Well, the TSA really needs to do something to catch someone. They've spent billions so far, and have not caught a single terrorist. So they now have to expend even more money in an attempt to widen their search area.
If it's like Obamacare, you can opt out if you are a Union that has "donated" large sums of cash to his reelection campaign. Over 2000 of them have been able to opt out so far. How else do you think he get two $1.2 Million Canadian campaign buses build for him. Oh wait, he bought those campaign buses with federal government funds, so he wouldn't have to use any of his $1Billion in collected campaign funds. Nice return on the two $500 Billion "economic stimulus" packages laundered through his Union bud’s.
But, this is the Obama administration. He wouldn't create any legislation that would do anything like this. It's not like he would send you to prison if you didn't pay for health care, nor deny such health care if he decided you were too old to bother with, nor be able for the same health care to be able to take any funds directly out of your bank account whenever they wanted to..It's not like he could ram such legislation through congress without having anyone read it.
Just hitch a ride on some aliens ship, as in AC Clark's Rama stuff, which turns out to be made by angels (gack!). If you believe in the Intelligent Design people, or the Area 51 groups, there should be plenty to go around.
What Darpa wants is another resource rich land to invade, colonize and populate. But what's likely to happen is they land on a planet, call it Plymouth Rock, smoke the rock and marry into the local tribes and vanish without a trace.
Then we will send more people to overthrown the indigenous people in the name of science, the crown, or my left shoe, kill most of them, marry into the rest and declare their independence from the Homeworld.
Next will ensue a series of wars as this new people struggle with an identity crisis until it's solved with another more sinister enemy to revile or they have run out of resources to exploit.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
- Dan.
Look to history for how land discoveries are handled, especially if intelligent life is found.
1. Take a boat and land on new property. 2. Force the existing population to bring you gold, prostitutes, and recreational drugs. 3. Return home, with numerous inhabitants to be sold as slaves, and new types of recreational drugs, leaving disease in your wake. 4. Send more ships, with lots of untrained people to inhabit this new, untouched landscape. Kill off most of the locals and take their stuff. 5. Fail miserably on creating a new civilization, because nobody has a clue about how to survive in the new land. 6. Goto step 4
So, is he claiming that his car caused the Japanes tsunamis?
Imagine the next disaster movie "Subcompact!". A retired NASA shuttle pilot must carefully drive a car containing a black hole from New York to Las Angelos while his crazy diaper wearing girlfriend keeps trying to steal his car and shoot his other girlfriend.
But Obama says that higher taxes, and increasing the welfare roles will create more jobs. If we let businesses keep the money they earn, then they'll hire fewer people. Only the federal government wants to see people get jobs, therefore we must greatly increase taxes. Those manufacturing companies will not hire any people unless we double their taxes.
Ever notice that when any budget overruns occur, they never talk about reducing their own staff of cabana boys, they always insist on firing teachers, poliecemen, and firemen. They cannot do without their pool boys, art collections, flower arrangements, and fung shway exports, but those useless teachers are always the first to go.
Obama? As long as he could filter the money through some Union and into his campaign funds. He could create several more temporary minimum wage jobs at a mere $280,000/job.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't hide. When the gong gets tuff, it saves nine. Don't count on your chickens before the hoarse. Don't teach your grandmother how to *uck eggs.
We have no choice at all, because fossil fuels will not last forever. The only choice we have is when we will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
There is only 20 years of fossil fuels left in the Earth, and it's been that way since, at least, the 70's. In 2100, when this article predicts that the Earth will be destroyed, we'll probably be down to 20 years of fossil fuel left.
These predictions become meaningless when they keep failing. Either predict with a tiny bit of accuracy, or stop repeating your mistakes.
Either way. Being off on the the exact value of a coefficient is not all that important to the policy problem.
When they give a huge variance on something important that they claim to understand accurately enough to predict the temperature 500 years in the future, it just shows that all they are doing is blowing smoke out their ass.
Since this is a tech board, I'll put it in CS terms. We, in CS, regularly analyze algorithms in 'big O' notation, n^2, n^3 etc.
It's more like you are a programmer working for a manufacturing company. You assign a O value to a program that you haven't seen, don't know what it does or how it does it, and aren't even sure if it exists. You assign an O to it to somewhere between O(1) and O(n^1000), and be proud of your results. You then use those results to determine how much to spend on manufacturing equipment over the next 200 years.
There's still no scientific proof that smoking causing cancer is nothing other than a coincidence, yet global policy has been set based on that set of coincidences. So you are too late. It's been done, so an argument to not do it again would indicate that the first time was a failure. Was it?
Great. You go ahead and smoke 6 packs of cigs a day to prove it wrong. If you're so sure there are absolutely no health risks involved, why not?
The fact that they asked people with specific types of cancer if they smoked, and the numbers came out that there were a significantly larger number of cancers among the smokers than would be expected if there was no correlation should bother you. Others checked the data, came up with their own, and came to the same conclusions.
Now, global warming is based of measurements we are not allowed to see, using programs we aren't allowed to see, by people who are not trained as climatologists. What numbers we do get, are approximations and guesses based on second hand sources, like tree rings. Tree rings can be affected by things other than temperature, but that is just ignored and the data is assumed to be gospel. Peer review is highly discouraged. GW isn't science, and doesn't follow scientific principles. It does follow religious ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the TSA really needs to do something to catch someone. They've spent billions so far, and have not caught a single terrorist. So they now have to expend even more money in an attempt to widen their search area.
Since Clinton doesn't have access to interns any more, he can get his trills by working as a TSA agent.
If it's like Obamacare, you can opt out if you are a Union that has "donated" large sums of cash to his reelection campaign. Over 2000 of them have been able to opt out so far. How else do you think he get two $1.2 Million Canadian campaign buses build for him. Oh wait, he bought those campaign buses with federal government funds, so he wouldn't have to use any of his $1Billion in collected campaign funds. Nice return on the two $500 Billion "economic stimulus" packages laundered through his Union bud’s.
But, this is the Obama administration. He wouldn't create any legislation that would do anything like this. It's not like he would send you to prison if you didn't pay for health care, nor deny such health care if he decided you were too old to bother with, nor be able for the same health care to be able to take any funds directly out of your bank account whenever they wanted to..It's not like he could ram such legislation through congress without having anyone read it.
it looks like they're taking hardware and throwing it at a wall and seeing where it sticks, and making a chip out of what's stuck on the wall.
They can't do that! I have the patent!
Just hitch a ride on some aliens ship, as in AC Clark's Rama stuff, which turns out to be made by angels (gack!). If you believe in the Intelligent Design people, or the Area 51 groups, there should be plenty to go around.
What Darpa wants is another resource rich land to invade, colonize and populate. But what's likely to happen is they land on a planet, call it Plymouth Rock, smoke the rock and marry into the local tribes and vanish without a trace.
Then we will send more people to overthrown the indigenous people in the name of science, the crown, or my left shoe, kill most of them, marry into the rest and declare their independence from the Homeworld.
Next will ensue a series of wars as this new people struggle with an identity crisis until it's solved with another more sinister enemy to revile or they have run out of resources to exploit.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
- Dan.
Look to history for how land discoveries are handled, especially if intelligent life is found.
1. Take a boat and land on new property.
2. Force the existing population to bring you gold, prostitutes, and recreational drugs.
3. Return home, with numerous inhabitants to be sold as slaves, and new types of recreational drugs, leaving disease in your wake.
4. Send more ships, with lots of untrained people to inhabit this new, untouched landscape. Kill off most of the locals and take their stuff.
5. Fail miserably on creating a new civilization, because nobody has a clue about how to survive in the new land.
6. Goto step 4
Why does the passenger cabin and altitude control system look like a lawn chair and a BB gun?
Does this mean that the green cheese hasn't expired yet? I.e. does green cheese have a similar shelf life to twinkies?
Can I get a tax break if I donate my dead RPG characters to this medical research?
So, is he claiming that his car caused the Japanes tsunamis?
Imagine the next disaster movie "Subcompact!". A retired NASA shuttle pilot must carefully drive a car containing a black hole from New York to Las Angelos while his crazy diaper wearing girlfriend keeps trying to steal his car and shoot his other girlfriend.
But Obama says that higher taxes, and increasing the welfare roles will create more jobs. If we let businesses keep the money they earn, then they'll hire fewer people. Only the federal government wants to see people get jobs, therefore we must greatly increase taxes. Those manufacturing companies will not hire any people unless we double their taxes.
Ever notice that when any budget overruns occur, they never talk about reducing their own staff of cabana boys, they always insist on firing teachers, poliecemen, and firemen. They cannot do without their pool boys, art collections, flower arrangements, and fung shway exports, but those useless teachers are always the first to go.
Obama? As long as he could filter the money through some Union and into his campaign funds. He could create several more temporary minimum wage jobs at a mere $280,000/job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_airplane
The barge was last seen out at sea, with sharks wearing some head ornaments being attached to the power cables.
I before E except after C... Oh wait. Damn English!
You'd need to be an Einstein to get all the rules straight.
You probably posted that comment using software written in C++.
And you probably posted the comment using software written in C.
No, I used something I hacked up using a version of perl written in java.
What's wrong with
ABC*AD*++
Good old HP calculators.
Need more fodder for the graammerschool noutsies
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't hide.
When the gong gets tuff, it saves nine.
Don't count on your chickens before the hoarse.
Don't teach your grandmother how to *uck eggs.
Just use the unreliable ones. Their base pay is cheaper, and if they don't come back, you don't have to pay them at all.
One kook predicted global cooling in the '70s and, unfortunately, got onto the cover of Time. But whatever, keep spewing the same old fiction.
Are you talking about Al Gore? Oh wait, he's the one global warming kook.
We have no choice at all, because fossil fuels will not last forever. The only choice we have is when we will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
There is only 20 years of fossil fuels left in the Earth, and it's been that way since, at least, the 70's. In 2100, when this article predicts that the Earth will be destroyed, we'll probably be down to 20 years of fossil fuel left.
These predictions become meaningless when they keep failing. Either predict with a tiny bit of accuracy, or stop repeating your mistakes.
So what? As long as it moves it from/to where I want it to, what's the problem?
Either way. Being off on the the exact value of a coefficient is not all that important to the policy problem.
When they give a huge variance on something important that they claim to understand accurately enough to predict the temperature 500 years in the future, it just shows that all they are doing is blowing smoke out their ass.
Since this is a tech board, I'll put it in CS terms. We, in CS, regularly analyze algorithms in 'big O' notation, n^2, n^3 etc.
It's more like you are a programmer working for a manufacturing company. You assign a O value to a program that you haven't seen, don't know what it does or how it does it, and aren't even sure if it exists. You assign an O to it to somewhere between O(1) and O(n^1000), and be proud of your results. You then use those results to determine how much to spend on manufacturing equipment over the next 200 years.
There's still no scientific proof that smoking causing cancer is nothing other than a coincidence, yet global policy has been set based on that set of coincidences. So you are too late. It's been done, so an argument to not do it again would indicate that the first time was a failure. Was it?
Great. You go ahead and smoke 6 packs of cigs a day to prove it wrong. If you're so sure there are absolutely no health risks involved, why not?
The fact that they asked people with specific types of cancer if they smoked, and the numbers came out that there were a significantly larger number of cancers among the smokers than would be expected if there was no correlation should bother you. Others checked the data, came up with their own, and came to the same conclusions.
Now, global warming is based of measurements we are not allowed to see, using programs we aren't allowed to see, by people who are not trained as climatologists. What numbers we do get, are approximations and guesses based on second hand sources, like tree rings. Tree rings can be affected by things other than temperature, but that is just ignored and the data is assumed to be gospel. Peer review is highly discouraged. GW isn't science, and doesn't follow scientific principles. It does follow religious ones.