In my 35 years in the workforce, I've NEVER heard or seen a man cry at the office. Didn't happen in high school either. But for girls & women around me, for years it was at least a weekly thing.
Also, a study at the University of Arizona in 2011 found a 100 year megadrought that coincided with the Roman Warm Period. Many deniers think that a warming world is a good thing - but they better not live in the US Southwest
No one has "forgotten" the LIA which was only 1 deg C cooler than now but that was enough to freeze over most of Northern Europe. Before the LIA, back in those glorious warm times, the US southwest used to enjoy megadroughts that would last a couple centuries.
We'll never have a perfect climate. We'll continue to have drought & hurricanes. But the rate of change matters and if what we're doing can have a catastrophic effect faster than the global population can adapt, we need to change course. Let's hope that it's not too late.
Satellites do NOT directly measure temperature; extrapolations have to be made from wavelength radiance bands. And the satellite data set has been "adjusted" more than 6 times in the past 10 years for various reasons.
It takes a lot of skill and experience to find the signal in the noise that is climate data. Nevertheless it has been done, more than once. Richard Muller was a true skeptic who rolled up his sleeves and got a team together to look at all the available data. I won't spoil your delight by telling you what the conclusions were - see for yourself
Britain operated without tuition fees until 1998, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Iraq war was started on a lie.
The USA has wasted a lot of money on war that would have been better spent on the health & education of its citizens.
FYI, the defense budget is as large as the next dozen top spenders - almost all of whom are allies. What is all that money being spent on? Preparing for an invasion from Mexico & Canada? (Too late in the case of the former)
Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into a mental hospital. So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby... That's the Democrats.
And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers and civil war re-enactors who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.
Bill Maher, New Rules "White Men Can't Harrumph", Jun 2009
I'd have to go back and check what he ACTUALLY promised vs what we THINK he promised but I do admit to being somewhat disappointed. But despite what rightwing media says, he's not an Emperor and change is difficult or impossible if Congress isn't on board.
In other statements, Obama has spoken favorably of single-payer in concept, but always adding qualifiers.
In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system." In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today. In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system." At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.
"I am really getting tired having to verify your figures" Then work on verifying your own; you've gotten more than a few things wrong where Tesla is concerned.
And how did we suddenly get to 300,000 DIRECT jobs wrt GM, when just a few posts ago, it was 216,000? I can accept a bit of rounding but that's an error of ~30%:-)
I hadn't given much thought to the bailout stuff in several years but I'm not convinced that letting Big Auto save themselves - or die - would have been the catastrophe that the fearmongers were screaming about. It's not as if all the cars & trucks were going to stop working overnight and the parts manufacturers would still have lots of work. And there were other car companies that needed far less help or none at all. The people who really needed to be bailed out were homeowners.
Economy of scale only goes so far since there's such great variety in automobiles. And it's not as if the automakers are making all the parts themselves.
I understand tax incentives but to give it to a behemoth that too ponderous to change seems like a waste when you have the great infallible hand of the free market to guide these paladins of enterprise. And when California's CARB threw the ZEV mandate rules at them, GM & Toyota came up with the EV-1 and the RAV4 EV pretty damn quick, no government money required.
Foreign government direct financial support for alternative EVs may be a question but from what I'm able to find about Nissan & Toyota, the likely answer is NO.
And I can't believe that Chrysler got bailed out again - just let them DIE.
Read and enjoy. It may not be strictly correct to say what the Bush administration intended but they did TRIPLE the deduction one fell swoop and when the SUV stories started to make the rounds, they didn't go along with any attempts to curb misuse.
The problem with your depreciation point, as I've already explained is that you are under NO obligation to keep the vehicle once you get the all-in-one-shot deduction.
Those tax breaks and the unfunded wars are a big component of the country's mess and it all hinges on the stuff that Tesla (and others) want us to get off of as soon as possible. And that's oil.
My point is that your base numbers for Tesla's is WRONG and therefore so are all numbers derived from it.
Tesla's 2014 revenue was a bit over $3 billion - much smaller than GM, true - but that's FOUR times bigger than your claim and it's growing and moving quickly. You do realize the more you point out how big & powerful GM is, the weaker the case for it getting a subsidy for developing a car that's essentially a modification of what had been done 15 years ago by 2 foreign automakers?
Maybe we'd be better served by having more gnats than ponderous giants that have trouble making a profit selling something that Americans want more than oxygen.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we should have that sexist movie A League of Their Own deleted and Tom Hanks ostracized for saying "there's no crying in baseball".
I've been told by women I'm close to is that they're very competitive with each other and tend to bicker where men would usually crack jokes.
In my 35 years in the workforce, I've NEVER heard or seen a man cry at the office. Didn't happen in high school either.
But for girls & women around me, for years it was at least a weekly thing.
"So scientists turn out to be human beings like the rest of us. So what?"
Human beings say things that are either inappropriate or misinterpreted all the time. So what?
Also, a study at the University of Arizona in 2011 found a 100 year megadrought that coincided with the Roman Warm Period. Many deniers think that a warming world is a good thing - but they better not live in the US Southwest
http://uanews.org/story/ua-sci...
Why would democrats abort their voting base?
No one has "forgotten" the LIA which was only 1 deg C cooler than now but that was enough to freeze over most of Northern Europe.
Before the LIA, back in those glorious warm times, the US southwest used to enjoy megadroughts that would last a couple centuries.
Sure, let's go back to those good old days.
We'll never have a perfect climate. We'll continue to have drought & hurricanes. But the rate of change matters and if what we're doing can have a catastrophic effect faster than the global population can adapt, we need to change course. Let's hope that it's not too late.
That was done for part of the ocean using the Argo buoys. Still can't convince the "skeptics".
The recent analysis that claims to refute the "hiatus" warms the period from 1880 - 1940 by 2/10ths of a degree C.
Satellites do NOT directly measure temperature; extrapolations have to be made from wavelength radiance bands.
And the satellite data set has been "adjusted" more than 6 times in the past 10 years for various reasons.
It takes a lot of skill and experience to find the signal in the noise that is climate data.
Nevertheless it has been done, more than once.
Richard Muller was a true skeptic who rolled up his sleeves and got a team together to look at all the available data.
I won't spoil your delight by telling you what the conclusions were - see for yourself
Britain operated without tuition fees until 1998, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Iraq war was started on a lie.
The USA has wasted a lot of money on war that would have been better spent on the health & education of its citizens.
FYI, the defense budget is as large as the next dozen top spenders - almost all of whom are allies. What is all that money being spent on? Preparing for an invasion from Mexico & Canada? (Too late in the case of the former)
So they're zombies? Are they about to start World War Z?
A well-traveled friend who speaks several languages fluently says you can't learn proper Russian without staying out late at night drinking vodka.
Bill Maher, New Rules "White Men Can't Harrumph", Jun 2009
That 1st line should have read " wrt single payer, Obama's support has always been somewhat conditional"
I'd have to go back and check what he ACTUALLY promised vs what we THINK he promised but I do admit to being somewhat disappointed.
But despite what rightwing media says, he's not an Emperor and change is difficult or impossible if Congress isn't on board.
WRT to single-payer, Obama's support has somewhat hesitant.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Obama isn't a socialist or even much of a progressive; from what I recall, he's somewhere between Eisenhower & Nixon on most issues.
"I am really getting tired having to verify your figures"
Then work on verifying your own; you've gotten more than a few things wrong where Tesla is concerned.
And how did we suddenly get to 300,000 DIRECT jobs wrt GM, when just a few posts ago, it was 216,000? I can accept a bit of rounding but that's an error of ~30% :-)
I hadn't given much thought to the bailout stuff in several years but I'm not convinced that letting Big Auto save themselves - or die - would have been the catastrophe that the fearmongers were screaming about.
It's not as if all the cars & trucks were going to stop working overnight and the parts manufacturers would still have lots of work. And there were other car companies that needed far less help or none at all.
The people who really needed to be bailed out were homeowners.
Economy of scale only goes so far since there's such great variety in automobiles. And it's not as if the automakers are making all the parts themselves.
I understand tax incentives but to give it to a behemoth that too ponderous to change seems like a waste when you have the great infallible hand of the free market to guide these paladins of enterprise.
And when California's CARB threw the ZEV mandate rules at them, GM & Toyota came up with the EV-1 and the RAV4 EV pretty damn quick, no government money required.
Foreign government direct financial support for alternative EVs may be a question but from what I'm able to find about Nissan & Toyota, the likely answer is NO.
And I can't believe that Chrysler got bailed out again - just let them DIE.
I've been meaning to give that one a trial. Has anyone used it?
What about OCS-NG?
You want a link
Read and enjoy. It may not be strictly correct to say what the Bush administration intended but they did TRIPLE the deduction one fell swoop and when the SUV stories started to make the rounds, they didn't go along with any attempts to curb misuse.
The problem with your depreciation point, as I've already explained is that you are under NO obligation to keep the vehicle once you get the all-in-one-shot deduction.
Those tax breaks and the unfunded wars are a big component of the country's mess and it all hinges on the stuff that Tesla (and others) want us to get off of as soon as possible.
And that's oil.
My point is that your base numbers for Tesla's is WRONG and therefore so are all numbers derived from it.
Tesla's 2014 revenue was a bit over $3 billion - much smaller than GM, true - but that's FOUR times bigger than your claim and it's growing and moving quickly.
You do realize the more you point out how big & powerful GM is, the weaker the case for it getting a subsidy for developing a car that's essentially a modification of what had been done 15 years ago by 2 foreign automakers?
Maybe we'd be better served by having more gnats than ponderous giants that have trouble making a profit selling something that Americans want more than oxygen.
Seriously?? Check your figures, mmkay.
What's $881.67M divided by 36,000??