I think it does make sense to look at things on a 100 year time span. but I also think it makes sense to look at things on 25 , 5 and 1 year time spans.
"The Money Masters", on google video, is a little out of date on its economic theory and suggestions at the end. But it gets the major points of the matter right.
currently in Canada banks operate with a 0% reserve. in the USA it varies I think it is 3% for some types of accounts, and 0% for others.
It is the way to go. If you want add in a few constants here and there to get the effect you want. but essentially that is in my opinion what is desirable.
but they don't do "Just fine", they have corrupt politicians, less access to medical treatment, more disease, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, and in general a much shittier life then you, and me. I for one do feel bad.
I have a friend who literally lives on zero income. It was a choice he made so that he would not have to take part in an immoral system. if you don't understand how this is possible look up "Freegan". here is a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism essentially he is homeless as a moral choice.
You also forgot to mention that some studies suggest that more C02 and warmer temperatures result in longer and more productive growing seasons and a net increase in food production. Oh wait, a plus side to "global warming?" We can't publicize that...;-)
you want another one, melting icecaps in the north could open up the north west passage, it would be a boon for the shipping industry. opening up a competing link (Panama canal) between Asia an Europe.
Simulations cannot prove anything. You know and can predict that putting X amount of energy into a given mass of water will raise its temperature by some amount.
I am aware of the problems with simulations, I run them all the time, and even developed a few (not global warming ones). You are quite correct they prove nothing but a well calibrated simulation can be a good indicator of what might happen in a system.
You know that from empirical tests and real science. Simulations of complex systems such as the global climate models can't even accurately predict the next El Nino event or two or three, let alone complex interactions of all the elements and factors that go into climate over the next 100 years.
There is a real difference between long term trends and short term variation or noise. My Weather man it very accurate in my area for 2 sometimes 3 days in advance, but past that there is little point even looking at the predictions. But that doesn't mean I don't know that the month of February 2007 will average in the -20C range. on the scale of one year seasonal changes 1 days scale is noise but 1 month average is something that can be filtered out. The same concept applies to global climate change models, you need to ignore (skip over) noise in the system that you don't think will matter in the long term analysis.
The problem is, these corrections are typically more than an order of magnitude greater than the "trend" we're looking for in the data! So how do you know there is a 0.3 degree trend/rise over the last 50 years if you've applied a graduated -6.0 degree correction?
I honestly can't say I am fully knowledgeable on what correction was done for urban areas. Or what statistical method was used to average global temperatures from a non uniform distribution of temperature gages. I do know the problem you speak of in the general dealing with data sense, Where you apply some form of "Normalization", or "Filter" you think is needed, and via this method can convince yourself that almost anything is true. My main comment is that I have faith in the "Peer review" process, to pick up these errors.
I also believe many ships are equipped with temperature equipment and taking readings every now and again in the middle of this pacific helps.
There is far far too much "spin" on both sides of the global warming issue.
I agree I try to be anti spin pro fact, however I honestly believe I was being fair in my original post, (note: most of the words you highlighted). "believe" "Might be" "could be" "might happen".
in addition to these words I would like to add some more "Strong Likelihood" "Weight of Evidence" "Probable" "Most likely" I think, maybe I should have used these words in my original post more.
OK, Hurricane is a possible prediction and effect of global warming, possible. The fact that global warming is occurring is not prediction, it is measured and fact. The amount of global warming is sometimes debated by scientists as are some of the effects of global warming. But global warming is happening NOW. Global average temperature is rising.
This **MAY** Cause :
* Flooding
* drought
* hurricanes
* desertification
* melting ice caps
* Loss of farm land
* mass extinction Some or all of the above may someday come true because of global warming. we don't know for sure yet which ones. What we do know is that Global warming IS currently happening. and we can probably slow its onset, with real things we personally can do, and we as a race can do.
mainly Lower your personal carbon emissions. encourage your government to enact legislation to lower carbon emissions.
maybe you should actually look into some climate research. No, Global warming did not predict 15 hurricanes hitting NYC this year. Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes. This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
* more drought
* more floods
* desertification
* loss of productive farm land
* more extreme weather changes in local areas All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.
but what is OBVIOUS is that
1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
2. CO2 is a green house gas
3. Global temperatures are starting to go up
If Carbon emissions are left unchecked by 2050 we will have twice the pre-industrial age level of carbon in the atmosphere. and there is a good chance we won't be be able to slow them down fast enough to avoid massive temperature increases. Every time in earths history the climate has radically changed the dominate life form on the planet became extinct. Guess what species is the dominant life form this time.
I had never really heard of it by this name before. I have heard it called a "Citizens Jury", or "Citizens Assembly"
but I agree, with you randomly selected people who are well informed make decent decisions.
but One of the major problems with this situation as We In Canada are finding out with
* http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/
* http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/ is that the people who "educate" the jury have a a strong impact on the decision, many people think that the BC Assembly's outcome was determined the moment the teachers were chosen (they are pro STV). The Ontario one is trying to fix some of these problems with more public input, but some special interest parties (http://www.fairvotecanada.org/) seem to be trying to use public input as a way of turning this back into a popularity contest.
any way, my point is its a good model, but not perfect. I think adding regular forms of deliberative, as well as direct democracy, our representative democracy would be a positive move.
I've Been using GnuCash for 2 years now, and I like it a lot I just (last weekend) upgraded to 2.0, but havn't had much of a chance to explore the new features. but it mostly seems the same. one complaint is the limit of reports type you can create.
If that's what the GP AC meant, then perhaps he shouldn't have said "due to the very existence of power itself," which sure sounds to me like the central tenet of anarchism.
sorry for being of topic for a second, but I have always loved Starship troopers of this quote:
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
any way back on topic:
I suppose you could be correct. I thought he was referring to current power authorities, but I may very well have been wrong.
As for "indirect election of Senators", and Electoral Collage, I think both are really really bad ideas. But then I think the existence of a single strong figurehead ie US President is a bad idea.
I am optimistic enough to believe that perhaps a representation/voting system could be designed such that its flaws were trivial in comparison to the flaws of the representatives
I as well am am optimistic, but only that a system can be designed and implemented that is useful for our time. I think and system will have flaws that slowly creep into it, causing issues. and forcing a new system.
and just a curiosity. do you have any thought on what system this would be?
It can also mean direct democracy, like literally direct (all power goes directly to the people), which is very much unworkable in groups larger then a dozen or so.
But most people who I talk about it with refer to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy there is usually lots of talk about "town halls", and "public consultation" and what not.
Now but to defend the two terms as being somthing simmilar. They both start by recognizing that the "sovereignty" of a nation is in "the citizens" of the country. not in the head of state, or the various levels of governements. One would put all power directly in "the citizens" hands, the other would modify the current sytsem of power to recognize this fact.
To the best of my knowledge Voting is a very small part of the power structures decision making process. perhaps it is a good idea to encourage participation and reform in all portions of the decision making process.
I agree almost entirely. But, is it not also an option to Limit the power of these hidden groups with "Funding laws", "Bribery laws", "lobbying laws", "an Independent auditor general", "Arms length Taxpayers owned Mass Media corporations", "Freedom of Information Laws"?
Slashdot Mirror
what "fact" have you stated?
I see only opinion in you above post.
I think it does make sense to look at things on a 100 year time span.
but I also think it makes sense to look at things on 25 , 5 and 1 year time spans.
this is not correct. It is what you have been told by the media.a nkinge serve+banking
Money is actually created by the banks, See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_b
and
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=fractional+r
"The Money Masters", on google video, is a little out of date on its economic theory and suggestions at the end. But it gets the major points of the matter right.
currently in Canada banks operate with a 0% reserve.
in the USA it varies I think it is 3% for some types of accounts, and 0% for others.
Dude
"Income After Tax" = Log ("Income Before Tax")
It is the way to go.
If you want add in a few constants here and there to get the effect you want.
but essentially that is in my opinion what is desirable.
I personally advocate a log tax structure.
"Income After Tax" = Log(Income)
that way the rich pay WAY more and the SUPER RICH, pay ungodly amounts of money.
but they don't do "Just fine", they have corrupt politicians, less access to medical treatment, more disease, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, and in general a much shittier life then you, and me. I for one do feel bad.
I have a friend who literally lives on zero income.
It was a choice he made so that he would not have to take part in an immoral system.
if you don't understand how this is possible look up "Freegan".
here is a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism
essentially he is homeless as a moral choice.
"unskippable"
Ha!
I think you are confusing Shill with Troll.
Its like Terrorist, and Communist.
you want another one, melting icecaps in the north could open up the north west passage, it would be a boon for the shipping industry. opening up a competing link (Panama canal) between Asia an Europe.
I am aware of the problems with simulations, I run them all the time, and even developed a few (not global warming ones). You are quite correct they prove nothing but a well calibrated simulation can be a good indicator of what might happen in a system.
There is a real difference between long term trends and short term variation or noise. My Weather man it very accurate in my area for 2 sometimes 3 days in advance, but past that there is little point even looking at the predictions. But that doesn't mean I don't know that the month of February 2007 will average in the -20C range. on the scale of one year seasonal changes 1 days scale is noise but 1 month average is something that can be filtered out. The same concept applies to global climate change models, you need to ignore (skip over) noise in the system that you don't think will matter in the long term analysis.
I honestly can't say I am fully knowledgeable on what correction was done for urban areas. Or what statistical method was used to average global temperatures from a non uniform distribution of temperature gages.
I do know the problem you speak of in the general dealing with data sense, Where you apply some form of "Normalization", or "Filter" you think is needed, and via this method can convince yourself that almost anything is true. My main comment is that I have faith in the "Peer review" process, to pick up these errors.
I also believe many ships are equipped with temperature equipment and taking readings every now and again in the middle of this pacific helps.
I agree I try to be anti spin pro fact, however I honestly believe I was being fair in my original post, (note: most of the words you highlighted).
"believe"
"Might be"
"could be"
"might happen".
in addition to these words I would like to add some more
"Strong Likelihood"
"Weight of Evidence"
"Probable"
"Most likely"
I think, maybe I should have used these words in my original post more.
would that word be six or sigma?
Simple, you do nothing and wait.
I don't suggest this action. but hey, what the hell you only go extinct once!
OK, Hurricane is a possible prediction and effect of global warming, possible.
The fact that global warming is occurring is not prediction, it is measured and fact.
The amount of global warming is sometimes debated by scientists as are some of the effects of global warming.
But global warming is happening NOW. Global average temperature is rising.
This **MAY** Cause :
* Flooding
* drought
* hurricanes
* desertification
* melting ice caps
* Loss of farm land
* mass extinction
Some or all of the above may someday come true because of global warming. we don't know for sure yet which ones.
What we do know is that Global warming IS currently happening. and we can probably slow its onset, with real things we personally can do, and we as a race can do.
mainly Lower your personal carbon emissions.
encourage your government to enact legislation to lower carbon emissions.
maybe you should actually look into some climate research.
No, Global warming did not predict 15 hurricanes hitting NYC this year.
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.
This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
* more drought
* more floods
* desertification
* loss of productive farm land
* more extreme weather changes in local areas
All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.
but what is OBVIOUS is that
1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
2. CO2 is a green house gas
3. Global temperatures are starting to go up
If Carbon emissions are left unchecked by 2050 we will have twice the pre-industrial age level of carbon in the atmosphere. and there is a good chance we won't be be able to slow them down fast enough to avoid massive temperature increases. Every time in earths history the climate has radically changed the dominate life form on the planet became extinct. Guess what species is the dominant life form this time.
I had never really heard of it by this name before.
I have heard it called a "Citizens Jury", or "Citizens Assembly"
but I agree, with you randomly selected people who are well informed make decent decisions.
but One of the major problems with this situation as We In Canada are finding out with
* http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/
* http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/
is that the people who "educate" the jury have a a strong impact on the decision, many people think that the BC Assembly's outcome was determined the moment the teachers were chosen (they are pro STV).
The Ontario one is trying to fix some of these problems with more public input, but some special interest parties (http://www.fairvotecanada.org/) seem to be trying to use public input as a way of turning this back into a popularity contest.
any way, my point is its a good model, but not perfect. I think adding regular forms of deliberative, as well as direct democracy, our representative democracy would be a positive move.
It's policy at my work to leave the machine on at night.
as that is when the backup is done.
So, I see you live in America.
Your Free (As In Beer) time is not Free (as in Freedom) time.
how do you know you're burning more than you eat if you don't know either number?
historical data.
Plot your average weight gain over several years.
From this you can calculate how many extra calories you are taking in per week.
Note I have not counted Calories in or Burned off. just the difference between the two.
I've Been using GnuCash for 2 years now, and I like it a lot
I just (last weekend) upgraded to 2.0, but havn't had much of a chance to explore the new features.
but it mostly seems the same.
one complaint is the limit of reports type you can create.
we have freeks up in the north. Edible Ballot Society
1. obtain your ballot
2. eat your ballot in protest!
3. profit.
this plan is 100% guarantee of profit!
sorry for being of topic for a second, but I have always loved Starship troopers of this quote:
any way back on topic:
I suppose you could be correct. I thought he was referring to current power authorities, but I may very well have been wrong.
As for "indirect election of Senators", and Electoral Collage, I think both are really really bad ideas. But then I think the existence of a single strong figurehead ie US President is a bad idea.
I as well am am optimistic, but only that a system can be designed and implemented that is useful for our time. I think and system will have flaws that slowly creep into it, causing issues. and forcing a new system.
and just a curiosity. do you have any thought on what system this would be?
It can also mean direct democracy, like literally direct (all power goes directly to the people), which is very much unworkable in groups larger then a dozen or so.
But most people who I talk about it with refer to that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
there is usually lots of talk about "town halls", and "public consultation" and what not.
Now but to defend the two terms as being somthing simmilar. They both start by recognizing that the "sovereignty" of a nation is in "the citizens" of the country. not in the head of state, or the various levels of governements.
One would put all power directly in "the citizens" hands, the other would modify the current sytsem of power to recognize this fact.
To the best of my knowledge Voting is a very small part of the power structures decision making process. perhaps it is a good idea to encourage participation and reform in all portions of the decision making process.
I agree almost entirely.
But, is it not also an option to Limit the power of these hidden groups with "Funding laws", "Bribery laws", "lobbying laws", "an Independent auditor general", "Arms length Taxpayers owned Mass Media corporations", "Freedom of Information Laws"?
I believe he limited his statement to elections with
* more then 2 choices
AND
* more than 1 voter
and in the US you only have "2 choices" Therefor you elections are fair!
QED.
any way, all joking aside look into Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy its a very cool idea, from a theoretical view.