"Any company which directly challenges the government will be slapped down."
Don't you mean any government that challenges big business will be slapped down? As one prominent member on the neocons recently said, "we thought Fox was working for us but it turns out that we are working for them".
Everybody thinks tax money subsidies at least one thing they don't agree with. Taxation in a democracy is not about what the money is spent on, it's about how the decisions to spend it are made.
"the Great Google Memory hole will remember this guy"
Yes, and it will also remeber he was framed. I'm all for educating the court of public opinion but what's the alternative to a free press reporting news about arrests, etc? - Censor everything the state does until it has come before a judge?
"This guy is going to be stygmatized for life based on a crime he didn't commit."
Natural justice is rare since most crimes can't be undone, someone paralised by a drunk driver will never get their life back. Sure some people will only remeber this guy was arrested for kiddie porn - it sucks to be a victim of a frame and that's why the framer is behind bars.
"but what is there to gain from gaming some statisticians results"
Exactly, there is nothing to be gained by trying to game this to make a false prediction, marketer's who know what they are doing will love it's for data mining potential. eg: which new movie or TV show gives the best advertising bang per buck, who should we pay to wear our shoes, etc.
"Not sure about in the UK, but innocent until PROVEN guilty used to mean something across the pond."
Please don't lecture the Brits about "innocent until PROVEN guilty". They were the ones who gave it to you, they were using it at least 1000yrs before the ink dried on the US bill of rights.
From what I have read the only person who abused his rights was the sociopath who framed him. It is not libelous to report the FACT he was arrested for possesing kiddie porn and any parent who puts their kids first will understand why the cops MUST act the way they did.
Oh ye of little faith! Here's the video of one of them acting strangely. I know it's says it's a frog but Italian toads are just more handsome than your average toad.
Half of the fatalities on the road are drivers (look up your own stats), in the two car situations you list the odds are the same for both drivers, there is no reason that the drunks car is less likey to be T-boned going through a red light, it simply depends on who entered the cross road first. Also note that a dead pedestrian or a cyclists is just as likely to be intoxicated as a driver, if not more so. You also left out single vehicle collisions where the odds are much higher that the driver was intoxicated.
"like the guy in Phoenix a few days ago who ran into a bunch of motorcycles at a red light from behind, killing 4 of them"
Thanks, you just demonstrated my point by recalling a spectacular incident, do you recall the last time you read about the common occurance of a drunk killing himself with a tree or a lampost?
So how do you explain that when you remove the effect of my simplistic calculation from the observed record the warming trend dissapears? Science is about the best explaination, from what I can tell you don't have an explaination. Scientists have spent decades looking for alternative forcings and have come up empty handed.
Hint: El-nino is not a forcing it's large scale turbulance.Your rant about El-nino is similar to saying the convection currents are what is causing the water to warm when I put a pot on the stove but that's what you get when you take creationist style arguments to their logical conclusion.
RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1), or 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2.
T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 degC since pre industrial times. Almost half of which we have not seen yet due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans. If we burry our heads in the sand it will only take another 40yrs to turn 387.5 into 480, I will leave the calculation of that temprature increase as an exercise for you.
Sure without looking at the facts it's possible to say that the increase could be masked by -ve feedbacks but basic physics says the 1.4DegC MUST be accounted for. If you actually do look at the feedbacks and compare them to gelogic records you will find it's much more likey fedbacks will ADD to the warming rather than mask it. You can expect to observe this in the N Hemisphere over the next decade or so since the melting of the Artic sea ice is a large +ve feedback that is occuring well before the "alarmists" predicted it would. The only way I can see of avoiding it would be to hope China and India vastly increase (and sustain) their output of smog so that the -ve forcing of the smog will mask the increase from CO2.
Some things really are quite simple to grasp when you take the time to understand them. AGW on a global scale is as simple as looking at the radiation striking the Earth and comparing it to what is re-radiated back out into space, when these are not in equiblirium due to increasing GHG absorbing IR radiation then the planet will heat up. When there is less radiation striking the Earth due to Milankovich cycles the Earth will cool down.
The only advise I can give people like you is to stop being a usefull idiot for vested interests and crack open a text book on the subject.
"you need to classify carbon as "pollution" for your argument to make sense. And carbon is "pollution" only if it significantly contributes to global warming, so your argument has to assume its conclusion!"
Here let me free you from that infinite loop - RF = 5.35*ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.
I'm assuming you call yourself a skeptic so let me give you a skeptical analysis of your argument. It's assuming every physicist since Fourier has been wrong about the properties of CO2, it's also denying some basic findings of modern science such a the QM of photon absorbtion and the science behind spectral analyis.
In otherwords accepting your infinite loop argument leads to the same sort of irrational conclusions as accepting creationist "science" does. Some examples; everything we know about the composition of the cosmos via spectral analysis is wrong; radiation such as the suns rays don't cause atoms to jiggle (heat); atoms do not spontaneously lose energy by emmitting photons. There are many more implications of refusing to acknowledge the well known properties of CO2 but I'm sure a genuine skeptic will get the idea. You are a genuine skeptic, right?
It's not too small, they just picked the sensationalist conclusion. Turn the number around and you have a conclusion that aligns with real world experience - 97.5% of people suffer a deteriation in driving skill while texting. Given that statistic the other 2.5% would need to show no effect over multiple trials to demonstrate it wasn't just dumb luck.
"Drunks tend to survive because the state of their body at the time of impact, i.e. not tensed up. Its not random luck, or irony, or any other mysterious factors..."
Yeah right, it's best not to be tensed up when the steering column goes through your chest. It's a fallacy that drunks survive more often, people just remeber it when it happens because it seems unjust. Alcohol causes all sorts of medical complications when someone is seriously injured which (if anything) reduces their chance of surviving the ambulance trip.
PS: I just noticed you're the same person who I replied to above that was telling everyone how good you were. I find your childish posts and your claim to be a driver with 20yrs experience difficult to reconsile.
"Been driving a stick for 20 years, I spend 95% of my time when driving in the city without my hand on the wheel."
Been driving for 35yrs and I also drive a manual, after reading how good you think you are I'm pretty sure I know what your doing with your other hand.
I imagine you could still patent the concept as long as it was implemented as firmware but I assume the patent could not be used to stop others implementing the concept in software.
"Nobody is buying the sticky-pedal, caught-in-the-floormat explanation anyway"
Toyota is, they are paying for the floor pans to be replaced in 3.8 million cars. If that's supposed to be a cover up why did they choose such an expensive fix as replacing a floor pan? Do people really think they would spend tens (if not hunderds) of millions of dollars to replace floor pans when hiring a couple of random slashdot posters could easily fix the "real problem"? Would Toyota spend that sort of money without strong evidence that they have found a "real problem"?
"No, what I'm accusing them of, is not having systems in place (or if they do, not adequate ones) to catch this level of bug before it gets out in the public.....These are basic engineering principals"
Another basic engineering priciple is to gather the evidence to show there actually is a bug and that it actually is caused by lax procedures.
As usuall words are being taken out of context here. If you look at the full interview linked to from the article you will find the full quote is as follows...
"What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."
This "whack-job" maybe 90yo but he's not a senile fool, he basically invented modern Earth Science and in recent years has attacked the green movement for it's dogmatic stance on nuclear energy (which has softened recently largely due mainly to Lovelock's arguments). What he is saying is AGW is as big a threat as war and needs a similar response in terms of unified societal effort. You may or may not agree with that but either way he is not saying "Oh sorry, your freedoms are inconvenient."
Of course the real wack-jobs will use his words as evidence for their NWO conspiracy theories.
Heinlein, Kipling, pfft - You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere.
The german soldiers who operated the gas chambers were ordinary people who went home to their own families at night. The reason they were able to rationalise away the moral conflict is that they didn't see their victims as real people.
How many "terrorists" does this project have to kill before it becomes indistingushable from the holocaust? Once they have exterminated the last member of the Taliban tribe and have 100,000 drones flying around the planet will they simply stop using them or will they find an endless supply of targets...err...I mean terrorists?
Slashdot Mirror
"Any company which directly challenges the government will be slapped down."
Don't you mean any government that challenges big business will be slapped down? As one prominent member on the neocons recently said, "we thought Fox was working for us but it turns out that we are working for them".
Everybody thinks tax money subsidies at least one thing they don't agree with. Taxation in a democracy is not about what the money is spent on, it's about how the decisions to spend it are made.
"Don't those assholes know in today's dialect "tea bagging" is the act of dangling your balls into someone else's mouth? WTF ???"
And in the 60's and 70's the term "tea party" was a euphemisim for a swingers party.
The cost of faking millions of unique tweets vs the benifit of getting your competition to waste some of their marketing budget simply doesn't add up.
"the Great Google Memory hole will remember this guy"
Yes, and it will also remeber he was framed. I'm all for educating the court of public opinion but what's the alternative to a free press reporting news about arrests, etc? - Censor everything the state does until it has come before a judge?
"This guy is going to be stygmatized for life based on a crime he didn't commit."
Natural justice is rare since most crimes can't be undone, someone paralised by a drunk driver will never get their life back. Sure some people will only remeber this guy was arrested for kiddie porn - it sucks to be a victim of a frame and that's why the framer is behind bars.
"but what is there to gain from gaming some statisticians results"
Exactly, there is nothing to be gained by trying to game this to make a false prediction, marketer's who know what they are doing will love it's for data mining potential. eg: which new movie or TV show gives the best advertising bang per buck, who should we pay to wear our shoes, etc.
"The larger your sample size the more accurate your results tends to be. Fascinating."
Actually it's fascinating because the sample size was NOT in itself responsible for the accuracy of the prediction.
"Not sure about in the UK, but innocent until PROVEN guilty used to mean something across the pond."
Please don't lecture the Brits about "innocent until PROVEN guilty". They were the ones who gave it to you, they were using it at least 1000yrs before the ink dried on the US bill of rights.
From what I have read the only person who abused his rights was the sociopath who framed him. It is not libelous to report the FACT he was arrested for possesing kiddie porn and any parent who puts their kids first will understand why the cops MUST act the way they did.
Fuck off Noddy, anti-intellectuals are not welcome around these parts.
Oh ye of little faith! Here's the video of one of them acting strangely. I know it's says it's a frog but Italian toads are just more handsome than your average toad.
Half of the fatalities on the road are drivers (look up your own stats), in the two car situations you list the odds are the same for both drivers, there is no reason that the drunks car is less likey to be T-boned going through a red light, it simply depends on who entered the cross road first. Also note that a dead pedestrian or a cyclists is just as likely to be intoxicated as a driver, if not more so. You also left out single vehicle collisions where the odds are much higher that the driver was intoxicated.
"like the guy in Phoenix a few days ago who ran into a bunch of motorcycles at a red light from behind, killing 4 of them"
Thanks, you just demonstrated my point by recalling a spectacular incident, do you recall the last time you read about the common occurance of a drunk killing himself with a tree or a lampost?
So how do you explain that when you remove the effect of my simplistic calculation from the observed record the warming trend dissapears? Science is about the best explaination, from what I can tell you don't have an explaination. Scientists have spent decades looking for alternative forcings and have come up empty handed.
Hint: El-nino is not a forcing it's large scale turbulance.Your rant about El-nino is similar to saying the convection currents are what is causing the water to warm when I put a pot on the stove but that's what you get when you take creationist style arguments to their logical conclusion.
RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1), or 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2.
T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 degC since pre industrial times. Almost half of which we have not seen yet due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans. If we burry our heads in the sand it will only take another 40yrs to turn 387.5 into 480, I will leave the calculation of that temprature increase as an exercise for you.
Sure without looking at the facts it's possible to say that the increase could be masked by -ve feedbacks but basic physics says the 1.4DegC MUST be accounted for. If you actually do look at the feedbacks and compare them to gelogic records you will find it's much more likey fedbacks will ADD to the warming rather than mask it. You can expect to observe this in the N Hemisphere over the next decade or so since the melting of the Artic sea ice is a large +ve feedback that is occuring well before the "alarmists" predicted it would. The only way I can see of avoiding it would be to hope China and India vastly increase (and sustain) their output of smog so that the -ve forcing of the smog will mask the increase from CO2.
Some things really are quite simple to grasp when you take the time to understand them. AGW on a global scale is as simple as looking at the radiation striking the Earth and comparing it to what is re-radiated back out into space, when these are not in equiblirium due to increasing GHG absorbing IR radiation then the planet will heat up. When there is less radiation striking the Earth due to Milankovich cycles the Earth will cool down.
The only advise I can give people like you is to stop being a usefull idiot for vested interests and crack open a text book on the subject.
"you need to classify carbon as "pollution" for your argument to make sense. And carbon is "pollution" only if it significantly contributes to global warming, so your argument has to assume its conclusion!"
Here let me free you from that infinite loop - RF = 5.35*ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.
I'm assuming you call yourself a skeptic so let me give you a skeptical analysis of your argument. It's assuming every physicist since Fourier has been wrong about the properties of CO2, it's also denying some basic findings of modern science such a the QM of photon absorbtion and the science behind spectral analyis.
In otherwords accepting your infinite loop argument leads to the same sort of irrational conclusions as accepting creationist "science" does. Some examples; everything we know about the composition of the cosmos via spectral analysis is wrong; radiation such as the suns rays don't cause atoms to jiggle (heat); atoms do not spontaneously lose energy by emmitting photons. There are many more implications of refusing to acknowledge the well known properties of CO2 but I'm sure a genuine skeptic will get the idea. You are a genuine skeptic, right?
It's not too small, they just picked the sensationalist conclusion. Turn the number around and you have a conclusion that aligns with real world experience - 97.5% of people suffer a deteriation in driving skill while texting. Given that statistic the other 2.5% would need to show no effect over multiple trials to demonstrate it wasn't just dumb luck.
"Drunks tend to survive because the state of their body at the time of impact, i.e. not tensed up. Its not random luck, or irony, or any other mysterious factors ..."
Yeah right, it's best not to be tensed up when the steering column goes through your chest. It's a fallacy that drunks survive more often, people just remeber it when it happens because it seems unjust. Alcohol causes all sorts of medical complications when someone is seriously injured which (if anything) reduces their chance of surviving the ambulance trip.
PS: I just noticed you're the same person who I replied to above that was telling everyone how good you were. I find your childish posts and your claim to be a driver with 20yrs experience difficult to reconsile.
"Been driving a stick for 20 years, I spend 95% of my time when driving in the city without my hand on the wheel."
Been driving for 35yrs and I also drive a manual, after reading how good you think you are I'm pretty sure I know what your doing with your other hand.
I imagine you could still patent the concept as long as it was implemented as firmware but I assume the patent could not be used to stop others implementing the concept in software.
Standard disclaimers - IANAL. I haven't RTFA.
"Nobody is buying the sticky-pedal, caught-in-the-floormat explanation anyway"
Toyota is, they are paying for the floor pans to be replaced in 3.8 million cars. If that's supposed to be a cover up why did they choose such an expensive fix as replacing a floor pan? Do people really think they would spend tens (if not hunderds) of millions of dollars to replace floor pans when hiring a couple of random slashdot posters could easily fix the "real problem"? Would Toyota spend that sort of money without strong evidence that they have found a "real problem"?
"No, what I'm accusing them of, is not having systems in place (or if they do, not adequate ones) to catch this level of bug before it gets out in the public.....These are basic engineering principals"
Another basic engineering priciple is to gather the evidence to show there actually is a bug and that it actually is caused by lax procedures.
"or you can just choose to not screw up your moral compass with magnets"
No you can't, and by using the word "compass" you even gave yourself a hint as to why you can't.
"What this means is that questions like the one quoted above will NEVER RECEIVE A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
"Why is the parent modded informative?" - The parent poster is obviously unaware of what constitutes a rhetorical question and why people use them.
Hint: Rhetorical questions are not supposed to be answered they are used by the speaker to make a point.
As usuall words are being taken out of context here. If you look at the full interview linked to from the article you will find the full quote is as follows...
"What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."
This "whack-job" maybe 90yo but he's not a senile fool, he basically invented modern Earth Science and in recent years has attacked the green movement for it's dogmatic stance on nuclear energy (which has softened recently largely due mainly to Lovelock's arguments). What he is saying is AGW is as big a threat as war and needs a similar response in terms of unified societal effort. You may or may not agree with that but either way he is not saying "Oh sorry, your freedoms are inconvenient."
Of course the real wack-jobs will use his words as evidence for their NWO conspiracy theories.
"Your thoughts?"
It's one of the best short essays on the net.
Heinlein, Kipling, pfft - You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere.
The german soldiers who operated the gas chambers were ordinary people who went home to their own families at night. The reason they were able to rationalise away the moral conflict is that they didn't see their victims as real people.
How many "terrorists" does this project have to kill before it becomes indistingushable from the holocaust? Once they have exterminated the last member of the Taliban tribe and have 100,000 drones flying around the planet will they simply stop using them or will they find an endless supply of targets...err...I mean terrorists?