"It's not the advance and use of oil, it was the advance of technology which allowed the use of oil."
The two go hand-in-hand, for instance oil is used to make fertilizer and run tractors, this means that one farmer feeds 100 people instead of 10 as they did at the begininbg of the 1900's.
As a demonstration of expotential population growth, I was born in 1959 there were 3 billion people on the planet at the time and each had an average of ~12 acres, now there are more than 6 billion and we each have an average of ~5 acres. I have no idea how to curb our population growth without trampling all over human rights but if we don't do it ourselves nature will do it for us.
BTW: I have nothing against modern nuclear reactors and the pebble bed reactors look even better than what we have but alas nuclear is more like a band-aid than a silver bullet.
"There are damn good reasons behind the scientific method"
Yes, perhaps you could start using them instead of blaming everything on Al Gore.
"apparently those big slow moving windmills are pretty good at whacking birds"
Hang on, I just read several other posters stating that environmentalists (Al Gore followers?) are the ones slowing progress by complaining about dead birds????
"Let's see some long-term studies in limited regional experiments before we dump too much money into this boondoggle."
Does the 'scientfic method' mean we have to ignore all the studies done over the last 2-3 decades?
The only people still talking about windmills and birds are the misinformed, some of them may be environmentalists but the last windfarm to be scraped "due to birds" was here in Australia. The anti-environment minister who canned the project was from a conservative right-wing govermnent (note the Liberal party are not liberals). The environmental impact report did not back up his claims about birds and there was not a single protester in sight.
"...it was about the fact that no matter WHAT we do someone will complain"
Can't argue with that since all I see in the OP is someone without a clue complaining about two groups they obviously dont like, ie: environmentalists and scientists.
"I'm interested in having the smallest foot print that we can reasonably do on the planet. Right now nuclear is that way but fear mongering has made it all but near impossible. Of the other viable methods out there fossil fuels is still has the over all least impact for major energy production....Many, if nor most, scientists do it for the funding."
This contradictory pile of anti-science gibberish is insightfull, how?
My first dos box had a combined Hurcules/CGA card, and IIRC turbo Pascal had an editor that defaulted to yellow (or was it white?) on blue when in CGA mode. It was much better than my previous setup that had consisted of an Apple II hooked to a TV via a video recorder. For example, I didn't have to fight the wife for access to the TV.
"Information is destroyed all around us all the time."
All information is physical and it's entrophy can be calculated. Sure entrophy can make it irretrievable from a practical point of view but you can't destroy it without destroying the matter/energy that holds the information.
Thankyou for the physics tip but I'm already well aware of the 2nd law, perhaps you (and the mods) should look up information theory one of these days.
The "video wallpaper" remark reminds me of a show that ran from midight to dawn on Friday and Sat night's in Melbourne Australia circa 1978 onwards. A group of us (16-19yo) would congregate in a bungalow and get pissed/stoned while it played in the background. I remeber MTV as 'special' because it was the first station dedicated to music. Australia didn't get cable until the 90's but those type of shows recieved a huge boost from the success of MTV and all the stations started doing it.
Luckily I'm only 49 so I don't watch that much TV but I still occasionally enjoy watching Rage on the ABC. The thing I like about the show is that all the clips are picked by the guest presenter(s) and all the presenters are musicians of one flavour or another so you get clips of everything from eminem to elvis. I found from watching the show that just because a kid is in a "boy/girl band" and has an ego the size of a blimp, does not mean the same person is clueless when it comes to picking video clips.
You see their lives as "smaller" because you falsely belive that intelligence makes yours "bigger".
Newton was one of the smartest people who ever lived and I admire his work as one of the greatest achivements of mankind BUT by all accounts he was a total prick. But hey, if you want a ruthless dictator with a 200IQ then Newton is the type of person you are looking for and an IQ test for voters is the way to find them.
"There is broad public knowledge that smoking is bad for you."
This is true today (in the west) but it was not true when I was growing up in the 60's and tobacoo companies were actively breeding plants for higher nicotine content. Even in the 80's tobacoo companies were still putting out "scientific research" showing smoking was harmless and non-addictive.
In other words tobacco companies hid the truth from people for decades and actively spread propoganda and misinformation to discredit any scientist who disputed them.
I'm guessing that whatever rules you dream up to exclude other people from voting will always be framed in such a way that they cannot be used to exclude yourself. Basically that is the definition of an "elitist jerk".
Of course if I were making the eligibility rules, "elitist jerks" would be the first ones I would exclude....doh!
Ok, I had another look for something a bit better and found this link via melbourne university, still can't find the comparison graph but the.ppt slide-show (opens ok with OOo) gives you an idea of how they are proposing to "level the playing field".
Note:.ppt slide show is the link under the heading "SBSTA Special Side Event on scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil" on the "match" homepage.
"If people feel an attachment to history through some item, is it really necessary to trash their belief?"
If they are trying to sell that 'history' then yes, if it's just hanging on the wall then nobody cares. People who pay large sums of money for art are more often than not investors as opposed to collectors.
Can't argue with your website review, after all we are talking about the UN (who's job here is to administer negotiations). One of the biggest hassles I have when posting on GHG politics is finding and re-finding things I have seen. One example is a graph showing the draft past/future emmission curves of various nations between 1950-2050, I spent 10 minutes looking for it to put in my post but gave up.:(
BTW: I don't think the transparancy problem is confined to this treaty, sorting out the science was hard but sorting out the politics on any topic with this many vested interests is nigh impossible. That's why I think the treaty should keep it simple by limiting itself to regulating emmisions from fossil fuels and avoid dragging trees and polar bears into it.
"system such as Hawkeye CANNOT BE MORE ACCURATE than humans.......You're missing the point."
As the other poster implied, your first assertion is what the "point" is. Speaking of points, your last paragraph doesn't seem to have one, it basically says different problems have different equations and answers.
I would also suggest that an emprically derived 4mm error is demonstratably more accurate than any human and no amount of irrelevant math will change that. If what you and TFA are trying to say is, "it's foolish to belive technology is foolpoof", then a primative "duhhhhh" response is all I have.
Trivia: The aggrived player must call for the hawk-eye decision if he disputes the umpire, each player is only allowed 3 disputes per somethingorother (lady friend is the tennis fan).
"Don't tell me China and India...[ are not ]....gonna borrow from what the rest of the world has already learned"
I'm telling you about how the treaty negotiations are proceeding, if you want to know (as opposed to guessing) how the particular issue of technology transfer is being accounted for in the treaty then read the links I provided.
I've been driving for 35yrs, I stopped using the mobile in the car not longer after I got a mobile because (depending on the conversation content and lenght) it does distract the drivers attention. Sure you can "put another task second" but that doesn't not stop it from being another task. Frankly I am glad they fine self righteous idiots because it means they are less likely to crash into me whilst concentrating on the phone.
"China and India will do nothing to cut there emissions"
I used to read this propoganda all the time in Australian papers, less so since the change of government. In reality the US is now the only nation on Earth not willing to sign up to an international treaty. For the past several years China and India's simple negotiating strategy has been..."we want what the same deal as the US plus the compenstation for past emmisions the rest of the world has already ageed to".
Two basic ideas of the draft treaty...
1. Cap and trade (based on tonnage not GDP as the US wants) is the way to go, currently we emmit 10Gt/yr of GHG and the best scientific advise says it would be prudent to reduce that to 3-4Gt/yr by 2050-60. The best economic advise says the sooner we take our medicine the better. The obvious way to do this is start with 10Gt of permits in year 1 and reduce that to 3-4 by mid-century, the hard part is not the technology it's the allocation and accountability of permits. Permits are allocated to national governments once a year who then auction/sell/hoard them ( a decent government would use it to offset other taxes ). For those caught cheating sanctions/tarrifs are applied to their inputs/outputs. Estimated cost per ton of the permits varies between $20-200 depending on what global development senario you belive in.
2. The treaty is designed to account for the fact that early FF users (US/Russia/EU/Japan/Au) have already benifited from past emmisions. The per-capita emmission curves for different nations are drawn to account for these past emmisions and merge into a single curve by ~2030. Between now and 2030 China and India will have steep curves, OTOH if they can flatten out their curves by undertaking huge renewable efforts earlier rather than later then they will be compensated by auctioning their permits to other nations.
The basic problem with the draft treaty...
Creative accounting.
"How about giving up our panic attacks."
Agreed, but for a while there it looked like "the economy would be ruined".
I agree with most of your post, however since google runs on a computer it MUST use an algroithim to search. Once the algorithim returns the hit list then it is up to the human to use heuristics to determine if the results are usefull or not.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's not the advance and use of oil, it was the advance of technology which allowed the use of oil."
The two go hand-in-hand, for instance oil is used to make fertilizer and run tractors, this means that one farmer feeds 100 people instead of 10 as they did at the begininbg of the 1900's.
As a demonstration of expotential population growth, I was born in 1959 there were 3 billion people on the planet at the time and each had an average of ~12 acres, now there are more than 6 billion and we each have an average of ~5 acres. I have no idea how to curb our population growth without trampling all over human rights but if we don't do it ourselves nature will do it for us.
BTW: I have nothing against modern nuclear reactors and the pebble bed reactors look even better than what we have but alas nuclear is more like a band-aid than a silver bullet.
"There are damn good reasons behind the scientific method"
Yes, perhaps you could start using them instead of blaming everything on Al Gore.
"apparently those big slow moving windmills are pretty good at whacking birds"
Hang on, I just read several other posters stating that environmentalists (Al Gore followers?) are the ones slowing progress by complaining about dead birds????
"Let's see some long-term studies in limited regional experiments before we dump too much money into this boondoggle."
Does the 'scientfic method' mean we have to ignore all the studies done over the last 2-3 decades?
"GP's point wasn't about the birds,...."
The only people still talking about windmills and birds are the misinformed, some of them may be environmentalists but the last windfarm to be scraped "due to birds" was here in Australia. The anti-environment minister who canned the project was from a conservative right-wing govermnent (note the Liberal party are not liberals). The environmental impact report did not back up his claims about birds and there was not a single protester in sight.
"...it was about the fact that no matter WHAT we do someone will complain"
Can't argue with that since all I see in the OP is someone without a clue complaining about two groups they obviously dont like, ie: environmentalists and scientists.
"I'm interested in having the smallest foot print that we can reasonably do on the planet. Right now nuclear is that way but fear mongering has made it all but near impossible. Of the other viable methods out there fossil fuels is still has the over all least impact for major energy production....Many, if nor most, scientists do it for the funding."
This contradictory pile of anti-science gibberish is insightfull, how?
Hmmm, now where have I heard that before....Woodstock!!
Get of my lawn you damm hippies.
Lobbyists use the barter system.
Are you sure you removed the world's largest lens cap.
My first dos box had a combined Hurcules/CGA card, and IIRC turbo Pascal had an editor that defaulted to yellow (or was it white?) on blue when in CGA mode. It was much better than my previous setup that had consisted of an Apple II hooked to a TV via a video recorder. For example, I didn't have to fight the wife for access to the TV.
I have been out-pedanted. Touche! :)
"Information is destroyed all around us all the time."
All information is physical and it's entrophy can be calculated. Sure entrophy can make it irretrievable from a practical point of view but you can't destroy it without destroying the matter/energy that holds the information.
Thankyou for the physics tip but I'm already well aware of the 2nd law, perhaps you (and the mods) should look up information theory one of these days.
"quantum effects would completely destroy any signal contained years before one particle could collide into the next"
/pedant
I think you mean "obscure the signal", to "destroy" it would imply you can destroy information.
The "video wallpaper" remark reminds me of a show that ran from midight to dawn on Friday and Sat night's in Melbourne Australia circa 1978 onwards. A group of us (16-19yo) would congregate in a bungalow and get pissed/stoned while it played in the background. I remeber MTV as 'special' because it was the first station dedicated to music. Australia didn't get cable until the 90's but those type of shows recieved a huge boost from the success of MTV and all the stations started doing it.
Luckily I'm only 49 so I don't watch that much TV but I still occasionally enjoy watching Rage on the ABC. The thing I like about the show is that all the clips are picked by the guest presenter(s) and all the presenters are musicians of one flavour or another so you get clips of everything from eminem to elvis. I found from watching the show that just because a kid is in a "boy/girl band" and has an ego the size of a blimp, does not mean the same person is clueless when it comes to picking video clips.
"Ever heard of a idiot being sick due to stress?"
Yes. "Happiness" is not related to IQ.
"They might have a smaller measure of life..."
You see their lives as "smaller" because you falsely belive that intelligence makes yours "bigger".
Newton was one of the smartest people who ever lived and I admire his work as one of the greatest achivements of mankind BUT by all accounts he was a total prick. But hey, if you want a ruthless dictator with a 200IQ then Newton is the type of person you are looking for and an IQ test for voters is the way to find them.
"There is broad public knowledge that smoking is bad for you."
This is true today (in the west) but it was not true when I was growing up in the 60's and tobacoo companies were actively breeding plants for higher nicotine content. Even in the 80's tobacoo companies were still putting out "scientific research" showing smoking was harmless and non-addictive.
In other words tobacco companies hid the truth from people for decades and actively spread propoganda and misinformation to discredit any scientist who disputed them.
I'm guessing that whatever rules you dream up to exclude other people from voting will always be framed in such a way that they cannot be used to exclude yourself. Basically that is the definition of an "elitist jerk".
Of course if I were making the eligibility rules, "elitist jerks" would be the first ones I would exclude....doh!
Ok, I had another look for something a bit better and found this link via melbourne university, still can't find the comparison graph but the .ppt slide-show (opens ok with OOo) gives you an idea of how they are proposing to "level the playing field".
.ppt slide show is the link under the heading "SBSTA Special Side Event on scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil" on the "match" homepage.
Note:
"If people feel an attachment to history through some item, is it really necessary to trash their belief?"
If they are trying to sell that 'history' then yes, if it's just hanging on the wall then nobody cares. People who pay large sums of money for art are more often than not investors as opposed to collectors.
Can't argue with your website review, after all we are talking about the UN (who's job here is to administer negotiations). One of the biggest hassles I have when posting on GHG politics is finding and re-finding things I have seen. One example is a graph showing the draft past/future emmission curves of various nations between 1950-2050, I spent 10 minutes looking for it to put in my post but gave up. :(
BTW: I don't think the transparancy problem is confined to this treaty, sorting out the science was hard but sorting out the politics on any topic with this many vested interests is nigh impossible. That's why I think the treaty should keep it simple by limiting itself to regulating emmisions from fossil fuels and avoid dragging trees and polar bears into it.
"system such as Hawkeye CANNOT BE MORE ACCURATE than humans.......You're missing the point."
As the other poster implied, your first assertion is what the "point" is. Speaking of points, your last paragraph doesn't seem to have one, it basically says different problems have different equations and answers.
I would also suggest that an emprically derived 4mm error is demonstratably more accurate than any human and no amount of irrelevant math will change that. If what you and TFA are trying to say is, "it's foolish to belive technology is foolpoof", then a primative "duhhhhh" response is all I have.
Trivia: The aggrived player must call for the hawk-eye decision if he disputes the umpire, each player is only allowed 3 disputes per somethingorother (lady friend is the tennis fan).
"Don't tell me China and India...[ are not ]....gonna borrow from what the rest of the world has already learned"
I'm telling you about how the treaty negotiations are proceeding, if you want to know (as opposed to guessing) how the particular issue of technology transfer is being accounted for in the treaty then read the links I provided.
I've been driving for 35yrs, I stopped using the mobile in the car not longer after I got a mobile because (depending on the conversation content and lenght) it does distract the drivers attention. Sure you can "put another task second" but that doesn't not stop it from being another task. Frankly I am glad they fine self righteous idiots because it means they are less likely to crash into me whilst concentrating on the phone.
"China and India will do nothing to cut there emissions"
I used to read this propoganda all the time in Australian papers, less so since the change of government. In reality the US is now the only nation on Earth not willing to sign up to an international treaty. For the past several years China and India's simple negotiating strategy has been..."we want what the same deal as the US plus the compenstation for past emmisions the rest of the world has already ageed to".
Two basic ideas of the draft treaty...
1. Cap and trade (based on tonnage not GDP as the US wants) is the way to go, currently we emmit 10Gt/yr of GHG and the best scientific advise says it would be prudent to reduce that to 3-4Gt/yr by 2050-60. The best economic advise says the sooner we take our medicine the better. The obvious way to do this is start with 10Gt of permits in year 1 and reduce that to 3-4 by mid-century, the hard part is not the technology it's the allocation and accountability of permits. Permits are allocated to national governments once a year who then auction/sell/hoard them ( a decent government would use it to offset other taxes ). For those caught cheating sanctions/tarrifs are applied to their inputs/outputs. Estimated cost per ton of the permits varies between $20-200 depending on what global development senario you belive in.
2. The treaty is designed to account for the fact that early FF users (US/Russia/EU/Japan/Au) have already benifited from past emmisions. The per-capita emmission curves for different nations are drawn to account for these past emmisions and merge into a single curve by ~2030. Between now and 2030 China and India will have steep curves, OTOH if they can flatten out their curves by undertaking huge renewable efforts earlier rather than later then they will be compensated by auctioning their permits to other nations.
The basic problem with the draft treaty...
Creative accounting.
"How about giving up our panic attacks."
Agreed, but for a while there it looked like "the economy would be ruined".
"What has Bill Gates personally achieved?"
:o
He got you to post a comment about him.
"Well, can you pass the Turing test? Can you?
Interesting, tell me more about the Turing test.
I agree with most of your post, however since google runs on a computer it MUST use an algroithim to search. Once the algorithim returns the hit list then it is up to the human to use heuristics to determine if the results are usefull or not.