Apples and oranges. The largest coal plants are still relatively compact in terms of square footage compared to wind turbines. So, although a single wind turbine may e less ugly than a single powerplant, the thousands of wind turbines necesary to equal the power output of your theoretical coal fired plant would cover an enormous acreage and affect far more people.
As for noise, I think you may be just flat out wrong about that; my experience at powerhouses is that there is almost no noise outside the fence.
I know I shouldn't do this, but I'll go ahead anyway.
In your main point (such as it is) you put great emphasis on the word "clearly" when asserting that Powell lied. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
In your first example, the "double standard" seems to refer to your comparison of Oprah "tossed salad" episode and Stern. Stern claimed a double standard, Powell responded that it is under investigation. You seem to think that since Stern and Oprah weren't fined at the same time, therefore Oprah is being favored. How is this "clear". That is akin to arguing that one is being unfairly punished for running a stop sign because the guy who ran it right in front of you has a later trial date. Perhaps if you wait until a decision is made by the Commission regarding the complaint against Oprah, you might have a point. But then, if the stations that ran the Oprah "tossed salad" show get a whopper fine too, what will your argument be then?
Regarding the "clear" penalty against Infinity by "stopping them from doing business while the fine is unpaid," that was a statement by Stern of what his corporate overlords said to him. Is it "clear" that Stern wasn't lying? Is it "clear" that the Infinity people weren't lying to Stern? I don't think so, especially when the FCC *doesn't* freeze license applications while a case is under appeal. They will do it if a fine gets unpaid, just like people with unpaid parking tickets get cars impounded. One can appeal judicial decisions one doesn't like, but one can't simply ignore them.
My opinion? (And that is all it is - opinion - as opposed to your blunt assertion of fact.) Infinity made a business decision to pay the fine instead of appeal. Cheaper, less publicity - whatever. Stern pitched a fit, and in order to redirect his ire, the Infinity suits blamed it on the FCC, making up a story about licensing and being put out of business. Stern, either gullibly or cynically, they goes after the FCC instead of his corporate overlords. Conjecture? Certainly, but just as "clear" as you assertions - that is, not at all.
Funny, I heard it when it first happened. Powell sounded articulate and reasoned; Stern sounded like a buffoon. While what Powell was saying may still have been disagreeable, he didn't attack Stern personally, whereas that is all Stern did.
From TFA: "To see how soil moisture has evolved over the last few decades, Dai and colleagues produced a unique global-scale analysis using the Palmer index, which for decades has been the most widely used yardstick of U.S. drought. The index is a measure of near-surface moisture conditions and is correlated with soil moisture content.
Since the Palmer index is not routinely calculated in most of the world, Dai and colleagues used long-term records of temperature and precipitation from a variety of sources to derive the index for the period 1870-2002. "
So, not having a uniform scale, the researchers calculated the Palmer Scale values for the rest of the world using proxy data. But...
"Though most of the Northern Hemisphere has shown a drying in recent decades, the United States has bucked that trend, becoming wetter overall during the last 50 years..."
So the area whose data was not subject to extra data processing showed the opposite of what the rest of the data showed. At first glance, I'd say that they need to look at their proxy data. I know there is more to it (some other areas showed a wetter trend) and the article doesn't mention whether the US data was run through the proxy model, but it still seems suspect on its face.
As for "consistent with those from a historical simulation of global land surface conditions, produced by a comprehensive computer model", one wonders if the same assumptions that went into the reaserchers proxy data were also used in the computer model.
What state are you in? You might want to double check the laws - the "trespassing" part is probably qualified with "in your domicile".
For instance, one of the jokes in PA is that, if you shoot someone in your house and he staggers outside, drag his ass back inside. PA law is such that, if someone is trespassing inside your house, that person is a presumtive threat to your life, so blast away. However, if someone is outside your house, you are not in danger since you are in a place of safety - there is no direct threat.
Actually, the US needed Imperial France - the France of the Louis'. The French aristocracy helped us, and that wasn't altruism - it was sticking a finger in Britain's eye.
Revolutionary France, Napoleonic France, Republican France - I can't think of a lot of good they have been for the US.
There is a difference between constant, repeatable threats, otherwise known as risk, and random, large scale events.
The first human reaction to danger was always to get out of Dodge. But if the danger was repeatable and comprehendable, it got dealt with. If tsunamis happened on a weekly basis, we'd be surfing on them, not dying by the metric ton.
"Space Exploration is not about Science, it is about Exploration."
If we are going to apply a cost benefit analysis to space exploration, NASA should close shop and the money spent elsewhere, robots or no robots. The whole "scientific research" angle has always been a fig leaf for the real reasons for the space programs - national prestige (politicians), playing with cool toys (engineers), and, hokey as it sounds, "going where no man has gone before" i.e. exploration (astronauts). And I use the ST:TOS "no man" wording vs. ST:TNG "no one" on purpose: it is my belief that the desire to explore is inherently masculine, either culturally or genetically. For that matter, the "prestige" and the "cool toys" angle are pretty much Y chromosome related too.
Many people say these are not worthy goals. Possibly so, but let's not kid ourselves that they are not the real, driving goals.
I needed access to secured room of a building my company was renovating. It had a pushbutton type combination lock on it (or some such). I asked the combination, and the maintenance superintendent said "1-2-3-4-5". I immediately blurted out "1-2-3-4-5? That sounds like the combination some idiot would put on his luggage." Straight Pavlovian response to a Mel Brooks straight line.
It was only after a 5 seconds of being stared at that I realized that the Superintendent had intentionally set that combination, and he was NOT a "Spaceballs" fan.
"The Boston Tea Party was pretty illegal, I'm sure"
And the comparison would be closer to valid if the colonists had stolen the tea for their own consumption, instead of destroying it.
If "civil disobedience" involves personal enrichment, the bullshit meter goes off the scale.
Re:"no one has..survived a landing without a chute
on
Closer to Human Flight
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A friend of mine who was in the military (briefly) told me about "earth angels": soldiers who had survived their chute not opening. Supposedly, they are transferred out of their unit rapidly, not because they don't want to go back up, but their presence creeps out the rest of their unit.
I disagree. Darwin awards highlight an obliviousness to the dangers of doing something. This guy seems fully aware of the dangers - he is doing testing and development, so that he will NOT die. He may fail, and hence die, but it won't be for lack of awareness of the danger of what he is doing.
Re:Enough with the silly.
on
Ho, Ho, Ho
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"On a side note -- why do we lie to our children so much anyway? The stork? Santa Claus? These things just make reality more confusing for them."
We lie to our children for 2 reasons:
1: To tell a story - in this case a great big story that lasts for years. And at the end of the story, some kids are pissed, some want to read it again.
2: To shield them from that reality to which you are so eager to expose them. Reality sometimes sucks, but that is what parents do - protect their kids from things that suck. Some go overboard and protect them from everything - we call them spoiled. But the kids who aren't protected from anything are far worse off.
As for having my kids feel grateful to Santa instead of me - BFD! I do for my kids because I love them and it's a duty I asked for, not so that I have a little bunch of emotionally indentured servants who "owe" me their gratitude. If I do my job right they will be grateful later. I can wait.
"There is really precious little to be learned from travel outside our own atmosphere with the technology currently available that cannot be learned more conclusively and safely here on Earth. When one combines this fact with the enormous cost of getting all but the most insignificant payloads into orbit, there is a very persuasive argument for forgetting about our space travel dreams, at least for the present."
Which completely misses the point - it's not the learning, it's the doing that matters.
It is ironic that you chose Boeing's aquisition of McDonnel-Douglass to illustrate your point. McDD was driven out of the market by Airbus, which is heavily subsidised by European countries. And as I recall, Boeing was "encouraged" to buy McDD by the Defense Department so as to not lose the capacity for fighters. So it basically seems that, at least in this case, European subsidies trumped US subsidies.
Slashdot Mirror
Apples and oranges. The largest coal plants are still relatively compact in terms of square footage compared to wind turbines. So, although a single wind turbine may e less ugly than a single powerplant, the thousands of wind turbines necesary to equal the power output of your theoretical coal fired plant would cover an enormous acreage and affect far more people.
As for noise, I think you may be just flat out wrong about that; my experience at powerhouses is that there is almost no noise outside the fence.
Does that mean I will be able to search for porn with 38DD's?
Did I say that out loud?
So, to look at it from another angle, you are selecting your clientele for low intelligence and/or observation skills.
Is this bad or good?
I know I shouldn't do this, but I'll go ahead anyway.
In your main point (such as it is) you put great emphasis on the word "clearly" when asserting that Powell lied. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
In your first example, the "double standard" seems to refer to your comparison of Oprah "tossed salad" episode and Stern. Stern claimed a double standard, Powell responded that it is under investigation. You seem to think that since Stern and Oprah weren't fined at the same time, therefore Oprah is being favored. How is this "clear". That is akin to arguing that one is being unfairly punished for running a stop sign because the guy who ran it right in front of you has a later trial date. Perhaps if you wait until a decision is made by the Commission regarding the complaint against Oprah, you might have a point. But then, if the stations that ran the Oprah "tossed salad" show get a whopper fine too, what will your argument be then?
Regarding the "clear" penalty against Infinity by "stopping them from doing business while the fine is unpaid," that was a statement by Stern of what his corporate overlords said to him. Is it "clear" that Stern wasn't lying? Is it "clear" that the Infinity people weren't lying to Stern? I don't think so, especially when the FCC *doesn't* freeze license applications while a case is under appeal. They will do it if a fine gets unpaid, just like people with unpaid parking tickets get cars impounded. One can appeal judicial decisions one doesn't like, but one can't simply ignore them.
My opinion? (And that is all it is - opinion - as opposed to your blunt assertion of fact.) Infinity made a business decision to pay the fine instead of appeal. Cheaper, less publicity - whatever. Stern pitched a fit, and in order to redirect his ire, the Infinity suits blamed it on the FCC, making up a story about licensing and being put out of business. Stern, either gullibly or cynically, they goes after the FCC instead of his corporate overlords. Conjecture? Certainly, but just as "clear" as you assertions - that is, not at all.
Funny, I heard it when it first happened. Powell sounded articulate and reasoned; Stern sounded like a buffoon. While what Powell was saying may still have been disagreeable, he didn't attack Stern personally, whereas that is all Stern did.
Riveting? Hardly.
For the love of Pete - who modded this interesting?
"Bad thing happens. Bitch about Republicans"
Interesting? It's not even boring anymore.
From TFA:
"To see how soil moisture has evolved over the last few decades, Dai and colleagues produced a unique global-scale analysis using the Palmer index, which for decades has been the most widely used yardstick of U.S. drought. The index is a measure of near-surface moisture conditions and is correlated with soil moisture content.
Since the Palmer index is not routinely calculated in most of the world, Dai and colleagues used long-term records of temperature and precipitation from a variety of sources to derive the index for the period 1870-2002. "
So, not having a uniform scale, the researchers calculated the Palmer Scale values for the rest of the world using proxy data. But...
"Though most of the Northern Hemisphere has shown a drying in recent decades, the United States has bucked that trend, becoming wetter overall during the last 50 years..."
So the area whose data was not subject to extra data processing showed the opposite of what the rest of the data showed. At first glance, I'd say that they need to look at their proxy data. I know there is more to it (some other areas showed a wetter trend) and the article doesn't mention whether the US data was run through the proxy model, but it still seems suspect on its face.
As for "consistent with those from a historical simulation of global land surface conditions, produced by a comprehensive computer model", one wonders if the same assumptions that went into the reaserchers proxy data were also used in the computer model.
What state are you in? You might want to double check the laws - the "trespassing" part is probably qualified with "in your domicile".
For instance, one of the jokes in PA is that, if you shoot someone in your house and he staggers outside, drag his ass back inside. PA law is such that, if someone is trespassing inside your house, that person is a presumtive threat to your life, so blast away. However, if someone is outside your house, you are not in danger since you are in a place of safety - there is no direct threat.
For a heterosexual male:
Hetero Sex
Naked Woman: +1
Naked Man: -1 or 0
Sexual Act: +1
--------------------
Total: +1 or +2
Lesbian Sex
Naked Woman: +1
Naked Woman: +1
Sexual Act: +1
--------------------
Total: +3
Lesbians: It's ALL good!
"Investors are affected, since over time the talent leaves a company and the company loses innovation and just maintains their current product. "
Where will the "talent" go - to another company? They won't be giving any better deals.
As for investors, they get an instant benefit - the stock they hold or will buy more accurately reflects the value of the company.
I guess Politics is becoming the new catch all, after YRO.
No, but it does imply that banning handguns is pointless.
Actually, the US needed Imperial France - the France of the Louis'. The French aristocracy helped us, and that wasn't altruism - it was sticking a finger in Britain's eye.
Revolutionary France, Napoleonic France, Republican France - I can't think of a lot of good they have been for the US.
There is a difference between constant, repeatable threats, otherwise known as risk, and random, large scale events.
The first human reaction to danger was always to get out of Dodge. But if the danger was repeatable and comprehendable, it got dealt with. If tsunamis happened on a weekly basis, we'd be surfing on them, not dying by the metric ton.
Okay people, repeat after me:
"Space Exploration is not about Science, it is about Exploration."
If we are going to apply a cost benefit analysis to space exploration, NASA should close shop and the money spent elsewhere, robots or no robots. The whole "scientific research" angle has always been a fig leaf for the real reasons for the space programs - national prestige (politicians), playing with cool toys (engineers), and, hokey as it sounds, "going where no man has gone before" i.e. exploration (astronauts). And I use the ST:TOS "no man" wording vs. ST:TNG "no one" on purpose: it is my belief that the desire to explore is inherently masculine, either culturally or genetically. For that matter, the "prestige" and the "cool toys" angle are pretty much Y chromosome related too.
Many people say these are not worthy goals. Possibly so, but let's not kid ourselves that they are not the real, driving goals.
"Overlapping functions, semi-autonomy, semi-intelligent bots that are able to function together for a common goal. "
Like getting revenge on those bastards that sent them there?
I, for one, welcome our future Martian robotic overlords.
Yes - the stupid name.
Seriously, folks - must Open Source project have bad names? If I introduced you to a lame gimp named Ogg, would you take him seriously?
True story.
I needed access to secured room of a building my company was renovating. It had a pushbutton type combination lock on it (or some such). I asked the combination, and the maintenance superintendent said "1-2-3-4-5". I immediately blurted out "1-2-3-4-5? That sounds like the combination some idiot would put on his luggage." Straight Pavlovian response to a Mel Brooks straight line.
It was only after a 5 seconds of being stared at that I realized that the Superintendent had intentionally set that combination, and he was NOT a "Spaceballs" fan.
"The Boston Tea Party was pretty illegal, I'm sure"
And the comparison would be closer to valid if the colonists had stolen the tea for their own consumption, instead of destroying it.
If "civil disobedience" involves personal enrichment, the bullshit meter goes off the scale.
A friend of mine who was in the military (briefly) told me about "earth angels": soldiers who had survived their chute not opening. Supposedly, they are transferred out of their unit rapidly, not because they don't want to go back up, but their presence creeps out the rest of their unit.
Anyone care to confirm?
I disagree. Darwin awards highlight an obliviousness to the dangers of doing something. This guy seems fully aware of the dangers - he is doing testing and development, so that he will NOT die. He may fail, and hence die, but it won't be for lack of awareness of the danger of what he is doing.
"On a side note -- why do we lie to our children so much anyway? The stork? Santa Claus? These things just make reality more confusing for them."
We lie to our children for 2 reasons:
1: To tell a story - in this case a great big story that lasts for years. And at the end of the story, some kids are pissed, some want to read it again.
2: To shield them from that reality to which you are so eager to expose them. Reality sometimes sucks, but that is what parents do - protect their kids from things that suck. Some go overboard and protect them from everything - we call them spoiled. But the kids who aren't protected from anything are far worse off.
As for having my kids feel grateful to Santa instead of me - BFD! I do for my kids because I love them and it's a duty I asked for, not so that I have a little bunch of emotionally indentured servants who "owe" me their gratitude. If I do my job right they will be grateful later. I can wait.
"There is really precious little to be learned from travel outside our own atmosphere with the technology currently available that cannot be learned more conclusively and safely here on Earth. When one combines this fact with the enormous cost of getting all but the most insignificant payloads into orbit, there is a very persuasive argument for forgetting about our space travel dreams, at least for the present."
Which completely misses the point - it's not the learning, it's the doing that matters.
It is ironic that you chose Boeing's aquisition of McDonnel-Douglass to illustrate your point. McDD was driven out of the market by Airbus, which is heavily subsidised by European countries. And as I recall, Boeing was "encouraged" to buy McDD by the Defense Department so as to not lose the capacity for fighters. So it basically seems that, at least in this case, European subsidies trumped US subsidies.
I found R3.0 on top of the dryer once.
It's a stacked model.
He was 2.