The hypothesis doesn't really make sense. Chimpanzees do not practice monogamy, yet sex between chimps lasts a few seconds. In a pack or herd animal, the difference between spending a few seconds and spending a few minutes penetrating a female makes a negligible difference to that female's general availability: the male is still not going to be inside her for hours of the day. Oh, and chimpanzees do have a baculum, so the correlation is simply not there between longer intercourse and existence of a baculum.
I agree, the hypothesis does seem suspect, and I have no problem with someone saying that. I just object to rabid, frothing at the mouth ranting about how it is obviously part of some anti-male plot. The post I replied to called it a study by women about man issues. If the poster had read the actual article, he would have seen that the study was run by a man called Kit Opie.
Studies by women about man issues warrants 0% credibility.
We all know that these feminist have a political agenda of man-bashing. There's an all out war against masculinity by female marxist all around the world../ that I started reading in 1999, is now very inflitrated by left-marxist thinking.
How is this a "man issue"? It is a scientific study regarding a particular piece of evolutionary history. Do you have an issue? Are you suffering from penis-bone envy?
Why we would see methane release now when it wasn't (apparently, due to lack of runaway warming) 8000 years ago still stands, supported by peer-reviewed science.
I don't know if this is the reason, but I'll offer a possible reason: perhaps the methane was not there 8000 years ago? We are talking about anaerobic bogs; these grow over time. There are lots of them around where I live. In the immediate aftermath of the last glacial maximum there would have been nothing there but stone, boulder clay, gravel and lakes.
Seriously, you have to remember how far we've come and how fast. My college age kids might remember dial-up modems but probably not. Today one plans her outings around whether there's free public WiFi. That was an unimaginable luxury 15 years ago.
Still, with the infrastructure we now have in place it is depressing that the cost of data should be such an important consideration for a young person.
It's fake news that farming yields will drop. With CO2 rising (naturally) plants will begin to yield more and more returns. This is actually already happening.
With CO2 rising, photosynthesis in plants increases, resulting in higher yields of sugars and starches. It also requires less water, so crop production in areas that require irrigation will need less water. The flip side, however, is that you get less proteins & minerals in the plants. In addition to that, land that does not require irrigation, which is often much more fertile, will have less evaporation from plants and thus have greater run-off, which can speed up nutrient leaching and soil erosion.
If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.
So if there is a parody of something, that means the something doesn't exist? Try googling bird dogging, Scott Foval, and Rob Creamer. They literally paid people to incite violence at Trump campaigns.
The site I linked above had no obvious disclaimer saying it was a parody site. It claimed to be a news site, and was using a domain similar to that of an actual news company. As for your suggestions to google Rob Creamer and Scott Foval, I did, as I had never heard of either of them. What I read about Scott Foval was that someone released a heavily edited video of him to make it appear he said certain things. Googling Rob Creamer turned up a single result on the first page that was an article by a news company.... owned by Donals Trump's son in law. I stopped there.
Open your eyes, your mind and realize the same can be said about Hillary. She even paid people to create riots at Trump's rallies, so I'd say she deserves this sentence even more than Trump. But hey, freedom of tought...
I hadn't heard that particular claim before, so I googled it. I found this gem. http://abcnews.com.co/donald-t... I really enjoyed the big part on snopes, "a website known for its biased opinions and inaccurate information they write about stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue", something which purported to be an interview but which the author obviously pulled out of his arse. If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.
Grandparent said "all US citizens", not "full time workers". His math is correct. Why would you use full time workers?
Because he was mixing two different conversations going on here: one regarding UBI, and the previous posts in the thread he was replying to, regarding the lack of a shorter working week and/or a greater share in the profits of labour for todays more productive workforce. UBI is unneccessay if people are paid more for a shorter week; you just employ more people to do the work that is needed, and get rid of a lot of the make-work that so many are engaged in, and of course unemployment. Also, his UBI calculation does not give a realistic comparison to current wages that people can easily use. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who are married with kids, wishing they were on 45K for their entire family, not just themselves. That said, I would be more in favour of UBI than a forced shorter week. Some people are willing to put in the hours and should be rewarded for it, and also some proffessions just cannot currently get the numbers of staff required. It should never be so high as dividing the entire income of the nation amoungst the populace though. 20% might be alright.
The only reason that global warming is so alarming is because the scientific community has absolutely no idea what is causing it
Yes they do.
if it is indeed happening
Yes it is
You may not agree with the positions that this blog poster makes, but he makes some pretty critical points about climate change: http://realclimatescience.com/... . You cannot change the data to suit your needs; that's not science.
There is very little data in that post. There is a graph, which he claims is erroneous, with a link to the data. Then a graph that he claims is the true state of affairs, with... wait for it... no link to any data.
Scientists are just like everyone else: they're people with a job. Some of them are good at it but, frankly, most of them are decent-at-best at it -- just like every other job.
And when the top people in your particular field, having studied the information at hand, arrive at the same conclusion, do you immediately accuse them of collusion in a global plot to deceive everyone?
I didn't see any mistakes pointed out in that. All it said is that there are uncertaincies in relying upon proxy data. We know that. Nothing of value was added to any conversation by that article.
And on a macro scale, it's a bit odd to judge planetary data on merely human timescales. Technically, we're still in an Ice Age, and are merely between continental glacial advances.
Your astonomy now link gives lots of good information, except for one thing: the magnitude of the cooling effect proposed. It also contains drivel, like someone claiming to be a serious scientist saying "There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity" and "In the days of the Maunder minimum... Greenland was covered by glaciers” A two year old article from the Daily Mail saying that there has been no warming since 1998, a year chosen in many of these stories because it was the hottest year on record at the time, is just laughable when all 10 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 1998. As for us still being in an ice age, most people here know that. Yes, the earth has been hotter in the past, even with the dimmer sun of the past (it is getting slowly and steadily brighter over millions of years). Changes are not the big problem. The speed of them is.
Yeah damn those scientists and their pesky "facts".
This has nothing to do with facts. We are sick of your "facts". Why is it that the "scientific facts" always seem to be twisted toward your liberal agenda? Our beer is bad, but your red wine is healthy. Our cigarettes cause cancer and are being banned, but your marijuana cures cancer and is being legalized. Our hash browns cause diabetes, but all you arugula chomping vegans are expected to live to 110. Our SUVs are the spawn of Satan, while liberals get to drive their effeminate Priuses in the HOV lane. So don't give us any more of that crap about "facts". You really think we are too dumb to recognize an agenda when we see one?
I'm sick of hearing bullshit about a "liberal agenda". It's a nice undefined catch-all people who identify as rightwing use to descibe any idea they don't agree with. I'm a left winger in a country where our most rightwing politicians are to left of your most leftwing. I like beer. I used to smoke, I liked it but it was fucking up my lungs too much. I'm sure there are medicinal properties to cannabis; there are to nicotine as well (there are indications it helps stave off Parkinson's for example). Smoking either will screw up your lungs. I don't know what arugula is, if it isn't meat I don't want to know. SUVs are the spawn of Satan. Why the hell should people be encouraged to waste fuel driving a tank to drop little Johnny to playschool?
I've never seen someone not understanding that reply as "do something, anything, and you should be able to see for yourself". I thought that my explanation to what and how I'm searching would be enough.
You are making a claim, and others are saying that they have been unable to substatiate your claim. If you cannot provide an example of something you claim happens every time a certain action is performed, an action other people regularly perform without that result, we have to assume you are talking through your arse.
Sorry, not a native speaker... but isn't renumeration simply the nominalization of renumerate?
He was pointing out that renumerate and remunerate are two different words. Renumerate means to re-assign numerical labels. Remunerate means to provide compensation.
Because nobody can buy a basic gaming box for about $800.
Nope. Just never happens.
Buy? I just recycle 3 year old retired business desktops from customers. Slap in a 850W PSU, a graphics card, some more memory and an SSD. Not the cutting edge of gaming, but it is cheap.
It's mostly anecdotal at this point but there already seems to be a lot of buyers remorse. Thoughts on the possibility they'll have a follow-up "are you really sure?" referendum or at least an election where one of the parties campaigns on ignoring the result.
It would not be unprecedented. I'm Irish, and we have re-run constitutional votes twice in recent history to keep the EU project on track. We didn't have the xenophobic bullshit of the Brexit campaign going on though, so we didn't have the likes of Junker immediately shouting to get out.
>Unless you are more than 100 years old, you have never lived during a time when there were no commercial airlines.
100 years is definitely "not that long ago". It is a merely 0.1% of RECORDED history, which is itself a mere 100th of a percent of the history of the human race, and that is still only about 1/4 of 1000th of a percent of the history of life.
Can I get the records from 90000 years ago please? (Yes, I am poking fun at your math mistake, and I do agree 100 years is not a long time.)
Slashdot Mirror
The hypothesis doesn't really make sense. Chimpanzees do not practice monogamy, yet sex between chimps lasts a few seconds. In a pack or herd animal, the difference between spending a few seconds and spending a few minutes penetrating a female makes a negligible difference to that female's general availability: the male is still not going to be inside her for hours of the day. Oh, and chimpanzees do have a baculum, so the correlation is simply not there between longer intercourse and existence of a baculum.
I agree, the hypothesis does seem suspect, and I have no problem with someone saying that. I just object to rabid, frothing at the mouth ranting about how it is obviously part of some anti-male plot. The post I replied to called it a study by women about man issues. If the poster had read the actual article, he would have seen that the study was run by a man called Kit Opie.
Studies by women about man issues warrants 0% credibility.
We all know that these feminist have a political agenda of man-bashing. There's an all out war against masculinity by female marxist all around the world. ./ that I started reading in 1999, is now very inflitrated by left-marxist thinking.
How is this a "man issue"? It is a scientific study regarding a particular piece of evolutionary history. Do you have an issue? Are you suffering from penis-bone envy?
Why we would see methane release now when it wasn't (apparently, due to lack of runaway warming) 8000 years ago still stands, supported by peer-reviewed science.
I don't know if this is the reason, but I'll offer a possible reason: perhaps the methane was not there 8000 years ago? We are talking about anaerobic bogs; these grow over time. There are lots of them around where I live. In the immediate aftermath of the last glacial maximum there would have been nothing there but stone, boulder clay, gravel and lakes.
Cue the Four Yorkshiremen. Or Louis CK's classic rant.
Seriously, you have to remember how far we've come and how fast. My college age kids might remember dial-up modems but probably not. Today one plans her outings around whether there's free public WiFi. That was an unimaginable luxury 15 years ago.
Still, with the infrastructure we now have in place it is depressing that the cost of data should be such an important consideration for a young person.
It's fake news that farming yields will drop. With CO2 rising (naturally) plants will begin to yield more and more returns. This is actually already happening.
With CO2 rising, photosynthesis in plants increases, resulting in higher yields of sugars and starches. It also requires less water, so crop production in areas that require irrigation will need less water. The flip side, however, is that you get less proteins & minerals in the plants. In addition to that, land that does not require irrigation, which is often much more fertile, will have less evaporation from plants and thus have greater run-off, which can speed up nutrient leaching and soil erosion.
If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.
So if there is a parody of something, that means the something doesn't exist? Try googling bird dogging, Scott Foval, and Rob Creamer. They literally paid people to incite violence at Trump campaigns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The site I linked above had no obvious disclaimer saying it was a parody site. It claimed to be a news site, and was using a domain similar to that of an actual news company. As for your suggestions to google Rob Creamer and Scott Foval, I did, as I had never heard of either of them. What I read about Scott Foval was that someone released a heavily edited video of him to make it appear he said certain things. Googling Rob Creamer turned up a single result on the first page that was an article by a news company.... owned by Donals Trump's son in law. I stopped there.
Open your eyes, your mind and realize the same can be said about Hillary. She even paid people to create riots at Trump's rallies, so I'd say she deserves this sentence even more than Trump. But hey, freedom of tought...
I hadn't heard that particular claim before, so I googled it. I found this gem. http://abcnews.com.co/donald-t...
I really enjoyed the big part on snopes, "a website known for its biased opinions and inaccurate information they write about stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue", something which purported to be an interview but which the author obviously pulled out of his arse. If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.
Number of fulltime workers in US: 124.73 million.
Grandparent said "all US citizens", not "full time workers". His math is correct. Why would you use full time workers?
Because he was mixing two different conversations going on here: one regarding UBI, and the previous posts in the thread he was replying to, regarding the lack of a shorter working week and/or a greater share in the profits of labour for todays more productive workforce. UBI is unneccessay if people are paid more for a shorter week; you just employ more people to do the work that is needed, and get rid of a lot of the make-work that so many are engaged in, and of course unemployment. Also, his UBI calculation does not give a realistic comparison to current wages that people can easily use. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who are married with kids, wishing they were on 45K for their entire family, not just themselves. That said, I would be more in favour of UBI than a forced shorter week. Some people are willing to put in the hours and should be rewarded for it, and also some proffessions just cannot currently get the numbers of staff required. It should never be so high as dividing the entire income of the nation amoungst the populace though. 20% might be alright.
Number of fulltime workers in US: 124.73 million. Source.
Pot to be divvied up: $15 trillion.
Share per worker: $120,259. That's a tad more than $45k.
Quoting future history is not the most convincing form of evidence in support of a position.
Dog-Cow
I am genetically human, but to each its own.
The only reason that global warming is so alarming is because the scientific community has absolutely no idea what is causing it
Yes they do.
if it is indeed happening
Yes it is
You may not agree with the positions that this blog poster makes, but he makes some pretty critical points about climate change: http://realclimatescience.com/... . You cannot change the data to suit your needs; that's not science.
There is very little data in that post. There is a graph, which he claims is erroneous, with a link to the data. Then a graph that he claims is the true state of affairs, with... wait for it... no link to any data.
Scientists are just like everyone else: they're people with a job. Some of them are good at it but, frankly, most of them are decent-at-best at it -- just like every other job.
And when the top people in your particular field, having studied the information at hand, arrive at the same conclusion, do you immediately accuse them of collusion in a global plot to deceive everyone?
Eat a vegetable-based diet and you'll life a lot longer.
That may not be true, but it will certainly seem that way.
https://stream.org/xkcds-global-warming-time-series-mistakes/
I didn't see any mistakes pointed out in that. All it said is that there are uncertaincies in relying upon proxy data. We know that. Nothing of value was added to any conversation by that article.
That contention would be at odds with reports of a possible coming "Little Ice Age" due to the current Maunder-type sunspot minimum.
It is also at odds with reports of no global warming since the late 1990's.
And on a macro scale, it's a bit odd to judge planetary data on merely human timescales. Technically, we're still in an Ice Age, and are merely between continental glacial advances.
Your astonomy now link gives lots of good information, except for one thing: the magnitude of the cooling effect proposed. It also contains drivel, like someone claiming to be a serious scientist saying "There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity" and "In the days of the Maunder minimum... Greenland was covered by glaciers”
A two year old article from the Daily Mail saying that there has been no warming since 1998, a year chosen in many of these stories because it was the hottest year on record at the time, is just laughable when all 10 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 1998.
As for us still being in an ice age, most people here know that. Yes, the earth has been hotter in the past, even with the dimmer sun of the past (it is getting slowly and steadily brighter over millions of years). Changes are not the big problem. The speed of them is.
Yeah damn those scientists and their pesky "facts".
This has nothing to do with facts. We are sick of your "facts". Why is it that the "scientific facts" always seem to be twisted toward your liberal agenda? Our beer is bad, but your red wine is healthy. Our cigarettes cause cancer and are being banned, but your marijuana cures cancer and is being legalized. Our hash browns cause diabetes, but all you arugula chomping vegans are expected to live to 110. Our SUVs are the spawn of Satan, while liberals get to drive their effeminate Priuses in the HOV lane. So don't give us any more of that crap about "facts". You really think we are too dumb to recognize an agenda when we see one?
I'm sick of hearing bullshit about a "liberal agenda". It's a nice undefined catch-all people who identify as rightwing use to descibe any idea they don't agree with. I'm a left winger in a country where our most rightwing politicians are to left of your most leftwing. I like beer. I used to smoke, I liked it but it was fucking up my lungs too much. I'm sure there are medicinal properties to cannabis; there are to nicotine as well (there are indications it helps stave off Parkinson's for example). Smoking either will screw up your lungs. I don't know what arugula is, if it isn't meat I don't want to know. SUVs are the spawn of Satan. Why the hell should people be encouraged to waste fuel driving a tank to drop little Johnny to playschool?
I've never seen someone not understanding that reply as "do something, anything, and you should be able to see for yourself". I thought that my explanation to what and how I'm searching would be enough.
You are making a claim, and others are saying that they have been unable to substatiate your claim. If you cannot provide an example of something you claim happens every time a certain action is performed, an action other people regularly perform without that result, we have to assume you are talking through your arse.
Sorry, not a native speaker... but isn't renumeration simply the nominalization of renumerate?
He was pointing out that renumerate and remunerate are two different words. Renumerate means to re-assign numerical labels. Remunerate means to provide compensation.
Because nobody can buy a basic gaming box for about $800.
Nope. Just never happens.
Buy? I just recycle 3 year old retired business desktops from customers. Slap in a 850W PSU, a graphics card, some more memory and an SSD. Not the cutting edge of gaming, but it is cheap.
Additionally, our votes were binding. The Brexit vote is not.
It's mostly anecdotal at this point but there already seems to be a lot of buyers remorse. Thoughts on the possibility they'll have a follow-up "are you really sure?" referendum or at least an election where one of the parties campaigns on ignoring the result.
It would not be unprecedented. I'm Irish, and we have re-run constitutional votes twice in recent history to keep the EU project on track. We didn't have the xenophobic bullshit of the Brexit campaign going on though, so we didn't have the likes of Junker immediately shouting to get out.
When I search for something, I type in what I'm searching for. As for the rubbish in the article, here you go.
"P1ck y0ur fav0ur1t3 m0v13 qu0t3."
How hard is it to remember a simple sentence? (I really hate OSs/websites/applications that don't allow spaces in passwords)
OK, Little Britain then.
That would have been what is now known as Ireland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to one greek 2000 years ago who didn't know any better, maybe. In Irish, Little Britain is the name for Wales.
>Unless you are more than 100 years old, you have never lived during a time when there were no commercial airlines.
100 years is definitely "not that long ago". It is a merely 0.1% of RECORDED history, which is itself a mere 100th of a percent of the history of the human race, and that is still only about 1/4 of 1000th of a percent of the history of life.
Can I get the records from 90000 years ago please? (Yes, I am poking fun at your math mistake, and I do agree 100 years is not a long time.)