I am willing to learn, and I enjoy this argument, actually I enjoy being the sceptic no matter what the subject, be it creationism, or whatnot. Without sceptics, there is no science, because if every scientist just tries to prove things, they will end up ignoring evidence to the contrary (not because they mean to, but because they inadvertantly do so...hence double blind studies in other fields..)
I am not trying to say those people are stupid or incompetent. Or you for that matter. I guess I can't explain that the studies you are referencing are completly different then the ones I am. Its comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the feedback mechanism of CO2 exists, as does any greenhouse gas from methane on down. But these are based on studies of local weather patterns, and experiements in labs which I agree try their best to replicate what the Earth experiences.
I just don't think we can model climate based on models that don't completly understand or explain why we have cooling periods and warming periods both inside of era's of increased CO2. These models make sense today because both CO2 in the atmosphere is going up, as is the global climate temperature. But is there some other feedback mechanism that is yet undiscovered? Or does CO2 play a very small role in the global climate scale enough so that its increase does very little to global climate...these are the questions I have been trying to ask of you....
Did you check out my link for the other periods in mankind's history where increased CO2 was linked to global cooling? The ice age comment was just to have some fun with to be honest..
But what about my other example: the global climate cooled between 1940-1970ish. This is in the same period where CO2 in the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gases) went up.
This is global climate here. Then the Earth starting warming up since then a little bit, and now we are in a warming trend. Is CO2 really the culprit and can you really make models based off of this assumption?
Thats another one for you. I already gave the link to that research.
So what we basically use today to promote global warming is an ignoring of the fact that the world was enveloped in a little ice age (1300-1850) so what is done is that we start the models at the very end of this era when the earth is naturally warming.... And we say that well this must be global warming because from 1850 - present world temperatures have increased....as has coincidently CO2....
Why not start the models in 1300 when the earth drastically cooled down? Or we can start them in 1000ad and get the same effect we have now which is when the medieval warming period occurred. But if we did either of those, CO2 is not a major component in the models and the models predict much more diverse and interesting results. The models I saw showed not very much change in the ups and downs of the global climate. Even taking into consideration of CO2, the effect was minimal in global temperature.
Never mind the fact that even huge sacrifices such as kyoto would only account for a global temperature decrease of.015 degrees as determined by the experts.
Or the fact that for some reason the southern hemisphere of our planet is not warming up at present... Kind of makes one wonder.
But I still do my part not because I believe in global warming, but because I believe there is no reason to be wasteful...That is something I am sure we can both agree on. I carpool, I drive a small fuel efficient car (not a hybrid,can't quite afford it at present), and I attempt to use the least amount of electricity as possible. Give me mass transit in my area and I will use that too.
And for the record: I find the dilbert jokes hilarious. I don't drive a large car (like I said), but anyone who takes that seriously really has issues with their sexuality.
OK, I built a simple model using the data from the ice cores from this website. The model says with 99.9% certainty that in the next 5000 years we will experience an ice age.
Do I trust my own model? No, I trust it as much as the other models I disputed before. And I although I will state this a million times here on out: No one really understands how CO2 effects global climate.
As for the physics vs. data mining, are you kidding? I am disputing the physics behind these models. I do question whether these models were created correctly, but even if I assume they are, they are incorrect because they are based on what I have shown to be a very weak if not false premise. I am disputing trusting statistics because we do not understand our climate enough to draw conclusions on what our impact on the Earth is going to be. Yes, CO2 has a certain effect on the earth's climate. What is that effect? There are so many other factors that you can not even begin to tell me that simply making a model based on the premise that the only changes are going to be more greenhouse gases can be correct in any manner. I provided studies that showed a reverse correlation in co2 and the earth's climate.... So now you argue that I am wrong simply because experiments in labortories say otherwise? We are talking climate here, not a laboratory where everything is controlled. I am not disputing CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I am not disputing the greenhouse effect in general. But obviously I must be an idiot if I don't believe in global warming, so go figure.
I can also argue about how statistics confuse science just as much as it helps it, but thats a long argument. You can't take statistics and take it for the gospel truth until you unravel the methods used. This is why statistics by themselves mean zilch. The scientific method uses statistics very carefully, and although its a very useful tool, its not something to take as basis simply because someone says "With this degree of confidence". And extrapolation...Don't even get me started on how wrong I have been with modeling sometimes trying this. And here we have people doing it regularly...
"The models that really get me are the ones that predict the weather 100 years from now based on 100 years worth of data."
Seriously, you have to know I mispoke there. Substitute climate for weather and come back. No I didn't confuse weather with climate. I simply said weather when I meant to say climate.
As for your analogy, try again. Its more like starting from the rock at location X not knowing the direction its flying, the gravity involved, and the initial velocity and attempting to predict its location in the next second. There are too many contradictory studies on CO2 and its effect on the earth's climate to draw a conclusion in any direction even assuming the only constant is going to be an increase in greenhouse gases...
You can predict the effect CO2 has based on sound science, but why do studies show climate changing based on other factors? And why in the earth's past is there a history of increased co2 in the atmosphere prior to ice ages? How about my model again? Should I show you why an increase in CO2 lead to the ice age....well duh I don't know why....and apperantly neither do the scientists who are creating the global warming models.
"It is simply ridiculous to claim that CO2 causes cooling; it is at odds with both theory and observation"
And yet empirical evidence says otherwise. Observation indeed says co2 may cause cooling, the reason this happens is NOT understood, which is my point... Maybe it has nothing to do with the increased CO2 but some other not yet understood global climate mechanic.
"As I noted in my previous comment, climate forecasts are not based on mere statistical extrapolation, they are based on physical prediction."
What do you think data mining is? Have you ever done any of it? In the data mining field we call extrapolation (which has to do with the future) as true error. This means the error margins are IMPOSSIBLE to determine. Sure, you can state using statistics that this prediction has a 95% chance of being within 2 degrees, but that does not mean anything because using extrapolation with large amounts of data will never give you any sort of accuraccy. Like I said, no one knows the future. If you could use data mining to predict the future, these scientists would be retired as millionaires who had played the stock market correctly....
But hence, with large modeling, comes large innaccuracies. My main point is that these models are based on a correlation of temperature increase with increased CO2 and yet this doesn't seem to be the case....which makes the models in themselves suspect.
I always suspect anyone that tells me they can predict the future as suspect. Another "science" that predicts the future is palm reading, and yet we reject this...
There is a study for you that contridicts the CO2 theory. I am not sitting here debunking the fact that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas...that is well known and documented. What I am questioning here is does CO2 indeed raise the Earth's temperature?
A fact is that there is no sound scientific data that climate change and CO2 correlate. Indeed, all the studies are either inconclusive or say the opposite. Studies of icecaps indicate that before every iceage the earth's CO2 levels were much higher then at any time...so mankind's influence through CO2 has probably more chance of generating an ice age, but to be honest, I don't believe our influence will do that. Especially if people become educated and greener, we will stop mankind's shameful hurting of the earth.
"Statistics are the basis of sound science, and if you think no fact can be construed from statistics, than pretty much all science is bunk."
Now you say these models which are based on CO2 warming the earth are scientific basis? Statistics are always right?
Look up the Truman/Dewey election. Was that sound scientific evidence there that Dewey won the election? It was well within the range of the error...and yet Truman won. How many examples must I give you about statistics and how they can be misused before you will see the light?
Global warming is not science, its like creationism Vs evolution. You state a belief and get modded up, and I provide scientific evidence to the contrary and get modded no where.
As for statistics being the basis of sound science! No, the basis of sound science is the scientific method where you start out with a hypothesis and try to prove it through proofs, not statistics that are easy to mis-use both intentionally and in-advertantly. Take a statistics 101 and find out what I am talking about. Causation, correlation are all terms that will help you out here. CO2 does not even correlate with the earth's climate, and yet we build models based on the premis that it does. I provided scientific proof, which you seem to have missed. You just stated your belief. I am still waiting on your science that shows a correlation of higher CO2 and higher temperatures on the earth.
Or if we want to argue about global warming some more: tell me why the New York Times has changed its views on the earth's climate 3 times in the last 100 years?
Around 1900 the newspaper stated that we were on the verge of an Ice Age.
1930: We were in the grip of global warming and the heat wave would burn us out.
1970's: We are on the verge of an ice age and should watch out.
Today: Global warming.
Like I said, no one knows the future. Anyone claiming to is doing something dangerous in statistics which is called extrapolation. In statistics no error margin can account for extrapolation....
Sounds scientific basis is not what global warming has...what it has is computer modeling that supports a theory that its possible that man-kind will increase the temperature of the earth by CO2 emissions. When you perform data mining on large amounts of data, you use something called statistics which can be scewed depending on the model you are using, and how long into the future you attempt to predict. Not to mention which modeling technique you use, or what data you guess on, or what data you simply throw out.
To explain further, the models are based on data starting in different years, with different levels of scientific precision, and in many cases the data is not necassarilly reliable. If you start in 1810, a lot of the data from other parts of the Earth are missing. If you start later, your model does not have that much data to really predict the climate. The models that really get me are the ones that predict the weather 100 years from now based on 100 years worth of data. Thats like predicting whats going to happen in the NFL next year based on what happened this year and taking it as scientific fact.
No one really knows the future, and although models may support something, you are still using statistics which we all know that 60% of all statistics are made up. 61% maybe?
Sure, there are models out there that support global warming, but there are also models that don't. Sound scientific basis doesn't use statistics. Scientific basis in this case would be if you could prove that increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere increases the Earth's temperature all by itself. There are too many factors in the science of climate that makes this causation unprovable, and in addition there is no direct evidence or science that even shows a correlation. There is more evidence that smoking increases your chances of lung cancer then the claim of global warming.
This is because the climatology is in its infancy and until all the factors of the Earth's climate are figured out, you can't call it sound scientific basis. Do I reject global warming personally? Absolutly not. I do believe that we should go greener and that we should by all means do everything in our power to preserve this planet for future generations, but I also believe that in this case that the statistics used can NEVER be construed as SOUND scientific basis.
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul
Correction:
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; Either throw my vote away on a lost cause because people do not want what these people offer, or I'll write in some random Republican who sprouts off ideas that sound good on paper but when you annalyze them actually don't work.
Oh and that random Republican also votes against the party a lot, so he really isn't a Republican even though he calls himself one and ran on the party ticket. Excuse me, I just like confusing issues when the real issue in politics is always going to be the lesser of two evils in the end, and for now still the lesser of three evils. Thats why Ron Paul excites me because he is one confused little puppy.
" The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. "
Hate to disagree, I agree its wrong, but everything Bush did was using loopholes that exist in the laws (US Congress), Constitution, and in the Geneva Convention. I agree with you about the in spirit part, but as long as no one stands up to him and closes the loopholes (Hello geneva convention, congress, Supreme court) He has every right to continue doing this. The fact that this was allowed for so long should not reflect on him, but on others who refused to buck the trend. This is THE reason the top Nazi brass on down to the common soldier were later condemned. The soldiers may have been following their orders, but they could have disobeyed at any time.
" As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not."
For one, you compare him to the top Nazi brass, why? According to you he broke the Geneva convention, so that must make him just like the Top Nazi brass who baked Jews in ovens for fun? Give me a break, stop pulling out the Nazi card whenever someone does something that vaguely resembles them. I know how to make my model trains run on time, and Hitler did the same, does that make me anything like Hitler?
And two, if he is like the Top Nazi brass, those who allowed it to continue (Congress, supreme court, military, CIA, even other nations who didn't stop him all deserve to be punished as well). Even you as a civilian deserve some of the punishment for not doing the right thing and swimming to Cuba and start breaking the prisoners out. If this is bad as the Nazi brass as you claim, then you should have done something big to make a point. Your own life is nothing compared to the lives of those whose liberty have been violated, or did I misread your post, only other people's lives should be sacrificed, and that you should be able to just post rhetoric. That would make you a coward.
"No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.
If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm."
Since I just proved how you were a coward, I agree, no immunity for you. Let justice commence with an old-fashioned stoning.
NASA does not have the funding it had during the apollo era, so they are doing the best they can on low budgets.
On the other hand, I am just glad to see that instead of sending teachers and other non-astronauts into space they are actually trying to go forward and do something productive. The mission more resembles what was seen in the movie Red Planet where everything was made to be self-sustainable and there was really not much room for problems.
Of course, the plot to that is much different then this is going to be, but whatever.
"20 years ago, I wouldn't have even thought to question NASA's work, but their track record lately invites such abuse."
You underfund the agency and expect huge rewards? We dumped so much more money into NASA back in the days of the spacerace and we as a society benefited from hundreds of technologies that today we take for granted.
I am not saying NASA shouldn't be watched for spending....but you can't expect an agency to perform if you don't give it money.
This may not be a huge accomplishment, but being able to withstand higher heat means that you can keep your current cooling apparatus the same and simply allow the chip to run faster (and hotter). Yes, the heat still needs to escape, and there may be other problems with implementation, but you have to take that first step first.
"Take the middle ground, then. Download the show now, watch it, talk about it, etc. But then buy the DVD when it comes out. "
You can download the show off their website. I caught up on the heroes series by watching it all off of their website. Its better then TV because instead of 5 minutes of commericals its only 30 seconds per 10 minutes. And it is on their website within 24 hours of it airing.
Why download it illegally if they offer it for free anyway? The copyright laws I agree are stupid and poorly thought out and should be rewritten. But there is no middle ground when it comes to breaking laws. You either do it or you don't. Make a decision, don't tell yourself its all right if you make it legal later. Thats like downloading every MP3 in sight, then when you get sued by the record companies simply going out and buying all of those MP3's on CD, and telling the record company to shove off. No difference really.
As for NBC, I now feel much better about tivo'ing their shows and then never watching one commercial. Screw them imo. And screw buying those DVD's. Those thing are way over-priced.
Well if its true that there are process by which our DNA can be changed by other organisms, and some older traits brought out through some sort of manipulation (like Phoenix), it just stands to reason that dormant parts of our DNA could theoritically be brought out if you used the right bacteria. Couldn't it stand to reason that you could introduce certain bacteria which can then change our DNA into something really cool like regeneration properties often found in reptiles, and/or CO2 tolerance found within aligators/crocs who can increase their underwater time by a lot?
I mean if you think of it like that, the possibilies could be limitless.
Maybe I am just pessimistic, but the fact that the bigwigs do not explain the circumstances behind the fires makes me unsettled. Sure, there could be a natural explanation (Summer heat + some unfortunate other circumstance) or misuse, but what troubles me is that the bigwig said the batteries were safe without a full investigation.
Now maybe this is for legal reasons, but at the very least they should explain why this happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Or if the batteries are indeed safe, tell us that with proof.
The only close relative of HIV is the simian virus found in the common chimpanzee.
Today, the best theory on how HIV spread from humans to chimps IMHO is the fault of the Winstar Institute in Philadelphia which created polio vaccines in the middle of Africa. They deny that any chimps were used, as the usual method involved harvesting Monkey kidneys, however, out of the rest of the theories, this seems to be the best case. They were probably experimenting with different procedures and inadvertantly released this on the world.
I will add a disclaimer to this: it is not fact that this is where HIV came from, this is simply a theory.
"the battery design was sound, as were the safety features," and concluded that "the risk of hazardous failures with this battery is as low, if not lower, than the risk with alternative batteries, which are used by other telecommunications and cable companies in similar applications."
IF the battery design was sound, why did 2 of them start fires?
"Strike Two: It mentions water as a by-product. Are we going to need a condensate line to remove this water from our laptops?
Strike Three: I can see the new Warranty Info on laptops powered in this manner. Damages caused by clogged condensate lines are not covered under your warranty."
Or use the water to cool the laptop...As the water evaporates, it is removed and voila no waste. But unfortunatly, I see no counter to your warrenty info argument. Something goes wrong, things get fried.
But its really a moot point still. We are talking about a battery that only powers a walkman atm. Heck, I bet for a walkman this would be useful, as water squirted out could help you cool off as you jog. Just make the walkman waterproof.
Shrug...like most things I will just wait until its cheap enough to buy without selling my first born.
"But I know your not perfect, and I am not perfect"
Thats from what I posted. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I am not saying that morality can only come from christianity, I was simply questioning your morality from the post you made. You implied that your moral code is based around what other people thought of you, and since you have clarified that, I congratulate you on being a good moral person, and I am not going to get on a high-horse like most and claim you are a bad person for being an atheist and so on.
As for Jesus changing things, thats the basis behind christianity. Under jewish law, it was the "Eye for an eye" philosophy which was what was behind the stoning we were discussing earlier. Jesus preaches understanding, reasoning, and forgiveness along with "turn the other cheak" as opposed to stoning. The new testament of the bible is what christianity is about, and although the old testament is still important, it is trumped by the new testament.
As for your morality, thats good that you are a good person, and I agree that people can be good without religion. One of my best friends is an atheist, and long ago we agreed to not talk about religion whatsoever. He is a good person as well. We get along fine since our morality is similar, we have similar political views, he just simply does not believe in God. Maybe you are like him, but who knows? You can never know what a person really thinks over the internet.
The bible is not the only thing used to justify wars and otherwise immoral behavior. Oil, greed, fear of the communist monster, wanting to take over the world come to mind too.
If you are fearing punishment from your god, you are not truly a christian, you are just someone hedging his bets. I am not going to argue over the existance of God, because that is pointless since it will always take a leap of faith to believe anyway. But the one point you must realize is that most christians are reasonable people and realize that Jesus changed everything in the old testament which includes "stoning" and other Jewish laws that I can respect for someone who is a devout jew, but from a christian standpoint, its a different religion.
As far as morality goes, your morality seems to be based around how you want others to treat you and the fact you want to be seen as a good person. In your mind therefore, anything is permissable as long as others don't catch you doing it. Would you kick that same old women in the neck if no one would see it? You could wear a mask and no one would ever know....
Heck, it might even be good therapy. Or are you trying to say you believe in a system of karma? We all do things to a certain level of selfishness and there is no one who is perfect. But I know your not perfect, and I am not perfect, so lets just agree to that and do our best to be good people regardless of what we really believe in. Whether or not morality is God or in our genes, the existence of aliens will not destroy either one, and I think reasonable people will realize this.
This has been done many times in the past, and I am sure it will continue to happen. Most common were the times that people would set-up false bank of america websites and people would type in their account information....perfect set-up. What was even better was that these sites sometimes were set to bankofamrica.com or some slight variation of the site, so the common user would have no idea they were at the wrong site.
Well there are safeguards for this now, and I am sure if it gets to be a problem like that was at one time, it will also get fixed.
He may put a disclaimer in somewhere, but the trademark issue circles around whether or not a normal person would confuse this product with a guidebook that was written by blizzard. This is known as liklihood of confusion.
Or to rephrase: you have a right to create a guidebook, but you do not have the right to abuse someone else's good name in order to sell more copies. For instance, you can't confuse people into thinking your book was written by blizzard or is sanctioned by blizzard. It doesn't matter that you put a disclaimer anywhere...It won't save you from this.
Copyright issues are cut and dry and I doubt that will pan out at all in a lawsuit.
Being well-known and liked with a close group of friends could be useful in larger society if those around you are extroverts. Think introvert who is the leader of a bunch of extroverts...
And what about the Savings and loans fiasco? That was caused by Carter de-regulating the S&L industry. That fiasco cost billions in tax payer dollars. That probably did not HELP the economy whatsoever. It wasn't all a big Reagon conspiracy to make the economy bad so he could get elected. Carter did enough to dig his own grave.
The entire premise behind ET hacking SETI is ironic if you think about it, nothing more.
Personally, if I was an alien, I would hack something else, SETI would be somewhere on the bottom of my list.
If I just needed to hack one computer to replicate my AI virus, I would go for some college kids computer that is running windows unpatched. Easy, and sure.
Otherwise, if I needed important computer systems, I think Dept of Def. is a little more important then SETI. Or, financial institutions, but put simply, anything BUT SETI for importance.
Maybe they would hack SETI for distribution purposes. HAHA But MS has a much better dist. network (patches go out to just about everyone with a PC). As does about every company out there.
Put simply, there is just no logical reason that someone would hack SETI above any of the millions of other good alternatives. On the slightly funnier side, they may do it to show a sense of humor (at irony.)
"I can't believe that you guys are bold enough to actually curse that kid who died, and on top of that offend the parents and add to their pain"
So, we should respect parents who publicize how stupid their late son was? Give me a break. They could have mourned quietly and given their son dignity, but instead they opted to get rich.
Obviously:
Money > son's dignity.
Maybe I shouldn't be so critical, but this story does remind me of many darwin award winners I read about.
Slashdot Mirror
I am willing to learn, and I enjoy this argument, actually I enjoy being the sceptic no matter what the subject, be it creationism, or whatnot. Without sceptics, there is no science, because if every scientist just tries to prove things, they will end up ignoring evidence to the contrary (not because they mean to, but because they inadvertantly do so...hence double blind studies in other fields..)
.015 degrees as determined by the experts.
I am not trying to say those people are stupid or incompetent. Or you for that matter. I guess I can't explain that the studies you are referencing are completly different then the ones I am. Its comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the feedback mechanism of CO2 exists, as does any greenhouse gas from methane on down. But these are based on studies of local weather patterns, and experiements in labs which I agree try their best to replicate what the Earth experiences.
I just don't think we can model climate based on models that don't completly understand or explain why we have cooling periods and warming periods both inside of era's of increased CO2. These models make sense today because both CO2 in the atmosphere is going up, as is the global climate temperature. But is there some other feedback mechanism that is yet undiscovered? Or does CO2 play a very small role in the global climate scale enough so that its increase does very little to global climate...these are the questions I have been trying to ask of you....
Did you check out my link for the other periods in mankind's history where increased CO2 was linked to global cooling? The ice age comment was just to have some fun with to be honest..
But what about my other example: the global climate cooled between 1940-1970ish. This is in the same period where CO2 in the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gases) went up.
This is global climate here. Then the Earth starting warming up since then a little bit, and now we are in a warming trend. Is CO2 really the culprit and can you really make models based off of this assumption?
Thats another one for you. I already gave the link to that research.
So what we basically use today to promote global warming is an ignoring of the fact that the world was enveloped in a little ice age (1300-1850) so what is done is that we start the models at the very end of this era when the earth is naturally warming.... And we say that well this must be global warming because from 1850 - present world temperatures have increased....as has coincidently CO2....
Why not start the models in 1300 when the earth drastically cooled down? Or we can start them in 1000ad and get the same effect we have now which is when the medieval warming period occurred. But if we did either of those, CO2 is not a major component in the models and the models predict much more diverse and interesting results. The models I saw showed not very much change in the ups and downs of the global climate. Even taking into consideration of CO2, the effect was minimal in global temperature.
Never mind the fact that even huge sacrifices such as kyoto would only account for a global temperature decrease of
Or the fact that for some reason the southern hemisphere of our planet is not warming up at present... Kind of makes one wonder.
But I still do my part not because I believe in global warming, but because I believe there is no reason to be wasteful...That is something I am sure we can both agree on. I carpool, I drive a small fuel efficient car (not a hybrid,can't quite afford it at present), and I attempt to use the least amount of electricity as possible. Give me mass transit in my area and I will use that too.
And for the record: I find the dilbert jokes hilarious. I don't drive a large car (like I said), but anyone who takes that seriously really has issues with their sexuality.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/
OK, I built a simple model using the data from the ice cores from this website. The model says with 99.9% certainty that in the next 5000 years we will experience an ice age.
Do I trust my own model? No, I trust it as much as the other models I disputed before. And I although I will state this a million times here on out: No one really understands how CO2 effects global climate.
As for the physics vs. data mining, are you kidding? I am disputing the physics behind these models. I do question whether these models were created correctly, but even if I assume they are, they are incorrect because they are based on what I have shown to be a very weak if not false premise. I am disputing trusting statistics because we do not understand our climate enough to draw conclusions on what our impact on the Earth is going to be. Yes, CO2 has a certain effect on the earth's climate. What is that effect? There are so many other factors that you can not even begin to tell me that simply making a model based on the premise that the only changes are going to be more greenhouse gases can be correct in any manner. I provided studies that showed a reverse correlation in co2 and the earth's climate.... So now you argue that I am wrong simply because experiments in labortories say otherwise? We are talking climate here, not a laboratory where everything is controlled. I am not disputing CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I am not disputing the greenhouse effect in general. But obviously I must be an idiot if I don't believe in global warming, so go figure.
I can also argue about how statistics confuse science just as much as it helps it, but thats a long argument. You can't take statistics and take it for the gospel truth until you unravel the methods used. This is why statistics by themselves mean zilch. The scientific method uses statistics very carefully, and although its a very useful tool, its not something to take as basis simply because someone says "With this degree of confidence". And extrapolation...Don't even get me started on how wrong I have been with modeling sometimes trying this. And here we have people doing it regularly...
"The models that really get me are the ones that predict the weather 100 years from now based on 100 years worth of data."
Seriously, you have to know I mispoke there. Substitute climate for weather and come back. No I didn't confuse weather with climate. I simply said weather when I meant to say climate.
As for your analogy, try again. Its more like starting from the rock at location X not knowing the direction its flying, the gravity involved, and the initial velocity and attempting to predict its location in the next second. There are too many contradictory studies on CO2 and its effect on the earth's climate to draw a conclusion in any direction even assuming the only constant is going to be an increase in greenhouse gases...
You can predict the effect CO2 has based on sound science, but why do studies show climate changing based on other factors? And why in the earth's past is there a history of increased co2 in the atmosphere prior to ice ages? How about my model again? Should I show you why an increase in CO2 lead to the ice age....well duh I don't know why....and apperantly neither do the scientists who are creating the global warming models.
"It is simply ridiculous to claim that CO2 causes cooling; it is at odds with both theory and observation"
And yet empirical evidence says otherwise. Observation indeed says co2 may cause cooling, the reason this happens is NOT understood, which is my point... Maybe it has nothing to do with the increased CO2 but some other not yet understood global climate mechanic.
"As I noted in my previous comment, climate forecasts are not based on mere statistical extrapolation, they are based on physical prediction."
What do you think data mining is? Have you ever done any of it? In the data mining field we call extrapolation (which has to do with the future) as true error. This means the error margins are IMPOSSIBLE to determine. Sure, you can state using statistics that this prediction has a 95% chance of being within 2 degrees, but that does not mean anything because using extrapolation with large amounts of data will never give you any sort of accuraccy. Like I said, no one knows the future. If you could use data mining to predict the future, these scientists would be retired as millionaires who had played the stock market correctly....
But hence, with large modeling, comes large innaccuracies. My main point is that these models are based on a correlation of temperature increase with increased CO2 and yet this doesn't seem to be the case....which makes the models in themselves suspect.
I always suspect anyone that tells me they can predict the future as suspect. Another "science" that predicts the future is palm reading, and yet we reject this...
http://www.mruzik.com/CO2.html
There is a study for you that contridicts the CO2 theory. I am not sitting here debunking the fact that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas...that is well known and documented. What I am questioning here is does CO2 indeed raise the Earth's temperature?
A fact is that there is no sound scientific data that climate change and CO2 correlate. Indeed, all the studies are either inconclusive or say the opposite. Studies of icecaps indicate that before every iceage the earth's CO2 levels were much higher then at any time...so mankind's influence through CO2 has probably more chance of generating an ice age, but to be honest, I don't believe our influence will do that. Especially if people become educated and greener, we will stop mankind's shameful hurting of the earth.
"Statistics are the basis of sound science, and if you think no fact can be construed from statistics, than pretty much all science is bunk."
Now you say these models which are based on CO2 warming the earth are scientific basis? Statistics are always right?
Look up the Truman/Dewey election. Was that sound scientific evidence there that Dewey won the election? It was well within the range of the error...and yet Truman won. How many examples must I give you about statistics and how they can be misused before you will see the light?
Global warming is not science, its like creationism Vs evolution. You state a belief and get modded up, and I provide scientific evidence to the contrary and get modded no where.
As for statistics being the basis of sound science! No, the basis of sound science is the scientific method where you start out with a hypothesis and try to prove it through proofs, not statistics that are easy to mis-use both intentionally and in-advertantly. Take a statistics 101 and find out what I am talking about. Causation, correlation are all terms that will help you out here. CO2 does not even correlate with the earth's climate, and yet we build models based on the premis that it does. I provided scientific proof, which you seem to have missed. You just stated your belief. I am still waiting on your science that shows a correlation of higher CO2 and higher temperatures on the earth.
Or if we want to argue about global warming some more: tell me why the New York Times has changed its views on the earth's climate 3 times in the last 100 years?
Around 1900 the newspaper stated that we were on the verge of an Ice Age.
1930: We were in the grip of global warming and the heat wave would burn us out.
1970's: We are on the verge of an ice age and should watch out.
Today: Global warming.
Like I said, no one knows the future. Anyone claiming to is doing something dangerous in statistics which is called extrapolation. In statistics no error margin can account for extrapolation....
Sounds scientific basis is not what global warming has...what it has is computer modeling that supports a theory that its possible that man-kind will increase the temperature of the earth by CO2 emissions. When you perform data mining on large amounts of data, you use something called statistics which can be scewed depending on the model you are using, and how long into the future you attempt to predict. Not to mention which modeling technique you use, or what data you guess on, or what data you simply throw out.
To explain further, the models are based on data starting in different years, with different levels of scientific precision, and in many cases the data is not necassarilly reliable. If you start in 1810, a lot of the data from other parts of the Earth are missing. If you start later, your model does not have that much data to really predict the climate. The models that really get me are the ones that predict the weather 100 years from now based on 100 years worth of data. Thats like predicting whats going to happen in the NFL next year based on what happened this year and taking it as scientific fact.
No one really knows the future, and although models may support something, you are still using statistics which we all know that 60% of all statistics are made up. 61% maybe?
Sure, there are models out there that support global warming, but there are also models that don't. Sound scientific basis doesn't use statistics. Scientific basis in this case would be if you could prove that increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere increases the Earth's temperature all by itself. There are too many factors in the science of climate that makes this causation unprovable, and in addition there is no direct evidence or science that even shows a correlation. There is more evidence that smoking increases your chances of lung cancer then the claim of global warming.
This is because the climatology is in its infancy and until all the factors of the Earth's climate are figured out, you can't call it sound scientific basis. Do I reject global warming personally? Absolutly not. I do believe that we should go greener and that we should by all means do everything in our power to preserve this planet for future generations, but I also believe that in this case that the statistics used can NEVER be construed as SOUND scientific basis.
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul
Correction:
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; Either throw my vote away on a lost cause because people do not want what these people offer, or I'll write in some random Republican who sprouts off ideas that sound good on paper but when you annalyze them actually don't work.
Oh and that random Republican also votes against the party a lot, so he really isn't a Republican even though he calls himself one and ran on the party ticket. Excuse me, I just like confusing issues when the real issue in politics is always going to be the lesser of two evils in the end, and for now still the lesser of three evils. Thats why Ron Paul excites me because he is one confused little puppy.
" The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. "
Hate to disagree, I agree its wrong, but everything Bush did was using loopholes that exist in the laws (US Congress), Constitution, and in the Geneva Convention. I agree with you about the in spirit part, but as long as no one stands up to him and closes the loopholes (Hello geneva convention, congress, Supreme court) He has every right to continue doing this. The fact that this was allowed for so long should not reflect on him, but on others who refused to buck the trend. This is THE reason the top Nazi brass on down to the common soldier were later condemned. The soldiers may have been following their orders, but they could have disobeyed at any time.
" As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not."
For one, you compare him to the top Nazi brass, why? According to you he broke the Geneva convention, so that must make him just like the Top Nazi brass who baked Jews in ovens for fun? Give me a break, stop pulling out the Nazi card whenever someone does something that vaguely resembles them. I know how to make my model trains run on time, and Hitler did the same, does that make me anything like Hitler?
And two, if he is like the Top Nazi brass, those who allowed it to continue (Congress, supreme court, military, CIA, even other nations who didn't stop him all deserve to be punished as well). Even you as a civilian deserve some of the punishment for not doing the right thing and swimming to Cuba and start breaking the prisoners out. If this is bad as the Nazi brass as you claim, then you should have done something big to make a point. Your own life is nothing compared to the lives of those whose liberty have been violated, or did I misread your post, only other people's lives should be sacrificed, and that you should be able to just post rhetoric. That would make you a coward.
"No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.
If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm."
Since I just proved how you were a coward, I agree, no immunity for you. Let justice commence with an old-fashioned stoning.
NASA does not have the funding it had during the apollo era, so they are doing the best they can on low budgets.
On the other hand, I am just glad to see that instead of sending teachers and other non-astronauts into space they are actually trying to go forward and do something productive. The mission more resembles what was seen in the movie Red Planet where everything was made to be self-sustainable and there was really not much room for problems.
Of course, the plot to that is much different then this is going to be, but whatever.
"20 years ago, I wouldn't have even thought to question NASA's work, but their track record lately invites such abuse."
You underfund the agency and expect huge rewards? We dumped so much more money into NASA back in the days of the spacerace and we as a society benefited from hundreds of technologies that today we take for granted.
I am not saying NASA shouldn't be watched for spending....but you can't expect an agency to perform if you don't give it money.
This may not be a huge accomplishment, but being able to withstand higher heat means that you can keep your current cooling apparatus the same and simply allow the chip to run faster (and hotter). Yes, the heat still needs to escape, and there may be other problems with implementation, but you have to take that first step first.
"Take the middle ground, then. Download the show now, watch it, talk about it, etc. But then buy the DVD when it comes out. "
You can download the show off their website. I caught up on the heroes series by watching it all off of their website. Its better then TV because instead of 5 minutes of commericals its only 30 seconds per 10 minutes. And it is on their website within 24 hours of it airing.
Why download it illegally if they offer it for free anyway? The copyright laws I agree are stupid and poorly thought out and should be rewritten. But there is no middle ground when it comes to breaking laws. You either do it or you don't. Make a decision, don't tell yourself its all right if you make it legal later. Thats like downloading every MP3 in sight, then when you get sued by the record companies simply going out and buying all of those MP3's on CD, and telling the record company to shove off. No difference really.
As for NBC, I now feel much better about tivo'ing their shows and then never watching one commercial. Screw them imo. And screw buying those DVD's. Those thing are way over-priced.
Well if its true that there are process by which our DNA can be changed by other organisms, and some older traits brought out through some sort of manipulation (like Phoenix), it just stands to reason that dormant parts of our DNA could theoritically be brought out if you used the right bacteria. Couldn't it stand to reason that you could introduce certain bacteria which can then change our DNA into something really cool like regeneration properties often found in reptiles, and/or CO2 tolerance found within aligators/crocs who can increase their underwater time by a lot?
I mean if you think of it like that, the possibilies could be limitless.
Maybe I am just pessimistic, but the fact that the bigwigs do not explain the circumstances behind the fires makes me unsettled. Sure, there could be a natural explanation (Summer heat + some unfortunate other circumstance) or misuse, but what troubles me is that the bigwig said the batteries were safe without a full investigation.
Now maybe this is for legal reasons, but at the very least they should explain why this happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Or if the batteries are indeed safe, tell us that with proof.
The only close relative of HIV is the simian virus found in the common chimpanzee.
Today, the best theory on how HIV spread from humans to chimps IMHO is the fault of the Winstar Institute in Philadelphia which created polio vaccines in the middle of Africa. They deny that any chimps were used, as the usual method involved harvesting Monkey kidneys, however, out of the rest of the theories, this seems to be the best case. They were probably experimenting with different procedures and inadvertantly released this on the world.
I will add a disclaimer to this: it is not fact that this is where HIV came from, this is simply a theory.
"Anyone else read ".... YET" in that sentence"
Yes, I did, take the quote from the bigwig:
"the battery design was sound, as were the safety features," and concluded that "the risk of hazardous failures with this battery is as low, if not lower, than the risk with alternative batteries, which are used by other telecommunications and cable companies in similar applications."
IF the battery design was sound, why did 2 of them start fires?
Am I the only one who sees this as too obvious of a process to patent?
"My belief that life is better when you treat others and the world around me with respect gave me that."
Shrug, I read that as you think of only how the world looks at you. When I read it again it makes more sense.
Then again, as I said before I am not perfect.
"Strike Two: It mentions water as a by-product. Are we going to need a condensate line to remove this water from our laptops?
Strike Three: I can see the new Warranty Info on laptops powered in this manner. Damages caused by clogged condensate lines are not covered under your warranty."
Or use the water to cool the laptop...As the water evaporates, it is removed and voila no waste. But unfortunatly, I see no counter to your warrenty info argument. Something goes wrong, things get fried.
But its really a moot point still. We are talking about a battery that only powers a walkman atm. Heck, I bet for a walkman this would be useful, as water squirted out could help you cool off as you jog. Just make the walkman waterproof.
Shrug...like most things I will just wait until its cheap enough to buy without selling my first born.
"But I know your not perfect, and I am not perfect"
Thats from what I posted. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I am not saying that morality can only come from christianity, I was simply questioning your morality from the post you made. You implied that your moral code is based around what other people thought of you, and since you have clarified that, I congratulate you on being a good moral person, and I am not going to get on a high-horse like most and claim you are a bad person for being an atheist and so on.
As for Jesus changing things, thats the basis behind christianity. Under jewish law, it was the "Eye for an eye" philosophy which was what was behind the stoning we were discussing earlier. Jesus preaches understanding, reasoning, and forgiveness along with "turn the other cheak" as opposed to stoning. The new testament of the bible is what christianity is about, and although the old testament is still important, it is trumped by the new testament.
As for your morality, thats good that you are a good person, and I agree that people can be good without religion. One of my best friends is an atheist, and long ago we agreed to not talk about religion whatsoever. He is a good person as well. We get along fine since our morality is similar, we have similar political views, he just simply does not believe in God. Maybe you are like him, but who knows? You can never know what a person really thinks over the internet.
The bible is not the only thing used to justify wars and otherwise immoral behavior. Oil, greed, fear of the communist monster, wanting to take over the world come to mind too.
If you are fearing punishment from your god, you are not truly a christian, you are just someone hedging his bets. I am not going to argue over the existance of God, because that is pointless since it will always take a leap of faith to believe anyway. But the one point you must realize is that most christians are reasonable people and realize that Jesus changed everything in the old testament which includes "stoning" and other Jewish laws that I can respect for someone who is a devout jew, but from a christian standpoint, its a different religion.
As far as morality goes, your morality seems to be based around how you want others to treat you and the fact you want to be seen as a good person. In your mind therefore, anything is permissable as long as others don't catch you doing it. Would you kick that same old women in the neck if no one would see it? You could wear a mask and no one would ever know....
Heck, it might even be good therapy. Or are you trying to say you believe in a system of karma? We all do things to a certain level of selfishness and there is no one who is perfect. But I know your not perfect, and I am not perfect, so lets just agree to that and do our best to be good people regardless of what we really believe in. Whether or not morality is God or in our genes, the existence of aliens will not destroy either one, and I think reasonable people will realize this.
This has been done many times in the past, and I am sure it will continue to happen. Most common were the times that people would set-up false bank of america websites and people would type in their account information....perfect set-up. What was even better was that these sites sometimes were set to bankofamrica.com or some slight variation of the site, so the common user would have no idea they were at the wrong site.
Well there are safeguards for this now, and I am sure if it gets to be a problem like that was at one time, it will also get fixed.
He may put a disclaimer in somewhere, but the trademark issue circles around whether or not a normal person would confuse this product with a guidebook that was written by blizzard. This is known as liklihood of confusion.
Or to rephrase: you have a right to create a guidebook, but you do not have the right to abuse someone else's good name in order to sell more copies. For instance, you can't confuse people into thinking your book was written by blizzard or is sanctioned by blizzard. It doesn't matter that you put a disclaimer anywhere...It won't save you from this.
Copyright issues are cut and dry and I doubt that will pan out at all in a lawsuit.
Being well-known and liked with a close group of friends could be useful in larger society if those around you are extroverts. Think introvert who is the leader of a bunch of extroverts...
And what about the Savings and loans fiasco? That was caused by Carter de-regulating the S&L industry. That fiasco cost billions in tax payer dollars. That probably did not HELP the economy whatsoever. It wasn't all a big Reagon conspiracy to make the economy bad so he could get elected. Carter did enough to dig his own grave.
The entire premise behind ET hacking SETI is ironic if you think about it, nothing more.
Personally, if I was an alien, I would hack something else, SETI would be somewhere on the bottom of my list.
If I just needed to hack one computer to replicate my AI virus, I would go for some college kids computer that is running windows unpatched. Easy, and sure.
Otherwise, if I needed important computer systems, I think Dept of Def. is a little more important then SETI. Or, financial institutions, but put simply, anything BUT SETI for importance.
Maybe they would hack SETI for distribution purposes. HAHA But MS has a much better dist. network (patches go out to just about everyone with a PC). As does about every company out there.
Put simply, there is just no logical reason that someone would hack SETI above any of the millions of other good alternatives. On the slightly funnier side, they may do it to show a sense of humor (at irony.)
"I can't believe that you guys are bold enough to actually curse that kid who died, and on top of that offend the parents and add to their pain"
So, we should respect parents who publicize how stupid their late son was? Give me a break. They could have mourned quietly and given their son dignity, but instead they opted to get rich.
Obviously:
Money > son's dignity.
Maybe I shouldn't be so critical, but this story does remind me of many darwin award winners I read about.