My understanding is that CO2 absorbs the longer wavelength heat energy radiated from the earth but not shorter wavelength light energy from the sun. CO2 moves to an excited but unstable state and releases it's energy some of which goes back down towards the earth. So it basically allows light energy to pass through but catches and sends back some of the heat energy given off by the earth. Hence the "greenhouse" label. The most common atmospheric gasses such as N2, O2, and Ar do not absorb infrared radiation (dipole moment of these wont have a net change when they vibrate) so looking at their specific heat capacity isn't really helpful to the greenhouse gas equation. After those I think C02 is like the largest component though even then it's something like 0.03%.
You also have to remember to take the abundance of a gas into account when figuring out which one is more important. Methane for example is a much stronger greenhouse gas molecule-for-molecule but it is also much less abundant. Water vapor is both more abundant, and a stronger greenhouse gas, but we can't really affect how much water vapor is in the air on a large scale and it doesn't have much staying power (9 days vs centuries for CO2)
Before anyone expands the discussion to include 100 other different arguments that don't address the topic on hand let me just say I'm just speaking to why CO2 works as a greenhouse gas here despite the specific heat capacity, not whether human production of it is contributing to large scale global warming so if you have comments on the original discussion I'd love to be further educated but leave the religious like tangential arguments elsewhere.
I don't think it's a flaw with the 4th amendment, as I don't think it's ever applied when you voluntarily go to an airport. Having it do so would be insane. That would mean you couldn't even x-ray luggage or carry-on bags. In addition the amendment uses the word reasonable so that it can adapt to the times. Otherwise you'd be continuously having to re-write the constitution with new technology because the amendment doesn't list routers inspecting packets for destination IP as an OK search or some such nonsense. It's much easier to have a court case and have the current SP make a ruling as to whether something is reasonable for the current public mindset and state of law.
Most of the TSA officers I've seen look like they just stepped out of the ghetto with their shiny new high school diplomas. I don't even think they're salaried employees. It looks like a barely-above-minimum-wage job. You can't expect to get professionals on $10 an hour.
Out of curiosity, with TSA officers all wearing the same uniform and having strict grooming/jewelry guidelines what exactly makes them "look like" uneducated ghetto dwellers to you because surely you're not judging them based upon the color of their skin right?
Death, resignation, or impeachment which follows the same process as impeaching a president. Such an impeachment requires evidence of actual crimes committed, not simply a disagreement in ideologies.
While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?
Can you seriously not make a distinction between overly invasive security procedures with little to no proven effectiveness to reasonable security procedures which, whether effective or not, don't involve so much loss of privacy, rights, and dignity?
You've certainly added a lot of new qualifiers there. I was merely commenting on the weakness of your first argument of "how many cited cases did it prevent?" which is an impossible metric to gather information for or judge the effectiveness of a security deterrent by. It's essentially as bad as claiming that since we haven't had another attack that the TSA policies are working. If people want to argue effectiveness of a deterrent one way or the other for low-likelihood events that don't occur often enough to come up with statistically significant data then it's asinine for either side to bring up the question of number of catches in opposition of, or lack of events in support for the system.
It doesn't work quite like that. People understand logically that attacks on the ground can and do happen, they just don't care as much. The human psyche doesn't suffer more when they are attacked while in a position of strength and control then it does when they've voluntarily surrendered control and trust to others. It's like the difference between getting mugged on the street in broad daylight vs assaulted by your dentist as he puts you under. The end result is the same but the latter is far more frightening because you've already put yourself in a vulnerable position out of trust.
Because it doesn't have the same effect on people. You have to understand people are not rational. It's not just a numbers game. Nobody is that afraid of getting blown up at a checkpoint with their feet on the ground where they can control the situation and escape. They think they can survive that, because they have some measure of control. They'll be the guy in the movie with the ringing ears and slow motion wobbly view and the blood on their face standing up and then helping people. Nobody thinks of themselves as the guy who turned into the pink dust when the artillery shell came down. We all like to think of ourselves as the main character. But the main character isn't sitting in the middle seat of a fully packed airplane thousands of feat in the air with no escape and no control. People feel extremely vulnerable then, and so attacks to them in this state are magnified in an irrational manner and there is really nothing your going to be able to do to change that.
Can you cite one example of the TSA catching a child being used by terrorists? One old woman? Hell, How many Muslims extremist with evidence of terrorist intentions have been caught by the TSA?
While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?
Are the terrorists, who are willing to die in order to cause mayhem and terror, suddenly afraid they might get caught?
Of course they are. First of all, they want to accomplish their mission, nobody likes to fail. Second of all, someone that ready to die is generally far more afraid of living, especially in the hands of their enemies where they'll be forced to endure questions and hardships and eventually betray their friends to the same fate and then spend out the remainder of their years in a small cell, alone, unknown and forgotten rather then dying in a blaze of glory.
It would be riskier, and infinitely dumber to build the plant miles away from the water it uses for active cooling instead of simply designing the plant to handle floods like they did. I feel a lot safer about the design problem of keeping water out then I do about the design problem of creating miles of pipes and pumps where if something goes wrong the plant loses it's cooling water. One of these is a far easier task to accomplish.
So anyone except who the system is specifically designed for doesn't need it? also where did you get the idea that now they're going to force people to wear it? Even the summary says you have to ASK for one and then you have to PAY in order to get and use it. God forbid the government interfere with our rights by providing a optional service in a capitalist fashion.
The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.
So, if American hacks into Chinese server, you agree that it will be ok to extradite said American to China?
Or even better, if you insult King of Thailand, you just broke some Thai laws. Therefore, you should be extradited to Thailand.
Right?
In the case of China, no, I do NOT agree that we should extradite citizens to a country we don't even have an extradition treaty with, duh, this would be illegal. In the case of Thailand, I believe we have a dual criminality treaty (most of our extradition treaties are dual criminality, while a few specifically list extraditable offenses) , and since insulting the King of Thailand isn't a criminal offense in the United States, it doesn't fall under an extraditable offense under the treaty. If I'm incorrect and we have a list treaty I'm pretty sure that one ain't on the list. Now if a citizen started committing a bunch of mail fraud or hacking a bunch of servers belonging to the Thailand government (acts that are also illegal here) and that government requested extradition through diplomatic channels then sure, by all means extradite him as long as it agrees with our current foreign policy goals.
The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.
Well that explains a lot of the conditions you see with your stereotypical programmers (pale, unhealthy looking, bad smell). Why have they not considered the option of, you know, not eating anyone's dog food?
Extended "because of the leaks" which they are hiding and the NRC denies but somehow we let foreigners slip into our nuclear facility and publish the data on the International Atomic Energy Agency site (or similar international nuclear regulatory committee??) but you conveniently cant find or remember any of the links?
Why don't you check out: Cryptome. Course maybe they're part of the nation-wide conspiracy to and are just doctoring up photos of the plant safely behind the aquadam. After all, you read something somewhere on the internet that you can't remember.
Naaaaahhhh, I'm sure the requirement writers knew everything there was to know about all the equipment, tolerances, lifespan, safety margins and risk of every piece of equipment that was going to be used in the nuclear industry for the next 50 years and any deviation or revision to their good documents is the heresy of a government-corporate conspiracy.
No, the "haters" are people who understand that currencies which cannot be used to legally settle debts
What does that mean ? It's not legal tender, sure, but you can use it to settle some debts with persons who accept it.
That bolded conditional is what it means. You don't have the option to settle a debt legally in bit-coins unless the other person chooses to. Just like you cant go up to a bank and say I don't have any cash to settle my car loan but I do have 50 bushels of apples. The bank or creditor doesn't legally have to accept bit-coins any more then they do apple bushels. But they have to accept the US dollar. Throw the IRS and taxes into the mix and you should be able to see why legal tender is more useful.
LOL, even a child can figure this exploit out.
You as a bank lend me $100. I deposit it in my account with you. You now have $100 in deposits and can lend me $1000. I deposit it back into my account and you now have $1000 in deposits and can lend me $10,000. Repeat ad nauseum. In actuality, between us we only have $10 and not $10,000.
If only the banks wrote your name down on a sticky note or something so they could possibly remember you already have loans outstanding and are a bad risk to lend to! I mean really, when you start a sentence with "even a child could figure this out!" when referring to an easy way to make ridiculous amounts of money (the goal of 99% of the human population) you should probably take a step back and thing for a second because your probably missing something.
Conferences and their equipment go to overhead unless the contractor is specifically asked to be there and demo as part of an on-going contract. It'd be surprising if this was the case, it'd be like the air force paying Northrup to run radio advertisements about their latest jet. It's far more likely they were used for super computing or as actual game systems for the troops.
I think you missed the point GP was trying to make entirely. He's saying you can identify a big tree and you can identify a small tree, and both those descriptions have meaning even if you can't identify the exact boundary between the categories. In other words, just because you can't pinpoint the nano second a warm bath becomes a hot one doesn't mean you shouldn't take action to prevent the water from boiling with you in it.
Oh yes, I can just see all the backroom wheeling and dealing that went on in order to convince the government to buy enough Zunes over a 10 year period to pay for one fifth of a summer intern's pay.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that CO2 absorbs the longer wavelength heat energy radiated from the earth but not shorter wavelength light energy from the sun. CO2 moves to an excited but unstable state and releases it's energy some of which goes back down towards the earth. So it basically allows light energy to pass through but catches and sends back some of the heat energy given off by the earth. Hence the "greenhouse" label. The most common atmospheric gasses such as N2, O2, and Ar do not absorb infrared radiation (dipole moment of these wont have a net change when they vibrate) so looking at their specific heat capacity isn't really helpful to the greenhouse gas equation. After those I think C02 is like the largest component though even then it's something like 0.03%.
You also have to remember to take the abundance of a gas into account when figuring out which one is more important. Methane for example is a much stronger greenhouse gas molecule-for-molecule but it is also much less abundant. Water vapor is both more abundant, and a stronger greenhouse gas, but we can't really affect how much water vapor is in the air on a large scale and it doesn't have much staying power (9 days vs centuries for CO2)
Before anyone expands the discussion to include 100 other different arguments that don't address the topic on hand let me just say I'm just speaking to why CO2 works as a greenhouse gas here despite the specific heat capacity, not whether human production of it is contributing to large scale global warming so if you have comments on the original discussion I'd love to be further educated but leave the religious like tangential arguments elsewhere.
I don't think it's a flaw with the 4th amendment, as I don't think it's ever applied when you voluntarily go to an airport. Having it do so would be insane. That would mean you couldn't even x-ray luggage or carry-on bags. In addition the amendment uses the word reasonable so that it can adapt to the times. Otherwise you'd be continuously having to re-write the constitution with new technology because the amendment doesn't list routers inspecting packets for destination IP as an OK search or some such nonsense. It's much easier to have a court case and have the current SP make a ruling as to whether something is reasonable for the current public mindset and state of law.
Most of the TSA officers I've seen look like they just stepped out of the ghetto with their shiny new high school diplomas. I don't even think they're salaried employees. It looks like a barely-above-minimum-wage job. You can't expect to get professionals on $10 an hour.
Out of curiosity, with TSA officers all wearing the same uniform and having strict grooming/jewelry guidelines what exactly makes them "look like" uneducated ghetto dwellers to you because surely you're not judging them based upon the color of their skin right?
Death, resignation, or impeachment which follows the same process as impeaching a president. Such an impeachment requires evidence of actual crimes committed, not simply a disagreement in ideologies.
While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?
Can you seriously not make a distinction between overly invasive security procedures with little to no proven effectiveness to reasonable security procedures which, whether effective or not, don't involve so much loss of privacy, rights, and dignity?
You've certainly added a lot of new qualifiers there. I was merely commenting on the weakness of your first argument of "how many cited cases did it prevent?" which is an impossible metric to gather information for or judge the effectiveness of a security deterrent by. It's essentially as bad as claiming that since we haven't had another attack that the TSA policies are working. If people want to argue effectiveness of a deterrent one way or the other for low-likelihood events that don't occur often enough to come up with statistically significant data then it's asinine for either side to bring up the question of number of catches in opposition of, or lack of events in support for the system.
It doesn't work quite like that. People understand logically that attacks on the ground can and do happen, they just don't care as much. The human psyche doesn't suffer more when they are attacked while in a position of strength and control then it does when they've voluntarily surrendered control and trust to others. It's like the difference between getting mugged on the street in broad daylight vs assaulted by your dentist as he puts you under. The end result is the same but the latter is far more frightening because you've already put yourself in a vulnerable position out of trust.
Because it doesn't have the same effect on people. You have to understand people are not rational. It's not just a numbers game. Nobody is that afraid of getting blown up at a checkpoint with their feet on the ground where they can control the situation and escape. They think they can survive that, because they have some measure of control. They'll be the guy in the movie with the ringing ears and slow motion wobbly view and the blood on their face standing up and then helping people. Nobody thinks of themselves as the guy who turned into the pink dust when the artillery shell came down. We all like to think of ourselves as the main character. But the main character isn't sitting in the middle seat of a fully packed airplane thousands of feat in the air with no escape and no control. People feel extremely vulnerable then, and so attacks to them in this state are magnified in an irrational manner and there is really nothing your going to be able to do to change that.
Can you cite one example of the TSA catching a child being used by terrorists? One old woman? Hell, How many Muslims extremist with evidence of terrorist intentions have been caught by the TSA?
While I certainly don't agree with the current TSA situation this is a poor argument. How many trespassers/terrorists are stopped by the fence and guards that surround nuclear power plants? Should we remove these security deterrents unless people are actively throwing themselves upon them?
Are the terrorists, who are willing to die in order to cause mayhem and terror, suddenly afraid they might get caught?
Of course they are. First of all, they want to accomplish their mission, nobody likes to fail. Second of all, someone that ready to die is generally far more afraid of living, especially in the hands of their enemies where they'll be forced to endure questions and hardships and eventually betray their friends to the same fate and then spend out the remainder of their years in a small cell, alone, unknown and forgotten rather then dying in a blaze of glory.
It would be riskier, and infinitely dumber to build the plant miles away from the water it uses for active cooling instead of simply designing the plant to handle floods like they did. I feel a lot safer about the design problem of keeping water out then I do about the design problem of creating miles of pipes and pumps where if something goes wrong the plant loses it's cooling water. One of these is a far easier task to accomplish.
Funny, thought NO was founded by the French missed the part where African nations colonized Louisiana and made that 'stupid' decision.
innocent until proven guilty? no-cause traffic stops? this is the america arizona provides.
THOSE BASTARDS! We better stop them from following US legal system before this trend catches on in other states!
In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war
It's almost as if you lost the colonies you imported slaves to that could handle fighting a war....
There are plenty of ex-colony countries that became independent without war.
How many colonies in the new world became independent without war prior to America's independence and subsequent exertion of power in the hemisphere?
So anyone except who the system is specifically designed for doesn't need it? also where did you get the idea that now they're going to force people to wear it? Even the summary says you have to ASK for one and then you have to PAY in order to get and use it. God forbid the government interfere with our rights by providing a optional service in a capitalist fashion.
The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.
So, if American hacks into Chinese server, you agree that it will be ok to extradite said American to China?
Or even better, if you insult King of Thailand, you just broke some Thai laws. Therefore, you should be extradited to Thailand.
Right?
In the case of China, no, I do NOT agree that we should extradite citizens to a country we don't even have an extradition treaty with, duh, this would be illegal. In the case of Thailand, I believe we have a dual criminality treaty (most of our extradition treaties are dual criminality, while a few specifically list extraditable offenses) , and since insulting the King of Thailand isn't a criminal offense in the United States, it doesn't fall under an extraditable offense under the treaty. If I'm incorrect and we have a list treaty I'm pretty sure that one ain't on the list. Now if a citizen started committing a bunch of mail fraud or hacking a bunch of servers belonging to the Thailand government (acts that are also illegal here) and that government requested extradition through diplomatic channels then sure, by all means extradite him as long as it agrees with our current foreign policy goals.
Yea, I guess your right, that example is a bit absurd with it requiring someone to actually be in North Dakota and all.
The same way if someone in North Dakota fires an arrow up into the air and it lands in the chest of a little Canadian boy on the other side of the border the American who fired the arrow can be extradited and tried for breaking the Canadian laws regarding murder because the countries have extradition treaties. How is this at all confusing? Just because someone breaks the law online doesn't mean the legal system can't possibly figure things out because your in a different country AND online.
Well that explains a lot of the conditions you see with your stereotypical programmers (pale, unhealthy looking, bad smell). Why have they not considered the option of, you know, not eating anyone's dog food?
Extended "because of the leaks" which they are hiding and the NRC denies but somehow we let foreigners slip into our nuclear facility and publish the data on the International Atomic Energy Agency site (or similar international nuclear regulatory committee??) but you conveniently cant find or remember any of the links? Why don't you check out: Cryptome. Course maybe they're part of the nation-wide conspiracy to and are just doctoring up photos of the plant safely behind the aquadam. After all, you read something somewhere on the internet that you can't remember.
Naaaaahhhh, I'm sure the requirement writers knew everything there was to know about all the equipment, tolerances, lifespan, safety margins and risk of every piece of equipment that was going to be used in the nuclear industry for the next 50 years and any deviation or revision to their good documents is the heresy of a government-corporate conspiracy.
Nuclear power plants have been restricted airspace since 9/11, it has nothing to do with radiation leaks.
No, the "haters" are people who understand that currencies which cannot be used to legally settle debts
What does that mean ? It's not legal tender, sure, but you can use it to settle some debts with persons who accept it.
That bolded conditional is what it means. You don't have the option to settle a debt legally in bit-coins unless the other person chooses to. Just like you cant go up to a bank and say I don't have any cash to settle my car loan but I do have 50 bushels of apples. The bank or creditor doesn't legally have to accept bit-coins any more then they do apple bushels. But they have to accept the US dollar. Throw the IRS and taxes into the mix and you should be able to see why legal tender is more useful.
LOL, even a child can figure this exploit out. You as a bank lend me $100. I deposit it in my account with you. You now have $100 in deposits and can lend me $1000. I deposit it back into my account and you now have $1000 in deposits and can lend me $10,000. Repeat ad nauseum. In actuality, between us we only have $10 and not $10,000.
If only the banks wrote your name down on a sticky note or something so they could possibly remember you already have loans outstanding and are a bad risk to lend to! I mean really, when you start a sentence with "even a child could figure this out!" when referring to an easy way to make ridiculous amounts of money (the goal of 99% of the human population) you should probably take a step back and thing for a second because your probably missing something.
Conferences and their equipment go to overhead unless the contractor is specifically asked to be there and demo as part of an on-going contract. It'd be surprising if this was the case, it'd be like the air force paying Northrup to run radio advertisements about their latest jet. It's far more likely they were used for super computing or as actual game systems for the troops.
I think you missed the point GP was trying to make entirely. He's saying you can identify a big tree and you can identify a small tree, and both those descriptions have meaning even if you can't identify the exact boundary between the categories. In other words, just because you can't pinpoint the nano second a warm bath becomes a hot one doesn't mean you shouldn't take action to prevent the water from boiling with you in it.
Oh yes, I can just see all the backroom wheeling and dealing that went on in order to convince the government to buy enough Zunes over a 10 year period to pay for one fifth of a summer intern's pay.