I can second that! Major dissapointment that started with the very first scene: robot runs with woman's bag. Police officer goes in pursuit. All the time during this (much too long) scene I kept wacking my brain as to why this police guy was trying to catch up with what was very clearly a robot in the grip of the first law. Only at the end it dawned on me: he thought the robot had stolen the bag! What a let down. How could they do this to us? How could the ones looking afther Isaac Asimov's heritage let this happen?
Whatever loopholes one could find around the first law in the Asimov universe, surely nothing as balatant would ever be possible. No way you could explain that stealing is not hurting a human being.
Still, there lies the heart of the problem. Poor families that have trouble to let the ends meet will often postphone a doctersvisit. And who can blame them? Visit a docter can often wait more easily than paying the rent. Result is that their health is undermined and serious problems arise. They wait, in other words, to see the doctor until it can't wait anymore. An this means that the problems have gotten beyond a simple docter's visit. International studies have shown time and time again that (just like with a car) having people look afther their health properly is many times more cost effective than only treating the life treathning cases.
So giving poor people access to good, preventive medical care is actually good for everyone. The health of the poor and the wallet of everyone. This means that what you see now is only the beginning. As the program goes further the total cost of health care will continue to go down because people are helped before they get seriously ill.
That's what I tried to explain to my neighbour when my AirDrone 'inexplicably' went through his greenhouse, destroying his precious, award winning rose.
Well I, for one, am used to a comma. But if we were to switch to decimal point I don't see the big problem. We are used to see them from time to time anyway.
Look out for LED's because in the past some guys made the incandescent light bulbs burn shorter! Bad LED! We should all continue to use the incandescent light bulbs!!
So you worked on that project too then? Seriously, are some of the fears you mentioned not present in almost every project? My experience is that the more a project goes wrong the more the 'forces' mentioned above tend to make things worse. In that case only strong leadership that holds on to a clear vision and keeps the team away from 'the blame game' is the only way out. If not: run. Don't walk away. Run.
Great post! What I often do is refer to the IPCC's documents website. They have 3 major workgroups. WGI is about the physical science. In their 5th Summary for Policymakers (SPM) they explain in 28 pages what the evidences for global warming are how the climate models stack up against the prediction. In WG II they discus the impact of the global warming on our planet and our way of life (economie, argriculture, sea level rising, storms...) In the WGIII they try to see what we could do to limit the damage. Each of the WG has a fifth SPM document (available from the main page of the website) of about 30 pages that give scientifically founded answers in laymen terms to the most common denier question: are we sure there is global warming? Are we sure it is man-made? Are we sure there will be a big impact?
From the IPPC WG1 (which deals with the physical science behind the global warming) SPM report (Summary for Policymakers): "The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4)" So the oceans compensate, to a large extend, for the emissions in CO2. But the acidification is not without risk and the ocean is likely not to do that for ever. Hence the importance of this new measurement. It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end. That would mean that the CO2 levels are about the rise much more quickly the coming years.
A.k.a. very bad news (but you won't care about it I guess).
I respond to your post because it seems to me you are still suseptible for reason-based arguments.
If you look for evidence or as the GP states a 'textbook' you could simply start with the latest IPPC reports. Start with the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) (find the 5th report of WG1 the physical science basis, WG2 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG3 Mitigation of Climate Change here, here and here respectively. All these links can be found on the main page of the IPPC http://www.ipcc.ch
In it you will find the answers to the most common questions asked by deniers: how big is the evidence for global warming? How sure are we that the warming is the result of human activity? What are the consequences? And last but not least: what can we do to reduce the impact?
If you are unconvinced by the figures, maps, graphs and plain language of these documents: they copiously refer to the full report (also available from the main page) where you can readup on the background for each and every conclusion they make. Still not conviced? The full report refers on it's turn to underlying publications etc. And if you're this deep down into the matter that you feel you can question the validity of individual publications: contact the authors and put forward you questions to them.
Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.
I think the parent post was more along the lines that science can say that the sudden rise of CO2 has serious impact on the climate. So a cut in CO2 emision IS necessary. The means for doing that (tax carbon emissions, subsidize electric vehicles) is a political decision.
But if we simply go on buring fossile fuels we can't say that science didn't warn us that this is extremely dangerous.
I tend to agree with you on most things. Execpt the "France? Don't make me laugh" thing.
Did you know that outside the big nuclear powers (US, Russia, China later joinedby India) France is one of the only countries that has developed an independend nuclear capability? And has had it for quite some time? And they have diverse means of delivering them: via long range ballistic missiles but also via longrange targeting missile that can search for a specific target. Their rafale fighter bomber has a nuclear capability too.
So look out with the french. They can sometimes act quite surprising.
Is this part of the "man made" global warming thing?
[bitter sarcasm] No! So then it's not our fault! So then we can continue to pollute the world. The climate is still changing but we can explain to future generation: we didn't do it. You shouldn't blame us for standing by and doing nothing. It's those methane plumes. See that? Those are the guilty ones.
I feel better about global warming already. [/bitter sarcasm]
Sorry, it get's on my nerves that every news about global warming is always interpreted as being a 'proof' that global warming is nothing to worry about, wether the news is good ("there you see") or bad ("it's not our fault" or even "it's too costly to do something about").
Global warming is here. Now. We will see the effects even more in the comming decades. And so will our childeren. How bad will it be? Nobody knows really very well. And that particular thought doesn't give me any comfort at all. And you?
Slashdot Mirror
I can second that!
Major dissapointment that started with the very first scene: robot runs with woman's bag.
Police officer goes in pursuit.
All the time during this (much too long) scene I kept wacking my brain as to why this police guy was trying to catch up with what was very clearly a robot in the grip of the first law. Only at the end it dawned on me: he thought the robot had stolen the bag! What a let down. How could they do this to us? How could the ones looking afther Isaac Asimov's heritage let this happen?
Whatever loopholes one could find around the first law in the Asimov universe, surely nothing as balatant would ever be possible. No way you could explain that stealing is not hurting a human being.
Nope. Hari's wife Dors Venabili is a robot.
Well, there is the, eh, liason between Hari and Dors Venabili his future wife in 'prelude to foundation'. And she is.. (you guessed it).
If they were drawing on it (it's a surface afther all...)
C/C++ [..] don't make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot regarding performance. (C++ templates, exceptions, and RTTI being exceptions.)
Sorry, but I'm taking exception to this...
Still, there lies the heart of the problem. Poor families that have trouble to let the ends meet will often postphone a doctersvisit.
And who can blame them? Visit a docter can often wait more easily than paying the rent.
Result is that their health is undermined and serious problems arise. They wait, in other words, to see the doctor until it can't wait anymore. An this means that the problems have gotten beyond a simple docter's visit. International studies have shown time and time again that (just like with a car) having people look afther their health properly is many times more cost effective than only treating the life treathning cases.
So giving poor people access to good, preventive medical care is actually good for everyone. The health of the poor and the wallet of everyone.
This means that what you see now is only the beginning. As the program goes further the total cost of health care will continue to go down because people are helped before they get seriously ill.
the tank can carry six men each up to 6'6" (198cm) tall and weighing up to 16 stone (101kg, 224 pounds)
For such a modern tank the measurement units seem like they came from the stone age.
Don't say "my wife ignores me as if I were a block of Lego"
but say "her oxytocin levels are getting low again"
That's what I tried to explain to my neighbour when my AirDrone 'inexplicably' went through his greenhouse, destroying his precious, award winning rose.
Well I, for one, am used to a comma. But if we were to switch to decimal point I don't see the big problem. We are used to see them from time to time anyway.
Look out for LED's because in the past some guys made the incandescent light bulbs burn shorter!
Bad LED!
We should all continue to use the incandescent light bulbs!!
No it compares to: You [...]
No No NO! Nothing compares to you. NOTHING!
Well, contrary to what you would have thought we are quite picky...
We only clean up YOUR shit. Never our own!
..the time of my life. No I never felt like this before..
Welcome to the world of consulting!
The dark side of the source they are...
Once you go down that development path, forever will it dominate your release destiny.
So you worked on that project too then?
Seriously, are some of the fears you mentioned not present in almost every project? My experience is that the more a project goes wrong the more the 'forces' mentioned above tend to make things worse. In that case only strong leadership that holds on to a clear vision and keeps the team away from 'the blame game' is the only way out.
If not: run. Don't walk away. Run.
Great post!
What I often do is refer to the IPCC's documents website. They have 3 major workgroups. WGI is about the physical science. In their 5th Summary for Policymakers (SPM) they explain in 28 pages what the evidences for global warming are how the climate models stack up against the prediction.
In WG II they discus the impact of the global warming on our planet and our way of life (economie, argriculture, sea level rising, storms...)
In the WGIII they try to see what we could do to limit the damage.
Each of the WG has a fifth SPM document (available from the main page of the website) of about 30 pages that give scientifically founded answers in laymen terms to the most common denier question: are we sure there is global warming? Are we sure it is man-made? Are we sure there will be a big impact?
From the IPPC WG1 (which deals with the physical science behind the global warming) SPM report (Summary for Policymakers): "The ocean has absorbed
about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4)"
So the oceans compensate, to a large extend, for the emissions in CO2. But the acidification is not without risk and the ocean is likely not to do that for ever. Hence the importance of this new measurement. It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end. That would mean that the CO2 levels are about the rise much more quickly the coming years.
A.k.a. very bad news (but you won't care about it I guess).
I respond to your post because it seems to me you are still suseptible for reason-based arguments.
If you look for evidence or as the GP states a 'textbook' you could simply start with the latest IPPC reports. Start with the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) (find the 5th report of WG1 the physical science basis, WG2 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG3 Mitigation of Climate Change here, here and here respectively. All these links can be found on the main page of the IPPC http://www.ipcc.ch
In it you will find the answers to the most common questions asked by deniers: how big is the evidence for global warming? How sure are we that the warming is the result of human activity? What are the consequences? And last but not least: what can we do to reduce the impact?
If you are unconvinced by the figures, maps, graphs and plain language of these documents: they copiously refer to the full report (also available from the main page) where you can readup on the background for each and every conclusion they make. Still not conviced? The full report refers on it's turn to underlying publications etc. And if you're this deep down into the matter that you feel you can question the validity of individual publications: contact the authors and put forward you questions to them.
Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.
I think the parent post was more along the lines that science can say that the sudden rise of CO2 has serious impact on the climate. So a cut in CO2 emision IS necessary. The means for doing that (tax carbon emissions, subsidize electric vehicles) is a political decision.
But if we simply go on buring fossile fuels we can't say that science didn't warn us that this is extremely dangerous.
Ironically: today France delivered the first response by western nations that Putin really cares about.
It will not deliver the two advance helicopter carriers as agreed since "the conditions are not right".
The article mentioned that delivery of the helicopter carriers would have resulted in "a marked improvement in Russia's amphibious capability".
I tend to agree with you on most things. Execpt the "France? Don't make me laugh" thing.
Did you know that outside the big nuclear powers (US, Russia, China later joinedby India) France is one of the only countries that has developed an independend nuclear capability? And has had it for quite some time? And they have diverse means of delivering them: via long range ballistic missiles but also via longrange targeting missile that can search for a specific target. Their rafale fighter bomber has a nuclear capability too.
So look out with the french. They can sometimes act quite surprising.
I still have my JRC NRD-525. Man that thing would pick up anything. Cell phones, baby intercoms, [...].
Too bad so much is encrypted now.
So YOU were the one spying on my kids!
[To the privacy police] Get him! It's a stalker!!
Is this part of the "man made" global warming thing?
[bitter sarcasm]
No!
So then it's not our fault!
So then we can continue to pollute the world. The climate is still changing but we can explain to future generation: we didn't do it. You shouldn't blame us for standing by and doing nothing. It's those methane plumes. See that? Those are the guilty ones.
I feel better about global warming already.
[/bitter sarcasm]
Sorry, it get's on my nerves that every news about global warming is always interpreted as being a 'proof' that global warming is nothing to worry about, wether the news is good ("there you see") or bad ("it's not our fault" or even "it's too costly to do something about").
Global warming is here. Now. We will see the effects even more in the comming decades. And so will our childeren. How bad will it be? Nobody knows really very well.
And that particular thought doesn't give me any comfort at all. And you?
PHB?