the argument that the secretary of state should be prosecuted for handling security as she saw fit, in a manner which was legal and actually avoided breaches which occurred in the actual state department server, is similar to the argument that the CEO of a company should be fired for discussing business on his personal phone when he gets an urgent call one day when he's at disneyland with his kids. the fact is, in any organization people who set policy are to a large degree permitted to violate said policy on their own judgement to a degree to which underlings are not allowed.
That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.
yes, since ken starr, trent gowdy, and james comey are all conspiring with their fellow democrats to not indict her just because there is no evidence of any crime, she should be imprisoned just because of your general feelings. that's the problem with america these days, we can no longer just throw people in jail or execute them because we just don't like them. make america great again!
if the company is doing well, the CEO deserves a lot of money as a reward. if the company is doing badly, the CEO deserves a lot of money for having such a tough job.
This is one of the most dangerous things about Trump. He says a ton of things. His supporters filter out the things they don't like and just say "Oh, he was joking. He doesn't really believe that." You can pick and choose from Trump's statements and pretty much build your ideal candidate no matter what your political views if you're right of center. However, the stuff that gets ignored as "That's just Trump being Trump" isn't throwaway material. It's a pattern of reckless speech at best and advocating some really scary proposals at worst.
that is entirely what is weird about trumpoons. they believe trump doesn't mean what he says, so they'll vote for him. they believe hillary doesn't mean what she says, so they'll vote against her.
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
does anybody not think putin isn't shaking his head "i can't believe this moron is trying so desperately to be my friend. i am the luckiest SOB on earth"
How else are we going to find out what people in our government are doing? Wait for the press to tell us?
If you want the press to uncover -- instead of helping cover up -- what the government is doing, you should support Trump for President. The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.
really? because i'm still waiting for the press to report on what trump's investigators in hawaii found about obama's birth certificate. remember? the "unbelievable" stuff he told us they found? the press just left it hanging. inquiring voters need to know.
The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change
Record cold can be evidence for global warming. The key is to understand what "warming" actually is: adding energy to the system. Consider a glass of water. What happens when you add energy to it by shaking it? The answer is, it sloshes around -- the maximum height of the water surface gets higher, and the minimum height gets lower. Or consider the refrigeration thermodynamic cycle: one part of the system gets colder even though the total energy of the system is increasing.
That's not to say that record cold is always evidence of global warming, or indeed that it could never be evidence of an oncoming ice age. I'm just pointing out that the issue is more complicated than "record cold = cooling" or "record heat = heating" considered in isolation. We only know that record heat actually is evidence for heating because it's been observed as part of a larger pattern and was predicted by climate models and such (i.e., all the actual science that climatologists do that a Fox News sound bite is inadequate to explain).
indeed. for an analogy; high summer temperatures in my house are correlated with very low temperatures; directly in front of my air conditioner.
in a vaguely analogous way, the shut down of the Gulf Stream observed with increased oceanic warming is going to lead to colder winters for Europe, most of which is north of NYC. and, weirdly enough, to increased rate of sea level rise on the US east coast, since the old Gulf Stream was powerful enough to actually lower the water level there.
The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change - but when "alarmists" do the same thing, most people just nod. It is a double standard. For the record, again, before anyone gets all irate about it, I do not deny global climate change - I'm just not biased enough to be blind to the double standard.
again, both the frequency of records, high and low, and the area having such records can be quantized, and are quite amenable to rigorous statistical analysis, complete with calculations of confidence intervals, etc. It is intuitively obvious that calling out an individual record in either direction is of no value statistically, but noting that some hypothetical measure has had 253 new record highs as opposed to 1 record low in the past week is indicative of a certain shift.
Uh, I would have thought that most of the cumulative CO2 is due to coal, civil engineering and metallurgy, agriculture and land use change.
"the country-level contributions to climate change are
extremely sensitive to two factors: (1) the time period
chosen and (2) inclusion of LUCF [land use change] (and non-CO2) emissions. Even if countries could agree on which
time period to adopt, no official country-level data
exists prior to 1990. Unofficial data for CO2 from
fossil fuels extends back to the 1800s.However, the
certainty of data covering such distant time periods is
likely to be disputed. Historical data is also geographically
biased, as earlier data is more likely to be
available for European
countries. Equally
significant is the
absence of virtually
any country-level data
for non-CO2 gases and
LUCF prior to 1990."
http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_...
There's quite a few cities and oil terminals that sit on the Persian Gulf. From what I read elsewhere, the daily temperatures will be so hot that people will just drop dead without an environmental suit.
and rightwingers will still be insisting that the earth is not warming, it is just a conspiracy by the liberals and those egghead climatologists, led by Al Gore.
Thanks....59C means absolutely nothing to me....I was about to have to go look this up on a google conversion....PITA.
:)
'Murica! Fuck yeah! (roll eyes)
As everyone knows, temperature is best expressed in degrees Q.
so, the freezing point of water is 57 degrees Q, obviously the most easily understood and most useful numerical range for this measurement.
Also Celsius is based on something familiar to everyone. Water boils at 100 freezes at 0, easy.
Anyone can tell you 7 is cold and 70 is hot. What does Fahrenheit relate to? Who knows?
I would venture to guess that hardly any American would know how to dress really at 7C or 70C...they are meaningless in every day use here in the US.
It depends on what you are used to and have grown up with....
I instantly know what to wear and the comfort zone of a day outside with the high at 76F. AT 76C I'd have no idea what to put on....
It isn't like when I listen to the weather forecast that I think "Hmm...how close is this to the freezing or boiling point of water?". You just know from years of experience and growing up with every day normal weather and activities.
And being that Slashdot is a US centric site...most of us here are used to getting our stores with the units of measure we're used to dealing with here, and not having to stop, hit google and find a conversion site....
obviously you're both incorrect. any temperature measurement system which does not start with absolute zero is just making things difficult for no reason, since temperature is directly dependent on molecular kinetic energy, which can never be negative. you can calculate black body radiation directly from absolute temp, for instance, but you need to convert either Fahrenheit or Celsius before using them, a totally unnecessary step.
Enjoy your life in the data ghetto that is the USA. If you want to talk to anyone from the other 95.6% of the world then it's time to get that 8th grade education you should already have.
according to my hypermetric measurement system (all rights reserved) the 95.6% is OK, but you need to refer to an educational level of 6.67 decigradeschool units. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/7...
I always wondered how everyone understood measurements given by the UK show Top Gear when they talk about miles, miles per hour and horsepower. Not to mention pints.
Yeah they call a large glass of beer 'a pint' but its not literally a pint of liquid, its just a euphemism. If you empty your glass and get a measuring jug, fill it to 1 pint of water then pour it into the glass it'll overflow. I've done this.
Even weirder: the old saying, "a pint's a pound, the world around", when that's only true in the US.
I'm not basing my post on the "single data point", but on these:
were hit by heatwaves that have become more frequent over the last half-century
Earth is fresh off the hottest six months on record
the warmest June in the modern history and also the 14th consecutive month of unprecedented hotness
Gee, did you not even read the freaking summary?
but but but... it hadn't gotten warmer since 1998! that proves there's no warming, now and forever, right?
gotta hand it to the openmindness of denialists; to hold at the same time the beliefs that 1) there is no warming and 2) the warming is not manmade is evidence of a really flexible hold on logic.
Slashdot Mirror
the argument that the secretary of state should be prosecuted for handling security as she saw fit, in a manner which was legal and actually avoided breaches which occurred in the actual state department server, is similar to the argument that the CEO of a company should be fired for discussing business on his personal phone when he gets an urgent call one day when he's at disneyland with his kids. the fact is, in any organization people who set policy are to a large degree permitted to violate said policy on their own judgement to a degree to which underlings are not allowed.
That criminal witch is untouchable, so I don't see the point of further hacks. She should be headed to prison instead of the White House.
yes, since ken starr, trent gowdy, and james comey are all conspiring with their fellow democrats to not indict her just because there is no evidence of any crime, she should be imprisoned just because of your general feelings. that's the problem with america these days, we can no longer just throw people in jail or execute them because we just don't like them. make america great again!
if the company is doing well, the CEO deserves a lot of money as a reward. if the company is doing badly, the CEO deserves a lot of money for having such a tough job.
to be fair, that might kill off the Zia carrying mosquitoes. http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
"“Probably it was China or somebody else."
"Might be a 400-pound person sitting in bed. K? Might be. Some of the greatest hackers of all time.” right! sentence fragment might.
"“Probably it was China or somebody else."
This is one of the most dangerous things about Trump. He says a ton of things. His supporters filter out the things they don't like and just say "Oh, he was joking. He doesn't really believe that." You can pick and choose from Trump's statements and pretty much build your ideal candidate no matter what your political views if you're right of center. However, the stuff that gets ignored as "That's just Trump being Trump" isn't throwaway material. It's a pattern of reckless speech at best and advocating some really scary proposals at worst.
that is entirely what is weird about trumpoons. they believe trump doesn't mean what he says, so they'll vote for him. they believe hillary doesn't mean what she says, so they'll vote against her.
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
does anybody not think putin isn't shaking his head "i can't believe this moron is trying so desperately to be my friend. i am the luckiest SOB on earth"
How else are we going to find out what people in our government are doing? Wait for the press to tell us?
If you want the press to uncover -- instead of helping cover up -- what the government is doing, you should support Trump for President. The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.
really? because i'm still waiting for the press to report on what trump's investigators in hawaii found about obama's birth certificate. remember? the "unbelievable" stuff he told us they found? the press just left it hanging. inquiring voters need to know.
Okay, so when it is very cold, unseasonably it is "weather" but when it is hot, it is Global Warming. Got it.
And people wonder why we don't believe Global Warming.
No to your first paragraph, definite yes to the second.
Record cold can be evidence for global warming. The key is to understand what "warming" actually is: adding energy to the system. Consider a glass of water. What happens when you add energy to it by shaking it? The answer is, it sloshes around -- the maximum height of the water surface gets higher, and the minimum height gets lower. Or consider the refrigeration thermodynamic cycle: one part of the system gets colder even though the total energy of the system is increasing.
That's not to say that record cold is always evidence of global warming, or indeed that it could never be evidence of an oncoming ice age. I'm just pointing out that the issue is more complicated than "record cold = cooling" or "record heat = heating" considered in isolation. We only know that record heat actually is evidence for heating because it's been observed as part of a larger pattern and was predicted by climate models and such (i.e., all the actual science that climatologists do that a Fox News sound bite is inadequate to explain).
indeed. for an analogy; high summer temperatures in my house are correlated with very low temperatures; directly in front of my air conditioner.
in a vaguely analogous way, the shut down of the Gulf Stream observed with increased oceanic warming is going to lead to colder winters for Europe, most of which is north of NYC.
and, weirdly enough, to increased rate of sea level rise on the US east coast, since the old Gulf Stream was powerful enough to actually lower the water level there.
The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change - but when "alarmists" do the same thing, most people just nod. It is a double standard. For the record, again, before anyone gets all irate about it, I do not deny global climate change - I'm just not biased enough to be blind to the double standard.
again, both the frequency of records, high and low, and the area having such records can be quantized, and are quite amenable to rigorous statistical analysis, complete with calculations of confidence intervals, etc. It is intuitively obvious that calling out an individual record in either direction is of no value statistically, but noting that some hypothetical measure has had 253 new record highs as opposed to 1 record low in the past week is indicative of a certain shift.
Uh, I would have thought that most of the cumulative CO2 is due to coal, civil engineering and metallurgy, agriculture and land use change.
"the country-level contributions to climate change are extremely sensitive to two factors: (1) the time period chosen and (2) inclusion of LUCF [land use change] (and non-CO2) emissions. Even if countries could agree on which time period to adopt, no official country-level data exists prior to 1990. Unofficial data for CO2 from fossil fuels extends back to the 1800s.However, the certainty of data covering such distant time periods is likely to be disputed. Historical data is also geographically biased, as earlier data is more likely to be available for European countries. Equally significant is the absence of virtually any country-level data for non-CO2 gases and LUCF prior to 1990." http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_...
Is that a bad thing?
Only for the Europeans when the climate refugees show up on their borders.
The Danes can relocate them to Greenland.
I said pilsner, not "Budweiser".
Bud would probably be better because its very close to water.
"but why do i have to take out flood insurance before i buy a case of Budweiser?"
"Because it's so close to water, duh"
It's uninhabitable already.
There's quite a few cities and oil terminals that sit on the Persian Gulf. From what I read elsewhere, the daily temperatures will be so hot that people will just drop dead without an environmental suit.
and rightwingers will still be insisting that the earth is not warming, it is just a conspiracy by the liberals and those egghead climatologists, led by Al Gore.
Thanks....59C means absolutely nothing to me....I was about to have to go look this up on a google conversion....PITA.
'Murica! Fuck yeah! (roll eyes)
As everyone knows, temperature is best expressed in degrees Q. so, the freezing point of water is 57 degrees Q, obviously the most easily understood and most useful numerical range for this measurement.
I'm not interested in the freezing/boiling point of water. I know that I freeze at 0F and boil at 100F.
try calibrating your thermometer on that basis.
I would venture to guess that hardly any American would know how to dress really at 7C or 70C...they are meaningless in every day use here in the US.
It depends on what you are used to and have grown up with....
I instantly know what to wear and the comfort zone of a day outside with the high at 76F. AT 76C I'd have no idea what to put on....
It isn't like when I listen to the weather forecast that I think "Hmm...how close is this to the freezing or boiling point of water?". You just know from years of experience and growing up with every day normal weather and activities.
And being that Slashdot is a US centric site...most of us here are used to getting our stores with the units of measure we're used to dealing with here, and not having to stop, hit google and find a conversion site....
obviously you're both incorrect. any temperature measurement system which does not start with absolute zero is just making things difficult for no reason, since temperature is directly dependent on molecular kinetic energy, which can never be negative. you can calculate black body radiation directly from absolute temp, for instance, but you need to convert either Fahrenheit or Celsius before using them, a totally unnecessary step.
The actual funny thing is that your "2 digit positive number" has overflown into three digits for this story.
So hot it went over two digits. That actually makes it very obvious just how extremely hot it was.
right. 100 degrees F and 129 degrees F, same thing. also, 750 degrees F.
Enjoy your life in the data ghetto that is the USA. If you want to talk to anyone from the other 95.6% of the world then it's time to get that 8th grade education you should already have.
according to my hypermetric measurement system (all rights reserved) the 95.6% is OK, but you need to refer to an educational level of 6.67 decigradeschool units. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/7...
I always wondered how everyone understood measurements given by the UK show Top Gear when they talk about miles, miles per hour and horsepower. Not to mention pints.
Yeah they call a large glass of beer 'a pint' but its not literally a pint of liquid, its just a euphemism. If you empty your glass and get a measuring jug, fill it to 1 pint of water then pour it into the glass it'll overflow. I've done this.
Even weirder: the old saying, "a pint's a pound, the world around", when that's only true in the US.
I hope you realize that 129.2F means absolutely nothing to the majority of the world. ;)
No, that would be -459.67F.
We can always sprinkle a bit of water on you if you want.
"Domini Domini Domini, you're all Catholics now."
I'm not basing my post on the "single data point", but on these:
were hit by heatwaves that have become more frequent over the last half-century
Earth is fresh off the hottest six months on record
the warmest June in the modern history and also the 14th consecutive month of unprecedented hotness
Gee, did you not even read the freaking summary?
but but but... it hadn't gotten warmer since 1998! that proves there's no warming, now and forever, right?
gotta hand it to the openmindness of denialists; to hold at the same time the beliefs that 1) there is no warming and 2) the warming is not manmade is evidence of a really flexible hold on logic.