You have no data, no implementation and are making bullshit up to support your argument as you go along. The fact is that all of the stuff and much more that you have suggested has been tried with nothing but bad results.
The Feynman lectures are something you could get at any decent library. Electronics has NOTHING NADA ZIP to do with the quality of his lectures. Many of them don't even use chalk.
And you call me a simpleton? Your argument is beyond moronic.
Applying hueristics to decide what science is worthwhile?
How about an article written by someone with these credentials:
XXX is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAâ(TM)s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. XXX is a recipient of NASAâ(TM)s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
That's Roy Spencer. So your Heuristics are a big old wonking FAIL.
You win the award for the most logically contorted and wrong comment I have read on Slashdot.
Wrong, 100%. It isn't worthwhile because it establishes a bias in reviewers who are supposed to be working on an unbiased basis. This is exactly why many reviewers are not provided with the name of the author of the article they are reviewing.
Since I reject this broken, stupid form of logic 100% I don't have to worry where someone gets their funding. AGW proponents or critics alike, the only really way of getting to the real answer is by evaluation of the merit of what they say, not by worrying about who they get their funding from.
You can engage in that form of sophistry all you want. I will not.
I don't know what kind of thinking process you engage in, but clearly it is total bullshit.
Let's take an example. John is an Exxon employee. He comes out and says: 1+1=2.
Therefore by your logic since he is an Exxon employee 1+1 does not equal 2.
Nice process you have going there.
YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE A STATEMENT BY IT'S INTRINSIC TRUTH. Reject Spencer because he's wrong, not because he gets money from somebody you don't like. Anything less is total garbage thinking. Truth is not beholden to the political correctness of it's source.
And as far as that nice ASSHOLE comment, since your thought processes are so totally fucked up it's quite the complement.
Keeping the student engaged has nothing to do with the presence of electronics in the class and everything to do with the talent of the teacher.
Go onto Youtube and play back one of Feynman's lectures and you will understand very quickly.
To paraphrase President Garfield, the ideal college is a log with the student on one end and Socrates on the other. I assure you to add electronics to that situation would only be a detriment.
Who gives a flying fart if he supports ID. A whole shitload of great science has been done by religious people. Like Einstein and Newton. It is a complete red herring to assert that his science is no good because he also holds religious beliefs.
The science is either right or wrong on it's own merits. Period.
I don't give a rat's ass where someone get's their funding from. Calling out a person on those grounds is a classical red herring and is totally irrelevant as a means of evaluating their science.
What is important is whether or not the science in the article is right or not. Nothing else. Not the personality of the author, what he writes in his blog, how the article was publicized, yadda yadda.
The fact is there has been damn little written on the most salient point - the science.
So what if some guy editing the magazine resigns what is probably an unpaid volunteer position. That is not a scientific argument.
Until that point is firmly established all this other crap is a waste of time.
Seriously, Netflix streaming is crap compared to the DVD plan. With the DVD or DVD/BluRay plan you have 20x the content available and the playback quality is far superior.
The only negative is that you have to plan ahead a bit. But if you have the ability to do that it is THE way to fly.
That is not correct. There were many evacuations in flood areas in NJ. Some of these evacuations are still ongoing as major rivers in NJ hit their crests.
Where did you get the idea that BofA has not been investigated for anything? A simple Google search on "bank of america investigation" would reveal they are getting royally hammered. In fact they are getting investigated for attempted to hinder some of the investigations they are under.
I mean it's one thing to bring a political bias to a conversation; we all do that to some extent. But to make wild-ass factually incorrect statements that could be fact-checked with a simple Google search really exposes some pretty fundamental ignorance.
In terms of flooding it was indeed a 100-year event, or storm of the century. Many rivers in NJ and VT have hit 100 year or all time record high flood levels.
And what are most evacuations conducted for? To get people away from flooding.
This fixation on wind velocity as a metric for the danger inherent in a storm is not accurate. Insisting that it be used in a case like this is bad judgement, plain and simple.
There were 60 million stuck up jerks in this storm track, including the city that has often been called the cultural capital of the world. This is why the storm was so heavily covered.
Ask the people who lived through it. I think a lot of them, especially those in NJ and VT who are still looking forward to river crests at record or 100 year+ levels today will have no problem with the word 'historic'.
There are very few people in New Jersey who think this was just a 'meh'. The pictures on the news are clearly those of potentially life threatening situations, and there are still many people facing significant infrastructure problems - no power, no potable water, washed out roads, etc.
In Spring Lake NJ, some 10 miles from where I live there is a number of cases where homes were penetrated by flying debris - tree limbs, 2x4s, and even some 4x4's.
In other areas entire towns have been flooded and rivers have set new flood level records.
Evacuation of the NJ shore obviously saved lives.
This is not some made up conspiracy or false alarm in action, nor is it anything like nor'easter which we often get multiple times a year in NJ.
Oh pooh. There are several rivers in NJ that reached record flood levels, and there are several towns that are completely surrounded by water. Some places in NJ set all time 24 hr rainfall records.
I don't particularly care about a stupid storm categorization system based only on something like wind velocity when clearly there are other measures like rainfall that should be considered. The fact is that with modern storm prediction techniques flooding is the primary cause of damage.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to get out more.
You have no data, no implementation and are making bullshit up to support your argument as you go along. The fact is that all of the stuff and much more that you have suggested has been tried with nothing but bad results.
The Feynman lectures are something you could get at any decent library. Electronics has NOTHING NADA ZIP to do with the quality of his lectures. Many of them don't even use chalk.
And you call me a simpleton? Your argument is beyond moronic.
Applying hueristics to decide what science is worthwhile?
How about an article written by someone with these credentials:
XXX is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAâ(TM)s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. XXX is a recipient of NASAâ(TM)s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
That's Roy Spencer. So your Heuristics are a big old wonking FAIL.
You win the award for the most logically contorted and wrong comment I have read on Slashdot.
As you can see by my ID number that's been a lot.
Wrong, 100%. It isn't worthwhile because it establishes a bias in reviewers who are supposed to be working on an unbiased basis. This is exactly why many reviewers are not provided with the name of the author of the article they are reviewing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Since I reject this broken, stupid form of logic 100% I don't have to worry where someone gets their funding. AGW proponents or critics alike, the only really way of getting to the real answer is by evaluation of the merit of what they say, not by worrying about who they get their funding from.
You can engage in that form of sophistry all you want. I will not.
I don't know what kind of thinking process you engage in, but clearly it is total bullshit.
Let's take an example. John is an Exxon employee. He comes out and says: 1+1=2.
Therefore by your logic since he is an Exxon employee 1+1 does not equal 2.
Nice process you have going there.
YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE A STATEMENT BY IT'S INTRINSIC TRUTH. Reject Spencer because he's wrong, not because he gets money from somebody you don't like. Anything less is total garbage thinking. Truth is not beholden to the political correctness of it's source.
And as far as that nice ASSHOLE comment, since your thought processes are so totally fucked up it's quite the complement.
Keeping the student engaged has nothing to do with the presence of electronics in the class and everything to do with the talent of the teacher.
Go onto Youtube and play back one of Feynman's lectures and you will understand very quickly.
To paraphrase President Garfield, the ideal college is a log with the student on one end and Socrates on the other. I assure you to add electronics to that situation would only be a detriment.
Oh poop. Science needs to be evaluated on it's scientific merits, not on the basis of how it was funded.
Who gives a flying fart if he supports ID. A whole shitload of great science has been done by religious people. Like Einstein and Newton. It is a complete red herring to assert that his science is no good because he also holds religious beliefs.
The science is either right or wrong on it's own merits. Period.
I don't give a rat's ass where someone get's their funding from. Calling out a person on those grounds is a classical red herring and is totally irrelevant as a means of evaluating their science.
What is important is whether or not the science in the article is right or not. Nothing else. Not the personality of the author, what he writes in his blog, how the article was publicized, yadda yadda.
The fact is there has been damn little written on the most salient point - the science.
So what if some guy editing the magazine resigns what is probably an unpaid volunteer position. That is not a scientific argument.
Until that point is firmly established all this other crap is a waste of time.
Look and feel can be covered by a design patent.
However I would think any such design patent would be expired or moot given the time frames involved.
Seriously, Netflix streaming is crap compared to the DVD plan. With the DVD or DVD/BluRay plan you have 20x the content available and the playback quality is far superior.
The only negative is that you have to plan ahead a bit. But if you have the ability to do that it is THE way to fly.
So what is the problem? Looks to me like the grandparent got it right.
That is not correct. There were many evacuations in flood areas in NJ. Some of these evacuations are still ongoing as major rivers in NJ hit their crests.
Where did you get the idea that BofA has not been investigated for anything? A simple Google search on "bank of america investigation" would reveal they are getting royally hammered. In fact they are getting investigated for attempted to hinder some of the investigations they are under.
I mean it's one thing to bring a political bias to a conversation; we all do that to some extent. But to make wild-ass factually incorrect statements that could be fact-checked with a simple Google search really exposes some pretty fundamental ignorance.
Lobbying is that thing that is protected in the Constitution of the United States Amendment #1.
In terms of flooding it was indeed a 100-year event, or storm of the century. Many rivers in NJ and VT have hit 100 year or all time record high flood levels.
And what are most evacuations conducted for? To get people away from flooding.
This fixation on wind velocity as a metric for the danger inherent in a storm is not accurate. Insisting that it be used in a case like this is bad judgement, plain and simple.
It certainly was a hurricane when it hit NC and NJ. In NJ especially there were large numbers of people evacuated.
Because it was a hurricane, and all the models were predicting that it would be Cat 3 when it hit land.
There were 60 million stuck up jerks in this storm track, including the city that has often been called the cultural capital of the world. This is why the storm was so heavily covered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
SW Florida has what a couple of hundred trailer parks and Tiki bars? I hear FEMA stocks trailers for quick replacement when needed.
Like Bush declaring victory in Iraq?
Ask the people who lived through it. I think a lot of them, especially those in NJ and VT who are still looking forward to river crests at record or 100 year+ levels today will have no problem with the word 'historic'.
There are very few people in New Jersey who think this was just a 'meh'. The pictures on the news are clearly those of potentially life threatening situations, and there are still many people facing significant infrastructure problems - no power, no potable water, washed out roads, etc.
In Spring Lake NJ, some 10 miles from where I live there is a number of cases where homes were penetrated by flying debris - tree limbs, 2x4s, and even some 4x4's.
In other areas entire towns have been flooded and rivers have set new flood level records.
Evacuation of the NJ shore obviously saved lives.
This is not some made up conspiracy or false alarm in action, nor is it anything like nor'easter which we often get multiple times a year in NJ.
Oh pooh. There are several rivers in NJ that reached record flood levels, and there are several towns that are completely surrounded by water. Some places in NJ set all time 24 hr rainfall records.
I don't particularly care about a stupid storm categorization system based only on something like wind velocity when clearly there are other measures like rainfall that should be considered. The fact is that with modern storm prediction techniques flooding is the primary cause of damage.