This is quite in line with the poll I posted. Do you have any other sources?
So you're telling me the entire 43% of non-voting Americans do not support the war in Iraq? Really? Somehow, I doubt that.
Nevertheless, I very much agree that, today, most people think Iraq is a clusterfuck. But that's only after *years* of mismanagement, and a tanking economy. Yet, during previous years, a large percentage of the American population, many of them the very Republicans opposed to the stimulus package today, supported said war effort, knowing full well what the cost was to the American tax payer. That's baffling to me. But, hey, maybe I'm just easily confused... *shrug*
Not much more to say. Yes it was stupid to go into Iraq. It's also stupid to have the bailout. Your argument is essentially "why complain about one stupid move when this other stupid move was made six years ago?"
No, I believe the argument is: most Republicans and some Democrats seemed to feel that dumping billions of dollars into Iraq, including stabilizing and developing the country, was a good thing for the world. But those same people feel that dumping billions of dollars into the United States, including stabilizing and developing the country, is a bad thing for the world. It's a bizarre turn of events, and I'm with the OP in being perplexed by this reaction.
I mean, sure, there are many who think both ideas are bad. Bully for them, they're being consistent. But it doesn't appear that's true for a largish percentage of Americans (at minimum the conservative 50%).
Well, I'm not buying the sub-prime thing. The total value of all mortgages in the USA is only about 10 trillion dollars, and so I would think that if the subprime mess were the problem, that's only about two trillion worth, and the USA has already pumped that much money into the banking system to cover those losses, either via TARP, or via games played with the Federal Reserve.
The only reason you're "not buying" it is because you haven't actually learned anything about it. Go read about Credit Default Swaps. They multiplied the effect of the housing bubble many times over. We're talking 10s of trillions of dollars in a completely unregulated market, dollars that evaporated as the housing bubble burst.
'course, why would you want to actually educate yourself? It's far easier, here on Slashdot, to just spout off without actually understanding the topic you're discussing...
I'd rather have them put down because they're expensive to keep and likely to perform similar crimes in the future.
You should read some statistics. Turns out, between the appeals processes necessary to hopefully ensure you don't accidentally murder an innocent person, and the costs involved in actually killing them, it ends up costing *more* to execute someone than it does to just imprison them for life. And, as an added bonus, there's no take-backsies if it turns out you fucked up somewhere along the line.
On the other hand, other people started profitable gardens in their back yard,
Yeah... umm... if you can feed "dozens of other families" with food produced from your "back yard", your definition of "back yard" versus "field" differs greatly from mine. Of course, US-style ex-urban sprawl means you might have a quarter acre backing your house, but guess what? Most people don't.
If I, as a private citizen, cannot call up the ISP and get the same information
Mmm... strawman. What makes you think you can't, aside from the ISP deciding to ignore you because you're annoying them? Further, there is nothing that prevents a third party from creating said database and making it available to the public (aside from, again, the ISPs simply refusing to give said party the data because they simply don't want to).
This change will make it so that candidates will only preach to the choir.
You mean the choir of Ohio? Or Florida?
Sorry buddy, what you're railing against already happens. That choir just isn't the big states you apparently fear so much.
No, the only thing this will change is that, suddenly, a vote in New York won't be worth less than a vote in Nebraska. That's nothing but a good thing if you actually believe in the right for everyone's vote to be counting equally. Obviously, you don't believe in that, though.
Titan is a young Earth. The chances of life not being there are incredibly low, going by what we know of the evolution of Earth and the life on it.
Because Earth, in it's early life, sported a surface temperature of -179 C, or -290 F, and as a consequence, possessed lakes of liquid hydrocarbons, and an atmosphere that was "nearly free of water vapor" (source)?
Sorry, bub, anyone who believes Titan constitutes a "young Earth" doesn't know much about either place. While Titan may possess atmopheric and geological processes that are analogous to those on Earth, it is by no means Earth-like.
What about channel guides? All of the MythTV users I've talked too complain about them being unreliable, or having to pay a subscription fee for them. It totally defeats the purpose!
How does a $20 per *year* for reliable guide data "[defeat] the purpose", exactly? Oh, right, because some whiners can't stand to pay for any kind of service, no matter how small the fee, or how much effort is involved in running it.
Reading something out loud is pretty much the definition of performance, and if done for an unspecified number greater than 1
Presuming your blanket statement is true, you've already demonstrated why Aiken's assertions are ridiculous and unsupported by currently law. Simply put: last I checked, no one was attaching a Kindle to a microphone and "performing" books for free. These devices are for personal use, and by definition, the number of people listening is precisely 1.
Well my point is that (A) yes, it evolved simply because it's an advantage, but (B) the standard darwinistic view is basically that it's a disadvantage
According to whom? A "darwinistic" advantage is one that makes an individual more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes, period. If the tail makes that more likely because it attracts females, then it's an advantage. End of story. How is that a kludge? All that means is that female mate selection is yet another selective pressure. Shocker!
Besides Wegman, and perhaps a couple of solar activity scientists, no. But then again, finding an independent source on this matter is tricky in any event.
Right. So you have your studies and scientists, that all happen to parrot each other, that convince you. I have my studies and scientists, that all happen to parrot each other, that convince me. The extremists turn the debate into a black-and-white, all-AGW or all-natural forcings shouting match, and nothing productive actually gets done (the jackass who modded my posts Troll being an excellent example).
Now, the logical position is to remain on the fence while doing whatever we can to mitigate risk without creating an excessive socioeconomic burden. Pity no one actually wants to do that.
Nobody has ever used the (non)existence of dinosaurs to push public policy that handicaps our society's productiveness while giving less scrupulous countries the ability to gain yet another competitive edge on us.
People fighting attempts to get religion into schools would likely *strongly* disagree with you on this particular point.
OOC, why is it you continue to parrot McKitrick's opinions as though they're gospel, while flat out ignoring anyone else? It's classic cherrypicking, and I'm surprised you don't see that. I mean, jebus, big shocker, McKitrick likes the (highly politicized, heavily criticized, non-peer-reviewed) report that vindicates his results. Surprise surprise!
Got a third-party, actually independent source? (BTW, I strongly suspect the answer to that is 'no').
1. There were two congressional panels, not one. The one done by the statistics experts that upheld MM's findings was headed by Edward Wegman - its report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Sorry, that report is *highly* politicized. Hell, it wasn't even peer reviewed. And despite the issues that report identified, they don't substantively change Mann, et al's results.
From what I understand, you have to read this one carefully - apparently the report and the media spin are in opposition. An op-ed discussing this can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf
On the contrary. The BBC's article on the topic does an excellent job of outlining both aspects of the report: a) that the fundamental conclusions of Mann, et al, are sound, and b) statistical rigor needs to be improved in climate science. Go read the summary yourself, it's pretty clear:
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."
Sounds to me like you're the one who's spinning.
The more I looked at both sides, the more I saw the deniers using critical thinking and attacking the results and methodologies,
On the contrary, I see a bunch of people who have a series of preconceived notions about the scientific process, and/or earth's climate and our ability to alter it, and are thus coming to conclusions and then searching for evidence to prove them. Like I've said elsewhere, it's disturbingly familiar to the arguments between creationists and biologists.
and people like Mann and Al Gore launching character assassinations in response
Yup, I have to agree with you, there. The attacks have clearly gotten personal. Again, the ID/Evolution debate rings rather true, here.
But Mann did commit what amounts to an academic fraud that changed his field, and in the process undermined a lot of the research in it and relating to it.
Again, you repeat this, despite plenty of evidence that indicates this isn't at all true. Who's cherrypicking now?
2. The "hockey stick" was found to be the result of faulty mathematics...by people who specialize in mathematics. That makes them experts in their fields
Ah, no, you're talking about Wegman, et al. The same panel who's results have been heavily disputed, having been accused of twisting results in order to come to their conclusions, and having only been peer reviewed by inviduals Wegman personally chose. Further, Mann, et al, make the claim that even after correcting the errors Wegman, et al, found, the result is the same... and that the same results pop of out completely different constructions.
Slashdot Mirror
2008 was one of the coldest years on record. When are these dipshits going to admit that global warming doesn't work the way they say it does
Yeah, nice try...
God, at least someone is paying attention. Gotta love article spin that's flat out *wrong*.
This is quite in line with the poll I posted. Do you have any other sources?
So you're telling me the entire 43% of non-voting Americans do not support the war in Iraq? Really? Somehow, I doubt that.
Nevertheless, I very much agree that, today, most people think Iraq is a clusterfuck. But that's only after *years* of mismanagement, and a tanking economy. Yet, during previous years, a large percentage of the American population, many of them the very Republicans opposed to the stimulus package today, supported said war effort, knowing full well what the cost was to the American tax payer. That's baffling to me. But, hey, maybe I'm just easily confused... *shrug*
Interesting. Where are you getting your data?
The 2004 and 2008 elections, primarily. Or did you not notice 50+% of Americans voting for the guy who wanted to continue said war?
Not much more to say. Yes it was stupid to go into Iraq. It's also stupid to have the bailout. Your argument is essentially "why complain about one stupid move when this other stupid move was made six years ago?"
No, I believe the argument is: most Republicans and some Democrats seemed to feel that dumping billions of dollars into Iraq, including stabilizing and developing the country, was a good thing for the world. But those same people feel that dumping billions of dollars into the United States, including stabilizing and developing the country, is a bad thing for the world. It's a bizarre turn of events, and I'm with the OP in being perplexed by this reaction.
I mean, sure, there are many who think both ideas are bad. Bully for them, they're being consistent. But it doesn't appear that's true for a largish percentage of Americans (at minimum the conservative 50%).
Well, I'm not buying the sub-prime thing. The total value of all mortgages in the USA is only about 10 trillion dollars, and so I would think that if the subprime mess were the problem, that's only about two trillion worth, and the USA has already pumped that much money into the banking system to cover those losses, either via TARP, or via games played with the Federal Reserve.
The only reason you're "not buying" it is because you haven't actually learned anything about it. Go read about Credit Default Swaps. They multiplied the effect of the housing bubble many times over. We're talking 10s of trillions of dollars in a completely unregulated market, dollars that evaporated as the housing bubble burst.
'course, why would you want to actually educate yourself? It's far easier, here on Slashdot, to just spout off without actually understanding the topic you're discussing...
I'd rather have them put down because they're expensive to keep and likely to perform similar crimes in the future.
You should read some statistics. Turns out, between the appeals processes necessary to hopefully ensure you don't accidentally murder an innocent person, and the costs involved in actually killing them, it ends up costing *more* to execute someone than it does to just imprison them for life. And, as an added bonus, there's no take-backsies if it turns out you fucked up somewhere along the line.
On the other hand, other people started profitable gardens in their back yard,
Yeah... umm... if you can feed "dozens of other families" with food produced from your "back yard", your definition of "back yard" versus "field" differs greatly from mine. Of course, US-style ex-urban sprawl means you might have a quarter acre backing your house, but guess what? Most people don't.
If I, as a private citizen, cannot call up the ISP and get the same information
Mmm... strawman. What makes you think you can't, aside from the ISP deciding to ignore you because you're annoying them? Further, there is nothing that prevents a third party from creating said database and making it available to the public (aside from, again, the ISPs simply refusing to give said party the data because they simply don't want to).
Umm. Yeah. Why not?
I'm "friends" with quite a few people I don't know
Umm... why???
No you don't. You just think you do. Welcome to the world of anecdotal evidence and the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
This change will make it so that candidates will only preach to the choir.
You mean the choir of Ohio? Or Florida?
Sorry buddy, what you're railing against already happens. That choir just isn't the big states you apparently fear so much.
No, the only thing this will change is that, suddenly, a vote in New York won't be worth less than a vote in Nebraska. That's nothing but a good thing if you actually believe in the right for everyone's vote to be counting equally. Obviously, you don't believe in that, though.
So, it's back to actual coding then :-).
Or, you could, you know, just use grep, awk, find, mv and xargs.
Titan is a young Earth.
The chances of life not being there are incredibly low, going by what we know of the evolution of Earth and the life on it.
Because Earth, in it's early life, sported a surface temperature of -179 C, or -290 F, and as a consequence, possessed lakes of liquid hydrocarbons, and an atmosphere that was "nearly free of water vapor" (source)?
Sorry, bub, anyone who believes Titan constitutes a "young Earth" doesn't know much about either place. While Titan may possess atmopheric and geological processes that are analogous to those on Earth, it is by no means Earth-like.
What about channel guides? All of the MythTV users I've talked too complain about them being unreliable, or having to pay a subscription fee for them. It totally defeats the purpose!
How does a $20 per *year* for reliable guide data "[defeat] the purpose", exactly? Oh, right, because some whiners can't stand to pay for any kind of service, no matter how small the fee, or how much effort is involved in running it.
Reading something out loud is pretty much the definition of performance, and if done for an unspecified number greater than 1
Presuming your blanket statement is true, you've already demonstrated why Aiken's assertions are ridiculous and unsupported by currently law. Simply put: last I checked, no one was attaching a Kindle to a microphone and "performing" books for free. These devices are for personal use, and by definition, the number of people listening is precisely 1.
Well my point is that (A) yes, it evolved simply because it's an advantage, but (B) the standard darwinistic view is basically that it's a disadvantage
According to whom? A "darwinistic" advantage is one that makes an individual more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes, period. If the tail makes that more likely because it attracts females, then it's an advantage. End of story. How is that a kludge? All that means is that female mate selection is yet another selective pressure. Shocker!
Besides Wegman, and perhaps a couple of solar activity scientists, no. But then again, finding an independent source on this matter is tricky in any event.
Right. So you have your studies and scientists, that all happen to parrot each other, that convince you. I have my studies and scientists, that all happen to parrot each other, that convince me. The extremists turn the debate into a black-and-white, all-AGW or all-natural forcings shouting match, and nothing productive actually gets done (the jackass who modded my posts Troll being an excellent example).
Now, the logical position is to remain on the fence while doing whatever we can to mitigate risk without creating an excessive socioeconomic burden. Pity no one actually wants to do that.
One degree is staggering?
Yes. It really is, when you're talking about the global mean, mere fractions of a degree are enormous. YOu do realize this, don't you?
Oh, BTW: that one degree was already erased in the time span from 1998-2008.
Citation, please.
Nobody has ever used the (non)existence of dinosaurs to push public policy that handicaps our society's productiveness while giving less scrupulous countries the ability to gain yet another competitive edge on us.
People fighting attempts to get religion into schools would likely *strongly* disagree with you on this particular point.
OOC, why is it you continue to parrot McKitrick's opinions as though they're gospel, while flat out ignoring anyone else? It's classic cherrypicking, and I'm surprised you don't see that. I mean, jebus, big shocker, McKitrick likes the (highly politicized, heavily criticized, non-peer-reviewed) report that vindicates his results. Surprise surprise!
Got a third-party, actually independent source? (BTW, I strongly suspect the answer to that is 'no').
1. There were two congressional panels, not one. The one done by the statistics experts that upheld MM's findings was headed by Edward Wegman - its report can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Sorry, that report is *highly* politicized. Hell, it wasn't even peer reviewed. And despite the issues that report identified, they don't substantively change Mann, et al's results.
From what I understand, you have to read this one carefully - apparently the report and the media spin are in opposition. An op-ed discussing this can be found here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf
On the contrary. The BBC's article on the topic does an excellent job of outlining both aspects of the report: a) that the fundamental conclusions of Mann, et al, are sound, and b) statistical rigor needs to be improved in climate science. Go read the summary yourself, it's pretty clear:
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."
Sounds to me like you're the one who's spinning.
The more I looked at both sides, the more I saw the deniers using critical thinking and attacking the results and methodologies,
On the contrary, I see a bunch of people who have a series of preconceived notions about the scientific process, and/or earth's climate and our ability to alter it, and are thus coming to conclusions and then searching for evidence to prove them. Like I've said elsewhere, it's disturbingly familiar to the arguments between creationists and biologists.
and people like Mann and Al Gore launching character assassinations in response
Yup, I have to agree with you, there. The attacks have clearly gotten personal. Again, the ID/Evolution debate rings rather true, here.
But Mann did commit what amounts to an academic fraud that changed his field, and in the process undermined a lot of the research in it and relating to it.
Again, you repeat this, despite plenty of evidence that indicates this isn't at all true. Who's cherrypicking now?
So a scientist can't defend one's own work?
Huh. well, good to know. So, would it better to just cite the National Research Council?
2. The "hockey stick" was found to be the result of faulty mathematics...by people who specialize in mathematics. That makes them experts in their fields
Ah, no, you're talking about Wegman, et al. The same panel who's results have been heavily disputed, having been accused of twisting results in order to come to their conclusions, and having only been peer reviewed by inviduals Wegman personally chose. Further, Mann, et al, make the claim that even after correcting the errors Wegman, et al, found, the result is the same... and that the same results pop of out completely different constructions.
So... who's right, again?