That explanation makes excellent sense, and I enthusiastically agree.
But I ask myself, if the shopkeepers have the freedom to shut a minority class from the marketplace, doesn't that minority class lose the freedom to participate in the marketplace? Isn't that exactly the reason that civil rights protections were imposed on the Jim Crow south?
I see myself as a libertarian, but I'm not so single-mindedly fanatic that I'd allow one group the "liberty" to take another group's freedoms away.
If not, it's only because "common sense" is defined by the schizophrenic (as in schism from reality).
Much of our lives play out in a strange fantasy world where we demonize educators, where we revere brutes and plastic beauty, where we barter using inherently worthless "money" and erect immense cathedrals to shopping, where we live in climate-controlled comfort within otherwise uninhabitable land, where we breed like rabbits in an alfalfa field blissfully ignorant that the field may be fallow next season.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Einstein
That case is about playing a copyrighted recording in a bar without a license for playing it in public. The case ancestor brought up is for a live performance of a song by a cover band, which is not a copyright violation.
By analogy, It's the difference between reading a book to kids at the library, and handing out photocopies of a book to kids at the library.
I think GW is about a global increase of atmospheric temperature.
FTA, it's not clear to me that there is an increase of atmospheric temperature, even in that locale. All that's mentioned is the ground staying warmer; it doesn't say anything about what happens in the air above the turbines.
Simple is not a synonym of intuitive - something can be simple even if it doesn't align well with our preconceptions.
But I'll try for a simple explanation: 1) Sunrise, and incoming radiation heats carbon-based gasses. 2) The heavy carbon molecules accelerate throughout day, accumulating inertia. 3) Nightfall, and without incoming radiation, when carbon molecules bounce into things they lose a portion of their heightened velocity. Some of that lost energy escapes the atmosphere, some heats up whatever the molecules bump into. 4) Goto 1.
"The guy didn't say anything about current warming, carbon dioxide, human activities or anything else."
Well, perhaps not in this article. Thanks to google, it's not hard to find where Henrik Svensmark's climate change chips lie. Here's something to get you started, complete with a potent musical background:
I don't think he's a "Classic denier." Most deniers' skepticism is based on cognitive-biased faith - this guy seems to have actually done considerable work to support his cognitive bias.
In the new work, the diversity of life over the last 500 million years seems remarkably well explained by tectonics affecting the sea-level together with variations in the supernova rate, and virtually nothing else.
I'm guessing that if he were to factor in the rate of meteor impacts, the beating of butterfly wings would turn out to be a driver of evolution too.
And compared with the temperature variations seen on short timescales as a consequence of the Sun's influence on the influx of cosmic rays, the heating and cooling of the Earth due to cosmic rays varying with the prevailing supernova rate have been far larger
Is this a correct translation?
"The influence of supernovae on cosmic rays is greater than the sun's influence on the cosmic rays"
When you say the fuel source doesn't matter, are you referrring to sustaining speeds of Mach 20, or to the plane's Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly feature?
Well, if you ever feel like shaking things up a bit, maybe imagine an optimistic future, and tell the struggle of how we get there.
Personally, I think the stories of dystopia are far more helpful than the benetopias. As long as the future is bright, we can sit back and wait for the powers that be to take us there. While it looks like merde, we have to get off our butts and figure out how we'll deal with or prevent it.
"There isn't a single market in the world that has zero barrier of entry, perfect competition, perfectly rational consumers, and so on"
Nor is there a single dictionary or encyclopedia in the world that defines "free market" in those absolute terms.
I think of a "free market" as a marketplace where the rules are uniform, and exist to enforce honesty and efficiency rather than favoritism and dominion.
"There's no such thing as a free market." There's no such thing as a free country either. Doesn't mean we have to hate the concept.
In a stick shift that's probably what drivers would naturally do. In an automatic, it's not necessarily that easy.
I've practiced this. So should anybody who plans to try it in an emergency.
In my 98 Toyota Sienna, it works great, although it's easy to shift pass Neutral and go to Reverse.
In our '06 Prius, at moderate/high speeds the car simply won't let you shift from D to N, and I really doubt the computer would pay any attention at all if the driver were to try holding the power button down. But I'll try that out when I get a chance.
I would have appealed their decision. If that's the whole story you were smart, not an ass. I've always judged my planes against the baseline of a crumpled paper ball, and when I've run competitions, we always had an event specifically for crumpled balls. If your event organizers didn't want that design, they should have prohibited it before the event. If that design never occurred to them, then you taught them a valuable engineering lesson.
We bought a Prius for my wife because she had to commute through downtown Los Angeles, and at the time, solo Prius drivers were allowed to use the carpool lane. It worked great, she saved many hours of driving. But now California has ended that program, so if we had to replace the car today we probably wouldn't pay the extra cost to get a hybrid drive train and battery pack.
But the Prius has been great. No regrets about that purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
That explanation makes excellent sense, and I enthusiastically agree.
But I ask myself, if the shopkeepers have the freedom to shut a minority class from the marketplace, doesn't that minority class lose the freedom to participate in the marketplace? Isn't that exactly the reason that civil rights protections were imposed on the Jim Crow south?
I see myself as a libertarian, but I'm not so single-mindedly fanatic that I'd allow one group the "liberty" to take another group's freedoms away.
If not, it's only because "common sense" is defined by the schizophrenic (as in schism from reality).
Much of our lives play out in a strange fantasy world where we demonize educators, where we revere brutes and plastic beauty, where we barter using inherently worthless "money" and erect immense cathedrals to shopping, where we live in climate-controlled comfort within otherwise uninhabitable land, where we breed like rabbits in an alfalfa field blissfully ignorant that the field may be fallow next season.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Einstein
That case is about playing a copyrighted recording in a bar without a license for playing it in public. The case ancestor brought up is for a live performance of a song by a cover band, which is not a copyright violation.
By analogy, It's the difference between reading a book to kids at the library, and handing out photocopies of a book to kids at the library.
Unless you've got a really good optometrist, I'd just roll rubber balls.
I think GW is about a global increase of atmospheric temperature.
FTA, it's not clear to me that there is an increase of atmospheric temperature, even in that locale. All that's mentioned is the ground staying warmer; it doesn't say anything about what happens in the air above the turbines.
> it's illegal and thus doesn't serve the shareholders
You appear to be suggesting corporate law breaking has some sort of negative consequence for shareholders. Where did you get that idea?
Simple is not a synonym of intuitive - something can be simple even if it doesn't align well with our preconceptions.
But I'll try for a simple explanation:
1) Sunrise, and incoming radiation heats carbon-based gasses.
2) The heavy carbon molecules accelerate throughout day, accumulating inertia.
3) Nightfall, and without incoming radiation, when carbon molecules bounce into things they lose a portion of their heightened velocity. Some of that lost energy escapes the atmosphere, some heats up whatever the molecules bump into.
4) Goto 1.
No, this was an example of the "rebutting error with verifiable fact" technique.
That URL (or a simple google search) reveals that the guy has said quite a bit about current warming and carbon dioxide.
"If you believe in Science"
Not only does my tribe "believe in Science", we also fight for peace and fornicate for chastity.
But our reality distortion does not stretch so far as betting some third party lipstick yet to come will make this scientific spam into Miss Universe.
"The guy didn't say anything about current warming, carbon dioxide, human activities or anything else."
Well, perhaps not in this article. Thanks to google, it's not hard to find where Henrik Svensmark's climate change chips lie. Here's something to get you started, complete with a potent musical background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
I don't think he's a "Classic denier." Most deniers' skepticism is based on cognitive-biased faith - this guy seems to have actually done considerable work to support his cognitive bias.
In the new work, the diversity of life over the last 500 million years seems remarkably well explained by tectonics affecting the sea-level together with variations in the supernova rate, and virtually nothing else.
I'm guessing that if he were to factor in the rate of meteor impacts, the beating of butterfly wings would turn out to be a driver of evolution too.
I'm going out on a limb and guessing you were raised in the context of a monotheistic culture that worshipped and feared an authoritarian male deity.
Trying to make sense of this:
And compared with the temperature variations seen on short timescales as a consequence of the Sun's influence on the influx of cosmic rays, the heating and cooling of the Earth due to cosmic rays varying with the prevailing supernova rate have been far larger
Is this a correct translation?
"The influence of supernovae on cosmic rays is greater than the sun's influence on the cosmic rays"
It may be that you are an expert in Newton's Laws, but I am an expert in Murphy's.
When you say the fuel source doesn't matter, are you referrring to sustaining speeds of Mach 20, or to the plane's Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly feature?
> I simply write an extrapolation of what I see.
Well, if you ever feel like shaking things up a bit, maybe imagine an optimistic future, and tell the struggle of how we get there.
Personally, I think the stories of dystopia are far more helpful than the benetopias. As long as the future is bright, we can sit back and wait for the powers that be to take us there. While it looks like merde, we have to get off our butts and figure out how we'll deal with or prevent it.
They don't have to monitor everybody all the time. All that matters is that they can do it, and that Murphy's Law happens.
... for doing nothing. This was, as I understand it, more a problem of lax regulation than lack of regulation.
I don't like the "but we must do SOMEthing" philosophy. Most problems are caused by solutions.
"There isn't a single market in the world that has zero barrier of entry, perfect competition, perfectly rational consumers, and so on"
Nor is there a single dictionary or encyclopedia in the world that defines "free market" in those absolute terms.
I think of a "free market" as a marketplace where the rules are uniform, and exist to enforce honesty and efficiency rather than favoritism and dominion.
"There's no such thing as a free market."
There's no such thing as a free country either. Doesn't mean we have to hate the concept.
"When the free market turns against them"
Actually, that's never happened. There's never been a free global communications market.
Infrastructure, and those running it, are regulated and taxed/subsidized at different levels at different times, markets, and media.
In a stick shift that's probably what drivers would naturally do. In an automatic, it's not necessarily that easy.
I've practiced this. So should anybody who plans to try it in an emergency.
In my 98 Toyota Sienna, it works great, although it's easy to shift pass Neutral and go to Reverse.
In our '06 Prius, at moderate/high speeds the car simply won't let you shift from D to N, and I really doubt the computer would pay any attention at all if the driver were to try holding the power button down. But I'll try that out when I get a chance.
I would have appealed their decision. If that's the whole story you were smart, not an ass. I've always judged my planes against the baseline of a crumpled paper ball, and when I've run competitions, we always had an event specifically for crumpled balls. If your event organizers didn't want that design, they should have prohibited it before the event. If that design never occurred to them, then you taught them a valuable engineering lesson.
Awesome. The award was well deserved.
We bought a Prius for my wife because she had to commute through downtown Los Angeles, and at the time, solo Prius drivers were allowed to use the carpool lane. It worked great, she saved many hours of driving. But now California has ended that program, so if we had to replace the car today we probably wouldn't pay the extra cost to get a hybrid drive train and battery pack.
But the Prius has been great. No regrets about that purchase.