You didn't even answer my simple question. It is rather childish to resort to insults just because you're losing the argument.
who learn their science from comic strips.
Nice try, but you're talking to a well-cited, professional scientist. As the saying goes, I forgot more science and statistics than you will ever know. Even in your insults, you fail.
Nice ad hominem. Latching on to the one comic strip (by a reputable author who does his homework, no less) in a post shock full of other links. Of course, this is an age-old tactic particularly popular with shills: if you can't argue the facts, try to discredit or ridicule the source (and steer the subject away from the argument you're losing). You might as well concede the debate and save yourself and me some time.
When a shift to a new equilibrium temperature is occurring, and you are measuring the inflow and outflow during that shift, you will inevitably find them unequal. If they were equal, there would be no net flow of thermal energy into or out of the system, so the temperature would not be changing. If they were equal at all times, it would not be possible for the the equilibrium temperature to change. Somewhat related. And phantomfive, please don't act as if you didn't see that last link, or the links in this post. They are not equal.
Oh hey, hi APK. I'm sorry, I though I was dealing with someone with a mindbogglingly bad reading comprehension, but it's just our resident psychotic. Still off your meds? Not so good, man. You should have identified yourself earlier so that I could have switched to ignore mode. Then again, that would have deprived you of the attention you're so desperately seeking, so I do see why you chose not to sign your messages.
More like, "because if all you know is comic strips, you're impossible to reason with."
If you think the only link/argument in my post was that comic strip, you need either your eyes or your head checked.
cherry-picking a few temperatures is lousy statistics
What cherry-picking? If you look closely at that graph, it cleanly has a value for every year since 1970. As a rule, Randall researches his subjects pretty thoroughly. Which cannot be said of you. Randall's graph would still work if you'd go further back than 1970, as shown by some of the other links in my post which you so conveniently ignored.
Oh come on, this debate is not even challenging when you start posting links that disprove your own point. The most fundamental flaw in your thinking is that the earth, when modeled as a grey body (because anyone with eyes in their head can see it's nowhere near a black body), has a non-constant emissivity. This emissivity is currently slowly decreasing over time due to science more than a hundred years old. As corroborated by empirical observations linked in my previous post in this thread.
Wow, just wow! What I'm doing here is exactly the opposite of what you're assuming. Care to actually read the link in my previous post? (Hint: the box in red has a title. It says "Myth".) Or to actually look at my posting history to substantiate your "I see from your other posts" claim? Also, your reading comprehension needs some work. My usage of the word canon implies fiction.
Absolutely! Indeed, the kind of temperatures we saw in the US because of the polar votex used to be normal a few decades ago. So I guess that answer your questions: North America. Obligatory XKCD.
Yeah, and my mother-in-law just died of pancreatic cancer with which she was diagnosed a similar amount of time ago. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly cancers and your GM jsut got lucky, you anectdotic clod.
It depends on how you define "intrinsic value". Does a paper bill backed by gold have an intrinsic value? If you answered "Yes" to that, then yes, a share has an intrinsic value as well. Google "book value per common share". In simple words, a stockholder owns part of the company, part of its buildings, part of its servers, part of its savings... and the "book value per common share" is the value of that part, if one were to sell everything (and pay off all debt).
Incidentally, shares are almost always traded at much higher prices than the "book value per common share"; it's kind of a lower limit. The only situation where the share price goes lower than the "book value per common share" is if the company is in deep shit, like they're uncontrollably losing money, or there's a lawsuit running against them that will likely bankrupt them.
Dear inane moderator: I didn't think I would need to explain this, but the point GP was trying to make is exactly the opposite of economies of scale. And there's a word for that as well: diseconomies of scale. Only it does not apply here; there's no reason why there should be a diseconomy associated with switching a larger number of outlets to chip-and-pin. As demonstrated by all developed nations other than the USA and some emerging nations as well. The post I was replying to is simply an apologist of US business' inertia and unwillingness to innovate.
Why is it always reactionary in American business?
FTFY. As to answer the question: it used to not be that way, but the companies discovered that if they gave enough money to the politicians, the regulator would let them get away with making arrangements like: "if none of us makes the first step to innovate, the others won't be force to follow, and we all can save ourselves the financial investment of the innovation".
OK, if we're going to zoom in to the details, here are some more: the remains of planes that crash into the ocean are normally scattered over a square mile or so; the pictures are completely against expectations. In the unlikely case it did a controlled landing on water (which should be made virtually impossible by ocean waves), it should have been able to emit some distress signal. Not to mention that that area has a lot of radar activity; it shouldn't have been able to get there undetected in the fist place.
There are plenty of strong reasons to believe it's not it (again, it conflicts with the satellite data and with the pings from the black boxes), so their evidence would need to be pretty hard to be credible. Which it isn't. Ocean waters can be turbulent and chemical traces can pop up and disappear in unintuitive ways. I would even be willing to believe someone scuttled an old airplane there that was destined for scrap - just not MH370.
One of the common failure modes of democracies is people becoming disinterested in voting, followed by low turnouts and a strongly motivated minority grabbing power. That's why people should vote. They should be well-informed, however; lack of that is another failure mode - the one we're seeing at work right now. Part of that burden lies on them, but "media of different viewpoints and opinions" really sounds like the antithesis of the US media these days. The media definitely played a part in making these people as ill-informed as they are, by going full-throttle for sensation and personality cults, and rarely if ever offering in-depth analysis of, you know, agendas and policies. The political process in the US is a popularity contest, as opposed to choosing a group of people who have the competence and vision to lead the country in the population's best interests.
Slashdot Mirror
All my foes
Oh yeah, I foe'd you after you broke out the insults and made clear you weren't interested in rational debate, so cry me a river.
who learn their science from comic strips.
Nice try, but you're talking to a well-cited, professional scientist. As the saying goes, I forgot more science and statistics than you will ever know. Even in your insults, you fail.
Right you are - let's Fix That For Me. "Both cases cause the system's heat efflux to be smaller than its influx. Close enough."
I'm having a Poe's law moment here...
Nice ad hominem. Latching on to the one comic strip (by a reputable author who does his homework, no less) in a post shock full of other links. Of course, this is an age-old tactic particularly popular with shills: if you can't argue the facts, try to discredit or ridicule the source (and steer the subject away from the argument you're losing). You might as well concede the debate and save yourself and me some time.
When a shift to a new equilibrium temperature is occurring, and you are measuring the inflow and outflow during that shift, you will inevitably find them unequal. If they were equal, there would be no net flow of thermal energy into or out of the system, so the temperature would not be changing. If they were equal at all times, it would not be possible for the the equilibrium temperature to change. Somewhat related. And phantomfive, please don't act as if you didn't see that last link, or the links in this post. They are not equal.
Oh hey, hi APK. I'm sorry, I though I was dealing with someone with a mindbogglingly bad reading comprehension, but it's just our resident psychotic. Still off your meds? Not so good, man. You should have identified yourself earlier so that I could have switched to ignore mode. Then again, that would have deprived you of the attention you're so desperately seeking, so I do see why you chose not to sign your messages.
You've exposed yourself as someone who cannot read.
More like, "because if all you know is comic strips, you're impossible to reason with."
If you think the only link/argument in my post was that comic strip, you need either your eyes or your head checked.
cherry-picking a few temperatures is lousy statistics
What cherry-picking? If you look closely at that graph, it cleanly has a value for every year since 1970. As a rule, Randall researches his subjects pretty thoroughly. Which cannot be said of you. Randall's graph would still work if you'd go further back than 1970, as shown by some of the other links in my post which you so conveniently ignored.
Oh come on, this debate is not even challenging when you start posting links that disprove your own point. The most fundamental flaw in your thinking is that the earth, when modeled as a grey body (because anyone with eyes in their head can see it's nowhere near a black body), has a non-constant emissivity. This emissivity is currently slowly decreasing over time due to science more than a hundred years old. As corroborated by empirical observations linked in my previous post in this thread.
Wow, just wow! What I'm doing here is exactly the opposite of what you're assuming. Care to actually read the link in my previous post? (Hint: the box in red has a title. It says "Myth".) Or to actually look at my posting history to substantiate your "I see from your other posts" claim? Also, your reading comprehension needs some work. My usage of the word canon implies fiction .
Because "phantomfive" says so? No, really not. We can measure it directly these days, you know.
Because polar vortices are not a result of AGW
Absolutely! Indeed, the kind of temperatures we saw in the US because of the polar votex used to be normal a few decades ago. So I guess that answer your questions: North America. Obligatory XKCD.
Other valid answers:
- Western Europe (here are the years in which winters were severe enough to hold an outdoor skating contest in the Netherlands; making a graph is left as an exercise to the reader)
- Australia
- The antarctic (yes, the ice is melting overall)
- Greenland, where ice sheet decline, is a boon for agriculture - Pretty much any place that has seen shifts in habitat (here come West Nile Virus and Malaria)
- Pretty much anywhere where there are glaciers
A better question would be: "can you name any area of the world that didn't have its climate disrupted as a result of global warming?"
If you're going to mindlessly regurgitate debunked climate myth #11, at least get the decade right with respect to the canon...
Nice switch, but nobody said that. You're just trying to drag debunked climate myth #16 into the discussion.
Both cases cause the system's radiative heat efflux to be smaller than its influx. Close enough.
It's been a while since we've seen debunked denialist argument #1 being brought up around this parts. Guess most of them got smarter than that...
Yeah, and my mother-in-law just died of pancreatic cancer with which she was diagnosed a similar amount of time ago. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly cancers and your GM jsut got lucky, you anectdotic clod.
It depends on how you define "intrinsic value". Does a paper bill backed by gold have an intrinsic value? If you answered "Yes" to that, then yes, a share has an intrinsic value as well. Google "book value per common share". In simple words, a stockholder owns part of the company, part of its buildings, part of its servers, part of its savings... and the "book value per common share" is the value of that part, if one were to sell everything (and pay off all debt).
Incidentally, shares are almost always traded at much higher prices than the "book value per common share"; it's kind of a lower limit. The only situation where the share price goes lower than the "book value per common share" is if the company is in deep shit, like they're uncontrollably losing money, or there's a lawsuit running against them that will likely bankrupt them.
Dear inane moderator: I didn't think I would need to explain this, but the point GP was trying to make is exactly the opposite of economies of scale. And there's a word for that as well: diseconomies of scale. Only it does not apply here; there's no reason why there should be a diseconomy associated with switching a larger number of outlets to chip-and-pin. As demonstrated by all developed nations other than the USA and some emerging nations as well. The post I was replying to is simply an apologist of US business' inertia and unwillingness to innovate.
Why is it always reactionary in American business?
FTFY. As to answer the question: it used to not be that way, but the companies discovered that if they gave enough money to the politicians, the regulator would let them get away with making arrangements like: "if none of us makes the first step to innovate, the others won't be force to follow, and we all can save ourselves the financial investment of the innovation".
economy of scale
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Whoosh?
OK, if we're going to zoom in to the details, here are some more: the remains of planes that crash into the ocean are normally scattered over a square mile or so; the pictures are completely against expectations. In the unlikely case it did a controlled landing on water (which should be made virtually impossible by ocean waves), it should have been able to emit some distress signal. Not to mention that that area has a lot of radar activity; it shouldn't have been able to get there undetected in the fist place.
There are plenty of strong reasons to believe it's not it (again, it conflicts with the satellite data and with the pings from the black boxes), so their evidence would need to be pretty hard to be credible. Which it isn't. Ocean waters can be turbulent and chemical traces can pop up and disappear in unintuitive ways. I would even be willing to believe someone scuttled an old airplane there that was destined for scrap - just not MH370.
One of the common failure modes of democracies is people becoming disinterested in voting, followed by low turnouts and a strongly motivated minority grabbing power. That's why people should vote. They should be well-informed, however; lack of that is another failure mode - the one we're seeing at work right now. Part of that burden lies on them, but "media of different viewpoints and opinions" really sounds like the antithesis of the US media these days. The media definitely played a part in making these people as ill-informed as they are, by going full-throttle for sensation and personality cults, and rarely if ever offering in-depth analysis of, you know, agendas and policies. The political process in the US is a popularity contest, as opposed to choosing a group of people who have the competence and vision to lead the country in the population's best interests.