Just because A precedes B, A did not necessarily cause B.
You are correct. And the fact that the seasons are getting out of whack doesn't mean man is the cause. However, the bulk of scientists agree that humans are responsible for screwing up the environment. Considering how little effort most companies and many individuals put into taking care of our environment, I find it fairly plausible that global warming is a human effect.
Yet despite the mounting scientific evidence about global warming, the general population will remain unconvinced until they start feeling its effects. The mere fact that the average temperature in the NW right now is in the 50s doesn't mean that global warming exists. The fact that the credible science in the area asserts global warming to be real does.
This is not linked to a scientific study, but in my experience I have found people will avoid thinking about subjects that are unpleasant or require significant change on their part. Even if its necessary. Personally, I have been struggling to change my diet so I can reduce my cholesterol and triglycerides. If I had the choice I not only wouldn't think about, I wouldn't do anything about. My wife doesn't give me that option, though, so I follow through on it. How many folks out there want to contemplate that they are having enough of a negative effect on the planet that they are going to have to change their lifestyle? That they are going to have to give up some of the things that make their life easier? Again, this is only my opinion, but I do not think they will take action until they no longer have any other choices.
I was wondering where he had got to. Nice to see he is back and bringing us news!
Seriously though, I think the increasing extremes in climate are going to start convincing people faster than anything else. We've had clear mild (40s-50s) here in the NW when in the past its been nothing but nut numbing cold. A few more years of this and people will believe. Science might have been telling us this for years, but until the general population actually feels the effects, they won't believe it.
One of the inherent problems with this kind of argument is that it assumes that opinions ought to be static. Frankly I think that beliefs and opinions should grow and change as one travels through life. What Bill Gates believed 14 years ago is certainly going to be different than what he believes now. That doesn't make what he said then any more insightful than what he says now. They are simply different. Now if RMS were comparing quotes within a couple weeks of each other (and no new information happened along in the intervening time) than I think it would be legitimate.
For those of us with a few years between school and the present, I'd ask you if you really wanted to be judged by what you think now, or what you thought then? Does it really matter that you're opinion of a decade ago doesn't gel with your opinion of today?
I'm not trying to troll but am genuinely curious about something. What does the ^H^H^H^H^H^H signify? I've attempted to look it up but have not discovered its secret. Would you be willing to enlighten?
One of my wife's friends is a retired physics professor. We had a talk once in which he was railing against the anthropomorphization of everyday objects. Since objects aren't supposed to have feelings one way or the other, it got me thinking about how many things in my own life that I anthropomorphize. So given a choice between (a) changing my tendencies to anthropomorphize, or (b) accept that I anthropomorphize and be done with it. Instead I chose (c). I realized that since anthropomorphized objects behave better than non-anthropomorphized objects, that they were the ones wanting to be anthropomorphized. Who was I to argue?
It was for Nationwide Insurance. The "Life comes at you fast" line of commercials.
***Commercial Spoiler Ahead***
The kid puts together a robot and then brings his folks out into the garage. They beam at the kid as the robot waves, and smiles (his mouth is made up from what appears to be graphic equalizer slides). Then laser beams shoot out of the robot's eyes and it starts blowing up parts of the garage. It turns, see the family car and blows it up;-)
I think it was on after the game during the postgame frenzy.
My first thought was the Super Bowl Ad close to the end of the game (maybe even right after) in which the kid builds the robot in the garage. Its a Nationwide ad and is hilarious. If you have not yet seen it, watch for it!
Not really, no. See I was specifically trying to piss you off. I know how defensive you are about your own smoking addiction, and wanted to ridicule you on a world stage. It worked, too! w00t!
You're right! We should commission a study to study the effects of Studies on other Studies while they are being studied. It could be the next re-insurance insurance bonanza.
I think that that's an excellent point. A determined burglary is not going to have any problem bypassing you locked door. However, the kid trying for an easy score will be deterred, and that's the point. Same with passwords. Some ub3rl33t black hat is going to bypass it anyway. Some teenager with more bravado than skills will find it a road block.
Excellent points. I tuned in for the first one, but couldn't really stomache it after that. There was a chance to show an edgier, darker universe than the pristine one captured in the earlier series (later timeline). What was the point of bouncing around with time travel when there is so much other material to explore?
Mars riots would be a fantastic plot line. So would attempts at exploring extremely hostile worlds. With a strong tie in with Vulcan you could even contrast the emotionalism of Earthlings versus the coldly logical Vulcans when they share danger and conflict. Or even better yet, how about the human race suddenly coming to grips with the reality of alien life forms which are superior to us in many ways?
The team of B&B raises a special type of ire in me. There is only a small handful of people in the world who are in a position to make a SciFi series with a built in universe and dedicated fan base. To squander that opportunity with inane plots and technobabble is a crime. They should be banished to live the remainder of their days in the very universe they neutered.
Why didn't I think of that before? CSI:Star Trek! This team of Star Fleet investigators go from ship to ship investigating various random future crimes.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry that that concept would actually constitute original thought in programming these days.
This is actually a common misperception. The Old Hebrew word for "rested" can also be translated into "rebooted." Hence the confusion. Billical scholars still debate which one is the more likely interpretation.
I'm not a Constitutional Law Scholar either, but I will do what I can;-) Basically after the Civil War there were a number of Amendments that were added. One of these, the XIV, was designed to apply the Constitutional Amendments to all of the States. At the time the Amendments were only a prohibition against the Federal Government- not the States. So, in order to make sure that the Confederate States did not start back up with slavery, they made all of the amendments (including the XIII which prohibited slavery) apply to the States.
That's the easy part. The difficult part hit when the XIV was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled that the entirety of the Amendments did not automatically apply to the States. Oops. What has happened instead is that the Amendments have been applied to the States in piecemeal fashion through various Supreme Court decisions. So the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments (I believe- I'm going off of memory) have been applied. The rest, therefore by default, have not.
In practical matters then, assuming a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Federal Government would be prohibited from making a law which restricted firearms, while the states would not. Indeed, in theory at least, a State could even ban guns completely within its borders and not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment since it has not been interpreted to apply to the States. As a sideline to this you should keep in mind that while everyone is free to read and interpret the Constitution (which I would encourage) there are only 9 opinions that actually count;-)
For your convenience, the relevant text of the XIV Amendment is in section 1:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
After I submitted I realized that including the text might be make it easier to discuss. Here is Article V which deals with the amending of the Constitution:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Not to troll, but if the 1st Amendment isn't an Amendment, then why it called an Amendment? And why wasn't it added until 1791 along with the other first ten, when the Constitution was adopted in 1786?
The fisrt 10 Amendments, like any of the others can be repealed or changed, should the People decide to do it. Due to the difficulty in garnering enough support to amend the Constitution, however, the likelyhood of it happening is pretty small. But there is certainly a difference between possible but not likely and impossible.
It is also possible to alter the Constitution through a new Constitutional Convention. The mechanism is there and, in theory, they could even scrap the entire Constitution and start all over from scratch. Again its not likely, but it is possible.
Finally, for the record, IANAL- but I did take a year of COnLaw classes as an undergradute in getting my Law and Society degree.
I'm surprised at just how ignorant the students were about the 1st, but I have to wonder what they had to say about the 2nd. I'm not a 2nd Amendment zealot by any means (I don't own any guns and probably won't any time soon), but it has as much authority as the other Amendments do, yet is often discounted as "not really applying anymore" or something similar. What strikes me as interesting is that one of the main groups which pushed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as no longer being valid was the media- which owes sll of its protection to the 1st.
I downright shudder when I think about the average American's current understanding of our Constitution.
Towards the bottom of the article they mention that Mercury would not be a viable option ont he moon anyway, due to its becoming close to solid at the super cold temperatures at which they are planning on working. They are trying to figure a way to use some of the lighter hydrocarbons which are found in liquid form a la Titan. I don't know if any of this exist ont he moon already or not, but they would certainly be lighter to ship up if required. That plus the initial telescope plan calls for a 2m since that can be set up without human intervention. Although they do not say so specifically, I think that thin their planning the 100m monster would come down the pipeline after we already have an established human element on the moon. Since that isn't likely to happen without further leaps of ability, they'll wait till then to try it.
The thing I learned while managing poeple is that the goal is is more important than the method. You would be amazed at the myriad of ways that something can get done. If you give one of your folks a project, a deadline, and reasonable easy to understand standards, then you should be able to turn them loose. Don't fall into the trap of telling them how to do it- trust them to get it done. If they don't get it done, or they make mistakes, then you can help them a learn a better process. If they get it done though (even if its through a bass-ackwards method that makes your teeth grate) then they have fulfilled their duties.
Just because EA locked up ESPN branding doesn't mean the others are going to just go away. If the EA line stagnates because they rest on their branding prowess, then others will step in. I can't say its good for the gaming industry, but I certainly don't think its a death knell.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. And the fact that the seasons are getting out of whack doesn't mean man is the cause. However, the bulk of scientists agree that humans are responsible for screwing up the environment. Considering how little effort most companies and many individuals put into taking care of our environment, I find it fairly plausible that global warming is a human effect.
Yet despite the mounting scientific evidence about global warming, the general population will remain unconvinced until they start feeling its effects. The mere fact that the average temperature in the NW right now is in the 50s doesn't mean that global warming exists. The fact that the credible science in the area asserts global warming to be real does.
This is not linked to a scientific study, but in my experience I have found people will avoid thinking about subjects that are unpleasant or require significant change on their part. Even if its necessary. Personally, I have been struggling to change my diet so I can reduce my cholesterol and triglycerides. If I had the choice I not only wouldn't think about, I wouldn't do anything about. My wife doesn't give me that option, though, so I follow through on it. How many folks out there want to contemplate that they are having enough of a negative effect on the planet that they are going to have to change their lifestyle? That they are going to have to give up some of the things that make their life easier? Again, this is only my opinion, but I do not think they will take action until they no longer have any other choices.
Seriously though, I think the increasing extremes in climate are going to start convincing people faster than anything else. We've had clear mild (40s-50s) here in the NW when in the past its been nothing but nut numbing cold. A few more years of this and people will believe. Science might have been telling us this for years, but until the general population actually feels the effects, they won't believe it.
For those of us with a few years between school and the present, I'd ask you if you really wanted to be judged by what you think now, or what you thought then? Does it really matter that you're opinion of a decade ago doesn't gel with your opinion of today?
Thanks! That actually makes sense now. Yet another layer of /. peeled away...
I'm not trying to troll but am genuinely curious about something. What does the ^H^H^H^H^H^H signify? I've attempted to look it up but have not discovered its secret. Would you be willing to enlighten?
One of my wife's friends is a retired physics professor. We had a talk once in which he was railing against the anthropomorphization of everyday objects. Since objects aren't supposed to have feelings one way or the other, it got me thinking about how many things in my own life that I anthropomorphize. So given a choice between (a) changing my tendencies to anthropomorphize, or (b) accept that I anthropomorphize and be done with it. Instead I chose (c). I realized that since anthropomorphized objects behave better than non-anthropomorphized objects, that they were the ones wanting to be anthropomorphized. Who was I to argue?
I agree, software hates being personified.
***Commercial Spoiler Ahead***
The kid puts together a robot and then brings his folks out into the garage. They beam at the kid as the robot waves, and smiles (his mouth is made up from what appears to be graphic equalizer slides). Then laser beams shoot out of the robot's eyes and it starts blowing up parts of the garage. It turns, see the family car and blows it up;-)
I think it was on after the game during the postgame frenzy.
My first thought was the Super Bowl Ad close to the end of the game (maybe even right after) in which the kid builds the robot in the garage. Its a Nationwide ad and is hilarious. If you have not yet seen it, watch for it!
Not really, no. See I was specifically trying to piss you off. I know how defensive you are about your own smoking addiction, and wanted to ridicule you on a world stage. It worked, too! w00t!
Maybe we could ship all of them to Mars? Well worth the cost if you ask me.
You're right! We should commission a study to study the effects of Studies on other Studies while they are being studied. It could be the next re-insurance insurance bonanza.
I think that that's an excellent point. A determined burglary is not going to have any problem bypassing you locked door. However, the kid trying for an easy score will be deterred, and that's the point. Same with passwords. Some ub3rl33t black hat is going to bypass it anyway. Some teenager with more bravado than skills will find it a road block.
Mars riots would be a fantastic plot line. So would attempts at exploring extremely hostile worlds. With a strong tie in with Vulcan you could even contrast the emotionalism of Earthlings versus the coldly logical Vulcans when they share danger and conflict. Or even better yet, how about the human race suddenly coming to grips with the reality of alien life forms which are superior to us in many ways?
The team of B&B raises a special type of ire in me. There is only a small handful of people in the world who are in a position to make a SciFi series with a built in universe and dedicated fan base. To squander that opportunity with inane plots and technobabble is a crime. They should be banished to live the remainder of their days in the very universe they neutered.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry that that concept would actually constitute original thought in programming these days.
This is actually a common misperception. The Old Hebrew word for "rested" can also be translated into "rebooted." Hence the confusion. Billical scholars still debate which one is the more likely interpretation.
A O L C D s
That's the easy part. The difficult part hit when the XIV was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled that the entirety of the Amendments did not automatically apply to the States. Oops. What has happened instead is that the Amendments have been applied to the States in piecemeal fashion through various Supreme Court decisions. So the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments (I believe- I'm going off of memory) have been applied. The rest, therefore by default, have not.
In practical matters then, assuming a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Federal Government would be prohibited from making a law which restricted firearms, while the states would not. Indeed, in theory at least, a State could even ban guns completely within its borders and not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment since it has not been interpreted to apply to the States. As a sideline to this you should keep in mind that while everyone is free to read and interpret the Constitution (which I would encourage) there are only 9 opinions that actually count;-)
For your convenience, the relevant text of the XIV Amendment is in section 1:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
I got it from the Cornell Law Legal Information Insitute.
The fisrt 10 Amendments, like any of the others can be repealed or changed, should the People decide to do it. Due to the difficulty in garnering enough support to amend the Constitution, however, the likelyhood of it happening is pretty small. But there is certainly a difference between possible but not likely and impossible.
It is also possible to alter the Constitution through a new Constitutional Convention. The mechanism is there and, in theory, they could even scrap the entire Constitution and start all over from scratch. Again its not likely, but it is possible.
Finally, for the record, IANAL- but I did take a year of COnLaw classes as an undergradute in getting my Law and Society degree.
I downright shudder when I think about the average American's current understanding of our Constitution.
Towards the bottom of the article they mention that Mercury would not be a viable option ont he moon anyway, due to its becoming close to solid at the super cold temperatures at which they are planning on working. They are trying to figure a way to use some of the lighter hydrocarbons which are found in liquid form a la Titan. I don't know if any of this exist ont he moon already or not, but they would certainly be lighter to ship up if required. That plus the initial telescope plan calls for a 2m since that can be set up without human intervention. Although they do not say so specifically, I think that thin their planning the 100m monster would come down the pipeline after we already have an established human element on the moon. Since that isn't likely to happen without further leaps of ability, they'll wait till then to try it.
"it was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
The thing I learned while managing poeple is that the goal is is more important than the method. You would be amazed at the myriad of ways that something can get done. If you give one of your folks a project, a deadline, and reasonable easy to understand standards, then you should be able to turn them loose. Don't fall into the trap of telling them how to do it- trust them to get it done. If they don't get it done, or they make mistakes, then you can help them a learn a better process. If they get it done though (even if its through a bass-ackwards method that makes your teeth grate) then they have fulfilled their duties.
Just because EA locked up ESPN branding doesn't mean the others are going to just go away. If the EA line stagnates because they rest on their branding prowess, then others will step in. I can't say its good for the gaming industry, but I certainly don't think its a death knell.