Your car is poorly maintained and unroadworthy, and your brakes fail, causing you to crash into someone. The government says no one can drive any cars, no matter how well maintained, until the government changes its mind. Does the government have to pay for everyone's cab fares until they get around to relaxing the ban?
"58% of Mainstream voters have a favorable opinion of the movement. "
"Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. "
"51% of Americans had a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide"
Perhaps I spoke a little too strongly with "majority support", as those words can have many meanings. I stand by my claim that the "Tea Party" is now one of the most supported political organizations.
The "Tea Party" movement was organized by a fraction of the majority of Americans that hate taxes/government spending.
The liberal media immediately labeled them "Tea Baggers", to try to denigrate the movement before it could get traction. (It now has majority support in the United States in most polling).
In fact, I'd say the easiest method of assessing the bias of a news organization is how they make reference to the "Tea Party". Especially how they made reference to it when it was getting started.
It's not actually a Lagrange point, but it will stabilize into a GEO-sync orbit at 105 degrees (as I recall). This is because the Earth's gravitational field is "lumpy", and so everything unpowered in GEO ends up at either 105 degrees or 75 degrees. It is a similar effect, in that the defunct satellite "orbits" a point in empty space. In this case, drifting back and forth across the 05 degree point until it slowly settles there.
Please read up on the history of behind measuring the charge of an electron. You are wrong in essence, the conspiracy theorists are wrong about motivation.
But either way, you cannot trust scientists data as truth. Especially early science, when the experiment has not been copied by millions.
Scientists are human, just like anyone else. To misquote, "the scientific method is the least terrible method of finding truth that we have yet discovered."
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon) and have good accounting for human inputs to the system versus sources and sinks.
Regardless of what you think about climate change, you should reject this particular bad science. The isotopic ratio does not mean what is claimed.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have a bathtub. The drain is open, the faucet is on. You also have a drip tube putting red colored water into the tub. (This is a vaguely "to scale" stand in for the CO2 in the atmosphere. Large sinks, large sources, tiny human influence.)
You then find that the bathtub is turning red. In fact, almost none of the red dye seems to go down the drain at all! Now consider what that means - does it mean that the drip tube is causing any level changes seen in the water? Obviously, it can't. If all else was equal, you'd expect the drip tube to be diluted by the ratio between the drip tube and the faucet.
The only explanation is that the drip tube's dye must not be absorbed. And, in fact, this has been shown to be true. The carbon isotopes being measured have extremely different properties when is comes to atmospheric scrubbing. So the trace isotopes in the "buried" CO2 are not absorbed, and build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that says nothing about the causes of the overall level change.
I will now be modded down because I disclosed a mistake in one of the arguments commonly used in climate change debates, thus confirming the underlying issues in politicizing science.
This is by far the most common response - "you get what you pay for". I'm not saying that isn't what happened to you, but I have tried 7 different brands - and none of them were "cheap" brands. Incandescent bulbs last years, CFLs last days.
I'm serious - you plug a CFL into my house and it will be dead within a week. Every time, every brand. You can say it is bad wiring, or whatever (it probably is!), but I live in a high-rise condo with over 1,000 people in it. We can't change the wiring - we need CFLs that are more reliable.
And passing laws requiring us to use CFLs is not the answer.
I have tried CFLs many times (in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years), and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs. Our house isn't that strange, so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems. Since every time one of these articles gets posted on Slashdot we see many people voicing the same concerns, I think there are some pretty serious issues. I'm not sure why they are continuously ignored - if those issues are solved, CFLs would likely see broader adoption.
For my house I ended up installing "real" fluorescent lights. They work extremely well - I've been very pleased.
Well, it's slightly bigger than that. With a cross site request forgery, the cert is off. So it can be detected pretty easily. With this, the client doesn't necessarily know that it happened.
That said, there aren't that many case where this can be exploited really.
Let's say you have a web service exposed to your clients that processes orders. The error allows an arbitrary amount of data to be injected into the beginning of the client request - so the "bad guy" takes your request:
POST/OrderTheFrogs HTTP/1.0
content-length: 20
< xml >< orderafrog number=1/ >< address > my address </address > </xml >
Well, some studies have shown a very low negative correlation - 1-3 IQ points difference between denominations, if I recall correctly.
Personally, I don't believe it - the correlation is low, and the authors are quite plain about their bias. (The study goes as far as to call religion "wishful thinking".)
Sorry to ruin this party but there is an extremely well known and tested correlation between income and IQ. In fact, it is more correct to say that IQ measures income potential than to say that IQ measures "smartness".
Although that is an admirable sentiment, it does not work out in real life very often.
If I have money to invest, and then invest in something that helps humanity but doesn't provide a return on investment - I no longer have any money to invest on the next idea to help humanity. On the other hand, if I invest in something that shows a return while helping humanity I can then invest in more and more projects. This is how capitalism selects things helpful to mankind - something has to be helpful enough that you can extract value to reinvest, or it isn't done. The flow of capital naturally selects those that make good decisions. Exponential growth of goodness is the standard outcome, and is why we live in such an amazing society.
While the patent may not help you, if it is truly a useful idea patenting it makes it more likely to be developed (assuming a sizable initial investment is required). Open source software does not require a high, up front investment - so it can avoid this problem. But most things really become more valuable for mankind if patented, so it can actually get implemented.
Of course, that said, most inventors greatly overestimate the value of their ideas... myself included.
When you say "They" I take it you mean "those brown-skinned people who live in another country" aka "the terrorists".
Ah, so you're a racist.
It's not the "freedom" that people from other countries hate...
Here's a fact to balance your clue... Osama bin Laden attacked us because he was an abused child, called "son of the slave" after his father exiled his mother because she got "old", and US females defended his country.
Don't project your intolerant psychology onto others. People murder for all sorts of different reasons.
When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians, you lose what little support you may have had. You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders, repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks, give little kids food/medical attention.
While this is true for fighting an uprising, it is not for fighting terrorism. The basic psychology is different. Terrorists typically are not rational actors, they are emotional actors. When they see you give candy to a baby, they see you as weak and the baby as tainted.
The secret truth is that Osama bin Laden was an abused child. His father enslaved his mother, and then exiled her after his birth. His name was "son of the slave" while he grew up. He had classic psychological issues of abandonment and father abuse - he became his father and despised women.
Supposedly, the straw that broke the camels back for him was US females defending his country. After that, 9/11 was inevitable for him.
Those that work at companies that are entirely family or employ owned, do you feel that your company is in better shape than those public stock corporations?
Without a doubt, yes.
I own 3 companies - all three are growing through this recession. None had any debt.
It depends on the quality of solar heaters that you buy, but solar heaters in general do not require direct light. If your roof is at least warm when you'd want it heating, it will definitely work. It will sometimes work even if the roof would be cool.
These work by using transparent insulation - the light gets in, but the heat can't get out.
Not true if your house is designed properly - the roof of the house actually just provides shade for the ceiling of your house, so the temperature of the top of the roof doesn't matter. Correctly designed houses are heated by the air outside and to a lessor extant the walls and windows during the summer.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's like this:
Your car is poorly maintained and unroadworthy, and your brakes fail, causing you to crash into someone. The government says no one can drive any cars, no matter how well maintained, until the government changes its mind. Does the government have to pay for everyone's cab fares until they get around to relaxing the ban?
Hm, can't find the precise article immediately. Perhaps you could start with
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44
and move on to consider recent elections, the only polls that matter anyway. Another applicable poll is found here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/34_say_they_or_someone_close_to_them_part_of_tea_party_movement
Some choice quotes:
"58% of Mainstream voters have a favorable opinion of the movement. "
"Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. "
"51% of Americans had a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide"
Perhaps I spoke a little too strongly with "majority support", as those words can have many meanings. I stand by my claim that the "Tea Party" is now one of the most supported political organizations.
Um, no.
The "Tea Party" movement was organized by a fraction of the majority of Americans that hate taxes/government spending.
The liberal media immediately labeled them "Tea Baggers", to try to denigrate the movement before it could get traction. (It now has majority support in the United States in most polling).
In fact, I'd say the easiest method of assessing the bias of a news organization is how they make reference to the "Tea Party". Especially how they made reference to it when it was getting started.
It's not actually a Lagrange point, but it will stabilize into a GEO-sync orbit at 105 degrees (as I recall). This is because the Earth's gravitational field is "lumpy", and so everything unpowered in GEO ends up at either 105 degrees or 75 degrees. It is a similar effect, in that the defunct satellite "orbits" a point in empty space. In this case, drifting back and forth across the 05 degree point until it slowly settles there.
Please read up on the history of behind measuring the charge of an electron. You are wrong in essence, the conspiracy theorists are wrong about motivation.
But either way, you cannot trust scientists data as truth. Especially early science, when the experiment has not been copied by millions.
Scientists are human, just like anyone else. To misquote, "the scientific method is the least terrible method of finding truth that we have yet discovered."
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon) and have good accounting for human inputs to the system versus sources and sinks.
Regardless of what you think about climate change, you should reject this particular bad science. The isotopic ratio does not mean what is claimed.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have a bathtub. The drain is open, the faucet is on. You also have a drip tube putting red colored water into the tub. (This is a vaguely "to scale" stand in for the CO2 in the atmosphere. Large sinks, large sources, tiny human influence.)
You then find that the bathtub is turning red. In fact, almost none of the red dye seems to go down the drain at all! Now consider what that means - does it mean that the drip tube is causing any level changes seen in the water? Obviously, it can't. If all else was equal, you'd expect the drip tube to be diluted by the ratio between the drip tube and the faucet.
The only explanation is that the drip tube's dye must not be absorbed. And, in fact, this has been shown to be true. The carbon isotopes being measured have extremely different properties when is comes to atmospheric scrubbing. So the trace isotopes in the "buried" CO2 are not absorbed, and build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that says nothing about the causes of the overall level change.
I will now be modded down because I disclosed a mistake in one of the arguments commonly used in climate change debates, thus confirming the underlying issues in politicizing science.
It is not bi-partisan to say "vote for my stuff without any changes."
This is by far the most common response - "you get what you pay for". I'm not saying that isn't what happened to you, but I have tried 7 different brands - and none of them were "cheap" brands. Incandescent bulbs last years, CFLs last days.
I'm serious - you plug a CFL into my house and it will be dead within a week. Every time, every brand. You can say it is bad wiring, or whatever (it probably is!), but I live in a high-rise condo with over 1,000 people in it. We can't change the wiring - we need CFLs that are more reliable.
And passing laws requiring us to use CFLs is not the answer.
I have tried CFLs many times (in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years), and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs. Our house isn't that strange, so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems. Since every time one of these articles gets posted on Slashdot we see many people voicing the same concerns, I think there are some pretty serious issues. I'm not sure why they are continuously ignored - if those issues are solved, CFLs would likely see broader adoption.
For my house I ended up installing "real" fluorescent lights. They work extremely well - I've been very pleased.
Well, it's slightly bigger than that. With a cross site request forgery, the cert is off. So it can be detected pretty easily. With this, the client doesn't necessarily know that it happened.
That said, there aren't that many case where this can be exploited really.
Let's say you have a web service exposed to your clients that processes orders. The error allows an arbitrary amount of data to be injected into the beginning of the client request - so the "bad guy" takes your request:
/OrderTheFrogs HTTP/1.0
/address > < /xml >
/OrderTheFrogs HTTP/1.0
/address > < /xml >
/OrderTheFrogs HTTP/1.0
/address > < /xml >
POST
content-length: 20
< xml >< orderafrog number=1/ >< address > my address <
And converts it to:
POST
content-length: 24
< xml >< orderafrog number=100/ >< address > evil address <
POST
content-length: 20
< xml >< orderafrog number=1/ >< address > my address <
by using this attack to insert the evil request before yours. Now 100 items are sent to the evil address, and presumably are billed to you!
Well, some studies have shown a very low negative correlation - 1-3 IQ points difference between denominations, if I recall correctly.
Personally, I don't believe it - the correlation is low, and the authors are quite plain about their bias. (The study goes as far as to call religion "wishful thinking".)
Sorry to ruin this party but there is an extremely well known and tested correlation between income and IQ. In fact, it is more correct to say that IQ measures income potential than to say that IQ measures "smartness".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
True - although in that you at least can get grants.
Although that is an admirable sentiment, it does not work out in real life very often.
If I have money to invest, and then invest in something that helps humanity but doesn't provide a return on investment - I no longer have any money to invest on the next idea to help humanity. On the other hand, if I invest in something that shows a return while helping humanity I can then invest in more and more projects. This is how capitalism selects things helpful to mankind - something has to be helpful enough that you can extract value to reinvest, or it isn't done. The flow of capital naturally selects those that make good decisions. Exponential growth of goodness is the standard outcome, and is why we live in such an amazing society.
While the patent may not help you, if it is truly a useful idea patenting it makes it more likely to be developed (assuming a sizable initial investment is required). Open source software does not require a high, up front investment - so it can avoid this problem. But most things really become more valuable for mankind if patented, so it can actually get implemented.
Of course, that said, most inventors greatly overestimate the value of their ideas... myself included.
When you say "They" I take it you mean "those brown-skinned people who live in another country" aka "the terrorists".
Ah, so you're a racist.
It's not the "freedom" that people from other countries hate...
Here's a fact to balance your clue... Osama bin Laden attacked us because he was an abused child, called "son of the slave" after his father exiled his mother because she got "old", and US females defended his country.
Don't project your intolerant psychology onto others. People murder for all sorts of different reasons.
When surprise attacks indiscriminately kill both combatants and civilians, you lose what little support you may have had. You have to go out there into the bush at the squad or platoon level and interact with local leaders, repair damage from both insurgent and counterinsurgent attacks, give little kids food/medical attention.
While this is true for fighting an uprising, it is not for fighting terrorism. The basic psychology is different. Terrorists typically are not rational actors, they are emotional actors. When they see you give candy to a baby, they see you as weak and the baby as tainted.
The secret truth is that Osama bin Laden was an abused child. His father enslaved his mother, and then exiled her after his birth. His name was "son of the slave" while he grew up. He had classic psychological issues of abandonment and father abuse - he became his father and despised women.
Supposedly, the straw that broke the camels back for him was US females defending his country. After that, 9/11 was inevitable for him.
Of course, that was because the British used British officers and German troops...
Unfortunately, no matter what we do this will happen. Better us than them. They target civilians. We accidentally hit civilians.
Well, you don't want to waste a good crisis like this!
If the girl's parents had done this to her, the child would be forcibly removed from the home.
Imagine our healthcare taxes going into the active development of new and useful treatments and remedies that aren't too expensive to use?
And imagine Harry Reid deciding which drugs are worth investment?
Those that work at companies that are entirely family or employ owned, do you feel that your company is in better shape than those public stock corporations?
Without a doubt, yes.
I own 3 companies - all three are growing through this recession. None had any debt.
It depends on the quality of solar heaters that you buy, but solar heaters in general do not require direct light. If your roof is at least warm when you'd want it heating, it will definitely work. It will sometimes work even if the roof would be cool.
These work by using transparent insulation - the light gets in, but the heat can't get out.
Not true if your house is designed properly - the roof of the house actually just provides shade for the ceiling of your house, so the temperature of the top of the roof doesn't matter. Correctly designed houses are heated by the air outside and to a lessor extant the walls and windows during the summer.