It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
I do find it interesting that we are talking about statistics courses, and nevertheless this fellows seems to be taking the conclusions he drew from one course and extending them to the entire genre.
Not to say that I disagree with any one point, just thought it's worth pointing out.
I think changing fuel sources is the eventual idea...We do not have infinity fossil fuels.
Also having the whole planet's worth of population lug 3000 pounds around with them every day is very, very inefficient.
What some people seem to be missing is that the legislation is talking about gasoline efficiency and not energy efficiency in general (although that may help). If a manufacturer came up with a marketable solar powered car, I'm sure it could be as energy inefficient as they wanted provided it wasn't using more than 1 gallon per 35.5/54.5 miles.
I agree that it's always going to take energy, but miles per gallon is talking specifically about gallons of gasoline. If you are using an alternative fuel source, and you are using less or no gasoline, then you can achieve higher efficiencies with regards to gasoline.
For example, the hypothetical solar powered car achieves infinity miles per gallon.
Couldn't it also be people with low IQ tend to do more marijuana? I'll RTFA but I wondering if they took an IQ test before their teen years.
Ok so they did start testing IQ before pot use.
The submitter suggesting depression as an alternative explanation. How about being in an unstimulating environment? If you were drug free but only ever hung out with stoners during your formative years, I don't imagine that would have a very good effect on your development.
Uhhh...did you just use the exact same argument that the deniers use for why its not humans causing the change? Oh irony pie, so delicious and sweet.
I think you are misunderstanding the scale of these two concepts. First of all I'm not denying climate change. I'm saying it has been a massive undertaking over a few generations. Climate deniers are wrong to say it's impossible but right to say it takes a lot of energy to do it.
Melting the antarctic by applying direct heat, rather than using heat from the sun, I think, would be a much more massive undertaking.
Also, even if your misunderstanding was what I meant I don't know if it qualifies as true irony, much less a pie's worth of it. I think it would only be a simple contradiction.
To be fair, current global climate change could also probably qualify as the "biggest project humanity has undertaken." We are releasing all the stores of carbon on the planet into the atmosphere, and it's a project that the vast majority of the planet is directly or indirectly contributing to, and has been for the past several decades/century and thus far we've *only* changed the average temperature a degree or so?
And that's only amplifying the sun, as opposed to applying heat directly.
So yes melting the ice caps directly with human made heat (as opposed to amplified heat from the sun) is not feasible.
Lol. Think about that for a second. Even if we wanted to melt the Antarctic with the industrial equivalent of a whole bunch of space heaters, do you honestly think we would have the means? That would be a bigger project than anything ever undertaken. It would probably be easier to make a base on Mars. The difference with CO2 is that we are amplifying the effect of the heat of the sun on the earth, rather than directly raising the earth's temperature.
All the extra research into vaccine safety has been useful.
There are some people who are medically contra-indicated. For example, because I have an egg allergy I am contra-indicated for vaccines that were incubated in egg and I receive an alternate form.
I'm not sure that throwing medical ethics out the window (ie. the right to refuse treatment) is the way to go. I think better education with a focus on critical thinking is a superior approach.
It's not absurd. If you cyberRTFA you'll see that they are talking about cyberabortions of cyberpregrancies, cybergunreform and cyber-repealing of cyberhealthcare.
On the other hand, authors and journalists need to really ask themselves if jargon is necessary to adequately convey the idea. If simple/accessible language is sufficient to explain a concept, then the only reason to use jargon is ego. Efficient and accurate communication of ideas is the job of a writer, and unnecessarily requiring readers to reach for the dictionary every three words is poor communication. For example, "erudite" was clearly used here, likely to make a point, because it is a word that many readers here had to look up. Other words could have adequately communicated the meaning of the sentence without impeding comprehension or precision.
You can be articulate without a thesaurus. Otherwise you wind up sounding like this: https://xkcd.com/451
The US asserts legal jurisdiction not only in other countries but also on other planets. First contact will be to strong arm an extradition of some youthful alien (bringing new meaning to illegal alien).
ARRGH I feel so incomplete with your last sentence!!!
The more paranoid the organization, the more likely it is to tear itself apart finding a nonexistent saboteur. Looks like we might be due for another big old storm of chaos. (As a Westerner, I certainly hope so:)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you're right.
RTFA
It's sort of like how waves can travel but the individual molecules of water aren't necessarily moving along with the wave.
Are you seriously going to insult a rape victim? Anonymous Coward indeed, it's no wonder you don't want to stand behind those words.
It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).
Ditto
I do find it interesting that we are talking about statistics courses, and nevertheless this fellows seems to be taking the conclusions he drew from one course and extending them to the entire genre.
Not to say that I disagree with any one point, just thought it's worth pointing out.
I think changing fuel sources is the eventual idea...We do not have infinity fossil fuels.
Also having the whole planet's worth of population lug 3000 pounds around with them every day is very, very inefficient.
What some people seem to be missing is that the legislation is talking about gasoline efficiency and not energy efficiency in general (although that may help). If a manufacturer came up with a marketable solar powered car, I'm sure it could be as energy inefficient as they wanted provided it wasn't using more than 1 gallon per 35.5/54.5 miles.
I agree that it's always going to take energy, but miles per gallon is talking specifically about gallons of gasoline. If you are using an alternative fuel source, and you are using less or no gasoline, then you can achieve higher efficiencies with regards to gasoline.
For example, the hypothetical solar powered car achieves infinity miles per gallon.
Couldn't it also be people with low IQ tend to do more marijuana? I'll RTFA but I wondering if they took an IQ test before their teen years.
Ok so they did start testing IQ before pot use.
The submitter suggesting depression as an alternative explanation. How about being in an unstimulating environment? If you were drug free but only ever hung out with stoners during your formative years, I don't imagine that would have a very good effect on your development.
Uhhh...did you just use the exact same argument that the deniers use for why its not humans causing the change? Oh irony pie, so delicious and sweet.
I think you are misunderstanding the scale of these two concepts. First of all I'm not denying climate change. I'm saying it has been a massive undertaking over a few generations. Climate deniers are wrong to say it's impossible but right to say it takes a lot of energy to do it.
Melting the antarctic by applying direct heat, rather than using heat from the sun, I think, would be a much more massive undertaking.
Also, even if your misunderstanding was what I meant I don't know if it qualifies as true irony, much less a pie's worth of it. I think it would only be a simple contradiction.
Interesting. Naturally I thought it was in fossil fuels and coal. Still, burning all the fuel sources is a massive undertaking.
To be fair, current global climate change could also probably qualify as the "biggest project humanity has undertaken." We are releasing all the stores of carbon on the planet into the atmosphere, and it's a project that the vast majority of the planet is directly or indirectly contributing to, and has been for the past several decades/century and thus far we've *only* changed the average temperature a degree or so?
And that's only amplifying the sun, as opposed to applying heat directly.
So yes melting the ice caps directly with human made heat (as opposed to amplified heat from the sun) is not feasible.
Lol. Think about that for a second. Even if we wanted to melt the Antarctic with the industrial equivalent of a whole bunch of space heaters, do you honestly think we would have the means? That would be a bigger project than anything ever undertaken. It would probably be easier to make a base on Mars. The difference with CO2 is that we are amplifying the effect of the heat of the sun on the earth, rather than directly raising the earth's temperature.
I have the same philosophy but I only apply it to the the eugenics people. That is, the people who believe in eugenics should be sterilized.
All the extra research into vaccine safety has been useful.
There are some people who are medically contra-indicated. For example, because I have an egg allergy I am contra-indicated for vaccines that were incubated in egg and I receive an alternate form.
I'm not sure that throwing medical ethics out the window (ie. the right to refuse treatment) is the way to go. I think better education with a focus on critical thinking is a superior approach.
Doesn't apply to most of Canada. Binding arbitration clauses are unenforceable here.
It's easier than that. "On a scale of 1 - 10, how awesome is this content?"
A 10 for awesome = 10 for objectionable.
No universities that I know of. Is that an American thing? Either way, you don't get a pass for not attending (I should hope?)
And how would you assess someone who won't participate?
"It's ridiculous that I got a zero on my final, I didn't even show up! This test is a worthless assessment."
It's not absurd. If you cyberRTFA you'll see that they are talking about cyberabortions of cyberpregrancies, cybergunreform and cyber-repealing of cyberhealthcare.
On the other hand, authors and journalists need to really ask themselves if jargon is necessary to adequately convey the idea. If simple/accessible language is sufficient to explain a concept, then the only reason to use jargon is ego. Efficient and accurate communication of ideas is the job of a writer, and unnecessarily requiring readers to reach for the dictionary every three words is poor communication. For example, "erudite" was clearly used here, likely to make a point, because it is a word that many readers here had to look up. Other words could have adequately communicated the meaning of the sentence without impeding comprehension or precision.
You can be articulate without a thesaurus. Otherwise you wind up sounding like this: https://xkcd.com/451
Yea right. More like the evangelicals would have quashed it because the "Texas Scientists" (oxymoron?) were searching for a false idol.
The US asserts legal jurisdiction not only in other countries but also on other planets. First contact will be to strong arm an extradition of some youthful alien (bringing new meaning to illegal alien).
Don't you know? Preventing customers from exercising free speech rights is in itself a violation of the company's free speech rights.
ARRGH I feel so incomplete with your last sentence!!!
The more paranoid the organization, the more likely it is to tear itself apart finding a nonexistent saboteur. Looks like we might be due for another big old storm of chaos. (As a Westerner, I certainly hope so :)
Is that a smiley or a bracket??!!?1!!!