It's really hard to do validation without the source data... Also, it's really hard to do validation on extrapolations done by computer models. In addition, it's really hard to do validation on climate (which changes on a scale of 10s of thousands of years) with a few hundred years of decent data and only about 100 of good data.
That's why science is based on experiments that are repeatable, not on computer models. I wouldn't believe in nuclear power either if we didn't have several examples of working reactors. If someone just said, "based on my computer model, U235 should undergo fission in a controlled process", I wouldn't be the first in line to bet on it. The computer model may be correct, but it also might be incomplete or have a high degree of unaccounted for variables.
Which is totally pointless if you are a reasonable and dilligent user of your credit card, and actually check your statements every month. Of course maybe they can read from your behavioral patterns if you are an idiot that just pays bills without looking them over first.
The only problem with your plan is that then there would be 136 large, uncontrolled, massive pieces of space junk that are a risk to anything else up there until they are utilized. Not to mention the orbit probably wouldn't be stable and they would eventually come back down anyways, but not necessarily over uninhabited sections of the indian ocean. Better to have a controlled re-entry than either risk current LEO objects (like the ISS) or risk lives on the ground with falling space junk.
Wait, is this sarcasm? Corporations are taking over and making the government irrelevant? Like I don't know, the government bailing out banks, buying GM, and creating a government healthcare mess? Yeah, that really sounds like corporate overlords, not government ones *sarcasm*...
This site has EDITORS? I thought it was just a place where random people submitted crap and then other random people posted goatse links and soviet russia jokes, and then grammar nazis romp and play...
Actually to use the government, they cried wolf, then they cried bear, then lion, tiger, shark, skunk, opossum, kitten, spider, ant, fungus, amoeba... You'd think they'd be out of stuff to scare people by now wouldn't you?
The point is, he asked for energy density compared to AA batteries, and I was making the point that they didn't lose any energy density by making it paper thin. I guess looking back over it, it doesn't read that way. Oh well.
From wikipedia: The specific energy for NiMH material is approximately 70 Wh/kg (250 kJ/kg), compared to 40-60 Wh/kg for the more common nickel-cadmium, or 100-160 Wh/kg for Li-ion.
This looks like it would be comparable to Li-ion and an improvement over NiMH and NiCd.
No, that is a popular misconception. The FEDERAL government was founded as a republic, not a democracy. Back in that day, only landowners could vote.
Of course that has nothing to do with the State of Washington. I have no idea what their state constitution is based on, so technically they can do whatever they want. But I don't see why people are complaining that some wealthy people are trying to stop an unfair tax on just the wealthy.
I'm glad you've given up. Because anyone who doesn't fit your stereotype must be lying right? Only stupid people could believe humans are smart enough to take care of themselves. Let's take your assumptions one by one:
I do pay taxes, I wouldn't be in the 200k category, but then, I'm less than 2 years out of college. But let's just say I make well better than the average for people my age...
I went to a catholic grade school 1st-8th grade, then a catholic high school all 4 years, and then to a catholic college, where I graduated in 7 semesters with an engineering degree. If I WAS home schooled, I'd probably be a liberal, as my mom would agree with most of the crap you spout.
As for my parents, my mother has a masters degree and works in IT, my father is an engineer just like me and would be eligible for the 200k tax (unfortunately in Ohio, they tax you no matter how much you make). My mom abhors FOX news, and my dad watches the major networks and the Daily Show/Colbert Report (albeit the next day's rerun). My parents have DEFINITELY never thumped a bible, and despite going to catholic schools my whole life, I am really more of an atheist, as I believe in science and morals regardless if a deity exists or not.
Maybe we should try getting rid of public schools, medical care for the elderly, etc. and have no safety nets. I'm pretty sure I'd keep all the property I currently own, and I'm sure if Americans all fail, those without safety nets in India and China will still be making all the shit I already buy anyway. Maybe if we got rid of public schools, education could improve. Maybe if we got rid of government healthcare, costs would drop and become more affordable. Maybe if we didn't have unemployment insurance, people would go out and get a job. You don't have any more evidence for your side than I do for mine, and quite frankly, there are a lot of well educated people who agree with me.
I'm sorry, I just realized I fed a troll... I mean seriously, your post contains no logic, just flames, and I am trying to have a civilized discussion. I must be crazy, or just on Slashdot.
Bullshit. Taxes levied on all citizens to pay for services rendered to all citizens is not stealing. Taxes on a minority to give benefits to a majority is STEALING. How do I get any benefit from my social security payments? I'll never see a dime of that money. What about Medicare? Not a dime for me. What about public schools? Nope I went to private schools my whole life.
How exactly is being forced to pay for services not rendered not stealing in your book? Are you saying if I steal a lambo and then donate it to charity it's no longer theft because it benefited a third party? That doesn't even make sense! Robin Hood may have had moral justification, but what he was doing was still theft.
I didn't advocate that slaves were paid. I was trying to point out that everyone in this country has access to enough bread, water, and shelter to keep them alive if they choose to. It doesn't even require wages. So why exactly do the rich need to get taxed more? Do they not pay enough employees? I don't understand why a "living wage" has anything to do with a tax on people who earn more than 200k.
And again, the problem with your "the middle class should be the largest", but "middle class" isn't defined exactly. What do you define as the middle class? It could be the one man out there who is the average, or it could be everyone but the richest and the poorest.
Do we have any evidence that modern society functions better with safety nets and committees? Have we had a modern society without them? I don't want to go back to the late 19th century, and barring any monopolies, corporations CANNOT control all. If Steve Ballmer is obscenely rich, than stop buying Microsoft products. Oh wait, you like to use Windows and are willing to foot the bill, than stop complaining about how much Ballmer makes.
If the average worker didn't make a living wage, than how did the average workers manage to survive and produce offspring to get us here? Or did everyone in poverty die in the late 19th century and only the obscenely wealthy produced the next generation? Or by living wage do you mean people in poverty who smoke, drink, have cable tv, a cell phone, a car, and government provided education, healthcare, and retirement benefits. I'm pretty sure people elsewhere in the world survive just fine without all that, and have for millenia. I think your "living wage" argument is bullshit. People in slavery technically made a living wage as they were paid in food, water, and a bed.
What you want is for everyone to make wages that allow them to live in comfort. The problem with this is that "comfort" is defined as what the rich can afford. So it's not possible for everyone to make wages to make them comfortable unless everyone is rich, which is completely infeasible assuming scarce resources.
This is NOT France. We live in a free society because we believe (or at least the founding father did) that you shouldn't have the government take your possessions without just cause. If the balance is too one sided (the government takes to much), then all the rich people will leave and I would hate to see what that would do to society. Nothing is an excuse for theft, tyranny is one thing (correct me if I'm wrong but the rich French back in the day did so based on forced labor and taxes in the feudal system), but it is definitely not akin to an unbalanced distribution of wealth due to investments and success.
Stealing from the successful is not a just and free society.
How about if you want all this big government you fucking move to Europe? America is founded on private property, limited government, and freedom. If you want to take other people's private property to fund your big government and take away your freedom, than YOU MOVE!
Theft by force is illegal for a reason. If you want to go by that logic, if I get 4 of my friends, we can steal a lambo and justify it because nobody "owns" a lambo, I just haven't decided to steal it yet. Anarchy is a poor justification for taxes.
I guess my point is that the oil leaking should be handled in a civil court. If you want criminal charges based on negligence, than I'd fully support you if you used 11 fatalities as the basis of your case. Criminal charges should be left to causing loss of life, not incidental environmental damages.
The damage they've done will affect generations beyond this one
Citation needed? Think back a few generations from yourself. Heck think back 50 years before the EPA came into existence. Does that horrible lack of concern for the environment affect your daily life today? Do you even know what they dumped back then? Heck 4 generations ago, we didn't even chlorinate water.
I think future generations will benefit from increased life expectancy and greater quality of life regardless of this oil disaster. Yes the people should be punished, but as previous posters have pointed out, it isn't criminal without intent. This was an accident and thus they should be civilly liable.
This completely ignores the amount of EPA oversight on oil companies. For the most part they are not even allowed to discharge water out of a fire hydrant onto their own property without a permit. I would bet that mining companies are in the same boat. Believe me, companies are paying for any current waste, and paying extra to dispose of their past waste dumping attitudes.
How is this interesting. From the linked article, there were approximately 5 million barrels of oil lost. Albeit that's a horrible estimate, the estimates for the size of the oil field is 4-6 BILLION barrels of oil. So they lost approximately 0.1% of the oil field. Not exactly empty down there...
Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?
No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.
Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?
The hotels are already doing quite well this year as they are hosting all the contractors that have been brought into the region, as are all the restaurants and such with the per diem the contractors are getting paid. And again 20 years=number pulled out of your ass.
It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.
Yes, dumping millions of gallons of oil is ok (if you consider 20 billion dollars to not be a penalty). That works out to about $95 a gallon, not to mention the additional $1.87/gallon in lost oil revenue.
This was never a producing well. Thus it was never available as supply and the supply didn't diminish. It probably affected the price of crude futures a bit, but the lack of availability of the rest of the oil in the field is a much bigger loss than the actual oil that came out. "Millions of gallons" isn't a whole lot in the oil business. Also, that's millions of barrels (5 million barrels is 210 million gallons), which is significant, but not nearly as much as the billions of barrels in the oil field.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really hard to do validation without the source data... Also, it's really hard to do validation on extrapolations done by computer models. In addition, it's really hard to do validation on climate (which changes on a scale of 10s of thousands of years) with a few hundred years of decent data and only about 100 of good data.
That's why science is based on experiments that are repeatable, not on computer models. I wouldn't believe in nuclear power either if we didn't have several examples of working reactors. If someone just said, "based on my computer model, U235 should undergo fission in a controlled process", I wouldn't be the first in line to bet on it. The computer model may be correct, but it also might be incomplete or have a high degree of unaccounted for variables.
Which is totally pointless if you are a reasonable and dilligent user of your credit card, and actually check your statements every month. Of course maybe they can read from your behavioral patterns if you are an idiot that just pays bills without looking them over first.
The only problem with your plan is that then there would be 136 large, uncontrolled, massive pieces of space junk that are a risk to anything else up there until they are utilized. Not to mention the orbit probably wouldn't be stable and they would eventually come back down anyways, but not necessarily over uninhabited sections of the indian ocean. Better to have a controlled re-entry than either risk current LEO objects (like the ISS) or risk lives on the ground with falling space junk.
Wait, is this sarcasm? Corporations are taking over and making the government irrelevant? Like I don't know, the government bailing out banks, buying GM, and creating a government healthcare mess? Yeah, that really sounds like corporate overlords, not government ones *sarcasm*...
This site has EDITORS? I thought it was just a place where random people submitted crap and then other random people posted goatse links and soviet russia jokes, and then grammar nazis romp and play...
Actually to use the government, they cried wolf, then they cried bear, then lion, tiger, shark, skunk, opossum, kitten, spider, ant, fungus, amoeba... You'd think they'd be out of stuff to scare people by now wouldn't you?
Just wait until they standardize HHTTPP, for people who use the internet and press their keys too long.
The point is, he asked for energy density compared to AA batteries, and I was making the point that they didn't lose any energy density by making it paper thin. I guess looking back over it, it doesn't read that way. Oh well.
It's much faster than just Hyper, it's Hyper Hyper, which is like regular Hyper except on ADHD. Ooh, look at that blinky ad!
From wikipedia: The specific energy for NiMH material is approximately 70 Wh/kg (250 kJ/kg), compared to 40-60 Wh/kg for the more common nickel-cadmium, or 100-160 Wh/kg for Li-ion.
This looks like it would be comparable to Li-ion and an improvement over NiMH and NiCd.
No, that is a popular misconception. The FEDERAL government was founded as a republic, not a democracy. Back in that day, only landowners could vote.
Of course that has nothing to do with the State of Washington. I have no idea what their state constitution is based on, so technically they can do whatever they want. But I don't see why people are complaining that some wealthy people are trying to stop an unfair tax on just the wealthy.
I'm glad you've given up. Because anyone who doesn't fit your stereotype must be lying right? Only stupid people could believe humans are smart enough to take care of themselves. Let's take your assumptions one by one:
I do pay taxes, I wouldn't be in the 200k category, but then, I'm less than 2 years out of college. But let's just say I make well better than the average for people my age...
I went to a catholic grade school 1st-8th grade, then a catholic high school all 4 years, and then to a catholic college, where I graduated in 7 semesters with an engineering degree. If I WAS home schooled, I'd probably be a liberal, as my mom would agree with most of the crap you spout.
As for my parents, my mother has a masters degree and works in IT, my father is an engineer just like me and would be eligible for the 200k tax (unfortunately in Ohio, they tax you no matter how much you make). My mom abhors FOX news, and my dad watches the major networks and the Daily Show/Colbert Report (albeit the next day's rerun). My parents have DEFINITELY never thumped a bible, and despite going to catholic schools my whole life, I am really more of an atheist, as I believe in science and morals regardless if a deity exists or not.
Maybe we should try getting rid of public schools, medical care for the elderly, etc. and have no safety nets. I'm pretty sure I'd keep all the property I currently own, and I'm sure if Americans all fail, those without safety nets in India and China will still be making all the shit I already buy anyway. Maybe if we got rid of public schools, education could improve. Maybe if we got rid of government healthcare, costs would drop and become more affordable. Maybe if we didn't have unemployment insurance, people would go out and get a job. You don't have any more evidence for your side than I do for mine, and quite frankly, there are a lot of well educated people who agree with me.
I'm sorry, I just realized I fed a troll... I mean seriously, your post contains no logic, just flames, and I am trying to have a civilized discussion. I must be crazy, or just on Slashdot.
Bullshit. Taxes levied on all citizens to pay for services rendered to all citizens is not stealing. Taxes on a minority to give benefits to a majority is STEALING. How do I get any benefit from my social security payments? I'll never see a dime of that money. What about Medicare? Not a dime for me. What about public schools? Nope I went to private schools my whole life.
How exactly is being forced to pay for services not rendered not stealing in your book? Are you saying if I steal a lambo and then donate it to charity it's no longer theft because it benefited a third party? That doesn't even make sense! Robin Hood may have had moral justification, but what he was doing was still theft.
I didn't advocate that slaves were paid. I was trying to point out that everyone in this country has access to enough bread, water, and shelter to keep them alive if they choose to. It doesn't even require wages. So why exactly do the rich need to get taxed more? Do they not pay enough employees? I don't understand why a "living wage" has anything to do with a tax on people who earn more than 200k.
And again, the problem with your "the middle class should be the largest", but "middle class" isn't defined exactly. What do you define as the middle class? It could be the one man out there who is the average, or it could be everyone but the richest and the poorest.
Do we have any evidence that modern society functions better with safety nets and committees? Have we had a modern society without them? I don't want to go back to the late 19th century, and barring any monopolies, corporations CANNOT control all. If Steve Ballmer is obscenely rich, than stop buying Microsoft products. Oh wait, you like to use Windows and are willing to foot the bill, than stop complaining about how much Ballmer makes.
If the average worker didn't make a living wage, than how did the average workers manage to survive and produce offspring to get us here? Or did everyone in poverty die in the late 19th century and only the obscenely wealthy produced the next generation? Or by living wage do you mean people in poverty who smoke, drink, have cable tv, a cell phone, a car, and government provided education, healthcare, and retirement benefits. I'm pretty sure people elsewhere in the world survive just fine without all that, and have for millenia. I think your "living wage" argument is bullshit. People in slavery technically made a living wage as they were paid in food, water, and a bed.
What you want is for everyone to make wages that allow them to live in comfort. The problem with this is that "comfort" is defined as what the rich can afford. So it's not possible for everyone to make wages to make them comfortable unless everyone is rich, which is completely infeasible assuming scarce resources.
This is NOT France. We live in a free society because we believe (or at least the founding father did) that you shouldn't have the government take your possessions without just cause. If the balance is too one sided (the government takes to much), then all the rich people will leave and I would hate to see what that would do to society. Nothing is an excuse for theft, tyranny is one thing (correct me if I'm wrong but the rich French back in the day did so based on forced labor and taxes in the feudal system), but it is definitely not akin to an unbalanced distribution of wealth due to investments and success.
Stealing from the successful is not a just and free society.
How about if you want all this big government you fucking move to Europe? America is founded on private property, limited government, and freedom. If you want to take other people's private property to fund your big government and take away your freedom, than YOU MOVE!
Theft by force is illegal for a reason. If you want to go by that logic, if I get 4 of my friends, we can steal a lambo and justify it because nobody "owns" a lambo, I just haven't decided to steal it yet. Anarchy is a poor justification for taxes.
I guess my point is that the oil leaking should be handled in a civil court. If you want criminal charges based on negligence, than I'd fully support you if you used 11 fatalities as the basis of your case. Criminal charges should be left to causing loss of life, not incidental environmental damages.
The damage they've done will affect generations beyond this one
Citation needed? Think back a few generations from yourself. Heck think back 50 years before the EPA came into existence. Does that horrible lack of concern for the environment affect your daily life today? Do you even know what they dumped back then? Heck 4 generations ago, we didn't even chlorinate water.
I think future generations will benefit from increased life expectancy and greater quality of life regardless of this oil disaster. Yes the people should be punished, but as previous posters have pointed out, it isn't criminal without intent. This was an accident and thus they should be civilly liable.
This completely ignores the amount of EPA oversight on oil companies. For the most part they are not even allowed to discharge water out of a fire hydrant onto their own property without a permit. I would bet that mining companies are in the same boat. Believe me, companies are paying for any current waste, and paying extra to dispose of their past waste dumping attitudes.
How is this interesting. From the linked article, there were approximately 5 million barrels of oil lost. Albeit that's a horrible estimate, the estimates for the size of the oil field is 4-6 BILLION barrels of oil. So they lost approximately 0.1% of the oil field. Not exactly empty down there...
Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?
No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.
Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?
The hotels are already doing quite well this year as they are hosting all the contractors that have been brought into the region, as are all the restaurants and such with the per diem the contractors are getting paid. And again 20 years=number pulled out of your ass.
It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.
Yes, dumping millions of gallons of oil is ok (if you consider 20 billion dollars to not be a penalty). That works out to about $95 a gallon, not to mention the additional $1.87/gallon in lost oil revenue.
This was never a producing well. Thus it was never available as supply and the supply didn't diminish. It probably affected the price of crude futures a bit, but the lack of availability of the rest of the oil in the field is a much bigger loss than the actual oil that came out. "Millions of gallons" isn't a whole lot in the oil business. Also, that's millions of barrels (5 million barrels is 210 million gallons), which is significant, but not nearly as much as the billions of barrels in the oil field.
No, Diesel intended his engine to be run on Peanut oil.