Sen. Reid said that the reason they didn't bring it to a floor vote is that Senators from both parties had made it clear they would filibuster the bill, so there would be no vote.
There were some good reasons for the resistance. Some of the compromises made in the Senate to the bill last year were a gift to large companies because it would limit the rights of those seeking redress for patent infringement.
Even Sen. Leahy, the bill's primary sponsor in the Senate admitted that. He said,
“If the stakeholders are able to reach a more targeted agreement that focuses on the problem of patent trolls, there will be a path for passage this year, and I will bring it immediately to the Committee.”
You cannot compare a belief (bigotry) to human condition (gender, race, sexual orientation), so your analogy is fatally flawed.
However, the law doesn't have to change for a printer to choose not to print posters for the KKK rally, since the refusal is for the job requested, not of the person.
You wrote, "which is a clear violation of the records act" - that's a false statement. Until November of last year, you could use your private email as long as you made available to the archive emails related to government work.
Regarding the physical server; there's no way a subpoena could be issued for it, as no laws were broken.
Regarding new laws, they took effect last November.
Most simulations of the historical period do
not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming
trend over the last 10 to 15 years.
Let's put that in context
There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general
features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase
over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the
second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following
large volcanic eruptions. Most simulations of the historical period do
not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming
trend over the last 10 to 15 years.
Now, the details (emphasis mine)
During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4
GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2
Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies
above 93 out of 114 modelled trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4
ensemble-mean trend 0.26C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend
0.16C per decade). Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and
CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02C per decade (Box 9.2
Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show
long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the
disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.
The take away is this - don't cherry pick date ranges. Instead, look at the effectiveness of the models over the long term. When you do, you'll see they are quite accurate.
I agree with you, to a certain extent. People are afraid to address climate change because they are afraid of the impact on our society. We can't ignore that fear.
I do have a question for you, though - how do you know that "Dealing with climate change is going to itself be a huge economic disaster, and people will suffer because of it."
Most of the plans I've seen would be so gradual that I don't even see economic slowdowns, much less huge economic disasters.
Hate to break this to you, but you don't know what the h*ll you are talking about. Bills can be introduced in the House at pretty much any time by any representative.
"Any member in the House of Representatives may introduce a bill at any time while the House is in session by simply placing it in the “hopper” at the side of the Clerk's desk in the House Chamber."
It's also quite easy to introduce a bill into the Senate.
BTW, the previous Senate voted on a higher percentage of bills that originated in the House than the last time the Democrats held a majority in the House, so let's just put that tired claim about Senator Reid to bed, shall we? It's complete nonsense. Of course, that's only the first piece of nonsense you wrote, but the majority of that could be defended by claiming its your opinion.
No, conservatives don't believe in any specific political ideology. Conservatives believe in slow to no change, preferring to err on policies that return us to the way things used to work.
In truth, the GOP is composed of right wing politicians, many of them extreme right wing. While they claim to support free enterprise, in reality they push for less government, which, as a side-effect, means fewer regulations for business. Don't be fooled, though, it's only a side-effect.
There is no such thing as a "strict constitutionalist".
There are "strict constructionists" that use the text, and only the exact words in the text, of the Constitution, when considering whether a law is constitutional or not. I don't think you mean them, though.
I think you mean "originalists". These are people that believe we can understand the original intent of the Constitution and make ruling based on that understanding.
I'll remind everyone, while we're on the subject - all words are interpreted by the reader or hearer. There is no true interpretation of the Constitution, just the one you believe to be true.
Come on, if you're going to post something, at least be honest! The following quotes are from the abstract, which I think you'll find disagrees with your claims..
Kellerman's study said people were 2.7, not 23, times more likely to be killed.
After matching for four characteristics and controlling for the effects of five more, we found that the presence of one or more firearms in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
They only considered homicides within a home, not some random distance.
All homicides involving residents of King County or Shelby County that occurred between August 23, 1987, and August 23, 1992, and all homicides involving residents of Cuyahoga County that occurred between January 1, 1990, and August 23, 1992, were reviewed to identify those that took place in the home of the victim.
Look, you can make a lot of claims about the impact of the gun control laws in Australia, but depending on the early government statistics to prove your point is intellectually dishonest.
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Actually, yes it is exactly about that. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the situation.
You could make a case that he should be allowed to graze his cattle on the land, which you do, a bit, in your response, but cattle grazing on public land without permission is the reason for this incident.
Well said. I have yet to see a cogent defense of Mr. Bundy's actual actions. Remember, public land is your land. He was illegally grazing his cattle on your lands. He was illegally grazing his cattle on the land of every person that went to support him.
The people that supported Mr. Bundy were acting as if the government was in the wrong, when in fact, the government was protecting their own self-interest, while Mr. Bundy was taking advantage of them by illegally using their land.
Interesting. The number of searches for VIM remains relatively constant over time, while the number of searches for emacs has been decreasing.
I personally find myself searching for VI commands much more often than emacs. I use emacs every day and I know how to do what I want using it. When I'm stuck on a system without it, I fall back to VI, but I never learned it well enough to do more than simple editing.
As has been said, what, 50 times before in this thread, the stamp is on the primer, which gets replaced when you reload brass, so you're wrong, selling brass doesn't render the law ineffective.
Um, no, there never were little, red schoolhouses all over the place. Most communities, until recently (last 100 or so years) were happy to have any school to send their kids to, and, even into the 1960s, educational choice was limited for nearly everyone. Heck, it wasn't even until 1925 that kids were allowed to go to private school as a means to complete their compulsory education requirements.
There's more educational choice now then ever in the US.
So, sorry, take your market-driven theology and mis-apply it somewhere else, it doesn't make sense here.
Self-selecting based on skill level is usually a very bad decision. Users cannot properly assess their own levels of skill at a program. A successful method for doing something similar is to offer optimized, or even single-click, paths through common tasks (such as "Convert video for iPod"), while giving users that need or want more functionality alternate ways to configure the flow through the tool.
Of course, this isn't what the poster is asking about, so I'll shut up now.
I have to agree. The poster appears to dislike using the visual front-ends to LaTeX based on the fact that they use LaTeX, yet he wants a visual front end that creates output as good as LaTeX.
The way I see it you have three options, poster:
Bite the bullet and learn to use LaTeX well enough for your tasks.
Use a visual layout tool like FrameMaker and get adequate results (but, like with LaTeX, not without investing time learning the tool).
Pay someone else to do the layout for you.
BTW, I don't mean to discount other tools like lout, but, unless I'm mistaken, they share the same issues that the poster dislikes about LaTeX.
Whoa, hoss. You go from saying that global temperatures are based on models to say that none of them are scientifically accurate because they haven't been used to predict future behavior. That's a big jump. You see, these datasets are that - actually collected data. Models are used to come up with an average global temperature based on the data. You can't use those models to predict anything. You can, though, use the results from those models to compare the calculated global temperature year to year. Make sense?
Seasonally lower temperatures due to La Nina have nothing to do with global climate change. Of course, since you couldn't even be bothered to put that detail into your post, so that people could debate the issue, I doubt you really care about the truth of the situation. Instead, you believe that global climate change is not happening, and you just look for any convenient web link to back up your belief.
Awareness of global climate change by society is a good thing. It does not have anything to do with the proof that our climate is changing. If only one person on Earth knew that the climate was changing, it would still be changing. Our ecosystem doesn't really care too much about what we believe we know.
On the other hand, disputing the current global climate change is really good for certain media people that are less interested in facts than in making a lot of money by duping people into believing said media person is smarter than everyone else and knows what's really going on.
You said the poster failed to respond to either of your points, so let's try to tease out which points you want answered. Point 1 - other planets temperatures have gone up so something other than CO2 is causing global climate change on earth, and 2, ice core samples don't show that CO2 increases cause global climate change. Did I get them right?
The poster said, "98% of the worlds scientist who've looked into this accept the science behind CO2 and it's impact on climate, and the simple fact that there has been zero peer-reviewed research that disproves the impact that CO2 can have on climate." Sounds to me like a response to both points. Climate scientists don't believe either of the points you raise having anything to do with whether CO2 increases cause global climate change.
I'll respond specifically to your points, though. You appear to be claiming the sun is responsible for global climate change on Earth. It's not. A lot of research has been done on this topic. At most 10% of the observed climate change on Earth can be attributed to solar variation - most studies show a much smaller impact. The fact that at least one other planet in our solar system (Mars) is seeing planet-wide temperature changes doesn't change that since the global climate change on Earth and the planet wide temperature change on Mars have nothing to do with each other. As an aside, the increase in temperature on Mars has nothing to do with solar variations. I'm not sure what other planets you think are going through global climate change, so I can't speak to them.
You are wrong about the ice cores, not just about what has been found, but what it means. Ice core show very close correlations between CO2 and temperature. See Climate Myth: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell among other articles on this topic. The nice thing about the New Scientist article is that it actually links to peer reviewed
Um, no, since the VLA isn't on school property. The operations building is on campus, but it wasn't built with state or school dollars, nor does the state or school pay to maintain it. As a matter of fact, having the building on campus contributes funds to the school, making it cheaper for you. Ask a researcher on campus how much of their grant money goes directly to the school. When I was there it was over 40%. I'm not sure if the NRAO contributes that amount, but they surely do pay to use the campus and it's infrastructure.
I know I'm nitpicking, but the VLA is not in the desert. There's very little actual desert in New Mexico, all of it in the southern portion of the state. The VLA is in the high arid plains of central New Mexico, specifically the Plains of San Agustin. The reason you can see them so well is that this area is actually a downdropped graben bordered by uplifted volcanic masse. When driving, you come down off the mountains on any side of the basin, and it's a long, slow decline.
The way I really understood how big the array was by seeing a picture of the A array, which has an antenna separation of 36 kilometers, overlayed on a city (I think it was Washington D.C.), at the visitor center. The antennas stretched beyond the boundaries of the city.
Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Reid said that the reason they didn't bring it to a floor vote is that Senators from both parties had made it clear they would filibuster the bill, so there would be no vote.
There were some good reasons for the resistance. Some of the compromises made in the Senate to the bill last year were a gift to large companies because it would limit the rights of those seeking redress for patent infringement.
Even Sen. Leahy, the bill's primary sponsor in the Senate admitted that. He said,
Source
You cannot compare a belief (bigotry) to human condition (gender, race, sexual orientation), so your analogy is fatally flawed.
However, the law doesn't have to change for a printer to choose not to print posters for the KKK rally, since the refusal is for the job requested, not of the person.
Because the law says that physical copies of the documents must be provided.
You wrote, "which is a clear violation of the records act" - that's a false statement. Until November of last year, you could use your private email as long as you made available to the archive emails related to government work.
Regarding the physical server; there's no way a subpoena could be issued for it, as no laws were broken.
Regarding new laws, they took effect last November.
There was no violation of law or policy.
I'm sorry, your claim is incorrect.
The IPCC AR5 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... makes it clear that if you don't cherry pick date ranges, the models are spot on.
A lot of people like to quote the following:
Let's put that in context
Now, the details (emphasis mine)
The take away is this - don't cherry pick date ranges. Instead, look at the effectiveness of the models over the long term. When you do, you'll see they are quite accurate.
I agree with you, to a certain extent. People are afraid to address climate change because they are afraid of the impact on our society. We can't ignore that fear.
I do have a question for you, though - how do you know that "Dealing with climate change is going to itself be a huge economic disaster, and people will suffer because of it."
Most of the plans I've seen would be so gradual that I don't even see economic slowdowns, much less huge economic disasters.
Hate to break this to you, but you don't know what the h*ll you are talking about. Bills can be introduced in the House at pretty much any time by any representative.
Quoting from http://www.house.gov/content/l...
"Any member in the House of Representatives may introduce a bill at any time while the House is in session by simply placing it in the “hopper” at the side of the Clerk's desk in the House Chamber."
It's also quite easy to introduce a bill into the Senate.
BTW, the previous Senate voted on a higher percentage of bills that originated in the House than the last time the Democrats held a majority in the House, so let's just put that tired claim about Senator Reid to bed, shall we? It's complete nonsense. Of course, that's only the first piece of nonsense you wrote, but the majority of that could be defended by claiming its your opinion.
No, conservatives don't believe in any specific political ideology. Conservatives believe in slow to no change, preferring to err on policies that return us to the way things used to work.
In truth, the GOP is composed of right wing politicians, many of them extreme right wing. While they claim to support free enterprise, in reality they push for less government, which, as a side-effect, means fewer regulations for business. Don't be fooled, though, it's only a side-effect.
There is no such thing as a "strict constitutionalist".
There are "strict constructionists" that use the text, and only the exact words in the text, of the Constitution, when considering whether a law is constitutional or not. I don't think you mean them, though.
I think you mean "originalists". These are people that believe we can understand the original intent of the Constitution and make ruling based on that understanding.
I'll remind everyone, while we're on the subject - all words are interpreted by the reader or hearer. There is no true interpretation of the Constitution, just the one you believe to be true.
Come on, if you're going to post something, at least be honest! The following quotes are from the abstract, which I think you'll find disagrees with your claims..
Kellerman's study said people were 2.7, not 23, times more likely to be killed.
They only considered homicides within a home, not some random distance.
Look, you can make a lot of claims about the impact of the gun control laws in Australia, but depending on the early government statistics to prove your point is intellectually dishonest.
Use actual studies, done when time has passed so you can see the impact. Here's a good one Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Quoting from the abstract, emphasis mine:
Actually, yes it is exactly about that. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the situation.
You could make a case that he should be allowed to graze his cattle on the land, which you do, a bit, in your response, but cattle grazing on public land without permission is the reason for this incident.
Well said. I have yet to see a cogent defense of Mr. Bundy's actual actions. Remember, public land is your land. He was illegally grazing his cattle on your lands. He was illegally grazing his cattle on the land of every person that went to support him.
The people that supported Mr. Bundy were acting as if the government was in the wrong, when in fact, the government was protecting their own self-interest, while Mr. Bundy was taking advantage of them by illegally using their land.
Interesting. The number of searches for VIM remains relatively constant over time, while the number of searches for emacs has been decreasing.
I personally find myself searching for VI commands much more often than emacs. I use emacs every day and I know how to do what I want using it. When I'm stuck on a system without it, I fall back to VI, but I never learned it well enough to do more than simple editing.
As has been said, what, 50 times before in this thread, the stamp is on the primer, which gets replaced when you reload brass, so you're wrong, selling brass doesn't render the law ineffective.
No, the chart was not from random noise.
1. No they did not.
2. No, they did not.
3. No, they did not.
4. No, they did not.
5. No, they did not.
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point. You have an ax to grind, and your claims show nothing but your bias.
If you disagree, please post proof of each of your claims.
Um, no, there never were little, red schoolhouses all over the place. Most communities, until recently (last 100 or so years) were happy to have any school to send their kids to, and, even into the 1960s, educational choice was limited for nearly everyone. Heck, it wasn't even until 1925 that kids were allowed to go to private school as a means to complete their compulsory education requirements.
There's more educational choice now then ever in the US.
So, sorry, take your market-driven theology and mis-apply it somewhere else, it doesn't make sense here.
Self-selecting based on skill level is usually a very bad decision. Users cannot properly assess their own levels of skill at a program. A successful method for doing something similar is to offer optimized, or even single-click, paths through common tasks (such as "Convert video for iPod"), while giving users that need or want more functionality alternate ways to configure the flow through the tool.
Of course, this isn't what the poster is asking about, so I'll shut up now.
I have to agree. The poster appears to dislike using the visual front-ends to LaTeX based on the fact that they use LaTeX, yet he wants a visual front end that creates output as good as LaTeX.
The way I see it you have three options, poster:
BTW, I don't mean to discount other tools like lout, but, unless I'm mistaken, they share the same issues that the poster dislikes about LaTeX.
Whoa, hoss. You go from saying that global temperatures are based on models to say that none of them are scientifically accurate because they haven't been used to predict future behavior. That's a big jump. You see, these datasets are that - actually collected data. Models are used to come up with an average global temperature based on the data. You can't use those models to predict anything. You can, though, use the results from those models to compare the calculated global temperature year to year. Make sense?
Seasonally lower temperatures due to La Nina have nothing to do with global climate change. Of course, since you couldn't even be bothered to put that detail into your post, so that people could debate the issue, I doubt you really care about the truth of the situation. Instead, you believe that global climate change is not happening, and you just look for any convenient web link to back up your belief.
Awareness of global climate change by society is a good thing. It does not have anything to do with the proof that our climate is changing. If only one person on Earth knew that the climate was changing, it would still be changing. Our ecosystem doesn't really care too much about what we believe we know.
On the other hand, disputing the current global climate change is really good for certain media people that are less interested in facts than in making a lot of money by duping people into believing said media person is smarter than everyone else and knows what's really going on.
You said the poster failed to respond to either of your points, so let's try to tease out which points you want answered. Point 1 - other planets temperatures have gone up so something other than CO2 is causing global climate change on earth, and 2, ice core samples don't show that CO2 increases cause global climate change. Did I get them right?
The poster said, "98% of the worlds scientist who've looked into this accept the science behind CO2 and it's impact on climate, and the simple fact that there has been zero peer-reviewed research that disproves the impact that CO2 can have on climate." Sounds to me like a response to both points. Climate scientists don't believe either of the points you raise having anything to do with whether CO2 increases cause global climate change.
I'll respond specifically to your points, though. You appear to be claiming the sun is responsible for global climate change on Earth. It's not. A lot of research has been done on this topic. At most 10% of the observed climate change on Earth can be attributed to solar variation - most studies show a much smaller impact. The fact that at least one other planet in our solar system (Mars) is seeing planet-wide temperature changes doesn't change that since the global climate change on Earth and the planet wide temperature change on Mars have nothing to do with each other. As an aside, the increase in temperature on Mars has nothing to do with solar variations. I'm not sure what other planets you think are going through global climate change, so I can't speak to them.
You are wrong about the ice cores, not just about what has been found, but what it means. Ice core show very close correlations between CO2 and temperature. See Climate Myth: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell among other articles on this topic. The nice thing about the New Scientist article is that it actually links to peer reviewed
Um, no, since the VLA isn't on school property. The operations building is on campus, but it wasn't built with state or school dollars, nor does the state or school pay to maintain it. As a matter of fact, having the building on campus contributes funds to the school, making it cheaper for you. Ask a researcher on campus how much of their grant money goes directly to the school. When I was there it was over 40%. I'm not sure if the NRAO contributes that amount, but they surely do pay to use the campus and it's infrastructure.
I know I'm nitpicking, but the VLA is not in the desert. There's very little actual desert in New Mexico, all of it in the southern portion of the state. The VLA is in the high arid plains of central New Mexico, specifically the Plains of San Agustin. The reason you can see them so well is that this area is actually a downdropped graben bordered by uplifted volcanic masse. When driving, you come down off the mountains on any side of the basin, and it's a long, slow decline.
The way I really understood how big the array was by seeing a picture of the A array, which has an antenna separation of 36 kilometers, overlayed on a city (I think it was Washington D.C.), at the visitor center. The antennas stretched beyond the boundaries of the city.