Back in the late 70s one of the bike mags had a piece on an Italian company who were marketing a beautifully made crankset with right angle bends in them.. They weren't impressed with the idea then, either. Now, as to the efficacy of oval chainwheels.....
so.... those kids in Sandy Hook CT were Hispanic? You know, seeing 20 elementary school age kids die in a single day is a fairly significant contributor to the death rate at that age group.
and of course, when we examine the stockholders of the insurance companies, we see the mutual fund companies, and when we examine the owners of the mutual funds, we find our own 401Ks, which will kick the ass of any CEO whose company isn't bringing down healthy profits. Because if the mutual funds didn't do that, we'd put our 401Ks somewhere that did. Welcome to the contradictions of the system.
A little understanding of the blue shift phenomenon will lead you to see how a perfectly doable sublight vessel that got near to the speed of light, which is what you'd need to get from star to star without FTL, upon aiming the drive forward in order to decelerate would bombard the destination with enough hard radiation to sterilize it good.
It's not at all obvious that advanced civilizations will be on the pathway to harness greater and greater energies via more complex technologies, unless you define advanced to mean harnessing greater energies. We're souped up monkeys; we do things monkeys would do and think like monkeys would. Frankly, the beginnings of human technology lay in banging rocks together.
I venture to say that a civilization derived from cetaceans would be quite different, given that they don't have hands, vision underwater isn't a major sense, there isn't a lot of stuff around to bang together, and they would never encounter fire.
but almost all states now allocate 100% of the states' electoral votes to the winner of the state. this means they don't have to count the ballots too accurately most of the time, but it's a complete negation of the whole principle of elections. am I correct in understanding your post to be against this procedure?
are you female? because i think most men would be baffled over the concept that they have the ability to turn their libido on and off. I'm heterosexual, and I really doubt I could manage to talk myself into lusting over male contact, which leads me to believe that those who do have those feelings have not just talked themselves into it.
heck for all I know, maybe women aren't any more in control than men are, they just pretend to be.
I would say that include "How widespread are nonadaptive traits? To what extent does evolution proceed by very small, gradual steps versus larger, quantum jumps? What is the purpose of all that 'junk DNA"? Did human beings evolve from a single lineage, or many times, independently? Why does homosexuality persist?"
The big unknowns are things like what is the reality which underlies our perception of the universe, given the wave/particle duality? if everything is complexly intertwingled, as quantum theory suggests, then were do we get the impression of individual consciousness? why is time so asymmetrical in our perception? are there other possibilities for naturally evolving life than carbon/water biochemistry and how would we recognize them? what is consciousness? how does information transfer between individuals? etc. etc. etc.
If drugs have to be tested against placebos, because the placebo effect is strong enough to have a significant cure rate versus not giving a placebo; then why aren't we being given placebos for things we don't have drugs for?
As with the "inert ingredients" of "generic equivalents" which are usually quite different from what's in the brand name drug. Aside from the obvious, some of the effects of this difference include kids who won't take the generic because it tastes yucky.
Why don't you do this thing called think for yourself and examine all the criticisms about Hansen and all the support for him out there then make any decision you think you are trying to make.
1) It's like the old adage; fast. cheap, or good; pick two. If you're lucky. If not you get only one. Or zero. 2) Unlike other engineering disciplines where you have to pass a licensing exam, in "software engineering" there aren't established standards equivalent to the crush strength of asphalt or the melting point of tungsten which you have to at least know exist and can be looked up in order to be accepted as a real engineer in the chemical, mechanical, aeronautical, hydraulic, automotive, or whatever other real engineering sense. I wouldn't let a high school kid who taught himself mechanical engineering in his spare time design me a roller coaster; i know quite a few folks who should know better who had their cousin in high school who "taught himself computers in his spare time" design for them a billing system or inventory system or something of that ilk. 3) writing code is more like writing music. and there are general concepts which help you write good code just like there are general concepts that help you write good music. but writing a VBA macro for excel is a far cry from designing a pentode audio amp, to pick two tasks of approximately equal degree of difficulty, for those who are marginally facile in the relevant disciplines; like having a single course under the belt.
You realize that you're talking about Senator Timothy Wirth, not Hansen, right? Wirth tells the "funny story" about what he did the day when Hansen was to speak, I know you guys think all us AGW folks are in collusion, pawns of the all-powerful climatology lobby and all.
lol. Hansen.. I tend not to put much faith or credit in people who use stage tricks to exaggerate a point then claim it was justifiable because of his own belief in the urgency of it. He's sort of like the crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is going to end on a specific date then running out in front of a bus on that day.
Hmmmmm..... PNAS, random guy on Slashdot who makes a lot of insinuations without any references; PNAS, random guy on Slashdot who makes a lot of insinuations without any references;..... whose opinion on Hansen's work should I believe? just too hard to decide.
This is a common error, frequently made be people who don't understand mathematics and graphs. As long as there is random noise in data, there will always be "plateaus" where things look stable but the underlining trend continues. In the case of global warming, if you try you can actually find a series of continuous downward slopes so that any year of the temperature record can appear to be part of a declining trend, while actual temperatures rise consistently. This is sometimes called going down the up escalator.
Indeed. Since I can measure each stair tread in my staircase and find them to be quite flat, it is therefore apparent that my staircase cannot possibly connect the upstairs with the downstairs.
In addition to this parental and, yes, proper advice: Go read some books in stead of throwing toys. There are good arguments for and against manmade global warming, and personally I think there is no such thing as MMGW. Thing is; there is no way of telling just yet.
Just yet? OK, maybe you could clue me in as to what exact piece of evidence that would prove that GW is MM that we haven't stumbled on yet. A signed confession or something? If there is no piece of evidence which could ever prove to you AGW exists, it would be honest of you to say that; or else tell us what exactly we are missing, so somebody could get to work and either find that evidence or not and settle things.
It is just a way of predicting the future, and there is no such business. The models are only as good as the information (=pre-assumptions) one puts in there, and then there is a huge lag of possible parameters in all those models.
One thing one could say is: There was no global warming in the last 10 years.
- But maybe that was just a temporary 'plateau', and it will continue to rise even further;
- But maybe this is a 'top pattern' and things will cool down now;
- But maybe the data was corrupted;
- But maybe the models of tomorrow are much more accurate In short; it is a bit to much:"*staring at handpalm, gipsy-accent* There will be a dark lady in your life! And great fortune as well!". We will know what the weather will be in 20 years after 20 years have gone by. The rest of all the people who (think they) can predict the future: GO BUY LOTTO TICKETS YOU IDIOT!!!
I can predict quite easily that buying lotto tickets isn't going to be worth what I would spend on them, so I don't. I suppose that's just an attempt to see the future, though, which nobody can do, right?
And that "no warming over the past 10 years" trope only had a one year shelf life. It expired when 2008 did.
Statistically accurate monitoring of processes has been a standard in industry for a looooong time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_chart#Chart_details The frequency of outliers from the previously seen upper and lower control limits is absolutely a function of the probability that the process has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the late 70s one of the bike mags had a piece on an Italian company who were marketing a beautifully made crankset with right angle bends in them.. They weren't impressed with the idea then, either.
Now, as to the efficacy of oval chainwheels.....
so.... those kids in Sandy Hook CT were Hispanic?
You know, seeing 20 elementary school age kids die in a single day is a fairly significant contributor to the death rate at that age group.
and of course, when we examine the stockholders of the insurance companies, we see the mutual fund companies, and when we examine the owners of the mutual funds, we find our own 401Ks, which will kick the ass of any CEO whose company isn't bringing down healthy profits. Because if the mutual funds didn't do that, we'd put our 401Ks somewhere that did.
Welcome to the contradictions of the system.
A little understanding of the blue shift phenomenon will lead you to see how a perfectly doable sublight vessel that got near to the speed of light, which is what you'd need to get from star to star without FTL, upon aiming the drive forward in order to decelerate would bombard the destination with enough hard radiation to sterilize it good.
It's not at all obvious that advanced civilizations will be on the pathway to harness greater and greater energies via more complex technologies, unless you define advanced to mean harnessing greater energies. We're souped up monkeys; we do things monkeys would do and think like monkeys would. Frankly, the beginnings of human technology lay in banging rocks together.
I venture to say that a civilization derived from cetaceans would be quite different, given that they don't have hands, vision underwater isn't a major sense, there isn't a lot of stuff around to bang together, and they would never encounter fire.
yes but cats do have 9 lives.
but almost all states now allocate 100% of the states' electoral votes to the winner of the state. this means they don't have to count the ballots too accurately most of the time, but it's a complete negation of the whole principle of elections.
am I correct in understanding your post to be against this procedure?
as we saw in 2000, who won is immaterial and irrelevant to the question of who will be president.
obama must have been like the smartest man on earth before he smoked.
are you female? because i think most men would be baffled over the concept that they have the ability to turn their libido on and off. I'm heterosexual, and I really doubt I could manage to talk myself into lusting over male contact, which leads me to believe that those who do have those feelings have not just talked themselves into it.
heck for all I know, maybe women aren't any more in control than men are, they just pretend to be.
I would say that include "How widespread are nonadaptive traits? To what extent does evolution proceed by very small, gradual steps versus larger, quantum jumps? What is the purpose of all that 'junk DNA"? Did human beings evolve from a single lineage, or many times, independently? Why does homosexuality persist?"
The big unknowns are things like
what is the reality which underlies our perception of the universe, given the wave/particle duality?
if everything is complexly intertwingled, as quantum theory suggests, then were do we get the impression of individual consciousness?
why is time so asymmetrical in our perception?
are there other possibilities for naturally evolving life than carbon/water biochemistry and how would we recognize them?
what is consciousness?
how does information transfer between individuals?
etc. etc. etc.
you mean, one cycle every 5 seconds? I can do that too. It's called breathing.
The Canadians made a terrible mistake when they called the $2 a twonie, when everybody knows it should be a doubleloon.
you won't be able to keep your attention properly on your radio/climate/navigation control screen.
If drugs have to be tested against placebos, because the placebo effect is strong enough to have a significant cure rate versus not giving a placebo; then why aren't we being given placebos for things we don't have drugs for?
As with the "inert ingredients" of "generic equivalents" which are usually quite different from what's in the brand name drug. Aside from the obvious, some of the effects of this difference include kids who won't take the generic because it tastes yucky.
And, one reason they use placebos when testing is to factor out any effects of the "inert" ingredients.
Why don't you do this thing called think for yourself and examine all the criticisms about Hansen and all the support for him out there then make any decision you think you are trying to make.
I did. Feel better now?
1) It's like the old adage; fast. cheap, or good; pick two. If you're lucky. If not you get only one. Or zero.
2) Unlike other engineering disciplines where you have to pass a licensing exam, in "software engineering" there aren't established standards equivalent to the crush strength of asphalt or the melting point of tungsten which you have to at least know exist and can be looked up in order to be accepted as a real engineer in the chemical, mechanical, aeronautical, hydraulic, automotive, or whatever other real engineering sense. I wouldn't let a high school kid who taught himself mechanical engineering in his spare time design me a roller coaster; i know quite a few folks who should know better who had their cousin in high school who "taught himself computers in his spare time" design for them a billing system or inventory system or something of that ilk.
3) writing code is more like writing music. and there are general concepts which help you write good code just like there are general concepts that help you write good music. but writing a VBA macro for excel is a far cry from designing a pentode audio amp, to pick two tasks of approximately equal degree of difficulty, for those who are marginally facile in the relevant disciplines; like having a single course under the belt.
You realize that you're talking about Senator Timothy Wirth, not Hansen, right? Wirth tells the "funny story" about what he did the day when Hansen was to speak, I know you guys think all us AGW folks are in collusion, pawns of the all-powerful climatology lobby and all.
lol. Hansen.. I tend not to put much faith or credit in people who use stage tricks to exaggerate a point then claim it was justifiable because of his own belief in the urgency of it. He's sort of like the crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is going to end on a specific date then running out in front of a bus on that day.
Hmmmmm..... PNAS, random guy on Slashdot who makes a lot of insinuations without any references; PNAS, random guy on Slashdot who makes a lot of insinuations without any references; ..... whose opinion on Hansen's work should I believe? just too hard to decide.
"He still draws a check, sure but that's different than being a functional member of the organization."
I bet he isn't a true Scotsman either.
Mr. Romney? that you?
This is a common error, frequently made be people who don't understand mathematics and graphs. As long as there is random noise in data, there will always be "plateaus" where things look stable but the underlining trend continues. In the case of global warming, if you try you can actually find a series of continuous downward slopes so that any year of the temperature record can appear to be part of a declining trend, while actual temperatures rise consistently. This is sometimes called going down the up escalator.
Indeed. Since I can measure each stair tread in my staircase and find them to be quite flat, it is therefore apparent that my staircase cannot possibly connect the upstairs with the downstairs.
In addition to this parental and, yes, proper advice: Go read some books in stead of throwing toys.
There are good arguments for and against manmade global warming, and personally I think there is no such thing as MMGW.
Thing is; there is no way of telling just yet.
Just yet? OK, maybe you could clue me in as to what exact piece of evidence that would prove that GW is MM that we haven't stumbled on yet. A signed confession or something? If there is no piece of evidence which could ever prove to you AGW exists, it would be honest of you to say that; or else tell us what exactly we are missing, so somebody could get to work and either find that evidence or not and settle things.
It is just a way of predicting the future, and there is no such business. The models are only as good as the information (=pre-assumptions) one puts in there, and then there is a huge lag of possible parameters in all those models.
One thing one could say is: There was no global warming in the last 10 years.
- But maybe that was just a temporary 'plateau', and it will continue to rise even further;
- But maybe this is a 'top pattern' and things will cool down now;
- But maybe the data was corrupted;
- But maybe the models of tomorrow are much more accurate
In short; it is a bit to much:"*staring at handpalm, gipsy-accent* There will be a dark lady in your life! And great fortune as well!". We will know what the weather will be in 20 years after 20 years have gone by. The rest of all the people who (think they) can predict the future: GO BUY LOTTO TICKETS YOU IDIOT!!!
I can predict quite easily that buying lotto tickets isn't going to be worth what I would spend on them, so I don't. I suppose that's just an attempt to see the future, though, which nobody can do, right?
And that "no warming over the past 10 years" trope only had a one year shelf life. It expired when 2008 did.
Statistically accurate monitoring of processes has been a standard in industry for a looooong time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_chart#Chart_details The frequency of outliers from the previously seen upper and lower control limits is absolutely a function of the probability that the process has changed.