Peoples' fond memories of the original SW movies, the plot/characters of which were somewhat cliche as far as sci-fi movies go, only proves the point. Luke was the naive hero, Han the roguish "wild card", Leia the "damsel in distress", Vader the evil villain. What matters, however, is that Lucas honed each part to near-perfection, such that the characters were so believable and *human* that they didn't *seem* like stereotypes. I believe that it's this element that is sorely missing from the prequels, but that's another rant altogether!
I would only add that it is more than the prequels that have this problem today. Sadly, most movies that use any archetypes (and few don't) fail to provide this crucial element.
That's what I think, too. However, note that the MySQL documentation explicitly states that it is their position that if your program is accessing the MySQL port, even remotely, then it is subject to GPL restrictions, unless you buy MySQL's commercial license.
IF it says it, it is wrong. However, I can't find where it states that so it's all speculation anyway.
Against medical testing? Because they harm animals for human profit.
Yet IIRC, isn't the Number 2 person at PETA taking Insulin that is not only a result of animl research, but contains animal products?
The fundamental philosophy of the most vocal group of "environmentalists" is that I should treat the planet (or something) as being more important than human life. -- Kindly name them. I'd LOVE to see an official quote where PETA says that we should kill humans to make room for wolves.
Ah posit a known false statement as if it were proof. This is a twisted strawman argument. The OP claim was that some "environmentalists" value "the planet" as equal to or greater than human life. Instead of addressing it, you bring in PETA, and act as if the OP was sayign PETA says humans should be killed to save wolves. Interesting choice:
"Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?" is on their pager right here: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp
And the answer was: "Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally-challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights. But when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights while animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good."
This answer does in fact state a position that animals are mroe valuable than humans. Reverse their argument and it becomes this: 10,000 humans should die to save ten animals. That is a direct value assessment. 1 animal is worth 1000 humans in that equation.
This merely means they place animals as equal to humans in value. They also compare hunters to Dahlmer.
They say that animals have rights that can't be sacrificed because they can't understand them. That it is wrong to declaw a cat; they have rights dammit!
Then they are in favor of "fixing" cats and dogs to prevent them from giving birth. What happened to those "rights"?
"the most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals" --PETA FAQ
If we follow their practice of comparing animals to retarded humans when asked questions, then they should believe in sterilizing retarded humans.
"Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?" they ask, the implication beimg "hell no"
Yet... "However, animals don't always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals." --same page as the question.
And back to the OP's point: http://www.vhemt.org/ "The Movement doesn't even favor wanted pregnancies."
This specifically addresses the OP's claim. A group of "environmentalists" who value "the planet" above human life.
I agree. I think the Linux community is shooting themselves in the foot by pissing on every embedded systems manufacturer that decides to use Linux.
Which, of course, explains why more and more embedded devices are moving to Linux.
IF the company is in violation of the license agreement, then it is NOT pissing on the company to point it out, questions it, and if needs be to take them to court over it.
Do you seriously believe that if you got access to WIndowsCE source via a license, then violated the license that Microsft would just go "aww shucks fellas" and move on? No. They would rightfully have an actionable case and could rightfully pursue it. If they have reason to believe, particularly by statements made by the company, that the license agreement may have been violated, then they have reason to question.
The same is true with regards to the GPL, or even the GPL, or anyother license. And if you think that the "evil nasty nazi proprietary embedded OS vendors" do not take steps to determine if a license has been complied with let us just say you are entitled to your beliefs and opinion, but that doesn't make them correct.
No team is allowed to recompile anything or to use any drivers, etc not available from a public server for the past 12 months. This might sound like a bad deal for Linux, but it will also stop Microsoft from re-writing the drivers. Again, most companies do not have access to that level of expertise so that won't be allowed.
This (and partially #2) is the only one I have any real contention over. I understand the intent, but believe it fails to deliver. I actually think this to be unfair to both sides. Perhaps 3 months, but certainly not a year. Bugfixes, etc. known and released in the last two/three monhs should be allowed. Most companies running Linux in high performance production environments do have access to peolpe who can add compiler flags, type make && make install, etc..
#2 has a minor objection because much/most of the Linux software is not purchased.;)
1750 happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution in Europe where people started large scale burning of coal. Which would increase the amount of atmospheric CO2.
Yes, it does. But the history records of coal production do not reliably show mass use of coal in until the late 1800's. But for sake of argument, we'll leave the 1750 date alone for now.
According to prevailing carbon cycle change windows, *if* one attributes *all* of the increase in CO2 levels since 1750 to humans, we are currently seeing the effects of coal -if at all. Several of the anthropogenic GW proponents (Mann refers to them as "advocates") claim it takes several hundred to a few thousand years to see any thermal effects. This is important for future projects because coal is not only not in the rise, it has been slowly declining overall. We may "have plenty of coal" but the cost of coal is getting ridiculously cheap which means a lower investment in it.
Now if you look at your data (380 - 280)/ (2005 - 1750) = 100ppm / 255 years or 0.4 PPM / year which is much lower than 1.5ppm. But last year was 1.5 PPM so what's going on? Well I guess the rate is increasing over time. So I guess someone looking at your data would assume that over the next 70 years we will increase by more than 1.5PPM / year.
If someone looks at this post as being the data, then they can assume anything they like. That's why one should actually look into the historical data for themselves. For example, your simple math above demonstrates a failure to understand the data given, let alone additional data. No, that's not intended as an insult.
Yes, the rate may increasing (there are very large swings in the annual rates and the overall trend over teh last several decades is down), but what your simple calulation above fails to account for is the rate of change. I'm sure you'll agree with that.
There are a few key points to remember. The modellers don't start at 1750, no. They start at the year they do the modelling. So when a modelling done in 2004 against "current" data is done, and they refer to a doubling of CO2 levels, they are talking about doubling 2004's CO levels, not 1750's. Many IPCC models start at 1990.
To double say 380 in 70 years is 380ppm of increase. Over 70 years, that is an increase of 5.43ppm year, a rate 3.62 times higher than our current one. Is this likely scenario? No. To match that would require a complete and utter replication of the industrial revolution, assuming humans are the sole cause. But what of your exponential increase idea? Well, mathematically it may be possible (I didn't say it wasn't, just that it isn't likely given what we do know) but remember mathematically bumble bees can't fly. You have to put down the calulator and look at what is going on, both historically and currently.
There is a lot of evidence to indicate we are not the sole cause of CO2 level increases. Indeed, looking solely at the CO2 level history of the last 400K years tells us we simply can not be the sole cause.
CO2 levels cycle on large swing basis approximately every 95K years. I'm sure we can all agree humans were not mass burning coal or driving around in cars in enough quantities to possibly have an affect on global CO2 levels ~95K, ~190K, and ~285K years ago, let alone 400K years ago. So clearly, we are not the sole cause.
Examining that historical record shows pretty consistent swings of about 100-200ppm over 400K years, and 120ppm upward swings since then reaching 300ppm well before humans were doing anything substantial with coal or oil. Indeed, examining the data and cycle immediately prior to 1750 shows us as already in one of those upward swings by 1750. In other words, the rise in CO2 levels began before the industrial revolution. And it was not a "slow gentle rise" It was dramatic, very much so. Just as it has been each cycle.
Knowing that the upward swings have historically reached 280-ish to 300ppm, at best you'd have to start anthropogenic i
As it is in the government's best interest for us to keep buying gas, they have an incentive to understate fuel economy in very efficient cars. This is not to say that they actually do it; merely that they have a reason to.
Actually, they do so it, with regards to their own tests results anyway. From the EPA fuel economy site:
A hose is connected to the tailpipe to collect the engine exhaust.
The amount of carbon in the exhaust is measured to calculate the amount of fuel used during the test.
This is more accurate than using a fuel gauge.
OK, so somehow estimating the fuel used is more accurate than actually measuring the fuel consumption. But then they follow it up immediately with this statement:
Adjusting Estimates
In the 1980s, an EPA study found that drivers were typically achieving lower fuel economy than predicted by EPA laboratory tests. As a result, EPA required the laboratory-derived city and highway MPG estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward by 10 percent for city estimates and by 22 percent for highway estimates to better reflect the MPG real-world drivers can expect.
So much for the alleged accuracy of estimating by carbon expulsion vs. actual measurements. Being off by 10% and 22% is a pretty gross inaccuracy.
The absurdity of their method is demonstarted even more by the ubiquity of OBD-II port diagnostics which can measure the actual fuel used, and even compare this to actual miles driven. My car has one of these (it's 6 years old in a few months so this isn't exactly new and rare) and has the ability to calulate fuel economy by using the above method.
I've compared it to the "old fashioned" way of recording miles vs. fuel put in the car. It's pretty damned accurate. I get mid-to upper twenties most of the time. That's with zero highway miles -- all in town traffic. Well that and some autocrossing. When I do take a trip on the freeway I average in the thirties. In non-mountainous areas I've approached high thirties. Not too bad for a 6 year old V8.
The records I keep can be deemed "scientific", as can many of the individual tests I've conducted. But they are still one man's experiences. To be statistically significant (which is what people mean by "scientific") this would need to be replicated.
On the other hand, my big SUV (Suburban) gets nearly 70 miles per gallon of gasoline. Yup. That "big nasty SUV" burns less "fossil fuel" than any of the hybrids in that list even if we accept them at face value. And it cost me zero extra dollars for that over the regular price. It will be even better when GM puts out the E85 powered Hybrids. No significant boost in MPG I figure, but it will just be plain cool to have 110 outlets it the burb, and no need for toting around a generator for camping. Oh yeah.
Then you should consider converting your 69 Impala to E85. It will possibly pollute less than the Prius. In your case it should primarily be a matter of a stainless steel fuel tank, properly lined gas lines, and tuning it properly.
Alternate options would include adding a fuel injection system to it.
Or you could really throw them for a loop. Buy a new Tahoe with the E85 capable engine (std. equipment on the half-tons). It burns less gasoline than a Prius or any hyrbid car/truck on the market. Burns cleaner too, putting out less harmful emissions per mile than the hybrids.
And then there is the fact that 85% of your fuel is renewable, and closed loop with regards to the carbon cycle. The hybrids can't say that.
See, you can shock and educate them at the same time.
when this article was at around 75 comments posted, I'd say I saw many more pro-Groklaw posts modded up to 5 than criticisms...
Which could also be do to the criticisms being invalid. Simply stating that posts advocating Groklaw's "correctness" or factual superiority are modded up more than those saying the same about the Reg article as evidence of an "echo chamber" is shoddy argument. It may well be the case that the posts about the veracity of groklaw over thregister are correct by and large.
I really think you are marginalizing the dangers of nuclear waste and nuclear accidents too much, but I'll agree that ultimately both are manageable.
Not really. The actual risk of nuclear power plants is quite small. Stack the lives lost by every single nuclear accident or byproduct storage, or even the theoretical lives lost (which is actually zero so feel free to not do that) due to working in the industry over the last 50 years against a decade or even a few years of coal.
Chernobyl was the classic case of the big nasty happening. Yet the lives lost due to it are suprisingly very small. Even factoring in the increased *risk* of developing a cancer from the fallout. Three Mile Island was, shall we say, a bit more contained. Again, perform a body count as with Chernobyl.
Now compare this to the direct and undisputed lives lost do to coal mining and use. I suspect if you took an "third party" (alien if you like) and gave them the data and an options, they'd consider the coal option insane by comparison. Most people I show the data to agree. It's usually a "WTF?!" moment. The rest simply refuse to believe we haven't had more accidents that we just don't know about, or decide to go research it on their own (yay!). They have all come back from their own research in agreeent.
It is all about the assumptions. Considering: "The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 31% above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 420,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."
The historical average, called the "stable level" is about 280ppm. The highest *recent* peak we've seen is, IIRC, 380ppm. There is nothing to indicate, even current levels and rates of increase, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels over the next decade or two, let alone the next 100 years is a realistic assumption. Yet that does not stop the modellers. From what we've been able to determine, atmospheric CO2 levels started their rise in 1750. I haven't seen many 1750 cars in the record books. Though I think I spotted an SUV in some of the art from the American Revolution. See, we started right out of the gate.;)
The average long term rate of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1.5ppm. BTW, that figure is also true for 2004: 1.5ppm. Out of some 350 (1958) to 380 (2005) ppm, that is nowhere near the levels required to double atmospheric concentration in 70 years, or quadruple in 140.
How long those increases would take is an exercise left to the reader. Hint: the windows are in the centuries ranges. Yet nearly every single "model" showing more than a degree or so of increase over the next century uses a minimum assumption of "doubling the CO2" over that timeframe.
Historically, a change in atmospheric CO2 levels such as we've seen in the 20th century is not without precedent.
This is important to the subejct at hand because from the first link:
For the IPCC scenario of doubling CO2 within the next 70 years (red line) the thermohaline circulation was only temporarily reduced (by a factor of 30% in the first 100 years).
Also:
Idealized model studies show indeed, that regular and irregular oscillatory behavior in the thermohaline circulation can exist with time scales of approximately 20 to 50 years. However their existence in the real climate system is still unclear.
Translation: in models we set up this happened. We've yet to find it in real life. We're working on figuring out why.
Furthermore, reading that first link, they used a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 levels to get thermohaline cycle shutdown. And it took 140 years. To wit:
It shows that the thermohaline circulation not only reduces, but may shut-down completely under "strong" global warming with a fourfold increase of CO2 concentration within the next 140 years.
"fourfold increase". Since a doubling is unrealistic, a fourfold is beyond mere fiction, bordering on fantasy.
Adding to the mix is the fact that there are dramatic temperature swings in Earth's past without the increase in CO2 levels, as well as dramatic swings in CO2 levels w/o significant temperature changes. I've seen many models that appear to show how something happened in the past, but when the data of the period is used, the models are not in agreement. Again it all goes back to what you set the initial conditions as, as well as the assumptions you use for the change from initial conditions.
Models are a great tool to research complex behaviour. But those that use their findings blindly as fact are bound to be humiliated.
with GBW in power there will be another oil shock - that's why I bought a Prius (and I had no waiting and paid under MSRP too) - he has his eyes on Iran, I have mine on my pocket book
Should have gone with the Toyota Echo then.;) It is rated at 41MPG vs. the Prius' alleged 51, and costs about 7 grand less (base). You can buy a lot of gas for $7,000.
At 15,000 miles/year the Echo will cost approximately 365 gallons in fuel per year. The Prius will require 294gal/year (assuming both live up to their EPA claims). So call it 71 gallons/year savings.
At $2.50/gal that comes out to a savings of (71*2.5) 177.5.
In other words, it'd take you 39.4 years to recover the cost, not accounting for interest on the $7,000 you are likely to pay. If you keep the car for 10 years you paid over $7,000 (probably closer to 9-10K after interest) to "save" $1,775. Assuming a five year loan at zero interest, 7000 comes out to 116 bucks/month. So in that scenario you would be 117.5 - 1400 = negative $1,282.5 per year.
How about 5 bucks per gallon? 71*5 = $357.50 per year fuel cost savings. Ok, so you are down to 19.6 years to recover the cost, and still paying more per year than the Echo would have cost you.
If the Echo is to "base" for you, you could have saved about 4K and gone with the Corolla - it's rated at 40MPG, so it's not much different in fuel costs vs. the Echo.
You can have many reasons to buy a Prius. But to say it is because it saves you money due to it's alleged fuel economy (even if face value was real world!) is naive and incorrect. You may want to consider taking your eyes of your pocketbook once in a while to look at the numbers.;) Oh, and used is a lot easier on the pocketbook too.:)
There are many ways to save money. But spending over 7 grand over 5 years to "save" less than 200/year isn't one of them.
EPA estimates have never been really useful indicators of real-world results, nor were they intended to be.
Correct. in fact, the EPA tests...now get this... do not test fuel economy. Seriously. Never have.
What they do provide is a car-to-car comparison that is consistent regardless of driving style, load, weather or other conditions.
What they do is measure emissions and figure that to produce X level of emissions, you burn Y amount of gas. That's it. Been that way since the 70's.
This is one reason why so many hybrid owners (I know many) get upset when the advertised MPG is not acheived, or even close in many cases. If a vehicle burns cleaner, it will get a higher MPG rating, even for using the same amount of fuel as a less-clean one.
And federal law requires the advertisements use EPA figures, not their own or real world testing. So in other words, the EPA forces auto makers to falsely advertise.
Hybrids throw a monkeywrench into the mix, so we'll probably see an adjustment to the EPA methodology at some point.
So far, the EPA is claiming no need to make any changes. After all, you shouldn't take their figures as representative of what vehicles get, so why change?
They provide all these reasons for the cost of fuel prices to support thier position but neglect to add that they were there when the gas price was 75 cents cheaper per gallon. I know this is a little off topic.
Actually this is not accurate. Indeed, last year the FedGov increased the requirements on various content requirements. Many of these requirements flat our eliminated a massive portion of the gasoline imports we had been getting (yes, we import gas). This caused a significant reduction in supply. I'm sure you know what happens with sudden supply drops. This is but one glaring example.
Besides, something you missed in your comparison is the rise in prices/wages overall. Adjusted for inflation, the prices are not the 2.5-3x higher that raw figures indicate. They are only marginally higher.
That said, much of the increase crude prices are due to speculation; just as if they were stocks. People buying and selling shares of oil based on what they think the prices will do.
now back to the topic.;) 'm sure there are quite a few vehicles that don't have these new feature but they started using them a whiile ago. Most cars older then 10 years should have some if not all. The newer models would be better off in some cases though. It is dificult to determine if any statistic could acuratley protray all the factors involved.
No, one stat can not indicate it. People have become addited to singlenumberitis: the fixation on a single number/stat as if it is the only important one. Yes, newer cars are safer. Sadly, many government policies fail to account for teh variances in vehicles. Newer cars are in nearly every state more costly to insure. Despite the fact that they are less costly to have on the road than a given older model (not talking payments here but socio-economic costs).
Older cars pollute more. Older cars have a higher risk of serious injury in accidents (the crush zone thing). Yet the various governments in their "tax the rich" mentality that we the people love to buy into insist on making newer cars pay more for being on the road. This can mean over a hundred dollars difference per year in some cases. Those on the margin of being able to afford the newer models are crowded out and stuck driving older, dirtier, and less safe vehicles.
However.... The amount of protection seen with these systems could vary enough to make it almost impossable to factor in and provide much more then an educated guess.
I can't agree here. In their drive to make money the insurance industries have squeezed a lot of statistical data out. The incidence of injury due to "non standard" accidents is quite minor, and may even be statistically insignificant, or barely significant at most.
Yes, it is important to clarify the difference between accident rate and death rate. When referring to freeway speed limit changes and their effect on accidents/deaths, it is also vital to compare freeway-only accidents to freeway-only accidents. Indeed, this would effectively factor out the "non standard" accident types you refer to. At least, in the case of freeway accidents.
The launch vehicle will be a derivative of existing expendable launchers and wont have anything close to the power of a Saturn V
You do realize the SatV was not a LEO launch craft, right? If used in LEO mode and all three stages the SatV could put 130 tons of *payload* in orbit. The shuttle can not do that. Weight-wise the SatV could put the shuttle in orbit. With payload.
The Shuttle can put a mere 24 tons of payload into LEO (Columbia was higher but they lowered it). That is within the (estimated) range of the Atlas V heavy. It is also within the range of the Delta IV Heavy.
Do you not also realize a SatV powered launch will put a crew of 4-6 on Mars for two years in a sizable hab?
IIRC, the science lab proposed for ISS (Italian?) was 26 tons which actually puts it out of the Shuttle's official limits.
You don't *need* to replace a 25 tons to LEO payload capacity craft with one that can put 125 tons of payload to LEO.
On the other hand, a SatV lift capability could likely launch several modules for the ISS if you could get the positioning and balance right.
so every mission profile beyond putting a tin can in LEO requires multiple launches and docking all the pieces in orbit.
You do realize that is what the Shuttle does regarding ISS, right? We put a "tin can" into orbit and then hook them up. ISS is taking, and was always designed to take, multiple launches and on-orbit assembly.
Both the Atlas V heavy and the Delta IV heavy have diameters of 5 meters. Even the Atlas V (non-heavy) can lift approximately as much as the Shuttle to LEO and has a meter on it in diamter as well. The Atlas V is a current model.
Also, the ISS was never designed to be built using only the shuttle. Of the 50 initially determined flights, only 39 were shuttle flights.
The high-side estimates for re-developing the SatV for today's use is in the range of 1.5-2.25 billion dollars. That is less than the MSL will cost. That is less than the cost of say 4-6 launches of the shuttle. A seat of the pants guesstimate is that a single SatV ISS lift launch would be able to replace a minimum of four modules. With crew. so if the cost to the first launch of a new SatV was 3 million the first launch of four ISS modules would replace 4 Shuttle launches at an estimated cost of about 1.6 to 2 billion dollars. That means if you then launch another set of 4 modules, you just came out ahead, as the subsequent launches don't cost the full redevelopment costs.
That said, just because the ISS has turned out the be the collossal money pit/failure many of us knew it was destined to be is no reason to throw good money after bad. Most other nations invovled in it would actually love it if it was cancelled. Some can't seem to meet their end of the deal.
Point to point works extremely well for US travel, but once you need to go international, the hub and spoke system is a necessity,
It also has been working much better for Europe than the spoke and hub model. Last I checked, going from Germany to France is still an international flight.
Perhaps you meant to say "...once you need to cross very large bodies of water with no ability to stop in between..."?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see an example of non-trivial software that doesn't need patches. Thanks.
The OP didn't say non-trivial. You are adding conditions in a poor attempt to demonstrate the OP was clueless.
Peoples' fond memories of the original SW movies, the plot/characters of which were somewhat cliche as far as sci-fi movies go, only proves the point. Luke was the naive hero, Han the roguish "wild card", Leia the "damsel in distress", Vader the evil villain. What matters, however, is that Lucas honed each part to near-perfection, such that the characters were so believable and *human* that they didn't *seem* like stereotypes. I believe that it's this element that is sorely missing from the prequels, but that's another rant altogether!
I would only add that it is more than the prequels that have this problem today. Sadly, most movies that use any archetypes (and few don't) fail to provide this crucial element.
> or it ends up on a site like Slashdot
Yeah, but how often does *that* happen?
Well if it happens once, it is bound to happen again a few days later.
*ducks*
That's what I think, too. However, note that the MySQL documentation explicitly states that it is their position that if your program is accessing the MySQL port, even remotely, then it is subject to GPL restrictions, unless you buy MySQL's commercial license.
IF it says it, it is wrong. However, I can't find where it states that so it's all speculation anyway.
So if a MS employee was caught reverse engineering code, it's ok?
You can't reverse engineer code. A product, a service, an API, a protocol, a process, etc.; yes. Code, no.
and potentially illegal as well
You post is potentially illegal.
They are looking to see if you MIGHT be an open HTTP relay.
Against medical testing? Because they harm animals for human profit.
w ww.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp
...
Yet IIRC, isn't the Number 2 person at PETA taking Insulin that is not only a result of animl research, but contains animal products?
The fundamental philosophy of the most vocal group of "environmentalists" is that I should treat the planet (or something) as being more important than human life.
--
Kindly name them. I'd LOVE to see an official quote where PETA says that we should kill humans to make room for wolves.
Ah posit a known false statement as if it were proof. This is a twisted strawman argument. The OP claim was that some "environmentalists" value "the planet" as equal to or greater than human life. Instead of addressing it, you bring in PETA, and act as if the OP was sayign PETA says humans should be killed to save wolves. Interesting choice:
"Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?" is on their pager right here: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp
And the answer was:
"Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally-challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights. But when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights while animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good."
This answer does in fact state a position that animals are mroe valuable than humans. Reverse their argument and it becomes this: 10,000 humans should die to save ten animals. That is a direct value assessment. 1 animal is worth 1000 humans in that equation.
Now they've removed the "No." from the beginning.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040416145443/http://
Shows the first answer.
This merely means they place animals as equal to humans in value. They also compare hunters to Dahlmer.
They say that animals have rights that can't be sacrificed because they can't understand them. That it is wrong to declaw a cat; they have rights dammit!
Then they are in favor of "fixing" cats and dogs to prevent them from giving birth. What happened to those "rights"?
"the most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals" --PETA FAQ
If we follow their practice of comparing animals to retarded humans when asked questions, then they should believe in sterilizing retarded humans.
"Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?" they ask, the implication beimg "hell no"
Yet
"However, animals don't always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals." --same page as the question.
And back to the OP's point:
http://www.vhemt.org/
"The Movement doesn't even favor wanted pregnancies."
This specifically addresses the OP's claim. A group of "environmentalists" who value "the planet" above human life.
I agree. I think the Linux community is shooting themselves in the foot by pissing on every embedded systems manufacturer that decides to use Linux.
Which, of course, explains why more and more embedded devices are moving to Linux.
IF the company is in violation of the license agreement, then it is NOT pissing on the company to point it out, questions it, and if needs be to take them to court over it.
Do you seriously believe that if you got access to WIndowsCE source via a license, then violated the license that Microsft would just go "aww shucks fellas" and move on? No. They would rightfully have an actionable case and could rightfully pursue it. If they have reason to believe, particularly by statements made by the company, that the license agreement may have been violated, then they have reason to question.
The same is true with regards to the GPL, or even the GPL, or anyother license. And if you think that the "evil nasty nazi proprietary embedded OS vendors" do not take steps to determine if a license has been complied with let us just say you are entitled to your beliefs and opinion, but that doesn't make them correct.
No team is allowed to recompile anything or to use any drivers, etc not available from a public server for the past 12 months. This might sound like a bad deal for Linux, but it will also stop Microsoft from re-writing the drivers. Again, most companies do not have access to that level of expertise so that won't be allowed.
;)
This (and partially #2) is the only one I have any real contention over. I understand the intent, but believe it fails to deliver. I actually think this to be unfair to both sides. Perhaps 3 months, but certainly not a year. Bugfixes, etc. known and released in the last two/three monhs should be allowed. Most companies running Linux in high performance production environments do have access to peolpe who can add compiler flags, type make && make install, etc..
#2 has a minor objection because much/most of the Linux software is not purchased.
Alright guys, this means we will have it around 2015 for about $750 million.
That is still cheap compared to STS.
1750 happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution in Europe where people started large scale burning of coal. Which would increase the amount of atmospheric CO2.
Yes, it does. But the history records of coal production do not reliably show mass use of coal in until the late 1800's. But for sake of argument, we'll leave the 1750 date alone for now.
According to prevailing carbon cycle change windows, *if* one attributes *all* of the increase in CO2 levels since 1750 to humans, we are currently seeing the effects of coal -if at all. Several of the anthropogenic GW proponents (Mann refers to them as "advocates") claim it takes several hundred to a few thousand years to see any thermal effects. This is important for future projects because coal is not only not in the rise, it has been slowly declining overall. We may "have plenty of coal" but the cost of coal is getting ridiculously cheap which means a lower investment in it.
Now if you look at your data (380 - 280)/ (2005 - 1750) = 100ppm / 255 years or 0.4 PPM / year which is much lower than 1.5ppm. But last year was 1.5 PPM so what's going on? Well I guess the rate is increasing over time. So I guess someone looking at your data would assume that over the next 70 years we will increase by more than 1.5PPM / year.
If someone looks at this post as being the data, then they can assume anything they like. That's why one should actually look into the historical data for themselves. For example, your simple math above demonstrates a failure to understand the data given, let alone additional data. No, that's not intended as an insult.
Yes, the rate may increasing (there are very large swings in the annual rates and the overall trend over teh last several decades is down), but what your simple calulation above fails to account for is the rate of change. I'm sure you'll agree with that.
There are a few key points to remember. The modellers don't start at 1750, no. They start at the year they do the modelling. So when a modelling done in 2004 against "current" data is done, and they refer to a doubling of CO2 levels, they are talking about doubling 2004's CO levels, not 1750's. Many IPCC models start at 1990.
To double say 380 in 70 years is 380ppm of increase. Over 70 years, that is an increase of 5.43ppm year, a rate 3.62 times higher than our current one. Is this likely scenario? No. To match that would require a complete and utter replication of the industrial revolution, assuming humans are the sole cause. But what of your exponential increase idea? Well, mathematically it may be possible (I didn't say it wasn't, just that it isn't likely given what we do know) but remember mathematically bumble bees can't fly. You have to put down the calulator and look at what is going on, both historically and currently.
There is a lot of evidence to indicate we are not the sole cause of CO2 level increases. Indeed, looking solely at the CO2 level history of the last 400K years tells us we simply can not be the sole cause.
CO2 levels cycle on large swing basis approximately every 95K years. I'm sure we can all agree humans were not mass burning coal or driving around in cars in enough quantities to possibly have an affect on global CO2 levels ~95K, ~190K, and ~285K years ago, let alone 400K years ago. So clearly, we are not the sole cause.
Examining that historical record shows pretty consistent swings of about 100-200ppm over 400K years, and 120ppm upward swings since then reaching 300ppm well before humans were doing anything substantial with coal or oil. Indeed, examining the data and cycle immediately prior to 1750 shows us as already in one of those upward swings by 1750. In other words, the rise in CO2 levels began before the industrial revolution. And it was not a "slow gentle rise" It was dramatic, very much so. Just as it has been each cycle.
Knowing that the upward swings have historically reached 280-ish to 300ppm, at best you'd have to start anthropogenic i
Actually, they do so it, with regards to their own tests results anyway. From the EPA fuel economy site:
OK, so somehow estimating the fuel used is more accurate than actually measuring the fuel consumption. But then they follow it up immediately with this statement:
So much for the alleged accuracy of estimating by carbon expulsion vs. actual measurements. Being off by 10% and 22% is a pretty gross inaccuracy.
The absurdity of their method is demonstarted even more by the ubiquity of OBD-II port diagnostics which can measure the actual fuel used, and even compare this to actual miles driven. My car has one of these (it's 6 years old in a few months so this isn't exactly new and rare) and has the ability to calulate fuel economy by using the above method.
I've compared it to the "old fashioned" way of recording miles vs. fuel put in the car. It's pretty damned accurate. I get mid-to upper twenties most of the time. That's with zero highway miles -- all in town traffic. Well that and some autocrossing. When I do take a trip on the freeway I average in the thirties. In non-mountainous areas I've approached high thirties. Not too bad for a 6 year old V8.
The records I keep can be deemed "scientific", as can many of the individual tests I've conducted. But they are still one man's experiences. To be statistically significant (which is what people mean by "scientific") this would need to be replicated.
On the other hand, my big SUV (Suburban) gets nearly 70 miles per gallon of gasoline. Yup. That "big nasty SUV" burns less "fossil fuel" than any of the hybrids in that list even if we accept them at face value. And it cost me zero extra dollars for that over the regular price. It will be even better when GM puts out the E85 powered Hybrids. No significant boost in MPG I figure, but it will just be plain cool to have 110 outlets it the burb, and no need for toting around a generator for camping. Oh yeah.
Then you should consider converting your 69 Impala to E85. It will possibly pollute less than the Prius. In your case it should primarily be a matter of a stainless steel fuel tank, properly lined gas lines, and tuning it properly.
Alternate options would include adding a fuel injection system to it.
Or you could really throw them for a loop. Buy a new Tahoe with the E85 capable engine (std. equipment on the half-tons). It burns less gasoline than a Prius or any hyrbid car/truck on the market. Burns cleaner too, putting out less harmful emissions per mile than the hybrids.
And then there is the fact that 85% of your fuel is renewable, and closed loop with regards to the carbon cycle. The hybrids can't say that.
See, you can shock and educate them at the same time.
when this article was at around 75 comments posted, I'd say I saw many more pro-Groklaw posts modded up to 5 than criticisms...
Which could also be do to the criticisms being invalid. Simply stating that posts advocating Groklaw's "correctness" or factual superiority are modded up more than those saying the same about the Reg article as evidence of an "echo chamber" is shoddy argument. It may well be the case that the posts about the veracity of groklaw over thregister are correct by and large.
I really think you are marginalizing the dangers of nuclear waste and nuclear accidents too much, but I'll agree that ultimately both are manageable.
Not really. The actual risk of nuclear power plants is quite small. Stack the lives lost by every single nuclear accident or byproduct storage, or even the theoretical lives lost (which is actually zero so feel free to not do that) due to working in the industry over the last 50 years against a decade or even a few years of coal.
Chernobyl was the classic case of the big nasty happening. Yet the lives lost due to it are suprisingly very small. Even factoring in the increased *risk* of developing a cancer from the fallout. Three Mile Island was, shall we say, a bit more contained. Again, perform a body count as with Chernobyl.
Now compare this to the direct and undisputed lives lost do to coal mining and use. I suspect if you took an "third party" (alien if you like) and gave them the data and an options, they'd consider the coal option insane by comparison. Most people I show the data to agree. It's usually a "WTF?!" moment. The rest simply refuse to believe we haven't had more accidents that we just don't know about, or decide to go research it on their own (yay!). They have all come back from their own research in agreeent.
Considering:
"The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 31% above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 420,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."
The historical average, called the "stable level" is about 280ppm. The highest *recent* peak we've seen is, IIRC, 380ppm. There is nothing to indicate, even current levels and rates of increase, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels over the next decade or two, let alone the next 100 years is a realistic assumption. Yet that does not stop the modellers. From what we've been able to determine, atmospheric CO2 levels started their rise in 1750. I haven't seen many 1750 cars in the record books. Though I think I spotted an SUV in some of the art from the American Revolution. See, we started right out of the gate.
The average long term rate of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1.5ppm. BTW, that figure is also true for 2004: 1.5ppm. Out of some 350 (1958) to 380 (2005) ppm, that is nowhere near the levels required to double atmospheric concentration in 70 years, or quadruple in 140.
How long those increases would take is an exercise left to the reader. Hint: the windows are in the centuries ranges. Yet nearly every single "model" showing more than a degree or so of increase over the next century uses a minimum assumption of "doubling the CO2" over that timeframe.
Historically, a change in atmospheric CO2 levels such as we've seen in the 20th century is not without precedent.
This is important to the subejct at hand because from the first link:
Also:
Translation: in models we set up this happened. We've yet to find it in real life. We're working on figuring out why.
Furthermore, reading that first link, they used a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 levels to get thermohaline cycle shutdown. And it took 140 years. To wit:
"fourfold increase". Since a doubling is unrealistic, a fourfold is beyond mere fiction, bordering on fantasy.
Adding to the mix is the fact that there are dramatic temperature swings in Earth's past without the increase in CO2 levels, as well as dramatic swings in CO2 levels w/o significant temperature changes. I've seen many models that appear to show how something happened in the past, but when the data of the period is used, the models are not in agreement. Again it all goes back to what you set the initial conditions as, as well as the assumptions you use for the change from initial conditions.
Models are a great tool to research complex behaviour. But those that use their findings blindly as fact are bound to be humiliated.
Amen.
with GBW in power there will be another oil shock - that's why I bought a Prius (and I had no waiting and paid under MSRP too) - he has his eyes on Iran, I have mine on my pocket book
;) It is rated at 41MPG vs. the Prius' alleged 51, and costs about 7 grand less (base). You can buy a lot of gas for $7,000.
;) Oh, and used is a lot easier on the pocketbook too. :)
Should have gone with the Toyota Echo then.
At 15,000 miles/year the Echo will cost approximately 365 gallons in fuel per year. The Prius will require 294gal/year (assuming both live up to their EPA claims). So call it 71 gallons/year savings.
At $2.50/gal that comes out to a savings of (71*2.5) 177.5.
In other words, it'd take you 39.4 years to recover the cost, not accounting for interest on the $7,000 you are likely to pay. If you keep the car for 10 years you paid over $7,000 (probably closer to 9-10K after interest) to "save" $1,775. Assuming a five year loan at zero interest, 7000 comes out to 116 bucks/month. So in that scenario you would be 117.5 - 1400 = negative $1,282.5 per year.
How about 5 bucks per gallon?
71*5 = $357.50 per year fuel cost savings. Ok, so you are down to 19.6 years to recover the cost, and still paying more per year than the Echo would have cost you.
If the Echo is to "base" for you, you could have saved about 4K and gone with the Corolla - it's rated at 40MPG, so it's not much different in fuel costs vs. the Echo.
You can have many reasons to buy a Prius. But to say it is because it saves you money due to it's alleged fuel economy (even if face value was real world!) is naive and incorrect. You may want to consider taking your eyes of your pocketbook once in a while to look at the numbers.
There are many ways to save money. But spending over 7 grand over 5 years to "save" less than 200/year isn't one of them.
Cheers
EPA estimates have never been really useful indicators of real-world results, nor were they intended to be.
...now get this ... do not test fuel economy. Seriously. Never have.
Correct. in fact, the EPA tests
What they do provide is a car-to-car comparison that is consistent regardless of driving style, load, weather or other conditions.
What they do is measure emissions and figure that to produce X level of emissions, you burn Y amount of gas. That's it. Been that way since the 70's.
This is one reason why so many hybrid owners (I know many) get upset when the advertised MPG is not acheived, or even close in many cases. If a vehicle burns cleaner, it will get a higher MPG rating, even for using the same amount of fuel as a less-clean one.
And federal law requires the advertisements use EPA figures, not their own or real world testing. So in other words, the EPA forces auto makers to falsely advertise.
Hybrids throw a monkeywrench into the mix, so we'll probably see an adjustment to the EPA methodology at some point.
So far, the EPA is claiming no need to make any changes. After all, you shouldn't take their figures as representative of what vehicles get, so why change?
They provide all these reasons for the cost of fuel prices to support thier position but neglect to add that they were there when the gas price was 75 cents cheaper per gallon. I know this is a little off topic.
;)
....
Actually this is not accurate. Indeed, last year the FedGov increased the requirements on various content requirements. Many of these requirements flat our eliminated a massive portion of the gasoline imports we had been getting (yes, we import gas). This caused a significant reduction in supply. I'm sure you know what happens with sudden supply drops. This is but one glaring example.
Besides, something you missed in your comparison is the rise in prices/wages overall. Adjusted for inflation, the prices are not the 2.5-3x higher that raw figures indicate. They are only marginally higher.
That said, much of the increase crude prices are due to speculation; just as if they were stocks. People buying and selling shares of oil based on what they think the prices will do.
now back to the topic.
'm sure there are quite a few vehicles that don't have these new feature but they started using them a whiile ago. Most cars older then 10 years should have some if not all. The newer models would be better off in some cases though. It is dificult to determine if any statistic could acuratley protray all the factors involved.
No, one stat can not indicate it. People have become addited to singlenumberitis: the fixation on a single number/stat as if it is the only important one. Yes, newer cars are safer. Sadly, many government policies fail to account for teh variances in vehicles. Newer cars are in nearly every state more costly to insure. Despite the fact that they are less costly to have on the road than a given older model (not talking payments here but socio-economic costs).
Older cars pollute more. Older cars have a higher risk of serious injury in accidents (the crush zone thing). Yet the various governments in their "tax the rich" mentality that we the people love to buy into insist on making newer cars pay more for being on the road. This can mean over a hundred dollars difference per year in some cases. Those on the margin of being able to afford the newer models are crowded out and stuck driving older, dirtier, and less safe vehicles.
However
The amount of protection seen with these systems could vary enough to make it almost impossable to factor in and provide much more then an educated guess.
I can't agree here. In their drive to make money the insurance industries have squeezed a lot of statistical data out. The incidence of injury due to "non standard" accidents is quite minor, and may even be statistically insignificant, or barely significant at most.
Yes, it is important to clarify the difference between accident rate and death rate. When referring to freeway speed limit changes and their effect on accidents/deaths, it is also vital to compare freeway-only accidents to freeway-only accidents. Indeed, this would effectively factor out the "non standard" accident types you refer to. At least, in the case of freeway accidents.
The launch vehicle will be a derivative of existing expendable launchers and wont have anything close to the power of a Saturn V
You do realize the SatV was not a LEO launch craft, right? If used in LEO mode and all three stages the SatV could put 130 tons of *payload* in orbit. The shuttle can not do that. Weight-wise the SatV could put the shuttle in orbit. With payload.
The Shuttle can put a mere 24 tons of payload into LEO (Columbia was higher but they lowered it). That is within the (estimated) range of the Atlas V heavy. It is also within the range of the Delta IV Heavy.
Do you not also realize a SatV powered launch will put a crew of 4-6 on Mars for two years in a sizable hab?
IIRC, the science lab proposed for ISS (Italian?) was 26 tons which actually puts it out of the Shuttle's official limits.
You don't *need* to replace a 25 tons to LEO payload capacity craft with one that can put 125 tons of payload to LEO.
On the other hand, a SatV lift capability could likely launch several modules for the ISS if you could get the positioning and balance right.
so every mission profile beyond putting a tin can in LEO requires multiple launches and docking all the pieces in orbit.
You do realize that is what the Shuttle does regarding ISS, right? We put a "tin can" into orbit and then hook them up. ISS is taking, and was always designed to take, multiple launches and on-orbit assembly.
Further, the Shuttle limits the diameter of cargo to 4 meters. SatV had a 10 meter capability.
http://www.answers.com/topic/saturn-v
Both the Atlas V heavy and the Delta IV heavy have diameters of 5 meters. Even the Atlas V (non-heavy) can lift approximately as much as the Shuttle to LEO and has a meter on it in diamter as well. The Atlas V is a current model.
Also, the ISS was never designed to be built using only the shuttle. Of the 50 initially determined flights, only 39 were shuttle flights.
The high-side estimates for re-developing the SatV for today's use is in the range of 1.5-2.25 billion dollars. That is less than the MSL will cost. That is less than the cost of say 4-6 launches of the shuttle. A seat of the pants guesstimate is that a single SatV ISS lift launch would be able to replace a minimum of four modules. With crew. so if the cost to the first launch of a new SatV was 3 million the first launch of four ISS modules would replace 4 Shuttle launches at an estimated cost of about 1.6 to 2 billion dollars. That means if you then launch another set of 4 modules, you just came out ahead, as the subsequent launches don't cost the full redevelopment costs.
That said, just because the ISS has turned out the be the collossal money pit/failure many of us knew it was destined to be is no reason to throw good money after bad. Most other nations invovled in it would actually love it if it was cancelled. Some can't seem to meet their end of the deal.
I mean, it's not like we're dealing with the most complex machine ever built or anything... ... actually it isn't the most complex machine ever built.
All I can say is, for Boeing to be right an awful lot of people need to be very wrong about the way the world is going.
It's more than just Boeing. The trend over the last decade has been to smaller more direct flights. Boeing isn't exactly being visionary here.
The A380 with 550 passengers on board uses 3 litres of fuel per passenger per 100km - on par with a good economy car. Its also quieter.
;)
I'd bet it isn't quieter than most cars, particularly a "good economy car".
Finally a plane your mom can fit on...
Not if your mom is alread on the plane. Oh wait that was improper of me. Yo momma still can't get on that plane and get in the air.
Point to point works extremely well for US travel, but once you need to go international, the hub and spoke system is a necessity,
It also has been working much better for Europe than the spoke and hub model. Last I checked, going from Germany to France is still an international flight.
Perhaps you meant to say "...once you need to cross very large bodies of water with no ability to stop in between..."?