There's no "sustainable" energy supply large enough to replace them without massive subsidies. Here in the UK we can expect 30% rises in bills over the next few years directly attributable to Green policy AND STILL we will need to build peak capacity using traditional sources. Moreover, this extra capacity cannot just be switched on or off. It needs to be running more or less constantly. In other words, the "sustainable energy" initiatives we are implementing are an extremely costly folly. To replace one coal fired power station with wind, for example, would require covering an area the size of Greater London with turbines. Total insanity. Regardless, Germany will build more coal fired plants and buy French nuclear generated capacity to replace its own.
There's nothing to stop you from throwing an exception and passing a code into it. I do this with exception objects I derive from std::, for things like FAILED(HRESULT) or glGetError() != GL_NO_ERROR.
Not only that, but bacteria can be embedded within particles, which are then protected from the UV. It's still a long shot to also be viable in that atmosphere, at that temperature and happen to land somewhere suitable to propagate.
Buffet doesn't pay less tax, because most of the tax he pays is in the form of capital gains, which is more in the US than personal income tax. So the argument is somewhat disingenuous.
I'm a computer person, and I thought that this was the case. Although I am a Software Developer and drives are hardware, so you can't have expected me to know this.
I've got 3 1TB Barracudas. Actually I can't remember the last time I had an HD failure, although I have noticed that heavy loading (through bit torrent, for example) does make them start to emit strange clunking noises after a while! But overall I would consider them a trusted brand because I've never had one fail, personally.
Also, now I bother to read some more of your obnoxious comment, "yourmommycalled" is absolutely fuck all to do with me. I had one account previously (burnhard) and this is the only account I have now. The idea that all sceptics are sock-puppets, or astro-turfers, or creationists, is one of the reasons I rarely visit slashdot to comment these days. You people talk about peer review and the scientific method as if it was completely divorced from the usual Human frailties of pride and greed. It isn't. I'm content to leave it at that because I know that this AGW fraud will eventually fall apart and you people will mince off back to your wattle and daub houses until needed for the next Great Environmental Disaster.
Do you honestly believe that? I expect he was just fed up with the heat he was getting from certain people who want to keep anything contradicting their narrative out of the peer reviewed literature.
I registered this account some months ago because the hotmail account linked to my previous slashdot account was hacked and I could not recover it after its password was changed. My previous account had excellent karma. This one doesn't only because whenever I post a comment sceptical of AGW movement's claims, it is modded "troll". This is really quite an extraordinary fact that should give you pause for thought, or at least a little humility.
Now I notice you make no reference to the actual claims in the original article. This is interesting in itself. How often do editors have to resign because they have let papers be published that others think have errors? Did the editor of Science resign when the paper referring to the use of arsenic by certain micro-organisms was published, even though it was quickly refuted? I think you know the answer to that, and you know why the editor of this journal had to resign too: pressure was put on him to do so because AGW isn't about science, it's about politics. And as it's about politics it doesn't deal with facts, it deals with opinions and my opinion is no less valid than yours.
Well that's not quite right. The truth will always eventually come out of course, but someone once said that science progresses one funeral at a time, so we may have to wait a while before we know the facts of the matter.
That is an incorrect analogy and it is also rather mischievous. You need to read Dr Spencer's refutation before you start throwing around the old and bottom numbingly boring "all AGW sceptics are creationists" meme. There's too much arm waving going on here.
Slashdot Mirror
It's enough to say that it's a cousin, as every single other creature on this planet is.
There's no "sustainable" energy supply large enough to replace them without massive subsidies. Here in the UK we can expect 30% rises in bills over the next few years directly attributable to Green policy AND STILL we will need to build peak capacity using traditional sources. Moreover, this extra capacity cannot just be switched on or off. It needs to be running more or less constantly. In other words, the "sustainable energy" initiatives we are implementing are an extremely costly folly. To replace one coal fired power station with wind, for example, would require covering an area the size of Greater London with turbines. Total insanity. Regardless, Germany will build more coal fired plants and buy French nuclear generated capacity to replace its own.
That's also true of course.
Oh, contracting is a little different. Fair enough.
Absolutely. That post was an eye-opener!
There's nothing to stop you from throwing an exception and passing a code into it. I do this with exception objects I derive from std::, for things like FAILED(HRESULT) or glGetError() != GL_NO_ERROR.
What planet are you on?
If I had mod points..... IDM will be my acronym of the week.
Not only that, but bacteria can be embedded within particles, which are then protected from the UV. It's still a long shot to also be viable in that atmosphere, at that temperature and happen to land somewhere suitable to propagate.
Buffet doesn't pay less tax, because most of the tax he pays is in the form of capital gains, which is more in the US than personal income tax. So the argument is somewhat disingenuous.
That's interesting. Thanks for the info.
I told you my experience, then you have to go and be a dick about it with a comment such as the above.
Oh, I do know the difference. It's just never consistently presented either in marketing literature or in user interfaces.
I'm very careful about things like that CWD :p.
I'm a computer person, and I thought that this was the case. Although I am a Software Developer and drives are hardware, so you can't have expected me to know this.
I've got 3 1TB Barracudas. Actually I can't remember the last time I had an HD failure, although I have noticed that heavy loading (through bit torrent, for example) does make them start to emit strange clunking noises after a while! But overall I would consider them a trusted brand because I've never had one fail, personally.
I can only see comment moderations going back 15 days. Anything before that is not visible in the usual manner.
Also, now I bother to read some more of your obnoxious comment, "yourmommycalled" is absolutely fuck all to do with me. I had one account previously (burnhard) and this is the only account I have now. The idea that all sceptics are sock-puppets, or astro-turfers, or creationists, is one of the reasons I rarely visit slashdot to comment these days. You people talk about peer review and the scientific method as if it was completely divorced from the usual Human frailties of pride and greed. It isn't. I'm content to leave it at that because I know that this AGW fraud will eventually fall apart and you people will mince off back to your wattle and daub houses until needed for the next Great Environmental Disaster.
The name of the account was "burnhard". This isn't the first comment I've posted. There must be something wrong with your research.
Do you honestly believe that? I expect he was just fed up with the heat he was getting from certain people who want to keep anything contradicting their narrative out of the peer reviewed literature.
I registered this account some months ago because the hotmail account linked to my previous slashdot account was hacked and I could not recover it after its password was changed. My previous account had excellent karma. This one doesn't only because whenever I post a comment sceptical of AGW movement's claims, it is modded "troll". This is really quite an extraordinary fact that should give you pause for thought, or at least a little humility.
Now I notice you make no reference to the actual claims in the original article. This is interesting in itself. How often do editors have to resign because they have let papers be published that others think have errors? Did the editor of Science resign when the paper referring to the use of arsenic by certain micro-organisms was published, even though it was quickly refuted? I think you know the answer to that, and you know why the editor of this journal had to resign too: pressure was put on him to do so because AGW isn't about science, it's about politics. And as it's about politics it doesn't deal with facts, it deals with opinions and my opinion is no less valid than yours.
Well that's not quite right. The truth will always eventually come out of course, but someone once said that science progresses one funeral at a time, so we may have to wait a while before we know the facts of the matter.
Indeed not. But it's the thought that counts.
That is an incorrect analogy and it is also rather mischievous. You need to read Dr Spencer's refutation before you start throwing around the old and bottom numbingly boring "all AGW sceptics are creationists" meme. There's too much arm waving going on here.
Obviously people put pressure on him to resign given publication of the paper. In mitigation, he decides to stick with the party line.