Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 07-10-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 13-10-2025
- 3: Life with two parents: Just about
- 4: Interesting Links for 29-09-2025
- 5: Photo cross-post
- 6: Interesting Links for 10-10-2025
- 7: Interesting Links for 09-10-2025
- 8: Interesting Links for 08-10-2025
- 9: Interesting Links for 02-10-2025
- 10: Photo cross-post
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 11:42 am (UTC)"The study assessed the values of characters in popular television shows in each decade from 1967 to 2007, with two shows per decade evaluated"
Then didn't bother reading any forther.
How can you even begin to fairly assess the TV of a decade based on 2 shows?
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 11:46 am (UTC)What if the two shows from one year were "Real Sex" and "Taxi Cab Confessions" and then the next year they picked "The Sopranos" and "Friends."
Considerably different results.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 11:54 am (UTC)How the hell is that carbon reduction, as claimed in the article's subheadline? Even further down, they say:
> Shale gas is still a "fossil fuel", but it's much cleaner than coal
and again, WTF? So what if it's cleaner the coal? It's still digging up more carbon from where it's buried even deeper and chucking it into the atmosphere.
The Register really is a POS lately.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 12:25 pm (UTC)Guess what the GWPF believe. That's right, no man-made global warming.
To be fair the article is just stating what Freeman Dyson thinks without saying "this is bullshit". Should they be saying it's bullshit? Do they give counterpoints when they print "Global warming is real" stories?
I honestly don't know. I certainly believe man-made global warming is real.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 01:42 pm (UTC)I'm particularly amused that they claim Matt Ridley's connection to oil and coal production means he has the opposite of a vested interest, when the whole report is a justification for continuing to invest in fossil fuels over renewables... *sigh*
(And depressed by the eejit who used a dodgy methodology to overestimate the impact of methane emissions from it, nicely playing into the whole 'environmentalist conspiracy' nonsense.)
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 07:13 pm (UTC)Eventually, with a fair number of technical advances, we may be able to get by without either of them. But not this week.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 07:32 pm (UTC)You noticed that nuclear plant in Japan, right?
Nuclear power is basically digging up *another* type of dangerous shit and having it and its consequences hang around where they cause harm.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 07:36 pm (UTC)But if you cross out nuclear, then you have two options:
1) burn hydrocarbons
2) not have enough energy
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 09:20 pm (UTC)Then 2, logically.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-22 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 08:55 pm (UTC)Water cost is also incredibly important and going to get much more so, unless you want your energy to come from very specific countries. Energy generation with a low cost in water would be a good thing to have.
Shale gas is cheap and effective
Date: 2011-07-21 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 06:20 pm (UTC)http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/shale-gas-green-message
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 07:12 pm (UTC)I'm sceptical :->
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 08:28 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry