So it's all good and well for America to go off and do stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkzFwmJDbrk
While (some of) its own people live in suffering and misery? Bush probably had nothing to do with that decision either, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkzFwmJDbrk
While (some of) its own people live in suffering and misery? Bush probably had nothing to do with that decision either, right?
Free BMW M3 Challenge sim coming from Blimey
Yeah, you read correctly. Blimey are releasing a free online multiplayer sim with the new BMW M3. As a Blimey sim it's probably not going to be all that great, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Source:
http://www.digitaldisplacement ... ng-free-bmw-m3-challenge/
Source:
http://www.digitaldisplacement ... ng-free-bmw-m3-challenge/
I promised myself to withdraw from this thread. But your argument just got delusional on a whole new level.
Firstly: you're wrong about the ice melting. Look up the respective densities of ice and water - they're almost identical (there's only a difference in the fourth significant figure). They can practically be considered the same. What this shows is that when the part of ice that's above water melts, the surface of the water will rise. Again, do the experiment, record the data, prove me wrong if you want to. As it stands, I've provided accurate data and you've given nothing so on that basis, I win this point. I won't do the hard work for you and prove myself wrong.
Some fields in science are more advanced than others - some are still developing. Biologists clearly don't know about every living animal of every species. Saying that a certain animal is probably extinct is on the basis of educated guesswork, not actual experiments, formulas and so on.
Scientists have always gotten things wrong here and there and will continue to get things wrong. Newton, as right as he was, was proven wrong by Einstein on all fronts. Does this mean that Newton did not contribute to science? Certainly not. His equations and laws were just one step towards an accurate understanding of the world. The remarkable accuracy with which this is done today is a testament to the success of science.
Furthermore, Stephen Hawking says in A Brief History of Time - You can never prove a theory right, it can only stand the test of experiment and if it predicts the outcome of experiments accurately, then it's a good theory. However, you can prove a theory wrong.
Just because you cannot prove a theory right, does that mean science is useless? Hell no. Look at where it's gotten us.
If scientists tell you that continuing to do a certain activity is likely to cause the eventual destruction of our species, you should listen to them until someone actually proves them wrong because that's not something that should be gambled with.
This is the last thing I will post in this thread, directed at BlueFlame anyway, until he proves me wrong about ice melting and rising the surface of water.
Firstly: you're wrong about the ice melting. Look up the respective densities of ice and water - they're almost identical (there's only a difference in the fourth significant figure). They can practically be considered the same. What this shows is that when the part of ice that's above water melts, the surface of the water will rise. Again, do the experiment, record the data, prove me wrong if you want to. As it stands, I've provided accurate data and you've given nothing so on that basis, I win this point. I won't do the hard work for you and prove myself wrong.
Some fields in science are more advanced than others - some are still developing. Biologists clearly don't know about every living animal of every species. Saying that a certain animal is probably extinct is on the basis of educated guesswork, not actual experiments, formulas and so on.
Scientists have always gotten things wrong here and there and will continue to get things wrong. Newton, as right as he was, was proven wrong by Einstein on all fronts. Does this mean that Newton did not contribute to science? Certainly not. His equations and laws were just one step towards an accurate understanding of the world. The remarkable accuracy with which this is done today is a testament to the success of science.
Furthermore, Stephen Hawking says in A Brief History of Time - You can never prove a theory right, it can only stand the test of experiment and if it predicts the outcome of experiments accurately, then it's a good theory. However, you can prove a theory wrong.
Just because you cannot prove a theory right, does that mean science is useless? Hell no. Look at where it's gotten us.
If scientists tell you that continuing to do a certain activity is likely to cause the eventual destruction of our species, you should listen to them until someone actually proves them wrong because that's not something that should be gambled with.
This is the last thing I will post in this thread, directed at BlueFlame anyway, until he proves me wrong about ice melting and rising the surface of water.
How's that? Firstly, mass doesn't change: density does, but that's semantics (in this case you're forgiven since I know what you mean but it's a pretty critical mistake). Secondly, water is at its greatest density at 4 degrees, yes. However a large amount of the ice mass is currently above the surface of the water: floating, as you put it. If it melts, my money is on the water level rising. Simple estimate of 1/3 of the ice being above the the actual water (though it's probably more) and a guess that ice will not change volume by as much as 33% when raised to 4degrees leads to a pretty safe bet.
Don't take my word for it, put two blocks of ice in a glass of water and record the water level before and after they have melted. I can't say I've tested it myself so I wait to be corrected if it's otherwise. This can be your first scientific experiment.
Where are these plants magically going to sprout up from when we keep chopping them down? Their evolution into plants that absorb more CO2 would take thousands of years, as will improvement in their reproductive system: their reproductive system cannot facilitate greater rates of reproduction all of a sudden because of an increase in CO2.
Last edited by axus, .
Sam, my impression is that most anti-GW suggestions try to undermine the validity of the data presented by the pro-GW papers rather than dispute the theory behind it and such. Yet one things they cannot dispute are:
a) Humans have an impact though (how much so is unknown)
b) Global warming is happening
c) Global warming is accelerating
Basically, what the anti-GW guys are saying is that this might not be a cause for concern because we don't know what's happened in the past even though the best guess we have goes to show that humans are having a very significant impact. So it's like one of those cartoons: you're heading for a concrete wall. Did the coyote paint a sheet of paper in a tricky plot or is it a real concrete wall? Two ways to find out: run into it really fast and see what happens or slow down and examine the wall from close. This might be more time consuming but are we in any hurry? Should we really tempt fate and risk the demise of the human species just to get wherever the human race is going a few decades sooner or should we approach cautiously?
Right. So wouldn't it be best to not take our chances with global warming either? It IS happening and it seems very likely that we are a HUGE influence. Driving hard at the stone wall that might turn out to be a sheet of cardboard painted as a stone wall seems like a massive gamble: after all, the implications of global warming are severe.
I think an analogy is in order: say you're driving on an unknown piece of road, at 140km/h. There's a slight turn in the road but a road sign tells you that straight after that there's a sharp hairpin and a concrete wall on the far side. You can't see for yourself yet because you can't see around the slight turn. You didn't know that there was a turn there until you saw the sign. Is the sign a government plot to make you drive slower or should you brake?
I'd just like to say thanks, Todd for your last post: that certainly raised the maturity standard of the argument against BlueFlame in this thread. Looking back, I've been out of line with being rude and I'd like to apologise to BlueFlame and the rest of the readers for that. That doesn't mean that I concede that nothing should be done about global warming though: I still firmly support Todd in saying that we are heading towards a brick wall and we should do something about it before it becomes a serious problem.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Should we then not avoid the problem that will arise because of global warming?
And, what the hell is a religious expert?
And, what the hell is a religious expert?
So if you know you're headed for that wall, really fast, and you can do something about preventing the crash, won't you try to prevent the crash?
EDIT: A fun quote from someone reading this thread:
[14:18] Gary: *imagines somebody repeatdly walking into walls*
[14:19] Gary: *thud*ow ... *thud* ouch!.... thud *ouch*!
EDIT: A fun quote from someone reading this thread:
[14:18] Gary: *imagines somebody repeatdly walking into walls*
[14:19] Gary: *thud*ow ... *thud* ouch!.... thud *ouch*!
Last edited by axus, .
BlueFlame, the fact that you don't know something doesn't mean that it's not a fact. And it may not be an evident problem yet but that's like saying that going at 200km/h towards a concrete wall isn't a problem because you haven't hit the wall yet: once you do, then you will have a problem.
BMW's plan with the hydrogen cars was to turn a large chunk of the Sahara desert into a hydrogen producing plant running on solar power.
BMW's plan with the hydrogen cars was to turn a large chunk of the Sahara desert into a hydrogen producing plant running on solar power.
Didn't think so until yesterday.
Last edited by axus, .
It's not hear-say, it's scientific research. No-one who believes in global warming goes outside each morning, licks their finger, waves it in the air and goes "crikey, it's warmer today, must be global warming: our doom is coming". They believe it because leading researchers have proven it.
Last edited by axus, .
Following that logic, the earth isn't round, right? And 2 + 2 isn't 4. And so on. So by your logic we'd forsake science, go back to living in caves, or failing that, go extinct when the icecaps melt, we run out of oxygen and have nothing to shield us from the sun.
It's selfish to limit our impact on the environment so that our children inherit the same planet that we started with (or one that's been changed through natural causes and not industry)? Whaaa?
Last edited by axus, .
That's not a maybe. But even if he has dynamic IP, the ISPs should still keep track of who has what IP so that shouldn't be a big hurdle. I can't say I know much about hacking myself but he's probably sent the message through a few servers to make it harder to track back.
Surely, the source of the data sent to LFSW can be discovered and the person responsible (99.99999999% it's Phlos) can be charged? - at the very least, any authority should ban him from using a computer for a few years, which should teach him a lesson. 
Whatever. I've actually never done an IQ test so I wouldn't know. The point is that it'd be nice if people would get banned for being too stupid.
BlueFlame, global warming, funnily enough, refers to global climate, averaged out.
EDIT: I wish LFS forum would ban people on the basis of IQ, or apparent IQ at any rate.
EDIT: I wish LFS forum would ban people on the basis of IQ, or apparent IQ at any rate.
Great stuff guys, just watched your first episode. I look forward to your LFS piece, and hopefully an interview with the developers. 
Yes, an interview with the devs is always a great read. 
You would get every man in the community on his legs to hear what Scawen and Eric have to say especially.
You would get every man in the community on his legs to hear what Scawen and Eric have to say especially.+1 for Spanky
But, on a more serious note, I'd like to link you to an article about Live For Speed in the most recent AutoSimSport magazine, it will cover a lot of the information you're interested in:
http://www.autosimsport.net/ (download volume 3, issue 5)
The article is on page 33. Hope that helps a bit.
But, on a more serious note, I'd like to link you to an article about Live For Speed in the most recent AutoSimSport magazine, it will cover a lot of the information you're interested in:
http://www.autosimsport.net/ (download volume 3, issue 5)
The article is on page 33.
Hope that helps a bit.A for AS Computing
C for AS English First Language
Exams to come in the Oct/Nov session: A1+A2 Physics, A2 Computing, A2 Further Mathematics, A2 Economics.
That'll be my secondary education over.
C for AS English First Language
Exams to come in the Oct/Nov session: A1+A2 Physics, A2 Computing, A2 Further Mathematics, A2 Economics.
That'll be my secondary education over.
You know, the climate is nearly the only nice thing here. 0-10 night time during winter, 12-18 during the day. 12-16 during the night in summer, 19-27 during the day.
For the first time in like 20 years, it snowed here a few months ago and I was in Bulgaria on holiday at the time. They just have two seasons here, to be honest: 3 months winter, 9 months summer.What I really love though is how they make their driveways. I kid you not, in one of the most expensive suburbs, here which sits on a steep hill, they make them roughly 25-35degree uphills to climb into your garage.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG