The don't really work. I know people love them in sci-fi, but in reality there is no "ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY" You step off one and you..float. They need to be large, spinning, and the object it is in needs to be accelerating. If it isn't accelerating the way you are walking, then you just float off.
1) IPCC reports a range, not a specific event. And it's been within that range every time.
2) "They all assume various kinds of positive feedback to amplify that effect." assume isn't the correct term.
"the historical record seems to show the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system," prior to spewing out millions of tons of CO2 beyond what the cycle can take in.
"I've always been more pro-science than many" apparently not.
Lets not forget along with the CO2 is particulate matter causing less sunlight to get to the lower atmosphere.
CO2 is a huge issue with pollution, but not the only issue.
I'm going to try to cut off some of the less thoughtful response with the following: A) The reflection of sunlight is has less of an impact the the trapping of the energy, that why we are warming and not cooling B) we need sunlight, so putting more in the air to cool is a bad thing at this time.
A non climatologist says the climatologists are wrong. You are paying attention to what an economist 'feels' is right, why? Of, right, becasue you don't understand the science so you need to glom onto anything that supports your ignorance. Even when that person isn't an expert in the fields
", I think it will be too expensive to use." too expensive compared to what? extinction?
"The BEST form of sequestration is to grow forests, turn them into paper, and print books on them, with chemically treated paper so it won't decay." hmm. serious chemicals in use there. Many of which will take more energy then is sequestered. So be sure it's nuclear or solar generated energy.
Of course with idiot dictation political discousre, we can't even get a serious conversion about this in many government agencies.
This usualy happen when the car was jarred, so in a situation where control is critical.
You're car shutting off going around a bend will cause loss of control.
Sure, driving down a strait road, on a sunny day, with no one within a few car lengths and this wont be a problem.
" like ALL steering locks" like all PROPERLY FUNCTIONING ignition switches.
Also, the air bags stop functioning; which is a problem when you loose most of your control from your vehicle.
Ever have an engine just turn off while driving? it's startling, so people hit the breaks used to ABS will lock them up and end up in a slide, with surprising difficult steering.
" it means you were doing something wrong in the way you were driving. " Nope. It means no such thing. How about you drive 65 miles an hour around a curve in traffic and have someone else tuun off the ignition? whats that? you won't do it? clearly there is something wrong with your driving.
Minor change in parts without a part umber change is common. Normally done by the part manufacture and not by the auto company. The switch was reasonably tested. At this time there is no evidence of a cover up or a decision not to fix it.
No thanks. I prefer a min. bar of standards for operating business. Maybe w=you shoud read upon the history of taxi's and why there is regulation around them?
" Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built." arguable, but irrelevant sine this in no way undermine why there are taxi regulations.
"Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress." false.
"...Share Economy..." How about you define what that means?
"People know and the politicians they elect will soon learn that bureaucratic walls to the Share Economy will be torn down as surely as the Berlin Wall was." accidentally? a little joke for people who understood what lead to it.
" Using technology to utilize inactive resources is too easy and so welcomed it won't fail." I agree, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
You need to ask where that money is going. I don't know about NY taxi, but I do know of other situation that require licensing and that money just pays for the program itself.
Because their is a min. bar of safety expectation from consumers. I suppose you don't think there should be health inspections at restaurants since they aren't required in personal homes?
" Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections," yes they are, it's not just held to the same rigor.
"Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage" wrong. Booze consumption drop to very lo rates, AND it did exactly what it set out to do, substantially reduce domestic violence.
Yeah, people love to portray the women who wanted prohibition as some sort of childless emotionaless hah when in reality is was women who were abused.
There is a reason taxi's are regulates heavily. The industry was rife with abuse. Random charging, taking long way around, dropping people off in the wrong place, extortion, and people had no avenue of recourse.
That is why there is regulation around taxi companies. And taxi companies feel, rightful IMHO, that the regulation should apply to anyone ding the same job.
Slashdot Mirror
wow. You are a truly horrible person.
You forget to check AC, btw.
Here comes the 'I don't post as AC' lie.
There isn't anything wrong with the list of reason you give for boycotting.
You have posted the lamest slippery slope fallacy I have seen in a while.
And then for no damn reason at all, you bring Obama into it.
Geekoid's law:
Everyone without logic will eventually bring Obama up.
as do I.
The don't really work.
I know people love them in sci-fi, but in reality there is no "ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY" You step off one and you..float.
They need to be large, spinning, and the object it is in needs to be accelerating. If it isn't accelerating the way you are walking, then you just float off.
It should be the brain.
Anything else is wrong.
1) IPCC reports a range, not a specific event. And it's been within that range every time.
2)
"They all assume various kinds of positive feedback to amplify that effect."
assume isn't the correct term.
"the historical record seems to show the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system,"
prior to spewing out millions of tons of CO2 beyond what the cycle can take in.
"I've always been more pro-science than many"
apparently not.
So lets stop listening to idiots and take action now in order to lesson the impact.
it's a 11 year cycle. Important to know, but in no way is it an argument against global warming.
the temperature were higher in 2005 and 2010 then they were in 97-98
Lets not forget along with the CO2 is particulate matter causing less sunlight to get to the lower atmosphere.
CO2 is a huge issue with pollution, but not the only issue.
I'm going to try to cut off some of the less thoughtful response with the following:
A) The reflection of sunlight is has less of an impact the the trapping of the energy, that why we are warming and not cooling
B) we need sunlight, so putting more in the air to cool is a bad thing at this time.
Except it will keep getting warming. IT's not like it will get to the point you mention and then CO2 stops getting into the air.
A non climatologist says the climatologists are wrong. You are paying attention to what an economist 'feels' is right, why?
Of, right, becasue you don't understand the science so you need to glom onto anything that supports your ignorance. Even when that person isn't an expert in the fields
Actually the SPM has be accused of not being alarmist enough.
", I think it will be too expensive to use."
too expensive compared to what? extinction?
"The BEST form of sequestration is to grow forests, turn them into paper, and print books on them, with chemically treated paper so it won't decay."
hmm. serious chemicals in use there. Many of which will take more energy then is sequestered. So be sure it's nuclear or solar generated energy.
Of course with idiot dictation political discousre, we can't even get a serious conversion about this in many government agencies.
"Proof is for liquor and mathematics."
bwahahha. I"m stealing that.
Your post is mostly logically fallacious.
The good news is that the parts that aren't logically biased are factually wrong.
I know you are stupid and small mined, byt many people aren't. We need to focus on practical solutions. The longer we wait the more expensive it gets.
China is working towards cleaner energies and have started implementing them.
Many other 3rd world countries are also working on clean energies.
Try think in number bigger then 2.
SO you drive unsafe cars on the road putting other people in jeopardy? nice.
" Tracking down a vacuum leak is nearly impossible"
yeah. might take an hour!
This usualy happen when the car was jarred, so in a situation where control is critical.
You're car shutting off going around a bend will cause loss of control.
Sure, driving down a strait road, on a sunny day, with no one within a few car lengths and this wont be a problem.
" like ALL steering locks"
like all PROPERLY FUNCTIONING ignition switches.
Also, the air bags stop functioning; which is a problem when you loose most of your control from your vehicle.
Ever have an engine just turn off while driving? it's startling, so people hit the breaks used to ABS will lock them up and end up in a slide, with surprising difficult steering.
" it means you were doing something wrong in the way you were driving. "
Nope. It means no such thing. How about you drive 65 miles an hour around a curve in traffic and have someone else tuun off the ignition? whats that? you won't do it? clearly there is something wrong with your driving.
No.
Minor change in parts without a part umber change is common. Normally done by the part manufacture and not by the auto company.
The switch was reasonably tested.
At this time there is no evidence of a cover up or a decision not to fix it.
No thanks. I prefer a min. bar of standards for operating business.
Maybe w=you shoud read upon the history of taxi's and why there is regulation around them?
" Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built."
arguable, but irrelevant sine this in no way undermine why there are taxi regulations.
"Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress."
false.
"...Share Economy..."
How about you define what that means?
"People know and the politicians they elect will soon learn that bureaucratic walls to the Share Economy will be torn down as surely as the Berlin Wall was."
accidentally? a little joke for people who understood what lead to it.
" Using technology to utilize inactive resources is too easy and so welcomed it won't fail."
I agree, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
You need to ask where that money is going. I don't know about NY taxi, but I do know of other situation that require licensing and that money just pays for the program itself.
Because their is a min. bar of safety expectation from consumers.
I suppose you don't think there should be health inspections at restaurants since they aren't required in personal homes?
" Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections,"
yes they are, it's not just held to the same rigor.
"Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage"
wrong. Booze consumption drop to very lo rates, AND it did exactly what it set out to do, substantially reduce domestic violence.
Yeah, people love to portray the women who wanted prohibition as some sort of childless emotionaless hah when in reality is was women who were abused.
There is a reason taxi's are regulates heavily. The industry was rife with abuse. Random charging, taking long way around, dropping people off in the wrong place, extortion, and people had no avenue of recourse.
That is why there is regulation around taxi companies.
And taxi companies feel, rightful IMHO, that the regulation should apply to anyone ding the same job.