The smart move is to cut YouCut, because your Congressman should already be cutting the crap you dislike,

Do you think so? Because *my* Congressman *doesn't* seem to be cutting much of anything.

The cuts always seem to be "scheduled." When does that "schedule" happen? What does it mean when they say "the cuts are scheduled."?

And when they cut, isn't total spending supposed to go down? What do they mean by "cut"?

Where can I get me one of those Congressman of which you speak?

I'm _really_ confused.

But selecting incompatible technologies is something they can control.

Yes. And they have selected technologies that make their product compatible with what...perhaps 98% of consumer platforms?

Perhaps _you_ are the one who has selected incompatible technologies?

When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion

He wrongfully assumed a right to use computer code (and sought to derive value from it), in violation of the terms of his employment.

And I didn't even have to walk across the hall and [blah...blah...blah...]

Goldman Sachs are the criminals. Why aren't they all on trial too? All this guy did was steal a little code. They've been robbing their customers for years.

Well...if laws were built on hyperbole, and the typical juror were as reckless and imprudent as a typical Slashdot poster...well *then* they would be on trial too.

Greed, deceptiveness, even malice...these are offenses of the spirit but are not, in and of themselves, offenses of law which, when well-constructed, creates a standard that PROTECTS US ALL from being caught in a great net of grievances and contempt that seethes inside all but the most saintly among us.

Yes, some people...no...MANY people rely on World Health Organization pronouncements. As a matter of fact, MOST people rely on highly politicized sources, like WHO, for their pronouncements. Many people, in fact, rely on commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann (in the U.S.) as highly credible sources.

A very few people rely much more heavily on primary sources, basic research, because they think that's more credible (and I do to). You get to see the methods by which the data are produced...helpful context, I think. Of course, the source data and its conclusions are much more modest, disjointed and inconclusive than those other sources. But hey...everybody makes his own choice of what's credible, yes?

Anyway, I do apologize for having accused you of asserting that 150000 people are dying annually due to climate change. I thought you were saying that.

I see your assertion that 150,000 people are *already* dying annually due to climate change. And I read the cited article. You find substance in that article?

I have no hope nor inclination to change your mind about any of this. But please consider this: aside from the many uninformed people and faux skeptics, there are very well-informed, deeply considerate and concerned people who have thus far arrived at conclusions that differ greatly from yours. To the extent that they may wish to see inaction on the issue of AGW, you are a Poster Child who, among others, make *the* most compelling cases for skepticism.

150000 dead, indeed.

Carry on.

a lot of people are going to die from the effects of climate change

Very unlikely. More likely, they'll die from hunger, poor sanitation, civil war..all so much more attributable to lack of economic development and social ills than to climate change. And if they don't die for those reasons, they'll die for others.

Perhaps my biggest concern about the focus on climate change is that it diverts attention away from the more salient, and manageable, factors that hasten death. I really think the GP is right on about keeping apprised of scale.

there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow

I fully agree. But we were speaking of climate change, the possible paths it might take, the mechanisms by which we might act to affect them, and the statistically variable presumptions of benefit, abstract and material, that those actions might have. The debate about these, you liken to a debate of whether 2+2=4, or a debate of whether gravity will persist tomorrow?

Me doth think you doth over-simplify. You doth think not?

Many people in the U.S., particularly young ones, are so divorced from the realities of tyranny that they think an airport security check, or the disruption of copyright pirate operations, constitutes a significant threat to liberty.

Clearly, they are unfamiliar with the doings of tyrants or the devastating mechanics of a police state.

Oh...yeah...and the next great threat to human rights...the threat to "net neutrality."

Try poking your virgin head out of your pretty little neck of the woods...there's a world out there with serious problems and yours are a sign of comfort, luxury and intellect.

Boo-hoo to you and your *serious* concerns...your "cancers." (Good gosh...your language even reveals your fantasy that you are dealing in life-and-death challenges. Wow.)

Your point, that this and other less defensible decisions by the Nobel Committee are all the result of fallible human standards is so uninteresting as to not even be worth mentioning. As if there could be an award for "the most important discovery or invention within the field of physic" that doesn't involve fallible human standards. What, you think there's an objective universal method of measuring "importance"? I doubt you do, so what's the beef? You think they could do better? Of course. What fallible human organization couldn't?

Of course it's not interesting that the committee is fallible. It took *you* to make that point.

Notable is not that the committee is fallible, but that it has failed, in its assertions, as a matter of fact. The ubiquity of fallibility is not, in itself, cause to dismiss the significance of failure. Not like you seem to do here.

De Heer's argument looks to be factually correct, and in contradiction to the committee's presentation. Your point that the committee can always do better is "uninteresting" (to use your own phrasing). The fact that it was wrong here, the fact you so blithely diminish, is as interesting as Yassir Arafat's alleged contribution to peace.

I had the same confidence. I put a potential employee through a battery of programming tests, and he passed with flying colors. But when he began work, he wasn't so good. And he was a slob, too (not that I cared).

Four years later, I came upon him in a business suit. I was flabbergasted...never before had he looked even marginally cleaned up (except at that first job interview).

There was a tap on my shoulder. I turned around, and there he was. Again. All sloppy like normal.

I...was...confused.

I looked forward, and there he was in in the suit. And behind me again, there was the familiar slob.

The slob said, "Say hello to my twin brother. And by the way...HE's the one you interviewed...I was the one who took the job. There's no way I could have passed your test."

True story...good enough for me to have enjoyed the quality of the deception more than having resented the depth of the deceit.

But you have put forth sensational questions in the context of a very common set of facts. What is your cause, beyond simply not knowing?

And you have summoned a LARGE audience to consider your questions. Yet, you have chosen to hide information that people may use to answer your questions. (You believe your questions warrant this much mindshare?)

You chastise the ones who sit on their butts, and yet purport to protect your yarn from the ones who might get off their butts to go and look?

Though your intent was not to mislead, you did musingly dabble with the edges of truth. The pain you feel now is of those edges sticking right back into you.

Science...the application of the scientific method, and the benefits of empirical reasoning. If you are indeed a scientist, then please show a bit more respect by living the practice.

All told, I think the people here at Slashdot did a rather fine job with this one.

Who is modding this informative?

In most cases, Slashdot posts are moderated by ignorant kids who harbor unsubstantiated biases, and consider "informative" any position that confirms what they already believe.

Facts will rarely get in the way of beliefs.

It's almost tied, but not quite.

When I expand the time frame, the chart reveals that in the past three years, the CAD has moved within a range from about .77 to 1.07. That's a BIG (and visually chaotic) swing. To view a short time frame is unhelpfully misleading here.

Not surprisingly, there are correlations between these (and other) currencies. But to suggest that such correlations indicate some kind of control intended to keep them at steady parity is just plain wrong, and could easily mislead one into believing there is any likeness of this situation to, say, the relationship between the US Dollar and the Chines YUAN (see chart here).

The Canadian Dollar is, in fact, NOT tied to the U.S. Dollar. (And that includes not "almost" tied too.)

The President will put forth a budget and numerous other spending bills, this year like every year, and those bills will be ratified by a majority that will include Republicans and Democrats (this year, like every year).

The assertion that [Republicans] "will block anything Obama puts forward" is not a fact. It is hyperbole. That you would refer to such a broad, unsubstantive, and technically incorrect analysis as "fact" does indeed reflect your bias, and in some measure, your lack of self-awareness.