For instance, can you explain why the polar caps grew last year (both of them) during "global warming" (or Climate Change)?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the polar caps will either grow or shrink (or both!) every single year, probably based largely on the local temperatures, amount of precipitation, etc. The real question would be how much they grew versus the average growth, and whether they are growing less than they used to. Saying that global warming doesn't exist because the polar caps grew last year is not evidence. What if the polar caps grow by an average of 10 feet every year, but last year they only grew 6 inches? They still grew, but that fact alone is not evidence that would contradict any of the claims regarding climate change.
For example, according to this data, it looks like the sea ice had below average growth for 2012 and 2014 between August and December, even though the rate is still close to 2 standard deviations from the average growth between 1981 and 2010. Farther down that page, it looks like the growth for all years after 2010 is below the average for 1981-2010, though still relatively close. This is the climate system of a planet we're talking about though, if you're expecting huge dramatic changes from one year to the next you're probably going to be disappointed unless we can get China to really accelerate all of those coal plants being built. Climate change looks like a long-term event, especially right around the times where our damaging effects on the planet are just beginning to overcome the planet's ability to regenerate. But don't worry, the more shit we add to the atmosphere year over year, the faster things will start to change once the planet isn't able to keep up.
Or Hurricanes lull in the Atlantic when the Global Warming Alarmists (like yourself) were spouting (especially after Sandy) all about how awful Global Warming was causing these horrible hurricanes?
If it's a true statement to say that climate change and higher temperatures in general will cause more powerful hurricanes, does that necessarily mean that every year there will be a large number of very powerful hurricanes?
I have doubts, serious doubts, mainly because all the horrible predictions made by all the popular spokespeople have not come true. The polar caps, the hurricanes, the extreme HOT weather just hasn't occurred the way "science" predicted it would.
Fear not my doubting friend, because scientific predictions are getting better and more accurate all the time. Here's a video which talks about the new OCO-2 satellite and how it will help us visualize what is going on in order to make more accurate predictions. Note how effective the planet is at reducing all of that CO2 in the atmosphere, it's actually very impressive. But what happens when our CO2 output starts to be more than the planet can handle, where every year begins with just a little more CO2 than the previous year? Good things aren't going to happen. So, where is that point? Have we already hit it? What if we have? How would we know? A couple CO2-monitoring satellites in space will probably be a good place to start answering those questions, so expect data from those starting next year.
That simulation is interesting to watch, but it's just a simulation of what happened in 2006. One major point where the simulation fails: at the beginning (1/1/2006) there is virtually no CO2 in the atmosphere, and you see it build up. At the end of the year (12/31/2006) there is quite a bit of CO2. I suspect that the fact that the simulation begins with very little CO2 is more for illustrative purposes of the simulation and does not actually imply that most years begin with little to no CO2. It actually looks like the opposite, winte
Don't get your hopes up. Despite what the summary says, the article says the complete opposite. The newly elected members do not have any "coders" (god I hate that word), but they do contain 2 people with CS degrees. One of them went to work for the CIA on counterterrorism, followed by working for a cybersecurity company, and the other joined the Air Force and then became a lawyer. They are not software developers, they are people who majored in computer science.
Yeah, I'm sure the AAA titles getting released in 2020 are going to look just awesome on the PS4 hardware compared with a PC.
I built my last machine in 2011 when Skyrim launched. It was powerful enough to run Skyrim at 1920 x 1200 with several high-resolution texture mods, sky mods, lighting mods, etc with maximum settings all around. Sure, it cost a bit all told, but it also has SSD drives, a 2TB RAID array, and other things not required for only gaming. But I also picked a system configuration that supports dual video cards. I only got one video card at the time, but it cost around $500 or $600. But the next time I need to upgrade, all I need to do is buy the same model of video card (which should be running around $200 at that point), plug it in in SLI mode, and I've nearly doubled the gaming performance of the machine for a couple hundred bucks. That should give me 7 or 8 years of maximum-settings gaming on the same machine. We can meet up again in 2020 and figure out whether new games look better on your PS4 or my machine.
Bitcoins were deemed to be regulated as currency, and thus the remuneration the US government might owe the defendants can be delivered in US dollars, should the property not be found to be forfeit.
At what exchange rate? If the 50,000 bitcoins were seized incorrectly then are they going to give him $20 million in cash?
Unless you can articulate a reason why the wedding band doesn't make a difference, but race does
The obvious one is that a woman can choose whether or not to be married, but not her race. Another one is that a woman who is not wearing a ring on the fourth finger of her left hand is not necessarily unmarried.
I can't believe I'm discussing this. Anyone who is going to cast their almighty judgement on other people based on factors like marital status or race is an unmitigated dick. I'll leave it at that.
The first bounce is pretty crazy to think about too. It landed, went 4cm into the surface, and bounced back up. It took an hour for it to stop moving away from the comet and start falling back down, and in that hour it only managed to travel about a kilometer. The entire thing is so otherworldly. Check out this picture, it might be my favorite so far. It's from 10km up and looks across the surface, and you can see a haze of some gas or dust plus the stars in the background. I've never seen anything that looks like that, it's just amazing.
If it makes no difference to alter factors like marital status between the two pictures, then it must also make no difference to consider factors like race
That's a non-sequitor. Saying that whether or not a woman is married should have no effect on whether or not her breastfeeding in public is inappropriate does not imply that there are no factors at all. I'll also refer you back to the sentence in my post that you left out of your quote. You could substitute race into that sentence instead of jewelry and it would still apply.
Are you really saying there's no difference between a married couple having a baby and a single woman having a baby?
In the context of whether or not a picture of that woman breastfeeding their child is considered to be inappropriate? No, there's no difference. A breastfeeding woman is a breastfeeding woman regardless of whether or not she chooses to wear jewelry on her fingers. If a person sees a picture of a woman without a ring breastfeeding, and they think the picture is inappropriate, but you put a ring on her finger and now they think the picture is ok, then that person is an asshole.
If the presence or lack of a wedding band influences your reaction to that picture then it sounds like you're just trying to justify your bias. Breastfeeding in public has exactly zero to do with marital status.
That's what I thought. About 15 minutes ago on the live feed they had someone in the control room say that the harpoons did not fire and that Philae was not anchored to the comet. Hopefully they get it anchored, and hopefully they already got a couple pictures from the descent and landing.
There are few jobs which match for most individuals
So then why should the individuals be the ones to dictate the terms of the job? If I had 5 job openings and 100 qualified candidates I would expect people to work the way I want them to work, I wouldn't feel like I need to bend to their needs. If they really want a job, and there are a ton of other candidates, then it's up to them to make themselves as appealing as possible to the potential employer. Hopefully they learned that in their middle-school-level economics classes.
Saying "pot smokers think it is a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else" is a little different than saying "I've seen pot smokers who don't care who is around them." It's kind of like saying that everyone who drinks alcohol also drives drunk. Sure, some people don't give a shit. That doesn't mean that all (or even the vast majority) behave that way. There are always going to be inconsiderate assholes regardless of what they're doing.
The part about you projecting was about you saying that BVis suggested something that he did not suggest. That you read it that way indicates that you are projecting, because you already (clearly) have a bias or perception that pot smokers don't care about who they're around just because you've seen some people display that kind of attitude. It doesn't mean that's the general attitude.
Interestingly you have suggested that pot smokers think it is a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else.
I think you're projecting. He didn't suggest anything like that. What he suggested is that you could go over to someone's house, they might be smoking pot in some room, you walk through or spend some time in the room (which is your choice), and maybe you'll show up as positive on a test. If you think that "being around people smoking" somehow equates to "a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else", then you might have a bit of a bias.
What's the problem, are the people not free to fuck off if they don't like the terms of the job? Is that the only job available? What you quoted is one particularly hard-line negotiation. It's still a negotiation. The person can always offer different terms, or else go find another job, right?
I'm not familiar with Bud Lee, but you sound like you could be a New Times reporter.
I didn't realize the dispensaries had to be NPOs, I just figured that the lawmakers were trying to make it as difficult as possible to implement the results of the vote. I know a guy who used to be a legal grower, but when a dispensary opened somewhere in his area, now he's not legal. I remember a bunch of grow shops that sprouted up right after the law passed anticipating new business, then they got to wait several years until everything actually started becoming legal.
It sounds to me like they're being weasels about it though. They claimed that the job posting was for an AIG employee, who will have the job of designing the park. Not an employee of the park. Sounds a little shady, but whatever. I doubt the park exists at this point in much more than name anyway, they wouldn't really be able to pay their employees I assume.
e.g. every MJ dispensary in Arizona.
Hey, we voted for those. Granted, it took several years for them to actually go into practice because of other laws, but we did vote for their existence. There's one up on Cave Creek road I know about, not sure where else.
The only interesting this about this is that the organizers of the project are the sort of morons who don't understand you can't screen job applicants based on their faith.
The distinction is that, as a religious organization, Answers In Genesis can in fact (and does) discriminate hiring based on religion. The theme park, as a for-profit corporation, cannot discriminate. The lawyers are trying to argue that the job posting was for Answers In Genesis, not the theme park, and the board wants assurances that the theme park will not discriminate in hiring.
Slashdot Mirror
Push it over? It's just begging to be tossed into an EM shielded van, wait until the batteries run out, and display it in your living room.
This comment right here... this is underrated.
When a Congressman becomes a Senator, the IQ of both houses improves increases.
FYI, a Senator is also a Congressman.
For instance, can you explain why the polar caps grew last year (both of them) during "global warming" (or Climate Change)?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the polar caps will either grow or shrink (or both!) every single year, probably based largely on the local temperatures, amount of precipitation, etc. The real question would be how much they grew versus the average growth, and whether they are growing less than they used to. Saying that global warming doesn't exist because the polar caps grew last year is not evidence. What if the polar caps grow by an average of 10 feet every year, but last year they only grew 6 inches? They still grew, but that fact alone is not evidence that would contradict any of the claims regarding climate change.
For example, according to this data, it looks like the sea ice had below average growth for 2012 and 2014 between August and December, even though the rate is still close to 2 standard deviations from the average growth between 1981 and 2010. Farther down that page, it looks like the growth for all years after 2010 is below the average for 1981-2010, though still relatively close. This is the climate system of a planet we're talking about though, if you're expecting huge dramatic changes from one year to the next you're probably going to be disappointed unless we can get China to really accelerate all of those coal plants being built. Climate change looks like a long-term event, especially right around the times where our damaging effects on the planet are just beginning to overcome the planet's ability to regenerate. But don't worry, the more shit we add to the atmosphere year over year, the faster things will start to change once the planet isn't able to keep up.
Or Hurricanes lull in the Atlantic when the Global Warming Alarmists (like yourself) were spouting (especially after Sandy) all about how awful Global Warming was causing these horrible hurricanes?
If it's a true statement to say that climate change and higher temperatures in general will cause more powerful hurricanes, does that necessarily mean that every year there will be a large number of very powerful hurricanes?
I have doubts, serious doubts, mainly because all the horrible predictions made by all the popular spokespeople have not come true. The polar caps, the hurricanes, the extreme HOT weather just hasn't occurred the way "science" predicted it would.
Fear not my doubting friend, because scientific predictions are getting better and more accurate all the time. Here's a video which talks about the new OCO-2 satellite and how it will help us visualize what is going on in order to make more accurate predictions. Note how effective the planet is at reducing all of that CO2 in the atmosphere, it's actually very impressive. But what happens when our CO2 output starts to be more than the planet can handle, where every year begins with just a little more CO2 than the previous year? Good things aren't going to happen. So, where is that point? Have we already hit it? What if we have? How would we know? A couple CO2-monitoring satellites in space will probably be a good place to start answering those questions, so expect data from those starting next year.
That simulation is interesting to watch, but it's just a simulation of what happened in 2006. One major point where the simulation fails: at the beginning (1/1/2006) there is virtually no CO2 in the atmosphere, and you see it build up. At the end of the year (12/31/2006) there is quite a bit of CO2. I suspect that the fact that the simulation begins with very little CO2 is more for illustrative purposes of the simulation and does not actually imply that most years begin with little to no CO2. It actually looks like the opposite, winte
as long as they have debugging experience
Don't get your hopes up. Despite what the summary says, the article says the complete opposite. The newly elected members do not have any "coders" (god I hate that word), but they do contain 2 people with CS degrees. One of them went to work for the CIA on counterterrorism, followed by working for a cybersecurity company, and the other joined the Air Force and then became a lawyer. They are not software developers, they are people who majored in computer science.
Yeah, I'm sure the AAA titles getting released in 2020 are going to look just awesome on the PS4 hardware compared with a PC.
I built my last machine in 2011 when Skyrim launched. It was powerful enough to run Skyrim at 1920 x 1200 with several high-resolution texture mods, sky mods, lighting mods, etc with maximum settings all around. Sure, it cost a bit all told, but it also has SSD drives, a 2TB RAID array, and other things not required for only gaming. But I also picked a system configuration that supports dual video cards. I only got one video card at the time, but it cost around $500 or $600. But the next time I need to upgrade, all I need to do is buy the same model of video card (which should be running around $200 at that point), plug it in in SLI mode, and I've nearly doubled the gaming performance of the machine for a couple hundred bucks. That should give me 7 or 8 years of maximum-settings gaming on the same machine. We can meet up again in 2020 and figure out whether new games look better on your PS4 or my machine.
Go look at the system requirements on AC: Unity
A buggy game with performance problems at launch probably isn't the best example to use.
Bitcoins were deemed to be regulated as currency, and thus the remuneration the US government might owe the defendants can be delivered in US dollars, should the property not be found to be forfeit.
At what exchange rate? If the 50,000 bitcoins were seized incorrectly then are they going to give him $20 million in cash?
Unless you can articulate a reason why the wedding band doesn't make a difference, but race does
The obvious one is that a woman can choose whether or not to be married, but not her race. Another one is that a woman who is not wearing a ring on the fourth finger of her left hand is not necessarily unmarried.
I can't believe I'm discussing this. Anyone who is going to cast their almighty judgement on other people based on factors like marital status or race is an unmitigated dick. I'll leave it at that.
100 grams of moringa leaves has ... 738 g vitamin A
Great Scott! Over 700% of the weight of the plant is vitamin A!
The first bounce is pretty crazy to think about too. It landed, went 4cm into the surface, and bounced back up. It took an hour for it to stop moving away from the comet and start falling back down, and in that hour it only managed to travel about a kilometer. The entire thing is so otherworldly. Check out this picture, it might be my favorite so far. It's from 10km up and looks across the surface, and you can see a haze of some gas or dust plus the stars in the background. I've never seen anything that looks like that, it's just amazing.
If it makes no difference to alter factors like marital status between the two pictures, then it must also make no difference to consider factors like race
That's a non-sequitor. Saying that whether or not a woman is married should have no effect on whether or not her breastfeeding in public is inappropriate does not imply that there are no factors at all. I'll also refer you back to the sentence in my post that you left out of your quote. You could substitute race into that sentence instead of jewelry and it would still apply.
Are you really saying there's no difference between a married couple having a baby and a single woman having a baby?
In the context of whether or not a picture of that woman breastfeeding their child is considered to be inappropriate? No, there's no difference. A breastfeeding woman is a breastfeeding woman regardless of whether or not she chooses to wear jewelry on her fingers. If a person sees a picture of a woman without a ring breastfeeding, and they think the picture is inappropriate, but you put a ring on her finger and now they think the picture is ok, then that person is an asshole.
If the presence or lack of a wedding band influences your reaction to that picture then it sounds like you're just trying to justify your bias. Breastfeeding in public has exactly zero to do with marital status.
That's what I thought. About 15 minutes ago on the live feed they had someone in the control room say that the harpoons did not fire and that Philae was not anchored to the comet. Hopefully they get it anchored, and hopefully they already got a couple pictures from the descent and landing.
I don't think we agree on quite so much as you assume.
I could see it happening on Amazon eventually.
In case that link breaks, it's a list of the states to which sellers of both domestic and international wines are allowed to ship.
There are few jobs which match for most individuals
So then why should the individuals be the ones to dictate the terms of the job? If I had 5 job openings and 100 qualified candidates I would expect people to work the way I want them to work, I wouldn't feel like I need to bend to their needs. If they really want a job, and there are a ton of other candidates, then it's up to them to make themselves as appealing as possible to the potential employer. Hopefully they learned that in their middle-school-level economics classes.
Saying "pot smokers think it is a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else" is a little different than saying "I've seen pot smokers who don't care who is around them." It's kind of like saying that everyone who drinks alcohol also drives drunk. Sure, some people don't give a shit. That doesn't mean that all (or even the vast majority) behave that way. There are always going to be inconsiderate assholes regardless of what they're doing.
The part about you projecting was about you saying that BVis suggested something that he did not suggest. That you read it that way indicates that you are projecting, because you already (clearly) have a bias or perception that pot smokers don't care about who they're around just because you've seen some people display that kind of attitude. It doesn't mean that's the general attitude.
Interestingly you have suggested that pot smokers think it is a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else.
I think you're projecting. He didn't suggest anything like that. What he suggested is that you could go over to someone's house, they might be smoking pot in some room, you walk through or spend some time in the room (which is your choice), and maybe you'll show up as positive on a test. If you think that "being around people smoking" somehow equates to "a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else", then you might have a bit of a bias.
What's the problem, are the people not free to fuck off if they don't like the terms of the job? Is that the only job available? What you quoted is one particularly hard-line negotiation. It's still a negotiation. The person can always offer different terms, or else go find another job, right?
The engine and fuel system were relatively intact, they had not exploded. It wasn't a failure of the fuel or engine system.
I'm not familiar with Bud Lee, but you sound like you could be a New Times reporter.
I didn't realize the dispensaries had to be NPOs, I just figured that the lawmakers were trying to make it as difficult as possible to implement the results of the vote. I know a guy who used to be a legal grower, but when a dispensary opened somewhere in his area, now he's not legal. I remember a bunch of grow shops that sprouted up right after the law passed anticipating new business, then they got to wait several years until everything actually started becoming legal.
It sounds to me like they're being weasels about it though. They claimed that the job posting was for an AIG employee, who will have the job of designing the park. Not an employee of the park. Sounds a little shady, but whatever. I doubt the park exists at this point in much more than name anyway, they wouldn't really be able to pay their employees I assume.
e.g. every MJ dispensary in Arizona.
Hey, we voted for those. Granted, it took several years for them to actually go into practice because of other laws, but we did vote for their existence. There's one up on Cave Creek road I know about, not sure where else.
The only interesting this about this is that the organizers of the project are the sort of morons who don't understand you can't screen job applicants based on their faith.
The distinction is that, as a religious organization, Answers In Genesis can in fact (and does) discriminate hiring based on religion. The theme park, as a for-profit corporation, cannot discriminate. The lawyers are trying to argue that the job posting was for Answers In Genesis, not the theme park, and the board wants assurances that the theme park will not discriminate in hiring.