Arrhenius predicted warming due to CO2 in 1896

Since 1975 global temperatures have risen 0.6C and CO2 concentration has gone from 335ppm to 390ppm. The results in the paper don't match reality.

http://www.costaricanmarket.com/dococorimero.html

Get real, MP's vote for their manifesto and act to further their political careers. They will help with issues that don't conflict with those two aims. That won't change, no matter how many emails you send. And not being ignored doesn't mean I got the result I wanted in all cases. I'm no th eonly person in the constituency and there are conflicting issues. In those cases you have to get involved and campaign to change the political landscape and again simply filling an inbox with emails will not do that.

As to your point about noticing them in a group, how do you know that a personal approach would not have worked much better, my dealing with my MPs (Charles Kennedy and then Danny Alexander) have always yielded good results within a few days. I've never been ignored.

You fill out the form once and the lobby firm sends repeated emails. "you have to ask why voters are having to do this to be noticed". Voters don't have to do this, it just seems an easy way to have influence. But real influence takes time and work. This MP was interviewed last night with a representative of the lobby group. The lobbiest had polled his members in the MP's constituency and the majority wanted the group to keep emailing the MP. So the (majority of) 400 members (read self selected) of the group in that constituency want to flood the MP's inbox at the expense of the 50,000 other voters in the contituency who comunicate directly. If I was the MP I would have just routed the emails to the deleted items folder

If you actually care about your politics or campaign, then write to your MP direct. Simply filling in a form and spamming MP's simply stops the people who do care from communicating with their MP. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we should just have an arms race between different lobby groups who would automatically send every MP a million emails a day just to show how much we care about an issue.

Yes, I tend to agree. Otherwise a proprietary application running on GNU/linux would have to be GPL'ed as soon as it supplies a callback function to the OS.

http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/

I think that this is part of the ELF code. See analysis here: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040722135616439

If I remember correctly, things may have changed, C++ is supposed to be implemented as a precompiler for C. Which means that for a new system you need only need to transfer the precompiled output (C) and then put it through a bootstrap C compiler on the new system. As I say things may have changed.

I seem to remember that this is the kind of size for a first human study. I guess this is to make sure that the patients didn't die / develop cancer / turn into zombies. The more detailed studies will happen, but I think when you get to the human trial stage, the ethical considerations suggest a small group.

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

There are a couple of major problems with this paragraph.

1. The is an implied assuption that if you can win at something then it cannot be art, an assuption that he provides no evidence for. Why cannot winnable games be art? I've frequently heard the term "poetry in motion" applied to sports people. Prior to Duchamp, found art was not art. How about conceptual art? Was that art a hundred years ago? Art is a moving target and in some cases it is perfectly reasonable for a piece to be art for one group of people but not for another group. A personal piece fro the artist to a friend for instance.
The blanket assertion that anything winnable cannot be art fails due its breadth.

2. He is using the term "game" in two different ways so that there is a generalised "Computer Game" inclusive of immersive games, and then the subset of games which excludes imersive games which then become representations of Films, novels etc.

Here he shows the flaw in his argument by effectively claiming that anything that can be considered art cannot be a game and anything he considers a game cannot be art.

He has decided the result before a ball has been kicked:-)

Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously. Is this a Chomsky reference?

The human brain is quite remarkable in its ability to justify its own actions to itself. "Group think" plays its part in situations like this, "all the other guys are doing it so it must be ok". How somebody responds to authority can also be important. "My boss said it's perfectly legal". And finally you may have the "Lets give Henry Kissenger the Nobel Peace Prize" type of meme coming in from families or friends. "You are really good to you sick mother you're a very nice person". With enough reinforment in various forms you can get people to do pretty much anything