Bittorrent, like any tool, can be used for both legal and illegal activities. It is my prefered way to get LINUX/BSD distributions, for example. Nothing illegal about that.
Gratis, it does look like that. And most of my knowledge is old. It was based off of classes to understand the stock market (I decided it was too much like gambling and bowed out of it.) and to understand the effect on stock market of economic trends.
Tax cuts don't increase the national debt. Spending increases the national debt. That is the problem, not tax cuts. Of course, the Democrats would like you to THINK that tax cuts increase the national debt. They want to turn that into a boogie man so they safely raise taxes again.
I don't personally think so. I don't see him as holding it off. I see him as pumping things up like a bodybuilding using steroids. Sure, he got short term growth that looked great for a little while, but when it crashed, it crashed hard. And the signs were there long before he got out of office (Remember what the stock market did April 14, 2000?).
Instead of slow, long term growth, he went for flash and it cost us all in the long run.
Economics is a long range crap shoot and is certainly not an exact science. It takes four to five years for policies to trickle through. There is a lot of inertia, for want of a better word.
That means that if Bush does everything right, then we would just start to be seeing the effects of that now. Just like we were starting to see the affects of Clinton's policies (or rather lack of action) as he left office.
Odd how they don't acknowledge that the economic deterioration began before he took office. Without that major acknowledgement, that makes their statements looks suspiciously partisan.
Oh good grief, oxygen is part of air or the atmosphere. Oxygen (O2) makes up roughly 21% of the earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen (N2) makes up 78% of it. Get that? 99% of the earth's atmosphere is made up of those two molecules which, for purposes of this discussion, weight the same. Even water (H2O) is pretty close and can be suspended for brief periods of time. But it eventually comes down.
CFCs are much, much heavier. Freon-12 (CCl2F2), as an example, is not even in the same ballpark as the rest of the elements that make up the atmosphere. Do the math, or the chemistry as the case may be.
As for the North Pole, it is beginning to have an issue. The issue has been that there is much more volcanic activity in the southern polar region. The necessary chemicals are actually in the atmosphere there to cause the issue. As twenty years of NASA research shows, increasing volcanic activity in the northern polar regions is beginning to cause the same issue with the ozone layer in that area as well. You can google NASA, North Pole, ozone, and TOMS and go from there.
Re:You are proving my point here.....
on
Can Coal Be Green?
·
· Score: 1
Uhm... Simply put (again) CFC breakdown is not by acids, but by UV. In order for man-made CFCs to be able to get to the south pole, across the equator, they would have to overly saturate the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere. This would damage the ozone layer everywhere, yet the only measurable hole is over the south pole. Coincidentally enough, the south pole has most active volcanic regions on the earth along with a period of darkness that prevents O3 from forming. Also interestingly enough, NASA has been tracking volcanic activity in the northern polar regions and is seeing the beginning of a similar situation there. It is simply not as pronounced as it is at the south pole.
I'll make this short, cause I already answered this to another troll. One, CFCs are heavy than air. How do they get to the stratosphere to cause "ozone decay?" Especially across the equatorial counter currents? Why do they only cause damage in Antarctica? Two, O3 (ozone) is formed when UV hits the upper atmosphere in the presence of enough O2. When Antarctica is tilted away from the sun, no ozone is formed, thus causing a hole.
His date does track and correlate. The only reason he has an uphill battle is because he has to fight ignorance.
Modded Troll by a Coward. Read if you dare.
on
Can Coal Be Green?
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, while a "lack of chemistry knowledge" got me a troll, a lack of common sense actually made you one, coward.
The only place there is a hole in the ozone is over Antarctica, an area wholly without man made CFCs. Yet there are not holes in the ozone layer over any other continent on the planet. Why so? Well, you have to have enough science education to understand how ozone is formed, something you are obviously missing.
In a very simplified manner, it works this way: Incoming ultraviolet radiation strikes and divides an oxygen molecule (O2). The two separate oxygen atoms are very reactive and quickly combine with other oxygen molecules to form ozone (O3). Ultraviolet energy is thereby absorbed and prevented from penetrating the earth's surface. As long as there is sufficient oxygen in the stratosphere and as long as the sun puts out ultraviolet radiation at the right wavelength, ozone will be produced. Several tons of ozone are produced every second, mainly in that part of the stratosphere that is 10 to 40 kilometers above the earth's surface.
Well, guess what? Part of the year (when this hole shows up), Antarctica is shielded from the sun. There is not enough UV striking the atmosphere to form O3, so a hole forms.
There are plenty of holes in the CFC theory of "ozone destruction." CFC molecules are four to eight times heavier than air. Can you explain to me how these heavier-than-air molecules cross the equatorial counter currents to accumulate at the South Pole and do the most ozone damage there while doing no damage anywhere else?
Just because you can regurgitate something someone told you, does not mean that you know how to think, nor does it mean you truly understand chemistry.
You have been brainwashed from grade school to believe a certain thing. Just because it was in the eighties doesn't mean a thing. The EPA started regulating automobile emissions in the 70's for exactly the same reasons. This whole thing started well before the 80's.
Most REAL climatologists agree that we don't know what the heck is happening. There are something like 156 different theories as to what is happening in terms of global warming and our environment. Certain companies, scientists, and political groups are pushing ONE of them. What other motivation would there be besides financial?
For example, latest hard research more than suggests that CFCs have zero affect on the ozone layer. That the behavior in the ozone layer can be directly mapped and matched with a certain, specific pattern of solar winds and activities. This research was put forward by Yang Xuexiang, a professor of geological sciences at Changchun University of Technology in China. His research showed that the ozone layer was affected by certain energetic particles striking the earth's atmosphere and breaking up the ozone layer.
Just because you read it in a book in gradeschool doesn't make it true.
Actually, "Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to used to further a special agenda. The faulty scientific data and analysis in this case is that data and analysis that is used to show that man is responsible for this warming trend, when in fact it would be happening if he did not exist on this planet at all.
The special agendas are wide and varied, but most of them are pursuing specific financial gains. DuPont, for example, when the patent for freon was about to expire, pushed that freon was bad for the ozone layer. This allowed them to introduce another product onto the market which they had a brand new patent on and helped maintain their lock on that part of the marketplace. Curious as to how they had touted freon as safe for environment up until that patent expired.
No, but it certainly presents a bias that is different from what is currently being shoved down our throats. Current junk science tries to blame man and his activities for the global climate when in fact man puts less than 6% of "green house gases" into the atmosphere. You also don't hear anything about the sun's cycles and how those affect our global ecology. It also tries to state that the current climate is the perfect one; one that stayed in perfect balance until man came along, when in fact the current state and it's stability has been an aberration in a historical sense.
You are right, it is biased, but at least with the information presented there, among other sites, you are limited to one bias.
How about a little education instead?
on
Can Coal Be Green?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Instead of running around screaming about the sky falling (pun intended), how about working to educate the population? Instead of being alarmist, how about learning about what global warming is and what it is not? GlobalWarming.org is a site dedicated to educating people about what is really going on and who is pulling the strings. There is no realistic way to stabilize CO2 now or in the next hundred years or so. There is no way you can regulate it away. Best learn to deal with the facts.
in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.
about quality of life stuff, don't get me wrong, but this is hardly the cure for cancer, AIDS, or diabetes. Are you telling me there were no more qualified applicants than this? People working on life stuff, not "just" quality of life?
as they would consider that distributing it beyond the machine you downloaded it on. And of course, your linux box is out too, I am assuming. As would be printing it, etc. I wonder if it expires as well?
authorized Bush to go after Iraq. He did not make the choice on his own. The House of Representatives voted 296-133 in favor and the Senate voted 77-23 in favor. How was this a unilateral decision on Bush's part?
having that hooked up in your kitchen? "HAL, microwave the popcorn."
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.
Is this a surprise?
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
We want what is best for us. That, according to the common polls right now, is viewed as Bush. The rest of the world wants what is best for them. They want the hand outs which are going away under Bush, but is perceived to continue under Kerry as he is viewed as more socialist than Bush. People are voting for their self-interest.
This country is not a democracy and never has been. If you think it is, you have really missed the boat. Democracies, by their very nature, can't survive because they don't take human nature into account.
We need to retain the electoral college. If we don't then New York and California combine are going to outvote the rest of the country. At that point, we will be as screwed as a nation as those two states.
I doubt this would work on a Federal level any ways. The presidential election is a federal one, the rules that govern it are on a federal level. The state can't make a law that governs that process as it does not have the power to do so.
No, I think the Kerry issues are far, far worse. His bogus medals and his treasonous actions following Vietnam far outweigh the so called "missing year."
No, I never said that at all. I simply said that being in the military is not the only way of knowing something that affects the military. And that there are other ways to serve one's country than wearing a uniform. I choose a different way.
And being a veteran does not exempt him from being called on his bullshit.
Bush did not dodge the draft. He is also a veteran. He served in another segment of the armed forces and received an honorable discharge from that service.
Slashdot Mirror
Cause Universal Health care sucks rocks?
Bittorrent, like any tool, can be used for both legal and illegal activities. It is my prefered way to get LINUX/BSD distributions, for example. Nothing illegal about that.
will be hard to prove on this one. Good grief. What is next, a patent on oxygen?
Gratis, it does look like that. And most of my knowledge is old. It was based off of classes to understand the stock market (I decided it was too much like gambling and bowed out of it.) and to understand the effect on stock market of economic trends.
Tax cuts don't increase the national debt. Spending increases the national debt. That is the problem, not tax cuts. Of course, the Democrats would like you to THINK that tax cuts increase the national debt. They want to turn that into a boogie man so they safely raise taxes again.
I don't personally think so. I don't see him as holding it off. I see him as pumping things up like a bodybuilding using steroids. Sure, he got short term growth that looked great for a little while, but when it crashed, it crashed hard. And the signs were there long before he got out of office (Remember what the stock market did April 14, 2000?).
Instead of slow, long term growth, he went for flash and it cost us all in the long run.
Economics is a long range crap shoot and is certainly not an exact science. It takes four to five years for policies to trickle through. There is a lot of inertia, for want of a better word.
That means that if Bush does everything right, then we would just start to be seeing the effects of that now. Just like we were starting to see the affects of Clinton's policies (or rather lack of action) as he left office.
Odd how they don't acknowledge that the economic deterioration began before he took office. Without that major acknowledgement, that makes their statements looks suspiciously partisan.
Oh good grief, oxygen is part of air or the atmosphere. Oxygen (O2) makes up roughly 21% of the earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen (N2) makes up 78% of it. Get that? 99% of the earth's atmosphere is made up of those two molecules which, for purposes of this discussion, weight the same. Even water (H2O) is pretty close and can be suspended for brief periods of time. But it eventually comes down.
CFCs are much, much heavier. Freon-12 (CCl2F2), as an example, is not even in the same ballpark as the rest of the elements that make up the atmosphere. Do the math, or the chemistry as the case may be.
As for the North Pole, it is beginning to have an issue. The issue has been that there is much more volcanic activity in the southern polar region. The necessary chemicals are actually in the atmosphere there to cause the issue. As twenty years of NASA research shows, increasing volcanic activity in the northern polar regions is beginning to cause the same issue with the ozone layer in that area as well. You can google NASA, North Pole, ozone, and TOMS and go from there.
Uhm... Simply put (again) CFC breakdown is not by acids, but by UV. In order for man-made CFCs to be able to get to the south pole, across the equator, they would have to overly saturate the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere. This would damage the ozone layer everywhere, yet the only measurable hole is over the south pole. Coincidentally enough, the south pole has most active volcanic regions on the earth along with a period of darkness that prevents O3 from forming. Also interestingly enough, NASA has been tracking volcanic activity in the northern polar regions and is seeing the beginning of a similar situation there. It is simply not as pronounced as it is at the south pole.
I think I pointed out one example with DuPont.
I'll make this short, cause I already answered this to another troll. One, CFCs are heavy than air. How do they get to the stratosphere to cause "ozone decay?" Especially across the equatorial counter currents? Why do they only cause damage in Antarctica? Two, O3 (ozone) is formed when UV hits the upper atmosphere in the presence of enough O2. When Antarctica is tilted away from the sun, no ozone is formed, thus causing a hole.
His date does track and correlate. The only reason he has an uphill battle is because he has to fight ignorance.
Apparently, while a "lack of chemistry knowledge" got me a troll, a lack of common sense actually made you one, coward.
The only place there is a hole in the ozone is over Antarctica, an area wholly without man made CFCs. Yet there are not holes in the ozone layer over any other continent on the planet. Why so? Well, you have to have enough science education to understand how ozone is formed, something you are obviously missing.
In a very simplified manner, it works this way: Incoming ultraviolet radiation strikes and divides an oxygen molecule (O2). The two separate oxygen atoms are very reactive and quickly combine with other oxygen molecules to form ozone (O3). Ultraviolet energy is thereby absorbed and prevented from penetrating the earth's surface. As long as there is sufficient oxygen in the stratosphere and as long as the sun puts out ultraviolet radiation at the right wavelength, ozone will be produced. Several tons of ozone are produced every second, mainly in that part of the stratosphere that is 10 to 40 kilometers above the earth's surface.
Well, guess what? Part of the year (when this hole shows up), Antarctica is shielded from the sun. There is not enough UV striking the atmosphere to form O3, so a hole forms.
There are plenty of holes in the CFC theory of "ozone destruction." CFC molecules are four to eight times heavier than air. Can you explain to me how these heavier-than-air molecules cross the equatorial counter currents to accumulate at the South Pole and do the most ozone damage there while doing no damage anywhere else?
Just because you can regurgitate something someone told you, does not mean that you know how to think, nor does it mean you truly understand chemistry.
You have been brainwashed from grade school to believe a certain thing. Just because it was in the eighties doesn't mean a thing. The EPA started regulating automobile emissions in the 70's for exactly the same reasons. This whole thing started well before the 80's.
Most REAL climatologists agree that we don't know what the heck is happening. There are something like 156 different theories as to what is happening in terms of global warming and our environment. Certain companies, scientists, and political groups are pushing ONE of them. What other motivation would there be besides financial?
For example, latest hard research more than suggests that CFCs have zero affect on the ozone layer. That the behavior in the ozone layer can be directly mapped and matched with a certain, specific pattern of solar winds and activities. This research was put forward by Yang Xuexiang, a professor of geological sciences at Changchun University of Technology in China. His research showed that the ozone layer was affected by certain energetic particles striking the earth's atmosphere and breaking up the ozone layer.
Just because you read it in a book in gradeschool doesn't make it true.
Actually, "Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to used to further a special agenda. The faulty scientific data and analysis in this case is that data and analysis that is used to show that man is responsible for this warming trend, when in fact it would be happening if he did not exist on this planet at all.
The special agendas are wide and varied, but most of them are pursuing specific financial gains. DuPont, for example, when the patent for freon was about to expire, pushed that freon was bad for the ozone layer. This allowed them to introduce another product onto the market which they had a brand new patent on and helped maintain their lock on that part of the marketplace. Curious as to how they had touted freon as safe for environment up until that patent expired.
No, but it certainly presents a bias that is different from what is currently being shoved down our throats. Current junk science tries to blame man and his activities for the global climate when in fact man puts less than 6% of "green house gases" into the atmosphere. You also don't hear anything about the sun's cycles and how those affect our global ecology. It also tries to state that the current climate is the perfect one; one that stayed in perfect balance until man came along, when in fact the current state and it's stability has been an aberration in a historical sense.
You are right, it is biased, but at least with the information presented there, among other sites, you are limited to one bias.
Instead of running around screaming about the sky falling (pun intended), how about working to educate the population? Instead of being alarmist, how about learning about what global warming is and what it is not? GlobalWarming.org is a site dedicated to educating people about what is really going on and who is pulling the strings. There is no realistic way to stabilize CO2 now or in the next hundred years or so. There is no way you can regulate it away. Best learn to deal with the facts.
in their facts. Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc. The Social Security privatization plan has been pushed since before Bush was in office. And Kerry has had to tear down the plan Bush has pushed. It promises to be more successful than anything else Kerry can come up with, which is basically to keep the current plan until the Social Security plan goes bankrupt, which will be in most of our lifetimes.
about quality of life stuff, don't get me wrong, but this is hardly the cure for cancer, AIDS, or diabetes. Are you telling me there were no more qualified applicants than this? People working on life stuff, not "just" quality of life?
as they would consider that distributing it beyond the machine you downloaded it on. And of course, your linux box is out too, I am assuming. As would be printing it, etc. I wonder if it expires as well?
authorized Bush to go after Iraq. He did not make the choice on his own. The House of Representatives voted 296-133 in favor and the Senate voted 77-23 in favor. How was this a unilateral decision on Bush's part?
/.
More Bush Bashing on
like similar stuff for Kerry above?
Flush the Johns in '04.
having that hooked up in your kitchen? "HAL, microwave the popcorn."
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.
We want what is best for us. That, according to the common polls right now, is viewed as Bush. The rest of the world wants what is best for them. They want the hand outs which are going away under Bush, but is perceived to continue under Kerry as he is viewed as more socialist than Bush. People are voting for their self-interest.
This country is not a democracy and never has been. If you think it is, you have really missed the boat. Democracies, by their very nature, can't survive because they don't take human nature into account.
We need to retain the electoral college. If we don't then New York and California combine are going to outvote the rest of the country. At that point, we will be as screwed as a nation as those two states.
I doubt this would work on a Federal level any ways. The presidential election is a federal one, the rules that govern it are on a federal level. The state can't make a law that governs that process as it does not have the power to do so.
No, I think the Kerry issues are far, far worse. His bogus medals and his treasonous actions following Vietnam far outweigh the so called "missing year."
No, I never said that at all. I simply said that being in the military is not the only way of knowing something that affects the military. And that there are other ways to serve one's country than wearing a uniform. I choose a different way.
And being a veteran does not exempt him from being called on his bullshit.
Bush did not dodge the draft. He is also a veteran. He served in another segment of the armed forces and received an honorable discharge from that service.