Oops, just noticed that they did. Still, it seems that the current required to get this effect is quite noticeable, so there could certainly be a psychological component.
Were these tests performed under double-blind conditions? How was it determined that the effect was from the application of a current rather than the idea? The article doesn't say.
The unfortunate problem is that even if some are ready to give up the study of and preparation for war, others are not. I might be able to convince another Chechen that it's a good idea, and I might even be able to convince an Iranian or a North Korean. But as a Chechen how could I convince an American, or a German, or a Finn? Would their own leaders even want to convince them of the rightness of disarming? Leaders of "good will" have always been few and far between.
(I also posted this in another thread, but since that has been modded down as a troll (rather unfairly I might add) I'll repost it here:)
Well, I looked at that site, which seems to be a rather vague interpretation of an election handbook. Not willing to trust the clearly partisan tone of the article, I tried to look at the original source, which is stated as drudgereport.com.
drudgereport.com has a link to the story on its front page... which links back to the story you linked to!
Looking at drudgereport.com's "recent headlines" link, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_reca p.htm , it has three links to what I assume is the document, labelled " [HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE.PDF FILE]".
The first, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_201651_dnc.pdf , is a 404.
The second, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_161007_dnc.jpg results in "The image [...] cannot be displayed because it contains errors".
The third, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_150700_dnc.pdf , is also a 404.
You'll have to forgive me if I find these vague, unsourced accusations unconvincing.
Well, I looked at that site, which seems to be a rather vague interpretation of an election handbook. Not willing to trust the clearly partisan tone of the article, I tried to look at the original source, which is stated as drudgereport.com.
drudgereport.com has a link to the story on its front page... which links back to the story you linked to!
Looking at drudgereport.com's "recent headlines" link, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_reca p.htm , it has three links to what I assume is the document, labelled " [HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE.PDF FILE]".
The first, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_201651_dnc.pdf , is a 404.
The second, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_161007_dnc.jpg results in "The image [...] cannot be displayed because it contains errors".
The third, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/1 4/20041014_150700_dnc.pdf , is also a 404.
You'll have to forgive me if I find these vague, unsourced accusations unconvincing.
Yeah, I used to know someone who did that. When I told her it was annoying she would resend the email with even more !s.
Eventually I started sending her messages back to her with faked headers and saying something like:
Foosoft filter has rejected your email. Reason: too many continguous [!]s. The message has not been delivered. Please check your message and try again.
To try foosoft filter,...
She soon got the message and resent her email with slightly less punctuation, which I rejected again. I kept "filtering" it until I let her off with a max of two !s in a row. Her future emails had sane punctuation. Strangely satisfying.
What is needed is a decent error report. Often I've had a device refuse to umount for some non-obvious reason and has taken a bit of searching to work out why. "Can't unmount, device busy" is not very helpful -- it should tell me what the problem is, e.g. Can't unmount because pwd is/mnt/foo in terminal bar.
I do know about lsof but this is a very basic user interface problem.
...if the US wants to ask third-world countries to allow their elections to be monitored, it can now say that it's happy for its own processes to be monitored.
I want to know who the hell is proposing internal combustion cars? No one's proposing that, people are proposing electric cars as an alternate to this crazy hydrogen car theory.
Are you saying that transporting (through the power grid?) and storing electricity (in batteries?) is more efficient than using hydrogen as an intermediary?
I didn't answer your question because it didn't make sense, taken literally. I had to guess at what you were trying to guess at. But if you insist:
If we have hydrogen, we can effortlessly convert that to 100% clean electricity via burning. So why the hell don't we just do that at the power plant?
Because why would we want to burn the hydrogen at the power plant when we want the energy in the car?
I don't really understand the logic of hydrogen cars. If we have hydrogen, we can effortlessly convert that to 100% clean electricity via burning. So why the hell don't we just do that at the power plant?
It's a good job you noticed this. The governments and companies who are investing billions into these technologies are clearly peopled by simpletons who have no knowledge of thermodynamics. Thanks for pointing it out!
Or, maybe, this has already been discussed to death previously, even on/., and you could have found the answers with a little reading.
The idea is that we'd like to centralise power production for two reasons:
1) Efficiency: power plants are much more efficient than the internal combustion engine in the car. Plus, you can hardly stick a nuclear reactor or a wind turbine in a car.
2) Pollution: producing pollution in one place allows us to control and monitor it more easily, put it in the place where it is least harmful, and use technology to reduce it.
As for a control area I would assume they used the years preceding and the years following as data to compare against.
If this is what they did then it is bad science. There are many factors that influence global temperatures. You would have to look at lots of these events before you could be confident of a correlation let alone causation.
Otherwise using your theory of the data being invalid, how could there possibly be global warming...there is no control area (your words)
Global warming is a fact since it can be pretty easily measured. If you mean how it has been decided that it is caused by human activity -- it has been difficult to establish, mainly because of this reason. A strong correlation has been shown between warming and CO2 emissions but there are still a few sceptics around (despite a lack of other explanations for the data). If we could set up a control Earth it would be easy to prove.
That report does not claim that there was a 1.3 degree worldwide drop as far as I can see.
Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect
The height of the effect? How long is that, weeks, days, milliseconds? The Earth's surface, does that mean the average over the entire globe or the area under the cloud? I suspect the second. If it was over the whole Earth there is no control area so how do you determine what the temperature difference was?
Iraqbodycount is only a) only counting cilivilian deaths and b) only counting deaths which have been/reported/ twice in the media. Actual civilian deaths are likely to be significantly higher. One Iraqi group estimated 35k.
Even if we assume that only 12-14k civilians were killed, the number of military casualties were much higher; the Guardian estimates up to 45k.
60k is probably a reasonable estimate for total deaths.
I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down.
I have noticed this also. I have also noticed anti-bush comments being modded down and anti-moore comments being modded up. Maybe the moderators are responding to teh quality of the comments rather than the political beliefs of teh posters? OK, you can mod this funny now.
The bias here is getting pretty bad I think
In both directions. And both the left and right are whining about it which is pretty bizarre.
I haven't seen the film yet, but if the worst error you can think of is that of a wrong date and font on a newspaper article quote, its accuracy can't be too bad. Did this newspaper quote form the basis for an important part of the film?
In the UK, the BBC is independent of the government and is supposed to maintain an independent stance of e.g. political parties by law (with certain exceptions where British interests are concerned).
Of the nespapers, the centre-left Guardian is pretty good -- they print regular corrections, and are owned by a trust so they can print what they want.
Of the papers on the Right, the best (in terms of accuracy, not politics) of a bad bunch is probably the Torygraph.
New breakthrough in discussion techniques! It has recently been discovered that you can convince your audience by TYPING YOUR ARGUMENT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Yes, capitalisation is the new citation. It even convinces moderators. Remember - it doesn't matter if you haven't got anything new to say, just shout!
I think this confusion arises because most of Europe thinks of WW2 as mostly being the war in Europe. VE day was in May 1945 (69 months, also in my head).
I think (could be wrong about this) that the first (direct) action by the US in Europe was in Operation Torch in November 1942 (about 39 months after the "start" of the war).
So, by this reckoning, the US did not join in the war in Europe until well after half-way through. This was also after the crucial battles of El Alamein and Stalingrad -- hence the common European viewpoint that the US's participation was less significant compared to the US's point of view.
You've gone from trolling to being extraordinarily ignorant and rude
Well, that's me told! I seem to have offended your feelings! Tip: if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others who are merely trying to debate. See here.
I personally know of no case of arson, it doesn't mean to say arson doesn't exist. You made a meaningless point and I pulled you up on it.
I was talking of personal experience, which I stated. I certainly did not claim that this proved anything, though personal experience does count for something.
As for catching child killers, you can't be British if you don't know that the CCTV footage was extremely helpful in the Bulger case.
No it wasn't. The images were too blurred. I seem to remember that the kids were eventually turned in by a family friend who noticed paint and blood stains on the kids' clothing.
You are no position to demand anything
You made a strong claim, and I asked you to provide the basis for it. I even said please; that's hardly unreasonable. The onus is on you to back your statements if you want to be taken seriously. No, a Home Office statement is not a reasonable source. They have a vested interest in making their tactics look like they're working.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, just noticed that they did. Still, it seems that the current required to get this effect is quite noticeable, so there could certainly be a psychological component.
Were these tests performed under double-blind conditions? How was it determined that the effect was from the application of a current rather than the idea? The article doesn't say.
The unfortunate problem is that even if some are ready to give up the study of and preparation for war, others are not. I might be able to convince another Chechen that it's a good idea, and I might even be able to convince an Iranian or a North Korean. But as a Chechen how could I convince an American, or a German, or a Finn? Would their own leaders even want to convince them of the rightness of disarming? Leaders of "good will" have always been few and far between.
A. Chechen
Nice interview with some interesting ideas, but tailed off rather abruptly.
(I also posted this in another thread, but since that has been modded down as a troll (rather unfairly I might add) I'll repost it here:)
a p.htm , it has three links to what I assume is the document, labelled " [HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE .PDF FILE]".
1 4/20041014_201651_dnc.pdf , is a 404.
1 4/20041014_161007_dnc.jpg results in "The image [...] cannot be displayed because it contains errors".
1 4/20041014_150700_dnc.pdf , is also a 404.
Well, I looked at that site, which seems to be a rather vague interpretation of an election handbook. Not willing to trust the clearly partisan tone of the article, I tried to look at the original source, which is stated as drudgereport.com.
drudgereport.com has a link to the story on its front page... which links back to the story you linked to!
Looking at drudgereport.com's "recent headlines" link, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_rec
The first, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/
The second, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/
The third, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/
You'll have to forgive me if I find these vague, unsourced accusations unconvincing.
Well, I looked at that site, which seems to be a rather vague interpretation of an election handbook. Not willing to trust the clearly partisan tone of the article, I tried to look at the original source, which is stated as drudgereport.com.
a p.htm , it has three links to what I assume is the document, labelled " [HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE .PDF FILE]".
1 4/20041014_201651_dnc.pdf , is a 404.
1 4/20041014_161007_dnc.jpg results in "The image [...] cannot be displayed because it contains errors".
1 4/20041014_150700_dnc.pdf , is also a 404.
drudgereport.com has a link to the story on its front page... which links back to the story you linked to!
Looking at drudgereport.com's "recent headlines" link, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_rec
The first, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/
The second, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/
The third, at http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/
You'll have to forgive me if I find these vague, unsourced accusations unconvincing.
Yeah, I used to know someone who did that. When I told her it was annoying she would resend the email with even more !s.
...
Eventually I started sending her messages back to her with faked headers and saying something like:
Foosoft filter has rejected your email. Reason: too many continguous [!]s. The message has not been delivered. Please check your message and try again.
To try foosoft filter,
She soon got the message and resent her email with slightly less punctuation, which I rejected again. I kept "filtering" it until I let her off with a max of two !s in a row. Her future emails had sane punctuation. Strangely satisfying.
What is needed is a decent error report. Often I've had a device refuse to umount for some non-obvious reason and has taken a bit of searching to work out why. "Can't unmount, device busy" is not very helpful -- it should tell me what the problem is, e.g. Can't unmount because pwd is /mnt/foo in terminal bar.
I do know about lsof but this is a very basic user interface problem.
I'd say that this organization is at least more honest with the money then Moore has ever been. [...] Moore just wants money for his next Big Mac.
How is asking for a payment (and not even requiring it) in exchange for watching his film dishonest?
...if the US wants to ask third-world countries to allow their elections to be monitored, it can now say that it's happy for its own processes to be monitored.
I want to know who the hell is proposing internal combustion cars? No one's proposing that, people are proposing electric cars as an alternate to this crazy hydrogen car theory.
Are you saying that transporting (through the power grid?) and storing electricity (in batteries?) is more efficient than using hydrogen as an intermediary?
I didn't answer your question because it didn't make sense, taken literally. I had to guess at what you were trying to guess at. But if you insist:
If we have hydrogen, we can effortlessly convert that to 100% clean electricity via burning. So why the hell don't we just do that at the power plant?
Because why would we want to burn the hydrogen at the power plant when we want the energy in the car?
I don't really understand the logic of hydrogen cars. If we have hydrogen, we can effortlessly convert that to 100% clean electricity via burning. So why the hell don't we just do that at the power plant?
/., and you could have found the answers with a little reading.
It's a good job you noticed this. The governments and companies who are investing billions into these technologies are clearly peopled by simpletons who have no knowledge of thermodynamics. Thanks for pointing it out!
Or, maybe, this has already been discussed to death previously, even on
The idea is that we'd like to centralise power production for two reasons:
1) Efficiency: power plants are much more efficient than the internal combustion engine in the car. Plus, you can hardly stick a nuclear reactor or a wind turbine in a car.
2) Pollution: producing pollution in one place allows us to control and monitor it more easily, put it in the place where it is least harmful, and use technology to reduce it.
s/tract/track/
My subconscious must be focussing on digestive tracts. Stupid brain.
I read it as
Ghost in the Shell 2: Incontinence in Theaters
I was thinking, what? Does the soundtract include infrasound?
As for a control area I would assume they used the years preceding and the years following as data to compare against.
If this is what they did then it is bad science. There are many factors that influence global temperatures. You would have to look at lots of these events before you could be confident of a correlation let alone causation.
Otherwise using your theory of the data being invalid, how could there possibly be global warming...there is no control area (your words)
Global warming is a fact since it can be pretty easily measured. If you mean how it has been decided that it is caused by human activity -- it has been difficult to establish, mainly because of this reason. A strong correlation has been shown between warming and CO2 emissions but there are still a few sceptics around (despite a lack of other explanations for the data). If we could set up a control Earth it would be easy to prove.
That report does not claim that there was a 1.3 degree worldwide drop as far as I can see.
Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect
The height of the effect? How long is that, weeks, days, milliseconds? The Earth's surface, does that mean the average over the entire globe or the area under the cloud? I suspect the second. If it was over the whole Earth there is no control area so how do you determine what the temperature difference was?
What effects? They are miniscule.
Iraqbodycount is only a) only counting cilivilian deaths and b) only counting deaths which have been /reported/ twice in the media. Actual civilian deaths are likely to be significantly higher. One Iraqi group estimated 35k.
Even if we assume that only 12-14k civilians were killed, the number of military casualties were much higher; the Guardian estimates up to 45k.
60k is probably a reasonable estimate for total deaths.
See also the Wikipedia article.
Also, you just made my foes list for calling someone a troll without justification.
I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down.
I have noticed this also. I have also noticed anti-bush comments being modded down and anti-moore comments being modded up. Maybe the moderators are responding to teh quality of the comments rather than the political beliefs of teh posters? OK, you can mod this funny now.
The bias here is getting pretty bad I think
In both directions. And both the left and right are whining about it which is pretty bizarre.
I haven't seen the film yet, but if the worst error you can think of is that of a wrong date and font on a newspaper article quote, its accuracy can't be too bad. Did this newspaper quote form the basis for an important part of the film?
In the UK, the BBC is independent of the government and is supposed to maintain an independent stance of e.g. political parties by law (with certain exceptions where British interests are concerned).
Of the nespapers, the centre-left Guardian is pretty good -- they print regular corrections, and are owned by a trust so they can print what they want.
Of the papers on the Right, the best (in terms of accuracy, not politics) of a bad bunch is probably the Torygraph.
New breakthrough in discussion techniques! It has recently been discovered that you can convince your audience by TYPING YOUR ARGUMENT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Yes, capitalisation is the new citation. It even convinces moderators. Remember - it doesn't matter if you haven't got anything new to say, just shout!
MODERATE THIS COMMENT UP
Does anyone kow if the are there any plugins that stop target="foo" links opening in a new window? That really annoys me.
I think this confusion arises because most of Europe thinks of WW2 as mostly being the war in Europe. VE day was in May 1945 (69 months, also in my head).
I think (could be wrong about this) that the first (direct) action by the US in Europe was in Operation Torch in November 1942 (about 39 months after the "start" of the war).
So, by this reckoning, the US did not join in the war in Europe until well after half-way through. This was also after the crucial battles of El Alamein and Stalingrad -- hence the common European viewpoint that the US's participation was less significant compared to the US's point of view.
No you are a troll, a foul mouthed one at that.
You've gone from trolling to being extraordinarily ignorant and rude
Well, that's me told! I seem to have offended your feelings! Tip: if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others who are merely trying to debate. See here.
I personally know of no case of arson, it doesn't mean to say arson doesn't exist. You made a meaningless point and I pulled you up on it.
I was talking of personal experience, which I stated. I certainly did not claim that this proved anything, though personal experience does count for something.
As for catching child killers, you can't be British if you don't know that the CCTV footage was extremely helpful in the Bulger case.
No it wasn't. The images were too blurred. I seem to remember that the kids were eventually turned in by a family friend who noticed paint and blood stains on the kids' clothing.
You are no position to demand anything
You made a strong claim, and I asked you to provide the basis for it. I even said please; that's hardly unreasonable. The onus is on you to back your statements if you want to be taken seriously. No, a Home Office statement is not a reasonable source. They have a vested interest in making their tactics look like they're working.