Just
because it happens "online" doesn't matter. The issue is parody.
"online" isn't some sacred, Gibsonian world. If it was about stuff that
happened ONLY online, that would be a different story.
I
disagree. A hack is generally defined as using the rules of a system in
such a way that it accomplishes something that the creators of the
system never intended. The system doesn't have to be a computer (social
engineering is a form of hacking as well.)
Apparently
you they are starting a program where you can bring grandma into a
recycling plant and exchange her for fuel. It's called Blue Hair to
Green Fuel. They are hoping to show their carbon neutral environmental
side.
Uh,
usually I wouldn't note problems in the summary, but a missing quote
mark at the start of the second last sentence makes it seem like
Slashdot is the one claiming (as fact) that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths
per year, and could easily be grounds for a libel suit. If an editor
reads this comment, they may want to fix that.
You are wrong, as it is a fact that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year. At least Nature says so!
IANAL, and this is not legal advice, just my opinion. YMMV.
I
read that article in the Post. Nowhere did it say Exxon causes 150K
deaths per year. The article stated the WHO guess 150K deaths per year
related to climate change. It would be correct to say Exxon CONTRIBUTES
to 150K deaths per year, but then again, wouldn't the blame squarely
fall on the folks driving the gas guzzling SUV's? Its not like Exxon is
forcing us to buy the gas.
"Act
like a pusher"? I guess coal companies are pushers too? And what about
GM, Ford, et. al., are they pushers too? What about you? You have a
blog which people *need* a computer to read... a computer that sucks
electricity to function, therefore you are a pusher too.
Bingo! It's important to keep in mind a few things on this very touchy subject:
Exxon (or whatever other oil company) are not the ones burning the
hundreds of millions of barrels of oil/gasoline/natural gas every year.
Even if they were burning so much fossil fuel, Exxon only
represents about 2% of the global oil production. They're the biggest
private (i.e. not state-owned) oil company.
Who's burning all that gas? Well, as I drive to work (in my 35 MPG
civic), I'm surrounded by people driving Tahoe's, F150's, Escalades,
Explorers, Durangos, enormous Dodge Rams, Tundras, etc. By some divine
decree, every building in Houston is kept at a temperature around 70F
(which most people agree is too cool for the summer). That's who's
causing the 150k deaths per year.
I'm
really not seeing how a small change in global temperature is causing
these deaths. Even if you grant that the temperature increase exists
and is caused by CO2, and that it's our CO2 that is causing the
problem, how do we make the jump to 150 000 deaths? Has the temperature
change there been more drastic than it has been here? Last figure I
read was 0.6C was the change globally over the past 100 years. It's
like saying that changing my light bulbs to compact fluorescent is the
equivalent of taking 250 000 cars off the road. Oh wait...
SUVs
and light trucks in the U.S. (by which I mean, not 18-wheelers and
such) do not contribute the majority of CO2 emissions in the world. The
fetish for SUVs and gigantic pickups is mostly a U.S. phenomenon. But
the U.S. contributes roughly 25% of the world's CO2 emissions (IIRC),
passenger cars and trucks contribute maybe 20% of that, and SUVs and
giant pickups contribute some even smaller fraction than that.
Getting
rid of those kinds of vehicles would help, but it's ridiculous to
attribute all putative climate change deaths to them, when they can be
responsible for no more than a few percent of total emissions at best.
And that's not even taking into account that they are a relatively
recent phenomenon, and most of the manmade CO2 now in the atmosphere
was put there before SUVs became popular. A small fraction of recent
emissions is an even smaller fraction of total atmospheric
concentration.
Your complaint about excessive air conditioning
is more on point. Most of our CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel
burning power plants (mostly coal plants, don't blame oil for
everything). One of the easiest ways to reduce emissions is to reduce
electricity consumption.
Except
that the idea that 150K deaths are being caused by so-called
"climate-shift" (I notice they don't like to call it global warming
after all the SNOW storms last winter) is a bunch of crap.
Climate shift (or climate change) is the more accurate term, and
scientists have been using it for longer than this year. Snow storms
are just one example.
"Climate change" is the better term,
because warming is not the only climate change taking place. Indeed,
there are regions which are predicted to get more snow storms in the
future, because precipitation increases. Note that "warmer" doesn't
automatically imply "less likely to snow", as it doesn't snow as much
when it's too cold, either — the air can't hold as much
moisture. (This is not the only way that precipitation patterns can
change; regional weather patterns can shift too.) Warming can turn snow
days into too-warm non-snow days, but it can also turn too-cold
non-snow days into snow days. Which wins out depends a lot on where you
are. (For this reason, global warming can lead to both increased
droughts and floods — as well as decreased in different areas — depending on where you are.)
It
is a complex subject. It is invalid to take a specific series of events
occurring in one region in one year as evidence for or against climate
change; you have to look at global trends over decadal time scales to
see whether temperature, precipitation, or other changes are really
taking place.
No...what's causing rates of
malaria to rise is the banning of the use of chemicals that WORKED when
it came to killing mosquitoes.
I see you've bought the latest conservative [scienceblogs.com] talking [scienceblogs.com] point
[scienceblogs.com]. Such chemicals were not banned in the countries
with rising malaria problems. And in fact, overuse of DDT in countries
such as Sri Lanka bred DDT-resistant mosquitoes. Chemicals are still an
effective means of combating malaria, and they are most certainly still
in use. But they must be used in moderation; when used excessively,
there is a great short-term benefit but it's a long-term disaster.
We're seeing the same sort of problem here with an overuse of
antibiotics.
Malnutrition and diarrhea has more to do with poor drinking water and oppressive governments.
That's almost certainly true. 150,000 deaths, for instance, is much
smaller than the total number of deaths due to malnutrition and
diarrhea. That doesn't mean that climate change can't produce 150,000
additional deaths, however — the idea is not "a bunch of crap". But it
is good to put it in perspective, as you did.
The idea that every hurricane, flood or snowstorm is a sign of climate change is bad science.
That's true. (Of course, you bring up this idea yourself.) But the
story here makes no such claim. Why do you bring it up? It doesn't
support any of your other points.
You
might have a more direct argument against GM, which at one point was in
the habit of buying well-functioning transit systems (primarily
trolleys), dismantling them, replacing them with buses, and then
running down the bus service so people would buy private autos instead.
See for example here [lovearth.net].
To
the extent that Exxon and other big energy companies lobby against
clean air laws, mandated fuel efficiency, etc., one could argue they
are contributing to climate-change deaths. 'Course that still doesn't
let the individual consumer off the hook. Lots o'blame to go around on
this one...
A
fact huh? You really think that a company is directly responsible for
deaths to due to natural disasters? Did you ever think about how many
lives Exxon may have saved by bringing or keeping people out of the
third world through the creation of petroleum based products? Or the
ability of ships to send food to nations that need it? In either case,
you can't quantify "death" or "life". It's just a emotionally charged
argument to get attention.
In
the US??? Please. In the US, a successful suit for libel requires
showing that the defendant intentionally wrote something defamatory
which they knew to be false, (or which a reasonable person ought to
know to be false). "Typo" is a bulletproof defense.
Did
you miss the fact that the entire paragraph is set off as a quote, with
the blockquote element, styled like every other quote on this site,
with a grey line down the left hand side, preceded by an attribution to
somebody called tom_evil?
Hmm, I'm fairly sure that it's not quite so simple, unfortunately. I
doubt that it would take much to convince a court that, as an edited
contribution of a news (not opinion) piece posted onto the front page
of the website, the article would be expected to be considered fact by
regular readers of the site. In that case it's as much Slashdot's
responsibility as it would be a newspaper company's if one of their
news journalists wrote a libellous article and they printed it.
The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.
I can imagine that Exxon's logo's are protected by trademark etc, but I think they still can be used for parody. However,
I guess the initial site looked like a real Exxon site, and it wasn't
apparent that it was a parody, looks like a legitimate reason for Exxon
to complain.
Still what "threats" did they make, I so no copy of an email or letter.
After the Yes men removed the logo's and made it clear it was a parody, the ISP still blocked it.
Has Exxon contacted the Yes men directly? Or vice versa, the article mentions nothing.
Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...
The yes Men site links to the following article [reuters.com]
A small quote
"Masquerading as officials from ExxonMobil and the U.S. National
Petroleum Council, the two appeared before an oil industry audience and
the buzz was that they would deliver long-awaited conclusions of a
study commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman."
In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html [blogspot.com],
I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this
for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by
anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost
our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many
people wishing to be duped by it. -- Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.
Actually, that's not even a fact either. Well, not one anyone here can say. The article states; in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify..
It's a fair bet it was Exxon, but only the ISP or Exxon can state that as a fact.
Just
because we USED petrol doesn't mean that the petrol was the HERO in the
equation. There are many other fuels that will make a vehicle go.
What else are you going to use, hot air? We generally grossly
underestimate our quality of life improvements due to cheap energy
sources. And even with recent increases in petrol prices, it is still
relatively inexpensive for what it does. Lets take a recent 1 week trip
to BC. Expensive gas in BC too.
$360 fuel (F150 V8), 1200Km one way, $100 night lodging, $120
day food and entertainment, $250 to BC ferries. Gifts, booze and
relative entertainment extra. Want to talk about pricey, BC booze is
85% tax!
At $2150 Canadian, the cost of fuel was $360, of 16.7% of the
cost which I got to see 2400Km of real nice scenery. And you need a
truck for the TransCanada, what a mess of a road. I wish they would
spend some of the gas tax on the roads.
I estimate I spent more on taxes than fuel all things being added up.
Try doing that with a horse or running shoes. While petrol may not be a hero, sure makes life easier.
I
look at petroleum this way: it is civilization's flying start. If we're
smart, we'll look at black gold for what it is, a highly useful but
problematic natural resource that is strictly limited. Before it runs
out for good, we need to find something better or civilization will collapse.
Petroleum has a myriad of important applications: power is only one of
them. In the long run, not even the most important one, because we will
find other power sources, but it'll be tough to replace everything else
Texas tea does for us. Plastics, medicines, cosmetics, a bewildering
array of industrial compounds and processes are based upon the stuff.
Until we do find a way to replace that utility, raw crude is far and
away too valuable a resource to be merely burned as an energy source. The fact that we do so is criminal, and future generations will curse us for it.
You seem to agree with Bucky Fuller: From Chapter 8 of the Operating Manual for the Spaceship Earth http://www.bfi.org/?q=node/414 [bfi.org]
The
fossil fuel deposits of our Spaceship Earth correspond to our
automobile's storage battery which must be conserved to turn over our
main engine's self-starter. Thereafter, our "main engine," the life
regenerating processes, must operate exclusively on our vast daily
energy income from the powers of wind, tide, water, and the direct Sun
radiation energy. The fossil-fuel savings account has been put aboard
Spaceship Earth for the exclusive function of getting the new machinery
built with which to support life and humanity at ever more effective
standards of vital physical energy and reinspiring metaphysical
sustenance to be sustained exclusively on our Sun radiation's and Moon
pull gravity's tidal, wind, and rainfall generated pulsating and
therefore harnessable energies. The daily income energies are
excessively adequate for the operation of our main industrial engines
and their automated productions. The energy expended in one minute of a
tropical hurricane equals the combined energy of all the U.S.A. and
U.S.S.R. nuclear weapons. Only by understanding this scheme may we
continue for all time ahead to enjoy and explore universe as we
progressively harness evermore of the celestially generated tidal and
storm generated wind, water, and electrical power concentrations. We
cannot afford to expend our fossil fuels faster than we are "recharging
our battery," which means precisely the rate at which the fossil fuels
are being continually deposited within Earth's spherical crust.
While
modern transportation technology saves lives (and also takes them),
your logic doesn't really add up. It's possible to do all the things we
currently do with oil but still use less of it, by improving the
efficiency with which we use it. This isn't a "either we use up oil at
a prodigious rate or we use no oil" false dilemma.
The
reason the original site looked exactly like the Exxon site is because
that is the group's schtick... and I have wondered before how long they
could keep it up.
These guys were written up in Harpers Monthly
(Nov '01) for creating a WTO web-site, convincing organizers for an
international conference (textile manufacturers?) that they were
legitimate reps, and actually carrying through with a presentation at
the conference. The presentation apparently included a large inflatable
penis, and a gold jumpsuit. The article reported that the presentation
was met with a loud ovation and many attendees did not figure out they
had been duped.
Fortune also ran a story on the feat which was apparently carried out with military precision down to the last detail.
I
am amazed they have continued operating this long... but apparently
they steer clear of making definitive remarks that they are official
reps of an organization, relying instead on insinuation and the fact
that so few people verify sources that appear to be 'real' on the web.
That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.
how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF)
there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon.
The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could
have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace
emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of
weather.
It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
Keep
in mind that groups like this try to make their way to the top of the
news by making outlandish statements... The bolder the statements, the
easier it is to get people to listen to them... Statements like these
are nothing new...
With that being said, on the political side,
I clearly see a shift coming at some point... Meaning, more people are
feeling that their lives are being actively manipulated by
corporations, and manytimes they are probably right. Actually, the
original 1960's "movement" was to combat exactly this, meaning a focus
on self-reliance. Unfortunately, though, all of this has been lost thru
time with the only things remembered now being drugs and free love
crap..
Also,
please be kind on my personal perspective of the 1960's
counterculture... I certainly am not looking to offend, and It is only
my personal opinion. I certainly do not try to push myself as some sort
of expert...:-)
The
"Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison" say so, so it must be true. Heaven knows that UW Madison isn't
as left-wing, America-hating, and socialist as a university can get. Oh
wait, maybe it is...
Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.
yep,
that's about it. ever notice that stats like that are nice round
numbers. if they had actual facts, wouldn't the figure be 150,001, not
a neat 150,000? oh thats because they don't really know THEY ARE JUST
MAKING SHIT UP.
Not
saying that I agree with those numbers but you don't know much about
statistics or uncertainties. You don't even know much about significant
figures! Every measurement has an uncertainty. Sometimes this
uncertainty is small and sometimes it is large. If you go to the
butcher and ask for 1kg of meat, The guy will charge you for 1kg but
you won't get 1kg, probably something like 1.002 (probably worse).
Governments regulate this sort of thing and that's why there are large
and costly institutions like NIST (in the USA).
I did not read the paper that was mentioned but if it was published in
a scientific journal it will probably mention somewhere the uncertainty
value. So the actual number is something like 150.000 +/- 50.000 with a
probability of 90% (there are other ways to declare the uncertainty).
Now these hypothetical numbers mean that the actual number of deaths
could be larger than 200.000 or lower than 100.000 but the probability
of the number being outside the given range is close to 10%. 150.000 is
just the "nice" number closest most likely number.
If you want to question the numbers, the way to go about it is to
question the sampling techniques. That's how polls and research is
usually manipulated. They certainly didn't go around the world
determining what cause each death. The sample used to get these numbers
could be biased (counting only the deaths near some sort of disaster
for instance). Good sampling is *really* hard if not impossible. To get
a good sample it takes a lot of experience, deep knowledge of the
subject under study and a lot of honesty.
BTW, didn't your high school physics teacher tell you to drop all those
digits of the calculator display?
Have you hear the story about this fellow that was working in a
museum with dinosaurs and fossils. One day while showing a
group of visitors around he explains "This item is 50 million years and
6 months old". "Wow, so you can determine age that accurate!". "Yes,
because when I started here it was 50 million years old, and that is
half a year ago".
150,000 absolutely sounds like a number of proper accuracy in this case.
If 150,000 is a correct number is another matter (I do not know).
Remember, 68.42% of all statistics express a higher degree of accuracy
than there actually is.
The 150,000 is not an indicator that they're "making stuff up". In fact, if anything, it's an indicator that they're not. As a general rule, it's the whackos and crazies who claim to measure huge system effects to absurdly high resolution.
Clearly, for this number, it is a statistical estimate, the grungy output of which is then rounded to a convenient near number.
The Darfur conflict is largely fueled by desertification brought on partly by climate change. Here are some 2005 estimates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A124 85-2005Apr23.html [washingtonpost.com]. Things have not gotten any better since then, but the deaths
have become harder to count.
Hummm...
The Gaia hypothesis is the only one I know with "active" control. More
vulcanism produces more exposed rock I suppose but the basic fractional
level of CO2 in the atmosphere is set biologically. It seems to me that
there are some cycles, largely orbital, but this is forcing rather than
control.
Also, the washington post is known to be a liberal newspaper.
Such arguments are called ad hominem [wikipedia.org] and
if you want to be taken serious you should not use those. Actually, you should not
use such arguments in any case whatsoever. Please stop.
Good
point. Hope you'll say the same when people point out that scientists
that question global warming are 'not climatologists' or 'have accepted
money from big oil'.
Good point. Hope you'll say the same when people point out that scientists
that question global warming are 'not climatologists' or 'have accepted
money from big oil'.
Hopefully I will, "not climatologists" sounds like possible ad hominem.
If someone is accused of having received money from oil industry this
does not necessarily mean an ad hominem attack. It could be, if it is
just blown of as "this or these persons are not trustworthy", but you
receive money and support from your "friends" (in lack of a better word),
and since you tend to treat friends better than non-friends this will give
some bias. When Microsoft founds some research, say about total cost of
ownership, you do not expect that not to influence the results, do you?
So questioning funding and support is often valid, ad hominem is not.
I guess that there is a mixture of both usually.
You
bring up a good point and I would like to add to it. Don't complain
that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created. It's
like trying to blame companies in the automotive industries for
automobile accidents. It's not their fault that some people use their
products improperly. If any of the oil companies scaled back production
or stopped, a global depression would most likely be created and we
would see the beginnings of a new Dark Age. If you don't like oil, move
to a city and start walking or using public transportation.
Centralization both limits destruction of open space and the energy
that is required to move people to where they have to be. I know that
might be beyond what some people are willing to do, but it's the only
real solution.
On a somewhat related note, I think it's ironic
that many of the environmentalists that I have met also use drugs. I
have absolutely no problem with drugs fundamentally since I think
people should be allowed to do what they wish, but I do have a problem
when they are illegal and their illegal distribution fuels crime and
terrorism. It's pretty hypocritical to blame companies for altering the
environment when illegal drug trafficking causes millions of people to
suffer everyday.
"Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created."
That's
completely false. ExxonMobil and the other Gas/Oil companies are
directly in league with the automobile companies. Their chairmen serve
on each other boards. They cooperate in the "buying-up" of alternative
energy tech, and soaking up federal tax dollars via grant monies and
tax breaks. Ie. They do everything they can to perpetuate demand for
their product.
Your rational on the use of illicit drugs is also
mis-oriented. All of the crime and much of the suffering comes not from
the drugs, but from unconscionable laws. These laws hike prices, which
empower suppliers, crowd prisons, encourage youth, corrupt law agencies
and severely depress accessibility to rehabilitation.
BTW, I don't own a car --refuse to own a petrol powered car, and don't live in a city.
So you refuse to own a car because you can't find a value added reason to have one? Or are you doing in simply out of spite?
That's
a false dichotomy. The reason should be clear enough: Use of a
gas-powered vehicle generates tons of pollutants every year. Every time
you drive your car, you are contributing to the poisoning of me,
yourself and everyone else --not to mention the benefit to the strong
arms of the petroleum vendors and the devastation of resource wars. It
is within my power to do without such a vehicle, and so I have made the
choice to do so.
Really?
Because according to his bio at ExxonMobile's site, Rex W. Tillerson
(the Chairman of ExxonMobile) doesn't sit on the boards of any
automobile manufacturers. He does sit on a number of non-profit and NGO
boards, though.
First
of all, one person does not a board make. Secondly, "sitting on each
others boards" does not require a direct connect. Director's from
either company may sit on a third-board in common. As stated by your
link he has plenty of opportunity to do so: Executive Board of the Boy
Scouts of America, a director of the United Negro College Fund, and
Vice-Chairman of the Ford's Theatre Society, a member of the
Engineering Advisory Board for the University of Texas at Austin and
the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Moreover, what makes you think
there are not remaining memberships yet unlisted by ExonMobile's
website?
You should also be aware of how non-profits and NGO's
often serve the the elite. On the surface it looks altruistic. In
reality, the groups frequently serve as means of constituent pressure
or direct agenda promotion, all wrapped up in a nice tax-deduction.
That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.
how
about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there
is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The
storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have
not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace
emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of
weather.
It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
You weren't modded down for disbelieving in global warming, you were
modded down for being dickish about it. Global warming cult members?
Fine, I'll give you that, only so long as you concede membership in the
Flat Earth Society.
You know why people get pissed off with
positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the
pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit.
This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming
the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the
history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly
safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk,
only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support
of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still
gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that
cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and
deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything
else where they don't.
When it comes right down to it, we're not
talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two
different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of
the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of
apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the
corporate-sponsored.1% find themselves on the other
side. Then you end up with conservative flacks taking up the banner of
the corporations as if that's the patriotic thing to do.
I have
no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France
and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda.
I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system
is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than
ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country
on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health
care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good
right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the
staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we
should be able to do better than France."
I
haven't done the research, but 150,000 climate change related deaths a
year just triggers my bullshit sensor. It's like those anti-smoking ads
which say that smoking causes asthma... uh, yeah, that explains why
there are so many asthma cases now (when people don't smoke) as opposed
to decades past (when many, many more people smoked.) I think my
bullshit sensor is pretty well-tuned.
I haven't done the research, but 150,000 climate change related deaths a year just triggers my bullshit sensor.
I don't know why. It only amounts to ~0.25% of the deaths in the world.
I don't think it's so incredible to believe that 1 out of 4000 deaths
might be due to climate change, particularly given the fraction of the
world population in the third world, far more susceptible than we are
to drought, tropical disease, crop failure, etc.
"Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented
rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and
environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the
atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse gases"..."
Apparently
our conservative, let's overturn Roe vs. Wade and Brown vs.Board of
Education, actually thinks climate change is real. But then they read
their science briefs.
(I'll agree that pinning numbers of deaths
to it is all going to be in how you bother to count. But I'm really
surprised you aren't modded as flamebait.)
how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF)
It's not really that big of an "if" anymore. The big "if" is how much of it will occur in the future.
how
about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there
is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon.
No one is linking any particular storm to climate change. You can,
however, link changes in storm, crop growth, precipitation, etc. trends
to climate change, and you can link storms, crop growth, and
precipitation statistics to deaths.
yeah, welcome to/. moderators: They think "Troll" is the same as "person who I disagree with."
Trolling
is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why
the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs"
for examples). While flamebait is trying to instigate a flamewar, like:
"vi is clearly better than emacs because it has a simpler interface" or
"emacs is better because it has more features." Off-topic -- well, if
you can't figure that one out, you ought not be moderating, or even on
slashdot. The closest to "-1 I disagree" is Overrated.
This
works both ways; there are also moderations in the UPWARD direction
that make no sense. This article has a few already. Generally, saying
bad things about corporations (unless you're twitter) or Bush can get
you moderated up unless you have zero tact. (Seriously, we all know
Bush is a fucking moron. Just a year and a half left, and he's gone.)
Sometimes
saying *good* things about people we *really hate*, like the RIAA, gets
you moderated up. I think this is because mods just get so shocked
their brains cease to function correctly.
Also, there are six
billion people on this planet. 150,000 people die about every
twenty-four hours. It's not going to affect us. Human beings like to
reproduce. We're in no danger of dying off with such a small number of
deaths. You want to impress me? Add three zeroes to that number. Then
I'll concede we're in trouble. Maybe I'm just jaded, but people die
every day for stupid reasons. People have been dying since there were
people. All this hand wringing and fretting isn't doing any good --
either work to solve problems, or shut up. But don't be an asshole
about it. Besides, if you want to be really cynical, eventually, the
universe will reach maximum entropy (if you believe the Heat Death
theory).
Or if 700 million net new people in eight years just frightens you.
I
don't like the rate at which our population is growing. There's no
political reasoning behind it. No global warming fear or anything. I
just wish people would fuck less.
But
the growth rate is only a concern if we're near carrying capacity, or
are in danger of reaching it soon. Are we? I've heard hysterical
shouting to that effect, but seen little hard evidence. Or are we just
superstitious enough to get frightened by large numbers?
It's more that the rate itself is growing, and speeding up, not that we're reaching a capacity. I'm not really worried, I'm just not all that fond of people.;)
All of the following assumes my late-night-math hasn't been affected by alcohol:
700
million net gain in eight years with 6 billion is 11.67% gain in
population. That's 1.46% growth a year. That's not so bad, really. If
it keeps up, and the rate of increase doesn't change per year, that
means once we reach 10 billion, in two years we will have a net gain
nearly equal to the population of the United States at present. That's
a little bit scary to think about. I'm not about to do the math to
figure out when we'll hit 10 billion, but it will most likely be in my
life time.
The
interesting thing is, if you look at population growth rates from
around the world, wealthier and more advanced countries have lower (and
by lower I mean zero or negative) rates. Does this mean that if we
develop the entire world to a first-world standard of living, world
population will stop growing or go down? Yes, and since we should
develop the entire world to that state anyway, it's only more reason to
try it and find out. With luck, the world population will diminish in
the far future, we may never reach 10 billion, and we might end up in a
steady state of oscillation--when resources are so plentiful that we
can have tons of kids on the cheap, we will, and then our children
won't afford to have as many children. Or, we could find that some
currently-impoverished culture is an exception to the "prosperity = low
birth rate" theory, and they will take over the world.
Not
for food, but for fuel and water, *IF* the whole world would ahve a
first world standard of living and particulary all sort of fuel
consumption the US have. If you do not believe me compare per-head US
consumption, with the whole world production, the multiply by 6
billion. Sorry. 6.7 Nillion now. And for some stuff (like crude) the
production is growing slowlier (or even going down) quicker than human
grwoth so it ain't going to be better.
Now if you take the
average 3rd world consumption and make it stay constant per head, then
I agree with you this is scare mongering. But such an hypothese seems
to be completly belied by the fact that two of the most populated
country on earth are making stride toward MROE consumption, not less.
But feel free not to be concerned. I bet you live in a first world
country.
The
concern is inefficient energy production, then, not overpopulation.
Have we got enough uranium, sunlight, wind, and so forth to power
everyone? If we add on hydroelectric and tidal plants? Can we develop
faster ways of recycling and reclaiming water? These questions are
fairly rhetorical--yes, obviously we can't have all 6.7 billion people
burning petroleum and coal, but those aren't the only ways.
Not
everybody can build tidal or hydroelectric. You have to have specific
natural formation for that. Uranium ? Let me laugh. With the paranoia
going around on nuclear weapon (justified paranoia or not), do you
really think the US and most 1st world nation would let so much
quantity of uranium being used all over the world by country either
openly foe or at least to in friendly term ? Scratch uranium. That
leaves you solar and hydrothermal. And even then there will be a need
of progress (solar) before this would be used all over the world.
Especially since solar AFAIK is intermitent. But this is even the
BOTTOM of the worry. Energy is one primary resource but in itself it is
useless without the other resource : ore (copper, iron, aluminium
etc....etc...) and those are not only in limited quantity but you do
not have alternative. The bottom line is that if those 6 billion people
were living like the 0.7 first worlder, there is not enough of all
resource for everybody. Metal, Crude, Energy, (maybe even drinking
Water), etc...
Once you realize how much the first world consume, and how quick some
part of the 3rd world are trying to catch, you realize what is scary in
such a growth.
Trolling
is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why
the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs"
for examples).
Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."
First,
we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the
ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will
not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact
is nobody knows.
Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".
Third, there was no hacking involved.
You
know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a
group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
Yeah,
but if they didn't use such an inflammatory title, we wouldn't get 200+
posts (pageviews, baby!) of people bitching about the loss of free
speech, "only in America!", and due to the "climate change" part, we
get to have YET ANOTHER global warming thread on/.!
Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.
I'm
more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed
after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time
of this posting). That should be the headline:
"Broadview Networks a bunch of pussies, shut down website after complaint made."
Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...):
"Yes Men bash Exxon; Broadbiew Networks shut them down and refuse to reveal source of complaint."
Too long?
"Broadview Networks shut down YesMen after single mystery complaint."
Seriously -- headlines like this article's are not good for Slashdot. It's inflammatory, and it's stupid.
Hardly a "hack"
(Score:2)Re:Hardly a "hack"
(Score:2)Re:Hardly a "hack"
(Score:1)Re:Hardly a "hack"
(Score:2)Re:Hardly a "hack"
(Score:4, Interesting)(http://www.jameshollingshead.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 02, @02:40AM)
I'd say this qualifies.
Re:Hardly a "hack"
(Score:2)Soylent Green fuel
(Score:4, Funny)Legal matters
(Score:2, Informative)IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.
Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
--
Back to energy basics: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
--
A Natural Electric High: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Legal matters
(Score:5, Insightful)(Last Journal: Friday June 08, @06:20AM)
and why does a hybrid svu that gets 25 mpg get...
(Score:1)(http://masspanic.blogspot.com/)
I'm really not seeing how a small change in global temperature is causing these deaths. Even if you grant that the temperature increase exists and is caused by CO2, and that it's our CO2 that is causing the problem, how do we make the jump to 150 000 deaths? Has the temperature change there been more drastic than it has been here? Last figure I read was 0.6C was the change globally over the past 100 years. It's like saying that changing my light bulbs to compact fluorescent is the equivalent of taking 250 000 cars off the road. Oh wait...
Why blame the SUVs?
(Score:2)Getting rid of those kinds of vehicles would help, but it's ridiculous to attribute all putative climate change deaths to them, when they can be responsible for no more than a few percent of total emissions at best. And that's not even taking into account that they are a relatively recent phenomenon, and most of the manmade CO2 now in the atmosphere was put there before SUVs became popular. A small fraction of recent emissions is an even smaller fraction of total atmospheric concentration.
Your complaint about excessive air conditioning is more on point. Most of our CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel burning power plants (mostly coal plants, don't blame oil for everything). One of the easiest ways to reduce emissions is to reduce electricity consumption.
Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)"Climate change" is the better term, because warming is not the only climate change taking place. Indeed, there are regions which are predicted to get more snow storms in the future, because precipitation increases. Note that "warmer" doesn't automatically imply "less likely to snow", as it doesn't snow as much when it's too cold, either — the air can't hold as much moisture. (This is not the only way that precipitation patterns can change; regional weather patterns can shift too.) Warming can turn snow days into too-warm non-snow days, but it can also turn too-cold non-snow days into snow days. Which wins out depends a lot on where you are. (For this reason, global warming can lead to both increased droughts and floods — as well as decreased in different areas — depending on where you are.)
It is a complex subject. It is invalid to take a specific series of events occurring in one region in one year as evidence for or against climate change; you have to look at global trends over decadal time scales to see whether temperature, precipitation, or other changes are really taking place.
Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)(http://www.ubidubium.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 24, @12:47AM)
To the extent that Exxon and other big energy companies lobby against clean air laws, mandated fuel efficiency, etc., one could argue they are contributing to climate-change deaths. 'Course that still doesn't let the individual consumer off the hook. Lots o'blame to go around on this one...
Re:Legal matters
(Score:1)(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 04, @10:14PM)
Environmentalists == Unceasing pessimists.
That is all.
Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)In the US??? Please. In the US, a successful suit for libel requires showing that the defendant intentionally wrote something defamatory which they knew to be false, (or which a reasonable person ought to know to be false). "Typo" is a bulletproof defense.
Re:Legal matters
(Score:2)Vivoleum
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
--
Rent solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
But is it Green?
(Score:2)Where are the facts
(Score:2)I can imagine that Exxon's logo's are protected by trademark etc, but I think they still can be used for parody.
However, I guess the initial site looked like a real Exxon site, and it wasn't apparent that it was a parody, looks like a legitimate reason for Exxon to complain.
Still what "threats" did they make, I so no copy of an email or letter.
After the Yes men removed the logo's and made it clear it was a parody, the ISP still blocked it.
Has Exxon contacted the Yes men directly? Or vice versa, the article mentions nothing.
Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)A small quote
"Masquerading as officials from ExxonMobil and the U.S. National Petroleum Council, the two appeared before an oil industry audience and the buzz was that they would deliver long-awaited conclusions of a study commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman."
Maquerading!=parody
Parody it is.
(Score:3, Insightful)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
--
Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)Actually, that's not even a fact either. Well, not one anyone here can say. The article states; in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify..
It's a fair bet it was Exxon, but only the ISP or Exxon can state that as a fact.
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:5, Insightful)Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...
And how many lives have been saved by oil, might I suggest many of millions each year that rely on the fuel to transport food and drugs...
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:1)Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)Just because we USED petrol doesn't mean that the petrol was the HERO in the equation. There are many other fuels that will make a vehicle go.
What else are you going to use, hot air? We generally grossly underestimate our quality of life improvements due to cheap energy sources. And even with recent increases in petrol prices, it is still relatively inexpensive for what it does. Lets take a recent 1 week trip to BC. Expensive gas in BC too.
$360 fuel (F150 V8), 1200Km one way, $100 night lodging, $120 day food and entertainment, $250 to BC ferries. Gifts, booze and relative entertainment extra. Want to talk about pricey, BC booze is 85% tax!
At $2150 Canadian, the cost of fuel was $360, of 16.7% of the cost which I got to see 2400Km of real nice scenery. And you need a truck for the TransCanada, what a mess of a road. I wish they would spend some of the gas tax on the roads.
I estimate I spent more on taxes than fuel all things being added up.
Try doing that with a horse or running shoes. While petrol may not be a hero, sure makes life easier.
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)Petroleum has a myriad of important applications: power is only one of them. In the long run, not even the most important one, because we will find other power sources, but it'll be tough to replace everything else Texas tea does for us. Plastics, medicines, cosmetics, a bewildering array of industrial compounds and processes are based upon the stuff. Until we do find a way to replace that utility, raw crude is far and away too valuable a resource to be merely burned as an energy source. The fact that we do so is criminal, and future generations will curse us for it.
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Get solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)Re:Where are the facts
(Score:2)These guys were written up in Harpers Monthly (Nov '01) for creating a WTO web-site, convincing organizers for an international conference (textile manufacturers?) that they were legitimate reps, and actually carrying through with a presentation at the conference. The presentation apparently included a large inflatable penis, and a gold jumpsuit. The article reported that the presentation was met with a loud ovation and many attendees did not figure out they had been duped.
Fortune also ran a story on the feat which was apparently carried out with military precision down to the last detail.
I am amazed they have continued operating this long... but apparently they steer clear of making definitive remarks that they are official reps of an organization, relying instead on insinuation and the fact that so few people verify sources that appear to be 'real' on the web.
Regards.
150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2, Insightful)how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.
It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)With that being said, on the political side, I clearly see a shift coming at some point... Meaning, more people are feeling that their lives are being actively manipulated by corporations, and manytimes they are probably right. Actually, the original 1960's "movement" was to combat exactly this, meaning a focus on self-reliance. Unfortunately, though, all of this has been lost thru time with the only things remembered now being drugs and free love crap..
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2, Troll)Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:1, Troll)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:1)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)150,000 absolutely sounds like a number of proper accuracy in this case. If 150,000 is a correct number is another matter (I do not know).
Remember, 68.42% of all statistics express a higher degree of accuracy than there actually is.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://www.ubidubium.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 24, @12:47AM)
The 150,000 is not an indicator that they're "making stuff up". In fact, if anything, it's an indicator that they're not. As a general rule, it's the whackos and crazies who claim to measure huge system effects to absurdly high resolution.
Clearly, for this number, it is a statistical estimate, the grungy output of which is then rounded to a convenient near number.
Why not start here?
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Their are deaths that can be even more directly tied to warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/doom.html [blogspot.com] as well. You should look into things a little more closely I think.
--
Get affordable solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Why not start here?
(Score:3, Funny)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
But seriously, read the article and see if malnutrition is not mentioned.
Are you thinking of the Gaia hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] as your control mechanism?
Re:Why not start here?
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Re:Why not start here?
(Score:2)Re:Why not start here?
(Score:1)Re:Why not start here?
(Score:2)Hopefully I will, "not climatologists" sounds like possible ad hominem. If someone is accused of having received money from oil industry this does not necessarily mean an ad hominem attack. It could be, if it is just blown of as "this or these persons are not trustworthy", but you receive money and support from your "friends" (in lack of a better word), and since you tend to treat friends better than non-friends this will give some bias. When Microsoft founds some research, say about total cost of ownership, you do not expect that not to influence the results, do you?
So questioning funding and support is often valid, ad hominem is not. I guess that there is a mixture of both usually.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://wister.org/)
On a somewhat related note, I think it's ironic that many of the environmentalists that I have met also use drugs. I have absolutely no problem with drugs fundamentally since I think people should be allowed to do what they wish, but I do have a problem when they are illegal and their illegal distribution fuels crime and terrorism. It's pretty hypocritical to blame companies for altering the environment when illegal drug trafficking causes millions of people to suffer everyday.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2, Insightful)(http://weblands.blogspot.com/)
That's completely false. ExxonMobil and the other Gas/Oil companies are directly in league with the automobile companies. Their chairmen serve on each other boards. They cooperate in the "buying-up" of alternative energy tech, and soaking up federal tax dollars via grant monies and tax breaks. Ie. They do everything they can to perpetuate demand for their product.
Your rational on the use of illicit drugs is also mis-oriented. All of the crime and much of the suffering comes not from the drugs, but from unconscionable laws. These laws hike prices, which empower suppliers, crowd prisons, encourage youth, corrupt law agencies and severely depress accessibility to rehabilitation.
BTW, I don't own a car --refuse to own a petrol powered car, and don't live in a city.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 04, @10:14PM)
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://weblands.blogspot.com/)
That's a false dichotomy. The reason should be clear enough: Use of a gas-powered vehicle generates tons of pollutants every year. Every time you drive your car, you are contributing to the poisoning of me, yourself and everyone else --not to mention the benefit to the strong arms of the petroleum vendors and the devastation of resource wars. It is within my power to do without such a vehicle, and so I have made the choice to do so.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://weblands.blogspot.com/)
First of all, one person does not a board make. Secondly, "sitting on each others boards" does not require a direct connect. Director's from either company may sit on a third-board in common. As stated by your link he has plenty of opportunity to do so: Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, a director of the United Negro College Fund, and Vice-Chairman of the Ford's Theatre Society, a member of the Engineering Advisory Board for the University of Texas at Austin and the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Moreover, what makes you think there are not remaining memberships yet unlisted by ExonMobile's website?
You should also be aware of how non-profits and NGO's often serve the the elite. On the surface it looks altruistic. In reality, the groups frequently serve as means of constituent pressure or direct agenda promotion, all wrapped up in a nice tax-deduction.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:4, Insightful)how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.
It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
You know why people get pissed off with positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit. This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk, only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything else where they don't.
When it comes right down to it, we're not talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the corporate-sponsored
I have no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda. I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we should be able to do better than France."
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:1)Hey, you, the guy reading this. If you hadn't been born, hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened. Thanks a lot!
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)Is that any worse than posting rants on slashdot to feel self-righteous? Just curious.
Did you miss that Supreme Court decision?
(Score:1)(Last Journal: Tuesday October 12, @05:33PM)
"Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse gases"
Apparently our conservative, let's overturn Roe vs. Wade and Brown vs.Board of Education, actually thinks climate change is real. But then they read their science briefs.
(I'll agree that pinning numbers of deaths to it is all going to be in how you bother to count. But I'm really surprised you aren't modded as flamebait.)
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:3, Informative)Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples). While flamebait is trying to instigate a flamewar, like: "vi is clearly better than emacs because it has a simpler interface" or "emacs is better because it has more features." Off-topic -- well, if you can't figure that one out, you ought not be moderating, or even on slashdot. The closest to "-1 I disagree" is Overrated.
This works both ways; there are also moderations in the UPWARD direction that make no sense. This article has a few already. Generally, saying bad things about corporations (unless you're twitter) or Bush can get you moderated up unless you have zero tact. (Seriously, we all know Bush is a fucking moron. Just a year and a half left, and he's gone.)
Sometimes saying *good* things about people we *really hate*, like the RIAA, gets you moderated up. I think this is because mods just get so shocked their brains cease to function correctly.
Also, there are six billion people on this planet. 150,000 people die about every twenty-four hours. It's not going to affect us. Human beings like to reproduce. We're in no danger of dying off with such a small number of deaths. You want to impress me? Add three zeroes to that number. Then I'll concede we're in trouble. Maybe I'm just jaded, but people die every day for stupid reasons. People have been dying since there were people. All this hand wringing and fretting isn't doing any good -- either work to solve problems, or shut up. But don't be an asshole about it. Besides, if you want to be really cynical, eventually, the universe will reach maximum entropy (if you believe the Heat Death theory).
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:3, Informative)(http://newswall.org.uk/)
6 billion in 1999, 6.7 billion now, scary isn't it.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop [ibiblio.org]
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://philwelch.net/)
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)I don't like the rate at which our population is growing. There's no political reasoning behind it. No global warming fear or anything. I just wish people would fuck less.
Or video tape it more. Either way...
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://philwelch.net/)
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)All of the following assumes my late-night-math hasn't been affected by alcohol:
700 million net gain in eight years with 6 billion is 11.67% gain in population. That's 1.46% growth a year. That's not so bad, really. If it keeps up, and the rate of increase doesn't change per year, that means once we reach 10 billion, in two years we will have a net gain nearly equal to the population of the United States at present. That's a little bit scary to think about. I'm not about to do the math to figure out when we'll hit 10 billion, but it will most likely be in my life time.
Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:2)(http://philwelch.net/)
We are beyonf carrying capacity
(Score:2)Now if you take the average 3rd world consumption and make it stay constant per head, then I agree with you this is scare mongering. But such an hypothese seems to be completly belied by the fact that two of the most populated country on earth are making stride toward MROE consumption, not less. But feel free not to be concerned. I bet you live in a first world country.
Re:We are beyonf carrying capacity
(Score:2)(http://philwelch.net/)
Otehr concern pop up
(Score:2)Re:150,000 deaths per year
(Score:3, Informative)Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."
Hmmm... that looks somehow familiar.
Nice headline, guys!
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://jargon-file.org/)
Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".
Third, there was no hacking involved.
You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://jargon-file.org/)
1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.
Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)(http://www.animal-assist.org/donate.html)
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.
I'm more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time of this posting). That should be the headline:
"Broadview Networks a bunch of pussies, shut down website after complaint made."
Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...):
"Yes Men bash Exxon; Broadbiew Networks shut them down and refuse to reveal source of complaint."
Too long?
"Broadview Networks shut down YesMen after single mystery complaint."
Seriously -- headlines like this article's are not good for Slashdot. It's inflammatory, and it's stupid.
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)(http://mattozan.net/)
I'm on the Brute Squad...
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 29, @01:12PM)