American here. Aren't most other developed countries countries some of the richest countries in the world with a strong social support system? So the situations which make somebody homeless in the USA don't apply to other developed countries?
Ah, that would be the incremental saving of changes - good times! Another workaround was to use the Save as... function to save a fresh document with no incremental stuff in it. It even used to be posted on the Microsoft support site. AFAIK, they never got this feature right, and gave up on it when implementing the.docx format (I could be wrong!)
Wow, this must have been the first time I said something "positive" about OOXML.
Yes, they are funny, which many consequences, some difficult-to-predict. In fact, you are having way too much fun with this. Specifically, don't you think it's a tad disingenuous to focus on just a couple of cherry-picked possible consequences to make some political point? As a counterweight, here are some more (just as biased as your pick): more (manufacturing and such) jobs for the huge number of lowly educated jobless in the USA (many of which don't show up in the "job searcher" statistics because they've given up searching)
--> more people who can afford buying stuff --> better turnover rate of the consumer economy
--> more manufacturing in the USA --> economic growth --> more regular tax income --> opportunity to decrease regular tax rates and/or improve infrastructure
--> less people who are reliant on unemployment and other benefits --> less government expenditure --> opportunity to decrease regular tax rates and/or improve infrastructure
--> less people who commit crime out of desperation
I was talking about you, APK. Zontar is not the one obsessively flooding the discussion with offtopic incoherent ramblings. It's not what you say, it's what you do.
Nice story, but evolution of fungi is so fast that the lag between proliferation of lignin-producing plants and lignin-degrading funghi is negligible. Coal was formed in wetlands, where the combination of an enhanced sedimentation rate and a waterlogged soil that poorly transports oxygen resulted in the organic matter being buried and sealed before it could fully decompose. A prominent example where the process is still active today are peatlands, which sequester carbon at a rate of about 1mm of peat per year. Another example are mangroves, which arguably better reflect the circumstances under which some of the coal that is mined today was formed.
The problem for the US is that wages are relatively high, which leads to a lot of manufacturing being done in southeast Asia. One of the things that are keeping the US (barely) competitive on the international scene is new technologies that are often spun off publicly funded research. A a nation, the money invested in fundamental research is recovered many times over in economic growth. You're effectively saying: "we don't need that sector of our economy - let other countries have it".
Perhaps you should educate yourself in the differences between fundamental and applied research. Fundamental research is by definition not immediately monetizable. A famous (though maybe not the best) example is the laser; at the time its principles were realized, it was regarded an academic curiosity. Decades later came a sudden boom in laser applications, and nowadays, we could hardly imagine life without them. And yes, the same thing goes for biomedical research. A curious publicly funded discovery today could be the basis for a huge public health breakthrough 40 years from now, beyond the horizon of private companies looking forward.
It's spelled "Occam", and his razor is a tool that is of critical importance in modern science, which I frequently have to remind grad students of. Conversely, in politics, the guys with the easy answer are almost always liars. To me, at this point in time, climate engineering is wishful thinking at best, and a fringe idea that is dragged into the spotlight by the fossil fuel industry at worst (and that's why I cautiously classify it under "politics"). Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to welcome a solid climate engineering proposal in the future, but right now, there are simply none that don't raise more issues than they resolve. Though TFA does have a point that a very careful, modest and low-profile climate engineering effort may help augment progress made by decreasing fossil fuel usage.
I do believe he is referring to Chernobyl since the stories we all hear claim the engineers disabled the safety systems to see if they could shut it down manually. Obviously they didn't.
The word "sabotage" implies harmful intent. This is a case where Hanlon's razor clearly rules out sabotage in favor of incompetence.
I will also say that is some good spinning you got going on there. You are the first person on Slashdot I've seen claim 3 meltdowns at Fukushima. I haven't even heard Faux News claim such a thing and you'd think they'd be all over that!
You must be that stereotypical ill-informed American who thinks they know it all. Care to click on the first link in my previous post and scroll down to "Japan"? Or look here or here or here or here.
Oooh! He said "public option"! He's a soc...erm..witch! A witch! A witch! Burn the AC! </Monty Python-esque hysteria>
Anyway, if you meet the income threshold, the free software is still out there and though it still has a yearly income limit, anyone can use it to get a tax extension.
Yeah, it redirects you to a number of free choices by the same leech^H^H^H^H^Hfine companies, including the free web version of TurboTax that is also clearly advertised on their website. And if you have kid, or anything else "out of the ordinary", too bad, that's too complicated for the free version, so cough up the dough already.
This business-as-usual apathy is what's destroying America. Yes, I know this kind of lobbying is endemic, but that only makes it more of an outrage. Almosteverything is sold out to the highest bidder already. When will they come for your interests?
Note that this doesn't imply I'm against nuclear power. As thing currently are, it has an important role in any balanced energy policy. But they'd better do some modernization, even if that means my electricity gets a few % more expensive.
That's not windmills killing people, that's drunks getting themselves killed. You'd be amazed how many drunks drive their cars into concrete structures / try to cross a highway on foot / attempt to climb electricity pylons / pick up their keys from the subway's third rail / try to qualify for Darwin awards some other way... good luck making society safe for drunks.
where can we find a completely accurate (or even reasonably accurate) climate model?
Oh hello, where can we find completely accurate anything (outside the field of mathematics)?
Even pro-AGW climatologists would shy away from claiming that they have one.
Are they completely accurate? Of course not, only an idiot or someone intent of spreading FUD would ask for complete accuracy. Reasonably accurate? Hell yes, what do you think all these IPPC reports are based on?
This is disingenuous due to the fact that you left out *why* life is better now than it was 200 years ago. Was it primarily due to politics, culture, technology, medical/scientific knowledge... what? Most of what I just listed has bugger-all to do with the climate.
You completely missed GP's point. -1 reading comprehension.
to keep everything just like it is in the 1980s (or whenever) may do more damage than just letting it cycle naturally.
before your investigations turn into actions, you'd damned well better know for certain what you are doing - making mistakes on a global level will have global consequences, and will last for a very long, long time.
There's something I can agree with. While the climatological effect of reducing CO2 emissions has been reasonably well studied and falls within the parameter space on which we have real-life data, climate engineering is totally out there and gives me the creeps. The easy answers are usually not the right ones.
Sorry, submitted to fast. I would like to add that Nature is one of the most selective journals, and that they do expect their referees to set the bar very high, not only in the sense of "assuring accuracy", but also making sure that the research is of such high impact that someone outside the field would want to know about it. This is not the case for the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific journals.
On a tangent, there's even a movement away from asking referees to judge impact because it's such a subjective process, and because funding agencies will eventually (hopefully soon) start to realize that journal impact factors are of low relevance compared to citations of individual articles.
Slashdot Mirror
American here. Aren't most other developed countries countries some of the richest countries in the world with a strong social support system? So the situations which make somebody homeless in the USA don't apply to other developed countries?
FTFY.
Ah, that would be the incremental saving of changes - good times! Another workaround was to use the Save as... function to save a fresh document with no incremental stuff in it. It even used to be posted on the Microsoft support site. AFAIK, they never got this feature right, and gave up on it when implementing the .docx format (I could be wrong!)
Wow, this must have been the first time I said something "positive" about OOXML.
Hello Zontar sockpuppet - Zontar does this
Paranoid delusions - check.
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
All of them. Living in an alternative reality - check.
I would advice you try to take your meds on time and never skip them. It's really important.
Yes, they are funny, which many consequences, some difficult-to-predict. In fact, you are having way too much fun with this. Specifically, don't you think it's a tad disingenuous to focus on just a couple of cherry-picked possible consequences to make some political point? As a counterweight, here are some more (just as biased as your pick): more (manufacturing and such) jobs for the huge number of lowly educated jobless in the USA (many of which don't show up in the "job searcher" statistics because they've given up searching)
--> more people who can afford buying stuff --> better turnover rate of the consumer economy
--> more manufacturing in the USA --> economic growth --> more regular tax income --> opportunity to decrease regular tax rates and/or improve infrastructure
--> less people who are reliant on unemployment and other benefits --> less government expenditure --> opportunity to decrease regular tax rates and/or improve infrastructure
--> less people who commit crime out of desperation
I was talking about you, APK. Zontar is not the one obsessively flooding the discussion with offtopic incoherent ramblings. It's not what you say, it's what you do.
Ahh a rare specimen of a mentally ill person on /.
But yeah, generally spoken, nationalism is stupid.
Nice story, but evolution of fungi is so fast that the lag between proliferation of lignin-producing plants and lignin-degrading funghi is negligible. Coal was formed in wetlands, where the combination of an enhanced sedimentation rate and a waterlogged soil that poorly transports oxygen resulted in the organic matter being buried and sealed before it could fully decompose. A prominent example where the process is still active today are peatlands, which sequester carbon at a rate of about 1mm of peat per year. Another example are mangroves, which arguably better reflect the circumstances under which some of the coal that is mined today was formed.
The problem for the US is that wages are relatively high, which leads to a lot of manufacturing being done in southeast Asia. One of the things that are keeping the US (barely) competitive on the international scene is new technologies that are often spun off publicly funded research. A a nation, the money invested in fundamental research is recovered many times over in economic growth. You're effectively saying: "we don't need that sector of our economy - let other countries have it".
Perhaps you should educate yourself in the differences between fundamental and applied research. Fundamental research is by definition not immediately monetizable. A famous (though maybe not the best) example is the laser; at the time its principles were realized, it was regarded an academic curiosity. Decades later came a sudden boom in laser applications, and nowadays, we could hardly imagine life without them. And yes, the same thing goes for biomedical research. A curious publicly funded discovery today could be the basis for a huge public health breakthrough 40 years from now, beyond the horizon of private companies looking forward.
Oops I was wrong, both spellings exist. Which shouldn't detract from the rest of my post...
It's spelled "Occam", and his razor is a tool that is of critical importance in modern science, which I frequently have to remind grad students of. Conversely, in politics, the guys with the easy answer are almost always liars. To me, at this point in time, climate engineering is wishful thinking at best, and a fringe idea that is dragged into the spotlight by the fossil fuel industry at worst (and that's why I cautiously classify it under "politics"). Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to welcome a solid climate engineering proposal in the future, but right now, there are simply none that don't raise more issues than they resolve. Though TFA does have a point that a very careful, modest and low-profile climate engineering effort may help augment progress made by decreasing fossil fuel usage.
I do believe he is referring to Chernobyl since the stories we all hear claim the engineers disabled the safety systems to see if they could shut it down manually. Obviously they didn't.
The word "sabotage" implies harmful intent. This is a case where Hanlon's razor clearly rules out sabotage in favor of incompetence.
I will also say that is some good spinning you got going on there. You are the first person on Slashdot I've seen claim 3 meltdowns at Fukushima. I haven't even heard Faux News claim such a thing and you'd think they'd be all over that!
You must be that stereotypical ill-informed American who thinks they know it all. Care to click on the first link in my previous post and scroll down to "Japan"? Or look here or here or here or here.
I'm having a Poe's law moment here...
Where is our "public option"?
Oooh! He said "public option"! He's a soc...erm..witch! A witch! A witch! Burn the AC! </Monty Python-esque hysteria>
Anyway, if you meet the income threshold, the free software is still out there and though it still has a yearly income limit, anyone can use it to get a tax extension.
Yeah, it redirects you to a number of free choices by the same leech^H^H^H^H^Hfine companies, including the free web version of TurboTax that is also clearly advertised on their website. And if you have kid, or anything else "out of the ordinary", too bad, that's too complicated for the free version, so cough up the dough already.
This business-as-usual apathy is what's destroying America. Yes, I know this kind of lobbying is endemic, but that only makes it more of an outrage. Almost everything is sold out to the highest bidder already. When will they come for your interests?
Jolly, it's most used climate myth #11 again. Second time in this discussion!
Congratulations, you just mindlessly regurgitated debunked climate myth #11.
I'm probably going to regret asking, but out of Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and the 3 meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, which one was sabotage?
By the way, that's 5, not 3. And that's not counting the less high-profile incidents that didn't involve commercial power plants of significant radiation release.
Note that this doesn't imply I'm against nuclear power. As thing currently are, it has an important role in any balanced energy policy. But they'd better do some modernization, even if that means my electricity gets a few % more expensive.
That's not windmills killing people, that's drunks getting themselves killed. You'd be amazed how many drunks drive their cars into concrete structures / try to cross a highway on foot / attempt to climb electricity pylons / pick up their keys from the subway's third rail / try to qualify for Darwin awards some other way... good luck making society safe for drunks.
Funny that say "20 years"; winters like this were pretty common before that, so your statement actually supports AGW. Obligatory XKCD.
Also, "North America" != "the world". While you and I were having a brutal winter, it was unusually warm in other places.
where can we find a completely accurate (or even reasonably accurate) climate model?
Oh hello, where can we find completely accurate anything (outside the field of mathematics)?
Even pro-AGW climatologists would shy away from claiming that they have one.
Are they completely accurate? Of course not, only an idiot or someone intent of spreading FUD would ask for complete accuracy. Reasonably accurate? Hell yes, what do you think all these IPPC reports are based on?
This is disingenuous due to the fact that you left out *why* life is better now than it was 200 years ago. Was it primarily due to politics, culture, technology, medical/scientific knowledge... what? Most of what I just listed has bugger-all to do with the climate.
You completely missed GP's point. -1 reading comprehension.
to keep everything just like it is in the 1980s (or whenever) may do more damage than just letting it cycle naturally.
Good evening, debunked climate myth #56.
before your investigations turn into actions, you'd damned well better know for certain what you are doing - making mistakes on a global level will have global consequences, and will last for a very long, long time.
There's something I can agree with. While the climatological effect of reducing CO2 emissions has been reasonably well studied and falls within the parameter space on which we have real-life data, climate engineering is totally out there and gives me the creeps. The easy answers are usually not the right ones.
geekoid is Rick Hamell reposting his own list, you insensitive clod!
Not to mention CVE-2014-0092.
Sorry, submitted to fast. I would like to add that Nature is one of the most selective journals, and that they do expect their referees to set the bar very high, not only in the sense of "assuring accuracy", but also making sure that the research is of such high impact that someone outside the field would want to know about it. This is not the case for the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific journals.
On a tangent, there's even a movement away from asking referees to judge impact because it's such a subjective process, and because funding agencies will eventually (hopefully soon) start to realize that journal impact factors are of low relevance compared to citations of individual articles.