This is also how they treat the ingestion of ethylene glycol (anti-freeze). The ethylene glycol itself isn't toxic, but is converted into a toxin by the liver, which, if I remember correctly, plugs up the kidneys and causes kidney failure. You keep the patient drunk until the ethylene glycol passes from the body unconverted.
Then I guess the Washington Post 'is tainted by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism, anti-progress political beliefs'.
Yes. Or at least the author of the article is. But even the article mentions human activity might be making up part of the reason for global warming. What percentage do you suppose that is? Perhaps we just get all the scientists to write down their opinions and average the numbers? Would that be a "consensus"? Usually science requires measurable facts, not "consensus".
Then I guess we might overlook the fact that climate's changing faster in these last 20 years than it's been changing over the million years man has existed.
Are you referring to the "hockey stick" graph the U.N. uses? That was convincingly (to me at least) debunked in an article I can't seem to find now.
I'm not saying global-warming isn't happening. It probably is. It has before. I'm not saying human activity isn't playing some role in it. What I am saying is that there's not enough unbiased evidence to suggest we completely abandon civilization right this very minute in response to a lot of "ifs" and "maybes".
I also think that with the acceleration of scientific development we can't predict what new technologies will be produced in the near future. I woudln't be at all surprised if we came up with new clean methods of generating and storing energy in the next decade or two. I think the driving force behind the switch will be mostly economic. I think methods of "cleaning up" the CO2 in the atmosphere, if we decide we need to do that, will also be developed. Or perhaps one of the methods I read about to block some small percentage of sunlight hitting the earth will be needed. It all sounds like science fiction now, but remember we went from no heavier-than-air flight to walking on the moon in the span of a single lifetime. I'm an optimist and think the human race has the capacity to solve problems it faces over time.
Oh, and I don't drive an SUV. I drive a small, fairly gas efficient car that will probably result in my death if I ever get hit by an SUV being driven by some tiny woman trying to dial her cell phone. I drive that car for, primarily, economic reasons. I've been researching biodiesel and veg-oil power and intend to get a vehicle that can run on that in the near future. I'm considering that for economic reasons, too (and because I'm a geek and think the whole concept of making my own fuel from waste to be cool). If I wind up "saving the planet" in the process, well that's just icing on the cake.
The jury is in, we know what is causing climat change and its us.
I don't know what jury you're listening to... perhaps the one that found O. J. not guilty. No, actually I think you're listening to the jury that has convicted capitalism to be guilty of every crime imaginable. While we might be having some impact on climate, it is by no means a certain thing that we're causing climate change to any large degree.
I'm certainly willing to look at unbiased evidence, but so far that's been scarce. In most cases the "evidence" is tainted by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism, anti-progress political beliefs of those presenting it.
I've never seen one that takes more that about a quarter of a second to come on. This includes the old straight "stick" models I bought back in the mid 90s. Are you sure it takes yours up to two seconds?
I bought some no-name ones at Costco a few years ago. They had a slight delay. Costco now sells some Phillips ones that come on instantly, are brighter, and have a color very close to incandescent.
A friend of mine (who for some strange reason knows almost everything there is to know about any kind of fluorescent bulb) says that many manufacturers of CF "cheat" when quoting the wattage equivalent. The real number to compare is the lumens, not effective wattage.
My biggest gripe with these things is that they appear not to last as long as advertized. I had one that lasted one day! About half of them only last a year or so. The other half have lasted ever since I installed them about three years ago. It may have something to do with my light fixtures. They are kind of a goofy spherical globe that probably doesn't allow as much air circulation as other types. Most of the ones I have have a seven or ten year warranty, but it would be a pain in the ass to find the receipt, packaging, etc. That's probably what they are counting on.
The house I'm in now has dimmers on most of the circuits. I wish they would come out with reasonably priced dimmable CF's. They are hard to find now and expensive. I could replace the rest of my lights with CF's but who wants to pay >$15 per bulb. From what I've read, they suck when dimmed, too. But a dimmable could be used with an X10 module, too.
Finally, one really cool thing about CFs is that you can get more light out of a low wattage fixture. I've seen several fixtures and lamps that are rated for only 60 watts, but they just don't put out enough light. Now I can put in a ~23 watt (100 watt equivalent) and get a lot more light.
I really doubt burning the trees would have much impact on the global CO2 level, much less have an impact on the global temperature. Hell, look how much (ancient, locked-up) CO2 has been release by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 or so years. And that has had such a minimal effect that we still debate whether it is having any effect at all.
Well I don't really have a political "agenda". That would be the anti-capitalists who use man-made global warming as their excuse to control everyone's lives. As for me "considering Wikipedia a reliable source," it was merely the most convenient. I have heard and read about Greenland having a much more favorable climate in the past.
Yes, the ice cap has shrunk. The world has ice ages. The world has warming periods. They go in cycles. As for the MWP being a global phenomenon being questioned, would those questioning it be the same scientists who form the so-called "consensus" about global warming being caused by man?
From you condescending way of writing, I'm sure you must be much smarter than me and know which nuggets of information represent the truth -- the same sort of cherry-picking you interestingly seems to think I'm doing.
And it was a lot warmer in the distant past. From Wikipedia: "The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time [c. 984], possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period." I guess that warm period was caused by all those damn Vikings driving around in their SUVs.
Yeah, anytime I hear anything about "scarcity of water" in an argument, the person making the statement loses all credibility IMHO. There may be a scarcity of readilly available energy to make the water you have pure, but there is no scarcity of water. Just ask the Saudi's, who have plenty of energy and thus plenty of water.
My software company used to be very flexible with hours. I match my wife's goofball hours. I used to come in at 2:00 p.m and leave at 11:00 p.m. Now they changed her hours to from 6:00 a.m till 3:00 p.m. so I switched to that.
Now my company has switched to the dog-fucking SCRUM process where we have meetings, meetings, endless meetings. Luckilly the meetings fit within my new schedule. I wouldn't be able to do the 2 to 11 schedule anymore otherwise. 'Course, most of the time I'm there is spent in freaking meetings and scrambling to make the artificial deadlines at the end of the sprint.
Though a slim majority of American consider themselves to be Christian
Seems like I remember hearing that 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God and a very large percentage of those consider themselves Christians. I wouldn't consider that a "slim majority". Don't assume the people that don't go around beating people over the heads with bibles or stand around protesting abortion clinics are not Christians (although the aforementioned Christians probably don't consider them so).
Um, no, the orbit of the trash would intersect the ISS's orbit twice a day. If you toss something like that what you're doing is putting it into an eliptical orbit with a different eccentricity(*). What you're hoping for is that the perigee of the eliptical orbit of the trash is low enough that the atmospheric drag drops its speed (and it's altitude) on each pass, eventually causing it to burn up.
(*) Yes you could put it into a *much* more eccentric orbit such that its orbit would intersect the earth itself in the first pass, but, as pointed out by another poster, that would require a considerable amount of delta-v.
I just finished reading a really good speech Michael Crichton gave called "Aliens Cause Global Warming". It's a very good read and discusses (among other things) how useless these models can be and how suspect their creators are.
He covers the scientific "study" of "Nuclear Winter" that was all the buzz a couple of decades ago. He mentions how Carl Sagan said the Kuwait oil fires in 1991 would cause 10 degree C drop in temperature for three months (didn't happen). Go read the link. It's good!
You may have a "right" to walk down a dark alley at night, but if you know a mugger is hiding there you might want to think again. You may have a moral right to access whatever you want while there, but the totalitarian government there might toss you ass in jail with no recourse anyway. Pick your battles carefully.
The way you can tell that this is a political piece, rather than a scientific one, is the lack of mention of nuclear power.
Another way to tell is that this "report" was released about a month before the Kyoto treaty goes into effect. You know, just to poo-poo on the U.S. for not signing it and agreeing to completely ruin our economy.
The most recent thing I heard from a pro-global warming "expert" actually tore down the case he was trying to make. He said something like "it hasn't been this warm for nearly 400 years." Well what the fsck made it warmer 400 years ago? I'll tell you... the environment changes in cycles. Always has, always will. I won't say we have no impact on it, but I'd say it is in the "noise" level compared to natural influences. Certainly nothing to panic over and toss all technology and go back the dark ages. Given a little more time (as fossil fuels start to get scarce), we'll switch to renewable resources anyway.
I figure most of you left-leaning young folk (if you have multiple piercings on you face, your qualify) don't remember back in the 70's when they were predicting global cooling. I remember all the propaganda pieces they made us read in school talked about the coming Ice Age. Then when they decided it was going to get hot instead of cold, they started talking about rising sea levels. I distictly remember reading how sea levels were supposed to be about 10 feet higher by sometime in the 90's, flooding coastal cities. Sorry, I've heard too many Chicken Little's yelling about the sky falling to worry that much!
That reminds me of a story I heard once about some military system (using a neural net) that looked at satellite or aerial photos and selected the ones that had tanks. They fed it some photos with and without tanks. It scored almost perfectly. They decided to run another test and went out and took more pictures. This time it failed miserably. They eventually found out in the original set of pictures with tanks, it had been either sunny or cloudy (can't remember which). In the pictures without tanks it was the other way. All the software was doing was indicating whether it was cloudy or sunny. It didn't give a rip about whether a tank was in the picture.
So, if you take a picture of a street sign in front of a museum, is it going to search for a museum, architecture that is similar to the museum building, or your location? Or the weather condition based on the sky in the background? If they can pull this off, I'll be very impressed.
No. That's what charity is for. That's the problem with people today. They confuse basic human compassion for your fellow man with government. Nowdays when someone says, "We should do more for the homeless", they don't mean they should contribute money to Habitat for Humanity or go out and actually help build houses. They mean the government should go out and confiscate more money from someone (not them) and spend it. After all, it's easier to go sleep at night proud of yourself for being compassionate when all you had to do is call on your Congressman to go steal from someone else. But actually go out and *do* something yourself? No, that's too hard.
(Note: By "you" and "yourself" I'm speaking generically. You personally may go out and do these things. If you do, then good for you! I'd do more of that sort of stuff myself, but I have to spend more time working for myself since >40% of my income is stolen before I ever see it.)
You have a right to shelter and food (and of course, religion), in that you have the right to aquire those things for you self. You have no right to have it provided for you. The same is true for healthcare, education, and any number of other things.
Government creates nothing. It simply redistributes. What is "free" for one person was taken at gunpoint from someone else.
I was just about to type the same response, athough perhaps a little less eloquently. Good job!
Why do the people who feel a certain wage or healthcare or education are rights but not other things? Why not a right to food and shelter? Why not a right to a $100/hr wage? Why not a right to a car and fuel to burn in it (certainly that's needed in today's civilized, progressive society). Why not a right to a cell phone, plasma tv, computer, free internet? When forcing others to sustain your "rights", where does it stop?
Absolutely! I've though I was the only one annoyed by this. Essentially these idiots (some in sports cars, too) are driving around with four headlights on. I've seen some idiots that have added two more and drive around with six. In my state (AL), it's illegal to have more than four headlights (on at the same time at least). It's probably illegal to drive around with your fog lights (or road lights) on as it would be the same as driving with brights on, but the cops are only interested in how many speeding tickets they can write.
Some of the SUV's and pickups have fog lights that are much brighter than the headlights. I flash my lights at them, but they just flash me back as if to say, "duhhh, my lights are not on bright. Why you flashing me? (drool)."
Slashdot Mirror
This is also how they treat the ingestion of ethylene glycol (anti-freeze). The ethylene glycol itself isn't toxic, but is converted into a toxin by the liver, which, if I remember correctly, plugs up the kidneys and causes kidney failure. You keep the patient drunk until the ethylene glycol passes from the body unconverted.
Then I guess the Washington Post 'is tainted by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism, anti-progress political beliefs'.
Yes. Or at least the author of the article is. But even the article mentions human activity might be making up part of the reason for global warming. What percentage do you suppose that is? Perhaps we just get all the scientists to write down their opinions and average the numbers? Would that be a "consensus"? Usually science requires measurable facts, not "consensus".
Then I guess we might overlook the fact that climate's changing faster in these last 20 years than it's been changing over the million years man has existed.
Are you referring to the "hockey stick" graph the U.N. uses? That was convincingly (to me at least) debunked in an article I can't seem to find now.
I'm not saying global-warming isn't happening. It probably is. It has before. I'm not saying human activity isn't playing some role in it. What I am saying is that there's not enough unbiased evidence to suggest we completely abandon civilization right this very minute in response to a lot of "ifs" and "maybes".
I also think that with the acceleration of scientific development we can't predict what new technologies will be produced in the near future. I woudln't be at all surprised if we came up with new clean methods of generating and storing energy in the next decade or two. I think the driving force behind the switch will be mostly economic. I think methods of "cleaning up" the CO2 in the atmosphere, if we decide we need to do that, will also be developed. Or perhaps one of the methods I read about to block some small percentage of sunlight hitting the earth will be needed. It all sounds like science fiction now, but remember we went from no heavier-than-air flight to walking on the moon in the span of a single lifetime. I'm an optimist and think the human race has the capacity to solve problems it faces over time.
Oh, and I don't drive an SUV. I drive a small, fairly gas efficient car that will probably result in my death if I ever get hit by an SUV being driven by some tiny woman trying to dial her cell phone. I drive that car for, primarily, economic reasons. I've been researching biodiesel and veg-oil power and intend to get a vehicle that can run on that in the near future. I'm considering that for economic reasons, too (and because I'm a geek and think the whole concept of making my own fuel from waste to be cool). If I wind up "saving the planet" in the process, well that's just icing on the cake.
Finally, I never said squat about Communists.
Bah! You're both right. Just a difference in semantics.
The jury is in, we know what is causing climat change and its us.
I don't know what jury you're listening to... perhaps the one that found O. J. not guilty. No, actually I think you're listening to the jury that has convicted capitalism to be guilty of every crime imaginable. While we might be having some impact on climate, it is by no means a certain thing that we're causing climate change to any large degree.
I'm certainly willing to look at unbiased evidence, but so far that's been scarce. In most cases the "evidence" is tainted by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism, anti-progress political beliefs of those presenting it.
I've never seen one that takes more that about a quarter of a second to come on. This includes the old straight "stick" models I bought back in the mid 90s. Are you sure it takes yours up to two seconds?
I bought some no-name ones at Costco a few years ago. They had a slight delay. Costco now sells some Phillips ones that come on instantly, are brighter, and have a color very close to incandescent.
A friend of mine (who for some strange reason knows almost everything there is to know about any kind of fluorescent bulb) says that many manufacturers of CF "cheat" when quoting the wattage equivalent. The real number to compare is the lumens, not effective wattage.
My biggest gripe with these things is that they appear not to last as long as advertized. I had one that lasted one day! About half of them only last a year or so. The other half have lasted ever since I installed them about three years ago. It may have something to do with my light fixtures. They are kind of a goofy spherical globe that probably doesn't allow as much air circulation as other types. Most of the ones I have have a seven or ten year warranty, but it would be a pain in the ass to find the receipt, packaging, etc. That's probably what they are counting on.
The house I'm in now has dimmers on most of the circuits. I wish they would come out with reasonably priced dimmable CF's. They are hard to find now and expensive. I could replace the rest of my lights with CF's but who wants to pay >$15 per bulb. From what I've read, they suck when dimmed, too. But a dimmable could be used with an X10 module, too.
Finally, one really cool thing about CFs is that you can get more light out of a low wattage fixture. I've seen several fixtures and lamps that are rated for only 60 watts, but they just don't put out enough light. Now I can put in a ~23 watt (100 watt equivalent) and get a lot more light.
I really doubt burning the trees would have much impact on the global CO2 level, much less have an impact on the global temperature. Hell, look how much (ancient, locked-up) CO2 has been release by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 or so years. And that has had such a minimal effect that we still debate whether it is having any effect at all.
Well I don't really have a political "agenda". That would be the anti-capitalists who use man-made global warming as their excuse to control everyone's lives. As for me "considering Wikipedia a reliable source," it was merely the most convenient. I have heard and read about Greenland having a much more favorable climate in the past.
Yes, the ice cap has shrunk. The world has ice ages. The world has warming periods. They go in cycles. As for the MWP being a global phenomenon being questioned, would those questioning it be the same scientists who form the so-called "consensus" about global warming being caused by man?
From you condescending way of writing, I'm sure you must be much smarter than me and know which nuggets of information represent the truth -- the same sort of cherry-picking you interestingly seems to think I'm doing.
And it was a lot warmer in the distant past. From Wikipedia: "The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time [c. 984], possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period." I guess that warm period was caused by all those damn Vikings driving around in their SUVs.
Yeah, anytime I hear anything about "scarcity of water" in an argument, the person making the statement loses all credibility IMHO. There may be a scarcity of readilly available energy to make the water you have pure, but there is no scarcity of water. Just ask the Saudi's, who have plenty of energy and thus plenty of water.
My software company used to be very flexible with hours. I match my wife's goofball hours. I used to come in at 2:00 p.m and leave at 11:00 p.m. Now they changed her hours to from 6:00 a.m till 3:00 p.m. so I switched to that.
Now my company has switched to the dog-fucking SCRUM process where we have meetings, meetings, endless meetings. Luckilly the meetings fit within my new schedule. I wouldn't be able to do the 2 to 11 schedule anymore otherwise. 'Course, most of the time I'm there is spent in freaking meetings and scrambling to make the artificial deadlines at the end of the sprint.
Can you tell I think SCRUM sucks?
I would suspect that in the evening when sprinkling is popular, there is more surface area of water in America alone than all of the oceans.
You're nuts.
Though a slim majority of American consider themselves to be Christian
Seems like I remember hearing that 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God and a very large percentage of those consider themselves Christians. I wouldn't consider that a "slim majority". Don't assume the people that don't go around beating people over the heads with bibles or stand around protesting abortion clinics are not Christians (although the aforementioned Christians probably don't consider them so).
Um, no, the orbit of the trash would intersect the ISS's orbit twice a day. If you toss something like that what you're doing is putting it into an eliptical orbit with a different eccentricity(*). What you're hoping for is that the perigee of the eliptical orbit of the trash is low enough that the atmospheric drag drops its speed (and it's altitude) on each pass, eventually causing it to burn up.
(*) Yes you could put it into a *much* more eccentric orbit such that its orbit would intersect the earth itself in the first pass, but, as pointed out by another poster, that would require a considerable amount of delta-v.
Well said.
I just finished reading a really good speech Michael Crichton gave called "Aliens Cause Global Warming". It's a very good read and discusses (among other things) how useless these models can be and how suspect their creators are.
He covers the scientific "study" of "Nuclear Winter" that was all the buzz a couple of decades ago. He mentions how Carl Sagan said the Kuwait oil fires in 1991 would cause 10 degree C drop in temperature for three months (didn't happen). Go read the link. It's good!
You may have a "right" to walk down a dark alley at night, but if you know a mugger is hiding there you might want to think again. You may have a moral right to access whatever you want while there, but the totalitarian government there might toss you ass in jail with no recourse anyway. Pick your battles carefully.
The way you can tell that this is a political piece, rather than a scientific one, is the lack of mention of nuclear power.
Another way to tell is that this "report" was released about a month before the Kyoto treaty goes into effect. You know, just to poo-poo on the U.S. for not signing it and agreeing to completely ruin our economy.
The most recent thing I heard from a pro-global warming "expert" actually tore down the case he was trying to make. He said something like "it hasn't been this warm for nearly 400 years." Well what the fsck made it warmer 400 years ago? I'll tell you... the environment changes in cycles. Always has, always will. I won't say we have no impact on it, but I'd say it is in the "noise" level compared to natural influences. Certainly nothing to panic over and toss all technology and go back the dark ages. Given a little more time (as fossil fuels start to get scarce), we'll switch to renewable resources anyway.
I figure most of you left-leaning young folk (if you have multiple piercings on you face, your qualify) don't remember back in the 70's when they were predicting global cooling. I remember all the propaganda pieces they made us read in school talked about the coming Ice Age. Then when they decided it was going to get hot instead of cold, they started talking about rising sea levels. I distictly remember reading how sea levels were supposed to be about 10 feet higher by sometime in the 90's, flooding coastal cities. Sorry, I've heard too many Chicken Little's yelling about the sky falling to worry that much!
That reminds me of a story I heard once about some military system (using a neural net) that looked at satellite or aerial photos and selected the ones that had tanks. They fed it some photos with and without tanks. It scored almost perfectly. They decided to run another test and went out and took more pictures. This time it failed miserably. They eventually found out in the original set of pictures with tanks, it had been either sunny or cloudy (can't remember which). In the pictures without tanks it was the other way. All the software was doing was indicating whether it was cloudy or sunny. It didn't give a rip about whether a tank was in the picture.
So, if you take a picture of a street sign in front of a museum, is it going to search for a museum, architecture that is similar to the museum building, or your location? Or the weather condition based on the sky in the background? If they can pull this off, I'll be very impressed.
Oh, gee, I'm glad I wasn't taking a sip of coke when I read this!
I don't think images.google.com is quite *that* good. Also, it won't look on -ahem- local files...
Yeah, I want something that works in the reverse. I want to type "medium-sized-breasts, redhead, no tattoos" and have it find the matching photos.
No. That's what charity is for. That's the problem with people today. They confuse basic human compassion for your fellow man with government. Nowdays when someone says, "We should do more for the homeless", they don't mean they should contribute money to Habitat for Humanity or go out and actually help build houses. They mean the government should go out and confiscate more money from someone (not them) and spend it. After all, it's easier to go sleep at night proud of yourself for being compassionate when all you had to do is call on your Congressman to go steal from someone else. But actually go out and *do* something yourself? No, that's too hard.
(Note: By "you" and "yourself" I'm speaking generically. You personally may go out and do these things. If you do, then good for you! I'd do more of that sort of stuff myself, but I have to spend more time working for myself since >40% of my income is stolen before I ever see it.)
You have a right to shelter and food (and of course, religion), in that you have the right to aquire those things for you self. You have no right to have it provided for you. The same is true for healthcare, education, and any number of other things.
Government creates nothing. It simply redistributes. What is "free" for one person was taken at gunpoint from someone else.
I was just about to type the same response, athough perhaps a little less eloquently. Good job!
Why do the people who feel a certain wage or healthcare or education are rights but not other things? Why not a right to food and shelter? Why not a right to a $100/hr wage? Why not a right to a car and fuel to burn in it (certainly that's needed in today's civilized, progressive society). Why not a right to a cell phone, plasma tv, computer, free internet? When forcing others to sustain your "rights", where does it stop?
Unfortunately none of my vehicles have fog lights.
Absolutely! I've though I was the only one annoyed by this. Essentially these idiots (some in sports cars, too) are driving around with four headlights on. I've seen some idiots that have added two more and drive around with six. In my state (AL), it's illegal to have more than four headlights (on at the same time at least). It's probably illegal to drive around with your fog lights (or road lights) on as it would be the same as driving with brights on, but the cops are only interested in how many speeding tickets they can write.
Some of the SUV's and pickups have fog lights that are much brighter than the headlights. I flash my lights at them, but they just flash me back as if to say, "duhhh, my lights are not on bright. Why you flashing me? (drool)."