And you are neglecting the fact it will cost significant sums to move farmland to a more northern climate. A thing that will only be cost effective once food prices rise substantially. It is captialism after all. First you see the dramatic price increases *then* the market provides a solution.
I would probably not move the farmland. Just drive the tractor up there... Maybe build a new barn...
And presumably, at each point, you simply abandoned the house that you were living in, and then bought a new one at inflated prices at the next place?
Plus, presumably, the government in fact, abandoned the the infrastructure that supported each house (you know: highways, railways, power lines and power stations, sewage treatment plants, government buildinggs and services). And your new government (you immigrated each time - right?) was quite happy to build new infrastructure from the ground up - at no cost to yourself and millions of other immigrants?
We'd have to assume that's what happened, because otherwise your anecdote would not be analogous, and you would not have posted it, would you?
Very few places will suddenly lose all value. They will just lose value for farming a specific crop. It may case a crop change, or change to ranching, or perhaps natural gas fracking... This means you could sell your house. Unlike in Detroit where everything lost all value and it had noting to do with global warming.
The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?)
If all you can recall from that period is "global cooling", which was met with skepticism when presented and quickly obliterated in peer circles, you seem to have a peculiarly biased memory.
That is essentially my point. However, in that case, any skepticism was not met with -1 Flamebait. Today, all dissenting opinion is ruthlessly attacked and modded down, and damned be the facts of the matter.
Climatologists have been warning about warming for many decades and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me.
From someone who has actually been reading news for decades, take it from me. Most of the things printed in the layman press were wildly inaccurate over time.
You forget that for all of the places that become too warm for the current crops (or too dry for any crops) there will be a lot more that suddenly become warm enough.
Why will there be a lot more, and not less or about the same?
I guess that was unclear word usage. I could have said "there will be a lot of others that suddenly" instead.
The will be the genitic chlorine that the pool is so in need of.... The non-scientist types that are incapable of competing in future generations will be pruned back some...
Sure... Because over the long course of history, it has always been the intellectual elite that have faired well in the collapse of a civilization. Those Mongol hordes, farmers and hunters never have a chance...
Of course the "entitlement" crowd will be totally decimated...
The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?) Most rational people eventually realize that stories like this are sensationalist tripe, and you can bet that whatever eventually comes to pass, this will not be it.
When setting your speed on the road, do you orient yourself on "the worst case scenario" (e.g. you car not handling your steering to avoid a suddenly appearing cow and hitting a tree in the middle of nowhere), or do you usually consider the "average scenario" (going on a dry, empty road)?
When you are driving your car;
After four hours of your mother shrieking at you to slow down when you are going 45 in a highway, do you eventually tune her out?
Plants will require a lot of additional water in warmer climates
Yes, a warmer client will destroy crops in Greenland... You forget that for all of the places that become too warm for the current crops (or too dry for any crops) there will be a lot more that suddenly become warm enough. And all of that melting ice frees up fresh water...
No, not if you understand arithmetic. In fact making students comfortable with these sorts of manipulations seems to me to lay a good groundwork for algebra. I admit that "making ten" and "number sentences" are weird terminology, and I've seen some baffling examples of CC math, but the paragraph you've provided seems like a sensible strategy for teaching basic arithmetic to kids.
ow, if these are the worst examples opponents can come up with, I don't see what the fuss is about. Furthermore, if Common Core gets more people to understand commutativity and associativity of addition, it can only be a good thing - as there appears to be a definite lack of understanding on the part of adults here.
Actually I have seen many that are far worse. Unfortunately, a google search will not show the worst ones, only the most sensationalized. And anything truly sensationalized usually had a large grain of BS somewhere in the pudding. The big problem I have with it (Other than the random "How will we change up teaching math this year, a subject that has not changed at this level in hundreds of years...") is how it deals with errors. Before, errors could be fixed as they were found. Now it can take LITERALLY (And yes, I an using "literally" in it's literal sense) an act of congress to change them,
The answer is C, you can break 7 up into 5 and 2
So in your head you can subtract 5 from 15 quickly to get 10, then subtract another 2 to get 8.
But if you just subtract 7 from 15 and get 8, you are wrong.
http://www.corestandards.org/M...
"Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13)."
I only picked the info-wars link because it was the first thing that came up in google images with a static path. Pick one you like more... https://www.google.com/search?...
Or the new "Common Core" crap that has the most ass backwards ways of doing simple things like math. http://static.infowars.com/bin... I have seen people with MS and PHd in math shake their heads over this stuff.
There won't ever be a remote kill switch. Its such a stupid idea it won't be implemented.
This attitude is dangerous and enables scary power grabs. I would have thought that indefinite detention, drone executions of American citizens without due process and outlawing of protests on private property would never happen in the US either, but they all did.
What if they are angry because they are actively running from an abusive spouse that may kill them? Butter shut down the car...
I will never own a device with a remote kill switch that I do not have full and sole control over. (One reason to have a dumb phone. All they can kill is the service.)
Slashdot Mirror
It also caused a huge jump in VPN signups. http://torrentfreak.com/turkey...
Of course since these facts go against tightly held beliefs, you will never get any "Informative" mods... You might get a Troll or two...
And you are neglecting the fact it will cost significant sums to move farmland to a more northern climate. A thing that will only be cost effective once food prices rise substantially. It is captialism after all. First you see the dramatic price increases *then* the market provides a solution.
I would probably not move the farmland. Just drive the tractor up there... Maybe build a new barn...
Have fun being reliant on Russia as your food source, buying off them in competition with the rest of the world.
I guess you forgot about that other tiny little state at the same latitudes. You know... The one between Canada and Russia...
And presumably, at each point, you simply abandoned the house that you were living in, and then bought a new one at inflated prices at the next place?
Plus, presumably, the government in fact, abandoned the the infrastructure that supported each house (you know: highways, railways, power lines and power stations, sewage treatment plants, government buildinggs and services). And your new government (you immigrated each time - right?) was quite happy to build new infrastructure from the ground up - at no cost to yourself and millions of other immigrants?
We'd have to assume that's what happened, because otherwise your anecdote would not be analogous, and you would not have posted it, would you?
Very few places will suddenly lose all value. They will just lose value for farming a specific crop. It may case a crop change, or change to ranching, or perhaps natural gas fracking... This means you could sell your house. Unlike in Detroit where everything lost all value and it had noting to do with global warming.
The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?)
If all you can recall from that period is "global cooling", which was met with skepticism when presented and quickly obliterated in peer circles, you seem to have a peculiarly biased memory.
That is essentially my point. However, in that case, any skepticism was not met with -1 Flamebait. Today, all dissenting opinion is ruthlessly attacked and modded down, and damned be the facts of the matter.
Climatologists have been warning about warming for many decades and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me.
From someone who has actually been reading news for decades, take it from me. Most of the things printed in the layman press were wildly inaccurate over time.
Why will there be a lot more, and not less or about the same?
I guess that was unclear word usage. I could have said "there will be a lot of others that suddenly" instead.
The will be the genitic chlorine that the pool is so in need of.... The non-scientist types that are incapable of competing in future generations will be pruned back some...
Sure... Because over the long course of history, it has always been the intellectual elite that have faired well in the collapse of a civilization. Those Mongol hordes, farmers and hunters never have a chance...
Of course the "entitlement" crowd will be totally decimated...
The other problem is a long history of dire warnings about climate change that have all proven to be totally wrong. By long history, I mean like 50 years worth... (anybody remember global cooling?) Most rational people eventually realize that stories like this are sensationalist tripe, and you can bet that whatever eventually comes to pass, this will not be it.
When setting your speed on the road, do you orient yourself on "the worst case scenario" (e.g. you car not handling your steering to avoid a suddenly appearing cow and hitting a tree in the middle of nowhere), or do you usually consider the "average scenario" (going on a dry, empty road)?
When you are driving your car;
After four hours of your mother shrieking at you to slow down when you are going 45 in a highway, do you eventually tune her out?
Plants will require a lot of additional water in warmer climates
Yes, a warmer client will destroy crops in Greenland... You forget that for all of the places that become too warm for the current crops (or too dry for any crops) there will be a lot more that suddenly become warm enough. And all of that melting ice frees up fresh water...
No, not if you understand arithmetic. In fact making students comfortable with these sorts of manipulations seems to me to lay a good groundwork for algebra. I admit that "making ten" and "number sentences" are weird terminology, and I've seen some baffling examples of CC math, but the paragraph you've provided seems like a sensible strategy for teaching basic arithmetic to kids.
At 8 before multiplication?
ow, if these are the worst examples opponents can come up with, I don't see what the fuss is about. Furthermore, if Common Core gets more people to understand commutativity and associativity of addition, it can only be a good thing - as there appears to be a definite lack of understanding on the part of adults here.
Actually I have seen many that are far worse. Unfortunately, a google search will not show the worst ones, only the most sensationalized. And anything truly sensationalized usually had a large grain of BS somewhere in the pudding. The big problem I have with it (Other than the random "How will we change up teaching math this year, a subject that has not changed at this level in hundreds of years...") is how it deals with errors. Before, errors could be fixed as they were found. Now it can take LITERALLY (And yes, I an using "literally" in it's literal sense) an act of congress to change them,
The answer is C, you can break 7 up into 5 and 2 So in your head you can subtract 5 from 15 quickly to get 10, then subtract another 2 to get 8.
But if you just subtract 7 from 15 and get 8, you are wrong.
http://www.corestandards.org/M...
"Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13)."
This is some serious confusion right here.
I only picked the info-wars link because it was the first thing that came up in google images with a static path. Pick one you like more... https://www.google.com/search?...
Or the new "Common Core" crap that has the most ass backwards ways of doing simple things like math. http://static.infowars.com/bin... I have seen people with MS and PHd in math shake their heads over this stuff.
There won't ever be a remote kill switch. Its such a stupid idea it won't be implemented.
This attitude is dangerous and enables scary power grabs. I would have thought that indefinite detention, drone executions of American citizens without due process and outlawing of protests on private property would never happen in the US either, but they all did.
I can't think of a single large bike that get over 35mpg, and while I'm sure the aerodynamics help, the extra weight most certainly doesn't.
I have two that do, and both are cruisers with no aerodynamics.
Kill switches for when drivers get angry? If you thought gridlock was bad now, just wait until 50 angry stalled drivers are in front of you.
That would shut off my car quite quickly... :)
Why don't you take a stresstab and lie down for awhile.
I'll just slow the car down in the meantime.
But I am stressed because the axe murder is chasing me!
What if they are angry because they are actively running from an abusive spouse that may kill them? Butter shut down the car...
I will never own a device with a remote kill switch that I do not have full and sole control over. (One reason to have a dumb phone. All they can kill is the service.)
And you thought the MS Paperclip pissed you off!
Well, at least the people doing this are not anyway...
Real measures that have been tried and failed before... Sounds like government.