Moonlapse

Only certain groups can upload.

What is this real beer?

Thanks The social commentary is fine, it's assumed that it's opinion.

I'm going to make a general rule for this thread: If you want to carry on a tit for tat discussion on global warming, please post references. I don't mind social commentary, but if anyone wants to make a 'matter of fact' statement, please provide some sources.

Welcome Carthago! I like my beer dark and lukewarm.

Great!

Well usually, our terms are that our logo/website address stay on the map and we don't hear back after that, lol. The site is still growing, and we're learning as we go, so there will always be some sort of improvement in the works.

Whenever you get the chance sometime in the future I'd like to see some pictures of your work.

The promotion was announced here: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6734

Vangelis is the first electronic music that I ever remember hearing. Needless to say, its made a huge impact on my musical tastes. Strap on your full size headphones and enjoy!

I agree that Invision leaves much to be desired in regards to its stability. The catch is, they don't distribute security patches for older versions - the 'solution' is to upgrade. I could ramble on for a while about their security patch screwup which allowed a script kiddie to deface the forums.

We'll keep printing them as long as people want them. There's also been discussion of additional maps. The marketing is tricky when you have a site like this which is run in spare time and when you are trying to prevent others from taking liberties with your work.

Yep! The map page will be up as long as we have them. http://www.unrv.com/roman-map-for-sale.php The marketing discussion was moved here.

Yeah, constitutionalists who want to re-establish the rule of political law are so pass

My personal theory is that it has to do with the Republican primaries.

NP, dude. You know what I just realized? We can have our grand UNRV meetup in Hades. This place is full of heathens! I'll see if I can get the Black Goat of the Woods to make a guest appearance.

It's good to see someone following their passion.

Hahah! Xena reminds me of being a horny teenage doofus. I don't think I've seen a single episode of Buffy.

If you show me how I categorized all Christians, I'll apologize. I was referring to a particular person I know who unquestioningly trusts their church. Any allusions I made were to the abuse of religion for political ends.

Word has it, from a devout Christian in my family, that something bad will happen in 2007 and that anyone who is not Christian and does not support George Bush will die. Just thought you'd all like to know... better repent and vote for a neocon

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=SOLAR+CARBON+SYNGAS

Something really bothers me about this kind of alarmism. Rhetorically speaking, you are implying that a 99% concensus of scientific studies indicating that human activity is not to blame would be insignificant compared to the 1% indicating the opposite, and that it would be ultimately negligent not to alter our lives even if the probability of success is 1%. Why? Help me understand this. If you had a 1% chance of getting killed, right here and now, if you walked down a hypothetical street, but got $1million if you got to the end, would you take the chance? No? Why not? You would be disregarding a 99% concensus that you would survive, and be rich! I don't see the correlation. This is how I correlate your original statement (keep in mind the rhetoric nature): You're about to walk down the street and you ask 100 people what they think about you walking down the street. One person says its probable that you'll die. The ninety nine others say something else. The one person says that if you agree to cut your hand off there's a 1% chance that you won't get killed. Is it ultimately negligent to not cut off your hand? Let me explain... The actual concensus is irrelevant to your own rhetorical scenario. I think you are including your already established belief in the opinion expressed in the original statement. What I'm saying is that if you didn't already have a 75% concensus, how can you say that we should act the same in a completely different situation? The urgency you attach is not grounded in your given scenario. I know it seems trivial, but it interests me that you say that even if there was only a very small amount of evidence it would be 'ultimately negligent' not to make huge sacrifices. I really believe its based in the fear that comes with the package. And really, the lifestyle changes are not slight. Slight changes will only produce slight results. There are no current alternatives that will support our industrialized world as it is right now. In order to curb and reverse our contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere, it will incur tremendous costs and sacrifices that you and I will pay for. This is why I used the analogy of cutting off one's hand. I agree. I drive an old Civic that regularly gets about 40 mpg and efficiency is a top consideration when I buy anything. I'm actually in the process of rebuilding another car to get even better mileage. What struck me as alarmist was the original rhetorical statement and the implications of the required sacrifice. The frightening image of run-away global warming and its horrible catastrophes is anything but certain, despite what a huge political organization like the UN says. Climate change can't be tested scientifically. It's all based on limited theoretic simulations of a system that we don't know everything about. Being a programmer, this is the aspect I'm most interested in - the actual physics and the calculations used. I find it unconvincing, and I find the urgency to to impose regulation disturbing. There's nothing wrong with a more efficient lifestyle, but there are serious implications for the involvement of government. I wish we'd wait until we actually had some certainty instead of relying on a certainty manufactured with concensus and fear instead of empirical evidence.

Something really bothers me about this kind of alarmism. Rhetorically speaking, you are implying that a 99% concensus of scientific studies indicating that human activity is not to blame would be insignificant compared to the 1% indicating the opposite, and that it would be ultimately negligent not to alter our lives even if the probability of success is 1%. Why? Help me understand this.

So you're saying it would have an insignificant effect on carbon emissions and more of a social/economic effect?

Suppose the U.S. federal government eliminated oil subsidies, what effect do you guys think this would have?