You and the other people about to suffer for carpal tunnel will do that. Putting pressure on the bottom of your hands or wrists closes the (carpal) tunnel which has your finger tendens moving so furiously inside. This tendon friction coupled with the smaller diameter created by resting your hands is a huge cuase of carpal tunnel.
Question... I have a typical, traditional keyboard. It's actually a Microsoft keyboard, but not one of those bendy things. Just a normal keyboard...
The only difference is it came with a grey plastic keyboard 'extender' that you latch under the front of the keyobard. It lets you rest your hands on that--it's not the wrist the rests on it, it's more the base of the palm of your hand...
Is that at all helpful to avoid CTS? I've found it very comfortable, but I never found previous keyboards uncomfortable...
Do you get CTS in the fingers or in the wrist, or what's the deal?
It will be up to the FAA/ Customs/Boarder Patrol if you get busted or not.
Sounds like something is broken to me. If NORAD only cares about cruise missiles, that needs to change. They have the tools to recognize traffic across the continent, they should be used fully--not just for tracking cruise or ballistic missiles.
I wonder how far Mexico would get if they decided they wanted to invade us? Sure, we'd push them back and flatten their country--but I honestly wonder how far north they could push before we were in a position to respond. After Pearl Harbor I seem to recall we were worried that the Japanese could push us back to Chicago (or thereabouts) before we could even do anything.
Yes, I know, it's hypothetical. But everything is hypothetical until it happens. So was Pearl Harbor. So was 9/11. The trick is having a military that is ready to respond when the unthinkable and unexpected happens.
If they were tracked from Cuba they would probably be forced down at a field in Florida and met by Border Patrol/Customs/USCG most likely NOT military.
Who do you think would force them down? If anyone other than the military, we've got a problem.
I know of no foreign airforce that could accompish this, but if they did quite simply we would be screwed, yesterday today and tommorow. If a foreign airforce can fly across the Atlantic with enough force to do damage and get here undetected, does it matter what we do when they get here?
In other words, if they get here we can't do anything anyway? What in the world do we have a military for then?
As for no foreign airforce being able to do it, I'd rather say that there is currently no foreign airforce that would want to do it. As far as we know. The technology necessary to fly across the Atlantic is not very exclusive, and I would wager it could be done "on the deck."
Or perhaps they could jump over to South America and fly north through Central America. Believe me, there is really no defense down here, nor any decent tracking system. I believe the Mexican Air Force has something like 6 or 8 fighters; they are usually parked, taken out for airshows mostly, because they are expensive to maintain.
Wouldn't it be a bummer to have an attack come from the south and later find out they simply flew to Brazil, northwest towards Panama, through Mexico, and up to the U.S.? Sure, fuel is a problem... But there are plenty of "unlisted" airfields in all of these countries for, ahem, "other" purposes...
You think the next military attack on the U.S. is going to happen after a declaration of war? After a navy sailing across the oceans to our coast? Aint gonna happen... Or it's going to be terrorism or some sneaky operation like the one I just described.
I'd prefer to be ready for that contingency. Pearl Harbor and WTC should show us that we are rarely attacked in an overt, anticipated manner. In fact, I believe the last such attack was the British in 1812, wasn't it? I can't remember if Mexico attacked us in Texas or if we started that... Either way, it's been a good 140-190 years since we've been frontally attacked.
Me: If you try to fly from Mexico into the U.S. without talking to ATC, you'll get an escort.
You: Prior to 9/11 you wouldn't get a fighter escort. Most likely you'll just be shadowed by Customs or the Coast Guard to your point of landing
This also jives with what I was told by more experienced pilots at the flight school I received training at, relating situations where a lack of communication entering the U.S. DID result in a pair of interceptors flying out to them.
But this has nothing to do with obeying ATC or fear of terrorists. It has everything to do with unlawfully entering US airspace. Of course this is a completely different problem than US planes diverting from their filght plans.
Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.
Aside from the great expense this would generate for very little benefit (what would the fighters do exactly)
It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.
Federal law prohibts the use of the military to enforce the law against US citizens
This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.
I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel. I don't even want F16s doing CAPs over U.S. airspace constantly.
I DO want the military ready to protect our homeland. I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way? What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?
Our country is so strong we've spread our military out all over the world to protect our interests, but I get the impression the actual homeland is quite vulnerable to attack.
Stealing from the store is not the same as copyright violation, but there are definitions of theft that do not explicitly state removal of physical property as a requirement. Have you heard of theft of services" ? It's till theft, though no physical property is removed.
But in this case we're not talking about theft or theft of services. I haven't taken a physical item so it's not theft. I haven't made use of a service without paying for it so it's not theft of service.
It's copyright violation.
What you call "the free market" bears more resemblence to high-tech looting -- convenient, but not legal.
Again, looting requires that I physically take property without paying for it, perhaps breaking windows in the process.
I know you're looking for analogies, but they don't work too well precisely because the whole IP copyright scheme now is rather fubared.
The "free market" is not free as in beer! It's not even free as in anarchy.
The "market" is the producer/consumer environment where transactions take place. "Free" means that it is free of as much government restriction as possible so as to avoid creating UNNATURAL markets. With very few exceptions (such as recording industry monopolies), a free market will find the most efficient arrangement for society.
The current recording industry was a viable business within the free market. It is now being propped up UNNATURALLY. That is to say, unless the government passes and enforces laws to protect it, the industry will cease to exist because the free market no longer needs it.
Does the recording industry deserve to have laws to protect it from technological obsolesence? That's not a free market, that's not the purpose of government, and I don't think it's the best and most efficient arrangement for society.
A free market must have rules.
Fair rules to protect the free market from abuse. It should NOT have rules that artificially maintain an industry that no longer has any technological reason to exist. THAT is not a free market, that's PAC money in action.
In funding the production of creative works, the rules are simple and fair-- if you want a copy of a creative work, you contribute to funding that work.
I would say that, fairly, if you want to PROFIT from a creative work, you should contribute to funding that work. If I sing a Phil Collins song and make money doing so, I need to pay Phil Collins. That's fair.
But if I want to buy a computer, subscribe to Internet, pay for bandwidth, and download bytes that happen to reproduce Phil's voice and music and I'm not profiting from it?
Phil still owns the RIGHTS to his music. Someone still has to pay him if they make money singing his music.
But to listen to the music? No, the free market has determined that value to be zero.
No, it is copyright violation. That's been discussed here many times before. If I steal the CD from a record store, I've committed theft. If I copy a CD or download an MP3, it's copyright violation. You might call it semantics, but it's a big difference.
Either you understand the basic tenants and contracts that maintain this thing we call society, or you believe that it's all some anarchy held together by the strings of technology.
You attempt to define this as a legal and social issue. It is not. It's technology and the free market.
In 1900, musicians made and played music live. That was it. Some made money, some didn't, but that's the way it was.
Technology came along and provided a way for both the artists and their distributors (recording industry) to make even more money by recording the music and selling it.
Now, in 2002, technology has come along and obsoleted the previous technology returning musicians to the legal and practical situation they had in the year 1900.
Planes deviate ALL THE TIME, even in the Class A. Airplanes have radio failures, even in the Class A. Pilots get busy and don't respond to ATC... I don't know where you got this image you have that above FL180 everyone is just trotting along within feet of their assigned path talking to ATC every 30-45 seconds.
They don't talk every 30-45 seconds with every plane, but they are in contact quite constantly. All you need to do is listen to ATC frequencies be it on your own radio on the ground or listening to pilot/ATC channel when that is available on the plane you are flying in.
Payne Stewart's plane had an escort, because it was clear that it was on autopilot, and no one on board was in control... The plane was also not deviating from it's course, it just never stopped climbing after departure.
My understanding he was supposed to turn west somewhere around the panhandle of Florida but kept on his original northwesterly course. I do not remember whether they realized there was a problem before or after the missed turn.
That said, continuing to climb and climb without the instructions of ATC is, in itself, a deviation.
Prior to 9/11 there was no protocol in place to scramble fighters for anything.
There is a protocol, although I don't know where it is applied. If you try to fly from Mexico into the U.S. without talking to ATC, you'll get an escort. If you violate restricted airspace, you'll get an escort. It's not a matter of them not having a protocol, it was a problem of it not being implemented widescale.
This would require alert fighters on the runways at bases all across the country and CAP 24 hours a day. We had that for a couple of weeks after 9/11, but it stopped some time ago.
I would argue that we should have. I'd say we got complacent. We're the sole superpower. We got into a "no-one would even thinking of attacking us" mode and shipped our defenses all over the world--protecting everyone but ourselves.
We don't need fighters in the air 24/7, but we should have fighters on strip alert around the country. Always.
I never have downloaded much. I have most of the 80s music I like on CD already. 500+ CDs in all. Newer music, for the most part, isn't worth my time OR my money. I have downloaded some top 40 music that I happen to like and some older music that I was never ever able to track down on CD because it went out of print.
I never could bring myself to download a whole album
Me neither, because since P2P came out I haven't found a single CD that I *wanted* every track from. I told my wife two years ago that we'd now only buy CDs if there were 3 or more tracks that we liked on them. We have followed that rule to the letter and purchased exactly one.
The value of the time I would spend downloading a whole album of high-quality MP3 and burning it to CD would pay for a new CD a few times over.
My CD burner doesn't even work anymore. Got too much dust in it and stopped working. I just download MP3s and listen to them on the PC. Which actually saves me the time of going out and buying the CD when you consider time to drive to record store and the $20 investment in the media. No, I'd rather lauch P2P, search, download in background, and when I remember I launched it a half hour later play the music. Done.
I'm one of those people who can tell the difference between CD audio and MP3. I have a portable MP3 player, but generally I listen to CD's.
I think it depends what you are listening to. A symphonic concert is going to sound like crap at 128bps, but most of the music I've downloaded sounded just fine at 128. That said, I usually have an idea of how much frequency spread there is in the music I'm about to download. If it's Enya or something symphonic, I'll just look for a version recorded at 192, 256, or even 320...
And I've always been a quality-freak too. That's why I went CD crazy in the 80s. Perhaps getting older and not caring plus the fact that MOST pop music can be sufficiently appreciated at 128bps and, well, the "CD quality" just isn't a working argument for me anymore.
You are mistaken when you say famous musicians will earn less - if anything broader distribution and "airplay" will make them earn more.
Well, cool. Then what's the big friggin problem with P2P sharing if the artist is going to earn more?
But to say its free is just plain wrong.
Like I said, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. It is now a fact of reality.
What gives you the right to take someone's blood sweat and tears and call it free?
Technology and the free market.
Nobody's sweat and tears entitles them to may a single sale or profit. I've programmed many things because I wanted to and because I thought I'd make money. WRONG. When you consider the time I spent on the project I probably earned pennies per hour. My mistake.
By the same token, the fact that an artist has worked hard making music is all good and fine. That doesn't mean that artist is entitled to any money from it. His sweat and tears is worth, in dollar terms, exactly what the free market says it's worth. And the free market, thanks to technology, is now in a position to say it has zero ECONOMIC value. If the artist is uncomfortable with this new reality, he can either look for other revenue streams as he performs for pleasure... Or he can find a job like the rest of us. If all the musicians stop making music, society will assign it a value again.
But music will not disappear even if the revenue stream does.
Also, I've been a musician for many years
There have been hundreds of thousands of musicians before you, and there will be hundreds of thousands after you... With or without the RIAA and regardless of whether or not I pay them money to reproduce the audio frequencies they have organized.
PS--Before you turn around and say "how would you feel if everyone started pirating your software," let me answer you up front:
Software development is an ONGOING job. If you write a program and make it available and don't spend any more time on it, it will die within about 6-12 months, usually. To keep making money you need to keep making improvements.
The whole "sell you music" is based on the belief that an artist should be able to compose and record something in, say, a month, and then be able to sit on his bum and earn money off of it for years to come.
The article got it exactly right and said what I've been saying for years.
Music is Free. For better or for worse, legally or illegally, music is now free. Period. I would submit it should be free, think of it as an advertisement for the tours. But whether or not people (including RIAA) think it should be free, it is. Improving technology and an archaeic business model based on control and scarcity has guaranteed that.
Famous musicians will earn less. Yes, Phil Collins and Celine Dion will probably earn much less than they do now. Instead of millions per year they might have to get used to earning incomes closer to what the rest of society does. Perhaps old Phil will have to scrape by on $200k a year... Then again, he sells out concerts which is where he make big bucks, anyway, so his income may be proportional to his desire to work (perform). I don't see a problem with that.
There will be more musicians. Although the most famous musicians will earn less, there will be more musicians because the barrier to entry will be greatly reduced. Eventually it will be eliminated. Some say that we'll be "flooded" with a bunch of untalented musicians and we won't be able to find anything good, but I'd submit that's the case now anyway.
The recording industry is obsolete. You used to need expensive recording equipment and studios to record quality music. A good studio is certainly still useful, but an amateur group can do a decent job at recording decent quality music that's definitely within their budget. They can burn CDs and sell them for $5/pop at concerts (pocketing $4.50 per CD), throw the music online (attracting more people to concerts). The recording industry is obsolete. Their legal attacks are, as the article mentions, a matter of squeezing the last dollar possible out of their business plan.
I live in Mexico right now. My sister-in-law is a 20-year-old Mexican young lady. She used to use Napster. That got nuked and now she has like 3 different P2P programs on her home PC connected to DSL. She has P2P programs that *I* have never heard of.
Last time I asked her she had downloaded 3200+ MP3s. That's more than 8 times what I, a techno-nerd, have downloaded. She doesn't listen to most of the music more than once, she just downloads everything she can because she likes to collect MP3s. She tells me her friends do too. She wants a larger hard drive for her birthday.
First: most VFR traffic may not even be visible to ATC (sectors can turn off 1200 replies);
Right, but I don't think they do or should. At the very least, it allows them to make sure VFR traffic doesn't wander into IFR traffic--they can advise IFR traffic to make a course change to avoid lost VFR traffic.
and IFR traffic, how many times have you heard on frequency: "Cessna 1234, verify RIGHT turn heading 310" or "say altitude" -- that usually means the pilot turned the wrong way or went past the assigned altitude. Scrambling F-16s is expensive!
That usually happens in controlled airspace around airports with tower control. That wouldn't scramble F16s. Unannounced deviations in course changes at IFR flight levels (18,000'+) is what I'm talking about.
ATC only gives hints at where the planes are supposed to be going except in the landing enviroment.
When you are over 18,000', ATC tells you exactly where they want you, when they want you there, and how fast you should be going. It's called "controlled airspace" and it is very much controlled.
The way the old system works is simple, you say I want to fly from point A to point B and if I can't land at point B, I'll go to point C. My plane goes this fast and I would like to go at an altitude of about somany feet. ATC then says you can take off from point A (within 30 min or so) and fly on airway V-whatever to some vor at a specifc altitude. You get assinged chuncks of airspace and you get exclusive use of that.
That may be how the VERY old system works, but even with the "current" old system that's not the way it has worked in the 90s. You are passed from departure control directly to ATC. You tell them where you want to go (they usually already know because you told departure control) and they tell you how fast to go, when to turn, etc. If you want/need to deviate from what they tell you, you need to request permission unless it is truly an emergency.
Any deviation that isn't corrected or at least explained by the pilots to ATC within, say, 30-45 seconds should raise a red flag that ATC should proactively inquire about. If it isn't explained within about 2 minutes, NORAD should know about it. The number of unannounced, unexplained course changes where ATC can't verify within 2 minutes what's going on is a low enough percentage that F16s could be scrambled. Even if it is later explained and the F16s return to base, call it training for the F16.
The assumption of the old system is that the radio is going to break and since the pilot has all the details before they leave the ground, its all safe.
Again, maybe it was that way decades ago, but not anymore. If you don't have radio comm with ATC or if you ignore ATC instructions for any significant period of time, you WILL get an F16 escort. That's why that golfer that bought the farm in SD after flying without comm from FL had an F16 escort long before the plane went down.
It's also why it's kind of weird we couldn't scramble any planes to help out on 9/11. Not suggesting any conspiracies, but one has to admit we responded faster to the lone golfer flying over the country off flight plan than we did to 4 commercial jets doing so.
I'm a private pilot and a computer programmer. I've never understood why they didn't have a better system. There's so many powerful things that could be done; the least of which, of course, is detecting deviations from course within seconds and relaying that information simultaneously to ATC as well as to NORAD so that F16s can be scrambled while ATC figures out what's going on. You can always land the F16s if it was a false alarm...
.
And, as they say... "What do pilots and ATC have in common? When the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. When ATC screws up, the pilot dies..."
Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . .
on
Cradle to Cradle
·
· Score: 1
For millions of years, the planet revolved quietly around the sun, surviving.
In case you haven't noticed, it still is revolving quietly around the sun, surviving, in spite of what environmentalists would have us believe.
Everyone's telling me that I'm an idiot for supporting the fellow but everything he does impresses me...
I personally think Nader is a dufus-without-a-cause...
But I must admit that I agree with all of his recommendations. The government is throwing money out the window by renting licenses, be it from MS, Word Perfect, or whatever.
FWIW, most of the government use of computers CAN be done very well under Linux or any other *nix OS. We're talking mostly about data entry, data queries, etc. by staff around the country handling local offices. I would suspect that MOST employees of the federal government don't (or shouldn't) need to compose documents in a word processor. Some management-type, yes, but the bulk of the federal government that uses computers, I think, are employees handing out unemployment checks, Census people doing data entry, INS agents pulling up records of people as they enter the country, etc.
All of these tasks are VERY well-handled by a system such as Unix. Doesn't even require a GUI and, in many cases, a GUI would slow things down.
I think the main idea would be to avoid paying Windows licenses as much as possible. My guess is that the vast majority of government computers just don't need Windows, period.
On a final note, I noticed from your previous posts that you seem to be a Bush supporter. It looks like the Bush administration has reversed its position [yahoo.com] on the existence of global warming. I'm totally shocked. Are you?:)
Interestingly, I read the story on Yahoo. But so far I haven't been able to find the report on neither www.whitehouse.gov nor at the www.epa.gov websites. There's also no mention of it at CNN.
I'm surprised this isn't getting more airplay. All I can guess is the whole Pakistan/India and CIA/FBI issues have dwarfed media interest in the environment.:)
Refuting global warming...
You provide evidence that global tropospheric temperatures are decreasing. However, these measurements are actually further evidence of global warming. If the greenhouse effect is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, less heat makes it back into the upper atmosphere as measured by satellites. Check out this article [noaa.gov] from the NOAA... They conclude that global surface warming is definitely real and that the satellite data does not invalidate these measurements.
That is an interesting take on the matter, I'll grant you. Although that take on the matter would also reinforce the probability that increased temperature is the result of H2O which is found in much larger quantities in the troposphere.
However, if we grant that global surface temperatures are increasing, were are left wondering why atmospheric water vapor is increasing.
Not necessarily. That assumes that the only reason temperature would increase is because some greenhouse gas has increased. If not CO2, then H2O, right? But another very important factor is, obviously, the sun.
Our planet has gone through ice ages and global warmings many times in the past. At least one global warming (after an ice age) 135,000 years ago exceeded the temperatures we are currently observing (Source). Global warming has also been very fast in the past, apparently going from one extreme (ice age) to global warming in 5-20 years (sorry, can't find link. I've gone through so many in last 48 hours I'm brain-fried). And, as the previous link mentioned, CO2 has risen and fallen with temperature in the past.
What I'm getting at is I don't accept that any rise in temperature is *necessarily* a result of increased greenhouse gases. It could also be because of the sun. CO2 has varied significantly in the past, both positively and negatively, without our help (or damage). It is not clear in the historic record whether the changes in CO2 caused the changes in temperature or vice-versa.
There are too many questions to reach a conclusion that CO2 is causing temperature change, or that CO2 is causing increased water vapor that is causing temperature change. These may be causes, these may be effects. But whatever they are, it's nothing new that the planet hasn't seen before.
In a related note, here's an interesting article [nasa.gov] from NASA which suggests that an increasingly moist atmosphere may harm the ozone layer as well. Note the quote in paragraph 7.
I'd stumbled on that in my travels lately, too. I find it ironic. We've gone from "save the ozone" to "stop producing CO2 because it causes global warming" and now we're back to the ozone... but now water vapor causes damage.
I hate to break it to you, but if H2O is a cause of ozone depletion, we're toast.
However, consider the observations [utexas.edu] from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite, which uses a radar altimeter to map global sea levels. There appears to be a clear upward trend of about 3 mm/year. Judging from the data, it's apparent that the global mean sea level is increasing.
Again, interesting. Of course, if I wanted to use the same arguments as the enviornmentalists I could say that the decade of data they have isn't very compelling compared to the 150 years or so of the site I gave you.:)
That said, I will again come back to the point that what I'm really arguing is about human-induced global warming. It may be that the ocean is rising. I don't pretend to know everything about every science and, compared to global warming, I have done little research as to the rising and falling of the sea.
Although I'll definitely have to look more at that site you mentioned. I find it absolutely incredible that a satellite traveling at various miles per second at an altitude of hundreds of miles can accurately range the surface of the ocean with an accuracy of milimeters. Especially since the ocean isn't a flat surface, but a liquid with waves in constant motion. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is quite impressive if true.
On a final note, I noticed from your previous posts that you seem to be a Bush supporter. It looks like the Bush administration has reversed its position [yahoo.com] on the existence of global warming. I'm totally shocked. Are you?:)
Thanks for bringing that link to my attention. I would have missed it otherwise!
I am disappointed, yes, but I am not terribly surprised. He's taking flack for publically rejecting Kyoto (even though the Senate essentially did that in 1997) and we're coming up on an election cycle... So I'm not that surprised to see something like that, although it is a little more of a concession than is normally given during an election year.
I would be interested to read studies that attempt to refute global warming or show that the sea level isn't rising. I think that would make for an interesting discussion. You provided nothing but assertions and I chose to challenge that.
Speaking of people who we looked up to in those days, what happened to Jack Rickard of Boardwatch Magazine? He had possibly the best editorials that I've read.
Perhaps, but he was an arrogant jerk for those of us who had to deal with him. Always demanding commercial-grade "connectivity" from his local Fidonet because he conducted business from his BBS and getting ticked off because some mail didn't go through or because the Internet email gateway was unreliable.
Really irked the rest of us who looked at Fidonet as a hobby. We looked at him as someone profiting from what was free and shouldn't have been profited from.
Most of you will remember that Fidonet was similar to Internet in those days. Pretty much nothing "commercial" was tolerated, and Rickard was doing exactly that.
It was fun. Echo hubs, the "Northern Star," the "Southern Star." Being able to send and receive private email virtually anywhere in the world and the equivalent of newsgroups.
I got elected as NC (Network Coordinator) in 1993. In 1994, I realized that Internet was going to take over so I resigned as NC, took my system off Fidonet, and made it a Linux-based mini-ISP/BBS. It was cutting at edge the time.
When I left there were 200+ nodes in our network and I wondered if resigning as NC was a good idea.
I recently downloaded a nodelist for Fidonet (apparently it still exists!) and I believe I saw 5 nodes instead of 200+. Kind of sad, those were good and truly fun, unique times. The web has really kind of homogonized things.
"Internet killed the Fidonet Star, Internet Killed the Fidonet Star."
I believe we may have to agree to disagree on this for I believe you are just flat-out wrong.
I can agree to disagree and coexist with environmentalists as long as they don't cost me money or restrict my freedoms.:)
That said, I was trying to make it a question of science, not a question of belief...
There are certainly scientists, particularly in recent years, that are coming out with studies that show that humans are not the cause of global warming and/or that global warming isn't taking place. However, I believe the majority of scientists support the evidence that humans are causing global warming and that it does exist.
That's where I guess we do disagree, and I'm not sure either of us have data to directly support our position.
I would agree that the the scientists that believe in human-induced global warming are getting more airtime on the news. I would agree that we see more "pro-global warming" reports on the news. I would agree that the IPCC *says* there's a consensus and that's what the news reports. I wouldn't agree, however, that any of this suggests that more scientists do truly believe in any significant human-induced global warming.
Global warming is a "pop culture topic" that also has a doomsday tendency so the news loves to report it. The IPCC wants global warming to be true to forward their agenda so they use the inacurate surface record and carefully use words that imply that there's a consensus without really saying there is (read the IPCC document carefully... There's "wiggle room").
I've seen polls of scientists where those that outright BELIEVE in human-induced global warming is about 30%. There's another 50% or so that believe "it may be true, but it hasn't been proven conclusively and more research is needed" and another 20% that doesn't believe it. Forgive me, I don't have the link handy--I saw that about a year ago.
The point is, I'm not at all sure that most scientists believe in human-induced global warming just because the IPCC says so and because we hear a lot about it on the news.
The study you provided is just one of many and again, I think you can find many more indicating the opposite conclusion than the one you have linked to. 23 years seems like an awfully small timeframe to be looking at, as well.
Yes, you can find many others indicating the opposite, but they invariably use a potentially VERY flawed surface record.
Yes, the surface record spans 150 years and the satellite record only spans 23. But in those 23 years we are seeing global cooling whereas the surface record for those 23 years supposedly indicates further global warming. If the 23 years of GOOD data shows that the last 23 years of surface record data is broken, what confidence do we have in the accuracy of the other 127 years of surface record data?
I'd rather base my conclusions on 23 year of good, accurate data than 150 years of data of questionable accuracy. But that's just me, I guess.
As a counterpoint though to your study, I read a different study that determined that global warming would actually cause an ice age due to disruptions in the tidal currents/jet streams. This would be in line with the study your provided.
That's interesting, I hadn't seen that one yet. Kind of ironic that global warming could cause global cooling.:)
there have been released vast amounts of 'greenhouse gases'. I am concerned that the earth/nature does not have the capability to adapt in that (relatively) quick amount of time to such a radically different environment.
You do realize, of course, that the #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapor (clouds)?
Water is MUCH more efficient at trapping heat than CO2, and even with all the CO2 we've pumped into the air over the last century, H2O accounts for up to 4% of the atmosphere by volume (depending on humidity). Meanwhile, CO2 currently accounts for only 0.0366% of the atmosphere (Source: USA Today).
I understand your concern, it may seem like a lot of CO2 has been produced. But there's still about 109 times as much H2O in the air as there is CO2, and H2O is more efficient at blocking heat. I just don't think the amount of CO2 is critical when compared to the vast amonut of H2O...
I find this all the more likely and I guess I would rather be safe than sorry.
I agree we should look for alternative energy sources. I just don't believe it is in anyone's best interest to arbitrarily cut CO2 emissions "just in case." The data suggests it's not causing any harm, but the harm to the world in forcing CO2 reductions before we have an alternative could be devestating--and I'm not just talking about oil barons losing their money. When the economy breaks down it's not just the rich that get poorer, the poor get poorer, and there is more suffering.
I'd rather figure out whether it's necessary before subjecting the world to that... The medicine could be worse than the supposed disease!
Not so much debunked as it has never been proven by the environmentalists to start with. Nevertheless, read on (you asked the question, now I'm going to answer |grin|).
It's pretty much accepted by all scientists that WE are harming the environment and causing global warming with our use of fossil fuels.
It is often said that the "vast majority" of scientists belive in the greenhouse effect--this is often misunderstood by the public to mean that the vast majority of scientists believe that humans are causing global warming and that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
The "greenhouse effect" refers to the theory that certain gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, form a kind of "blanket" around the earth that allows the sun's energy to get to Earth but doesn't allow it to escape back into space. This causes the Earth to be warmer than it would be without these greenhouse gases. This theory IS generally accepted by everyone.
However, not everyone that believes in the greenhouse effect believes in human-induced global warming.
Human-induced global warming is a theory that suggests that human production of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are overwhelming the planet. Since so much CO2 is being produced, the theory states, we are essentially building a thicker blanket around the Earth which traps more heat on Earth--thereby raising temperatures.
These are two very different theories. Almost everyone believes in the first theory, but not nearly everyone believes in the second. That is not to say that the second theory is wrong--it makes sense, in theory, to believe that if we produce more greenhouse gases that the earth will tend to warm. However, we have virtually no information as to how much our CO2 production affects the earth's climate and most respected scientists recognize this. They don't discard it as a possibility, they don't reject that more study is needed--but no self-respecting scientist that
follows the scientific method would be willing to make predictions or suggest solutions to a phenomenon that hasn't yet been proven, let alone understood.
That said, "global warming" itself hasn't even been proven.
Neither of the two most accurate methods of monitoring the atmosphere's temperature, climate satellites and traditional radiosondes (weather ballons), show any warming in the last 23 years. In fact, both satellites and radiosondes indicate a slight cooling trend since 1979. Radiosondes indicate a change of -0.07 deg. C per decade, satellites indicate a change of -0.01 deg. C per decade, neither indicate a warming trend--this while the surface record suggests a +0.15 deg. C per decade warming trend. Source: NASA,
Greening Earth Society
Groups that suggest that global warming has been observed during this time inevitably use this "surface record" which consists of data obtained at small weather stations distributed throughout the inhabited world. Compared to satellite readings, the surface record is less consistent, subject to more human and machine errors, changes in recording procedures, and are in the vast majority of the cases located near large urban centers where the
station temperature can and is affected by "heat islands" created by the nearby city. In many cases, stations that used to be located in open farmland far from human activities are now located within the limits of growing cities. A surface record only exists for land positions and doesn't contain any information about the 77% of the
earth covered by the planet's oceans.
While the satellite and radiosonde record doesn't span as many years as the surface record, they are invariably much more accurate than the surface record. Satellites are our most accurate method of measuring worldwide temperature without any bias from local heat islands, inconsistent temperature readings, and which also covers almost all of the planet. While the surface record only records the temperature at the surface where the weather station is located, satellites take the temperature of all the atmosphere in the column below the satellite providing a more complete temperature of the atmosphere.
Interestingly, most environmental groups and the IPCC ignore the technically superior satellite record and prefer to use the surface record despites its many potential and obvious errors.
The ONLY people who say and think otherwise are on the payroll of those whose interests lie in with the Big Oil companies.
Prove that. That's your perception based on what the environmentalist and the media have been feeding you. I have absolutely nothing to gain from not believing in global warming. I have no stocks, interests, etc. in anyone or anything that stands to gain or lose from any of this. But I call bunk when I see it.
And fossil fuels ARE a finite resource... we may not know when we are going to run out but we WILL DEFINITELY run out.
Prove it.
The fact is, it sounds logical. But many others have already posted messages in this thread citing references such as the Washington Post that report that previously "empty" oil sources are "mysteriously" filling up again. We're not just talking about better technology getting at more oil--we're talking about oil returning to where it had been previously depleted.
I will agree that your belief that we would one day run out of oil sounds logical. But the facts of the matter, given reports of oil wells "refilling," is that it's far from proven that we will run out of oil--and certainly doubtful that we will run out of it so quickly so as to justify abandoning it before we have a viable alternative.
And people like yourself who are just so poorly educated, it's frightening.
Well, I've answered your questions. I've provided links to NASA and other big oil companies.
So, now, you prove to me that global warming is happening and that we are the cause. Don't point me to some IPCC or other politcal report that uses flawed data to come up with flawed conclusions that suggest political solutions. Point we to real, SCIENTIFIC, proof that proves that global warming is happening and that we are the cause.
I'll be checking for your reply. Most environmnetalists tend to shut up at about this point, so I'll be pleased if you actually come back with something we can debate.
Sometimes a post can be in jest, even without the:)
Sure, it can be. It's usually somewhat funny, though, and not suggesting the execution of someone. Whatever, we all have our own senses of humor and I won't attack you for yours.
By making sweeping claims without evidence and generalizing based on personal experience, you end up sounding pretty silly.
And what was my sweeping generalization? That liberals are against the death penalty except for those that disagree with them? While I didn't put a smiley on that either (because it's not exactly funny), it is obviously tounge-in-cheek--except for the few liberals that actually DO believe that.
More than anything, and more than actually demonstrating you believe that those that disagree with liberals should be executed, you HAVE shown typical liberal intolerance. And that is NOT a joke.
By the way, I don't really want to kill you.:)
That's comforting. That's certainly enough to convince me to vote for Gore in 2004.:) (NOT!)
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. While it makes sense, the jury is still out. Please refer to other messages in this thread that point to links in places such as the Washington Post that report that old, "dry" oil wells suddendly seem to be "filling up" again.
either the resources will be gone or the environment will be damaged.
Well, I'm not going to get into the whole "oil is bad for the environment." That's more a "religion" than something that can be debated.
Being more efficient and turning to resources that were once not economically feasible only postpones the inevitable.
Which makes good economic sense while we're searching for an alternative.
Saying it's okay to rape and abuse the Earth simply because we won't see the effects in our lifetimes is irresponsible and ignorant.
I guess it depends on your definition of "rape the earth." I don't consider extracting and using oil raping the earth. The environmental impact of doing so does not need to be significant. Strip mining, on the other hand, I believe is quite ugly.
And, so you know, I'm a registered Republican, so don't mumble your "damn liberals" gibberish at me.
Registered Republican or not, you have been affected by the environmentalist (won't even say liberal, actually) propaganda. Republicans are not immune to that propaganda. They are very good at what they do.
Sound capitalism thinks about future profits as well as today's -- an economy that depends on non-renewable resources without looking for alternatives and destroys the Earth in the process is not an economy with a future.
And I absolutely agree that we should be looking for alternatives. 100%. Hopefully, someday, there will be a cheaper and cleaner alternative to power our economy.
In the meantime, however, "sound capitalism" demands that we do NOT sit around waiting for that miracle alternative energy source to come and not taking the precautionary step of exploiting our known oil reserves in the event that that miracle energy source takes longer to be developed than expected. If it gets developed "on-time," no big deal--we don't have to use the oil we've found. But if the energy source is 80 years off, I'd sleep better at night knowing we have something to power our economy until then.
I've managed to read this entire thread, and for the good of society I think you should be euthanized (no offense).
Now we're getting to the heart of the liberal mindset. Liberals are against the death penalty except for those that disagree with them. For those, the penalty is death.
Thanks for illustrating so clearly that which I would have been called cynical in otherwise stating.
Personally, I don't think liberals should be euthanized. They just shouldn't be given any political or economic control... And your comment proves it.
Slashdot Mirror
Question... I have a typical, traditional keyboard. It's actually a Microsoft keyboard, but not one of those bendy things. Just a normal keyboard...
The only difference is it came with a grey plastic keyboard 'extender' that you latch under the front of the keyobard. It lets you rest your hands on that--it's not the wrist the rests on it, it's more the base of the palm of your hand...
Is that at all helpful to avoid CTS? I've found it very comfortable, but I never found previous keyboards uncomfortable...
Do you get CTS in the fingers or in the wrist, or what's the deal?
Sounds like something is broken to me. If NORAD only cares about cruise missiles, that needs to change. They have the tools to recognize traffic across the continent, they should be used fully--not just for tracking cruise or ballistic missiles.
I wonder how far Mexico would get if they decided they wanted to invade us? Sure, we'd push them back and flatten their country--but I honestly wonder how far north they could push before we were in a position to respond. After Pearl Harbor I seem to recall we were worried that the Japanese could push us back to Chicago (or thereabouts) before we could even do anything.
Yes, I know, it's hypothetical. But everything is hypothetical until it happens. So was Pearl Harbor. So was 9/11. The trick is having a military that is ready to respond when the unthinkable and unexpected happens.
If they were tracked from Cuba they would probably be forced down at a field in Florida and met by Border Patrol/Customs/USCG most likely NOT military.
Who do you think would force them down? If anyone other than the military, we've got a problem.
I know of no foreign airforce that could accompish this, but if they did quite simply we would be screwed, yesterday today and tommorow. If a foreign airforce can fly across the Atlantic with enough force to do damage and get here undetected, does it matter what we do when they get here?
In other words, if they get here we can't do anything anyway? What in the world do we have a military for then?
As for no foreign airforce being able to do it, I'd rather say that there is currently no foreign airforce that would want to do it. As far as we know. The technology necessary to fly across the Atlantic is not very exclusive, and I would wager it could be done "on the deck."
Or perhaps they could jump over to South America and fly north through Central America. Believe me, there is really no defense down here, nor any decent tracking system. I believe the Mexican Air Force has something like 6 or 8 fighters; they are usually parked, taken out for airshows mostly, because they are expensive to maintain.
Wouldn't it be a bummer to have an attack come from the south and later find out they simply flew to Brazil, northwest towards Panama, through Mexico, and up to the U.S.? Sure, fuel is a problem... But there are plenty of "unlisted" airfields in all of these countries for, ahem, "other" purposes...
You think the next military attack on the U.S. is going to happen after a declaration of war? After a navy sailing across the oceans to our coast? Aint gonna happen... Or it's going to be terrorism or some sneaky operation like the one I just described.
I'd prefer to be ready for that contingency. Pearl Harbor and WTC should show us that we are rarely attacked in an overt, anticipated manner. In fact, I believe the last such attack was the British in 1812, wasn't it? I can't remember if Mexico attacked us in Texas or if we started that... Either way, it's been a good 140-190 years since we've been frontally attacked.
You: Prior to 9/11 you wouldn't get a fighter escort. Most likely you'll just be shadowed by Customs or the Coast Guard to your point of landing
FAA/NORAD Regulations would tend to indicate otherwise.
This also jives with what I was told by more experienced pilots at the flight school I received training at, relating situations where a lack of communication entering the U.S. DID result in a pair of interceptors flying out to them.
But this has nothing to do with obeying ATC or fear of terrorists. It has everything to do with unlawfully entering US airspace. Of course this is a completely different problem than US planes diverting from their filght plans.
Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.
Aside from the great expense this would generate for very little benefit (what would the fighters do exactly)
It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.
Federal law prohibts the use of the military to enforce the law against US citizens
This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.
I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel. I don't even want F16s doing CAPs over U.S. airspace constantly.
I DO want the military ready to protect our homeland. I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way? What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?
Our country is so strong we've spread our military out all over the world to protect our interests, but I get the impression the actual homeland is quite vulnerable to attack.
But in this case we're not talking about theft or theft of services. I haven't taken a physical item so it's not theft. I haven't made use of a service without paying for it so it's not theft of service.
It's copyright violation.
What you call "the free market" bears more resemblence to high-tech looting -- convenient, but not legal.
Again, looting requires that I physically take property without paying for it, perhaps breaking windows in the process.
I know you're looking for analogies, but they don't work too well precisely because the whole IP copyright scheme now is rather fubared.
The "free market" is not free as in beer! It's not even free as in anarchy.
The "market" is the producer/consumer environment where transactions take place. "Free" means that it is free of as much government restriction as possible so as to avoid creating UNNATURAL markets. With very few exceptions (such as recording industry monopolies), a free market will find the most efficient arrangement for society.
The current recording industry was a viable business within the free market. It is now being propped up UNNATURALLY. That is to say, unless the government passes and enforces laws to protect it, the industry will cease to exist because the free market no longer needs it.
Does the recording industry deserve to have laws to protect it from technological obsolesence? That's not a free market, that's not the purpose of government, and I don't think it's the best and most efficient arrangement for society.
A free market must have rules.
Fair rules to protect the free market from abuse. It should NOT have rules that artificially maintain an industry that no longer has any technological reason to exist. THAT is not a free market, that's PAC money in action.
In funding the production of creative works, the rules are simple and fair-- if you want a copy of a creative work, you contribute to funding that work.
I would say that, fairly, if you want to PROFIT from a creative work, you should contribute to funding that work. If I sing a Phil Collins song and make money doing so, I need to pay Phil Collins. That's fair.
But if I want to buy a computer, subscribe to Internet, pay for bandwidth, and download bytes that happen to reproduce Phil's voice and music and I'm not profiting from it?
Phil still owns the RIGHTS to his music. Someone still has to pay him if they make money singing his music.
But to listen to the music? No, the free market has determined that value to be zero.
No, it is copyright violation. That's been discussed here many times before. If I steal the CD from a record store, I've committed theft. If I copy a CD or download an MP3, it's copyright violation. You might call it semantics, but it's a big difference.
Either you understand the basic tenants and contracts that maintain this thing we call society, or you believe that it's all some anarchy held together by the strings of technology.
You attempt to define this as a legal and social issue. It is not. It's technology and the free market.
In 1900, musicians made and played music live. That was it. Some made money, some didn't, but that's the way it was.
Technology came along and provided a way for both the artists and their distributors (recording industry) to make even more money by recording the music and selling it.
Now, in 2002, technology has come along and obsoleted the previous technology returning musicians to the legal and practical situation they had in the year 1900.
Technology giveth, technology taketh away.
They don't talk every 30-45 seconds with every plane, but they are in contact quite constantly. All you need to do is listen to ATC frequencies be it on your own radio on the ground or listening to pilot/ATC channel when that is available on the plane you are flying in.
Payne Stewart's plane had an escort, because it was clear that it was on autopilot, and no one on board was in control... The plane was also not deviating from it's course, it just never stopped climbing after departure.
My understanding he was supposed to turn west somewhere around the panhandle of Florida but kept on his original northwesterly course. I do not remember whether they realized there was a problem before or after the missed turn.
That said, continuing to climb and climb without the instructions of ATC is, in itself, a deviation.
Prior to 9/11 there was no protocol in place to scramble fighters for anything.
There is a protocol, although I don't know where it is applied. If you try to fly from Mexico into the U.S. without talking to ATC, you'll get an escort. If you violate restricted airspace, you'll get an escort. It's not a matter of them not having a protocol, it was a problem of it not being implemented widescale.
This would require alert fighters on the runways at bases all across the country and CAP 24 hours a day. We had that for a couple of weeks after 9/11, but it stopped some time ago.
I would argue that we should have. I'd say we got complacent. We're the sole superpower. We got into a "no-one would even thinking of attacking us" mode and shipped our defenses all over the world--protecting everyone but ourselves.
We don't need fighters in the air 24/7, but we should have fighters on strip alert around the country. Always.
I never have downloaded much. I have most of the 80s music I like on CD already. 500+ CDs in all. Newer music, for the most part, isn't worth my time OR my money. I have downloaded some top 40 music that I happen to like and some older music that I was never ever able to track down on CD because it went out of print.
I never could bring myself to download a whole album
Me neither, because since P2P came out I haven't found a single CD that I *wanted* every track from. I told my wife two years ago that we'd now only buy CDs if there were 3 or more tracks that we liked on them. We have followed that rule to the letter and purchased exactly one.
The value of the time I would spend downloading a whole album of high-quality MP3 and burning it to CD would pay for a new CD a few times over.
My CD burner doesn't even work anymore. Got too much dust in it and stopped working. I just download MP3s and listen to them on the PC. Which actually saves me the time of going out and buying the CD when you consider time to drive to record store and the $20 investment in the media. No, I'd rather lauch P2P, search, download in background, and when I remember I launched it a half hour later play the music. Done.
I'm one of those people who can tell the difference between CD audio and MP3. I have a portable MP3 player, but generally I listen to CD's.
I think it depends what you are listening to. A symphonic concert is going to sound like crap at 128bps, but most of the music I've downloaded sounded just fine at 128. That said, I usually have an idea of how much frequency spread there is in the music I'm about to download. If it's Enya or something symphonic, I'll just look for a version recorded at 192, 256, or even 320...
And I've always been a quality-freak too. That's why I went CD crazy in the 80s. Perhaps getting older and not caring plus the fact that MOST pop music can be sufficiently appreciated at 128bps and, well, the "CD quality" just isn't a working argument for me anymore.
You are mistaken when you say famous musicians will earn less - if anything broader distribution and "airplay" will make them earn more.
Well, cool. Then what's the big friggin problem with P2P sharing if the artist is going to earn more?
But to say its free is just plain wrong.
Like I said, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. It is now a fact of reality.
What gives you the right to take someone's blood sweat and tears and call it free?
Technology and the free market.
Nobody's sweat and tears entitles them to may a single sale or profit. I've programmed many things because I wanted to and because I thought I'd make money. WRONG. When you consider the time I spent on the project I probably earned pennies per hour. My mistake.
By the same token, the fact that an artist has worked hard making music is all good and fine. That doesn't mean that artist is entitled to any money from it. His sweat and tears is worth, in dollar terms, exactly what the free market says it's worth. And the free market, thanks to technology, is now in a position to say it has zero ECONOMIC value. If the artist is uncomfortable with this new reality, he can either look for other revenue streams as he performs for pleasure... Or he can find a job like the rest of us. If all the musicians stop making music, society will assign it a value again.
But music will not disappear even if the revenue stream does.
Also, I've been a musician for many years
There have been hundreds of thousands of musicians before you, and there will be hundreds of thousands after you... With or without the RIAA and regardless of whether or not I pay them money to reproduce the audio frequencies they have organized.
PS--Before you turn around and say "how would you feel if everyone started pirating your software," let me answer you up front:
Software development is an ONGOING job. If you write a program and make it available and don't spend any more time on it, it will die within about 6-12 months, usually. To keep making money you need to keep making improvements.
The whole "sell you music" is based on the belief that an artist should be able to compose and record something in, say, a month, and then be able to sit on his bum and earn money off of it for years to come.
That dog just don't hunt... At least not anymore.
Music is Free. For better or for worse, legally or illegally, music is now free. Period. I would submit it should be free, think of it as an advertisement for the tours. But whether or not people (including RIAA) think it should be free, it is. Improving technology and an archaeic business model based on control and scarcity has guaranteed that.
Famous musicians will earn less. Yes, Phil Collins and Celine Dion will probably earn much less than they do now. Instead of millions per year they might have to get used to earning incomes closer to what the rest of society does. Perhaps old Phil will have to scrape by on $200k a year... Then again, he sells out concerts which is where he make big bucks, anyway, so his income may be proportional to his desire to work (perform). I don't see a problem with that.
There will be more musicians. Although the most famous musicians will earn less, there will be more musicians because the barrier to entry will be greatly reduced. Eventually it will be eliminated. Some say that we'll be "flooded" with a bunch of untalented musicians and we won't be able to find anything good, but I'd submit that's the case now anyway.
The recording industry is obsolete. You used to need expensive recording equipment and studios to record quality music. A good studio is certainly still useful, but an amateur group can do a decent job at recording decent quality music that's definitely within their budget. They can burn CDs and sell them for $5/pop at concerts (pocketing $4.50 per CD), throw the music online (attracting more people to concerts). The recording industry is obsolete. Their legal attacks are, as the article mentions, a matter of squeezing the last dollar possible out of their business plan.
I live in Mexico right now. My sister-in-law is a 20-year-old Mexican young lady. She used to use Napster. That got nuked and now she has like 3 different P2P programs on her home PC connected to DSL. She has P2P programs that *I* have never heard of.
Last time I asked her she had downloaded 3200+ MP3s. That's more than 8 times what I, a techno-nerd, have downloaded. She doesn't listen to most of the music more than once, she just downloads everything she can because she likes to collect MP3s. She tells me her friends do too. She wants a larger hard drive for her birthday.
Believe me, the "music industry" is history.
Right, but I don't think they do or should. At the very least, it allows them to make sure VFR traffic doesn't wander into IFR traffic--they can advise IFR traffic to make a course change to avoid lost VFR traffic.
and IFR traffic, how many times have you heard on frequency: "Cessna 1234, verify RIGHT turn heading 310" or "say altitude" -- that usually means the pilot turned the wrong way or went past the assigned altitude. Scrambling F-16s is expensive!
That usually happens in controlled airspace around airports with tower control. That wouldn't scramble F16s. Unannounced deviations in course changes at IFR flight levels (18,000'+) is what I'm talking about.
When you are over 18,000', ATC tells you exactly where they want you, when they want you there, and how fast you should be going. It's called "controlled airspace" and it is very much controlled.
The way the old system works is simple, you say I want to fly from point A to point B and if I can't land at point B, I'll go to point C. My plane goes this fast and I would like to go at an altitude of about somany feet. ATC then says you can take off from point A (within 30 min or so) and fly on airway V-whatever to some vor at a specifc altitude. You get assinged chuncks of airspace and you get exclusive use of that.
That may be how the VERY old system works, but even with the "current" old system that's not the way it has worked in the 90s. You are passed from departure control directly to ATC. You tell them where you want to go (they usually already know because you told departure control) and they tell you how fast to go, when to turn, etc. If you want/need to deviate from what they tell you, you need to request permission unless it is truly an emergency.
Any deviation that isn't corrected or at least explained by the pilots to ATC within, say, 30-45 seconds should raise a red flag that ATC should proactively inquire about. If it isn't explained within about 2 minutes, NORAD should know about it. The number of unannounced, unexplained course changes where ATC can't verify within 2 minutes what's going on is a low enough percentage that F16s could be scrambled. Even if it is later explained and the F16s return to base, call it training for the F16.
The assumption of the old system is that the radio is going to break and since the pilot has all the details before they leave the ground, its all safe.
Again, maybe it was that way decades ago, but not anymore. If you don't have radio comm with ATC or if you ignore ATC instructions for any significant period of time, you WILL get an F16 escort. That's why that golfer that bought the farm in SD after flying without comm from FL had an F16 escort long before the plane went down.
It's also why it's kind of weird we couldn't scramble any planes to help out on 9/11. Not suggesting any conspiracies, but one has to admit we responded faster to the lone golfer flying over the country off flight plan than we did to 4 commercial jets doing so.
I'm a private pilot and a computer programmer. I've never understood why they didn't have a better system. There's so many powerful things that could be done; the least of which, of course, is detecting deviations from course within seconds and relaying that information simultaneously to ATC as well as to NORAD so that F16s can be scrambled while ATC figures out what's going on. You can always land the F16s if it was a false alarm...
. And, as they say... "What do pilots and ATC have in common? When the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. When ATC screws up, the pilot dies..."
In case you haven't noticed, it still is revolving quietly around the sun, surviving, in spite of what environmentalists would have us believe.
If they hover too close to the one that connects Korea it might just be the solution to spam...
I personally think Nader is a dufus-without-a-cause...
But I must admit that I agree with all of his recommendations. The government is throwing money out the window by renting licenses, be it from MS, Word Perfect, or whatever.
FWIW, most of the government use of computers CAN be done very well under Linux or any other *nix OS. We're talking mostly about data entry, data queries, etc. by staff around the country handling local offices. I would suspect that MOST employees of the federal government don't (or shouldn't) need to compose documents in a word processor. Some management-type, yes, but the bulk of the federal government that uses computers, I think, are employees handing out unemployment checks, Census people doing data entry, INS agents pulling up records of people as they enter the country, etc.
All of these tasks are VERY well-handled by a system such as Unix. Doesn't even require a GUI and, in many cases, a GUI would slow things down.
I think the main idea would be to avoid paying Windows licenses as much as possible. My guess is that the vast majority of government computers just don't need Windows, period.
Interestingly, I read the story on Yahoo. But so far I haven't been able to find the report on neither www.whitehouse.gov nor at the www.epa.gov websites. There's also no mention of it at CNN.
I'm surprised this isn't getting more airplay. All I can guess is the whole Pakistan/India and CIA/FBI issues have dwarfed media interest in the environment. :)
Heheh.
Refuting global warming...
You provide evidence that global tropospheric temperatures are decreasing. However, these measurements are actually further evidence of global warming. If the greenhouse effect is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, less heat makes it back into the upper atmosphere as measured by satellites. Check out this article [noaa.gov] from the NOAA... They conclude that global surface warming is definitely real and that the satellite data does not invalidate these measurements.
That is an interesting take on the matter, I'll grant you. Although that take on the matter would also reinforce the probability that increased temperature is the result of H2O which is found in much larger quantities in the troposphere.
However, if we grant that global surface temperatures are increasing, were are left wondering why atmospheric water vapor is increasing.
Not necessarily. That assumes that the only reason temperature would increase is because some greenhouse gas has increased. If not CO2, then H2O, right? But another very important factor is, obviously, the sun.
Our planet has gone through ice ages and global warmings many times in the past. At least one global warming (after an ice age) 135,000 years ago exceeded the temperatures we are currently observing (Source). Global warming has also been very fast in the past, apparently going from one extreme (ice age) to global warming in 5-20 years (sorry, can't find link. I've gone through so many in last 48 hours I'm brain-fried). And, as the previous link mentioned, CO2 has risen and fallen with temperature in the past.
What I'm getting at is I don't accept that any rise in temperature is *necessarily* a result of increased greenhouse gases. It could also be because of the sun. CO2 has varied significantly in the past, both positively and negatively, without our help (or damage). It is not clear in the historic record whether the changes in CO2 caused the changes in temperature or vice-versa.
There are too many questions to reach a conclusion that CO2 is causing temperature change, or that CO2 is causing increased water vapor that is causing temperature change. These may be causes, these may be effects. But whatever they are, it's nothing new that the planet hasn't seen before.
In a related note, here's an interesting article [nasa.gov] from NASA which suggests that an increasingly moist atmosphere may harm the ozone layer as well. Note the quote in paragraph 7.
I'd stumbled on that in my travels lately, too. I find it ironic. We've gone from "save the ozone" to "stop producing CO2 because it causes global warming" and now we're back to the ozone... but now water vapor causes damage.
I hate to break it to you, but if H2O is a cause of ozone depletion, we're toast.
However, consider the observations [utexas.edu] from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite, which uses a radar altimeter to map global sea levels. There appears to be a clear upward trend of about 3 mm/year. Judging from the data, it's apparent that the global mean sea level is increasing.
Again, interesting. Of course, if I wanted to use the same arguments as the enviornmentalists I could say that the decade of data they have isn't very compelling compared to the 150 years or so of the site I gave you. :)
That said, I will again come back to the point that what I'm really arguing is about human-induced global warming. It may be that the ocean is rising. I don't pretend to know everything about every science and, compared to global warming, I have done little research as to the rising and falling of the sea.
Although I'll definitely have to look more at that site you mentioned. I find it absolutely incredible that a satellite traveling at various miles per second at an altitude of hundreds of miles can accurately range the surface of the ocean with an accuracy of milimeters. Especially since the ocean isn't a flat surface, but a liquid with waves in constant motion. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is quite impressive if true.
On a final note, I noticed from your previous posts that you seem to be a Bush supporter. It looks like the Bush administration has reversed its position [yahoo.com] on the existence of global warming. I'm totally shocked. Are you? :)
Thanks for bringing that link to my attention. I would have missed it otherwise!
I am disappointed, yes, but I am not terribly surprised. He's taking flack for publically rejecting Kyoto (even though the Senate essentially did that in 1997) and we're coming up on an election cycle... So I'm not that surprised to see something like that, although it is a little more of a concession than is normally given during an election year.
I would very much like to discuss that.
Refuting global warming
Refuting importance of CO2 compared to H2O in global warming
Refuting rising sea levels
Please give them a read and we'll continue the discussion on those points. I do eagerly await your response.
Perhaps, but he was an arrogant jerk for those of us who had to deal with him. Always demanding commercial-grade "connectivity" from his local Fidonet because he conducted business from his BBS and getting ticked off because some mail didn't go through or because the Internet email gateway was unreliable.
Really irked the rest of us who looked at Fidonet as a hobby. We looked at him as someone profiting from what was free and shouldn't have been profited from.
Most of you will remember that Fidonet was similar to Internet in those days. Pretty much nothing "commercial" was tolerated, and Rickard was doing exactly that.
I got elected as NC (Network Coordinator) in 1993. In 1994, I realized that Internet was going to take over so I resigned as NC, took my system off Fidonet, and made it a Linux-based mini-ISP/BBS. It was cutting at edge the time.
When I left there were 200+ nodes in our network and I wondered if resigning as NC was a good idea.
I recently downloaded a nodelist for Fidonet (apparently it still exists!) and I believe I saw 5 nodes instead of 200+. Kind of sad, those were good and truly fun, unique times. The web has really kind of homogonized things.
"Internet killed the Fidonet Star, Internet Killed the Fidonet Star."
I can agree to disagree and coexist with environmentalists as long as they don't cost me money or restrict my freedoms. :)
That said, I was trying to make it a question of science, not a question of belief...
There are certainly scientists, particularly in recent years, that are coming out with studies that show that humans are not the cause of global warming and/or that global warming isn't taking place. However, I believe the majority of scientists support the evidence that humans are causing global warming and that it does exist.
That's where I guess we do disagree, and I'm not sure either of us have data to directly support our position.
I would agree that the the scientists that believe in human-induced global warming are getting more airtime on the news. I would agree that we see more "pro-global warming" reports on the news. I would agree that the IPCC *says* there's a consensus and that's what the news reports. I wouldn't agree, however, that any of this suggests that more scientists do truly believe in any significant human-induced global warming.
Global warming is a "pop culture topic" that also has a doomsday tendency so the news loves to report it. The IPCC wants global warming to be true to forward their agenda so they use the inacurate surface record and carefully use words that imply that there's a consensus without really saying there is (read the IPCC document carefully... There's "wiggle room").
I've seen polls of scientists where those that outright BELIEVE in human-induced global warming is about 30%. There's another 50% or so that believe "it may be true, but it hasn't been proven conclusively and more research is needed" and another 20% that doesn't believe it. Forgive me, I don't have the link handy--I saw that about a year ago.
The point is, I'm not at all sure that most scientists believe in human-induced global warming just because the IPCC says so and because we hear a lot about it on the news.
The study you provided is just one of many and again, I think you can find many more indicating the opposite conclusion than the one you have linked to. 23 years seems like an awfully small timeframe to be looking at, as well.
Yes, you can find many others indicating the opposite, but they invariably use a potentially VERY flawed surface record.
Yes, the surface record spans 150 years and the satellite record only spans 23. But in those 23 years we are seeing global cooling whereas the surface record for those 23 years supposedly indicates further global warming. If the 23 years of GOOD data shows that the last 23 years of surface record data is broken, what confidence do we have in the accuracy of the other 127 years of surface record data?
I'd rather base my conclusions on 23 year of good, accurate data than 150 years of data of questionable accuracy. But that's just me, I guess.
As a counterpoint though to your study, I read a different study that determined that global warming would actually cause an ice age due to disruptions in the tidal currents/jet streams. This would be in line with the study your provided.
That's interesting, I hadn't seen that one yet. Kind of ironic that global warming could cause global cooling. :)
there have been released vast amounts of 'greenhouse gases'. I am concerned that the earth/nature does not have the capability to adapt in that (relatively) quick amount of time to such a radically different environment.
You do realize, of course, that the #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapor (clouds)?
Water is MUCH more efficient at trapping heat than CO2, and even with all the CO2 we've pumped into the air over the last century, H2O accounts for up to 4% of the atmosphere by volume (depending on humidity). Meanwhile, CO2 currently accounts for only 0.0366% of the atmosphere (Source: USA Today ).
I understand your concern, it may seem like a lot of CO2 has been produced. But there's still about 109 times as much H2O in the air as there is CO2, and H2O is more efficient at blocking heat. I just don't think the amount of CO2 is critical when compared to the vast amonut of H2O...
I find this all the more likely and I guess I would rather be safe than sorry.
I agree we should look for alternative energy sources. I just don't believe it is in anyone's best interest to arbitrarily cut CO2 emissions "just in case." The data suggests it's not causing any harm, but the harm to the world in forcing CO2 reductions before we have an alternative could be devestating--and I'm not just talking about oil barons losing their money. When the economy breaks down it's not just the rich that get poorer, the poor get poorer, and there is more suffering.
I'd rather figure out whether it's necessary before subjecting the world to that... The medicine could be worse than the supposed disease!
Not so much debunked as it has never been proven by the environmentalists to start with. Nevertheless, read on (you asked the question, now I'm going to answer |grin|).
It's pretty much accepted by all scientists that WE are harming the environment and causing global warming with our use of fossil fuels.
It is often said that the "vast majority" of scientists belive in the greenhouse effect--this is often misunderstood by the public to mean that the vast majority of scientists believe that humans are causing global warming and that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
The "greenhouse effect" refers to the theory that certain gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, form a kind of "blanket" around the earth that allows the sun's energy to get to Earth but doesn't allow it to escape back into space. This causes the Earth to be warmer than it would be without these greenhouse gases. This theory IS generally accepted by everyone.
However, not everyone that believes in the greenhouse effect believes in human-induced global warming.
Human-induced global warming is a theory that suggests that human production of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are overwhelming the planet. Since so much CO2 is being produced, the theory states, we are essentially building a thicker blanket around the Earth which traps more heat on Earth--thereby raising temperatures.
These are two very different theories. Almost everyone believes in the first theory, but not nearly everyone believes in the second. That is not to say that the second theory is wrong--it makes sense, in theory, to believe that if we produce more greenhouse gases that the earth will tend to warm. However, we have virtually no information as to how much our CO2 production affects the earth's climate and most respected scientists recognize this. They don't discard it as a possibility, they don't reject that more study is needed--but no self-respecting scientist that follows the scientific method would be willing to make predictions or suggest solutions to a phenomenon that hasn't yet been proven, let alone understood.
That said, "global warming" itself hasn't even been proven.
Neither of the two most accurate methods of monitoring the atmosphere's temperature, climate satellites and traditional radiosondes (weather ballons), show any warming in the last 23 years. In fact, both satellites and radiosondes indicate a slight cooling trend since 1979. Radiosondes indicate a change of -0.07 deg. C per decade, satellites indicate a change of -0.01 deg. C per decade, neither indicate a warming trend--this while the surface record suggests a +0.15 deg. C per decade warming trend. Source: NASA, Greening Earth Society
Groups that suggest that global warming has been observed during this time inevitably use this "surface record" which consists of data obtained at small weather stations distributed throughout the inhabited world. Compared to satellite readings, the surface record is less consistent, subject to more human and machine errors, changes in recording procedures, and are in the vast majority of the cases located near large urban centers where the station temperature can and is affected by "heat islands" created by the nearby city. In many cases, stations that used to be located in open farmland far from human activities are now located within the limits of growing cities. A surface record only exists for land positions and doesn't contain any information about the 77% of the earth covered by the planet's oceans.
While the satellite and radiosonde record doesn't span as many years as the surface record, they are invariably much more accurate than the surface record. Satellites are our most accurate method of measuring worldwide temperature without any bias from local heat islands, inconsistent temperature readings, and which also covers almost all of the planet. While the surface record only records the temperature at the surface where the weather station is located, satellites take the temperature of all the atmosphere in the column below the satellite providing a more complete temperature of the atmosphere.
Interestingly, most environmental groups and the IPCC ignore the technically superior satellite record and prefer to use the surface record despites its many potential and obvious errors.
The ONLY people who say and think otherwise are on the payroll of those whose interests lie in with the Big Oil companies.
Prove that. That's your perception based on what the environmentalist and the media have been feeding you. I have absolutely nothing to gain from not believing in global warming. I have no stocks, interests, etc. in anyone or anything that stands to gain or lose from any of this. But I call bunk when I see it.
And fossil fuels ARE a finite resource... we may not know when we are going to run out but we WILL DEFINITELY run out.
Prove it.
The fact is, it sounds logical. But many others have already posted messages in this thread citing references such as the Washington Post that report that previously "empty" oil sources are "mysteriously" filling up again. We're not just talking about better technology getting at more oil--we're talking about oil returning to where it had been previously depleted.
I will agree that your belief that we would one day run out of oil sounds logical. But the facts of the matter, given reports of oil wells "refilling," is that it's far from proven that we will run out of oil--and certainly doubtful that we will run out of it so quickly so as to justify abandoning it before we have a viable alternative.
And people like yourself who are just so poorly educated, it's frightening.
Well, I've answered your questions. I've provided links to NASA and other big oil companies.
So, now, you prove to me that global warming is happening and that we are the cause. Don't point me to some IPCC or other politcal report that uses flawed data to come up with flawed conclusions that suggest political solutions. Point we to real, SCIENTIFIC, proof that proves that global warming is happening and that we are the cause.
I'll be checking for your reply. Most environmnetalists tend to shut up at about this point, so I'll be pleased if you actually come back with something we can debate.
Sure, it can be. It's usually somewhat funny, though, and not suggesting the execution of someone. Whatever, we all have our own senses of humor and I won't attack you for yours.
By making sweeping claims without evidence and generalizing based on personal experience, you end up sounding pretty silly.
And what was my sweeping generalization? That liberals are against the death penalty except for those that disagree with them? While I didn't put a smiley on that either (because it's not exactly funny), it is obviously tounge-in-cheek--except for the few liberals that actually DO believe that.
More than anything, and more than actually demonstrating you believe that those that disagree with liberals should be executed, you HAVE shown typical liberal intolerance. And that is NOT a joke.
By the way, I don't really want to kill you. :)
That's comforting. That's certainly enough to convince me to vote for Gore in 2004. :) (NOT!)
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. While it makes sense, the jury is still out. Please refer to other messages in this thread that point to links in places such as the Washington Post that report that old, "dry" oil wells suddendly seem to be "filling up" again.
either the resources will be gone or the environment will be damaged.
Well, I'm not going to get into the whole "oil is bad for the environment." That's more a "religion" than something that can be debated.
Being more efficient and turning to resources that were once not economically feasible only postpones the inevitable.
Which makes good economic sense while we're searching for an alternative.
Saying it's okay to rape and abuse the Earth simply because we won't see the effects in our lifetimes is irresponsible and ignorant.
I guess it depends on your definition of "rape the earth." I don't consider extracting and using oil raping the earth. The environmental impact of doing so does not need to be significant. Strip mining, on the other hand, I believe is quite ugly.
And, so you know, I'm a registered Republican, so don't mumble your "damn liberals" gibberish at me.
Registered Republican or not, you have been affected by the environmentalist (won't even say liberal, actually) propaganda. Republicans are not immune to that propaganda. They are very good at what they do.
Sound capitalism thinks about future profits as well as today's -- an economy that depends on non-renewable resources without looking for alternatives and destroys the Earth in the process is not an economy with a future.
And I absolutely agree that we should be looking for alternatives. 100%. Hopefully, someday, there will be a cheaper and cleaner alternative to power our economy.
In the meantime, however, "sound capitalism" demands that we do NOT sit around waiting for that miracle alternative energy source to come and not taking the precautionary step of exploiting our known oil reserves in the event that that miracle energy source takes longer to be developed than expected. If it gets developed "on-time," no big deal--we don't have to use the oil we've found. But if the energy source is 80 years off, I'd sleep better at night knowing we have something to power our economy until then.
Now we're getting to the heart of the liberal mindset. Liberals are against the death penalty except for those that disagree with them. For those, the penalty is death.
Thanks for illustrating so clearly that which I would have been called cynical in otherwise stating.
Personally, I don't think liberals should be euthanized. They just shouldn't be given any political or economic control... And your comment proves it.
Pentagon crash conspiracy debunked.