Yep then in 4 years time when the gas prices double because every well now needs two drilling rigs leased at $1mil each per day
What the fuck, can't you read? He didn't say "keep two rigs around". He said you force them to drill a relief well first. That means take your rig, drill down nearly to the deposit, cap, then move on to drilling the actual well. Then, if shit goes down, you bring in a new platform (just like BP is doing today) to complete the relief well.
It sounds like you're suggesting that for every deep-water oil rig that's built, the oil companies should build a spare "just in case" and have it start the drilling operation to get a lead in case there's a problem on the production platform.
No, that's not what he said at all. He said this:
The correct solution appears to be forcing oil companies to drill relief wells for existing exploitation
So they drill the relief well down nearly to the deposit. Then they cap it, and move on to drilling the real well. If something goes wrong, they bring in a platform to open up the relief well and finish the drilling operation.
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I attempt to define "science", exactly? Are you sure you're replying to the correct post, because in context, your comment is utterly nonsensical.
What I outlined was a series of consequences of individuals attempting to force their religious beliefs on everyone else through the vehicle of public policy as a consequence of the rejection of rationalism in the public sphere. How, in your mind, that translates to a definition of science, I have no idea...
The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now
Quit being a pedantic jackass. I think it's clear I meant "on human record", as in, during the period which the human species has existed.
Clearly the earth itself has been warmer in the past. Hell, the surface was molten at one point. But it certainly wasn't hospitable to human life at the time...
None of which changes the fact that, during *this* solar minimum, the global has continued to warm, which cleanly rules out the sun as the primary driver of the global warming we are witnessing.
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps.
Pity that statement is, itself, simply false. This was the warmest decade on record, period. Furthermore, most of the warmest years occurred in the last ten years. Can you cherry-pick you results to find outliers in the 90s, so as to make the current decade look not so bad? Sure. But that's tantamount to lying, plain and simple.
Now for those of us here in Ontario, we're in a mini-heatwave. But the rest of the country? Below average, last I heard even the easties were hoping for spring to start, they're still getting snow.
Uhuh. So? Local climate != global climate. And sadly:
The decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989).
Although yes, the Sun's becoming more active there's been a lot of discussion as to whether the low solar activity was responsible for the coldest winter in 17 years in England (and longer than that in Scotland).
Doubtful, given that:
For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.3C (56.0F) was the warmest January-April period. This value is 0.69C (1.24F) above the 20th century average.
The decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.
Citation. Which, of course, makes the idea of solar drive GW look pretty silly, what with the solar minimum during this decade.
So, alas, apparently I *once again* need to point out: Local temperature != global temperature. Seriously, people, how many times does this have to be repeated before you start to actually get it?
So, in other words, updating science to better correspond with reality is good science. Updating theology to better correspond with reality is bad theology.
Umm, yes. Exactly.
What, did you think you said something silly or controversial, there?
The *entire point* of religion is to provide an end-all-be-all explanation for our existence. By it's very nature, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either the bible is the immutable, unchanging truth handed down by god, or it's not. If you morph those beliefs every time reality comes barging in, then what the hell *do* you believe in?
Then make your own god damn cheeseburger. Why anybody goes to a fast shitfood restaurant instead of making their own food is beyond me. Homemade always tastes better by over 9000%.
No, it tastes different. "Better" is utterly subjective. But nice job with the absolutes.
Me, I love a homemade cheeseburger (actually, a better example is homemade pizza, which, out of my oven, blows the doors off anything you'll find at a restaurant, at least around these parts). But I'll also fully admit to enjoying a McDonald's quarter pounder and some fries. Do I know the food is utterly terrible for me? Yes. Does it taste like a "real" burger? No. It tastes like McDonald's. And guess what? I *like it*. OHNOES!
Seriously, quit being a fucking snob. Sometimes people just like "bad" food (I also like KD and Doritos... suck on that).
As Pratchett says, ideals like justice and mercy can not be detected scientifically
Actually, they can. Do an fMRI. Love, mercy, empathy, all those things are explained by neurons firing. Why do they fire that way? Evolution. They're *useful*.
The entire idea that justice, mercy, and so forth can't be explained with basic science is utterly fucking absurd. It's the biggest lie the religious like to tell. But it's complete bunk. Those things exist because the human species evolved to have them. Why? Simple: they increased the odds that we, as a species, would perpetuate ourselves. After all, which is more likely to thrive: A community where individuals help each other, or one in which they murder each other to get what they want? Hell, it isn't even unique to humans. Plenty of other communal species exhibit behaviour that we would consider "moral" (helping others, defending the group, etc).
Society, culture, morality, all those things are beneficial to survival. It's just that simple. Don't fall for the religious bullshit. You don't need a magical sky fairy to explain away morality for you.
The fact that you put "environmental sciences", aka climatology and related disciplines, in the group of "soft sciences" speaks volumes regarding your personal biases...
No. When they question, and then before the answer comes, plug their ears and yell "LA LA LA YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT!" we should scold them, because they're being close-minded, irrational idiots. Jenny McCarthy, I'm looking at you.
In short: denialism != skepticism. Your average "questioner" practices the former, not the latter.
Obviously religious people should stop trying to religion away science, but just as much scientists should stop trying to science away religion.
But scientists will *always* find themselves "sciencing away religion", whether they want to or not.
As you yourself admitted, "Some things are not (at least yet) addressable by science, and that's where faith can step in". Put another, far less wishy-washy way, the entire point of religion for most people is so they can jam God firmly in the gaps where science hasn't yet provided an explanation. But the minute science manages to fill one of those gaps, it pushes religion out. Take evolution, for example: To many fundamentalist Christians, those damned biologists and geologists are trying to "science away" their young-earth creationist beliefs. Did the scientists go out to prove their ridiculous beliefs are bunk? No. But that's what happened, because the entire purpose of science is to uncover the facts which underpin our universe, a universe that religion itself tries to explain away with magic sky fairies and pillars of salt.
So, no, I reject your premise. Science and religion will *always* be in conflict. At their most basic levels, science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, and science can do nothing *but* "science away religion".
Seriously, who cares? What is with this obsession with current attitudes towards science? If your science is sound then who cares?
*You* should care. If people don't believe in science, then they will reject science in the public sphere. Shortly thereafter, you'll find religion taught in schools, abstinence-only education, bans on abortion, funding cut for stem cell research, school curriculae modified to promote religious worldviews, and god knows what else.
But hey, maybe your fine with that. Me, well, I'd rather we didn't regress into the fucking dark ages, thanks.
Science is a process, specifically of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation. Math is often used to achieve scientific ends, but it is not a scientific discipline.
The *claim* is that the SD card reader was added so that Windows could be booted on the XO. That doesn't make the claim true, of course, but that's almost certainly what the GP is referring to.
The big problem isn't that it was capable of running Windows- it was that the machine was MODIFIED to be able to use XP
Oh *come on*, please! What did they do to "be able to use XP" exactly? They added an SD card reader. OHNOES! And that's certainly not be useful for anyone else but Windows (like, say, someone who wants to run an alternative OS on it without modifying the onboard flash)... nope, not at all.
The project definitely seems to be lacking in focused leadership, but... how, exactly, does that make them "sell outs", as opposed to just incompetent?
The effects of the spill will suck, and will suck for a long time (the halibut still have not returned to the area around the Exxon Valdez spill). How will knowing in advance just how badly it will suck help?
By understanding how the oil will diffuse and spread in the ocean, they can direct cleanup efforts to areas that are likely to be hit hardest. There are, after all, a finite number of people, booms (yes, even fucking booms), etc, so optimizing their allocation is important.
The question is, is that something worth the risks involved in expanding deep water drilling? IMHO, unless the regulatory structure surrounding the industry is *massively* overhauled, I'd say the clear answer to that is "no", as neither the companies nor the regulatory bodies can be trusted to preserve the coastlines, which are the economic lifeblood for many many people, people who would be far more damaged by destroyed coastlines than the absence of that 3.3%.
That said, I don't think it makes any sense to halt existing operations. I'm just not convinced that *expanding* offshore drilling is a good idea.
Interesting? More like terrible. "Scientists 'play god' with genetic engineering, create monster. Monster runs amok. Hilarity ensues." Honestly, I haven't seen a premise that bad, not to mention that unoriginal, in years...
Slashdot Mirror
Yep then in 4 years time when the gas prices double because every well now needs two drilling rigs leased at $1mil each per day
What the fuck, can't you read? He didn't say "keep two rigs around". He said you force them to drill a relief well first. That means take your rig, drill down nearly to the deposit, cap, then move on to drilling the actual well. Then, if shit goes down, you bring in a new platform (just like BP is doing today) to complete the relief well.
It sounds like you're suggesting that for every deep-water oil rig that's built, the oil companies should build a spare "just in case" and have it start the drilling operation to get a lead in case there's a problem on the production platform.
No, that's not what he said at all. He said this:
So they drill the relief well down nearly to the deposit. Then they cap it, and move on to drilling the real well. If something goes wrong, they bring in a platform to open up the relief well and finish the drilling operation.
So to you, the definition of science...
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I attempt to define "science", exactly? Are you sure you're replying to the correct post, because in context, your comment is utterly nonsensical.
What I outlined was a series of consequences of individuals attempting to force their religious beliefs on everyone else through the vehicle of public policy as a consequence of the rejection of rationalism in the public sphere. How, in your mind, that translates to a definition of science, I have no idea...
The geologic record shows the vast majority of earth history has been warmer than it is now
Quit being a pedantic jackass. I think it's clear I meant "on human record", as in, during the period which the human species has existed.
Clearly the earth itself has been warmer in the past. Hell, the surface was molten at one point. But it certainly wasn't hospitable to human life at the time...
None of which changes the fact that, during *this* solar minimum, the global has continued to warm, which cleanly rules out the sun as the primary driver of the global warming we are witnessing.
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps.
Pity that statement is, itself, simply false. This was the warmest decade on record, period. Furthermore, most of the warmest years occurred in the last ten years. Can you cherry-pick you results to find outliers in the 90s, so as to make the current decade look not so bad? Sure. But that's tantamount to lying, plain and simple.
Now for those of us here in Ontario, we're in a mini-heatwave. But the rest of the country? Below average, last I heard even the easties were hoping for spring to start, they're still getting snow.
Uhuh. So? Local climate != global climate. And sadly:
Citation.
But, hey, who wants to look at actual facts, when looking out the window is, like, totally scientific and stuff, right?
Although yes, the Sun's becoming more active there's been a lot of discussion as to whether the low solar activity was responsible for the coldest winter in 17 years in England (and longer than that in Scotland).
Doubtful, given that:
Citation.
Furthermore:
Citation. Which, of course, makes the idea of solar drive GW look pretty silly, what with the solar minimum during this decade.
So, alas, apparently I *once again* need to point out: Local temperature != global temperature. Seriously, people, how many times does this have to be repeated before you start to actually get it?
So, in other words, updating science to better correspond with reality is good science. Updating theology to better correspond with reality is bad theology.
Umm, yes. Exactly.
What, did you think you said something silly or controversial, there?
The *entire point* of religion is to provide an end-all-be-all explanation for our existence. By it's very nature, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either the bible is the immutable, unchanging truth handed down by god, or it's not. If you morph those beliefs every time reality comes barging in, then what the hell *do* you believe in?
Now *that* is insightful!
Then make your own god damn cheeseburger. Why anybody goes to a fast shitfood restaurant instead of making their own food is beyond me. Homemade always tastes better by over 9000%.
No, it tastes different. "Better" is utterly subjective. But nice job with the absolutes.
Me, I love a homemade cheeseburger (actually, a better example is homemade pizza, which, out of my oven, blows the doors off anything you'll find at a restaurant, at least around these parts). But I'll also fully admit to enjoying a McDonald's quarter pounder and some fries. Do I know the food is utterly terrible for me? Yes. Does it taste like a "real" burger? No. It tastes like McDonald's. And guess what? I *like it*. OHNOES!
Seriously, quit being a fucking snob. Sometimes people just like "bad" food (I also like KD and Doritos... suck on that).
As Pratchett says, ideals like justice and mercy can not be detected scientifically
Actually, they can. Do an fMRI. Love, mercy, empathy, all those things are explained by neurons firing. Why do they fire that way? Evolution. They're *useful*.
The entire idea that justice, mercy, and so forth can't be explained with basic science is utterly fucking absurd. It's the biggest lie the religious like to tell. But it's complete bunk. Those things exist because the human species evolved to have them. Why? Simple: they increased the odds that we, as a species, would perpetuate ourselves. After all, which is more likely to thrive: A community where individuals help each other, or one in which they murder each other to get what they want? Hell, it isn't even unique to humans. Plenty of other communal species exhibit behaviour that we would consider "moral" (helping others, defending the group, etc).
Society, culture, morality, all those things are beneficial to survival. It's just that simple. Don't fall for the religious bullshit. You don't need a magical sky fairy to explain away morality for you.
The fact that you put "environmental sciences", aka climatology and related disciplines, in the group of "soft sciences" speaks volumes regarding your personal biases...
But when they question we should scold them?
No. When they question, and then before the answer comes, plug their ears and yell "LA LA LA YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT!" we should scold them, because they're being close-minded, irrational idiots. Jenny McCarthy, I'm looking at you.
In short: denialism != skepticism. Your average "questioner" practices the former, not the latter.
Obviously religious people should stop trying to religion away science, but just as much scientists should stop trying to science away religion.
But scientists will *always* find themselves "sciencing away religion", whether they want to or not.
As you yourself admitted, "Some things are not (at least yet) addressable by science, and that's where faith can step in". Put another, far less wishy-washy way, the entire point of religion for most people is so they can jam God firmly in the gaps where science hasn't yet provided an explanation. But the minute science manages to fill one of those gaps, it pushes religion out. Take evolution, for example: To many fundamentalist Christians, those damned biologists and geologists are trying to "science away" their young-earth creationist beliefs. Did the scientists go out to prove their ridiculous beliefs are bunk? No. But that's what happened, because the entire purpose of science is to uncover the facts which underpin our universe, a universe that religion itself tries to explain away with magic sky fairies and pillars of salt.
So, no, I reject your premise. Science and religion will *always* be in conflict. At their most basic levels, science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, and science can do nothing *but* "science away religion".
Seriously, who cares? What is with this obsession with current attitudes towards science? If your science is sound then who cares?
*You* should care. If people don't believe in science, then they will reject science in the public sphere. Shortly thereafter, you'll find religion taught in schools, abstinence-only education, bans on abortion, funding cut for stem cell research, school curriculae modified to promote religious worldviews, and god knows what else.
But hey, maybe your fine with that. Me, well, I'd rather we didn't regress into the fucking dark ages, thanks.
Uh, sorry buddy, but Math is *not* science.
Science is a process, specifically of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation. Math is often used to achieve scientific ends, but it is not a scientific discipline.
The *claim* is that the SD card reader was added so that Windows could be booted on the XO. That doesn't make the claim true, of course, but that's almost certainly what the GP is referring to.
The big problem isn't that it was capable of running Windows- it was that the machine was MODIFIED to be able to use XP
Oh *come on*, please! What did they do to "be able to use XP" exactly? They added an SD card reader. OHNOES! And that's certainly not be useful for anyone else but Windows (like, say, someone who wants to run an alternative OS on it without modifying the onboard flash)... nope, not at all.
The project definitely seems to be lacking in focused leadership, but... how, exactly, does that make them "sell outs", as opposed to just incompetent?
But newspapers aren't even used for that, now! Because of ink transfer issues, people now use (I believe waxed) paper with fake newsprint on it.
The effects of the spill will suck, and will suck for a long time (the halibut still have not returned to the area around the Exxon Valdez spill). How will knowing in advance just how badly it will suck help?
By understanding how the oil will diffuse and spread in the ocean, they can direct cleanup efforts to areas that are likely to be hit hardest. There are, after all, a finite number of people, booms (yes, even fucking booms), etc, so optimizing their allocation is important.
3.3% may not be much, but it's still something.
The question is, is that something worth the risks involved in expanding deep water drilling? IMHO, unless the regulatory structure surrounding the industry is *massively* overhauled, I'd say the clear answer to that is "no", as neither the companies nor the regulatory bodies can be trusted to preserve the coastlines, which are the economic lifeblood for many many people, people who would be far more damaged by destroyed coastlines than the absence of that 3.3%.
That said, I don't think it makes any sense to halt existing operations. I'm just not convinced that *expanding* offshore drilling is a good idea.
Interesting? More like terrible. "Scientists 'play god' with genetic engineering, create monster. Monster runs amok. Hilarity ensues." Honestly, I haven't seen a premise that bad, not to mention that unoriginal, in years...
Because they're both Evil! EEEEvil!
Now do you get it?