I have kids in their 30's and a couple of grandkids and I think you're dead wrong. In my experience it's very rare that the apple falls far from the tree but it won't mature unless it rolls out of the tree's shadow.
I'm 51, I'm a high school drop out AND degree qualified, I dropped out of HS at 16 and at 28 I went to night school to study maths to get into university, the reason I wanted a university degree was that nobody was interested in hiring a hobbyist programmer in the late 80's.
Out of 160 students that started the degree with me only 11 graduated with me, most had dropped out, some were repeating subjects. I graduated during the 90-91 recession and for a couple of months I thought that maybe I had wasted my time and effort, but persistance paid off and I got a programming gig. It was sheer dumb luck that during the rest of the 90's having a CS degree was basically a license to print money.
I consider myself above average intelligence but I'm no genius, I've worked with plenty of "ditch diggers" who were a lot smarter than me. The difference between me and them is that I figured out what I was interested in doing and I knew what I needed to do to get my foot in the door. Having said that, I think I got a lot more out of university than just being paid to do what I enjoy.
"I feel pretty confident that the engineers involved know what they're doing, and can prevent catastrophic failure during a collision."
Agree, I don't think safely containing nitrogen at 5000psi is a major engineering problem. I recall reading a while back that BMW had a tank that can hold hydrogen at 20,000psi and passed EU saftey standards for use in a car. Also hydrogen is a much more difficult gas to contain under pressure since it seeps right thru traditional materials such as steel.
The idea itself has been around for decades and has been tried many times, maybe it will be pratical this time around?
You see it "all the time" because you are looking for a way to demonise your ideological enemy, expressing the opinion that the world is over populated has nothing to do with advocating genocide. The 10:10 ads was a monty python style joke, people such as yourself simply jumped on it as proof that jews^H^H^H, blacks^H^H^H, socialists^H^H^H, muslims^H^H^H^H greenies are a sub human blight on society.
"Actually, the police officer that made the post is now part of a conspiracy to commit a crime."
No, he's a spy. He is mearly inciting the group he is spying on, probably in an attempt to test their level of communication, organization and willingness to break the law.
The real world is not black and white, the problem with these kind of activities is where to draw the line. Clearly such tatics were central to breaking up the IRA but just as clearly they've lost the plot when they start using them against political groups with a track record for peacefully protest.
"What if one day Larry Page decided that targeted advertising is evil (it arguably is), and therefore decided to immediately shut down AdSense?"
If Larry had more than 50% of the votes via his stock holding then he would be within his rights to do so, if not then the rest of the shareholders would gather and vote against him. In other words it's not the courts job to tell google how to define "evil".
"You cite zero examples for your claim about the highest standards of living being countries where they heavily regulate markets."
Germany is a pretty good example.
"Ultimately, the desire for market regulation is really about the obsessive, naive need of socialist snobs to construct a gigantic, centralized superpower that can force all citizens to live the way they want them to live, driven by a constant fear of the idea of people running things for themselves."
A "market" is by definition a set of regulations governing transactions between buyers and sellers. You can argue about what those regulations should be, but you cannot have a market without them.
All that demonstrates is that Moore is engaging in self-contradiction. He claims there is no proof that humans are changing the climate and at the same time claims that nuclear energy is the only way to combat climate change. Given your tendancy to contradict yourself in different posts, I'm not surprised you didn't notice Moore's obvious self-contradiction.
Ottmar Edenhofer was not speaking for the IPCC, the IPCC advocate the reduction of GHG emissions, they do not advocate how that should be achieved. Your conspiracy theories are due soley to your parinoid delusions.
Due to the massive thermal inertia of Eath's climate I think we will find that we're going to need both reductions in emissions and infrastruture to protect against rising sea levels.
Proffesional propogandists would have a much harder time feeding you erroneous conclusions based on half truths if you learnt the difference between climate forcings and feedbacks.
Marine fossils can be found on top of Mt Everest but that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Natural fluctuations in CO2 concentrations have been the main driver for climate change for at least a half a billion years. At no time in the past has the rate of change in CO2 concentrations been as rapid as what mankind has achived in the past couple of centuries.
"What I disagree with - and in this I'm in agreement with one of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore - is that CO2 is in any way harmful to the environment.
20yrs is considered long enough for 95% certainty of detecting a trend by the vast majority of climate scientists (IANACS). All of the past 34yrs have been warmer than the 20th century average. The observed trend over the last 30yrs is ~0.2 degC per decade, the trend itself is expected to accelerate since C02 concentrations are rising at a rate of ~2ppm/yr.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone call Tom Cruise, Google may be about to commit corporate suicide.
I have kids in their 30's and a couple of grandkids and I think you're dead wrong. In my experience it's very rare that the apple falls far from the tree but it won't mature unless it rolls out of the tree's shadow.
No, "the sky is blue" is a fact, or are you one of those vacuous morons who believes all knowledge is mearly opinion?
"it ended up costing the company $500K. He wasn't fired, but his department and others had to come up with ways to keep it from happening again."
Yes, it's kinda silly to fire someone when you just spent $500K training them.
“Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.” - SJ Harris.
The Battle of Midway was an ambush,.courtesy of the allied code breakers.
I'm 51, I'm a high school drop out AND degree qualified, I dropped out of HS at 16 and at 28 I went to night school to study maths to get into university, the reason I wanted a university degree was that nobody was interested in hiring a hobbyist programmer in the late 80's.
Out of 160 students that started the degree with me only 11 graduated with me, most had dropped out, some were repeating subjects. I graduated during the 90-91 recession and for a couple of months I thought that maybe I had wasted my time and effort, but persistance paid off and I got a programming gig. It was sheer dumb luck that during the rest of the 90's having a CS degree was basically a license to print money.
I consider myself above average intelligence but I'm no genius, I've worked with plenty of "ditch diggers" who were a lot smarter than me. The difference between me and them is that I figured out what I was interested in doing and I knew what I needed to do to get my foot in the door. Having said that, I think I got a lot more out of university than just being paid to do what I enjoy.
In your opinion.
"I feel pretty confident that the engineers involved know what they're doing, and can prevent catastrophic failure during a collision."
Agree, I don't think safely containing nitrogen at 5000psi is a major engineering problem. I recall reading a while back that BMW had a tank that can hold hydrogen at 20,000psi and passed EU saftey standards for use in a car. Also hydrogen is a much more difficult gas to contain under pressure since it seeps right thru traditional materials such as steel.
The idea itself has been around for decades and has been tried many times, maybe it will be pratical this time around?
" To me, it sounds like yet another scam."
I don't know about that, when it fails to materialise it can be used to fuel NWO conspiracy theories.
"lawyers have always been full of crap"
So have sausages, coincidence?
"I see this all the time from "greenies"
You see it "all the time" because you are looking for a way to demonise your ideological enemy, expressing the opinion that the world is over populated has nothing to do with advocating genocide. The 10:10 ads was a monty python style joke, people such as yourself simply jumped on it as proof that jews^H^H^H, blacks^H^H^H, socialists^H^H^H, muslims^H^H^H^H greenies are a sub human blight on society.
"Actually, the police officer that made the post is now part of a conspiracy to commit a crime."
No, he's a spy. He is mearly inciting the group he is spying on, probably in an attempt to test their level of communication, organization and willingness to break the law.
The real world is not black and white, the problem with these kind of activities is where to draw the line. Clearly such tatics were central to breaking up the IRA but just as clearly they've lost the plot when they start using them against political groups with a track record for peacefully protest.
"What if one day Larry Page decided that targeted advertising is evil (it arguably is), and therefore decided to immediately shut down AdSense?"
If Larry had more than 50% of the votes via his stock holding then he would be within his rights to do so, if not then the rest of the shareholders would gather and vote against him. In other words it's not the courts job to tell google how to define "evil".
"You cite zero examples for your claim about the highest standards of living being countries where they heavily regulate markets."
Germany is a pretty good example.
"Ultimately, the desire for market regulation is really about the obsessive, naive need of socialist snobs to construct a gigantic, centralized superpower that can force all citizens to live the way they want them to live, driven by a constant fear of the idea of people running things for themselves."
A "market" is by definition a set of regulations governing transactions between buyers and sellers. You can argue about what those regulations should be, but you cannot have a market without them.
Try balancing a broomstick on one finger, now try the same thing with a pencil.
No, he gave his opinion, the game is in your head.
All that demonstrates is that Moore is engaging in self-contradiction. He claims there is no proof that humans are changing the climate and at the same time claims that nuclear energy is the only way to combat climate change. Given your tendancy to contradict yourself in different posts, I'm not surprised you didn't notice Moore's obvious self-contradiction.
Ottmar Edenhofer was not speaking for the IPCC, the IPCC advocate the reduction of GHG emissions, they do not advocate how that should be achieved. Your conspiracy theories are due soley to your parinoid delusions.
Due to the massive thermal inertia of Eath's climate I think we will find that we're going to need both reductions in emissions and infrastruture to protect against rising sea levels.
Proffesional propogandists would have a much harder time feeding you erroneous conclusions based on half truths if you learnt the difference between climate forcings and feedbacks.
Marine fossils can be found on top of Mt Everest but that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Natural fluctuations in CO2 concentrations have been the main driver for climate change for at least a half a billion years. At no time in the past has the rate of change in CO2 concentrations been as rapid as what mankind has achived in the past couple of centuries.
"What I disagree with - and in this I'm in agreement with one of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore - is that CO2 is in any way harmful to the environment.
Patrick Moore does not agree with you.
You are full of shit on this subject, since when have banks been interested in conspiring to redistribute wealth?
20yrs is considered long enough for 95% certainty of detecting a trend by the vast majority of climate scientists (IANACS). All of the past 34yrs have been warmer than the 20th century average. The observed trend over the last 30yrs is ~0.2 degC per decade, the trend itself is expected to accelerate since C02 concentrations are rising at a rate of ~2ppm/yr.
Speaking of dice, James Hansen uses them to explain the consequences of AGW.