with the TV show article I got as far as ... "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?
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.
no subject
"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)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Shale gas is cheap and effective
no subject
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/shale-gas-green-message
(no subject)
(no subject)