... either people that don't like slapstick comedy or people that don't like the political message of the movie.
Actually read the bad reviews. They're like reading bad Amazon reviews... "This 20 dollar jack is no where near as good as my 400 dollar jacket... 1 star!" Or "I can't recharge my computer with this USB cable... 1 star!"... They're fucking stupid.
They keep saying stuff like "the humor is crude"... really, you complete waste of human life? That is fucking shocking. It is a stupid screw ball comedy, fuckwit.
Anyway, you just need to filter the idiot reviewers from the ones that understand what genre they're reviewing. And my god there are a lot of fucking idiots working for the mainstream newspapers. I read these reviews and can see very clearly why these newspapers are having circulation issues. They are staffed almost entirely with morons.
Require that students work during their summer break and I'll compromise. As a further sign of my willingness to compromise... simply require that they do something constructive. Anything. Sitting on their asses eating potato chips is not acceptable. Change nothing and I'll assume a lot of students do not do anything productive during their summer break and maintain my position unchanged.
I thought my point was self evident, but perhaps not.
[quote]As far as I know, or at least in my area, the contracts with the individual teachers are for the term of the school year. Roughly 9 months. 3 months not.
Unless you are suggesting a massive pay cut, the cure is simple. Extend the contract to year round, and make the pay reflect that period. This would not be unlike a regular 32 hour, or 40 hour contract with an employee. Where I worked we had a type of employee who was essentially full time part time. Every year, they signed a contract for a specific number of hours.[/quote] Maintaining the same pay per hour is fine so long as the annual pay is comparable to what we pay similiarly skilled people in the labor force for the same number of hours.
You might get a pay cut in some cases because your pay effectively covers your summer break as if you were working in some cases. Where as other jobs have people working through that time.
I don't think it is unreasonable to have teachers paid the same amount as other people in the labor force that are are difficult to find and have the same amount of education.
If you do get a pay cut and don't like it, this means I can replace you without a lot of trouble. If you are not getting a pay cut then I don't see the problem.
I have no problem with extending the contracts. I do have a problem if the final annual number is non-competitive.
[quote]I doubt even in your anti-union fervor, you would support a 25 percent increase in working hours without a commensurate increase in pay, especially since many (most, all?) contracts are already written in that way.[/quote] I wouldn't expect you to work for wages that were unreasonable. But are you claiming that all current contracts are reasonable? We've seen a massive increase in some teacher compensation packages over the last couple decades. I will not assume your current contract is competitive and just increase it sight unseen by 25 percent.
Rather, I agree you should be paid what you are worth per hour and I want those hours worked. That is the best you'll get out of me on that issue. Your wages must be subject to market conditions. Just like everyone else.
If you look at the process by which you become a teacher these days, it is no wonder you have so many rejects in the classroom. The system is almost designed to filter out good teachers.
It was there so children could help their parents on their farms. This was at a time when between 60 to 80 percent of the labor force was involved in some kind of agriculture.
Since none of this is applicable and the students are generally agreed to be in need of more education... the conclusion seems rather obvious.
The teachers won't like this being the lazy union shit heads that they've become in many cases. And politically the issue will get attacked although perhaps subtly. But it is for the common good.
Que the flames for suggesting that teachers unions do not always have the best interests of the students at heart or are in fact always reasonable. A warning to anyone that does want to make such an argument... I will bury your ass alive in facts.
Force companies to pay them more by law so it is clear that this is for the talent and not to save money. If they want the talent, I have no problem with it. If they're doing it to put pressure on domestic workers then fuck them.
The primary change is that additional career opportunities opened up for women.
Prior to that change, women were often restricted to clerical positions in corporations and computer programming was deemed clerical. So effectively, women that applied for programming courses were actually applying for training to be super clerks or master typists effectively.
When additional career opportunities opened up they chose careers they found more rewarding or interesting.
As to genetics, I do not believe women are incapable of doing the work. To the contrary, I think women have certain advantages especially in our society that simply make them choose things they'd rather do that the men they're competing against cannot do.
There are genetic reasons for this... amongst them, women have more generalized talents where as men tend to be specialized. This is both genetic and neurological. Men that are genius mathematicans for example tend to be poor poets. Women that are genius mathematicians tend to be equally gifted in several if not many different things. This is largely because men in our species are the lab rats.
Women have much more normalized mutations and tend to have a much stronger bell curve around the middle of the of human ability. Men still tend to cluster around the middle but they are far more likely to be either geniuses or idiots. This covers a variaty of mutations beyond the mental as well.
Men are the dispensable sex. You can lose 90 percent of the male population in a generation and have no impact at all on the next generation's size. That sort of death toll is unusual but a very high death toll in the Bronze age for example saw some appaulling survival rates for men. The survival rates for women have always been greater because they are protected. Men literally die to protect them by default. And that is simply a cultural expression of a genetic survival strategy that goes back before we gained awareness.
That has consequences. And a result is that there are more men with the aptitude to do the work. There are many women with the aptitude as well... however, as stated above they tend to have far more options then the men.
Beyond all this, what you have to admit is that this is happening WELL before companies ever have an opportunity to hire a woman. The companies are not causing this to happen. The women are completely free to choose CS classes and they do not in the same numbers that men do EVEN when they outnumber men in the university.
What is more, the choice appears to happen well before they even reach college. The boys that go into CS tend to have years of experience with computers long before they take those course which gives them an advantage.
This is not going to change unless you mandate that women take these courses by law or custom and then take these jobs.
If you're not willing to do that then you might as well stick your thumb up your ass and sing show tunes. It is equally likely to get the result you're going for here.
No, pinning only makes MITM attacks harder. It does nothing for my actual issue which you have ZERO solution for...
Do you even know what my primary complaint was about this encryption scheme? I've been pretty clear, but your comment about pinning makes it clear to me that you haven't been paying attention.
So here is a simple pass/fail test:
What is my primary problem with the current encryption scheme and why does pinning do literally nothing to address it?
You either answer that question correctly or you're either too stupid to have this conversation or just talking to yourself because you're not reading anything I am writing.
These discussions must be interactive or they just turn into stupid insult fights because one side or the other can't be bothered to fucking read what the other party is saying.
Except for it is because women were never excluded from technical education in the last 20 years or so.
And even RIGHT NOW they are not taking these courses.
So are universities sexist? The same universities that passed "yes means yes"?
The unis are if anything biased towards women which can be shown through a large number of statistics. If women wanted to do computer science, they would.
They don't.
Here you have the option of turning tail and scurrying away or backing up that "ignorance" charge. I assure you, if you stay put long enough, I will nail a dunce cap to your pointy little head.;-)
Either force women to join the tech industry by law or there will always be a gender gap... oh unless you lobotomize men so they can't even do it if they want to do it.
Short of that... gender gap is forever. Women don't want to do it - so they don't.
My solution was to replace the existing system with a theoretically sound system.
Do I intend as part of that disbanding the current shit system? Yes. That is however not me saying we should just got totally naked in the meantime.
Please assume I am not stupid because I am not stupid. It wastes time, makes you sound like you're trying to straw man me, and it is generally counter productive.
As there being limited space, the pole lease fees if they exceed what the poles can pay for can pay for a conduit system to replace it.
As to long term based leasing, that is just an admission of the government being lazy and not especially interested in managing the system. Which is an argument for my suggestion of farming it out to a private contractor.
As to private contractors half assing it, that is entirely based on whether the contract is handed to a friend of one of the politicians or whether it is opened up to competition. You don't have to farm the entire network out to one company either. You can break it up on a block by block basis and let smaller companies do it. That way if one of them does a bad job you can just fire them. It is this insistence on too big to fail design that is getting us in so much trouble.
Too big to fail is not only an accident waiting to happen, it is also slow, anti democratic, and anti innovation. It is a dumb way to do things. Lets stop doing it.
As to city workers being irrelevant, I disagree. Anyone that has had to deal with road workers know that they are very relevant.
That is another service that should be farmed out to private contractors. Take a pot hole. What if rather then the government fixing it, they instead put a work order out to fix it. Licensed contractors could go out there, put up some traffic cones during proscribed hours, and then just do it.
Give them a bonus for doing it at night and 100 percent of it will be done at night. You'd never see another pot hole sit there for weeks on end again.
That doesn't control for water. Have you ever had house plants? If the temps go up, you tend to need to water your plants more because they dry out faster.
Point being, you're assuming the plants are getting the water they need under all conditions. Some farmers are going to adapt and water their plants more when it gets hotter. Other farmers either will not or cannot water their plants more and as a result they'll dry out and will reduce the yields.
What you're claiming is that generally clemant weather for crops kills crops. What temperatures specifically are you citing are killing or reducing yields in which crops?
I assure you, if I take that temperature and query agricultural experts, they're going to say that temperature is either good or better then what they were getting before for that plant.
The problem is keeping the soil moist. And it is only a problem because farmers in given regions are used to certain weather patterns. If you give them unusual weather some of them are going to ignore the change and just do everything the same. And that is going to damage the crops under some circomstances. Which is all your stats are likely showing.
If you want to make a compelling argument about this, you'd have to go to the agricultural department of any agricultural university and either ask for their data on the issue or have them do experiments that controlled for the variables.
If you seriously think your statistics can be used in this way then you do NOT know how to read statistics. This is actually one of the bigger problems in the modern world. We have a lot of data and people think that "bad" data if you have enough of it is as good as "good" data. It isn't the case.
Garbage in = Garbage out. You can't improve the data with quantity. You're making the same mistake that magazines and newspapers make when they say things like "red wine increases longevity". That is confusing causation with correlation.
What you did was look for some statistic that showed correlation for variables you were talking about and agreed with you.
Congrats. That is however meaningless. You need causation. You do not have that because the variable of water IN THE SOIL is not controlled.
What are these horrible high temperatures you're talking about? 95 degrees? 110? Corn is quite happy in high temperatures so long as it gets water. Rice is utterly indifferent to high temperatures so long as the paddies have water. Potatoes don't care though they're so happy with lower temps that they're often grown in colder climates. Same thing with wheat. You can grow it in hot areas but why? It is happy in colder areas where lots of other crops are not so you might as well grow it there instead.
When it comes to crops that need heat... which is the only thing you're going to grow in a hot area... no minor uptick in heat is going to matter to them so long as they get water.
The causative factor requires a functioning model. There are too many variables to claim causation without a model.
My biochemistry is a completely different subject which gases build up heat when hit with the sun.
Again, it has been shown that even on Venus where the CO2 dramatically higher... the issue is not the CO2 at all but rather the density of the atmosphere itself. You could put that much oxygen on Venus and it be about the same temperature it is now.
The entire concept of greenhouse gases as relevant to global atmospheres is likely vastly over stated.
Venus is the extreme case. All the failed though still supported climate models for the earth were adapted from models of Venus. And they're wrong because they assume the chemistry of the atmosphere matters.
Do this... find the air pressure of Venus at the "surface". Note that temperature. Now compare that to Jupiter at the same air pressure. You'll go about a third into Jupiter's atmosphere I think. The temperature is somewhat similar. Its not exact but it is in the ball park.
Do the same thing with the earth only in reverse. Get the air pressure of earth... 1 atmosphere obviously. And then go to Venus and see what the temperature of that atmosphere is at 1 atmosphere. You'll find it to be within the range of earth's atmosphere.
Which means pressure is far more relevant then gas composition. After all, Jupiter, Venus, and Earth have completely different atmospheric chemistries.
That I've done these calculations and you have not should give you pause. I have actually looked at this issue. I know about the Japanese earth simulator and you didn't know. Consider just for the sake of argument that I could be in command of more facts.
As to nitrogen and oxygen not having a big impact on the global atmosphere, that is impossible. If I removed those gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be a great deal thinner. And it would therefore be a great deal colder. Forget what impact this would have on life. If we just concern ourselves with the temperature consequences, removing that nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere would radically reduce the temperature of earth. We'd be looking at a Martian climate.
As to heat reducing crop yields, you're not controlling for water in those statistics so it could all be water.
Look, I have a green house. I have thousands of plants.
Do you know which plants don't like being 95 degrees? Basically none of them. What kills them all is getting too much water and some of them have problems if it goes over 100. But up to 95 degrees they're all really happy. What is more that is very species specific. Certain species like it colder and some like it even hotter. You can take some species up to 120 and they're perfectly happy with it. I don't go that hot because I don't grow that many species like that and I find the temperature personally unpleasant so I don't let the green house get that hot.
Point is, if you want to have a scientific discussion then you're going to have to use good data. Using statistics from the USDA are not relevant to this discussion because they're not properly controlled for any one variable. They're really just yield statistics. It is like trying to use US Census statistics to judge the psychology of the nation. You can't do that. The data isn't taken in such a matter that it is clean enough to do that. Mostly what the census and yield stats give you is how many people we have and how much corn we have respectively. They can't really tell you what a long term climate change would have on global agriculture.
For one thing, they grow wheat in Canada. Think about that. They do that NOW. Now global warming will have the biggest impact on polar and sub polar climate zones and the least impact on the equatorial climate zones. The temperature rise under global warming is a global NORMALIZATION of climate. That means, that as the planet goes through AGW northern climates will become less harsh. That is the primary effect off
You're conflating house wiring with street wiring.
Lets take a city like New York City or if you prefer London. Are you telling me that the wires are run naked in the concrete? That seems unlikely. More likely is that the wires are in some sort of pipe. I can't speak to the width of the pipe but I am quite sure the ISP has the ability to change the wire without changing the pipe or even digging up the street.
Why would you do it in such a way that you'd have to do that? You're not going to save any money. It is just a dumb way to do things. While I acknowledge that it might be done that way in some places, I rather doubt it is standard given that there is no reason to do it that way.
Now your counter argument might be that the pipe is not wide enough to accept additional wires. That might be true. Though all you're saying there is that the existing conduit system is too narrow... not that one does not exist.
Regardless, lets just for the sake of argument say that everything you presume is accurate. That still leaves the poles. If the suburbs start getting fiber and the urban areas are denied it because of this stupidity then it won't be long before they are digging up the streets. Nothing pisses the cities off faster then getting poorer services then what is found in the suburbs. Even though that is frequently the case.
Better schools, better water, better police... I suppose an inferior ballet... but you can't have everything.
Cuba has an opportunity to leap into the 21st century.
The only obstacle is their batshit crazy government. No one wants to invest anything in Cuba because it will just get stolen by the government. And the government is too poor to actually buy anything.
The lights become inefficient if you do that. You have to appreciate what they're replacing. Traffic guards. Literally a man would stand in the middle of the road and direct traffic.
You could either have a stop sign or a traffic guard. That was how it used to work.
When they introduced traffic lights, they were basically blind traffic guards. They are inherently less efficient then actual traffic guards though of course much less expensive.
At this point, I'd suggest we go to round-a-bouts or possibly traffic lights that are aware of local traffic conditions in real time and respond to them by changing light durations.
THAT would be a real safety innovation. The city councils won't touch it because it doesn't make money and that is all they care about these days.
But consider cameras used not to give tickets but to adjust light timings in real time.
So for example, late at night where there is only one person at the intersection... they get a green light instantly.
During periods of the day where there is light traffic the system could slip into an egalitarian mode where it lets everyone have their turn much like a stop light.
Then during periods of high traffic it could prioritize given lanes to prevent traffic jams and make the intersections more efficient.
In regards to yellow lights... Again, model the AI on the traffic guard. What is he going to do? He's not going to tell a lane it can go until the lane is clear from the last transit. That means, the light will NOT go green until people are done going through even if he told them it wasn't their turn anymore.
Think about it. An aware intersection. Not a blind traffic guard that just works on clock work timing. But rather, an active system that knows what is going on.
We could build one right now and it probably wouldn't be expensive... oh after the graft and corruption gets at it who knows what it would cost. But the actual cost of the mechanism shouldn't be a big deal.
As to my stupid backward country... that would be the United States. And the sophistication of my country is unrivaled. We are a hegemonic power for a reason, monkey boy.
As to your suggestion that one should never complain about politicians being stupid or corrupt... that is such an idiotic statement that I don't know where to go from here. Do you not know how democracy works, twit? Complaining is part of the political process. I thought everyone knew that. I've talked to people living in dictatorships that knew more about democracy then you.
As to your dubious credentials, I think we've established rather soundly that you're a clown. Not a lot more needs to be said on the subject.
Shuffle off and stop pretending to be an expert, shit for brains.
Slashdot Mirror
... either people that don't like slapstick comedy or people that don't like the political message of the movie.
Actually read the bad reviews. They're like reading bad Amazon reviews... "This 20 dollar jack is no where near as good as my 400 dollar jacket... 1 star!" Or "I can't recharge my computer with this USB cable... 1 star!"... They're fucking stupid.
They keep saying stuff like "the humor is crude"... really, you complete waste of human life? That is fucking shocking. It is a stupid screw ball comedy, fuckwit.
Anyway, you just need to filter the idiot reviewers from the ones that understand what genre they're reviewing. And my god there are a lot of fucking idiots working for the mainstream newspapers. I read these reviews and can see very clearly why these newspapers are having circulation issues. They are staffed almost entirely with morons.
Require that students work during their summer break and I'll compromise. As a further sign of my willingness to compromise... simply require that they do something constructive. Anything. Sitting on their asses eating potato chips is not acceptable. Change nothing and I'll assume a lot of students do not do anything productive during their summer break and maintain my position unchanged.
Deal?
I thought my point was self evident, but perhaps not.
[quote]As far as I know, or at least in my area, the contracts with the individual teachers are for the term of the school year. Roughly 9 months. 3 months not.
Unless you are suggesting a massive pay cut, the cure is simple. Extend the contract to year round, and make the pay reflect that period. This would not be unlike a regular 32 hour, or 40 hour contract with an employee. Where I worked we had a type of employee who was essentially full time part time. Every year, they signed a contract for a specific number of hours.[/quote]
Maintaining the same pay per hour is fine so long as the annual pay is comparable to what we pay similiarly skilled people in the labor force for the same number of hours.
You might get a pay cut in some cases because your pay effectively covers your summer break as if you were working in some cases. Where as other jobs have people working through that time.
I don't think it is unreasonable to have teachers paid the same amount as other people in the labor force that are are difficult to find and have the same amount of education.
If you do get a pay cut and don't like it, this means I can replace you without a lot of trouble. If you are not getting a pay cut then I don't see the problem.
I have no problem with extending the contracts. I do have a problem if the final annual number is non-competitive.
[quote]I doubt even in your anti-union fervor, you would support a 25 percent increase in working hours without a commensurate increase in pay, especially since many (most, all?) contracts are already written in that way.[/quote]
I wouldn't expect you to work for wages that were unreasonable. But are you claiming that all current contracts are reasonable? We've seen a massive increase in some teacher compensation packages over the last couple decades. I will not assume your current contract is competitive and just increase it sight unseen by 25 percent.
Rather, I agree you should be paid what you are worth per hour and I want those hours worked. That is the best you'll get out of me on that issue. Your wages must be subject to market conditions. Just like everyone else.
You're assuming that students study art or something during their summer break. They don't.
In some districts the grade school teachers literally have "tenure".
So... think about that.
If you look at the process by which you become a teacher these days, it is no wonder you have so many rejects in the classroom. The system is almost designed to filter out good teachers.
... of our agrarian past.
It was there so children could help their parents on their farms. This was at a time when between 60 to 80 percent of the labor force was involved in some kind of agriculture.
Since none of this is applicable and the students are generally agreed to be in need of more education... the conclusion seems rather obvious.
The teachers won't like this being the lazy union shit heads that they've become in many cases. And politically the issue will get attacked although perhaps subtly. But it is for the common good.
Que the flames for suggesting that teachers unions do not always have the best interests of the students at heart or are in fact always reasonable. A warning to anyone that does want to make such an argument... I will bury your ass alive in facts.
Force companies to pay them more by law so it is clear that this is for the talent and not to save money. If they want the talent, I have no problem with it. If they're doing it to put pressure on domestic workers then fuck them.
You have to be able to control which exit nodes you use.
The primary change is that additional career opportunities opened up for women.
Prior to that change, women were often restricted to clerical positions in corporations and computer programming was deemed clerical. So effectively, women that applied for programming courses were actually applying for training to be super clerks or master typists effectively.
When additional career opportunities opened up they chose careers they found more rewarding or interesting.
As to genetics, I do not believe women are incapable of doing the work. To the contrary, I think women have certain advantages especially in our society that simply make them choose things they'd rather do that the men they're competing against cannot do.
There are genetic reasons for this... amongst them, women have more generalized talents where as men tend to be specialized. This is both genetic and neurological. Men that are genius mathematicans for example tend to be poor poets. Women that are genius mathematicians tend to be equally gifted in several if not many different things. This is largely because men in our species are the lab rats.
Women have much more normalized mutations and tend to have a much stronger bell curve around the middle of the of human ability. Men still tend to cluster around the middle but they are far more likely to be either geniuses or idiots. This covers a variaty of mutations beyond the mental as well.
Men are the dispensable sex. You can lose 90 percent of the male population in a generation and have no impact at all on the next generation's size. That sort of death toll is unusual but a very high death toll in the Bronze age for example saw some appaulling survival rates for men. The survival rates for women have always been greater because they are protected. Men literally die to protect them by default. And that is simply a cultural expression of a genetic survival strategy that goes back before we gained awareness.
That has consequences. And a result is that there are more men with the aptitude to do the work. There are many women with the aptitude as well... however, as stated above they tend to have far more options then the men.
Beyond all this, what you have to admit is that this is happening WELL before companies ever have an opportunity to hire a woman. The companies are not causing this to happen. The women are completely free to choose CS classes and they do not in the same numbers that men do EVEN when they outnumber men in the university.
What is more, the choice appears to happen well before they even reach college. The boys that go into CS tend to have years of experience with computers long before they take those course which gives them an advantage.
This is not going to change unless you mandate that women take these courses by law or custom and then take these jobs.
If you're not willing to do that then you might as well stick your thumb up your ass and sing show tunes. It is equally likely to get the result you're going for here.
No, pinning only makes MITM attacks harder. It does nothing for my actual issue which you have ZERO solution for...
Do you even know what my primary complaint was about this encryption scheme? I've been pretty clear, but your comment about pinning makes it clear to me that you haven't been paying attention.
So here is a simple pass/fail test:
What is my primary problem with the current encryption scheme and why does pinning do literally nothing to address it?
You either answer that question correctly or you're either too stupid to have this conversation or just talking to yourself because you're not reading anything I am writing.
These discussions must be interactive or they just turn into stupid insult fights because one side or the other can't be bothered to fucking read what the other party is saying.
Except for it is because women were never excluded from technical education in the last 20 years or so.
And even RIGHT NOW they are not taking these courses.
So are universities sexist? The same universities that passed "yes means yes"?
The unis are if anything biased towards women which can be shown through a large number of statistics. If women wanted to do computer science, they would.
They don't.
Here you have the option of turning tail and scurrying away or backing up that "ignorance" charge. I assure you, if you stay put long enough, I will nail a dunce cap to your pointy little head. ;-)
Your move, chester.
Either force women to join the tech industry by law or there will always be a gender gap... oh unless you lobotomize men so they can't even do it if they want to do it.
Short of that... gender gap is forever. Women don't want to do it - so they don't.
It is the same problem really. Batshit crazy government making things impossible.
No that was not my solution.
My solution was to replace the existing system with a theoretically sound system.
Do I intend as part of that disbanding the current shit system? Yes. That is however not me saying we should just got totally naked in the meantime.
Please assume I am not stupid because I am not stupid. It wastes time, makes you sound like you're trying to straw man me, and it is generally counter productive.
As there being limited space, the pole lease fees if they exceed what the poles can pay for can pay for a conduit system to replace it.
As to long term based leasing, that is just an admission of the government being lazy and not especially interested in managing the system. Which is an argument for my suggestion of farming it out to a private contractor.
As to private contractors half assing it, that is entirely based on whether the contract is handed to a friend of one of the politicians or whether it is opened up to competition. You don't have to farm the entire network out to one company either. You can break it up on a block by block basis and let smaller companies do it. That way if one of them does a bad job you can just fire them. It is this insistence on too big to fail design that is getting us in so much trouble.
Too big to fail is not only an accident waiting to happen, it is also slow, anti democratic, and anti innovation. It is a dumb way to do things. Lets stop doing it.
As to city workers being irrelevant, I disagree. Anyone that has had to deal with road workers know that they are very relevant.
That is another service that should be farmed out to private contractors. Take a pot hole. What if rather then the government fixing it, they instead put a work order out to fix it. Licensed contractors could go out there, put up some traffic cones during proscribed hours, and then just do it.
Give them a bonus for doing it at night and 100 percent of it will be done at night. You'd never see another pot hole sit there for weeks on end again.
I drive around LA a lot at night and that means driving up to intersections where I am the only one there.
How common do you think it was that I'd wait for about 3 or more minutes for the light to change when I was the only person there?
Try almost always.
I've noticed no difference between what LA is doing and what any small town does. The intersections seem entirely based on timings.
Just the personal experience of a driver. If you were doing something... I didn't see it. And that's not good.
That doesn't control for water. Have you ever had house plants? If the temps go up, you tend to need to water your plants more because they dry out faster.
Point being, you're assuming the plants are getting the water they need under all conditions. Some farmers are going to adapt and water their plants more when it gets hotter. Other farmers either will not or cannot water their plants more and as a result they'll dry out and will reduce the yields.
What you're claiming is that generally clemant weather for crops kills crops. What temperatures specifically are you citing are killing or reducing yields in which crops?
I assure you, if I take that temperature and query agricultural experts, they're going to say that temperature is either good or better then what they were getting before for that plant.
The problem is keeping the soil moist. And it is only a problem because farmers in given regions are used to certain weather patterns. If you give them unusual weather some of them are going to ignore the change and just do everything the same. And that is going to damage the crops under some circomstances. Which is all your stats are likely showing.
If you want to make a compelling argument about this, you'd have to go to the agricultural department of any agricultural university and either ask for their data on the issue or have them do experiments that controlled for the variables.
If you seriously think your statistics can be used in this way then you do NOT know how to read statistics. This is actually one of the bigger problems in the modern world. We have a lot of data and people think that "bad" data if you have enough of it is as good as "good" data. It isn't the case.
Garbage in = Garbage out. You can't improve the data with quantity. You're making the same mistake that magazines and newspapers make when they say things like "red wine increases longevity". That is confusing causation with correlation.
What you did was look for some statistic that showed correlation for variables you were talking about and agreed with you.
Congrats. That is however meaningless. You need causation. You do not have that because the variable of water IN THE SOIL is not controlled.
What are these horrible high temperatures you're talking about? 95 degrees? 110? Corn is quite happy in high temperatures so long as it gets water. Rice is utterly indifferent to high temperatures so long as the paddies have water. Potatoes don't care though they're so happy with lower temps that they're often grown in colder climates. Same thing with wheat. You can grow it in hot areas but why? It is happy in colder areas where lots of other crops are not so you might as well grow it there instead.
When it comes to crops that need heat... which is the only thing you're going to grow in a hot area... no minor uptick in heat is going to matter to them so long as they get water.
it isn't automated... and it is not widely distributed. I live in LA. There aren't cameras on intersections.
elaborate?
The causative factor requires a functioning model. There are too many variables to claim causation without a model.
My biochemistry is a completely different subject which gases build up heat when hit with the sun.
Again, it has been shown that even on Venus where the CO2 dramatically higher... the issue is not the CO2 at all but rather the density of the atmosphere itself. You could put that much oxygen on Venus and it be about the same temperature it is now.
The entire concept of greenhouse gases as relevant to global atmospheres is likely vastly over stated.
Venus is the extreme case. All the failed though still supported climate models for the earth were adapted from models of Venus. And they're wrong because they assume the chemistry of the atmosphere matters.
Do this... find the air pressure of Venus at the "surface". Note that temperature. Now compare that to Jupiter at the same air pressure. You'll go about a third into Jupiter's atmosphere I think. The temperature is somewhat similar. Its not exact but it is in the ball park.
Do the same thing with the earth only in reverse. Get the air pressure of earth... 1 atmosphere obviously. And then go to Venus and see what the temperature of that atmosphere is at 1 atmosphere. You'll find it to be within the range of earth's atmosphere.
Which means pressure is far more relevant then gas composition. After all, Jupiter, Venus, and Earth have completely different atmospheric chemistries.
That I've done these calculations and you have not should give you pause. I have actually looked at this issue. I know about the Japanese earth simulator and you didn't know. Consider just for the sake of argument that I could be in command of more facts.
As to nitrogen and oxygen not having a big impact on the global atmosphere, that is impossible. If I removed those gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be a great deal thinner. And it would therefore be a great deal colder. Forget what impact this would have on life. If we just concern ourselves with the temperature consequences, removing that nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere would radically reduce the temperature of earth. We'd be looking at a Martian climate.
As to heat reducing crop yields, you're not controlling for water in those statistics so it could all be water.
Look, I have a green house. I have thousands of plants.
Do you know which plants don't like being 95 degrees? Basically none of them. What kills them all is getting too much water and some of them have problems if it goes over 100. But up to 95 degrees they're all really happy. What is more that is very species specific. Certain species like it colder and some like it even hotter. You can take some species up to 120 and they're perfectly happy with it. I don't go that hot because I don't grow that many species like that and I find the temperature personally unpleasant so I don't let the green house get that hot.
Point is, if you want to have a scientific discussion then you're going to have to use good data. Using statistics from the USDA are not relevant to this discussion because they're not properly controlled for any one variable. They're really just yield statistics. It is like trying to use US Census statistics to judge the psychology of the nation. You can't do that. The data isn't taken in such a matter that it is clean enough to do that. Mostly what the census and yield stats give you is how many people we have and how much corn we have respectively. They can't really tell you what a long term climate change would have on global agriculture.
For one thing, they grow wheat in Canada. Think about that. They do that NOW. Now global warming will have the biggest impact on polar and sub polar climate zones and the least impact on the equatorial climate zones. The temperature rise under global warming is a global NORMALIZATION of climate. That means, that as the planet goes through AGW northern climates will become less harsh. That is the primary effect off
You're conflating house wiring with street wiring.
Lets take a city like New York City or if you prefer London. Are you telling me that the wires are run naked in the concrete? That seems unlikely. More likely is that the wires are in some sort of pipe. I can't speak to the width of the pipe but I am quite sure the ISP has the ability to change the wire without changing the pipe or even digging up the street.
Why would you do it in such a way that you'd have to do that? You're not going to save any money. It is just a dumb way to do things. While I acknowledge that it might be done that way in some places, I rather doubt it is standard given that there is no reason to do it that way.
Now your counter argument might be that the pipe is not wide enough to accept additional wires. That might be true. Though all you're saying there is that the existing conduit system is too narrow... not that one does not exist.
Regardless, lets just for the sake of argument say that everything you presume is accurate. That still leaves the poles. If the suburbs start getting fiber and the urban areas are denied it because of this stupidity then it won't be long before they are digging up the streets. Nothing pisses the cities off faster then getting poorer services then what is found in the suburbs. Even though that is frequently the case.
Better schools, better water, better police... I suppose an inferior ballet... but you can't have everything.
Cuba has an opportunity to leap into the 21st century.
The only obstacle is their batshit crazy government. No one wants to invest anything in Cuba because it will just get stolen by the government. And the government is too poor to actually buy anything.
So there you go.
The lights become inefficient if you do that. You have to appreciate what they're replacing. Traffic guards. Literally a man would stand in the middle of the road and direct traffic.
You could either have a stop sign or a traffic guard. That was how it used to work.
When they introduced traffic lights, they were basically blind traffic guards. They are inherently less efficient then actual traffic guards though of course much less expensive.
At this point, I'd suggest we go to round-a-bouts or possibly traffic lights that are aware of local traffic conditions in real time and respond to them by changing light durations.
THAT would be a real safety innovation. The city councils won't touch it because it doesn't make money and that is all they care about these days.
But consider cameras used not to give tickets but to adjust light timings in real time.
So for example, late at night where there is only one person at the intersection... they get a green light instantly.
During periods of the day where there is light traffic the system could slip into an egalitarian mode where it lets everyone have their turn much like a stop light.
Then during periods of high traffic it could prioritize given lanes to prevent traffic jams and make the intersections more efficient.
In regards to yellow lights... Again, model the AI on the traffic guard. What is he going to do? He's not going to tell a lane it can go until the lane is clear from the last transit. That means, the light will NOT go green until people are done going through even if he told them it wasn't their turn anymore.
Think about it. An aware intersection. Not a blind traffic guard that just works on clock work timing. But rather, an active system that knows what is going on.
We could build one right now and it probably wouldn't be expensive... oh after the graft and corruption gets at it who knows what it would cost. But the actual cost of the mechanism shouldn't be a big deal.
As to my stupid backward country... that would be the United States. And the sophistication of my country is unrivaled. We are a hegemonic power for a reason, monkey boy.
As to your suggestion that one should never complain about politicians being stupid or corrupt... that is such an idiotic statement that I don't know where to go from here. Do you not know how democracy works, twit? Complaining is part of the political process. I thought everyone knew that. I've talked to people living in dictatorships that knew more about democracy then you.
As to your dubious credentials, I think we've established rather soundly that you're a clown. Not a lot more needs to be said on the subject.
Shuffle off and stop pretending to be an expert, shit for brains.