Do you know what I love about you Basil? The plainest statement of fact by someone, if not in line with your ideology, must be attacked as whining and complaining. Your complete lack of thinking skills is so well documented by your own postings, it is quite simply the best way I know to point out the idiocy of our current political and social systems.
On a side note, please detail the money that the government gives to the oil companies in subsidies. Include every dime that is transferred from the IRS coffers to big oil. I will wait offline for your reply.
But, but, but,... Didn't you see that shirt. Only a 3D pen can do that cut-out back design.
I'm also sick of everything first being shown to draw pictures of naked women. Not that I don't like pictures of naked women, but does that have to be the go-to selling point?
I have a couple reels of 8mm film from the promos for Star Wars. I've thought of bringing them to a video transfer service, but just haven't had the desire to spend the money on a novelty. Maybe next year.
Of course you would. That would make the most sense to any right-leaning person.
However, the goal isn't to get your favorite candidate into the White House, but to break the stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans on politics, media stories, voter mind-share, etc. For that, you actually need the Green Party faithful to buy into the coalition, and few of them would be willing to vote for a Libertarian president.
So, bite the bullet for the short term, just to get voter attention.
Can you point to the page in that report that highlights that claim? Because I looked at all 37 pages, and didn't see it. The closest I saw was 2 million people got back an average of $50.
To me it's a matter of personal freedom. The woman's rights outweigh any rights the fetus may have until it's capable of living independently of her. That said I'd be happy if nobody ever felt they needed an abortion but I won't try to stand in the way of a woman's right to control her own body (really anyone's right to control their body).
Why can you not say whether that woman's right to control her body means she has the right to kill a human being who is residing in her body?
You admit the fetus may have rights, but can't bring yourself to say those are the rights that all other human beings have (respective of whatever country one is in).
Also, you probably misunderstand my position on abortion. I am not opposed to abortion. I am not supportive of abortion. I do not think abortion should be "banned with no execptions". However, based on a scientific understanding of biology, I am able to say with no equivocation that a human fetus in a human woman's womb is a human being, and that aborting that fetus results in the death of that human being.
For the longest time they ran a CDMA market on 800 in some places, and some GSM in others. I think. And I think they were in the process of moving everything over to GSM-HSxPA/4GLTE when they got acquired. Their coverage maps look suspiciously identical to T-mo's now.
Yes, I'm sure they were moving to 4G/LTE because that would let them use T-mo's entire network, rather than regional partners they had originally.
As an aside, do you really think there is any real possibility of a split Lib/Green ticket? You'd have to completely disregard a lot of history and long-term deep ideological disagreement to think such a thing at all practically possible.
I don't think it's impossible. Just very unlikely. With the NSA spying that has people pissed off, it isn't as difficult to imagine, since these two parties have the most consistent views against the spying.
A similar thing happened in the UK recently, with the Conservative Party forming a coalition government with the Liberal Democrat Party. It allowed the Conservatives to implement their solutions to the financial crisis, and allowed the Liberal Democrats to have significant input in their areas of greatest concern such as taxation, civil liberties, the environment, and education.
Basically, if a well known Libertarian held a press conference with the Green Party's candidate from 2012, Dr. Jill Stein, and announced they are looking at a partnership that is focused primarily on ending the government's spying on American citizens, they would get some traction.
That Libertarian could be Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, or Penn Gillette, of Penn & Teller. (Names chosen from this list: http://www.examiner.com/articl....) Any well known person who is strongly or devoutly Libertarian, not simply another Republican re-tread.
In my dream, it would go like this. Dr. Stein would be the presidential candidate of the Green-Libertarian Coalition Party. The vice-presidential candidate would be a leading Libertarian, with facial recognition, preferably with strong ties to the media. John Stossel, journalist from ABC's 20/20 is a good example, from that above list. He doesn't have to have strong governing experience, or any at all, since the VP's job is primarily watching the Senate bicker. But our VP does have a position from which he can make his thoughts public.
So, then, what about the cabinet positions? The Secretary of State would have to be of the Green Party, because that is the voice of the administration. The next important position is Attorney General, which would go to the Libertarian Party to fill. For the rest, the Green Party and Libertarian Party pick one at a time to fill, with the Libertarian Party choosing first.
They would have to tell the voters that their purpose isn't to get all of their own people into each Cabinet position. The purpose of this coalition is to get people to forsake the Democrat and Republican parties. Libertarian-leaning Republican voters won't want to support a Green Party Secretary of the Interior, so they should choose that one first to fill. Then so on down the line. Neither party gets exactly what they want, but enough of it to have a voice.
So, if this coalition were to happen, and the announcement was done as described, I think it would get a fair amount of attention, and votes. It probably wouldn't win the 2016 election, but I bet it would get several states' electoral votes, which no third party has done in a long time.
Do you mean that making a graph using a temperature proxy measurement, tree rings, then switching to recorded temperatures only at the point they diverge rapidly, without mentioning this change, is proper?
Is it also proper to use one specific type of tree as the basis of the graph, if that one type is the least likely to show historic temperature changes? Wouldn't it be better to use results from trees that more accurately show historic temperature changes?
Mann's hockey stick wasn't to show that we are warming in the last 100 years. We all know the global temperature has warmed in the last century or so. That isn't in dispute. Mann's chart was specifically meant to eradicate the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age. It was meant to prove that before we released vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature was static for a millennium.
And it was all a sham.
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
To say that Mann had "no intentional deception" is laughable at best.
As for recreating it with other proxies, how about this gem:
Now Steve McIntyre, who was principally responsible for showing that Mann’s original hockey stick was a fraud, has gone over Marcott’s data on the key proxies he uses for 20th century temperatures, ocean cores. McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years. Anthony Watts sums up:
It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.
So, for all the later hockey stick results that prove Mann's original, how many of them are faked?
I could go on and on, providing links to stories you probably don't believe, and you could go on and on providing rebuttals I probably don't believe. So let's not.
It's not my fault Mann decided to start along the line of "Fool me once, shame on you."
I'm pretty sure they were piggy-backing on T-Mobile the whole time. Or at least the last few years. In areas that didn't have T-Mobile coverage earlier, they may have used someone else. But that is also why they are "Metro"-PCS. They had no coverage at all out in the boonies, and only added new metro areas as they could.
For me, their coverage is fine. I live in south Florida, and coverage is only limited in a few areas I have to travel for work. Just beyond the cell towers, I guess. But other people have issues with other networks in those areas too. The only one I hear has great coverage is ATT.
The lowest plan, for $40 a month, does throttle their data after 500MB. I have the $50 plan, and have no issues. My phone is only 3G though, so I can't say what the speeds of 4G/LTE might be. For my needs, it works fine. I don't watch movies on it, or use other massive data sinks. Next season, I might upgrade to a newer phone, but only if the price is right. I am not one to spend $200+ to have a web browser in my pocket.
The main reason I have Metro is back in 2006, when I moved here and needed a cell phone, they were the only ones that offered a flat rate for unlimited voice calls. I am sometimes on the phone with a help desk for an hour at a time. I didn't want to have to worry about minutes. I stick with them now out of loyalty more than anything, since there are other options available, and they got bought by T-Mobile last year.
Once you have that, it's pretty straightforward to say that their job is to regulate flying things that may occupy or present hazards to that commercial airspace.
So, yes you did say something like that, considering this/. discussion is about a remote controlled toy flying over, around, and into buildings in a city.
Maybe I'm adding meaning to your specific post from reading dozens of others that state the FAA controls, and rightly so, everything in the air because it is all commercial airspace. If so, I stand corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what I love about you Basil? The plainest statement of fact by someone, if not in line with your ideology, must be attacked as whining and complaining. Your complete lack of thinking skills is so well documented by your own postings, it is quite simply the best way I know to point out the idiocy of our current political and social systems.
On a side note, please detail the money that the government gives to the oil companies in subsidies. Include every dime that is transferred from the IRS coffers to big oil. I will wait offline for your reply.
But, but, but,... Didn't you see that shirt. Only a 3D pen can do that cut-out back design.
I'm also sick of everything first being shown to draw pictures of naked women. Not that I don't like pictures of naked women, but does that have to be the go-to selling point?
I have a couple reels of 8mm film from the promos for Star Wars. I've thought of bringing them to a video transfer service, but just haven't had the desire to spend the money on a novelty. Maybe next year.
I can afford a car. I can't afford some of the cars that the government is allowing other people to buy with my former bread money.
Either way, I don't consider it trail-blazing.
Of course you would. That would make the most sense to any right-leaning person.
However, the goal isn't to get your favorite candidate into the White House, but to break the stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans on politics, media stories, voter mind-share, etc. For that, you actually need the Green Party faithful to buy into the coalition, and few of them would be willing to vote for a Libertarian president.
So, bite the bullet for the short term, just to get voter attention.
For more in depth thought, see this comment I made yesterday.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Read my sig. Please.
Can you point to the page in that report that highlights that claim? Because I looked at all 37 pages, and didn't see it. The closest I saw was 2 million people got back an average of $50.
To me it's a matter of personal freedom. The woman's rights outweigh any rights the fetus may have until it's capable of living independently of her. That said I'd be happy if nobody ever felt they needed an abortion but I won't try to stand in the way of a woman's right to control her own body (really anyone's right to control their body).
Why can you not say whether that woman's right to control her body means she has the right to kill a human being who is residing in her body?
You admit the fetus may have rights, but can't bring yourself to say those are the rights that all other human beings have (respective of whatever country one is in).
Also, you probably misunderstand my position on abortion. I am not opposed to abortion. I am not supportive of abortion. I do not think abortion should be "banned with no execptions". However, based on a scientific understanding of biology, I am able to say with no equivocation that a human fetus in a human woman's womb is a human being, and that aborting that fetus results in the death of that human being.
My personal freedom allows me to kill a human being if they break into my house and threaten me. You know stand your ground.
So, when was the last time a fetus broke into your house?
It doesn't matter to me if a fetus is a human being.
Then why won't you answer the question, instead of evading it?
For the longest time they ran a CDMA market on 800 in some places, and some GSM in others. I think. And I think they were in the process of moving everything over to GSM-HSxPA/4GLTE when they got acquired. Their coverage maps look suspiciously identical to T-mo's now.
Yes, I'm sure they were moving to 4G/LTE because that would let them use T-mo's entire network, rather than regional partners they had originally.
As an aside, do you really think there is any real possibility of a split Lib/Green ticket? You'd have to completely disregard a lot of history and long-term deep ideological disagreement to think such a thing at all practically possible.
I don't think it's impossible. Just very unlikely. With the NSA spying that has people pissed off, it isn't as difficult to imagine, since these two parties have the most consistent views against the spying.
A similar thing happened in the UK recently, with the Conservative Party forming a coalition government with the Liberal Democrat Party. It allowed the Conservatives to implement their solutions to the financial crisis, and allowed the Liberal Democrats to have significant input in their areas of greatest concern such as taxation, civil liberties, the environment, and education.
Basically, if a well known Libertarian held a press conference with the Green Party's candidate from 2012, Dr. Jill Stein, and announced they are looking at a partnership that is focused primarily on ending the government's spying on American citizens, they would get some traction.
That Libertarian could be Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, or Penn Gillette, of Penn & Teller. (Names chosen from this list: http://www.examiner.com/articl... .) Any well known person who is strongly or devoutly Libertarian, not simply another Republican re-tread.
In my dream, it would go like this. Dr. Stein would be the presidential candidate of the Green-Libertarian Coalition Party. The vice-presidential candidate would be a leading Libertarian, with facial recognition, preferably with strong ties to the media. John Stossel, journalist from ABC's 20/20 is a good example, from that above list. He doesn't have to have strong governing experience, or any at all, since the VP's job is primarily watching the Senate bicker. But our VP does have a position from which he can make his thoughts public.
So, then, what about the cabinet positions? The Secretary of State would have to be of the Green Party, because that is the voice of the administration. The next important position is Attorney General, which would go to the Libertarian Party to fill. For the rest, the Green Party and Libertarian Party pick one at a time to fill, with the Libertarian Party choosing first.
They would have to tell the voters that their purpose isn't to get all of their own people into each Cabinet position. The purpose of this coalition is to get people to forsake the Democrat and Republican parties. Libertarian-leaning Republican voters won't want to support a Green Party Secretary of the Interior, so they should choose that one first to fill. Then so on down the line. Neither party gets exactly what they want, but enough of it to have a voice.
So, if this coalition were to happen, and the announcement was done as described, I think it would get a fair amount of attention, and votes. It probably wouldn't win the 2016 election, but I bet it would get several states' electoral votes, which no third party has done in a long time.
Do you mean that making a graph using a temperature proxy measurement, tree rings, then switching to recorded temperatures only at the point they diverge rapidly, without mentioning this change, is proper?
Is it also proper to use one specific type of tree as the basis of the graph, if that one type is the least likely to show historic temperature changes? Wouldn't it be better to use results from trees that more accurately show historic temperature changes?
Mann's hockey stick wasn't to show that we are warming in the last 100 years. We all know the global temperature has warmed in the last century or so. That isn't in dispute. Mann's chart was specifically meant to eradicate the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age. It was meant to prove that before we released vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature was static for a millennium.
And it was all a sham.
http://www.technologyreview.co...
To say that Mann had "no intentional deception" is laughable at best.
As for recreating it with other proxies, how about this gem:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...
So, for all the later hockey stick results that prove Mann's original, how many of them are faked?
I could go on and on, providing links to stories you probably don't believe, and you could go on and on providing rebuttals I probably don't believe. So let's not.
It's not my fault Mann decided to start along the line of "Fool me once, shame on you."
I'm gonna tell my mother you're picking on me!!
You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again.
From a scientific point of view, does performing an abortion result in the killing of a human being?
to see if her computer is safe. She has Windows 7, so I told her the Automatic Updates will keep her safe.
I'm having a hard time seeing if it crosses right-over-left, or left-over-right.
It's a study in berth control.
http://magneticislandmarina.co...
but I sincerely doubt that activists are going to blaze that trail...
Activists not only want that, it's happening. There are many tax incentives for green tech.
How do you figure the government taking my money and giving it to someone else to buy a car I can't afford is trail-blazing by activists?
You can do what Michael Mann did and create bogus graphs to hide historical facts.
Haha, I think it was a joke =0. All my politics steams from a scientific epistemology,
On that note, do you think that an abortion, especially during the late term, is killing a human being?
Science, how does it work?
With fucking magnets, that's how.
I'm pretty sure they were piggy-backing on T-Mobile the whole time. Or at least the last few years. In areas that didn't have T-Mobile coverage earlier, they may have used someone else. But that is also why they are "Metro"-PCS. They had no coverage at all out in the boonies, and only added new metro areas as they could.
Ok. I was reading your comments and mentally adding the arguments in the posts I had just a few moments earlier. Sorry for my confusion.
For me, their coverage is fine. I live in south Florida, and coverage is only limited in a few areas I have to travel for work. Just beyond the cell towers, I guess. But other people have issues with other networks in those areas too. The only one I hear has great coverage is ATT.
The lowest plan, for $40 a month, does throttle their data after 500MB. I have the $50 plan, and have no issues. My phone is only 3G though, so I can't say what the speeds of 4G/LTE might be. For my needs, it works fine. I don't watch movies on it, or use other massive data sinks. Next season, I might upgrade to a newer phone, but only if the price is right. I am not one to spend $200+ to have a web browser in my pocket.
The main reason I have Metro is back in 2006, when I moved here and needed a cell phone, they were the only ones that offered a flat rate for unlimited voice calls. I am sometimes on the phone with a help desk for an hour at a time. I didn't want to have to worry about minutes. I stick with them now out of loyalty more than anything, since there are other options available, and they got bought by T-Mobile last year.
You did say:
Once you have that, it's pretty straightforward to say that their job is to regulate flying things that may occupy or present hazards to that commercial airspace.
So, yes you did say something like that, considering this /. discussion is about a remote controlled toy flying over, around, and into buildings in a city.
Maybe I'm adding meaning to your specific post from reading dozens of others that state the FAA controls, and rightly so, everything in the air because it is all commercial airspace. If so, I stand corrected.
OK. That's cool. Sorry if I sounded like an ass.