And many people considered it to be a totally corrupt move by Ford. Just because some other a-hole did something and got away with it doesn't mean Obama should too.
Fair point, but not relevant here. The point is not whether Obama should pardon Snowden, it's whether he could. And the answer is yes.
I think Obama is using that excuse to dodge the question of pardoning Snowden. Just like Trump dodged releasing his taxes by saying he couldn't because he was under audit. Which was also not true: there's no legal impediment to releasing your taxes if you're under audit.
Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.
Run-on sentence much? Anyway, for about the bazillionth time, climate != weather.
The AGW people are not zealots, they're scientists, and those who understand how science works. What you seem to interpret as zealotry is actually a genuine concern for the future of the human race.
All models are a compromise, because they attempt to express in mathematics and algorithms the essential parts of a complex real world. They can make wrong predictions in both directions. But the practice of science works to correct this by observing discrepancies and producing better models. And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:
Whether you accept what the models say or not, the essential take-away is that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, and humanity is responsible for adding a significant amount of them to the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Enough to cause a problem that we must face and solve, or risk significant global hardship. Temperature is trending upwards. Polar ice is melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.
And maybe, in fact perhaps quite likely, efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will be a net benefit for economies, rather than a hardship.
which suggests a position accuracy of ~1nm which is less than the size of an atom
Might want to double check that, I'm pretty sure atomic radii are measured in picometers.
They can be measured in any unit you like, but the typical size of an atom is in between 30 and 300 pm. So GP is wrong: 1 nm is greater (not less) than the size of an atom, but it's in the ballpark.
Sure, maybe it's a biased truth. But that's still different from MAKING SHIT UP.
No, actually it's not.
Here's an example of a biased truth: CNN contacted the Democratic Party to get help with preparing interview and debate questions.
It's the truth, but it's biased. Why? Because they contacted the Republican Party for the same purpose.
Now, an example of "making shit up" would be the claim that Clinton's campaign paid agitators to attend Trump rallies. News stories that claimed this were debunked as fake.
I still can't understand how environmentalists could be opposed to [nuclear power], if they truly believe what scientists are telling us about what's happening with AGW and what the long term effects may be.
Actually, environmentalists are on board when it comes to nuclear power, for the very reasons you mentioned.
Still millions of ballots that will never be counted.
Absentee ballots in most states with clear winners are not counted.
False. All votes are counted, absentee or otherwise. It may take awhile, and elections may be called before the ballots are all counted, but they are indeed all counted.
A lot of geologists think we'll have a pretty decent culling of the human population when the poles flip. That could happen in our lifetime or thousands of years from now. The main contention is the parts of the Earth surface are going to get fried with radiation when that happens. Stock up on sun block and lead lined suits.
Unlikely. The Sun's magnetic field flips every 11 years, and then flips back again 11 years later. All that happens is we see brighter aurorae and more radio interference when the Sun's and Earth's fields are aligned in opposite directions.
If the poles moved to lower latitudes, then they might be more vulnerable to solar wind at certain times of the year, but we can avoid hanging around those areas when that happens. I'm not saying it would be a picnic, but I think it would be survivable.
Can someone please explain the difference in these sets of statements:
There are too many asian tech CEOs.
There are too many white tech CEOs.
There are too many male tech CEOs.
All Mexicans are Rapists.
All Trump supporters are Rapists.
All Muslims are Terrorists
Well, since you asked... there is no difference. They're all false.
That being said, there is a valid concern as to whether some roles in the upper echelons of business are filled disproportionately by certain groups. That doesn't mean there are "too many" of some group, it just means we need to examine whether there is some barrier that excludes worthy candidates because of some arbitrary characteristic that is irrelevant to their abilities.
Can we apply that concept to bakers who refuse to do gay wedding cakes, too?
No, because a baker is not protecting a legitimate business interest by doing that. If such a baker has a deeply-held belief that being gay is wrong, they can still hold that belief and bake a cake. The baker is not being forced to have sex with someone of the same gender.
Twitter, on the other hand, is protecting a legitimate business interest when it bans hate-speech on its service.
I heard once that Starbucks over-roasted their beans so the flavor would survive transport and storage for longer periods. And then the flavor caught on even without the extra transport and storage time. Kind of like India Pale Ale originally being brewed extra-hoppy so that it would survive the boat trip from the UK to India.
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple?
Let's just try an experiment:
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a black couple? Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Hindu couple? Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Syrian couple? Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a dwarf couple? Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Republican couple?
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins. The correct decision is the latter.
Who is a private company? Twitter, sir/madam, is not private. And as a decently-sized shareholder, their actions affect me.
Then raise the issue at a shareholders' meeting. Good luck.
The important point is that Twitter is not the government. And because of that, they're not obliged to protect anyone's right to free speech. When you're in their dojo, you play by their rules.
A schizophrenic takes a shot at a politician and you're blaming politics? You don't know much about mental illness.
Jared Lee Loughner (the shooter) may have been mentally ill, but after the 2011 Tucson shooting there was much discussion about how the toxic political environment in the USA may have set him off. John Stewart of The Daily Show said it well:
For all the hyperbole and vitriol that's become a part of our political process—when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified.... Maybe it helps us to remember to match our rhetoric with reality more often.
Slashdot Mirror
And many people considered it to be a totally corrupt move by Ford. Just because some other a-hole did something and got away with it doesn't mean Obama should too.
Fair point, but not relevant here. The point is not whether Obama should pardon Snowden, it's whether he could. And the answer is yes.
You're right.
I think Obama is using that excuse to dodge the question of pardoning Snowden. Just like Trump dodged releasing his taxes by saying he couldn't because he was under audit. Which was also not true: there's no legal impediment to releasing your taxes if you're under audit.
Either open another browser
Or open, uh, a window? ;-PPPPPP
I gave you a charity +1 Funny mod, but it really wasn't that funny. Try harder next time, k?
But look at his username (flatulus.) That's FTW.
Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.
Run-on sentence much? Anyway, for about the bazillionth time, climate != weather.
The AGW people are not zealots, they're scientists, and those who understand how science works. What you seem to interpret as zealotry is actually a genuine concern for the future of the human race.
All models are a compromise, because they attempt to express in mathematics and algorithms the essential parts of a complex real world. They can make wrong predictions in both directions. But the practice of science works to correct this by observing discrepancies and producing better models. And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.ucsusa.org/publicat...
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/c...
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-g...
Whether you accept what the models say or not, the essential take-away is that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, and humanity is responsible for adding a significant amount of them to the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Enough to cause a problem that we must face and solve, or risk significant global hardship. Temperature is trending upwards. Polar ice is melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.
And maybe, in fact perhaps quite likely, efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will be a net benefit for economies, rather than a hardship.
which suggests a position accuracy of ~1nm which is less than the size of an atom
Might want to double check that, I'm pretty sure atomic radii are measured in picometers.
They can be measured in any unit you like, but the typical size of an atom is in between 30 and 300 pm. So GP is wrong: 1 nm is greater (not less) than the size of an atom, but it's in the ballpark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
...the next iPhone will not have an on-off button. Because courage.
Sure, maybe it's a biased truth. But that's still different from MAKING SHIT UP.
No, actually it's not.
Here's an example of a biased truth: CNN contacted the Democratic Party to get help with preparing interview and debate questions.
It's the truth, but it's biased. Why? Because they contacted the Republican Party for the same purpose.
Now, an example of "making shit up" would be the claim that Clinton's campaign paid agitators to attend Trump rallies. News stories that claimed this were debunked as fake.
I still can't understand how environmentalists could be opposed to [nuclear power], if they truly believe what scientists are telling us about what's happening with AGW and what the long term effects may be.
Actually, environmentalists are on board when it comes to nuclear power, for the very reasons you mentioned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/en...
I like the roof idea.
Me too. I buried my panels in the backyard for better aesthetics, but it didn't work out.
And if Trump keeps his promise, then we'll soon get to see his tax returns, so we can judge his candidacy based on that information.
Oh wait, the election is already over. Damn.
Still millions of ballots that will never be counted.
Absentee ballots in most states with clear winners are not counted.
False. All votes are counted, absentee or otherwise. It may take awhile, and elections may be called before the ballots are all counted, but they are indeed all counted.
http://help.vote.org/article/8...
https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/a...
You'll have to dig them up.
Lorne Greene: February 12, 1915 – September 11, 1987
Dan Blocker: December 10, 1928 – May 13, 1972
[Sarah Palin] for Director of National Intelligence.
Irony meter just exploded.
Presidential appointees routinely submit their resignations when another party's candidate is moving into the Oval Office.
Nothing to see here, move along.
A lot of geologists think we'll have a pretty decent culling of the human population when the poles flip. That could happen in our lifetime or thousands of years from now. The main contention is the parts of the Earth surface are going to get fried with radiation when that happens. Stock up on sun block and lead lined suits.
Unlikely. The Sun's magnetic field flips every 11 years, and then flips back again 11 years later. All that happens is we see brighter aurorae and more radio interference when the Sun's and Earth's fields are aligned in opposite directions.
If the poles moved to lower latitudes, then they might be more vulnerable to solar wind at certain times of the year, but we can avoid hanging around those areas when that happens. I'm not saying it would be a picnic, but I think it would be survivable.
What are the odds? How many people get it overall?
About 3.9 per 100,000 people, at least in the USA, according to this paper.
And why him specifically?
Genetics and/or environmental factors. Nobody knows for sure. The fact that he's a white male stacked the deck against him.
Even to me, as a non-religious person, it appears like a punishment of some sort.
Then I think you need to re-evaluate your concepts of morality. People who get ALS don't "deserve" to get it.
Can someone please explain the difference in these sets of statements:
Well, since you asked ... there is no difference. They're all false.
That being said, there is a valid concern as to whether some roles in the upper echelons of business are filled disproportionately by certain groups. That doesn't mean there are "too many" of some group, it just means we need to examine whether there is some barrier that excludes worthy candidates because of some arbitrary characteristic that is irrelevant to their abilities.
Can we apply that concept to bakers who refuse to do gay wedding cakes, too?
No, because a baker is not protecting a legitimate business interest by doing that. If such a baker has a deeply-held belief that being gay is wrong, they can still hold that belief and bake a cake. The baker is not being forced to have sex with someone of the same gender.
Twitter, on the other hand, is protecting a legitimate business interest when it bans hate-speech on its service.
I heard once that Starbucks over-roasted their beans so the flavor would survive transport and storage for longer periods. And then the flavor caught on even without the extra transport and storage time. Kind of like India Pale Ale originally being brewed extra-hoppy so that it would survive the boat trip from the UK to India.
Can anyone confirm this?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple?
Let's just try an experiment:
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a black couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Hindu couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Syrian couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a dwarf couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Republican couple?
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins. The correct decision is the latter.
Who is a private company? Twitter, sir/madam, is not private. And as a decently-sized shareholder, their actions affect me.
Then raise the issue at a shareholders' meeting. Good luck.
The important point is that Twitter is not the government. And because of that, they're not obliged to protect anyone's right to free speech. When you're in their dojo, you play by their rules.
TL;DR: Because courage?
Obligatory Onion article.
A schizophrenic takes a shot at a politician and you're blaming politics? You don't know much about mental illness.
Jared Lee Loughner (the shooter) may have been mentally ill, but after the 2011 Tucson shooting there was much discussion about how the toxic political environment in the USA may have set him off. John Stewart of The Daily Show said it well:
For all the hyperbole and vitriol that's become a part of our political process—when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. ... Maybe it helps us to remember to match our rhetoric with reality more often.
E-book version?
You're reading it wrong.