do in India). Terrorism is nothing new for Islam,
either. In the old days they would butcher entire families for
refusing to convert (among other less than reputable things).
The war with islam is the war against oppression and tyranny.
If we start discussing terms with the armies of darkness, all
hope for the free and civilized will be lost forever.
\_ Kettle, please meet medieval era pot. Pot, kettle. Do say
hello.
\_ The rest of the world has grown up a little in the
past thousand years, the islamic world has not. In
fact they have gotten worse. We must not forget that
during the dark ages it was the arabs who preserved
the knowledge and learning of the ancients and also
transmitted to renaissance italy the mathematics of
the east. Do you really think that the islamic world
is capable of such things today? |
| 2004/8/5 [Recreation/Dating, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32714 Activity:high |
8/5 Do you hate your life? Or love it?
\_ I'm indifferent about it.
\_ (indifferent == apathy)?
\_ No, indifferent == pointing out a false dichotomy.
\_ Hate it with an undying passion. -geordan
\_ Of all the places and periods of history that a person
could be born in, I was lucky enough to be born in
America in the 20th, attend one of the finest institutions
of learning in the world and find a job programming
computers. Considering that just 50 years ago my family
was living in a part of the world where running water,
telephones and electricity were unheard (and considering
that I could have been born in a place like that even
in this day and age), I love my life. |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32434 Activity:very high |
7/22 White House Accused of Manipulating Science
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3608305
Do you see the pattern now? manipulating science, manipulating
intellegence for the sole purpose of pushing Administration's
agenda, and fire those who don't agree.
\_ old news.
\_ and this is different from previous administrations.. how?
\_ Show me an example of the Clinton administration manipulating
science? Show me an example of them firing dissenters other than
the (Republican-demanded) ouster of Jocelyn Elders.
\_ it isn't. it's how the world works. everyone but OP knows
that.
\_ Are you referring to Stalin's purges perhaps? The point of
a governing bureaucracy is to have some sort of continuity
from one administration to the next. Bush has fired an
awful lot of people who don't toe the party line.
\_ You're going to compare firing people to Stalin killing
millions of his own people? You're insane. At all levels
of government people come and go *routinely* as part of
administration changes. Civics 1A. In fact, people from
the old administration are expected to submit their
resignations when the big guy who hired them is out to
make it easier for the new guy to get the staff he wants.
You're insane *and* a fucking loon *and* ignorant as shit.
\_ This is just an out and out lie, which you attempt to
cover up with by making a bunch of ad hominem attacks.
Only people at the highest levels of government
service lose their jobs when the Administration
turns over. Civil service job protection is
legendary. Just try to fire a govt beauraucrat.
\_ The Union of Concerned Scientists is hardly objective:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/145
\_ I thought people understood that when a .org calls itself
'concerned' that is a buzz word for leftist? |
| 2004/7/21-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32412 Activity:high |
7/21 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/21/trade.center.collapse.ap/index.html What about the people who jumped out of the buildings? I remember seeing a lot of those footages on that day, but for some reason they're rarely shown nowadays. \_ There's a big difference in seeing a building on fire and seeing someone plummeting to their death. |
| 2004/7/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32396 Activity:very high |
7/21 Uhm, ok... this is scary. Assuming this story is true but noting
that it isn't yet confirmed: 3 nuclear armed missiles were found
buried in a trench near Baghdad under six meters of concrete. What
are the odds that something like this could self detonate in the coming
years (or do some other really bad thing like leak into nearby wells
or I dunno) if it was left unmaintained and forgotten?
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm
\_ Moonie owned newspaper. Moonie owned wire service. Why don't
you start posting links from the Final Call?
you start posting links from The Final Call? -danh
\_ Mexican Air Force documents UFOs
http://tinyurl.com/6orqd
\_ I'm not going to respond to your Moonie trolling anymore. If
you ever come up with something more than "It's a Moonie paper!"
then we can chat. Go away Moonie Troll.
\_ calling you out on relying on Moonie owned news services
is perfectly valid. Moonie Moonie Moonie Moonie! - danh
\_ So Iraq had "WMD" all along? Or were these just nuclear materials,
not fissionables? Has any other news org picked up this story?
\_ I only know what this link says. It's in the "breaking news"
section. It says they're real nuclear tipped missiles. --op
\_ Funny how no other news outlet is carrying this story.
\_ Let's try again: It's in the "breaking news" section.
\_ zero. The story is almost certainly false.
\_ Good motd answer. True, yet doesn't actually answer the
op's question.
\_ Chance of exploding? Almost nill. For a nuke to go off, all
the conventional explosive charges surrounding the uranium or
plutonium must explode at exactly the right time. If the
different charges go off at the wrong time, you just spread
nuclear material over a small area. During the cold war,
when we were keeping nuclear bombers airborn 24/7 (think
Dr. Strangelove) one of our bombers crashed in Spain. No
nukes went off and the only ocnsequence was some radioactive
contamination of the crash site. -!PP
\_ True, but he also asked about nuclear materials
leakage.
\_ He asked about detonation and leakage. To answer the
leakage question: It would depend on the casing of the
bomb (can water corrode or penetrate it?) and on whether
the particulars of its burial allow it to seep into the
groundwater. If it gets into the groundwater if would
be bad, but at that point you don't have a bomb, you
have a pile of rusty radioactive waste.
\_ Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior
Ministry said: "It's stupid."
http://tinyurl.com/56kje (reuters.co.uk)
So the gist of it is that Iraq's 'National Inquirer' claims to have
found weapons and the Moonie Times picked up the story.
\_ Yep. "Al-Sabah opened last year with backing from the former
U.S.-led administration in Iraq." --aaron
\_ Possibly it's stupid. Possibly it's true. It is unconfirmed
and the odds that some newly hired flunky of the provisional
government knows everything going on in the country instantly
are zero. I was asking about the danger involved in the
situation assuming it was true. I don't care at all what you
think of the sources. That isn't important to my question and
like I said above, this is the last time I respond to your
Moonie Trolling in a serious way. I've tried many many many
times over the last year or two to get a reason out of you
other than "it's the moonies! gasp!" and got zippo. Go away
Moonie Troll.
\_ I love how you think the only person who has this opinion
is some lone motd nut. Ask any ten people about the
washington times, and eight of them will say "times? don't
you mean post? never heard of it." And the other two
will say "oh, yeah. that rightwing nut rag by the moonies."
Believe me. I've done this experiment. In fact, the *only*
place I've ever "met" *anyone* who's heard of washtimes
and doesn't think it's crazy rightwing propoganda by
a dangerous cult is here on the motd, in other words:you. |
| 2004/7/19-20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32355 Activity:kinda low |
7/19 Why Indiana is a stupid dumbass state:
http://www.mccsc.edu/time.html
\_ This is fucking stupid
\_ This is fucking stupid
\_ Although the project does a pretty good job explaining the
stupidity. |
| 2004/7/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:31108 Activity:very high |
7/1 Light might have been slower 2 billion yrs ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996092
\_ Just in case you don't know, http://newscientist.com is about as reliable
a source for science news as *name-of-random-tabloid* for news.
\_ any better sources?
\_ <DEAD>sciencenews.org<DEAD>, and <DEAD>physicstoday.org<DEAD> for physics.
There must be others, but be warned that they are
all boring: the more reliable the more boring.
More generally, science != news != entertainment.
\_ Uh, Nature? Departmental hearsay? Anything? -- ilyas
\_ Just by reading the article, I have no clue whether it's real or
fake. Are you saying that the article is a hoax, or it's just
flawed science? |
| 2004/6/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:31061 Activity:nil |
6/29 What can I say? I love japantoday. Get your surreal ignorance
here! http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=493
(Asking who or what should take the lead in World Affairs)
\_ Shinya Kato thinks the world just needs to smoke some sweet
Jamaican ganja.
\_ I bet he gets along well with Anri.
\_ my favorite: "The world needs an organization that can combine
the progressiveness of the Dutch with the Yee-Ha Ass-kicking
instincts of the the current US Govt." |
| 2004/6/28 [Consumer/CellPhone, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:31044 Activity:nil |
6/28 Can you type the following in less than 44 seconds with all
punctuations correct?
"The razor-toothed piranhas of the genera Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus
are the most ferocious freshwater fish in the world. In reality they
seldom attack a human."
Now try typing it on your cell phone.
http://csua.org/u/7yw (Yahoo! News) |
| 2004/6/22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30962 Activity:nil |
6/22 Toxic Pollution rose 5 Percent in 2002, first time since 1997.
http://csua.org/u/7vu
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? |
| 2004/6/22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30956 Activity:high |
6/22 What's the prupose of running for legged animals? Does walking very
fast achieve the same purpose while avoiding the kinetic energy needed
to jerk the body upward at every running step?
\_ avoids getting eaten alive?
\_ When legged animals run, they actually jump, i.e. propel themselves
forward with every step. This is a much more efficient than walking
quickly. -- ilyas
\_ It's faster; I doubt it's more efficient in terms of long
distance energy consumption. Especially carrying a load.
\_ I believe it's both. You have to move your limbs much faster
to match the running speed. Try it. See how quickly you
get tired. You probably will not even be able to do it.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm not talking about speed but just efficiency... I
could more easily walk with a pack across distance X
than run, for large enough X. At least it seems that way,
I know I feel pretty pooped after running but walking
doesn't take much.
\_ Running is mainly for two things: catching food and
not getting caught. doesn't need to be efficient.
How many animals have you seen run wherever they go?
--scotsman
\_ read ilyas' post... although of course, it's more
efficient to run quickly than try to walk at high
speed. So this discussion is pointless.
\_ did walking very fast prevent your ancestors from being chased
down and eaten by other legged animals?
\_ I know it didn't. I'm trying to find an explanation.
\_ since running != walking very fast, then obviously walking
very fast doesn't achieve the same purpose.
\_ case closed. thread marked for garbage collection.
\_ who died and made you garbage man.
\_ Why doesn't walking very fast achieve the same purpose
then?
\_ It costs more energy and you just don't have the muscles
for it. Try walking 18MPH sometime.
\_ Isn't this basically the same tradeoff between performance
and efficiency that we have with cars?
\_ There have been tests (horses and dogs on a treadmill) that map
O2 consumption to gait, and at each transition (walk->trot,
trot->lope, lope->gallop) there's a sharp decrease. Anybody have
a URL for this?
\_ http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0950.htm . google. use it.
\_ The proxy server's down, and I don't like using google with
links/lynx.
\_ get w3m
\_ w3m has tabs and google search bar?
\_ w3m has tabs. -dwc
\_ you don't need tabs and a google search bar to do a
simple google searhch and read one article. Stop
being pissing on your shoes. Kids are such sissies
today. In my day, we telnet $host 80 and GET /.
\_ Wondering how your dates are getting away from you?
\_ In that case walking very fast *does* achieve the same purpose.
\_ Ever seen the 'race walking' or 'speed walking' or whatever they
call it in the Olympics? Watch that for 10 seconds and you'll
udnerstand.
\_ In the Olympics? I thought only China has that as a sport event.
\_ I think it's an Olympic event. I know it is a competitive
event internationally. |
| 2004/6/21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30929 Activity:insanely high |
6/21 Global warming will make cities hotter:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996017
\_ Well, unlike global warming, this problem can be dealt with at the
local level:
http://www.greenroofs.com/Greenroofs101/index.htm
There are vaious ways to cut down on the heat island effect, and
they tend to also be things that make cities nicer anyway.
\_ Trees cause air pollution. --Gipper
\_ Who said anything about trees? We can just grow vegetables
on rooftops, like the Ketchup plant. -Gipper #1 fan
\_ I thought global warming was going to make the world colder? That
was the explanation when Al Gore gave his Global Warming speech on
one of the coldest days on record earlier this year. I'm so
confused. Are we heating or cooling? Why did they tell us 20 years
ago we were all going to freeze to death? Now they tell us we're
going to fry. *BUT* in the process of frying, we're all going to
freeze to death! Oh woe! The sky is falling!
\_ are you really this stupid? -tom
\_ are you really this ignorant and obtuse? everything I said
is true with a healthy dash of sarcasm thrown in for my own
amusement. you're probably too young to remember when they
assured us all we were going to freeze to death.
\_ Global warming can make things freeze, see "The Day
After Tomorrow"
\_ i think the fair answer is probably: yes, but the left is
just as dumb. If you want to see the spectacular
failure of the Right to understand how science works,
go read Crighton's speech at Caltech. To see how ignorant
of how science works your typical liberal is, try talking
to them about biotechnology.
\_ Are you stupid enough to believe in global warming &c.?
Read The Skeptical Environmentalist, might help you see
things from a better perspective.
\_ And note that the attacks on TSE were nearly all ad
hominem, argument from authority, and a whole boatload of
other logical fallacies. This more than anything
convinced me that the whole global-warming-believing
community is based on a house of cards. -emarkp
\_ as opposed to, say, Mormonism.
\_ He shoots! He scores!
\_ Not really. Mormonism, like all religions,
is based on faith. The main thesis of the
anti-global warming crowd is that global
warming is also based on faith, which
is a pretty bad situation for a scientific
theory. The above personal attack plays
right into their hands (I'm an athiest
who thinks climate change science is a mixed
bag, but that it's the anti-global warming crowd
who are actually basing their science
on faith.)
\_ Yeah, but I could care less about stupid
motd arguments, except when they become
funny as in the above case.
\_ BZZZT! Both pro and anti global warming
advocates *must* be basing their theories
in faith to some large degree or there
wouldn't be anything to debate. The pro-
side bases theirs on the arrogant assumption
that only humans can change the climate and
only humans can save it. This is akin to
the Smokey the Bear commercials. Only *you*
can prevent forest fires. Which is ignorant
pap because forest fires are actually a good
thing... for the forest! Not for people.
The anti- side is essntially saying, "Your
stuff is insufficient to prove anything. At
best you don't have enough data". There is
no faith here on either side unless you're
grinding that agenda axe again.
\_ I'd say the pro side is saying "It looks
like we're changing the climate, and on
something this important we should err on
the side of caution." -pro person
\_ It looks like Iraq might have wmd
and on something this important we
should err on the side of caution
and invade the buggers.
\_ The anti-global warming crowd is
being scientific (skeptical) and stating
that the pro-global warming crowd's
evidence and proposed fixes are not
justified given the amount of information
we have. There are lots of other problems
that we could solve (global poverty for
ex.) using the money that the global
warming people want us to spend on
unproven methods that won't really
improve the quality of life for anyone.
\_ The anti-Iraq invasion crowd is being
scientific (skeptical) and starting
that the pro-invasion crowd's
evidence of WMD and links to terrorism
are not justified given the amount of
information we have. There are lots
of other problems that we could solve
using the money that the Iraq invasion
crowd did spend on an unproven invasion
that hasn't really improved the quality
of life for anyone.
\_ Scientific American, Nature and Science all have
debunked his "findings." You might claim that this
is just argument from authority, but the truth is
that these are the premier scientific publications
in the world and if they all agree on this fact,
then there is a very good chance that they are
correct and not the economically motivated reviews
in Business Week and the WSK. -ausman
in Business Week and the WSJ. Did you read the
Jan 2002 SciAM articles by the four scientists? -ausman
\_ I read the SciAm response. It was a collection of
logical fallacies. That was my /primary example/.
-emarkp
\_ I read the articles in Nature, Science and SciAm.
Frankly I was astonished that such remarkable
publications could stoop so low. The "response"
was in many ways restricted to particular bits
that the author has since posted updates and
clarifications to on this web page.
Some of the rebuttals sounded to me like the
desparate attempts of 19th century "scientists"
to keep darwin's ideas out of science.
The authors main point is that such narrow
thinking prevents us from seeing what the real
problems are (poverty, lack of education, &c.)
and solving those problems.
\_ most non millionaires think the book is a load of
crap,
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/environmentalist
\_ your reference for 'non millionaires' is http://csicop.org???
what does your class warfare mantra have to do with
anything?
\_ Go read Lomborg's pages on 'errors and corrections'
and 'critiques and replies'.
http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm
There may be some dubious references he's used but on the
whole the book is meticulously referenced and he has been
forthright in acknowledging any problems. His critics, on
the other hand, have been much less forthright or careful
about their criticism, relying on personal and political
attacks rather than debating the facts and policy proposals
as they should.
\_ i don't agree with the above 8 lines at all.
\_ thank you for adding nothing to this conversation.
\_ The funniest thing is that nations like Tuvula are
literally disappearing before our very eyes due to
global warming, while the coal lobby and their
allies continue to claim with a straight face that
no such thing as rising sea levels are occurring.
\_ no. TV is disappearing due to higher ocean levels.
no one knows if that is man made warming or natural
earth warming. there is a huge body of evidence that
supports the idea that this is part of a natural
cycle that we're not the cause of nor are we able to
influence cycles of that magnitude. the effect is
there but you assume there is only one possible cause.
\_ Looks like there's some disagreement in the comments above.
Decide for yourself. The Scientific American 11-page
criticism, and Lomborg's response to it, is posted at
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg . Read it and see what
you think. Personally, I think it makes SciAm look like a
bunch of politically-motivated idiots.
\_ Why look at an edited version that makes Lomborg look
better than he really does? The SciAm article, his
responses and replies to that and others are here:
http://www.csua.org/u/7uf
\_ freeze dried or freeze fried?
\_ I'm really not sure. The "science" of global warming is too
internally inconsistent and agenda ridden to figure out. |
| 2004/6/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30851 Activity:high |
6/16 California Ordered to Refund Enron $270M
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/energy_refunds
WTF? Can I blame Bush for this??
\_ Sorry, no. We have to refund them $270m so we can get our $2.#b
back from them. We can blame FERC for not ok'ing our $9b complaint
and Ahnuld for not following up on that.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
\_ what about Robert Rubin?
\_ Yes, all bad things are Bush's fault. All good things come from
Kerry and higher taxes.
arch liberal Kerry and higher taxes.
\_ Well someone's gotta pick up the tabs. So you think we can just
cut taxes for the fucking rich, blowing billions in a fucking
war for the rich, and then all the debt will just disappear?
\_ Cut spending if you don't have enough money?
\_ good idea. let's start with cutting the war in Iraq.
\_ If you were serious you'd be an isolationist like most
real conservatives. You want a big army to go into
foreign countries *you* feel should be invaded.
\_ let's just save up for the war in the USA |
| 2004/6/12-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30766 Activity:low |
6/11 Real World IKEA:
http://homepage.mac.com/noaheichen/iMovieTheater15.html
\_ Much more entertaining than MTV. Thank you.
\_ that was pretty funny. |
| 2004/6/4 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30610 Activity:nil |
6/4 Awesome! (But notice the lame quote by an "animal rights activist"
at the end of the article)
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/5/prweb128904.htm
\_ obviously fake. come on.
\_ Which part, the bear killing, the quote, or all of it?
\_ all of it. -tom |
| 2004/6/4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30598 Activity:high |
6/4 Fuck Enron, Fuck Bush! Bush is Capitalist Scumbag at its best,
yeah, let the market work it out, hehe.
\_ huh?
\_ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/us_enron_justice
\_ Too late. They fucked us first.
\_ How are you linking Bush to Enron? He didn't help them when they
asked for it. Ken Lay is *not* the Sec'y of Energy, etc. Most of
the abuses happened when Clinton was president and they got nailed
during Bush's administration.
\_ Because obviously EVERYTHING bad is Bush's fault, and
everything good comes from Democrates. Sheesh, some people
are so small minded.
\_ which obvious logical fallacy is this chump trying to
poop into our discourse? 2 points for a correct answer. -aaron
\_ straw man?
\_ coming from a self proclaimed troll and who gets
infuriated, like a little boy with his hand caught in the
cookie jar, when he's caught outright making shit up,
you're in position to be critical of others here.
\_ Enron was Bush's number one campaign contributor. Enron helped
write the American energy policies, in meetings that are still
being kept secret from the American public. The most severe
damage to California's economy from the power outages happened
on Bush's watch. California asked the Bush appointed FERC to
implement energy caps, which they refused to do. Need I go on?
\_ Enron was NOT the #1 campaign contributor (I know the Enron
yuks said that on the tape, but they were incorrect). How do
you know they helped write energy policies--last I checked the
meetings are STILL secret, and congress still hasn't passed
Bush's energy bill. As for caps, conservatives are against
them in general.
\_ http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=E&Cycle=2000
We know that Enron attended the energy meeting hearings.
The notes of those meetings are being kept from the
public. Did you honestly not know this, or are you being
disingenuous?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=220
\_ Are you obtuse? His energy policy wasn't passed. It
doesn't matter if the only thing to come out of the
meetings was a plan to actively fuck CA and divert
Iraqi war funds into Ken Lay's pocket. Nothing came
of any of it.
\_ Uh, yeah. The energy bill currently in Congress
has not passed. That's just a portion of the
administration's policy.
\_ Your link shows Enron at the top of the list in the
energy industry, not overall. I know that Enron-related
people were in the meeting, but neither you nor I know
what was said. Keep using that tin-foil hat.
\_ Don't need it. The SC will pry it open soon enough.
\_ Did you look at the publicintegrity link? Enron
was Bush's number one lifetime contributor in 2000.
Until very recently, they were still number 1. So
let's see, we know that Bush met with his number
one lifetime contributor in the midst of the CA
energy crises. We know he has sued to keep the
notes from that meeting public. We know he appointed
Enron executives to his cabinet. Yet you still
maintain that Bush has "no links to Enron." Keep
dreaming, bub.
\_http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/contrib/P00003335.htm
\_ http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=1&act=cp |
| 2004/6/2 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30538 Activity:moderate |
6/1 Just like we told you at the time, Enron deliberately
withheld energy to drive up prices and cause outages in CA:
http://csua.org/u/7jn
\_ obWDYHA?
\_ Uh, yeah? Everyone knew that. |
| 2004/6/1 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30521 Activity:high |
6/1 Energy from the gulf stream: http://www.floridahydro.com/Technology.htm \_ So, it doesn't get all gunked up over time? \_ it probably would - this would be a scaleability issue. \_ It would depend on the surface coating and rotation speed. |
| 2004/5/25-26 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30406 Activity:high |
5/24 http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+%27Day+After+Tomorrow%27%3A+A+lot+of+hot+air&expire=&urlID=10526977&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F2004-05-24-michaels_x.htm&partnerID=1660 My favorite lines from movie preview: "How do I know so much about a movie that isn't out yet? I've seen the promos, and I've read and reviewed the book upon which it is based, The Coming Global Superstorm by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. In Strieber's previous work, Communion, he explained that he was told of the Earth's upcoming apocalypse by aliens. And how this knowledge was communicated is much more the purview of an adult Web site than a family newspaper." \_ Long enough link for ya? Geez. http://csua.org/u/7fw \_ It's funny-- I found myself agreeing with the first part of this article: The Day After Tomorrow suffers from scientific implausability on the same scale as, say, Battlefield Earth. Then Michaels started bashing Global Warming in general, and I started thinking, what the hell? And then I read the bio at the bottom, and it all made sense: "Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute...." \_ The Free Market will save the environment! If people put a dollar amount on it, we will stop destroying the environment! \_ Pay a man to stop polluting, and he'll stop polluting as long as you pay him. Shoot a man for polluting, and no one else will ever pollute. \_ 2 polluters will take his place. So you're in favor of the death penalty? \_ Sure, as long as you're 100% certain the perp did the crime. Me, I think we should make war profiteering punishable by the death penalty as well, so there you go. --erikred \_ War is a business, too. You think the government should take over all the military related businesses and run them itself at cost? Why not just have the government take over all businesses? Capitalism is evil! Death to BushCo! American credibility around the world has been destroyed for generations! \_ War should not be a business. Making weapons and defense systems is a business, but it is wrong and immoral to attempt to stir up more demand for this product a la Coke and Pepsi. Understand that there is more to living on this planet than making a buck. \_ no one needs to stir up the war business. people have been doing that just fine on their own since one guy figured out how to whack another guy with a stick or a rock or his bare fist. modern weapons just make it more efficient. \_ If you make him pay to pollute at all, all you have to do is make sure the pollution rights are expensive enough. There was a study which suggested that the "environmental services" of the Earth would cost $100-trillion per year if replaced by industry. \_ Good plan. Let's replace the earth. I didn't like this one anyway. \_ It's great that Art Bell has come so far into the mainstream. not. \_ dunno about you, but I'm watching this movie becuase I would like the next Ice Age to happen, and I don't particularly care about how it happens. Comet, Nuke Winter, whatever. \_ The previews lost me when they showed a wave hitting New York and none of the buildings collapsed. Good thing water has no mass.... \_ But its still not as bad as the Worst. Movie. Physics. Ever. found in The Core. For more ratings go here to Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics: http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics \_ Also good is the Bad Astronomy page (movies too) http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies \_ This guy's preamble on Armageddon made my day. |
| 2004/5/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30395 Activity:kinda low |
5/24 Slashdot reports on Iter, the fusion-reactor project:
http://csua.org/u/7fi
BBC article at:
http://csua.org/u/7fj
Story says the 1kg of fusion fuel could produce "the same amount of
energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel." How much energy is required
to get that reaction?
\_ This post badly misinterprets the articles. Read them.
\_ Does this fix satisfy you?
\_ 1kg of fusion fuel, obviously. |
| 2004/5/21-22 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30357 Activity:nil |
5/21 Sen. Inhofe: Taxpayer Funded Radicals Unethical
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/21/144238.shtml
Federal Grants Awarded to Environmental NGOs, 1997 -2001
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngochart.shtml |
| 2004/5/20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30315 Activity:nil |
5/20 The End Is Here! The WSJ op/ed and tom are both talking about the
tragedy of the commons!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103 |
| 2004/5/15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30236 Activity:very high |
5/14 Under the new order ... issued Thursday, Sanchez and his staff will
no longer consider any extraordinary interrogation methods other
than putting prisoners alone in cells or in small groups segregated
from the general prison population for more than 30 days. Regular
interrogation techniques such as direct questioning of detainees
without physical contact will remain allowable without special
approval. -Washington Post
\_ great... interogate them with a cushy pillow and mud facial.
\_ cool, now even more americans will die because we can't use the
most basic and trivial techniques that are used in police departs
around the world. thank you leftist scum for killing more people.
\_ and those parts of the world suck . have fun in egypt
\_ egypt? parts of the world? any police force in the US is
allowed more 'techniques' than that. read a newspaper lately?
\_ I hope you end up in prison, sodomized with a broomstick,
by a prison guard. It would only be just. |
| 2004/5/13-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30209 Activity:very high |
5/13 Gore says new movie is about Global warming? isn't it about
the coming Ice Age (which is the reverse of Global warming?)
\_ Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Go buy that
H2 you've always wanted.
\_ Nah, fuck the H2. Go for the M1A1 Abrams. Radiation hardened
AND you can just drive over all the other cars in the event
of a traffic jam.
\_ Nah, H2 is just an overpriced Chevy. Go for the original Hummer.
\_ Gore stated long ago that Earth will become a Greenhouse
planet like Mercury due to Global warming, but recently he
changed it to Global warming bringing upon Ice Age earlier
than usual.
\_ Sure he did.
\_ which movie?
\ "The Day After Tomorrow"
\_ Mercury is a greenhouse planet? Mercury has an atmosphere?
\_ Apparently above poster doesn't know his Venus from his
Mercury - and likely not his asshole from his elbow?
\_ which movie?
\_ "The Day After Tomorrow"
\_ Global warming causes the Gulf Stream -- which brings warmth to
the East Coast -- to stop, causing a premature ice age on both
sides of the Atlantic. The science actually shows that the Gulf
Stream will slow down a little, but will be outweighed by the
effect of greenhouse gases, i.e., global warming.
\_ Jet stream flows west to east, dictates east coast
weather.
\_ You do realize that Gulf Stream != Jet Stream, yes?
\_ No I had no idea, living in several parts of
east coast for 15 years. Thanks, and please
read the aforementioned comment again.
\_ Don't be so defensive, pal -- no insult was
intended.
\_ I'm not your pal. Reading
comprehension is a good thing.
\_ So is topical relevancy, numbnuts.
Apparently fools live on the East Coast
also -- some for 15 years or more!
\_ what does "both sides
of the atlantic" mean to you???
Can you find even find Berkeley
on a map?
\_ Are you freaking retarded? Do
you even know what you're saying?
You can't even post to motd
correctly.
\_ I forgot all about geology, but find the above funny.
\_ depends on which hemisphere, too?
\_ "the science"? What do you mean by outweighed?
The ocean is the biggest factor in temperature regulation,
more than atmospheric stuff. But the interrelated system is
not predictable to any precision. The only concensus of sorts
is that yes, human activities affect global ecosystems and
climates.
\_ I mean exactly what I said. Although it is certainly your
right to argue against global warming models.
\_ "outweighed" is meaningless without more adjectives. do
you mean "the science" says that in spite of a slower
gulf stream, east coast/europe would become warmer? this
in spite of other science which indicates that warmer
atmosphere could cause the gulf stream to go even slower
or basically cease etc. So it's not like they're just
independent things and "the science" cannot predict
exactly what the equilibrium point would be.
\_ I think I should just replace "The science shows" with
"Many global weather models show". I think this is
better, and perhaps would also satisfy you? |
| 2004/5/13-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30203 Activity:high |
5/13 Crap! Global Cooling!
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html
\_ Crap! A right-wing think tank position paper posing as science!
\_ Crap! They have backed up info, what have you got?
\_ What they have is selective citation of articles
to force a statement they want to hear out of research that
said something else. This is the right wing noise machine at
work. It is a relatively efficient conversion of money into
flim flam. -- ulysses
\_ why are you posting this page from 2/2002 like it's news?
And did you actually read the Science article? It says:
"the positive imbalance [ice being added to the sheet]
is driven not by climate-related changes in
accumulation or melt, but rather by the internal
ice-stream dynamics that led to the stoppage of Ice Stream C."
The article is about how ice flows, not climate change. -tom
\_ How do you separate the two??
\_ Clearly you didn't read the article, or else you
didn't understand it. -tom
\_ Global Dimming!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/science/13DARK.html |
| 2004/5/11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30156 Activity:high |
5/10 partha, stop breaking up my posts in the middle, wait till the
\_ And use '\_' not '\-' luser
paragraph is over then post something ok? Stop being such a major
\- sorry about that. ok thx.
*ucking rude prick.
\_ hey, asshole. if you delete my anti censorship post about fucktards
who write "*uck" instead of "fuck" one more time, you will have
started a fucking nuclear war. fucker.
\_ hey, asshole. if you delete my anti censorship post about *ucktards
who write "*uck" instead of "*uck" one more time, you will have
started a *ucking nuclear war. *ucker.
\_ *uck off!! hahahahahahahhahaha
\_ f*ck you too! |
| 2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29991 Activity:moderate |
5/4 On Cheney (Guardian UK): http://csua.org/u/76f \- i wish that had been a better article. the success of dick cheney is a product of people valuing niceness over principle ... "well he might be an evil fucker, but he is nice to me" --psb |
| 2004/4/30-5/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13506 Activity:high |
4/30 Commie, America hating Scientific American weighs in
on the Bush Administration's science policy:
http://csua.org/u/74x
\_ More like Scientific UnAmerican!
\_ Some ppl take this freedom of speech thing too damn
far! where's the patriot act when you need it?
\_ Soon, baby. |
| 2004/4/15-16 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:13221 Activity:high |
4/15 "I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the
oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was
concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields
would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And
that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people [and my friends].
It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country."
-- President Bush
\_ Whoah! "Pretty Darn Significant" -- I guess the invasion won't cost
so darn much after all?
\_ how do you measure the cost of 10,000 iraqi civilians killed
by accident?
\_ What do you care? Do you hate America?
\_ nice little troll
\_ duh. by barrels of oil.
\_ Barrels of oil imported from Saudi Arabia? |
| 2004/4/2-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:13000 Activity:kinda low |
4/2 The WTO has anti-dumping provisions. Third-world countries complain
that the US and Europe destroy their farming industry by flooding the
market with subsidized production. Who don't any third-world countries
bring a case in the WTO, since subsidized products are being sold
below cost?
\_ they did. Remember what happened to Cancun, Mexico?
\_ Theoretically, a 3rd world country only counts as 1/3 of a country,
hence the name. However, it really counts much less than that.
\_ umm, so you're saying a 2nd world country only counts as 1/2
of a country?
\_ W0W! URS0K3WL!
\_ so you're saying the 3rd world isn't allowed to complain to the
WTO and only has 1/3rd or less of a vote there? URL?
\_ the guy is a moron. what he thinks is the origin of the
term "3rd world country" is way off the mark.
\_ it comes from a mid-19th century french term meaning
"third estate." during the cold war, the "second world"
came to mean the Communist bloc countries, the "first
world" was the western industrialized nations, and
the "third world" was everyone else. obgoogle.
the 1/3 vote thing was made up by a motd troll.
\_ no shit, sherlock. who asked you, anyway?
\_ You are the next Einstein for figuring out that it was
a troll rather than a joke. However, the rest of your
utterance was wrong. 1st world referred to the
two superpowers, 2nd referred to the rest of the
industrialized countries. 3rd world consisted
of the poor countries, which, by "sheer coincidence,"
are also the "non-aligned." That was during the
the cold war. Oh wait, you mentioned google and
if you found your answer by google, you must be right.
\_ as they say, never attribute to trolling that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
\_ Sir, you made my day.
\_ interesting thought -- can we use anti-dumping provisions on the
labor market?
\_ you mean to stop the flood of cheap american jobs to other
countries?
\_ Wasn't there rounds and rounds of trade talks with regard to
this issue, the last one was in Brazil and collapsed. Are
those part of a WTO process?
\_ arent these the same fuckers who came to Seattle a year or two
ago? yeah, we really fucked their shit up!
\_ I think you mean five years ago. yer old. |
| 2004/3/25-26 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12856 Activity:low |
3/25 Greenhouse gas hits a record high:
http://www.newscientist.com//ews//ews.jsp?id=ns99994802
\_ Rush Limbaugh told me that global warming was a myth.
\_ My Little Pony told me to kill mommy and daddy.
\_ Let's all ride bicycles. You can start by turning off your
computer forever and giving up your vegetarian diet. |
| 2004/3/18 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:12743 Activity:nil |
3/18 I love this. What do we do when we found out Pakistan was selling
nuclear technology to N.Korea, and other so-called "rogue nation?"
We forgave 480 million USD of debt. How ironic we actually invade
Iraq for the same reason. Moral of the story? This is not about
WMD, it's about being on the good side of USA.
\_ Well duh, we're the good guys. |
| 2004/3/11-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12618 Activity:nil |
3/11 Will the End of Oil Mean the End of America?
http://csua.org/u/6eb
\_ My question is, when will american companies/government actually
start putting money into R&D again. I heard an imbalanced metaphor
the other day: "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of
stones" with the corrolary that we won't stop using oil because we
run out. I think, there are changes in the approach to the market
that make this comparison ring false. There is no market pressure
to actually make a shift (i.e. competition -- warring tribes and
the need for better tools/weapons). We _will_ have a problem
sometime, and it's imprudent not to invest in research. Hell, look
at Ford licensing Toyota hybrid tech. We've gotten lazy, research-
wise. --scotsman
\_ Drilling and burning oil is the easiest and cheapest way of using
energy on a grand scale right now. When that runs out, we will
have to switch to something else. However, since it is such a
huge part of the overall energy picture, the costs/pain
associated with switching may be unbearable. And don't bring up
the whale oil argument -- at that time industrial production and
world population was a fraction of what it is today.
\_ My question is, will the fact that "The sky is falling"
eco-nuts have been completely wrong on every single prediction
they've ever made ever stop anyone from listening to them?
\_ How about the fact that the "eco-nuts" writing this stuff are
now petroleum scientists?
\_ google "world fish population"
\_ More nuts: http://csua.org/u/6ea
\_ You know, the Earth has been getting hotter the past 100 years...
\_ So has yermom.
\_ obObligatory.
\_ You know, the global tempeture has been fluctuating for
umpteen billion years. Not to meantion, in the 70's
the prediction was "Global Cooling!" "New ice age!" Heck
that was the prediction in 1998 when the global temp
data came in and they suddely the realized the global
temp had actually fallen over the last 10 years....
\_ I love how the conservative wingnuts keep trotting out
one study from 30 years ago as "proof" that currently
accepted and peer-reviewed climate models are
inaccurate. And you know, the Earth probably doesn't
revolve around the Sun, because those scientists used to
say that it was the other way around! -tom
\_ I'd like to hear your response to this:
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data
Base and Northern Hemisphere Average
Temperature Series
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
\_ My response is that you can find a scientist
to say anything, including that AIDS doesn't
exist and the Holocaust didn't happen. I am
not a climatologist and am not qualified to
evaluate the discrepancies between the two
papers: however, you yourself can read the
rebuttal by the original paper's authors.
This is what the peer review process is about.
It is a common tactic of those with an agenda
to publicize the papers of scientists on one
side of the debate, even when those papers
have been discredited or did not pass formal
review. And even if McIntyre's objection is
correct, his revision still shows a spike of
0.5 degrees since 1900. -tom
\_ If "formal review" and acceptance by the
"scientific community" were the be-all end-all
of debate then the planet would still be flat,
dragons would still be flying, mice would
still emerge fully grown from old rags and
rotted seeds and the sun would revolve around
the Earth.
\_ So basically you have no reply, you take
other's 'science' at face value when they
clearly have an agenda. It's not just one
scientist but hundreds if not thousands...
One can say CO2 levels have risen in the
20th century and maybe 0.5 a degree over
the century, most during the first half.
That is all there appears to be concensus
on. The rest is all rhetoric to raise
grant money.
\_ What is your reply to Mann's rebuttal?
Or should I just check the blogs on
http://freerepublic.com? -tom
\_ If you read their initial response
from Oct. 29 2003 Mann's behavior
is very suspicious:
link:csua.org/u/6eh
Later, they also give a more detailed
description of the same run-around.
Don't you agree that for such an important
study the data sets / programs
should be readily accessible
for verification?
\_ no, it's tom. you're wasting
your time. there's no point in
discussing any of his hot button
issues or really much of anything
else with him. he's always right
you're always wrong and you get
a dose of childish insults to go
with it. please just ignore him.
he doesn't even see that he's the
ultimate troll because it comes
naturally to him, he isn't doing
it for amusement.
\_ it worked on you, twink
\_ It's just tom. Don't take it so
seriously. No one else does.
\_ Bad argument. Oil is not a milkshake. It doesn't "suddenly" end,
it just gets more and more expensive to extract. That higher price
will force changes to societal change to energy policy.
\_ But if production starts to decline and demand is going up up
up (China, India, Brazil) WTF is going to happen to our totally
oil-centric economy?
\_ It's called nuclear power. Ever heard of it? We should've been
using it and continually refining process to use it but the
eco-terrorists were very successful in banning it.
\_ It takes shitloads of oil to mine and refine fuel
for nuclear power plants. How are you going to run your
Hummer on Plutonium? It takes years and years to build a
nuclear power plant, we would have to start building
dozens and dozens of them years ago to make a dent in
electricity production. Only very large ships can be
nuclear.
\_ You put a battery in it.
\_ Actually you just use the energy to either put in a
battery or produce e.g. hydrogen. But you are left with
a bunch of extremely toxic shit that no one knows what
to do with, plus other dangers. Too much.
\_ There's not very much Uranium in the world, buddy.
\_ says who? Breeder reactors are already leaving us with
way too much toxic crap to deal with.
\_ According to a wikipedia article: "Uranium is
currently (2004) US$52/Kg ($26/lb), and has an energy
density per unit of mass of about a million times that
of oil. No shortage exists or is anticipated. If
land-based reserves are exhausted, seawater has enough
uranium to power the world's current industrial
civilization until the sun becomes a red giant. The
Japanese have an active project to extract Uranium
from seawater, to reduce their dependence on imports
for energy.
\_ holy shit! stop bringing numbers and facts here!
\_ We will use Unobtainium!
\_ No, we'll use windships. http://www.braunforpresident.us
\_ Hey, that's a cool site!
\_ I think people should read his position papers. He
makes a lot of logical points.
\_ My favorite: "a shop vacuum is also a highly
effective method of eliminating the pests."
[insects] |
| 2004/2/29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12450 Activity:high |
2/29 Here's the only sensible middle ground reasonably non-partisan
article on global warming I've ever seen. The executive summary for
the lazy: we don't really know, it's frustrating but we don't think
the end of the world is upon us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/weekinreview/29revk.html?ex=1078635600&en=f83f2670a1159542&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
\_ so...by "non-partisan" you mean information-free? Personally,
the more i learn about the data and simulations behind climate
prediction, the more I'm skeptical of *any* statement on either
side. If someone says "everythings fine, don't worry about
a couple hundred ppm of extra CO_2", my answer is "bullshit."
If they say the sky is falling, and CO_2 is some majic thermostat
that the global climate must follow, I also say "bullshit."
\_ Not at all. It simply admits that there might be some bad shit
going on but they don't know how bad, they don't know if we're
at all close to a magic tipping point, they're concerned about
it, seem to believe it would be prudent to take it seriously,
but aren't yet ready to declare the sky is falling. It was
honest. How much information do you want? They admit they don't
have enough and in fact say how difficult it is dealing with
people who want solid hard facts such as yourself when those
facts simply don't exist to that level of certainty. You seem to
be mostly in agreement with the scientists in the article and
with me. |
| 2004/2/19-6/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12323 Activity:very high |
6/2 I'm no liberal, but non-politically speaking, what are the
most efficient and most cost effective alternative fuel sources?
\_ Solar, using as-yet-uninvented technology unrelated to present
technology. Solar power with close to zero cost that can be
incorporated into pavement would give us the 40 TW we'll need.
The most cost-effective way to spend money on energy is to
put money towards basic research in the physical sciences
that will lead to this(or some equivalent) breakthrough.
\_ Solar is a crock. There's a tremendous amount of incredibly
toxic sludge produced as a byproduct of creating solar cells.
I wish you pro-solar-the-sun-is-free freaks would pick up a book
and learn what you're trying to dump in the rivers before you
push more of that shit into the water table.
\_ Read my post again, jackoff. when I say "as-yet-uninvented
technology" I'm not talking about better pn junctions.
That's the point.
\_ Hmm, I sense a big argument coming, but if you want to talk about
energy _sources_ rather than energy _carriers_ (like hydrogen),
I'd go with biodiesel. I'm sure someone will chime in here with
Uranium, but of course Uranium has a rather short Hubbert's peak.
\_ Isn't this like methanol where the energy costs to harvest
the ingredients to produce a single ounce of biodiesel is
actually greater than the amount of energy it yields?
\_ That's a loss in any scenario that doesn't involve mining
an pre-existing energy source. The point is that you
are converting carbon dioxide and sunlight (and some other
stuff) into a usable fuel here and now rather than flooding
millenia-worth of reduced carbon into the atmosphere over
a few decades, as is currently the case. It's a loop rather
than shunt.
\_ There's a difference between a loss and being inefficient.
For example, take the case of fossil fuel. Suppose you
wanted to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. You need the
energy to explore, drill, transport, refine, transport,
and when you finally put it in your car, it doesn't
convert all the energy into useful energy. But the point
is that the amount of energy you spend to do everything
I mentioned above is still less than the amount of
energy yielded by 1 gallon of gasoline. It's inefficient
but it's not a net loss. The point is that in a closed
system, your fuel source needs to be self-sustaining.
The amount of energy required to operate the oil
industry is less than the amount of energy it produces.
You can use the energy produced by oil to run the oil
industry (until we run out).
actually greater than the amount of energy it yeilds?
\_ We are actually agreeing with each other but
approaching from different sides so I'll just stop
here.
\_ do you have a quick summary of biodiesel? Yes, I could
obGoogle, but I want to hear it in your words.
\_ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/biodiesel.html
\_ interesting. it sounds like it still needs to be mixed
with diesel fuel. Doesn't diesel fuel have
an environmental impact?
\_ In fact, engines can be modified or redesigned to
support neat (100%) biodiesel, providing a 75%
reduction in CO2 emission over regular diesel.
Also, diesel engines are usually twice as fuel
efficent as their gasoline equivalent in miles per
gallon - though with a different performance envelope
of course. Interestingly, diesel is much more
accepted as a fuel in Europe where its increased
efficiency is very desirable, and almost all European
car companies sell diesel equipped versions of their
entire line (BMW and MBZ in particular). Why these
cars are not offered in America is beyond me.
\_ There are a lot of diesels here; however, even
buses and trucks running on "green" diesel, and
newer CRDs fucking _reek_. Try driving behind
one some time and see what I mean. I have no idea
exactly what they're cranking out, but nothing that
smells so shitty can possibly be kosher. One thing
you're seeing more often is soot particle-burning
cars (although most manufacturers aren't too keen
on manufacturing them, for cost reason I guess)
which fry a lot of the unburned shit that every
diesel (or gasoline) engine emits. They may be
be a bit better, but they also stink. What's
really interesting is that apparently a lot of
older Mercedes diesels (like the 300) will run
on heating oil or even vegetable cooking oil. -John
\_ But you don't want to do that (run on oil) unless
you are willing to spend a lot of time cleaning
and otherwise taking care of the engine.
Incidentally, most diesel emissions do smell
worse than gas emissions, but are actually less
harmful overall. -- ilyas
\_ Remember that not all environmental
impact is measurable in terms of particles
emitted. Noise and smell are regrettable
parts of traffic for people living by
large roads. As for the Mercs I am
talking about--there's a reason you see
almost none of them on Western European
streets--most of them were sold to North
Africa and Eastern Europe, as they're near
impossible to break, will run on nearly
cars are not offered in America is beyond me.
cars are not offered in America is beyond me.
anything combustible, and require almost
no engine maintenance beyond adding oil.
For more complex engines, yes, you are
absolutely correct. -John
\_ Pollution. Seen the Colosseum lately?
\_ biodiese allows for the possibility of a zero
CO_2 emmisions system, since the CO_2 you
produce is balanced by the CO_2 you absorb
when growing the fuel. That's the point.
\_ But only if the fuel source (corn, or what
have you) is not grown using petroleum based
fertilizer. Whether or not there is an organic
fertilizer solution that produces the same
yield, I don't know yet.
\_ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/p_single_faq.cgi?13
yield information.
\_ Very cool, but that doesn't answer the
yield, I don't know yet.
question about petroleum-based fertilizer.
Given that most soybeans are grown by
gigantic corporations like ConAgra, I'm
betting that they use whatever fertilizer
gives the highest yield, regardless of its
source.
\_ Is there any research on how much fuel biodiesel costs
to produce?
\_ It is pretty cheap to produce if using recycled cooking
oil, but that is hardly scalable. For straight from
soy you can take the fact from the above link (1.4
gallons per bushel of soy) and the costs of a bushel
of soy from here:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/baumel/BaumelDec00.htm
\_ Is there any research on how much fuel biodiesel costs
to produce?
and do some quick back-of-the napkin calculations on
the least it could cost, which is already much higher
than we pay for gas. (but might look sweet if the
nut-job who was talking about being already past
our "peak-oil" production turns out to be right...
Well, except that, of course, these numbers DO assume
petroleum based fertilizers). -phuqm
\_ In 50 years, if we become desperate, couldn't we use nuclear
power and start researching better ways to reduce the environmental
impact of nuke power?
\_ Yes, but the problem is that we'd run out of Uranium really fast
\_ At least we'll have something to give to the Iranians
as a goodwill gesture. -John
and then be even worse off than we were before.
\_ with reprocessing and breeder reactors we could last a
really long time. Should be long enough to lick the fusion
thing.
\_ Mmmm, breeder reactors. But with that much extra
to produce?
would make it through the resulting five or six nuclear
wars.
plutonium running around, and all the cultural upheavals
caused by the end of the Oil Age, I doubt the population
would make it through the resulting five or six nuclear
wars.
\_ At least we'll have something to give to the Iranians
as a goodwill gesture. -John
\_ I like the "end of the Oil Age"
\_ There's already plenty of plutonium floating around,
especially in Japan and France. The cat was out of that
bag years ago.
\_ Fusion research may solve that. I hope.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE?
\_ Hydrogen stuff is promising. Nuclear is the best we have today.
I keep hoping some clever young Russian figures out fusion.
-- ilyas
\_ How is hydrogen promising? It's got good energy density but how
is it cost effective or efficient?
\_ Hydrogen has lots of problems with storage and transport.
Ethanol and Methanol make more sense, they are close in
energy density (about 1/2) to oil.
\_ Well, you are right in that hydrogen isn't 'ready.' I think
it's 'promising' because if we have hydrogen, we can get a
lot of energy out of it, and it seems like if we try, we will
find a way to produce it cheaply without spending a lot of
energy (it's the most common element in the universe, after
all). -- ilyas
\_ I thought 'stupidity' was the most common element in the
universe. And I don't think some clever young russian is
going to solve anything anytime soon. He's too busy
driving a cab or running guns/drugs/sex slaves to feed his
family to worry about physics and chemistry.
\_ I think Russia has some pretty kick ass plasma research
and some really impressive metallurgical tech. I think
the previous likely matches or exceeds the US, and the
latter was ahead until recently.
\_ And will continue to decline. We already bought
their best metals and materials guys years ago.
\_ w00t!
\_ Isn't hydrogen not an alternative energy source? The energy
needed to make hydrogen comes from fossil or nuclear.
\_ Energy is required to extract it, which makes it more like
a storage medium than an actual energy source. That energy
required can be wind, solar, etc. If we get badass fuel
cells, maybe you could actually have some hydrogen plant
on the edge of a body of water that powered itself.
\_ So how's that patent on a perpetual motion machine going?
\_
\_ I had it licked but then BushCo and the eevvvill OilCo
Execs with the help of GM and Bigfoot (through his
proxy, Elvis) stopped me!
\_ Nuclear
\_ Agreed, it's currently nuclear.
\_ That's nu-ku-lar.
\_ Only if you're from the South, like Jimmy Carter, the
first nu-ku-lar President.
\_ Carter has an additional digit in his IQ.
\_ Ah, so now that you realize Bush's
pronuciation is the same as your hero's,
you're reverted to even more
petty attacks. Good show old boy!
\_ Coal
\_ +++ cost-effective
- efficient
\_ --------- dirty.
\_ And we can afford clean for how many more years?
\_ At least 50-100 years on nukes alone. Possible longer but
it's hard to say since the anti-nuke lobby has prevented
any serious research in that area.
\_ The two legitimate problems with nuclear power are
(a) Chernobyl (accidental or terrorism-related)
(b) Another source of nuclear material for terrorists
(c) Storing the waste somewhere
\_ I'm going to say (c) is a subset of (b). Also,
the quantity of waste is far less than with
coal/oil, which "disappears into the air
somewhere". If you say, "Well, no state wants
to store it", I'll say this is a political
problem, which is not a "legitimate problem"
as I'm defining it.
The problem with coal/oil/gas is:
(a) You're going to run short in the near future
(b) All that smoke is going somewhere (less so with
"clean" coal and gas)
\_ Alternatives will include a combination of nuclear (unfortunately),
wind, solar -- There is no magic bullet. www.iogen.ca has a neat
process of turning farm waste into ethanol, could be used to replace
a good chunk of oil.
\_ I learned that the first commercial turkey waste -> oil factory
was opened recently. The problem is, there's not enough organic
waste to feed the demand for oil. -- ilyas
\_ Also that system wouldn't scale -- Raising animals is very
energy intensive especially with factory farms. However,
there is lots and lots of farm waste from growing crops.
That turkey processing operation only make a piddling amount
of oil but the technology is very interesting, every little
bit helps. There are also pilot projects in CA to turn
cow shit methane into power. |
| 2004/2/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12316 Activity:high |
2/18 just to remind you: the tubes found in Iraq could not have been
used as centrifuges. Nuclear (not "nukuler") experts all agree.
Disagree at your own peril, neocon. Your lies are being exposed.
\_ This is very old news. I read about this at least two months
ago. Nobody cares.
\_ 1) URL? 2) There are no 'neocons' on the motd 3) The first
president to say "nukular" was Jimmy Carter, also a southerner,
so get over it or stop showing off your ignorance and youth.
4) tubes? frankly, who gives a shit? join the rest of us in today.
5) troll. 6) yawn.
\_ Re: 3: URL? Carter was an officer on a nuclear sub and had a
BS from the US Naval Academy... perhaps you're thinking of his
brother?
\_ Fuck you and your url's. Eveyone who doesn't live in
a box and communicate with the outside world through
usenet, slashdot and the motd knows this; and I actually
*like* Carter.
\_ Uh huh. And it couldn't just be another urban legend that
\_ Uh huh. And it couldn't be another urban legend that
you've never questioned? Perhaps only cromulent people
who read freerepublic know this as gospel truth?
\_ I don't read freerepublic. Since it's a slow day
at work, I'll choose to humor your dumb ass:
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/0140.html
From American Heritage:
"You may want to avoid this pronunciation despite the
fact that it has been used in the recent past by some
prominent speakers including Presidents Eisenhower
and Carter."
\_ Thanks.
\_ "Nuclear" is just a hard word to say. It seems
to break all the usual rules of English
pronunciation - of course, the confounding part
about English for non-speakers is just how many
words break those rules.
\_ I'm sorry, but that's an uncromulent use of the word
cromulent.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent
\_ If you really have to ask for a URL for #1: -!op
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
Anyways, you're late. The Bush line is now "it was the CIA's
fault since we all believed he had them, and anyway, he had
WMD before and used them to kill tens of thousands, was
thumbing his nose at the world, and we were going to make
an example out of him to back up resolutions that the UN
would not". |
| 2004/2/17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29806 Activity:nil |
2/16 We are so screwed: http://www.oilcrash.com/eating.htm |
| 2004/2/17-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12286 Activity:high |
2/17 When will this story explode in the mainstream media?
http://www.csua.org/u/61b
\_ Dude. Who the fuck is the moron peak oil troll? Is there some
bored 9-5 wage slave who has nothing better to do with his time
than change his troll alteregos like gloves? One day he's a chicom
troll, the next he is a peak oil troll, next week he ll probably be
the judomason troll. WTF!
\_ Hm. Well, I posted the original thing about Peak Oil, but all
of the posts since then haven't been me - maybe I inspired some
poor liddle twoll who didn't have a topic of his own?
-- !peak oil troll
\_ What's 'judomason'? I've never heard of that before.
\_ obgoogle: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/masonjews.htm
\_ objackass. the term "judomason" appears nowhere in
your link.
\_ You don't have to be a genius to try "jew mason".
Actually I'm not the guy who said judomason but it's
pretty simple to see what it refers to. Unless you're
some kind of dumbass.
\_ No, that would be "judeo" not "judo" which I think
is an asian martial art. |
| 2004/2/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12285 Activity:kinda low |
2/17 The weird weather in Europe might not be global warming:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994684
\_ Of course it might not be. It might be caused by alien mutants.
Trust no one.
\_ God damn it! I'm so sick of hearing about global warming! What
happened to the perpetual winter I was promised when I was a kid?
Where is my never-melting snowman?!
\_ The goddam Russkies rolled over on us. |
| 2004/2/17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12279 Activity:moderate |
2/16 You can call the end of cheap oil "tin foil hat" hysterics, but even
according to documents from ExxonMobil it's true:
http://csua.org/u/60q
(see page 4)
lower 48 state oil discovery peaked in 1930
lower 48 state oil production peaked in 1970 (note 40 year gap)
world oil discovery peaked in 1964
It is now 40 years since 1964
It is not the end of oil ... it is the end of *cheap* oil upon which
our entire way of life depends. Is this so wacky?
\_ this is baloney. the world now has more known reserves than before.
the largest amount in saudi arabia. also extraction technology has
improved so yield are higher. YMWTS:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/BLOG/OnOil-psb.txt --psb
\_ Phew! Some handwaving from psb! With no facts, charts, etc., to
back it up! I can go to sleep tonight now! He's "pretty sure"
there are more known reserves!
\- by volume there certainly are more known reserves now
than ever before. i am not sure whether what this
volume means in time terms, i.e. flow or consumption,
volume means in terms time, i.e. flow or consumption,
it depends on how they do the projection. i was being
is at a all time peak or not ... and if so, obviously
it depends on how the do the projection. i was being
honest and candid. the "other side" usually is not.
e.g. see the hatchet job down on the "skeptical
environmentalist". there are several reference so
more authoritative sources in that mail. see e.g.
"power to the people" for the most recent ref.
i'm sorry if i disappointed you if you were expecting
a 4 color chart. --psb
\_ Read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" -- the author points out
a bet someone made (in 1990 IIRC) that in a decade 3 resources
would be cheaper and more plentiful. Three people took him up
on the bet and all lost. It turned out that *every* resource
\-that is the julian simon vs paul erlich bet. --psb
was more plentiful and cheaper (inflation adjusted) after a
decade. If oil becomes more expensive to acquire, it will be
economical to pursue other sources of oil or more expensive
extraction techniques. If all the oil disappeared overnight,
\- helo i am not an eco freak oil alarmist but it is fair
to say oil prices contain a lot of hidden subsidies and
these may artifically depress innovation in other energy
options. just like there are some pretty obvious subsidies
for "alternative" energy sourcest there are some really
obscure subsidies for oil [like the govt dredging
channels for oil tankers]. ok tnx. --psb
\_ the subsidies are for the pumpers, processors, movers,
and sellers. the end user eats all of that plus some
high taxes on it and is still quite happy to drive
high use, low efficiency vehicles. oil is still easy
enough to get and will be for the foreseeable future
but i agree with your basic point 100%. eventually oil
use will be too expensive and etc as you say but not
yet, perhaps because my tinfoil hat has a whole or my
RF shielding unit is low on power.
it would be a problem. But as costs rise, alternatives will
be viable. No chicken-little syndrome necessary. -emarkp
\_ I wouldn't say "entire way of life". There are other energy
technologies that would become more cost-effective if oil wasn't
so dirt cheap. It will lead to changes but massive global
catastrophe is tinfoil hat territory. Although that could happen
regardless.
\_ Yes, it is wacky because the technology required to get to the
deeper reserves continues to advance. We can relatively easily
reach oil reserves today that we couldn't even have found in 64.
They were saying the same shit all through the 70's. We were
supposed to be out by 1980, then it was 1990, then it was 2000 for
sure, now it's...? Wake me up when we run out if I haven't died of
old age by then.
\_ Please pay attention ... We are NOT running out. Production will
\_ 3x as much? Bullshit. That would mean we're running off oil
found decades ago and we should have run out in the 70s, or was
it the 80s, no wait, they really meant the 90s, oh damn, uhm,
let me check with my personal numerologist and get back to you!
simply slowly decrease after the peak. We are using 3 times as much
oil as we discover each year ... So that can't last. |
| 2004/2/15-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12263 Activity:high |
2/14 Not that any of you will heed any of this information, but:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
\_ this article is poorly written. It doesn't even address the actual
implications of an oil shortage, such as famine. It also
cites magic New Energy invented by Tesla. Don't get me wrong, I
not only believe in the coming catastrophic oil crisis; I am
counting on it as a bloodthirsty investor. But this guy is just
going off. His citations have quotes like the second to last
paragraph of http://csua.org/u/60g .
\_ vote for a guy who takes energy issues seroiusly. vote Harry Braun.
http://www.braunforpresident.us
\_ You can't be president unless you were in Skull & Bones.
\_ Do I need to state the obvious? People will start relying on
other forms of energy production. Duh. We are not going back to
the stone age.
\_ I think you need to read the whole page. There's a fairly
persuasive argument on why that won't help avert massive
catastrophe in the short term. Note that our current economy
is not based on the _existence_ of oil but an _abundance_ of
_affordable_ oil. Obviously, once the dust has
catastrophe in the short term. Obviously, once the dust has
cleared and most of us are dead, future civilizations will
rely on other forms of energy production.
\_ It doesn't make a persuasive argument at all. Think about
the shape of a bellcurve. People are not stupid. At worst,
I predict about 5-10 years of relative discomfort (i.e.
WWII style rationing, etc) while a LOT of resources are spent
on energy R&D. This is tinfoil hat fodder, sorry.
\_ i mostly agree with your conclusions, but people are stupid.
i think it's probably possible to cut our energy usage at
least 10% without great discomfort, just by not having a
bunch of idle computers on all the time, lights on when
no one's around, etc. unfortunately, stupid fuckers (like
some of you, i'm sure) never listen to this until the shit
really hits the fan. it's always discouraging to me when
i think about how many computers are on, doing pretty much
nothing, and how pretty much no one cares. also, not
everyone needs to have his own server on 24/7, but most
people who do it probably do it just to feel
cool/elite/whatever.
\_ People are stupid? Spoken like a typical
intellectually elitist cs geek. Do you ever stop
playing Doom and Everquest long enough to leave the
house, or do you just sit around brooding over your
Twinkies telling yourself how superior your intellect
makes you over the jocks that gave you wedgies in high
school? Grow up, son -- the real world isn't as
deterministic and simple as your 'intellectual' point of
view would seem to indicate.
\_ I think his argument that people are stupid is
very well-supported by evidence that he can obtain
by just leaving his house and going for a drive.
Roughly--60%? of the people out there are driving
gas-guzzling SUVs, which are almost the most
INefficient means of transport available. Ergo,
people are stupid, and what's more, wasteful, and
in a fit of spite, I'd be THRILLED if the gov't
slapped on a $4 gas tax and screwed SUV drivers.
I want the stupid waste to stop before all the
nasty economic consequences occur.
\_ I agree with you that SUV drivers are stupid
assholes. However, punishing them for driving
SUV's is going to make them into angry stupid
assholes. We can only win by better technology
and education (technology to make vehicles with
the look and feel of an SUV but without the
shitty gas milage, the visibility hazard or the
rollover hazard and education to teach people
that their choices matter.)
\_ Doesn't conservation just delay things? Oil
isn't growing back anytime soon. Also, we
do have hybrid tech for example which has
a vast gas-saving potential. But that's not
being pushed much by gov't.
\_ sure, but it buys us some more time,
assuming we're smart enough to take
advantage of it. which unfortunately,
we probably aren't.
\_ a decreased burn rate might mean that the
shortfall, when it happens, will have less
of a dangerous shock effect on the world
view would seem to indicate.
we probably aren't.
economy.
\_ making ad hominem attacks against someone you don't
even know is hardly a good way to make an argument.
son.
\_ Tee hee...true.
\_ Years of R&D and millions invested has yielded a "bike".
\_ enjoy biking your food across the country! Doom!
\_ Maybe we can bike to work and still
truck our food?
\_ The problem with these sorts of arguments is (among other things)
they're always very black and white. They assume technology will
never improve or change. They assume the world is static and will
just grind into entropic nothing. If that were so we never would
have left an agriculture based society that was barely life
sustaining. We're not hooked on oil, but on advancing technology.
Everything is ok and will continue to be ok until the day some numb
rely on other forms of energy production.
son.
\_ enjoy biking your food across the country! Doom!
\_ Maybe we can bike to work and still
truck our food?
nuts decides we should stop spending on tech research.
\_ Indeed, in the 19th century we feared the end of the supply
of *whale* *oil*. |
| 2004/2/6-7 [Science/Biology, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12140 Activity:nil |
2/6 In biology, how is a species classified as Old World or New World?
\_ http://csua.org/u/5vp
\_ yer mom - old world. |
| 2004/2/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12137 Activity:high |
2/6 Global Warming is shrinking the atmosphere:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994650
\_ yay! we save on satellites!
\_ Global Warming doesn't exist.
\_ Silly troll. Global warming exists. At dispute is how much
warming, whether it's a bad thing, and whether humans caused (or
can do anything about) it. |
| 2004/2/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12127 Activity:nil |
2/6 WSJ babbles incoherently about WMD and whatever.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004651
\_ It's a nice theory: We invaded Iraq, therefore Libya gave up their
weapons, Iran capitulated to inspections, and the lone weapons-
proliferator in Pakistan threw up his hands and confessed all.
It's nice because they're absolutely correct about Libya, but it
falls down when it comes to Iran, where negotiations for
inspections have been getter more and more amicable since before
the invasion, and Pakistan, where if you really believe that one
man, on his own, coordinated the proliferation of WMD to Pyongyang
and Tripoli, I've got a nice slice of peaceful Kashmir to sell you.
\_ Negotations in Iran had been going nowhere fast until very
recently. It's obvious to everyone that Khan didn't do the
nuclear proliferation thing on his own or without his government
knowing and approving. That's an easy one. |
| 2004/1/31-2/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12053 Activity:high |
1/31 Motd poll!
World revolves around motd: .
Motd revolves around world:
\_ world? what is this "world" of which you speak? there is
something outside the motd? the world is larger than 80x24?
URL, please. you have no proof of this at all.
\_ the world was, for a moment, larger than 80x24, but then
was quickly reformatted
\_ thank god, now it's all coming into clearer focus. |
| 2004/1/16-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11809 Activity:nil |
1/16 Yellowcake found: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/15/international1719EST0714.DTL \_ Hmm, 2 lbs of unrefined ore containing 1% uranium. The guy at the enviornment ministry says: "It could be from anywhere in the world," Call me when this one hasn't been debunked after a week. \_ Yeah, but the guy who actually knows something says he's sure it came from Iraq. I'm not saying this somehow ends the yellowcake controversy. It's just another data point. \_ Of course. We each have our agendas. |
| 2004/1/15 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11783 Activity:nil 66%like:29749 |
1/14 So those mortar shells turned out not to be chemical weapons
at all, why didn't our triumphant anonymous motd post a retraction?
\_ you are a bitter liberal
\_ you are a sheep! -!op
\_ You're all sheeple!!! -- crazy guy on cable access
\_ O'Reilly's interview on ABC's Good Morning America (March 18, 2003)
"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and
everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't
know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But
let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my
program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein
and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation,
and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?
But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt. . . ."
.... now, do you recall when he apologized? What? You DON'T?
BECAUSE HE NEVER DID. AND NEITHER WILL THE REST OF THE ASSHOLE
REPUBLICANS.
\_ "Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles
and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons? Let's
let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work." -Colin Powell
\_ Wouldn't it be funny if the survey group said "you know,
we couldn't find anything!" and Powell voluntarily took
the blame and resigned?
\_ there is no point to drill on this. we all know Bush just want
to get Saddam, and there is no rational reason behind it. God damn
I wish my tax dollar could be better spent.
\_ What's to retract? The original URLs all made it very clear that
the shells were being sent for testing. When are you going to
ask that Dean open his records from his time as Governor? What is
he hiding? My favorite so far is his energy commission which held
secret closed door meetings with leaders from the energy industry
from which he formed his energy policy... just like... Dick Cheney!
\_ Because the claims were touted as "look, WMDs may have been
found!" with a small clarification much later "oh they need to
do a little testing." In a case like that you should have the
the decency to correct yourself later.
\_ This is barely worth replying to since in your own statement
you make it clear it was "may have been" as if that's such a
strong statement. If the primary crime is saying "may have
been", there is no need for later clarification that testing
is required. The "may have been" directly implies testing
is required and I think it was nice of the journalists to
state the implied outright instead of making us guess. You
are so full of hatred that you'll take the most reasonable
and non-inflamatory statement such as "may have been" which
we all agree was in the same article as "requires more
testing" and turn it into some twisted bit of evil. You're
really lost and out in the hinterland on this one. There are
lots and lots of valid anti-Bush anti-Iraq-war things you
could go off on. This isn't one of them.
\_ Last I checked Dean's energy policy didn't cost $150 billion.
\_ So it's ok because he was from a small state? So Cheney's
crime wasn't that he did the same thing as Dean, just that
it cost more? If Dean was from a big state or did this as
a member of the federal government then it would be bad? So
a bank robber who gets away with $20 at gun point is ok but
if the bank had more cash on hand that day and it was $1000
then it would be really terrible? Blind, blind, blind....
\_ There is no okay here. There is, however, better and
worse. Dean's energy policy not only didn't cost an
unfathomable $150b, it also did not do so by explicitly
lining the pockets of those who provided input. If you
cannot see how what the Bush admin did was worse than this,
you'll need to start carrying a white cane yourself, so's
we can see that you can't see.
\_ Remember to vote for your lizard, so the other lizard
doesn't stay in office.
\_ take me to your lizard!
\_ Anything to change the subject. You forgot to mention
that Clinton got a blow job. |
| 2004/1/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11754 Activity:kinda low |
1/11 Harry Braun in 2004!!!
http://www.braunforpresident.us
\_ That picture totally needs some flying cars and Zeppelins in the
background.
\_ It iz about doing bad thingz! To good people! Mit Zcienze!
\_ source?
\_ The Tick.
\_ _Your_ movie is here: http://csua.org/u/5iv (Apple preview)
\_ I would so vote for him if I thought he had a chance in hell of
winning.
\_ you can see him and 14 other random, unknown candidates
talk at http://www.cspan.org click on the "lesser known candidates"
forum video on the left hand side fo the page. There
are a few republicans and a bunch of democrats, and it
makes for interesting watching.
\_this is totally fucking hilarious. You have to see this.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5iy
\_ If he gets together with Clark we can have time travel and
energy supplies from perpetual motion machines.. WOO HOO!
\_ Was Clark a part of the philadelphia experiment?
\_ That was the Navy, son.
\_ Oh yeah. Forgot. Did the army have its own time machine
and invisibility program?
\_ Well, the Air Force has Stargate SG-1....
\_ They should just huck some nukes out the bad guy's
portals and be done with it. I never understood
the whole "send 4 people out to go stir up shit"
thing. It's very non-military culture.
\_ Yeah, but while the nuke option is much more
reasonable, it doesn't make for a good serial.
\_ No but he said he thinks we can travel faster than the
speed of light.
\_ I can! I hold my breath and spin and spin and spin and
tap my ruby slippers three times and I'm back in Arkansas!
\_ My question is, why can't we get Mary Carey to run? Did you
see those babajangas?
\_ her hamburgers are too big, they spill out of the bun.
\_ Babajangas? The motd has taught me a new term. Thank you. |
| 2004/1/8 [Transportation/Car, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11717 Activity:nil |
01/07 More tips on having pale skin from the resident CSUA vampire.
Avoid direct sunlight. Sunlight is the primary cause of vampire death.
And don't use a lot of sunscreen lotion thinking that you'll be ok.
The high SPF lotions are all oil-based and can cause illness if taken
internally. I use moisturizer creams with SPF of 5. Higher SPF means
more oil. And I never go out into the sun. That means no going
to the beach, no getting tanned (I consider that ritual suicide,
yuck), no walking around the parking lot in the middle of day,
no eating garlic or wearing crosses, etc. -pretty boy
\_ how many aging skate rats here remember when all those kids used
to write in to Thrasher about how vampires were being oppressed,
and how they just want to skate like everyone else?
\_ Do you base your obsession on real medical facts? Some amount of
sunlight daily is healthy.
\_ Not if you're a vampire.
\_ Uh... why not use a high SPF and NOT take it internally!? |
| 2004/1/3 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11651 Activity:nil |
1/2 Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1050644/posts
\_ <snore>
\_ i think SETI is a seriously premature attempt. Of all the
possible things to search for, SETI choses to search at the most
likely signal, which is in fact extremely unlikely, consider
that there are SO MANY altneratives.
i propose a model for deciding how to run government projects:
give the rational researcher his money. see if he'd rather
spend it right now on his research or put it in some fund with
return X to and see how long he will wait for the available
technology to mature before undertaking his endeaver with this
appreciating captial.
\_ this guy doesn't understands neither public policy nor science.
what is his bullshit railing about "concensus science"? the
ONLY way occam's razor can work is by concensus.
\_ You misspelled consensus. Also, you seem to have problems
understanding the essence of occam's razor, namely that the
simplest, rather than most popular, explanation is best.
That there may or may not be a consensus on the simplest
explanation is completely irrelevant.
\_ I shouldn't be suprised you guys all hate science. After all,
scientists all hate sysadmins, so turnabout is fair play
i guess. |
| 2003/12/25-26 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11588 Activity:nil |
12/25 An excellent thread on the Cal. energy deregulation...
and Gov. Arnold's new 'plan'.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67
\_ I can do the summary without reading the link: everyone in CA
though energy deregulation would lower rates due to the magic of
a competitive economy for power distribution. The legislators
voted for it without even having read the thing because it was
so incredibly complex and they're a bunch of stupid fucks who
couldn't have understood it anyway. What they enacted was a cap
was an odd form of partial deregulation that a 5th grader could've
figured out how to manipulate. Move forward a few years and a few
Enrons later and 2 or 3 black outs and here we are. I've no idea
what Arnold's plan is and don't intend to read a freeper link to
find out and frankly it doesn't matter to me what he does since I
did not and will not vote for him then or in the future.
\_ Naa not even close. You should read it - it starts to
get good at about the 6th paragraph. What it describes
is how corporations use non-profit foundations and
goverment regulations to corner markets.
\_ Those are just details of how the scam was conducted.
What I said is all still true. |
| 2003/12/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11582 Activity:nil |
12/13 California energy "crisis" was a scam:
http://csua.org/u/5d5
\_ Well no FUCKING SHIT.
\_ Seriously, did you just figure this out? Is this the first time
you've heard the name "Enron"? You need to stop playing so much
nethack, get out of the aol chatrooms, cancel your everquest account
and read a newspaper once a month.
\_ why is this showing up *now* on the motd? The link is dated at
9/17/2002! |
| 2003/12/11 [Reference/History, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11419 Activity:nil |
12/11 We been polluting for 8000 years:
http://tinyurl.com/yt8e (cnn.com)
\_ Interesting research, but I'm not sure how this changes anything.
The rate of change since the industrial revolution is unprecedented.
\_ not even true, there were huge fires that wiped out billions of
acres that produced tons of green house gases, way more than
the industrial revolution produced.. go read a book or something |
| 2003/11/24-25 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11209 Activity:high |
11/24 I really don't understand the 3rd Robotech. Dana and her friends
use those cool motorcycle/bot things to fight enemies and get energy
from Protocultures (from dead enemies). But where do these enemies
get those Protocultures?
\_ Weren't these harvested from slave labor on Earth like in Dune?
\_ I don't know anything about Robotech, but just what the
fuck are you talking about about Dune? Earth is a semi
mythical place of the distant past in Dune. If you're
thinking of Arrakis, you're still wrong, since although the
Harkonnens had slave labor on Giedi Prime, they did
not use slave labor to harvest spice.
\_ Dana was from the second generation, not the third. There's not a
lot to understand; the three Robotech series are a conglomeration
of three totally separate anime series (Macross, Southern Cross,
and Genesis Climber MOSPEADA respectively). That they were strung
together with anything resembling coherence is a feat.
\_ Southern Cross was basically two factions fighting each other
over a scare resource (I think it was food or something).
It had nothing to do with Macross. At the end they were somehow
united and made peace with each other when all the spores were
released. Anyway, it was supposed to be a happy ending vs.
the totally chopped up ending they presented in Robotech.
As for MOSPEADA, it was a much simpler story, the aliens
invade earth, enslave the remnant surviving humans, and there's
a fleet off of Mars left who wants to retake earth. The aliens
think that earthlings are basically virii who need to be cleared
\_ wow that's exactly how iu feel about neocons!
off the planet, but in the process of studying them they decide
that it's better to just leave earth in peace.
\_ So in the original Japanese version of Southern Cross, for
example, Dana isn't even really the daughter of Max and Myria?
Are they all completely separate universes?
\_ Yup. They mostly tied together the three series with that
_really_ cheesy voiceover narration to explain away serious
inconsistencies. I think "protoculture" was a vague concept
from the second series that was back and forward propogated
into the others. If this seems like an unjustifiable thing
to do artistically, remember that the primary motivation
for Robotech was to cash-in on the robot toy craze going
on in the States. So the more robots, the better.
\_ "protoculture" was from Macross. It's similar to the seeder
idea the Star Trek universe uses to explain why all the
races are very nearly humanoid. Humans and the Zentraedi
are both descendants from a common sort-of-species. That
species's culture was the "protoculture" from which all
cultures developed. I don't know what the back story was
for Southern Cross.
\_ except that in the first generation, "protoculture"
is talked about in the narrations as something more
akin to a power source. some sort of biological
technology. as well as the culture of the proto-
human and -zentradi species. it was hard to
distinguish whether the protoculture that was shipped
around in oil drums and fought over teeth and nail
was just some sort of technology salvaged from the
protoculture, or whether it was some energy source
labeled "protoculture."
\_ The confusion you speak of was an aspect of the
Robotech plot alone. The original Macross backstory
was quite clear and straightforward such as it
boys).
was (a robot space opera targeted at ~10-14 yr old
boys). Kudos to the op on the success of this
troll, btw.
\_ I don't think troll means what you think it
means. The OP seems to have been asking a real
question that he wanted an answer to...unless
you ARE the OP, in which case I stand corrected.
It's really unfortunate that the term, which once
actually had a pretty specific and well defined
meaning, has come to mean any thread that one
doesn't like or agree with. Ah well...such is
the nature of language, I suppose.
\_ I hate you.
\_ Why did Rick choose Lisa over Minmei?
\_ In the end, a hot walking receptle gets old fast if it
nags as much as she did. He knew he could always get a
new hot chick later after doing the domestic thing for a bit.
\_ 'Cos when I think misogyny, I think motd.
\_ misogeny of the day
\_ Because he wanted a real woman over a two dimensional
piece of lolita bait? Oh, wait, they're both anime.
\_ But lisa wasn't underage at any point in the show.... |
| 2003/11/22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11183 Activity:nil |
11/21 Question for motd conservatives: Why is it smart to disagree with
scientific consensus on global warming, but dumb to disagree with
economic consensus on the effects of globalization?
\_ Personally, I take any consensus with a grain of salt.
"Consensus == dogma" surprisingly often.
-- conservative
\_ 1) there isn't consensus. it remains an open issue. the ability
of science to predict super complex systems like long term
global weather patterns and temp. changes is zero.
\_ Actually, there is a great deal of consensus. The only
"dissent" comes from climate scientists on the payroll
of the petroleum industry, who are kept funded to create
the illusion of debate.
\_ references, please. also, go look up consensus. it is a
very black and white word. you either have it or you
don't. you don't. there was consensus at one time that
the earth was flat. when i was a pre-teen there was
consensus that we were heading into an ice age. where the
hell is my ice age, huh? all the same scientists said so.
\_ There was never a consensus the world was flat. The
Greeks had estimates of the diameter of the world in
500 BC. The notion of a "flat earth" an
anti-clerical myth initiated in the 1800s.
2) i don't know what we motd conservatives think about the
'economic consensus on the effects of gloablization'. if you
could tell me what i think, i could tell you why.
\_ Sorry, there is no consensus. You seem oblivious to how research
grants are delegated. Global warming is a gigantic
self-perpetuating money industry. Try getting money from the UN
EU, Canada on a proposal that contradicts the warming hypothesis.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
My favorite study as of late:
Researchers question key global-warming study
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
As for trade, I'm with Pat Buchanan who has been predicting
this for over a decade. Fair trade I support... but what
exists today is not reciprocal in any sense of the word.
\_ the "oblivious to how research grands are delegated" argument
has become one of my favorite tinfoil hat statements. keep
up the good work! remember, the federal reserve is in league
with The Jews to take away your guns! I have applied for grants,
my grandfather spent most of his career as an NIH grants
administrator, and as a professional scientist I know a lot
of poeple who have to apply for grants constantly and
several who review grants. you have no idea what the fuck
you're talking about (I'm assuming you're the same dumbass
who usually posts this argument.)
\_ Who do you think wins grants? There are certain scientists
of a certain stature who receive 90% of the money in a given
field. They gained their stature perhaps by good science (and
sometimes not) but they are not always right. There is a lot
of politics involved.
\_ so you're saying grants aren't political? then why was the
sf chronicle printing an article last week about how several
dozen NIH grants are being cut or re-reviewed due to their
content? anyway, any idiot can apply for anything. you
didn't say how many were granted or what they were for and
if that contradicted the prevailing theories at the time and
what political connections your family or their associates
have with the grant givers or if the grant applications fit
the grant giver's other ambitions already. in short, you've
told us nothing except you can file paperwork and everyone
else is ignorant because, well, you can file paperwork.
\_ Unfortunately this same problem exists for publications
as well. In fact, Nature recently ran an editorial
decrying the incestuous review process. These journals
should do blind reviews of submissions.
\_ that doesn't solve the problem. if a field is small
and everyone knows eachother, there is no such thing
as a "blind review." when your close friends
post anonymously to the motd, don't you recognize
their posts? perhaps more useful would be removing
the anonymity of the reviewers to put more pressure
on them to do their job.
\_ I do not think that word means what you think it means. Hell, 30
years ago there was a consensus about global cooling, so I'm a bit
skeptical for just that reason. Then there are the astrophysicists
who point out a link between solar activity and global temperatures.
But the clear proof that global warming is not a scientific
conclusion was the *reaction* to the book The Skeptical
Environmentalist. It was criticized, derided, villified, etc. but
no one refuted its serious scientific claims.
\_ The global cooling theory only was out for a little while. See
it didn't add up and further research proved that. So it was
thrown away as a theory that was wrong. Global warming on the
other hand has had a hell of a lot more time spent on it
and beyong a few partisan shrills of questionable veracity,
it hasn't been refuted. Yes bogus theories sometimes get
their time in the limelight, but the idea that a theory that
has had so much further study is still considered good and
yet is a crock of bullshit is, well, laughable. Tin foil
territory about a vast conspiracy of scientists that Want You
To Fear Greenhouse Gasses For Their Own Neferious Reasons aside.
\_ Nefarious.
\_ IIRC, the various global warming theorists attacked the man for
having no scientific training in global warming theory/politics.
in other words, he was derided for going against the status quo
and nothing else. he wasn't in the boy's club and wasn't playing
by their circuluarly defined rules about what can and can not be
good global warming science/politics.
\_ Global warming is BULLSHIT. Enough said. -sameer (does anyone
sign their motd entries anymore? What is this world coming to?) |
| 2003/11/21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29658 Activity:moderate |
11/19 Nuclear launch detected.
\_ Nukers aint nuthin but ho's an tricks |
| 2003/11/20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11157 Activity:nil |
11/19 A good summary of ethanol:
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/Courses/E11/PatzekEthanolPaper.pdf
\_ This has nothing to say about air cleanliness.
\_ and... as it is right now, it takes *MORE* energy to produce
Et-OH from corn than the energy contained in Et-OH.
\_ Not according to that article. That article plays some
weird sleight of hand by claiming that solar energy is
not free.
\_ He's not discounting solar energy. Let C be the amount
of corn required to produce the equivalent of 1 gallon
of gas in ethanol. He's saying that through fertilizers,
tractors, irrigation, harvesting, drying, and conversion,
1 gallon of real gasoline is used to grow and convert C.
It's zero sum, you could have burned that same gallon of
gas directly.
\_ If you have even one scientific article claiming the EtOH
\_ If you have even one scientific artile claiming the EtOH
does not decrease emissions, I would like to see it. It might
not be worth the cost, but it certainly cleans the air in CA.
\_ Here is a good cost/benifit analysis saying the whole thing
is not really worth it:
\_ ok, here's the deal: gasoline is bad for the environment. the stuff
we add to it doesnt change that much. nothing much will happen
until we get a non-oil based economy going. don't hold your
breath for that one, folks.
http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/fac_staff/fac keller/papers/Abstract21.pdf |
| 2003/11/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11125 Activity:very high |
11/18 Wasn't ethanol proven to have almost no effect on the quality of
gasoline?
\_ Pretty much, yeah. You can split hairs over it but not really.
\_ So why was so much money added to the energy bill for this?
Also, do you have any links about what it's supposed to do
vs what it does? I heard it all just evaporated.
\_ it lowers the energy density of the gasoline. It sends a
bit of money to the farm states where the ethanol is produced.
bit of money to the farm states where the ethanlo is produced.
\_ It also sends a LOT of money to ADM, which is a big
policitian-buyer.
\_ True. And makes deluded "environmentalists" happy.
Even though more energy is used in the final analysis;
\_ Don't kid yourself. The Energy Bill is just one
big barrel of pork. No one in this Congress cares
what environmentalists think, not real ones and not
the imagined demons you're talking about. BTW, check
out King George's latest decision on textile tariffs?
Whatta free trader!
California has more oilfields than cornfields....
\_ What do you mean "the quality of gasoline"?
You been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?
\_ boy, how does it feel being a dupe of the most evil corp.s that
i'm sure you claim to hate? See ADM and Sierra club posts below
\_ Christ no. I'd heard that it was supposed to replace MTBE as an
octane additive but that it evaporates and you're basically left
with plain old gasoline sans MTBE. Thanks for the link, what
about counterarguments?
\_ Do you have any? I don't know of any. I guess that site
would suggest that you want to increase the VoC requirements
so that it doesn't evaporate off.
\_ Doesn't it do what MTBE does?
\_ poison the water table? no, it doesn't.
\_ Ethanol is a ludicrous fuel made out of corn, at a cost far higher
than the petroleum it replaces, produced with a huge government tax
subsidy, which started during the energy crisis a quarter-century ago
and has long since become a classic case study of stupid policy
entrenched by special interests (in this case farmers and Archer Daniels
Midland, the company responsible for the fabulous discovery that if you
tell the government what to do in commercials on every Sunday talk show,
the government apparently is powerless to resist). - Michael Kinsley
\_ the Sierra Club is suing some Ethanol plants.
http://indiana.sierraclub.org/Sierran/03-1/EthanolPlants.asp
policitian-buyer.
\_ What do you mean "the quality of gasoline"?
http://www.sentex.net/~crfa/ethaair.html
You been listing to Rush Limbaugh again? |
| 2003/11/16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11091 Activity:nil |
11/15 Whoa. Anyone else taken a look at the Energy Bill going through
Congress at the moment? Biggest. Piece. Of Pork. EVER.
\_ Dude, you should've seen the pork chops at the DC last night!
\_ I think I should get a tax credit for my high fiber diet. gas gas
gas!
\_ Not really. Same old shit as any other time since we've had a
department of energy or other large federal agencies. |
| 2003/11/13 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science] UID:11052 Activity:high |
11/12 Hey M16 basic-training guy -- shoot me an email; I'm interested in
finding out more about your experiences. TIA. -mice
\_ are you interested in shooting M16s? - !basic-training-guy
\_ As an end unto itself, no. Though I'm interested in hearing
about the guy's experiences in Basic, and in the Military in
general from the POV of an educated guy. I'm also interested
in the technology of the weapon system -- some of his information
general from the POV of an educated guy. I'm also interested in
the technology of the weapon system -- some of his information
contradicts information that I have which is quite reliable.
So I'm curious. -mice
\_ Thanks for the tip. -mice
\_ I recommend History Channel's Tales of the Gun
- !basic-training-guy
\_ Thanks for the tip. -mice
\_ YES! -neither
\_ You bunch of NRA fascists, get off the net! Stop voting for BushCo!
Next you'll be screaming that the 2nd amendment is all about the
government choosing who gets to have or not have a weapon to
defend themselves from the government.
\_ I'm genuinely perplexed. I'm interested because I find this
thingy called 'technology' fascinating. I also enjoy the
history surrounding the development of technology. I really
enjoyed those 'Connections' shows with James Burke when I was
growing up. The funny thing is that very few things tend to
push the technical envelope harder than weapons technologies
largely due to the restrictions placed by human limitations
(weight, physiology, etc). I realize that I'm most likely
being trolled, but it's a little hard to tell sometimes.
\_ We should push progress peacefully not by looking for better
and better ways to kill each other. We can already destroy
the planet 150,000 times over. Stop the madness!
\_ I share your point of view.
history surrounding the development of technology. I really
enjoyed those 'Connections' shows with James Burke when I was
growing up. The funny thing is that very few things tend to push
the technical envelope harder than weapons technologies largely
due to the restrictions placed by human limitations (weight,
physiology, etc). I realize that I'm most likely being trolled,
but it's a little hard to tell sometimes.
\_ I help develop geothermal and biomass powerplants. Green
energy, and all that noise. I agree with the sentiment,
but still have interest in technology.
\_ I share your point of view.
\_ Watch History's Channel "Tactical to Practical",
how military technology affects us in every day life. |
| 2003/11/3 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:10912 Activity:moderate |
11/2 I want to share a story regards to shoulder-fire missile. In the late
1980s, I was talking to an immigrant from the mainland China.
What make him an interesting figure is that he used to work in
some rocket R&D/manufacturing facility in Gan-Su province. I
asked him rather China could make stuff as cool as shoulder-fire
missile like Stinger. He told me, to my suprise, yes. According
to him, China got a good R&D boost when then the Socialist
government of Afghanistan captured bunch American made
Stinger missles from the Muslim extremist rebel (read: TALIBAN)
which USA supported. It gave the mainland China half dozen of
those shoulder-fired missiles. By reverse engineering it, China
was able to make, though crude by comprison, a mock up that
actually works.
Isn't it kind of funny that both the regime which USA supported
and the Stinger missile technology it leaks out as result, are
coming back and haunt USA?
\_ Why would that be funny? You see, kid, there was this thingy a
few years back called 'The Cold War' in which two superpowers of
markedly different ideologies fought for global supremacy through
a variety of means. Control of obscure pieces of territory where
cash flow and stragetic positioning of intercontinental nuclear
weapons was the currency used in this 'Cold War'. Sadly, since
both of these Superpower thingies existed in the real world
(rather than your ESL anti-US utopia), nasty immoral things often
had to be done to keep the opposing ideological faction from
gaining the upperhand. This led to both of these regimes supporting
nasty evil religious or just plain nasty and evil dictatorships and
other things to keep the other in check. That there 'Cold War'
is now over, and sadly, these evil little regimes are still there.
It is a phenomenon often referred to by educated people as 'the
lesser of two evils'. Keep this one factoid in mind: You're not
nearly as clever, perceptive, or intelligent as you think you are.
\_ Yea really funny you fucking traitorous piece of shit. Go
back your homeland if its so great.
\_ technology is good for only 10 years, till which it'll be made
obsolete by other technology or be stolen and used against the
originator. It's happened to the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese,
US vs. Brits, etc. Nothing new here.
\_ agree, then why we are so obsessed with 50 year old technology
such as Nuclear bomb and chemical weapon?
\_ Uhm, because they're weapons capable of inflicting casualties
in the 5-7 digit range relatively instantly? Because their
manufacture is pretty sophisticated? Maybe because the
materials are often difficult to obtain, create, or find?
Maybe because there are people out there that are willing to
inflict insane civilian casualties for completely ideological
reasons based strictly on hate?
\_ Hey, nice bit of intenional intellectual dishonesty and
stupidity. Is there a class where they teach that sort of
self induced blindness?
\_ this is not the first time in history. The Ballista technology
was taken away from the Roman army. The Greek fire was copied and
used against the inventor's home. The American colony got
the gunmaking technology from the Brits and won. The Japs got
the plane technology from Boeing to make lots of Mitsubishi Zeros
to attack Pearl harbor. The list goes on and on. I saw a documentary
that says a new war technology is good for only 10 years, after
which it'll be stolen or made obsolete.
\_ agree, that is why I thought it's silly to invade Iraq,
sanction North Korea over poliferation of nuclear bomb and
other WMD.
\_ The Taliban came later, but whatever. Anyway, as the above said,
this is standard in warfare. If you bring something to the
battlefield, the enemy will eventually get their hands on one and
reverse engineer it. If you don't bring a new weapon to the battle
then there was no point in making it, eh? In addition to the above
list, I'd like to add the bazooka which the WWII Germans eventually
captured. As the story goes, a few German generals got wiped out
by back blast during a demonstration, but hey, it's just a story.
\_ My point is not so much about proliferation of technology, as it
is bound to happen. I just thought that it's really silly to
proliferate technologies over muslim fundamental extremist.
-- OP |
| 2003/10/31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10876 Activity:nil |
10/30 Double standard on environment issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3229211.stm
So, shut up and stop bitching about how China/India is ruining
the environment.
\_ Right now, the US uses about 4 terawatts of the 12 terawatts of
global energy usage. In 2050, that's likeley to be 40-50
terawatts of total energy usage, with the US total about the
same. That means that when you're projecting decades or centuries
into the future, which you must do in climate policy, you *have*
to consider the developing nations as more important than the US.
A devoloped-nations only policy simply won't fix the problem,
and forcing quotas on the developing nations is politically
impossible. our only way out is technology. we must develop
a way to generate 50 terwatts of clean power that is
cost-competitive with petrochemicals. It is a matter of both
national and global security, and I believe it's not so
far out of our reach.
\_ Uh, nuclear. Clean, safe, unlimited.
\_ What part of nuclear waste is clean?
\_ nukular energy is eevviiil!
\_ How much uranium or plutonium of the right isotops can we
find on earth?
\_ I can't tell if you're being facetious.
\_ Bah, it's more fun to Blame America First(r) and Hate America(r)
and Kill Whitey(c). You just killed the op's perfectly good
anti-US troll. -!op
\_ 12 terawatts to 40-50 terawatts while US use stays the same?
Sounds like a huge exaggeration of developing countries'
energy usage growth. Past history doesn't substantiate
such claims.
\_ Nah. Even if the developing nations' energy usage
stays the same, US still would not do anything simply because
vested business interests don't like it. Developing nations
energy use is just an excuse for US not to do anything. It's
called the Blame Developing Nations(tm) tactic. |
| 2003/10/28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10818 Activity:nil |
10/27 I'm glad we recalled Davis. Not only did he create an energy crisis,
we've got huge fires in SoCal because of him! -needs to learn to
troll better
\_ Pete Wilson created the energy crisis you dumbass... read your
history.
\_ Its Bush's fault.
\_ Actually it's the fault of the CA state government who listened to
self proclaimed environmentalists morons who spent years fighting
against controlled burns. Now that we don't burn off the fuel
the easy way, nature is taking care of it the hard way every few
years. Nature *needs* periodic small fires to remain healthy and
all this Smokey the Bear stuff is killing the environment as well
as destroying homes, the economy, etc. I was going to post all
this as a new thread but I figured you could use a big cookie,
young troll.
\_ This may be true, but these fires are partly arson. Possibly
even of the muslim extremist variety.
\_ periodic fires are actually beneficial for reasons other
than controlling buildup of tinder.
\_ yes I'm aware of that but not every plant benefits from fire
and I didn't want to confuse the masses. |
| 2003/10/24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10774 Activity:nil 75%like:10766 |
10/23 What's up with all the censoring? Sheesh. [Post restored] -!op
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
\_ Yawn. |
| 2003/10/24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10766 Activity:nil 75%like:10774 |
10/23 Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html |
| 2003/10/17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29575 Activity:high |
10/16 So when will the U.S./Israel execute a surgical strike on Iranian
nuclear facilities? Can Iran do anything in return? Sounds like
what Reagan would do, doesn't it?
\_ They could strike Israel with their Shahab missiles in return,
possibly with a WMD-loaded warhead. Also, how do you know if a
surgical strike will be successful in terminating their nulcear
program? Are you sure they don't have any well hidden, unknown to the
west nuclear sites?
\_ That's what the IAEA inspectors are for. Besides, it worked
in Iraq 22 years ago. Bring 'em on! -dubya
\_ WWRD?
\_ What the fuck? Since when is it a crime to have nuclear weapon?
\_ Since Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.
\_ i thought nonproliferation means not giving
away nuclear weapon technology.
\_ Because we've got bigger guns? fuck off!
\_ I'll say we surgical strike nuclear facilities in North Korea too.
While we are at it, we might as well take out China's nuclear
capability. Then, We fly to Russia via China's north west, take
out Russian's nuclear weapons. It will be santa claus time.
\_ you totally missed India and Pakistan.
\_ China will happen the day after we activate the ballistic
missile defense. |
| 2003/10/4-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10468 Activity:kinda low |
10/4 Interesting research regarding world petroleum supplies
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=449053
Whoever comes up with the best viable alternative to fossil fuels
is going to be a gazillionaire, though I'm really curious (and a little
wary) of what the "end of oil" might do to capitalism in general.
\_ I'll read your link later but you understand various 'experts' have
been predicting the "end of oil in the next 10 years" for at least
30 years now, right? As oil becomes harder to find and get out of
the ground, it becomes more expensive and more money will be put
into developing and subsidising other sources of energy (which *all*
have their own problems) and life will go on.
\_ Maybe you should read the link before you say anything - its about
new estimates of the oil supply being far smaller than thought.
If the oil starts running out in 2010, as they predict, the
economic effects could be catastrophic.
\_ That's what I'm saying. "Experts" have been saying exactly
that since the early 70's. What's so different about this
set of experts? Anyway, what I said still stands: if oil
starts getting harder to pump in 2010, other energy sources
will look more viable, tech advances and government subsidies
will lower rates to economically viable ranges for the
consumer and businesses and we'll go on. It doesn't matter
what kind of power plant provides energy for your wall socket
and hardly matters what powers your car. Changing cars to
another fuel source will be the hardest part but it's not
impossible or even close. Anyway, we'll just be swapping the
problems oil causes for other problems from the replacement
energy source.
\_ I don't think we'll need to pave a sun-rich country
to prove worldwide dominance
\_ No, you'd just poison the rest of the planet with toxic
sludge to produce all those solar panels. *EVERY* source
of energy we currently have has problems. Solar isn't
some magical clean source of free power.
\_ Yes, they predicted that oil production would peak in 2010.
Turned out that it peaked in like 2001 and has been going down
since. Maybe it's just a local maxima, but add to that the new
since. Maybe it's just a local minima, but add to that the new
demand from China where people are starting to buy cars, and I
am going to invest in China/oil/gas related stocks like IVAN.
Instead of worrying about things I can't control, I am going
to profit from it. This is kind of like the Economist repeatedly
predicting the burst of the tech bubble in 1998 and 1999. They
sucked at the timing, but eventually it did happen, and no, I
don't think the world is ready for the oil supply drying up. There
sucked at the timing, but eventually it did happen, and no, I
don't think the world is ready for it. They will be a worldwide
depression.
will be a worldwide depression.
\_ Uhhh, timing is everything moron. Everybody knew that the tech
bubble would burst, like everyone knows that petrol supplies
will dry up. The important question is when.
\_ Easier said than done. I would rather be like Warren
Buffet getting out of tech early even though it may
mean giving up gains one may attain if one can time
perfectly. Perfect timing is usually luck. Same
principles apply to oil.
\_ A. There's no such thing as "perfect timing."
B. Timing is something that can be learned. If
that wasn't the case, then all traders would
trade equally good/bad over time. This is not
the case. There are certain individuals who
have winning strategies. Do they always time
correctly? No. But they win often enough to
know how to play the averages effectively.
\_ A. In investing, I prefer the Warren Buffet /
Peter Lynch way. I find myself very good
and its potentially severe consequences,
I would rather not leave it up to "traders"
and "timers".
mean giving up gains one may attain if one can time
perfectly. Perfect timing is usually luck. Same
principles apply to oil.
at "trading" with hold times averaging around
1-month durations, but it takes a lot of work
and time.
B. In dealing with future oil shortage
problems and its potentially severe
consequences, I would rather not leave it
up to "traders" and "timers".
and its potentially severe consequences,
I would rather not leave it up to "traders"
and "timers". |
| 2003/10/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10446 Activity:high |
10/3 No selective censorship. You got smashed on one of the debates so
you killed the whole thing plus a few new links that are demonstrate
real world evidence that is contrary to your political beliefs yet
you added on to places where you thought you were doing better. It's
all gone now.
\_ What the hell are you talking about?
\_ You can read English? -!op
\_ Yup. Still can't tell what he's bangin' on about.
\_ I think it's that time of month.
\_ OP said it in plain English. Whatever. -!op
\_ I'm a new poster, but I would like to know what topics
OP is talking about.
\_ "that are demonstrate real world" is plain English?
\_ after-edit by some scum bag. its the motd.
\_ as one of the ppl who were "debating," I have no clue wtf he's
talking about. Is he referring to the cons or the libs? Btw,
I'm fairly certain there's more than one conservative who posts
on the motd, and I know for sure there's multiple libs, so whom the
singular "you" refers to, I have no clue. -nivra
\_ finally, we agree on something. :)
\_ "you" would be whomever did the selective deleting, wouldn't it?
I believe you when you say, "I have no clue". |
| 2003/9/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10278 Activity:nil |
9/22 Anybody think there we'll actually be able to sell large quantities
of Iraqi oil and use the money to help pay for reconstruction? I've
been reading up on the sabotages. It's demoralizing. All it takes
is an ax and a small match to blow up a section of a pipeline. And
\- i dont think that is true. crude oil isnt like gasoline.
but yeah, when people have mortars and rpgs under the bed, it's
probably not a technology problem. --psb
a lot of that has been happening. Even the below ground pipelines
have above-ground manual valves every few kilometers for manual shut
off. Those are easy targets too. No wonder Iraq is still importing
oil. The more I think about it, the more I think this little
reconstruction project won't pay for itself.
\_ We can't take oil money for reconstruction. We have to vigorously
avoid the criticism of the "no blood for oil" nutjobs.
\_ Hey, the proper term is "whackos!" Don't lump them with
us. -- tinfoil-and-duct-tape nutjob
\_ The plan was to give reconstruction contracts to Halliburton,
Bechtel, et al and the contract is with the Iraqi government,
which pays for it with oil revenue... At least I think that
was the plan
\_ We have a plan???
\_ 1. Invade Iraq
2. ?????
3. Profit!
\_ While sabotage is part of the problem, the fact is the decade
long embargo meant no spare parts for refineries and pipelines.
Phoenix has a pipe go on them and it took them weeks to fix
WITH spare parts, expertise and money. BushCo will of course blame
Clinton for the embargo.
\_ well, duh. it would look bad to blame Bush Sr. |
| 2003/9/15 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10195 Activity:high |
9/14 Regarding to thread regards to VW in China and environment.
It is unfair to blame China or other developing nation for
pollutions, as the reason why world is in such mess is because
Britian and US of A has been doing more than their share of
polluting for the past 150 years. Ultimately, issue of pollution
is closed related to energy use per capita, but developed nation
is not going to give in upon this fundamental fact, as
they are too happy with the lavashing life style at the expense
of global environment. Like farm subsidies, environment issue
is another instrument to achieve wealthy nation's economic
agenda.
\_ Your analysis is flawed. You need to read up on how technology
and development affect pollution levels. The relationship you
draw between per-capita use and pollution is not well correlated.
\_ It's not 'blame'. There's an economic theory called 'the advantage
of backwardness'--essentially, developing economies are able to
leapfrog entire developmental steps, thereby avoiding being
saddled with 'legacy' sectors and infrastructure (like steel and
coal in the US). A lot of the beef people have with China
(and you can put a lot of this blame at the door of western
manufacturers who don't supply Chinese consumers with goods meeting
similar environmental standards) is that it's reaping the fruits
of rapid development, without taking environmental responsibility
accordingly. And remember, energy use does not necessarily equal
pollution (although very often this is sadly the case.) -John
\_ John, just to give you an example of CFCs, as you know, CFC
is the stuff that kills ozone layer. USA was pressing
China to use CFC replacement and establish CFC recycle
program on all its refrigerator and air conditioning.
Could China leapfrog the CFC and uses CFC replacement
directly? in principle, yes. But CFC cost more to
and which nation USA or China, contributed more to the
destruction of ozone layer?
If USA really care about environment, or actually
manufacture. Who is going to be asked to bear the
extra cost? China does. who is the major manufacture
of CFC replacement and its technology? United States.
Granted, if USA really care about environment, or actually
show any sign of remorse on how much it has contributed to
the destruction of ozone, you would think that USA and
expand its market to China. Another example. You would
think China can leapfrog the coal burning stage of
industrial revolution. Guess what, coal is the only form
of fossil fuel which China has plenty of (and plenty is in
a relative term). China's coal, by comparison, is relatively
"dirty" because it has high sulfur content, but what are
the alternatives? import natural gas from Canada, and
petro from companies which US dominates? You may have
the best intentions, but in the end, it's always the lobbiest
of the industry prevail. --OP
\_ John, as you can well imagine, the company that sells Chinese
equipments see it as an ideal dumping ground for products that
no longer satisfy stringent environmental regulations of the
West. I don't think there are a lot of Chinese who would like
to pollute their own environment. However, most officials in
China in a position to decide what to purchase, whether in the
public or private sectors, do not have much clue about what is
ecological sound and what is not. They are pressed between the
stick of stern and often politically motivated criticism (there
people who make a living by criticizing) and carrots (often
bribes) waved by profit driven greedy companies. Guess
which side appeals to them more? And the same thing happens to
other developping countries as well.
other developed nation would provide those CFC replacement
at the regular CFC cost. But no. The opposite is happening.
The administration at the time, pressued by the lobbiest and
compaign contributor, was leveraging this CFC issue trying to
expand its market to China. In the end, it's all about
who is making that extra buck. Another example is the
power-saving light bulb. Those things are pretty popular
in USA because it cuts power consumption thus, energy use.
But the manufacturing of this light bulb involves mercury and
other exotic and toxic metals. When you flick the light
switch
\_ If China cared about the environment, they'd pay the same
non-CFC costs as everyone else. They live under the same
ozone layer and should care as much. Or more than us if
you buy the claim below that having more people means they
care more about the environment.
\_ Everyone cares about the environment, as long as it's
not hitting their wallet.
\_ I think it's perfectly fine to attempt to get china to
conform to sane environmental policy, just like I think
the bush administratin should regnize that we all live
on the same planet and that paving it with reckless abandon
with only regard to how it increases shareholder value is
not the wisest way to govern.
\_ China in some pervert way more concerned about environment
simply because they got too many people and they would face
the consequences of it a lot more quickly.
\_ Wow, what an amazing bit of propoganda. This is a flat-out
lie. The Chinese government's actions speak infinitely louder
than their words on the environment issue. The truth is they
don't give a shit. Chinese environmental policy doesn't
exist. The US has very strong laws compared to China and most
of the rest of the world. Some parts of western Europe have
stronger laws but not across the board and a little money to
grease the wheels will get you over any little environmental
little bumps in the road there. Back to China: the leaders
don't give a shit about the people. If they lost a few
hundred million they could temporarily end the very unpopular
one child policy and improve the standards of living for the
rest.
\_ now, that is a lie. just look at USA's carbon dioxide
emission. by all account, USA is the worse pollutors
on face of the earth, and that is the fact. You can
have all the environment law you want, it still doesn't
change the fact that USA is the worse pollutor on the
planet.
\_ I never said otherwise. I said we have some of the
toughest laws and we enforce them. No lie. If you'd
like to stop consuming and can convince 270+ million
others to do the same then we'll be the least poluting
country on the planet. You can start by turning off
your incredibly toxic computer and paying to have it
disposed of safely which will cost more than the market
value of the computer today.
\_ Nah, I think I will start by defacing a few SUVs.
\_ Frankly, not enough of the world is paved. |
| 2003/9/14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10188 Activity:nil 71%like:10184 |
9/13 Any idea why my post regarding to Iran its its nuclear program being
deleted by MOTD Censor?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3106488.stm
I love this. There is no incentive for Iran to cooperate
regardless, as even if nothing was found, it would get invaded
anyway.
\_ Marg Bar Amrika, jew lover. -John
\_ Did you post in English?
\_ The problem is they're building (or trying to) nuclear weapons.
Why does an oil rich nation with minimal energy needs develop
a high tech nuclear power industry for civilian use? So they're
in a catch-22. They either come clean in which case they'll be
forced to give up their weapons program or get invaded, or they
don't come clean and get invaded and then give up the weapons
program. The last option is they build their nukes, destroy
Israel who then launches the rumored 300-500 nukes they might
have and wipe out a billion Arabs in response. There's a reason
the 3rd division hasn't come home. It doesn't take an Iranian
rocket scientist to figure it out. (heh, that part was funny,
laugh!) As far as why were you censored? Some people will delete
anything on the motd that isn't nerdy enough for them. World
affairs is on the not-nerdy-enough list unless it has something to
do with MP3 rulings in other countries or linux.
\_ The problem is the iraq war has destroyed our ability to use
war as a way to get countries to back down. We have shown that
dismantaling your weapon progrmas just makes you unable to
defend yourself when you get attacked, while, as in the case
with North Korea, having a strong weapons program gives you
some bargining power. Not to mention Iran knows full well that
the United States doesn't have the military power right now
to keep Iraq under semi-control AND threaten Iran.
\_ Yea, Iran has like 5 times the population and land area
of Iraq, and their mullahs are all crazy unlike the very
moderate Iraq. The land is also more rugged, lots of
mountains. Besides they were the descendants of Darius
the Great, who was known as the Rod of God by the
Israelites for destroying Israel's enemies, and who was
very nice to the ancient Israelites. Talk about being
ungrateful.
\_ Ungrateful?
\_ Huh huh.. He said 'rod.'
\_ Jews and Arabs destroy each other with nukes. Sounds like
an excellent solution to the world's problems. Didn't know
Iranians are arabs.
\_ hey i don't want radioactive gas in my car
\_ They're not but who do you think they're going to nuke in
response to an Iranian first strike? Argentina? Nuking
the middle east will make current issues look easy.
\_ Yea, but he said 1 billion. Arabs << 1 billion.
\_ So nitpicky. After 300+ nukes land the world will be
lucky if only 1 billion die. We're talking the end of
the world and you're concerned with demographics.
\_ Iranians are persians. Ancient scourge of western
civilization, dating back to the greeks.
\_ Jews, ancient troublemakers for western civilization?
\_ Genius, without Jews there wouldn't be a western
civilization. I know!, let's push them all into the
sea. Solidarity with our Muslim brothers! All Praise
Allah! |
| 2003/9/13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10184 Activity:nil 71%like:10188 |
9/13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3106488.stm I love this. There is no incentive for Iran to cooperate. As even if nothing was found, it would get invaded anyway. |
| 2003/9/10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29528 Activity:nil 50%like:10130 |
9/9 Fighting censorship! MOTD RESTORED.
Since we are already in Iraq, we might as well invade
Iran:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3088962.stm
\_ terrorist link and weapon of mass destruction... yes!
time to establish democratic state like what we already have
done in Afghanistan and Iraq.
\_ cookie? |
| 2003/9/10-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10138 Activity:very high |
9/10 To koreans on soda: my grandpa heard about this massage machine made
by Ceragem and become curious. Is it really effective or is it
harmless snake oil? The info. brochure talks about qi flowing and
energy channel, btw.
\_ snake oil.
\_ Koreans population in general has had reputation for getting
suckered into all sorts of snake oils. My father believes
*everything* he reads in Korean newspapers.
\_ it's not limited to them. this is a worldwide phenomenon.
There is slightly less gullibility in Europe/Japan.
\_ I wouldn't call how Koreans handle things necessarily
gullible, just mindless lemmings who do what they're told.
To anyone who's been to S. Korea lately, are they still
nuts regarding "wonderous health regimen" stuff like drinking
raw chicken blood and sucking intestinal juices of live bear? |
| 2003/8/30-9/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10024 Activity:nil |
8/30 So much for any of the real culprits behind the energy crisis getting
in trouble:
http://csua.org/u/42v
\_ And still Davis refuses to return hundreds of thousands in
campaign contributions from Enron.
\_ He'll need it once he's out of a job.
\_ Nice. I mean, "no, no, Gray Davis is totally ethical, man!" |
| 2003/8/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29454 Activity:high |
8/23 I hate polls that don't say who or how many people were called, what
time of day/days, and if they were registered or likely voters or not.
This sort of poll publishing 'technique' just turns the article into
political propaganda and does nothing to inform. I'd *really* like to
see the questions asked to see if they were push-polling too.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/24recall.html
\_ Here's the PDF that has all the info that you want - I believe
the AJC was quoting this LA times poll. Doesn't look that pushed
to me:
http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-08/9112808.pdf
Note the breakdown by voter type, and the questions.
\_ i once got a call from a polster who asked some really loaded
idiotic questions. i told him his questions were full of shit
and refused to answer them on that basis. i made the guys day.
he agreed it was totally loaded and said i was the first person
he'd called who had called him on it.
\_ why do I not believe you?
\_ why would i make the story up? the guy who actually
calls you is just some random guy doing a shit job.
\_ It's common. I've been push polled before and had a similar
conversation. Similar to telemarketers, they're just paid to
\_ All of the same apparitchik remain in power,
the KGB still exists, Putin is KGB, Russia has
accelerated production of nuclear weapons, there
is no free press, etc. etc. I think I'd trust
the judgement of leaders of eastern bloc countries
than yours.
go down a list and ask random useless questions which will be
used later to further their client's political agenda. They
don't care and don't have to.
\_ except I've known people who do telemarketing and they've
said people who digress from the script get fired fast.
\_ There seems to be a little more lee-way for pollsters--
I had a very similar conversation this past week.
\_ I said similar, not the exact same. ie: they don't care
about the product or poll they're calling you about. |
| 2003/8/20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/Companies/Yahoo] UID:29409 Activity:high |
8/20 nickkral, how is Yahoo?
\_ why does w do more reverse lookups than who?
\_ Yahoo! is a fun place to work. Lots of cool people,
excellent technology, and flexable work. Very kicked
back and agressive at the same time. -- nickkral
\_ wow you can't spell. hang out too much with your fob gf?
\_ aggressive is spelled with 2 g's. So how much do
you get paid?
\_ Flexible is not spelled "flexable". I hope I make more
than you both.
\_ I guess you don't want his help getting a job there.
\_ GWB can barely form a sentence and he's the most
powerful man in the world. What does this say
about equating spelling with success? --aaron
\_ whoah that mean nickkral must be rich
and powerful. And that means you're a
nobody cuz you just formed a
syntactically and semantically correct
sentence.
\_ Do they like your political bias at google, aaron?
I thought they might.
\_ It says that if your dad was President then
anything is possible.
\_ http://www.andysinger.com/sample3.html
\_ Even if your dad wasn't President, you can still
become Vice President with bad spelling. It has
been done. |
| 2003/8/15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29351 Activity:insanely high |
8/15 Whee, oui, bienvenu l'ete!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/paris.heatwave/index.html
\_ I'm waiting for someone to blame the heatwave on terrorism.
\_ blame it on Dubya, he didn't sign Kyoto did he?
\_ the funny thing is, depending on which model you believe,
climate change will hurt europe with cold, not heat.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ I'll eat the obvious bait: 1) the Senate ratifies treaties,
not the President, 2) Clinton didn't sign it and send it to
the Senate, 3) if Clinton had signed it, and even if Kyoto
wasn't a complete crock of shit, and even if human events
can trigger global warming, and if Kyoto could actually halt
those triggers, and global warming actually exists as some
self proclaimed environmental experts believe, and if the
current heat wave in some places is caused by global warming,
then it still wouldn't have helped because at this point in
the treaty's life span almost nothing would have changed.
Thanks for sharing your hatred and ignorance with us. And
yes I stopped counting at (3) because I didn't care that
much.
\_ The heat now is a freak climatic occurrence, they happen.
However there's no doubt things have been warming up this
century, and even if not entirely proven, it's fairly
well-accepted that man-made pollutants have some role in
it. The Kyoto treaty may be badly written, but it'd be
nice to see the head of the world's biggest energy user
and polluter (total and per capita) take more steps about
it than signing away nature reserves to oil companies
(aside from the $15 million or so for clean cars, which is
a start.) As I understand it, both Bush & Clinton
poo-pooed Kyoto without bothering to share their ideas on
how emissions could be reduced. -John
\_ "fairly well accepted" doesn't cut it. At one time
it was fairly well accepted that the earth was flat,
unicorns roamed the forests, and dragons flew in
distant [but not too distant] skies eating peasants.
I'm much more concerned about the toxic crap we
[all countries] pump into the environment. There
is a direct link between various cancers, lowered
birth rates, increased birth defect rates and the
destruction of numerous plant and animal species
linked to toxic chemicals humans are dumping into
the environment yet we do almost nothing about that
while the Kyoto "fuck the Americans" Treaty gets
touted as some sort of earth saving measure based
on nothing more than biased models, supposition,
hatred for America, and "fairly well accepted".
\_ Actually, we do all kinds of stuff about toxic
chemicals in the environment. Try again.
\_ Ignorant lout. We do almost nothing compared
to how much is being dumped. *You* try again.
\_ I'm not interested in 'fuck the americans' (being
one myself and all.) Rather, by 'well accepted'
let me clarify that there are a large number of
studies which chalk up human influence as a major
(you'll note, I never said "the") factor behind
the increase in global temperatures. You also
seem to neglect that a reduction in CO2-emitting
processes (gasoline-driven cars, coal firing
power plants, whatever) has as an inevitable side
effect a heavy reduction of the toxic materials
you refer to. So where is the problem? Your
attempt to equate a widespread scientific belief
with unicorns is pretty sad. -John
\_ Wide spread scientific belief is of no more
value than unicorns. You've heard of the
scientific method. It has yet to be applied
to the question of global warming. I'm not
nearly as concerned with something like CO2
as I am all the other stuff that is actually
directly and indirectly killing us all on a
daily basis. No one disputes that we're
poisoning our own environment. CO2 isn't
a good thing but it isn't killing us, causing
birth defects or dropping the sperm counts
across Europe to near sterile levels.
\_ All we know is temperatures increased ~ 0.5
degree during this century, of which most occurred
during the first half. More sophisticated
data shows atmospheric temperatures have dropped
in the past 25 years while surface temperatures
have risen. We also know that CO2 levels are
high. This is all scientists know. Everything
else is conjecture made by those with
a political agenda.
\_ (1) Human's ability to have a negative impact on
the world's environment and ecosystems has
long been demonstrated (ozone layer depletion,
rain forest reduction, etc.).
(2) Cutting CO2 emissions is the obvious thing
to do if the rise in temperature is in any
way human related.
(3) What kind of evidence is sufficient to
convince you that the temperature increases
is caused by human activities? A sudden
sharp rise in temperatures around the globe?
\_ Maybe because temperatures have exhibited
much larger oscillations since the
dinosaurs. E.g. the mini-ice age and
settlement of Greenland during the last
millenium.
\_ Please see my comments above about toxic
chemicals in the environment. Let's clean up
something we *know* is killing us before we
waste time and energy doing something which
may have no effect at all. |
| 2003/7/4-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28925 Activity:moderate |
7/3 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030703-114656-2535r.htm Thank God we didn't waste more money than we did on that Star Wars insanity. We know they wouldn't do anything until they had a few thousand nukes and could overwhelm any system anyway and besides they're more likely to run the shipping blockade and bring one right into harbor instead of firing one on missiles they've already launched in tests that overflew Japan. No need to be nervous, we'll just use diplomacy and talk out our differences. Everything will be fine. A capable defense just makes the world a more dangerous place. \_ This is just a guess, but I'm thinking you're the type to get angry if someone points out that this was more of a threat than Iraq. \_ Of course NKorea is more of a threat than Iraq but that doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat and the world isn't better off with Saddam, etc dead, captured or in hiding. The world isn't black and white. Just because there's a worse thing going on doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't deal with a lesser worse thing. I'm not only *not* angry but I more than agree with the statement that NKorea is more of a threat than Iraq was. If we smashed every oppressive dictator who starves and murders his own people the world would be a better place. It would be even better if the hypocrites in Europe helped out since a lot of these are their messes. \_ "Bring Them On!" |
| 2003/7/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28878 Activity:moderate |
6/30 Bring it on! Whoo ya! 70 feet of solid rock, no explosives!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,988612,00.html
\_ finally, world domination.
\_ wow, that is a scarry bad idea.
\_ While it might induce scar tissue, it's scary as well.
\_ What is so *scary* about it? We could've destroy the whole world
by the mid/late 60s in a matter of hours. This is just techie
toy fun by comparison.
\_ Donno, maybe it's not a bad idea. Just seems like
the more omnipotent the US apprears, terrorism seems
like more of a threat. |
| 2003/6/20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:28783 Activity:nil |
6/20 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/20/1055828474718.html Looking back, I'm glad we didn't waste billions of dollars on that idiotic Star Wars thing now. It would've been totally stupid to be able to maybe shoot down a handful of nukes when the Soviets had thousands. |
| 2003/5/31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28592 Activity:nil |
5/30 http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/economists.htm |
| 2003/5/12 [Science/GlobalWarming, Industry/Startup, Computer/SW/Security] UID:28410 Activity:very high |
5/11 http://www.workingassets.com - just a decent phone company that puts money toward good (progressive) causes (for when your email to your congressman stops making you feel good). \_ Shouldn't they be giving the service free!?? Capitalist swine - you are a sell out. \_ yermom gives it out for free and she's still swine. \_ If they are the cheapest and give (your) money away, then this is great. o/w give your own money away, and get the charitable deduction for yourself. \_ the nice thing about opting for world conscious services such as this one is that you show market preference for that type of corporation ethic. other companies will clean up their act if they see that the conscious stick gets customers. \_ wow.... I didn't know people actually believed that.... \_ Kinda like the U.N. I imagine. \_ Except the UN doesn't make a profit, isn't at all 'world conscious', doesn't provide real services, has no competition, and continues collecting money from it's 'members' no matter how well or poorly it does providing no incentive to improve, and has no effective means of controlling either it's own members or it's own staff, officers, and executives who don't ever get reviewed, demoted, fired, or replaced, and is trying to take over the entire world and reduce your national level rights to zero. Yeah, kinda like that. \_ Except for the profit thing, this sounds exactly like Microsoft! \_ You think the UN and MS are in cahoots? |
| 2003/5/8 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28369 Activity:high |
5/7 Day 47. Still no wmds.
\_ But I bet the jews are pleased at getting america to do their
dirty work.
\_ Are you really an anti-semite or do you just play one
on the motd?
\_ KILL THE JEWS! KILL THE JEWS! http://www.masada2000.org for details.
\_ Haven't you heard already? The bar has been lowered. All we're
looking for now is evidence that they used to have WMDs several
years ago.
\_ Frankly, I never cared if there were or weren't. The WMD was just
for the consumption of the great masses. I believe what we were
really doing was cleaning up the mess we left behind in 91 and the
only disappointment is that it took 12 years to get around to it.
\_ I disagree... I'm not against the war per se (incidentally I
am against the war, but that's a seperate discussion) but what
I am against is anyone who believes that the reason we are
there had anything to do with "wmd's" or terrorism. We are
there to satisfy the needs of american business... anyone
who doesnt realize that this country is run by corporate
america is deluding themselves.
\_ What business is in the Iraq? WTF are you talking about?
It took two years to find Saddams nuclear program after
GWI.
\_ OIL! stupid. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserve
in Arab world. and Bush just issued a plan to
"privatize" much of Iraqi economy. Take a wild guess
which company will end up buying the assets of formal
Oil Ministry of Iraq?
By the way, if you notice, virtually all of the
government building were looted, except the
Oil Ministry. Hostipal, water treatment plants,
Universities were all allowed to be looted,
(by some account, even encouraged by US soldiers)
but Oil field, and its refinary infrastructure
were well protected by US arm and forces.
70 years ago, US forces were doing the same thing
inside China protecting the interest of then
Standard Oil company. So, this is not something
new. Just please believe that we are doing all these
for the goodness of the mainkind.
\_ OIL OIL OIL! OILITY OIL OIL OIL! OILITY OIL! |
| 2003/4/24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28222 Activity:nil |
4/24 http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html Soylent black. \_ I hope this technology pans out. If so, we can halt the net production of CO2 |
| 2003/4/24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28217 Activity:very high |
4/24 CNN front page:
During talks with China and the U.S., North Korea's Li Gun told U.S.
representative James Kelly "blatantly and boldly" that his country
has at least one nuclear weapon, an official said. Gun asked, "Now
what are you going to do about it?"
\_ Gotta love that cowboy style negotiations team the NK sent.
\_ They should be compatible with our's!
\_ no apostrophe.
-aaron
-grammar nazi
I wonder what our response was? "We've got 5,000 and they're all
properly tested and can hit anywhere in the world within 6 minutes"
\_ North Korea is not the problem. Nuclear weapons are not the
problem. US imperialism and aggression are the problem.
\_ how are we imperalizing on North Korea? we didn't
give them enough free food this year? actually
I know we stopped shipping them free food and oil
\_ Actually, we're still shipping the free food, we only
stopped the free oil.
ever since they started going off the deep end again. |
| 2003/4/11-13 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Biology] UID:28091 Activity:very high |
4/11 This might sound trollish, but I'm curious about the
explanation. In cold places people evolved to have more body
hair. Northern europe for example. While people in the
tropics like hawaii or the amazon have little facial or body
hair. Make sense? So what explanation can there be for
middle eastern people having a lot of body hair? This goes for
Jews/Arabs/Persian/etc alike. How does living in the desert
evolved into growing so much body hair?
\_ Most of the people living in Europe, the near East
and India are descendents of the same group of
Indo-Europeans who left central asia less than 10K
yrs ago.
\_Actually, variations in body height, amount of hair, breast size,
penis size, etc. has nothing to do with natural selection but more
to do with founder effects. The human race, once they moved out of
the central African continent, has not evolved on the genetic level.
The variations you see in the world are because all "races" of humanity
(with the possible exception of certain african tribes) were founded
on an exceedingly small population of humans, somewhere on the order
of no more than 20-30 individuals. What you see is therefore more of
an effect of in-breeding than environmental factors. The only exception
to this is skin color, because the amount of sun one receives can
not be easily controlled by technology (cold can be controlled by
wearing clothes, height can be overcome by using certain tools, etc.)
In fact, the widest variation of genetics occurs in Africa. so that
populations within africa which are not seperated by more than a couple
km might exhibit more genetic variation than between an east asian and
a caucasian from Europe.
\_ We only have more facial hair than the indolent little brown
brothers so that we may grow cool goatees and make supervillains
worthy of our superior genetic heritage, to oppress and enslave
the lesser hairless or pelted peoples of the world. After all
what's a real supervillain without a blond Vandyke. -John
\_ Actually, variations in body height, amount of hair, breast
size, penis size, etc. has nothing to do with natural
selection but more to do with founder effects. The human
race, once they moved out of the central African continent,
has not evolved on the genetic level. The variations you
see in the world are because all "races" of humanity (with
the possible exception of certain african tribes) were
founded on an exceedingly small population of humans,
somewhere on the order of no more than 20-30
individuals. What you see is therefore more of an effect of
in-breeding than environmental factors. The only exception
to this is skin color, because the amount of sun one
receives can not be easily controlled by technology (cold
can be controlled by wearing clothes, height can be
overcome by using certain tools, etc.) In fact, the widest
variation of genetics occurs in Africa. so that populations
within africa which are not seperated by more than a couple
km might exhibit more genetic variation than between an
east asian and a caucasian from Europe.
\_ Wow, this is so wrong I'm not even sure where to begin.
\_ He is not completely wrong. In reality there is
very little genetic different between humans on
any continent.
\_ We only have more facial hair than the indolent little
brown brothers so that we may grow cool goatees and make
supervillains worthy of our superior genetic heritage, to
oppress and enslave the lesser hairless or pelted peoples
of the world. After all what's a real supervillain without
a blond Vandyke. -John
\_ Ooh... Almost forgot! Progress report: Everything is fine.
Nothing is ruined. Eagle flies at 0640. --qz42
\_ your premise is incorrect.
\_ Maybe it is to protect against sunburns.
\_ http://www.kithrup.com/brin/neotenyarticle1.html
\_ I liked this article.
\_ It's pretty plausible, isn't it? And it explains a lot
of things that wouldn't make sense otherwise!
\_ (east) asians are basically hairless. it gets hot in asia.
\_ tell that to my bunghole
\_ and it snows in korea, japan, and parts of china. makes
sense to me. have you published yet?
\_ I thought hair acts as an insulant -- cooling in hot environments,
and heating in cold.
\_ Swedes don't have a lot of hair. --dim
\_ neither do eskimos.
\_ The more evolved you are, the less hair. Japanese are the most
evolved, followed by other Asians, Amerindians, Northern
Europeans, then Aficans with Slavs and other Middle Eastern
people at the bottom.
\_ are you sure that isn't the smaller the penis, the less hair?
\_ How do you explain me then? I am very hairy but has very small
penis.
\_ all of you are wrong. Ask yourself, why are women less hairy?
\_ because they shave their legs off.
\_ but they don't shave their chests and backs, do they?
\_ smaller penises?
\_ Because they float like a duck! Burn her! Burn her!
\_ who are you who, are so wise in the ways of science?
\_ It shall be greater than two but less than four!
\_ Because they are more highly evolved?
\_ hair is no longer strongly correlated to survival (aka, passing
on your DNA to children). |
| 2003/4/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Recreation/Food] UID:28036 Activity:nil |
4/8 geek fiction:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/4/3/19455/41933
\_ a kur5hin story/bad geek fiction is not more interesting than
the motd you destroyed. |
| 2003/4/6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28010 Activity:nil |
4/5 People who don't know anything about climate shouldn't pretend to
have a scientific position. |
| 2003/4/6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:28006 Activity:kinda low |
4/5 It was probably the fault of the racist white Crusaders.
'Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists '
http://csua.org/u/c78
\_ no one's claiming that the current temperaturre trend is
unprecedented in history. CO_2 levels, on the other hand *are*
unprecedented. The fact that CO_2 is a green house gas is
not in dispute. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would have
average temperatures well below the freezing point of water.
\_ tell you what. you go read all the articles on climate change in
Science and Nature for the next month, and report back when
you know what the fuck you're talking about. Global temperature
increase is potentially not the most severe problem from
anthropogenic climate change. Also read "Storm Warning," by
Lydia Dotto.
\_ Please answer these questions then. Since ocean
temperatures have been systematically collected (for ~25
years), they have not changed. Why ? Surface temperatures
have risen, atmospheric temperatures have fallen, why? The
earth was several degrees warmer in medieval ages, why?
None of the atmospheric models include or predict El Nino
and other ocean warming effects, why? You can say there
has been increases in CO2 levels, and maybe a 0.5 C change
in temperature, primarily before 1950. Thats it. You seem
to have a very naive understanding of how grants are
distributed in science. You think someone proposing to
dispute dire climate change would receive significant
funds? [formatd. and learn to format to under 80 columns]
\_ This article doesn't bother you - please explain to me what
has changed.
The Cooling World - http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
\_ You can't be serious. Those "science" articles are a
joke.
\_ I like this quote from the article: "It makes one wonder why there
is so much fear of warmth." I dunno, I hear Venus is lovely
this time of year.
\_ Are you the same person who quoted Ghandi in the other thread?
Cute, but not a statement with any scientific weight. |
| 2003/4/4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:27988 Activity:nil |
4/3 Oz teens shot in school crossbow attack
http://csua.org/u/c53
\_ Ban crossbows!
\_ If you make crossbows criminal, only criminals
will use crossbows.
\_ True enough.
\_ I don't know what legitimate reason there is for someone
to own a crossbow.
\_ You can take my crossbow when you pry it from my
cold dead fingers.
\_ Guess I'm joining the NCA now.
\_ Support waiting periods for crossbows!
\_ Somehow this seems vaugely appropriate:
http://www.hacktivismo.com/public/tfiles/crossbows2crypto.txt
\_ If only they'd properly locked up the crossbows, this
kind of thing wouldn't happen.
\_ gee, 5 responses by the same 90-column idiot. -tom
\_ you seem overly concerned about the motd in a possibly
unhealthy way. have you discussed this with a professional? |
| 2003/4/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:27942 Activity:nil |
4/1 Why isn't my mail spool world readable? -phillip
\_ blame procmail
\_ Wrong answer
\_ Who would want the world reading their mail?
\_ Someone who as got nothing to hide. |
| 2003/3/29-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:27905 Activity:very high |
3/29 N.Korea Vows No Nuclear Concessions, Cites Iraq
"The DPRK would have already met the same miserable fate as
Iraq's had it compromised its revolutionary principle and
accepted the demand raised by the imperialists and its
followers for "nuclear inspection" and disarmament," the
ruling party daily Rodong Sinmun said in a commentary.
http://csua.org/u/bf0
\_ It just means that we better have some sort of missile defense in
place before they try to nuke the west coast (sorry reality caught
up to your fantasy, tom) or we'll end up bombing them back to
sticks n stones in due time.
\_ i gotta say, damn! what a coward, and i'm not even tom
you might as well join the fedayeen saddam.
\_ huh? are you on the right thread?
\_ Now if reality could only catch up with the fantasy of
missile defense...
\_ so you mean you dont believe the math exists to track a
trajectory over the pacific? you don't believe in trig?
algebra? vectors? "Math is hard! Let's go shopping!"
\_ and that's the real problem. notice that the
physicists who stand to make billions in funding from
missile defense are the most vocal critics; because they
know it won't work.
\_ Who are "the physicists" you're talking about? This stuff
is all done in government funded weapons labs, not from
the left wing of the UC Berkeley physics department.
\_ Nah, I doubt they are interested in bombing the west coast,
but if we try a regime change on them, it may get ugly.
\_ It'll be a case of nuclear black mail. "Give us all the money
and food and oil we need to keep our broken economy running
and our army fed and we won't nuke the west coast". |
| 2003/3/26 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:27868 Activity:nil |
3/26 oil well fire animation: http://www.wildwell.com/cap_animation.htm oil well fire pictures: http://www.wildwell.com/Firefighting/firefighting.htm - danh |
| 2003/3/24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27830 Activity:nil |
3/24 This crazy world, from
http://www.petting-zoo.net/~deadbeef/archive/5318.html :
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a
white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing
the US of arrogance, and Europe doesn't want to go to war." |
| 2003/3/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27789 Activity:high |
3/21 Is this war about terrorists, or WMDs, or regime change, or oil, or
dollar vs euro, or Bush personal vendetta, or American hegemonism,
or a combination of all of the above? What do you guys think?
\_ I had a "well, duh" moment yesterday. The only reason it's
all been couched in the "protecting us from terrorists" context
is because that context is already funded. It's about oil. period.
--scotsman
\_ You need another moment. It's about oil, in the sense that oil
is what makes Saddam rich, which gives him the capability
\_ Nothig wrong. It's just greed.
to sponsor terrorists. Dubya has said, "After all, this is the
guy who tried to kill my dad" in a speech, and he figures
Saddam's going to get his revenge one way or another. The
Bush view is "get them while they're small" -- preemptive
strike -- and make them an example.
\_ And what's wrong with controlling the 2nd largest source of
energy on the planet?
\_ what's the first largest source of energy? or do you mean
second largest source of oil?
\_ currently its the same thing.
\_ It's going against the will of the people, squandering
resources in order to recoup the losses of some of our
largest corporations. And what's wrong with it? That
innocents are less important than those companies' bottom
lines.
\_ the will of which people? you want to see the latest
polls on support for the war and support for bush? the
last bit is just your opinion of the root cause.
\_ The Congress of these United States. The funding
for this war is misappropriated from the struggle
against "terrorism". Are you one of those who compares
the state of affairs in Iraq to the Cuban missile
crisis?
\_ So you think Congress doesn't want this to happen?
You're aware they voted October/02 for military
action? You're aware they could vote anytime to do
all sorts of things both real and symbolic? The
last I knew they were going to vote on a resolution
to say they support the troops. And WTF does the
Cuban Missile Crisis have to do with this? Can you
please try to stay in the same century with us?
\_ Nothing wrong. It's just greed.
\_ adults would call it control of strategic assets. ya know,
important things you need to keep your culture alive.
\_ Next thing we know, you will be calling it 'lebensraum'.
\_ Haven't you figured it out yet? The war is about the Jew Sharon
and Zionsim.
\_ Kill the Jews! Push them into the sea!
\_ War on the nexus of militant Islam, rogue states, and terrorism
- they are all intertwined. Reestablish negotiating position
of the US to one of power. Transition of US foreign policy from Cold
War - first major transition since the 1940's. Proxy war on the
Saudis.
\_ What is your definition of a "rogue state"?
\_ Iran, N. Korea, France, Germany, China, Russia. -Dubya
\_ nah, thoes are our reluctant allies!-dubya
\_ hi trollboy! love ya, kid! |
| 2003/3/21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:27788 Activity:high |
3/21 http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030319/frontpage/23705.shtml This guy went to the same school as the bulldozer girl... though apparently she was more devoted and intelligent. \_ Because standing in front of a huge armored bulldozer is really intelligent. I'll grant you on the devoted part. \_ Depends on your priorities. At any rate, at least she found the right house to protect. \_ what house? nothing i read said anything about the house. \_ I'm not sure what you mean-- the girl was standing in front of a Palestinian settlement. Maybe they're not houses per se (shacks?), but she found the right place (unlike the guy in the story above). \_ The right place to what? Die stupidly? Her death has no meaning. It will change nothing. The issues at stake are vastly more important than a dumb little girl. \_ I suspect you might be missing the other guy's intended tone.... |
| 2003/2/26 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:27546 Activity:nil |
2/26 What have the Muslim countries contributed to the world in the past
500 years? In art, science, music or any other field. I can't
think of anything. So what exactly are these extremists embracing?
\_ Religion? Getting the west to butt out of their region and stop
telling them how to run their countries?
\_ the exact same thing christian or jewish countries have
contributed (either a lot, or nothing, depending on what your
bias).
\_ We landed a man on the moon in the year 1755. The west had
to wait 200 years to do the same. Of course, our glorious
achievement was brutally suppressed by the white man's press
and was therefore never fully recognized. |
| 2003/2/19-20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27460 Activity:high |
2/19 http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html To those of you who got your secondary education outside the U.S.: Are things really fundamentally different elsewhere? \_ Russian education tries to educate, so there is social selection based on academic performance. At least when I was there. I think this guy is right on. \_ "You failed. Off to Chechnya with you!" \_ In Soviet Russia, butt wipe you! \_ In Soviet Russia, school teach YOU! \_ Yes and no. My experience in China had a lot of overlap. A diff. was that coolness was less exploited by the industry and less extreme, though that must be changing very much toward the direction of the U.S. now. Still, the popular kids would turn out to be dumb, and the smarter ones (not necessarily nerds) would get bullied. I had suicidal thoughts but not attempts. I actually did not dislike my short U.S. high school experience. I was not much involved with the other kids and left alone. The coursework the U.S.). This gave to me time to explore my own interest but I am sure those who actually need feeding did not learn much. was extremely easy (at supposedly one of the best public school in the U.S.). This gave me time to explore my own interest but I am sure those who actually needed feeding did not learn much. I also had some experience dealing with people who did their H.S. in soviet/russia in academic circles. They have a reputation of being smart almost by default but are not particularly impressive in real world accomplishments. \_ HS here was easy for you because we don't take education too seriously in this country until college and mostly not even then. Everyone gets the education they strive for. \_ That's mostly ok, except for math and sciences which require more work during earlier years. End result is that only ugly no-life nerds make it in science and engineering in the US. \_ what is your explanation ofor American dominance in science and math research and tenchology? us "nerds" have done pretty damn well for the last 100 years or so in this country in spite of a nonfunctional education system. \_ Those of us with the balls took it upon ourselves. And it doesn't hurt to have highly educated parents as well. \_ Meaning you had an unfair advantage over others? The educational playing field should be level! \_ That's easy: an over abundance of ugly nerds! What else are they going to do? |
| 2003/2/16-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:27434 Activity:low |
2/16 More on switching to a new field thread I posted below...there are
actually two specific areas I would like to go into: financial
service and some sort of environmental/conservation group. I
enjoy giving out financial advice to my friends knowing that I am
helping out but I know I probably need a financial degree to
swtich to that field. What about some environmental/convservation
group? I want to know that I am doing something that's helping
the environment (which in turn helps us humans). Any pointers
on how I would go about switching to something like that? I like
the idea of working as a SW engineer in the new field but are
any environmental groups hiring SW engineers?
\_Try some volunteer work in the areas you're interested. It'll
confirm your interest and build up your resume for a switch into
whichever area you decide to go into.
\_I have a CS degree and a financial job. Depending on what type
of job you're looking for, switching might be easy. Send me mail if
you'd like to talk about it. -ccook
\_ Your performance is measured by money. In the end, it's all
anyone cares about in the financial sector. I shared your
sentiments about helping people, but you're a bigger man than I
if you can glean satisfaction from the "what have you done for the
bottom line lately" culture. - Former Financial Advisor
(Finance degree not required. Just ability to sell. That's the prob) |
| 11/26 |