Notice the surface station setting well inside the heat island of the waste water treatment plant.
To keep that beer cold, they need to use a heat exchanger. Many of the stations are located at the exhaust of that heat exchanger...so, yes, the cold beer will in fact cause the surface station to read hot.
The warmist are raising alarms over a few degrees warming over decades, and your dismissing an immediate heating affect of several degrees.
It won't matter. After "those with the disabled kill switch" kill off our ancestors, the history books will be written to proclaim the uprising of the chosen as a pivotal point for the betterment of humanity.
We will be remembered as a plague upon the Earth that created its own demise.
The difficulty with jurors accessing material outside of the evidence led in court is that the party against whom that material is used has no means of challenging or testing it, since (a) it's not been disclosed to anyone outside the jury room and (b) even if it were disclosed, who's available to be cross-examined on that material?
On point b, the other eleven members of the jury? If I'm the mechanic, who is available to cross-examine my knowledge for snow tires?
3. If it's a civil case, the defendant is really an insurance company, but you'll be told the defendant is Joe Average. Award the plaintiff lots of money! I'd do the same for you. Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.
You haven't a clue how insurance works, do you? Have you ever looked at the historical records and seen that the stock for insurance goes up AFTER natural disasters? Maybe you should stop and realize that insurance companies don't grow money. The collect it, and then keep just a percentage for themselves. Joe will pay out of pocket (eventually). So will you, and so will I. If Joe is not at fault, why should his insurance company pay anything to someone that doesn't deserve it.
So basically you want to replace the court system with the court of public opinion?
Uhmmm...that IS what the jury system is.
A jurors job is basically nothing more than decided which party is telling the truth.
And to decide if the law itself is just and reasonable. The jury is a check against runaway legislatures. The whole system is an overly complicated farce otherwise. Without the tenant that juries oversee both "did the accused commit the crime" AND "should the accused be punished for the crime?" then a system of bench judges would make much more sense. The original leaders of the 13 colonies that founded this government rejected the bench judgements.
If the "legal" definition of a word is different that what it is commonly understood to be, then the trial is not being held in English. It is being held in legalese.
If I randomly assigned 51 definitions to a common word, then I'm not speaking any language at all.
Take the word insanity. If I want it to mean anything other than insane within North Carolina, then I should use the term "insanity as defined in North Carolina" or "legally insane as defined by North Carolina".
It is true of everything you see on TV, and that gets reflected here. You constantly see leftist twisting their face in disdain, and say things like "I'll put this in a way that even a Fox viewer can understand." Democrats constantly call themselves the party of inclusion, then smirk at half the population. (Quote a certain presidential candidate claiming the unemployed are "clinging to their guns and religion.")
The rightist just call the leftist illogical and immature, and don't even bother to cover their disdain.
Occasionally, someone will tackle the foundational premises that each side has built their logical castles upon, but that doesn't make for good confrontational TV, so it doesn't get much press. You end up with things like the Tea Party that go across party lines, and then the news casters don't know what the hell to do, other than to tear them apart as quickly as possible.
And why is defense spending missing from the picture? Could it be that maybe defense spending is the one sacred cow that the Federal government is actually responsible for, according to the Constitution? Naah. That would be silly.
BTW, I'd do more than end those wars. I'd pull all of our bases out of Europe and Asia, and leave a sign at our boarders that says "We welcome the peaceful. But you want to be violent?...Go ahead. Make my day."
So are you saying that you're incapable of comprehending the data presented at surfacestations.org, or that you're to emotionally invested in the GW religion to believe that Al Gore is not the priest you believe he is?
You're right that a lot of the issue is the progress in medicine's ability to care for health conditions that previously would have simply been fatal. What's strange is that in every other area of technology, progress leads not only to increased capability, but also to decreased price. The latter hasn't happened with medicine. Why not?
In many cases, it most definitely has. Just make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
Consider the removal of an appendix. 20 years ago, it was a major surgery with a few weeks in the hospital. Today, it is a small slit for the telescopic viewer and you're home in a couple of days. My father's drugs for Parkinson's Disease have plummeted in cost over the years while improving miraculously.
You're also right that in many cases we indulge in long, expensive palliative care that doesn't ultimately improve the patient's life or reduce morbidity. In fact, a lot of times they just die more slowly and have a choice between doing it in a drugged stupor or doing it more painfully. That's another reason why the separation between patient (or family) and bills is so bad. Painful as it is, the fiscal cost of extending grandpa's life for another agonizing eight months needs to be considered alongside the other issues.
Hear! Hear! I think the overall picture is that you can't blame the cost increase solely on "greedy insurance companies" or "greedy drug companies". It many cases, the drugs and devices being delivered today are not equivalent to what was delivered a decade ago. How can you then compare the cost as if they are?
The reporting is (generally) balanced, informative, and in depth.
How do you know? I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm asking how you get to the conclusion you've arrived at. It's "news", so the assumption is that you don't know about the stories beforehand. How can you know that it is covered fairly on the second hand?
News flash: corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.
Except put you out of business with a hostile takeover, buy your parent company out and fire you, sue you with a team of lawyers that collectively gross in a day what you do in a year, bribe a local politician to falsely imprison you... and that's just to a fellow citizen. God help you if you live in a country with no government large enough to protect your rights.
But, the government that is supposed to be protecting your rights is the one taking bribes to put you in jail?
Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.
On this we can definitely agree.
And the government would topple overnight if people would rise up against it; however, in this case there is the possibility that people would be required to bear arms in order to rise up. We can boycott MSNBC's liberal bias, or we can go to war with Obama's leftist government. Which is easier?
But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.
And a final point - you state that people can't be good consumers. I believe that they can, but first there has to be some penalty for lying for corporations. There has to be an entity, outside the direct control of corporations, that is itself policed by the press, which can act in meaningful ways to keep them honest.
So there has to be police that are policed by the press. But, why can the press just police the policed and eliminate the need for the police in the first place? (This could get fun 8*)
Overall, I believe it is two sides to the same coin. A overly strong FCC allows and even enables obamanations like the PTC and the Fairness Doctrine. To weak, and we get the corporations destroying net neutrality. There is a constant struggle for the right mix.
Everyone is experiencing massive cost inflation, and it's precisely because the end-customers are insulated from the cost of their own health care decisions.
Is this the reason, or is it because:
1) In the past, the surgeon would wipe the knife clean on his pants leg between patients. Today, the surgeon wears a spacesuit in a sterile room.
2) In the past, the doctor told you that you had a growth, and you died at home 3mos later. Today, the growth is a highly specialized cancer that requires monthly injections of an extremely expensive to manufacture drug. The patient drags on in a sterilized hospital room for 8mos.
3) In the past, you died at home of "old age". Today, it is unconsionable to not have a team of doctors on call to usher the octogenarian over to the other side.
Then you have the problem of snake oil salesmen. Liability is not always a bad thing. It protects all of us from unscrupulous vendors every day. You can either regulate heavily or allow liability but you have to have at least one of the two and preferably some of both.
-OR-
You can provide education and information. The government investigates, tests and provides ratings for devices and services offered for public consumption. Then the typical "knew or should have known" can be turned against the consumer instead of just at the provider...as in, "You knew, or should have known" that this hospital used unsterilized, rusty knives. It was in the government report, but you chose to use their services because they were cheaper. Get outta here, ya' bum." I exaggerate for effect, but that's the basic idea.
"OMG ALIENS" isn't a scientific explanation, and neither is "OMG MARTIAN LIFE".
We have rock periodically raining down on us, none of which are blamed on a galactic fender-bender. If two planets or planetoids collided with enough impact to throw chunks from Mars to Earth, you'd expect that there would be a fairly large debris field.
Slashdot Mirror
http://surfacestations.org
Notice the surface station setting well inside the heat island of the waste water treatment plant.
To keep that beer cold, they need to use a heat exchanger. Many of the stations are located at the exhaust of that heat exchanger...so, yes, the cold beer will in fact cause the surface station to read hot.
The warmist are raising alarms over a few degrees warming over decades, and your dismissing an immediate heating affect of several degrees.
Dude, would you get over it. Man made global warming is REAL, and this site proves it:
http://surfacestations.org
At least in the sense that there are little spots all over the globe made warmer by asphalt and air conditioner exhausts.
8*)
It won't matter. After "those with the disabled kill switch" kill off our ancestors, the history books will be written to proclaim the uprising of the chosen as a pivotal point for the betterment of humanity.
We will be remembered as a plague upon the Earth that created its own demise.
The difficulty with jurors accessing material outside of the evidence led in court is that the party against whom that material is used has no means of challenging or testing it, since (a) it's not been disclosed to anyone outside the jury room and (b) even if it were disclosed, who's available to be cross-examined on that material?
On point b, the other eleven members of the jury? If I'm the mechanic, who is available to cross-examine my knowledge for snow tires?
I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact
A artificial construct that attempts to increase the power of government at the expense of the people.
That just an indication that a country truly deserves the justice system that it gives itself.
3. If it's a civil case, the defendant is really an insurance company, but you'll be told the defendant is Joe Average. Award the plaintiff lots of money! I'd do the same for you. Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.
You haven't a clue how insurance works, do you? Have you ever looked at the historical records and seen that the stock for insurance goes up AFTER natural disasters? Maybe you should stop and realize that insurance companies don't grow money. The collect it, and then keep just a percentage for themselves. Joe will pay out of pocket (eventually). So will you, and so will I. If Joe is not at fault, why should his insurance company pay anything to someone that doesn't deserve it.
So basically you want to replace the court system with the court of public opinion?
Uhmmm...that IS what the jury system is.
A jurors job is basically nothing more than decided which party is telling the truth.
And to decide if the law itself is just and reasonable. The jury is a check against runaway legislatures. The whole system is an overly complicated farce otherwise. Without the tenant that juries oversee both "did the accused commit the crime" AND "should the accused be punished for the crime?" then a system of bench judges would make much more sense. The original leaders of the 13 colonies that founded this government rejected the bench judgements.
If the "legal" definition of a word is different that what it is commonly understood to be, then the trial is not being held in English. It is being held in legalese.
If I randomly assigned 51 definitions to a common word, then I'm not speaking any language at all.
Take the word insanity. If I want it to mean anything other than insane within North Carolina, then I should use the term "insanity as defined in North Carolina" or "legally insane as defined by North Carolina".
If she leaves you then, well, you accomplished the evolutionary purpose of producing children AND you're free to make some more with someone else.
You obviously don't understand how divorce works.
It is true of everything you see on TV, and that gets reflected here. You constantly see leftist twisting their face in disdain, and say things like "I'll put this in a way that even a Fox viewer can understand." Democrats constantly call themselves the party of inclusion, then smirk at half the population. (Quote a certain presidential candidate claiming the unemployed are "clinging to their guns and religion.")
The rightist just call the leftist illogical and immature, and don't even bother to cover their disdain.
Occasionally, someone will tackle the foundational premises that each side has built their logical castles upon, but that doesn't make for good confrontational TV, so it doesn't get much press. You end up with things like the Tea Party that go across party lines, and then the news casters don't know what the hell to do, other than to tear them apart as quickly as possible.
And why is defense spending missing from the picture? Could it be that maybe defense spending is the one sacred cow that the Federal government is actually responsible for, according to the Constitution? Naah. That would be silly.
BTW, I'd do more than end those wars. I'd pull all of our bases out of Europe and Asia, and leave a sign at our boarders that says "We welcome the peaceful. But you want to be violent?...Go ahead. Make my day."
cover the wind turbine blades with solar panels to drive some electro-magnets. Then you don't need the rare-earth magnets.
Of course, then you're down to only being able to generate power on sunny and windy days, but at least we can make them here.
And who was whining that the Americans needed to step up to the plate and send men into Yugoslavia when the war was on their borders?
So are you saying that you're incapable of comprehending the data presented at surfacestations.org, or that you're to emotionally invested in the GW religion to believe that Al Gore is not the priest you believe he is?
You're right that a lot of the issue is the progress in medicine's ability to care for health conditions that previously would have simply been fatal. What's strange is that in every other area of technology, progress leads not only to increased capability, but also to decreased price. The latter hasn't happened with medicine. Why not?
In many cases, it most definitely has. Just make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
Consider the removal of an appendix. 20 years ago, it was a major surgery with a few weeks in the hospital. Today, it is a small slit for the telescopic viewer and you're home in a couple of days. My father's drugs for Parkinson's Disease have plummeted in cost over the years while improving miraculously.
You're also right that in many cases we indulge in long, expensive palliative care that doesn't ultimately improve the patient's life or reduce morbidity. In fact, a lot of times they just die more slowly and have a choice between doing it in a drugged stupor or doing it more painfully. That's another reason why the separation between patient (or family) and bills is so bad. Painful as it is, the fiscal cost of extending grandpa's life for another agonizing eight months needs to be considered alongside the other issues.
Hear! Hear! I think the overall picture is that you can't blame the cost increase solely on "greedy insurance companies" or "greedy drug companies". It many cases, the drugs and devices being delivered today are not equivalent to what was delivered a decade ago. How can you then compare the cost as if they are?
The reporting is (generally) balanced, informative, and in depth.
How do you know? I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm asking how you get to the conclusion you've arrived at. It's "news", so the assumption is that you don't know about the stories beforehand. How can you know that it is covered fairly on the second hand?
Judged by the ratings, yes they do. You'd think MSNBC would take a few lessons from them.
News flash: corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.
Except put you out of business with a hostile takeover, buy your parent company out and fire you, sue you with a team of lawyers that collectively gross in a day what you do in a year, bribe a local politician to falsely imprison you... and that's just to a fellow citizen. God help you if you live in a country with no government large enough to protect your rights.
But, the government that is supposed to be protecting your rights is the one taking bribes to put you in jail?
Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.
On this we can definitely agree.
And the government would topple overnight if people would rise up against it; however, in this case there is the possibility that people would be required to bear arms in order to rise up. We can boycott MSNBC's liberal bias, or we can go to war with Obama's leftist government. Which is easier?
But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.
And a final point - you state that people can't be good consumers. I believe that they can, but first there has to be some penalty for lying for corporations. There has to be an entity, outside the direct control of corporations, that is itself policed by the press, which can act in meaningful ways to keep them honest.
So there has to be police that are policed by the press. But, why can the press just police the policed and eliminate the need for the police in the first place? (This could get fun 8*)
Overall, I believe it is two sides to the same coin. A overly strong FCC allows and even enables obamanations like the PTC and the Fairness Doctrine. To weak, and we get the corporations destroying net neutrality. There is a constant struggle for the right mix.
Dude?! I'm still running composite video (the yellow cable). Anything more expensive is wasted on the made for TV propaganda coming out of Hollywood.
No. He's a little to one-sided for my tastes.
My doctor has always told me. He will often tell me before I ask.
Yours doesn't? Maybe you should change doctors. Something else that would be difficult to do with a single payer system.
Everyone is experiencing massive cost inflation, and it's precisely because the end-customers are insulated from the cost of their own health care decisions.
Is this the reason, or is it because:
1) In the past, the surgeon would wipe the knife clean on his pants leg between patients. Today, the surgeon wears a spacesuit in a sterile room.
2) In the past, the doctor told you that you had a growth, and you died at home 3mos later. Today, the growth is a highly specialized cancer that requires monthly injections of an extremely expensive to manufacture drug. The patient drags on in a sterilized hospital room for 8mos.
3) In the past, you died at home of "old age". Today, it is unconsionable to not have a team of doctors on call to usher the octogenarian over to the other side.
Then you have the problem of snake oil salesmen. Liability is not always a bad thing. It protects all of us from unscrupulous vendors every day. You can either regulate heavily or allow liability but you have to have at least one of the two and preferably some of both.
-OR-
You can provide education and information. The government investigates, tests and provides ratings for devices and services offered for public consumption. Then the typical "knew or should have known" can be turned against the consumer instead of just at the provider...as in, "You knew, or should have known" that this hospital used unsterilized, rusty knives. It was in the government report, but you chose to use their services because they were cheaper. Get outta here, ya' bum." I exaggerate for effect, but that's the basic idea.
"OMG ALIENS" isn't a scientific explanation, and neither is "OMG MARTIAN LIFE".
We have rock periodically raining down on us, none of which are blamed on a galactic fender-bender. If two planets or planetoids collided with enough impact to throw chunks from Mars to Earth, you'd expect that there would be a fairly large debris field.