I don't know if the terms, or whether or not humans are even responsible, matter. The earth is clearly warming, and accelerating in doing so. I don't know how or why anyone would be allowed to make any argument against doing absolutely everything we can to increase our chances of survival universally. That should include changing any remotely possible effects that human beings have on the subject, as well as all future responsibilities we are currently ignoring toward the ecosystem. I'm not even a major environmentalist. It just seems really obvious, and gives me zero respect for the rest of humanity for how they blatantly march toward oblivion on this planet because they're still making a quarterly profit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hi Scott, I'm glad to hear that you are requiring disclosure - but in poking around and talking to a few people - I don't believe this is universal.

I take your argument, but in general I think the practice of paid blogging is sleazy and detrimental to the entire blogging ecosystem. You're basically drumming up fake enthusiasm for products or services that a blogger would not normally promote. It's bad for the products and most of all, it's terrible for the blogger, because it erodes any sense of trust that the reader may have had in them.

IMO it's a pretty shameful practice and you'd do well to divorce yourself (and Technorati) from it.

Thanks.

>> ^ScottLyon:

Hi Dag,
Scott here, one of the offending emailers, from the Technorati Media Blogger Outreach team.
My apologies if the receipt of the message offended you. What you’ve shared about bloggers as journalists is certainly true in many cases – and I’m glad we have them doing that important work.
On the flip side, there are many types of bloggers we work with who write passionately about their personal lives, experiences, hobbies, causes, opinions or interests and they welcome opportunities to review new products (like this iPad app) or develop sponsored articles–if the posts fit their editorial direction and keep the integrity of their blog. The “good” and the “bad” of a review is always up to the blogger and sponsored content is typically on a topic the blogger has an affinity for and not about a product itself.
When a blogger works on a campaign with us, we require that they disclose when they have received a product to review or payment for post in the manner of their blog our using a tool like . Most of them are doing this anyway and it’s part of our follow up to the bloggers interested in participating.
We are working on ways and finding tools to better help us connect bloggers with opportunities they find relevant. It's big challenge, but we're working on it.
A big part of my position is not marketing for clients, but to also promote blogs, bloggers and blogging. I huge fan of all the different POVs out there and connecting bloggers to opportunities they might be interested in.
All the best...
Scott Lyon
Blogger Outreach Manager
Technorati Media

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree with most of your points. I would like to make a small defense of the inability to change things in OS X. With mutability can come a lot of overhead and chaos. There is something to be said for an iron hand on the tiller of user interfaces - but only if you trust the group making decisions.

I am not a UX expert. Up until Lion I trusted the UX people at Apple to have a better idea about how humans can optimally interact with a computer. For the most part, I think they were right. Up until Lion - now I think I'm starting to be sold a crock. The decisions they have made don't seem to be based on making efficient interactions happen - but instead about some grand unified melding of Macs and iOS devices. It's bullshit.

The mandatory click to focus thing is really a taste thing. For me, personally it drives me batty. I don't want focus until I've clicked.

Bouncy in your face icons - agreed, annoying - but not as bad modal windows you have to dismiss.


>> ^srd:

>> ^dag:
Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.
Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.
The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.


Gnome, KDE, Windows et al have been scampering after the OSX UX for some years now, and I agreee have been doing it rather badly. And this is a trend I'm very skeptical of. However, if you like the workflow that OSX/Quarz imposes, I'm sure you can be happy with it. Where I take exception is having no choice except for what some people in a meeting in Cupertino decide is how I should do my work.
Things that really put me off:
- Menu bar at the top of the screen instead of attached to the individual application... Sure, thats traditional on apple computers and that made sense back in the days when the Mac didn't have real multitasking. But nowadays it's just terribly confusing and imposes longer mouse travel distances.
- Mandatory click-to-focus, which can be seen as a neccessary corrolary of the previous point. I've been using the focus-follows-mouse model (without raise-on-focus) for 15 years now and the difference is jarring. Imagine having to click away an overlay on each and every page you go to in your browser.
- Bouncy in-your-face animations and notification boxes that are reminiscent of Paperclip. Shut up already and get out of my face, I'm trying to work, not playing a game of whack-an-icon.
- Apple marketing OSX as 64 bit but delivering it in 32 bit mode and not telling you until you a) find out by accident and then b) spend 10 minutes gooling around until you find the command to switch it to 64bit default mode (no GUI level preference here for whatever reason).
I'd be a lot happier if I had a choice. Either by having real preferences that goes beyond what color scheme do I want and in what way do I want to stroke my touchpad to do what. Or open up the possibility for alternative window managers.
For all the "think different" attitude that Apple likes to spread, the OSX ecosystem seems to be hard at work to remove individual preferences. Apple turned into the opposite of what the 1984 commercial implied.
Dag, if you're looking at linux again, both KDE and Gnome (especially Gnome 3) are IMO horrible too. If you don't like them, give XFCE a go. I've been using it since '03 IIRC, when I grew tired of Blackbox. And you'd be in good company too

>> ^dag:

Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.
Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.
The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.



Gnome, KDE, Windows et al have been scampering after the OSX UX for some years now, and I agreee have been doing it rather badly. And this is a trend I'm very skeptical of. However, if you like the workflow that OSX/Quarz imposes, I'm sure you can be happy with it. Where I take exception is having no choice except for what some people in a meeting in Cupertino decide is how I should do my work.

Things that really put me off:

- Menu bar at the top of the screen instead of attached to the individual application... Sure, thats traditional on apple computers and that made sense back in the days when the Mac didn't have real multitasking. But nowadays it's just terribly confusing and imposes longer mouse travel distances.

- Mandatory click-to-focus, which can be seen as a neccessary corrolary of the previous point. I've been using the focus-follows-mouse model (without raise-on-focus) for 15 years now and the difference is jarring. Imagine having to click away an overlay on each and every page you go to in your browser.

- Bouncy in-your-face animations and notification boxes that are reminiscent of Paperclip. Shut up already and get out of my face, I'm trying to work, not playing a game of whack-an-icon.

- Apple marketing OSX as 64 bit but delivering it in 32 bit mode and not telling you until you a) find out by accident and then b) spend 10 minutes gooling around until you find the command to switch it to 64bit default mode (no GUI level preference here for whatever reason).

I'd be a lot happier if I had a choice. Either by having real preferences that goes beyond what color scheme do I want and in what way do I want to stroke my touchpad to do what. Or open up the possibility for alternative window managers.

For all the "think different" attitude that Apple likes to spread, the OSX ecosystem seems to be hard at work to remove individual preferences. Apple turned into the opposite of what the 1984 commercial implied.

Dag, if you're looking at linux again, both KDE and Gnome (especially Gnome 3) are IMO horrible too. If you don't like them, give XFCE a go. I've been using it since '03 IIRC, when I grew tired of Blackbox. And you'd be in good company too

Fuckin' hippies worried about climate change, when they should be worried about Islamic terrorism! The one only threatens the whole ecosystem (that includes humans, dimwit), but the other makes for much better fear-mongering TV! ugh.

(Did you know that Breivik apparently wanted to start a Norwegian Tea Party Movement? Wonder if that will ever make it to Faux News...)

My mum got a bee hive recently. She's been taking classes and reading around it for the last year and its quite rare for her not to lecture the rest of us on new Bee information around every meal. Not that I mind, they are fascinating creatures. Their society, biology, importance in the ecosystem is all super cool. and kinda mindbending.

Interestingly, if you move a Hive by just a few metres after the Bees are established it confuses the FUCK out of them. You have to move them more than 10 miles away before they stop being confuzzled.

that video was very insightful.
now, even though I'm not a big sports fan myself, I understand the sports fan ecosystem.

like the scenario where i'm a bajigagiallionaire oil company and i want to make money by cutting corners in ensuring the safety of my rigs... and the big asshole regulations say i can't because it might kill people and destroy an ecosystem???? THAT'S A THREAT TO MY FUCKING LIBERTY!

regulations can be a good thing when the regulating body doesn't work for multinationals.

we're all fucked. >> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
http://ne


ws.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110107/sc_yblog_thelookout/florida-temporarily-closes-runway-due-to-magnetic-pole-shifting
i'm not trying to open a can of worms, or threaten anyone's "beliefs". but this appears to be happening.

Yeah, and um, from THAT article: "The Earth's poles are changing constantly... "
You really liked the movie 2012 didn't you?
sigh

sigh.
that article is just a quick google to show that even mainstream media has noticed it.
the gov goes to great lengths to not alarm it's workforce. a steady diet of charlie sheen. sigh
sigh sigh
all theories can be conspiracy theories if you wish to label them as that. and you're trolling. fuck you.

I am so NOT trolling, I'm just sick of people like you that see some natural disasters and then start saying 'THERE'S SO MANY MORE NOW! THE WORLD IS ENDING!'
Really?
Where's the increase in earthquakes? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html
Where? Take a look at the numbers and tell me you're seeing an increase over the last 30 years, because you aren't. Because there hasn't been, because it's bullshit.
Stop using just your perception that 'gee, there seems to have been a lot of earthquakes' as an empirical measurement, look at the ACTUAL FIGURES before you start saying such things. And stop relying SOLEY on nut job websites for all your 'facts'

fine. stop using comments designed to create an emotional response.
your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years.
what i'm saying that if you increase the total mass of the worlds oceans, and reduce mass at the axis of rotation, coupled with water current patterns that will concentrate these masses differently than what has occurred in the last, say, 1 million years, we may very well be seeing enough change to affect very unstable plate movements that occur on a fairly consistent basis.
this isn't a 2012 conspiracy. and the world isn't ending. and maybe i am crazy. i sincerely hope i am.
but we are just starting to understand how fragile our ecosystem is, and how dependent we are on the stasis of it....and that underestimating such fragility can come at a very high cost.
look at what we are doing to the rest of the planet, the rest of the ecosystem. why is it so inconceivable that we may also be affecting something that is constantly teetering as it is?


and what further alarms me is that with a system that has taken a few billion years to find a relatively stable equilibrium, it's adaptation to change also takes time, on a different scale than we're used to (a plantetary time-frame), meaning we may be now just seeing the effects of our changes to the climate, and meaning that these adaptations could continue well after we've ceased mucking about.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
http://ne


ws.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110107/sc_yblog_thelookout/florida-temporarily-closes-runway-due-to-magnetic-pole-shifting
i'm not trying to open a can of worms, or threaten anyone's "beliefs". but this appears to be happening.

Yeah, and um, from THAT article: "The Earth's poles are changing constantly... "
You really liked the movie 2012 didn't you?
sigh

sigh.
that article is just a quick google to show that even mainstream media has noticed it.
the gov goes to great lengths to not alarm it's workforce. a steady diet of charlie sheen. sigh
sigh sigh
all theories can be conspiracy theories if you wish to label them as that. and you're trolling. fuck you.

I am so NOT trolling, I'm just sick of people like you that see some natural disasters and then start saying 'THERE'S SO MANY MORE NOW! THE WORLD IS ENDING!'
Really?
Where's the increase in earthquakes? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html
Where? Take a look at the numbers and tell me you're seeing an increase over the last 30 years, because you aren't. Because there hasn't been, because it's bullshit.
Stop using just your perception that 'gee, there seems to have been a lot of earthquakes' as an empirical measurement, look at the ACTUAL FIGURES before you start saying such things. And stop relying SOLEY on nut job websites for all your 'facts'


fine. stop using comments designed to create an emotional response.
your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years.
what i'm saying that if you increase the total mass of the worlds oceans, and reduce mass at the axis of rotation, coupled with water current patterns that will concentrate these masses differently than what has occurred in the last, say, 1 million years, we may very well be seeing *enough* change to affect very unstable plate movements that occur on a fairly consistent basis.
this isn't a 2012 conspiracy. and the world isn't ending. and maybe i am crazy. i sincerely hope i am.
but we are just starting to understand how fragile our ecosystem is, and how dependent we are on the stasis of it....and that underestimating such fragility can come at a very high cost.
look at what we are doing to the rest of the planet, the rest of the ecosystem. why is it so inconceivable that we may also be affecting something that is constantly teetering as it is?

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased
Source?

http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
and google "poles shifting"
we are looking at trends of course. and theory...ie: probability.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
It depends on where you look or who you ask. I could see higher sea levels affecting plate tension, but the end effect is unknown. The quake off the coast of Japan has likely been building tension for several thousand years, so it's a stretch to blame that on climate change.

As far as the poles shifting, that isn't new. They always move around at varying speeds and have even flipped entirely multiple times in the earth's history.


yes yes, of course this has always gone on. moreso with a younger planet, finding it's equilibrium. But we're looking at recent trends and recent changes to the ecosystem. recent increases that coincide with recent changes in other areas. that's all.
i'm not saying there is a definite correlation, i'm only saying that probability suggests that there may indeed be a strong correlation.
science is all about making hypothesis based on probability, then sorting it out from there.
i'm no geologist. i do neuro theory. however, any change in neurology requires that the whole system adapt, no matter how small the change is. and some aspects of the whole (the neurological aspect) create far more change to the whole than other aspects, regardless of relative size.

The ocean (biggest 'carbon sink') is becoming more acidic. Most coral reefs are a goddamn disaster now compared to just 50 years ago. Its scary stuff.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^maestro156:
Very cleverly written propaganda.
What he leaves out, of course, is that the bill doesn't overturn "pollution". It overturns the definition of carbon dioxide and water vapor as pollution.

At higher amounts, carbon dioxide becomes a contaminant which upsets the balance of the ecosystem.

>> ^maestro156:

Very cleverly written propaganda.
What he leaves out, of course, is that the bill doesn't overturn "pollution". It overturns the definition of carbon dioxide and water vapor as pollution.


At higher amounts, carbon dioxide becomes a contaminant which upsets the balance of the ecosystem. This is pollution. yes, it is naturally found in the ecosystem. But so are any other number of molecular structures composed of different elements.
It is, however, only one of the by-products of burning millions of years worth of jurassic carbon deposits in a very short time. We are introducing high amounts of substances from a by-gone age and ecosystem into the atmosphere that our CURRENT ecosystem must now adjust to in order to find balance and stability. Just as the human body seeks homeostasis with it's environment....so does the ecosystem. The planet's balance and stability however comes at our expense, as well as the expense of all other species of plant and animal life.

some people "believe" in global climate change. some people believe in god-man in the sky too. but then there is probability and reality. and in the end, it doesn't matter what you believe.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't think you can make the assumption that nurturing parents are a prereq for civilization. You're being mammalist. >> ^direpickle:

>> ^dag:
It's because we're mammals. All the love and affection we feel is a product of our need to pair-up, spawn and nurture our offspring. When we do meet ET - we may find that they laugh at our idea of love - if we haven't by then figured out its true nature.
For aliens, I can imagine love would be getting close to mathematical perfection - a near perfect sphere, a beautifully balanced equation, a well-thought-out proof.

>> ^quantumushroom:
All true. Humans are irrational. If aliens could invade disguised as baby seals, kittens and teddy bears they'd take over in a week without firing a single death ray.


>> ^Drachen_Jager:
This thread just shows how terrible most people's thought processes are.
Seals are abundant, in absolutely no danger from a species point of view. The hunting of seals is not having a significant impact on the environment. They are cute. People defend them to the death.
Many types of sharks are endangered, play a vital role in the ecosystem. Many marine biologists feel that the overfishing of sharks is a large part of the reason why coral reefs are dying out. Nobody cares that they're being destroyed at a prodigious rate.



Civilization and what we think of as intelligence themselves are products of the ability and need to care for our tribe/family/offspring/whatever. Any ET will have gone through that stage in their own evolution, even if they've outgrown it by the time we run into them. You're not going to develop language, much less interstellar travel, with an animal that abandons its young and lives solitarily.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

This thread just shows how terrible most people's thought processes are.
Seals are abundant, in absolutely no danger from a species point of view. The hunting of seals is not having a significant impact on the environment. They are cute. People defend them to the death.
Many types of sharks are endangered, play a vital role in the ecosystem. Many marine biologists feel that the overfishing of sharks is a large part of the reason why coral reefs are dying out. Nobody cares that they're being destroyed at a prodigious rate.


Well some animals are just better at the interview than other. I mean really I see it like this.

Interviewer, "What are you?"
Interviewee, "I'm an Otter."
Interviewer, "And what do you do?"
Interviewee, "I swim around all day and do cute little human things with my hands."
Interviewer, "Your free to go. Next!"

Interviewer, "And you are?"
Interviewee, "I'm a cow."
Interviewer, "Get on the bus."
Interviewee, "But I'm brown and have big eyes and"
Interviewer, "Your a baseball glove with a side of Tbone steak! Get on the bus!"



Yes I'm bored....