Exactly! What are we going to do for jet fuel if we keep burning oil for electricity? Or for short commutes? Distance travel will be impossible when the oil runs out. We need to save it for when we -really- need it.

So what about everyone who works in the oil, gas, and coal industries? Their rational is that if we do something, they lose their job. Which is a very legitimate argument. What do we with everyone that is now unemployed? How will they make their livelihood? Will they have to move? People's financial stability are at stake when you talk about legislating changes that would mitigate global warming, so of course they're going to oppose it.

A good example of this is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The people that live there have had their beaches and fishing grounds devastated. But when Obama proposed a moratorium on deep sea drilling, those same coastal states that were devastated opposed it more than inland states. Why? Because that's how regular folks make their money there.

Until you address the social issues that would arise from all these changes, and address them utterly completely, you will have people who will oppose (and yet not necessarily deny) global warming. The UN's Brundtland Commission established that sustainable development is defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Until we show that we have firm plans for meeting that, well, we're fucked.

Without reading the report, I'm going to assume it has to do with data collection at the North Pole. Arctic areas warm much more than the equator when global temperatures rise, so temperature rises at the poles are very good indicators of global warming.

It's also of strategic interest to us if the Earth is warming -- some good, like the northwest passage, some bad, like ice roads being decreasingly reliable.

I don't remember why, but there was some discussion here on Slashdot recently regarding BeOS. Many comments were about the fact that it's GUI was always responsive. Which is exactly what the iPhone/iPad does. Sure, it can't multitask, but it means that other system resources aren't held up doing something other than what you're telling it to do. So you get fast responsiveness. And it can't be understated how important that is to "average consumers." They are going to be pissed if they have to wait, end of story. Anything else -- who cares? As long as they can do simple shit without having to sit and stare while a computer thinks, they will love it. Don't get me wrong, I also think the iPad is retarded, for many reasons. I see no point in buying one. But there are lots of people who will buy it for the novelty of a responsive interface.

...but was I the only one racing to get homework done the morning before school? This could be a good opportunity for all the procrastinators to get that last bit of homework done.

I'd just like to point out that, once in Europe, many flights are cheap.

I believe that is what we'd call an "Oh snap."

Not to mention that local representation is essentially non-existent. In my experiences, especially in the last election, people voted for head of state, and got a local rep instead.

The Canadian political system is broken, broken, broken. It breaks my heart a little that B.C. shrugged off proportional representation.

I must disagree with this point. I know many musicians that have day jobs. They would never in their lives think of giving up music.

Here's the catch 22 of copyright -- How do you know if an artistic experience is worth your monetary support if you have not experienced it yet?

Don't get me wrong, I support paying for quality art. I do all I can to support small-time artists that I really like. But P2P has allowed me to make well-informed choices of where to spend my money. I would love it if there were a framework for "If you like something, pay for it," but how do I know I like it? This is where current copyright fails.

What I'm saying is kind of moot, though. The problem is a societal one, I'd say. I have a friend in the music business. He does not download music. Ever. He does, however, download tv shows and movies. When I confronted him on this hypocrisy, his reason boiled down to "I don't know anyone in the tv or movie business." People are self-centered. Humanity fail.

I find the language used interesting. It's almost as if he's trying to convince you that the software is awesome, and therefore you should support it because it will lead to other awesome software. He's making it seem like it's an issue of choice, rather than trying to justify a decision they believe will give them extra revenue.

Something like "We spent a lot of money developing this software, so we feel we need to limit piracy as much as possible to recoup the costs" would sound much more genuine than "LANers are leechers."

I think this is probably a decision coming down from the company execs, who just want bigger bonuses. But that's just my reading of the situation......

Wow. Do synonyms really have the same semantic meaning for you? If that's the case, that's crazy! I'd say it's pretty much accepted that similar words have distinctly different meanings for individuals, based on the context in which they've heard these words, etc.. Like how the same word can have a slightly different meaning for different people.