None of this has anything at all to do with the (factual) point I made.
Where is your problem? I didn't even claim to "deny" (your word) Global Warming. I simply said the theory isn't based on "insulation" from CO2. And I said that because... it isn't.
So... what's your point here? Are you trying to claim that it IS? Based on sarcasm? Or is it just your habit of making fun of people who are trying to educate others?
Yeah, people would be shooting down commercial airlines that fly over their property.
Or blinding the pilots with laser pointers.
How does that follow? As was mentioned before, the FAA does have authority over interstate flights (which is probably most of them). Why would you want to violate Federal law? Or harm a pilot?
Technically, a landowner has a legal right to declare the airspace above his property airplane-free, or else you're trespassing. EXCEPT for international and interstate flights. As a practical matter, this would probably require filling out State forms.
In my state, the law says in general you can't fly something over someone else's property without permission. Where's the problem with that?
Are you trying to say that it should be okay for me to hover my drone a foot outside your window without your permission?
Where would you draw the line, other than where it has already been legally drawn?
The actual physics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (of which anthropogenic CO2 is one but not an exclusive component, and no scare quotes needed as it is fact) is based upon the infrared emissivity of gases and their actual dynamics and concentration in the atmosphere.
They aren't "scare quotes". They're simply quotes. I use them because I am quoting others, not making the statement myself, as is quite proper. You might be scared of them but I am not.
As for the physics of the concept, I am intimately familiar with them (see my later explanation), and it does not involve "insulation".
Analogies made to the lay public are imprecise, but the underlying science never was.
Tell that to Spencer. You might call "insulation" a lay explanation, but that's disingenuous. A lay explanation is supposed to explain, not to replace actual physics with falsehood, no matter how simple.
This is the fundamental problem that occurs when people who speak of warming (like Dr. Roy Spencer) compare CO2 to "insulation": thermal insulation actually works on a completely different principle than the claimed "greenhouse effect".
The idea of "the greenhouse effect" is based on the concept of trapping outgoing radiation. And this is where a lot of confusion occurs, because that's not how actual greenhouses work.
A real greenhouse work this way: sunlight enters and warms things inside. Those things (plants, dirt, the ground, etc.) in turn warm the air via conduction. Then that warmed air is prevented by carrying that hot air away (via convection, you know, like in a convection oven) by the glass walls of the greenhouse. Therefore all the heat (minus losses via conduction through the glass walls) is trapped inside.
The way you cool off a greenhouse is by letting the hot air escape, not by using a different wall material that "lets out the infrared". Because in fact greenhouses that use such material (like acrylic for example) work just fine. My sister has one.
The "radiative trapping" effects of greenhouse walls has somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.000000 effect on the heat inside. We know from real observation... it has been measured innumerable times over the last few hundred years.
So... the point here is that the concept of "the greenhouse effect" doesn't work like real greenhouses. Okay so far?
As it turns out though, regular thermal insulation DOES work in a way similar to real greenhouses. It prevents loss of heat via conduction and convection, by limiting both.
As counterintuitive as it may seem, that has little to nothing to do with radiation.
So anyway, back to my main point: it is not the "insulation" properties of CO2 that are purported to cause "greenhouse warming". The whole "greenhouse" label is a misnomer that arose for historical reasons. It has nothing to do with either insulation or greenhouses.
Methane, much more insulating than C02 per pound, released at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than industry-regulators "estimated" for fracking sites.
Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.
Break up the big providers to ensure meaningful competition. The end consumers wouldn't tolerate ISP's that deliberately provide crappy service if they weren't forced to because most areas only have one broadband provider.
That's not a solution. That's like mowing the lawn; they'd just come back.
Proof: they started out small. That didn't stop things from getting where they are now.
The solution is change the rules of their business. How? By getting the FCC to regulate them as Title II Common Carriers, as they should have in the first place. Then almost all of these problems simply disappear overnight.
Common Carriers are not allowed to discriminate based on content (in fact -- wonder of wonders -- they are not even allowed to access that content to tell what it is). They are forced to charge a fair price while making a "reasonable" profit. Etc.
It's a far better situation all the way around.
Do that FIRST. Then worry about whether they need to be broken up, which doesn't address the main problem.
Perhaps sales are slowing down because of market saturation.
While that may be true, I think it's also a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
The reason tablets must eventually replace laptops (not desktops), is because they can. They are very near to doing so now. Take a look at the recent Gizmag comparison of the new Macbook Air versus Microsoft's Surface Pro 2. They are both good-laptop-quality machines, even though the Surface Pro is more like a tablet. (In fact it basically is a tablet.)
However, in order for a tablet to take the place of laptops, it has to do the same things laptops do, which basically means slightly lighter-weight versions of the same things desktops do.
And, as time goes on, those will become more than just lightweight. Because, again, they can. So they will. (They have been. Look at what laptops do now... it is far more than desktops could do 10 years ago.)
So it is not just desirable, but inevitable, that tablets become able to do the things desktop OSes do today. Otherwise it will be a complete waste of potential. Developers saw that long ago, which is why they started demanding features that they knew would be coming along sooner or later.
If I had a tablet with a good-enough processor (and they are good enough... ala Surface pro), PLUS the ability to drive a portable but external monitor, I could fit my professional work tools in a briefcase: processor (tablet), extra monitor (because I'm a developer and use the extra screen space... a tiny screen doesn't do it even if high-resolution), bluetooth keyboard and mouse or trackpad. And I'm good to go.
But in order for that to happen, it must run a desktop-like operating system.
And it will happen. The real questions are: who will do it, and when?
See, the thing is, companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple have been concentrating on making their OSes work well on a tablet. But the "tablet-centric" thing is transitory. It must be. They are at the point now when they must start, instead, making their tablets run their desktop (or laptop) OSes, and leave the "tablet-centric" thing behind. It was an adventurous transition period, but I think it's pretty close to over now.
It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.
Sounds like more "settled science" BS.
From the earliest days of Common Law, up to and including the present, landowners control the airspace above their property.
The FAA has lawful authority only over interstate and international flights. It might claim authority over more than that, but that doesn't mean that authority actually, legally and Constitutionally, exists.
This judge understands that. Apparently you do not.
Minor technical quibble: it wasn't what was inside the field that shone like a mirror, it was the field itself.
But here's the other thing that got me when I read the stories: it's all great that a stasis field would protect its contents from virtually anything... but there is no possible way to turn the field off from inside, since time does not pass.
Why should we trust a mouthpiece of an organization that murders students?
Which (while I may not agree with you 100%), leads straight into the skill I was going to suggest adding: skepticism.
The ability to check whether your "knowledge of the past and other cultures" is accurate, or you're being fed FUD. The ability to tell whether the "numbers and statistics" other people hand you are correct, and not mistaken or fudged.
"... the insights of great writers and artists", but not the uncritical acceptance of same.
It is pretty difficult to have the ability "to open up to change; and the ability to navigate ambiguity" without a healthy dose of skepticism.
I disliked Toby Maguire immensely. Spider-Man is supposed to be an overconfident wisecracking smart ass with a dash of brilliant intellect. Toby Maguire is an emo crybaby, the sort of guy who would keep his girlfriend by telling her he was going to kill himself.
You must not be as old as I am.
When I was a kid, Spider Man was notably different from most "superheroes", precisely because he was a real kid with social problems. Kids and teenagers could associate with him because his problems were like theirs.
You are confused. Monica Lewinsky was the witness to attest that Clinton did garner sexual favors from interns.
I am not confused. Subsequent investigation showed quite clearly that Lewinsky had schemed to get into Clinton's pants for at least two years prior to it actually happening. There are documents and eyewiteness accounts from her friends. She even complained at one point she was frustrated that she couldn't get him to have sex... all she had managed to talk him into was a blowjob.
What, you think lying on the stand is something new?
I'm sick to death of the ridiculous "beefcake dressed as nerdy scientist wrings his hands while 110 lb woman dressed as dominatrix defeats six linebackers without messing up her hair" scenes coming out of Hollywood.
Um... okay. But what does that have to do with Spider Man? The earlier Spider Man movies weren't like that at all. On the contrary: those were fairly typical Damsel In Distress stuff.
Having said that: I agree that was a great scene. But one great scene does not make a movie.
It also points out, I think, the pointlessness of OP.
Raimi's movies were at least good movies. The last Spider Man movie was awful. (As were the Dark Knight movies OP refers to.)
I am aware that "good" movie is a matter of opinion. But that is my very strong opinion.
I understand Tobey not wanting to get type-cast, but I think the Spider Man franchise would have been far better off had he continued. Fiction movies do not have to deal with "real world" issues. They are supposed to entertain. If I want to see fake depictions of "real world" issues I'll watch MTV.
Wasn't there a case recently that decided bloggers were functionally identical to official journalists in regards to freedom of the press? (aside from that detail being obvious with the quality of the news these days)
As AC replies: what the court confirmed is that you ARE the press. All you need is a printing press (or a blog), and you're a journalist. There is no such thing as an "official", government-approved journalist. I think it's pretty easy to see what a dangerous road that would be.
Having said that, though, I have my own question:
Has everybody here forgotten about the very recent Federal court decision saying that the FAA is full of shit, and that their regulations do not cover citizen-operated remote control aircraft? It was just a couple of weeks ago.
Slashdot Mirror
None of this has anything at all to do with the (factual) point I made.
Where is your problem? I didn't even claim to "deny" (your word) Global Warming. I simply said the theory isn't based on "insulation" from CO2. And I said that because... it isn't.
So... what's your point here? Are you trying to claim that it IS? Based on sarcasm? Or is it just your habit of making fun of people who are trying to educate others?
Yeah, people would be shooting down commercial airlines that fly over their property.
Or blinding the pilots with laser pointers.
How does that follow? As was mentioned before, the FAA does have authority over interstate flights (which is probably most of them). Why would you want to violate Federal law? Or harm a pilot?
Technically, a landowner has a legal right to declare the airspace above his property airplane-free, or else you're trespassing. EXCEPT for international and interstate flights. As a practical matter, this would probably require filling out State forms.
In my state, the law says in general you can't fly something over someone else's property without permission. Where's the problem with that?
Are you trying to say that it should be okay for me to hover my drone a foot outside your window without your permission?
Where would you draw the line, other than where it has already been legally drawn?
Was there powered human flight "from the earliest days of common law"? The willful obtuseness of libertarians/property "rights" zealots....
I'm tempted to laugh, but instead I'll just say: look it up. I first learned about it in a law class in college.
I'm wondering how believing what is in a legal textbook is "obtuse".
Do people here really know that when they mod for false reasons, they're breaking the rules?
Just wondering.
Holy crap, folks. Stop modding for fake reasons.
I stated nothing but the simple truth. If you disagree, you disagree, but that does not "troll" make.
The actual physics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (of which anthropogenic CO2 is one but not an exclusive component, and no scare quotes needed as it is fact) is based upon the infrared emissivity of gases and their actual dynamics and concentration in the atmosphere.
They aren't "scare quotes". They're simply quotes. I use them because I am quoting others, not making the statement myself, as is quite proper. You might be scared of them but I am not.
As for the physics of the concept, I am intimately familiar with them (see my later explanation), and it does not involve "insulation".
Analogies made to the lay public are imprecise, but the underlying science never was.
Tell that to Spencer. You might call "insulation" a lay explanation, but that's disingenuous. A lay explanation is supposed to explain, not to replace actual physics with falsehood, no matter how simple.
To clarify:
This is the fundamental problem that occurs when people who speak of warming (like Dr. Roy Spencer) compare CO2 to "insulation": thermal insulation actually works on a completely different principle than the claimed "greenhouse effect".
The idea of "the greenhouse effect" is based on the concept of trapping outgoing radiation. And this is where a lot of confusion occurs, because that's not how actual greenhouses work.
A real greenhouse work this way: sunlight enters and warms things inside. Those things (plants, dirt, the ground, etc.) in turn warm the air via conduction. Then that warmed air is prevented by carrying that hot air away (via convection, you know, like in a convection oven) by the glass walls of the greenhouse. Therefore all the heat (minus losses via conduction through the glass walls) is trapped inside.
The way you cool off a greenhouse is by letting the hot air escape, not by using a different wall material that "lets out the infrared". Because in fact greenhouses that use such material (like acrylic for example) work just fine. My sister has one.
The "radiative trapping" effects of greenhouse walls has somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.000000 effect on the heat inside. We know from real observation... it has been measured innumerable times over the last few hundred years.
So... the point here is that the concept of "the greenhouse effect" doesn't work like real greenhouses. Okay so far?
As it turns out though, regular thermal insulation DOES work in a way similar to real greenhouses. It prevents loss of heat via conduction and convection, by limiting both.
As counterintuitive as it may seem, that has little to nothing to do with radiation.
So anyway, back to my main point: it is not the "insulation" properties of CO2 that are purported to cause "greenhouse warming". The whole "greenhouse" label is a misnomer that arose for historical reasons. It has nothing to do with either insulation or greenhouses.
Methane, much more insulating than C02 per pound, released at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than industry-regulators "estimated" for fracking sites.
Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.
Break up the big providers to ensure meaningful competition. The end consumers wouldn't tolerate ISP's that deliberately provide crappy service if they weren't forced to because most areas only have one broadband provider.
That's not a solution. That's like mowing the lawn; they'd just come back.
Proof: they started out small. That didn't stop things from getting where they are now.
The solution is change the rules of their business. How? By getting the FCC to regulate them as Title II Common Carriers, as they should have in the first place. Then almost all of these problems simply disappear overnight.
Common Carriers are not allowed to discriminate based on content (in fact -- wonder of wonders -- they are not even allowed to access that content to tell what it is). They are forced to charge a fair price while making a "reasonable" profit. Etc.
It's a far better situation all the way around.
Do that FIRST. Then worry about whether they need to be broken up, which doesn't address the main problem.
Perhaps sales are slowing down because of market saturation.
While that may be true, I think it's also a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
The reason tablets must eventually replace laptops (not desktops), is because they can. They are very near to doing so now. Take a look at the recent Gizmag comparison of the new Macbook Air versus Microsoft's Surface Pro 2. They are both good-laptop-quality machines, even though the Surface Pro is more like a tablet. (In fact it basically is a tablet.)
However, in order for a tablet to take the place of laptops, it has to do the same things laptops do, which basically means slightly lighter-weight versions of the same things desktops do.
And, as time goes on, those will become more than just lightweight. Because, again, they can. So they will. (They have been. Look at what laptops do now... it is far more than desktops could do 10 years ago.)
So it is not just desirable, but inevitable, that tablets become able to do the things desktop OSes do today. Otherwise it will be a complete waste of potential. Developers saw that long ago, which is why they started demanding features that they knew would be coming along sooner or later.
If I had a tablet with a good-enough processor (and they are good enough... ala Surface pro), PLUS the ability to drive a portable but external monitor, I could fit my professional work tools in a briefcase: processor (tablet), extra monitor (because I'm a developer and use the extra screen space... a tiny screen doesn't do it even if high-resolution), bluetooth keyboard and mouse or trackpad. And I'm good to go.
But in order for that to happen, it must run a desktop-like operating system.
And it will happen. The real questions are: who will do it, and when?
See, the thing is, companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple have been concentrating on making their OSes work well on a tablet. But the "tablet-centric" thing is transitory. It must be. They are at the point now when they must start, instead, making their tablets run their desktop (or laptop) OSes, and leave the "tablet-centric" thing behind. It was an adventurous transition period, but I think it's pretty close to over now.
So are they going to start restricting the path of bullets?
It's just real easy for people to say "The Federal government has control over everything." That way they don't have to think.
And it helps the cause of those who don't want YOU to think, either.
That doesn't make it true, though.
It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.
Sounds like more "settled science" BS.
From the earliest days of Common Law, up to and including the present, landowners control the airspace above their property.
The FAA has lawful authority only over interstate and international flights. It might claim authority over more than that, but that doesn't mean that authority actually, legally and Constitutionally, exists.
This judge understands that. Apparently you do not.
Once you post the moderation buttons are removed.
Right. I get it now. I know the rules, but I didn't put 2 and 2 together.
The NSA has its grubby little paws everywhere.
What bothers me is that they're doing it at our expense.
Hey, folks:
The NSA is a taxpayer-funded, government organization. Any technology that comes out of it belongs to the public, not some corporation.
This isn't the first time I've seen someone write that, but I don't understand. What happened, and how does posting correct it?
You're not going to exclude the 4.0ers and then randomly select from what's left, right?
I see. Yes, I misunderstood you.
Minor technical quibble: it wasn't what was inside the field that shone like a mirror, it was the field itself.
But here's the other thing that got me when I read the stories: it's all great that a stasis field would protect its contents from virtually anything... but there is no possible way to turn the field off from inside, since time does not pass.
Ultimately, we come to the inevitable conclusion that a manhole cover doesn't need to be "smart".
Why should we trust a mouthpiece of an organization that murders students?
Which (while I may not agree with you 100%), leads straight into the skill I was going to suggest adding: skepticism.
The ability to check whether your "knowledge of the past and other cultures" is accurate, or you're being fed FUD. The ability to tell whether the "numbers and statistics" other people hand you are correct, and not mistaken or fudged.
"... the insights of great writers and artists", but not the uncritical acceptance of same.
It is pretty difficult to have the ability "to open up to change; and the ability to navigate ambiguity" without a healthy dose of skepticism.
I disliked Toby Maguire immensely. Spider-Man is supposed to be an overconfident wisecracking smart ass with a dash of brilliant intellect. Toby Maguire is an emo crybaby, the sort of guy who would keep his girlfriend by telling her he was going to kill himself.
You must not be as old as I am.
When I was a kid, Spider Man was notably different from most "superheroes", precisely because he was a real kid with social problems. Kids and teenagers could associate with him because his problems were like theirs.
Maybe it's different today.
Hoho. Modded down. Again. Because I offended somebody's religion.
You are confused. Monica Lewinsky was the witness to attest that Clinton did garner sexual favors from interns.
I am not confused. Subsequent investigation showed quite clearly that Lewinsky had schemed to get into Clinton's pants for at least two years prior to it actually happening. There are documents and eyewiteness accounts from her friends. She even complained at one point she was frustrated that she couldn't get him to have sex... all she had managed to talk him into was a blowjob.
What, you think lying on the stand is something new?
I'm sick to death of the ridiculous "beefcake dressed as nerdy scientist wrings his hands while 110 lb woman dressed as dominatrix defeats six linebackers without messing up her hair" scenes coming out of Hollywood.
Um... okay. But what does that have to do with Spider Man? The earlier Spider Man movies weren't like that at all. On the contrary: those were fairly typical Damsel In Distress stuff.
Having said that: I agree that was a great scene. But one great scene does not make a movie.
It also points out, I think, the pointlessness of OP.
Raimi's movies were at least good movies. The last Spider Man movie was awful. (As were the Dark Knight movies OP refers to.)
I am aware that "good" movie is a matter of opinion. But that is my very strong opinion.
I understand Tobey not wanting to get type-cast, but I think the Spider Man franchise would have been far better off had he continued. Fiction movies do not have to deal with "real world" issues. They are supposed to entertain. If I want to see fake depictions of "real world" issues I'll watch MTV.
Wasn't there a case recently that decided bloggers were functionally identical to official journalists in regards to freedom of the press? (aside from that detail being obvious with the quality of the news these days)
As AC replies: what the court confirmed is that you ARE the press. All you need is a printing press (or a blog), and you're a journalist. There is no such thing as an "official", government-approved journalist. I think it's pretty easy to see what a dangerous road that would be.
Having said that, though, I have my own question:
Has everybody here forgotten about the very recent Federal court decision saying that the FAA is full of shit, and that their regulations do not cover citizen-operated remote control aircraft? It was just a couple of weeks ago.