Yeah, if the price of energy rose by 25%, absolutely nobody would start thinking about using less energy for a change.
Yeah. Because everyone has that option. My fossil fuel consumption is a direct function of my commute. Sell your SUV to someone who can afford it. That'll be $30.
Actually, it has become an emotional issue. We have people like James Lovelock and James Hansen saying we're doomed, Doomed, DOOMED! at the top of their lungs. When you drive people into a panic, they do not behave rationally. I've made some bad financial errors because I made an emotional purchase. You mean as opposed to those claiming: "If we do something, the whole economy will implode"?
PS: Balancing green house gasses would do little harm to the US economy. We might go from spending ~3% of are GDP on fossil fuel to ~6% on renewable energy but over the long term it's a minor change
I know you pulled those figures out of your hat, but let's consider. If the cost of energy increases by 25%, that means the cost of everything increases by 10-25% (depending on what fraction of a widget is labor versus what fraction is materials). Everything.
Yeah, if the price of energy rose by 25%, absolutely nobody would start thinking about using less energy for a change.
What kinda sysadmin needs graphical concept drawing software
The kind of sysadmin that documents his network.
Oh God! Not more Powerpoint presentations. ANYTHING BUT THAT! What does Powerpoint have to do with documentation, and why would a Mac user use it over Keynote?
Have you even read the freaking list? It's obviously a top-20 list for [Mac] sysadmins.
All 3 of 'em?
What kinda sysadmin needs graphical concept drawing software The kind of sysadmin that documents his network. Not all sysadmins manage a small network like yours. Smells like network envy.
Well "pro" corporate support from any of a dozen vendors means they show up to repair within 4 hours of the support call being placed. No next in line. No line at all. You still believe in that myth? WHat color is the sky where you live?
One of our dell laptops had a screen go bad (lines were appearing on the screen). A 5 minute call (including hold times) with a customer rep confirmed the problem and scheduled the tech. The next day the part arrived in the morning and the tech arrived in the afternoon. It probably took him 20 minute to replace the screen. Total lost time less than a day.
The same event with an apple product would have required a minimum of 2 hours on the phone and probably a week or more of lost time.
Apple=Stuff you use at home
Major brand PC=Stuff you use at work. Suuure. Unless you live in one of the places where the on-site service Dell sold you isn't actually available. That is after you talked for hours to the guys in India.
The normal process is that you drop the computer off, wait a week or two, and pick it up to find it in spectacular condition. (Usually better than when you dropped it off; above and beyond fixing whatever you brought it in for.) The key is that you have to show a modicum of patience, something which businesses often can't afford to do. If that's your problem, the answer is ProCare. "ProCare is your ticket to priority repairs", or so they say.
Re:Fraunhofer: The people who made piracy possible
on
How MP3 Was Born
·
· Score: 1
What isn't mentioned in Herr Brandenburg's interview is that Fraunhofer have been playing both sides. If you've bought an MP3 capable player, you've paid Fraunhofer royalties. But Fraunhofer have been playing both sides: developing tools to track MP3s using watermarks so record companies crack down on piracy Well, for one that are actually different institutes of the Fraunhofer group:
He developed MP3 here, now works here, but the watermarks were developped (oddly enough) here, then here, and now here. Which is just a small number of the institutes in the FHG.
"For one, nobody but but the strawmen you GW deniers burn claim that CO2 is is the only thing that influences climate."
Odd. Please point me to a current example of global warming alarmism that accurately reports that methane and water vapor have a larger influence on climate variation. It's all CO2, all the time out there. Were the hell did you get that "accurate" information from - not that it has anything to do with what I wrote.
"But anyway, thanks for pointing out that as soon as CO2 levels rise after coming out of an ice age, so does the temperature increase."
No, the temperature increase proceeds the CO2 increase, and likewise, after glaciation begins, CO2 remains at levels close to the interglacial maximum for quite some time. CO2 and temperature are indeed closely correlated, but in a way that quite clearly rules out a direct CO2->temperature causal link. No, the temperature slowly rises, until the CO2 increases, when the temperature increase accelerates. But thanks for playing.
No, there really is no debate at all... if you listen to idiots like Dr.(of what?) Heidi Cullen who claim that its settled science and call for the de-certification of those who don't agree with her... then the debate is over. You know, its late, so I'll just call you a liar - you know that you are.
Anyone not with Apple is OBVIOUSLY with RIAA. QED. Don' try to change the issue AGAIN, RIAA lover. Everybody in bed with the RIAA will attack Apple on this issue.
that's just it. the problem is that all "data" comes from lab experiments where all variables can be controlled. you can't control all the earth's variables and thus the correlation is invalid. I'm not well versed in climate science, or any science as such, my field is economics. and from what I remember doing all those regression analyses and such is that we tried to isolate a single variable. we always assumed ceteris paribus, but you can't do it in an environemnt as large and diverse as the earth.
the simple fact is that there is no physical proof that we have warmed the earth or that we can alter its course. Yeah, we have no proof, just plenty of evidence. But we don't have any evidence that greenhouse gasses magically don't work in nature.
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
You get that? CO2 increased 400-600 years AFTER the glaciers receded.
This is why when certain scientists graph the CO2 data from the Vostok ice cores, they never overlay temperature on the same graph: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/pale oclimate.htm. It would be too obvious that the temperature changes proceeded changes in CO2 concentration. For one, nobody but but the strawmen you GW deniers burn claim that CO2 is is the only thing that influences climate.
But anyway, thanks for pointing out that as soon as CO2 levels rise after coming out of an ice age, so does the temperature increase.
The Fscking problem is: How you do it? Even freezing CO2 levels at the present values, will probably cause a global recession that will put hundreds of millions starving in the Third World. Even First World countries like French which are already doomed by unemployment and social tensions are going to see their situation explode with a global recession. Yeah, "probably". Got any prove for that? Like the hundreds of millions that starved because of the introduction of the catalytic convertor, the reduction of industrial soot, the banning of CFCs - which were all supposed to all cause a huge recession.
All that is missing is a post from you calling the non-GW-deniers "alarmists".
It's a joke meant to illustrate how two completely unrelated things can correlate just by pure chance. It came about as a result of the whole flying spaghetti monster thing. Relax, it's just satire:) No, it's a joke that pretends there is a correlation where there isn't. Just like the jokes about GW being caused by sunspots, (undersea) volcanos and number of gays.
I'd be surprised if Pluto weren't warming, given it is just past perihelion and it has some quirky orbital parameters. Funny how when things get closer to the sun they warm up a bit. I'd also point out neither article mentions anything to do with the sun getting hotter, and both have quite plausible explanations for the observed trends on both bodies
Actually since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn't fit the "Constant Solar Constant" BS And that is why noon is the warmest time of day. Oh, no, wait...
If you're so confident that iTMS tunes are not a lock-in then show me 5 people who did buy a non-iPod even though they had iTMS tunes. That should be easy too. What kind of stupid logic is that? Oh yeah, the kind of logic you'ld expect from a hateboi.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Because everyone has that option. My fossil fuel consumption is a direct function of my commute. Sell your SUV to someone who can afford it. That'll be $30.
I know you pulled those figures out of your hat, but let's consider. If the cost of energy increases by 25%, that means the cost of everything increases by 10-25% (depending on what fraction of a widget is labor versus what fraction is materials). Everything.
Yeah, if the price of energy rose by 25%, absolutely nobody would start thinking about using less energy for a change.All 3 of 'em?
What kinda sysadmin needs graphical concept drawing software The kind of sysadmin that documents his network. Not all sysadmins manage a small network like yours. Smells like network envy.
The same event with an apple product would have required a minimum of 2 hours on the phone and probably a week or more of lost time.
Apple=Stuff you use at home
Major brand PC=Stuff you use at work. Suuure. Unless you live in one of the places where the on-site service Dell sold you isn't actually available. That is after you talked for hours to the guys in India.
The Apple ads are the most snide, smug, self congratulatory, condescending turds I've seen in a long time.
Well, they are aimed at snide, smug, self congratulatory, condescending turds like you, so what do you expect?Why, yes I am aware that you are not a Mac user.
Odd. Please point me to a current example of global warming alarmism that accurately reports that methane and water vapor have a larger influence on climate variation. It's all CO2, all the time out there. Were the hell did you get that "accurate" information from - not that it has anything to do with what I wrote. "But anyway, thanks for pointing out that as soon as CO2 levels rise after coming out of an ice age, so does the temperature increase."
No, the temperature increase proceeds the CO2 increase, and likewise, after glaciation begins, CO2 remains at levels close to the interglacial maximum for quite some time. CO2 and temperature are indeed closely correlated, but in a way that quite clearly rules out a direct CO2->temperature causal link. No, the temperature slowly rises, until the CO2 increases, when the temperature increase accelerates. But thanks for playing.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Anyone not with Apple is OBVIOUSLY with RIAA. QED. Don' try to change the issue AGAIN, RIAA lover. Everybody in bed with the RIAA will attack Apple on this issue.
Shouldn't that spell Limbaughgraph? ;-)
that's just it. the problem is that all "data" comes from lab experiments where all variables can be controlled. you can't control all the earth's variables and thus the correlation is invalid. I'm not well versed in climate science, or any science as such, my field is economics. and from what I remember doing all those regression analyses and such is that we tried to isolate a single variable. we always assumed ceteris paribus, but you can't do it in an environemnt as large and diverse as the earth.
the simple fact is that there is no physical proof that we have warmed the earth or that we can alter its course. Yeah, we have no proof, just plenty of evidence. But we don't have any evidence that greenhouse gasses magically don't work in nature.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
From the abstract:
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
You get that? CO2 increased 400-600 years AFTER the glaciers receded.
This is why when certain scientists graph the CO2 data from the Vostok ice cores, they never overlay temperature on the same graph: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/pal
But anyway, thanks for pointing out that as soon as CO2 levels rise after coming out of an ice age, so does the temperature increase.
All that is missing is a post from you calling the non-GW-deniers "alarmists".
Actually since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn't fit the "Constant Solar Constant" BS
And that is why noon is the warmest time of day. Oh, no, wait...
Why do you defend a nutcase just because he agrees with you?
Was it? Who am I with now?
But you proved my post. If I'm not with Apple, I'm with RIAA? Right? Don' try to change the issue, RIAA lover.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.
You are either on the side of the music industry or Apple.
With us or against us. That you are with the RIAA was clear.
Unused stupid analogies are wasted stupid analogies, you should use more of them.