Your first statement is incorrect. The answer is yes the data show that the climate is changing due to increased CO2 levels, at the 99+% level. The certainty that those increased CO2 levels are due to human use of fossil fuels is about 95%.
Let's see, one of the studies was done at the Center for State & Local Government Excellence, which looks like conservative organization to me, with Ken Blackwell on the board, a republican who did a great job of rigging elections for Bush in Ohio, along with the Mayor of SLC and a few other repubs. The other, the Economic Policy Institute, an organization devoted to the concerns of low income workers, yeah that's going to be liberal, because there's no such thing as a conservative organization devoted to the concerns of low income workers.
But somehow those organizations used the same data to reach the same conclusions. Maybe I even chose them because of their different political leanings. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be a little more open minded, and lay off the drugs that Fox and right wing radio are poisoning you with.
Are you replying to the wrong message? If not, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. My message had nothing to do with whether some Tea Partiers are racist assholes or whether some union members are racists assholes, or whether you are a racist asshole.
Are you anonymous because you can't find any facts on which to make your claim? What you "know" and "has been done to death" is wrong.
A few facts are show in this post.
I was saying you can use averages for dissimilar work to make the claim that the public sector is better paid, or you can pick and choose positions to use as case studies. Both are misleading. One compares apples to oranges. The other makes the case that the outlying exception is a rule. Neither proves your point. And counter points based on better data are easy to come by. For example this and this.
Many years teachers ago contibuted 6% of salary to the pension system and the state contributed another 6%. The state said, we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 4% and we'll pay 8%. A couple years later the state said we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 2% and we'll pay 10%. A couple years later the state said we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 0% and we'll pay 12%. A couple years later the state lost a lot of pension money through bad and fraudulent investments, but nobody was fired and nobody was jailed. A couple years later the state said "Look at those greedy teachers, they don't contribute anything to their pension, but they think they're entitled to one." And then the state said "we need to bust the teachers union so we don't have to give them that pension they didn't contribute towards and we lost."
The moral of the story is "Never take pension contributions in lieu of pay raises, since the state can take those away from you."
The "laws" of economics are stories about human behaviour and not so much laws as generalities, imprinted on the brains of humans. They are subject to change as the psychology of the general populace changes. Enough change, and they will collapse. Unfortunately, some people have enshrined past understanding of economics into law and continue to do so. Maybe that's good, because our current economic systems probably couldn't exist if too many people understood what money is. Maybe it's bad, because misunderstanding the economy can cause really serious problems.
Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.
This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.
Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?
You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.
His facts are right. Your facts are not facts. For equivalent education and experience, and including benefits, public sector workers receive significantly less compensation (5 percent at the low end of the salary scale to 20 percent or more at the high end) than their private sector counterparts.
The way the Fox News folks get their "public sector workers make more" number is by ignoring education and experience, and by comparing the average government worker (a school teacher) with the average private sector worker (somewhere between a waiter/waitress/bartender and a janitor).
The comparison goes even farther Fox's way when they throw in the unemployed as "private sector workers".
If it were the official state government network connection that was being censored, that would be far worse! The people who work in and around the capitol are not representatives of the state government, they are representatives of the people that elected them. As such, they should have the right to access anything that they need to do their jobs. And since they regulate pornography, that might even require access to pornography. Maybe even illegal pornography. Few people need uncensored access to the internet more than elected representatives do.
You've been yelling so loud about infringement on your freedoms that you've forgotten what freedom is and what is necessary to protect it.
I certainly hope the Wisconsin government isn't stupid enough to let their employees use an unsecured network with the SSID "public" for state business. It does, however, sound like a great opportunity for identity thieves if they do.
Of course they don't. This is just another example of a government preventing access to political speech that they don't agree with. If some state capitol, say California, blocked access to tea party and libertarian sites on the Capitol public wifi, you'd be OK with that?
I'm serious. Best I can find out is that Windows 3.0's colour drivers require at least a 286, so I'm stuck with monochrome for now.
I'd be surprised if that's true. I used to run Windows 3.0 at 640x480x16 on a VGA board. (Same board (Video7 VEGA) used to run Windows 1.04 at 800x600x16, which was very nice for CAD.) That machine did have a V30, so maybe there was some instruction set requirement for the standard windows driver that a standard 8086/8 doesn't have. Your best bet is to find the driver for your specific graphics board, especially if it's a EGA+ that supports higher resolutions or colors than 640x350x16.
Those are kilowords. Words being 16bits in this case. Been so long since I used the abbreviation, I've forgotten if the W is supposed to be capitalized or not. A lot of terminals only had upper case anyway.
Perl.... You are young! There used to be a time when max per process memory was 32kW or 64kW and systems might have 128kW of total memory. sh, awk, sed, expect, grep, cc and ld should be enough for anyone. Being an admin was part coding, and part fighting off server room bears with a stone knife.
So we take Beck off the air and suddenly those folk start voting progressive?
No, but maybe if he's off the air, those folks will stop shooting congresspeople and Unitarian congregations, and will stop driving trucks loaded with explosives to San Francisco to blow up Nancy Peolosi and a few Planned Parenthood clinics.
And slashdot mods find that insightful? So much for slashdot readers being educated.
There's a little truth to what you write, but very little. It's more of a self selection effect rather than liberals turning into conservatives.
There are two populations of college students. One population gets out of college with a degree, but realizes they don't know much of anything. And they're right. But they like learning, so they'll keep reading. The smartest will go on to a postgraduate education. These people will come to understand that their social position is largely an accident of birth, and they will work to remedy that inequality. These are the liberals.
The other population comes out of college with a degree, and they think that they know everything. And they're wrong. They can't even tell you the basics of Econ 101. They'll only learn new things if it confirms a preexisting belief. The greediest will go on to a postgraduate education, because there's no reason to get a degree except to make money. These people will believe that their position is due to merit and hard work, although most will not have done any work that could be considered hard. They will view the poor as lazy and unworthy of success, and they will work to maintain that relative social order. They will value everything based upon only its economic worth. These are the conservatives.
You can think of it in terms of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. It's hard to be a liberal before you hit stage 5 (social contract morality). It's hard to be a conservative above stage 4 (law and order morality). That would also explain why conservatives tend to be authoritarian.
For people who aren't educated at the college level, maybe they tend to be liberal because they can see which group is more interested in their welfare.
You don't need to use emacs to write emacs. As far as I can tell the entire program is "clear the screen; sit in an endless loop while ignoring all keystrokes."
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the clear, objective data show the temperature rise LEADING the CO2 level increases.
Another denialist claim, that's been rebutted repeatedly for the last 10 years. Please read something new.
Your first statement is incorrect. The answer is yes the data show that the climate is changing due to increased CO2 levels, at the 99+% level. The certainty that those increased CO2 levels are due to human use of fossil fuels is about 95%.
Let's see, one of the studies was done at the Center for State & Local Government Excellence, which looks like conservative organization to me, with Ken Blackwell on the board, a republican who did a great job of rigging elections for Bush in Ohio, along with the Mayor of SLC and a few other repubs. The other, the Economic Policy Institute, an organization devoted to the concerns of low income workers, yeah that's going to be liberal, because there's no such thing as a conservative organization devoted to the concerns of low income workers.
But somehow those organizations used the same data to reach the same conclusions. Maybe I even chose them because of their different political leanings. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be a little more open minded, and lay off the drugs that Fox and right wing radio are poisoning you with.
Last time I looked it was illegal to use federal funds for lobbying.
Are you replying to the wrong message? If not, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. My message had nothing to do with whether some Tea Partiers are racist assholes or whether some union members are racists assholes, or whether you are a racist asshole.
How crappy is your MP3 player? Is it outputting single samples while the CD is doing 16x oversampling?
Are you anonymous because you can't find any facts on which to make your claim? What you "know" and "has been done to death" is wrong. A few facts are show in this post.
I was saying you can use averages for dissimilar work to make the claim that the public sector is better paid, or you can pick and choose positions to use as case studies. Both are misleading. One compares apples to oranges. The other makes the case that the outlying exception is a rule. Neither proves your point. And counter points based on better data are easy to come by. For example this and this.
The story of the Wisconsin pension system....
Many years teachers ago contibuted 6% of salary to the pension system and the state contributed another 6%. The state said, we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 4% and we'll pay 8%. A couple years later the state said we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 2% and we'll pay 10%. A couple years later the state said we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 0% and we'll pay 12%. A couple years later the state lost a lot of pension money through bad and fraudulent investments, but nobody was fired and nobody was jailed. A couple years later the state said "Look at those greedy teachers, they don't contribute anything to their pension, but they think they're entitled to one." And then the state said "we need to bust the teachers union so we don't have to give them that pension they didn't contribute towards and we lost."
The moral of the story is "Never take pension contributions in lieu of pay raises, since the state can take those away from you."
The "laws" of economics are stories about human behaviour and not so much laws as generalities, imprinted on the brains of humans. They are subject to change as the psychology of the general populace changes. Enough change, and they will collapse. Unfortunately, some people have enshrined past understanding of economics into law and continue to do so. Maybe that's good, because our current economic systems probably couldn't exist if too many people understood what money is. Maybe it's bad, because misunderstanding the economy can cause really serious problems.
Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.
This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.
Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?
You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.
His facts are right. Your facts are not facts. For equivalent education and experience, and including benefits, public sector workers receive significantly less compensation (5 percent at the low end of the salary scale to 20 percent or more at the high end) than their private sector counterparts.
The way the Fox News folks get their "public sector workers make more" number is by ignoring education and experience, and by comparing the average government worker (a school teacher) with the average private sector worker (somewhere between a waiter/waitress/bartender and a janitor). The comparison goes even farther Fox's way when they throw in the unemployed as "private sector workers".
And if the federal government prohibited access to right wing sites inside all federal buildings, you'd be fine with that. Let's do it.
If it were the official state government network connection that was being censored, that would be far worse! The people who work in and around the capitol are not representatives of the state government, they are representatives of the people that elected them. As such, they should have the right to access anything that they need to do their jobs. And since they regulate pornography, that might even require access to pornography. Maybe even illegal pornography. Few people need uncensored access to the internet more than elected representatives do.
You've been yelling so loud about infringement on your freedoms that you've forgotten what freedom is and what is necessary to protect it.
I certainly hope the Wisconsin government isn't stupid enough to let their employees use an unsecured network with the SSID "public" for state business. It does, however, sound like a great opportunity for identity thieves if they do.
Of course they don't. This is just another example of a government preventing access to political speech that they don't agree with. If some state capitol, say California, blocked access to tea party and libertarian sites on the Capitol public wifi, you'd be OK with that?
I'm serious. Best I can find out is that Windows 3.0's colour drivers require at least a 286, so I'm stuck with monochrome for now.
I'd be surprised if that's true. I used to run Windows 3.0 at 640x480x16 on a VGA board. (Same board (Video7 VEGA) used to run Windows 1.04 at 800x600x16, which was very nice for CAD.) That machine did have a V30, so maybe there was some instruction set requirement for the standard windows driver that a standard 8086/8 doesn't have. Your best bet is to find the driver for your specific graphics board, especially if it's a EGA+ that supports higher resolutions or colors than 640x350x16.
Quark beats every show, ever. At least according to the Betty twins.
Those are kilowords. Words being 16bits in this case. Been so long since I used the abbreviation, I've forgotten if the W is supposed to be capitalized or not. A lot of terminals only had upper case anyway.
Perl.... You are young! There used to be a time when max per process memory was 32kW or 64kW and systems might have 128kW of total memory. sh, awk, sed, expect, grep, cc and ld should be enough for anyone. Being an admin was part coding, and part fighting off server room bears with a stone knife.
No, compiling is for the Apps people, not us admins.
Your ID isn't much higher than mine. Are you so young you didn't have to write your own admin tools? Now I feel really old.
I heard Steve Jobs say it's the best, and what Steve Jobs says it always true.
So we take Beck off the air and suddenly those folk start voting progressive?
No, but maybe if he's off the air, those folks will stop shooting congresspeople and Unitarian congregations, and will stop driving trucks loaded with explosives to San Francisco to blow up Nancy Peolosi and a few Planned Parenthood clinics.
Here are the Nielsen demos for teens to 35 (i.e. the young)
FOX News: 600,000
MS-NBC 240,000
CNN 180,000
How I Met Your Mother: 3.1 Million
And slashdot mods find that insightful? So much for slashdot readers being educated.
There's a little truth to what you write, but very little. It's more of a self selection effect rather than liberals turning into conservatives.
There are two populations of college students. One population gets out of college with a degree, but realizes they don't know much of anything. And they're right. But they like learning, so they'll keep reading. The smartest will go on to a postgraduate education. These people will come to understand that their social position is largely an accident of birth, and they will work to remedy that inequality. These are the liberals.
The other population comes out of college with a degree, and they think that they know everything. And they're wrong. They can't even tell you the basics of Econ 101. They'll only learn new things if it confirms a preexisting belief. The greediest will go on to a postgraduate education, because there's no reason to get a degree except to make money. These people will believe that their position is due to merit and hard work, although most will not have done any work that could be considered hard. They will view the poor as lazy and unworthy of success, and they will work to maintain that relative social order. They will value everything based upon only its economic worth. These are the conservatives.
You can think of it in terms of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. It's hard to be a liberal before you hit stage 5 (social contract morality). It's hard to be a conservative above stage 4 (law and order morality). That would also explain why conservatives tend to be authoritarian.
For people who aren't educated at the college level, maybe they tend to be liberal because they can see which group is more interested in their welfare.
With a replicator, making beachfront property is easy. As is destroying beachfront property.
You don't need to use emacs to write emacs. As far as I can tell the entire program is "clear the screen; sit in an endless loop while ignoring all keystrokes."