to acidify is to increase the concentration of H+ ions in the substance. that is a basic scientific definition, though you seem not to grasp it.
you have apparently confused the general definition of an "acid" with the definition of "acidification", such that you apparently believe adcification is specifically the transition from a base to an acid, from the basic side of the scale (7-14) to the acidic side (1-7). you are wrong. that is not the definition of "acidification".
a ph change from 8.2 to 8.1 is an example of acidification. it also is the change in the average oh of the world's oceans. it is an increase in the concentration of H+ ions.
specifically, because the scale is not linear, its a ~25% increase in the number of H+ ions, which is very significant. and its effects are already being seen, with bleaching of coral, etc.
Trending toward neutral would imply that it self corrects to neutral from both sides of the ph scale. IE, that any given average ph value of an oceanic area is trending towards 7.0, whether its starting point is 6.5, or 7.5. But you can't say its trending towards neutral until you have some data points from the acidic side of the scale.
The average ocean ph is in the 8.0s. In our lifetime it has increased in ph from 8.2 to 8.1.
In that situation "trending towards neutral" is a completely specious claim. Its not more valid than saying it is "trending towards 1.0". IE, its so ignorant its not even wrong.
It's trending upward, but where it will settle is unknown as of yet. that upward trend to a higher ph however is the VERY DEFINTION OF 'ACIDIFYING'.
And then you have the gall to say we don't understand basic science? You are and always shall be nothing more than a troll.
credible threats jackass. if you are threatened by the one ring, it would be rational to laugh it off. if you are threatened by a gun in your face, you typically don't say "hold up, what caliber is that? I only respond to threats from a 9mm or larger."
plus the victim likely didn't know it was "only a bb gun". he just saw a gun, heard a threat against his life, and so complied with whatever the assailant wanted.
its not just a "minor weed robbery". it was theft of 130$, some weed, and accomplished by making credible threats against the victim.
4 years absolutely sounds about right.
we can talk about prison reform and the need for it all day long, and I'm right there with the GP in that regard: we need to do better than just turning out hardened criminals likely to offend again. but the solution to that isn't to do away with jail altogether.
and the other problem raised by the article is the fact the state willingly reduced his sentence to essentially a joke, a rare case of a plea deal going the other way, in order to keep their stingray use secret. The State shouldn't be able to do that. There are serious problems and questions with regards to privacy and Constitutional protections in regards to these stingrays. The state shouldn't be able to avoid those questions by keeping it a secret and essentially letting the offender go. Shouldn't be able to avoid having to answer serious Constitutional questions simply by avoiding asking the question in order to keep secret power. In absolutely no way does that serve the goals of justice or the public good; in fact it does the exact opposite.
obviously I left a lot of stuff out. some more off the top of my head: -Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and the theory of evolution published in 1859 (though his Galapagos trip was in the 1830s). -the emergence of modern medicine -the agriculture revolution ("the green revolution") -the global economy -the first expeditions to both poles -the underwater mapping of the arctic ocean beneath the ice pack -born before trains linked the world with the first rapid trans-regional transport (compared to the standard at the time of a horse drawn cart/buggy), and an around the world trip would take months if not a year, involving ships trains, carts, and walking. yet still alive when Operation Power Flite occurred, the first around the flight by jet aircraft, a flight of B52s using inflight refueling, took only 45 hours. And if we're being really complete, the SR71 was in service by the mid60's as well, and while it never made such a flight (to public knowledge anyway; if it did, its never been revealed), using in flight refueling it could accomplish an around the world trip around the equator (widest point) in a mere 8.5 hours, if not faster.
this is a fun list. but really, its amazing how far we've come in such a short time. heck, the first early networks even existed, and we can even claim them as the forefathers of the internet if we want for this list.
Even once we had airplanes, you have only a lifetime from 1903 to 1969, yet people in 1903 couldn't have dreamed of what the Saturn V would look like or how it would work.
In 1969 there were people still alive who were born in 1860. Even one who was born in 1858. Granted only a couple were in the US (and the recorded 1858 individual was in the UK).
But it is so freaking cool, that in their lifetime humanity saw: -the first transcontinental railroad and mass adoption of trains globally (1863) -the American Civil War, and other wars around the world -the height of the Age of Sail, and then its end -the rise of the steamship -the rise of the automobile -the rise of the airplane -the shrinking of the world, and the end of the blank spaces on the map -the rise of nuclear energy -the rise of the League of Nations, and then the United Nations and the first real attempts at global diplomacy in place of war (and a reduction in large scale conflict; albeit with a shift to the Cold War) -the emergence of computers -and finally yes, the Saturn V rocket, and a man landing on the moon
That is so FREAKING COOL, all that happened in those persons' lifetimes.
Necessity is the mother of invention, the saying goes. But even more accurately: -Innovation is a result of necessity of some form or other. -Continued use of innovation is also a result of continued necessity.
Suppose they have a physiology similar to hydra or certain jellyfish, where they have the capability to regenerate completely, or in the case of hydra, actual re-order their cells back into a recognizable organism after being blended into a soup. Such a species could easily have a reduced or non-existent reliance on and knowledge of medicine.
Or suppose they have learned how to incorporate symbiotic bacteria into their tissues that generate energy for them? We have such creatures on our own planet, that don't need to eat because they have learned how to photosynthesize, or incorporate other critters that do it for them, into their bodies. Such a species wouldn't need food, and would likely have little or no knowledge of food production, agriculture, etc. Such a species could even have once had that knowledge, but after eliminating their world hunger and food shortages by incorporating such things into their bodies, lost that knowledge as they no longer needed it.
So in short, your statement includes some really big assumptions about the incoming invaders. They could easily be more advanced in some ways, yet behind or regressed in others.
We see such things even in our own species history, and its one reason we even have the phrase (or its variants) "what's old is new again", as certain techniques, knowledge, or ideas become outdated due to progress, but then later rediscovered.
the "scientific method" you twats always pull out of your ass is an oversimplified paint by colors taught to 2nd graders. and apparently your concept of science hasn't advanced much since then.
No, not really. 1- You do not get to claim "appeal to authority" to discredit giving credit to the opinion of an expert over that of a non-expert. Otherwise there is no point in having experts, and you might as well talk to a economist or politician but never a scientist when discussing global warming (just happens to be what Faux news does). 2- The Emperor's New Clothes has naught to do with the appeal ot authority 3- Fallacies are a caution, not an automatic declaration that something is untrue
Q: what causes trees to grow more or less in a year in an area? A: Water, temperature, sunlight....if only there was a word to describe a phenomena that affects the amount of these things....
(since youre too dumb to get it, i'll spell it out for you: c-l-i-m-a-t-e)
No, see, the 20% is unchanging. Because the rate of growth when plotted has flattened, it therefore means growth itself has now paused. In pretty much the same way that global warming has paused, because the rate of increase flattened out.
I mean, this is obviously how derivatives of a plot are to be used. We have yearly growth, increasing company size/revenue/whatever year after year. But when we plot the derivative of that growth, ie, the rate of the growth, it's flat.
And that clearly means there is no actual growth. Or warming.
Because what matters to determining the existence of growth (warming) isn't the existence of growth (warming), but the rate of it.
But personally I'm also of the mind that the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements, by virtue of their bipartisan nature, is more likely a geographical correlation that political affiliaition.
IE, there's a lot of them in California and New York (which are not bastions of liberalism, much as folks would like you to believe). Particularly around certain cities. There is much lower incidence in rural areas and/or other certain cities.
So I think its more likely a geographical correlation, or at least started out as that (and is slowly spreading/moving around as people change opinions and change locations, etc). Personal example, most of the folks I know back in the Atlanta burbs when I was there are both proud tea party people, and all about the anti-GMO/Vaccine quackery, eat only all natural food, and shop exclusively at Whole foods......though anymore those last could be more about social status and income level (they call it whole paycheck for a reason).
But I see it potentially a geographical distinction, much like the votes for the civil rights acts that some people like to (wrongly) bring up to paint a false picture.
left and right libertarianism are actually pretty old.
But many people who today call themselves "libertarians" in the resurgence of the libertarian movement in the '00s, aren't really. They're either conservatives who don't want to use that name, or they're conservatives who are cool with gay marriage and/or drugs (see sig).
The implicit assumption in the movement too is that they are a right wing group, but that ignores the reality that there are really two camps of libertarianism. Actual libertarians in the tea party / libertarian movement are more accuraetely "right libertarians".
and it's an important distinction. for example, Bill Maher is also a libertarian. simply a left one, and probably the most visible one.
libertarianism itself isn't on the left-right spectrum. or rather, its across the whole of it. because truly it represents a second axis perpendicular to the left-right axis. an axis that go from anarchy to totalitarianism. its not a perfect representation, but its better than the simplistic left/right only representation.
in colloquial speech its simply assumed commonly that "libertarian" is referring to the tea partiers, conservatives, and other other right wingers, since they've taken that name for themselves, and there aren't a whole lot on the other side, or visible anyway, and in the popular discourse they frequently get lumped together as "liberals" the same way we (and I) lump most conservatives together.
but then also, the labels aren't perfect to start with since few people match the academic defintions exactly. (and if they did, I'd actually be suspect of their ability to think for themselves and arrive at an opinion on their own)
using myself as example, there are some things im totally on the anarchy extreme (most social issues), but others im totally on the totalitarian side (vaccines).
Much as you try to frame it as a "liberal" thing, it actually a pretty bipartisan thing.
On the one libertarians, cause they don't like being told what to do. On the other, its basically the descendants of hippies and their homeopathy nonsense.
SV is a libertarian enclave.
But here's the amusing part: all the conservatives who want to rush to paint it as a liberal thing. Why? Why are they in such a hurry to point this out? Is it because they're keeping score? Is it because they're tired of being painted anti-science and want to claim liberals are just as bad?
Lets assume that's true for a moment (its not, but lets play for a moment). Lets assume only liberals are anti-vaccine. And let's toss GMOs in there too, cause really that's also part of the hippie all natural thing (and in reality is -also- a bipartisan rejection of science, rather than a liberal exclusive).
So then let's play along. Let's tally the score.
In this corner, you have the Liberals: -Vaccines -GMOs Score: 2
In this corner, you have the Conservatives. They reject: -the big bang -evolution -the age of the universe / earth -global warming -energy crisis (re: oil reserves; "we wont run out") Score: 5
But that's playing along and pretending that we have an exclusive lock on vaccines and GMOs. We don't.
Truthfully, those two are bipartisan with nearly equal numbers on both sides expressing those particular anti-science beliefs.
and it really shouldn't be surprising in a way. Because just as the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements are remnants of an aspect of hippie culture, so too is the modern libertarian movement itself also a descendent of the hippie movement. think about that for a second. what were hippies? What did they espouse? They were essentially anti-government, "let us alone to do what we want" folks. Hippies were not strictly liberals. It was itself a mixed movement that attracted both sides of the political spectrum, albeit for different reasons. That mixing would then inform their opinions as the movement died out and they went about their lives. And as a result of that mixing of ideas they brought certain aspects of each others views with them as they left the movement.
So political science history class is over, but the end point is this:
Playing along, the score is 2-5.
But since in reality the anti-vax and GMO crowd is largely bipartisan, it would be more fair to count those issues as 0.5 points and apply it both sides, making the score 1 - 6.
So congratulations. You got us. We're anti-science too.
We're totally equivalent and "just as bad." We're just trailing by 5 issues and got some catching up to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Bro do you even science?
to acidify is to increase the concentration of H+ ions in the substance.
that is a basic scientific definition, though you seem not to grasp it.
you have apparently confused the general definition of an "acid" with the definition of "acidification", such that you apparently believe adcification is specifically the transition from a base to an acid, from the basic side of the scale (7-14) to the acidic side (1-7). you are wrong. that is not the definition of "acidification".
a ph change from 8.2 to 8.1 is an example of acidification.
it also is the change in the average oh of the world's oceans.
it is an increase in the concentration of H+ ions.
specifically, because the scale is not linear, its a ~25% increase in the number of H+ ions, which is very significant.
and its effects are already being seen, with bleaching of coral, etc.
No.
Trending toward neutral would imply that it self corrects to neutral from both sides of the ph scale.
IE, that any given average ph value of an oceanic area is trending towards 7.0, whether its starting point is 6.5, or 7.5.
But you can't say its trending towards neutral until you have some data points from the acidic side of the scale.
The average ocean ph is in the 8.0s.
In our lifetime it has increased in ph from 8.2 to 8.1.
In that situation "trending towards neutral" is a completely specious claim.
Its not more valid than saying it is "trending towards 1.0".
IE, its so ignorant its not even wrong.
It's trending upward, but where it will settle is unknown as of yet.
that upward trend to a higher ph however is the VERY DEFINTION OF 'ACIDIFYING'.
And then you have the gall to say we don't understand basic science?
You are and always shall be nothing more than a troll.
credible threats jackass.
if you are threatened by the one ring, it would be rational to laugh it off.
if you are threatened by a gun in your face, you typically don't say "hold up, what caliber is that? I only respond to threats from a 9mm or larger."
the victim likely didn't know it was a bb gun.
all the victim saw was a gun, and an assailant using it to make believable threats against his person.
plus the victim likely didn't know it was "only a bb gun".
he just saw a gun, heard a threat against his life, and so complied with whatever the assailant wanted.
its not just a "minor weed robbery". it was theft of 130$, some weed, and accomplished by making credible threats against the victim.
4 years absolutely sounds about right.
we can talk about prison reform and the need for it all day long, and I'm right there with the GP in that regard: we need to do better than just turning out hardened criminals likely to offend again. but the solution to that isn't to do away with jail altogether.
and the other problem raised by the article is the fact the state willingly reduced his sentence to essentially a joke, a rare case of a plea deal going the other way, in order to keep their stingray use secret. The State shouldn't be able to do that. There are serious problems and questions with regards to privacy and Constitutional protections in regards to these stingrays. The state shouldn't be able to avoid those questions by keeping it a secret and essentially letting the offender go. Shouldn't be able to avoid having to answer serious Constitutional questions simply by avoiding asking the question in order to keep secret power. In absolutely no way does that serve the goals of justice or the public good; in fact it does the exact opposite.
no, youre right moderators. that was definitely a troll post.
it wasnt science or biology related at all.
Sure it wasn't a poll of their husbands?
Better:
The Right To Arm Bears
Just don't name him Caesar and mistreat him.
obviously I left a lot of stuff out.
some more off the top of my head:
-Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and the theory of evolution published in 1859 (though his Galapagos trip was in the 1830s).
-the emergence of modern medicine
-the agriculture revolution ("the green revolution")
-the global economy
-the first expeditions to both poles
-the underwater mapping of the arctic ocean beneath the ice pack
-born before trains linked the world with the first rapid trans-regional transport (compared to the standard at the time of a horse drawn cart/buggy), and an around the world trip would take months if not a year, involving ships trains, carts, and walking. yet still alive when Operation Power Flite occurred, the first around the flight by jet aircraft, a flight of B52s using inflight refueling, took only 45 hours. And if we're being really complete, the SR71 was in service by the mid60's as well, and while it never made such a flight (to public knowledge anyway; if it did, its never been revealed), using in flight refueling it could accomplish an around the world trip around the equator (widest point) in a mere 8.5 hours, if not faster.
this is a fun list.
but really, its amazing how far we've come in such a short time.
heck, the first early networks even existed, and we can even claim them as the forefathers of the internet if we want for this list.
Even once we had airplanes, you have only a lifetime from 1903 to 1969, yet people in 1903 couldn't have dreamed of what the Saturn V would look like or how it would work.
In 1969 there were people still alive who were born in 1860.
Even one who was born in 1858.
Granted only a couple were in the US (and the recorded 1858 individual was in the UK).
But it is so freaking cool, that in their lifetime humanity saw:
-the first transcontinental railroad and mass adoption of trains globally (1863)
-the American Civil War, and other wars around the world
-the height of the Age of Sail, and then its end
-the rise of the steamship
-the rise of the automobile
-the rise of the airplane
-the shrinking of the world, and the end of the blank spaces on the map
-the rise of nuclear energy
-the rise of the League of Nations, and then the United Nations and the first real attempts at global diplomacy in place of war (and a reduction in large scale conflict; albeit with a shift to the Cold War)
-the emergence of computers
-and finally yes, the Saturn V rocket, and a man landing on the moon
That is so FREAKING COOL, all that happened in those persons' lifetimes.
Necessity is the mother of invention, the saying goes.
But even more accurately:
-Innovation is a result of necessity of some form or other.
-Continued use of innovation is also a result of continued necessity.
Suppose they have a physiology similar to hydra or certain jellyfish, where they have the capability to regenerate completely, or in the case of hydra, actual re-order their cells back into a recognizable organism after being blended into a soup. Such a species could easily have a reduced or non-existent reliance on and knowledge of medicine.
Or suppose they have learned how to incorporate symbiotic bacteria into their tissues that generate energy for them? We have such creatures on our own planet, that don't need to eat because they have learned how to photosynthesize, or incorporate other critters that do it for them, into their bodies. Such a species wouldn't need food, and would likely have little or no knowledge of food production, agriculture, etc. Such a species could even have once had that knowledge, but after eliminating their world hunger and food shortages by incorporating such things into their bodies, lost that knowledge as they no longer needed it.
So in short, your statement includes some really big assumptions about the incoming invaders.
They could easily be more advanced in some ways, yet behind or regressed in others.
We see such things even in our own species history, and its one reason we even have the phrase (or its variants) "what's old is new again", as certain techniques, knowledge, or ideas become outdated due to progress, but then later rediscovered.
So in your mind we know all there is to know about this?
There is no room for further advancement?
Guess we better tell all the physics researchers they're no longer needed.
we know how to effectively harness it NOW.
but we refuse to do so.
the "scientific method" you twats always pull out of your ass is an oversimplified paint by colors taught to 2nd graders.
and apparently your concept of science hasn't advanced much since then.
your arguments are the same tired old bullshit that has been disproven hundreds of times over the past 40 odd years.
you do NOT know more than the actual scientific experts and to think you do is the height of arrogance and ignorance.
No, not really.
1- You do not get to claim "appeal to authority" to discredit giving credit to the opinion of an expert over that of a non-expert. Otherwise there is no point in having experts, and you might as well talk to a economist or politician but never a scientist when discussing global warming (just happens to be what Faux news does).
2- The Emperor's New Clothes has naught to do with the appeal ot authority
3- Fallacies are a caution, not an automatic declaration that something is untrue
Q: what causes trees to grow more or less in a year in an area?
A: Water, temperature, sunlight....if only there was a word to describe a phenomena that affects the amount of these things....
(since youre too dumb to get it, i'll spell it out for you: c-l-i-m-a-t-e)
denier logic: because it was warm before without human causes its impossible for humans to cause it now.
the "scientific method" is an over simplified process that only applies to a small subset of research types that they teach to 2nd graders.
so youre smarter than the scientists and telling them what they did wrong?
No, see, the 20% is unchanging. Because the rate of growth when plotted has flattened, it therefore means growth itself has now paused.
In pretty much the same way that global warming has paused, because the rate of increase flattened out.
I mean, this is obviously how derivatives of a plot are to be used.
We have yearly growth, increasing company size/revenue/whatever year after year.
But when we plot the derivative of that growth, ie, the rate of the growth, it's flat.
And that clearly means there is no actual growth.
Or warming.
Because what matters to determining the existence of growth (warming) isn't the existence of growth (warming), but the rate of it.
See?
It all makes perfect sense.
(do I really need a /snarkasm tag?)
True.
But personally I'm also of the mind that the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements, by virtue of their bipartisan nature, is more likely a geographical correlation that political affiliaition.
IE, there's a lot of them in California and New York (which are not bastions of liberalism, much as folks would like you to believe).
Particularly around certain cities.
There is much lower incidence in rural areas and/or other certain cities.
So I think its more likely a geographical correlation, or at least started out as that (and is slowly spreading/moving around as people change opinions and change locations, etc). Personal example, most of the folks I know back in the Atlanta burbs when I was there are both proud tea party people, and all about the anti-GMO/Vaccine quackery, eat only all natural food, and shop exclusively at Whole foods... ...though anymore those last could be more about social status and income level (they call it whole paycheck for a reason).
But I see it potentially a geographical distinction, much like the votes for the civil rights acts that some people like to (wrongly) bring up to paint a false picture.
left and right libertarianism are actually pretty old.
But many people who today call themselves "libertarians" in the resurgence of the libertarian movement in the '00s, aren't really.
They're either conservatives who don't want to use that name,
or they're conservatives who are cool with gay marriage and/or drugs (see sig).
The implicit assumption in the movement too is that they are a right wing group, but that ignores the reality that there are really two camps of libertarianism. Actual libertarians in the tea party / libertarian movement are more accuraetely "right libertarians".
and it's an important distinction.
for example, Bill Maher is also a libertarian.
simply a left one, and probably the most visible one.
libertarianism itself isn't on the left-right spectrum.
or rather, its across the whole of it.
because truly it represents a second axis perpendicular to the left-right axis.
an axis that go from anarchy to totalitarianism. its not a perfect representation,
but its better than the simplistic left/right only representation.
in colloquial speech its simply assumed commonly that "libertarian" is referring to the tea partiers, conservatives, and other other right wingers, since they've taken that name for themselves, and there aren't a whole lot on the other side, or visible anyway, and in the popular discourse they frequently get lumped together as "liberals" the same way we (and I) lump most conservatives together.
but then also, the labels aren't perfect to start with since few people match the academic defintions exactly.
(and if they did, I'd actually be suspect of their ability to think for themselves and arrive at an opinion on their own)
using myself as example, there are some things im totally on the anarchy extreme (most social issues),
but others im totally on the totalitarian side (vaccines).
Much as you try to frame it as a "liberal" thing, it actually a pretty bipartisan thing.
On the one libertarians, cause they don't like being told what to do.
On the other, its basically the descendants of hippies and their homeopathy nonsense.
SV is a libertarian enclave.
But here's the amusing part: all the conservatives who want to rush to paint it as a liberal thing.
Why?
Why are they in such a hurry to point this out?
Is it because they're keeping score?
Is it because they're tired of being painted anti-science and want to claim liberals are just as bad?
Lets assume that's true for a moment (its not, but lets play for a moment).
Lets assume only liberals are anti-vaccine.
And let's toss GMOs in there too, cause really that's also part of the hippie all natural thing
(and in reality is -also- a bipartisan rejection of science, rather than a liberal exclusive).
So then let's play along.
Let's tally the score.
In this corner, you have the Liberals:
-Vaccines
-GMOs
Score: 2
In this corner, you have the Conservatives. They reject:
-the big bang
-evolution
-the age of the universe / earth
-global warming
-energy crisis (re: oil reserves; "we wont run out")
Score: 5
But that's playing along and pretending that we have an exclusive lock on vaccines and GMOs.
We don't.
Truthfully, those two are bipartisan with nearly equal numbers on both sides expressing those particular anti-science beliefs.
and it really shouldn't be surprising in a way.
Because just as the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements are remnants of an aspect of hippie culture, so too is the modern libertarian movement itself also a descendent of the hippie movement. think about that for a second. what were hippies? What did they espouse? They were essentially anti-government, "let us alone to do what we want" folks. Hippies were not strictly liberals. It was itself a mixed movement that attracted both sides of the political spectrum, albeit for different reasons. That mixing would then inform their opinions as the movement died out and they went about their lives. And as a result of that mixing of ideas they brought certain aspects of each others views with them as they left the movement.
So political science history class is over, but the end point is this:
Playing along, the score is 2-5.
But since in reality the anti-vax and GMO crowd is largely bipartisan,
it would be more fair to count those issues as 0.5 points and apply it both sides,
making the score 1 - 6.
So congratulations.
You got us.
We're anti-science too.
We're totally equivalent and "just as bad."
We're just trailing by 5 issues and got some catching up to do.