You've got to give them credit for trying SOMETHING. Over here, california tries to raise fuel efficiency standards and gets slapped down by the Bush administration. Did they even bother trying to spin that one?
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the finished product is green or just green by comparison. Put a landfill next to a radioactive waste site and the landfill suddenly looks pretty eco-friendly.
Yes, but those unscrupulous people with economic agendas are going to do their thing reguardless of whether there's a kernel of truth or not. And the only way to innoculate the public against that type of pseudoscience is knowledge. It's a tall order, but articles like these are a step in the right direction.
Anyone who reads this article and gets from it "pollution = good!" is a totally lost cause already. There are the people who are convinced God gave us this green earth and cleans up after us and the apocalypse will probably come next year anyway, you're never going to get them to be concerned with this, they're at most going to blame it on homosexuals (see the religious right's explanation for Katrina). There are the people who for whatever reason belive that environmentalism is the enemy of capitalism and freedom. No convincing them either. Oil, car, and coal executives are going to misinterpret this article, but they'd only be concerned with global warming after they've retired.
Pollution = good is not a conclusion anyone is going to draw from this article that wasn't already convinced of it.
Don't blame the article for people having their heads up their asses, newsweek didn't put them there.
You know, for all the years of their unique brand of humor, WITHOUT ads, without a subscription, and without resorting to having strongbad basically beg you to buy his merchandise, think of it as a $10 donation to the chaps bros.
Seriously, all that animation must take an assload of work, it's always the same quality, there are only occasional long lapses in updates. Pay the $10 or at least nominate them for internet sainthood.
Whoa there buddy, calm down and think for a second. The title was intentionally ironic to get the reader's attention. A more accurate title, like "Improved air quality in china may increase local temperatures" is going to get read by the reporter's mother possibly, and that would be it.
By making a hook like that, the reporter is trying to get the underinformed public to pay attention away from brittney's latest haircut, and then before they realize it, educate them a little as to global warming and atmospheric sciences.
It's pretty ironic to make an intriguing response title like "Nothing paradoxical here" and then slam the reporter for doing basically what you did yourself.
Anyway, the article was actually decent for a general interest magazine like newsweek. At worst it presented both sides as a controversey when there is none in order to get people to pay attention, but even that is downplayed. They say flat out that china's claims that the air is super duper clean is ludicrous. If they had been any less even-handed, the article would have been propaghanda for greenpeace.
I've heard that sulfur dioxide, a pollutant, also counters greenhouse gasses to a degree, but it drops out of the atmosphere much more rapidly than other greenhouse gasses.
All articles are quick to point out that sulfur dioxide is not something you want in the air despite the cooling effects. Unless you like acid rain, and permanent pulmonary damage.
Also it probably causes cancer, seeing as how it's a chemical and since it seems like every chemical besides water gives you cancer.
It's not the government using it's power to prop up a failed buisness model. This is the RIAA using the legal system to try to prop up their diminishing buisness by bullying people who share music.
There are certainly some people in government who are sympathetic to the RIAA because of legal bribes in the form of lobbyists and campaign contributions, but that's not the whole government and in this instance, the biggest government involvement is that the legal system is being used by the RIAA.
What you're talking about would be if the government subsidized the RIAA's DRM attempts or things like that. Maybe they do that already, I don't know, but this isn't that.
Anyway, as to why it's so much, it's because sharing music is actually illegal (note that I am not saying it should be or that the RIAA has morality on their side or their tactics are justified, or even that they shouldn't all be shot). It's like asking why tickets for possession of pot are so high. You're not causing any damage to anyone, the fines don't make sense in that reguard.
The only answer is because it's illegal and in many cases, some people have interests in seeing the law enforced even when there's no real benefit to society in it. They fine you for posession because it's illegal, they don't think they like pot smokers, and they can.
The RIAA has never cared about opposition. What are you going to do, continue to not buy CDs from them? Even if they were to announce that for every song stolen, they would kill a puppy in a country where there are no animal cruelty laws, they would still keep doing brisk buisness: the teenagers buying mainstream CDs at walmart don't care about things like that.
Well, since all life is presumably derived from a single-celled organism, everything has a common ancestor really.
What the article was trying to say was something like the latest common ancestor or when they diverged, although I think you probably realize that and are picking at the semantics. And I'm up for sem antics.
And since I guess its possible there are other species that diverged from either line after the split, it might not be quite correct to say "humans and neandertals diverged from each other..." The "human" group in that split may not have been very human. I'm guessing that's why they say "last common ancestor" rather than diverged. Any evolutionary biologists (amature or professional) care to comment?
No one ever went broke underestimating american taste, and no one ever got modded down for overstating american stupidity.
People are far more interested in this campaign than america's got talent. I mean, some age groups yes, are more interested in that, but not MOST of the voting age and above.
On a completely unrelated note, there needs to be a mod option of "-1 trite cynicism." If you like that type of thing you could change it to score +1 instead.
When I hike a mountain at 5,000 meters, it's freezing, breathing is hard... I snapped a picture, but you can't see what experience it was.
If you're wondering why no one wants to come over to see your pictures of your latest hike, maybe it's cause you're turning the AC way up and partially suffocating your guests?
A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.
Armchair lawyering aside, I do think most people here say that in the same way that others say stuff about how there's no difference between republican or democrat, or how government just wants to take your rights away, or how anyone who doesn't know XYZ about computers is asking to have their life savings stolen.
Nonsense like that gets repeated enough, eventually people take that as it's own justification. Plus they want to fit in. So an article about privacy comes up, you make a sarcastic comment about how we don't have privacy to begin with and people think you're funny and it's true because they've heard it so often from other people here.
Just a complete guess: the larger dialysis machines had too much volume of blood displaced for dialysis. If you hooked a baby up to it, it might die from blood loss as a result of temporarily losing the blood that is in the machine. A smaller dialysis machine, running a smaller volume of blood over a smaller filter, would presumably go slower but requires less blood to be withdrawn.
Machines designed for adults maybe the amount of blood in the machine at any one time while running could be, say, a pint (the amount you give when you donate blood) which you wouldn't notice, but on a pint-sized baby, that same size machine would bleed it dry.
I know your blood pressure reaches normal pressure within seconds of blood loss, but there are of course limits.
Once again, just a complete guess as to why normal machines wouldn't work, I'm not a doctor or a phlebotomist.
I'm going to go back to the woman who was denied life insurance becasue she was on prozac not for depression but for menopause. That's just one example. They don't know more than the doctors do about anything other than how to deny responsibility and not get sued over it. Theres a reason they're working for an HMO instead of working as a doctor, and it's not that they like forms and number crunching better, nor is it that they can do more good for public health by being selective about coverage.
Even if we do accept that they know as much or more about medicine than people who went to medical school, I'm going to go with my doctor's judgement as I know his interests are entirely getting me better, wheras my insurance company is entirely focused on saving money.
If they know it will save them more money to say no to a treatment or test than to say yes, they'll say no. Drug effectiveness only enters into it when calculating whether I would be more of a liability by staying sick if I don't get the drug than if I do.
So reguardless of who knows more, I want the power to be in the hands of me and my doctor.
Okay, I may have called that one early, you got some responses from people who are taking you seriously. You win. Never again will I overestimate people on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's already been tested in humans, and probably before that animals. So... sorry whoever does.
And, there's a "cunt in "country." His name is Toby Keith.
You've got to give them credit for trying SOMETHING. Over here, california tries to raise fuel efficiency standards and gets slapped down by the Bush administration. Did they even bother trying to spin that one?
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the finished product is green or just green by comparison. Put a landfill next to a radioactive waste site and the landfill suddenly looks pretty eco-friendly.
Yeah, but you get them "cheap as free!"
It took me a while to realize you were making a joke, by the way, I was about to chide you about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Yes, but those unscrupulous people with economic agendas are going to do their thing reguardless of whether there's a kernel of truth or not. And the only way to innoculate the public against that type of pseudoscience is knowledge. It's a tall order, but articles like these are a step in the right direction.
Anyone who reads this article and gets from it "pollution = good!" is a totally lost cause already. There are the people who are convinced God gave us this green earth and cleans up after us and the apocalypse will probably come next year anyway, you're never going to get them to be concerned with this, they're at most going to blame it on homosexuals (see the religious right's explanation for Katrina). There are the people who for whatever reason belive that environmentalism is the enemy of capitalism and freedom. No convincing them either. Oil, car, and coal executives are going to misinterpret this article, but they'd only be concerned with global warming after they've retired.
Pollution = good is not a conclusion anyone is going to draw from this article that wasn't already convinced of it.
Don't blame the article for people having their heads up their asses, newsweek didn't put them there.
You know, for all the years of their unique brand of humor, WITHOUT ads, without a subscription, and without resorting to having strongbad basically beg you to buy his merchandise, think of it as a $10 donation to the chaps bros.
Seriously, all that animation must take an assload of work, it's always the same quality, there are only occasional long lapses in updates. Pay the $10 or at least nominate them for internet sainthood.
Similarly, "this is not a [lucha-libre] mask, it's-a my face."
Whoa there buddy, calm down and think for a second. The title was intentionally ironic to get the reader's attention. A more accurate title, like "Improved air quality in china may increase local temperatures" is going to get read by the reporter's mother possibly, and that would be it.
By making a hook like that, the reporter is trying to get the underinformed public to pay attention away from brittney's latest haircut, and then before they realize it, educate them a little as to global warming and atmospheric sciences.
It's pretty ironic to make an intriguing response title like "Nothing paradoxical here" and then slam the reporter for doing basically what you did yourself.
Anyway, the article was actually decent for a general interest magazine like newsweek. At worst it presented both sides as a controversey when there is none in order to get people to pay attention, but even that is downplayed. They say flat out that china's claims that the air is super duper clean is ludicrous. If they had been any less even-handed, the article would have been propaghanda for greenpeace.
I've heard that sulfur dioxide, a pollutant, also counters greenhouse gasses to a degree, but it drops out of the atmosphere much more rapidly than other greenhouse gasses.
All articles are quick to point out that sulfur dioxide is not something you want in the air despite the cooling effects. Unless you like acid rain, and permanent pulmonary damage.
Also it probably causes cancer, seeing as how it's a chemical and since it seems like every chemical besides water gives you cancer.
Not only that, but the randomization of the polarpolymers, that's increasing the disordered information of the universe.
WON'T SOMEONE PLEEZE THINK OF THE ENTROPY!
I completely agree. There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch.
You have obviously never been to Kansas. Incidentally, if you want proof that evolution has not happened, you should also go to Kansas.
That's an idea. After all, they are funnier than any internet meme ever, except for maybe lolcatz.
It's not the government using it's power to prop up a failed buisness model. This is the RIAA using the legal system to try to prop up their diminishing buisness by bullying people who share music.
There are certainly some people in government who are sympathetic to the RIAA because of legal bribes in the form of lobbyists and campaign contributions, but that's not the whole government and in this instance, the biggest government involvement is that the legal system is being used by the RIAA.
What you're talking about would be if the government subsidized the RIAA's DRM attempts or things like that. Maybe they do that already, I don't know, but this isn't that.
Anyway, as to why it's so much, it's because sharing music is actually illegal (note that I am not saying it should be or that the RIAA has morality on their side or their tactics are justified, or even that they shouldn't all be shot). It's like asking why tickets for possession of pot are so high. You're not causing any damage to anyone, the fines don't make sense in that reguard.
The only answer is because it's illegal and in many cases, some people have interests in seeing the law enforced even when there's no real benefit to society in it. They fine you for posession because it's illegal, they don't think they like pot smokers, and they can.
The RIAA has never cared about opposition. What are you going to do, continue to not buy CDs from them? Even if they were to announce that for every song stolen, they would kill a puppy in a country where there are no animal cruelty laws, they would still keep doing brisk buisness: the teenagers buying mainstream CDs at walmart don't care about things like that.
Don't forget the unfrozen caveman lawyer
http://www.adequatulence.com/hartman/vault/pictures/caveman-lawyer.jpg
(couldn't find a video clip, NBC is militant about taking SNL clips down and then can't be bothered to put one up on their own site?)
Well, since all life is presumably derived from a single-celled organism, everything has a common ancestor really.
What the article was trying to say was something like the latest common ancestor or when they diverged, although I think you probably realize that and are picking at the semantics. And I'm up for sem antics.
And since I guess its possible there are other species that diverged from either line after the split, it might not be quite correct to say "humans and neandertals diverged from each other..." The "human" group in that split may not have been very human. I'm guessing that's why they say "last common ancestor" rather than diverged. Any evolutionary biologists (amature or professional) care to comment?
A worthwhile post, glad I read it.
What a freaking waste of time my time, you contradicted yourself and it wasn't even funny.
No one ever went broke underestimating american taste, and no one ever got modded down for overstating american stupidity.
People are far more interested in this campaign than america's got talent. I mean, some age groups yes, are more interested in that, but not MOST of the voting age and above.
On a completely unrelated note, there needs to be a mod option of "-1 trite cynicism." If you like that type of thing you could change it to score +1 instead.
If you're wondering why no one wants to come over to see your pictures of your latest hike, maybe it's cause you're turning the AC way up and partially suffocating your guests?
Armchair lawyering aside, I do think most people here say that in the same way that others say stuff about how there's no difference between republican or democrat, or how government just wants to take your rights away, or how anyone who doesn't know XYZ about computers is asking to have their life savings stolen.
Nonsense like that gets repeated enough, eventually people take that as it's own justification. Plus they want to fit in. So an article about privacy comes up, you make a sarcastic comment about how we don't have privacy to begin with and people think you're funny and it's true because they've heard it so often from other people here.
Just a complete guess: the larger dialysis machines had too much volume of blood displaced for dialysis. If you hooked a baby up to it, it might die from blood loss as a result of temporarily losing the blood that is in the machine. A smaller dialysis machine, running a smaller volume of blood over a smaller filter, would presumably go slower but requires less blood to be withdrawn.
Machines designed for adults maybe the amount of blood in the machine at any one time while running could be, say, a pint (the amount you give when you donate blood) which you wouldn't notice, but on a pint-sized baby, that same size machine would bleed it dry.
I know your blood pressure reaches normal pressure within seconds of blood loss, but there are of course limits.
Once again, just a complete guess as to why normal machines wouldn't work, I'm not a doctor or a phlebotomist.
Indeed, I SHOULD see that. What the hell DOES the good doctor make out of those things?!?
Well the one thing we can do without going to jail is parody. I found this which may be old, "TSA gangstaz" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AWw7t5zj0
Not safe for work environments, especially TSA, preschools, and people who have sucky bosses.
I'm going to go back to the woman who was denied life insurance becasue she was on prozac not for depression but for menopause. That's just one example. They don't know more than the doctors do about anything other than how to deny responsibility and not get sued over it. Theres a reason they're working for an HMO instead of working as a doctor, and it's not that they like forms and number crunching better, nor is it that they can do more good for public health by being selective about coverage.
Even if we do accept that they know as much or more about medicine than people who went to medical school, I'm going to go with my doctor's judgement as I know his interests are entirely getting me better, wheras my insurance company is entirely focused on saving money.
If they know it will save them more money to say no to a treatment or test than to say yes, they'll say no. Drug effectiveness only enters into it when calculating whether I would be more of a liability by staying sick if I don't get the drug than if I do.
So reguardless of who knows more, I want the power to be in the hands of me and my doctor.
Okay, I may have called that one early, you got some responses from people who are taking you seriously. You win. Never again will I overestimate people on the internet.