Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 687

by spiralx (#47718475) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

No, I think it's more that these people have always been here, but the last couple of years has seen a) the flourishing of the disgusting "Men's Rights" movement, b) more talk about sexism in the tech industry, which has lead to c) more articles about the subject here, and thus more arguments about it. In almost 15 years here I don't think the demographic has changed very much at all - there's a wider age range and it's more international, but fundamentally it's the same sort of audience. The site just has more articles on topics where this sort of thing comes up.

The rampant sexism seen in a lot of these articles is pretty depressing though.

Comment: Re:Easy, India or China (Score 1) 193

by geekoid (#47716953) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

Well, all the initial groups where created by LBJ, and then Nixon consolidated them
The clean are act did no such thing and created looser standards.

please, Please, PLEASE read up on the stuff.

DDT had never been shown to do what the speculation is SIlent Spring claimed it did. It was pure FUD.

There is nothing wrong with fracking. Saying Obama is for fracking is like saying Obama is for factual evidence based decisions. I know you can't handle a politician that doesn't just spout nonsense that happen to support your uneducated biases.

Comment: Re:Easy, India or China (Score 4, Informative) 193

by geekoid (#47716915) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

You should really read those links. Seriously dude, just linking something you don't actually understand as some sort of proof just mkas you look foolish.

The first one made it worse:

The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."

Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.
By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO2, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.[2]

In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps [3]. It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush Administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

The second one--Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on December 17, 1963

The third one-- Nixon combined existing groups into one, for budget reasons.
However, I would argue the the Pubs of the 60's and 70s are vastly different then the pubs of today. Post religious right control.

You've been Berkeley'ed!