Absolutely true, but, like everything else, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We all end up paying for it because reversed transactions are a cost of doing business that all merchants must calculate into their retail prices. If nothing else, it ought to cause people to be more aware of just what they're clicking on when they get an email.
Drop an ice cube in a glass of water. The ice cube will displace an amount of water equivalent to its mass. In other words, if you drop a 10 gram ice cube in a glass of water, the ice cube will displace 10 grams of water. When the ice cube melts, it still displaces 10 grams of water. When it was ice, it displaced 10 grams of water. When it's water, it displaces 10 grams of water. The water level doesn't change.
By the way, the rules change if the object is completely submerged. That's when volume comes into play.
Regarding the solid ground issue, of course that will contribute to the ocean rising. However, there is no land above sea level at the north pole. Last time I looked Greenland, like every other land mass, is south of the north pole.
That's only true if all the ice was in the water (to displace it). What about if it's above the water? That ice will contribute to sea levels.
No, that's completely wrong. A one ton iceberg will displace one ton of water. However, a one ton iceberg has a greater volume than one ton of ice (because, as we all know, water expands when it freezes). When that one ton iceberg melts, it still displaces one ton of water. How could the water rise? Does a ton of water that was frozen some how have a greater volume than a ton of water that was not frozen? Nope. It's physics!
1. There is no land mass at the north pole. 2. Ice floating on water displaces a volume of water equal to the ice's mass. 3. If the ice at the north pole melts, the sea level will not rise because the water has already been displaced. 4. Almost every reply totally missed the point of my post (as did one or two moderators). 5. ??? 6. Profit!
I just thought that I'd point out that if the ice melts at the north pole, the sea level won't rise. It's already displacing its equivalent mass in seawater. Obviously there are other implications, though.
Also, the average temperature of the planet has increased by 1 degree C since the late 1800s. The grounded Antarctic ice cap grew between 1992 and 2003, lessening any sea level increase by about 0.12mm per year . Thermal expansion represents roughly 120mm of MSL for a 1 degree temperature increase. The evidence for this is readily available - I just Googled it.
You can prove a negative through deductive reasoning, of course, which is the scientific method - we test a hypothesis against experiments that provide consistent outcomes and establish a conclusion based upon the outcome of those experiments. Your "world is round" statement can be proved inductively - and the negative statement is just as true, of course.
You can't prove a negative through inductive reasoning, which is the sort of thing that comes up when people try to prove the existence of god (you can't prove that god doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative). Of course, you can't prove a positive through inductive reasoning, either (that's the dirty little secret of the inductive reasoners). The best that you can do is say that a conclusion could be true (or not true) based upon the strengths of its supporting premises - but that's not proof.
There's plenty of inductive and deductive reasoning going on about global warming. And to the average guy on the street, it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference, mostly because, I think (deductively) that the average guy on the street could care less if the reasoning is inductive or deductive - he's more worried about how he's going to fill his tank up with gas.
Last summer was hot. Last winter was warm. This summer (which has not started yet) is cool.
So...extrapolate your observations into a long-term trend.
I'm not saying that you're not seeing the effects of global warming. I'm just saying that based on three observations in Turkey, one in Germany and one in the Netherlands over the course of less than a year, you can't really draw a conclusion. And that's part of the problem of the whole global warming "debate".
Amen to that. Referring to the summary only, the robot in question is a machine, that's all. The fact that it's a robot is not particularly material. The fact that it's an industrial machine that can kill you if you don't use it properly is what's important.
OK, first of all, this is going to come off as a rant and it's going to piss off a lot of people. Sorry.
I always get a chuckle out of the guys who complain that the military is full of idiots who don't know a damn thing about anything. I did my time, advanced from E-1 to E-6 in about 5 years and noticed that the guys who did the most whinging about how screwed up the military was were the guys who did the least amount of work. They were the guys who didn't "work and play well with others". They were the ones that I had to drag out of their rack at 7:50 so that they could be on the job at 8:00, then listen to the bitching and moaning because they couldn't knock off at 3:00. They were the ones who couldn't even do a half-assed job of something simple, but wanted to take on all the complex stuff. They were the ones who lost half our tools, then complained that what we had was just cheap shit and they had better stuff at home. They were the ones who made me field calls from the local loan sharks because they borrowed a few thousand bucks to buy a $500 car and weren't paying the bills. They were the guys who gave me five times as much work to do because they couldn't be trusted to do a simple job right the first time.
And they were the ones who expected the big bucks from a civilian job.
Well, guess what? The only real difference between work in a military job and work in a civilian job is that, generally, you don't get shot at. The military makes it pretty damn easy, though, because it tells you to do the work, not asks you to do the work. If you can't hack that, you're going to be screwed when you hit a civilian job because not only will you have to get the work done, you'll have to do it without having somebody there to backstop you when you don't have the responsibility or discipline to do it all on your own.
Yeah, I know the type. I saw 'em in the Navy and I see 'em in the "real world". Think what you want, but I wasn't one of the asshole "my way or the highway" LPOs. All I wanted were results. At the end of the week, I wanted to see a week's worth of work checked off of the schedule. Almost all of the guys came through, week in and week out. But the ones who didn't were the biggest whingers about how screwed up the system was.
Me, I got out of the Navy after 10 years, got my EE degree and a damned good job - and the work skills that I learned in the Navy are the reason. The travel was kind of nice, too.
I can't speak for the Air Force, Army, Marines or Coast Guard, but that's how things were when I was in the Navy.
Rosen's blog points out that it was in her "role as Chairman and CEO of the Recording Indsutry [sic] Assciation [sic] of America" that she participated in planning the lawsuits. I suppose that means that in her "role" as a private citizen she had some objection to them.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there can be a difference between a person's public and private opinions. In Rosen's case, maybe the difference is extreme. If she really didn't support the lawsuits, maybe that's the reason that she resigned - who knows. But somehow it seems kind of slimey to chair an organization like the RIAA while the decisions are being made, then take the position that she bears no responsibility for the lawsuits because she'd already made the decision to leave:
I don't honestly know what I would have done about the individual lawsuits had I stayed. I certainly participated in multiple planning and debate sessions about them. There were good arguments on both sides and the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people who work hard to protect their constituency. Thankfully my plan to leave was firmly in place and I didn't have to make that tough call or take the heat for the one that was made.
The CEO isn't a dictator - decisions are commonly made in companies that the CEO doesn't necessarily agree with, but that carry the support of other executives. But it's pretty craven to let a plan go forward, then quit and say that you really had nothing to do with it because you were going to quit anyway.
But what really caught my eye was the extraordinary amount of misspellings and basic grammar errors in her blog entry. I'm no grammar nazi, but I have to say that I was stunned.
Oh yeah, to the submitter of the story: Rosen says that Apple's proprietary DRM "bugs" her. Hilary Rosen can say stupid things on her own - you don't need to make quotes up.
Right. Keep thinking those happy thoughts. 100mph is too fast for conditions on roads in the US, particularly in traffic. If you're going that fast "with the traffic", you're not safe. It sounds to me like you've got way too much confidence in your abilities, the abilities of those around you, the performance of the road and the performance of your and the other cars. At 100mph, you travel 150 feet per second. You need separation of at least 300 feet between you and the car in front of you (you know - a football field). And that's not getting into the dynamics of how a car behaves at 100mph versus 75mph or less. Or what happens if you have to swerve because the ignoramus next to you decides to make a lane change.
I read the engineering studies at the transportation department. They don't do much to back you up.
But you're nowhere near where I drive, so it's no skin off my nose if you want to go too fast.
Next time you're in the middle of a 40 car pileup on the freeway, tell that to the EMT cutting you out of your car.
I tried to use that excuse to get out of a speeding ticket and even chatted with a couple of my civil engineering buddies at the state transportation department. After that chat, I gave up and pleaded guilty. The research doesn't back the "everybody else was doing it" defense.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out RIPE's WHOIS for 131.188.40.90. openlinux.org is hosted at a university in Neurnberg, Germany. Bogus.
-h-
The republicans won't let me do drugs and now the democrats won't let me gamble. This sucks.
Absolutely true, but, like everything else, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We all end up paying for it because reversed transactions are a cost of doing business that all merchants must calculate into their retail prices. If nothing else, it ought to cause people to be more aware of just what they're clicking on when they get an email.
-h-
It's not that hard!
Drop an ice cube in a glass of water. The ice cube will displace an amount of water equivalent to its mass. In other words, if you drop a 10 gram ice cube in a glass of water, the ice cube will displace 10 grams of water. When the ice cube melts, it still displaces 10 grams of water. When it was ice, it displaced 10 grams of water. When it's water, it displaces 10 grams of water. The water level doesn't change.
By the way, the rules change if the object is completely submerged. That's when volume comes into play.
Regarding the solid ground issue, of course that will contribute to the ocean rising. However, there is no land above sea level at the north pole. Last time I looked Greenland, like every other land mass, is south of the north pole.
-h-
...sue 'em!
-h-
That's only true if all the ice was in the water (to displace it). What about if it's above the water? That ice will contribute to sea levels.
No, that's completely wrong. A one ton iceberg will displace one ton of water. However, a one ton iceberg has a greater volume than one ton of ice (because, as we all know, water expands when it freezes). When that one ton iceberg melts, it still displaces one ton of water. How could the water rise? Does a ton of water that was frozen some how have a greater volume than a ton of water that was not frozen? Nope. It's physics!
-h-
All I have to say is this:
1. There is no land mass at the north pole.
2. Ice floating on water displaces a volume of water equal to the ice's mass.
3. If the ice at the north pole melts, the sea level will not rise because the water has already been displaced.
4. Almost every reply totally missed the point of my post (as did one or two moderators).
5. ???
6. Profit!
I just thought that I'd point out that if the ice melts at the north pole, the sea level won't rise. It's already displacing its equivalent mass in seawater. Obviously there are other implications, though.
Also, the average temperature of the planet has increased by 1 degree C since the late 1800s. The grounded Antarctic ice cap grew between 1992 and 2003, lessening any sea level increase by about 0.12mm per year . Thermal expansion represents roughly 120mm of MSL for a 1 degree temperature increase. The evidence for this is readily available - I just Googled it.
See the problem? The Wise Statesman was right.
-h-
You can prove a negative through deductive reasoning, of course, which is the scientific method - we test a hypothesis against experiments that provide consistent outcomes and establish a conclusion based upon the outcome of those experiments. Your "world is round" statement can be proved inductively - and the negative statement is just as true, of course.
You can't prove a negative through inductive reasoning, which is the sort of thing that comes up when people try to prove the existence of god (you can't prove that god doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative). Of course, you can't prove a positive through inductive reasoning, either (that's the dirty little secret of the inductive reasoners). The best that you can do is say that a conclusion could be true (or not true) based upon the strengths of its supporting premises - but that's not proof.
There's plenty of inductive and deductive reasoning going on about global warming. And to the average guy on the street, it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference, mostly because, I think (deductively) that the average guy on the street could care less if the reasoning is inductive or deductive - he's more worried about how he's going to fill his tank up with gas.
Oh nose...I've just turned pedantic...
-h-
Last summer was hot. Last winter was warm. This summer (which has not started yet) is cool.
So...extrapolate your observations into a long-term trend.
I'm not saying that you're not seeing the effects of global warming. I'm just saying that based on three observations in Turkey, one in Germany and one in the Netherlands over the course of less than a year, you can't really draw a conclusion. And that's part of the problem of the whole global warming "debate".
-h-
... is that it inspired one of the worst novels I've ever read, Michael Crichton's State of Fear.
I guess you didn't read Prey.
-h-
Kettle, this is pot. You're black.
Is this Slashdot or the Daily Koz?
SlashKoz - News for liberals, tempests in teapots.
Amen to that. Referring to the summary only, the robot in question is a machine, that's all. The fact that it's a robot is not particularly material. The fact that it's an industrial machine that can kill you if you don't use it properly is what's important.
-h-
OK, first of all, this is going to come off as a rant and it's going to piss off a lot of people. Sorry.
I always get a chuckle out of the guys who complain that the military is full of idiots who don't know a damn thing about anything. I did my time, advanced from E-1 to E-6 in about 5 years and noticed that the guys who did the most whinging about how screwed up the military was were the guys who did the least amount of work. They were the guys who didn't "work and play well with others". They were the ones that I had to drag out of their rack at 7:50 so that they could be on the job at 8:00, then listen to the bitching and moaning because they couldn't knock off at 3:00. They were the ones who couldn't even do a half-assed job of something simple, but wanted to take on all the complex stuff. They were the ones who lost half our tools, then complained that what we had was just cheap shit and they had better stuff at home. They were the ones who made me field calls from the local loan sharks because they borrowed a few thousand bucks to buy a $500 car and weren't paying the bills. They were the guys who gave me five times as much work to do because they couldn't be trusted to do a simple job right the first time.
And they were the ones who expected the big bucks from a civilian job.
Well, guess what? The only real difference between work in a military job and work in a civilian job is that, generally, you don't get shot at. The military makes it pretty damn easy, though, because it tells you to do the work, not asks you to do the work. If you can't hack that, you're going to be screwed when you hit a civilian job because not only will you have to get the work done, you'll have to do it without having somebody there to backstop you when you don't have the responsibility or discipline to do it all on your own.
Yeah, I know the type. I saw 'em in the Navy and I see 'em in the "real world". Think what you want, but I wasn't one of the asshole "my way or the highway" LPOs. All I wanted were results. At the end of the week, I wanted to see a week's worth of work checked off of the schedule. Almost all of the guys came through, week in and week out. But the ones who didn't were the biggest whingers about how screwed up the system was.
Me, I got out of the Navy after 10 years, got my EE degree and a damned good job - and the work skills that I learned in the Navy are the reason. The travel was kind of nice, too.
I can't speak for the Air Force, Army, Marines or Coast Guard, but that's how things were when I was in the Navy.
-h-
Rosen's blog points out that it was in her "role as Chairman and CEO of the Recording Indsutry [sic] Assciation [sic] of America" that she participated in planning the lawsuits. I suppose that means that in her "role" as a private citizen she had some objection to them.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there can be a difference between a person's public and private opinions. In Rosen's case, maybe the difference is extreme. If she really didn't support the lawsuits, maybe that's the reason that she resigned - who knows. But somehow it seems kind of slimey to chair an organization like the RIAA while the decisions are being made, then take the position that she bears no responsibility for the lawsuits because she'd already made the decision to leave:
I don't honestly know what I would have done about the individual lawsuits had I stayed. I certainly participated in multiple planning and debate sessions about them. There were good arguments on both sides and the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people who work hard to protect their constituency. Thankfully my plan to leave was firmly in place and I didn't have to make that tough call or take the heat for the one that was made.
The CEO isn't a dictator - decisions are commonly made in companies that the CEO doesn't necessarily agree with, but that carry the support of other executives. But it's pretty craven to let a plan go forward, then quit and say that you really had nothing to do with it because you were going to quit anyway.
But what really caught my eye was the extraordinary amount of misspellings and basic grammar errors in her blog entry. I'm no grammar nazi, but I have to say that I was stunned.
Oh yeah, to the submitter of the story: Rosen says that Apple's proprietary DRM "bugs" her. Hilary Rosen can say stupid things on her own - you don't need to make quotes up.
-h-
Monsanto demanded and got fees from farmers who ended up with genetically altered crops from cross polarization, not because they planted them
They definitely weren't cross polarized, but maybe they weren't cross pollinated either...
-h-
Right. Keep thinking those happy thoughts. 100mph is too fast for conditions on roads in the US, particularly in traffic. If you're going that fast "with the traffic", you're not safe. It sounds to me like you've got way too much confidence in your abilities, the abilities of those around you, the performance of the road and the performance of your and the other cars. At 100mph, you travel 150 feet per second. You need separation of at least 300 feet between you and the car in front of you (you know - a football field). And that's not getting into the dynamics of how a car behaves at 100mph versus 75mph or less. Or what happens if you have to swerve because the ignoramus next to you decides to make a lane change.
I read the engineering studies at the transportation department. They don't do much to back you up.
But you're nowhere near where I drive, so it's no skin off my nose if you want to go too fast.
-h-
I didn't say that it was an acceptable defense either. That's why I didn't use it.
Next time you're in the middle of a 40 car pileup on the freeway, tell that to the EMT cutting you out of your car.
I tried to use that excuse to get out of a speeding ticket and even chatted with a couple of my civil engineering buddies at the state transportation department. After that chat, I gave up and pleaded guilty. The research doesn't back the "everybody else was doing it" defense.
-h-
Don't forget the lesson of King Gillette.
Everybody knows that Elfin magic comes from hollow trees. Mmmmmmmm...cookie....
Oh crap...I'll be right back!
Oh boy, another /. lawyer.
For once common sense and the law align. The phone is stolen. And the person who took it is still a dick.
-h-
What fraction of the Library of Congress is that?