LOL. I guess re-writing history isn't just for the Bush Administration. I remember when the new BSG was announced there were screams of outrage that the original BSG was being desecrated and that nothing could be as good as the original 1980 series (I kid you not). It would be sacrilege to remake such a classic, and with a female Starbuck no less.
I was relentlessly flamed when I pointed out the 1980 version was recognized as pure junk even when it was on the air, and ANYTHING would be better.
Warming will cause an ice age. Because of "crucial heat exchanging currents." Got it.
This was not very well said, but may be true. If we change the temperature balance of the planet too far in any direction we may get to a tipping point where change becomes unstoppable and unpredictable. The problem is that we have no idea where that tipping point may be.
The problem is that there are only experts on one side of the argument. The global warming "debate" isn't honest experts shouting at each other - it is real experts being shouted at by PR propagandists who CALL themselves experts. Just look at all the so-called "Institutes" on the Web that look so professional and scientific when they claim to offer evidence that global warming is a myth. These are NOT scientific organizations - they are paid public relations firms posing as reputable independent research organizations. Don't be fooled - and they are very good at fooling people - it's what they do for a living.
Their job is to create controversy where there is none. By creating pseudo-controversy and the appearance of scientific disagreement they delay legislation and influence public opinion to the benefit of their clients.
Yes, but if the content incorporates more than facts widely known to be previously proven, and clear and verifiable logic building on those, evaluating the content is very far from trivial. [emphasis mine]
The politically-driven global warming "skeptics" rely on the difficulty of verifying their claims. I recently spent most of a day chasing down and reading original scientific papers that had been cited as references on a professional-looking anti-global warming site. Without exception the papers did not reach the anti-warming conclusions the site claimed they reached. In at least one instance the paper came to the exact opposite conclusion and stated it very plainly in its conclusions section. Yet it was still used as a reference against global warming.
These charletans rely on people being unable or unwilling to go to the significant effort to check their sources. In this particular instance Plimer's "40 pages of references" and "more than 50 charts and graphs" is used to give his speech a gravitas it doesn't deserve. Quadrant Magazine is a right-wing conservative rag [see wiki] that vetts any pseudo-science articles it publishes through accepted conservative filters. The American Club of Sydney hires out its meeting halls to anyone. However, citing it as a venue implies support from the Club and sounds more impressive than if Plimer spoke at the local Grange Hall.
One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62,... his two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references
Oh Wow! References!...and fifty charts and graphs! Gosh, Plimer MUST be right, and there is no anthropogenic global warming!
BALONEY! This is typical obsfucation and typical of the attempts of the politically-based anti-environmental lobby to give themselves gravitas. NO reputable scientist would try to base the validity of his postition on the number of charts he created nor on how many pages of references he cited. Also note that this was not a scientific paper, but a speech sponsored by a right-wing conservative magazine and given at a hired banquet hall (but having it at the "American Club" sure sounds impressive, yes?). This whole thing was a setup - expect to hear more from the right-wingers about this manufacturered "academic presentation".
Yep. Why worry? Melting ice sheets in the Arctic are a big deal for Polar Bears, but it doens't effect us humans so who cares. After all, the polar ice packs last for thousands of years.
I'm not saying the lack of acorns is a result of global warming (in fact, no one said that in the article), but the so-called "expert" claiming it isn't caused by GW sinks to the typical level of spin and misdirection of these people. While decrying the jump in logic that MIGHT BE MADE that the lack of acorns is caused by global warming, he makes an equally unsupported jump in claiming that it isn't. This post is clearly the global-warming denying industry trying to get in front of this issue.
Watch out people - this post is the typical of propaganda being promulagated by the highly paid cottage industry that supports big oil and big coal. Behold the anti global-warming industry trying to get in front of this issue. They are just more subtle about it than those who shout "Drill baby, drill".
Hear, hear! The System was my favorite, too. Other stations are also much much worse in quality. I can do without the new Sirius/XM. Everyting has become much more plain vanilla and mainstream. Blah.
I'm realy pissed, too. I loved the Euro techno dance station but it's gone, gone, gone. They've just destroyed the blues stations that XM did so well. I really liked listening to the old blues masters, but that's gone, gone, gone, too. Everyting is now just the same as terrestrial radio, and i dn't need to spend $150/year for THAT.
The contemporary radio plays are gone (good for long trips) as are the old-time radio mystery shows. Gone.
I'm buying an iPod, and will spend $150/year getting what I like, including podcasts.
I think I'll be cancelling, too. I had XM, but they got rid of my favorite channels when they transitioned to Sirius/XM, and the music is almost all elevator music these days. Half the time half the channels don't even work. On other channels they kept the name, but changed the music type. XM at least had some alternate music channels that were DIFFERENT than broadcast radio. I used to listen to XM constantly, but now I find I don't even turn the Sirius/XM radio on. At $150/year subscrition, Sirius/XM just isn't worth it anymore. I think I'll buy an iPod and load it up with music and play it through the car speakers.
This wasn't simply my opinion, it has been the official position of the U.S. Navy. I am sure if a commercial vessel is being attacked the Navy has the authority to intervene, but taking pro-active steps to catch or stop the pirates has been deemed a law-enforcement activity and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Navy. The Coast Guard would be an entirely different story.
As I said, this will probably change if there is an al Queda link to the pirates. In fact I would not be surprised if the claim of an al Queda link is merely an excuse to allow the Navy to take pre-emptive action.
Except they take the whole ship into port, with you on board. They then ransome you, the ship and the cargo. There is no off-loading. There is no safe distance. Thanks for your valuable input anyway. Feel free to comment on any topic you know absolutely nothing about.
The people behind this are warlords, and very rich. I do not buy the "just trying to survive" argument. If it were a valid argument there would be nothing to keep anyone less well off than me to point a gun at my head and just take what I have.
If I were a pirate and the ships began carrying snipers and mortars I'd just tie women and children on the decks of my boat and put a camera boat in the area to film the SS [insert corporate name here] mortaring women and children. The problem is more difficult than simple "more guns".
I think the most benefit from hanging the pirates would come from getting rid of the pirates, not so much from deterrence. These guys are repeat offenders.
The problenm is that the pirates hold hostages. It would be best if the pirates simply did not come back from their raids.
Some hope comes from yesterdays announcement by the US government that the pirates have connections to al Queda. The problem the Navy has had in the past is that it couldn't perform law-enforcemet activities as long as the pirates were just criminals. However, if the ransoms are going to terrorists it becomes a genuine military objective to stop it. So expect more soon.
And yes, Q-ships ARE a great answer to the problem. I suggest an attack helicopter in the hold to sink the mother-ship. Wolves in sheep's clothing.
Still, these pirates are incredibly cocky. They threatened to sink the Indian guided missle frigate! I bet that got some laughs on the bridge.
Four pages of detailed description of a parking lot that had no purpose in the story other than some characters walked through it.
Two pages of descriptions of some characters' watches.
Half a page of description of the hamburger bought at a drive-thru window (another half page description of that, too).
Its clear that Stephenson writes by voice-recorder. Walking through parking lots, buying hamburgers and then transcribing them verbatim and in detail to make absurdly long (and expensive) books. I do not see how anyone can read this junk. Do you LIKE being ripped off by this guy?
Yeah, yeah - I know. i "just don't get the wonderfulness of the style."
The Colorado River at Phantom Ranch averages 80,000 ft3 of water per second, or 2.4 x 10^9 cc. The energy that would have to be extracted to cool that water by 0.001 degrees C would be 2.4 x 10^6 calories.
2.4 x 10^6 calories = 10^9 joules.
watts = joules/second, so that would be 10^9 watts, or 1 million kilowatts/second would be extracted. Now that's a lot of power for a 1/1000 degree temperature drop.
Another way to look at it is that it would take a million kilowatts to heat 80,000 ft3 of water 0.001 degree C.
We can be pretty darned sure that nowhere near that amount of power would be extracted by these vortex generators, so it is not reasonable to assume that the cooling of water from the extraction of energy using this method could possibly be an environmental hazard to anything. The energy extracted from the moving water would equal to millionths or billionths of a degree.
It's entirely up to the President how much of a role he gives the Vice President.
No, not "entirely". He has to conform to the description of the Vice-Presidential role as laid out in the Constitution. He can assigne him any role in the executive, but he cannot assign him a role in the Senate. Unilaterally "interpreting" the Constitution to give the VP rights he is not specificaly granted, or defining the position as being part of the legislative branch and claiming the protections of both offices simultaneously is NOT up to the President or the VP. Doing that clearly violates separation of powers.
The problem is that Cheney has wanted it both ways - claiming he was a member of the Senate when it suited him legally, and of the Executive when that suited him. NO administration in the past has ever made the ludicrous assertation that the Vice-President was not part of the Executive. So do not try to claim that Cheney playing games with the Constitution is just "more of the same".
I doubt this is true. Remember - it's Maugans who is interpreting what was said by Toyota. Just because an image of a toyota has a copyright notice on it from someone other than Toyota does not mean that the copyright is valid. You cannot trump an already existing copyright by stamping your own copyright on top of it. Since Toyota clearly owns the base copyright to the Toyota design, none of those so-called copyrights are worth spit.
It's not so dumb. Note that the images are being used in a commerical way by Desktop Nexus (since they make money from advertizers). The problem Toyota has is with the COMPANY Desktop Nexus suing Toyota images, and not with the fans or the pictures themselves.
Toyota's lawyers have a second valid concern. In the law, if you allow unrestricted use of your trademark or copyrighted material you lose control of the trademark. Even though these particular images are flattering, if Toyota did not stop their publication on the commercial Desktop Nexus site they would lose their ability to stop Toyota haters or competitors from posting damaging or unflatering images for commercial gain, or even to prevent others from using the Toyota imprateur for their own profit.
I suspect if the fans built their own non-commercial site to display their pictures Toyota would have no problems. Also, Desktop Nexus could do the legally correct thing and work out an arrangement where Toyota would authorize the fan images on the site.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. I guess re-writing history isn't just for the Bush Administration. I remember when the new BSG was announced there were screams of outrage that the original BSG was being desecrated and that nothing could be as good as the original 1980 series (I kid you not). It would be sacrilege to remake such a classic, and with a female Starbuck no less.
I was relentlessly flamed when I pointed out the 1980 version was recognized as pure junk even when it was on the air, and ANYTHING would be better.
I TOLD YOU SO!
This was not very well said, but may be true. If we change the temperature balance of the planet too far in any direction we may get to a tipping point where change becomes unstoppable and unpredictable. The problem is that we have no idea where that tipping point may be.
The problem is that there are only experts on one side of the argument. The global warming "debate" isn't honest experts shouting at each other - it is real experts being shouted at by PR propagandists who CALL themselves experts. Just look at all the so-called "Institutes" on the Web that look so professional and scientific when they claim to offer evidence that global warming is a myth. These are NOT scientific organizations - they are paid public relations firms posing as reputable independent research organizations. Don't be fooled - and they are very good at fooling people - it's what they do for a living.
Their job is to create controversy where there is none. By creating pseudo-controversy and the appearance of scientific disagreement they delay legislation and influence public opinion to the benefit of their clients.
Yes, but if the content incorporates more than facts widely known to be previously proven, and clear and verifiable logic building on those, evaluating the content is very far from trivial. [emphasis mine]
The politically-driven global warming "skeptics" rely on the difficulty of verifying their claims. I recently spent most of a day chasing down and reading original scientific papers that had been cited as references on a professional-looking anti-global warming site. Without exception the papers did not reach the anti-warming conclusions the site claimed they reached. In at least one instance the paper came to the exact opposite conclusion and stated it very plainly in its conclusions section. Yet it was still used as a reference against global warming.
These charletans rely on people being unable or unwilling to go to the significant effort to check their sources. In this particular instance Plimer's "40 pages of references" and "more than 50 charts and graphs" is used to give his speech a gravitas it doesn't deserve. Quadrant Magazine is a right-wing conservative rag [see wiki] that vetts any pseudo-science articles it publishes through accepted conservative filters. The American Club of Sydney hires out its meeting halls to anyone. However, citing it as a venue implies support from the Club and sounds more impressive than if Plimer spoke at the local Grange Hall.
One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, ... his two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references
Oh Wow! References! ...and fifty charts and graphs! Gosh, Plimer MUST be right, and there is no anthropogenic global warming!
BALONEY! This is typical obsfucation and typical of the attempts of the politically-based anti-environmental lobby to give themselves gravitas. NO reputable scientist would try to base the validity of his postition on the number of charts he created nor on how many pages of references he cited. Also note that this was not a scientific paper, but a speech sponsored by a right-wing conservative magazine and given at a hired banquet hall (but having it at the "American Club" sure sounds impressive, yes?). This whole thing was a setup - expect to hear more from the right-wingers about this manufacturered "academic presentation".
Yep. Why worry? Melting ice sheets in the Arctic are a big deal for Polar Bears, but it doens't effect us humans so who cares. After all, the polar ice packs last for thousands of years.
I'm not saying the lack of acorns is a result of global warming (in fact, no one said that in the article), but the so-called "expert" claiming it isn't caused by GW sinks to the typical level of spin and misdirection of these people. While decrying the jump in logic that MIGHT BE MADE that the lack of acorns is caused by global warming, he makes an equally unsupported jump in claiming that it isn't. This post is clearly the global-warming denying industry trying to get in front of this issue.
Watch out people - this post is the typical of propaganda being promulagated by the highly paid cottage industry that supports big oil and big coal. Behold the anti global-warming industry trying to get in front of this issue. They are just more subtle about it than those who shout "Drill baby, drill".
Hear, hear! The System was my favorite, too. Other stations are also much much worse in quality. I can do without the new Sirius/XM. Everyting has become much more plain vanilla and mainstream. Blah.
I'm realy pissed, too. I loved the Euro techno dance station but it's gone, gone, gone. They've just destroyed the blues stations that XM did so well. I really liked listening to the old blues masters, but that's gone, gone, gone, too. Everyting is now just the same as terrestrial radio, and i dn't need to spend $150/year for THAT.
The contemporary radio plays are gone (good for long trips) as are the old-time radio mystery shows. Gone.
I'm buying an iPod, and will spend $150/year getting what I like, including podcasts.
So Sirius/XM - you're gone, gone, gone.
I think I'll be cancelling, too. I had XM, but they got rid of my favorite channels when they transitioned to Sirius/XM, and the music is almost all elevator music these days. Half the time half the channels don't even work. On other channels they kept the name, but changed the music type. XM at least had some alternate music channels that were DIFFERENT than broadcast radio. I used to listen to XM constantly, but now I find I don't even turn the Sirius/XM radio on. At $150/year subscrition, Sirius/XM just isn't worth it anymore. I think I'll buy an iPod and load it up with music and play it through the car speakers.
Bye bye satellite radio.
This wasn't simply my opinion, it has been the official position of the U.S. Navy. I am sure if a commercial vessel is being attacked the Navy has the authority to intervene, but taking pro-active steps to catch or stop the pirates has been deemed a law-enforcement activity and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Navy. The Coast Guard would be an entirely different story.
As I said, this will probably change if there is an al Queda link to the pirates. In fact I would not be surprised if the claim of an al Queda link is merely an excuse to allow the Navy to take pre-emptive action.
Except they take the whole ship into port, with you on board. They then ransome you, the ship and the cargo. There is no off-loading. There is no safe distance. Thanks for your valuable input anyway. Feel free to comment on any topic you know absolutely nothing about.
Plus I seem to remember pirates operating in the Carribean during Reagan's term, preying on private pleasure craft.
The people behind this are warlords, and very rich. I do not buy the "just trying to survive" argument. If it were a valid argument there would be nothing to keep anyone less well off than me to point a gun at my head and just take what I have.
If I were a pirate and the ships began carrying snipers and mortars I'd just tie women and children on the decks of my boat and put a camera boat in the area to film the SS [insert corporate name here] mortaring women and children. The problem is more difficult than simple "more guns".
I think the most benefit from hanging the pirates would come from getting rid of the pirates, not so much from deterrence. These guys are repeat offenders.
The problenm is that the pirates hold hostages. It would be best if the pirates simply did not come back from their raids.
Some hope comes from yesterdays announcement by the US government that the pirates have connections to al Queda. The problem the Navy has had in the past is that it couldn't perform law-enforcemet activities as long as the pirates were just criminals. However, if the ransoms are going to terrorists it becomes a genuine military objective to stop it. So expect more soon.
And yes, Q-ships ARE a great answer to the problem. I suggest an attack helicopter in the hold to sink the mother-ship. Wolves in sheep's clothing.
Still, these pirates are incredibly cocky. They threatened to sink the Indian guided missle frigate! I bet that got some laughs on the bridge.
I read one-half of a Stephenson book.
Four pages of detailed description of a parking lot that had no purpose in the story other than some characters walked through it.
Two pages of descriptions of some characters' watches.
Half a page of description of the hamburger bought at a drive-thru window (another half page description of that, too).
Its clear that Stephenson writes by voice-recorder. Walking through parking lots, buying hamburgers and then transcribing them verbatim and in detail to make absurdly long (and expensive) books. I do not see how anyone can read this junk. Do you LIKE being ripped off by this guy?
Yeah, yeah - I know. i "just don't get the wonderfulness of the style."
Nooo. Many are, but a lot of dams are built for energy production. The TVA system being the prefet example.
The Colorado River at Phantom Ranch averages 80,000 ft3 of water per second, or 2.4 x 10^9 cc. The energy that would have to be extracted to cool that water by 0.001 degrees C would be 2.4 x 10^6 calories.
2.4 x 10^6 calories = 10^9 joules.
watts = joules/second, so that would be 10^9 watts, or 1 million kilowatts/second would be extracted. Now that's a lot of power for a 1/1000 degree temperature drop.
Another way to look at it is that it would take a million kilowatts to heat 80,000 ft3 of water 0.001 degree C.
We can be pretty darned sure that nowhere near that amount of power would be extracted by these vortex generators, so it is not reasonable to assume that the cooling of water from the extraction of energy using this method could possibly be an environmental hazard to anything. The energy extracted from the moving water would equal to millionths or billionths of a degree.
It's entirely up to the President how much of a role he gives the Vice President.
No, not "entirely". He has to conform to the description of the Vice-Presidential role as laid out in the Constitution. He can assigne him any role in the executive, but he cannot assign him a role in the Senate. Unilaterally "interpreting" the Constitution to give the VP rights he is not specificaly granted, or defining the position as being part of the legislative branch and claiming the protections of both offices simultaneously is NOT up to the President or the VP. Doing that clearly violates separation of powers.
The problem is that Cheney has wanted it both ways - claiming he was a member of the Senate when it suited him legally, and of the Executive when that suited him. NO administration in the past has ever made the ludicrous assertation that the Vice-President was not part of the Executive. So do not try to claim that Cheney playing games with the Constitution is just "more of the same".
Except that the spider promptly lost the bag of sophisticated tools.
I doubt this is true. Remember - it's Maugans who is interpreting what was said by Toyota. Just because an image of a toyota has a copyright notice on it from someone other than Toyota does not mean that the copyright is valid. You cannot trump an already existing copyright by stamping your own copyright on top of it. Since Toyota clearly owns the base copyright to the Toyota design, none of those so-called copyrights are worth spit.
Sorry - typo.
I meant to say "using Toyota images", not "suing Toyota images".
It's not so dumb. Note that the images are being used in a commerical way by Desktop Nexus (since they make money from advertizers). The problem Toyota has is with the COMPANY Desktop Nexus suing Toyota images, and not with the fans or the pictures themselves.
Toyota's lawyers have a second valid concern. In the law, if you allow unrestricted use of your trademark or copyrighted material you lose control of the trademark. Even though these particular images are flattering, if Toyota did not stop their publication on the commercial Desktop Nexus site they would lose their ability to stop Toyota haters or competitors from posting damaging or unflatering images for commercial gain, or even to prevent others from using the Toyota imprateur for their own profit.
I suspect if the fans built their own non-commercial site to display their pictures Toyota would have no problems. Also, Desktop Nexus could do the legally correct thing and work out an arrangement where Toyota would authorize the fan images on the site.
Oh, you mena kind of like an ATM?
When my printer manufacturer manages to provide automatic nozzle cleaning, I would think that car manufacturers would be able to do the same.
Your printer doesn't have to print when it cleans its nozzles, but your car has to run.