Fossil remains do not exist on the depth they now extract oil from. Therefore the fossil fuel term cannot be correct. With over 90 % of CO2 on earth contained in oceans, the claim of CO2 increase cannot be validated especially when measured only over some euro wacko agencies.
and not only that, petroleum is not a rock or stone, so the term petroleum cannot be correct.
and we have no proof that the increase in atmospheric CO2 measured isn't cause by CO2 coming out of the ocean, at a rate correlated with our generation of CO2 from burning carbon, which then disappears.
It could happen!
why don't we just use the energy collected by the nanowires, in the first place?
because if you think about it, to end the increase of CO2 we're going to need to synthesize as much carbon into acetate as we are burning coal; which means we're going to need the nanowire system to produce at least as much energy as the coal burning is releasing.
Dogs Flew Spaceships!
The Aztecs Invented the Vacation!
Men and Women are the Same Sex!
Our Forefathers Took Drugs!
Your Brain Is Not the Boss!
Yes, that's Right: Everything You Know Is Wrong!!!
Hello seekers! Here we go again! And hello to the skeptic inside you who might still believe that pigs live in trees, and that faithful Rovers is nothing more than a pet sleeping by the doggie door. Well, doggone it, he's smarter than you'll ever be! Yes, I've got proof here that his ancestors came from the Dog Star millions of years ago to rule the Earth! He's been there - and you probably don't even know where you are...
-- With much kudos to The Firesign Theatre, 1974
"For years researchers have argued over where and when dogs arose."
Ah yes, the great dog uprising of 02, back in the old country. Let me tell ya, sonny, that was a scary day for anybody with a pocket full of ground beef. The cats didn't come down from the trees for weeks afterwards. Chihuahuas made up a cavalry charge, riding on the backs of Great Danes. All was nearly lost, until the air corps saved us with a mass airdrop of tennis balls.
There was a guy who claimed to have bred an abadile by mating an abalone with a crocodile, but when it was investigated it turned out to be a crocobalone.
The daddy dog hits happy hour at the bar one Friday after work, and that turns out to be the night the pups are having a sleepover at their friends' house, so the mommy dog rolls in some nice smelling shit and when Daddy gets home kind of drunk........
Now when the dog gets into something and you holler at her the two cats pop there heads up and have a "What? I wasn't doing anything" look on there faces.
"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet.
This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.
Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.
Who knows what happened when the ship hit the fan.
You are right. We can't get any large projects completed today. Not the International Space Station, a large hadron collider, or anything of that sort.
Nonsense. We have made the Kardashians famous. No other generation could accomplish that.
You don't have enough mathematics to convince conservative people today for the need to fix 50,000+ bridges in the U.S., much less get them to believe that man-made global warming is a real issue.
Until we get cooked, nobody knows if it can be done!
You only see the projects that were completed; there were plenty of others that were never started for various reasons. But even today there are may Megaprojects planned or in work. Granted, many of these are outside the US but not all of them.
That said, your comment is off topic. Sinking an obsolete aircraft carrier after blowing the crap out of it with a couple of atomic bombs hardly qualifies as something that was done "for the betterment of people".
It's the kind of thing kids like to do. "Hey, let's stuff your ship model with m-80s and blow it up and see what happens" "yeah!"
Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?
It's common practice to get invited in to chat with your boss, and to return to your desk to find that your id and password have been inactivated and you have like half an hour to clean out your desk before you are escorted to your car by security. there are some crazy folks out there.
Actually, no. TFA article doesn't like Bayesian techniques either. They want to use purely descriptive statistics.
So basically, they're replacing something that a lot of people misinterpret with something else that essentially cannot be interpreted properly due to lack of information.
Reminds me of when in my younger and wiser days, I challenged the Old Statistician's use of arithmetic mean for a nonGaussian variable. "Why do you use the mean?" I raged. "Why do you not use the median?"
"Because they don't know what the median means" he answered, "and they all know what the mean is, so they're better off with a biased number they understand than a correct one that completely baffles them".
Since then, I have come to agree.
Actually, a new driver can tell what situations are "scary" when driving, while an experienced driver has gotten used to it and doesn't even notice he's doing something risky.
It's pretty clear from lots of studies what situations are risky, which seem to agree with intuition: left turns, sensory overload (like strip malls with lots of entrances and exits and cars coming and going from left and right, for instance), invisible things (like driveways completely hidden behind a wall or screen of trees, etc.) and experience does indeed lead to underestimating the risks.
I think proven safe drivers can provide valuable input into an effort to understand safe driving. Safe driving is not a new body of knowledge, it is actually quite thoroughly researched and statistically assessed. The assumption that experienced, proven, trained safe drivers bring nothing to the table and that it can be better done without them may be its own form of hubris....or simple ignorance.
"Proven safe" drivers can be an open question, depending on how that is judged; the drivers who puttputt down the freeway at a steady 45 mph, for instance, congratulating themselves on their safe and steady driving without getting themselves into accidents, despite leaving a vortex of cars in their wake trying to change lanes.
Umm, how about getting it developed by people who have quite a number of years driving experience instead. What an inexperienced driver might think is important might not be so to an experienced one and vice verca.
Its a very good suggestion. I think it is quite funny (and sad) how some responders completely dismiss experience as a useful input.
Experience teaches us to distrust experience. Wait, what?
Because for some reason people are strangely defensive about their way of driving and people tend to pick up a lot of bad habits when they have been driving for a long time. It's extremely common that "experienced" drivers don't even look one direction in intersections because "no-one is ever coming from that direction this time of day anyway."
One of the things that makes experienced drivers seem more stable and less erratic is simply because they have gotten used to many possible situations never happening and have started to ignore them, focusing more on a smoother flow rather than being able to handle every possible situation.
This isn't the same as driving safer.
That's a downside to driving a manual trans (see above); other folks who occasionally want to borrow it have told me things like "My daddy taught me to keep it in gear with your foot on the clutch at red lights" "Nooooooooooooo!" but I know they do it anyway. (this is a true story).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.
in the country of the blind, the one eyed man better keep his damn mouth shut if he knows what's good for him.
the term is "fool's paradise", never "genius' paradise"
Fossil remains do not exist on the depth they now extract oil from. Therefore the fossil fuel term cannot be correct. With over 90 % of CO2 on earth contained in oceans, the claim of CO2 increase cannot be validated especially when measured only over some euro wacko agencies.
and not only that, petroleum is not a rock or stone, so the term petroleum cannot be correct.
and we have no proof that the increase in atmospheric CO2 measured isn't cause by CO2 coming out of the ocean, at a rate correlated with our generation of CO2 from burning carbon, which then disappears.
It could happen!
why don't we just use the energy collected by the nanowires, in the first place?
because if you think about it, to end the increase of CO2 we're going to need to synthesize as much carbon into acetate as we are burning coal; which means we're going to need the nanowire system to produce at least as much energy as the coal burning is releasing.
Dogs Flew Spaceships! The Aztecs Invented the Vacation! Men and Women are the Same Sex! Our Forefathers Took Drugs! Your Brain Is Not the Boss! Yes, that's Right: Everything You Know Is Wrong!!! Hello seekers! Here we go again! And hello to the skeptic inside you who might still believe that pigs live in trees, and that faithful Rovers is nothing more than a pet sleeping by the doggie door. Well, doggone it, he's smarter than you'll ever be! Yes, I've got proof here that his ancestors came from the Dog Star millions of years ago to rule the Earth! He's been there - and you probably don't even know where you are... -- With much kudos to The Firesign Theatre, 1974
"For years researchers have argued over where and when dogs arose."
Ah yes, the great dog uprising of 02, back in the old country. Let me tell ya, sonny, that was a scary day for anybody with a pocket full of ground beef. The cats didn't come down from the trees for weeks afterwards. Chihuahuas made up a cavalry charge, riding on the backs of Great Danes. All was nearly lost, until the air corps saved us with a mass airdrop of tennis balls.
Booyah!
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/...
There was a guy who claimed to have bred an abadile by mating an abalone with a crocodile, but when it was investigated it turned out to be a crocobalone.
Because they can.
You want they should maybe bite their balls?
Dog think they're family. Cats think they're God. -- Origin unknown
It's a little known fact that dogs and cats are males and females of the same species.
bitches got that doggy pussy.
We named the dog Indiana.
And what did you name the dog outside of Diana?
right now. I have the answer.
dogs come from puppies
The daddy dog hits happy hour at the bar one Friday after work, and that turns out to be the night the pups are having a sleepover at their friends' house, so the mommy dog rolls in some nice smelling shit and when Daddy gets home kind of drunk ........
My wife named the dog Kat.
Now when the dog gets into something and you holler at her the two cats pop there heads up and have a "What? I wasn't doing anything" look on there faces.
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyri...
But eventually, they all go to heaven.
Government enterprise is socialism and therefore invalid.
Only in republics, silly. In a monarchy, government enterprise is private property, of the monarch.
"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet. This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking. Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.
Who knows what happened when the ship hit the fan.
I will also point out that Caffeine is far more toxic than Plutonium
and... CO2 is necessary for plants!
Did I guess right?
You are right. We can't get any large projects completed today. Not the International Space Station, a large hadron collider, or anything of that sort.
Nonsense. We have made the Kardashians famous. No other generation could accomplish that.
You don't have enough mathematics to convince conservative people today for the need to fix 50,000+ bridges in the U.S., much less get them to believe that man-made global warming is a real issue.
Until we get cooked, nobody knows if it can be done!
You only see the projects that were completed; there were plenty of others that were never started for various reasons. But even today there are may Megaprojects planned or in work. Granted, many of these are outside the US but not all of them.
That said, your comment is off topic. Sinking an obsolete aircraft carrier after blowing the crap out of it with a couple of atomic bombs hardly qualifies as something that was done "for the betterment of people".
It's the kind of thing kids like to do. "Hey, let's stuff your ship model with m-80s and blow it up and see what happens" "yeah!"
Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?
It's common practice to get invited in to chat with your boss, and to return to your desk to find that your id and password have been inactivated and you have like half an hour to clean out your desk before you are escorted to your car by security. there are some crazy folks out there.
Actually, no. TFA article doesn't like Bayesian techniques either. They want to use purely descriptive statistics.
So basically, they're replacing something that a lot of people misinterpret with something else that essentially cannot be interpreted properly due to lack of information.
Reminds me of when in my younger and wiser days, I challenged the Old Statistician's use of arithmetic mean for a nonGaussian variable. "Why do you use the mean?" I raged. "Why do you not use the median?"
"Because they don't know what the median means" he answered, "and they all know what the mean is, so they're better off with a biased number they understand than a correct one that completely baffles them". Since then, I have come to agree.
Actually, a new driver can tell what situations are "scary" when driving, while an experienced driver has gotten used to it and doesn't even notice he's doing something risky.
It's pretty clear from lots of studies what situations are risky, which seem to agree with intuition: left turns, sensory overload (like strip malls with lots of entrances and exits and cars coming and going from left and right, for instance), invisible things (like driveways completely hidden behind a wall or screen of trees, etc.) and experience does indeed lead to underestimating the risks.
I think proven safe drivers can provide valuable input into an effort to understand safe driving. Safe driving is not a new body of knowledge, it is actually quite thoroughly researched and statistically assessed. The assumption that experienced, proven, trained safe drivers bring nothing to the table and that it can be better done without them may be its own form of hubris....or simple ignorance.
"Proven safe" drivers can be an open question, depending on how that is judged; the drivers who puttputt down the freeway at a steady 45 mph, for instance, congratulating themselves on their safe and steady driving without getting themselves into accidents, despite leaving a vortex of cars in their wake trying to change lanes.
Umm, how about getting it developed by people who have quite a number of years driving experience instead. What an inexperienced driver might think is important might not be so to an experienced one and vice verca.
Its a very good suggestion. I think it is quite funny (and sad) how some responders completely dismiss experience as a useful input.
Experience teaches us to distrust experience. Wait, what?
Because for some reason people are strangely defensive about their way of driving and people tend to pick up a lot of bad habits when they have been driving for a long time. It's extremely common that "experienced" drivers don't even look one direction in intersections because "no-one is ever coming from that direction this time of day anyway." One of the things that makes experienced drivers seem more stable and less erratic is simply because they have gotten used to many possible situations never happening and have started to ignore them, focusing more on a smoother flow rather than being able to handle every possible situation. This isn't the same as driving safer.
That's a downside to driving a manual trans (see above); other folks who occasionally want to borrow it have told me things like "My daddy taught me to keep it in gear with your foot on the clutch at red lights" "Nooooooooooooo!" but I know they do it anyway. (this is a true story).