and people are modding this racist garbage insightful. not to mention the bullshit perception that Europeans are weak and cowardly. and no, they didnt happen to be standing near the toilet. they saw him enter the train with his gun.
As for chicago the answer is: nothing changed, because when you ban guns locally but not just a few miles down the road in the outlying suburbs, the ban doesnt actually mean or do anything.
It's called 'context': -At the time of the 747's creation AIRBUS was an upstart in the industry. -Also at that time, there was debate within the industry as to which vehicle was the way forward: faster or larger. Though it's worth noting that Boeing hedged its bets, and worked on both kinds of design.
Because he was a prominent civil rights activist and elected in 1968 from Ohio, the first black congressman from that state, a state that while considered northern, has had its own share of racial animus over the years, including to this day.
Denier misdirection and garbage modded insightful.
Water vapor is short lived and exists in dynamic equilibrium, regularly falling out of the air as precipitation in a very short cycle. It may be the largest holder of heat in the atmosphere (indeed the planet if you count the oceans) but it is not the largest driver. Left to its own devices it would not cause significant warming. The effect of water vapor is a reaction to other forces (such as CO2), not a first cause in itself. That is how a minor gas, CO2, can be the main driver of warming even while being a rather small portion of the atmosphere.
When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.
How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3C.
The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.
So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.
Firstly, the Earth has far more CO2 than Mars, both in raw mass, and per unit area. But while you're wrong there, its also not that relevant: Mar's climate, such as it is, is not driven by the sun or its atmospheric content of gases (CO2 or other), but by dust and albedo., not the content of its atmosphere.
It's also much further from the sun, receiving far far less energy from it. If the energy on a unit area of Earth is taken as a unitary 1, then the relative energy intensity on the same unit are of Mars is 0.44, or 44%. Less than half as much energy per unit area. Additionally Mars has only 1/4th (roughly) the surface area of the Earth, which combined with that 44% of the energy per unit area, means the planet Mars as a whole is only receiving 11% as much energy as the Earth does..
To expect the same driving patterns and effect is silly. BTW, your arguments about water vapor and mars CO2 content actually rather undercut each other!!
a lot of zoos need a lot of work, bigger enclosures, etc. (a lot of smaller Midwestern city zoos; Henry Dorley in Omaha is a world class zoo, but OKC's city zoo erally really needs bigger enclosures for its animals, the rhinos and cats in particular (though they are working on it as they get funding, so good on em))
some zoos are actively cruel and abusive, and should be shutdown (the "safari zoo" north of Reno comes to mind).
but generally speaking, you do need the public to see them. without public support these programs wont happen. and most of public support comes from the wonder of having seen the critters, and zoos are a big part of that.
Except for accurately recreating observations from 1900 to today, and getting more accurate over time, you're right, they've never been right.
Which is to say, you're full of it and completely wrong.
The gist is:
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
-No, the sun isn't the reason for the seasons. The reason is the earths axial tilt. If there was no tilt, there would be no seasons. -No, solar flares do not affect climate. They do affect 'space weather' and thus satellites and the upper atmosphere, but not our weather down on the surface. -No, solar output is not responsible for the warming. If it were, we would be cooling right now, as the sun output has trended downward the last few decades. -No, Al Gore didn't predict the Arctic would be ice free. He was quoting a study that had just been released at the time.* -No, the models have not never been right. They have been right, and they're getting stronger over time. -Your local weather forecasts for 2 weeks from now has squat to do with long term global trends and averages. -NIPCC is a pile of bull manure written by nonscientists. It'd be like you trying to prove Einstein wrong, when you cant even get 2+2=? correct. -If you want to know what the IPCC actually says, you should actually read it. It's available to the public after all.
*And just for S&G's: While completely ice-free wont happen for some time yet, the Arctic actually has already been functionally ice free somewhat ahead of their prediction, and shipping is already taking advantage of this, as well oil companies seeking to drill there, particularly during months of minimum extent.
That's just talking past the point. It's having changed before isn't really relevant, and for the very reasons you bring up yourself: Besides the fact that changes over a few million years are rather different frm changes occurring over a handful of centuries, you yourself said we rather need it in a certain state for our own survival, and changing that state is bad for us. Saying its changed before to excuse us changing it now is stupidity.
Oh yes. That would explain it. I forgot about The Body.
I guess I was mainly thinking that the same place that sent Al Franken to Washington also chose Bachmann, and the two are almost complete polar opposites. And I've been to various parts of Minnesota, and myself never met anyone who was actually crazy or seemed crazy enough to vote for her (unlike my time in GA).
WP's are largely a means by which 'health consultants' make money off corporations. And now FitBit is simply trying to get in on that action.
Now there's a difference between actually caring about your employee's health, and just trying to save money. But let's be realistic: most companies are trying to save money by doing this.
Multiple independent research studies (have shown that Wellness Programs don't work, and don't save companies any money, nor make them any additional revenue, and actually harm health instead of improving it. Which rather contradicts the (rather self-serving) studies coming out of the wellness industry itself. (And some companies are simply using them to penalize their poorer and/or unhealthier (two conditions that tend to go hand in hand in a vicious cycle) workers.)
Overall what their finding is that there is very little return on investment, basically about breaking even. The broader wellness programs, with the most preventive measures/incentives (ie the most overbearing) do the least, and actually decrease worker health.
At the same time more narrow, targeted programs, such as specific disease treatment programs (such as asthma, diabetes, etc) do the most, mostly likely because these are conditions people already have, and having a program at work that supports them and helps them manage their conditions does alleviate some burden, compared to the more traditional approach where the company doesn't care and leaves you to worry about it on your own, and/or raises your insurance costs or even dismisses you over it.
Sanders espouses policies that are no different from those that governed the country from the new deal up until the 70s. ie, the greatest period of prosperity humanity, let alone this country, had ever known up until that point.
we should be so lucky to re-implement those policies.
then let them spend their own money to buy candidates, not the corporation's.
they cannot both have the legal shield of the corporation separating them into distinct legal entities when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't.
you're right it shouldn't. that hasn't stopped them though.
you and those like you seem totally unaware that even a 25$ fee for a drivers license can be out of people's reach.
they also rather conveniently tend to ignore the hidden costs of obtaining such ID, such as taking the day off (days they frequently either don't get, and cant afford to take without pay), bussing across town (my experience being Atlanta, where they oh so conveniently have been shutting down both state ID issuers and polling places in or near the poorer neighborhoods, requiring travel clear cross town (which means either multiple bus changes and a couple hours each way, or at least one incident of being pulled over for a totally random fishing expedition I mean investigatory stop that never seems to happen to other 'certain' folks)), or in some places even across a significant portion of the state (west texas comes to mind).
it's only an overreach if you're ignorant of the trouble getting these ID's can pose for people. which means it's not an overreach at all.
it bears repeating: the fact that proving someone's ID in order to vote is tends to be a burden on low income voters and minorities, and almost no one else, is not a bug, but a wholly intended feature of these laws.
if these people actually wanted voter ID for ID sake, and no other ulterior purpose, ID's would be completely free, and obtainable by and thru the mail, or similar method. (ignoring for the moment that voter registration cards are already typically obtainable via mail, and really, is all the proof of unique identity that should be required any way)
You know, the ones who keep trying to dictate the lives of those who receive public benefits, telling them which food to buy ('they bought expensive meat!"), controlling their sex lives ("stop having so many kids....but don't contraception or get an abortion!"), and telling them how they don't deserve a minimum wage ("you don't deserve to live outside of poverty and out of the street!! but you stould still get an education you cant afford and pick yourself up by your bootstraps!"), trying to keep them voting ("a day off to vote? this isn't a democracy!"), and so forth.
Slashdot Mirror
"The average person with a gun knows how to use it."
if only that were actually true.
and theres more to it than just knowing how to use the gun, ie, that mental mindset the OP mentioned.
and people are modding this racist garbage insightful.
not to mention the bullshit perception that Europeans are weak and cowardly.
and no, they didnt happen to be standing near the toilet. they saw him enter the train with his gun.
Bull and shit.
As for chicago the answer is: nothing changed, because when you ban guns locally but not just a few miles down the road in the outlying suburbs, the ban doesnt actually mean or do anything.
dear mods: facts are not flamebait.
stop abusing your privileges.
It's called 'context':
-At the time of the 747's creation AIRBUS was an upstart in the industry.
-Also at that time, there was debate within the industry as to which vehicle was the way forward: faster or larger. Though it's worth noting that Boeing hedged its bets, and worked on both kinds of design.
Because he was a prominent civil rights activist and elected in 1968 from Ohio, the first black congressman from that state, a state that while considered northern, has had its own share of racial animus over the years, including to this day.
Denier misdirection and garbage modded insightful.
Water vapor is short lived and exists in dynamic equilibrium, regularly falling out of the air as precipitation in a very short cycle. It may be the largest holder of heat in the atmosphere (indeed the planet if you count the oceans) but it is not the largest driver. Left to its own devices it would not cause significant warming. The effect of water vapor is a reaction to other forces (such as CO2), not a first cause in itself. That is how a minor gas, CO2, can be the main driver of warming even while being a rather small portion of the atmosphere.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.
How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3C.
The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.
So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.
Firstly, the Earth has far more CO2 than Mars, both in raw mass, and per unit area. But while you're wrong there, its also not that relevant: Mar's climate, such as it is, is not driven by the sun or its atmospheric content of gases (CO2 or other), but by dust and albedo. , not the content of its atmosphere.
It's also much further from the sun, receiving far far less energy from it. If the energy on a unit area of Earth is taken as a unitary 1, then the relative energy intensity on the same unit are of Mars is 0.44, or 44%. Less than half as much energy per unit area. Additionally Mars has only 1/4th (roughly) the surface area of the Earth, which combined with that 44% of the energy per unit area, means the planet Mars as a whole is only receiving 11% as much energy as the Earth does. .
To expect the same driving patterns and effect is silly.
BTW, your arguments about water vapor and mars CO2 content actually rather undercut each other!!
http://environmentalforest.blo...
The myth that Mars has more CO
Yeah, not a particularly good aquarium or very good history.
a lot of zoos need a lot of work, bigger enclosures, etc. (a lot of smaller Midwestern city zoos; Henry Dorley in Omaha is a world class zoo, but OKC's city zoo erally really needs bigger enclosures for its animals, the rhinos and cats in particular (though they are working on it as they get funding, so good on em))
some zoos are actively cruel and abusive, and should be shutdown (the "safari zoo" north of Reno comes to mind).
but generally speaking, you do need the public to see them.
without public support these programs wont happen.
and most of public support comes from the wonder of having seen the critters, and zoos are a big part of that.
Sounds like the aquarium was acting as a middleman buyer to disguise the actual buyer.
And they got denied for trying to do something fishy.
Except for accurately recreating observations from 1900 to today, and getting more accurate over time, you're right, they've never been right.
Which is to say, you're full of it and completely wrong.
The gist is:
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
-No, the sun isn't the reason for the seasons. The reason is the earths axial tilt. If there was no tilt, there would be no seasons.
-No, solar flares do not affect climate. They do affect 'space weather' and thus satellites and the upper atmosphere, but not our weather down on the surface.
-No, solar output is not responsible for the warming. If it were, we would be cooling right now, as the sun output has trended downward the last few decades.
-No, Al Gore didn't predict the Arctic would be ice free. He was quoting a study that had just been released at the time.*
-No, the models have not never been right. They have been right, and they're getting stronger over time.
-Your local weather forecasts for 2 weeks from now has squat to do with long term global trends and averages.
-NIPCC is a pile of bull manure written by nonscientists. It'd be like you trying to prove Einstein wrong, when you cant even get 2+2=? correct.
-If you want to know what the IPCC actually says, you should actually read it. It's available to the public after all.
*And just for S&G's: While completely ice-free wont happen for some time yet, the Arctic actually has already been functionally ice free somewhat ahead of their prediction , and shipping is already taking advantage of this, as well oil companies seeking to drill there, particularly during months of minimum extent.
That's just talking past the point.
It's having changed before isn't really relevant, and for the very reasons you bring up yourself: Besides the fact that changes over a few million years are rather different frm changes occurring over a handful of centuries, you yourself said we rather need it in a certain state for our own survival, and changing that state is bad for us. Saying its changed before to excuse us changing it now is stupidity.
can we stop holding up spurious "science" "news " reporting and celebrities has the pillars of the scientific community?
seriously. Unless its about a Cheers reunion or something, who gives a F what Ted Danson makes a prediction about?
Oh yes. That would explain it. I forgot about The Body.
I guess I was mainly thinking that the same place that sent Al Franken to Washington also chose Bachmann, and the two are almost complete polar opposites. And I've been to various parts of Minnesota, and myself never met anyone who was actually crazy or seemed crazy enough to vote for her (unlike my time in GA).
And I'm guessing Sith is a Freudian slip?
That still leaves Bachmann unexplained.
WP's are largely a means by which 'health consultants' make money off corporations.
And now FitBit is simply trying to get in on that action.
Now there's a difference between actually caring about your employee's health, and just trying to save money.
But let's be realistic: most companies are trying to save money by doing this.
Multiple independent research studies (have shown that Wellness Programs don't work, and don't save companies any money, nor make them any additional revenue, and actually harm health instead of improving it. Which rather contradicts the (rather self-serving) studies coming out of the wellness industry itself. (And some companies are simply using them to penalize their poorer and/or unhealthier (two conditions that tend to go hand in hand in a vicious cycle) workers.)
Overall what their finding is that there is very little return on investment, basically about breaking even.
The broader wellness programs, with the most preventive measures/incentives (ie the most overbearing) do the least, and actually decrease worker health.
At the same time more narrow, targeted programs, such as specific disease treatment programs (such as asthma, diabetes, etc) do the most, mostly likely because these are conditions people already have, and having a program at work that supports them and helps them manage their conditions does alleviate some burden, compared to the more traditional approach where the company doesn't care and leaves you to worry about it on your own, and/or raises your insurance costs or even dismisses you over it.
http://theincidentaleconomist....
http://www.nationaljournal.com...
https://hbr.org/2010/12/whats-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...
and here comes the racism
Sanders espouses policies that are no different from those that governed the country from the new deal up until the 70s.
ie, the greatest period of prosperity humanity, let alone this country, had ever known up until that point.
we should be so lucky to re-implement those policies.
then let them spend their own money to buy candidates, not the corporation's.
they cannot both have the legal shield of the corporation separating them into distinct legal entities when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't.
painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals.
they pretty much did that to themselves.
Says someone who knows very little about world governments, political theory, and related definitions under those headings.
you're right it shouldn't.
that hasn't stopped them though.
you and those like you seem totally unaware that even a 25$ fee for a drivers license can be out of people's reach.
they also rather conveniently tend to ignore the hidden costs of obtaining such ID, such as taking the day off (days they frequently either don't get, and cant afford to take without pay), bussing across town (my experience being Atlanta, where they oh so conveniently have been shutting down both state ID issuers and polling places in or near the poorer neighborhoods, requiring travel clear cross town (which means either multiple bus changes and a couple hours each way, or at least one incident of being pulled over for a totally random fishing expedition I mean investigatory stop that never seems to happen to other 'certain' folks)), or in some places even across a significant portion of the state (west texas comes to mind).
it's only an overreach if you're ignorant of the trouble getting these ID's can pose for people. which means it's not an overreach at all.
it bears repeating: the fact that proving someone's ID in order to vote is tends to be a burden on low income voters and minorities, and almost no one else, is not a bug, but a wholly intended feature of these laws.
if these people actually wanted voter ID for ID sake, and no other ulterior purpose, ID's would be completely free, and obtainable by and thru the mail, or similar method. (ignoring for the moment that voter registration cards are already typically obtainable via mail, and really, is all the proof of unique identity that should be required any way)
You must be talking about Republicans.
You know, the ones who keep trying to dictate the lives of those who receive public benefits, telling them which food to buy ('they bought expensive meat!"), controlling their sex lives ("stop having so many kids....but don't contraception or get an abortion!"), and telling them how they don't deserve a minimum wage ("you don't deserve to live outside of poverty and out of the street!! but you stould still get an education you cant afford and pick yourself up by your bootstraps!"), trying to keep them voting ("a day off to vote? this isn't a democracy!"), and so forth.
The insanity is strong in this one.