bascule

Machines were built by scientists much smarter than you to expel so-called scientists who hold quaint but ludicrous notions about the origins of life. Richard Dawkins busts a flow pimpin Flavor Flav's trademark clock bling with that hot bitch Daniel Dennett showing some skin. I'd ask what drugs the people behind this were on, but I think the answer is Christianity...

If you like that you should check out Electric Sheep

I certainly blame them. They f*cked up... bad. Really bad, but... I really find it hard to blame the idiots who went along with a scheme masterminded by a cloistered totalitarian group who managed to get voted into control of the country. I mean, that's happened before in history and all, during certain historical periods involving a country starting a world war, and I really can't blame the people who voted them into power. In that case, the Germans. Sure, the German people were making the wrong decision, but can you really blame them? The Treaty of Versailles compelled them to do something, just like 9/11 compelled Americans to do something, even if it was a really stupid option. Not to say that voting Hitler into power is tantamount to authorizing Bush to invade Iraq... if necessary. But... Bush and friends really wanted to invade Iraq. They certainly didn't care what the UN had to say, and effectively committed an international crime. Would Bush be dumb enough to invade Iraq without the funding for a sustained occupation? Who am I to say... I'd sure hope not. But I wouldn't put it past him. All that said, we have two groups: those architecting war with Iraq, and the idiots who were asleep at the wheel and let the whole scheme take place. The idiots are dumb, but they certainly aren't active participants (well, most of them... there were certainly neocons active in Congress). I find blaming the majority of congress for Iraq about as convincing as blaming the German people for voting Hitler into power. (...awaits the first lol Godwin's Law lol...)

Look in bin/ and click on xaos.exe

Not legally! I would suggest giving it a try if you can

I would highly suggest MacOS X. In my not-so-humble opinion, it's the best desktop operating system available to date.

The Pentium 4 architecture on which the Pentium D is based operates by decoding the CISC operations of x86 into RISC micro-ops. While it executes a CISC ISA, the core architecture is fundamentally RISC. That said, you don't appear to speak English, so I'm afraid this explanation is falling on deaf ears.

Two things: 1) Bush is Commander in Chief. He could've invaded Iraq without Congress's authority. Sure, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, but they didn't. We invaded a country and ousted its leader without ever declaring war. Sure, Congress were ripe f*cking morons for giving him their blessing. I'm not defending them for that. But it's not like Congress was some brick wall between Bush and Iraq. 2) Bush made the decision to invade, not Congress. Had Bush decided not to invade Iraq, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Had Congress decided not to give Bush his blessing, we'd probably still be in Iraq.

I think this war was nigh unavoidable as soon as Bush took office

Provided they even knew Bush's intentions were to go from zero to all out invasion without any sort of intermediate steps in resolving the situation, why do you feel that means "they're hands are every bit as dirty" as the Commander in Chief who actually ordered the invasion?

No, but the document had open-ended provisions which did not stipulate immediate military action in the way a formal declaration of war would. In the end it was Bush who made the decision to invade, not Congress.

Try XaoS

Because it's not a formal declaration of war

Instruction Set Architecture? HINT: Random amalgamations of words do not necessarily form meaningful expressions in the English language

I think there's quite a bit of difference between spewing anti-Saddam rhetoric and invading his country, ousting him as leader, destroying his government/army and instating another one, then executing him. Bottom line: talk is cheap, and actions speak louder and words. I place the onus of engaging in this war squarely upon Bush.

Into my personal slush fund it will go, where it comes out nobody knows

I can't recall doing that recently... mostly others have (not very aptly) accused me of strawmanning them, and it appears like you're about to be one of them... Okay, let's have a look at what you said: WRONG What "blip"? It's following established norms, and those norms show a continual decrease.

Strawman? Of who? This guy? http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/convenient-lies-in-the-pop-culture-environmental-movement/ (emphasis added by the author) Can you stop bandying around terms like "strawman" where they aren't applicable? Try this one: Effect of carbonaceous aerosols on surface temperature in the mid twentieth century Also this one: Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate Here's a plot of the radiative forcing inputs used by their model: Notice a drop in sulfate associated with mid-20th century cooling. Note: This isn't a correlation implies causation fallacy. The radiative forcings are inputs to the model i.e. the "hypothesis", although it's one based on considerable science in and of itself. A successful reconstruction of the historical record is what gives this set of inputs credence.

OF COURSE! Just ignore the three decade trend line. Weren't you just claiming there was some sort of aberrant glitch in the trends? Okay SkepticLance, I'll humor you, and for the sake of swansont direct you back to the relevant thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=398591#post398591

For SkepticLance's benefit: A graph of 2008 Arctic sea ice trends. Surprisingly we're slightly above the trend line now. Amazing:

So what is this... a fluke? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31377 Yeah, sorry, that's flat out wrong. Meanwhile a ice sheet the size of Connecticut is collapsing in Antarctica.

Read harder, Homer: Yeah, that's pretty much the denialist attitude in a nutshell...

Yeah, I love when the Daily Show dredges up some clip that completely contradicts what a politician says. In this 21st century panopticonic post-Internet world, it's a lot harder to get away with that kind of bullshit.

SkepticLance, I'm going to have to side with swansont and iNow on this. You have a history of sourcing your arguments from disinformation campaigns with a tendency towards being completely oblivious to both the science and the data, while at the same challenging the validity of established science. These aren't the acts of a skeptic. They're the acts of someone who's anti-science.

Oh boy, an ad hominem against CNN. Let's skip the news organizations and go straight to the scientists to settle this dispute, shall we? http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html So: Initial collapse: 102.5 km^2 (38.25 square miles) Subsequent "runaway disintegration": 405 km^2 (160 square miles) Total collapsed portion: 507.5 km^2 (198.25 square miles) Total ice shelf extent: 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile)