youre ability to misinterpret and misapply scientific papers and then claim they prove your right is even more so.
I really admire your depth of reasoning there. The way you subtly chose quotes from the paper that clearly showed how I misunderstood it......your presentation is astounding.
Well, I've managed to get a 32 hour work week (for three different companies) and a sabbatical (note: when I said sabbatical, I meant unpaid sabbatical). I've never done contracting, but I know you can set your own hours (for less pay).
So these aren't impossibilities, these are things you don't know how to do.
Here in Norway we get five weeks paid vacation, from what I gather in US it's typically two. And yet if I moved to the US, I can't really imagine asking for three weeks extra unpaid vacation. And I'd imagine 95%+ of Americans here taking all five.
That's not really the question though, most people want more time off. The question is, are you willing to take a 20% pay cut in exchange for working eight fewer hours a week?
Most of the people I know who are working part time (in America) are actually looking to get more hours.
Yes, it takes a little work to do something that everyone else isn't doing. Easier for you to go with the flow, right? Keep complaining and don't try to get what you want......that's why you don't get what you want.
WHICH ONES, good question. Let's investigate extreme weather listed in the report (all quotes here come from the report itself) by type (which is the structure chosen by the report itself):
1) Heat Waves: "The 1930s remains the decade with the most heat waves......natural variability can dominate over anthropogenic warming to date.....few studies include an evaluation of the model's ability to simulate the important statistical properties of the event in interest."
2) Cold Waves: "There is no indication of increased variability of daily or monthly winter temperatures over the United States......more comprehensive assssments are needed of the models' ability to simulate cold temperatures for the right reasons"
3) Droughts: "Drought is caused by multiple factors at different scales and contexts, an area that needs further work is understanding the dominant factors"
4) Wildfires: "Large fires are almost always smaller than the grid cells of today's earth system models, so subgrid-cell variability will need to be represented in land-surface models that are either run offline or coupled to coarser-resolution atmospheric models." (Note: despite lamenting the low quality of computer models, this section is the one that comes closest to supporting the headline: it makes a reasonable case that each degree increase of temperature increases the risk of wildfire. Attribution is still difficult because of the difficulty of predicting rainfall (which decreases risk) and the uncertainty surrounded the anthropogenic component of the temperature anomaly.
5) Extreme Rainfall: "It will be critical that future studies better understand and resolve the multiple meteorological causes of heavy precipitation in order to better grasp causality and attribution. This statement will be relevant to any future attribution studies on extreme rainfall events."
6) Extratropical Cyclones: "There is no consensus on attributed trends in observations"
7) Extreme Snow and Ice Storms: "The databases underlying assessments of heavy snow and icing events have major deficiencies that hinder trend detection as well as attribution studies."
8) Tropical Cyclones: "many studies look for trends in tropical cyclone statistics, but these for the most part have been inconclusive even on regional or global scales.....attribution studies of single tropical cyclones using large ensemble simulations....have not been performed."
9) Severe Convective Storms: "In much of the world, good long-term report data do not exist.....there is no broad agreement on the detection of long-term trends."
So that's it. Nowhere in the paper does it attribute a single event to AGW. But that's ok, because the headline also lies: that was not the paper's intention or purpose. The paper was merely an attempt to survey the field, and understand where we are in terms of being able to attribute extreme weather to AGW (or any other factor, for that matter).
Cool part is you can actually read the report without subscribing (note: it's a report, not a peer reviewed study).
So the big question is, how do they do it? The answer is, primarily by using our notoriously accurate climate models to model extreme weather. Note that when they say "extreme" that is different than severe weather. If it's 25C in April, that can count as extreme.
AFAIK we crossed the line on AI doctors in the mid 1990s. Given an encoding of systems the AI outperformed humans pretty consistently. I'd assume in 2016 it isn't remotely close.
Note: this was in limited situations, and also worth remembering that 'encoding' is far from trivial. Also, given that experts dramatically disagree on how to handle various situations (there are over 100 different surgeries that can be used to treat a bunion. When should the bunion be treated, and which surgery should be used)?
I think it's a polite way of saying that one of their managers fell for a Nigerian 411 scheme and ended up forwarding the entire mailing list to a foreign country in exchange for a seance with the prince of Muganagaba.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
That's the worst reasoning I've seen on the internet all day long, and that's really saying something.
Because money improves your quality of life more than extra time does. When most people have extra time, they spend it watching TV or other similar things. When they have extra money, they can buy a bigger TV.
So, I wonder how this study came up with their numbers.
If you read the article, mainly by looking at the results of passing various laws at the state level. Which is kind of how it should be: we see what works at the state level and (maybe) implement it at the national level.
(Seriously, is it too much to ask you to read the article before going off on speculated criticism?)
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? I don't think there are many people, rich or poor, who oppose private property.
True, I should have done a comparison with other comments, and built a metric to determine "inanity."
Yours is probably the actual worst.
youre ability to misinterpret and misapply scientific papers and then claim they prove your right is even more so.
I really admire your depth of reasoning there. The way you subtly chose quotes from the paper that clearly showed how I misunderstood it......your presentation is astounding.
Well, I've managed to get a 32 hour work week (for three different companies) and a sabbatical (note: when I said sabbatical, I meant unpaid sabbatical). I've never done contracting, but I know you can set your own hours (for less pay).
So these aren't impossibilities, these are things you don't know how to do.
Your ability to explain away evidence that proves you wrong is astounding.
Here in Norway we get five weeks paid vacation, from what I gather in US it's typically two. And yet if I moved to the US, I can't really imagine asking for three weeks extra unpaid vacation. And I'd imagine 95%+ of Americans here taking all five.
That's not really the question though, most people want more time off. The question is, are you willing to take a 20% pay cut in exchange for working eight fewer hours a week?
Most of the people I know who are working part time (in America) are actually looking to get more hours.
You (and Seneca) are arguing about what people should want, I was merely presenting what people do want. Maybe you are wrong, but I am right.
There's a good argument that he's "right", though not about his summary sentence.
Maybe, but you didn't do a good job making that argument, either.
You realize we don't live in 1984, right?
Thanks, it was a lot of reading to write that comment so I'm glad someone appreciated it.
Yes, it takes a little work to do something that everyone else isn't doing. Easier for you to go with the flow, right? Keep complaining and don't try to get what you want......that's why you don't get what you want.
Start with this paper. If you search, you'll find more.
if you're working 40-50 hours a week like most people, then you have plenty of time to watch it.
The studies linked to in the summary are quite positive about computer aided learning, actually.
It's a good report, worth reading. I suggest reading it.
WHICH ONES, good question. Let's investigate extreme weather listed in the report (all quotes here come from the report itself) by type (which is the structure chosen by the report itself):
1) Heat Waves: "The 1930s remains the decade with the most heat waves......natural variability can dominate over anthropogenic warming to date.....few studies include an evaluation of the model's ability to simulate the important statistical properties of the event in interest."
2) Cold Waves: "There is no indication of increased variability of daily or monthly winter temperatures over the United States......more comprehensive assssments are needed of the models' ability to simulate cold temperatures for the right reasons"
3) Droughts: "Drought is caused by multiple factors at different scales and contexts, an area that needs further work is understanding the dominant factors"
4) Wildfires: "Large fires are almost always smaller than the grid cells of today's earth system models, so subgrid-cell variability will need to be represented in land-surface models that are either run offline or coupled to coarser-resolution atmospheric models." (Note: despite lamenting the low quality of computer models, this section is the one that comes closest to supporting the headline: it makes a reasonable case that each degree increase of temperature increases the risk of wildfire. Attribution is still difficult because of the difficulty of predicting rainfall (which decreases risk) and the uncertainty surrounded the anthropogenic component of the temperature anomaly.
5) Extreme Rainfall: "It will be critical that future studies better understand and resolve the multiple meteorological causes of heavy precipitation in order to better grasp causality and attribution. This statement will be relevant to any future attribution studies on extreme rainfall events."
6) Extratropical Cyclones: "There is no consensus on attributed trends in observations"
7) Extreme Snow and Ice Storms: "The databases underlying assessments of heavy snow and icing events have major deficiencies that hinder trend detection as well as attribution studies."
8) Tropical Cyclones: "many studies look for trends in tropical cyclone statistics, but these for the most part have been inconclusive even on regional or global scales.....attribution studies of single tropical cyclones using large ensemble simulations....have not been performed."
9) Severe Convective Storms: "In much of the world, good long-term report data do not exist.....there is no broad agreement on the detection of long-term trends."
So that's it. Nowhere in the paper does it attribute a single event to AGW. But that's ok, because the headline also lies: that was not the paper's intention or purpose. The paper was merely an attempt to survey the field, and understand where we are in terms of being able to attribute extreme weather to AGW (or any other factor, for that matter).
Cool part is you can actually read the report without subscribing (note: it's a report, not a peer reviewed study).
So the big question is, how do they do it? The answer is, primarily by using our notoriously accurate climate models to model extreme weather. Note that when they say "extreme" that is different than severe weather. If it's 25C in April, that can count as extreme.
AFAIK we crossed the line on AI doctors in the mid 1990s. Given an encoding of systems the AI outperformed humans pretty consistently. I'd assume in 2016 it isn't remotely close.
Note: this was in limited situations, and also worth remembering that 'encoding' is far from trivial. Also, given that experts dramatically disagree on how to handle various situations (there are over 100 different surgeries that can be used to treat a bunion. When should the bunion be treated, and which surgery should be used)?
I would pay money to have more free time. So would half the programmers here.
You can. Arrange a 32 hour work week. Take a sabbatical. Become a contractor and set your own schedule. These are all things that can be done.
I think it's a polite way of saying that one of their managers fell for a Nigerian 411 scheme and ended up forwarding the entire mailing list to a foreign country in exchange for a seance with the prince of Muganagaba.
Capitalism ftw. Achievements ftw.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
That's the worst reasoning I've seen on the internet all day long, and that's really saying something.
Because money improves your quality of life more than extra time does. When most people have extra time, they spend it watching TV or other similar things. When they have extra money, they can buy a bigger TV.
So, I wonder how this study came up with their numbers.
If you read the article, mainly by looking at the results of passing various laws at the state level. Which is kind of how it should be: we see what works at the state level and (maybe) implement it at the national level.
(Seriously, is it too much to ask you to read the article before going off on speculated criticism?)
Regardless of your position on this, if the Second Amendment can be restricted so can all the others.
FWIW they all can be restricted (although there's never been a court case on quartering troops AFAIK)