Perhaps, perhaps not. Have you devised and conducted an experiment to prove it? It isn't hard to come up with a heat source, regular atmosphere, CO2 to add, and a thermometer.
You can try it this weekend, make a video and link it to this discussion before it closes for comments! If you do I'll replicate the experiment.
That's a little extreme. I've been convinced of global warming for some time. Since I'm not a conservative (or making hordes of cash based on something that requires emissions) I am not morally threatened by the idea but I'm not a save the planet eco-freak either so I actually did want to see science and peer review happen and am glad for these results.
I am still skeptical of humans being the cause. Unlike warming itself, there is no consensus on this. Of course humans contribute, we don't even need to guess. Humans contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions globally.* The question is whether or not that 2% is the cause of global warming. There is evidence of historical climate swings and the only evidence that human emissions are a SIGNIFICANT contribution is correlation. Even if they are, a we are the world type globally concerted effort is only going to drop our emissions by maybe 10% or.2%? So the miserly "if you can stand to be 1 degree from comfortable you can cut by x" approach is probably a bunch of wasted discomfort.
That said, it really doesn't matter how much humans contribute. What matters is how effective we can be at engineering sequestering. I have little doubt the earth will self correct. Things like algae blooms are the earth doing exactly that and life thrived with CO2 levels that are MUCH higher than today in the past (1500ppm I believe). In fact, plants evolved in that environment and are actually limited in growth by the lower CO2 levels found today. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the earth will do it fast enough to save humans. As for the loss of the coasts... if you don't move you have it coming. I lived in FL and moved after it was struck by a few hurricanes. I was so broke I had to pack my possessions into a rental car, with just enough for gas, food, and 1 month at a long term lodging hotel. My wife and I made it through that month on a $50 grocery budget. So you can skip your sob stories of not wanting to leave your home in New Orleans, or Southern California, Tornado alley, or a Mississippi flood zone.
I had a similar one from coolermaster that did mount on the rear case fan mounting points but did so on the outside the case. Not sure about these units specifically.
Do this. Seriously, the EPA is the most evil of all gov't entities when you piss them off. The last thing you want to do is release heat emissions that contribute to global warming.
Which is it? Do they know we got more than TANG from the space program and want to fund it properly and continue it or do they support pushing "private alternatives" which basically just means cutting funding.
Being really excited about the "private alternatives" sounds pretty consistent with "The free market certainly would've far surpassed the successes of NASA if not for regulations and taxation." Which really just translates to 'random bs that sounds good' so we should reduce taxes for the wealthy.
I use strict and warnings. There are times when I let warnings go but you should know why they are being generated before assuming they are safe to ignore.
Just because the US has managed to spend trillions building its military doesn't mean it actually costs that much to build one. Nobody else in the world spends the kind of bank the US does or even a notable fraction of it.
A shrinking gov't isn't a nonexistent one. Presumably military and police wouldn't be removed. The police force of most any small town of 10-20k population has all the physical force needed to go shut down any major US corporation and if they didn't the national guard does.
There is another factor that people seem to forget. Downscaling the federal govt doesn't always mean downscaling govt as a whole. Presumably the states will pick up and fill the void (where needed most of the void can remain void imho). I'd love to see power restored to the states and the people.
1. Disband the federal military. 2. Restore citizenship to the state level. 3. Eliminate direct federal taxation. Require the feds to ask the states for funding. 4. Put the smack down on the judicial. Clearly establishing that justices answer to juries not the other way around. At the end of the day a jury is the people's only direct form of governing and no justice should be able to set aside its verdict or determine that juries are better at judging facts rather than law. The people in the form of a jury outrank a law passed by govt even if only on a case by case basis.
This puts the military and economic power back in the hands of 50 separate and independent states. This empowers the people who can then take their vote, their strength, AND their money and move to a state that supports ideals they approve of. It also empowers the people by limiting the power of the largest entity they have to manipulate in order to orchestrate change (state rather than federal).
Who knows without us to compete with the Europeans might halt their walk down the same misguided path to centralized power.
Ah but you have it backwards. The next 1% doesn't focus on taking from the top 1%, it focuses on taking from the 98% below it because it's easier. It's always easier to exploit those with less power and wealth than yourself. You don't see lions targeting the fittest animals in the herd even though they hold the most nutrition they target the weak stragglers at the back of the herd.
Of course it did, they own the gov't! The gov't had the power to bail them out, they own the gov't... what are the odds of the gov't that works for them NOT bailing them out?
Corporations control employment, goods, and services and so long as people needs these things they can be used to coerce people. Corporations seek to generate profit and not wealth. Creating high quality goods and selling them at the lowest possible price that affords everyone involved in the collaboration a reasonable standard of living creates maximum wealth. Creating the least expensive (and therefore lowest quality) goods that people will buy and then charging the absolute most that people will pay for those goods. Creating complex webs of rebates, tax loops, add-on services, gift cards, and recurring revenue fees to add on top of the price in order to squeeze a little more out without providing any real value. Those things generate maximum profits while producing the least possible wealth.
In case you aren't paying attention, wealth is measured in the quantity and quality of goods and services not dollars. Profit is measured in dollars.
I'd contend that if we aren't building bases where we can, like the moon and later mars, we will never have any level of assurance regarding viable strategies. Sending robots on long journeys is a way to develop techniques for sending robots. We should do that and we shouldn't be building a new robot from the ground up each time we do it. But the robots are just a way to extend our eyes beyond where we can go.
Establish a mining colony on the moon and there will be more than one or two going. We can start working on scale of economy and improving efficiency constructing and launching things from that base.
When the goal is to colonize space probes are only going to be so helpful... it is mentalities like this that caused us to lose the capability to send manned missions to moon in the first place. Nobody wants to pay for the space program because the space program never accomplishes anything in the eyes of most. It has turned into a pure research game beyond earth orbit and that simply isn't a worthwhile way to spend billions in the eyes of taxpayers. If that is all that could be done it would be one thing but that's actually a far cry from what we could accomplish if we wanted to.
We've got probes all over the place providing useless data about rocks we have no interest in visiting. We need to get a base on the moon and a network of fueling stations out there. We then need a fairly standardized probe framework so the probes can be commodity projects launched and recovered on a routine basis from our established bases. Rinse and repeat, pushing the bases further and further out. If we establish several they can actually launch supplies to one another depending on what can be produced locally.
We can't fully automate mining here on earth. I doubt it's going to work 238,857 miles away. We need a manned base on the moon for that (not that you wouldn't want to automate as much as possible.
I for one would be glad to serve a tour as a moon miner.
We have a family friend that has run several national guard tours in iraq (during gulf as well) he takes turns off being a mercenary there. I don't know how much it all added up to with the sign-on and re-enlistment bonuses, the merc pay, and lets not forget the free room, board, and medical all along. But I know it bought him a house and a couple new cars outright.
What we should have done 30+ years ago is what we should do today. NOTHING. We should have left the damn Russians alone. We should apply the same policy to anyone else who isn't bombing our harbors or allied to someone doing the same.
"Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars."
I think it is safe to assume that literally every random asshat you speak to on the subject for the rest of your life understands this. Possible exceptions wearing checkered shirts with propellers on their hats.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, perhaps not. Have you devised and conducted an experiment to prove it? It isn't hard to come up with a heat source, regular atmosphere, CO2 to add, and a thermometer.
You can try it this weekend, make a video and link it to this discussion before it closes for comments! If you do I'll replicate the experiment.
That's a little extreme. I've been convinced of global warming for some time. Since I'm not a conservative (or making hordes of cash based on something that requires emissions) I am not morally threatened by the idea but I'm not a save the planet eco-freak either so I actually did want to see science and peer review happen and am glad for these results.
I am still skeptical of humans being the cause. Unlike warming itself, there is no consensus on this. Of course humans contribute, we don't even need to guess. Humans contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions globally.* The question is whether or not that 2% is the cause of global warming. There is evidence of historical climate swings and the only evidence that human emissions are a SIGNIFICANT contribution is correlation. Even if they are, a we are the world type globally concerted effort is only going to drop our emissions by maybe 10% or .2%? So the miserly "if you can stand to be 1 degree from comfortable you can cut by x" approach is probably a bunch of wasted discomfort.
That said, it really doesn't matter how much humans contribute. What matters is how effective we can be at engineering sequestering. I have little doubt the earth will self correct. Things like algae blooms are the earth doing exactly that and life thrived with CO2 levels that are MUCH higher than today in the past (1500ppm I believe). In fact, plants evolved in that environment and are actually limited in growth by the lower CO2 levels found today. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the earth will do it fast enough to save humans. As for the loss of the coasts... if you don't move you have it coming. I lived in FL and moved after it was struck by a few hurricanes. I was so broke I had to pack my possessions into a rental car, with just enough for gas, food, and 1 month at a long term lodging hotel. My wife and I made it through that month on a $50 grocery budget. So you can skip your sob stories of not wanting to leave your home in New Orleans, or Southern California, Tornado alley, or a Mississippi flood zone.
* http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
I had a similar one from coolermaster that did mount on the rear case fan mounting points but did so on the outside the case. Not sure about these units specifically.
Do this. Seriously, the EPA is the most evil of all gov't entities when you piss them off. The last thing you want to do is release heat emissions that contribute to global warming.
yes, more surface area
Which is it? Do they know we got more than TANG from the space program and want to fund it properly and continue it or do they support pushing "private alternatives" which basically just means cutting funding.
Being really excited about the "private alternatives" sounds pretty consistent with "The free market certainly would've far surpassed the successes of NASA if not for regulations and taxation." Which really just translates to 'random bs that sounds good' so we should reduce taxes for the wealthy.
suckers! I'll show you. I'll run my fan and laugh all the way to the edges of the galaxy when it creates propulsion by flinging space dust!
Not utterly pointless. It still moves the heat outside the case and disperses it there rather than heating the air inside the case.
I use strict and warnings. There are times when I let warnings go but you should know why they are being generated before assuming they are safe to ignore.
High end video games tend to involve some reasonably sticky problems...
I'd go a little farther. Take away the ill gotten gains and fine them. Seize the spectrum and open it. Consumer devices will still work.
Just because the US has managed to spend trillions building its military doesn't mean it actually costs that much to build one. Nobody else in the world spends the kind of bank the US does or even a notable fraction of it.
A shrinking gov't isn't a nonexistent one. Presumably military and police wouldn't be removed. The police force of most any small town of 10-20k population has all the physical force needed to go shut down any major US corporation and if they didn't the national guard does.
There is another factor that people seem to forget. Downscaling the federal govt doesn't always mean downscaling govt as a whole. Presumably the states will pick up and fill the void (where needed most of the void can remain void imho). I'd love to see power restored to the states and the people.
1. Disband the federal military.
2. Restore citizenship to the state level.
3. Eliminate direct federal taxation. Require the feds to ask the states for funding.
4. Put the smack down on the judicial. Clearly establishing that justices answer to juries not the other way around. At the end of the day a jury is the people's only direct form of governing and no justice should be able to set aside its verdict or determine that juries are better at judging facts rather than law. The people in the form of a jury outrank a law passed by govt even if only on a case by case basis.
This puts the military and economic power back in the hands of 50 separate and independent states. This empowers the people who can then take their vote, their strength, AND their money and move to a state that supports ideals they approve of. It also empowers the people by limiting the power of the largest entity they have to manipulate in order to orchestrate change (state rather than federal).
Who knows without us to compete with the Europeans might halt their walk down the same misguided path to centralized power.
Ah but you have it backwards. The next 1% doesn't focus on taking from the top 1%, it focuses on taking from the 98% below it because it's easier. It's always easier to exploit those with less power and wealth than yourself. You don't see lions targeting the fittest animals in the herd even though they hold the most nutrition they target the weak stragglers at the back of the herd.
Of course it did, they own the gov't! The gov't had the power to bail them out, they own the gov't... what are the odds of the gov't that works for them NOT bailing them out?
Corporations control employment, goods, and services and so long as people needs these things they can be used to coerce people. Corporations seek to generate profit and not wealth. Creating high quality goods and selling them at the lowest possible price that affords everyone involved in the collaboration a reasonable standard of living creates maximum wealth. Creating the least expensive (and therefore lowest quality) goods that people will buy and then charging the absolute most that people will pay for those goods. Creating complex webs of rebates, tax loops, add-on services, gift cards, and recurring revenue fees to add on top of the price in order to squeeze a little more out without providing any real value. Those things generate maximum profits while producing the least possible wealth.
In case you aren't paying attention, wealth is measured in the quantity and quality of goods and services not dollars. Profit is measured in dollars.
I'd contend that if we aren't building bases where we can, like the moon and later mars, we will never have any level of assurance regarding viable strategies. Sending robots on long journeys is a way to develop techniques for sending robots. We should do that and we shouldn't be building a new robot from the ground up each time we do it. But the robots are just a way to extend our eyes beyond where we can go.
Establish a mining colony on the moon and there will be more than one or two going. We can start working on scale of economy and improving efficiency constructing and launching things from that base.
When the goal is to colonize space probes are only going to be so helpful... it is mentalities like this that caused us to lose the capability to send manned missions to moon in the first place. Nobody wants to pay for the space program because the space program never accomplishes anything in the eyes of most. It has turned into a pure research game beyond earth orbit and that simply isn't a worthwhile way to spend billions in the eyes of taxpayers. If that is all that could be done it would be one thing but that's actually a far cry from what we could accomplish if we wanted to.
We've got probes all over the place providing useless data about rocks we have no interest in visiting. We need to get a base on the moon and a network of fueling stations out there. We then need a fairly standardized probe framework so the probes can be commodity projects launched and recovered on a routine basis from our established bases. Rinse and repeat, pushing the bases further and further out. If we establish several they can actually launch supplies to one another depending on what can be produced locally.
We can't fully automate mining here on earth. I doubt it's going to work 238,857 miles away. We need a manned base on the moon for that (not that you wouldn't want to automate as much as possible.
I for one would be glad to serve a tour as a moon miner.
And they have been paid well.
We have a family friend that has run several national guard tours in iraq (during gulf as well) he takes turns off being a mercenary there. I don't know how much it all added up to with the sign-on and re-enlistment bonuses, the merc pay, and lets not forget the free room, board, and medical all along. But I know it bought him a house and a couple new cars outright.
What we should have done 30+ years ago is what we should do today. NOTHING. We should have left the damn Russians alone. We should apply the same policy to anyone else who isn't bombing our harbors or allied to someone doing the same.
"Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars."
I think it is safe to assume that literally every random asshat you speak to on the subject for the rest of your life understands this. Possible exceptions wearing checkered shirts with propellers on their hats.
We lease Guantanamo Bay, so technically it remains cuban soil. That is how we excuse the horrible things we there.
"cos the US grants diplomatic immunity to those countries when they have diplomats here"
We are talking about soldiers not diplomats.