It's the same government which is too incompetent to run mass transit or tax a business. Who here really thinks that if California and the US were to tap into these businesses that things would be even a bit better? It's not that these governments aren't getting enough revenue, but that they simply squander whatever they get. Double their revenue, and they'll just double what they squander.
Obamacare is really an attempt to create the sort of socialism that Americans can stomach.
And I note that I didn't say anything that would show this statement wrong. They couldn't get single payer on the first go, but maybe after some destruction of our health care and insurance infrastructure, Americans will be able to stomach more socialism. One can only hope.
Basically he, like most Americans, deep down want single payer health care. But we're been taught from cradle to grave that socialism is bad. We're indoctrinated. It's called cognitive dissonance. He knows he needs socialism to live. He knows he needs help, and he knows it's his right (as a human) to live. Not just to have some blind dumb chance at good luck, but to actually have a life. But he's been taught, over and over, lied to and lied to. So he breaks down.
No, it's a normal problem of morality. he like everyone else wants free stuff. But free comes from someone else. So should he get what he wants at considerable expense to everyone else? Or should he do the right thing and sacrifice for the community? It's a tough choice and I respect his integrity in not leeching from the rest of society.
Obama recognized that there's lots of people like that. So he's giving them what they need (socialized health care) but doing it in the only way he can. He's letting the devil have it's due, and he's going to give billions and billions to parasitic insurance companies who's only purpose is to make us feel better about getting something that's a basic human right.
A good con man always can recognize suckers.
BTW, what was this basic "human right" again? I can't seem to place it from what you're saying. You've just been yacking about "socialized health care".
just do away with insurance companies and switch to single payer.
I imagine thischaos is part of the point of Obamacare. Make insurance untenable then everyone will favor single payer at least in theory.
What we don't need is a middle man that adds no value between us and our doctors.
Catastrophic health coverage is the value added. The point of health insurance is not to provide health care. If that were the problem, then you could just pay for your own health care and that would be that.
As to middlemen, single payer is another such. It also opens the door to government meddling in the health affairs of its citizens because certain behaviors can increase (or even worse, just be generally perceived to increase) health care costs. And if its all coming out of a government blob, that gives pretext for punishing those who don't behave right.
Insurance can't be profitable if we're all going to use it. The entire _point_ of insurance is that most of us aren't going to use it.
Obamacare helped make that problem worse with mandatory health insurance and elimination of the pre-existing conditions clause.
The expectation of privacy comes from how email is used. You write it up, it gets sent only to the addresses you specify, and there's no third party that gets a copy of the email (it's not like speaking in a room with a third party presence). You aren't CCing the NSA. No one can overhear the message in normal usage unless they happen to have an email address that gets the message (say because you sent the email to a huge list) or one of your recipients forwards the email on in some way.
Wrong. I run mail servers.... you can easily run a packet sniffer and read e-mail as it goes across the wire on the local LAN as well as at the ISP unless SSL or TLS is used. And at the ISP or mail provider the messages can simply be read by a server admin. Now that TLS is becoming more popular, the NSA is leaning on CA's to hand over keys so they don't have to get the ISP involved as much.
Wrong? In what you say, where do you contradict what I wrote? Packet sniffers on a LAN or ISS? Those aren't part of SMTP.
Arguing what should be allowed based on technologic capability is fundamentally flawed. Large governments like the US have the power to near completely break you and learn whatever secrets you have to reveal. That is, they have the technology to learn what you know, just as a person with a packet sniffer has the technology to read emails surreptitiously. Should that mean then that I should have no more expectation of privacy in my own thoughts than I should have in my emails?
this where the expectation of privacy comes from? Because only a subset of people have the capability to open the book, you expect it to be private?
You could keep it in a locked safe, and there would still be a subset of people who would have the right combination of equipment, skills, and/or political power to get in and read that book. No, that's not the source of the expectation of privacy or nothing would ever be private.
The expectation of privacy comes from how email is used. You write it up, it gets sent only to the addresses you specify, and there's no third party that gets a copy of the email (it's not like speaking in a room with a third party presence). You aren't CCing the NSA. No one can overhear the message in normal usage unless they happen to have an email address that gets the message (say because you sent the email to a huge list) or one of your recipients forwards the email on in some way.
The analogy would be better if the diary was left out in the open, but closed, mind you, for everyone to see.
Everyone being everyone who can sniff on a internet backbone. That doesn't strike me as an appropriate analogy, because not everyone can do that, while most people can open a closed book.
Well, I suppose that someone, ignorant of engineering like a congress member, might have been seriously considering adapting ICBMs directly to beyond LEO work (which just wouldn't have worked). After all, ICBMs are intended to deliver at most a few tons to elsewhere on Earth. That is performance far below what be needed for Pioneer-type missions.
In that case, I would have been more interested in how an ICBM design could be built up to a beyond LEO capable rocket (which, if one looks at the post-Saturn V launches comprise all the beyond LEO launches in the US). But such work would have threatened the Space Shuttle.
Ok. What about it? The thing that is forgotten here is that NASA could have encouraged private companies to make larger rockets. Instead vast sums were spent for the Saturn V.
I really don't understand what point you are trying to make since they are using "commercial" launchers now and their deep space probes in the 1970s onwards were launched using military rockets similar to what you have mentioned.
In addition to the Saturn V, we also have the Shuttle, Constellation, a number of one-time launch vehicle prototypes (like the Delta Clipper and the Orion capsule), and now the Space Launch System, that are very expensive launch systems (or at least attempts at such). We also have the International Space Station which was just a transparent excuse to rationalize using the Space Shuttle. I figure that spending on developing and sometimes using launch systems that no one else will ever use, has consumed about a third overall of money spent on NASA.
So just a simple change in strategy to using commercial launchers (period) could have both saved a considerable portion of that money, developed a powerful commercial space launch industry in the 60s rather than in the first decade of 2000, and actually enabled a US presence in space now. Oh well, that's just a famous lost opportunity for a history lesson.
As for the shuttle, odd committee beast that it was, there were some missions that it could do and those other launchers could not.
The simple rebuttal is that how much are those odd missions worth? The price tag on them is around $50-100 billion of Shuttle costs. I don't think anyone seriously believes that a demonstration of space repair (which is one of the few actual cases of Shuttle capability) using a reusable vehicle rather than a capsule is worth a billion dollars much less a couple of orders of magnitude more than that.
It took him about two weeks to find out that none of them were, which is why NASA developed their own launchers.
Orbital Sciences has launched 10 Peacekeeper missiles into LEO. Even back in the 50s and early 60s, the Atlas and Titan lineages had moved into orbit-capable rockets which were already used for many NASA missions.
We need to remember here that NASA could have used contemporary or near future versions of commercial rockets for all of its launches ever since the late 50s. It might still result in expensive space activities and some loss of capability, but that's a path they've been reluctant to explore.
But instead they picked the criteria so that existing rockets (even with reasonable priced expansion of capability) couldn't meet them. It's a well known fact that real rockets can never match the capabilities and price of paper rockets. That's a game that has been played for sixty years.
It's been over 5 years since money was initially dumped into the California high speed rail project. After 5 years and 15 billion dollars we still don't have a single foot of track. If we can't even get two pieces of metal in the ground, what makes it believable that miles of metal tubes would be any easier and cheaper.
Well, presumably it'd be someone other than California doing the project.
Self-replicating technology is incredibly hard to build.
Presently.
Self-replicating technology needs to be at least able to build computers, for which it requires a semi-conductor factory
Or a vacuum tube factory.
requiring extremely precise optics, all kinds of lasers, etc, which in turn require dozens of different elements, some of them rare-earth, which in turn need to be chemically extracted from the asteroid or even bred in nuclear reactors if too scarce.
Actually, it doesn't. First, one can make semiconductor ICs by hand. They are necessarily not miniaturized. But they don't require extremely precise optics, dozens of different elements (the minimum is four, the base element of the substrate (such as silicon), two elements (one from group III and one from group V, such as boron and phosphorus) to dope the substrate with, and a conductor element (such as copper)).
And sophisticated electronics need not be that complicated. For example, the Z80 microprocessor has a transistor count of 8500 and is powerful enough to run a stripped down version of Unix.
And missles of the type you are describing use chemical propulsion, already discussed in the article as being insufficiant for the tasks nessessary.
It's worth noting the author of the article is simply wrong about chemical propulsion being an obstacle. The cost of propellant for a chemical propulsion system to put something in low Earth orbit is around $50 (for LOX/petroleum-based kerosene) to $100 (for LOX/LH2) per kg of payload. The rests of the costs of launch are mostly stuff that can be amortized over many launches.
But clumps of dust with a really low surface area for the mass involved. For example, Jupiter has a density of 1,330 kg per square meter and an average radius of almost 70,000 km (7*10^7 meters), a third more than water at STP. If instead, Jupiter were broken up into many equally sized balls of a smaller radius, then the mass stays the same, but the increase in surface area is inversely proportional to the decrease in radius.
For example a Jupiter-mass cloud of micron sized spheres, each with the density of Jupiter, would have a surface area 7*10^13 larger than Jupiter. That surface area incidentally happens to be roughly a twentieth of a square light year (roughly 4*10^30 square meters by my calculation) meaning at the right densities, such a cloud could intercept and radiate a lot more energy than Jupiter could, perhaps even be visible in small amateur telescopes at a few lightyears.
My point here is that some baryonic matter is a lot more visible, many orders of magnitude more visible, than other baryonic matter. And planet-sized objects are going to interact mostly by gravity as well meeting most of the desired characteristics of dark matter.
My take is having a significantly higher than expected fraction of the mass of your galaxies in rogue planets and similar things would be a way to account for dark matter.
But then there's the early universe observations. For example, the most damning evidence against dark matter hiding in planets and such, is observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is effectively the study of the period of the universe in which it started to become transparent to photons (about 400k years after the big bang according to the above link). That period of time is not a lot of time in which to create massive objects. And the fluctuations of the CMB yield dark to visible mass of roughly 5 to 1 (again according to claims in the above link).
So that indicates to me that there probably some sort of exotic matter out there which we haven't discovered yet.
But there is a clear understanding in business that you don't run around taking videoclips of high level meetings.
Not at Yahoo. As others have noted, the employee in question apparently routinely and openly took such pictures and distributed them throughout the company, meaning that it was sanctioned behavior. He might have even gotten approval (though probably not in writing) from the current leadership to take pictures/video of the meeting.
Lets have secret conclaves to hide information that has been publicly available for 10 years.
That's not the point. The point is selling one story to the public while having a different, less confident story in private. It's a degree of dishonesty.
Of course right now I am at a country (trace adkins) concert with my girl, most people here think we should kill more terrists and this country is the shiznot.
I find it interesting how much of human society is about getting into women's pants, particular the infamous display of mating status behavior. Here, we have a human male whining about terrists, patriotism, and gay hating pieces of chicken because he doesn't perceive those things as worthy status symbols. But he's still there because his girl is.
And of course, he has to tell us how much he's suffering at this moment rather than just stay on topic. Good luck on the girl.
Or if you have thoughts on how to responsibly reduce government services without gutting either our social welfare or military programs (or both), please share.
Well, I have thoughts on responsibly reducing governments services which require as a precondition some gutting of both social welfare and military programs.
It's become a sad day here in the US where there's a faction of people so against science, that they try to manufacture issues like this.
I just don't see it. We have one blog that posted this and really didn't have much to say aside from that it looked kind of suspicious and in the same sort of procedure where some actual scientific fraud had occurred in the recent past. That's not much of a "manufacturing". There are some commentators condemning these scientists already for their red handed fraud and/or minor grammatical flub. But I don't see much in the way of a "faction" either. br.
I do see the common rush to judgment that follows any poorly written but engaging story on the internet, but that's not particular to any faction as your post helps demonstrate.
What about it doesn't make sense? Breaking into a mail server is not a zero cost action and they won't be able to grab all the emails off of all the servers like they could sniffing network traffic.
As far as I know most temperature proxies are done by the individual researchers and most of them are not associated with the CRU.
What did I say? "Handled, aggregated, and interpreted". I didn't say "done by". They aren't famous for researching and measuring temperature proxies (though their researchers do a bit of this), but rather for accumulating them into aggregate climate reconstructions.
Do you have any evidence that "most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia" or is that just your biased opinion?
They have 150 years of instrumental measurements of surface temperatures. This is the primary link between modern climate observations and pre-industrial temperature proxies. Many climatologists still refer to standard CRU paleoclimate reconstructions like the Hadley Center/CRU series when calibrating their own temperature proxies or discussing climate phenomena in the industrial to modern period.
In addition, they have aggregated extensive collections of paleoclimate data.
In addition, this data has been processed and interpreted. There are an absurd degree of vagaries in how, when, and where the original data was collected. Various undesirable defects such as the urban heat island effect or local issues (permanent moving of weather stations from one location to a nearby but somewhat different location) can distort long temperature records.
These records are incorporated into a lot of research, for example, the famous Mann et al "hockey stick" paper which used "the collection of annual resolution dendroclimatic[eg, tree ring], ice core, ice melt, and long historical records used by Bradley and Jones" (Jones being the head of the CRU) and "Monthly instrumental land air and sea surface temperature
grid-point data (Fig. 1b) from the period 1902-95" which also was provided by the same authors as before.
Here, both most of the pre-industrial records and the industrial era records were provided by CRU sources.
IPCC has often quoted such data sets and has CRU researchers on some of their committees.
There's a great deal of genuine complexity and nonuniformity in the data that the CRU collects. What they do has to be done in order to use this data effectively. But the point behind my original remark is that any bias in how the CRU does this work would affect a great deal of research and derivative models. I think it's actually happened, but YMMV. They are gatekeepers for significant parts of climatology and I think it's poor science to discount that risk.
there is a direct accurate and well known correlation between temperature and the isotope balance in the atmosphere
This is an example of making shit up. The "direct, accurate, and well known correlation" isn't so.
Second, we aren't actually measuring the isotope balance of that atmosphere, but of what got to us now say via ice cores or deposits in lakes.
For the tree rings we have 2 possibilities, 1 the tree rings never where accurate, 2 they are accurate for older data but something, probably us, started to make things less linked to climate around the start of the 1960s.
So far this is passable logic.
To see which one is more likely take several non tree based measures of climate and compare them too the trees over a long period of time, the longer they match them less likely that the older tree data is bad, oh wait we already have a huge amount of data compared and it is only the last few decades and only in the higher northern areas that it really starts to go bad.... so which is more likely?
That's a poor bluff. There's no actual measurement of that climate except through a bunch of easy to distort proxies.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if there's a connection.
It's the same government which is too incompetent to run mass transit or tax a business. Who here really thinks that if California and the US were to tap into these businesses that things would be even a bit better? It's not that these governments aren't getting enough revenue, but that they simply squander whatever they get. Double their revenue, and they'll just double what they squander.
the crux of the problem: poor mass transit
Sounds like these businesses have pretty good mass transit. Maybe the problem isn't with mass transit, but who is trying to provide it.
The more you isolate people from poverty around them, the more you'll hear stuff like "if people are starving, let them eat cake." It rots the soul.
Sounds like you have a pretty bad case of soul rot right there. Better up your exposure to poverty. Maybe that'll clear it up.
If a millage comes up to improve public buses, how would you expect them to vote?
A surprising number of them will vote up that turkey. It's happened before. A lot of people are just crazy in California.
Obamacare is really an attempt to create the sort of socialism that Americans can stomach.
And I note that I didn't say anything that would show this statement wrong. They couldn't get single payer on the first go, but maybe after some destruction of our health care and insurance infrastructure, Americans will be able to stomach more socialism. One can only hope.
Basically he, like most Americans, deep down want single payer health care. But we're been taught from cradle to grave that socialism is bad. We're indoctrinated. It's called cognitive dissonance. He knows he needs socialism to live. He knows he needs help, and he knows it's his right (as a human) to live. Not just to have some blind dumb chance at good luck, but to actually have a life. But he's been taught, over and over, lied to and lied to. So he breaks down.
No, it's a normal problem of morality. he like everyone else wants free stuff. But free comes from someone else. So should he get what he wants at considerable expense to everyone else? Or should he do the right thing and sacrifice for the community? It's a tough choice and I respect his integrity in not leeching from the rest of society.
Obama recognized that there's lots of people like that. So he's giving them what they need (socialized health care) but doing it in the only way he can. He's letting the devil have it's due, and he's going to give billions and billions to parasitic insurance companies who's only purpose is to make us feel better about getting something that's a basic human right.
A good con man always can recognize suckers.
BTW, what was this basic "human right" again? I can't seem to place it from what you're saying. You've just been yacking about "socialized health care".
just do away with insurance companies and switch to single payer.
I imagine thischaos is part of the point of Obamacare. Make insurance untenable then everyone will favor single payer at least in theory.
What we don't need is a middle man that adds no value between us and our doctors.
Catastrophic health coverage is the value added. The point of health insurance is not to provide health care. If that were the problem, then you could just pay for your own health care and that would be that.
As to middlemen, single payer is another such. It also opens the door to government meddling in the health affairs of its citizens because certain behaviors can increase (or even worse, just be generally perceived to increase) health care costs. And if its all coming out of a government blob, that gives pretext for punishing those who don't behave right.
Insurance can't be profitable if we're all going to use it. The entire _point_ of insurance is that most of us aren't going to use it.
Obamacare helped make that problem worse with mandatory health insurance and elimination of the pre-existing conditions clause.
The expectation of privacy comes from how email is used. You write it up, it gets sent only to the addresses you specify, and there's no third party that gets a copy of the email (it's not like speaking in a room with a third party presence). You aren't CCing the NSA. No one can overhear the message in normal usage unless they happen to have an email address that gets the message (say because you sent the email to a huge list) or one of your recipients forwards the email on in some way.
Wrong. I run mail servers.... you can easily run a packet sniffer and read e-mail as it goes across the wire on the local LAN as well as at the ISP unless SSL or TLS is used. And at the ISP or mail provider the messages can simply be read by a server admin. Now that TLS is becoming more popular, the NSA is leaning on CA's to hand over keys so they don't have to get the ISP involved as much.
Wrong? In what you say, where do you contradict what I wrote? Packet sniffers on a LAN or ISS? Those aren't part of SMTP.
Arguing what should be allowed based on technologic capability is fundamentally flawed. Large governments like the US have the power to near completely break you and learn whatever secrets you have to reveal. That is, they have the technology to learn what you know, just as a person with a packet sniffer has the technology to read emails surreptitiously. Should that mean then that I should have no more expectation of privacy in my own thoughts than I should have in my emails?
this where the expectation of privacy comes from? Because only a subset of people have the capability to open the book, you expect it to be private?
You could keep it in a locked safe, and there would still be a subset of people who would have the right combination of equipment, skills, and/or political power to get in and read that book. No, that's not the source of the expectation of privacy or nothing would ever be private.
The expectation of privacy comes from how email is used. You write it up, it gets sent only to the addresses you specify, and there's no third party that gets a copy of the email (it's not like speaking in a room with a third party presence). You aren't CCing the NSA. No one can overhear the message in normal usage unless they happen to have an email address that gets the message (say because you sent the email to a huge list) or one of your recipients forwards the email on in some way.
The analogy would be better if the diary was left out in the open, but closed, mind you, for everyone to see.
Everyone being everyone who can sniff on a internet backbone. That doesn't strike me as an appropriate analogy, because not everyone can do that, while most people can open a closed book.
Well, I suppose that someone, ignorant of engineering like a congress member, might have been seriously considering adapting ICBMs directly to beyond LEO work (which just wouldn't have worked). After all, ICBMs are intended to deliver at most a few tons to elsewhere on Earth. That is performance far below what be needed for Pioneer-type missions.
In that case, I would have been more interested in how an ICBM design could be built up to a beyond LEO capable rocket (which, if one looks at the post-Saturn V launches comprise all the beyond LEO launches in the US). But such work would have threatened the Space Shuttle.
For example - get me to the moon.
Ok. What about it? The thing that is forgotten here is that NASA could have encouraged private companies to make larger rockets. Instead vast sums were spent for the Saturn V.
I really don't understand what point you are trying to make since they are using "commercial" launchers now and their deep space probes in the 1970s onwards were launched using military rockets similar to what you have mentioned.
In addition to the Saturn V, we also have the Shuttle, Constellation, a number of one-time launch vehicle prototypes (like the Delta Clipper and the Orion capsule), and now the Space Launch System, that are very expensive launch systems (or at least attempts at such). We also have the International Space Station which was just a transparent excuse to rationalize using the Space Shuttle. I figure that spending on developing and sometimes using launch systems that no one else will ever use, has consumed about a third overall of money spent on NASA.
So just a simple change in strategy to using commercial launchers (period) could have both saved a considerable portion of that money, developed a powerful commercial space launch industry in the 60s rather than in the first decade of 2000, and actually enabled a US presence in space now. Oh well, that's just a famous lost opportunity for a history lesson.
As for the shuttle, odd committee beast that it was, there were some missions that it could do and those other launchers could not.
The simple rebuttal is that how much are those odd missions worth? The price tag on them is around $50-100 billion of Shuttle costs. I don't think anyone seriously believes that a demonstration of space repair (which is one of the few actual cases of Shuttle capability) using a reusable vehicle rather than a capsule is worth a billion dollars much less a couple of orders of magnitude more than that.
It took him about two weeks to find out that none of them were, which is why NASA developed their own launchers.
Orbital Sciences has launched 10 Peacekeeper missiles into LEO. Even back in the 50s and early 60s, the Atlas and Titan lineages had moved into orbit-capable rockets which were already used for many NASA missions.
We need to remember here that NASA could have used contemporary or near future versions of commercial rockets for all of its launches ever since the late 50s. It might still result in expensive space activities and some loss of capability, but that's a path they've been reluctant to explore.
But instead they picked the criteria so that existing rockets (even with reasonable priced expansion of capability) couldn't meet them. It's a well known fact that real rockets can never match the capabilities and price of paper rockets. That's a game that has been played for sixty years.
It's been over 5 years since money was initially dumped into the California high speed rail project. After 5 years and 15 billion dollars we still don't have a single foot of track. If we can't even get two pieces of metal in the ground, what makes it believable that miles of metal tubes would be any easier and cheaper.
Well, presumably it'd be someone other than California doing the project.
Self-replicating technology is incredibly hard to build.
Presently.
Self-replicating technology needs to be at least able to build computers, for which it requires a semi-conductor factory
Or a vacuum tube factory.
requiring extremely precise optics, all kinds of lasers, etc, which in turn require dozens of different elements, some of them rare-earth, which in turn need to be chemically extracted from the asteroid or even bred in nuclear reactors if too scarce.
Actually, it doesn't. First, one can make semiconductor ICs by hand. They are necessarily not miniaturized. But they don't require extremely precise optics, dozens of different elements (the minimum is four, the base element of the substrate (such as silicon), two elements (one from group III and one from group V, such as boron and phosphorus) to dope the substrate with, and a conductor element (such as copper)).
And sophisticated electronics need not be that complicated. For example, the Z80 microprocessor has a transistor count of 8500 and is powerful enough to run a stripped down version of Unix.
And missles of the type you are describing use chemical propulsion, already discussed in the article as being insufficiant for the tasks nessessary.
It's worth noting the author of the article is simply wrong about chemical propulsion being an obstacle. The cost of propellant for a chemical propulsion system to put something in low Earth orbit is around $50 (for LOX/petroleum-based kerosene) to $100 (for LOX/LH2) per kg of payload. The rests of the costs of launch are mostly stuff that can be amortized over many launches.
Planets are just clumps of dust.
But clumps of dust with a really low surface area for the mass involved. For example, Jupiter has a density of 1,330 kg per square meter and an average radius of almost 70,000 km (7*10^7 meters), a third more than water at STP. If instead, Jupiter were broken up into many equally sized balls of a smaller radius, then the mass stays the same, but the increase in surface area is inversely proportional to the decrease in radius.
For example a Jupiter-mass cloud of micron sized spheres, each with the density of Jupiter, would have a surface area 7*10^13 larger than Jupiter. That surface area incidentally happens to be roughly a twentieth of a square light year (roughly 4*10^30 square meters by my calculation) meaning at the right densities, such a cloud could intercept and radiate a lot more energy than Jupiter could, perhaps even be visible in small amateur telescopes at a few lightyears.
My point here is that some baryonic matter is a lot more visible, many orders of magnitude more visible, than other baryonic matter. And planet-sized objects are going to interact mostly by gravity as well meeting most of the desired characteristics of dark matter.
My take is having a significantly higher than expected fraction of the mass of your galaxies in rogue planets and similar things would be a way to account for dark matter.
But then there's the early universe observations. For example, the most damning evidence against dark matter hiding in planets and such, is observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is effectively the study of the period of the universe in which it started to become transparent to photons (about 400k years after the big bang according to the above link). That period of time is not a lot of time in which to create massive objects. And the fluctuations of the CMB yield dark to visible mass of roughly 5 to 1 (again according to claims in the above link).
So that indicates to me that there probably some sort of exotic matter out there which we haven't discovered yet.
But there is a clear understanding in business that you don't run around taking videoclips of high level meetings.
Not at Yahoo. As others have noted, the employee in question apparently routinely and openly took such pictures and distributed them throughout the company, meaning that it was sanctioned behavior. He might have even gotten approval (though probably not in writing) from the current leadership to take pictures/video of the meeting.
Lets have secret conclaves to hide information that has been publicly available for 10 years.
That's not the point. The point is selling one story to the public while having a different, less confident story in private. It's a degree of dishonesty.
Yes, private discussions. Note those papers were written in the 90s and the emails in question written in the next decade.
Of course right now I am at a country (trace adkins) concert with my girl, most people here think we should kill more terrists and this country is the shiznot.
I find it interesting how much of human society is about getting into women's pants, particular the infamous display of mating status behavior. Here, we have a human male whining about terrists, patriotism, and gay hating pieces of chicken because he doesn't perceive those things as worthy status symbols. But he's still there because his girl is.
And of course, he has to tell us how much he's suffering at this moment rather than just stay on topic. Good luck on the girl.
Or if you have thoughts on how to responsibly reduce government services without gutting either our social welfare or military programs (or both), please share.
Well, I have thoughts on responsibly reducing governments services which require as a precondition some gutting of both social welfare and military programs.
It's become a sad day here in the US where there's a faction of people so against science, that they try to manufacture issues like this.
I just don't see it. We have one blog that posted this and really didn't have much to say aside from that it looked kind of suspicious and in the same sort of procedure where some actual scientific fraud had occurred in the recent past. That's not much of a "manufacturing". There are some commentators condemning these scientists already for their red handed fraud and/or minor grammatical flub. But I don't see much in the way of a "faction" either.
br. I do see the common rush to judgment that follows any poorly written but engaging story on the internet, but that's not particular to any faction as your post helps demonstrate.
What about it doesn't make sense? Breaking into a mail server is not a zero cost action and they won't be able to grab all the emails off of all the servers like they could sniffing network traffic.
As far as I know most temperature proxies are done by the individual researchers and most of them are not associated with the CRU.
What did I say? "Handled, aggregated, and interpreted". I didn't say "done by". They aren't famous for researching and measuring temperature proxies (though their researchers do a bit of this), but rather for accumulating them into aggregate climate reconstructions.
Do you have any evidence that "most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia" or is that just your biased opinion?
They have 150 years of instrumental measurements of surface temperatures. This is the primary link between modern climate observations and pre-industrial temperature proxies. Many climatologists still refer to standard CRU paleoclimate reconstructions like the Hadley Center/CRU series when calibrating their own temperature proxies or discussing climate phenomena in the industrial to modern period.
In addition, they have aggregated extensive collections of paleoclimate data.
In addition, this data has been processed and interpreted. There are an absurd degree of vagaries in how, when, and where the original data was collected. Various undesirable defects such as the urban heat island effect or local issues (permanent moving of weather stations from one location to a nearby but somewhat different location) can distort long temperature records.
These records are incorporated into a lot of research, for example, the famous Mann et al "hockey stick" paper which used "the collection of annual resolution dendroclimatic[eg, tree ring], ice core, ice melt, and long historical records used by Bradley and Jones" (Jones being the head of the CRU) and "Monthly instrumental land air and sea surface temperature grid-point data (Fig. 1b) from the period 1902-95" which also was provided by the same authors as before.
Here, both most of the pre-industrial records and the industrial era records were provided by CRU sources.
IPCC has often quoted such data sets and has CRU researchers on some of their committees.
There's a great deal of genuine complexity and nonuniformity in the data that the CRU collects. What they do has to be done in order to use this data effectively. But the point behind my original remark is that any bias in how the CRU does this work would affect a great deal of research and derivative models. I think it's actually happened, but YMMV. They are gatekeepers for significant parts of climatology and I think it's poor science to discount that risk.
there is a direct accurate and well known correlation between temperature and the isotope balance in the atmosphere
This is an example of making shit up. The "direct, accurate, and well known correlation" isn't so.
Second, we aren't actually measuring the isotope balance of that atmosphere, but of what got to us now say via ice cores or deposits in lakes.
For the tree rings we have 2 possibilities, 1 the tree rings never where accurate, 2 they are accurate for older data but something, probably us, started to make things less linked to climate around the start of the 1960s.
So far this is passable logic.
To see which one is more likely take several non tree based measures of climate and compare them too the trees over a long period of time, the longer they match them less likely that the older tree data is bad, oh wait we already have a huge amount of data compared and it is only the last few decades and only in the higher northern areas that it really starts to go bad.... so which is more likely?
That's a poor bluff. There's no actual measurement of that climate except through a bunch of easy to distort proxies.
Why do you need to project such false confidence?
Guess I have to repeat myself. Nobody did that math.