What gives whales the right to alter the environment? Whales should be regulated so their engineering impact to the oceans can be controlled.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that there are absolutely NO federal regulations on whale activities. Next they'll be deregulating the growing of vegetables!
" Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning...."
it's happening, although some of mating with brown bears and creating a new species.
You lose a lot of credibility repeating the fraudulent "polar bears in danger from AGW" claim. It's bogus. The polar bear population is no in danger, it's increasing. As far as specifically drowning / brown bear mating, those phenomenon have not changed significantly and have nothing to do with AGW.
4) Man spews giga-tonnes more CO2 then can be absorbed back into the system. This is becasue we dig up stored CO2 and release it in the air.
This shows a basic misinterpretation of the carbon cycle. CO2 does not stay around forever as CO2. Estimate range widely from somewhere around 5.4 years to 30 years or more. You can look at the NOAA's video that shows the fluctuating concentrations of CO2 and see the cycle is quite dynamic. Much of it is absorbed by the ocean and land sinks, but isotope studies point to the CO2 molecules from any point source are short-lived, and do rarely re-enter the atmosphere, if ever.
SO more CO2 in the air, more energy it absorbs. Energy(heat) continues to rise.
Maybe. Typically. Certainly in a closed system with no other cooling / heating effects going on. Sorry, but the science is not "settled", neither on the specific calculations on the global temperature for a given CO2 concentration, nor on the ways and amounts that human activities can impact the climate directly.
Yes; Scientologists object to psychiatric medication, and JW's object to blood transfusions. By "carefully" limiting their bullshit rationalizations to contraceptives - just as their bullshit Bush v Gore ruling was "limited" to that one election - they favored one religion over another. This is the most blatantly unconstitutional ruling since Citizens United.
And the government has not told Scientologist-owned companies to supply psychiatric medication, and have not told Jehovah's Witnesses they have to buy health insurance for anyone at all. The didn't limit anything to contraceptives - in fact it was about specific types of contraceptives that the business OWNERS objected to. Far from "unconstituional" (which the court has UNANIMOUSLY told your Dear Leader his actions have been 13 times now), this decision protected the Constitutional rights of people, even if they own a corporation. Citizens United did the same thing - it would be asinine to tell someone you have to fund a multi-million dollar movie out of your pocket, because if you form a corporation to do it we can ban your movie.
And then talk about ignoring the constitution by complaining that a law was intended only to help a very small subset of the citizenry and how it got all out of whack by being applied universally. Wow, just wow!
First Amendment rights are intended for only a very small subset of the citizenry??
I think NOT. At least until Reid and the tyrants in the Senate figure out how to pass their new Amendment, and define "the press" as only people holding a federal license to speak, like they keep heading toward with crap like this.
When you say corporations have the same legal rights as people, you're giving them the cake and letting them eat it, too. Saying they ARE people is a power grab, and all of a sudden there is no trade off for the idea of limited liability.
It's a distinction without a difference. All that's established is that corporations have the same legal protections under the law as individuals. That's important in an age where every financial transaction, possession, and and property has hundreds of rules and regulations attached to it by various agencies of the Federal government. It's important for the government to include all types of organizations as subject to the same rules as individuals, too, considering all the social engineering baked into the tax code.
Did you know most celebrities are corporations? Labor unions? Non-profits and NGOs? All these organizations need to be subject to, and protected by, a common set of standards. Without that, jurisprudence would be even more chaotic than it is now.
Can they also put a switch in this to make Office usable? I can't stand that fucking ribbon interface that makes everything I used to do the most often 5 times more difficult.
You'll really like Windows 8, then, because the ribbon is implemented for File Explorer and the Common Dialogs, too.
I love how overblown the coverage of this has been..as if it's driven people to suicide.
Worked beautifully, hasn't it? It's all about Facebook letting stockholders and advertisers what they are doing to improve the value of the PRODUCT (a.k.a. "users") to maximize revenue. Outrage from the product only serves to prove its effectiveness.
Let's just make the libertarian case against this argument, because I believe I can do so, and deconstruct it without resorting to a strawman.
The argument is that people should be made to be more of economic islands, by never taking care of anyone for them. That is to say, let them die without that liver unless they pay for it.
Well, you failed, because that is not the libertarian argument, it's a straw man, especially the "economic islands" part. Libertarian ideas require and encourage greater social interaction among people, not less. It also makes use of empathy for others', it doesn't ignore it, but rather values it as a better motivator than coercion (higher levels of confiscation of the fruits of labor by force).
So, are you claiming that an individual 'owes' society a certain debt? Are we keeping track of that?
Well your self-appointed masters are. It was, I believe, the State Department that came up with the figure of $7.2 million as the value to the US for each citizen. I can't find the reference though.
I know, I know, reusing the same data for everyone in this thread, but they all seem to be making the same argument that is strictly hypothetical, and doesn't account for real-world data.
None of these statistics take into account the rate of attempted suicides. That would certainly be a factor. Using a gun the first time you decide to try to kill yourself, you're much more likely to succeed because guns are so efficient. Taking pills or cutting yourself, or even driving your car into a tree, can land you in a hospital and the people around you realize you try to off yourself and you just might get the help you need to keep you from trying again.
And Pew Research is typically full of bullshit [people-press.org].
Wow what a horrible research tool this is. They boil down some very complicated and typically nuanced issues into binary decisions. All outcomes from this are useless.
That is the most frequently cited bunch of baloney in explaining lift. The easiest way to demonstrate what a load of bull it is, is to point out that a paper airplane develops lift and glides fine, even though both the top and bottom of the airfoil are flat.
Bah! You called my explanation "baloney" and then you post THIS!?!? What a bunch of hokum. Paper airplanes don't generate lift - you're just describing resistance. A feather will "glide" even slower - are you going to claim it's generating lift too?
Yes, but aren't lift and drag two parts of the same phenomenon?
In a way, yes. The airplane wing is curved on the top, and flat on the bottom. The wind has to travel farther over the top of the wing than the bottom, meaning there is less air pressure on the top of the wing, more on the bottom, and that's what generates lift.
The smarter approach would be to have third-party auditors and certification bodies give particular programs a rating based on their code and processes.
Excellent idea. Not sure that the insurance is really needed, the trick is simply to market the certification or auditor groups properly. IT PHBs just love Gartner. They'll quote their releases, follow their reports, and buy everything they say without question. So you need an organization like that on the software or software developer auditor side - Gartner does nothing like that. A similarly positioned organization could easily affect the stock prices or VP funding availability of any software seller, so it would be all the financial incentive those developers need.
In short the first link looks like a genuine and well done paper but it doesn't say anything about the global temperature. The second link is suspicious as hell, and is either deliberately written to push an agenda, or is a terrible attempt at science that would never pass peer review.
Your ad-hominem was highly predictable. Try responding to the content, instead of looking for nefarious motives. It's a meta-study of other papers. It's well-referenced and you can go read all the papers they cite yourself.
The point is, there are MANY studies (go find your own citations, if you don't like mine) that show that the MWP was, indeed, a global phenomenon. I won't even try to explain why that's not widely reported, nor the entire history of scrubbing the episode out of the IPCC reports.
Yeah you misrepresented it. You claimed they were using the terms to induce fear whereas the article was a much more unbiased look at how people perceived the different terms. They made no recommendations as to which you should use, or whether in fact the terms referred to anything real at all.
Thus my statement that you claimed it was nothing more than a big, expensive, academic exercise in etymology. Not really very credible. Sort of like claiming that geological studies funded by ExxonMobile are just neutral exercises to increase scientific understanding of earth processes.
I pointed this out to you and apparently this makes me a "warmist".
Duh. Because no one outside the influence of that religion would look at that document and not see the implications of manipulation by media and NGOs.
I have no idea what you even think you mean by "warmist"
Warmist A.K.A. anthropogenic global warming alarmist, engaged in evangelizing that religion and providing cover for the politicos using the issue for their own social agenda. The latter of which you have spent most of this thread doing. As well as the name-calling and shouting-down that other evangelists in your cult do a lot of lately.
You're really hung up on one simple typo, aren't you.
Typical warmist responses, of course. Name calling, shouting down, and ignoring facts obvious to everyone else, and denying all obvious attempts at social engineering as "misrepresentation".
Slashdot Mirror
...what does that make beavers?
A dam nuisance.
What gives whales the right to alter the environment? Whales should be regulated so their engineering impact to the oceans can be controlled.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that there are absolutely NO federal regulations on whale activities. Next they'll be deregulating the growing of vegetables!
There is something else that makes connector contacts less than desirable for maximum reliability, I don't remember what that is.
Vibration?
Wow. Mods on this are pretty telling. +1 Informative, +1 Interesting, -1 Overrated, -1 Troll, -1 Troll
AGW really is like a religion.
" Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ...."
it's happening, although some of mating with brown bears and creating a new species.
You lose a lot of credibility repeating the fraudulent "polar bears in danger from AGW" claim. It's bogus. The polar bear population is no in danger, it's increasing. As far as specifically drowning / brown bear mating, those phenomenon have not changed significantly and have nothing to do with AGW.
4) Man spews giga-tonnes more CO2 then can be absorbed back into the system. This is becasue we dig up stored CO2 and release it in the air.
This shows a basic misinterpretation of the carbon cycle. CO2 does not stay around forever as CO2. Estimate range widely from somewhere around 5.4 years to 30 years or more. You can look at the NOAA's video that shows the fluctuating concentrations of CO2 and see the cycle is quite dynamic. Much of it is absorbed by the ocean and land sinks, but isotope studies point to the CO2 molecules from any point source are short-lived, and do rarely re-enter the atmosphere, if ever.
SO more CO2 in the air, more energy it absorbs. Energy(heat) continues to rise.
Maybe. Typically. Certainly in a closed system with no other cooling / heating effects going on. Sorry, but the science is not "settled", neither on the specific calculations on the global temperature for a given CO2 concentration, nor on the ways and amounts that human activities can impact the climate directly.
Of course it's not going to be a problem on American mega-intersections with parking lots on all sides and the nearest home miles away
You people in Canadia are hilarious!
Yes; Scientologists object to psychiatric medication, and JW's object to blood transfusions. By "carefully" limiting their bullshit rationalizations to contraceptives - just as their bullshit Bush v Gore ruling was "limited" to that one election - they favored one religion over another. This is the most blatantly unconstitutional ruling since Citizens United.
And the government has not told Scientologist-owned companies to supply psychiatric medication, and have not told Jehovah's Witnesses they have to buy health insurance for anyone at all. The didn't limit anything to contraceptives - in fact it was about specific types of contraceptives that the business OWNERS objected to. Far from "unconstituional" (which the court has UNANIMOUSLY told your Dear Leader his actions have been 13 times now), this decision protected the Constitutional rights of people, even if they own a corporation. Citizens United did the same thing - it would be asinine to tell someone you have to fund a multi-million dollar movie out of your pocket, because if you form a corporation to do it we can ban your movie.
Your philosophy is just as valid as my philosophy... or at least it was. Now one philosophy is paramount in the eyes of the law.
False. Nobody said Hobby Lobby's employees can't go buy "morning after" pills. Only that the government can't force Hobby Lobby to pay for it.
And then talk about ignoring the constitution by complaining that a law was intended only to help a very small subset of the citizenry and how it got all out of whack by being applied universally. Wow, just wow!
First Amendment rights are intended for only a very small subset of the citizenry??
I think NOT. At least until Reid and the tyrants in the Senate figure out how to pass their new Amendment, and define "the press" as only people holding a federal license to speak, like they keep heading toward with crap like this.
When you say corporations have the same legal rights as people, you're giving them the cake and letting them eat it, too. Saying they ARE people is a power grab, and all of a sudden there is no trade off for the idea of limited liability.
It's a distinction without a difference. All that's established is that corporations have the same legal protections under the law as individuals. That's important in an age where every financial transaction, possession, and and property has hundreds of rules and regulations attached to it by various agencies of the Federal government. It's important for the government to include all types of organizations as subject to the same rules as individuals, too, considering all the social engineering baked into the tax code.
Did you know most celebrities are corporations? Labor unions? Non-profits and NGOs? All these organizations need to be subject to, and protected by, a common set of standards. Without that, jurisprudence would be even more chaotic than it is now.
On a different matter, did you just add me to your foes list today after reading my rant about how badly the ribbon interface sucks?
No, it must have been a long time ago.
Can they also put a switch in this to make Office usable? I can't stand that fucking ribbon interface that makes everything I used to do the most often 5 times more difficult.
You'll really like Windows 8, then, because the ribbon is implemented for File Explorer and the Common Dialogs, too.
I love how overblown the coverage of this has been..as if it's driven people to suicide.
Worked beautifully, hasn't it? It's all about Facebook letting stockholders and advertisers what they are doing to improve the value of the PRODUCT (a.k.a. "users") to maximize revenue. Outrage from the product only serves to prove its effectiveness.
That's the value, not the debt accrued.
Well what do you think they're counting on to pay the debt WITH, anyway?
Let's just make the libertarian case against this argument, because I believe I can do so, and deconstruct it without resorting to a strawman. The argument is that people should be made to be more of economic islands, by never taking care of anyone for them. That is to say, let them die without that liver unless they pay for it.
Well, you failed, because that is not the libertarian argument, it's a straw man, especially the "economic islands" part. Libertarian ideas require and encourage greater social interaction among people, not less. It also makes use of empathy for others', it doesn't ignore it, but rather values it as a better motivator than coercion (higher levels of confiscation of the fruits of labor by force).
So, are you claiming that an individual 'owes' society a certain debt? Are we keeping track of that?
Well your self-appointed masters are. It was, I believe, the State Department that came up with the figure of $7.2 million as the value to the US for each citizen. I can't find the reference though.
We don't live in the disconnected libertarian fantasy land, where no one affects anyone else.
Nor do we live in a hive socialist fantasy land, where everyone happily does his duty at the direction of an all-knowing benevolent dictator.
Your hypothesis doesn't explain the available data
I know, I know, reusing the same data for everyone in this thread, but they all seem to be making the same argument that is strictly hypothetical, and doesn't account for real-world data.
None of these statistics take into account the rate of attempted suicides. That would certainly be a factor. Using a gun the first time you decide to try to kill yourself, you're much more likely to succeed because guns are so efficient. Taking pills or cutting yourself, or even driving your car into a tree, can land you in a hospital and the people around you realize you try to off yourself and you just might get the help you need to keep you from trying again.
"He said suicide rates tend to be higher in states with higher gun ownership — not because gun owners are more likely to suffer from depression, but because guns are faster and deadlier than other methods such as drugs, carbon monoxide or hanging. People are more likely to survive an attempted overdose or even a hanging than they are a gun-shot wound."
Also from the CDC: "There is one suicide for every 25 attempted suicides."
And Pew Research is typically full of bullshit [people-press.org].
Wow what a horrible research tool this is. They boil down some very complicated and typically nuanced issues into binary decisions. All outcomes from this are useless.
That is the most frequently cited bunch of baloney in explaining lift. The easiest way to demonstrate what a load of bull it is, is to point out that a paper airplane develops lift and glides fine, even though both the top and bottom of the airfoil are flat.
Bah! You called my explanation "baloney" and then you post THIS!?!? What a bunch of hokum. Paper airplanes don't generate lift - you're just describing resistance. A feather will "glide" even slower - are you going to claim it's generating lift too?
Yes, but aren't lift and drag two parts of the same phenomenon?
In a way, yes. The airplane wing is curved on the top, and flat on the bottom. The wind has to travel farther over the top of the wing than the bottom, meaning there is less air pressure on the top of the wing, more on the bottom, and that's what generates lift.
The smarter approach would be to have third-party auditors and certification bodies give particular programs a rating based on their code and processes.
Excellent idea. Not sure that the insurance is really needed, the trick is simply to market the certification or auditor groups properly. IT PHBs just love Gartner. They'll quote their releases, follow their reports, and buy everything they say without question. So you need an organization like that on the software or software developer auditor side - Gartner does nothing like that. A similarly positioned organization could easily affect the stock prices or VP funding availability of any software seller, so it would be all the financial incentive those developers need.
In short the first link looks like a genuine and well done paper but it doesn't say anything about the global temperature. The second link is suspicious as hell, and is either deliberately written to push an agenda, or is a terrible attempt at science that would never pass peer review.
Your ad-hominem was highly predictable. Try responding to the content, instead of looking for nefarious motives. It's a meta-study of other papers. It's well-referenced and you can go read all the papers they cite yourself.
The point is, there are MANY studies (go find your own citations, if you don't like mine) that show that the MWP was, indeed, a global phenomenon. I won't even try to explain why that's not widely reported, nor the entire history of scrubbing the episode out of the IPCC reports.
Yeah you misrepresented it. You claimed they were using the terms to induce fear whereas the article was a much more unbiased look at how people perceived the different terms. They made no recommendations as to which you should use, or whether in fact the terms referred to anything real at all.
Thus my statement that you claimed it was nothing more than a big, expensive, academic exercise in etymology. Not really very credible. Sort of like claiming that geological studies funded by ExxonMobile are just neutral exercises to increase scientific understanding of earth processes.
I pointed this out to you and apparently this makes me a "warmist".
Duh. Because no one outside the influence of that religion would look at that document and not see the implications of manipulation by media and NGOs.
I have no idea what you even think you mean by "warmist"
Warmist A.K.A. anthropogenic global warming alarmist, engaged in evangelizing that religion and providing cover for the politicos using the issue for their own social agenda. The latter of which you have spent most of this thread doing. As well as the name-calling and shouting-down that other evangelists in your cult do a lot of lately.
You're really hung up on one simple typo, aren't you.
Typical warmist responses, of course. Name calling, shouting down, and ignoring facts obvious to everyone else, and denying all obvious attempts at social engineering as "misrepresentation".