But they did not mention the severity of the injuries. T-bone crashes (which were reduced) are likely to result in more severe injuries than rear-end collisions (which were increased).
This is "it stands to reason" logic, not empirical evidence. Other studies have concluded that the number of injury accidents and ALSO their average severity increased at camera intersections.
before California's massive flood control and aqueduct system was built, the annual snow melt turned much of the [central] valley into an inland sea.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Sure, they corralled the water, and put it to farming use. Great. But they've been using up that water... AND much more. They've been pumping out groundwater and using that, they've been getting water from out of state... and that still isn't enough for them.
Time to let their own economy absorb the damage and stop bailing them out.
Nice try but most of it was already desert. They're just doing a really bad job lately of changing it into something more useful.
Nice try, but no.
That is to say, yes, the central valley was pretty much desert. But there was still groundwater.
They've been using up not just the reservoir water but ALSO the groundwater at a rate faster than it has been replenished, and they have damned well known it for decades.
There is no excuse for this, and I for one am solidly against letting them have any more water from other states.
You linked to a blog and claimed it linked to an announcement in Science News
I did not. Try reading again.
I wrote that the article linked to on that page mentioned the announcement, references in Jan. 25 Science News. And it does; you can read it right there.
As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it.
The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly.
So I repeat: CEASE misrepresenting my words. I wrote exactly what I intended to write, and what I wrote has been demonstrated to be true.
Your distorted and inaccurate interpretation was not what I actually wrote, and I will thank you to stop doing that, once and for all. You have been warned many times.
I don't know about "most", since I haven't done a survey. I'm guessing you haven't either. What I can say is the freemoviestorrents.com is completely and obviously all about infringement, of Hollywood movies specifically. http://linuxtracker.org/ , on the other hand, is clearly not.
I say "most" because when a site does not meet both of those criteria, it tends to get taken down. So maybe transient sites that pop up and are then taken down might constitute a majority. I don't know. But I can say with some confidence that the majority of long established and successful sites do meet those criteria.
No, I was not. Once again, you misrepresent my words.
Nowhere above did I write that "a majority of papers" supported global cooling. I merely pointed out the established truth that it was taken seriously. And again: the cited announcement by National Academy of Sciences is not "nonsense". It, too, is real.
Stop misrepresenting my words, then making straw-man arguments against me. That is dishonest. I have mentioned this to you many times before. Learn how to make an honest argument, or go the hell away.
If someone posts a photo taken by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a photo taken of me by a hidden camera in the shower it's under a different law.
If someone posts a biography written by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a biography written about me it might be libel, but not copyright infringement.
This all changes when you are being paid for being in said photo, video, whatever.
That is a paid job, and both the law and legal precedent say that in general, when you are a paid performer, copyright goes to the person who paid for the performance.
Sorry to disabuse you of this, but that's the way it works. This person was not just some bystander, but a paid performer.
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
Utter nonsense. They are perfectly applicable in the kind of THOUGHT EXPERIMENT we were discussing, which is the ONLY context relevant to this discussion. Your own equations were proof of this... nowhere did you factor in conversion inefficiences. NOT ONCE.
Stop being a goddamned hypocrite, and go away.
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
NO!!!!!
As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in.
Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means.
If the sphere under consideration is the spherical power source itself, and no NET radiative power is absorbed from the cooler outside objects (a requirement of thermodynamics), then the only NET radiative power out ultimately comes from the electrical power in.
Power in = power out.
You don't understand what NET means. That is your failure, not mine. As I have explained to you many, many times now, you are counting some radiation twice, which is simply bad math.
END. You are wrong. You were proved wrong long ago. GO AWAY and stop bothering me with your nonsense.
Because technology changes much more quickly than real world analogs, and sometimes everyone suddenly decides "OMG, if we don't have teh new stuff we're gonna die".
Yes, but.
Agile, for example, is hardly a "fad". It is a proven methodology that had its roots back in the 1950s or earlier. That means many of the primary elements of agile development have been around for over 50 years. Some "fad".
I don't have a problem with the general point of OP, but I strongly question OP's judgement of what constitutes a fad.
It should also be noted that Federal law aside, the surveillance activities of the police is clearly against Washington State privacy laws.
In general, it is illegal for law enforcement to use ANY means that is not available to a casual passerby on the sidewalk, to see what is happening on private land. Using a stepladder on the sidewalk to look over the back fence is illegal without a warrant, as is the use of a drone, or even just standing in front of a house and peering through the front window with binoculars.
In general, the activity is undertaken specifically in order to see what cannot be casually seen, or is done over a period of time ("surveilling"), it is illegal without a warrant.
HERE are just a few of them. Not that not all of them are scientific papers but some are.
It is of interest to note, as does the article in the National Academy of Sciences publication Science News, which is linked to on that page, that despite the misleading information spread by RealClimate and other sources, the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52).
It is further amusing to note (again as evidenced on the linked page above) that climate scientists at EAU -- the same University that has been partly responsible for the warming scare -- were at that time proclaiming that we were headed for an ice age.
I could go on but I won't. The idea that global cooling was "not taken seriously" by scientists of the time is nonsense propaganda spread by alarmist apologist sources such as RealClimate. The actual record of papers published and the reaction of the scientific world clearly shows that it was taken very seriously indeed.
It is not. It is utterly wrong. It just happens to throw the right numbers most of the time.
See the Asimov quote above from his Essay about "The Relativity of Wrong".
It isn't a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of HOW right and HOW wrong.
Newtonian mechanics is right enough for most everyday living, as long as we don't have to explain how the LEDs in our TV or the lasers in our Blu-Ray players, or GPS work.
It's right enough to design and build a very nice modern car (sans certain electronic parts). Etc.
So no, it's not "utterly wrong". It's mostly right. It is only wrong at extreme ends of the scale... many decimal places, tiny increments of time, outrageous speeds, etc.
So the two-prong test under Sony is a) does'the product have substantial non-infringing use and b) does the seller / manufacturer/ superior promote the product as useful for infringement.
Let's not stop there. It can further be said that most torrent sites meet both of these criteria. They can be useful for finding perfectly legitimate, non-infringing material, and those that actively promote infringement don't tend to last very long.
And the protocol itself can be said even more to have legitimate uses. Many sources of open-source software allow downloading via BitTorrent.
EFF and prior legal precedent say that there is no established right of copyright to actors in films... regardless of whether they appear there voluntarily or not.
The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.
I was only "wrong" to those who didn't get the point. Ahem.
Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. The relevant and only important point is that that is the name they gleefully adopted and decided to call themselves.
Whether some news guy thought you were a hero or a villain if far less important than what you go around for the rest of your life calling yourself. And that was the flattering name they decided to call themselves.
I'm not trying to put them down. People of that era did some great things. But "greatest generation"? Hardly.
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable [nationalacademies.org]"?
I wrote "evidence", doofus. You do know what "evidence" means, yes? A public statement by an organization is not evidence. It's an opinion.
I am well aware that organizations have been making such public statements. But that isn't evidence. If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? But then I know why you didn't: you have shown yourself to be the Prince of straw-man arguments.
I am not in a position to answer "why" they might have done so. But the fact that they did is not itself evidence of anything. Consensus is not science.
I have little doubt that if I spent more time, I could find many more.
The actual fact is that for all of history, more deaths attributable to climate have been due to cold rather than warm. This is a statistic that is also just about as easy to find.
Not really, but never let the facts get in the way of self-congratulation!
Yes, really.
Compared to recent past generations, millennials commit fewer violent crimes, are less likely to have unplanned pregnancies, are more educated and more tolerant. Given the amount of social research now available, these and other related trends can all be verified with trivial effort.
Yes, they commit fewer violent crimes. They have fewer unplanned pregnancies because of what they were TAUGHT by past generations. They are more educated because their parents and grandparents ensured that they would be; that is not an "accomplishment" of their own.
But what about other things? What about the fact that they have been attempting to make the same political and economic mistakes made by their grandparents and great-prandparents? (I'm referring here to socialism and fascism.)
And "tolerance"? Are you fucking joking? What passes for "tolerance" today is political correctness. Any attempts at dissent are greeted with personal and rather vicious attacks. "My view of 'tolerance', or I will attack you" is not real tolerance, it is the opposite. It is hypocrisy masquerading as tolerance.
Last I heard the Republicans are still planning to run a Republican. But I don't understand why, because once the political machine starts revealing to the public what rotten human beings and traitors to America Republicans have been, they're pretty much guaranteed to lose.
WHOOOOSH!!!
The whole point was that it isn't about man or woman, Republican or Democrat, but about the character of the PERSON running for office.
I know a little bit about Hillary Clinton. And she -- individually, personally, and regardless of what party she is affiliated with -- is a rotten lowlife excuse for a human being.
Slashdot Mirror
But they did not mention the severity of the injuries. T-bone crashes (which were reduced) are likely to result in more severe injuries than rear-end collisions (which were increased).
This is "it stands to reason" logic, not empirical evidence. Other studies have concluded that the number of injury accidents and ALSO their average severity increased at camera intersections.
I think this deserves to be modded up. While it may be a bit sarcastic, there is an actual point here.
before California's massive flood control and aqueduct system was built, the annual snow melt turned much of the [central] valley into an inland sea.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Sure, they corralled the water, and put it to farming use. Great. But they've been using up that water... AND much more. They've been pumping out groundwater and using that, they've been getting water from out of state... and that still isn't enough for them.
Time to let their own economy absorb the damage and stop bailing them out.
Nice try but most of it was already desert. They're just doing a really bad job lately of changing it into something more useful.
Nice try, but no.
That is to say, yes, the central valley was pretty much desert. But there was still groundwater.
They've been using up not just the reservoir water but ALSO the groundwater at a rate faster than it has been replenished, and they have damned well known it for decades.
There is no excuse for this, and I for one am solidly against letting them have any more water from other states.
You linked to a blog and claimed it linked to an announcement in Science News
I did not. Try reading again.
I wrote that the article linked to on that page mentioned the announcement, references in Jan. 25 Science News. And it does; you can read it right there.
As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it.
The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly.
So I repeat: CEASE misrepresenting my words. I wrote exactly what I intended to write, and what I wrote has been demonstrated to be true.
Your distorted and inaccurate interpretation was not what I actually wrote, and I will thank you to stop doing that, once and for all. You have been warned many times.
I don't know about "most", since I haven't done a survey. I'm guessing you haven't either. What I can say is the freemoviestorrents.com is completely and obviously all about infringement, of Hollywood movies specifically. http://linuxtracker.org/ , on the other hand, is clearly not.
I say "most" because when a site does not meet both of those criteria, it tends to get taken down. So maybe transient sites that pop up and are then taken down might constitute a majority. I don't know. But I can say with some confidence that the majority of long established and successful sites do meet those criteria.
You're regurgitating complete [time.com] nonsense [archive.is].
No, I was not. Once again, you misrepresent my words.
Nowhere above did I write that "a majority of papers" supported global cooling. I merely pointed out the established truth that it was taken seriously. And again: the cited announcement by National Academy of Sciences is not "nonsense". It, too, is real.
Stop misrepresenting my words, then making straw-man arguments against me. That is dishonest. I have mentioned this to you many times before. Learn how to make an honest argument, or go the hell away.
If someone posts a photo taken by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a photo taken of me by a hidden camera in the shower it's under a different law.
If someone posts a biography written by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a biography written about me it might be libel, but not copyright infringement.
This all changes when you are being paid for being in said photo, video, whatever.
That is a paid job, and both the law and legal precedent say that in general, when you are a paid performer, copyright goes to the person who paid for the performance.
Sorry to disabuse you of this, but that's the way it works. This person was not just some bystander, but a paid performer.
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
Utter nonsense. They are perfectly applicable in the kind of THOUGHT EXPERIMENT we were discussing, which is the ONLY context relevant to this discussion. Your own equations were proof of this... nowhere did you factor in conversion inefficiences. NOT ONCE.
Stop being a goddamned hypocrite, and go away.
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
NO!!!!!
As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in.
Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means.
If the sphere under consideration is the spherical power source itself, and no NET radiative power is absorbed from the cooler outside objects (a requirement of thermodynamics), then the only NET radiative power out ultimately comes from the electrical power in.
Power in = power out.
You don't understand what NET means. That is your failure, not mine. As I have explained to you many, many times now, you are counting some radiation twice, which is simply bad math.
END. You are wrong. You were proved wrong long ago. GO AWAY and stop bothering me with your nonsense.
Because technology changes much more quickly than real world analogs, and sometimes everyone suddenly decides "OMG, if we don't have teh new stuff we're gonna die".
Yes, but.
Agile, for example, is hardly a "fad". It is a proven methodology that had its roots back in the 1950s or earlier. That means many of the primary elements of agile development have been around for over 50 years. Some "fad".
I don't have a problem with the general point of OP, but I strongly question OP's judgement of what constitutes a fad.
It should also be noted that Federal law aside, the surveillance activities of the police is clearly against Washington State privacy laws.
In general, it is illegal for law enforcement to use ANY means that is not available to a casual passerby on the sidewalk, to see what is happening on private land. Using a stepladder on the sidewalk to look over the back fence is illegal without a warrant, as is the use of a drone, or even just standing in front of a house and peering through the front window with binoculars.
In general, the activity is undertaken specifically in order to see what cannot be casually seen, or is done over a period of time ("surveilling"), it is illegal without a warrant.
HERE are just a few of them. Not that not all of them are scientific papers but some are.
It is of interest to note, as does the article in the National Academy of Sciences publication Science News, which is linked to on that page, that despite the misleading information spread by RealClimate and other sources, the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52).
It is further amusing to note (again as evidenced on the linked page above) that climate scientists at EAU -- the same University that has been partly responsible for the warming scare -- were at that time proclaiming that we were headed for an ice age.
I could go on but I won't. The idea that global cooling was "not taken seriously" by scientists of the time is nonsense propaganda spread by alarmist apologist sources such as RealClimate. The actual record of papers published and the reaction of the scientific world clearly shows that it was taken very seriously indeed.
It is not. It is utterly wrong. It just happens to throw the right numbers most of the time.
See the Asimov quote above from his Essay about "The Relativity of Wrong".
It isn't a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of HOW right and HOW wrong.
Newtonian mechanics is right enough for most everyday living, as long as we don't have to explain how the LEDs in our TV or the lasers in our Blu-Ray players, or GPS work.
It's right enough to design and build a very nice modern car (sans certain electronic parts). Etc.
So no, it's not "utterly wrong". It's mostly right. It is only wrong at extreme ends of the scale... many decimal places, tiny increments of time, outrageous speeds, etc.
4. Backdoor deliberately designed into equipment almost immediately exploited by hackers, check.
So the two-prong test under Sony is a) does'the product have substantial non-infringing use and b) does the seller / manufacturer/ superior promote the product as useful for infringement.
Let's not stop there. It can further be said that most torrent sites meet both of these criteria. They can be useful for finding perfectly legitimate, non-infringing material, and those that actively promote infringement don't tend to last very long.
And the protocol itself can be said even more to have legitimate uses. Many sources of open-source software allow downloading via BitTorrent.
EFF and prior legal precedent say that there is no established right of copyright to actors in films... regardless of whether they appear there voluntarily or not.
The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.
Your list of plugins, as also your installed fonts, are public because sites can use that information to display information to you.
Was that good design? Probably not. But it was well-intended.
Absurd, yes.
Incorrect, yes.
Fear-mongering? Very definitely NO.
As you point out (and as I pointed out elsewhere), Panopticlick is superior. But it paints a far WORSE picture than this site does.
So, "fear-mongering"? No. False sense of security? Maybe.
Yes, you're unique like everyone else... but you are unique TO everyone else... you show up as uniquely you. And that is the important point.
I was only "wrong" to those who didn't get the point. Ahem.
Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. The relevant and only important point is that that is the name they gleefully adopted and decided to call themselves.
Whether some news guy thought you were a hero or a villain if far less important than what you go around for the rest of your life calling yourself. And that was the flattering name they decided to call themselves.
I'm not trying to put them down. People of that era did some great things. But "greatest generation"? Hardly.
First, the simplest of script blockers completely prevented the home page from loading at all.
Second, when I allowed the site in my script blocker, it was slow as hell to load.
But Third, and more to the point: EFF's Panopticlick has been around for a long time now, and it's far better.
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable [nationalacademies.org]"?
I wrote "evidence", doofus. You do know what "evidence" means, yes? A public statement by an organization is not evidence. It's an opinion.
I am well aware that organizations have been making such public statements. But that isn't evidence. If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? But then I know why you didn't: you have shown yourself to be the Prince of straw-man arguments.
I am not in a position to answer "why" they might have done so. But the fact that they did is not itself evidence of anything. Consensus is not science.
I have yet to see studies seriously listing benefits of a warmer climate and actually comparing that to any negatives.
http://web.stanford.edu/~moore...
I found that in 30 seconds. Why couldn't you?
I have little doubt that if I spent more time, I could find many more.
The actual fact is that for all of history, more deaths attributable to climate have been due to cold rather than warm. This is a statistic that is also just about as easy to find.
Not really, but never let the facts get in the way of self-congratulation!
Yes, really.
Compared to recent past generations, millennials commit fewer violent crimes, are less likely to have unplanned pregnancies, are more educated and more tolerant. Given the amount of social research now available, these and other related trends can all be verified with trivial effort.
Yes, they commit fewer violent crimes. They have fewer unplanned pregnancies because of what they were TAUGHT by past generations. They are more educated because their parents and grandparents ensured that they would be; that is not an "accomplishment" of their own.
But what about other things? What about the fact that they have been attempting to make the same political and economic mistakes made by their grandparents and great-prandparents? (I'm referring here to socialism and fascism.)
And "tolerance"? Are you fucking joking? What passes for "tolerance" today is political correctness. Any attempts at dissent are greeted with personal and rather vicious attacks. "My view of 'tolerance', or I will attack you" is not real tolerance, it is the opposite. It is hypocrisy masquerading as tolerance.
Last I heard the Republicans are still planning to run a Republican. But I don't understand why, because once the political machine starts revealing to the public what rotten human beings and traitors to America Republicans have been, they're pretty much guaranteed to lose.
WHOOOOSH!!!
The whole point was that it isn't about man or woman, Republican or Democrat, but about the character of the PERSON running for office.
I know a little bit about Hillary Clinton. And she -- individually, personally, and regardless of what party she is affiliated with -- is a rotten lowlife excuse for a human being.