So what? With all that documentation and all that reality, you'd think they'd come up with some evidence to support those claims.
But we're still getting the same snow job we've gotten for over a decade from the IPCC coupled with remarkably inaccurate estimates of the most important parameters of anthropogenic global warming (such as the factor of three variation in the long term temperature forcing of a doubling of carbon dioxide), climate predictions that aren't fitting reality, a tour of the common sorts of fallacies and logical errors, economic arguments that are just embarrassing (for example, exaggerating the costs of moving people and new construction over many decades or centuries due to sea level rise - people move anyway, buildings crumble anyway or ignoring time value), a bunch of amateurs playing scientist (such as demanding citations all the fucking time), and a remarkable blindness to more compelling and urgent problems of humanity.
It's known that there are several different photosynthesis processes. Some do better with higher CO2 levels, but the most efficient one tends to do worse (it's optimized for low CO2 content). Also, photosynthesis can be constrained by water availability.
The actual analyses of climate changes effects show an unpleasant, but not extinction level, result that's far more economically expensive than changeover to renewables would ever be.
Unless the analyses are wrong on this count, say due to institutional bias.
Because 3 more degrees C by 2100 is a lot better in terms of consequences than 5 more degrees C by 2100.
And 1C is even better. There's really no point to this discussion until we have an idea what sort of climate change is likely. The climate models have been notably inaccurate, erring on the side of alarmism.
See? This is why we can't have good things. I demonstrate a sublime mastery of pedantry. You should be cowed and overawed, but instead all you can say is "I wanna call it a motorcycle" (well, paraphrased that is). I weep at the impiety of this modern generation.
Let's note both that CO2 has yet to be established as a pollutant and even if that characterization is valid, there's far more and more damaging pollutants out there than CO2.
Also, when is China going to begin to try either? Unlike the US, China's CO2 emissions haven't been declining.
China's envirnmental record is improving at a rapid pace.
Well, that's nice if true, but they have a long ways to go before they're anywhere near the US.
In fact, they take the environment far more seriously than we do.
If they do, and it's not evident to me that this elevated level of concern exists in their government, then that's because they have reason to, due to the massive pollution which occurs in China, but not in the US.
Like how theyve found that water quality regulations are important, after a pig farmer dumped a few thousand dead and sick pigs into a river, that sicked thousands of people downstream.
The US has enforcement. Why should the US be as concerned over water quality when these sorts of water quality problems don't happen in the US? Shouldn't we all be concerned about actual problems first?
And it ignores that relatively basic notion that treaties of this sort tend to have binding requirements that actually allow for trade-based disincentives for breaking them.
Treaties of this sort haven't yet been ratified by anyone. So their requirements aren't binding because no one has actually legally agreed to it. The US President does have some authority to make executive agreements, but this sort of thing is stretching that authority IMHO and unlikely to get approval from a Republican dominated Senate (the US Senate is what ratifies treaties).
For your edification, a rocket motor is usually a rocket engine with solid propellant as part of the rocket. For example, fireworks rockets would be rocket motors due to their solid propellants as would the hybrid rocket of Scaled Composites's SpaceShipTwo (which has a rubber or plaster solid fuel reacting with nitrous oxide gas). Another example are the Solid Rocket Boosters of the Space Shuttle. OTOH, the Space Shuttle's central rockets burn liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and would be rocket engines (which goes into their name, Space Shuttle Main Engine).
In this case, apparently the rocket engine uses concentrated hydrogen peroxide in a monopropellant (propellant composed of single liquid or gaseous substance which generates thrust via exothermic decomposition) design. So it technically is just a rocket engine. Thus, the vehicle is clearly an enginecycle not a motorcycle.
I have no idea why the semantics division happened in the first place. It's probably a holdover from whoever original was doing rocketry research in the US following the Second World War.
At this stage, Mars One is planning, publicity, and buzz. It's to get people thinking and talking. I'm sorry if those concepts are a little too complex for you.
T\hat sort of strategy is deep in scam territory. There's no indication that Mars First will ever do anything except take peoples' money.
To be honest, I was sarcastic in a way that echoes fustakrakich earlier comment. It doesn't take a lot of historical knowledge to figure out that imaginary threats have been with us for millennia (for example, Socrates being accused of "corrupting the youth" and introducing strange gods to Athens, oh dear!) not just the last 13-14 years.
I see that with your above post and your reply to Immerman, that you attempted something similar, even going as far as to state:
Communication 101: know your audience
If you had really "known" your audience, you either wouldn't have confused Immerman, or would have confused him in a far more entertaining way. As for me, I'm not interested in insincere agreement.
Having said that, there are some good points to your post above. Your last sentence in particular makes a very good point. If the public had put in more healthy skepticism and/or knuckle-dragging obstruction to climate change rhetoric and policies, it wouldn't have been so profitable a lobby.
Tell you what. I'll hop in my time machine and stop the opium trade of my "forefathers", if you hop in your time machine and fix 19th century Chinese society.
No, it means that they are logically equivalent. You can define however you want.But my view on the above, is that if you manage to find some phenomena that satisfies that list of things, then will you really rule it out, should it not show adaptation (at least not immediately, like say, a von Neumann machine)?
$200k is FOUR TIMES the median annual family income in the United States
Which isn't very much. The real problem is that anyone who can save that kind of money and isn't on the rich side, generally has a strong reason not to burn their life savings on a one-time trip.
In europe we 'frack' since roughly 1950... no one cares.
I doubt however there is much left to frack.
Depends what is there. The current approach though is new and was first put in use some point in the 90s with wide scale use in the US some point after 2000. So it doesn't matter what fracking methods were used in the 50s.
I have heard that there are fields in Europe which can be exploited with the new methods.
The name of a law is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the law. It is routine, for example, to give deceptive names to such laws.
Having said that, the Obama administration has been remarkably adventurous with how it interprets federal and constitutional law. We might just be seeing a prosecutor throwing a pile of charges at someone, seeing what sticks, but it also might be the start (even if just unintentional at the moment) of yet another push to build precedent for an aggressive law enforcement or prosecutorial strategy.
There is of course a way to follow the laws. Instead of having an automated service they could do the work necessary to validate copyright claims. They chose not to because profits are more important than not hurting people or following the laws.
That's easy to say. But YouTube make not be able to provide that service and comply in the way you describe. It's worth remembering here that profits are more important than providing the service. The whole reason YouTube exists in the first place is because they expect to turn a profit now or later. It's not that hard to destroy a low margin service by requiring expensive costs like elimination of automation to comply with your rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Is 3d design an "art" or a "technology" skill?
Yes.
So what? With all that documentation and all that reality, you'd think they'd come up with some evidence to support those claims.
But we're still getting the same snow job we've gotten for over a decade from the IPCC coupled with remarkably inaccurate estimates of the most important parameters of anthropogenic global warming (such as the factor of three variation in the long term temperature forcing of a doubling of carbon dioxide), climate predictions that aren't fitting reality, a tour of the common sorts of fallacies and logical errors, economic arguments that are just embarrassing (for example, exaggerating the costs of moving people and new construction over many decades or centuries due to sea level rise - people move anyway, buildings crumble anyway or ignoring time value), a bunch of amateurs playing scientist (such as demanding citations all the fucking time), and a remarkable blindness to more compelling and urgent problems of humanity.
It's known that there are several different photosynthesis processes. Some do better with higher CO2 levels, but the most efficient one tends to do worse (it's optimized for low CO2 content). Also, photosynthesis can be constrained by water availability.
The actual analyses of climate changes effects show an unpleasant, but not extinction level, result that's far more economically expensive than changeover to renewables would ever be.
Unless the analyses are wrong on this count, say due to institutional bias.
Because 3 more degrees C by 2100 is a lot better in terms of consequences than 5 more degrees C by 2100.
And 1C is even better. There's really no point to this discussion until we have an idea what sort of climate change is likely. The climate models have been notably inaccurate, erring on the side of alarmism.
Why wouldn't I have confused Immerman? He wasn't my audience at the time I replied to you.
He didn't stop reading slashdot just because you posted to it.
Well, since you're interested enough to reply
Yay for high standards.
See? This is why we can't have good things. I demonstrate a sublime mastery of pedantry. You should be cowed and overawed, but instead all you can say is "I wanna call it a motorcycle" (well, paraphrased that is). I weep at the impiety of this modern generation.
It's a greenhouse gas that is proven to cause global warming.
That's not the definition of pollution. Causing actual harm is. At least, the EPA had that part right.
A huge percentage of China's pollution and CO2 emissions are due to consumption in the US and other developed nations.
Irrelevant. It's still Chinese-based pollution.
Not when it comes to CO2
Let's note both that CO2 has yet to be established as a pollutant and even if that characterization is valid, there's far more and more damaging pollutants out there than CO2.
Also, when is China going to begin to try either? Unlike the US, China's CO2 emissions haven't been declining.
China's envirnmental record is improving at a rapid pace.
Well, that's nice if true, but they have a long ways to go before they're anywhere near the US.
In fact, they take the environment far more seriously than we do.
If they do, and it's not evident to me that this elevated level of concern exists in their government, then that's because they have reason to, due to the massive pollution which occurs in China, but not in the US.
Like how theyve found that water quality regulations are important, after a pig farmer dumped a few thousand dead and sick pigs into a river, that sicked thousands of people downstream.
The US has enforcement. Why should the US be as concerned over water quality when these sorts of water quality problems don't happen in the US? Shouldn't we all be concerned about actual problems first?
And it ignores that relatively basic notion that treaties of this sort tend to have binding requirements that actually allow for trade-based disincentives for breaking them.
Treaties of this sort haven't yet been ratified by anyone. So their requirements aren't binding because no one has actually legally agreed to it. The US President does have some authority to make executive agreements, but this sort of thing is stretching that authority IMHO and unlikely to get approval from a Republican dominated Senate (the US Senate is what ratifies treaties).
For your edification, a rocket motor is usually a rocket engine with solid propellant as part of the rocket. For example, fireworks rockets would be rocket motors due to their solid propellants as would the hybrid rocket of Scaled Composites's SpaceShipTwo (which has a rubber or plaster solid fuel reacting with nitrous oxide gas). Another example are the Solid Rocket Boosters of the Space Shuttle. OTOH, the Space Shuttle's central rockets burn liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and would be rocket engines (which goes into their name, Space Shuttle Main Engine).
In this case, apparently the rocket engine uses concentrated hydrogen peroxide in a monopropellant (propellant composed of single liquid or gaseous substance which generates thrust via exothermic decomposition) design. So it technically is just a rocket engine. Thus, the vehicle is clearly an enginecycle not a motorcycle.
I have no idea why the semantics division happened in the first place. It's probably a holdover from whoever original was doing rocketry research in the US following the Second World War.
You've got your dividends, and they're free to do whatever they please with what's left of their profits.
It's not their profits and they aren't free to do whatever they please, even when a majority of shareholders go with it.
At this stage, Mars One is planning, publicity, and buzz. It's to get people thinking and talking. I'm sorry if those concepts are a little too complex for you.
T\hat sort of strategy is deep in scam territory. There's no indication that Mars First will ever do anything except take peoples' money.
I see that with your above post and your reply to Immerman, that you attempted something similar, even going as far as to state:
Communication 101: know your audience
If you had really "known" your audience, you either wouldn't have confused Immerman, or would have confused him in a far more entertaining way. As for me, I'm not interested in insincere agreement.
Having said that, there are some good points to your post above. Your last sentence in particular makes a very good point. If the public had put in more healthy skepticism and/or knuckle-dragging obstruction to climate change rhetoric and policies, it wouldn't have been so profitable a lobby.
Tell you what. I'll hop in my time machine and stop the opium trade of my "forefathers", if you hop in your time machine and fix 19th century Chinese society.
There were so many fewer imaginary threats to democracy back then. You kids don't know how you have it now.
A->B && B->A means that A defines B.
No, it means that they are logically equivalent. You can define however you want.But my view on the above, is that if you manage to find some phenomena that satisfies that list of things, then will you really rule it out, should it not show adaptation (at least not immediately, like say, a von Neumann machine)?
Evolution and life are essentially inseparable.
Then you don't need to include "adaptation".
$200k is FOUR TIMES the median annual family income in the United States
Which isn't very much. The real problem is that anyone who can save that kind of money and isn't on the rich side, generally has a strong reason not to burn their life savings on a one-time trip.
I'd like to go a step further than say that space tourism is currently not possible.
You do realize that we already have space tourism on the ISS? People will pay around 20 million dollars to stay for a week or so.
I think that it's wrong in principle and that staring into the stars from your backyard or from a glorified tin can are the same.
And if everyone thought the same way you do, you would be right. But they don't.
In europe we 'frack' since roughly 1950 ... no one cares.
I doubt however there is much left to frack.
Depends what is there. The current approach though is new and was first put in use some point in the 90s with wide scale use in the US some point after 2000. So it doesn't matter what fracking methods were used in the 50s.
I have heard that there are fields in Europe which can be exploited with the new methods.
The name of a law is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the law. It is routine, for example, to give deceptive names to such laws.
Having said that, the Obama administration has been remarkably adventurous with how it interprets federal and constitutional law. We might just be seeing a prosecutor throwing a pile of charges at someone, seeing what sticks, but it also might be the start (even if just unintentional at the moment) of yet another push to build precedent for an aggressive law enforcement or prosecutorial strategy.
There is of course a way to follow the laws. Instead of having an automated service they could do the work necessary to validate copyright claims. They chose not to because profits are more important than not hurting people or following the laws.
That's easy to say. But YouTube make not be able to provide that service and comply in the way you describe. It's worth remembering here that profits are more important than providing the service. The whole reason YouTube exists in the first place is because they expect to turn a profit now or later. It's not that hard to destroy a low margin service by requiring expensive costs like elimination of automation to comply with your rules.
I didn't realize it was so important that I get all your jokes.
Idle speculation is self-citing. Duh.