Any scientist who is a proponent of AGW theory is pure as the driven snow, honest, no ulterior motives, and with no allegience to those writing the paychecks. His goal is purely the science.
Any scientist who is a skeptic of AGW theory is an evil troll, dishonest, greedy, wants to destroy the Earth with his SUV and other wasteful habits, and will produce any result those who are funding him dictate.
At least that's how it appears the true believers see it, the ones who have lost the ability to be skeptical.
Had 256 KB + 16 KB RAM vs. the 512-640 KB common in the 286
75,000 instructions per second vs. 1.2 million (@6 MHz)
SAGE used 52 of them, half online at a time, geographically dispersed, all working on tracking aircraft. But they did communicate with each other, so you might consider this a 1,950,000 instructions per second cluster, beating the first 286s that came out around the time SAGE was stood down.
sport package with automatic transmission? What idiotic car company are you speaking of?
Mid 90s Dodge Avenger, the V6 had to be ordered with the automatic transmission. The sports package, with the bigger rims, performance tires and aerodynamics, dictated the V6 engine, and thus the automatic transmission. Needless to say, I passed on that car.
They back up my numbers. In no way did "most" of 600,000 liquidators die, and certainly not of acute radiation poisoning. Not hundreds of billions of dollars, only 700,000 acres.
It is true by definition, but these days It implies some kind of subversive effort. America's Army is fully acknowledged to be a recruiting tool that portrays a positive image of the Army.
What you might not know is that it was also designed to get some people to NOT join. Basic training washouts still cost the government a lot of money, and they were hoping a more realistic experience would discourage some of those who weren't cut out for the Army.
It's also designed to train existing soldiers. Yes, people being paid to have a LAN party. But it's less expensive and safer for squad tactics training than real guns and bullets out in the field.
For some strange reason, people tend to think it's just the conservatives who want to ban things and violate rights. The reality is that each side loves to do it, has its own preferred demons, and sometimes they overlap.
People forget the left participation in wars against smoking, guns, music and games, and their desire to control what you eat. They've even joined in on the War on Drugs, although some factions are softening a bit. Prohibition was across the board, considered a progressive cause by many, and an issue of morals by the religious conservatives. Don't forget Al Gore was the spearhead of the effort to mandate government backdoors in our encryption.
Our memory is so short we forget the Republican party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, and it was the Democrats who wanted to keep blacks segregated as recently as the 1960s. Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, was famous for supporting slavery and the forced relocation of Indians. It was the Democrats who rounded up the Japanese in WWII. Democrats were in charge in WWII when we executed six German unlawful combatants a month after a secret military tribunal, but the public thinks the concept of an unlawful combatant is a conservative Bush/Cheney concept.
Misdiagnosis costs the insurance companies billions a year. An early-caught cancer costs much less to treat. Performing unfruitful tests in search of difficult diagnoses costs billions more.
If this produces faster, more accurate diagnoses it could save them billions every year.
It does not have to be a zero-sum game where the patient has to lose if the insurance company is to win.
Up to 600,000 liquidators were used around the entire area, not just building the sarcophagus. It is estimated by the WHO that 4,000-5,000 died as a result of exposure to radiation.
You do not die of severe radiation poisoning up to 20 years later. Nobody lasts that long. Of the 237 people who were initially there unprotected, 28 died of acute radiation sickness within three months.
Ten million acres? The uninhabited exclusion zone is a 30 km radius. That's about 700,000 acres.
Hundreds of billions of dollars? It cost 18 billion rubles. A dollar was worth less than a ruble then, but it's hard to get a real number since the ruble wasn't floated internationally, and inflation would not be the same for the USSR years (not to mention the 1998 collapse and revaluation of the ruble). In any case, even at 2:1 back then it's still only $74 billion in today's dollars.
You want better tires, transmission and no speed limiter? You have to buy the package with the huge wasteful engine too. You want the sports suspension, low-profile tires and higher-tuned engine? You need the sports package with the automatic transmission (I kid you not).
Now that's a regressive tax, hit all Wal-Mart customers with a couple percent price increase. That means hitting most of the lowest-income people in the country.
That doesn't even count that most of the companies selling through Wal-Mart will be tacking on their own gross receipts tax.
I wonder what the final extra tax hitting the consumer would be.
The deaths per terawatt study does not take into account expected thousands of deaths due to thyroid cancer near Tchernobyl.
Then they need to be added, but it's still the best metric.
The worst case scenario for a coal mine will kill 100 or 200 workers.
Ask the global warming lobby about further repercussions of coal.
The worst case for Tchernobyl was a 3 to 5 megaton explosion that could have blown half of Europe
We're talking about the future of nuclear in the modern free world, and you talk about the dangers of an obsolete 60 year-old Soviet design with only three installations remaining? And even those have improved safety, specifically correcting what allowed Chernobyl to explode.
That's compeletely aside from the environment of safety of the USSR, experimenting with a live reactor, going ahead even though parameters had changed, ignoring multiple warnings of unsafe conditions. and conducting the experiment while the reactor was in an extremely unsafe and unstable state. Yes, right in the middle of the reactor becoming unstable with almost all rods removed, they shut down power to the coolant pumps, hoping the residual turbine energy could run them well enough to cool the stack. Then poorly-designed (and since corrected) control rods triggered the explosion when they tried to stop the experiment.
Aside from Chernobyl, nobody has died a radiation-related death due to a civilian nuclear power plant, ever. The closest is that three people died of radiation poisoning in Japan at a reprocessing facility due to their own error. The other handful of deaths connected to nuclear power generation were explosions.
China alone tends to rack up over 5,000 coal mining deaths per year. That's more EACH YEAR than all Chernobyl deaths. But that isn't all: It's estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people die each year due to coal's pollution.
Good for the NYT. But it will likely fade quickly.
My favorite example is when a girl disappears. Have you ever seen the national media go crazy for weeks over a missing or abused black girl? No, but we get to hear every detail of Natalee Holloway's disappearance for months.
The last time that happened was Tawana Brawley, but that only hit the news so big because the claims were so over the top with a "whites are evil" racial element (of course, they were lies) and the flames were being fanned by Al Sharpton and his racist activism machine.
I do believe we intercepted some shipments. Those intercepted were either supplies banned by the UN or those shipping it didn't get appropriate permission from the UN.
But that had pretty much nothing to do with any children deaths. That was due to lack of food and cleanliness, both things that Saddam could have rectified had he desired.
Yes, bad things happen when you invade a neighboring country to annex it, threaten the stability of an entire region, and lose.
The sanctions did have the effect of not allowing Saddam to rebuild his army to a level enough to threaten surrounding countries again, and it forced him to abandon his efforts towards WMD production.
It sounds useless to me to just give raw numbers. You need some measure of utility.
For example, X number of people killed on highways is a useless number for comparison. More or fewer miles having been driven would make any comparison meaningless. That is why we express it as deaths per 100,000 km or miles.
Same here, X people died means nothing. X people died per terawatt of power provided means a lot, allows for a good safety comparison between the means of power generation. It also allows for future calculation of deaths should we move to one method or another for expanded power generation.
The UN established the sanctions, the UN established the Oil for Food program, the UN's corrupt personnel allowed the money to go for Saddam's personal use, the UN and Saddam are responsible for any deaths.
Yet somehow people blame the US. We were responsible for the no-fly zones.
Wal-Mart took in $431 billion last year and made a profit of $15 billion. That's only 3% profit. Why?
Because Wal-Mart employs over two million people, Wal-Mart has thousands of stores needing to be built and maintained, Wal-Mart has to pay for that merchandise it sells. There's not much of a margin for Wal-Mart. Just a 2% gross receipts tax would slash its profit by over half.
Then look at Microsoft, $70 billion revenue, $23 billion profit. That's 33% profit! Why?
Because Microsoft has a fraction of the employees, relatively little infrastructure to maintain, and has to pay very little for the merchandise it sells. Most of the revenue is simply contracts, not physical goods purchased, shipped, stored, stocked and sold. A 2% gross receipts tax would barely touch Microsoft's profit at 4%.
You have thought up a most unfair system that basically discriminates based on industry. Any company that is labor or capital intensive is going to get screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
"The R Master" by Gordon R. Dickson.
Any scientist who is a proponent of AGW theory is pure as the driven snow, honest, no ulterior motives, and with no allegience to those writing the paychecks. His goal is purely the science.
Any scientist who is a skeptic of AGW theory is an evil troll, dishonest, greedy, wants to destroy the Earth with his SUV and other wasteful habits, and will produce any result those who are funding him dictate.
At least that's how it appears the true believers see it, the ones who have lost the ability to be skeptical.
It was the equivalent of putting a drop or two of oil in an olympic-size pool. In the long run it was insignificant.
1.5: Invest the premiums in various financial vehicles
For example, Cigna had a net income of 1.3 billion last year, helped out by a net investment income of 1.1 billion.
Hand amputation due to sticking it in front of an opening stargate
Too much data loaded into brain implant.
Bad reaction to R-47 (let's see who can catch that reference)
55,000 tubes vs. 134,000 transistors
Had 256 KB + 16 KB RAM vs. the 512-640 KB common in the 286
75,000 instructions per second vs. 1.2 million (@6 MHz)
SAGE used 52 of them, half online at a time, geographically dispersed, all working on tracking aircraft. But they did communicate with each other, so you might consider this a 1,950,000 instructions per second cluster, beating the first 286s that came out around the time SAGE was stood down.
Using emotion in the argument to tie the opponent to an almost universally despised group.
It's all too common among the AGW evangelicals.
You forget it's a political and ideological movement as much as, or more than, a scientific one.
Mid 90s Dodge Avenger, the V6 had to be ordered with the automatic transmission. The sports package, with the bigger rims, performance tires and aerodynamics, dictated the V6 engine, and thus the automatic transmission. Needless to say, I passed on that car.
They back up my numbers. In no way did "most" of 600,000 liquidators die, and certainly not of acute radiation poisoning. Not hundreds of billions of dollars, only 700,000 acres.
It is true by definition, but these days It implies some kind of subversive effort. America's Army is fully acknowledged to be a recruiting tool that portrays a positive image of the Army.
What you might not know is that it was also designed to get some people to NOT join. Basic training washouts still cost the government a lot of money, and they were hoping a more realistic experience would discourage some of those who weren't cut out for the Army.
It's also designed to train existing soldiers. Yes, people being paid to have a LAN party. But it's less expensive and safer for squad tactics training than real guns and bullets out in the field.
For some strange reason, people tend to think it's just the conservatives who want to ban things and violate rights. The reality is that each side loves to do it, has its own preferred demons, and sometimes they overlap.
People forget the left participation in wars against smoking, guns, music and games, and their desire to control what you eat. They've even joined in on the War on Drugs, although some factions are softening a bit. Prohibition was across the board, considered a progressive cause by many, and an issue of morals by the religious conservatives. Don't forget Al Gore was the spearhead of the effort to mandate government backdoors in our encryption.
Our memory is so short we forget the Republican party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, and it was the Democrats who wanted to keep blacks segregated as recently as the 1960s. Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, was famous for supporting slavery and the forced relocation of Indians. It was the Democrats who rounded up the Japanese in WWII. Democrats were in charge in WWII when we executed six German unlawful combatants a month after a secret military tribunal, but the public thinks the concept of an unlawful combatant is a conservative Bush/Cheney concept.
But you can tone down the cynicism.
Misdiagnosis costs the insurance companies billions a year. An early-caught cancer costs much less to treat. Performing unfruitful tests in search of difficult diagnoses costs billions more.
If this produces faster, more accurate diagnoses it could save them billions every year.
It does not have to be a zero-sum game where the patient has to lose if the insurance company is to win.
Up to 600,000 liquidators were used around the entire area, not just building the sarcophagus. It is estimated by the WHO that 4,000-5,000 died as a result of exposure to radiation.
You do not die of severe radiation poisoning up to 20 years later. Nobody lasts that long. Of the 237 people who were initially there unprotected, 28 died of acute radiation sickness within three months.
Ten million acres? The uninhabited exclusion zone is a 30 km radius. That's about 700,000 acres.
Hundreds of billions of dollars? It cost 18 billion rubles. A dollar was worth less than a ruble then, but it's hard to get a real number since the ruble wasn't floated internationally, and inflation would not be the same for the USSR years (not to mention the 1998 collapse and revaluation of the ruble). In any case, even at 2:1 back then it's still only $74 billion in today's dollars.
They assume an ulterior motive for anyone who doesn't believe them. Skeptics are labeled as "deniers," purposely invoking the Holocaust.
Released just before the 2004 election.
No ulterior motive there, right?
They're wasting their limited budget on that instead of doing their job of aircraft and space exploration.
Climate change would be the job of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Mission creep is a killer.
You want better tires, transmission and no speed limiter? You have to buy the package with the huge wasteful engine too. You want the sports suspension, low-profile tires and higher-tuned engine? You need the sports package with the automatic transmission (I kid you not).
Now that's a regressive tax, hit all Wal-Mart customers with a couple percent price increase. That means hitting most of the lowest-income people in the country.
That doesn't even count that most of the companies selling through Wal-Mart will be tacking on their own gross receipts tax.
I wonder what the final extra tax hitting the consumer would be.
it's just dumb.
Then they need to be added, but it's still the best metric.
Ask the global warming lobby about further repercussions of coal.
We're talking about the future of nuclear in the modern free world, and you talk about the dangers of an obsolete 60 year-old Soviet design with only three installations remaining? And even those have improved safety, specifically correcting what allowed Chernobyl to explode.
That's compeletely aside from the environment of safety of the USSR, experimenting with a live reactor, going ahead even though parameters had changed, ignoring multiple warnings of unsafe conditions. and conducting the experiment while the reactor was in an extremely unsafe and unstable state. Yes, right in the middle of the reactor becoming unstable with almost all rods removed, they shut down power to the coolant pumps, hoping the residual turbine energy could run them well enough to cool the stack. Then poorly-designed (and since corrected) control rods triggered the explosion when they tried to stop the experiment.
Aside from Chernobyl, nobody has died a radiation-related death due to a civilian nuclear power plant, ever. The closest is that three people died of radiation poisoning in Japan at a reprocessing facility due to their own error. The other handful of deaths connected to nuclear power generation were explosions.
China alone tends to rack up over 5,000 coal mining deaths per year. That's more EACH YEAR than all Chernobyl deaths. But that isn't all: It's estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people die each year due to coal's pollution.
Good for the NYT. But it will likely fade quickly.
My favorite example is when a girl disappears. Have you ever seen the national media go crazy for weeks over a missing or abused black girl? No, but we get to hear every detail of Natalee Holloway's disappearance for months.
The last time that happened was Tawana Brawley, but that only hit the news so big because the claims were so over the top with a "whites are evil" racial element (of course, they were lies) and the flames were being fanned by Al Sharpton and his racist activism machine.
I do believe we intercepted some shipments. Those intercepted were either supplies banned by the UN or those shipping it didn't get appropriate permission from the UN.
But that had pretty much nothing to do with any children deaths. That was due to lack of food and cleanliness, both things that Saddam could have rectified had he desired.
Yes, bad things happen when you invade a neighboring country to annex it, threaten the stability of an entire region, and lose.
The sanctions did have the effect of not allowing Saddam to rebuild his army to a level enough to threaten surrounding countries again, and it forced him to abandon his efforts towards WMD production.
Lessig was so right.
the "unsafe" energy source is more safe.
It sounds useless to me to just give raw numbers. You need some measure of utility.
For example, X number of people killed on highways is a useless number for comparison. More or fewer miles having been driven would make any comparison meaningless. That is why we express it as deaths per 100,000 km or miles.
Same here, X people died means nothing. X people died per terawatt of power provided means a lot, allows for a good safety comparison between the means of power generation. It also allows for future calculation of deaths should we move to one method or another for expanded power generation.
The UN established the sanctions, the UN established the Oil for Food program, the UN's corrupt personnel allowed the money to go for Saddam's personal use, the UN and Saddam are responsible for any deaths.
Yet somehow people blame the US. We were responsible for the no-fly zones.
Wal-Mart took in $431 billion last year and made a profit of $15 billion. That's only 3% profit. Why?
Because Wal-Mart employs over two million people, Wal-Mart has thousands of stores needing to be built and maintained, Wal-Mart has to pay for that merchandise it sells. There's not much of a margin for Wal-Mart. Just a 2% gross receipts tax would slash its profit by over half.
Then look at Microsoft, $70 billion revenue, $23 billion profit. That's 33% profit! Why?
Because Microsoft has a fraction of the employees, relatively little infrastructure to maintain, and has to pay very little for the merchandise it sells. Most of the revenue is simply contracts, not physical goods purchased, shipped, stored, stocked and sold. A 2% gross receipts tax would barely touch Microsoft's profit at 4%.
You have thought up a most unfair system that basically discriminates based on industry. Any company that is labor or capital intensive is going to get screwed.