Not quite. There's higher pressure in a warm beer because the water cannot hold as much CO2 in solution. In jargon terms, the varpor pressure increases with increasing temperature. It's actually a bit more complicated than this due to various ionic equilibria, but I've modeled those too.
Quite true, and I was being overly abbreviated for you. What I meant was the amount of CO2 evolved (or absorbed by water) is a strong function of temperature. If the earth warms from whatever cause, CO2 must be expected to increase.
Once CO2 is in the water, some will go to plant life and most will get washed to the sea where the alkalinity (Calcium and Magnesium) will keep it mostly down, depositing as limestone.
800 kg/m2 per year rain is hardly negligible. It would make a 0.7%wt solution if it completely scrubbed the atmosphere in one year. That's about the same as solubility at 350 ppmv and 5'C. But rain is usually warmer, sol less dissolves.
Yes, rainfall is variable, but not as localized as anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It all mixes, or we'd have local warming.
There is annual rail of 800 kg/m2 of _water_, scrubbing an atmospheric inventory of 5.4 kg/m2 of Carbon dioxide. 0.7%wt solution if it all scrubbed out.
There may very well be global warming. Temperatures _are_ higher.
Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures.
Effect, not cause. Humans are unlikely to be the cause: we emit
annually about 0.070 kg/m2 (world average) into an atmospheric
CO2 inventory of 5.4 kg/m2. 77 years of current [max] burning!
And both are negligible compared to rain scrubbing of 800 kg/m2.
There may very well be global warming. Temperatures _are_ higher.
Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures.
Effect, not cause. Humans are unlikely to be any cause: we emit
annually about 0.070 kg/m2 (world average) into an atmospheric
CO2 inventory of 5.4 kg/m2. 77 years of current [max] burning!
And both are negligible compared to rain scrubbing of 800 kg/m2.
Privacy doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is just one of many human rights. As best I can tell, the justification for privacy is the prevention of prejudice. If it isn't known that somebody is ZYX, then s/he can't be subjected to prejudice on that count (also operative as prior restraint). I'm not sure there's any other social justification. Certainly there is no right to privacy to hide wrongdoing though some might dispute what constitutes wrongdoing and demand privacy to conceal filesharing/piracy.
Canada & Germany both have evolved strong privacy laws because they have strong, competant governmental and business entities which might use the information prejudicially. The US has far more checks-and-balances with weaker (but larger), less competant (but more likely malicious) governmental and business entities. Privacy appears less valued in the US due to increased mobility/competition.
Societies differ. Or do you actually want homogeneity -- One World Government?
All well and good, but my wife can tell the difference. So can I.
The motorized [vibrating heads] seem to do a quicker job, but more blades helps. Just look at the swarf.
Personally, I like the Shick/Wilkinson Quattro (4) better than the Gillette Fusion (5), but that is probably due to other features (guard wires allowing a steeper blade angle). Both shave considerably closer than any 2 blade and usually closer than the triples.
What US President has ever dealt with any crisis effectively? Clinton on Lewinski? Cruise Missiles? GB1 on Gulf War I? Reagan on StarWars (maybe)? Carter on Inflation (maybe--appointed Volcker)? Nixon? (bad on Watergate, good on China) Johnson? ('nuff said) JFK? (bad on Bay of Pigs, good? on Cuban Missiles)
No, where there are crimes committed behind the cloak of goverment secrecy, whether to prosecute and publish is the responsibility of the oversight committees. Which ought to be permanently chaired by the party opposed to the President.
First, I get rather upset when press advocates decry any reduction in their "access" or other priviliges. A press card is not a police badge. A journalist has no rights greater than any other person. Break the law -- go to jail.
Second, it is pure hypocritical whining to expect favorable treatment from those you criticise -- especially if loudly, selectively and occasionally inaccurately. The press has been after Bush since 2000, especially compared against Clinton.
Third, it is diningenuous to compare "loss of access" suffered by US/F/J/EU? reporters with the outright assaults suffered in far less free countries. None of West/J has content laws (other than against hate crimes), but that doesn't mean the leaking or publishing state secrets should be legal. It isn't in most places, and for good reason.
I just love all these "correlation is causality" studies. The true causal mechanism is undetermined, but is usually more likely to be in the reverse direction from the conventional spin.
Without correction for intelligence, this study merely shows that people better at math (highly colinear with intelligence -- you can't be good at math without being intelligent, but not all intelligent people are good at math) -- so obviously have fewere peers within whatever IQ range makes for a good friendship (1 sigma?).
Nice scare piece, but it's not going to happen: the fertility of beauty gals isn't going to beat 2.0 and the uglies will get lots of sperm from beauty boys.
Re:I'm NOT sorry to disagree
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
Neovictorian? I hope you find the guilt comforting.
Cuckoldry (~10% from a UK blood bank) is a stark reminder of women's independence. Sure, female infidelity is less frequent and better hidden than male. Because of more severe consequences. But ~40% isn't zero.
And that is precisely my point: everyone, including women have free will. "If you treat her right, she will stay" is mechanistic and maybe even mercenary. Some women will never leave, even if mistreated. Some will always leave even if not. If you have difficulty with this concept, tryin inverting the genders. Hint: not every man would cheat if he could. Some of us are smart enough to know better.
Re:Kids ruin most relationships IMHO
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
Probably true. Eventually there must be dilemmae between spouse and children. The necessary compromises hurt both.
Re:I'm NOT sorry to disagree
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
Whether it is true that techies are more romantic (in the true, classical sense of the term), the arguement is false: it assumes that the techie can control a relationship and "stop" divorce. Naive: there's another person involved. As a simple example, women have a primal driver towards infidelity: Who wants to put all her eggs in one basket? More effective than man spreading his seed.
As for intelligence, it always isolates because it reduces the number of potentially mutually satisfying (whatever the tolerable IQ delta) interactions. Communications technology helps (especially as flat as the Internet) but it helps averages precisely the same amount.
The wiki is a useful source, but hardly definitive, especially on controversial items. I agree the term "censorship" is abused, much as "piracy" in a software context is.
Please check a more traditional source of defintions, like a print dictionary.
Ah, glad you asked: censorship is mutilation of a work of art to remove elements the censor deems undesireable while substantially preserving the rest of the work.
The FCC practices censorship by extortion on radio licencees. They have to air songs with the expletives deleted.
Last I checked, India was a "democracy", which implies a certain level of legitimacy for the denizens of it's power structures. Of course that also means that an oscillating half or more people object to government actions. If a pleurality of Indians really didn't want any govt meddling in a given area, they'd make it unconstitutional. No griping over targets when meddling is accepted.
As for "clandestine", there are multiple interpretations possible. As a rule, Customs does not announce seizures unless they're very large. Mostly I think to preserve the privacy of the offenders. Perhaps also to reduce advertising and copycatting. Oversight would be handled by whatever mechanisms in place.
I dislike people yelling "censorship" or "piracy" then they really mean banning or unauthorized copying. The exaggeration merely betrays how weak they know thier case is.
India has a right (and perhaps legal duty) to prevent undesireable material from entering the country. The Internet is not a free pass around Customs.
Hate speech (most specifically inciting violence or other illegal acts) can easily be considered conspiracy to commit the crime. Perhaps even in the absence of a specific contemplated criminal act upon a specific victim (as has been trqaditional). The point is the hate speech encourages and reinforces a perp. Incitement.
The problem with multi-species science fiction is that it assumes contemporaneous (nearly synchronous!) technological development. Yet development is entirely an artifact without obvious time-based causes. And seems to proceed very swiftly on the geologic time scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, rainfall is variable, but not as localized as anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It all mixes, or we'd have local warming.
There may very well be global warming. Temperatures _are_ higher. Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures. Effect, not cause. Humans are unlikely to be the cause: we emit annually about 0.070 kg/m2 (world average) into an atmospheric CO2 inventory of 5.4 kg/m2. 77 years of current [max] burning! And both are negligible compared to rain scrubbing of 800 kg/m2.
There may very well be global warming. Temperatures _are_ higher. Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures. Effect, not cause. Humans are unlikely to be any cause: we emit annually about 0.070 kg/m2 (world average) into an atmospheric CO2 inventory of 5.4 kg/m2. 77 years of current [max] burning! And both are negligible compared to rain scrubbing of 800 kg/m2.
Canada & Germany both have evolved strong privacy laws because they have strong, competant governmental and business entities which might use the information prejudicially. The US has far more checks-and-balances with weaker (but larger), less competant (but more likely malicious) governmental and business entities. Privacy appears less valued in the US due to increased mobility/competition.
Societies differ. Or do you actually want homogeneity -- One World Government?
The motorized [vibrating heads] seem to do a quicker job, but more blades helps. Just look at the swarf.
Personally, I like the Shick/Wilkinson Quattro (4) better than the Gillette Fusion (5), but that is probably due to other features (guard wires allowing a steeper blade angle). Both shave considerably closer than any 2 blade and usually closer than the triples.
What US President has ever dealt with any crisis effectively? Clinton on Lewinski? Cruise Missiles? GB1 on Gulf War I? Reagan on StarWars (maybe)? Carter on Inflation (maybe--appointed Volcker)? Nixon? (bad on Watergate, good on China) Johnson? ('nuff said) JFK? (bad on Bay of Pigs, good? on Cuban Missiles)
Second, it is pure hypocritical whining to expect favorable treatment from those you criticise -- especially if loudly, selectively and occasionally inaccurately. The press has been after Bush since 2000, especially compared against Clinton.
Third, it is diningenuous to compare "loss of access" suffered by US/F/J/EU? reporters with the outright assaults suffered in far less free countries. None of West/J has content laws (other than against hate crimes), but that doesn't mean the leaking or publishing state secrets should be legal. It isn't in most places, and for good reason.
Without correction for intelligence, this study merely shows that people better at math (highly colinear with intelligence -- you can't be good at math without being intelligent, but not all intelligent people are good at math) -- so obviously have fewere peers within whatever IQ range makes for a good friendship (1 sigma?).
Cuckoldry (~10% from a UK blood bank) is a stark reminder of women's independence. Sure, female infidelity is less frequent and better hidden than male. Because of more severe consequences. But ~40% isn't zero.
And that is precisely my point: everyone, including women have free will. "If you treat her right, she will stay" is mechanistic and maybe even mercenary. Some women will never leave, even if mistreated. Some will always leave even if not. If you have difficulty with this concept, tryin inverting the genders. Hint: not every man would cheat if he could. Some of us are smart enough to know better.
As for intelligence, it always isolates because it reduces the number of potentially mutually satisfying (whatever the tolerable IQ delta) interactions. Communications technology helps (especially as flat as the Internet) but it helps averages precisely the same amount.
Please check a more traditional source of defintions, like a print dictionary.
The FCC practices censorship by extortion on radio licencees. They have to air songs with the expletives deleted.
As for "clandestine", there are multiple interpretations possible. As a rule, Customs does not announce seizures unless they're very large. Mostly I think to preserve the privacy of the offenders. Perhaps also to reduce advertising and copycatting. Oversight would be handled by whatever mechanisms in place.
India has a right (and perhaps legal duty) to prevent undesireable material from entering the country. The Internet is not a free pass around Customs.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
The only limits on the growth of a bureaucracy are the competence of the denizens.
SETI's odds are very poor on this score.