Learn your cow biology people! They have to belch up their food and re-chew it several times before they ever fart or poop. to 3 or 4 belches to one fart ratio in cows.
I have no hard evidence that god doesn't exist, but that does not mean he does.
I did mean evidence when I said facts, since facts are derived from evidence. I will concede on that point as evidence is a better term to use when being precise.
I also agree that the grant motivated agendas is a red hearing since both sides do it.
But that doesn't make it any more ethical does it?
Is there no way to eliminate this ethical dilemma of monetary motivators in science?
Should we not work to eliminate it?
I think we are both interested in seeking the best evidence available. I am just more skeptical of mankind. I see skeptics as well as scientists with real opposing theories as a good thing in any type of science.
I just fear that this science is getting used by political agendas and has accumulated an almost religious following of zealots.
I also distrust statistical data and computer models that are based on such data, especially when the data is retrieved from questionable sources.
I am not going to bring a bunch of names and opposing evidence into this argument. We both know there is real science on both sides of the issue. Sure there is a majority of one type of scientist that believes your theories and they might be right, but the other side might be right as well at this point.
My argument is mainly that the "skeptics" as you call them (I prefer to call them scientists with opposing theories) are not getting the funding and that this is anti-scientific.
But your "best science available" comes from people with a pro-warming agenda.
I am not saying that they are wrong, I am just saying that they only get money if they keep shouting that the earth is doomed and it is human error.
So yes, they might be right, but why should anyone trust them?
The Global Warming crowd has been saying the same thing about the scientist on the opposite side of the issue for years, so it is only right that these scientists are questioned on their ethics as well now that they are receiving the government grants.
Besides, it shouldn't be about trust at all. It should be about facts, and they just don't have enough, no matter what statistics you quote from one group of scientists that study only one aspect of science.
They will just use the same old argument they already use. "while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."
Imperfect does not mean useless.
NO, imperfect does not mean useless, but imperfect can mean inaccurate. In science, accuracy is a big deal. Otherwise we are just following a hunch, and that is fine in the beginning, but to base political and social policy on a hunch is too much to ask.
They will just use the same old argument they already use.
"while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."
Then they will get their money from the government and our taxes will be raised a bit more. Everybody else is getting 700 billion, why not Cisco and the climatologists.:(
Heh heh, that sounds like a band name "Cisco And The Climatologists"
As the first actual space cowboy I will be the first person to start an underground cattle ranch on mars. They will eat the silk worm jam and then I will eat the cow.
My cow poop will also produce methane for power and bone/hide for making furniture and other essentials.
Sometimes the most inefficient food can be the best. Besides, how much more inefficient is a cow than a person. Plus they will eat silk worms and like them while I get to eat my tastey beef!
Science lectures are often boring because there is no story to it. It is just facts and figures to be memorized and regurgitated later. People sleep and do not attend out of boredom.
History, Poli Sci, and Philosophy classes on the other hand can use the lecture hall to great effect. They can get a really good speaker/story teller (with a PHD in the subject) and let him explain how things happened, or perhaps why learning about that subject is of great importance to all mankind. If he is good then why shouldn't he have 500 to 1,000 people listening to what he has to say. Some of my favorite times as an undergrad were spent listening to wonderful lectures from great Historians and philosophers. They made me want to come to the next lecture. It was like anticipating the next episode of my favorite tv show. While you couldn't ask questions, nobody wanted to because they were all so enthralled with the lecture.
What are you talking about? It is not over. From looking at the map you linked to it is still rumbling today and at a greater magnitude. I am just glad I live in ohio and will not get the hot ash or lava in my living room. I will just get the nuclear winter and the cold ash that can form cement in my lungs and kill off all the plantlife!:)
It might be a good idea to transplant some of the animals we have herded into yelowstone over the last 100 years to another location upwind though just in case. Dead people that have a choice are one thing, but dead animals we herded into a giant volcano is another.
It is getting cooler in some places and warmer in others. Guess what, that is normal!
The global warming scientists changed the name of "global warming" to "climate change" so that they could continue to get their grants even though the entire globe was not warming. But hey, the middle east used to be a jungle and we had nothing to do with that change.
Yes it is snowing and vegas and antarctica is melting. That is change but it is not global warming! To be global warming it has to be GLOBAL!
They are motivated by their love of truth and their faith in pure science. They do not want more polution. That is just Greenie propoganda. These scientists just want the facts to prevail. Don't you?
In science you always try to find the facts no matter where they lead. Meanwhile global warming "science" is more like a religous movement where they know the answer and refute anyone who comes up with a different one.
While using lies and fear to motivate people might work, why can't we just try to educate people and hope that they choose to stop poluting so much? That is a world I would want to live in.
Ignorance is a far greater threat to humanity than C02 ever will be.
as a computer technology instructor I really think that students do not need computers in school unless their assignment requires it.
Freedom of thought and pre-college education do not go together. Giving students access to intellectual freedom is just stupid if you want to not go to prison or lose your house as an educator or school administrator.
The law is so restrictive for teachers and students, that using a school computer for anything else is impossible and probably illegal. Even using it for legitimate purposes is a pain in the ass because they always restrict way too much.
They not only have to police the student computers but the teacher computers too. The kids do everything they can to break any security measures. I once had my password stolen by a keylogger device and almost lost my job when half the student body was using my account to get onto myspace. Instead of blaming the kids, they just assumed I gave out my password. The bitch in charge of IT didn't even know there was such a thing as a hardware keylogger and reported to my principal that I had given out my password.
I use my own laptop and network connection now because even as a teacher I was too restricted. I could not even get on slashdot.
You can actually lose your teachers license for just having a myspace of facebook account in some states. If you ever let students be your friends on those sites, you might as well just check yourself into prison.
IsMyNameTaken wrote: "All you have to do is make the back wheels bigger than the front and you are always going down hill. This should improve mileage by quite a bit but be careful, if the size ratio gets too big it is almost impossible to stop."
let me guess, in your city, roads go downhill both ways?
Granted, in my city we have 12 feet of snow year round and the roads go uphill both ways, so I drive a hummer and hope global warming warms up my city!:)
While it might be a needed and just law in our crowded society, that does not mean that your liberties were not taken away. Liberty just means the freedom to do something, not that it is a good idea or a god given right.
So yes our liberty was taken away for a good reason.
But whenever you take away liberties, it has the chance of going too far. Then it starts to be opression.
A department of education study came out in the late 1970s which concluded that the majority of high achieving students came from caring two parent households where one parent worked and the other stayed at home. This was an unpopular theory at the time though, so the report was buried and they decided to blame the teachers and throw money at the situation.
Once you have been a teacher like I have, you start to realize that parents who blame the teachers are the ones that don't really care about their kids. They just want someone else to fix their kid and not worry about it themselves. Meanwhile, parents that are always there for there kids are more apt to blame their child for his failings than blame the teacher for theirs.
I teach the same things to my A students as I do to my failing students. Is it my fault that some of them just don't give a crap about what I am teaching?
I understand that social and economic issues are also at play, and that single moms and dads have to work and raise kids, but it will hurt the children's education if the parents are not their for them to make them study and learn.
SO yes, teachers need more money, but more importantly they need to be trusted to do their jobs. If one student in the classroom learns what they are supposed to then the teacher is doing their job. The rest of the students just weren't paying attention.
BTW don't ever become a teacher, it really sucks these days!
If you do want to actually teach, teach at college level or above. Nobody ever accuses a college professor of not doing his job when a student fails his class.
The theory is that by thinning the herd, you increase the resources for the remainder, and therefore create healthier conditions for all.
Killing off a dominant male will really do little harm to the pack since a less dominant male will just take over. you really only need one male for breeding in the herd anyway.
Some states and most hunters try to avoid hunting pregnant females aand young deer though, since healthy young deer are essential to a herd.
This theory has also worked with humans if you look at the period of time after certain pandemics, plagues, or wars. The people left alive had plenty of resources and a lot of wealth so their quality of life went up even though a lot of healthy young males were killed.
This author is totally afraid of words and probably doesn't believe in free speech. Not only is his article a bunch of uninformed ramblings, it actually proves my point.
Fear of words is in fact the problem, not the words themselves.
That girl didn't kill herself because of the words, but because of the fear of them. If she had been taught that words aren't important most of the time she would still be alive today.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
I think this Todd guy is just afraid that reporters will be redundant in a few years when 100 percent of the modern world can get online and post their opinion article just like he can. This guy doesn't deserve his job and is attacking the foundation of what allows him to be a reporter in the first place, FREE SPEACH!!!
When trying to maintain a balance amoung animals it is often necessary to cull the herd from time to time. Like in america where hunters are often told to hunt deer when their pupulation gets too high. We do this because there are no longer wolves r primitive man to kill off the deer. If we do not do this then many deer starve and become diseased because of limited resources.
While I do not think we have to start culling the human herd yet, I do think it is time we start to make it unpopular to have more than 2 children. We could have a "Save the planet, stop breeding!" campaign.:)
I usually do not agree with Chinese policy, but I thik they have it right on this one.
Coupling, written by Moffat, is one of my favorite comedy sitcoms of all time.
If you are an american like me, and missed this wonderful show go find it and see it!
Sure it is a little different from writing for Dr. Who but good writing is good writing.
I think Moffat will do a great job as long as he gets some good actors and a decent budjet to pull it off. After the writing, money is everything for a good sci-fi.
I love Joss Wheedon too, but he is always crippled by a low budjet from the studios. Then when he fights it he ends up getting his show cancelled.
Re:If you are smart, phone control of a car works
on
James Bond Gadgets
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Yes, Dr. Horrible had a little issue with the stopping of the van as well.
Of course Captain Hammer had smashed his magnetic control transciever.
Slashdot Mirror
actually Soylent Green is a good solution. the problem is too many people!
Stop having 8 children!
and how exactly do they measure these farts and belches?
that is a science experiment I want to see.
you need to learn cow biology and read the article before you post. you will sound less ignorant then.
Cows belch more than they fart because of their digestive system, so any gas will be belched more than farted.
Plus TFA is about lowing methane levels in the digestive system, not about making them fart or belch less.
Learn your cow biology people!
They have to belch up their food and re-chew it several times before they ever fart or poop. to 3 or 4 belches to one fart ratio in cows.
I have no hard evidence that god doesn't exist, but that does not mean he does.
I did mean evidence when I said facts, since facts are derived from evidence. I will concede on that point as evidence is a better term to use when being precise.
I also agree that the grant motivated agendas is a red hearing since both sides do it.
But that doesn't make it any more ethical does it?
Is there no way to eliminate this ethical dilemma of monetary motivators in science?
Should we not work to eliminate it?
I think we are both interested in seeking the best evidence available. I am just more skeptical of mankind. I see skeptics as well as scientists with real opposing theories as a good thing in any type of science.
I just fear that this science is getting used by political agendas and has accumulated an almost religious following of zealots.
I also distrust statistical data and computer models that are based on such data, especially when the data is retrieved from questionable sources.
I am not going to bring a bunch of names and opposing evidence into this argument. We both know there is real science on both sides of the issue. Sure there is a majority of one type of scientist that believes your theories and they might be right, but the other side might be right as well at this point.
My argument is mainly that the "skeptics" as you call them (I prefer to call them scientists with opposing theories) are not getting the funding and that this is anti-scientific.
But your "best science available" comes from people with a pro-warming agenda.
I am not saying that they are wrong, I am just saying that they only get money if they keep shouting that the earth is doomed and it is human error.
So yes, they might be right, but why should anyone trust them?
The Global Warming crowd has been saying the same thing about the scientist on the opposite side of the issue for years, so it is only right that these scientists are questioned on their ethics as well now that they are receiving the government grants.
Besides, it shouldn't be about trust at all. It should be about facts, and they just don't have enough, no matter what statistics you quote from one group of scientists that study only one aspect of science.
They will just use the same old argument they already use. "while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."
Imperfect does not mean useless.
NO, imperfect does not mean useless, but imperfect can mean inaccurate. In science, accuracy is a big deal. Otherwise we are just following a hunch, and that is fine in the beginning, but to base political and social policy on a hunch is too much to ask.
They will just use the same old argument they already use.
"while the data is not complete, we cannot wait until it is complete or it will be too late to act."
Then they will get their money from the government and our taxes will be raised a bit more. Everybody else is getting 700 billion, why not Cisco and the climatologists. :(
Heh heh, that sounds like a band name "Cisco And The Climatologists"
As the first actual space cowboy I will be the first person to start an underground cattle ranch on mars. They will eat the silk worm jam and then I will eat the cow. My cow poop will also produce methane for power and bone/hide for making furniture and other essentials. Sometimes the most inefficient food can be the best. Besides, how much more inefficient is a cow than a person. Plus they will eat silk worms and like them while I get to eat my tastey beef!
Science lectures are often boring because there is no story to it. It is just facts and figures to be memorized and regurgitated later. People sleep and do not attend out of boredom.
History, Poli Sci, and Philosophy classes on the other hand can use the lecture hall to great effect. They can get a really good speaker/story teller (with a PHD in the subject) and let him explain how things happened, or perhaps why learning about that subject is of great importance to all mankind. If he is good then why shouldn't he have 500 to 1,000 people listening to what he has to say. Some of my favorite times as an undergrad were spent listening to wonderful lectures from great Historians and philosophers. They made me want to come to the next lecture. It was like anticipating the next episode of my favorite tv show. While you couldn't ask questions, nobody wanted to because they were all so enthralled with the lecture.
What are you talking about? It is not over. From looking at the map you linked to it is still rumbling today and at a greater magnitude. :)
I am just glad I live in ohio and will not get the hot ash or lava in my living room. I will just get the nuclear winter and the cold ash that can form cement in my lungs and kill off all the plantlife!
It might be a good idea to transplant some of the animals we have herded into yelowstone over the last 100 years to another location upwind though just in case. Dead people that have a choice are one thing, but dead animals we herded into a giant volcano is another.
It is getting cooler in some places and warmer in others. Guess what, that is normal!
The global warming scientists changed the name of "global warming" to "climate change" so that they could continue to get their grants even though the entire globe was not warming. But hey, the middle east used to be a jungle and we had nothing to do with that change.
Yes it is snowing and vegas and antarctica is melting. That is change but it is not global warming! To be global warming it has to be GLOBAL!
They are motivated by their love of truth and their faith in pure science.
They do not want more polution. That is just Greenie propoganda.
These scientists just want the facts to prevail. Don't you?
In science you always try to find the facts no matter where they lead.
Meanwhile global warming "science" is more like a religous movement where they know the answer and refute anyone who comes up with a different one.
While using lies and fear to motivate people might work, why can't we just try to educate people and hope that they choose to stop poluting so much?
That is a world I would want to live in.
Ignorance is a far greater threat to humanity than C02 ever will be.
as a computer technology instructor I really think that students do not need computers in school unless their assignment requires it.
Freedom of thought and pre-college education do not go together. Giving students access to intellectual freedom is just stupid if you want to not go to prison or lose your house as an educator or school administrator.
The law is so restrictive for teachers and students, that using a school computer for anything else is impossible and probably illegal. Even using it for legitimate purposes is a pain in the ass because they always restrict way too much.
They not only have to police the student computers but the teacher computers too. The kids do everything they can to break any security measures. I once had my password stolen by a keylogger device and almost lost my job when half the student body was using my account to get onto myspace. Instead of blaming the kids, they just assumed I gave out my password. The bitch in charge of IT didn't even know there was such a thing as a hardware keylogger and reported to my principal that I had given out my password.
I use my own laptop and network connection now because even as a teacher I was too restricted. I could not even get on slashdot.
You can actually lose your teachers license for just having a myspace of facebook account in some states. If you ever let students be your friends on those sites, you might as well just check yourself into prison.
IsMyNameTaken wrote: "All you have to do is make the back wheels bigger than the front and you are always going down hill. This should improve mileage by quite a bit but be careful, if the size ratio gets too big it is almost impossible to stop."
let me guess, in your city, roads go downhill both ways?
Granted, in my city we have 12 feet of snow year round and the roads go uphill both ways, so I drive a hummer and hope global warming warms up my city! :)
While it might be a needed and just law in our crowded society, that does not mean that your liberties were not taken away. Liberty just means the freedom to do something, not that it is a good idea or a god given right. So yes our liberty was taken away for a good reason. But whenever you take away liberties, it has the chance of going too far. Then it starts to be opression.
A department of education study came out in the late 1970s which concluded that the majority of high achieving students came from caring two parent households where one parent worked and the other stayed at home. This was an unpopular theory at the time though, so the report was buried and they decided to blame the teachers and throw money at the situation. Once you have been a teacher like I have, you start to realize that parents who blame the teachers are the ones that don't really care about their kids. They just want someone else to fix their kid and not worry about it themselves. Meanwhile, parents that are always there for there kids are more apt to blame their child for his failings than blame the teacher for theirs. I teach the same things to my A students as I do to my failing students. Is it my fault that some of them just don't give a crap about what I am teaching? I understand that social and economic issues are also at play, and that single moms and dads have to work and raise kids, but it will hurt the children's education if the parents are not their for them to make them study and learn. SO yes, teachers need more money, but more importantly they need to be trusted to do their jobs. If one student in the classroom learns what they are supposed to then the teacher is doing their job. The rest of the students just weren't paying attention. BTW don't ever become a teacher, it really sucks these days! If you do want to actually teach, teach at college level or above. Nobody ever accuses a college professor of not doing his job when a student fails his class.
The theory is that by thinning the herd, you increase the resources for the remainder, and therefore create healthier conditions for all. Killing off a dominant male will really do little harm to the pack since a less dominant male will just take over. you really only need one male for breeding in the herd anyway. Some states and most hunters try to avoid hunting pregnant females aand young deer though, since healthy young deer are essential to a herd. This theory has also worked with humans if you look at the period of time after certain pandemics, plagues, or wars. The people left alive had plenty of resources and a lot of wealth so their quality of life went up even though a lot of healthy young males were killed.
This author is totally afraid of words and probably doesn't believe in free speech. Not only is his article a bunch of uninformed ramblings, it actually proves my point. Fear of words is in fact the problem, not the words themselves. That girl didn't kill herself because of the words, but because of the fear of them. If she had been taught that words aren't important most of the time she would still be alive today. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. I think this Todd guy is just afraid that reporters will be redundant in a few years when 100 percent of the modern world can get online and post their opinion article just like he can. This guy doesn't deserve his job and is attacking the foundation of what allows him to be a reporter in the first place, FREE SPEACH!!!
When trying to maintain a balance amoung animals it is often necessary to cull the herd from time to time. Like in america where hunters are often told to hunt deer when their pupulation gets too high. We do this because there are no longer wolves r primitive man to kill off the deer. If we do not do this then many deer starve and become diseased because of limited resources. While I do not think we have to start culling the human herd yet, I do think it is time we start to make it unpopular to have more than 2 children. We could have a "Save the planet, stop breeding!" campaign. :)
I usually do not agree with Chinese policy, but I thik they have it right on this one.
Coupling, written by Moffat, is one of my favorite comedy sitcoms of all time. If you are an american like me, and missed this wonderful show go find it and see it! Sure it is a little different from writing for Dr. Who but good writing is good writing. I think Moffat will do a great job as long as he gets some good actors and a decent budjet to pull it off. After the writing, money is everything for a good sci-fi. I love Joss Wheedon too, but he is always crippled by a low budjet from the studios. Then when he fights it he ends up getting his show cancelled.
Yes, Dr. Horrible had a little issue with the stopping of the van as well. Of course Captain Hammer had smashed his magnetic control transciever.
Can it drive my car like james bond's phone? Or better yet, Dr. Horrible's?