Your arguments are arbitrary and ridiculous.
For starters your second paragraph discounts the argument of the first paragraph, that is that the words are too complicated. As you've denoted, people shorthand the more common terms to a point that even those who don't use the measurement understand the shorthand. Also prefixes make way more sense than placing the modifier at the end. It's pretty standard, for example 'vicet' modifies 'president'. I assume you've never argued in favour of switching verbiage to president-vice.
The third paragraph is the worst. You conveniently pick pound and gram to compare instead of ounce or ton (of course specifying short ton versus the more established long ton). More over the convenient conversion factors allow ready visualization of more abstract quantities. Quick, visualize 1000 quarts. I have no idea what you thought of, but 1000 litres is a cubic meter. Simple. Also to clarify your confusion. The litre is a cubic decimetre because the foundation of the metric system is water. 1 millilitre of water weighs 1 gram and occupies a cubic centimetre. With the base unit being set to the more common lengths.
You contradict yourself in the fourth paragraph (humans think in sixes, but somehow inch to foot makes more sense than dm to m). Also a mile isn't a thousand paces. It was, but that changed (but not the word) to 8 furlongs, a furlong being 40 rods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement
I understand the appeal of wanting to visualize measures but what is the imperial unit for measuring the atomic or the astronomic. They don't exist, but if they did, they wouldn't have visual meaning. In your existing method, there is one set of visualisations for weights, one for volumes another for lengths, which makes conversion a nightmare, as discussed above.
As to your last paragraph, the imperial system was imposed on the British and consequently on you. YOU ARE USING REMNANTS OF THE BRITISH SYSTEM FROM A TYRANNY THAT YOU OVER THREW HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. Get over yourselves, it's not like America made some wonderful system and the evil French are out to get you.
Interesting definition of Feudalism, but if that's how you want to define it, then yes. The average person is to stupid to make reasonable decisions on complex matters. Much more obvious problems are shown by the tech bubble or sub-prime mortgages, or not seeming to care about their grand children's finances as they dig a deeper and deeper whole for them to climb out of. Finances are a very easy thing to grasp and people make incredibly stupid decisions based on a combination of ignorance and gullibility. And those ignorant asses affect me and you, so please don't expect me to think that Joe Average is going to make great decisions about complex science and statistics, in particular when the major effect is going to be on the next generation after them. They'll grasp any evidence that supports their initial belief which ultimately will be about their personal finances, or what their religious or political leaders tell them, or saving the forest, or whatever their ideology is. Even worse is that they get to impact people in other countries that are to poor too make such decisions.
Your worthless semantics would have any solution to a non-testable hypothesis be a religion. For a limited example, all Christians would also have to define themselves as non-Islamic and non-Buddhist and non-Pagan, and so on.
I'd assert that what you've written has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Religion is a societal experience and not a set of ideas. That is it is impossible to be religious by yourself, rather it requires a group interaction.
It's not like the post says no jail time for rape. In my opinion, sentencing for rehabilitation is a much more effective system. Then people actually have to make a change before release. Right now, you have the option of waiting out a sentence.
The ICGC's policies and guidelines are very specific, http://icgc.org/icgc_document/policies_and_guidelines/
"The objective of ICGC policy regarding intellectual property (IP) policy is to maximize public benefit from data produced by the Consortium. It is the view of the ICGC members that this goal is achieved if the data remain publicly accessible without any restrictions."
You are the problem.
Idiots like you will believe anything that puts them at ease. You are talking about emails (out of context) between people that you had probably never heard of at a place you probably didn't know existed doing research you still don't understand. You aren't even curious as to why the leak didn't include all the emails with links to what they felt were relevant instead of the selective leak you read. That is because what you read put you at ease. A handful of scientists wrote some things that sound dodgy, therefore all scientific input that agrees with their central point is invalid. Problem solved.
Let's start with this, "power grab" over global warming. When did that begin? What I'm getting at is that decades of research exists and those grants were issued by people in the job years before that. So unless the current legislative body owns a time machine, they couldn't have controlled the grant process decades ago. I'm certain that congress tries to grab as much power as possible, but it sure as shit isn't through grants.
You misread the paragraph you're quoting. It doesn't dismiss the guy because he doesn't have a doctorate degree, he dismisses him because he doesn't understand what he is arguing about.
Just look at the stupid graph he puts at the front showing actual cooling instead of warming at the site. The guy admits in his "research" that the station moved and that adjustment makes sense to him (since it is essentially two completely different data sets at that point), but doesn't add that variation to his graph. Why? Because the graph would still show a trend upwards even without all of the other adjustments.
The numbers aren't even comparable. Scientists have to actually spend the money on research and Institutes spend it on themselves I guess since their contribution to science is about a half hour figuring out the pieces of data to isolate and blow out of proportion.
Slashdot Mirror
You should probably read your next employment contract.
Your arguments are arbitrary and ridiculous. For starters your second paragraph discounts the argument of the first paragraph, that is that the words are too complicated. As you've denoted, people shorthand the more common terms to a point that even those who don't use the measurement understand the shorthand. Also prefixes make way more sense than placing the modifier at the end. It's pretty standard, for example 'vicet' modifies 'president'. I assume you've never argued in favour of switching verbiage to president-vice. The third paragraph is the worst. You conveniently pick pound and gram to compare instead of ounce or ton (of course specifying short ton versus the more established long ton). More over the convenient conversion factors allow ready visualization of more abstract quantities. Quick, visualize 1000 quarts. I have no idea what you thought of, but 1000 litres is a cubic meter. Simple. Also to clarify your confusion. The litre is a cubic decimetre because the foundation of the metric system is water. 1 millilitre of water weighs 1 gram and occupies a cubic centimetre. With the base unit being set to the more common lengths. You contradict yourself in the fourth paragraph (humans think in sixes, but somehow inch to foot makes more sense than dm to m). Also a mile isn't a thousand paces. It was, but that changed (but not the word) to 8 furlongs, a furlong being 40 rods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement I understand the appeal of wanting to visualize measures but what is the imperial unit for measuring the atomic or the astronomic. They don't exist, but if they did, they wouldn't have visual meaning. In your existing method, there is one set of visualisations for weights, one for volumes another for lengths, which makes conversion a nightmare, as discussed above. As to your last paragraph, the imperial system was imposed on the British and consequently on you. YOU ARE USING REMNANTS OF THE BRITISH SYSTEM FROM A TYRANNY THAT YOU OVER THREW HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. Get over yourselves, it's not like America made some wonderful system and the evil French are out to get you.
Apparently you missed the global recession. How was that coma?
Way to parse statements and present that as evidence of poor moderation.
Interesting definition of Feudalism, but if that's how you want to define it, then yes. The average person is to stupid to make reasonable decisions on complex matters. Much more obvious problems are shown by the tech bubble or sub-prime mortgages, or not seeming to care about their grand children's finances as they dig a deeper and deeper whole for them to climb out of. Finances are a very easy thing to grasp and people make incredibly stupid decisions based on a combination of ignorance and gullibility. And those ignorant asses affect me and you, so please don't expect me to think that Joe Average is going to make great decisions about complex science and statistics, in particular when the major effect is going to be on the next generation after them. They'll grasp any evidence that supports their initial belief which ultimately will be about their personal finances, or what their religious or political leaders tell them, or saving the forest, or whatever their ideology is. Even worse is that they get to impact people in other countries that are to poor too make such decisions.
The company doesn't need to pay the going rate because this guy is doing it for less.
Which is why I can buy ibuprofen everywhere.
But in order to receive an organ, orthodox jews would have to consider themselves accessories to murder after the fact. Double Standard.
Local scale coastal features are more than likely nowhere near where they were 100 years ago. The mountains I like though.
Since you didn't read the article, the insurance company argued the cost down to 247k of the original bill of 618k.
Additionally, universal education all but ensures that brilliant minds are discovered. Who knows how many geniuses lived and died in abject poverty?
What's concerning is that this was modded insightful instead of funny (which is what I assume the intent was) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
you missed international treaties forbidding this.
Americans don't travel
Your worthless semantics would have any solution to a non-testable hypothesis be a religion. For a limited example, all Christians would also have to define themselves as non-Islamic and non-Buddhist and non-Pagan, and so on. I'd assert that what you've written has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Religion is a societal experience and not a set of ideas. That is it is impossible to be religious by yourself, rather it requires a group interaction.
It's not like the post says no jail time for rape. In my opinion, sentencing for rehabilitation is a much more effective system. Then people actually have to make a change before release. Right now, you have the option of waiting out a sentence.
ISO documented process of "Ted Alvin Klaudting"
The ICGC's policies and guidelines are very specific, http://icgc.org/icgc_document/policies_and_guidelines/ "The objective of ICGC policy regarding intellectual property (IP) policy is to maximize public benefit from data produced by the Consortium. It is the view of the ICGC members that this goal is achieved if the data remain publicly accessible without any restrictions."
You missed the difference between deleted and erased.
You are the problem. Idiots like you will believe anything that puts them at ease. You are talking about emails (out of context) between people that you had probably never heard of at a place you probably didn't know existed doing research you still don't understand. You aren't even curious as to why the leak didn't include all the emails with links to what they felt were relevant instead of the selective leak you read. That is because what you read put you at ease. A handful of scientists wrote some things that sound dodgy, therefore all scientific input that agrees with their central point is invalid. Problem solved.
Let's start with this, "power grab" over global warming. When did that begin? What I'm getting at is that decades of research exists and those grants were issued by people in the job years before that. So unless the current legislative body owns a time machine, they couldn't have controlled the grant process decades ago. I'm certain that congress tries to grab as much power as possible, but it sure as shit isn't through grants.
You misread the paragraph you're quoting. It doesn't dismiss the guy because he doesn't have a doctorate degree, he dismisses him because he doesn't understand what he is arguing about. Just look at the stupid graph he puts at the front showing actual cooling instead of warming at the site. The guy admits in his "research" that the station moved and that adjustment makes sense to him (since it is essentially two completely different data sets at that point), but doesn't add that variation to his graph. Why? Because the graph would still show a trend upwards even without all of the other adjustments.
The numbers aren't even comparable. Scientists have to actually spend the money on research and Institutes spend it on themselves I guess since their contribution to science is about a half hour figuring out the pieces of data to isolate and blow out of proportion.
No, he's the guy that showed that temperature has already gone up exponentially.
It did imply that they never even bought the games that were worth something.