Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Does Italian Demo Show Cold Fusion, or Snake Oil?

BCGlorfindel Re:Where are the patents? (479 comments)

Well, save for the collapse of the world's ice sheets by 2100. You know, the most shocking and pinnacle of Gore's movie... But other than the parts he exaggerated, he was in keeping with the IPCC. Just like George W. Bush was a genius except for the times that he wasn't...

more than 2 years ago
top

Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

BCGlorfindel Re:There's a reason for that (821 comments)

science will be used in politics. you need to make peace with that. this notion you have that it somehow shouldn't may be a nice platitude, but that wish of yours will never be reality

given that i accept that ugly truth, my point of view is the correct one: policy derived from science, no matter the flaws, is superior to policy derived in opposition to science

now you can continue to wish for the impossibility of science not intersecting with politics. or you can accept that it will, and make a choice as to which policy you support. you don't have the luxury of not choosing, unless you wish to choose to be irrelevant in the discussion

Policy derived from science is superior to policy derived from opposition to science.

Agreed.

You are just restating our differences. I'm trying to tell you, the policy Al Gore is pushing for is NOT derived from science, but is in fact derived in it's absence.

more than 2 years ago
top

Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

BCGlorfindel Re:There's a reason for that (821 comments)

and yet, for all the failures you see in politics derived from climate science, it is politics obviously superior to politics derived from denying climate science

politics derived from entrenched corporate interests, such as multinational petroleum companies, is something i react more strongly against

That's a very ugly logic there. One side isn't made white because the other is darker.

Politicizing the science is the problem, I don't care what side your on. Science aught to be about the provable, demonstrable facts and all the political wrangling left out as a separate field.

Science should inform political decisions, but it's a slippery relationship. If someone like Al Gore declares that science says you should buy his company's carbon credits or face disaster people can generally see to dismiss him as the problem, and someone misusing science for his own agenda. When he gets awarded a Nobel along side real scientists though, suddenly people start questioning where the scientists fall into the agenda too.

Again, I don't care who is misusing the science and to what end, it's wrong in every case, and it damages the public understanding of what science really is.

more than 2 years ago
top

Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

BCGlorfindel Re:There's a reason for that (821 comments)

the political objective becomes a logical product of the climate science. you are suggesting the science is being used by leftists. what if the science just naturally and inevitably supports what leftists are saying?

But the science doesn't naturally support any of that. The agreed on science is that the world is warming, CO2 contributes to warming, and humans are producing CO2. Nowhere in that does it naturally fall out that carbon taxes are the correct scientific response. Even if the results of the warming will be catastrophic, the question that still needs answering is what solution is most cost effective? Reducing emissions, directly preparing to live with the warming, or both. Right now the political left is acting like reducing emissions is the only game in town, and the holy texts of science have their back...

It's no wonder people are recoiling at that, science is being mis-used as a political tool and guys like Al Gore who are doing it are getting Noble prizes. When the people pushing an agenda conflate their agenda with the science, and get a Nobel prize along the way, it shouldn't be surprising that people react more strongly against that science than against some report about a planet many light years away.

more than 2 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people".

Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.

You declare that governments are all bad, and thus that genocide really is nothing new. As though there are no degrees of bad that a government can fall under. Gaddafi was going to commit a widespread genocide against his opposition. Your defense for not stopping it amounts to observing that America's congress doesn't care about the American people either, so they are just as bad and no sense trading one bad government for another.

You downplay genocide because you want to take pot shots at NATO and the west to point out that yes, they are bad and have done evil things too.

Put on our big boy pants and face the real world. Every nation the world over has done horrible, terrible things to masses of people. America is not special in that regard. In order to try and make live better for people, sometimes that means working against a common enemy, like the rebels are working with NATO to remove Gaddafi. Removing Gaddafi doesn't guarantee a golden age for Libyan people. It just aborts the guaranteed retaliatory genocide Gaddafi would have enacted without his defeat, and a slim hope for a better future that was impossible without Gaddafi's removal. That is a good thing, however bleak the circumstances may be.

more than 2 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

In the beginning, Khadafi himself was a well-meaning rebel with real credibility. Same old story. The US really owes a great debt to George Washington, rarely do you find a powerful man who doesn't think he'd make a fine benevolent dictator.

An honest question. During Gaddafi's revolution, were all his supporters rallying in the streets demanding the basic freedom of democratic process? That would seem a very important distinction or commonality.

more than 2 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

Reading comprehension: Epic fail.

Here's what I wrote (emphasis added): "Yes, it would not have been good for the people"

What do you think the word I've now emphasized means?

Nice try, but your not back pedaling fast enough. Here is the context you responded to, and I called you out on:

The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy

Doesn't look stable to me. Recall that the rebellion predated the foreign powers.

MaxWell Demon:Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion. Yes, it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people". What's more, you do it in the context of a discussion were stability is advocated as the one benefit for Libyan people of remaining under Gaddafi versus an unknown future with the NATO backed opposition.

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

more than 2 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus... (271 comments)

Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.

I see what you did there, very clever and funny.

Well, except that part where the Syrian people are bleeding and dying for the same lack of intervention.

Oh, and except for the fact that 25% of Syria's revenues come from oil exports...

When do stupid, ignorant, and flat out false remarks about evil dictators murdering their people become funny?

more than 2 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion.

You realize that Gaddafi's own representatives at the UN agreed with you? They were well agreed that Gaddafi was hours away from initiating his genocide of the opposition. It was then, at the urging of the Arab League that the UN requested the assistance of member nations, and NATO volunteered to protect the Libyan civilians.

You are quite correct to observe that without NATO's stepping in, Gaddafi would have quickly stabilized his control of Libya.

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

more than 2 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Global Warming Denial (507 comments)

An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority.

And how many authorities are there who are legitimate authorities in ALL of the required fields to declare that human CO2 emissions have caused the last century of warming? It spans virtually every scientific discipline that there is. There is meaningful individual consensus on specific, isolated facts. It has indeed been warming over the last 100 years. Human's have indeed been releasing measurable levels of CO2. CO2 is indeed a GHG that contributes to warming. I'm afraid however, that there is no legitimate expert and majority consensus that those individual pieces prove unprecedented and potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is underway.

The legitimate experts that tell us the last 100 years have been warming equally have records showing similarly high temperatures within the last 2k years, with temperatures previously dropping as quickly as they are warming today(see even Mann's own corrections to his previous work). That seems to argue against the last 100 years of warming indicating catastrophic AGW is underway.

The legitimate experts that tell us that humans are emitting measurable levels of CO2 each year also tell us that those are a mere 3% of the natural emissions our planet produces every year. That seems to argue against our CO2 emissions being proof that catastrophic AGW is eminent.

The legitimate experts that tell us that CO2 is a powerful GHG also tell us that it is responsible for 10-25% of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor accounts for better than 70. Combine that with the small contribution humans make to natural CO2 emissions, and it is hardly compelling that catastrophic AGW is upon us.

The tricky part about science is cross-disciplinary studies and a failure to recognize uncertainties in results that get picked up as input from another discipline. The IPCC has tried to get around that with committees of experts, but it seems to have only managed to add the additional problem of politics into the mix.

about 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Yep (507 comments)

Typically Volcano Emissions are brought up to say something like "OMG one volcano outputs 100's of times the CO2 that people do in a whole year OMG are you dumb people can't cause global warming! think of the volcanoes!" This is probably why it's become standard argument to say that volcano emissions do not overwhelm human activity and cite percentages. Not that volcanoes have no effect, just that humans have more and probably both should be accounted for.

Agreed on them both needing to be accounted for. Why is it then that a google scholar search for scientific studies on increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT include volcanoes, or ANY other natural sources, and instead try and correlate only human emissions to to measured atmospheric CO2 increases?

How about the IPCC's projections for atmospheric CO2 levels? They too include the built in presumption that the only variation in the carbon cycle is human emissions. That may be useful as a comparison number to say the difference humans might make, all other things ignored. It doesn't tell us anything about the overall human contribution though. A 1% shift in natural sinks and sources, which we understand poorly, throws a wrench in everything.

The science that is settled is that things have been warming the last 1-200 years, that CO2 is a GHG, and that human activity is about 3% of annual global CO2 emissions. The science that isn't settled is EVERYTHING tying those together in any quantitative manner. Our future actions rely entirely on just how much of the past and future warming is contributed to by human vs. natural activity, and one other piece of the science that is well agreed upon is that we do NOT understand the role of the natural carbon cycle and climate change very well at all.

about 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Yep (507 comments)

Hmm... I think you generally have it right but saying humans only emit 3-4% as much as natural sources while true is misleading. If you understand the carbon cycle you know that every year the natural sinks absorb about the same amount of CO2 as the natural sources emit so the long term average level of CO2 in the atmosphere remained at 280 ppmv for thousands of years until humans started adding significant amounts of carbon to the cycle about 200 years ago. In fact the carbon cycle processes absorb more than half of the human emissions so the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels amounts to about 42% of human emissions.

Water vapor and clouds together amount to ~70% of the greenhouse effect but water vapor is well understood and is always a positive feedback. Clouds are less well understood and have both positive and negative feedbacks. The overall net effect of clouds on the greenhouse effect appears to be slightly positive according to the latest studies I've seen.

Ah, but the scientific "consensus" is that we DON'T really understand the carbon cycle, is it not? Go do a google scholar search on the subject, half the papers are studies on why there is such discrepancy in past results. The other half that try and make claims like yours use absurd methodologies, like trying to find the correlation between human CO2 emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. That might sound like a decent study, save for the consideration that human CO2 emissions are 3-4% of natural emissions, so if natural emissions(or sinks for that matter) vary at all, the human contribution is all but lost in the noise. I've a very simple theory why their results are inconsistent and vary so much, the 3% human contribution being looked at is getting lost in the noise of the other 98% that is being ignored.

As for clouds, I have problems with arguing that it is separate from water vapor AND with any study using them as a net positive feedback. Maybe I'm relying too much on my own experience(anecdote), but I understood clouds to be inextricably linked to water vapor, almost as though being virtually the same thing in many cases. Additionally, I've never found a day to generally be warmer for the presence of clouds, making them as a positive feedback a hard thing to swallow.

about 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Good! (507 comments)

I'm in agreement here; waiting until we have perfect information before making decisions just means that you'll never make any decisions. You take the information available, and weigh all of the options available now with their costs and benefits.
  I'm of the opinion that the cost of doing nothing and being wrong far outweighs the cost of acting and being wrong. Worst case in one case is deepening the recession, where worst case in the other is unreversable catastrophic climate change.

I agree with your logic, but I think you misunderstand the science of it.

Human CO2 emissions are about 3-4% that of naturally occurring emissions. CO2 accounts for about 10-25% of the greenhouse effect. If we want to look at cost effective solutions to global warming, even catastrophic global warming, we need to know how much impact cutting our emissions is going to have. The evidence is very strong that the trillions of dollars it would cost, every year, to cut out our emissions in half is probably better spent on mitigation measures to live with the rising temperatures that are coming. Furthermore, that is assuming that cutting trillions of dollars out of the global economy can done with out triggering WW3, which seems at least equally as likely as our continued emissions triggering irreversible catastrophic climate change. As a matter of fact, WW3 would seem liable to cause it's own irreversible environmental damages.

about 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Yep (507 comments)

In a normal year volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human emissions. Even such a large eruption as Pinatubo in 1991 only added 0.2% to that. Water vapor is strictly limited by temperature and can't drive climate change. The Sun's output absolutely has an effect on climate. It's just that it hasn't changed enough to account for the global temperature changes we've seen. We've had very good measurements of the Sun's output from satellites since the 1980's Those issues have all been examined by climate scientists and factored in.

Right, volcano emissions must be insignificant compared to human emissions, since they are a mere 1% of what humans emit. Before reading any further, think hard about whether or not you accept that logic, it seems pretty solid.

Here's the trick, human's emit 3-4% as much CO2 as natural sources. If the above logic still holds, we might almost dismiss human CO2 emissions out of hand as insignificant, right?

The reality is that human CO2 emissions, despite being tiny, are special in that they fall outside the earth's natural cycles. The real question is, how much impact does that small 3-4% contribution we add make on a grand scale. To answer that we need to understand what kind of flux there is in natural CO2 emission and absorption, which is openly admitted to be poorly understood, it is the consensus, if one likes that kind of phrase. AFTER that is understood, we can begin to estimate the impact of the whatever net increase in CO2 we are causing has on temperature. That means understanding the role of water vapor, as it accounts for ~70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 is a comparatively meager 10-25%. And, once again, the 'consensus' for those that like that phrase, is that the role of water vapor is poorly understood, so much so that different climate models aren't even agreed when to use water vapor as a positive or negative feedback...

Sorry, I'm just some ignorant, unscientific heathen trying to understand things out loud.

about 3 years ago
top

UN Names N. Korea Chair of Disarmament Committee

BCGlorfindel Re:Alternate Headline: North Korea is in the UN (182 comments)

Did you miss the part where Clinton threatened to bomb them if they didn't give in? That's not an option anymore.

It never was. North Korea's nukes haven't changed much, yet. The North's conventional, 50's era, long range artillery was already sufficiently stocked and positioned to turn Seoul into a million little craters on a moments notice.

On the one hand you have a messy deal full of threats and bribes, on the other, NK gets the bomb. If you prefer the latter, you got it.

You've misrepresented the problem. North Korea gets the bomb on BOTH hands. That's trouble guys arguing like you seem to miss. When a dictator says, I only committed this terrible thing because of X, they are generally LYING. The truth is they commit their crimes because it benefits them, whether condition X is met or not doesn't matter one bit.

more than 3 years ago
top

UN Names N. Korea Chair of Disarmament Committee

BCGlorfindel Re:Legitimacy - and the Korean War (182 comments)

In addition, the level of isolationism in the US is frankly frightening. It's nothing like North Korea, of course, but there are a LOT of Americans who are incredibly insular. It isn't as bad as some of the numbers suggest--the very few Americans having a passport is more a testimony to the fact that you have to go farther to cross a border than you do in Europe--but it's bad. Most people in the US know effectively nothing about modern international affairs, and only a small percentage know anything about international history. During the presidential election, for example, then-candidate Obama expressing his willingness to go into Pakistan if necessary was a relatively small bit of trivia here, and most people had no freaking clue how upset his statements to that effect made pretty much everyone in Pakistan. Fast-forward a few years, and you see the consequences of that ignorance--the public's response to Pakistan's being upset with the actual raid isn't "We know how big a deal this was for you, we felt we had to do it, and we'll make it up to you," it was "if you're upset it must be because you were hiding Osama!"

Your showing your own ignorance. You need to follow Pakistan's papers more closely. The JUI-F political party had it's members standing up in Pakistan's National Assemblies demanding to know why the military failed to protect a muslim hero like Osama Bin Laden, because clearly he could not have been where he was without the ISI or military's knowledge. So, it's not just American's ignorant of Pakistani politics that believe there were officials in Pakistan that were hiding him, elected Pakistani politicians believed so as well, and they deemed him a hero!!!(Google the JUI-F if you won't believe me)

It provides an international mechanism for justice and oversight of elections and regime change when countries are ready for those things. (The International Criminal Tribunals and later the International Criminal Court, for example.) It also determines whether wars are legal or illegal under International law

Right, like the ICC convictions of Omar Al-Bashir and Gadhafi. How is that working out so far?
Justifying wars like they authorized action in Libya?

The UN is petty political maneuvering, just on a grand scale and with callous disregard for the lives of people.

more than 3 years ago
top

UN Names N. Korea Chair of Disarmament Committee

BCGlorfindel Re:Alternate Headline: North Korea is in the UN (182 comments)

I wouldn't loose too much sleep if N. Korea was no longer in the UN.

(It is lose, not loose). How is shunning the country going to help to encourage them to become better members of the world community? If you stop listening to any group of people then it causes resentment to fester. This is never a good thing at any time, but especially when talking about nuclear weapons.

North Korea should have a role in a dispute of which they are part, especially at a time when the country is falling into disarray need to be given shown the path of enlightenment(1). The alternative is to have a country with nothing to lose by going to war.

----------
(1) Yes, I know that sounds a bit hippie!

It sounds a lot hippie.

How is it helping to never have any consequences when a nation deliberately, repeatedly and blatantly violates everything the UN stands for? It is a slave state, where the population is callously used up as so many food powered robot slaves. Those born with disabilities are still put to work in the fields most suited them, guinea pigs in testing the lethality of their chemical weapons research program. That's right, an escaped military officer explained how watching a fellow officer struggle with giving up one of his children to the 'cause' was a major reason he eventually fled the country.

Aside from how North Korea treats it's own people(which is unforgivable enough of itself), there is also it's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it's continued assaults and attacks against South Korea's assets and people as well.

You ask what good can come from shunning North Korea? I demand what justification you think there is for dignifying a nation acting so horrifically by welcoming them as diplomatic equals. Our differences are not just cultural or regional disagreements, it is about the most widespread human rights violations and war crimes our world has seen since Stalin.

more than 3 years ago
top

UN Names N. Korea Chair of Disarmament Committee

BCGlorfindel Re:Alternate Headline: North Korea is in the UN (182 comments)

NK went ahead with bomb productions when George Bush stopped dealing with them, cause they's the bad guys and he's the good guys, I guess. They immediately broke the UN seals on their Plutonium stockpile and started refining them. When they'd tried something similar to Clinton, he threatened to bomb them if they didn't back down, and gave them lots of goodies when they did. Bush, typically, did nothing.

If NKs stance towards disarmament should disqualify them, then shouldn't the US be disqualified if the Republicans gain power again? The Bush administration tried to set a policy of increased nuke capability and even floated a plan for decreased threshold for using them.

Clinton's goodies included offering them 2 nuclear reactors and enormous supplies of oil bought and paid for with American money. Basically, offering billions of dollars of aid and 2 nuke plants for their previous bad behavior. Isn't the lesson that threatening and bullying America is a good way to get paid handsomely?

more than 3 years ago
top

Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies

BCGlorfindel Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (504 comments)

I said the last century's temperatures where found to not be anomalous over the last 2k years

No, you said "the last century of warming is NOT an anomaly." Words have meaning, your arguments don't. You're just a stupid liar, and the jury it still out whether the lying or the stupidity is worse.

Are you serious or just trolling? Once again, Mann's own comments on his reconstruction:
The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly.

So, in 1500 absolute temperatures were comparable to those from 1961-1990. That means over the intervening 400 years temperatures cooled and warmed back to where they started around 1500. The cooling after 1500 was no more or less abrupt than the warming leading up to the 1960-1990 comparable temperature range.

Get your head on straight and accept that Mann's research clearly shows that cooling after 1500 was just as abrupt and anomalous as the warming that brought temperatures back to what they used to be in 1500.

I know, it makes it harder to persuade people to believe AGW is real and important, but denying what the basic evidence says does that too.

more than 3 years ago
top

Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies

BCGlorfindel Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (504 comments)

http://www.psycontent.com/content/x005l73742463114/ Mr. BCGumby, Climate Scientist

Nothing you say is supported by the paper. The fact that it makes absolutely no statement about the last 2000 years (only 1700) should tip everybody off.

Right, I'm the one misreading the paper. Here's a direct quote:
The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly.

I said the last century's temperatures where found to not be anomalous over the last 2k years, as opposed to Mann's earlier work which found that they were. So, which method does Mann endorse?
we find in these experiments that the EIV reconstructions are significantly more skillful

So, the new EIV set is endorsed as the more accurate recreation by Mann himself.

I stated that the last century was shown in this paper to have been matched in temperature previously over the last 2k years, and I've quoted where Mann stated such about the period from 1000 through 1500.

I additionally stated, and now quoted that Mann declares ONLY the last decade to be an anomaly over the last 2k years. The SOLE extrapolation I make beyond what Mann has openly and unmistakably declared is to comment on the last decade of data available to him. I made the observation that proxy data was absent for that decade. It is noted repeatedly in the literature, if you're familiar, that proxy sources frequently have sensitivity limits. What does that mean? Simply that proxy records for the last decade could very easily be in line with the last 2k years, we don't actually know. What we DO know is that for 100% of the proxy data that Mann DID have access to, NONE of it showed anomalous warming...

Oh, and if your truly out of touch with the science, make the additional note that Mann's work is a poster child for the most pro AGW crowds out there and by nobody's imagination any form of 'questionable' nutty skeptic.

Please, point out where I misrepresented the basic science here. I haven't, and crying it's too complicated for you is evidence of nothing but your own ignorance of the matter.

more than 3 years ago

Submissions

top

Navy to continue funding of Polywell fusion

BCGlorfindel BCGlorfindel writes  |  more than 6 years ago

BCGlorfindel writes "On the 21st of August the Navy signed the release of the remainder of Dr. Bussard's funding for research into his Polywell device. Details emerging via an email to Tom Ligon here. Tom Ligon worked on the project with Bussard a few years before the funding was cut. Many will remember the google talk he gave shortly after analyzing their last test results before they had to shut down. I've been following this for awhile now, this should be great news for everyone. If Bussard reproduces the results of his last test it'd top the expectations from the $12B ITER project."
Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Game Engine Development

BCGlorfindel BCGlorfindel writes  |  more than 11 years ago

This will be a collection of thoughts on the current state of development for game engines. Particularly a focus on reusability and long term viability of a generic engine design.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>