I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just trying to figure out who pulled the trigger. As a general point of order, I don't blame the gun for a murder. I blame the guy that held it.
If the university is contractually and legally bound to do something then they can't be held accountable for doing it.
Now wait a minute, no they weren't making it up. The man recently was interviewed and in that interview he expressed his belief in AGW. So he does believe in AGW where as it would be making it up to say Hitler did since he didn't even know about it.
You brought up OBL, I think we do have a statement from him in which he said he believe in it as well... let me find that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8487030.stm
OBL did blame the US for GW which of course means he believed in it.
So the heartland institute isn't making anything up but it's still trolling and they shouldn't have done it.
Again, Hitler liked dogs... do you? It's a classic fallacy.
That said, the pro AGW is addicted to ad verecundiam so there are fallacies on both sides.
People need to just make the argument respectfully on both sides and stick to facts without resorting to insults or logical fallacies.
Not really, the guy that made the claim is going through a process not unlike a lawyer disbarment or a de-licensing of a doctor.
If you really want to hitch your wagon to that, then so be it. But it looks like he scammed people. Choose your battles carefully. This is not one you'll win. That doesn't mean AGW is wrong. Merely that that one claim was wrong.
That is trolling. I hate the GW issue in general because it's so political.
But indifferent to that, the heatland institute shouldn't have done that.
I mean... I'm sure you can find a pedophile that likes kittens and then make a billboard that says "so and so likes kittens... do you?"...
There are perfectly reasonable ways to make these arguments without resorting to these tactics.
The pro GW factions have legitmately taken some body blows with the IPCC apparently not doing a very good job with the science, the universities and scientists apparently having some elitist ideas about what the public should and shouldn't know... and of course the "everything is caused by GW" meme being disproven abotu as often as it's claimed. The polar bear line was recently disproven in that the polar bears are apparently fine and the whole basis for claiming they were in trouble was specious. The scientist that proposed the notion is either under investigation or was disaplined in some fashion for creating the media circus.
And of course the anti GW groups likewise take a beating on a regular basis because the world does appear to have warmed about 1 degree over the last 100 years and that is very worrying trend. And of course the oil companies keep funding counter studies not unlike the pro smoking studies done in 50s and 60s. So it's very worrying that such biased groups might be influencing the science.
Long story short, it's impossible to trust anyone and it's a big political circus.
This sort of ad doesn't make it better. It makes it worse.
Fungi emits CO2. So if you stuck the plant in the dark and it rotted... more CO2.
This is trees aren't a perfect CO2 sink. They absorb a lot of CO2 but then they rot at some point, the fungi eats them, and it releases most of the carbon they were storing.
The whole process of carbon sequestration is difficult because most natural systems that could do it either take millions of years to store a reasonable amount or cause massive ocean acidification.
I don't know... it's a big problem that no one has a solution to yet.
The way student loans typically work is that the bank or government pays immediately and then collects over time.
For the schools to withhold the transcript implies that the schools themselves weren't paid which is not how this normally works.
So... did the schools get paid or not? Who secured the loan? I've seen no instance where the schools have ever backed a loan for a student's education outside of scholarships and that's because the school is basically waving fees.
I run into this sort of thing all the time and I find it disturbing because I'm not a scientist or any kind of expert. I'm just a moderately well rounded American... both in mind in body (hey, those cheese burgers were delicious.) And it seems like all too often the press, politicians, etc are making mistakes I was taught to spot in high school. I mean, this isn't even a college level mistake. This is a basic rudimentary failure to understand a fairly simple concept.
Sorry to rant, but the one thing that annoys me the most is the failure to grasp that correlation is not causation. This happens all the time. Some stupid statistical "study" will come out that shows a given graph plot goes up or down at the same time as another variable. They always assume that variable A went up because variable B went up.
This lead to absurd conclusions such as "red wine improves health"... It doesn't. But moderate red wine consumption correlates with better physical health. Why? Mostly socioeconomic and cultural factors. Wealthier, more intelligent, better exercised, etc people tend to drink red wine where as poorer people with all sorts of demographic health problems tend to not drink red wine. So red wine in no way makes people healthy. You could feed the wine to the unhealthy people and you'd merely make them drunk or deny the wine to the healthy people and they'd likely show no health difference.
Yet time and again people that don't know how to read statistics conclude that correlation is causation. This is merely depressing in the average public who were given the opportunity to learn better in school. But it's totally unacceptable in the media, the government, or most unforgivably I've seen some scientists try to get away with this logic.
Everyone values the concept of science more as an ideology or a symbol of status then as an actual intellectual discipline. And so they don't even notice when they wander off into lala land because for them it was never about accuracy or the basic curiosity about the universe. It was always about power, status, and social conformity.
tablet and mobile aren't replacing the pc. They're adding to it. The best course is for mutual compatibility. If the mobiles go out of their way to be incompatible then the first mobile that bucks the trend and conforms will outsell it's competitors in it's generation.
There is no money in intentionally breeding incompatibility.
F22 isn't too complicated though... it's just manned... and it's a dog fighter which likely is a bad role because it implies engaging other air superiority fighters in combat. IN the age of drones why risk a human life or a some crazy expensive plane just to kill an enemy plane? Now, as a stealth support bomber... it might have some utility... an ability to get behind enemy lines and take out ground targets. But engaging other air targets? Nothing will do it better then the F22 but I do question whether better is better. Maybe we want cheaper or safer.
Isn't it thermodynamically impossible to do this without USING energy?
Plants take in CO2 and make oxygen all the time. But they use energy in the form of sunlight to do it. So if the plant can produce power in the dark without any light at all... How?
Magic plant? Put a plant in a dark place with all the CO2 it wants... see how happy it is... it will die. Of course, then fungus and mold will eat it in the dark but that's a different family of life.
This whole report sounds like pseudo-science. Not unlike those perpetual energy machines that cranks keep claiming to have invented in their garages with nothing more then some old soda cans and a dream.
Here's another question, you know that guy that claimed to have cracked Fusion and wants to sell municipal grade fusion reactors? Well... where is he now? Claiming sudden technical difficulties owing to the fact that like all these other guys he made it up.
I don't know if it's the inventor's fault in this case or just a stupid press. But this story doesn't add up.
The F22 is a remarkable aircraft. It has some problems but they all did. It takes decades to work out all the bugs.
Is the F22 meaningless because it's foe doesn't exist. Not really. It's silly to think we don't need air superiority fighters simply because of the war on terror. Don't try to fight the last war. That's over. We need tools for the NEXT war which might well include more technologically savvy enemies.
That said, I think the real problem the F22 is that it isn't a drone. Generally, the future of all combat aircraft especially frontline aircraft should be towards autonomous flight. Not only are they more expendable, they're cheaper. And pesky issues like no oxygen go away since there's no pilot. Think of them like reusable AA missiles. You deploy a few if you think there is a chance of air attack and they intercept anything that wants to play. Or if you want to send it on a mission... same thing...
I'm not saying we can replace humans in all seats YET. But a control plane... possibly one of the refueling planes hundreds of miles from the target might have a small control crew that can pilot such a craft remotely.
I don't know... the F22 is amazing. Truly amazing aircraft. But it requires a pilot and that might be a problem.
I think apple's glory died with Jobs... the company has enormous momentum but Jobs was where the magic came from... sort of like the Disney company without Walt Disney... totally different entity.
from all estimates, the costs of geo engineering are two orders of magnitude below the cost of kyoto and kyoto itself wasn't effective.
So.... I'm trying to be realistic here. I'm not saying the quicklime idea is perfect. But its feasible where as stopping the CO2 is not. I wish it were... we can't stop. If you tried to stop it you'd either destroy us or everyone else would destroy you. It's not that we don't want to stop. It's that we can't stop. It's like asking everyone to hold their breath. Even if they want to they can't.
If someone somehow does it... they'll just kill themselves. If they force everyone else to do it then everyone dies.
We can't stop.
Figure out a way for us to stop without dying or find a way to mitigate the problem. I don't know how to stop. So I was looking at ideas as to how to keep doing it and survive. The idea people keep proposing to stop entirely is a suicide pact. I won't kill myself. And I won't let you kill me.
Give me other options or I'm going to keep breathing and doing my best to survive.
Clever... but who really needs this? I guess I just don't understand the actual need for it. Why would I buy a special cylindrical screen to represent objects this way when I can get nearly the same experience by having a normal flat screen? Sure, I can walk behind someone and look to see what the back of their head looks like... why is that useful to me?
I suspect flat screens are going to be the norm for the foreseeable future.
This is akin to NASA saying that one of or their primary mission (I forget which) is outreach to muslims.
The CIA, FBI, NSA, etc are concerned with HUMANS not with the f'ing atmosphere. Leave that to the organizations that deal with that just as it's the state department's problem to worry about diplomacy and not f'ing NASA.
Fine they're stop gaps... stop gaps that could buy us hundreds of years to deal with the problem.
Stopping CO2 won't deal with the problem for hundreds of years. If we all stopped producing CO2 now it wouldn't solve the problem.
As to acidification... Correct me if I'm wrong... but can't you counter an acid with a base?
Do we have environmentally friendly bases we can dump into the ocean? Obviously you want them to be low concentration so you spread it around... a little everywhere. How many tons of quicklime would it take to counter current ocean acidification?
We could do that tomorrow. Bam. Problem solved.
Just look at the ocean like the pool guy. Every so often you take a chemical sample and correct for imbalances.
As to PV being cheaper then coal, that's hilarious. If that were true then why do solar power factories never power their factories with solar panels?
Think about that. They sell them at a PROFIT. So whatever the cost of PV is includes their profit margin. If PV is cheaper then coal, then why would they buy power from the coal power plants rather then use their own PV product to supply their power?
Why is china desperate to import energy rather then simply building it's own PV infrastructure?
It isn't cheaper. It isn't even close to cheaper.
Last I checked, the cost of aquiring enough solar panels to supply a single home ENTIRELY with solar power which doesn't include batteries. This would be a grid connected systems where the system feeds power back into the grid during the day and draws it out at night... anyway the cost of those systems often exceeds 20 thousand dollars for a single home. Given that for that same home the monthly electricity bill is typically about 200 dollars it would take how long for the two to break even? A little more then eight years just to break even. And that doesn't factor in that the money should be MAKING value over time. Even in a bank account it would be making 2 percent. In stocks you could do as well as 10 percent or more annually.
And then of course the whole system has to be replaced since it depreciates.
Look, I like solar power. I really do. I wish we could all use it. But it isn't ready yet. And being fanatical on the subject doesn't make it happen anymore then you can yell at a radish and have it magically turn into a cheese pizza. There are real physical problems with these environmental ideas that can't be wished away through political fanaticism. If that were the case then every battle would go to the side that was crazier. Since it tends to go to the side with the numbers you should have some respect for that.
As I made clear, its primary purpose is to shield government officials from accountability should another attack happen and it does an excellent job of that.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not against paul per se... it's just that we have finite political capital and if we waste it on paul we won't have any left later. The man is bad at politics. the actual act of kissing babies and greasing the press. He's bad at it. I don't know what it is with Texas politicians and the grasping how national politics work but it seems to be a pattern. There seems to be this "screw it, I'll just ignore all caution and do it" attitude which is very cowboy of them but if your rivals see you coming because you've been telegraphing your intentions then they'll have lots of traps waiting for you and since you're not being careful where you put your feet it will all end badly.
Again... not against paul's ideas... just his largely counter productive methods.
I disagree, the airlines were never held responsible for the 9/11 attacks that was entirely on security checkers. So they need no additional shielding from liability.
This is 100 percent about politicians covering their asses.
At a certain point, the government isn't in charge anymore if the databases that largely govern EVERYTHING in our society are in the hands of a third party.
I mean, why do you get a parking ticket? Why do you get a tax rebate? Why do men kick your door down at 4 AM looking for stolen weapons?
It's all in a database somewhere and if a third party has change of it then what is to stop them from editing it?
Again, I'm find with a company designing the database but for the love of god don't have them run it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just trying to figure out who pulled the trigger. As a general point of order, I don't blame the gun for a murder. I blame the guy that held it.
If the university is contractually and legally bound to do something then they can't be held accountable for doing it.
Now wait a minute, no they weren't making it up. The man recently was interviewed and in that interview he expressed his belief in AGW. So he does believe in AGW where as it would be making it up to say Hitler did since he didn't even know about it.
You brought up OBL, I think we do have a statement from him in which he said he believe in it as well... let me find that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8487030.stm
OBL did blame the US for GW which of course means he believed in it.
So the heartland institute isn't making anything up but it's still trolling and they shouldn't have done it.
Again, Hitler liked dogs... do you? It's a classic fallacy.
That said, the pro AGW is addicted to ad verecundiam so there are fallacies on both sides.
People need to just make the argument respectfully on both sides and stick to facts without resorting to insults or logical fallacies.
Not really, the guy that made the claim is going through a process not unlike a lawyer disbarment or a de-licensing of a doctor.
If you really want to hitch your wagon to that, then so be it. But it looks like he scammed people. Choose your battles carefully. This is not one you'll win. That doesn't mean AGW is wrong. Merely that that one claim was wrong.
That is trolling. I hate the GW issue in general because it's so political.
But indifferent to that, the heatland institute shouldn't have done that.
I mean... I'm sure you can find a pedophile that likes kittens and then make a billboard that says "so and so likes kittens... do you?"...
There are perfectly reasonable ways to make these arguments without resorting to these tactics.
The pro GW factions have legitmately taken some body blows with the IPCC apparently not doing a very good job with the science, the universities and scientists apparently having some elitist ideas about what the public should and shouldn't know... and of course the "everything is caused by GW" meme being disproven abotu as often as it's claimed. The polar bear line was recently disproven in that the polar bears are apparently fine and the whole basis for claiming they were in trouble was specious. The scientist that proposed the notion is either under investigation or was disaplined in some fashion for creating the media circus.
And of course the anti GW groups likewise take a beating on a regular basis because the world does appear to have warmed about 1 degree over the last 100 years and that is very worrying trend. And of course the oil companies keep funding counter studies not unlike the pro smoking studies done in 50s and 60s. So it's very worrying that such biased groups might be influencing the science.
Long story short, it's impossible to trust anyone and it's a big political circus.
This sort of ad doesn't make it better. It makes it worse.
So either the state is ordering the university to pay or the bank is ordering the university to pay...
But in neither instance is it actually the university's idea?
I looked it up... took ten seconds...
Fungi emits CO2. So if you stuck the plant in the dark and it rotted... more CO2.
This is trees aren't a perfect CO2 sink. They absorb a lot of CO2 but then they rot at some point, the fungi eats them, and it releases most of the carbon they were storing.
The whole process of carbon sequestration is difficult because most natural systems that could do it either take millions of years to store a reasonable amount or cause massive ocean acidification.
I don't know... it's a big problem that no one has a solution to yet.
The way student loans typically work is that the bank or government pays immediately and then collects over time.
For the schools to withhold the transcript implies that the schools themselves weren't paid which is not how this normally works.
So... did the schools get paid or not? Who secured the loan? I've seen no instance where the schools have ever backed a loan for a student's education outside of scholarships and that's because the school is basically waving fees.
I run into this sort of thing all the time and I find it disturbing because I'm not a scientist or any kind of expert. I'm just a moderately well rounded American... both in mind in body (hey, those cheese burgers were delicious.) And it seems like all too often the press, politicians, etc are making mistakes I was taught to spot in high school. I mean, this isn't even a college level mistake. This is a basic rudimentary failure to understand a fairly simple concept.
Sorry to rant, but the one thing that annoys me the most is the failure to grasp that correlation is not causation. This happens all the time. Some stupid statistical "study" will come out that shows a given graph plot goes up or down at the same time as another variable. They always assume that variable A went up because variable B went up.
This lead to absurd conclusions such as "red wine improves health"... It doesn't. But moderate red wine consumption correlates with better physical health. Why? Mostly socioeconomic and cultural factors. Wealthier, more intelligent, better exercised, etc people tend to drink red wine where as poorer people with all sorts of demographic health problems tend to not drink red wine. So red wine in no way makes people healthy. You could feed the wine to the unhealthy people and you'd merely make them drunk or deny the wine to the healthy people and they'd likely show no health difference.
Yet time and again people that don't know how to read statistics conclude that correlation is causation. This is merely depressing in the average public who were given the opportunity to learn better in school. But it's totally unacceptable in the media, the government, or most unforgivably I've seen some scientists try to get away with this logic.
It all goes back to cargo cult science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg
Everyone values the concept of science more as an ideology or a symbol of status then as an actual intellectual discipline. And so they don't even notice when they wander off into lala land because for them it was never about accuracy or the basic curiosity about the universe. It was always about power, status, and social conformity.
Sorry for the rant... /rant.
tablet and mobile aren't replacing the pc. They're adding to it. The best course is for mutual compatibility. If the mobiles go out of their way to be incompatible then the first mobile that bucks the trend and conforms will outsell it's competitors in it's generation.
There is no money in intentionally breeding incompatibility.
in a day and age when a raspberry pi costs 35 dollars I don't see why some cheap networked sensors can't be installed.
F22 isn't too complicated though... it's just manned... and it's a dog fighter which likely is a bad role because it implies engaging other air superiority fighters in combat. IN the age of drones why risk a human life or a some crazy expensive plane just to kill an enemy plane? Now, as a stealth support bomber... it might have some utility... an ability to get behind enemy lines and take out ground targets. But engaging other air targets? Nothing will do it better then the F22 but I do question whether better is better. Maybe we want cheaper or safer.
I think fungi actually emit it.
Isn't it thermodynamically impossible to do this without USING energy?
Plants take in CO2 and make oxygen all the time. But they use energy in the form of sunlight to do it. So if the plant can produce power in the dark without any light at all... How?
Magic plant? Put a plant in a dark place with all the CO2 it wants... see how happy it is... it will die. Of course, then fungus and mold will eat it in the dark but that's a different family of life.
This whole report sounds like pseudo-science. Not unlike those perpetual energy machines that cranks keep claiming to have invented in their garages with nothing more then some old soda cans and a dream.
Here's another question, you know that guy that claimed to have cracked Fusion and wants to sell municipal grade fusion reactors? Well... where is he now? Claiming sudden technical difficulties owing to the fact that like all these other guys he made it up.
I don't know if it's the inventor's fault in this case or just a stupid press. But this story doesn't add up.
The F22 is a remarkable aircraft. It has some problems but they all did. It takes decades to work out all the bugs.
Is the F22 meaningless because it's foe doesn't exist. Not really. It's silly to think we don't need air superiority fighters simply because of the war on terror. Don't try to fight the last war. That's over. We need tools for the NEXT war which might well include more technologically savvy enemies.
That said, I think the real problem the F22 is that it isn't a drone. Generally, the future of all combat aircraft especially frontline aircraft should be towards autonomous flight. Not only are they more expendable, they're cheaper. And pesky issues like no oxygen go away since there's no pilot. Think of them like reusable AA missiles. You deploy a few if you think there is a chance of air attack and they intercept anything that wants to play. Or if you want to send it on a mission... same thing...
I'm not saying we can replace humans in all seats YET. But a control plane... possibly one of the refueling planes hundreds of miles from the target might have a small control crew that can pilot such a craft remotely.
I don't know... the F22 is amazing. Truly amazing aircraft. But it requires a pilot and that might be a problem.
I think apple's glory died with Jobs... the company has enormous momentum but Jobs was where the magic came from... sort of like the Disney company without Walt Disney... totally different entity.
things sure have changed when in so many instances MS is the underdog.
from all estimates, the costs of geo engineering are two orders of magnitude below the cost of kyoto and kyoto itself wasn't effective.
So.... I'm trying to be realistic here. I'm not saying the quicklime idea is perfect. But its feasible where as stopping the CO2 is not. I wish it were... we can't stop. If you tried to stop it you'd either destroy us or everyone else would destroy you. It's not that we don't want to stop. It's that we can't stop. It's like asking everyone to hold their breath. Even if they want to they can't.
If someone somehow does it... they'll just kill themselves. If they force everyone else to do it then everyone dies.
We can't stop.
Figure out a way for us to stop without dying or find a way to mitigate the problem. I don't know how to stop. So I was looking at ideas as to how to keep doing it and survive. The idea people keep proposing to stop entirely is a suicide pact. I won't kill myself. And I won't let you kill me.
Give me other options or I'm going to keep breathing and doing my best to survive.
What we need are networked sensors.
The stove doesn't need a computer. It needs to communicate with the everything else and possibly have servos so that it can be controlled remotely.
If every appliance could communicate with a centralized system we could do some pretty neat things.
That's a cylindrical screen.
Clever... but who really needs this? I guess I just don't understand the actual need for it. Why would I buy a special cylindrical screen to represent objects this way when I can get nearly the same experience by having a normal flat screen? Sure, I can walk behind someone and look to see what the back of their head looks like... why is that useful to me?
I suspect flat screens are going to be the norm for the foreseeable future.
Still... clever idea...
This is akin to NASA saying that one of or their primary mission (I forget which) is outreach to muslims.
The CIA, FBI, NSA, etc are concerned with HUMANS not with the f'ing atmosphere. Leave that to the organizations that deal with that just as it's the state department's problem to worry about diplomacy and not f'ing NASA.
Fine they're stop gaps... stop gaps that could buy us hundreds of years to deal with the problem.
Stopping CO2 won't deal with the problem for hundreds of years. If we all stopped producing CO2 now it wouldn't solve the problem.
As to acidification... Correct me if I'm wrong... but can't you counter an acid with a base?
Do we have environmentally friendly bases we can dump into the ocean? Obviously you want them to be low concentration so you spread it around... a little everywhere. How many tons of quicklime would it take to counter current ocean acidification?
We could do that tomorrow. Bam. Problem solved.
Just look at the ocean like the pool guy. Every so often you take a chemical sample and correct for imbalances.
As to PV being cheaper then coal, that's hilarious. If that were true then why do solar power factories never power their factories with solar panels?
Think about that. They sell them at a PROFIT. So whatever the cost of PV is includes their profit margin. If PV is cheaper then coal, then why would they buy power from the coal power plants rather then use their own PV product to supply their power?
Why is china desperate to import energy rather then simply building it's own PV infrastructure?
It isn't cheaper. It isn't even close to cheaper.
Last I checked, the cost of aquiring enough solar panels to supply a single home ENTIRELY with solar power which doesn't include batteries. This would be a grid connected systems where the system feeds power back into the grid during the day and draws it out at night... anyway the cost of those systems often exceeds 20 thousand dollars for a single home. Given that for that same home the monthly electricity bill is typically about 200 dollars it would take how long for the two to break even? A little more then eight years just to break even. And that doesn't factor in that the money should be MAKING value over time. Even in a bank account it would be making 2 percent. In stocks you could do as well as 10 percent or more annually.
And then of course the whole system has to be replaced since it depreciates.
Look, I like solar power. I really do. I wish we could all use it. But it isn't ready yet. And being fanatical on the subject doesn't make it happen anymore then you can yell at a radish and have it magically turn into a cheese pizza. There are real physical problems with these environmental ideas that can't be wished away through political fanaticism. If that were the case then every battle would go to the side that was crazier. Since it tends to go to the side with the numbers you should have some respect for that.
As I made clear, its primary purpose is to shield government officials from accountability should another attack happen and it does an excellent job of that.
What has any of that ever accomplished?
Don't get me wrong... I'm not against paul per se... it's just that we have finite political capital and if we waste it on paul we won't have any left later. The man is bad at politics. the actual act of kissing babies and greasing the press. He's bad at it. I don't know what it is with Texas politicians and the grasping how national politics work but it seems to be a pattern. There seems to be this "screw it, I'll just ignore all caution and do it" attitude which is very cowboy of them but if your rivals see you coming because you've been telegraphing your intentions then they'll have lots of traps waiting for you and since you're not being careful where you put your feet it will all end badly.
Again... not against paul's ideas... just his largely counter productive methods.
I disagree, the airlines were never held responsible for the 9/11 attacks that was entirely on security checkers. So they need no additional shielding from liability.
This is 100 percent about politicians covering their asses.
That strikes me as a bad idea.
At a certain point, the government isn't in charge anymore if the databases that largely govern EVERYTHING in our society are in the hands of a third party.
I mean, why do you get a parking ticket? Why do you get a tax rebate? Why do men kick your door down at 4 AM looking for stolen weapons?
It's all in a database somewhere and if a third party has change of it then what is to stop them from editing it?
Again, I'm find with a company designing the database but for the love of god don't have them run it.