What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
A Conversation with Aaron Patzer view!
openforum.com - The CEO and founder of Mint.com didn't plan on flipping his startup for $170 million.
110 Comments
- eurofooty, on 10/12/2007, -15/+61Please go make yourself a Darwin Award nominee.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Don't mind xarc he got into an argument with his hand and now he's just lonely and bitter.
- fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40Wow, xarc13 you are a charmer. I believe the last time I saw you posting you were calling for death to all liberals and europeans for no readily apparent reason.
- roxics, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34It amazes me that we have people like Stephen Hawking and Al Gore telling us flat out about threats we face and people just blow them off and make claims they are over exaggerating. These are not crazy people on the street sidewalk yelling "the end is near!" Hawking is one of the most brilliant minds alive today and Gore is a former vice president of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. What's it going to take for people to stop and listen?
- Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20No, Stephen Hawking IS the future.
- Ray_Justice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"This article was orginally posted on the Guardian Unlimited's website on Wednesday, June 17, 2007"
Damn Stephen Hawking can even see the future. - jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@ capiCrimm
Owner: Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse!
Homer: [worried] Ooooh, that's bad.
Owner: But it comes with a free Frogurt!
Homer: [relieved] That's good.
Owner: The Frogurt is also cursed.
Homer: [worried] That's bad.
Owner: But you get your choice of topping!
Homer: [relieved] That's good.
Owner: The toppings contains Potassium Benzoate.
Homer: [stares]
Owner: That's bad.
Sometimes, the data is not enough. The interpretation of data is important, and we may not have the necessary education to interpret data. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18While he is leaving his field to comment on the climate -- and I mean really leaving his field as he's primarily a cosmologist -- the weather and climate are entirely physics and mathematics related.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It's sad that the "discussion" about global warming has become more of a series of personal attacks between scientists, government officials, and activists. A friend of mine (who is a big environmentalist) told me a few weeks ago that "nobody can afford not to be an environmentalist anymore." I have an open mind. I asked "why can't I afford it?" He says "deserts are forming, ice caps are melting . . . we gotta do something." I agree with him and ask what the most cost effective way to help save the environment is. He looked at me like I had just stabbed a puppy and said "we need to do EVERYTHING, not just what is cost effective."
It was then I realized why a lot of people ignore environmentalists. It's a shame, because it IS an important issue, but simply making statements like "we need to do EVERYTHING" doesn't help. What is the cost of me eating a burger? Is that cow going to turn 1sq ft of the earth into a desert? What is the cost of me operating my air conditioning? 1 cubic meter of melted polar ice per year? I think the answers to these types of questions are more practical than having scientists become activists.
How is this more practical? When you understand the exact cost you can make smart decisions. If you offer me a slice of pumpkin pie or a slice of cheesecake, I will probably take the pumpkin pie even though I like cheesecake better. Why? Because I know that cheesecake has 1000 calories and the pumpkin pie has 300. - bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16You have to admit that a lot of our problems aren't from not know what to do, but rather from having enough political will to put solutions into action.
- sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16The problem with you science haters, is you wont belive climate change if jesus himself came down and said "hey cut it out"
No seriously.. all climatologists are liars and just want that gray train of federal dollars(lol)
the only people that know about climate change that should be taken seriously are people like Rush and senators that have never ever cracked a science book.
And before you bring up lindzen, know that this year he was outed as being funded by opec.
Hawkings is just a rare sciencetists that has great name recognition and he is just adding his voice onto the chorus of shouters that you find it so easy to discredit,
Hawkings is a genius, without a doubt, hawkings understand the scienctific method, and that thier isnt a lot of money in climate science(unless you tout the oil iindustry line), he also knows that the truth isnt a democracy but a dictatorship. He also knows when someone is talking out their butt(even if he isnt in the same fielld becuase he understands the scienctific method and data) Obviously he understands these things far far better than you and as such he has every right to comment on it. - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16dig me down
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Thank you for that. You epitomize the intellect of those who make claims that climate change doesn't exist. Blazing forth with such comments really helps everyone understand that you, and those like you are not educated enough to understand scientific concepts so you will dismiss them for the what is programmed into you on Sunday morning. A brilliant man can't use mathematics to calculate the true age of the universe but some really old book, with no specifically known author or origin, is all the majority of Americans need to convince them the world is only 6K years old and some guy once walked on water. This is what we're up against folks. Pure theoretical ideology meant to provide hope in the face of fear of the unknown. Besides who wants to go to a family funeral and stand around thinking "Bob was a great guy, now he's gone. Well, let's go home". Nope, what you need and want is to believe he's in a "better place" and you will "see him again on the other side". Comforting, but not true. Science is scary but not real dangerous. Not compared to neo-conservative Chrisitian and Islamic wars between two radical sides of opposing religions. My God is better than your God, na..na..na,na,na.... Save us all Araxen.... Vote for Jesus - again, since he did such a good job over the last 6 years.
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11And, I'd take you more seriously if your neurons actually spoke to another.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The day their Oceanfront house floats away, they're going to what to know. WTF happened.
- Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@masamunecyrus
Ah, but there is also YEARS of background study required for someone to really gain a full comprehension of these topics. Mathematics and physics cover a vast expanse of the world. You can't just jump from knowing one application of them right into another one.
I hope that you wouldn't expect a fluid dynamics physicist to be able to speak without error about quantum physics a year after its become popular to do so. - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8No I have a simple request to all on this forum, reading this post.
Assume for a moment most of the above posts are made alternately by left-oriented and more right-leaning americans. What kind of idea could I be getting, looking in from the outside? I might conclude some pretty unflattering things about the US. - dopplerdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8please don't feed the trolls
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Why is this bigger news than---oh, I don't know---someone trained in climatology saying the same thing? Scientists should never become celebrities. Fame has nothing to do with credibility.
- binderskagnaes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7A) He can't
B) America has the highest obesity rate in the world
Lazy American :p
*joking* - Hypnos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Before you guys all comment on Stephen Hawking maybe you should show your credentials. Global warming is real almost all the scientific community agrees. Every year evidence is building. If you don't agree with global warming maybe you should open a book not written by a fiction author. You definitely should not be insulting one of the greatest mind of our time.
- prattmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"World On Brink Of Unprecedented Climate Change" Sounds like The Day After Tommorrow
- mv10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For once I agree, forget the nuclear crap.. The time of procrastination has to stop. We cant wait till its too late
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@mrprops
you're right, he probably just came up with this idea out of thin air. /sarcasm
i would think that since he has a reputation to uphold, he would read quite a few papers, ask questions, etc before voicing a public opinion about something. - sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'll admit I'm a global warming skeptic. Partly because I don't fully understand all the science behind and partly because I have a hard time believing that global warming could have profound effects within such an incredibly short period of time-- at least compared to the length of Earth's existence and the presence of human beings. However, what I truly and sincerely would like to know is, if global warming is truly occurring, what shall we do about it?
It's not enough to claim the world is coming to an end and make people feel bad for not doing anything. Al Gore can make movies and TV appearances, but what is he doing? What can any of us do to prevent or alleviate global warming? Please understand I'm not being facetious, I'm merely asking people to propose solutions. I want to know. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Guess what, Steven Hawking....the single greatest peril humanity faces right now, that is blocking any chances to fix the climate/pollution problems and countless others -- is George Bush and the minions of blind idiots who support and make excuses for him.
And no amount of scientists are going to change that fact.
An entirely different approach is required, as all the best scientific and military and socio-political minds are simply ignored by this latest dictator-upstart! (And monster Cheney, too)
If you try to appeal to the heart/compassion or the rationality of those who have neither, you are destined to fail.
Sorry.
I hope we find a better way! - capiCrimm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jgzman
That is my point. Priests interpret Religious Text and tell the layman what to do, and Scientists interpret data and tell the layman what to do. There is of course a limit to what one person can interpret, but that's where finding people who think like you comes into play. It's still a gamble, but much less of a gamble then just accepting whatever any famous scientists has to say.
Einstein said there was a God, but what gives him credibility in religion? Hawking said Earth is doomed, but what gives him credibility. First off, as I said, I gave him no power to tell me what to do, and second off he's not even a meteorologist. I call appeal to false authority as environmentalist propaganda. Regardless of if "rapid climate change" is right or wrong, the argument at hand is wrong. Stephen Hawkings is no more a credible expert then a priest.
I apologize to non Judeo-Christian religions for my metaphor. - sicc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Dude, please. The ***** ice caps on Mars are also melting. I suppose we are responsible for that too, yea?
- Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Just because evidence is "empirical" does not mean that its evidence is complete, or even that its conclusions are valid.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical
Not to say that the conclusions are or are not invalid. I'm just saying, stop making erroneous statements using "big" words. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@galeninjapan:
"I believe there is global warming, but will someone please Explain why Hawking can coment about this. I have read three of his books and not one chapter is about weather. This kind of information would be better if it was from a well know meterologist."
Perhaps the fact that global warming is about climate change, not weather, and that climatologists, not meteorologists, should be your primary source of information about the climate, is part of your problem. Anomalous local weather can be one of the results of global climate change, and meteorologists may have differing levels of expertise on the subject, but, since meteorologists primarily focus on short-term forecasting, and climatologists study trends over hundreds of thousands of years, I would not rely on meteorlogists as my primary source of information on the subject.
Second, Hawking has, like any thinking person, looked at the data gathered by climatologists, which is freely available on the Internet and does not require an advanced physics degree to interpret, and has, like any thinking person, read the interpretive explanations of climatologists, and, has, using his substantial background in the scientific method, including skepticism, empiricism and logical consistency, concluded that anthropogenic climate change is real, and dangerous.
You can take into consideration his claim, but not in a vacuum; rather, as merely one more scientific voice of reason reinforcing what the experts do say.
No one, and I mean *no one*, not here nor anywhere else, has ever, nor would ever make the argument, "global warming is real solely because Stephen Hawking says so" or "Al Gore says so" or any other individual. Rather, anthropogenic climate change is real because the preponderance of the evidence, peer reviewed by thousands of unrelated expert scientists the world over says so.
Just as evolution is real not because Richard Dawkins says so, but because the preponderance of the evidence, peer reviewed by thousands of unrelated expert scientists the world over says so.
Reality being that which, when you cease to believe in it, still exists. - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Did it actually occur to anyone that as a scientist of any field one can determine the validity of scientists of other fields by ensuring that their evidence is empirical, thus stephen hawking's "opinion" on something means that he has found the evidence regarding that theory empirical? No, didn't think so.
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2big world map with physical & biological signs
http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html
links
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ - bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Also, if anyone here actually reads the artice they digg, they realize the Steven did not say ANYTHING about climate change ANYWHERE in the article. Which means the headline was completely false. Thank you for your usual (lack of) diligience in the service of truth, Bonlebon.
These "environmentalists" are a dishonest bunch, aren't they? - unholy1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jgzman: lol!
Best.
Comment.
Ever. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My thoughts exactly.
(that was a damned good movie) - bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You prove my point for me. Because I'm not a Marxist like you, I am suddenly an "anti-environmentalist". Because I know enough about economics to know that government is bad for the environment, I am an "anti-environmentalist".
And to think that government is the only reason planes don't fall out of the sky... Maybe if you think about it long enough, you'll realize how fallacious that statement is.
Do you honestly believe highways are impossible without government? You don't think individuals can't accomplish those things?
No wonder you think government is so great ;) - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The problem with getting the public to accept global warming as a problem is that they haven't foud a way to explain it that doesn't sound to the public like complaining that someone driving south at 20 mph in Indiana is about to plunge into the Gulf of Mexico.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
Quote: "The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy." - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
A three hour BBC documentary on how the people with the darkest and wildest imaginations (politicians and media) get the most attention. Evidience and logic go out the window. - Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1/flex, I got a live one here or two...!
- spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bryanedds: Right. The government can't solve any problems at all. That's why we have the FAA and planes don't fall out of the sky, a national highway system so we can drive across our country, the FDA so we don't get fed poison as medicine, labor laws so we're not all living in a Dickens novel at work,, a single national currency so you don't need to alternate between dollars, rupees, shekels, etc.
The idea that government can't solve any problems is every bit as asinine as the idea that government can solve every problem. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"This kind of information would be better if it was from a well know meterologist."
Too bad nobody trusts a meteorologist if he/she goes against the normal(wrong) belief that global warming is fake. If someone is highly respected among most people what they say will hit home and will not be able to easily be brushed off like it would otherwise. - zombo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can only speak for my part of the northern hemisphere, its nowhere near as warm here as it was 6 months ago.
- WardenRant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you want proof of global warming, it was snowing in Malibu and Los Angeles.
In Southern Orange County, it has been colder than it has ever been. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To end this stupid debate once and for all, I propose that we take steps to combat "global warming", but do *not* run around like headless chickens.
Global warming may or may not be a threat, but surely there is some middle ground between living in caves and driving Hummers that we can all agree on and participate in, isn't there? Even if we're wrong and the problem doesn't come to pass, haven't we done something that we probably should be doing anyway? - zombo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't a small nuclear war actually counter the effects of global warming?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-12-12-nucelar-war_x.htm - begbegbegbegbeg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Argument from authority" - one of the many logical fallacies. Engaged in by those whose positions are not well considered. Relies on people not recognizing that the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.
Very effective on sheeple. Luckily, I'm not one. - ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I didn't know that Stephen Hawking was a climatologist.
- yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4how many lines would it take then?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
