What happens when CO2 levels rise? We already know that the planet heats up.
In other words you accept the theoretical premise of global warming, but you are saying that because there might be times of rapid warming due to natural CO2 emissions that might be missing from the ice core data due to high temperature or smeared out due to diffusion of CO2 within the cores, we must pretend that the premise of global warming is invalid. Or are you saying that because we can't definitively determine CO2 levels for all time in the past, we must conclude that the current rise in CO2 levels is natural? I would hate to see what you think about how we determine the ages of stars.
Don't even get me started on milankovitch cycles, water vapor feedback loops, underrated methane effects, oceanic CO2 sequestration as a function of temperature, and many other sub-topics on this subject.
All standard crutches to make people think the deniers have a leg to stand on. Milankovitch cycles: our position in the current one does not explain either warming or increasing CO2 levels. Water Vapor feedback loops: These are only importing in understanding the size of the temperature increase due to CO2. There is no indication of any negative feedback due to water vapor, and if one does appear above a certain temperature or CO2 level it will likely result in extreme cooling and a larger disaster for mankind than global warming. Underrated methane effects: This also worsens global warming. Oceanic CO2 sequestration as a function of temperature: this might reduce (but not eliminate) the effects of global warming over multi-century timescales when it can work in near chemical equilibrium. But right now the ocean has absorbed so much CO2 that it is acidic to the point where carbonate shells and rock are dissolving at a higher pace then normal, a process that increases the net carbonate content of the water and reduces the amount of further CO2 that can be absorbed (and possibly even releasing additional CO2 to the atmosphere).
(I know of) a paleoclimatologist lost his job for raising questions about supervolcanoes...
One part of being a scientist is to be able to talk to your colleagues without picking fights with everyone that disagrees with you. If he had gone about getting grants and studying the effects of supervolcanoes on climate, he'd probably still have his job. Going into every Colloquium and calling your colleagues losers for believing in AGW because the work you haven't yet done on supervolcanoes will prove them wrong, will get you canned. Then again, I've never known a scientist who got fired for believing in the wrong theories. More often it's inability to get enough grant money to stay afloat, and then you don't get fired, you just don't get paid.
Your inconsistency is that it's OK if you let those embryos die, but it's not OK if the parents do or the people running the clinic do. If you don't see the inconsistency there, you've been wearing the biblical blinders too long. If those clusters of cells are people in danger of being killed, don't you have a moral opportunity to rescue them? If your office mate says "I'm off to shoot the governor" do you not have an obligation to call the police, or do you say it's not your responsibility to make up for someone else's wrong?
I'm not being inconsistent, because to me those clusters of cells are not people nor anything close the moral equivalent of people. People make those things all the time, and 80% of them don't come to term. For a believer, that means God kills more human embryos in a year than abortions have over the history of human civilization. If you believe the clump of cells gets a soul at conception, that's 600 million souls last year flushed down the local equivalent of the toilet. If you do get to heaven, have fun with all those people who never ate, drank, took a breath, had a heart or a brain, or learned to speak....
I don't cry for the skin cells I wash off in the shower, I don't cry for embryos that fail to implant, and I don't cry for embryos never given the opportunity to implant.
So preventing a death isn't important if if costs money or discomfort. I'm sure I read that in the Bible somewhere. Inconsistency thy name is conservative Christian.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
But sometimes the opposing group actually is an alliance of the evil, the biased, the spiteful and the stupid. Of course, not all of them fit in that category. Just the loudest.
Speaking as someone who has also scrutinized the sciences of anthropogenic global warming in much detail, the validity of the consensus view seems very certain. There is very little left to deny. So you must deride the conclusions of experts over the conclusions of an "expert" such as yourself in order to maintain belief in your position.
Whenever valid scientific questions are raised, they are usually answered. The AGW opponents pretend the questions have not been answered, and ask the same questions for years on end expecting different answers. I believe that's the definition of fruitcake, according to Albert Einstein.
What do you think would happen to Nasa if they hadn't said that?
Very little. Not much of NASA's budget goes to climate research. And the Republican House would throw money at them if they thought that they could falsify global warming. It would be a major windfall!
NASA wasn't the original source for that. Independent studies have said that, and NASA put it on their web page. NASA's web page is a bit behind the times. I think the most recent studies put that at a 94% probability.
Let me guess, you're a Republican Right? And you're too embarrassed to admit that by and large your party has become the anti-science party (unless it fits your religious world view).
To be fair on the left also have our anti-science contingent: the anti-vaccine crowd, the herbalists, homoeopaths, and the rest of the alternative medicine movement. For the most part those positions have not become part of the Democratic party platform.
most pro-life people I know are aware of what you mentioned about IVF and fall in to one of two camps about it, either a) they feel IVF is wrong as well as currently practiced
Yet you don't see them lining up outside fertility clinics waiting to carry those embryos to term.
Getting any education out of a school is a job for the student, and it can be done almost anywhere. Unless the student doesn't understand how to learn, in which case there is trouble no matter where you go. It may be the professors' jobs to teach, but none of them can make a student learn anything.
For a specific entry level careers in specific areas of technology, the for profits may actually have a small advantage, they can change their courses very quickly. They can drop a Visual Basic course and add a C# course with little or no faculty input. Of course that can be a disadvantage if they drop or add the wrong courses, or if they don't hire a faculty member who understands the subject.
Apart from cost, name recognition and the hard sell, there is an additional small disadvantage to the for profit schools. Their programs tend to be highly focused on specific subject matter with little breadth. It's a small disadvantage, especially in the engineering fields, because most non-profit universities have narrowed the focus of their programs as well.
My recommendation is to find a school that offers the program you want, will accept you, and that you can afford. California kids might have to relocate to the Midwest to find that. And once you get there, work your ass off. Show up on day one of each class being half a semester ahead of everyone else. Once you're sure you're ahead of the curve and a lost weekend won't kill you, then have some fun. Then prepare to spend a long time paying off your student loans.
Or those numbers might mean that number of child distributions is a meaningless benchmark. Perhaps Debian is easiest to clone without getting into copyright problems. Number of systems on which the child distributions are installed would be a better metric.
I rarely maximize and frequently minimize windows. Rather than remove these buttons I'd rather see an additional "a maximize vertically" button that doesn't change the left and right boundaries of a window. I'm hoping that panels, and having a window list in a panel are still allowed, and that clicking on a window button in the list will alternately minimize and restore it.
I'll reserve judgment until forced to upgrade during as OS upgrade. But if I don't like it I have no problems with changing to something better. Remember the good old days when window managers would allow you to customize what would be in your title bar?
Wrong. According to various studies over the years, Republican voters (aka conservatives) give 5 times more money per year to non-church charities then Democrat voters (aka liberals).
Citation needed. Every study I've seen doesn't compare to total income of the donors (one republican (i.e. Bill Gates) can throw off the statistic), nor do they break out religious vs non-religious charities, nor do they distinguish charities by purpose. Besides, if Republicans were really concerned about poverty they would realize that charity work has failed to eliminate poverty and would support government efforts paid for with tax money.
This was a private launch. There is only one public launch vehicle in the US fleet: the space shuttle. Or are you talking about whether the payload was public or private? Hard to compare there because the mix of launch vehicles and payload sizes is very different.
When it comes to federal expenditures, like this one, how are the rich getting more benefit from NASA, or the launching of an environmental satellite, than the rest of us?
They own the companies the build the satellites, launch vehicles, the parts that go into either, the ground station equipment, the dish antennas and provide the fuels for the launch vehicle. And on top of it, they own the large corporate farms and logging/paper companies that stand to benefit most from the information provided by these satellites. It would be hard to come up with any specific benefit the poor get apart from potentially more stable food prices.
You are missing the point that Buffet does not pay payroll taxes on anything above the income cap, and doesn't pay any payroll taxes on capital gains. That's an addition 9% or so that his secretary pays that he does not.
Second, why in the world is paying the same percentage the "fair" thing? Why not the same dollar amount?
Wow, your education was severely lacking. The rich get the most benefits from a stable society. The poor get very little from it. And apparently you can't see that taxing the poor at an amount greater than their annual income would both be unfair, and would quickly lead to a very unstable society with very few live rich people.
Hey, Captain Working Class: instead of buying that second six pack of PBR, why not feed an impoverished family in Liberia for a week?
What makes you think we don't? I spend a lot of money things that the government should be doing, but doesn't because the right wing thinks poverty is a character flaw not a societal defect exacerbated by an economic policy that places the needs of the wealthy above all else.
You only need one or the other. It's hard to used both at the same time, although I have seen combination torch/pitchforks. The problem with those is, if you ever need to use the pitchfork function, one of your hands is grasping the business end of the torch mechanism.
But this is slashdot, we don't need to use 14th century weaponry. Grab your bat'leth and your 9 LED head lamp and let's go!
What makes you think the judge at a military court doesn't have to play politics? For that matter, what makes you think the jury at a military court doesn't have to play politics? They're sitting in judgment at a court where their employer is the prosecutor. And it won't be a jury of peers. There might not be any enlisted personnel on the jury. If you don't think future promotions will be based upon performance at this trial, you're dreaming.
Yes, you are correct, the app store used by Android devices is called the Android Market. That doesn't stop it from being an app store. Repeat after me. The "Android Market" is an app store. That's what generic means.
I think you could potentially argue that Windows = Window manager is just as generic as App Store = Application store at the time.
Bullshit. Microsoft has never sued or to my knowledge threatened to sue to prevent anyone from calling a window manager a window manager. A few examples, Motif Window Manager, Tab Window Manager, "Fill_in_the_blank_with_whatever_f_word_you_like_at_the_time Virtual Window Manager" (fvwm). Window managers abound. But, then again "Windows" is called "Windows" not Window Manager. Nobody confuses the two. Nobody accidentally calls their window manager "Fred's Windows". Similarly, nobody ever utters the sentence "The windows used on Macintosh computers is called MacOS X" because windows is not a generic term for operating system, or even for window manager.
But used without qualifiers "app store" is very generic. It's a store that sells apps. Nothing connects it with apple or their iDevices. If they had called it "iApp Store" that would be different. If a shoe store named "Shoe Store" tried to sue all other shoe stores, they wouldn't get very far. And the sentence "The app store used by Android devices is called the Google Marketplace" is a perfectly correct use of the term "app store."
That's precisely my issue, as a scientist. There's a wealth of mostly credible evidence showing some warming. Haven't seen any that could truly attribute it to mankind's actions.
Are you reading with your eyes closed again? Not the best way for a "scientist" to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when CO2 levels rise? We already know that the planet heats up.
In other words you accept the theoretical premise of global warming, but you are saying that because there might be times of rapid warming due to natural CO2 emissions that might be missing from the ice core data due to high temperature or smeared out due to diffusion of CO2 within the cores, we must pretend that the premise of global warming is invalid. Or are you saying that because we can't definitively determine CO2 levels for all time in the past, we must conclude that the current rise in CO2 levels is natural? I would hate to see what you think about how we determine the ages of stars.
Don't even get me started on milankovitch cycles, water vapor feedback loops, underrated methane effects, oceanic CO2 sequestration as a function of temperature, and many other sub-topics on this subject.
All standard crutches to make people think the deniers have a leg to stand on. Milankovitch cycles: our position in the current one does not explain either warming or increasing CO2 levels. Water Vapor feedback loops: These are only importing in understanding the size of the temperature increase due to CO2. There is no indication of any negative feedback due to water vapor, and if one does appear above a certain temperature or CO2 level it will likely result in extreme cooling and a larger disaster for mankind than global warming. Underrated methane effects: This also worsens global warming. Oceanic CO2 sequestration as a function of temperature: this might reduce (but not eliminate) the effects of global warming over multi-century timescales when it can work in near chemical equilibrium. But right now the ocean has absorbed so much CO2 that it is acidic to the point where carbonate shells and rock are dissolving at a higher pace then normal, a process that increases the net carbonate content of the water and reduces the amount of further CO2 that can be absorbed (and possibly even releasing additional CO2 to the atmosphere).
(I know of) a paleoclimatologist lost his job for raising questions about supervolcanoes...
One part of being a scientist is to be able to talk to your colleagues without picking fights with everyone that disagrees with you. If he had gone about getting grants and studying the effects of supervolcanoes on climate, he'd probably still have his job. Going into every Colloquium and calling your colleagues losers for believing in AGW because the work you haven't yet done on supervolcanoes will prove them wrong, will get you canned. Then again, I've never known a scientist who got fired for believing in the wrong theories. More often it's inability to get enough grant money to stay afloat, and then you don't get fired, you just don't get paid.
On the plus side, my collection of Hungarian porn just got a whole lot more valuable, because the Steve won't allow any more to be created.
Your inconsistency is that it's OK if you let those embryos die, but it's not OK if the parents do or the people running the clinic do. If you don't see the inconsistency there, you've been wearing the biblical blinders too long. If those clusters of cells are people in danger of being killed, don't you have a moral opportunity to rescue them? If your office mate says "I'm off to shoot the governor" do you not have an obligation to call the police, or do you say it's not your responsibility to make up for someone else's wrong?
I'm not being inconsistent, because to me those clusters of cells are not people nor anything close the moral equivalent of people. People make those things all the time, and 80% of them don't come to term. For a believer, that means God kills more human embryos in a year than abortions have over the history of human civilization. If you believe the clump of cells gets a soul at conception, that's 600 million souls last year flushed down the local equivalent of the toilet. If you do get to heaven, have fun with all those people who never ate, drank, took a breath, had a heart or a brain, or learned to speak....
I don't cry for the skin cells I wash off in the shower, I don't cry for embryos that fail to implant, and I don't cry for embryos never given the opportunity to implant.
Apple is claiming ownership of 30% of Hungary, and demanding future payments of 30% of GDP.
So preventing a death isn't important if if costs money or discomfort. I'm sure I read that in the Bible somewhere. Inconsistency thy name is conservative Christian.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
But sometimes the opposing group actually is an alliance of the evil, the biased, the spiteful and the stupid. Of course, not all of them fit in that category. Just the loudest.
Speaking as someone who has also scrutinized the sciences of anthropogenic global warming in much detail, the validity of the consensus view seems very certain. There is very little left to deny. So you must deride the conclusions of experts over the conclusions of an "expert" such as yourself in order to maintain belief in your position.
Whenever valid scientific questions are raised, they are usually answered. The AGW opponents pretend the questions have not been answered, and ask the same questions for years on end expecting different answers. I believe that's the definition of fruitcake, according to Albert Einstein.
What do you think would happen to Nasa if they hadn't said that?
Very little. Not much of NASA's budget goes to climate research. And the Republican House would throw money at them if they thought that they could falsify global warming. It would be a major windfall!
NASA wasn't the original source for that. Independent studies have said that, and NASA put it on their web page. NASA's web page is a bit behind the times. I think the most recent studies put that at a 94% probability.
Let me guess, you're a Republican Right? And you're too embarrassed to admit that by and large your party has become the anti-science party (unless it fits your religious world view).
To be fair on the left also have our anti-science contingent: the anti-vaccine crowd, the herbalists, homoeopaths, and the rest of the alternative medicine movement. For the most part those positions have not become part of the Democratic party platform.
most pro-life people I know are aware of what you mentioned about IVF and fall in to one of two camps about it, either a) they feel IVF is wrong as well as currently practiced
Yet you don't see them lining up outside fertility clinics waiting to carry those embryos to term.
Getting any education out of a school is a job for the student, and it can be done almost anywhere. Unless the student doesn't understand how to learn, in which case there is trouble no matter where you go. It may be the professors' jobs to teach, but none of them can make a student learn anything.
For a specific entry level careers in specific areas of technology, the for profits may actually have a small advantage, they can change their courses very quickly. They can drop a Visual Basic course and add a C# course with little or no faculty input. Of course that can be a disadvantage if they drop or add the wrong courses, or if they don't hire a faculty member who understands the subject.
Apart from cost, name recognition and the hard sell, there is an additional small disadvantage to the for profit schools. Their programs tend to be highly focused on specific subject matter with little breadth. It's a small disadvantage, especially in the engineering fields, because most non-profit universities have narrowed the focus of their programs as well.
My recommendation is to find a school that offers the program you want, will accept you, and that you can afford. California kids might have to relocate to the Midwest to find that. And once you get there, work your ass off. Show up on day one of each class being half a semester ahead of everyone else. Once you're sure you're ahead of the curve and a lost weekend won't kill you, then have some fun. Then prepare to spend a long time paying off your student loans.
Or those numbers might mean that number of child distributions is a meaningless benchmark. Perhaps Debian is easiest to clone without getting into copyright problems. Number of systems on which the child distributions are installed would be a better metric.
I rarely maximize and frequently minimize windows. Rather than remove these buttons I'd rather see an additional "a maximize vertically" button that doesn't change the left and right boundaries of a window. I'm hoping that panels, and having a window list in a panel are still allowed, and that clicking on a window button in the list will alternately minimize and restore it.
I'll reserve judgment until forced to upgrade during as OS upgrade. But if I don't like it I have no problems with changing to something better. Remember the good old days when window managers would allow you to customize what would be in your title bar?
Wrong. According to various studies over the years, Republican voters (aka conservatives) give 5 times more money per year to non-church charities then Democrat voters (aka liberals).
Citation needed. Every study I've seen doesn't compare to total income of the donors (one republican (i.e. Bill Gates) can throw off the statistic), nor do they break out religious vs non-religious charities, nor do they distinguish charities by purpose. Besides, if Republicans were really concerned about poverty they would realize that charity work has failed to eliminate poverty and would support government efforts paid for with tax money.
This was a private launch. There is only one public launch vehicle in the US fleet: the space shuttle. Or are you talking about whether the payload was public or private? Hard to compare there because the mix of launch vehicles and payload sizes is very different.
When it comes to federal expenditures, like this one, how are the rich getting more benefit from NASA, or the launching of an environmental satellite, than the rest of us?
They own the companies the build the satellites, launch vehicles, the parts that go into either, the ground station equipment, the dish antennas and provide the fuels for the launch vehicle. And on top of it, they own the large corporate farms and logging/paper companies that stand to benefit most from the information provided by these satellites. It would be hard to come up with any specific benefit the poor get apart from potentially more stable food prices.
You are missing the point that Buffet does not pay payroll taxes on anything above the income cap, and doesn't pay any payroll taxes on capital gains. That's an addition 9% or so that his secretary pays that he does not.
Second, why in the world is paying the same percentage the "fair" thing? Why not the same dollar amount?
Wow, your education was severely lacking. The rich get the most benefits from a stable society. The poor get very little from it. And apparently you can't see that taxing the poor at an amount greater than their annual income would both be unfair, and would quickly lead to a very unstable society with very few live rich people.
Hey, Captain Working Class: instead of buying that second six pack of PBR, why not feed an impoverished family in Liberia for a week?
What makes you think we don't? I spend a lot of money things that the government should be doing, but doesn't because the right wing thinks poverty is a character flaw not a societal defect exacerbated by an economic policy that places the needs of the wealthy above all else.
That 1% pays more taxes than the bottom 95%.
And they hold more of the country's wealth than the bottom 98%, which, in my book makes them undertaxed.
You only need one or the other. It's hard to used both at the same time, although I have seen combination torch/pitchforks. The problem with those is, if you ever need to use the pitchfork function, one of your hands is grasping the business end of the torch mechanism.
But this is slashdot, we don't need to use 14th century weaponry. Grab your bat'leth and your 9 LED head lamp and let's go!
There are several people making this valid point here, but they're all posting AC. Why is that?
Because whoever wants them to make these posts didn't give HBGary the extra $50k for bots with real accounts.
What makes you think the judge at a military court doesn't have to play politics? For that matter, what makes you think the jury at a military court doesn't have to play politics? They're sitting in judgment at a court where their employer is the prosecutor. And it won't be a jury of peers. There might not be any enlisted personnel on the jury. If you don't think future promotions will be based upon performance at this trial, you're dreaming.
It's a military court. I'm not sure the defense will get the chance to ask that question.
And where do you buy apps on Android?
In the "Android Market"
Yes, you are correct, the app store used by Android devices is called the Android Market. That doesn't stop it from being an app store. Repeat after me. The "Android Market" is an app store. That's what generic means.
I think you could potentially argue that Windows = Window manager is just as generic as App Store = Application store at the time.
Bullshit. Microsoft has never sued or to my knowledge threatened to sue to prevent anyone from calling a window manager a window manager. A few examples, Motif Window Manager, Tab Window Manager, "Fill_in_the_blank_with_whatever_f_word_you_like_at_the_time Virtual Window Manager" (fvwm). Window managers abound. But, then again "Windows" is called "Windows" not Window Manager. Nobody confuses the two. Nobody accidentally calls their window manager "Fred's Windows". Similarly, nobody ever utters the sentence "The windows used on Macintosh computers is called MacOS X" because windows is not a generic term for operating system, or even for window manager.
But used without qualifiers "app store" is very generic. It's a store that sells apps. Nothing connects it with apple or their iDevices. If they had called it "iApp Store" that would be different. If a shoe store named "Shoe Store" tried to sue all other shoe stores, they wouldn't get very far. And the sentence "The app store used by Android devices is called the Google Marketplace" is a perfectly correct use of the term "app store."
That's precisely my issue, as a scientist. There's a wealth of mostly credible evidence showing some warming. Haven't seen any that could truly attribute it to mankind's actions.
Are you reading with your eyes closed again? Not the best way for a "scientist" to do it.