our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.
Better ten good laws get turfed than one bad one get passed.
The problem is with hybrids is that for most you end up paying more than you would your current car:
Yes, but a new hybrid isn't competing with old cars. Its competing with new cars. Your argument could be made of ANY new car. Better logic would be to subtract the gas savings from the cost of a new hybrid and compare that number to the cost of other new cars.
there are 3 versions of the truth here, her version his version and what really happened.
Here is what really happened: first mover advantage. The lady probably insulted a know-it-all 20 year old, who knew that if you are the first one to accuse someone else, then they bare the burden of the defense. She could very well be a bitch, but if the kid is lying and fucking with her life. That's way worse and he'd be the one who deserves some prison time.
People who scream the sky is falling with GW subscribe to the idea that the Earth's temperature only goes in one direction.
People who scream the sky is falling are not the same people who study global temperature fluctuation on a geologic time scale. The latter are scientists and and the former are politicians and media hypers. Problem is that laypeople get the two types of people confused. You will find, that on the time scale that the human race is concerned about things, we are experiencing a warming trend. One might call this trend "global warming", but it doesn't mean the sky is going to fall. We've been coming out of an ice age for tens of thousands of years. That's because of warming on geologic time scales. We have seen an acceleration of a warming trend in recent years that has made some news that laypeople see. Laypeople also read that its sunny and 70 in LA. So they get confused and blame scientists for their confusion and for somehow concocting the concept of global warming. Then people like you come along and say "global warming/cooling is bullshit." They also say something about Al Gore and "circle jerks". And then they get modded +5 insightful by other confused laypeople. Its fucking ridiculous.
Welcome to the wonderful world of self-confirming delusions, wherein you need never admit you're wrong.
Yes, in delusional worlds, or "delusional science", or even more precisely, "delusional simulation", as I like to call it, you start with a some assumptions about your system that are difficult to prove false and a limited set of constraints (aka observations) and then, you run simulations, either with a computer or in your head, tweaking a potentially infinite array of parameters that far exceed the observations, until the result of the simulation is similar to the model you had in mind when you began. This is a good methodology to prove any point you want, including any theory for 9-11. I've seen more than a few prestigious papers that have taken this approach.
Dude, you have stated the Federalist position perfectly, my hat goes off to you. Maybe some intelligent people like you could take the Republican party back from the neocons and straighten some shit out around here.
Tell you what you can do besides whining on/. anonymously. (1) Get a PhD, (2) become a climatologist yourself, (3) get a big-time faculty position at a top-tier university, (4) do research for 20 years so you can get some solid data to support your hypothesis (5) publish a paper in Nature debunking the whole global warming thing, and (6) collect your Nobel prize and the cool million that goes with it.
Haven't started yet? Still waiting on you to get the PhD in climatology....
It has seemed very strange to me seeing all the hype about global warming and such since I was young, yet seeing years like these recent ones where we are hitting some pretty long cold stretches, this year particularly. Are we or are we not actually having "global warming"?
Since the air conditioning is on pretty high in here, and I have to wear a sweater, I'd say we are definitely not experiencing global warming. I mean, since I'm temporarily colder in some part of the earth, the whole global warming thing must be baloney, right? Or maybe, just maybe, there is a global, long term, documented, trend of warmer temperatures. Maybe that's what they mean by "global warming".
But there is also something about the structure of your comment that will make the average reader stop after the first paragraph. I mistakenly write and present like your example too, sometimes. For the vast majority of short attention span people (which is the vast majority of people), I have learned this formula: (1) say what you are going to say, (2) say it, (3) say what you said. Never confuse them in the first paragraph by saying something other than what you want to say. Its unfortunate that that's how the world is, but I don't make the rules, I've just learned them the hard way.
If, for instance, Saab released a new hybrid car which ran on hydrogen, and there was no infrastructure in place to supply that. I would not call the car stupid design because there was no infrastructure in place. I could, if I believed (or in foresight knew) that someday there would be, call it "Ahead of it's time" or "We just weren't ready for it".
In other words: "vista is to operating systems what the hydrogen fuel cell is to engines". Now I've heard everything.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there are cops out there who do think the law against pot smoking is just, much as plenty of the civilian population and the lawmakers do.
I'm predicting negative karma for this...
Why would you predict negative karma if plenty of the population thinks pot laws are just? Seems like you would predict positive karma. It seems that you don't even believe what you write.
Where do you think the money comes from for infrastructure projects and maintenance?
Maintenance of what, the fast food restaurants that the oil comes from? We already pay license and registration fees for maintenance and infrastructure of roads.
But if you live that close to work, a bicycle will do the job even better.
If you live in a major metropolitan area, you are better off not going near a bicycle. You'll save enough money on hospital bills to fuel your hummer for 20 years. If LA had anything resembling a safe bike lane, I'd bike every day. As it is, I take the bus. Its a shame, but about 95% of the population has an inexplicable hostility towards cyclists. This is reflected in the lack of city planning to make cycling feasible as well as the aggressive attitude of most drivers.
In the Ivins, et. al., paper you point to, the word "flask" is only used to refer to temporary cultures. Moreover, the volumes mentioned in the paper are unreasonable for long term storage. The smallest is 500 ml. Stable cultures or stable stock would not be kept in a 500 ml flask, much less a 2 L flask. Its a practical consideration that has to do with the price of real estate, the cost of maintaining a controlled environment, and the ease of accessing your inventory. I have stocks that I have had for 10 years and they are kept in 2 ml vials at -70 C. No practical person would attempt to have the type of flasks mentioned in this paper for long term storage. After a couple of years they would not be able to manage the logistics of handling dozens or perhaps hundreds of flasks. And no, you wouldn't know that a particular stock is going to be special before you have used it for a while, so you would store it the same as all of the rest--in *several* (for backup) reasonably sized containers which would probably be most accurately described as a "vial" or "tube".
But Kemp said more than a hundred people had access to the flask
The flask? What is up with this? How in the hell can you chase the wrong guy for five years and then go back and get "The flask". WTF do they mean by this? I don't know anyone who has a single "flask" to maintain a culture. "The flask". I've been in this business for 15 years. I know of frozen culture stocks kept in cryo vials, or transferring a culture from several flasks to another several flasks (you'd be an idiot to have just one flask for a stable culture) indefinitely, etc. Also, it looks like you could keep a stable stock in an envelop if you really think about it (or else you couldn't have the anthrax attacks themselves). But "The Flask", like there is only one--this is pure ignorance or just made up for drama. I'm not saying anything about this case except that the language used to talk about it in the media and by the FBI is sophomoric. I wonder if the language is any indication of their understanding of the science behind this case?
The average lifespan was, as usually quoted, 36 years. Think about that for a little bit.
This is what happens when the infant mortality rate is significant--You get skewed lifespan statistics which suggests everyone gets killed in their 30's. Infant mortality rates have probably improved all over the world since then and/or Tibetans have been having less children. You could get the same skewed life-expectancy statistics if people all of a sudden started having a lot of babies and the infant mortality rate didn't change a bit (nor did the average age of death of people who lived one year, etc). One statistic can paint any picture you want if you use it right.
The brain is a fantastic example of a molecular-scale parallel processing machine.
Its a hologram--or a harmonic resonator--or a collection of harmonic resonators--with billions of resonant frequencies. You give it a stimulus, and it the stimulus induces one or more resonances. This is pattern recognition, and that's how we are good at chess without melting our skulls using energy. All of the precalculation has been done when the patterns were put in--our brain just needs the stimulus to recognize them. Some patterns we are born with, like the pattern of a face. Others we acquire (or not), like the Sicilian Scheveningen variation. In this sense, its not a parallel processor. The best chess players don't move pieces around in their heads too much, just like we don't spend a lot of time shuffling letters when we read.
Slashdot Mirror
our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.
Better ten good laws get turfed than one bad one get passed.
The problem is with hybrids is that for most you end up paying more than you would your current car:
Yes, but a new hybrid isn't competing with old cars. Its competing with new cars. Your argument could be made of ANY new car. Better logic would be to subtract the gas savings from the cost of a new hybrid and compare that number to the cost of other new cars.
there are 3 versions of the truth here, her version his version and what really happened.
Here is what really happened: first mover advantage. The lady probably insulted a know-it-all 20 year old, who knew that if you are the first one to accuse someone else, then they bare the burden of the defense. She could very well be a bitch, but if the kid is lying and fucking with her life. That's way worse and he'd be the one who deserves some prison time.
People who scream the sky is falling with GW subscribe to the idea that the Earth's temperature only goes in one direction.
People who scream the sky is falling are not the same people who study global temperature fluctuation on a geologic time scale. The latter are scientists and and the former are politicians and media hypers. Problem is that laypeople get the two types of people confused. You will find, that on the time scale that the human race is concerned about things, we are experiencing a warming trend. One might call this trend "global warming", but it doesn't mean the sky is going to fall. We've been coming out of an ice age for tens of thousands of years. That's because of warming on geologic time scales. We have seen an acceleration of a warming trend in recent years that has made some news that laypeople see. Laypeople also read that its sunny and 70 in LA. So they get confused and blame scientists for their confusion and for somehow concocting the concept of global warming. Then people like you come along and say "global warming/cooling is bullshit." They also say something about Al Gore and "circle jerks". And then they get modded +5 insightful by other confused laypeople. Its fucking ridiculous.
On the other hand, if you don't care about damaging half of Manhattan, you can just send in a midget with a sledgehammer.
That's one bad ass midget.
Welcome to the wonderful world of self-confirming delusions, wherein you need never admit you're wrong.
Yes, in delusional worlds, or "delusional science", or even more precisely, "delusional simulation", as I like to call it, you start with a some assumptions about your system that are difficult to prove false and a limited set of constraints (aka observations) and then, you run simulations, either with a computer or in your head, tweaking a potentially infinite array of parameters that far exceed the observations, until the result of the simulation is similar to the model you had in mind when you began. This is a good methodology to prove any point you want, including any theory for 9-11. I've seen more than a few prestigious papers that have taken this approach.
Dude, you have stated the Federalist position perfectly, my hat goes off to you. Maybe some intelligent people like you could take the Republican party back from the neocons and straighten some shit out around here.
Global warming, cooling, it's bullshit since the Earth is not static.
Nice contradiction. Which is it? Is the earth static or is it warming and/or cooling? Let us know when you make up your mind.
S/he said that asking for food is a good tool in the arsenal (paraphrased)
You mean I gave that bitch a half-eaten sandwich for nothing?
REPUBNICAN: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605857&cid=24086727
Tell you what you can do besides whining on /. anonymously. (1) Get a PhD, (2) become a climatologist yourself, (3) get a big-time faculty position at a top-tier university, (4) do research for 20 years so you can get some solid data to support your hypothesis (5) publish a paper in Nature debunking the whole global warming thing, and (6) collect your Nobel prize and the cool million that goes with it.
Haven't started yet? Still waiting on you to get the PhD in climatology....
It has seemed very strange to me seeing all the hype about global warming and such since I was young, yet seeing years like these recent ones where we are hitting some pretty long cold stretches, this year particularly. Are we or are we not actually having "global warming"?
Since the air conditioning is on pretty high in here, and I have to wear a sweater, I'd say we are definitely not experiencing global warming. I mean, since I'm temporarily colder in some part of the earth, the whole global warming thing must be baloney, right? Or maybe, just maybe, there is a global, long term, documented, trend of warmer temperatures. Maybe that's what they mean by "global warming".
You forgot the link: http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
My mistake.
But there is also something about the structure of your comment that will make the average reader stop after the first paragraph. I mistakenly write and present like your example too, sometimes. For the vast majority of short attention span people (which is the vast majority of people), I have learned this formula: (1) say what you are going to say, (2) say it, (3) say what you said. Never confuse them in the first paragraph by saying something other than what you want to say. Its unfortunate that that's how the world is, but I don't make the rules, I've just learned them the hard way.
If, for instance, Saab released a new hybrid car which ran on hydrogen, and there was no infrastructure in place to supply that. I would not call the car stupid design because there was no infrastructure in place. I could, if I believed (or in foresight knew) that someday there would be, call it "Ahead of it's time" or "We just weren't ready for it".
In other words: "vista is to operating systems what the hydrogen fuel cell is to engines". Now I've heard everything.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there are cops out there who do think the law against pot smoking is just, much as plenty of the civilian population and the lawmakers do.
I'm predicting negative karma for this...
Why would you predict negative karma if plenty of the population thinks pot laws are just? Seems like you would predict positive karma. It seems that you don't even believe what you write.
Replying to erase a mis-click on the moderation. It would be nice to have a "confirm" dialog.
Where do you think the money comes from for infrastructure projects and maintenance?
Maintenance of what, the fast food restaurants that the oil comes from? We already pay license and registration fees for maintenance and infrastructure of roads.
But if you live that close to work, a bicycle will do the job even better.
If you live in a major metropolitan area, you are better off not going near a bicycle. You'll save enough money on hospital bills to fuel your hummer for 20 years. If LA had anything resembling a safe bike lane, I'd bike every day. As it is, I take the bus. Its a shame, but about 95% of the population has an inexplicable hostility towards cyclists. This is reflected in the lack of city planning to make cycling feasible as well as the aggressive attitude of most drivers.
the user never knows the key used?
They'll make not knowing the keys a felony.
It costs them very little to hold a gun to your head
If everyone encrypts, it becomes a lot of guns. That can get expensive too.
In the Ivins, et. al., paper you point to, the word "flask" is only used to refer to temporary cultures. Moreover, the volumes mentioned in the paper are unreasonable for long term storage. The smallest is 500 ml. Stable cultures or stable stock would not be kept in a 500 ml flask, much less a 2 L flask. Its a practical consideration that has to do with the price of real estate, the cost of maintaining a controlled environment, and the ease of accessing your inventory. I have stocks that I have had for 10 years and they are kept in 2 ml vials at -70 C. No practical person would attempt to have the type of flasks mentioned in this paper for long term storage. After a couple of years they would not be able to manage the logistics of handling dozens or perhaps hundreds of flasks. And no, you wouldn't know that a particular stock is going to be special before you have used it for a while, so you would store it the same as all of the rest--in *several* (for backup) reasonably sized containers which would probably be most accurately described as a "vial" or "tube".
But Kemp said more than a hundred people had access to the flask
The flask? What is up with this? How in the hell can you chase the wrong guy for five years and then go back and get "The flask". WTF do they mean by this? I don't know anyone who has a single "flask" to maintain a culture. "The flask". I've been in this business for 15 years. I know of frozen culture stocks kept in cryo vials, or transferring a culture from several flasks to another several flasks (you'd be an idiot to have just one flask for a stable culture) indefinitely, etc. Also, it looks like you could keep a stable stock in an envelop if you really think about it (or else you couldn't have the anthrax attacks themselves). But "The Flask", like there is only one--this is pure ignorance or just made up for drama. I'm not saying anything about this case except that the language used to talk about it in the media and by the FBI is sophomoric. I wonder if the language is any indication of their understanding of the science behind this case?
That could just be natural progress.
The average lifespan was, as usually quoted, 36 years. Think about that for a little bit.
This is what happens when the infant mortality rate is significant--You get skewed lifespan statistics which suggests everyone gets killed in their 30's. Infant mortality rates have probably improved all over the world since then and/or Tibetans have been having less children. You could get the same skewed life-expectancy statistics if people all of a sudden started having a lot of babies and the infant mortality rate didn't change a bit (nor did the average age of death of people who lived one year, etc). One statistic can paint any picture you want if you use it right.
The brain is a fantastic example of a molecular-scale parallel processing machine.
Its a hologram--or a harmonic resonator--or a collection of harmonic resonators--with billions of resonant frequencies. You give it a stimulus, and it the stimulus induces one or more resonances. This is pattern recognition, and that's how we are good at chess without melting our skulls using energy. All of the precalculation has been done when the patterns were put in--our brain just needs the stimulus to recognize them. Some patterns we are born with, like the pattern of a face. Others we acquire (or not), like the Sicilian Scheveningen variation. In this sense, its not a parallel processor. The best chess players don't move pieces around in their heads too much, just like we don't spend a lot of time shuffling letters when we read.