I made my statements already. Any answer to your question is either already there, or no concern of mine. If you don't understand my comments, that's just too bad.
I have no interest in answering a question that was (a) already answered, or (b) not related to my actual point.
What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.
And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely.
The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.
More grist for the mill. You really should knock that shit off, you know.
I think they're finally bowing to the practice of allowing unlocked phones.
However, in the process, they're raising everybody's bill! Because they're charging the same amount, if not more, but they're not subsidizing your phone purchase anymore.
Ridiculous. Especially since THEIR cost/minute has been going steadily down. I had reasons for not doing Verizon. And over time, it has looked like those reasons were good.
That's libel. Did Lonny Eachus dress as a Nazi in a picture in social media?
Not if I had genuine reason to believe it was true.
But in this case, I'm willing to amend my statement anyway: pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by John Cook's friends and associates, with Cook's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform.
However, Cook didn't seem to have a problem with it until it became a media talking point.
Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl.
The only reason you used the word "butthurt" is because, and I quote, you're one of the "total douchebags who don't have a creative or original bone in their body to troll on someone who expresses the slightest displeasure in anything"
This is hilarious. You claim *I* am the "troll" here? Hahahahahaha.
I won't say I'm sorry, but your little "mind reading" trick didn't work. You couldn't have been more wrong if you spent 2 days trying to.
YOU replied to ME with your insults and party politics, remember? Not the other way around. I think you may need a new mirror.
So your definition of "pollutant" rules out well-mixed gases?
No. Try reading what I wrote again:
"... CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally. So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.
For a large portion of the population, for the years from say 1950 until the late 1980's it was totally normal to get a job out of high school, to join a union associate with that job and to work that job until retirement, with a decent pension. This was not unusual for white collar (professional, non-union) positions either.
No.
You could have had such a job in the 80s, but only if you started working there in the 60s or 70s. Most people who got such a new job by the late 80s were already pretty much guaranteed no retirement, despite any agreement they may have had.
What this "sociologist" found is nothing new... it has been going on for many decades now. However, we are just now starting to seriously experience the pain of it.
Companies bemoan lack of "company loyalty" but they haven't been willing to treat employees like part of the company "family". The whole "company loyalty" thing won't change until companies start showing some "employee loyalty" again. They are the ones who dropped the ball, and it is definitely on their shoulders to pick it up again. Because nobody is going to say "Yes, Massa, I will work and slave for you for 2 decades with no promise of a long-term reward and the threat of being sent out the door at any time."
It just doesn't work that way. Companies will get loyalty when they deserve loyalty, not before.
The sentence in the summary is a bit ambiguous certainly. CO2 is measured as an aspect of air quality in a specific location, not because it is a pollutant in itself. Or if you like, a sound is not necessarily noise, but put a lot of sounds together and you get noise pollution.
Nice try, but no. You're comparing the feel of apples to the smell of oranges.
In anything like a real-world outdoor scenario (see the other post on this page about Mexico City), CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally.
So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.
It is no more political reason then it would be political to measure the amount of rain that is falling.
Utter nonsense. Even if you assume that CO2 is a "pollutant" (and that's a pretty huge assumption not backed by actual science), it wouldn't have any effect locally unless large areas were covered with hundreds of thousands of PPM. And then it would be easy to tell, because -- the only serious local effect possible -- people and animals would be keeling over en masse.
Rain, on the other hand, has immediate and very local effects.
And as for
pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces
... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen.
Math and methodology only works if you know how and where to apply it. Not being an expert in any of the fields you are discussing, you wouldn't know.
That's hilarious. Data is data.
It doesn't matter where you apply your math or methodoloy, if you're doing them in an obviously incorrect way. A point which you keep seeming to miss. Scientists are not gods, they deal in the real world with real data just like so many others do.
Oh, the irony of you making that statement.
You don't seem to know what irony means either, Mr. Coward. Do you think I am not (or never have been) a scientist? On what do you base that assumption?
Creationists only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of biologists. Anti-vaxxers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of medical scientists. Moon landing crackpots only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of NASA scientists. 9/11 Truthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of materials scientists. Obama Birthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of forensic scientists, etc.
The Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.
Since it has been clearly explained to you many times that I am not any of those things, no they're not.
The only logical way to put those statements together is that you claim I am those things. It's not just an implication, or your final sentence would make no sense.
But making potentially damaging false claims about people in public, when you know (or reasonably should) that they are not true, is called libel. You know that, too.
So no, the tables aren't turned. They're right where they were before you made that ridiculous libelous comment. If anything, you have locked the tables firmly in place. That was a real dumbass thing to do.
As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.
I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".
Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.
I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.
No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)
Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.
Thanks for taking a Snowden discussion off onto your tangent of "Hillary sucks!" Real helpful. Did you vote for George W, too?
I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.
So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.
Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.
In this case, most of the blame appears to fall on the FAA.
I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.
Even so: given the known design of the craft, how could he possibly NOT know that unlocking the tail section prematurely was dangerous? I mean, seriously. "Oh, sure, let's just let it flap in the breeze at a few thousand miles per hour. No big deal."
If you don't think the U.S. is suffering mightily from BOTH, you aren't paying attention.
Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)
Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to participate. (YES, a staunch Democrat said that.) He said she "... conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House... and the rules of confidentiality." She ALSO made important documents "disappear" during that period. Surprise, surprise.
Yep. Even back then. Nothing seems to have changed. If you think that's just "incompetence", I suggest you start re-thinking before elections come around.
The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.
No, that's a false statement. If he had any realistic expectation of being treated like a citizen rather than a terrorist, and get a real "trial by his peers", he wouldn't have had to go to Russia. (Remember: he didn't go there first, the U.S. chased him there.)
Realistic thinking says he has almost no chance of a real trial. He would be treated as a terrorist. Government has said so more than once.
So no, he's not hiding from his actions. He's hiding from ridiculous OVERREaction on the part of government. This is the reality:
He had no realistic means of coming forth with the information from within the United States.
He didn't want to go to Russia, and did not at first. That was a last resort.
Government has (yes, really) called him a terrorist and strongly indicated he would be treated as such.
So no. As long as government is being crooked and dishonest, he's not refusing to take responsibility for his actions. He's evading unconstitutionally harsh treatment from his own government.
Slashdot Mirror
I made my statements already. Any answer to your question is either already there, or no concern of mine. If you don't understand my comments, that's just too bad.
I have no interest in answering a question that was (a) already answered, or (b) not related to my actual point.
What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.
And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely.
The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.
More grist for the mill. You really should knock that shit off, you know.
I think they're finally bowing to the practice of allowing unlocked phones.
However, in the process, they're raising everybody's bill! Because they're charging the same amount, if not more, but they're not subsidizing your phone purchase anymore.
Ridiculous. Especially since THEIR cost/minute has been going steadily down. I had reasons for not doing Verizon. And over time, it has looked like those reasons were good.
So your definition of "pollutant" includes well-mixed gases?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Whatever. Your problem, not mine.
So, just so you are aware:
John Cook did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Whether the picture is real or photoshopped, I don't know. For all I know, he was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.
That's libel. Did Lonny Eachus dress as a Nazi in a picture in social media?
Not if I had genuine reason to believe it was true.
But in this case, I'm willing to amend my statement anyway: pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by John Cook's friends and associates, with Cook's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform.
However, Cook didn't seem to have a problem with it until it became a media talking point.
Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl.
The only reason you used the word "butthurt" is because, and I quote, you're one of the "total douchebags who don't have a creative or original bone in their body to troll on someone who expresses the slightest displeasure in anything"
This is hilarious. You claim *I* am the "troll" here? Hahahahahaha.
I won't say I'm sorry, but your little "mind reading" trick didn't work. You couldn't have been more wrong if you spent 2 days trying to.
YOU replied to ME with your insults and party politics, remember? Not the other way around. I think you may need a new mirror.
So your definition of "pollutant" rules out well-mixed gases?
No. Try reading what I wrote again:
"... CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally. So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.
For a large portion of the population, for the years from say 1950 until the late 1980's it was totally normal to get a job out of high school, to join a union associate with that job and to work that job until retirement, with a decent pension. This was not unusual for white collar (professional, non-union) positions either.
No.
You could have had such a job in the 80s, but only if you started working there in the 60s or 70s. Most people who got such a new job by the late 80s were already pretty much guaranteed no retirement, despite any agreement they may have had.
What this "sociologist" found is nothing new... it has been going on for many decades now. However, we are just now starting to seriously experience the pain of it.
Companies bemoan lack of "company loyalty" but they haven't been willing to treat employees like part of the company "family". The whole "company loyalty" thing won't change until companies start showing some "employee loyalty" again. They are the ones who dropped the ball, and it is definitely on their shoulders to pick it up again. Because nobody is going to say "Yes, Massa, I will work and slave for you for 2 decades with no promise of a long-term reward and the threat of being sent out the door at any time."
It just doesn't work that way. Companies will get loyalty when they deserve loyalty, not before.
I was going to the same thing. I have a medical TENS unit that is probably 30 years old.
The electrodes have improved. Not much else.
For serious use, I think 10GB would be better.
But even if it started out at 10 x the cost of NAND, a 150GB unit for my databases would definitely be worth it.
The sentence in the summary is a bit ambiguous certainly. CO2 is measured as an aspect of air quality in a specific location, not because it is a pollutant in itself. Or if you like, a sound is not necessarily noise, but put a lot of sounds together and you get noise pollution.
Nice try, but no. You're comparing the feel of apples to the smell of oranges.
In anything like a real-world outdoor scenario (see the other post on this page about Mexico City), CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally.
So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.
It is no more political reason then it would be political to measure the amount of rain that is falling.
Utter nonsense. Even if you assume that CO2 is a "pollutant" (and that's a pretty huge assumption not backed by actual science), it wouldn't have any effect locally unless large areas were covered with hundreds of thousands of PPM. And then it would be easy to tell, because -- the only serious local effect possible -- people and animals would be keeling over en masse.
Rain, on the other hand, has immediate and very local effects.
And as for
pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces
... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen.
You brought the "party politics" into a Snowden discussion, "bro." Nice projection.
Bullshit. I repeat: I was speaking of POLITICIANS, not of parties.
That's the third time I've said basically the same thing. Has it sunk in yet?
The only reason I used the word "butthurt" is because that's the way you've acted.
No, TFS has it correct. It's classified as "Commercial Spaceflight," and the Federal Government deliberately moved jurisdiction from NASA to the FAA.
It must have been relatively recent, then. Even so, I repeat that I doubt the "usual rules" apply here.
Having said that, FAA would seem the logical organization, given that its mandate is about interstate commerce.
Math and methodology only works if you know how and where to apply it. Not being an expert in any of the fields you are discussing, you wouldn't know.
That's hilarious. Data is data.
It doesn't matter where you apply your math or methodoloy, if you're doing them in an obviously incorrect way. A point which you keep seeming to miss. Scientists are not gods, they deal in the real world with real data just like so many others do.
Oh, the irony of you making that statement.
You don't seem to know what irony means either, Mr. Coward. Do you think I am not (or never have been) a scientist? On what do you base that assumption?
Creationists only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of biologists. Anti-vaxxers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of medical scientists. Moon landing crackpots only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of NASA scientists. 9/11 Truthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of materials scientists. Obama Birthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of forensic scientists, etc.
The Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.
Since it has been clearly explained to you many times that I am not any of those things, no they're not.
The only logical way to put those statements together is that you claim I am those things. It's not just an implication, or your final sentence would make no sense.
But making potentially damaging false claims about people in public, when you know (or reasonably should) that they are not true, is called libel. You know that, too.
So no, the tables aren't turned. They're right where they were before you made that ridiculous libelous comment. If anything, you have locked the tables firmly in place. That was a real dumbass thing to do.
I have to wonder why you keep doing it.
You are a pathetic human being but whatever helps you sleep at night, bigot.
Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, person-who-doesn't-know-bigotry-from-economics.
As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.
I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".
Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.
I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.
No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)
Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.
Thanks for taking a Snowden discussion off onto your tangent of "Hillary sucks!" Real helpful. Did you vote for George W, too?
I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.
So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.
Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.
In this case, most of the blame appears to fall on the FAA.
I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.
Even so: given the known design of the craft, how could he possibly NOT know that unlocking the tail section prematurely was dangerous? I mean, seriously. "Oh, sure, let's just let it flap in the breeze at a few thousand miles per hour. No big deal."
Sheesh.
If you don't think the U.S. is suffering mightily from BOTH, you aren't paying attention.
... and the rules of confidentiality." She ALSO made important documents "disappear" during that period. Surprise, surprise.
Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)
Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to participate. (YES, a staunch Democrat said that.) He said she "... conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House
Yep. Even back then. Nothing seems to have changed. If you think that's just "incompetence", I suggest you start re-thinking before elections come around.
The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.
No, that's a false statement. If he had any realistic expectation of being treated like a citizen rather than a terrorist, and get a real "trial by his peers", he wouldn't have had to go to Russia. (Remember: he didn't go there first, the U.S. chased him there.)
Realistic thinking says he has almost no chance of a real trial. He would be treated as a terrorist. Government has said so more than once.
So no, he's not hiding from his actions. He's hiding from ridiculous OVERREaction on the part of government. This is the reality:
He had no realistic means of coming forth with the information from within the United States.
He didn't want to go to Russia, and did not at first. That was a last resort.
Government has (yes, really) called him a terrorist and strongly indicated he would be treated as such.
So no. As long as government is being crooked and dishonest, he's not refusing to take responsibility for his actions. He's evading unconstitutionally harsh treatment from his own government.
Well, that IS a reasonable answer. I'm not sure I buy it either... frankly, the dress code made me resentful since it had no real purpose.
So get a cheaper 4th Gen Core i whatever. Or go with an AMD APU or CPU and get a discrete GPU in the mean time.
I think you missed the point. GP expressed a wish for a 5-gen chip with more cores, and no graphics.
There's a lot to be said for that.