But this seems to be asking for more. That it makes a student "uncomfortable" doesn't rise to the need for reasonable accommodation
Bingo. The tweets referred to in the article mention that this should only be for "diagnosed anxiety". Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and in the real world, a parent that is persistent enough can ALWAYS find a doctor who will diagnose their kid with anything.
If a student goes the distance of going to a doctor, being referred to psychologist, meeting with that psychologist long enough to get referred to a psychiatrist, and then is willing to take the poison/medicine prescribed that makes them sick every night, then chances are they really do have a pretty serious anxiety problem.
I was that kid. I am now that adult. Pushing through speeches makes it worse for us, not better. I pushed through daily tasks that stressed me out up to the point I had to quit my job. I lost 80 lbs unintentionally. Whenever I went in, people would tell me I looked sick. And I was pretty damn sick. Despite all that, people's default reaction was to assume I was faking it for some unknown purpose. They still think that even though I've gained absolutely nothing from it.
I propose we take a page from Red Mars and consider ecology economically.
I tried to talk to an economics student about that once. He screamed, "Capitalism is the only system!" and ran away. Red Mars should be assigned reading - you learn plausible science and a surprising number of new social ideas.
The plants that are already built are the problem. There are many passive-safety measures that have been devised since these plants were constructed, but since the old reactor designs are already there, people keep using them to be cheap. The difference is in when something goes wrong you can either have a reaction that halts right away or a situation like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima.
Thorium reactors are pretty interesting in concept. I'd rather have a few of those around over the 35+ year old reactors we have running now. The science there is good. It's better than what we have and would be progress. That said, I understand the position against nuclear. Any time radioactive substances are being produced, there is a nonzero chance of them being spread out over the landscape.
From what I can tell, the Green party seems to be against gambling with worst-case scenarios, even if the odds of the worst-case scenario happening are remote. Let's think of a list of the worst case scenarios of things! * Photovoltaics -- take up farmland? * Turbines -- kill birds/fish * Fossil Fuels -- Turn Earth into Venus * Nuclear Reactors -- Godzilla * GMOs -- Monsanto finishes the transition to Weyland-Yutani. Also the death of bees. * Water Fluoridation -- Mind control!
Plus, unless you just have no clue how to read a chart, the chart at your link clearly does show warming. which is probably the rest of the climate science community stopped taking Roy Spencer seriously a long time ago.
Technically I think Roy is right in this case. I looked through it for a bit and it looks like that graph is showing a spike around `97 or so. They usually factor out volcanic, solar, and other activities to get an overall trend. This is the raw data that still has all that. If you're *just* looking for the hottest year on record, regardless of trends, then it looks like that spike is probably it.
That's not to say that the trend isn't still terrifying though. If the same conditions arose today that caused that spike in `97, then the new spike would probably be much much higher. Knowing that anomalies like that can happen is actually even scarier than the claim that we set a record.:c
Malwarebytes has caught a number of things for me, including blocking things like OpenCandy from installing alongside certain programs I like. I've seen far less gain from installing different AV programs to work with it. Mostly they just slow down or break certain programs. Meh.
I appreciate your summary of statistics. I was unfamiliar with some of those and they make me feel a little better. Not much, but a little.
You're correct about the 97% being an estimate of the number of scientists who believe in AGW. That's based on percentage of papers about climate change in general that expressed on opinion on it. A more accurate analogy would have been to multiply the 97% by the 67% who think it could lead to catastrophic damage in the next 50 years that you mentioned.
Mitigation and adaptation would both require investment to pull off. Going back to my annoying analogy of a military invasion, you could say this is like trying to decide if you should focus on offense or defense, respectively. A little of both might be the best solution.
The point I was trying to drive home was that, in 2014, the US federal budget had $21.4B going into climate change programs and activities. This only 0.1% of the $16.8T going into the military. It just seems odd to me that one threat gets so much more funding than another.
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me.
Suppose 97% of your military commanders came forward and told you they believed that a country would invade. They show you satellite images of how the enemy forces are building up. They can't tell you for sure what would happen. The infrastructure, economy, and way of life could be entirely ruined. The country may never recover. Or maybe the invaders will just walk through and not do a thing.
Let's assume you have a VERY small military, just a token gesture really to make your citizens happy. Would you want the country to:
a) Decrease defense spending. b) Maintain defense spending. c) Increase defense spending.
Third, we still don't have actual evidence that there is a serious problem. We just have, yet again, strongly worded assertions. It really should be a warning sign to everyone when the people pushing this aggressive strategy can't back their claims with facts.
That's the real tough part about it... By the time we know for sure what will happen, it'd be too late. The risk is just SO HIGH that most scientists recommend playing it safe. Humanity could have a tough time surviving if we get into the "runaway climate change" scenario. Will that happen if the global temperature goes up 1 degree C? 10?
Aside from all that though, poison ivy grows faster with more CO2. Eeks. Just another reason to stay in my basement.
Looks like a fairly linear increase when I hold a straight-edge up to the screen starting around 1970. No new surprises I guess?
Aside from all that though, a climate change religion doesn't sound so bad. Give a little money to the "church" and in return you get an insurance policy. The population is getting close to the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth. Once we get there, any major crop die-off would lead to starvation problems. Why should coffee drinkers spend money on bombing tea drinkers when we could instead invest that money to ensure that both coffee and tea keep growing?
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place. That would be far more enticing to me. It seems like a reasonable compromise on the debate of gun control would be to have strict regulations on lethal arms while non-lethal may be purchased by all.
Maybe someone better informed on statistics can weigh in on this?
People have definitely been arrested for lamer reasons. Growing gardens in the US is sometimes an offense, depending on if you have the licenses required to do so. It seems to be much more about money than safety.
It's all about government control and increasing taxation, while giving backhanders to the oligarchs that control the planet.
I can't believe people are falling for it. And as to those "scientists", they cost less than a single lobbyist for a real cause. The govt tells them to keep the story running or they'll lose tenure and grants. You think they care about the people when they have income for life for doing as they're told a few days of the year?
You do realize that a scientist who actually disproves anthropogenic climate change would become filthy rich from the oil companies, right?
Censorship should not be tolerated. Under any circumstances
If you went with your child into a rough neighborhood and that child started shouting racial slurs at everyone you passed, would you tell your kid to hush or would you just let him keep going on?
* Inherited a position and country that was already hated. * Behaved as expected of his culture. * Never been known for harming anyone outside of his own country. * Suffered insults in nearly every report about him for as long as he has lived. * Had the majority of information about him relayed through South Korea, a hostile country.
My understanding of the North Korean culture is that the whole system works by deifying their leader. Propaganda is extremely important. With the world seemingly against their administration, it makes sense that things that trickled into their country would be highly censored. It would be stupid of them not to censor it since it could lead to unrest, civil war, doom, destruction, death, fire, lack of bacon.... and other bad things.
South Korea has already mentioned plans to take this film, put it on dvd, and float balloons across the border to incite rebellion in the population. By trying to prevent the movie from being distributed at all, North Korea is essentially trying to avoid anarchy caused by external propaganda.
Why are we so eager to overthrow their regime? Is democracy so sacred that we must ~force~ it on every country around the world? What business is it of the US (and Hollywood) to decide what is the best system? What they have there is what developed in that region. It is a system that won out over the infighting to unite their country. It might not fit our definition of "fair" for the population, but that's only our definition. It's our own view that we're extending upon them, a culture that has had to isolate itself just to keep together.
I for one will NOT be watching this film. I find the comedic insults of a leader and the trivialization of his death is in extremely poor taste, especially since he has done no wrong to me nor anyone I know. "Live and let live" is supposed to be a phrase that the citizens of the US are pushed to believe and follow, especially recently with anti-bullying and gay marriage. This film and the common national support for it spits in the face of that mantra.
Slashdot Mirror
Jonathan Swift proposed a working solution in A Modest Proposal.
Bingo. The tweets referred to in the article mention that this should only be for "diagnosed anxiety". Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and in the real world, a parent that is persistent enough can ALWAYS find a doctor who will diagnose their kid with anything.
If a student goes the distance of going to a doctor, being referred to psychologist, meeting with that psychologist long enough to get referred to a psychiatrist, and then is willing to take the poison/medicine prescribed that makes them sick every night, then chances are they really do have a pretty serious anxiety problem.
I was that kid. I am now that adult. Pushing through speeches makes it worse for us, not better. I pushed through daily tasks that stressed me out up to the point I had to quit my job. I lost 80 lbs unintentionally. Whenever I went in, people would tell me I looked sick. And I was pretty damn sick. Despite all that, people's default reaction was to assume I was faking it for some unknown purpose. They still think that even though I've gained absolutely nothing from it.
I propose we take a page from Red Mars and consider ecology economically.
I tried to talk to an economics student about that once. He screamed, "Capitalism is the only system!" and ran away. Red Mars should be assigned reading - you learn plausible science and a surprising number of new social ideas.
Donald Trump will make The Cyber great again. So much cyber you're going to get sick of cyber. Yuuuge cyber.
I'm almost wondering if he spoke that way on purpose to dissuade hackers from bothering. Where would the challenge be?
The plants that are already built are the problem. There are many passive-safety measures that have been devised since these plants were constructed, but since the old reactor designs are already there, people keep using them to be cheap. The difference is in when something goes wrong you can either have a reaction that halts right away or a situation like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukushima.
Thorium reactors are pretty interesting in concept. I'd rather have a few of those around over the 35+ year old reactors we have running now. The science there is good. It's better than what we have and would be progress. That said, I understand the position against nuclear. Any time radioactive substances are being produced, there is a nonzero chance of them being spread out over the landscape.
From what I can tell, the Green party seems to be against gambling with worst-case scenarios, even if the odds of the worst-case scenario happening are remote. Let's think of a list of the worst case scenarios of things!
* Photovoltaics -- take up farmland?
* Turbines -- kill birds/fish
* Fossil Fuels -- Turn Earth into Venus
* Nuclear Reactors -- Godzilla
* GMOs -- Monsanto finishes the transition to Weyland-Yutani. Also the death of bees.
* Water Fluoridation -- Mind control!
Maybe they're referring to Noah's flood?
Do we really want to be teaching children to negotiate with terrorists?
The obvious way around that is to stop calling everyone who breathes a "terrorist".
Plus, unless you just have no clue how to read a chart, the chart at your link clearly does show warming.
which is probably the rest of the climate science community stopped taking Roy Spencer seriously a long time ago.
Technically I think Roy is right in this case. I looked through it for a bit and it looks like that graph is showing a spike around `97 or so. They usually factor out volcanic, solar, and other activities to get an overall trend. This is the raw data that still has all that. If you're *just* looking for the hottest year on record, regardless of trends, then it looks like that spike is probably it.
That's not to say that the trend isn't still terrifying though. If the same conditions arose today that caused that spike in `97, then the new spike would probably be much much higher. Knowing that anomalies like that can happen is actually even scarier than the claim that we set a record. :c
Do people really still run this shit?
Malwarebytes has caught a number of things for me, including blocking things like OpenCandy from installing alongside certain programs I like. I've seen far less gain from installing different AV programs to work with it. Mostly they just slow down or break certain programs. Meh.
This is the study:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748...
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
I appreciate your summary of statistics. I was unfamiliar with some of those and they make me feel a little better. Not much, but a little.
You're correct about the 97% being an estimate of the number of scientists who believe in AGW. That's based on percentage of papers about climate change in general that expressed on opinion on it. A more accurate analogy would have been to multiply the 97% by the 67% who think it could lead to catastrophic damage in the next 50 years that you mentioned.
Mitigation and adaptation would both require investment to pull off. Going back to my annoying analogy of a military invasion, you could say this is like trying to decide if you should focus on offense or defense, respectively. A little of both might be the best solution.
The point I was trying to drive home was that, in 2014, the US federal budget had $21.4B going into climate change programs and activities. This only 0.1% of the $16.8T going into the military. It just seems odd to me that one threat gets so much more funding than another.
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me.
Suppose 97% of your military commanders came forward and told you they believed that a country would invade. They show you satellite images of how the enemy forces are building up. They can't tell you for sure what would happen. The infrastructure, economy, and way of life could be entirely ruined. The country may never recover. Or maybe the invaders will just walk through and not do a thing.
Let's assume you have a VERY small military, just a token gesture really to make your citizens happy. Would you want the country to:
a) Decrease defense spending.
b) Maintain defense spending.
c) Increase defense spending.
Third, we still don't have actual evidence that there is a serious problem. We just have, yet again, strongly worded assertions. It really should be a warning sign to everyone when the people pushing this aggressive strategy can't back their claims with facts.
That's the real tough part about it... By the time we know for sure what will happen, it'd be too late. The risk is just SO HIGH that most scientists recommend playing it safe. Humanity could have a tough time surviving if we get into the "runaway climate change" scenario. Will that happen if the global temperature goes up 1 degree C? 10?
Aside from all that though, poison ivy grows faster with more CO2. Eeks. Just another reason to stay in my basement.
Quick, everyone! Let's invade... *spins a globe* Zimbabwe!
Evidence from weather satellites has shown no new warming for almost 18 years.
Here are some fun graphs: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs11...
Looks like a fairly linear increase when I hold a straight-edge up to the screen starting around 1970. No new surprises I guess?
Aside from all that though, a climate change religion doesn't sound so bad. Give a little money to the "church" and in return you get an insurance policy. The population is getting close to the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth. Once we get there, any major crop die-off would lead to starvation problems. Why should coffee drinkers spend money on bombing tea drinkers when we could instead invest that money to ensure that both coffee and tea keep growing?
No wonder we're still waiting for a 8TB consumer drive from them.
That might be enough to hold Star Citizen. I hope they can get it out in time.
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place. That would be far more enticing to me. It seems like a reasonable compromise on the debate of gun control would be to have strict regulations on lethal arms while non-lethal may be purchased by all.
Maybe someone better informed on statistics can weigh in on this?
People have definitely been arrested for lamer reasons. Growing gardens in the US is sometimes an offense, depending on if you have the licenses required to do so. It seems to be much more about money than safety.
It's all about government control and increasing taxation, while giving backhanders to the oligarchs that control the planet.
I can't believe people are falling for it. And as to those "scientists", they cost less than a single lobbyist for a real cause. The govt tells them to keep the story running or they'll lose tenure and grants. You think they care about the people when they have income for life for doing as they're told a few days of the year?
You do realize that a scientist who actually disproves anthropogenic climate change would become filthy rich from the oil companies, right?
I've lost so many Kerbals and I only played one afternoon. Rocket science is hard.
LGR has done a review of this. He's an excellent reviewer and should be on "the list" of every slashdotter methinks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It sounds very similar to a snowspeeder. Maybe he should make one of those next.
Censorship should not be tolerated. Under any circumstances
If you went with your child into a rough neighborhood and that child started shouting racial slurs at everyone you passed, would you tell your kid to hush or would you just let him keep going on?
* Never been known for harming anyone outside of his own country.
Google the Cheonan. Your argument is 80% based on igonorance and 20% based on rank stupidity.
If you're referring to the Battle of Cheonan, Kim Jung-un was -33 years old at that time.
Kim Jung-un has:
* Inherited a position and country that was already hated.
* Behaved as expected of his culture.
* Never been known for harming anyone outside of his own country.
* Suffered insults in nearly every report about him for as long as he has lived.
* Had the majority of information about him relayed through South Korea, a hostile country.
My understanding of the North Korean culture is that the whole system works by deifying their leader. Propaganda is extremely important. With the world seemingly against their administration, it makes sense that things that trickled into their country would be highly censored. It would be stupid of them not to censor it since it could lead to unrest, civil war, doom, destruction, death, fire, lack of bacon.... and other bad things.
South Korea has already mentioned plans to take this film, put it on dvd, and float balloons across the border to incite rebellion in the population. By trying to prevent the movie from being distributed at all, North Korea is essentially trying to avoid anarchy caused by external propaganda.
Why are we so eager to overthrow their regime? Is democracy so sacred that we must ~force~ it on every country around the world? What business is it of the US (and Hollywood) to decide what is the best system? What they have there is what developed in that region. It is a system that won out over the infighting to unite their country. It might not fit our definition of "fair" for the population, but that's only our definition. It's our own view that we're extending upon them, a culture that has had to isolate itself just to keep together.
I for one will NOT be watching this film. I find the comedic insults of a leader and the trivialization of his death is in extremely poor taste, especially since he has done no wrong to me nor anyone I know. "Live and let live" is supposed to be a phrase that the citizens of the US are pushed to believe and follow, especially recently with anti-bullying and gay marriage. This film and the common national support for it spits in the face of that mantra.