Science GlobalWarming - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming:
Results 151 - 300 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/01/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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: and here's a link to the
        essay that is primarily responsible for him winning the prize:
        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"
        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:
        \_ 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.
              \_ 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
2005/3/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:36575 Activity:nil
3/8     RIP Hans Bethe
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
           \_ 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
        \_ 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: []
        "we may have already passed peak oil".
2005/2/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36236 Activity:nil
2/18    Oil traders kick Greenpeace butt,,2-1487741,00.html
        \_ That's hillarious.  Thanks.
2022/01/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2005/2/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36230 Activity:nil
2/18    Concrete evidence of human role in global warming from Scripps
        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?
           \_ 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:
        \_ Wait! The numbers are becoming clearer...I see... a flame war--one
           involving politics.  I see the involvement of ilyas.  I see deletions
           and 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...
2005/2/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36059 Activity:nil
2/3     Toughest sport in the world?,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!
2005/1/28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35955 Activity:high
1/28    NK might have a Pak nuke:
        \_ 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:
        \_ How is "nukular" any worse than "comfterble", which is now the
           standard pronounciation of "comfortable"?  Word pronounciations
        \_ sigh... why don't you browse m-w a little closer:
           \_ 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...)
        \_ 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:
                       \_ 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.
        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:
                   [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
                \_ 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
                     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]
                            \- 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.
        \_,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.
                    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:
2004/12/29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35471 Activity:nil
        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
        \_ Umm.. this link goes to a porn site about big breasted women.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
           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
           \_ 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?
           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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
              \_ 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
              \_ 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
                             \_ 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."
        \_ 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
           \_ 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:
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                          \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        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.
           \_ 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:
           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
        \_ 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:
           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?
             -- 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
        \_ If I was going to pick some random bbc web link to post, I'd
           have picked this one instead:
           Medicine Nobel prize awarded for learning how smell works.
        \_ 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.
                          - 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
           \_ 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,
           \_ 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
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.
        \_ 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
2004/9/27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33767 Activity:moderate
9/27    New method for storing nuclear waste: (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...
                \_ 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
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:
  (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
           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
                 \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                \_ "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
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     - 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
              \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ Diana Wynne Jones did this much better in her "Tough Guide to
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
        \_ 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.
        \_ "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
                \_ 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
        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
              \_ 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:
           \_ 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
        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?
        \_ 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
           \_ 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
                    \_ 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."
           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:
                \_ This is fucking stupid
        \_ This is fucking stupid
           \_ Although the project does a pretty good job explaining the
2004/7/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:31108 Activity:very high
7/1     Light might have been slower 2 billion yrs ago:
        \_ Just in case you don't know, is about as reliable
           a source for science news as *name-of-random-tabloid* for news.
                \_ any better sources?
                   \_ <DEAD><DEAD>, and <DEAD><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
        (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. (Yahoo! News)
2004/6/22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30962 Activity:nil
6/22    Toxic Pollution rose 5 Percent in 2002, first time since 1997.
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?
                       \_ 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
                    \_ 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?
           \_ . google. use it.
              \_ The proxy server's down, and I don't like using google with
                 \_ 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
           \_ 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:
        \_ Well, unlike global warming, this problem can be dealt with at the
           local level:
           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/.
                         \_ 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
                   \_ your reference for 'non millionaires' is
                      what does your class warfare mantra have to do with
                \_ Go read Lomborg's pages on 'errors and corrections'
                   and 'critiques and replies'.
                   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
         . 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:
           \_ 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
        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.
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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)
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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.
                    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
                    \_ 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.
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:
        \_ obWDYHA?
        \_ Uh, yeah?  Everyone knew that.
2004/6/1 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30521 Activity:high
6/1     Energy from the gulf stream:
        \_ 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
        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.
        \_ 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
              \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
              \_ Also good is the Bad Astronomy page (movies too)
                 \_ 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:
        BBC article at:
        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
        Federal Grants Awarded to Environmental NGOs, 1997 -2001
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!
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
                   \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                   \_ 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
              \_ 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!
        \_ 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!
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):
        \- 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:
        \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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:
           \_ 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
                           \_ 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
                                        \_ If you read their initial response
                                           from Oct. 29 2003 Mann's behavior
                                           is very suspicious:
                                           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
                   \_ 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.
                  \_ 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."
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.
        \_ "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
           \_ do you have a quick summary of biodiesel?  Yes, I could
              obGoogle, but I want to hear it in your words.
                 \_ 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.
                                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
                \_ 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:
                \_ 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
                 \_ Mmmm, breeder reactors.  But with that much extra
                   to produce?
                    would make it through the resulting five or six nuclear
                    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
                    \_ 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.
        \_ 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. 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
                \_ 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:
                         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
            \_ If you really have to ask for a URL for #1: -!op
               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:
2004/2/17-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12286 Activity:high
2/17    When will this story explode in the mainstream media?
        \_ 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:
                 \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
        (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:
           \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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 .
        \_ vote for a guy who takes energy issues seroiusly.  vote Harry Braun.
           \_ 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
                    \_ 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.
                       \_ making ad hominem attacks against someone you don't
                          even know is hardly a good way to make an argument.
                          \_ 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.
                        \_ 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?
        \_ yer mom - old world.
2004/2/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12137 Activity:high
2/6     Global Warming is shrinking the atmosphere:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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?
           \_ "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!!!
        \_ That picture totally needs some flying cars and Zeppelins in the
           \_ It iz about doing bad thingz!  To good people!  Mit Zcienze!
              \_ source?
                 \_ The Tick.
           \_ _Your_ movie is here: (Apple preview)
        \_ I would so vote for him if I thought he had a chance in hell of
           \_ you can see him and 14 other random, unknown candidates
              talk at 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.
        \_ 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
        \_ <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'.
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
2003/12/11 [Reference/History, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11419 Activity:nil
12/11   We been polluting for 8000 years: (
        \_ 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
                          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.
           My favorite study as of late:
           Researchers question key global-warming study
           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:
        \_ 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.
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
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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.
        \_ What do you mean "the quality of gasoline"?
           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
        \_ 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.
        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
        \_ 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
        \_ Yawn.
2003/10/24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10766 Activity:nil 75%like:10774
10/23   Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
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
                             \_ 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
        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
           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
        \_ 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
                \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                    \_ 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?
        I love this.  There is no incentive for Iran to cooperate
        regardless, as even if nothing was found, it would get invaded
        \_ 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?
                 \_ 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
2003/9/13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:10184 Activity:nil 71%like:10188
        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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
           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
                         \_ 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.
                            \_ 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!
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                              \_ 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
        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
           \_ 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!,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  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
2003/5/12 [Science/GlobalWarming, Industry/Startup, Computer/SW/Security] UID:28410 Activity:very high
5/11 - 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! 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
                   \_ 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
        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.
                                                        -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.
           \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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 '
        \_ 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 -
                   \_ You can't be serious.  Those "science" articles are a
        \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
        oil well fire pictures: - danh
2003/3/24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27830 Activity:nil
3/24    This crazy world, from :
     "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.
           \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                       \_ 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
           \_ 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
        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
        \_ 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
        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)
2022/01/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 151 - 300 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming: