RoMaNo

What is the UV index there on a bad day? On a bad day, in summer, UV index may be between 12 and 14 in Santiago, but in the desert, it can reach 20.

Reducing the ozone coverage reduces the planetary temperature, not increases... Ozone coverage is caused by solar rays impacting atmosphere and changing the atomic structure of said atmosphere... Global warming (as the "environmentalists" portray it) is a myth. Global warming (as the intelligent statisticians portray it) is a trend that will pass and drop regardless of our pollution rates. Reducing ozone coverage increases UV radiation in the surface. Maybe you do not notice that, but I live in Chile, near the ozone hole and you cannot be more than 30 minutes exposed to the sun without having skin burns (and less minutes if your skin is white). That is very real and is directly caused by pollution. As far as I know, there is no unified opinion about what causes global warming. Many scientists think that the rapid increase of global temperature is directly related with CO2 emissions, and that does not change the fact that global warming and cooling are cyclic natural process, but maybe not so fast. Things are not absolute and in this topic are powerful economic reasons to keep using our dirty and cheap sources of energy... And as every polemic topic, people usually put themselves in one absolute side.

Andy McKee - All Laid Back and Stuff

As am I. And me... But I think that I got ThatSmartGuy's point: Religion itself is a choice, a model of lifestyle, moral or whatever. Effects in society are related to how peolpe take this guidelines and uses their sense of belonging to a particular group called, in this case, religion. And if you analyses it, the effect is similar in political parties, country related traditions, even football teams. It is about how humans interact using their personal choices and tries to impose them to others.

I agree: Congratulations, very good essay!! On this kind of topic is difficult to put ideas in order, but you explained your view very well... But, I have my own comments Certainly, we are facing a difficult situation about energy, but we also need to understand the mechanisms of why it is so difficult to solve. Humanity works under market model (like it or not) and "alternative" energies are able to use and in some cases, they are already well developed. Geothermal, hydraulic and eolic energy are well developed technologies, not with prototypes but with well proved industrial projects with years of operation. Indeed, in Europe there are some countries with a big part of its energy generated by wind. The problem is economical: oil is cheap and renewable energies are not so cheap, but we are not willing to invest in making them really competitive because there is a risk, like any new business. And until we are not forced to change the technology, big companies won't invest in more efficient energies seriously. You gave several reasons of why renewable energies are not an option and used ceteris paribus principle. That is correct for transient analysis, where we have not yet changed our main technologies, but in long term we will have oil alternatives (by the force). So, environmental concerns may not be as valid about pollution, and the fact is that we are willing to destroy nature in order to get energy. Personally I think that wind farms, hydroelectric or solar plants, with its local effect in nature are less nocive than fossil fuels, which change weather in the whole planet with golbal warming, destroying ozone layer, making sun exposure very dangerous for humans and life in general. So, if we want to successfully solve this problem, we need to be brave as civilization and be smart to make decisions. We cannot wait until market solves the problem alone, because social costs will be huge and I'm not talking about not to have gas to drive to the supermarket, but about wars, hungry and death of many people. Investors won't take a risky challange with the chance of assured income on a proved business, no matter if that business damages earth or lead us to a big crisis. Governments should pick this responsability instead of only support companies interests (but not abandom them, that is the mechanism of how things works) with its inmediate economical benefit and as long as we live in democracy, that is a social task that should start from people. Note: Sorry if i have many mistakes in language, I'm not enough fluent in english yet.

Today

As far as i know, free Anti-Virus are as good as commercial ones. But... I don't use Anti-Virus, so don't trust me so much The anti-virus companies have been terrorizing us for years, telling us that our computers are going to fail if we don't use their software. But in fact, weakest part of the system is the user. Internet is a reflect of real world and as we walk carefully on the street, we must be careful with Internet. I've been without antivirus for many years, I have had no problems and only by don't opening 'strange' things.

jajajaja yeahh, me too

Well, when I say "link with truth" I mean with "absolute truth", that is, models of science are not absolute and we hope that work well and usually we are right because that models are very good due the deductive thinking involved in their conception. However, science with all its power, only provides models which are, in fact, simplifications of nature, they cannot be absolute truth, we must know that they will fail under some conditions and sometimes fail unexpectedly. To believe in science is also a faith act. I really agree with your view. Maybe being a 'reference' has some ego, but I think that we should try to do our best, enjoy life, be honest, etc. We cannot change the world, but if we do well with people around us, we will put a small grain of sand to make this world a better place and that is the best that we can do. Returning to beliefs, much of the debate is background wanting to be right, wanting to "win", that is human behaviour. Everyone has valid reasons to have their beliefs and we cannot underestimate people because of their beliefs.

Andy McKee - I'll be over you (guitar version of Toto's song)

Nice pictures I like to use my own photos as wallpaper: -> My laptop -> In my job

I spent about 30 minutes reading all posts after mine. As I read I thought of many things to say, but I read so many things that now I don't know what to say XD However, I still remember what I wanted to say about beliefs. I say that science is a belief because its link with truth is not different with the link between truth and faith. We can't know the truth since we are limited by our senses and our mind. So, we invent models to understand and predict reality (which is really complex), but that models are just 'belief systems'. Religion is a model which has its own laws, founded in several axioms and helps us to feel well, to don't feel alone, to make sense to life, etc. In the other hand, science is founded on its own axioms (1=1, 1+1=2, 0+X=X, etc.) and allows us to make predictions about physical world like Newton's law. No one is going to explain you why 0+X=X for any X in the same way that no one is going to explain how christ came to life again after being killed. It's true that using Newton's law you can predict with high accuracy many things, but it can't predict where is an electron within an atom, as religion can't predict the movement of the planets. In conclusion, models are not absolute, but they are still very useful and we are free to select in which believe. You can decide to believe in God and Science at the same time but with their limitations in mind.

Thank you!!! I was going to say only that, but my message was too short... I like this forum, is like mine but alive XD

We are all impatient... Maybe I'll watch the entire series each time a new episode is released

But until he doesn't show up, freeze the time and you make sure that a gunshot does nothing to him, it will be a belief as valid as others rather than a truth.