He had the bully pulpit to be a centrist, and a single issue that's of importance to thinking individuals on BOTH sides of the political fence who are getting tired of the Hobson's Choice of the two-ever-more radicalized party establishments. There is a mass of people on the right who are conservative, and who want nothing to do with the right-wing activists that have taken over the GOP. There is (I'd guess) a similar mass on the left, probably quieter as they've held the presidency for 2 terms. But these people are ready for a credible 3rd way.
Unfortunately, on the rest of his issues he was your garden-variety, quasi-socialist academic liberal meaning as a NATIONAL CANDIDATE he was worthless.
The fact that he thought raising $1 million was meaningful was laughably pathetic, and only exposed how completely naive he was about the scope of what he was attempting.
Essentially they took the 'productivity' of countries, mapped them against average temperature, and then turned it around making that predictive. Utter nonsense.
According to their method, since the most productive industrial countries are all temperate, then warming will turn Germany economically into Italy and Italy into, I guess, Somalia?
Sure, THAT is likely to happen. How is this substantially different from the "warmer latitudes evolve lazier people" meme from the early 20th century? I thought we'd moved on from deterministic racism like that, or is it ok as long as it's cloaked in Global Warming fear?
Any purported 'economic' analysis of warming that doesn't see ANY mitigatory factors is more religion than science. To wit: - even warming-convinced climatologists admit that the impact of warming on rainfall patterns is nearly impossible to anticipate. Warming will most certainly increase the evaporate take-up into the atmosphere from the 70%+ surface that's water, and that water has to fall somewhere. - warming will shift optimal growing belts toward the poles, and vegetation growth has a warmth-bias; that is, there is a temperature floor for farming, but (as long as there's adequate water) not really a ceiling. So contraction of the too-cold biomes around the poles will net-increase the arable productive farmland on earth (not that we're actually short of food today anyway, but that's another point). Plants prefer warmth, and more CO2 is also beneficial for them. Not to mention that optimal-agri-zones will shift poleward, into 'fresh' farmland that wasn't previously as intensively farmed. - on a more human scale, melting will open the arctic to regular transit, significantly reducing shipping costs from E Asia to Europe and all but obviating the Panama Canal chokepoint, this will likely cut transport costs for a host of goods.
I'm NOT saying that warming won't be a net-bad; inundation will badly affect a humanity that largely sited its preferable living places along coasts. (Of course, given a long enough timeframe they were doomed anyway.) But I see nothing in that study that recognizes or attempts to calculate *any* beneficial countereffects of warming. To deny that there will be *some* is at best histrionics, at worst simple mendacity.
....and in the comments section it mentions that the department started using this book in 1989, 15 years before the author became department chair.
Also, it mentions that the course-approved book rents for much less than the rebel-chosen book.
So obviously there's more to the story than the simple venal corruption that's implied. - it seems a conflict of interest when a department is *requiring* the use of a book from which the department head(s) directly profit; then again, if my department is using book X, and we can "get" as a professor the author of said book, I'd do it for sure. - it also seems pretty reasonable that a department would agree to teach from a consistent set of books, especially for lower-level courses, so as to provide a consistent contextual base for all students in later classes; do they do so in other departments?
I don't have any answers to resolve this, frankly.
What the hell is in charge of the Gawker-style headlines, because I think that same robot should be made responsible for editing: at least we know it's working.
And add to your last statement: "...meanwhile serving back to its corporate masters every detail about you, your choices, your habits, your preferences, and every other piece of trivia its sensors can gather to sell to the highest bidder, to generate ultimately more revenue over the lifespan of the article than the original purchase by you."
Or, maybe the whole "internet of things" that a very small group of people seem to be talking about ALL THE FUCKING TIME is just an idiotic thing that isn't actually going to take off, because grownups understand that there are things that aren't necessarily meaningfully better (in ways that outweigh the new failure risks) connected to other things?
I'd say that actually choosing a mate, period, is a pretty damn good predictor already.
Ie, actually putting some thought into the process of when and with whom you're going to create womb-fruit, instead of it being the result of some drunken anonymous coupling like stray dogs in the street (well, stray dogs don't have Tinder, that is).
"Historic Pullman was built in the 1880s by George Pullman as workers' housing for employees of his eponymous railroad car company, the Pullman Palace Car Company. He established behavioral standards that workers had to meet to live in the area and charged them rent. Pullman's architect, Solon Spencer Beman, was said to be extremely proud that he had met all the workers' needs within the neighborhood he designed. The distinctive rowhouses were comfortable by standards of the day, and contained such amenities as indoor plumbing, gas, and sewers."
Look how well THAT turned out. It's good on the ups, not so great on the downs.
You've already been refuted factually as far as what was shot, but I'd also point out that bullets fired upward quickly tumble and lose their aerodynamic (ballistic) orientation by the time they are falling. Tumbling bullets have a terminal velocity of 300 feet per second, which would certainly hurt but are extremely unlikely to kill anyone.
Note: bullets fired at 45 deg elevation are far more likely to maintain spin for longer, and are thus more dangerous. Unlikely to be firing this low at a drone, though.
A little quoted portion of his much quoted "military industrial complex" speech:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
"Critics say the M9 is too bulky for small-handed shooters"
Read: women.
Seriously, people: infantry combat is STILL one of those old-fashioned things where size and strength are really fucking important. You're not going to be able to design a smaller, lighter gun for petite little hands that ALSO has (as the rest of the article explains is needed badly) an increased stopping-power (which is primarily about the kinetic energy striking the target).
"Finesse" all the Ranger tests you want, but "average woman A" will not perform as well in combat as "average man B".* This is just another example of how/why.
* that said, there are a crapton of wastrels, layabouts, and good-for-nothings in the lower bracket of the male bell curve that will be outperformed by exceptional women because the women have the mental attitude necessary to be successful, which can get you a long way.
That's not speculative; isn't that pretty much the observed pattern in the abundant examples of human overuse of antiseptics and bactericides? We kill off the multitude of fauna that evolved there, leaving it open for the aggressive, really DANGEROUS ones to now multiply unhindered.
This is an astonishingly arrogant "deduction" considering that:
- as recently as 1988 identifications of exoplanets were considered dubious (many were later confirmed by subsequent observation). In fact, even the concept that there were other planets out there was still in some debate in the 1990s
- our detection technologies, while highly advanced from where they were, are still astonishingly rudimentary, largely only by deduction (not direct observation) and likely only finding a *tiny* subset of the bell-curve of planetary bodies out there; in fact, it's unlikely that ANY planets in our solar system would be detectable by observers located at the very closest stars using our current tech.
All we can say for sure is that:
- our system took about 5 billion years to get where it is today, developmentally.
- our system developed from a nebula, perhaps either the remnant of, or subject to the shockwave of, a nova/supernova. Given that such structures had to develop (but age much faster than our star), we can add another 1 billion years to that process to come to a total age of our system of 6 bn yrs for the full process, incl "pre-solar" development
- our universe is about 13.8 billion years old, with stellar formation around 1 billion years...call it 2 billion, just to be conservative.
- If stars were forming at 2 bn yrs, and our system is about 6bn yrs, that means there could have been planetary formation and systems like ours developing for 5 BILLION years before today.
- Since our system is an entirely average sun, in an entirely average stellar neighborhood, it's probable that our experience is entirely typical.
To deduce then that only 8% of potential planets have formed is nonsense.
"Employers aren't required to give you anything when they let you go" They are, if they're requiring you to sign a new "contract" - there has to be compensation, or it's not a contract.
Besides, what are they doing if you don't sign: fire you?
And the one country that's BEEN there, that was dominant in spaceflight for the late 60s, 70s, and even arguably 80s & 90s, has turned its back (in any serious way) on the moon and manned spaceflight in general.
Slashdot Mirror
He had the bully pulpit to be a centrist, and a single issue that's of importance to thinking individuals on BOTH sides of the political fence who are getting tired of the Hobson's Choice of the two-ever-more radicalized party establishments. There is a mass of people on the right who are conservative, and who want nothing to do with the right-wing activists that have taken over the GOP. There is (I'd guess) a similar mass on the left, probably quieter as they've held the presidency for 2 terms. But these people are ready for a credible 3rd way.
Unfortunately, on the rest of his issues he was your garden-variety, quasi-socialist academic liberal meaning as a NATIONAL CANDIDATE he was worthless.
The fact that he thought raising $1 million was meaningful was laughably pathetic, and only exposed how completely naive he was about the scope of what he was attempting.
that Clayton Bigsby is on that list.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...
The link to TAFA to RTFA is http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Essentially they took the 'productivity' of countries, mapped them against average temperature, and then turned it around making that predictive. Utter nonsense.
According to their method, since the most productive industrial countries are all temperate, then warming will turn Germany economically into Italy and Italy into, I guess, Somalia?
Sure, THAT is likely to happen. How is this substantially different from the "warmer latitudes evolve lazier people" meme from the early 20th century? I thought we'd moved on from deterministic racism like that, or is it ok as long as it's cloaked in Global Warming fear?
Any purported 'economic' analysis of warming that doesn't see ANY mitigatory factors is more religion than science. To wit:
- even warming-convinced climatologists admit that the impact of warming on rainfall patterns is nearly impossible to anticipate. Warming will most certainly increase the evaporate take-up into the atmosphere from the 70%+ surface that's water, and that water has to fall somewhere.
- warming will shift optimal growing belts toward the poles, and vegetation growth has a warmth-bias; that is, there is a temperature floor for farming, but (as long as there's adequate water) not really a ceiling. So contraction of the too-cold biomes around the poles will net-increase the arable productive farmland on earth (not that we're actually short of food today anyway, but that's another point). Plants prefer warmth, and more CO2 is also beneficial for them. Not to mention that optimal-agri-zones will shift poleward, into 'fresh' farmland that wasn't previously as intensively farmed.
- on a more human scale, melting will open the arctic to regular transit, significantly reducing shipping costs from E Asia to Europe and all but obviating the Panama Canal chokepoint, this will likely cut transport costs for a host of goods.
I'm NOT saying that warming won't be a net-bad; inundation will badly affect a humanity that largely sited its preferable living places along coasts. (Of course, given a long enough timeframe they were doomed anyway.) But I see nothing in that study that recognizes or attempts to calculate *any* beneficial countereffects of warming. To deny that there will be *some* is at best histrionics, at worst simple mendacity.
....and in the comments section it mentions that the department started using this book in 1989, 15 years before the author became department chair.
Also, it mentions that the course-approved book rents for much less than the rebel-chosen book.
So obviously there's more to the story than the simple venal corruption that's implied.
- it seems a conflict of interest when a department is *requiring* the use of a book from which the department head(s) directly profit; then again, if my department is using book X, and we can "get" as a professor the author of said book, I'd do it for sure.
- it also seems pretty reasonable that a department would agree to teach from a consistent set of books, especially for lower-level courses, so as to provide a consistent contextual base for all students in later classes; do they do so in other departments?
I don't have any answers to resolve this, frankly.
"Shattered" really?
What the hell is in charge of the Gawker-style headlines, because I think that same robot should be made responsible for editing: at least we know it's working.
The summary does say "a large coalition of advocacy groups", no mention of universities. But it's a valid point for anyone thinking that was implied.
And add to your last statement: "...meanwhile serving back to its corporate masters every detail about you, your choices, your habits, your preferences, and every other piece of trivia its sensors can gather to sell to the highest bidder, to generate ultimately more revenue over the lifespan of the article than the original purchase by you."
What a great world.
Or, maybe the whole "internet of things" that a very small group of people seem to be talking about ALL THE FUCKING TIME is just an idiotic thing that isn't actually going to take off, because grownups understand that there are things that aren't necessarily meaningfully better (in ways that outweigh the new failure risks) connected to other things?
They do the "space exploration" thing like, well, rocket scientists.
They do the "management/administration" thing about as well as Margaret's Knitting Knook.
I'd say that actually choosing a mate, period, is a pretty damn good predictor already.
Ie, actually putting some thought into the process of when and with whom you're going to create womb-fruit, instead of it being the result of some drunken anonymous coupling like stray dogs in the street (well, stray dogs don't have Tinder, that is).
"INSANE" new heights?
Has Slashdot been sold to the Gawker network now?
Google, now FB think they're being innovative; what's old is apparently new again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Historic Pullman was built in the 1880s by George Pullman as workers' housing for employees of his eponymous railroad car company, the Pullman Palace Car Company. He established behavioral standards that workers had to meet to live in the area and charged them rent. Pullman's architect, Solon Spencer Beman, was said to be extremely proud that he had met all the workers' needs within the neighborhood he designed. The distinctive rowhouses were comfortable by standards of the day, and contained such amenities as indoor plumbing, gas, and sewers."
Look how well THAT turned out. It's good on the ups, not so great on the downs.
I believe Hershey, PA is another.
You've already been refuted factually as far as what was shot, but I'd also point out that bullets fired upward quickly tumble and lose their aerodynamic (ballistic) orientation by the time they are falling. Tumbling bullets have a terminal velocity of 300 feet per second, which would certainly hurt but are extremely unlikely to kill anyone.
Note: bullets fired at 45 deg elevation are far more likely to maintain spin for longer, and are thus more dangerous. Unlikely to be firing this low at a drone, though.
Mythbusters episode 50.
A little quoted portion of his much quoted "military industrial complex" speech:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
Because look how successful Hollywood has been rehashing old crap, right?
They too avoid new projects out of an abject fear of failure, it's not like theater revenues are plummeting or anything.
Last time I checked, the Chinese ROUTINELY get their asses kicked by any enemy they've fought since guns were a thing.
Don't forget that she'll have been raped so severely she'll be hollow.
There are worse things than dying in combat.
Pretty much any combat soldier will tell you that if you're relying on your sidearm as your combat weapon, you're pretty solidly fucked already.
"Critics say the M9 is too bulky for small-handed shooters"
Read: women.
Seriously, people: infantry combat is STILL one of those old-fashioned things where size and strength are really fucking important. You're not going to be able to design a smaller, lighter gun for petite little hands that ALSO has (as the rest of the article explains is needed badly) an increased stopping-power (which is primarily about the kinetic energy striking the target).
"Finesse" all the Ranger tests you want, but "average woman A" will not perform as well in combat as "average man B".* This is just another example of how/why.
* that said, there are a crapton of wastrels, layabouts, and good-for-nothings in the lower bracket of the male bell curve that will be outperformed by exceptional women because the women have the mental attitude necessary to be successful, which can get you a long way.
That's not speculative; isn't that pretty much the observed pattern in the abundant examples of human overuse of antiseptics and bactericides? We kill off the multitude of fauna that evolved there, leaving it open for the aggressive, really DANGEROUS ones to now multiply unhindered.
This is an astonishingly arrogant "deduction" considering that:
- as recently as 1988 identifications of exoplanets were considered dubious (many were later confirmed by subsequent observation). In fact, even the concept that there were other planets out there was still in some debate in the 1990s
- our detection technologies, while highly advanced from where they were, are still astonishingly rudimentary, largely only by deduction (not direct observation) and likely only finding a *tiny* subset of the bell-curve of planetary bodies out there; in fact, it's unlikely that ANY planets in our solar system would be detectable by observers located at the very closest stars using our current tech.
All we can say for sure is that:
- our system took about 5 billion years to get where it is today, developmentally.
- our system developed from a nebula, perhaps either the remnant of, or subject to the shockwave of, a nova/supernova. Given that such structures had to develop (but age much faster than our star), we can add another 1 billion years to that process to come to a total age of our system of 6 bn yrs for the full process, incl "pre-solar" development
- our universe is about 13.8 billion years old, with stellar formation around 1 billion years ...call it 2 billion, just to be conservative.
- If stars were forming at 2 bn yrs, and our system is about 6bn yrs, that means there could have been planetary formation and systems like ours developing for 5 BILLION years before today.
- Since our system is an entirely average sun, in an entirely average stellar neighborhood, it's probable that our experience is entirely typical.
To deduce then that only 8% of potential planets have formed is nonsense.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
Further, the family (AFAIK) has refused to sign any waiver allowing the school to explain their side of the story fully.
Dad's a media gadfly (from a profile of him long before the whole bomb thing)
http://www.okayafrica.com/news...
Calls himself a sheikh on his campaign page (one of them)
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
I'm sure our president will take prompt, strong, effective action based on his long string of foreign-policy successes.
"Employers aren't required to give you anything when they let you go"
They are, if they're requiring you to sign a new "contract" - there has to be compensation, or it's not a contract.
Besides, what are they doing if you don't sign: fire you?
And the one country that's BEEN there, that was dominant in spaceflight for the late 60s, 70s, and even arguably 80s & 90s, has turned its back (in any serious way) on the moon and manned spaceflight in general.
Ozymandias, indeed.