Of course it must be coincidence that solar activity was much greater around the same time as the HCO. Coincidence too that the 'Little Ice Age' coincided with the Maunder Minimum and that current higher temperatures coincide with relatively increased solar activity. Never mind that the greatest climate differences occur at roughly 100 kyear intervals, not 21-41 kyears.
It may surprise you to learn that human populations are not new to the arctic, and while the guns are, you can bet that the Inuit were eating both animals regardless, as well as their 'food supply' as the Inuit ate pretty much everything they could. In fact, hunting in the arctic is declining because new generations of Inuit are increasingly influenced by whitey to just buy their food from a retailer.
Even if the MWP was slightly less warm than the present, that still does not prove that temperatures of the late 20th/early 21st century are unprecedented and predicated on human industry as AGW implies. How then was the even hotter Holocene climate maximum/optimum possible? If polar bears etc. are supposed to be in such danger, why didn't they die off then? They're certainly not newer than the period, such large creatures don't evolve in a mere ~4000 years.
The key phrase there is 'if current growth continues' which means if the rate of growth remains static. A really silly thing to say especially since the piece itself acknowledges that the growth rate was twice as high mere decades ago, and the current rates of growth are shrinking worldwide. So, yes, it's technically correct, if you live in the magical fairy land where rates never change and decades-long trends come to a grinding halt for no apparent reason.
Mass extinctions enabled you to exist. Mass extinctions are in many ways the engine that drives evolution in punctuated equilibrium. Without environmental pressure, what is going to select the most robust forms of life? There are a lot of things that can survive only in resource saturated biospheres, and through every major change these life forms die. 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct, the vast majority without any help from us. Whether we are causing extinctions or not is immaterial, species will die regardless, as they always have and always will.
We, if anything, are getting in the way of new paradigms in the biosphere with our retarded, paternalistic idea of 'conservation' as though this is the one perfect biosphere and there is no way that old species would have to give way to newer species. We are trying to stand in the way of evolution itself, crying 'save this, save that!' That's not how life develops. SOME THINGS MUST DIE IN ORDER FOR OTHER THINGS TO LIVE.
The whole thing about resources is bullshit too. The earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system. All the metals we've pulled out of the ground aren't going anywhere. Your trashcan is not a magical portal to another dimension. I'd be extremely surprised if in the next century there were not efforts to exhume landfills just to recover all the raw materials that people were previously too lazy to bother with. Fossil fuels are the only truly non-renewable resource, but there's so much energy around us we're really just using them because we're lazy. The technology for replacement all exists now, we're just not in any hurry to implement it.
One billion? You really are a neo-Malthusian. Of course, why shouldn't the grand, all-wise yyxx determine the value of human life arbitrarily for the entire world. Fuck all those people who want to have the freedom to decide what kind of family they want. You probably don't even have kids and have no frame of reference for the experience, but you think you can decide for the whole world what they should and shouldn't do. What monumental, disgusting conceit.
Uh, yes, it is enough. What part of 'sixty-four nations below replacement' and everybody else on the way didn't you understand? Let me try to spell it out for you: more than a quarter of the nations on earth are shrinking, and the other 75%, while still growing, are seeing that rate of growth decrease steadily. If that trend remains true, it is a simple mathematical fact that growth will stop. The end.
As a tangentally related anecdote, I used to have a bank card that had six zeros in a row in the center of the number and actually ended in 666 with a CVN of 999. I miss that card... but they changed the CVN when it expired, and eventually I moved to a different bank.
Of course she's going to ask inane questions, she wouldn't want to do any serious inquiry that might contravene her party line. The is true of Republicans when they have nominees, except they at least have the subtlety to make the questions seem somewhat serious.
Sixty-four nations have fertility rates below replacement, and almost every nation on earth has seen a reduction in fertility in the last 50 years (play around with that spreadsheet, it's an eye-opener). All of the most populous developing nations have seen fertility fall by 2-3+ children per woman. However because this reality conflicts with the political agenda of the green cult, many people are still burying their heads in the sand steadfastly believing that a Malthusian disaster is right around the corner.
Behavior is irrelevant if genetic material doesn't survive, so your theory fails on a very basic level. However, there is emerging research that makes more sense.
I believe you're missing the point. It is simply that the policies produced by democracies are not inherently good, only as good as the majority of the society that produces them.
I had a friend whose parents had an acetylene torch, and we would fill balloons full of a mixture of acetylene and pure oxygen and set them off with fuses of nothing more than newspaper. We accidentally (yes, accidentally) set off like three of them at once and the concussion wave broke an empty fish tank that was nearby (and we could barely hear anything for hours... it'll probably give me tinnitus when I'm older...).
It was awesome, but then my friend lived in the middle of nowhere surrounded by nothing but trees for acres.
Actually, yes, you do need to have ground to stand on before you criticize others. If I a redneck dumbass who knows nothing about art walks into a gallery and says 'this painting is awful!' Nobody will take him seriously. If a professor of visual arts with years of study, practice, and knowledge walks in and says 'this painting is awful!' People will take notice, want to know why, etc. because that person has standing, has some educated background from which to offer useful criticism rather than a base reaction.
You say you're confident, but offer no substance, you're just dodging because you're full of shit.
I go out of my way to offer disapproval?! YOU STARTED A FUCKING THREAD TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT LAZY GRIPERS THEY WERE! And now you're dodging any explanation of why you don't fall into your own sweeping generalization (criticizing me for not knowing you while at the same time denying to say anything about yourself when directly challenged to do so! self-fulfilling fucking prophecy), and you're trying to act like a fucking victim calling me a negative judgmental asshole over something YOU FUCKING STARTED to be FUCKING JUDGMENTAL of everybody else! You're going on my foes list you hypocrite asshole.
Spot on. Further, I think that the privatization of this whining and bitching is at fault. We need to create a United States Department of Whining and Bitching at the cabinet level, with a Secretary of Whining and Bitching reporting to the President about the current status of whining and bitching in the nation at large. Only when whining and bitching is being actively ignored at the highest levels will those hypocritical fucktards who whine and bitch about others who whine and bitch finally be satisfied.
There is an old anecdote attributed to Winston Churchill (though unlikely something he actually did):
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Actually I built several systems during that time period, and the ODMs & OEMs I bought from were largely unscathed. The systems I built are still running, no RMAs necessary. Just because the biggest names were hit hard does not make the market monolithic.
Somebody really fucked up the metamoderation. I used to metamoderate all the time when you had to rate moderations as fair, unfair, or neutral. I thought that worked pretty well, but now metamoderation is an up or down vote, and worst of all, by doing so you have tagged the post and it shows up on your damn profile page! I only made that mistake once, and I'm not metamoderating again until that goes away. I don't want my profile page cluttered with random posts from other people.
It's called 'pre-trial discovery' do you think Dell handed over emails just because they felt like it one day? Internal emails are not anecdotal.
While it's true that the article does say that Dell did know the motherboards they were issuing were as faulty as the motherboards they were replacing only after the contractor's report, that would mean that they were willfully ignoring any feedback from their own service arm as customers who received bad boards as replacements complained, further it assumes that they had to wait for a contractor to tell them things they should have already known about their own supply chain. Even if the distribution of bad boards as replacements was purely negligent, that is still not a ringing endorsement for their ability to manage the problem.
It's not an 'assumption' at all, if you had read the article, you'd know it was a confirmed practice, exposed during the legal proceedings described therein. Congratulations on being able to pressure Dell into doing what they should have for everybody, but don't be an asshole implying people are ignorant just because their experience differs slightly from yours. Anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
What happens to the data in memory when your computer is crashing all the time? Data is not exclusive to the hard drive. And guess where the hard drives connect on virtually all Dell desktops? The motherboard! When the largest caps on a mobo fail, where do you think those are? They're at the power input mains and play a part in voltage regulation... and in the moment where they fail and go out of specifications / operating parameters, what do you think can happen? Voltage spike through the circuit, conceivably even up to the hard drives.
Too be fair, even Apple, HP, and Intel's motherboards were having problems. It was an industry-wide problem that affected many suppliers, ODMs and OEMs.
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy is democracy. You get the votes, you get the power.
And then you get the women!
Of course it must be coincidence that solar activity was much greater around the same time as the HCO. Coincidence too that the 'Little Ice Age' coincided with the Maunder Minimum and that current higher temperatures coincide with relatively increased solar activity. Never mind that the greatest climate differences occur at roughly 100 kyear intervals, not 21-41 kyears.
It may surprise you to learn that human populations are not new to the arctic, and while the guns are, you can bet that the Inuit were eating both animals regardless, as well as their 'food supply' as the Inuit ate pretty much everything they could. In fact, hunting in the arctic is declining because new generations of Inuit are increasingly influenced by whitey to just buy their food from a retailer.
Even if the MWP was slightly less warm than the present, that still does not prove that temperatures of the late 20th/early 21st century are unprecedented and predicated on human industry as AGW implies. How then was the even hotter Holocene climate maximum/optimum possible? If polar bears etc. are supposed to be in such danger, why didn't they die off then? They're certainly not newer than the period, such large creatures don't evolve in a mere ~4000 years.
The key phrase there is 'if current growth continues' which means if the rate of growth remains static. A really silly thing to say especially since the piece itself acknowledges that the growth rate was twice as high mere decades ago, and the current rates of growth are shrinking worldwide. So, yes, it's technically correct, if you live in the magical fairy land where rates never change and decades-long trends come to a grinding halt for no apparent reason.
Mass extinctions enabled you to exist. Mass extinctions are in many ways the engine that drives evolution in punctuated equilibrium. Without environmental pressure, what is going to select the most robust forms of life? There are a lot of things that can survive only in resource saturated biospheres, and through every major change these life forms die. 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct, the vast majority without any help from us. Whether we are causing extinctions or not is immaterial, species will die regardless, as they always have and always will.
We, if anything, are getting in the way of new paradigms in the biosphere with our retarded, paternalistic idea of 'conservation' as though this is the one perfect biosphere and there is no way that old species would have to give way to newer species. We are trying to stand in the way of evolution itself, crying 'save this, save that!' That's not how life develops. SOME THINGS MUST DIE IN ORDER FOR OTHER THINGS TO LIVE.
The whole thing about resources is bullshit too. The earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system. All the metals we've pulled out of the ground aren't going anywhere. Your trashcan is not a magical portal to another dimension. I'd be extremely surprised if in the next century there were not efforts to exhume landfills just to recover all the raw materials that people were previously too lazy to bother with. Fossil fuels are the only truly non-renewable resource, but there's so much energy around us we're really just using them because we're lazy. The technology for replacement all exists now, we're just not in any hurry to implement it.
One billion? You really are a neo-Malthusian. Of course, why shouldn't the grand, all-wise yyxx determine the value of human life arbitrarily for the entire world. Fuck all those people who want to have the freedom to decide what kind of family they want. You probably don't even have kids and have no frame of reference for the experience, but you think you can decide for the whole world what they should and shouldn't do. What monumental, disgusting conceit.
Uh, yes, it is enough. What part of 'sixty-four nations below replacement' and everybody else on the way didn't you understand? Let me try to spell it out for you: more than a quarter of the nations on earth are shrinking, and the other 75%, while still growing, are seeing that rate of growth decrease steadily. If that trend remains true, it is a simple mathematical fact that growth will stop. The end.
Awesome!
As a tangentally related anecdote, I used to have a bank card that had six zeros in a row in the center of the number and actually ended in 666 with a CVN of 999. I miss that card... but they changed the CVN when it expired, and eventually I moved to a different bank.
Of course she's going to ask inane questions, she wouldn't want to do any serious inquiry that might contravene her party line. The is true of Republicans when they have nominees, except they at least have the subtlety to make the questions seem somewhat serious.
Sixty-four nations have fertility rates below replacement, and almost every nation on earth has seen a reduction in fertility in the last 50 years (play around with that spreadsheet, it's an eye-opener). All of the most populous developing nations have seen fertility fall by 2-3+ children per woman. However because this reality conflicts with the political agenda of the green cult, many people are still burying their heads in the sand steadfastly believing that a Malthusian disaster is right around the corner.
Behavior is irrelevant if genetic material doesn't survive, so your theory fails on a very basic level. However, there is emerging research that makes more sense.
I believe you're missing the point. It is simply that the policies produced by democracies are not inherently good, only as good as the majority of the society that produces them.
They ... detonated... a container full of dry ice? What's next, nuke Mars?
I had a friend whose parents had an acetylene torch, and we would fill balloons full of a mixture of acetylene and pure oxygen and set them off with fuses of nothing more than newspaper. We accidentally (yes, accidentally) set off like three of them at once and the concussion wave broke an empty fish tank that was nearby (and we could barely hear anything for hours... it'll probably give me tinnitus when I'm older...).
It was awesome, but then my friend lived in the middle of nowhere surrounded by nothing but trees for acres.
Actually, yes, you do need to have ground to stand on before you criticize others. If I a redneck dumbass who knows nothing about art walks into a gallery and says 'this painting is awful!' Nobody will take him seriously. If a professor of visual arts with years of study, practice, and knowledge walks in and says 'this painting is awful!' People will take notice, want to know why, etc. because that person has standing, has some educated background from which to offer useful criticism rather than a base reaction.
You say you're confident, but offer no substance, you're just dodging because you're full of shit.
I go out of my way to offer disapproval?! YOU STARTED A FUCKING THREAD TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT LAZY GRIPERS THEY WERE! And now you're dodging any explanation of why you don't fall into your own sweeping generalization (criticizing me for not knowing you while at the same time denying to say anything about yourself when directly challenged to do so! self-fulfilling fucking prophecy), and you're trying to act like a fucking victim calling me a negative judgmental asshole over something YOU FUCKING STARTED to be FUCKING JUDGMENTAL of everybody else! You're going on my foes list you hypocrite asshole.
Still not hearing what you're doing different, which is why I 'don't [sic] who [you are] or what [you are] doing'. Kind of self-fulfilling, isn't it?
It's a lot of hypocritical bullshit unless he actually says what he's doing different, which he does not.
Spot on. Further, I think that the privatization of this whining and bitching is at fault. We need to create a United States Department of Whining and Bitching at the cabinet level, with a Secretary of Whining and Bitching reporting to the President about the current status of whining and bitching in the nation at large. Only when whining and bitching is being actively ignored at the highest levels will those hypocritical fucktards who whine and bitch about others who whine and bitch finally be satisfied.
There is an old anecdote attributed to Winston Churchill (though unlikely something he actually did):
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Somebody on the PAX forums suggested him years ago, and now that there is a PAX East, it seems so much more possible. He's awesome.
Actually I built several systems during that time period, and the ODMs & OEMs I bought from were largely unscathed. The systems I built are still running, no RMAs necessary. Just because the biggest names were hit hard does not make the market monolithic.
Somebody really fucked up the metamoderation. I used to metamoderate all the time when you had to rate moderations as fair, unfair, or neutral. I thought that worked pretty well, but now metamoderation is an up or down vote, and worst of all, by doing so you have tagged the post and it shows up on your damn profile page! I only made that mistake once, and I'm not metamoderating again until that goes away. I don't want my profile page cluttered with random posts from other people.
It's called 'pre-trial discovery' do you think Dell handed over emails just because they felt like it one day? Internal emails are not anecdotal.
While it's true that the article does say that Dell did know the motherboards they were issuing were as faulty as the motherboards they were replacing only after the contractor's report, that would mean that they were willfully ignoring any feedback from their own service arm as customers who received bad boards as replacements complained, further it assumes that they had to wait for a contractor to tell them things they should have already known about their own supply chain. Even if the distribution of bad boards as replacements was purely negligent, that is still not a ringing endorsement for their ability to manage the problem.
It's not an 'assumption' at all, if you had read the article, you'd know it was a confirmed practice, exposed during the legal proceedings described therein. Congratulations on being able to pressure Dell into doing what they should have for everybody, but don't be an asshole implying people are ignorant just because their experience differs slightly from yours. Anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
What happens to the data in memory when your computer is crashing all the time? Data is not exclusive to the hard drive. And guess where the hard drives connect on virtually all Dell desktops? The motherboard! When the largest caps on a mobo fail, where do you think those are? They're at the power input mains and play a part in voltage regulation... and in the moment where they fail and go out of specifications / operating parameters, what do you think can happen? Voltage spike through the circuit, conceivably even up to the hard drives.
Too be fair, even Apple, HP, and Intel's motherboards were having problems. It was an industry-wide problem that affected many suppliers, ODMs and OEMs.