It has nothing to do with people's skin melting off, or even being comfortable outdoors. It has to do with polar ice levels, seasonal weather stability and farmland stability. The world population may inflect at 9billion in a few decades, but that doesn't give us unlimited carrying capacity.
American (and global) policy today may direct decide the life or death of billions of people 100 years from now. It's really interesting to consider. If there is a 1% chance that your decision will kill 500 million people over the next 200 years, what is the economic value of that choice?
Since according to US actuarial tables, a human life is worth about $13 million, 500 million people is worth about $6,500 trillion. Given a 1% chance of this happening, this is an opportunity cost of $65 trillion. Given the time value of money over 100 years (the average between now and 200 years from now), it's worth about $3.3 trillion today to prevent those deaths.
Obviously, I'm just making these numbers up, but it illustrates the point. This is a rough calculation that a rational liberal economist might put on the value of trying to reduce the impact of anthropomorphic climate change.
The United States is hardly a place to go looking for consensus on science. The US has the lowest beliefs in evolution in the western world. Less people believe in evolution in the US than in Bulgaria or Croatia, and only slightly more than in Turkey or Iran.
In western world, more people believe in evolution than anthropomorphic climate change, but only by a TINY factor.
In the US, only 30% of conservatives believe in evolution.
That's lower than any country who's population makes more than $3 per day (like Ghana) or that isn't subject to strict religious law (like Iran).
Pretty poor argument you chose to take there. Conservatives in the US have clearly decided to try to make it acceptable to deny things which most educated people regard as pretty well decided. This is one reason why just about any argument they take will be ridiculed by much of the world, as fortunate or unfortunate as you regard that.
While I don't believe the argument on climate change is 100% decided, I find it more likely than not given the evidence I have seen.
He does not deserve to be in PR. look at his twitter. He's vicious and nasty. In fact, it's the nastiest series of comments I've ever seen.
If I was attacked that way I would be tweeting "listen, I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone, seriously, I'd be happy to talk about it with you in a civil way."
His responses are "@tonycline How does it fel to be a ginger that no one loves or wants."
and
"OK ENOUGH! Just fuck off already u god damn fucking gaming cunts. Boo Hoo I yelled at a customer big deal. Ge over it"
and
"Look at all these gamers. Bunch of fucking losers, everyone in the biz makes fun of you fucks. All the sites you like laugh at yuo."
If you feel sorry for THIS *PR* GUY getting his career submarined... you should stop.
Wait... you have a Windows Mobile 2003 phone that has never crashed?
I was VERY happy with my old HTC Tytn and it was the BEST phone out there at the time, but "crash free" is NOT a feature I would have ever advertised about it.
It crashed when opening emails with multiple attachments, it crashed if I didn't reboot it at least once every few days. It crashed when I was in maps and a call came in. It crashed when I was in a call and a second call came. It crashed when I installed certain applications (maybe that was an app problem).
There was a patch that eventually came out of the modder community that fixed a lot of the issues, and I never regretted buying the phone, but it is a dinosaur compared to even the most basic Android phone.
many, if not most, peer reviewed papers turn out to be wrong in the end
What?
Citation please?
Jesus, you just invent stuff whenever you want, don't you? Hah.
Reading your posts is hilarious because most of your arguments begin with some blatantly made up factoid and then just ramble on from there.
If the science is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people have reviewed it or how many people believe it... it's still wrong.
This is actually a true statement, congratulations.
But... the proper response is to publish an opposing paper, complete with more accurate research, not to publicly criticize the scientific method and rant about it on underground blogs. If someone produced a substantive analytical argument that outlined accurate details contrary to accepted facts, it would be immediately picked up by a variety of journals. They are, after all, businesses who rely on new research to sell prints.
The image of a solitary investor, toiling in some basement laboratory is, for the most part, a fairy tale. It has very seldom been true. A huge percentage of inventions, even through history, are funded by government. That includes many of those scientists who are iconized in pop culture as solitary inventors, like Ben Franklin and Leonardo DaVinci. These two were heavily funded by the government and would not have been able to complete their research and fund all of their laboratory equipment and assistants, etc, without such funding.
So, it's neat that you are pointing out that Eisenhower had a very shallow understanding of the history and reality of scientific funding, especially seeing how much his government funded science, but it's not proving anything other than your bias.
Actually, in common law, which most states at least have some basis in, the name you use is common practice can often be used as a legal name for things like probate documents, providing you can prove that you have used it for a specific period of time in the regular course of your affairs.
Most "child protection" laws these days are bad solutions to untenable problems that involve parents shirking responsibility to the government and corporations for the supervision of their kids, and the overt dismissal of children's and teen's responsibility for themselves, which should not be legislated by arbitrary rules and numbers.
I can name dozens of examples, but this isn't the time or the place.
It isn't the role of IT to dictate what those employees can use.
Any good IT staff (especially IT Management) is there because they know exactly how to balance between usability and other business concerns that may include overhead costs, support costs, service levels, security and actual business cases. It IS THEIR JOB to dictate what devices are housing proprietary company data and which devices are allowed to connect to the cororpoate network. Management had mandated that they do that. They are not coming up with it out of a hat, or a desire to be a dictator (to be fair, maybe a few are, but most aren't).
There are plenty of cases where a new technology has a prudent business case for adoption and carries a low risk to the organization. It is IT's job to determine that. If they do a poor job of that, then, by all means, bring it up with management and ask them to build the business case.
However, a common example... middle managers want to put a portal to access company financials on their iPad instead of the secure laptops they are provided.
There is a huge risk to company information and assets if this information is disclosed. In fact, in a public company, if someone is found to have willingly violated the rules in facilitating this leak, they are guilty of violating SEC laws regarding insider trading and could face felony charges. If an IT staffer told them to use their iPad in violation of company policy, he may face those charges instead.
Realistically, an iPad on a public wifi (or sitting on a table in the airport) was a ripe target for information theft until fairly recently. The new OS is a bit more secure and there are some more remote management capabilities. It is beginning to get into the realm of "maybe ok to use", but still needs a business case.
If the business case is "laptop is so ugly..." Does management seriously have to buy off on a notable business risk to facilitate that?
Pilots are, however, trained to ignore the radio if they need to focus on attitude control, just like a driver should ignore his cell phone if some schmuck in a BMW has just cut him off on the freeway.
Drivers asked to do complex math problems or memorization tasks were impaired in a similar way to legally intoxicated drivers, yes.
There have never been on-road studies of drivers engaged in normal daily conversation. Can you cite one of those? I suspect the level of impairment is lower than the variance between having a junker old car in stopping distance and accident likeliness, but since there hasn't been such a study, I have no idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with people's skin melting off, or even being comfortable outdoors. It has to do with polar ice levels, seasonal weather stability and farmland stability. The world population may inflect at 9billion in a few decades, but that doesn't give us unlimited carrying capacity.
American (and global) policy today may direct decide the life or death of billions of people 100 years from now. It's really interesting to consider. If there is a 1% chance that your decision will kill 500 million people over the next 200 years, what is the economic value of that choice?
Since according to US actuarial tables, a human life is worth about $13 million, 500 million people is worth about $6,500 trillion. Given a 1% chance of this happening, this is an opportunity cost of $65 trillion. Given the time value of money over 100 years (the average between now and 200 years from now), it's worth about $3.3 trillion today to prevent those deaths.
Obviously, I'm just making these numbers up, but it illustrates the point. This is a rough calculation that a rational liberal economist might put on the value of trying to reduce the impact of anthropomorphic climate change.
A day is weather, a week is a weather pattern, a year is somewhere between weather and climate.
A decade, however, is definitely "climate" by most definitions.
Electrolytes, it's what plants crave!
+1 well said
The United States is hardly a place to go looking for consensus on science. The US has the lowest beliefs in evolution in the western world. Less people believe in evolution in the US than in Bulgaria or Croatia, and only slightly more than in Turkey or Iran.
In western world, more people believe in evolution than anthropomorphic climate change, but only by a TINY factor.
In the US, only 30% of conservatives believe in evolution.
That's lower than any country who's population makes more than $3 per day (like Ghana) or that isn't subject to strict religious law (like Iran).
Pretty poor argument you chose to take there. Conservatives in the US have clearly decided to try to make it acceptable to deny things which most educated people regard as pretty well decided. This is one reason why just about any argument they take will be ridiculed by much of the world, as fortunate or unfortunate as you regard that.
While I don't believe the argument on climate change is 100% decided, I find it more likely than not given the evidence I have seen.
GREAT post.
+1 Well Written
He does not deserve to be in PR. look at his twitter. He's vicious and nasty. In fact, it's the nastiest series of comments I've ever seen.
If I was attacked that way I would be tweeting "listen, I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone, seriously, I'd be happy to talk about it with you in a civil way."
His responses are "@tonycline How does it fel to be a ginger that no one loves or wants."
and
"OK ENOUGH! Just fuck off already u god damn fucking gaming cunts. Boo Hoo I yelled at a customer big deal. Ge over it"
and
"Look at all these gamers. Bunch of fucking losers, everyone in the biz makes fun of you fucks. All the sites you like laugh at yuo."
If you feel sorry for THIS *PR* GUY getting his career submarined... you should stop.
I just looked at his twitter....
Holy crap, it was not just a bad day...
@tonycline How does it fel to be a ginger that no one loves or wants.
OK ENOUGH! Just fuck off already u god damn fucking gaming cunts. Boo Hoo I yelled at a customer big deal. Ge over it
@TrafficKidPT I don't need a degree I'm just naturally smart.
Look at all these gamers. Bunch of fucking losers, everyone in the biz makes fun of you fucks. All the sites you like laugh at yuo.
Penny Arcade is for autsitic preteens that can handle good entertianment. I'm suprised you can even read at all.
@threetimestrue Bullshit, I'm a hot commodity. Everyone will pay to have my services after this. Because I'm a survivor.
@IamPter Don't make me come over there and smack the dick out of your mouth sunshine.
@ChibiUFO No Pax = Penis Addiction Experts. Cause they love dick
That's all from just TODAY.
Riiiight.. bad day.
Volunteering is only legal under certain circumstances
You mean it is illegal for me to contribute to an OSS project that my company later uses?
Really? Wow... Where do you live?
Wait... you have a Windows Mobile 2003 phone that has never crashed?
I was VERY happy with my old HTC Tytn and it was the BEST phone out there at the time, but "crash free" is NOT a feature I would have ever advertised about it.
It crashed when opening emails with multiple attachments, it crashed if I didn't reboot it at least once every few days. It crashed when I was in maps and a call came in. It crashed when I was in a call and a second call came. It crashed when I installed certain applications (maybe that was an app problem).
There was a patch that eventually came out of the modder community that fixed a lot of the issues, and I never regretted buying the phone, but it is a dinosaur compared to even the most basic Android phone.
Superior platform?
I've used it a few times, open minded... and found the interface to be terrible!!!
To be fair, the OS was quick and snappy and the functionality was decent, but the UI was so irritating that I just would never buy one. Yuk.
It felt like something I would buy for grandma, who would probably never leave the home screen "tiles", but I found it annoying and limiting.
What is the point of this post, other than the try to stigmatize both the words "scientific" and "socialist" in the same sentence?
Hitler was a far-right wing "facist" which is a very different thing than socialist, which is a pretty mainstream party in most places.
many, if not most, peer reviewed papers turn out to be wrong in the end
What?
Citation please?
Jesus, you just invent stuff whenever you want, don't you? Hah.
Reading your posts is hilarious because most of your arguments begin with some blatantly made up factoid and then just ramble on from there.
If the science is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people have reviewed it or how many people believe it... it's still wrong.
This is actually a true statement, congratulations.
But... the proper response is to publish an opposing paper, complete with more accurate research, not to publicly criticize the scientific method and rant about it on underground blogs. If someone produced a substantive analytical argument that outlined accurate details contrary to accepted facts, it would be immediately picked up by a variety of journals. They are, after all, businesses who rely on new research to sell prints.
The problem here is, Eisenhower was wrong.
The image of a solitary investor, toiling in some basement laboratory is, for the most part, a fairy tale. It has very seldom been true. A huge percentage of inventions, even through history, are funded by government. That includes many of those scientists who are iconized in pop culture as solitary inventors, like Ben Franklin and Leonardo DaVinci. These two were heavily funded by the government and would not have been able to complete their research and fund all of their laboratory equipment and assistants, etc, without such funding.
So, it's neat that you are pointing out that Eisenhower had a very shallow understanding of the history and reality of scientific funding, especially seeing how much his government funded science, but it's not proving anything other than your bias.
shipping manufacturing jobs to China, which is driven in no small part by the increasing cost of energy due to 'CO2 reduction' crap
You made that up. Citation, please.
If it is more than 1% of the cost, I'll eat my shorts.
It's about labour costs and nothing else.
Polemic rants and name calling don't make you smart. Arrogant and biased, yes, but not smart.
Actually, in common law, which most states at least have some basis in, the name you use is common practice can often be used as a legal name for things like probate documents, providing you can prove that you have used it for a specific period of time in the regular course of your affairs.
If you read his website, there are plenty of stories about sleeping on the roof of a Blockbuster and eating stale bread from Subway dumpsters.
Answer it well enough?
Heh,.
I don't wan't to live in this world where everything that is even remotely and esoterically dangerous is banned.
Life is dangerous. Driving in dangerous. You may be struck by a falling bridge support (like a distant acquaintance was, several years ago).
I don't like the idea of legislating away every slight risk to the loss of every slight pleasure.
I really enjoy my time driving because I use it to catch up with old friends.
Sigh.
I value this time, much higher than the 0.0001% chance of vehicular accidents it removes. I really do.
Most "child protection" laws these days are bad solutions to untenable problems that involve parents shirking responsibility to the government and corporations for the supervision of their kids, and the overt dismissal of children's and teen's responsibility for themselves, which should not be legislated by arbitrary rules and numbers.
I can name dozens of examples, but this isn't the time or the place.
US laws, as usual, especially regarding children, are fucking inane.
It isn't the role of IT to dictate what those employees can use.
Any good IT staff (especially IT Management) is there because they know exactly how to balance between usability and other business concerns that may include overhead costs, support costs, service levels, security and actual business cases. It IS THEIR JOB to dictate what devices are housing proprietary company data and which devices are allowed to connect to the cororpoate network. Management had mandated that they do that. They are not coming up with it out of a hat, or a desire to be a dictator (to be fair, maybe a few are, but most aren't).
There are plenty of cases where a new technology has a prudent business case for adoption and carries a low risk to the organization. It is IT's job to determine that. If they do a poor job of that, then, by all means, bring it up with management and ask them to build the business case.
However, a common example... middle managers want to put a portal to access company financials on their iPad instead of the secure laptops they are provided.
There is a huge risk to company information and assets if this information is disclosed. In fact, in a public company, if someone is found to have willingly violated the rules in facilitating this leak, they are guilty of violating SEC laws regarding insider trading and could face felony charges. If an IT staffer told them to use their iPad in violation of company policy, he may face those charges instead.
Realistically, an iPad on a public wifi (or sitting on a table in the airport) was a ripe target for information theft until fairly recently. The new OS is a bit more secure and there are some more remote management capabilities. It is beginning to get into the realm of "maybe ok to use", but still needs a business case.
If the business case is "laptop is so ugly..." Does management seriously have to buy off on a notable business risk to facilitate that?
Really?
I was thinking it was just a statement about exactly how effective simply "banning" something is. :-)
Or maybe it was a bad troll.
Multitasking is not a trainable activity.
Pilots are, however, trained to ignore the radio if they need to focus on attitude control, just like a driver should ignore his cell phone if some schmuck in a BMW has just cut him off on the freeway.
It's not hard to learn, really.
Drivers asked to do complex math problems or memorization tasks were impaired in a similar way to legally intoxicated drivers, yes.
There have never been on-road studies of drivers engaged in normal daily conversation. Can you cite one of those? I suspect the level of impairment is lower than the variance between having a junker old car in stopping distance and accident likeliness, but since there hasn't been such a study, I have no idea.
I have seen studies that show doing activities like mental math, complex problem solving or memorization cause substantial impairments in driving.
I have never seen a study that shows casual conversation on a hands-free headset doing the same.
Can you produce it? Until then, fuck the NTSB.