bascule

I'll admit that rhetoric on both sides of the "debate" has grown increasingly vitriolic. That's a misrepresentation of the current state of climate science. While there are and will always be uncertainties and unpredictable events, the science behind anthropogenically forced climate change is solid. This is a label which is deservedly applied to those who willfully misrepresent the state of modern climate science. While there are people who poignantly question the conclusions of climate science, I'm afraid those people are few and far between, versus those are less concerned about things like facts and are for all intents and purposes slandering the scientists involved. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is the approach Richard Dawkins has taken to evolution denial. His rationale is by debating evolution deniers on a level playing field he's giving them too much credit and dragging himself down to their level. It's a case of people who, again, are less concerned about facts and more concerned about getting their message out, so rather than engaging in legitimate debate they merely use the "debate" as a platform to proselytize to the audience. In general I think it would be good for climate scientists to distance themselves from the policy debate, and instead find political advocates (e.g. Al Gore) they can educate as policy advocates.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1965 Long story short, there's a bill before Congress which would kick people out of the country for supporting terrorism. Hillary Clinton is behind it: United States citizenship is a privilege [...] It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers — or in this case, foreign terrorists — are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens. The White House has not issued a statement on it yet. I can definitely say I'm not a fan of this bill. It reminds me far too much of the Bush era. This was the sort of crap I hoped we had put behind us, but apparently not, Democrats can be just as guilty of this authoritarian crap. Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to revoke people's citizenship? If they're doing something illegal, arrest them. Why do we need to grant the federal government he power to take away people's citizenship? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt appears that the Obama administration is pursuing additional limitations on the constitutional rights of terrorism suspects.

Apparently the answer is, yes, there should be some kind of failsafe system. It's called an "acoustic switch," and they cost $500,000. They're required everywhere else in the world besides the US, because the Bush Administration removed the regulations which would require an acoustic switch to be installed. . The lack of an acoustic switch was also covered by the ultraconservative News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal.

If God created physics and chemistry, what is God made out of?

An open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, decries the "recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689 While I understand the frustration that critics and "skeptics" of climate science are going through when they find their criticisms perhaps unduly dismissed, it's difficult for legitimate climate science skepticism to exist in the outwardly anti-science environment perpetrated by various unscientific critics. I hope for a future where criticisms are leveled by those who understand what arguments lack scientific merit yet are still skeptical about mainstream climate science can join the scientists in rejecting these types of complaints. At least from what I observed, however, that is not how the majority of "skeptics" behave. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html While teabaggers bitch and complain about the size of government spending, one area they're probably not thinking of when it comes to saving money is the US military, which spends more than every other military on earth... combined. And yet, Robert Gates is suggesting that perhaps there's money which can be saved within the Pentagon. Tickle me surprised. In fact, he claims to be able to cut up to $15 billion, and has recommended the military prepare for further spending cuts. Amazing!

The LIBERAL (rofl) New York Times reports: suddenly the Republicans are a bit gun shy about drill baby drill! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/politics/09memo.html

...and we're already to the ad hominems! Pangloss, am I confused? Aren't you supposed to be the moderator of this forum? Perhaps you could lead by example? Yes, let's see how exactly how he was "put forth as some kind of objective informer"... You know what... I'm done. Two fallacies in two sentences (when the first sentence was "I made it through 1:47.") is enough for me thanks, I'm full.

I'm just going to throw this out here and see what the Fox apologists around here say... 8x-5wI_64x0

As D H noted, that's exactly what they did. They said you had to author your application "originally" in ObjC/C/C++, which precludes Flash. I'm interested to see how well Flash will work on Android. Flash is designed for pointer-driven interfaces so it will be interesting to see how well Flash web sites work on a touchscreen device. I suppose Android does provide a pointer if you need it, and Flash very well may need it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's pretty strange. Flash used to work great on Mac. Then the contention over Flash on the iPhone began, and it seems like the quality of Flash on the Mac went downhill rather quickly. This only poured fuel on the fire for Apple, who can now claim that Flash is horribly unstable, which it is... on Mac, not on Windows. -- All that said, getting Flash working properly on a mobile device seems to be an immense technical challenge, and in that regard Apple's decision may be pragmatic. Flash for Android has been delayed repeatedly, and I saw this today on Twitter regarding the current state: Flash on Android demo crashes twice. Speaker says "What site would you like to see?" Someone says "Hulu." Speaker says, "Hulu doesn't work."

As I work for a media company I can tell you the bottom line generally trumps all. Looking at the Jay Leno / Conan deal, the decision was entirely motivated by the bottom line. A personality conflict erupted between Leno and Conan and one of them had to go. Leno had the bigger contract and would've been the bigger loss, so despite Leno being doomed to a shrinking audience and Conan having actual growth potential, they canned Conan. Is Beck hurting Fox's bottom line? I don't know. He's bringing more viewers but alienating advertisers. The whole thing seems fishy to me, though.

I've been hearing a lot about what a mess this election was, and it seems everyone else here agrees. Sorry to hear that.

So how do we interpret Fox not firing Beck after Beck has caused an advertising boycott and cost Fox many of their sponsors?

Apple has some very good reasons for not supporting Flash, namely emphasis on user experience. They don't want the app store or its review process inundated with a bunch of Flash shovelware. They want people writing apps for the iPhone/iPad to focus exclusively on these platforms and create the best user experience they can. At the same time, the iPhone/iPad do support open development in the form of HTML5/JS, a vendor-neutral standard similar to Flash, except with substantially better performance. In fact, it seems Apple has singlehandedly catapulted HTML5 to critical mass. HTML5 provides several key features which were missing from browsers which the Flash plugin was previously the only solution to. In this regard, by eschewing Flash, Apple is doing everyone a service by forcing them to choose an open alternative.

http://mashable.com/2010/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-2/ The FCC went ahead with regulating ISPs as telcos, which will subject them to common carrier laws.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36999483 Yesterday the Dow took a 1,000 point nosedive. The problem was originally blamed on the fallout in Greece, however it seems it may have been initiated by a single trader at Citigroup who accidentally typed "b" for billion instead of "m" for million, apparently when trading Proctor & Gamble stick which is one of the DJIA stocks. Whoops!

Is it true the UK doesn't have a constitution? (beyond the Magna Carta, I guess?)

Because a single source quoted in an article is the equivalent of a paid commentator? What? Pangloss, I'm asking you as the moderator of this forum, please try harder. You are equivocating things which are simply no where close to being equal.

*facepalm* Let's see, what was that you were saying earlier... Okay, you I am "unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary" but you are free of ad homimens. Okay. No really, not okay. Keep those ad hominems subtle and they don't count against you, right? Right... no, not right. Psst, that was an ad hominem, Pangloss. It is understood? By who? I hate to lapse into ad hominem, but my only answer to the "by who" question is... tards. Okay Pangloss, now we're even. Seriously, you're giving carte blanche to News Corp allowing their immensely powerful media delivery system to transmit Glenn Beck's narrative. After all, he's simply a Fox employee. His opinion is irrelevant. What he has to say does not reflect back on News Corp whatsoever. Do you really buy that? Have you watched other Fox commentators try to stick up for Glenn Beck? Like... Bill O'Reilly... "He spouts!" - Bill O'Reilly Yes he does. Bill O'Reilly, despite his immense moral corruption, appeared to be troubled in his delivery of a defense of Glenn Beck to Jon Stewart. It was certainly a hands-off approach. Let Glenn spout what he wants to spout. He's everyman! Fox News: Seriously, CNN sucks. You're really not going to say that Fox sucks worse, right? Hey Pangloss, I agree... CNN sucks. But the reasons they suck are the diametrical opposite of Fox. CNN has eliminated substance out of fear that they'll be chastized by the right, for being "liberal", much like the "liberal New York Times" (oh thanks for reminding me... I'm improperly prefixing my sources). They are the victims of the real definition of political correctness. In an attempt to downplay whatever liberal biases they may have, they have been neutered as a news organization. They're not worse than the ultraconservative narrative-driven Fox (great precedent you've started here, Pangloss!), but the value of the information they're reporting has been extremely diminished, because amid a cacophony of complaining conservatives, the "liberal" CNN has lost its balls and substituted substance for inoffensiveness. Because ultraconservative narrative-driven Glenn Beck would pay to air material on a network which will let him talk about whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants? http://mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/09/12/griff-20090912-beck2.flv 10AM? Those aren't the normal hours of the ultraconservative narrative-driven Glenn Beck Program, are they? Yet there's already ultraconservative narrative-driven Fox correspondents and producers out there helping ultraconservative narrative-driven Beck out? What? You admit ultraconservative narrative-driven Fox creates ultraconservative narrative-driven events then covers them as news, then write it off as "so do the other (liberal) guys"? I'm sorry but: Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation. Unsupported allegation.

People are people

It seems as if there's been an overnight shift in forum policy: It would seem that Pangloss is now challenging people's opinions, rather than giving carte blanche, and demanding they support their allegations. To this I say bravo, Pangloss, and may you enforce this policy unilaterally, demanding facts from all, liberal and conservative alike, and not just accepting unsubstantiated opinions. I like this a lot more than your previous "anyone can say anything they want as long as it's their opinion, even if it contradicts the facts" policy.

*facepalm* Pangloss, if that's what you want to believe, I can't convince you otherwise. Have you ever actually watched Fox News Channel? Seriously, you would seem to be arguing that promotion of the 9.12 Project on FNC is an "unsupported allegation". The 9.12 Project was born on and promoted through Fox News Channel. Extensive coverage of their protests took place... on Fox News Channel. And as far as I can tell you're arguing there's no connection. Funny you changed the actual Fox News logo to text... because: http://www.the912project.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fndotcomlogo.png Hey look. The file is there. They've just removed it from their front page since I made my original post. Regarding 912project.com: Yes' date=' 912project.com exists: [indent'] Domain Name: 912PROJECT.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Christopher Balfe balfer@yahoo.com 4312 Main Street Apt 401 Manayunk, PA 19127 US 610-617-2030 fax: 999 999 9999 [/indent] It's registered to the same guy as the912project.com: Domain Name: THE912PROJECT.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Christopher Balfe balfer@yahoo.com 4312 Main Street Apt 401 Manayunk, PA 19127 US 610-617-2030 fax: 999 999 9999 It seems the registration for 912project.com lapsed. They used to point to the same site. No Pangloss. It used to have this Fox News logo on the bottom of the front page: Now they've removed it. Perhaps Fox is distancing itself. Unfortunately the site is not in archive.org so I can't prove it. And I see your incessant "Unsupported allegation" crap is really about this same issue. Did you really need to say it 10 times? That's in bad form' date=' IMO. Bill O'Reilly is not a news reporter. His program represents his personal opinion.

Okay! Let's start with your first argument, and keep going until you're wrong! This remains an unsupported allegation. The 912 project is not a Fox News thing' date=' it's a Glenn Beck thing.[/quote'] Yeah, it's a Glenn Beck thing. And who is Glenn Beck? xbRr-wCH6Rc Oh yes, that guy. On Fox News. Where is he at and what is he doing? Oh, he's at a tea party at the Alamo. Which he promoted through Fox News channel. Live coverage brought to you through Fox News channel... during the news hour (note the time on the clock). Nice try Pangloss. Thanks for playing.

They go from "Keynesian profligacy" to "putting ideology over common sense"? Does that juxtaposition seem humorous to anyone else? Psst, just because a newspaper includes a quote doesn't make it a "suggestion" on the part of the newspaper. Also, "the liberal New York Times"? Should I start prefixing any references to News Corp, Fox, etc. as "the ultraconservative News Corp"?