Actually, such contracts will only obligate the employer to pay some amount of severance determined by the contract. It does not preclude an employer from terminating the employment if they so choose. At no point did I suggest that firing an employee for a reason unconnected with work would never have any additional costs associated with it.
Yes... because an employer can fire you for any reason* they want.
There may be consequences the employer may have to deal with, such as having to pay severance pay amounting to several weeks or sometimes even months of work, depending on the labor agreement between the employee and employer, but yes.... most definitely yes, an employer can and most certainly should be permitted to fire someone for any reason* they see fit, even if that reason has nothing to do with work.
*Barring certain protected classes, such as because of age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, etc.
And I think you need to read about what specific heat capacity is and how mechanical processes don't actually change it. If it were practiced on a widespread enough level, this may result in slightly warmer continents (less than a single degree), but while we might ordinarily associate such apparent widespread temperature increases with catastrophic global warming, it wouldn't actually be bad because the actual amount of heat energy in the earth's atmosphere hasn't changed. Literally, it would be be just a tiny temperature change that has no consequence at all. If the temperature went up half a degree over the continents, it would go down over the oceans by a quarter of a degree (because there is roughly twice as much ocean area as land area), but in the end, the actual heat retention of the planet is entirely unchanged by this.
The thing to worry about is when the total amount of heat being absorbed and retained by the atmosphere is increasing, not when some place on earth happens to be made to get slightly warmer, because in the latter case, that energy is simply just coming from somewhere else on earth.
For many of the glyphs, I noticed that the only way I would be able to recognize them is if I knew what the glyph was supposed to be already. There is some chance I could determine this from context, but in particular, if I were reading some unfamiliar text or especially if it contained some new term that I had not previously known and was learning about, I would very easily have absolutely no clue what I was reading.
What good does it do to increase memory retention but decrease comprehensibility to the point that the amount of information you will actually end up learning drops?
Obviously, but that's irrelevant... the rate at which the atmosphere radiates heat back into space at a global level is what will affect global warming, and moving heat that happens to be in the atmosphere already around in different ways would not affect that in the slightest.
This is really basic conservation of energy stuff here... all of the heat we get on earth is from the sun... a wind farm doesn't magically create more of it, it just moves the heat that is already here around a bit differently. When it is making the area in its vicinity warmer, it is also making another area cooler (the place it is drawing the heat from). At some point equilibrium is achieved, and the climate remains unchanged.
We have the global warming problem we have today because the composition of the air is changing to retain heat better than it used to. Moving heat around the atmosphere differently from how nature does it doesn't change the rate at which it ordinarily will dissipate heat into space.
I thought it was implicit in the phrasing I used for the second statement ending in a question mark, but I guess not, since you're not the only one who seems to have mistaken my point.
But the heat that produces that warning is already here in the atmosphere, how you move the heat around once it's here isn't going to change how fast it dissipates into space.
Warming may be regional, but the baseline mechanism is same as with global warming. Reduction in thermal energy vented into space.
Incorrect. The heat energy dissipated into space is only changed by altering the density of certain substances in the atmosphere, not by how you move the heat around once it's here.
Of course... but the summary, which is simply that widespread windpower usage could cause significant warming, is heavily suggestive of an argument that a person who had an agenda for pushing fossil fuel use would use.
The article itself clarifies this explicitly by saying that such warming is regional, but that's not going to change how people who don't bother to read past the summary are likely to see it.
We could be affected by warmer temperatures, but the overall global climate would actually remain unchanged. As the temperatures over the continents rose, the rate at which the energy is drained from them into the cooler areas would rise as well.
The warming that is being documented here is not because of any global increase in thermal energy, it is because of localized changes to how the wind moves through a region. Effectively, what amounts to warming in one area would amount to cooling in another because to get warmer, you have to get that energy from somewhere. If windpower was widespread enough, then it wouldn't have anywhere to really draw that energy from to make things warmer in the first place, so temperatures wouldn't change at all.
I'm not sure how you think that the heat generated by the friction in the machinery would be considered "significant" in the first place. Can you please elaborate?
Regional warming is proportionally global warming...
No it is not.
Global warming means that heat from outside the planet is being added to it faster than it is being emitted back into space.
Wind power does not change that in the slightest... it causes regional warming, but the total amount of heat in the atmosphere is unaffected, and the global temperature average remains constant. A perhaps oversimplified way of looking at it is that with regional warming, for every degree warmer you make it at point X, you've made it correspondingly cooler at some other point Y.
The net heat on the planet is unchanged, and while you might get warmer temperatures, the overall climate would be entirely unaffected.
He didn't say it was, he said that conflating the adding of heat to the atmosphere with changing where it happens to get warmer is pro-fossil-fuel FUD.
The paper doesn't conflate them, explicitly acknowledging that the observed temperature change is regional, but the summary of the underlying message it delivers, which is that it causes significant warming, most definitely strongly appears to.
.... and which is why it doesn't contribute to global warming.
Global warming happens when heat is being retained on earth faster than it is being emitted back into space. Harnessing wind power doesn't change that, changing the effective chemical make-up of our atmosphere by changing how much of any given substance there might be in it does.
LOL, nope... just commenting based on what I remember back in the day. I took a look at the video just now, and I see they have the egg/blow-torch demo in it.
They tried, apparently... he wouldn't tell anyone else because he was afraid they would steal it and he would be left out because he wasn't rich enough to defend against a large corporation before he started to see his own profits.
If you have a good thing and it's proven to work why would you not commercialize it?
I agree with what you are saying, but in this particular case, the inventor was very obviously paranoid... afraid that some large company from whom he could not defend his claim because he was not rich would try and take credit for his invention.
It is unlikely it occurred to him that if he did not reveal the secret, that he would die before anyone else might be able to benefit from it, which is of course what happened.
I remember reading about this in the newspaper when this stuff was first invented... it was apparently demonstrated in front of a number of people that a raw egg could be coated in just a millimetre or so of this substance, and then blasted with a blow torch on full heat for something like 20 minutes. The egg was cracked open and apparently still raw and cold after the demonstration.
The inventor was terrified that someone was going to try to take credit for his idea and there wouldn't be anything he could do to stop it because he wasn't wealthy enough to defend a patent against some unnamed large company that he feared would take interest and act so unscrupulously, so he didn't patent it, and ultimately took the secret to his grave.
The fact that that the 50th percentile has finally gotten bumped up far enough that it happens to be above the recognized poverty line is good, and it is a reflection of how well less developed nations are improving their standards, but the Pareto principle continues to apply to wealth distribution, and you are still going to see huge income disparities.
And of course, that still leaves aside the fact that middle class is a pretty broad classification that includes people who still don't make enough money to have savings to speak of or have any ability to prepare for retirement because they are too busy just living from one paycheck to the next.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, such contracts will only obligate the employer to pay some amount of severance determined by the contract. It does not preclude an employer from terminating the employment if they so choose. At no point did I suggest that firing an employee for a reason unconnected with work would never have any additional costs associated with it.
Yes... because an employer can fire you for any reason* they want.
There may be consequences the employer may have to deal with, such as having to pay severance pay amounting to several weeks or sometimes even months of work, depending on the labor agreement between the employee and employer, but yes.... most definitely yes, an employer can and most certainly should be permitted to fire someone for any reason* they see fit, even if that reason has nothing to do with work.
*Barring certain protected classes, such as because of age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, etc.
And I think you need to read about what specific heat capacity is and how mechanical processes don't actually change it. If it were practiced on a widespread enough level, this may result in slightly warmer continents (less than a single degree), but while we might ordinarily associate such apparent widespread temperature increases with catastrophic global warming, it wouldn't actually be bad because the actual amount of heat energy in the earth's atmosphere hasn't changed. Literally, it would be be just a tiny temperature change that has no consequence at all. If the temperature went up half a degree over the continents, it would go down over the oceans by a quarter of a degree (because there is roughly twice as much ocean area as land area), but in the end, the actual heat retention of the planet is entirely unchanged by this.
The thing to worry about is when the total amount of heat being absorbed and retained by the atmosphere is increasing, not when some place on earth happens to be made to get slightly warmer, because in the latter case, that energy is simply just coming from somewhere else on earth.
For many of the glyphs, I noticed that the only way I would be able to recognize them is if I knew what the glyph was supposed to be already. There is some chance I could determine this from context, but in particular, if I were reading some unfamiliar text or especially if it contained some new term that I had not previously known and was learning about, I would very easily have absolutely no clue what I was reading.
What good does it do to increase memory retention but decrease comprehensibility to the point that the amount of information you will actually end up learning drops?
Obviously, but that's irrelevant... the rate at which the atmosphere radiates heat back into space at a global level is what will affect global warming, and moving heat that happens to be in the atmosphere already around in different ways would not affect that in the slightest.
This is really basic conservation of energy stuff here... all of the heat we get on earth is from the sun... a wind farm doesn't magically create more of it, it just moves the heat that is already here around a bit differently. When it is making the area in its vicinity warmer, it is also making another area cooler (the place it is drawing the heat from). At some point equilibrium is achieved, and the climate remains unchanged.
We have the global warming problem we have today because the composition of the air is changing to retain heat better than it used to. Moving heat around the atmosphere differently from how nature does it doesn't change the rate at which it ordinarily will dissipate heat into space.
No, it does not.... you don't magically make the earth retain heat longer just by pushing the warm air down, because it will just radiate heat faster.
Would #sarcasm have made my intent clearer?
I thought it was implicit in the phrasing I used for the second statement ending in a question mark, but I guess not, since you're not the only one who seems to have mistaken my point.
But the heat that produces that warning is already here in the atmosphere, how you move the heat around once it's here isn't going to change how fast it dissipates into space.
Incorrect. The heat energy dissipated into space is only changed by altering the density of certain substances in the atmosphere, not by how you move the heat around once it's here.
Okay, that's a start.
All we need are about 15 million more of these plants and we'd be fine, right?
Of course... but the summary, which is simply that widespread windpower usage could cause significant warming, is heavily suggestive of an argument that a person who had an agenda for pushing fossil fuel use would use.
The article itself clarifies this explicitly by saying that such warming is regional, but that's not going to change how people who don't bother to read past the summary are likely to see it.
We could be affected by warmer temperatures, but the overall global climate would actually remain unchanged. As the temperatures over the continents rose, the rate at which the energy is drained from them into the cooler areas would rise as well.
The warming that is being documented here is not because of any global increase in thermal energy, it is because of localized changes to how the wind moves through a region. Effectively, what amounts to warming in one area would amount to cooling in another because to get warmer, you have to get that energy from somewhere. If windpower was widespread enough, then it wouldn't have anywhere to really draw that energy from to make things warmer in the first place, so temperatures wouldn't change at all.
I'm not sure how you think that the heat generated by the friction in the machinery would be considered "significant" in the first place. Can you please elaborate?
No it is not.
Global warming means that heat from outside the planet is being added to it faster than it is being emitted back into space.
Wind power does not change that in the slightest... it causes regional warming, but the total amount of heat in the atmosphere is unaffected, and the global temperature average remains constant. A perhaps oversimplified way of looking at it is that with regional warming, for every degree warmer you make it at point X, you've made it correspondingly cooler at some other point Y.
The net heat on the planet is unchanged, and while you might get warmer temperatures, the overall climate would be entirely unaffected.
He didn't say it was, he said that conflating the adding of heat to the atmosphere with changing where it happens to get warmer is pro-fossil-fuel FUD.
The paper doesn't conflate them, explicitly acknowledging that the observed temperature change is regional, but the summary of the underlying message it delivers, which is that it causes significant warming, most definitely strongly appears to.
Global warming happens when heat is being retained on earth faster than it is being emitted back into space. Harnessing wind power doesn't change that, changing the effective chemical make-up of our atmosphere by changing how much of any given substance there might be in it does.
Because that would be friggen *AMAZING*....
You could figure out who knows their shit from who doesn't without all the expense of a probationary period.
This would make an awesome bullshit filter on interviews.
Was anyone ever able to figure that one out?
LOL, nope... just commenting based on what I remember back in the day. I took a look at the video just now, and I see they have the egg/blow-torch demo in it.
They tried, apparently... he wouldn't tell anyone else because he was afraid they would steal it and he would be left out because he wasn't rich enough to defend against a large corporation before he started to see his own profits.
I agree with what you are saying, but in this particular case, the inventor was very obviously paranoid... afraid that some large company from whom he could not defend his claim because he was not rich would try and take credit for his invention.
It is unlikely it occurred to him that if he did not reveal the secret, that he would die before anyone else might be able to benefit from it, which is of course what happened.
I remember reading about this in the newspaper when this stuff was first invented... it was apparently demonstrated in front of a number of people that a raw egg could be coated in just a millimetre or so of this substance, and then blasted with a blow torch on full heat for something like 20 minutes. The egg was cracked open and apparently still raw and cold after the demonstration.
The inventor was terrified that someone was going to try to take credit for his idea and there wouldn't be anything he could do to stop it because he wasn't wealthy enough to defend a patent against some unnamed large company that he feared would take interest and act so unscrupulously, so he didn't patent it, and ultimately took the secret to his grave.
The fact that that the 50th percentile has finally gotten bumped up far enough that it happens to be above the recognized poverty line is good, and it is a reflection of how well less developed nations are improving their standards, but the Pareto principle continues to apply to wealth distribution, and you are still going to see huge income disparities.
And of course, that still leaves aside the fact that middle class is a pretty broad classification that includes people who still don't make enough money to have savings to speak of or have any ability to prepare for retirement because they are too busy just living from one paycheck to the next.