There was a person in here who posted how he had gone to a few alcoholism websites to do some research, and how he was then hounded by "well meaning" people trying to get him to help fix his "problem".
To me, the only surprising thing is that they would take the trouble to find out from something like alcoholism. I think tracing people out like that should be reserved for crimes, bit 'taint necessarily so.
I said it then, I'll say it again. Before I retired, I would never ever ever have gone to a website about alcoholism, mental illness, or suicide.
If I had, and after they traced me out, my job would have given me a choice of being fired, or seeking treatment. Even with treatment, my job would have forever changed.
What is worse, although my alcohol is limited to less than 1 adult beverage per month, I would at that point be required to pretend actually having a drinking problem, or else I would be branded as resisting treatment. Gar, sounds like a basis for a novel.
People need to quit treating the web as a private place. It isn't. Get help if you need it, but go through channels that will give you a bit of privacy.
Actually, going deeper into trademark law, odds are this went through precisely as many lawyers as their idea of infecting computers with rootkits did--0 lawyers who knew that the correct answer is "As your lawyer, my advice is that you stop taking any illegal drugs."
The present day use of lawyers, as personified by the Bush the second era is that you do what you want to do, and your lawyers make up some shit that tries to make it sound legal.
If it doesn't solve it completely, don't do it at all. Selectively applied of course..
Huh? Nuc will play a big part. But the other parts of the equation are catching up, and doing it quickly.
Nuclear's biggest drawback at this point, is oddly enough, some of it's proponents. A lot of them in here, spouting the same old bullshit of nuclear simultaneously being perfectly safe, the next generation will be perfectly safe, and hey - How can people get some of that good fukushima action, all those explosions didn't mean anything at all. Just steam and smoke and shit. Think of it like a uber-kewl 4th of July celebration with radiation.
Nuc's big real bugaboo is two things, as long as we discard the radiation.
First is the immense energy density. You don't pack that much power into a small space without accidentally leaving the genie out of the bottle from time to time. And with project managers and accountants running the show, it just makes it more likely.
Second is more of a my opinion based on truth category. Nuclear has been plagued by centralization. We build a humongous reactor using economies of scale, which is certainly true, but it's like putting all the eggs in one basket.
An extension of the centralization issue is right there you have a stretagic issue. Don't ever misunderestimate a strategic issue.
Regardless, and as far as I'm concerned a decentralized system is inherently safer, anf there are a few other issues coming up as well. Houses can easily be designed to use a lot less electricity. LED lights sip electricity. My new super efficient gas furnace also has a motor that runs on less than half the amperage my 15 year old oil furnace it replaced, which in itself ran on less electricity than the original furnace we took out years ago. Refrigerators and freezers are mere consumer demand away from further decreases in power consumption. I use less electricity than I did 15 years ago, with absolutely no sacrifices.
I predict new houses will soon be built with low voltage wiring for LED lighting soon. If you don't have to have a little power supply at each light, it will consume even less power.
I'm going to be performing a little experiment with this in a room renovation. I'll be transforming the room into an ultra-bright "indoor sunroom and will install one each shitload of LED's at low voltage to light it.
So we have this interesting combination of higher efficiency alternative power sources, combined with significantly less power consumption, which is starting to look like a meeting somewhere near the middle.
But not everything can be low power, there are some places that simply need a metric shitload of available energy. There, nuclear power will shine.
Surely - I have and do. A small example of this is the credit card conundrum. I have two credit cards One that I live on, and one for fuel. Cashback cards. I pay off the bill in full every month, then get cash back at the end of the year.
I do the same thing, but I don't consider it borrowing. If you already have the cash reserves and pay it back before it accrues interest, then you're not the category of person I'm referring to.
It definitely isn't borrowing. They actually are borrowing money from me, and the cashback is the interest they pay me. Oddly enough, at better than bank rates for savings. Hell, better than CD's or most other risk averse investments. And since I have to spend that money anyhow - its tremendously satisfying.
No it doesn't make it my problem, it makes it that you're wrong and so are they and I'm laughing at your stupidity right now.
Your second sentence needs remedial work, go back to school.
Blah blah blah, Sorry, pal. I'm just fine with the US military and their system. You are not. You lose, no matter wht you think. You see, all military units do this sort of thing, award medals and rewards. It isn't new, and it's universal.
And my dear chachalaca - you don't get to make the rules. You just sit there with your weird and completely off ideas, and let the rest of us lead the way.
Because when you are the only one right, and the rest of the entire world is wrong - it ain't the world - its you.
There is nothing wrong with a "McMansion" unless you're an elitist who already has their own hand-crafted mansion. The "McMansion" trend was about getting more house for your buck using standard plans and materials. It's cheaper to build a home than it once was, and the land you're putting it on has skyrocketed in value, so why not put a nicer home on the land?
Because most I have seen are shoddily built, poorly insulated, and not at all nicer. Usually built by a contractor who gives each part of the house a "budget", which is always rock bottom quality. Mobile homes have generally much better quality. My wife was involved with many houses during the McMansion era, and people either built with bottom grade cabinets or flooring, or paid a whole lot extra to get anything of quality.
Usually there wasn't much choice, because the people almost always borrowed over the max their bank would loan them, requiring creative financing. There was no wiggle room.
The late 90's early oughts were an interesting time for house construction. Anyone could call themselves a contractor, and many had a carney versus fairgoer outlook. I've been in a few million dollar houses that had worse cabinetry and carpentry and tiles and fixtures than bottom line mobile homes. But stupid people bought the places, because they'd been trained with the idea of spend as absolute as much money on a house as you can. Stupid people like that make easy pickin's for contractors who are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of them.
No sir - those places don't even remotely approach "nice". Especially as some time has passed, ant they are either fully upgraded, or turning into a large mess inside.
It's really quite simple, the soldiers on the front line are brave. The ones at desks aren't. They may be just as useful, but they don't deserve the same recognition. A postman is as useful as a fireman, but guess which one should win medals?
As I said - take it up with the services. I agree with them, you don't. That makes it your problem, not mine.
So tell me how you make out - a simple problem like that, they'll take your advice, maybe even retroactively take medals away form the undeserving.
The housing market is still like that in a lot of places in the US. Lots of expensive homes, but not enough that are affordable to people making median-and-below.
GIven demographics, and economics, I had predicted in the early oughts that eventually, many McMansions would eventually be torn down. Huge houses, usually poorly constructed, and ofen without much insulation, on ex farmer's fields, with an aging population that want's a single floor residence, and the depletion of the midwest fields due to topsoil erosion and the depletion of the ogallala aquifer plus salinization of the fields themselves, coupled with California's unsustainable water lust, and we were going to need those fields and certainly here in the dependablyrainy Northeast, so the McMansions will soon be completely unwanted.
Ermagherd! that may be the llongest run on sentence I ever wrote!
So a very small percentage of people owning almost all America's wealth is the fault of the Chinese?
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but in my opinion it's the fault of those who routinely carry debt. Most people in America don't know shit about finances. They borrow heavily, and wonder why they never have any money.
I cannot disagree with that premise. I can agree it is an unpopular opinion. I've spent a lot of time offering an alternative to living from paycheck to paycheck. Mostly I am told I am full of shit.
You know who profits? People who don't borrow. Not necessarily even the lenders, rather, just people who don't borrow.
Surely - I have and do. A small example of this is the credit card conundrum. I have two credit cards One that I live on, and one for fuel. Cashback cards. I pay off the bill in full every month, then get cash back at the end of the year. I also have a fine itemized expense report courtesy of the credit card company. And as an example of how people don't know what they are talking about, the Credit card companiy loves me. Where Joe Schmo is making those easy payments for the rest of hi life, my average balance of zero, and paying them a few thou every month is cash flow for them.
Part of this comes from people who insist upon living in upscale expensive areas (i.e. New York, San Francisco) when it's clearly beyond their means, have a super high rent, and then wonder why they live paycheck to paycheck.
I think it's a perversion of the American dream. Both the financially challenged, and many of the conservative poor just consider themselves "pre-millionaires". The poor are just poor - the reasonably well off are just incapable of any discipline. In addition, both cannot imagine any other way.
I've had people making twice as much as me tell me it's harder when you make twice as much. Ummm, no you stupid shits, you just put more in the bank and investments. But they are busy "movin' on up", and making suicidal financial decisions. And in the end, they come out the poorer. They lived high off the hog, while I saved and invested, living below my means, and now I'm retired, early, on my own terms, and living just as well as I did before I retired. Which is better than they will.
And I do note that I took a gamble - If I had croaked at say age 50, by comparison, the financially stupid would have won.
Reminds me of the old Cowboy saying "If I'd a-known I would have lived this long, I'd a-taken better care of myself.
Same goes for money.
I personally have never made a whole lot (my current income at my IT job is just under $50k) but am already taking advantage of the situation. That is, I just paid cash on a shitty house, fixed it up, and now have renters in it paying me every month. (And no, I am not a slumlord, the last owner was, hence it was shitty, however unlike him I'm still in the process of bringing improvements to the property even while tenants are in it.)
Sounds like a good plan. You always, and I mean always - should take advantage of whatever financial offerings you can. I had two tax deferred accounts in my early 20's though a quirk of the tax laws and where I was employed. Plus a retirement account. Plus investments and a bank account.
That Escalade my co workers bought when they refinanced their house is in the junkyard now, and they are still paying on it via their mortgage.
But aside from most people's poor financial skills and discipline, there is still a problem now with many people runining the financial ladder in reverse.
But what I find the most distressing is the odd attitude people take. I've been excoriated for how I've saved money, and many people with nary a retirement investment are pissed at people with pension plans, and attempting to eliminate them. Of course with the backing of the
Didn't you read a word he said? Giving medals to everyone DILUTES the honour of getting one where you BRAVELY RISKED YOUR OWN LIFE. I consider your post an insult to real war veterans.
I read everything. I respect all our soldiers, not just the ones on the front line.
And quite frankly - if you don't want anyone but front liners to get awards, take it up with the armed services, they agree with me, not you.
If you only work a three day week, for example, you have four days you will need to fill with 'leisure' activities, which tend to involve expense. People who voluntarily retire early often say that it's nice for the first couple of months and then boredom sets in.
I certainly won't. I retired at 55 quite voluntarily, and if anything my pace of learning and activity has gone way up. One of my personality flaws is that I have a ridiculously low threshold for boredom. So I'm busy with Amateur radio in the digital realm, teach people how to implement emergency communication systems, have been learning Surface mount technology construction, and I build my own telescopes - mirrors included, and do birding and nature activities with my better half. Thinking of taking up another new hobby to keep fresh.
While I kept very busy at work, I've found retirement allows me to take on even more activities than I could before retirement. But if a person thinks they are just going to kick back and do nothing - yeah, that would be very boring in about 15 minutes.
Not in the UK. New houses are shockingly tiny; if you want a larger house you buy one that's 100 years old.
He's probably thinking of the McMansions, a pretty much failed trend in housing during the late 90's and early oughts.
Game was developer buys a farmer's pasture, builds humongous pretend colonials of maybe 6000 square feet, sometimes less, and not always that well built. People were willing to pay a lot of money, and had a sort of faux upper class living for a while. Then when the great recession hit, and the only people who had much income for houses were non-youthful people who didn't want to live in such huge houses were not interested in multi story, poorly insulated and constructed buildings.
For so long, we have catered pretty exclusively to the supply side.
Which is why I always ask - How little money do I have to make until I'm rich? Will everything cost less to make up for me working for half what I'm making now? Or do I just have to get by with not having things? What is the Austrian school economics plan for people who end up squatting in shantytowns to buy the things the suppliers make?
That race to the bottom doesn't have a very happy ending.
However, right now you still can't go there strictly as a tourist. You can go, with permission, with some various regulations and anything can be considered "educational." The first time you go, get a guide. After that, guide yourself when you get back. That latter is only realistically possible if you are fluent in Spanish or willing to show that you're working really hard to learn it.
There is a gardening show on radio with a fellow named Mike McGrath or McGraff. Based in Philadelphia. He was travelled to Cuba to to some lectures and research, so that probably fit the educational aspect.
Oh boy, the language. Having taken both Spanish and French in high school, I find myself in the awkward position of seamlessly switching back and forth among the two. Certianly Quebecois find me a laugh riot, because they have their own version of French. I'm a little better with keeping my Spanish to Spanish, but not much.
Basically, go to Mexico or Canada and fly from those destinations to Cuba. Put a piece of paper in your passport and have them stamp that (they don't care). Going to Cuba without permission is technically illegal still.
Every time I see that or hear that, I'm struck by the insanity of it all.
Cuban cigars are overrated. They are sweet and inconsistent. They are very well made. They are the best cigar at those prices.
Cuban rum is very underrated. It's what a Jamaican rum wants to be. It's nice enough to drink neat but fine with a splash of Coke or an ice cube.
Interesting. I'm not a smoker - quit in 1976 - so I might rethink smoking some cubans - well maybe just one. The rum however remains a matter of great interest.
Finally, the cars won't be worth a hell of a lot. You'll find mismatching body panels, wrong engine in the wrong car, a LADA bumper welded to the front, and a tractor engine from 1948. There is not one single vehicle that has even 70% of its original material. They might have a novelty value but that's going to get old quickly.
I guess that makes good sense in a country where there is so much ocean exposure. Stuff rusts, and in reality, mid 50's cars were not made to today's standards. I'ts fashionable on Slashdot to bemoan modern cars, but modern engines are built at a quality level that would have been called "balanced and blueprinted" back in the day. And the bodies are much less rust lusting.
The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.
This. Once upon a time, matters were reported, and that was that. There might be opposition, but they needed to get their own time.
Now we can have Michael Mann give an interview or paper, and the news outlets feel they have to give equal time, so they get someone to deny everything immediately afterwards. Denialism doesn't need research, or education, all it needs is "NO!"
The best example I ever heard was ironically not a scientist, but on the Don LaBatard show - a sports show. Sarah Spain ( one time basketball player and now ESPN employee) was talking to some oddball, when he launched into how he doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed. His argument was how did scientists know how to put these bones together and how could they tell what they looked like, and he ended each sentence with "That's just crazy".
Spain, a very intelligent and knowledgable woman, gave a concise and very accurate rebuttal to every objection the guy had to dinosaur's existence. His answer to every one of her replies was "That's just crazy!"
Eventually, she had no place to go other than to insult the guy, which she didn't want to do, so she changed the subject.
So the guy who denies the existence of dinosaurs "won", at least in his mind.
I can accept my limitations. To my way of thinking, life is too short for anyone to master everything.
And here is the big thing, and the big difference. Scientists put everything out there. So even if I can't know something off the top of my head, I know where to find it. Coupled with an intense curiousity, I'm happy to do personal research. So every time I hear a new claim - and most are simply recycled older ones, I can find a rebuttal to it. Go back, check the original debunking, and lo and behold, the rebuttal has always stood up.
Then it's off to retraction watch - oddly enough, denialists see it as a condemnation of science, I see it as a powerful tool for making things right. Also a number of anti AGW works are in there.
The fact that I don't have a background which provides me with the level of knowledge necessary to offer any substantive opposing view to climatologists also allows me to accept their determination of the situation.
One of the best aspects of my career is that I have been blessed to have worked with a fair number of scientists. I think they liked me because although I wasn't one, I thought like they did, and had a broad range of experience with different fields. So I picked up a lot of things, learned a lot about scientists and science in general.
One of the biggest things I learned is that despite denialists assertions, scientists love controversy. They are happy to prove AGW wrong. But for most at this point, it's like trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist. The basic physics is there, the scaling effects have been verified, and measurements and other data do not falsify any of it.
This is not a failing on my part.
Of course not. There is so much data out there, in so many fields, that it simply isn't possible to check everything. But I have a good bit of confidence I can find the information, and as well if the assertions are bogus, it will be found out soon enough. So I can take matters at face value for a time.
Instead, I see this as rational and sane as opposed to anyone who believes they have to double check a scientist and based on that belief should have standing in an argument.
Well, I do have a tendency to read the papers when possible. Perhaps the difference is I'm reading them to see what is in them, and determine their veracity not to cherry pick any anomalies so I can debunk the
What's sad is there are people who think Cuba is a legitimate threat. I am not a qualified political scientist but I have been to Cuba twice and enjoyed my visits.
The whole Cuban issue was just a weird sideshow, and teh Cuban expats were one of the few minority groups who would support Republicans, So they held enormous sway despit their few numbers. And they hated Castro, so the Republicans did their bidding.
It even got the Republicans to try to do an end run around their famous family values in the Elian Gonzalez incident, where Republicans opposed reuniting a child with his remaining parent. (we have found out since then that that the rights they champion end at birth) Obviously a child should be with their loving parent - I remember feeling badly for Marisleysis Gonzalez, who menatlally adopted the boy then fell apart continuously during the whole charade. But I digress.
I'm also fairly familiar with Cuban history - as mentioned in a previous post, I'm quasi-fluent in Spanish which means I do well enough when I go. I'm also probably going to go back if I can get the missus her passport before I end up going back home - probably just for a week visit. I like it there.
I'm going to go at some point, and have a bottle of fine cuban rum, and smake a cuban cigar - you know, the ones the politicians have all the time. Que Bill Clinton joke. I digress again...
I'd also love to see all the old cars they maintained since 1959.
Love to see old Havana.
Ohh - moving to Cuba. 99 percent of the time, it's probably damn near heaven. But it seems to get hit by a lot of hurricanes. My guess it would probably be like Key west. A bit cheaper place for all us parrot heads to live. Summers might be a bit hot for some though.
That chart is not showing what I'm asking for. It shows "Global Departure of Temperature from Average."
I just need a simple list of average temps from each year, so I can do a top ten list of hottest and coldest. Not a chart, not using "departure from average" or whatever the fuck. Just just a simple list of average worldwide temps for each year going back as far as possible.
Well then you know the old saying, "If you want it done right, go fuck yourself." Find your own data and quit bitching about it when others try to help.
The prediction was for a likelihood of stronger hurricanes over a time scale of fifty to a hundred years.
The time scale is important.
Any one year-- even a bad year-- is still just weather.
Once again - yes. The extreme short term outlook of what happens today, versus the trends that take many years, should not be that hard to understand, but for some reason it doesn't sink in. A warming trend does not mean that there will not be cold times. It doesn't mean that there can't be a year with no hurricanes at all.
And weather such as it is, has some weird localizations. I think it was 6 years ago, Washing D.C. was hit by some nasty snowstorms and a cold winter. I was supervising a video team from Nat Geo that came up from DC. They were shocked after driving hundreds of miles north, it was shirtsleeve weather.
So it isn't particularly easy for the weather scientists, to work their way through all this stuff, but no where near impossible. Their conclusion? It's getting warmer. Most people with a basic understanding of science can work their way through it and understand it.
But the foe is powerful, because those who can't grasp the science can be manipulated by the politicians who have a pecuniary interest in the industries that are karge emitters are telling them the scientists are liberal. So nuff said - its a very hard to break through bubble they are in.
Weather is not climate. Repeat this over and over again: weather is not climate.
And again and again and again. As a firm believer in the energy retention effects of the so called greenhouse gases, I do have to note that I was out in my T-shirt working in the yard in mid december, and was riding my motorcycle all the way up to Christmas. In the Northeast of the US.
But I'm not ever going to claim it was because of global warming. It was warm weather.
Now the fact that I've been riding my bike later and later in most years since the mid-late 80s - except for the two previous - is much more convincing of climate. I've been riding motorcycles since the late 60s, and until the mid-late 80's, you simply didn't ride after mid October, and even that was for the brave. We'd usially have our first frost in Late September, now there are still leaves on the trees at Halloween. Consistently.
As experts, it's your job to convince people. You have failed. You are bad at your job. You are a failure. Why should I listen to a failure?
As a stupid person, you do not get to make laws of physic untrue just because you deny them.
The universe does not care that US Republicans have decided that stupid is the new smart, and that denial of science is job one. The greenhouse gases effect on atmospheres is a proven fact (unless gawd is just making it look that way, like when he planted fossils as a test of our faith) and your accepting that or not won't change it a bit.
I'm kinda sick of fuck-sticks who accept all (so called) science as fact w/o question then brow beat those who may be a little more cautious
No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades?
In one of the most interesting paradoxes ever, is the fact that most deniers hate politicians, but they have decided to get their entire science education from them.
Just this past week, I heard a new level of denialism for them to latch onto. A guy on a radio show that was denying that dinosaurs ever existed. Sounds legit, so get cracking, deniers!
What's to forget? You never knew anything about it.
Neither did/do anyone who actually believes man is actually behind any steep curve in climate change/global warming. I guess if you drilled down to a granular-enough level, humans might be responsible for speeding up warming by like... 3 weeks and 4 days.
Science doesn't show that is getting warmer, the math that scientist are using to massage the measurement is showing that it is getting warmer.
We get it, we get it - but we need the help of people like you to save us. You - the proud AC - know a whole shitload more about Global warming or actualy the complete lack of it, tha any scientist ever did? How? I don't know, but you really need to show your work, publish the papers. You WILL win a Nobel prize for showing the proof that you and all of the non scientists know is God's truth. Now Get off Slashdot and save the world from the scientists! Good luck - we're counting on you!
I get all of my data on science from Politicians, as any right thinking person should. Because if there is any person on earth that you can trust, the group of people who have never ever lied and always operated with the highest moral and ethical standards, it is politicians. They are the only trustable source of science info, and teh less education teh better, because eddycayton is socialistic.
Goddamit, I have to quit mixing vicodin with NyQuil....
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the only surprising thing is that they would take the trouble to find out from something like alcoholism. I think tracing people out like that should be reserved for crimes, bit 'taint necessarily so.
I said it then, I'll say it again. Before I retired, I would never ever ever have gone to a website about alcoholism, mental illness, or suicide.
If I had, and after they traced me out, my job would have given me a choice of being fired, or seeking treatment. Even with treatment, my job would have forever changed.
What is worse, although my alcohol is limited to less than 1 adult beverage per month, I would at that point be required to pretend actually having a drinking problem, or else I would be branded as resisting treatment. Gar, sounds like a basis for a novel.
People need to quit treating the web as a private place. It isn't. Get help if you need it, but go through channels that will give you a bit of privacy.
Actually, going deeper into trademark law, odds are this went through precisely as many lawyers as their idea of infecting computers with rootkits did--0 lawyers who knew that the correct answer is "As your lawyer, my advice is that you stop taking any illegal drugs."
The present day use of lawyers, as personified by the Bush the second era is that you do what you want to do, and your lawyers make up some shit that tries to make it sound legal.
If it doesn't solve it completely, don't do it at all. Selectively applied of course..
Huh? Nuc will play a big part. But the other parts of the equation are catching up, and doing it quickly.
Nuclear's biggest drawback at this point, is oddly enough, some of it's proponents. A lot of them in here, spouting the same old bullshit of nuclear simultaneously being perfectly safe, the next generation will be perfectly safe, and hey - How can people get some of that good fukushima action, all those explosions didn't mean anything at all. Just steam and smoke and shit. Think of it like a uber-kewl 4th of July celebration with radiation.
Nuc's big real bugaboo is two things, as long as we discard the radiation.
First is the immense energy density. You don't pack that much power into a small space without accidentally leaving the genie out of the bottle from time to time. And with project managers and accountants running the show, it just makes it more likely.
Second is more of a my opinion based on truth category. Nuclear has been plagued by centralization. We build a humongous reactor using economies of scale, which is certainly true, but it's like putting all the eggs in one basket.
An extension of the centralization issue is right there you have a stretagic issue. Don't ever misunderestimate a strategic issue.
Regardless, and as far as I'm concerned a decentralized system is inherently safer, anf there are a few other issues coming up as well. Houses can easily be designed to use a lot less electricity. LED lights sip electricity. My new super efficient gas furnace also has a motor that runs on less than half the amperage my 15 year old oil furnace it replaced, which in itself ran on less electricity than the original furnace we took out years ago. Refrigerators and freezers are mere consumer demand away from further decreases in power consumption. I use less electricity than I did 15 years ago, with absolutely no sacrifices.
I predict new houses will soon be built with low voltage wiring for LED lighting soon. If you don't have to have a little power supply at each light, it will consume even less power.
I'm going to be performing a little experiment with this in a room renovation. I'll be transforming the room into an ultra-bright "indoor sunroom and will install one each shitload of LED's at low voltage to light it.
So we have this interesting combination of higher efficiency alternative power sources, combined with significantly less power consumption, which is starting to look like a meeting somewhere near the middle.
But not everything can be low power, there are some places that simply need a metric shitload of available energy. There, nuclear power will shine.
Surely - I have and do. A small example of this is the credit card conundrum. I have two credit cards One that I live on, and one for fuel. Cashback cards. I pay off the bill in full every month, then get cash back at the end of the year.
I do the same thing, but I don't consider it borrowing. If you already have the cash reserves and pay it back before it accrues interest, then you're not the category of person I'm referring to.
It definitely isn't borrowing. They actually are borrowing money from me, and the cashback is the interest they pay me. Oddly enough, at better than bank rates for savings. Hell, better than CD's or most other risk averse investments. And since I have to spend that money anyhow - its tremendously satisfying.
No it doesn't make it my problem, it makes it that you're wrong and so are they and I'm laughing at your stupidity right now. Your second sentence needs remedial work, go back to school.
Blah blah blah, Sorry, pal. I'm just fine with the US military and their system. You are not. You lose, no matter wht you think. You see, all military units do this sort of thing, award medals and rewards. It isn't new, and it's universal.
And my dear chachalaca - you don't get to make the rules. You just sit there with your weird and completely off ideas, and let the rest of us lead the way.
Because when you are the only one right, and the rest of the entire world is wrong - it ain't the world - its you.
There is nothing wrong with a "McMansion" unless you're an elitist who already has their own hand-crafted mansion. The "McMansion" trend was about getting more house for your buck using standard plans and materials. It's cheaper to build a home than it once was, and the land you're putting it on has skyrocketed in value, so why not put a nicer home on the land?
Because most I have seen are shoddily built, poorly insulated, and not at all nicer. Usually built by a contractor who gives each part of the house a "budget", which is always rock bottom quality. Mobile homes have generally much better quality. My wife was involved with many houses during the McMansion era, and people either built with bottom grade cabinets or flooring, or paid a whole lot extra to get anything of quality.
Usually there wasn't much choice, because the people almost always borrowed over the max their bank would loan them, requiring creative financing. There was no wiggle room.
The late 90's early oughts were an interesting time for house construction. Anyone could call themselves a contractor, and many had a carney versus fairgoer outlook. I've been in a few million dollar houses that had worse cabinetry and carpentry and tiles and fixtures than bottom line mobile homes. But stupid people bought the places, because they'd been trained with the idea of spend as absolute as much money on a house as you can. Stupid people like that make easy pickin's for contractors who are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of them.
No sir - those places don't even remotely approach "nice". Especially as some time has passed, ant they are either fully upgraded, or turning into a large mess inside.
It's really quite simple, the soldiers on the front line are brave. The ones at desks aren't. They may be just as useful, but they don't deserve the same recognition. A postman is as useful as a fireman, but guess which one should win medals?
As I said - take it up with the services. I agree with them, you don't. That makes it your problem, not mine.
So tell me how you make out - a simple problem like that, they'll take your advice, maybe even retroactively take medals away form the undeserving.
The housing market is still like that in a lot of places in the US. Lots of expensive homes, but not enough that are affordable to people making median-and-below.
GIven demographics, and economics, I had predicted in the early oughts that eventually, many McMansions would eventually be torn down. Huge houses, usually poorly constructed, and ofen without much insulation, on ex farmer's fields, with an aging population that want's a single floor residence, and the depletion of the midwest fields due to topsoil erosion and the depletion of the ogallala aquifer plus salinization of the fields themselves, coupled with California's unsustainable water lust, and we were going to need those fields and certainly here in the dependablyrainy Northeast, so the McMansions will soon be completely unwanted.
Ermagherd! that may be the llongest run on sentence I ever wrote!
Anyhow, we'll see how the prediction pans out.
So a very small percentage of people owning almost all America's wealth is the fault of the Chinese?
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but in my opinion it's the fault of those who routinely carry debt. Most people in America don't know shit about finances. They borrow heavily, and wonder why they never have any money.
I cannot disagree with that premise. I can agree it is an unpopular opinion. I've spent a lot of time offering an alternative to living from paycheck to paycheck. Mostly I am told I am full of shit.
You know who profits? People who don't borrow. Not necessarily even the lenders, rather, just people who don't borrow.
Surely - I have and do. A small example of this is the credit card conundrum. I have two credit cards One that I live on, and one for fuel. Cashback cards. I pay off the bill in full every month, then get cash back at the end of the year. I also have a fine itemized expense report courtesy of the credit card company. And as an example of how people don't know what they are talking about, the Credit card companiy loves me. Where Joe Schmo is making those easy payments for the rest of hi life, my average balance of zero, and paying them a few thou every month is cash flow for them.
Part of this comes from people who insist upon living in upscale expensive areas (i.e. New York, San Francisco) when it's clearly beyond their means, have a super high rent, and then wonder why they live paycheck to paycheck.
I think it's a perversion of the American dream. Both the financially challenged, and many of the conservative poor just consider themselves "pre-millionaires". The poor are just poor - the reasonably well off are just incapable of any discipline. In addition, both cannot imagine any other way.
I've had people making twice as much as me tell me it's harder when you make twice as much. Ummm, no you stupid shits, you just put more in the bank and investments. But they are busy "movin' on up", and making suicidal financial decisions. And in the end, they come out the poorer. They lived high off the hog, while I saved and invested, living below my means, and now I'm retired, early, on my own terms, and living just as well as I did before I retired. Which is better than they will.
And I do note that I took a gamble - If I had croaked at say age 50, by comparison, the financially stupid would have won.
Reminds me of the old Cowboy saying "If I'd a-known I would have lived this long, I'd a-taken better care of myself.
Same goes for money.
I personally have never made a whole lot (my current income at my IT job is just under $50k) but am already taking advantage of the situation. That is, I just paid cash on a shitty house, fixed it up, and now have renters in it paying me every month. (And no, I am not a slumlord, the last owner was, hence it was shitty, however unlike him I'm still in the process of bringing improvements to the property even while tenants are in it.)
Sounds like a good plan. You always, and I mean always - should take advantage of whatever financial offerings you can. I had two tax deferred accounts in my early 20's though a quirk of the tax laws and where I was employed. Plus a retirement account. Plus investments and a bank account.
That Escalade my co workers bought when they refinanced their house is in the junkyard now, and they are still paying on it via their mortgage.
But aside from most people's poor financial skills and discipline, there is still a problem now with many people runining the financial ladder in reverse.
But what I find the most distressing is the odd attitude people take. I've been excoriated for how I've saved money, and many people with nary a retirement investment are pissed at people with pension plans, and attempting to eliminate them. Of course with the backing of the
Didn't you read a word he said? Giving medals to everyone DILUTES the honour of getting one where you BRAVELY RISKED YOUR OWN LIFE. I consider your post an insult to real war veterans.
I read everything. I respect all our soldiers, not just the ones on the front line.
And quite frankly - if you don't want anyone but front liners to get awards, take it up with the armed services, they agree with me, not you.
If you only work a three day week, for example, you have four days you will need to fill with 'leisure' activities, which tend to involve expense. People who voluntarily retire early often say that it's nice for the first couple of months and then boredom sets in.
I certainly won't. I retired at 55 quite voluntarily, and if anything my pace of learning and activity has gone way up. One of my personality flaws is that I have a ridiculously low threshold for boredom. So I'm busy with Amateur radio in the digital realm, teach people how to implement emergency communication systems, have been learning Surface mount technology construction, and I build my own telescopes - mirrors included, and do birding and nature activities with my better half. Thinking of taking up another new hobby to keep fresh.
While I kept very busy at work, I've found retirement allows me to take on even more activities than I could before retirement. But if a person thinks they are just going to kick back and do nothing - yeah, that would be very boring in about 15 minutes.
Not in the UK. New houses are shockingly tiny; if you want a larger house you buy one that's 100 years old.
He's probably thinking of the McMansions, a pretty much failed trend in housing during the late 90's and early oughts.
Game was developer buys a farmer's pasture, builds humongous pretend colonials of maybe 6000 square feet, sometimes less, and not always that well built. People were willing to pay a lot of money, and had a sort of faux upper class living for a while. Then when the great recession hit, and the only people who had much income for houses were non-youthful people who didn't want to live in such huge houses were not interested in multi story, poorly insulated and constructed buildings.
We need money in the demand side of our economy.
That pretty much says it all.
For so long, we have catered pretty exclusively to the supply side.
Which is why I always ask - How little money do I have to make until I'm rich? Will everything cost less to make up for me working for half what I'm making now? Or do I just have to get by with not having things? What is the Austrian school economics plan for people who end up squatting in shantytowns to buy the things the suppliers make?
That race to the bottom doesn't have a very happy ending.
So a very small percentage of people owning almost all America's wealth is the fault of the Chinese?
However, right now you still can't go there strictly as a tourist. You can go, with permission, with some various regulations and anything can be considered "educational." The first time you go, get a guide. After that, guide yourself when you get back. That latter is only realistically possible if you are fluent in Spanish or willing to show that you're working really hard to learn it.
There is a gardening show on radio with a fellow named Mike McGrath or McGraff. Based in Philadelphia. He was travelled to Cuba to to some lectures and research, so that probably fit the educational aspect.
Oh boy, the language. Having taken both Spanish and French in high school, I find myself in the awkward position of seamlessly switching back and forth among the two. Certianly Quebecois find me a laugh riot, because they have their own version of French. I'm a little better with keeping my Spanish to Spanish, but not much.
Basically, go to Mexico or Canada and fly from those destinations to Cuba. Put a piece of paper in your passport and have them stamp that (they don't care). Going to Cuba without permission is technically illegal still.
Every time I see that or hear that, I'm struck by the insanity of it all.
Cuban cigars are overrated. They are sweet and inconsistent. They are very well made. They are the best cigar at those prices.
Cuban rum is very underrated. It's what a Jamaican rum wants to be. It's nice enough to drink neat but fine with a splash of Coke or an ice cube.
Interesting. I'm not a smoker - quit in 1976 - so I might rethink smoking some cubans - well maybe just one. The rum however remains a matter of great interest.
Finally, the cars won't be worth a hell of a lot. You'll find mismatching body panels, wrong engine in the wrong car, a LADA bumper welded to the front, and a tractor engine from 1948. There is not one single vehicle that has even 70% of its original material. They might have a novelty value but that's going to get old quickly.
I guess that makes good sense in a country where there is so much ocean exposure. Stuff rusts, and in reality, mid 50's cars were not made to today's standards. I'ts fashionable on Slashdot to bemoan modern cars, but modern engines are built at a quality level that would have been called "balanced and blueprinted" back in the day. And the bodies are much less rust lusting.
Stupid is the new smart.
The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.
This. Once upon a time, matters were reported, and that was that. There might be opposition, but they needed to get their own time.
Now we can have Michael Mann give an interview or paper, and the news outlets feel they have to give equal time, so they get someone to deny everything immediately afterwards. Denialism doesn't need research, or education, all it needs is "NO!"
The best example I ever heard was ironically not a scientist, but on the Don LaBatard show - a sports show. Sarah Spain ( one time basketball player and now ESPN employee) was talking to some oddball, when he launched into how he doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed. His argument was how did scientists know how to put these bones together and how could they tell what they looked like, and he ended each sentence with "That's just crazy".
Spain, a very intelligent and knowledgable woman, gave a concise and very accurate rebuttal to every objection the guy had to dinosaur's existence. His answer to every one of her replies was "That's just crazy!"
Eventually, she had no place to go other than to insult the guy, which she didn't want to do, so she changed the subject.
So the guy who denies the existence of dinosaurs "won", at least in his mind.
I can accept my limitations. To my way of thinking, life is too short for anyone to master everything.
And here is the big thing, and the big difference. Scientists put everything out there. So even if I can't know something off the top of my head, I know where to find it. Coupled with an intense curiousity, I'm happy to do personal research. So every time I hear a new claim - and most are simply recycled older ones, I can find a rebuttal to it. Go back, check the original debunking, and lo and behold, the rebuttal has always stood up.
Then it's off to retraction watch - oddly enough, denialists see it as a condemnation of science, I see it as a powerful tool for making things right. Also a number of anti AGW works are in there.
The fact that I don't have a background which provides me with the level of knowledge necessary to offer any substantive opposing view to climatologists also allows me to accept their determination of the situation.
One of the best aspects of my career is that I have been blessed to have worked with a fair number of scientists. I think they liked me because although I wasn't one, I thought like they did, and had a broad range of experience with different fields. So I picked up a lot of things, learned a lot about scientists and science in general.
One of the biggest things I learned is that despite denialists assertions, scientists love controversy. They are happy to prove AGW wrong. But for most at this point, it's like trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist. The basic physics is there, the scaling effects have been verified, and measurements and other data do not falsify any of it.
This is not a failing on my part.
Of course not. There is so much data out there, in so many fields, that it simply isn't possible to check everything. But I have a good bit of confidence I can find the information, and as well if the assertions are bogus, it will be found out soon enough. So I can take matters at face value for a time.
Instead, I see this as rational and sane as opposed to anyone who believes they have to double check a scientist and based on that belief should have standing in an argument.
Well, I do have a tendency to read the papers when possible. Perhaps the difference is I'm reading them to see what is in them, and determine their veracity not to cherry pick any anomalies so I can debunk the
What's sad is there are people who think Cuba is a legitimate threat. I am not a qualified political scientist but I have been to Cuba twice and enjoyed my visits.
The whole Cuban issue was just a weird sideshow, and teh Cuban expats were one of the few minority groups who would support Republicans, So they held enormous sway despit their few numbers. And they hated Castro, so the Republicans did their bidding.
It even got the Republicans to try to do an end run around their famous family values in the Elian Gonzalez incident, where Republicans opposed reuniting a child with his remaining parent. (we have found out since then that that the rights they champion end at birth) Obviously a child should be with their loving parent - I remember feeling badly for Marisleysis Gonzalez, who menatlally adopted the boy then fell apart continuously during the whole charade. But I digress.
I'm also fairly familiar with Cuban history - as mentioned in a previous post, I'm quasi-fluent in Spanish which means I do well enough when I go. I'm also probably going to go back if I can get the missus her passport before I end up going back home - probably just for a week visit. I like it there.
I'm going to go at some point, and have a bottle of fine cuban rum, and smake a cuban cigar - you know, the ones the politicians have all the time. Que Bill Clinton joke. I digress again...
I'd also love to see all the old cars they maintained since 1959.
Love to see old Havana.
Ohh - moving to Cuba. 99 percent of the time, it's probably damn near heaven. But it seems to get hit by a lot of hurricanes. My guess it would probably be like Key west. A bit cheaper place for all us parrot heads to live. Summers might be a bit hot for some though.
You do realize my post was not serious, correct? Last paragraph and all.
Poes Law in action.
That chart is not showing what I'm asking for. It shows "Global Departure of Temperature from Average."
I just need a simple list of average temps from each year, so I can do a top ten list of hottest and coldest. Not a chart, not using "departure from average" or whatever the fuck. Just just a simple list of average worldwide temps for each year going back as far as possible.
Well then you know the old saying, "If you want it done right, go fuck yourself." Find your own data and quit bitching about it when others try to help.
The prediction was for a likelihood of stronger hurricanes over a time scale of fifty to a hundred years.
The time scale is important.
Any one year-- even a bad year-- is still just weather.
Once again - yes. The extreme short term outlook of what happens today, versus the trends that take many years, should not be that hard to understand, but for some reason it doesn't sink in. A warming trend does not mean that there will not be cold times. It doesn't mean that there can't be a year with no hurricanes at all.
And weather such as it is, has some weird localizations. I think it was 6 years ago, Washing D.C. was hit by some nasty snowstorms and a cold winter. I was supervising a video team from Nat Geo that came up from DC. They were shocked after driving hundreds of miles north, it was shirtsleeve weather.
So it isn't particularly easy for the weather scientists, to work their way through all this stuff, but no where near impossible. Their conclusion? It's getting warmer. Most people with a basic understanding of science can work their way through it and understand it.
But the foe is powerful, because those who can't grasp the science can be manipulated by the politicians who have a pecuniary interest in the industries that are karge emitters are telling them the scientists are liberal. So nuff said - its a very hard to break through bubble they are in.
Weather is not climate. Repeat this over and over again: weather is not climate.
And again and again and again. As a firm believer in the energy retention effects of the so called greenhouse gases, I do have to note that I was out in my T-shirt working in the yard in mid december, and was riding my motorcycle all the way up to Christmas. In the Northeast of the US.
But I'm not ever going to claim it was because of global warming. It was warm weather.
Now the fact that I've been riding my bike later and later in most years since the mid-late 80s - except for the two previous - is much more convincing of climate. I've been riding motorcycles since the late 60s, and until the mid-late 80's, you simply didn't ride after mid October, and even that was for the brave. We'd usially have our first frost in Late September, now there are still leaves on the trees at Halloween. Consistently.
As experts, it's your job to convince people. You have failed. You are bad at your job. You are a failure. Why should I listen to a failure?
As a stupid person, you do not get to make laws of physic untrue just because you deny them.
The universe does not care that US Republicans have decided that stupid is the new smart, and that denial of science is job one. The greenhouse gases effect on atmospheres is a proven fact (unless gawd is just making it look that way, like when he planted fossils as a test of our faith) and your accepting that or not won't change it a bit.
I'm kinda sick of fuck-sticks who accept all (so called) science as fact w/o question then brow beat those who may be a little more cautious
No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades?
In one of the most interesting paradoxes ever, is the fact that most deniers hate politicians, but they have decided to get their entire science education from them.
Just this past week, I heard a new level of denialism for them to latch onto. A guy on a radio show that was denying that dinosaurs ever existed. Sounds legit, so get cracking, deniers!
Stupid is the new smart.
What's to forget? You never knew anything about it.
Neither did/do anyone who actually believes man is actually behind any steep curve in climate change/global warming. I guess if you drilled down to a granular-enough level, humans might be responsible for speeding up warming by like... 3 weeks and 4 days.
You made the statement - you prove it.
Science doesn't show that is getting warmer, the math that scientist are using to massage the measurement is showing that it is getting warmer.
We get it, we get it - but we need the help of people like you to save us. You - the proud AC - know a whole shitload more about Global warming or actualy the complete lack of it, tha any scientist ever did? How? I don't know, but you really need to show your work, publish the papers. You WILL win a Nobel prize for showing the proof that you and all of the non scientists know is God's truth. Now Get off Slashdot and save the world from the scientists! Good luck - we're counting on you! I get all of my data on science from Politicians, as any right thinking person should. Because if there is any person on earth that you can trust, the group of people who have never ever lied and always operated with the highest moral and ethical standards, it is politicians. They are the only trustable source of science info, and teh less education teh better, because eddycayton is socialistic.
Goddamit, I have to quit mixing vicodin with NyQuil....