Actually I think if they had just stayed with satellite level signals instead of trying to get their high powered ground source signals approved they probably would have been ok with the FCC.
Ok, but I have to say, in person non-machine aided voting is more secure than any voting involving computers simply because it requires an order of magnitude more effort to commit any significant amount of fraud. I still think you'd have trouble voting at multiple voting stations.
One or two degrees C of temperature increase doesn't sound like much but it only took 1 degree C of temperature decrease to produce the Little Ice Age.
How are you going to move enough people off Earth to make a difference? How will you even be able to keep up with the birth rate unless it's essentially zero? If you look at it logistically, even with several space elevators you can't move that many people. At 10,000 people a day it would take over 270 years to move a billion people off Earth. How are you going to provide living quarters, air, water and food to that many people a day? How is it going to be paid for? I'm not saying it's impossible but practically speaking it would take an immense effort.
Geoengineering to prevent warming doesn't do anything to slow down ocean acidification which may be as big a problem as global warming. And if you ever stop the geoengineering the warming comes back with a vengeance. At best it's a stopgap to buy some time.
If I ever saw any real evidence of that kind of voter fraud then I'd be more sympathetic to voter ID laws but there is no evidence that it occurs enough to affect any election that's decided by more than 4 or 5 votes. I'd like to see you try and walk into multiple voting stations and vote at each one.
A paper system can be exploited but it's an order of magnitude or more difficult than with an electronic system. With small precincts spread out all over the place you have to make small changes in many different ballot boxes to corrupt an election. That would take a lot of effort. With a centralized computer system all you have to do is some hacking. One person can accomplish that.
I don't think corporations have any inherent rights at all, just privileges that incorporating body grants them. The people who are employed by and/or are owners of the corporation don't lose any personal rights by virtue of their relationship to the corporation so why do they need additional rights because of that relationship? I do not grant the corporation I work for or the ones I have an ownership stake in the right to speak for me as I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. I don't see how restricting the rights of my corporate employer affects my constitutional rights in any way.
I understand the precedents that have been set by the courts, I just don't agree with them.
My point is that the high percentage of people not paying income tax right now is an anomaly that will correct itself in time.
Not everyone who pays no federal income tax is subsidized and while there are some who are content to remain subsidized most would prefer to get off of them.
Being employed by a corporation in no way diminishes your rights as an individual. The corporation I work for in no way speaks for me. I may agree and disagree with some of the corporate positions but the fact that I'm working for them doesn't give the corporation any rights from me or take away any of mine. I just don't see why a corporation has any inherent rights other than what a government grants it in allowing it to incorporate.
If we don't eventually means test SS and Medicare, we will go completely bankrupt.
Means testing SS & Medicare turns them from an insurance policy you paid for into a welfare program. Republicans like that because it's easier to attack welfare.
What needs to be fixed is the income tax system. What is it up to now, 46%? 47%? 48%? More? That pay NO income tax...
In 2007 approximately 37.9% paid no income tax which is in the middle of the range under normal economic conditions. Don't you think the recession we were in has something to do the high rate of people paying no federal income tax? If you're unemployed you probably don't have enough income to tax.
If you're going to publicly fund election campaigns you need to set some sort of bar to qualify for it. For instance you could require that the prospective candidate first get $5 donations or at least nominating signatures from a certain percentage of the registered voters in whatever district they are running. For instance each congressional district represents about 600,000 people. Assuming about half of those are registered voters you could require a $5 donation from 1% or about 3,000 people to qualify for public funding of your campaign. That at least forces a candidate to do the leg work to show there is some level of support for them.
Corporations are artificial entities created by government rules. As such they should have no inherent rights other than what their creator (the government) deigns to grant them.
When one proxy diverges from the real world and others you are using don't I think it's probably valid to consider it bad data without knowing exactly why it diverged. The speculation is the divergence had to do with industrial pollution.
"Hide the decline" referred to one proxy record that diverged from actual temperatures after 100 years of matching them. What Mann did was clearly explained in the published paper.
... the decline that was hidden was in a specific proxy record that suddenly diverged from actual real world measurements. The decline was "hidden" by throwing out the bad data and replacing it with actual real world measurements.
That point needs to be emphasized, and it was clearly explained what Mann did in the published paper.
To add to your point, the BEST graph you linked only goes to 2009. In the NOAA and GISS datasets 2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year on record. I bet it would have been (or at least close to) the same if the BEST graph were extended.
Climate scientists who I've seen express an opinion on it consider true runaway warming an extremely remote possibility. The temperature the Earth ultimately reaches because of AGW will be determined to a great extent by the amount of greenhouse gases humans add to the atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think if they had just stayed with satellite level signals instead of trying to get their high powered ground source signals approved they probably would have been ok with the FCC.
I agree that genetically engineering humans is laughable. It would require a totalitarian world government to enforce.
Ok, but I have to say, in person non-machine aided voting is more secure than any voting involving computers simply because it requires an order of magnitude more effort to commit any significant amount of fraud. I still think you'd have trouble voting at multiple voting stations.
One or two degrees C of temperature increase doesn't sound like much but it only took 1 degree C of temperature decrease to produce the Little Ice Age.
Actually, usually improving women's rights and education has the greatest effect on family size.
That point can't be emphasized strongly enough!
Planting, growing, harvesting, processing and delivering food is a huge energy user. We use about 10 calories of fossil fuels for every 1 calorie of food produced in the US.
How are you going to move enough people off Earth to make a difference? How will you even be able to keep up with the birth rate unless it's essentially zero? If you look at it logistically, even with several space elevators you can't move that many people. At 10,000 people a day it would take over 270 years to move a billion people off Earth. How are you going to provide living quarters, air, water and food to that many people a day? How is it going to be paid for? I'm not saying it's impossible but practically speaking it would take an immense effort.
Geoengineering to prevent warming doesn't do anything to slow down ocean acidification which may be as big a problem as global warming. And if you ever stop the geoengineering the warming comes back with a vengeance. At best it's a stopgap to buy some time.
If I ever saw any real evidence of that kind of voter fraud then I'd be more sympathetic to voter ID laws but there is no evidence that it occurs enough to affect any election that's decided by more than 4 or 5 votes. I'd like to see you try and walk into multiple voting stations and vote at each one.
A paper system can be exploited but it's an order of magnitude or more difficult than with an electronic system. With small precincts spread out all over the place you have to make small changes in many different ballot boxes to corrupt an election. That would take a lot of effort. With a centralized computer system all you have to do is some hacking. One person can accomplish that.
I don't think corporations have any inherent rights at all, just privileges that incorporating body grants them. The people who are employed by and/or are owners of the corporation don't lose any personal rights by virtue of their relationship to the corporation so why do they need additional rights because of that relationship? I do not grant the corporation I work for or the ones I have an ownership stake in the right to speak for me as I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. I don't see how restricting the rights of my corporate employer affects my constitutional rights in any way.
I understand the precedents that have been set by the courts, I just don't agree with them.
Is he the goatze guy?
Our representatives are much more representative than we'd like to admit.
I think you got that right.
My point is that the high percentage of people not paying income tax right now is an anomaly that will correct itself in time.
Not everyone who pays no federal income tax is subsidized and while there are some who are content to remain subsidized most would prefer to get off of them.
I understand the problem just fine, I just disagree with your position on it.
Being employed by a corporation in no way diminishes your rights as an individual. The corporation I work for in no way speaks for me. I may agree and disagree with some of the corporate positions but the fact that I'm working for them doesn't give the corporation any rights from me or take away any of mine. I just don't see why a corporation has any inherent rights other than what a government grants it in allowing it to incorporate.
If we don't eventually means test SS and Medicare, we will go completely bankrupt.
Means testing SS & Medicare turns them from an insurance policy you paid for into a welfare program. Republicans like that because it's easier to attack welfare.
What needs to be fixed is the income tax system. What is it up to now, 46%? 47%? 48%? More? That pay NO income tax...
In 2007 approximately 37.9% paid no income tax which is in the middle of the range under normal economic conditions. Don't you think the recession we were in has something to do the high rate of people paying no federal income tax? If you're unemployed you probably don't have enough income to tax.
If you're going to publicly fund election campaigns you need to set some sort of bar to qualify for it. For instance you could require that the prospective candidate first get $5 donations or at least nominating signatures from a certain percentage of the registered voters in whatever district they are running. For instance each congressional district represents about 600,000 people. Assuming about half of those are registered voters you could require a $5 donation from 1% or about 3,000 people to qualify for public funding of your campaign. That at least forces a candidate to do the leg work to show there is some level of support for them.
Corporations are artificial entities created by government rules. As such they should have no inherent rights other than what their creator (the government) deigns to grant them.
When one proxy diverges from the real world and others you are using don't I think it's probably valid to consider it bad data without knowing exactly why it diverged. The speculation is the divergence had to do with industrial pollution.
"Hide the decline" referred to one proxy record that diverged from actual temperatures after 100 years of matching them. What Mann did was clearly explained in the published paper.
That point needs to be emphasized, and it was clearly explained what Mann did in the published paper.
To add to your point, the BEST graph you linked only goes to 2009. In the NOAA and GISS datasets 2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year on record. I bet it would have been (or at least close to) the same if the BEST graph were extended.
Climate scientists who I've seen express an opinion on it consider true runaway warming an extremely remote possibility. The temperature the Earth ultimately reaches because of AGW will be determined to a great extent by the amount of greenhouse gases humans add to the atmosphere.