"If they can make oil using an alternate technology for cheaper than they can get oil out of the ground..."
That's a pretty big "if" if you ask me. It seems to pre-suppose that the price of oil has something to do with the cost of production. It doesn't. It has to do with the demand for it, the weakness of the dollar, and the fact that any oil executive recognizes that it's more profitable to leave as much oil in the ground as possible to ensure that demand is as high as possible without being so high that it triggers development of things exactly like this. No conspiracy, just predictable human behavior.
Except that many times the process of interpretation cannot even begin until there is a large enough body of interrelated information to suggest that there is something which needs to examined and interpreted.
If we all get lazy about having an internalized encyclopedia, we are not going to be in a position to make those critical leaps of insight based on inferences between superficially disparate sets of data.
Obama is fully as experienced in governance as Hillary is, and he has the added advantages of being a better speaker and having a more ideologically consistent set of positions -- of course, it may just be that I consistently don't like the ideology that underpins Hillary's positions. Finally, I firmly believe he is better positioned to run successfully against any of the Republican candidates.
umm, have you heard of positive feedback cycles? I think those are cyclical too...
Seriously though, there's no doubt that hurricanes are cyclical and that has nothing inherently to do with Global Warming in the political sense. It has everything to do with global warming in a climatological sense (ie it happens during a warming cycle).
Warming is happening. The only debates are about the extent and the cause...and there isn't a lot of debate about the latter in genuine scientific circles either.
In fairness, I think Trent Lott's mansion was something like 150 years old and presumably constructed like most glorious old homes were -- very well, but using wood which has distinct problems around really really big hurricanes. I wish I could blame it on Trent Lott, but then I figure there's enough that can be pinned on him without dragging his home into it.
That is definitely true, but most of the uncertainty surrounding that had to do with issues of maintenance. Like, for example, the fact that the original 15-foot height had sunk to just over 13 feet because of alluvial subsidence.
That's an understandable and common viewpoint. However, it doesn't take into account the following points:
1) New Orleans is economically vital to the US in terms of energy supply, imports and exports
2) It is the most culturally unique spot in the US, and cultural uniqueness is America's rarest commodity.
3) The levee system that could have protected New Orleans was in disrepair and had subsided nearly two feet from its original height due to the same problems that have destroyed the barrier islands and caused a chunk of marshland the size of Manhattan to sink into the Gulf of Mexico every year. Fixing the problems with that system is a reasonable expense...especially considering the things that New Orleans brings to the rest of the country.
Exactly. While we're at it, it's also important to vote out those who failed so many in New Orleans and elsewhere long before the hurricane struck. People weren't abandoned in the wake of the hurricane, they were abandoned long before it. The hurricane and subsequent levee/canal-wall breaks simply demonstrated that abandonment more clearly than many people were accustomed to seeing.
You prefer lining the pockets of the ultra-corrupt leaders that righties worship? That would be the same people that profited handsomely off of both Iraqi wars in case you weren't paying attention...
Unfortunately I already had the misfortune of reading that ignorant slut's commentary. When will people learn that just like the people who prominently refer to themselves as "christian" leaders, those who prominently refer to themselves as "intellectual" are usually the opposite of what they are claiming?
Is that why you don't work? Wait, you say you DO work? Hmmm, that doesn't make sense. As you said, you could be getting your checks for free. Were you too stupid to follow your own logic, or just to stupid to make sense in the first place?
It should also be pointed out that a little time spent digging through the CIA World Factbook will demonstrate that most "First World" countries DO have great welfare systems. What's more, contrary to conservative dogma, high public investment is often paired with low unemployment. Try Sweden or Norway on for size.
I find it amusing that the survey was conducted at all, as if the opinions of the "vast majority" of the people in the world are either relevant or legitimately discernable.
It wasn't about opinions at all. It was about knowledge of documentable facts. Bush and his teeming idiots would like us to operate in a faith-based realm where facts are deemed opinions, and the opinions of The Faithful are deemed facts.
- a poor leader : That is certainly a matter of perspective. There are a lot of definitions of what makes a good leader. Unfortunately there is no mathematical equation that can be used to lock it in as to whether Bush is or isn't a good leader.
It's actually pretty simple. Bush's job approval rating has only been good when he's been able to rely on the mindless American rally-around-the-flag effect. That means he's a bad leader.
- a liar : They all are, politicians that is, if you don't realize this fact then you're not so bright.
That's intellectually self-indulgent crap. Everyone's a liar, but that doesn't mean there aren't many different degrees of liars. There is a world of difference between John Kerry's degree of veracity and George Bush's degree of veracity.
- a proxy for some dark neocon movement : Oh please!
Oh please? Neocons are a dark movement! Neofascism by any other name would smell as rank.
- having a low iq : They don't give away Harvard MBA's in boxes of Cracker Jacks if you haven't noticed. BTW, IQ should be in uppercase, does that reflect on your IQ, no it doesn't, it just says you were in a hurry (most likely) but others might use it against you, especially if you were running for president...
2 points:
money buys many things...including Harvard MBA's
just because he may have once been intelligent does not mean that he is still intelligent...
It's also the word 'art.' Art in it's most literal sense means simply something that's human-made. The extension of that is that things that greatly express the qualities (or shortcomings) of humanity in a stylized way are referred to as art. One step down, is 'craft' which is the skillful reproduction of something that is art.
At any rate, when people create something de novo that has that certain something that is alluring and unique, it is art.
There will never be a free market in spectrum, and there will never be a free market in land, water, air, or any other similarly limited resource either. Free markets only work so long as the market can respond to demand by supplying more of something. When that isn't the case, a "collectible" market situation develops.
Free markets are great, and I believe in them strongly, but too many people, including degreed economists, jabber on about their benefits without bothering to understand their limitations.
Failure to recognize where markets simply cannot ever function properly is a large part of what is keeping society from using free markets where they are appropriate.
Inappropriate use of tools just earns the tools an inappropriately bad name.
This blind spot in market theories written about eloquently more than a century ago. The writings became the second best-selling book in the world...after the bible. Today, virtually no one knows the name of the book...nor even the name of the economist who wrote it. Go read "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George and understand the missing link between market liberalism and social liberalism.
I know that because they were using specific satellite technology which would not have been available much earlier.
I know that because the article cites a drop *since* *1980*. Had there been a consistent drop since another time period...or even a stable period prior to that time, it should be mentioned in the article.
The point is the only information in the article is that using satellite data, phytoplankton levels have dropped since 1980. From that information, there is only one thing that can be stated with any degree of certainty: that levels of phytoplankton are lower than they were 22 years ago.
As much as the wild-eyed prophets would like to believe otherwise, that's not much to go on...
This is potentially very disturbing. However, we don't know that the levels in 1980 weren't abnormally high for some reason (e.g. growing use of fertilizer and increased mono-cropping exacerbating erosion of topsoil into the ocean).
As usual, we read way too much into research findings.
you wrote: governments are effected by the stock market.
That is the finest bit of freudian spelling slip I've ever seen...all the better for its subtlety and the ease of overlooking it.
from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: 2 effect Function: transitive verb Date: 1533 1 : to cause to come into being
Main Entry: 3 affect Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from affectus, past participle of afficere Date: 15th century:to produce an effect upon: as a : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in b : to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to effect a response : INFLUENCE
Slashdot Mirror
"If they can make oil using an alternate technology for cheaper than they can get oil out of the ground..."
That's a pretty big "if" if you ask me. It seems to pre-suppose that the price of oil has something to do with the cost of production. It doesn't. It has to do with the demand for it, the weakness of the dollar, and the fact that any oil executive recognizes that it's more profitable to leave as much oil in the ground as possible to ensure that demand is as high as possible without being so high that it triggers development of things exactly like this. No conspiracy, just predictable human behavior.
Except that many times the process of interpretation cannot even begin until there is a large enough body of interrelated information to suggest that there is something which needs to examined and interpreted.
If we all get lazy about having an internalized encyclopedia, we are not going to be in a position to make those critical leaps of insight based on inferences between superficially disparate sets of data.
Obama is fully as experienced in governance as Hillary is, and he has the added advantages of being a better speaker and having a more ideologically consistent set of positions -- of course, it may just be that I consistently don't like the ideology that underpins Hillary's positions. Finally, I firmly believe he is better positioned to run successfully against any of the Republican candidates.
I'm inclined to agree. Science is a solution to many problems, and it explains many more problems, but it helps to create its fair share too.
umm, have you heard of positive feedback cycles? I think those are cyclical too...
Seriously though, there's no doubt that hurricanes are cyclical and that has nothing inherently to do with Global Warming in the political sense. It has everything to do with global warming in a climatological sense (ie it happens during a warming cycle).
Warming is happening. The only debates are about the extent and the cause...and there isn't a lot of debate about the latter in genuine scientific circles either.
In fairness, I think Trent Lott's mansion was something like 150 years old and presumably constructed like most glorious old homes were -- very well, but using wood which has distinct problems around really really big hurricanes. I wish I could blame it on Trent Lott, but then I figure there's enough that can be pinned on him without dragging his home into it.
That is definitely true, but most of the uncertainty surrounding that had to do with issues of maintenance. Like, for example, the fact that the original 15-foot height had sunk to just over 13 feet because of alluvial subsidence.
That's an understandable and common viewpoint. However, it doesn't take into account the following points:
1) New Orleans is economically vital to the US in terms of energy supply, imports and exports
2) It is the most culturally unique spot in the US, and cultural uniqueness is America's rarest commodity.
3) The levee system that could have protected New Orleans was in disrepair and had subsided nearly two feet from its original height due to the same problems that have destroyed the barrier islands and caused a chunk of marshland the size of Manhattan to sink into the Gulf of Mexico every year. Fixing the problems with that system is a reasonable expense...especially considering the things that New Orleans brings to the rest of the country.
Exactly. While we're at it, it's also important to vote out those who failed so many in New Orleans and elsewhere long before the hurricane struck. People weren't abandoned in the wake of the hurricane, they were abandoned long before it. The hurricane and subsequent levee/canal-wall breaks simply demonstrated that abandonment more clearly than many people were accustomed to seeing.
You prefer lining the pockets of the ultra-corrupt leaders that righties worship? That would be the same people that profited handsomely off of both Iraqi wars in case you weren't paying attention...
Perhaps, but what will it take to shame Americans such as yourself into accepting America's responsibility for something...anything?
That's rich and fully expected. "Conservatives" aren't very adept at feeling shame unless it's on behalf of someone else.
As for claptrap in posts that is merely regurgitated pap, um, you might care to go back and read your own post...
Unfortunately I already had the misfortune of reading that ignorant slut's commentary. When will people learn that just like the people who prominently refer to themselves as "christian" leaders, those who prominently refer to themselves as "intellectual" are usually the opposite of what they are claiming?
I can honestly say that it scares me more shitless now that I'm an adult.
Is that why you don't work? Wait, you say you DO work? Hmmm, that doesn't make sense. As you said, you could be getting your checks for free. Were you too stupid to follow your own logic, or just to stupid to make sense in the first place?
It should also be pointed out that a little time spent digging through the CIA World Factbook will demonstrate that most "First World" countries DO have great welfare systems. What's more, contrary to conservative dogma, high public investment is often paired with low unemployment. Try Sweden or Norway on for size.
What exactly explains your moral ugliness? Lack of social contact?
Sure thing. I'll get busy on that right away.
It wasn't about opinions at all. It was about knowledge of documentable facts. Bush and his teeming idiots would like us to operate in a faith-based realm where facts are deemed opinions, and the opinions of The Faithful are deemed facts.
It's actually pretty simple. Bush's job approval rating has only been good when he's been able to rely on the mindless American rally-around-the-flag effect. That means he's a bad leader.
- a liar : They all are, politicians that is, if you don't realize this fact then you're not so bright.
That's intellectually self-indulgent crap. Everyone's a liar, but that doesn't mean there aren't many different degrees of liars. There is a world of difference between John Kerry's degree of veracity and George Bush's degree of veracity.
- a proxy for some dark neocon movement : Oh please!
Oh please? Neocons are a dark movement! Neofascism by any other name would smell as rank.
- having a low iq : They don't give away Harvard MBA's in boxes of Cracker Jacks if you haven't noticed. BTW, IQ should be in uppercase, does that reflect on your IQ, no it doesn't, it just says you were in a hurry (most likely) but others might use it against you, especially if you were running for president...
2 points:
It's also the word 'art.' Art in it's most literal sense means simply something that's human-made. The extension of that is that things that greatly express the qualities (or shortcomings) of humanity in a stylized way are referred to as art. One step down, is 'craft' which is the skillful reproduction of something that is art.
At any rate, when people create something de novo that has that certain something that is alluring and unique, it is art.
There will never be a free market in spectrum, and there will never be a free market in land, water, air, or any other similarly limited resource either. Free markets only work so long as the market can respond to demand by supplying more of something. When that isn't the case, a "collectible" market situation develops.
Free markets are great, and I believe in them strongly, but too many people, including degreed economists, jabber on about their benefits without bothering to understand their limitations.
Failure to recognize where markets simply cannot ever function properly is a large part of what is keeping society from using free markets where they are appropriate.
Inappropriate use of tools just earns the tools an inappropriately bad name.
This blind spot in market theories written about eloquently more than a century ago. The writings became the second best-selling book in the world...after the bible. Today, virtually no one knows the name of the book...nor even the name of the economist who wrote it. Go read "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George and understand the missing link between market liberalism and social liberalism.
I know that because they were using specific satellite technology which would not have been available much earlier.
I know that because the article cites a drop *since* *1980*. Had there been a consistent drop since another time period...or even a stable period prior to that time, it should be mentioned in the article.
The point is the only information in the article is that using satellite data, phytoplankton levels have dropped since 1980. From that information, there is only one thing that can be stated with any degree of certainty: that levels of phytoplankton are lower than they were 22 years ago.
As much as the wild-eyed prophets would like to believe otherwise, that's not much to go on...
This is potentially very disturbing. However, we don't know that the levels in 1980 weren't abnormally high for some reason (e.g. growing use of fertilizer and increased mono-cropping exacerbating erosion of topsoil into the ocean).
As usual, we read way too much into research findings.
you wrote:
:to produce an effect upon: as a : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in b : to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to effect a response : INFLUENCE
governments are effected by the stock market.
That is the finest bit of freudian spelling slip I've ever seen...all the better for its subtlety and the ease of overlooking it.
from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: 2 effect
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1533
1 : to cause to come into being
Main Entry: 3 affect
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from affectus, past participle of afficere
Date: 15th century