That looks like an upwards trend since 1979 to me. You can also see seasonal variations in it which means it's not well averaged you should ignore anything less than a couple years in duration. That 13 month moving average should be replaced with a 36 month moving average.
when we know that this is a lie, and temperatures have not risen since 1998.
You've been claiming this for years even though it's been shown to be bullshit the entire time. Why don't you just post it again a little later. The more you post it the truer it becomes, right?
Hmmmm. Life was most abundant? Do you really have measurements of biosphere mass?
But of course, I know what you think you're talking about. That was in the Carboniferous era when the sun was significantly cooler and high CO2 was necessary to maintain the surface temperature. Not to mention that those levels happened in relative chemical equilibrium. What we're doing is not in equilibrium, hence the acidification of the oceans.
Do you know what would happen tomorrow if CO2 levels went up by a factor of 20? First everything in the ocean would die due to acidification. Next, temperatures would start rising rapidly. Methane clathrates in the tundra would melt releasing bunches of methane into the air. Temperatures would rise even higher. Ocean temperatures would start rising leading to more methane clathrates in ocean sediments to release methane resulting in more warming. Water in the oceans would evaporate resulting in more warming. Runaway greenhouse? Depends upon who you ask. Destruction of most of the life on the planet in a short time? Undoubtedly.
Higher marginal tax rates are proven not to raise significantly more federal revenue.
Bullshit. Heard of the Laffer Curve? Current marginal rates are well below the peak. It's not top marginal rate that's important it's revenue averaged rates. Because revenue needed to be maintained over that period, of course the percentage of GDP didn't change. Every tax cut was designed to preserve revenue. (Not to mention that your percentage of GDP is not just income taxes).
Taxing wealth, rather than income, is also known as "asset seizure by government",
I'm sure you think all taxes are "asset seizure by government." Glad you're not in government, because you'd be worse than the one we have. There wouldn't be any asset seizure (except in cases of failure to pay taxes for many years). Business and corporate taxes would drop to zero (because they would be paid by the owners/shareholders based upon the value of their shares rather than by the corporation). People with no net worth would pay nothing. Overall tax reciepts wouldn't be significantly changed, but it would be a hell of a lot more fair than the current situation. Sure, many ultra-rich people are opposed to any type of fair tax code and some would leave. But most corporations would love a zero tax environment.
What's the best tethering app in the App Store? The best SEGA Genesis emulator? The best Commodore 64 emulator? The best web browser? The best VOIP app that can work over the cellular network? The best Flash viewer? The best video chat app for the cellular network? The best interface to non-Apple app stores? The best porno app? The best BASIC interpreter?
Verizon will gladly let you pay for their "official" tethering on Android, but you can tether without paying by downloading a free app or a paid app if it offers features you want.
How do you imagine this will work? We each have to pay back the $126k that we (or our parents) borrowed - that's gonna suck pretty hard. How much more will you live on credit cards? This isn't like a mortgage, we can't just walk away from that debt.
We've owed larger percentages of GDP in the past and survived (mostly through higher taxes on the wealthy). I'm reasonably wealthy, and could pay my $126k tomorrow. But, of course it doesn't work that way. (If it did, I would pay my $126k tomorrow and be done with it.) But through the progressive tax system I will end up paying more than $126k, whereas most people will pay much less. And I'm OK with that, because as someone who is reasonably wealthy, I have far more to lose from a government collapse than most people do. That's why I think taxes should be based upon a flat percentage of wealth rather than based upon income. A person with nothing has no real interest in the stability of the country and would probably gain mightily in a peasant revolt. Why should they pay taxes?
If reasonable GDP growth recovers, the current debt is managable. If GDP growth doesn't recover because of policies that continue to support the transfer of wealth overseas and because of job killing austerity measures, then we're screwed and either we'll default (wouldn't be the first time) or we'll inflate our way out of it (also wouldn't be the first time). I'd prefer GDP growth, of course, but with the GOP in control of the house, they're probably going to reduce federal payroll and bump up the unemployment rate and then income tax receipts will fall and... Not to mention that the current one year payroll tax decrease is going to depress wages and tax receipts for years...
Actually they're both douchebags, as is Assange. The difference is that Beck is a lying douchebag with delusions that he is the messiah. Olberman is a douchebag with delusions that someone is watching. Assange is just a generic douchebag.
There'd have to be at least one true statement in it for it to be a threat to anyone's world view. It's nothing but a troll, and not a very interesting one at that. And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies. That would be the right you're thinking of. Apparently you're not allowed to be a conservative if you don't publicly demand at least once a day that someone you hate be summarily executed.
Have you not been paying attention? How about a contractor using federal funds to pay for parties where pre-adolescent boys are sold to Afghan men so they can be anally raped? Would that qualify? This is a contractor that has been previously been found to be involved in sex trafficking. Would a government cover up of this crime also be considered illegal? That's just the first one to come to mind. Others... Are treaty violations considered illegal? Colin Powell ordering that the UN Secretary General be spied on? That's probably both a treaty violation and a felony.
Read the news stories more carefully -- not the analysis ones, just the plain news. Giffords was shot by a reportedly deranged man with no ties to any discernible political philosophy.
After getting kicked out of community college, he sent them a letter explaining how the existence of community colleges is unconstitutional. He also complained about how the community college was violating his 2nd amendment rights to distrupt classes. I think it's pretty clear which band of crazies he belongs with.
Sure if Sarah Palin and the Tea Party didn't exist, he would have found some other way to go crazy, and would probably have killed a bunch of other people. But it's silly to deny that right wing hate had an effect on his choice of targets.
Transparency isn't the issue, the issue s an attack on diplomacy itself. When nations don't feel like they can talk they are more likely to resolve their conflicts through non-diplomatic means. I don't think that's in anybodies best interest.
Don't be naive. About 2.5 million inadequately paid service members had access to these cables. Any government that wanted them already had them.
The UK will usually not extradite without an assurance that the death penalty will not be used. They tend to stick to the same belief system that they preach, so they don't make a lot of exceptions to that rule. The US usually cannot give such an assurance, so extradition from the UK to US probably won't happen.
We have an enourmous federal debt to pay down, and we're running out of people to loan us money.
If that were true government bond prices would be collapsing and interest rates would be skyrocketing.
I think you're spending to much time listening to economists from the Hoover Institute who think Hoover did everything right and that FDR was a communist. The truth is that "austerity" plans are the road to economic collapse. Sensible tax policy is what we need.
Social Security and Medicare are only good ideas to the extent that they are sustainable. The current programs domainate the federal budget and are still no where near to sustainable. In order to meet the promises we have made to current and future retirees, we would need to collect and extra $1,013,000 or so per taxpayer over and above current taxes. That's just not going to happen, not even spread across 40 years. The system sounds nice, but the math doesn't work.
Then make it needs tested. And/Or get rid of the caps on payroll taxes. Either would solve the problem for the forseeable future. Just because Republican Party doesn't want to fix it doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. Conservatives have been trying to kill both programs (or worse divert their funds to their corporate friends in the name of privatization) ever since they were started, out of philosophical reasons rather than economic ones. Republicans serve only the rich, and the rich don't need Social Security. Therefore they think nobody should have it. In the Republican "meritocracy" it's a given that wealth is synonymous with merit. The poor are obviously poor by choice or sloth and don't deserve any assistance.
You would think that living in a world where being unemployed is the biggest impediment to getting a job (We don't like to hire the unemployed) even conservatives would start to see reality. Guess not.
Probably for the same reason we spent so much money building the Superconducting Super Collider outside of Dallas. Someone in congress wanted to spend money on their constituents. In the end it was never used.
I think you're forgetting the fact that the President was also from Texas and had some influence over the DOE during site selection.
Bill Clinton spent billions on a supercollider in Texas, and half way through its completion, he canceled the project.
Ah, revisionist conservative history rears it's ugly head. The SSC's location in Texas should point out that the real benefactor was Bush, Sr and the rest of the Texas "conservatives". If it had been located in a more logical place and had less political influence in the site selection, maybe it wouldn't have been cancelled. As I recall the announcement, it was a real WTF moment.
Maybe you should leave the history to those of us that can remember it.
Slashdot Mirror
That looks like an upwards trend since 1979 to me. You can also see seasonal variations in it which means it's not well averaged you should ignore anything less than a couple years in duration. That 13 month moving average should be replaced with a 36 month moving average.
when we know that this is a lie, and temperatures have not risen since 1998.
You've been claiming this for years even though it's been shown to be bullshit the entire time. Why don't you just post it again a little later. The more you post it the truer it becomes, right?
If you believe Fox News lies.
Hmmmm. Life was most abundant? Do you really have measurements of biosphere mass?
But of course, I know what you think you're talking about. That was in the Carboniferous era when the sun was significantly cooler and high CO2 was necessary to maintain the surface temperature. Not to mention that those levels happened in relative chemical equilibrium. What we're doing is not in equilibrium, hence the acidification of the oceans.
Do you know what would happen tomorrow if CO2 levels went up by a factor of 20? First everything in the ocean would die due to acidification. Next, temperatures would start rising rapidly. Methane clathrates in the tundra would melt releasing bunches of methane into the air. Temperatures would rise even higher. Ocean temperatures would start rising leading to more methane clathrates in ocean sediments to release methane resulting in more warming. Water in the oceans would evaporate resulting in more warming. Runaway greenhouse? Depends upon who you ask. Destruction of most of the life on the planet in a short time? Undoubtedly.
Higher marginal tax rates are proven not to raise significantly more federal revenue.
Bullshit. Heard of the Laffer Curve? Current marginal rates are well below the peak. It's not top marginal rate that's important it's revenue averaged rates. Because revenue needed to be maintained over that period, of course the percentage of GDP didn't change. Every tax cut was designed to preserve revenue. (Not to mention that your percentage of GDP is not just income taxes).
Taxing wealth, rather than income, is also known as "asset seizure by government",
I'm sure you think all taxes are "asset seizure by government." Glad you're not in government, because you'd be worse than the one we have. There wouldn't be any asset seizure (except in cases of failure to pay taxes for many years). Business and corporate taxes would drop to zero (because they would be paid by the owners/shareholders based upon the value of their shares rather than by the corporation). People with no net worth would pay nothing. Overall tax reciepts wouldn't be significantly changed, but it would be a hell of a lot more fair than the current situation. Sure, many ultra-rich people are opposed to any type of fair tax code and some would leave. But most corporations would love a zero tax environment.
What's the best tethering app in the App Store? The best SEGA Genesis emulator? The best Commodore 64 emulator? The best web browser? The best VOIP app that can work over the cellular network? The best Flash viewer? The best video chat app for the cellular network? The best interface to non-Apple app stores? The best porno app? The best BASIC interpreter?
Too late for you, perhaps, but there will be many who will dump their Andriods for an iPhone.
Yep, all those people who are afraid of the freedom of choice allowed by the Marketplace. Steve will help them decide what apps they can run.
I don't pay for tethering on my Droid. I installed EasyTether Pro and it just worked. My phone is not rooted.
Verizon will gladly let you pay for their "official" tethering on Android, but you can tether without paying by downloading a free app or a paid app if it offers features you want.
How do you imagine this will work? We each have to pay back the $126k that we (or our parents) borrowed - that's gonna suck pretty hard. How much more will you live on credit cards? This isn't like a mortgage, we can't just walk away from that debt.
We've owed larger percentages of GDP in the past and survived (mostly through higher taxes on the wealthy). I'm reasonably wealthy, and could pay my $126k tomorrow. But, of course it doesn't work that way. (If it did, I would pay my $126k tomorrow and be done with it.) But through the progressive tax system I will end up paying more than $126k, whereas most people will pay much less. And I'm OK with that, because as someone who is reasonably wealthy, I have far more to lose from a government collapse than most people do. That's why I think taxes should be based upon a flat percentage of wealth rather than based upon income. A person with nothing has no real interest in the stability of the country and would probably gain mightily in a peasant revolt. Why should they pay taxes?
If reasonable GDP growth recovers, the current debt is managable. If GDP growth doesn't recover because of policies that continue to support the transfer of wealth overseas and because of job killing austerity measures, then we're screwed and either we'll default (wouldn't be the first time) or we'll inflate our way out of it (also wouldn't be the first time). I'd prefer GDP growth, of course, but with the GOP in control of the house, they're probably going to reduce federal payroll and bump up the unemployment rate and then income tax receipts will fall and ... Not to mention that the current one year payroll tax decrease is going to depress wages and tax receipts for years...
Actually they're both douchebags, as is Assange. The difference is that Beck is a lying douchebag with delusions that he is the messiah. Olberman is a douchebag with delusions that someone is watching. Assange is just a generic douchebag.
There'd have to be at least one true statement in it for it to be a threat to anyone's world view. It's nothing but a troll, and not a very interesting one at that. And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies. That would be the right you're thinking of. Apparently you're not allowed to be a conservative if you don't publicly demand at least once a day that someone you hate be summarily executed.
Have you not been paying attention? How about a contractor using federal funds to pay for parties where pre-adolescent boys are sold to Afghan men so they can be anally raped? Would that qualify? This is a contractor that has been previously been found to be involved in sex trafficking. Would a government cover up of this crime also be considered illegal? That's just the first one to come to mind. Others... Are treaty violations considered illegal? Colin Powell ordering that the UN Secretary General be spied on? That's probably both a treaty violation and a felony.
Sorry, that should have been 1st amendment. Obviously no one was violating his 2nd amendment rights.
Read the news stories more carefully -- not the analysis ones, just the plain news. Giffords was shot by a reportedly deranged man with no ties to any discernible political philosophy.
After getting kicked out of community college, he sent them a letter explaining how the existence of community colleges is unconstitutional. He also complained about how the community college was violating his 2nd amendment rights to distrupt classes. I think it's pretty clear which band of crazies he belongs with.
Sure if Sarah Palin and the Tea Party didn't exist, he would have found some other way to go crazy, and would probably have killed a bunch of other people. But it's silly to deny that right wing hate had an effect on his choice of targets.
Transparency isn't the issue, the issue s an attack on diplomacy itself. When nations don't feel like they can talk they are more likely to resolve their conflicts through non-diplomatic means. I don't think that's in anybodies best interest.
Don't be naive. About 2.5 million inadequately paid service members had access to these cables. Any government that wanted them already had them.
What makes you think anonymous has a list of "member" names? I would hope they know better than that.
The country was already damaged. He just pointed out the parts that need repair.
The UK will usually not extradite without an assurance that the death penalty will not be used. They tend to stick to the same belief system that they preach, so they don't make a lot of exceptions to that rule. The US usually cannot give such an assurance, so extradition from the UK to US probably won't happen.
Anyone else think it's time for Slashdot to stop allowing Anonymous Cowards to post? These right wing trolls are getting to be a pain in the ass.
We have an enourmous federal debt to pay down, and we're running out of people to loan us money.
If that were true government bond prices would be collapsing and interest rates would be skyrocketing.
I think you're spending to much time listening to economists from the Hoover Institute who think Hoover did everything right and that FDR was a communist. The truth is that "austerity" plans are the road to economic collapse. Sensible tax policy is what we need.
Have you actually looked at the numbers, or do you simply hope that's true?
I have looked at the numbers. Your numbers assume that the current balance in the Social Security Trust Fund doesn't exist.
Social Security and Medicare are only good ideas to the extent that they are sustainable. The current programs domainate the federal budget and are still no where near to sustainable. In order to meet the promises we have made to current and future retirees, we would need to collect and extra $1,013,000 or so per taxpayer over and above current taxes. That's just not going to happen, not even spread across 40 years. The system sounds nice, but the math doesn't work.
Then make it needs tested. And/Or get rid of the caps on payroll taxes. Either would solve the problem for the forseeable future. Just because Republican Party doesn't want to fix it doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. Conservatives have been trying to kill both programs (or worse divert their funds to their corporate friends in the name of privatization) ever since they were started, out of philosophical reasons rather than economic ones. Republicans serve only the rich, and the rich don't need Social Security. Therefore they think nobody should have it. In the Republican "meritocracy" it's a given that wealth is synonymous with merit. The poor are obviously poor by choice or sloth and don't deserve any assistance.
You would think that living in a world where being unemployed is the biggest impediment to getting a job (We don't like to hire the unemployed) even conservatives would start to see reality. Guess not.
Probably for the same reason we spent so much money building the Superconducting Super Collider outside of Dallas. Someone in congress wanted to spend money on their constituents. In the end it was never used.
I think you're forgetting the fact that the President was also from Texas and had some influence over the DOE during site selection.
Bill Clinton spent billions on a supercollider in Texas, and half way through its completion, he canceled the project.
Ah, revisionist conservative history rears it's ugly head. The SSC's location in Texas should point out that the real benefactor was Bush, Sr and the rest of the Texas "conservatives". If it had been located in a more logical place and had less political influence in the site selection, maybe it wouldn't have been cancelled. As I recall the announcement, it was a real WTF moment.
Maybe you should leave the history to those of us that can remember it.