Slashdot Mirror

Ever bought real estate? It's possible to do that for tax purposes from relative & 1 time gift stuff etc.- et al. IS that what was PAID though? You must wonder (houses worth 100k + land around it worth more too I paid for but helped Dad). Taxes, taxes, taxes & capital GAINS are key.

You really are condescending. That's (part of) why nobody likes you.

The $1 sales price means the house was a gift. If you actually handed over more money than that (doubtful), then you committed fraud.

I knew you were stupid, but not so stupid to RENT, which evidently you do still, lol!

Ha, yeah, nice try.

(I do, 2 of them, AS in CS + BS in MIS

Assocates in CS is meaningless. You don't get into real CS classes until Junior year. This means you have a BS in MIS (a circa 80's degree, at that).

... where I was also a lettering NCAA athlete 1st string no less for a many time national or divisional champ... how about you, creampuff? No?? Didn't think so!)

Congrats. But then you started smoking, and now you sit around playing Diablo all day.

All you have now is arstechnica lies I long ago disproved in the post parent to yours... all done now?

Disproved? I read the posts. People criticized your shitty software, and you flew off the handle and got banned for it. You made a lot of enemies there. By the way, I noticed someone started a petition to have you killed in 2006. According to the archive.org page, it got at least 29 signatures. So, congrats on that, too!

Uhm, call LeMoyne's CS dept, & computer center. It was VAX 1180 during my time @ LeMoyne 1984-1987.

Even if you had gotten a CS degree (you didn't), that was a way shitty school that actually disbanded the CS department from 1994 - 2008.

French military victory ... hmm ...

Is that like anything like a US military victory?

(hahha I made a joke too!!!)

So far the assumption of such atoms as we have spoken of serves to express those laws of chemical composition which we have referred to, it is a clear and useful generalization. But if the atomic theory be put forwards (and its author, Dr Dalton, appears to have put it forwards with such an intention,) as asserting that chemical elements are really composed of atoms, that is, of such particles not further divisible, we cannot avoid remarking that for such a conclusion, chemical research has not afforded, nor can afford, any satisfactory evidence whatever. The smallest observable quantities of ingredients, as well as the largest, combine according to the laws of proportions and equivalence which have been cited above. How are we to deduce from such facts any inference with regard to the existence of certain smallest possible particles? The theory, when dogmatically taught as a physical truth, asserts that all observable quantities of elements are composed of proportional numbers of particles which can no further be subdivided; but all which observation teaches us is, that if there be such particles, they are smaller than the smallest observable quantities. In chemical experiment, at least, there is not the slightest positive evidence for the existence of such atoms. The assumption of indivisible particles, smaller than the smallest observable, which combine, particle with particle, will explain the phenomena; but the assumption of particles bearing this proportion, but not possessing the property of indivisibility, will explain the phenomena at least equally well. The decision of the question, therefore, whether the atomic hypothesis be the proper way of conceiving the chemical combinations of substances, must depend, not upon chemical facts, but upon our conception of substance.

you forgot some.... more recent and older...

radiation

this one
human rights timeline

there are coutless more.

even one of the evil hitler aides that was on trial at nuremburg asked why the americans were outraged, they learned how to do what they did from american histroy and what was done with the American indians and Slaves.

The graph doesn't show what you think it does, no correlation is being made between the level of CO2 and the temperature change since pre-industrial times.

It is undeniable that CO2 levels have increased since pre-industrial times, this has been measure by direct sampling of the atmosphere as well as by proxy measurement of the Icelandic and Greenland ice sheets.

"To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature" is bad science, but only because you provided no context. There is strong evidence that CO2 absorbs strongly in the infra red and weakly in the visible. Incoming radiation from the Sun is allowed in, outgoing is absorbed and causes the CO2 and surrounding gases to heat up.

Further, if we take the two other terrestrial planets as "test Earths" for extreme climates, both Mars and Venus have 90 % CO2, as such their not in the same regime as the Earth, however, Mars should be approximately 20K cooler than has been measured, this is due to the heat absorbed the the atmosphere.

Venus, which also has global cloud coverage has a heat increase of over 400 K compared to what it "should" be (under reasonable black body assumptions). This was agreed on as early as the 60's (proposed by Sagan in 60/62), there are no other plausible reasons for such a huge increase in heat, the clouds on Venus block out 95% of the incoming light from the surface, yet it's hot enough to melt lead.

We have experiments to back up the scientific conclusions that have been made, numerical models (CPDN for example) have performed numerous experiments where concentrations of CO2 and other GhG are increased over a period, the mean temperature increase is positive even when no other conditions are explicitely changed. Theoretical chemistry can calculate pretty well how different gases will react under given conditions. When Chapman devised the Ozone balance, it turned out it wasn't quite right, until CFC and OH/NO radicals were included. Models of CO2 and other GhG are simple enough, they absorb IR, they don't absorb Visible, there aren't many conclusions that can be drawn from that.

I'm not entirely sure which four in you list you refer to,but...

• The heat balance of the earth is measured in numbers much bigger than the heat output of fuel burning, one second of solar input is 0.7 kW per square metre average over the entire Earth,compared to an estimated 0.01 Kw/m^2 for the total power output, that's 1% of the total (that's current day values).
• Is the Earth going through a warmer part of the what now? The galaxy/ Universe is slightly bigger than the Earth, and it has a mean value of 2.7 K
• How would this Earth core heating manifest itself? more volcanos I guess? Also regular Earthquakes as the mantle reconfigures to a more stable state, neither of these have been seen to my knowledge.
• We can measure the output form the Sun pretty accurtaly, either by, you know, looking at it, which we have been doing (wrt Ozone) since 1920. Proxy measurements from sedimentiary rocks and ice sheets extend this to at least a billion or two years. The paleoclimatalogical solar constant was about 7% lower than the present day value, the Earth was covered in ice, even to the equator.
• The total area covered by satellites is so depressingly small that they probably won't even register on the millikelvin instruments used to measure absolute zero. The satellites which absorb significant amount of heat (most of them) rotate in order the face cold space to radiate the heat away from the Sun, this is the "barbecue roll" theat they talk about in Apollo 13 just before the explosion. The moon is huge, satellites small, no effect here, move on.
• Aliens, deat

It is said that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' I would say that a crude electrogravitic kite lifting an 18 gram payload is pretty extraordinary.

It's the "electrogravitic" part that's the extraordinary claim. You want us to believe that the rewired guts of a 14" colour monitor are distorting space instead of just ionizing some air.

If the experiment can be easily repeated and duplicated the argument is over.

And no doubt you'd have us believe that since anyone can light things on fire, the phlogiston theory of combustion is proven.

Here's a pro-phlogiston article, by the way. Don't mind the printing date — look instead at how much it looks like all of the defenses of doomed crackpot theories that you can dredge up on the Web today.

Notwithstanding the confidence thus strongly expressed by these able and experienced chemists, I must take the liberty to say, that the experiments to which they allude appear to me to be very liable to exception, and that the doctrine of phlogiston easily accounts for all that they observed.

...and so on.