GPA does definitely matter, especially for continuing one's education.
That's what AK Marc said, aside from the observation that GPA doesn't really matter for other uses than continuing one's education. I've only been asked my GPA for continuing education and a job at the US federal Census Bureau. Nobody else has cared.
Gee... an IPCC report will tell you the pretty-exact accounting.
But will it try to tell the truth? People forget that there are massive conflicts of interest present among the sponsors of the IPCC and its reports. And these have resulted in deceptions which exaggerated the extent and impact of AGW in the past.
Consider this: CO2 lasts 1000s of years in the atmosphere
You seem to have the erroneous idea that because there is a lot of land at high latitude its going to be suitable for growing plants
No, something is erroneous, if it is in error. Instead, I merely note that there was a bit of climate change about 10-20k years ago which warmed the Earth and turned a lot of taiga forest, tundra, and ice fields into very fertile land. It is rather foolish to assume that process can't repeat itself given the same initial conditions.
The problem happened before. And we can look at the extensive agriculture which operates on those lands as a profound refutation of your claim.
There are many, many reasons why it will be difficult to grow corn on Baffin Island in 2100 even if the ground isn't covered by ice.
There are many, many reasons why it is difficult to grow corn at all. And everywhere on Earth used to have absolutely zero agriculture. I don't see any new problems here. If Baffin Island or whatever should at some point become warm enough to grow corn, then there will be plenty of significant obstacles (such as lack of infrastructure, less sunlight, etc) that will make agriculture difficult, but not unfeasible.
If there is any place on the web where the Dunning-Kruger effect can observed in full glory and with incredible frequency, it is/.
Like people who while suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect attempt to analyze the Dunning-Kruger effect in others? I tire of people who clearly know little about science, climatology, biology, or psychology, lecturing me about their beliefs.
and the total cost of my living expenses and tuition is more than 25,000 dollars a year
You can do better. Community college for two years for starters. And there are cheaper colleges than your in-state university.
And I'll just note that if college is too expensive for you now, then don't go. Work a few years and build up some savings. Sure, you might have done something (like have kids) which screws up your college plans, but so does dropping out of college with a lot of debt.
I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.
This is delicious. In other words, you say you see no point to discussion with someone who disagrees with you.
"The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels."
And if that is way exaggerated, then the rest of their paper is pretty much a waste.
it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably
The presumption would be incorrect. There is a lot of land in the northern latitudes.
It's also interesting how AGW is being blamed for the more significant problem of habitat destruction. Back at the end of the last glacial period, there was a large shift of ecosystems towards the poles. We didn't see a massive extinction of species.
No, on that. You have no reason for your relatively negative opinion on Ameritards. Such irrationality is a typical sign of insanity. But since it probably doesn't affect your day to day life, I recommend continue the treatment of ranting on the internets.
But you just said that the IRS official "admitted to harassment".
I didn't say that the IRS official called it "harassment". When the IRS forces certain groups to pass through a bunch of bureaucratic hurdles and demands ridiculous information from them (what the IRS official admitted to), what do you call that sort of harassing activity? "Harassment" springs to mind.
Do you want a short pithy post or do you want a 11,000 page comprehensive statement?
I want you to get a clue.
I wasn't "fatuously" ignoring foolish expenses.
Nonsense.
But foolish expenses comprise under 3% of government spending.
You just contradicted yourself immediately. One can only make such a claim with near complete ignorance, or perhaps delusion of how governments acquire, budget, and spend money.
""Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
Men's rights have been implied for centuries, idiot.
I think I'll have to say more so that you get it. From my previous post, I wrote:
but rather unfairly applied law to address perceived historical injustices
You mention such a "perceived historical injustice". All I can say to that is that your claim is profoundly stupid. Nobody kicking around now was alive centuries ago. The people responsible for the "centuries of men's rights" at the exclusion of women's rights, have been dead for a long time.
And while "women's rights" are supposedly about the rights of women, they're also about protecting the privileges of women, such as a heavy legal advantage in child custody and alimony cases (the legal principle of "the calf follows the heifer") or the social games of dating, such as the obligation on men to provide proof of reproductive fitness via expensive gifts and other demonstrations of status.
Right, because the FED trebling the money supply just caused 300% inflation. Oh,wait, it didn't.
Inflation is defined as quantity of money times velocity of money. They could create many zeroes more of money, but if it's never spent (hence, having a velocity of money of zero), it doesn't contribute to inflation.
Also, no studies ever show that happiness correlates with the log of money. Oh, wait, they all do.
No, I'd go with your first statement here.
Perhaps more tellingly, the probability density of income within countries (and amongst countries) is log-normal.
No, that has nothing to do with the value of money. I think it's telling that your most "telling" argument is completely irrelevant to the claim you wish to make.
Remember kids, libertarianism only makes sense if you ignore reality.
Remember kids, disagreeing with the statement that money has logarithmic value means you're a libertarian. Learn something new every day!
I couldn't find the word "harassment" in the statement I saw.
That is a completely irrelevant observation. Words have meanings. If the meaning applies, then the word can be used even if it hasn't been used before with respect to a particular thing.
Not to mention the good fortune of being born with the intelligence sufficient to enable him to respond quickly when disaster did strike.
Let's not get too hasty with our accusations. I haven't seen any such demonstration of intelligence.
If Bush had been competent, he would have taken control of the situation in Louisiana.
He did. The problem was that he took control after the disaster. What people forget is that FEMA was not intended to manage the Katrina disaster response at first. As part of the Department of Homeland Security shuffle that was going on at the time, emergency response was supposed to be handled mostly by the state and local governments. That incidentally is what happened in the Hurricane Sandy incident.
But both Louisiana and New Orleans made profoundly bad decisions prior to the disaster that killed people. So by the time that became apparent, the federal government took over disaster response, the whole thing had become a huge mess.
Now, it is reasonable to question the wisdom and intelligence of ending FEMA's leadership without an adequate replacement or a good phase-out plan, but to claim that Bush didn't "take control" when he did?
I know, but all the examples you gave were of government selling its services. None of those private entities can pass legislation by themselves. They have to do so through a government which is collecting from each such action.
The utility of money is not linear, it is logarithmic.
That makes no sense. It depends what you're trying to do. For small quantities, the utility of money is linear. For large quantities it tends to be modestly superlinear due to the economies of scale from buying in bulk. And if you're trying to buy all of a particular thing in the world (such as CO2 emission credits in Europe) then it goes to zero (you can't buy more of the good than exists so at some point, you can't buy any more of the good in question at any price and further quantities of money have no value for that particular task).
If you're speaking of the value of money to collective society as trade, then it is collectively constant. Doubling the money supply provides no additional value.
I doubt you can find a case where the utility of money is nearly logarithmic. That just isn't a natural fit.
Let us not pretend that human inability to count properly is a valid measure of what is right.
Yes, let's not do that. Let's also not pretend that the occasional inability to count properly is at all relevant to the current discussion.
Just think about what would happen if you did not believe the Jewish lies and propaganda.
Propaganda isn't necessarily false. Similarly, one could wonder how bad things could get if Israeli nukes got into the wrong hands due to a similar civil war. The problem with your complaint is that Syria is the country with the civil war not Israel.
I grew up in one of the richest areas on one of the wealthiest cities of the world, and never met anyone who voiced this belief.
That's because it's generally not an urban-based belief. A common error of thought is for people to assume everyone is like the people that they happen to know. One of the things I discover from interacting on Slashdot is that actual beliefs are much more varied that I would have experienced otherwise. Slashdot is obviously a very skewed sample, since I'm only seeing the people who bother to post, but it is still quite enlightening.
If you don't want to be part of society, you can go live in Somalia too.
If you want police, fire, sewers, working traffic lights, hospitals, a military, air traffic controllers, etc. etc. etc. then you will need to pay taxes.
I don't see "want to be part of society" in that list. And I notice that you fatuously ignore that government spends a lot of money on things other than that small list.
liberals also (if not more so) want the law followed an applied equally (e.g. women's rights).
Then why is there "women's rights" and not "men's rights"? It's because they don't want equally applied law, but rather unfairly applied law to address perceived historical injustices.
Fraudulently claiming tax exempt status is also illegal.
Crimes generally are illegal.
The requests for paperwork/brochures from meetings could actually prove or disprove their reported activities for tax exemption. The IRS asked for names and documents in exchange for not paying thousands of dollars in taxes. Not a bad trade.
I see you don't get it. I probably could prove that you didn't commit a variety of crimes through torture. A few hours of time in the chamber surely is worth more than a few years in a hardcore prison, right?
Illegal means to obtain information are being used here. It doesn't matter if the cost of providing the information is relatively low, it is an illegal act which is being performed here.
Slashdot Mirror
GPA does definitely matter, especially for continuing one's education.
That's what AK Marc said, aside from the observation that GPA doesn't really matter for other uses than continuing one's education. I've only been asked my GPA for continuing education and a job at the US federal Census Bureau. Nobody else has cared.
Gee... an IPCC report will tell you the pretty-exact accounting.
But will it try to tell the truth? People forget that there are massive conflicts of interest present among the sponsors of the IPCC and its reports. And these have resulted in deceptions which exaggerated the extent and impact of AGW in the past.
Consider this: CO2 lasts 1000s of years in the atmosphere
That hasn't been demonstrated.
There's no physical reason you couldn't live in northern latitudes, if for some reason that becomes desirable.
You seem to have the erroneous idea that because there is a lot of land at high latitude its going to be suitable for growing plants
No, something is erroneous, if it is in error. Instead, I merely note that there was a bit of climate change about 10-20k years ago which warmed the Earth and turned a lot of taiga forest, tundra, and ice fields into very fertile land. It is rather foolish to assume that process can't repeat itself given the same initial conditions.
The problem happened before. And we can look at the extensive agriculture which operates on those lands as a profound refutation of your claim.
There are many, many reasons why it will be difficult to grow corn on Baffin Island in 2100 even if the ground isn't covered by ice.
There are many, many reasons why it is difficult to grow corn at all. And everywhere on Earth used to have absolutely zero agriculture. I don't see any new problems here. If Baffin Island or whatever should at some point become warm enough to grow corn, then there will be plenty of significant obstacles (such as lack of infrastructure, less sunlight, etc) that will make agriculture difficult, but not unfeasible.
If there is any place on the web where the Dunning-Kruger effect can observed in full glory and with incredible frequency, it is /.
Like people who while suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect attempt to analyze the Dunning-Kruger effect in others? I tire of people who clearly know little about science, climatology, biology, or psychology, lecturing me about their beliefs.
Not to worry about 4C climate change
What 4C global warming? There isn't evidence to support that claim. But yes there is a lot of land in Canada and Siberia.
and the total cost of my living expenses and tuition is more than 25,000 dollars a year
You can do better. Community college for two years for starters. And there are cheaper colleges than your in-state university.
And I'll just note that if college is too expensive for you now, then don't go. Work a few years and build up some savings. Sure, you might have done something (like have kids) which screws up your college plans, but so does dropping out of college with a lot of debt.
It's not extra time, if you're not going to finish any other way.
I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.
This is delicious. In other words, you say you see no point to discussion with someone who disagrees with you.
"The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels."
And if that is way exaggerated, then the rest of their paper is pretty much a waste.
it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably
The presumption would be incorrect. There is a lot of land in the northern latitudes.
It's also interesting how AGW is being blamed for the more significant problem of habitat destruction. Back at the end of the last glacial period, there was a large shift of ecosystems towards the poles. We didn't see a massive extinction of species.
but sane brain
No, on that. You have no reason for your relatively negative opinion on Ameritards. Such irrationality is a typical sign of insanity. But since it probably doesn't affect your day to day life, I recommend continue the treatment of ranting on the internets.
But you just said that the IRS official "admitted to harassment".
I didn't say that the IRS official called it "harassment". When the IRS forces certain groups to pass through a bunch of bureaucratic hurdles and demands ridiculous information from them (what the IRS official admitted to), what do you call that sort of harassing activity? "Harassment" springs to mind.
Do you want a short pithy post or do you want a 11,000 page comprehensive statement?
I want you to get a clue.
I wasn't "fatuously" ignoring foolish expenses.
Nonsense.
But foolish expenses comprise under 3% of government spending.
You just contradicted yourself immediately. One can only make such a claim with near complete ignorance, or perhaps delusion of how governments acquire, budget, and spend money.
""Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
Men's rights have been implied for centuries, idiot.
I think I'll have to say more so that you get it. From my previous post, I wrote:
but rather unfairly applied law to address perceived historical injustices
You mention such a "perceived historical injustice". All I can say to that is that your claim is profoundly stupid. Nobody kicking around now was alive centuries ago. The people responsible for the "centuries of men's rights" at the exclusion of women's rights, have been dead for a long time.
And while "women's rights" are supposedly about the rights of women, they're also about protecting the privileges of women, such as a heavy legal advantage in child custody and alimony cases (the legal principle of "the calf follows the heifer") or the social games of dating, such as the obligation on men to provide proof of reproductive fitness via expensive gifts and other demonstrations of status.
Right, because the FED trebling the money supply just caused 300% inflation. Oh,wait, it didn't.
Inflation is defined as quantity of money times velocity of money. They could create many zeroes more of money, but if it's never spent (hence, having a velocity of money of zero), it doesn't contribute to inflation.
Also, no studies ever show that happiness correlates with the log of money. Oh, wait, they all do.
No, I'd go with your first statement here.
Perhaps more tellingly, the probability density of income within countries (and amongst countries) is log-normal.
No, that has nothing to do with the value of money. I think it's telling that your most "telling" argument is completely irrelevant to the claim you wish to make.
Remember kids, libertarianism only makes sense if you ignore reality.
Remember kids, disagreeing with the statement that money has logarithmic value means you're a libertarian. Learn something new every day!
Men's rights have been implied for centuries, idiot.
So you don't have any serious rebuttal to my observation? That's so unexpected.
I couldn't find the word "harassment" in the statement I saw.
That is a completely irrelevant observation. Words have meanings. If the meaning applies, then the word can be used even if it hasn't been used before with respect to a particular thing.
Not to mention the good fortune of being born with the intelligence sufficient to enable him to respond quickly when disaster did strike.
Let's not get too hasty with our accusations. I haven't seen any such demonstration of intelligence.
If Bush had been competent, he would have taken control of the situation in Louisiana.
He did. The problem was that he took control after the disaster. What people forget is that FEMA was not intended to manage the Katrina disaster response at first. As part of the Department of Homeland Security shuffle that was going on at the time, emergency response was supposed to be handled mostly by the state and local governments. That incidentally is what happened in the Hurricane Sandy incident.
But both Louisiana and New Orleans made profoundly bad decisions prior to the disaster that killed people. So by the time that became apparent, the federal government took over disaster response, the whole thing had become a huge mess.
Now, it is reasonable to question the wisdom and intelligence of ending FEMA's leadership without an adequate replacement or a good phase-out plan, but to claim that Bush didn't "take control" when he did?
I didn't say the government "sells" its services.
I know, but all the examples you gave were of government selling its services. None of those private entities can pass legislation by themselves. They have to do so through a government which is collecting from each such action.
The utility of money is not linear, it is logarithmic.
That makes no sense. It depends what you're trying to do. For small quantities, the utility of money is linear. For large quantities it tends to be modestly superlinear due to the economies of scale from buying in bulk. And if you're trying to buy all of a particular thing in the world (such as CO2 emission credits in Europe) then it goes to zero (you can't buy more of the good than exists so at some point, you can't buy any more of the good in question at any price and further quantities of money have no value for that particular task).
If you're speaking of the value of money to collective society as trade, then it is collectively constant. Doubling the money supply provides no additional value.
I doubt you can find a case where the utility of money is nearly logarithmic. That just isn't a natural fit.
Let us not pretend that human inability to count properly is a valid measure of what is right.
Yes, let's not do that. Let's also not pretend that the occasional inability to count properly is at all relevant to the current discussion.
Just think about what would happen if you did not believe the Jewish lies and propaganda.
Propaganda isn't necessarily false. Similarly, one could wonder how bad things could get if Israeli nukes got into the wrong hands due to a similar civil war. The problem with your complaint is that Syria is the country with the civil war not Israel.
This is a very niche belief.
So what? Most beliefs are niche beliefs.
I grew up in one of the richest areas on one of the wealthiest cities of the world, and never met anyone who voiced this belief.
That's because it's generally not an urban-based belief. A common error of thought is for people to assume everyone is like the people that they happen to know. One of the things I discover from interacting on Slashdot is that actual beliefs are much more varied that I would have experienced otherwise. Slashdot is obviously a very skewed sample, since I'm only seeing the people who bother to post, but it is still quite enlightening.
If you want police, fire, sewers, working traffic lights, hospitals, a military, air traffic controllers, etc. etc. etc. then you will need to pay taxes.
I don't see "want to be part of society" in that list. And I notice that you fatuously ignore that government spends a lot of money on things other than that small list.
liberals also (if not more so) want the law followed an applied equally (e.g. women's rights).
Then why is there "women's rights" and not "men's rights"? It's because they don't want equally applied law, but rather unfairly applied law to address perceived historical injustices.
Fraudulently claiming tax exempt status is also illegal.
Crimes generally are illegal.
The requests for paperwork/brochures from meetings could actually prove or disprove their reported activities for tax exemption. The IRS asked for names and documents in exchange for not paying thousands of dollars in taxes. Not a bad trade.
I see you don't get it. I probably could prove that you didn't commit a variety of crimes through torture. A few hours of time in the chamber surely is worth more than a few years in a hardcore prison, right?
Illegal means to obtain information are being used here. It doesn't matter if the cost of providing the information is relatively low, it is an illegal act which is being performed here.