Which is exactly why the U.S. government deserves to be overthrown. Unless they're going to welcome in their critics, they deserve destruction *by* their critics.
It has nothing to do with welcoming critics. It has to do with lying during the one step of getting hired where you absolutely shouldn't fucking lie.
My job requires government licensing, which includes a 10-year background check form in which we are to list things like arrests, charges, convictions, lawsuits, dispositions, , etc that happened in the past 10 years no matter how minor. Neglecting to mention anything, no matter how minor is immediate grounds for refusal of licensing. No license no job. Period.
The only thing I could have put on the form (in my case) that would have lead to a refusal of licensing is that I was convicted of specifically larceny (my job deals with very large sums of money.) I could have been an parole for the murder of a nun and that would have made no difference at all. My only job at that point of the hiring process was simply not to fucking lie.
I didn't. I got the license necessary to legally perform the job because I didnt fucking lie. Very fucking simple.
And news flash: the little ice age was also eurocentric (ie not global), and it ended hundreds of years ago.
...and by eurocentric you mean "including at least also Asia, Mesoamerica, Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Islands, New Zealand, and South America."
The claim that the Little Ice Age was a phenomena local to the north atlantic was completely debunked by the existing data immediately after the claim was made.
The *first* link, which is to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) "v2" data is not raw temperature data. I know that the site claims that its raw data, but only precipitation data is within the main data set. Within the "v2" set is a subfolder with temperature data in gridded (processed) format, and the readme for the gridded data specifically mentions that if you want actual raw temperature data to look at the GHCN data set (yay thats what we are doing....?) Unfortunately as I already pointed out, in the v2 data set there is only precipitation data and gridded (processed) data.
Above the folder that is linked to are links to other data. The GHCN has gone through two significant changes since its inception in 1992. They are affectionately called "v1", "v2", and "v3." The v1 data is culled and processed data presenting only monthly mean temperatures (most stations do daily recording.) This data also only goes up to 1997 at which point v2 took over. So v1 contains culled and processed data and as I already pointed out, the v2 data does not include unprocessed temperature data either. So the raw data must be in v3, right? Let me quote the readme file for v3: "A new software processing system is now responsible for daily reprocessing of the dataset. This reprocessing consists of a construction process that assembles the data in a specific source priority order, quality controls the data, identifies inhomogeneities and performs adjustments where possible." and of course this is again monthly mean temperatures, not the raw station data.
This sort of story is true for every single link. Some of the links are literally to bitmap images of graphs, rather than to data. Others are links to only the most recent measurements at each measurement station (which itself isnt comprehensive), rather than to the hundred+ years of supposed historical data.
They claim the raw data is available, and go so far as to pretend to link to the raw data, and that of course gets people like you to shout down people that want the raw data.
Now to be perfectly clear what just transpired. People are asking for the raw data and are saying that the climate scientists wont release it. You then responded by linking to the blog of those very same climate scientists that it is claimed wont release the data (realclimate is run by Mann, Jones, Hansen, etc.) This blog claims to link to the raw data but actually does not. And finally, yuou tried to shout down someone that wants the raw data by yourself claiming that the raw data is available by citing the blog of the people it is claimed wont release the raw data and does not itself link to the raw data but claims that it does link to the raw data.
So yeah, we know it's accurate because it's using the same techniques and technology used all over the world
At no point did you show or even claim that they actually did the measurement all over the world. We know that CO2 concentrations are not evenly distributed, ergo the argument of the person you replied to has not been been challenged by you. Perhaps you would like to try again and pay attention to what the person you are so quickly responding to is actually saying.
Our entire civilization has been built on stable climates
Defend your assertions. Waving your hands repeating them is not defending them. Your claims that technology is immediately profitable the instant it is developed is remarkable, so the onus is on you to defend that claim.
The thing is that everyone here knows that you cannot defend that claim, because your viewpoint is that of a simplistic idiot. Everybody knows that technology is not instantly profitable the moment it is first developed.
Another example that might convince you of how stupid you are: Toshiba invested flash memory in 1980. Instantly, so flash drives were instantly possible, yet it wasnt until 1988 that *any* commercial application saw profitability, and that wasnt drives. In 1988 flash was introduced as a replacement for ROM and Firmware chips, but the technology was still to expensive for drives. It wasnt until 1995 that flash saw any use at all as anything resembling a drive, and that was as memory cards, so basically just floppy disks. The market for flash drives wasn't real until 2006, 26 years after flash drives were possible. Even today many people say that flash drives are still too expensive.
I will repeat that nobody was going to buy a $50,000 answering machine. That really is the end of the discussion you simplistic idiot.
That rate is the highest possible rate, not what corporations actually pay.
You seem to be justifying having the highest corporate tax rates in the world because some corporations do not pay that much, and go so far as to make a long post that not once considers those corporations that do actually pay that much.
The reality is that these tax breaks and incentives are essential precisely because otherwise American corporations are completely fucked
The real downside of the high base with an incentive system is that it allows the government to pick winners and losers. Microsoft gets the incentive but that startup that wants to compete with Microsoft does not. That startup thus never happens in a country with the highest corporate tax rate. Thats the system we have and the solution is not to make Microsoft pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The solution is to have tax rates that are competitive with the rest of the world.
Having the highest rate in the world is such a bad thing that we sometimes give entire industries massive breaks, because its obvious that forcing (for example) our automotive or airplane industries to go under is a bad fucking idea. In many cases the breaks they get aren't even enough, so they also need to get highly lucrative government contracts just to stay afloat.
By defending the highest rate, as you just did, while simultaneously wishing the incentives to end.. what you are asking for is the complete destruction of America. What you should want is a much lower tax rates to begin with, but that wont get past your shallowly-justified dislike for corporate incentives.
AT&T immediately saw the value of this device and started to work to put this highly profitable device in everyone's homes! Err... not. AT&T killed it because they saw no profit in the device.
it appears that you think that if something is profitable at time T, then it must also have been profitable at time T - X.
What a simplistic idiot you are.
There is no chance in hell that when the technology was first developed to do it that it could have been profitable product. Just like when the technology for smart phones was developed it wasnt profitable. It took *decades* for all the technologies involved to mature enough to make multi-touch pocket computers profitable. Nobody was going to buy a damned $50000 answering machine.
no one here who ever shouted for 'raw' data ever looked at raw data
Wrong. This is why your opinion doesnt matter. Its based on nothing and because its based on nothing, you are more likely to be wrong than right. In this case, you are wrong. 100% wrong.
Aren't adjustments, done with scientific reasoning, just a form of processing?
I dont know about the satellite data, but in the case of the surface record, there can be no scientific reason to adjust temperature measurements. Such measurements are the core of the science.. things are measured and the values are what they are. It is never scientific to process past measurements and then call them "corrected" (which is what the climate folks are doing with the surface record.)
I also dont know if all of these "corrections" are biased one way or the other, but surely if these "corrections" do not follow a normal distribution then that sheds a very ugly light on the whole process of "correction."
A child is dangling precariously on a 10th story ledge of a hi-rise building. A man is at the window where the child is dangling but decides not to do anything to help because he figures a giant eagle will catch the child when they fall.
It took two world wars and one cold war to get us to where we are today.
Let me translate this for everyone:
"Yes, the government really did outlaw private space flight, and when the ban was lifted it still used its influence in order to raise barriers to entry to prevent competition with the oligarchy, but I think that it had a good reason to."
..and this true statement without the fucking spin is a far cry from negating any argument about how government held us all back yet again. The government did in fact hold us back.
The facts are that a private company can come along and get things done better and cheaper. If we were to believe the argument that the government does it better, then the government would have already done what SpaceX is doing. It didn't, therefore the government did not do it better. It had MANY decades to do so. Instead it prevented better from happening.
Article 2, Section 1 of the watergate articles of impeachment:
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Now STFU you ignorant fuck. Stop acting like an informed person when you arent fucking informed. It took me all of 5 seconds to get this information verbatim so that I could quote it. All of 5 fucking seconds. Thats how fucking uninformed you are. Not even 5 seconds informed.
Even selecting a 4-core CPU at complete random from the $50 to $100 range on newegg, you are still likely to get a better performing CPU. In other words, its difficult to actually own something worse. The reason for this is that the closest desktop APU to the chip that the PS4 uses is only $49.
Above poster needs to be modded up. The fastest "duo" in single threaded performance from 2008 is the E8600.
The fastest i7 is only 85% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest i5 is only 65% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest i3 is only 57% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest AMD FX is only 26% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest AMD APU is only 18% faster at single threaded jobs.
The cost of the E8600 is $45. forty-five fucking dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly why the U.S. government deserves to be overthrown. Unless they're going to welcome in their critics, they deserve destruction *by* their critics.
It has nothing to do with welcoming critics. It has to do with lying during the one step of getting hired where you absolutely shouldn't fucking lie.
My job requires government licensing, which includes a 10-year background check form in which we are to list things like arrests, charges, convictions, lawsuits, dispositions, , etc that happened in the past 10 years no matter how minor. Neglecting to mention anything, no matter how minor is immediate grounds for refusal of licensing. No license no job. Period.
The only thing I could have put on the form (in my case) that would have lead to a refusal of licensing is that I was convicted of specifically larceny (my job deals with very large sums of money.) I could have been an parole for the murder of a nun and that would have made no difference at all. My only job at that point of the hiring process was simply not to fucking lie.
I didn't. I got the license necessary to legally perform the job because I didnt fucking lie. Very fucking simple.
But ultimately the police in the US do an unpopular job
It used to be that they did a popular job. If the job is unpopular now, one must consider what changes have taken place between then and now.
And news flash: the little ice age was also eurocentric (ie not global), and it ended hundreds of years ago.
The claim that the Little Ice Age was a phenomena local to the north atlantic was completely debunked by the existing data immediately after the claim was made.
Have you looked at the data?
heading:
Climate data (raw)
The *first* link, which is to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) "v2" data is not raw temperature data. I know that the site claims that its raw data, but only precipitation data is within the main data set. Within the "v2" set is a subfolder with temperature data in gridded (processed) format, and the readme for the gridded data specifically mentions that if you want actual raw temperature data to look at the GHCN data set (yay thats what we are doing....?) Unfortunately as I already pointed out, in the v2 data set there is only precipitation data and gridded (processed) data.
Above the folder that is linked to are links to other data. The GHCN has gone through two significant changes since its inception in 1992. They are affectionately called "v1", "v2", and "v3." The v1 data is culled and processed data presenting only monthly mean temperatures (most stations do daily recording.) This data also only goes up to 1997 at which point v2 took over. So v1 contains culled and processed data and as I already pointed out, the v2 data does not include unprocessed temperature data either. So the raw data must be in v3, right? Let me quote the readme file for v3: "A new software processing system is now responsible for daily reprocessing of the dataset. This reprocessing consists of a construction process that assembles the data in a specific source priority order, quality controls the data, identifies inhomogeneities and performs adjustments where possible." and of course this is again monthly mean temperatures, not the raw station data.
This sort of story is true for every single link. Some of the links are literally to bitmap images of graphs, rather than to data. Others are links to only the most recent measurements at each measurement station (which itself isnt comprehensive), rather than to the hundred+ years of supposed historical data.
They claim the raw data is available, and go so far as to pretend to link to the raw data, and that of course gets people like you to shout down people that want the raw data.
Now to be perfectly clear what just transpired. People are asking for the raw data and are saying that the climate scientists wont release it. You then responded by linking to the blog of those very same climate scientists that it is claimed wont release the data (realclimate is run by Mann, Jones, Hansen, etc.) This blog claims to link to the raw data but actually does not. And finally, yuou tried to shout down someone that wants the raw data by yourself claiming that the raw data is available by citing the blog of the people it is claimed wont release the raw data and does not itself link to the raw data but claims that it does link to the raw data.
Do you feel at all duped?
So yeah, we know it's accurate because it's using the same techniques and technology used all over the world
At no point did you show or even claim that they actually did the measurement all over the world. We know that CO2 concentrations are not evenly distributed, ergo the argument of the person you replied to has not been been challenged by you. Perhaps you would like to try again and pay attention to what the person you are so quickly responding to is actually saying.
Our entire civilization has been built on stable climates
lol.
Defend your assertions. Waving your hands repeating them is not defending them. Your claims that technology is immediately profitable the instant it is developed is remarkable, so the onus is on you to defend that claim.
The thing is that everyone here knows that you cannot defend that claim, because your viewpoint is that of a simplistic idiot. Everybody knows that technology is not instantly profitable the moment it is first developed.
Another example that might convince you of how stupid you are: Toshiba invested flash memory in 1980. Instantly, so flash drives were instantly possible, yet it wasnt until 1988 that *any* commercial application saw profitability, and that wasnt drives. In 1988 flash was introduced as a replacement for ROM and Firmware chips, but the technology was still to expensive for drives. It wasnt until 1995 that flash saw any use at all as anything resembling a drive, and that was as memory cards, so basically just floppy disks. The market for flash drives wasn't real until 2006, 26 years after flash drives were possible. Even today many people say that flash drives are still too expensive.
I will repeat that nobody was going to buy a $50,000 answering machine. That really is the end of the discussion you simplistic idiot.
That rate is the highest possible rate, not what corporations actually pay.
You seem to be justifying having the highest corporate tax rates in the world because some corporations do not pay that much, and go so far as to make a long post that not once considers those corporations that do actually pay that much.
The reality is that these tax breaks and incentives are essential precisely because otherwise American corporations are completely fucked
The real downside of the high base with an incentive system is that it allows the government to pick winners and losers. Microsoft gets the incentive but that startup that wants to compete with Microsoft does not. That startup thus never happens in a country with the highest corporate tax rate. Thats the system we have and the solution is not to make Microsoft pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The solution is to have tax rates that are competitive with the rest of the world.
Having the highest rate in the world is such a bad thing that we sometimes give entire industries massive breaks, because its obvious that forcing (for example) our automotive or airplane industries to go under is a bad fucking idea. In many cases the breaks they get aren't even enough, so they also need to get highly lucrative government contracts just to stay afloat.
By defending the highest rate, as you just did, while simultaneously wishing the incentives to end.. what you are asking for is the complete destruction of America. What you should want is a much lower tax rates to begin with, but that wont get past your shallowly-justified dislike for corporate incentives.
AT&T immediately saw the value of this device and started to work to put this highly profitable device in everyone's homes! Err... not. AT&T killed it because they saw no profit in the device.
it appears that you think that if something is profitable at time T, then it must also have been profitable at time T - X.
What a simplistic idiot you are.
There is no chance in hell that when the technology was first developed to do it that it could have been profitable product. Just like when the technology for smart phones was developed it wasnt profitable. It took *decades* for all the technologies involved to mature enough to make multi-touch pocket computers profitable. Nobody was going to buy a damned $50000 answering machine.
If these people are worth spending the time to "poach" then they won't have a hard time finding a job.
The reality is that most of them weren't. There is just no way that 60,000 is a reasonable number.
The "Parts of Minecraft" are decompiled and unobfuscated by a third party
Not any more.. Mojang purchased Bukkit. Its no longer "3rd party" its "1st party"
Jealousy trumps the concept of right and wrong.
no one here who ever shouted for 'raw' data ever looked at raw data
Wrong. This is why your opinion doesnt matter. Its based on nothing and because its based on nothing, you are more likely to be wrong than right. In this case, you are wrong. 100% wrong.
Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference.
Changing the data that you observed decades after you observed it is not "systematic observation."
It is "doing stuff so that the systematic observations arent used"
Aren't adjustments, done with scientific reasoning, just a form of processing?
I dont know about the satellite data, but in the case of the surface record, there can be no scientific reason to adjust temperature measurements. Such measurements are the core of the science .. things are measured and the values are what they are. It is never scientific to process past measurements and then call them "corrected" (which is what the climate folks are doing with the surface record.)
I also dont know if all of these "corrections" are biased one way or the other, but surely if these "corrections" do not follow a normal distribution then that sheds a very ugly light on the whole process of "correction."
Insurance companies should keep spare houses on hand for when my house burns down. I dont want to wait.
You can't fault a guy for being an optimist.
A child is dangling precariously on a 10th story ledge of a hi-rise building. A man is at the window where the child is dangling but decides not to do anything to help because he figures a giant eagle will catch the child when they fall.
You can't fault a guy for being an optimist.
I'm not in your country. If I rose up, it wouldn't do a damn thing about your problem.
Well then come to America before you rise up. Its not like our borders are secure.
It took two world wars and one cold war to get us to where we are today.
Let me translate this for everyone:
..and this true statement without the fucking spin is a far cry from negating any argument about how government held us all back yet again. The government did in fact hold us back.
"Yes, the government really did outlaw private space flight, and when the ban was lifted it still used its influence in order to raise barriers to entry to prevent competition with the oligarchy, but I think that it had a good reason to."
The facts are that a private company can come along and get things done better and cheaper. If we were to believe the argument that the government does it better, then the government would have already done what SpaceX is doing. It didn't, therefore the government did not do it better. It had MANY decades to do so. Instead it prevented better from happening.
Well they tried to get the records but they ran into a little snag.
Fine, have an independent oversight board review the records without making them public while keeping the details secret.
I nominate the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as the independent review boards.
Article 2, Section 1 of the watergate articles of impeachment:
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Now STFU you ignorant fuck. Stop acting like an informed person when you arent fucking informed. It took me all of 5 seconds to get this information verbatim so that I could quote it. All of 5 fucking seconds. Thats how fucking uninformed you are. Not even 5 seconds informed.
1.6ghz, and AMD.
Even selecting a 4-core CPU at complete random from the $50 to $100 range on newegg, you are still likely to get a better performing CPU. In other words, its difficult to actually own something worse. The reason for this is that the closest desktop APU to the chip that the PS4 uses is only $49.
$49 fucking dollars.
So yes, consoles ship with "such crappy CPUs."
Above poster needs to be modded up. The fastest "duo" in single threaded performance from 2008 is the E8600.
The fastest i7 is only 85% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest i5 is only 65% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest i3 is only 57% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest AMD FX is only 26% faster at single threaded jobs.
The fastest AMD APU is only 18% faster at single threaded jobs.
The cost of the E8600 is $45. forty-five fucking dollars.
And exactly how fast would you be traveling once you made it there?
a speed of zero relative to the target
You seem to completely not understand the subject, which makes us wonder why you are posting. The second half of the trip is 1G deceleration.
And where is such a craft? Our current fastest space shuttles go ~ 17,500 mph
[whisper]hey moron, velocity is not acceleration[/whisper]