your misusing and abusing information to make a flawed point.
"geological global average was higher than today".... when you use a 600 million year time period. hint: 600 million years ago complex multicellular life (things above bacterial mats and algae) didn't even exist yet. And why just 600 million years? If we're going to geological time scales, why stop there? Why not go back further? to the cooling earth after its molten formation? Or was it just to conveniently leave out the 200 million year long glaciation period that occurred just before the arbitrary 600my cut off?
same for CO2 levels. yes, it was warmer and higher CO2 millions of years ago....and life that evolved for those conditions existed. the problem is the current situation is in not operating on evolutionary time scales. its not just the existence of the conditions, but the speed. those prior conditions occurred over hundreds of millions of years, which is actually a point supported by the very things you mention, and unlike the current conditions and trends.
and further: you're using geological time scale global averages, when the article in question is talking about a specific point in time at a specific place...the total opposite. The fact that the global average is ok for humans doesn't contradict or prevent the existence of locations not habitable by humans, places like Antarctica or the Middle East.
Crossing every finger and toe for Bernie in the primaries. Even changed my registration from I to D so can vote in the Primaries this time. That said, Hillary is the fallback option.
She says the right things, but so did Bill. and the New Democrats (Obama included) are ultimately still only slightly less conservative than conservatives, and just as married to Wall Street. They're only truly different when it comes to social issues (and even there, tending to lag behind the rest of the world), and frankly, I'll take what I can get until we see a return to true Liberalism. And there is the off chance she may actually carry through and match a few actions to the words she's said to get elected, slim as it may be.
all of posting is done in order to get a reaction of some sort. the specific post at hand was inciteful, but also insightful and related to the discussion.
no, its making the point that Voter ID is a distraction, and contributes nothing to combatting actual election fraud.
Voter ID is like saying you should lock your car door, when you live on an island in the middle of the ocean. Alone. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. Voter ID only stops in person vote fraud, the rarest, least rewarding, and most effort-requiring form. Voter ID stands to stop a whopping handful (literally, handful, as in 5 or less) of bad votes every year, out of the billions cast, votes that aren't even a statistical blip and pose absolutely zero threat to the integrity of our elections.
funny you mention not looking at things in a vacuum.
"when Reagan first switched from the democrat party to the republican party, he still had some stupid ideas" ??
buddy, he supported the Brady Bill, in 1991, some 30 years after he switched.
and you also make the false assumption that he actually changed views when he changed parties. to be clear: he was a lifelong conservative, holding mostly and consistently conservative stances much of his adult life, long before he switched parties. only on a few topics did he diverge from mainstream conservatism, such as when he supported unions early in his life, at a time when -everyone- supported unions (which he later changed stances one), nuclear disarmament, and gun control.
ideology and party affiliation weren't are clearly delineated as they are now.
because Ben "I would keep the torture and drone programs secret from the American People" Carson. and Donald "Lets deport legal citizens and residents" Trump (and he's not the only one to say that)
no document is timeless, and the USC is no exception.
many parts of it -ARE- outdated. some have already been changed. its why the amendment process even exists.
one of the things that comes with that is the potential to change not just outdated sections like the 3/5 Compromise, but also others some of still find useful such as the 4th.
that isn't a bug. it's a feature.
and advocating it's use is not contempt of the document, merely realistic appreciation that our society now is very different from that of the Founders, and is best served by a document suited to its own needs. hence the amendment process. if you would preserve those sections then must needs engage in debate and discussion with those who disagree, and sway them to your side. one of key requirements of a self governing democracy is the willingness to engage the other side in the marketplace of ideas.
case law is pretty clear that the 4th (indeed, the entirety of the Constitution) only applies to governmental entities, being a document concerning the governments relation to those under its authority.
but, that doesn't automatically grant private non governmental entities the ability to tread where the government cannot, as there exist other laws that private citizens would be breaking in doing so.
if I were to dig through your personal info in your private office to dig something up on you I would not be violating your 4th Amendment rights. A lawsuit against me for violating your 4th Amendment rights would have zero legal merit. I would however be violating various trespass, privacy, and property rights, rights not set out by the Constitution, but no less existent for that.
the fallacy is in thinking that insane people deserve any sort of equal weight or equal airtime with factual science. that false equivalency, largely perpetrated by the media, is the single biggest factor contributing to the continue existence of climate denialism.
I'm also curious how many people will simply decide to do nothing and live on the dole.
considering that even now under the current (joke of a) welfare system in the US, the overwhelming majority receiving benefits work, and would work more if they could, the answer to your question is 'very few'.
your speed limit example is actually a perfect example of how laws DO in fact need to keep pace and don't.
especially as we move towards autonomous vehicles, but in fact applicable even with today's vehicles.
a high performance sports car can easily handle higher speeds and sharper turns than a semi hauling two trailers. yet both are given the same 70mph limit, even though its rather too much for the double semi, and rather below the sports cars safe capability.
so why shouldn't they have different legal limits on what's safely acceptable? in fact many areas DO impose special limits on larger vehicles such as semis and trailers.
and isn't one of the goals of autonomous vehicles the ability for each vehicle to adapt to every other, cooperatively creating a best case scenario for each vehicle? in their autonomous decision making such a cooperative network should easily be able to keep the two trailer semi moving steadily forward safely, while also allowing other traffic, including our high performance sports car, to route around it at their own individual best/safe speeds.
---
privacy is another area where laws haven't kept pace. before the internet and the ability mass data mine encyclopedias on every individual from seemingly innocuous information, there wasn't much thought given to that information. there was safety because there was no ability to collate such a vast amount of data. but in the last 15 years that has changed dramatically. and now it matters. and yet the laws are still stuck in the time before it did.
your key thesis is invalid. beyond the simple imperatives of thou shall not murder/steal, it is impossible to write laws that are technologically timeless, and this has been shown time and again, whether it's determining how high into the air your property rights extend after the first airplanes begin flying x-country, data mining and privacy rights, or determining how to make cars and horses get along during the period when they shared the same streets.
Still cleaner than burning fuels. The problem isn't as much the adding energy to the system, but the adding energy and preventing it from escaping (as it is wont to do). The Earth wants to re-radiate energy into space, and the key component of global warming is that we've reduced it's ability to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
your misusing and abusing information to make a flawed point.
"geological global average was higher than today" .... when you use a 600 million year time period.
hint: 600 million years ago complex multicellular life (things above bacterial mats and algae) didn't even exist yet.
And why just 600 million years? If we're going to geological time scales, why stop there? Why not go back further? to the cooling earth after its molten formation? Or was it just to conveniently leave out the 200 million year long glaciation period that occurred just before the arbitrary 600my cut off?
same for CO2 levels. yes, it was warmer and higher CO2 millions of years ago....and life that evolved for those conditions existed. the problem is the current situation is in not operating on evolutionary time scales. its not just the existence of the conditions, but the speed. those prior conditions occurred over hundreds of millions of years, which is actually a point supported by the very things you mention, and unlike the current conditions and trends.
and further: you're using geological time scale global averages, when the article in question is talking about a specific point in time at a specific place...the total opposite. The fact that the global average is ok for humans doesn't contradict or prevent the existence of locations not habitable by humans, places like Antarctica or the Middle East.
in short: just more unscientific denier BS.
they use computers cause you don't have to pay them
in some ways the true parliamentary/PM system is superior to the Presidential.
Crossing every finger and toe for Bernie in the primaries.
Even changed my registration from I to D so can vote in the Primaries this time.
That said, Hillary is the fallback option.
She says the right things, but so did Bill. and the New Democrats (Obama included) are ultimately still only slightly less conservative than conservatives, and just as married to Wall Street. They're only truly different when it comes to social issues (and even there, tending to lag behind the rest of the world), and frankly, I'll take what I can get until we see a return to true Liberalism. And there is the off chance she may actually carry through and match a few actions to the words she's said to get elected, slim as it may be.
your mod fu is weak.
all of posting is done in order to get a reaction of some sort.
the specific post at hand was inciteful, but also insightful and related to the discussion.
the ruling is overturned.
Alabama just got caught, mostly cause they tried to do it one fell swoop.
GA's been doing it for years, slowly and incrementally.
no, its making the point that Voter ID is a distraction, and contributes nothing to combatting actual election fraud.
Voter ID is like saying you should lock your car door, when you live on an island in the middle of the ocean. Alone.
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.
Voter ID only stops in person vote fraud, the rarest, least rewarding, and most effort-requiring form.
Voter ID stands to stop a whopping handful (literally, handful, as in 5 or less) of bad votes every year, out of the billions cast, votes that aren't even a statistical blip and pose absolutely zero threat to the integrity of our elections.
mentioning what GA has actually done isnt trolling.
unless youre a conservative threatened by facts.
If only GA had a voter ID law to prevent fraud....
oh.
wait.
NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
which part of the constitution specifically details the exemptions for war?
oh right.
it doesn't.
Yep, its right there in the Imaginary Amendment: "These rights enumerated herein only exist when you're popular with your government".
it used to be a bipartisanly unAmerican thing, but ever since the GOP came out in favor of it, it's a right wing thing.
funny you mention not looking at things in a vacuum.
"when Reagan first switched from the democrat party to the republican party, he still had some stupid ideas" ??
buddy, he supported the Brady Bill, in 1991, some 30 years after he switched.
and you also make the false assumption that he actually changed views when he changed parties. to be clear: he was a lifelong conservative, holding mostly and consistently conservative stances much of his adult life, long before he switched parties. only on a few topics did he diverge from mainstream conservatism, such as when he supported unions early in his life, at a time when -everyone- supported unions (which he later changed stances one), nuclear disarmament, and gun control.
ideology and party affiliation weren't are clearly delineated as they are now.
because Ben "I would keep the torture and drone programs secret from the American People" Carson.
and Donald "Lets deport legal citizens and residents" Trump (and he's not the only one to say that)
no document is timeless, and the USC is no exception.
many parts of it -ARE- outdated.
some have already been changed.
its why the amendment process even exists.
one of the things that comes with that is the potential to change not just outdated sections like the 3/5 Compromise, but also others some of still find useful such as the 4th.
that isn't a bug.
it's a feature.
and advocating it's use is not contempt of the document, merely realistic appreciation that our society now is very different from that of the Founders, and is best served by a document suited to its own needs. hence the amendment process. if you would preserve those sections then must needs engage in debate and discussion with those who disagree, and sway them to your side. one of key requirements of a self governing democracy is the willingness to engage the other side in the marketplace of ideas.
your logic doesn't quite follow.
case law is pretty clear that the 4th (indeed, the entirety of the Constitution) only applies to governmental entities, being a document concerning the governments relation to those under its authority.
but, that doesn't automatically grant private non governmental entities the ability to tread where the government cannot, as there exist other laws that private citizens would be breaking in doing so.
if I were to dig through your personal info in your private office to dig something up on you I would not be violating your 4th Amendment rights. A lawsuit against me for violating your 4th Amendment rights would have zero legal merit. I would however be violating various trespass, privacy, and property rights, rights not set out by the Constitution, but no less existent for that.
the fallacy is in thinking that insane people deserve any sort of equal weight or equal airtime with factual science.
that false equivalency, largely perpetrated by the media, is the single biggest factor contributing to the continue existence of climate denialism.
nope. not flamebait.
and the BS machine continues.
I'm also curious how many people will simply decide to do nothing and live on the dole.
considering that even now under the current (joke of a) welfare system in the US, the overwhelming majority receiving benefits work, and would work more if they could, the answer to your question is 'very few'.
your speed limit example is actually a perfect example of how laws DO in fact need to keep pace and don't.
especially as we move towards autonomous vehicles, but in fact applicable even with today's vehicles.
a high performance sports car can easily handle higher speeds and sharper turns than a semi hauling two trailers.
yet both are given the same 70mph limit, even though its rather too much for the double semi, and rather below the sports cars safe capability.
so why shouldn't they have different legal limits on what's safely acceptable?
in fact many areas DO impose special limits on larger vehicles such as semis and trailers.
and isn't one of the goals of autonomous vehicles the ability for each vehicle to adapt to every other, cooperatively creating a best case scenario for each vehicle? in their autonomous decision making such a cooperative network should easily be able to keep the two trailer semi moving steadily forward safely, while also allowing other traffic, including our high performance sports car, to route around it at their own individual best/safe speeds.
---
privacy is another area where laws haven't kept pace.
before the internet and the ability mass data mine encyclopedias on every individual from seemingly innocuous information, there wasn't much thought given to that information. there was safety because there was no ability to collate such a vast amount of data. but in the last 15 years that has changed dramatically. and now it matters. and yet the laws are still stuck in the time before it did.
your key thesis is invalid. beyond the simple imperatives of thou shall not murder/steal, it is impossible to write laws that are technologically timeless, and this has been shown time and again, whether it's determining how high into the air your property rights extend after the first airplanes begin flying x-country, data mining and privacy rights, or determining how to make cars and horses get along during the period when they shared the same streets.
Still cleaner than burning fuels.
The problem isn't as much the adding energy to the system, but the adding energy and preventing it from escaping (as it is wont to do). The Earth wants to re-radiate energy into space, and the key component of global warming is that we've reduced it's ability to do so.
Skeptic is the wrong word to describe one that rejects science and makes pseudoscientific (re: false) claims.
That's not skepticism.
you do realize that before the Bering land bridge there were no people here?
well, no, apparently not.
Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.
Cause small pox blankets and genocide, killing off over 95% of the native population, that wasn't evil?
And who the f modded this racist garbage up?