There was an awesome speed metal band that went by the name of Green Jello, but they were forced to change it to Green Jelly after Kraft foods the maker of Jell-O complained.
Actually, that's how my family made its money when it moved here: bootlegging during prohibition. They did very well for themselves. But, bitcoin, that's just a tax on people who suck at macroeconomics.
I understand your frustration with your inability to counter scientific arguments that you intuitively disagree with. Its not expected that a layman could offer up a scientifically valid counter argument imminently (or after any period of time really) after the publication of an article they disagree with. The rational thing would be to suggest that researchers look into the suggested period of time and deforestation to see if agrees or disagrees with this research, rather than arbitrary declare that the research would support your position.
Article's theory: An area the size of california was reforested over 200 years causing the little ice age.
The climate change they are attributing to the amount of reforestation, not the change in population that caused the reforestation. So, I'm assuming that they have the amount of land reforested more accurate than the number of people. Again, the important part of the theory is the amount of reforestation, not the number of people. It is not scientific to make up numbers and wildly guess the out come of your numbers to oppose a more scientific idea.
Article's theory: An area the size of california was reforested over 200 years causing the little ice age
Your theory: removal of X amount of forest over 200 years should have resulted in Y amount of warming which we didn't see. We actually saw a temperature change of Z.
You need to figure out what X , Y and Z are before making that a legitimate argument. The article has real numbers and real research behind it, your speculation does not rise to the level of a rebuttal.
Its acceptable and funny to make fun of Canadians, because it makes no sense. You've got a pretty decent economy, health care system, education system, great beer, doughnuts, ect. Its an ironic insult, that is really an insult at one's own nationality. Plus, everyone knows that the best comedians are Canadian, and they've given us a lot of material to work with.
So you'll just have to live with being praised with humour, or you'll have to move to the states.
Careers such as leather-making, rife-ling, fishing or canoe guide? Oh, yeah wouldn't want my child to miss those exciting career opportunities! Please keep in mind, I'm not against making things with leather, learning how to use rifles, fishing, or canoeing, but the rigid system of getting the badges. Life is about finding the true value of a skill for you, while ignoring the invaluable parts. The merit badge system does the opposite.
Are you kidding? Do you not see the value in having a child discover that he's not limited to the available choices, but can chart his own future? Set his own goals and then set about achieving them? Sure he might set a Mars explorer badge with completely unrealistic steps like : 1) build rocket 2) visit moon, but it would not only teach him how to break down a larger task into smaller goals, but it would also teach him the true difficulty of doing anything worthwhile.
Disagree strongly. Ham radio is a bad choice when compared with actual socialization with peers that don't use ham radios. I'm afraid its a stereotype, but one I've found to be rather true: ham radio operators are generally very socially awkward in real social situations. That doesn't mean that ham radio caused the akwardness, but it didn't help that much if any at all. The scout idea is much better than that, but again, I'd recommend avoiding the merit badges and create your own.
You can teach busy work by having a child count beach sand. Just as useful as the merit badge system.
The social aspect is the only good part of scouts, where you learn how to burn different types of materials and discover which kinds of knives cut different materials best.
When I do have kids, I may have them join, but I'll come up with my own renegade merit badge system.
1)Boy scouts only requirement is that you be non-atheist. I still wouldn't suggest it though. The merit badge requirements are sad busy work. It woudl be stifling.
2)Ham radio is not a good idea for socialization.
4) good idea. Labor is good for those who aren't used to it, and allows them to get a better understanding of how people interact with each other. I'd recommend retail. Unfortunately, he's still too young.
Yeah, no. Its an asset. How do I know its an asset? Because B&N was willing to pay money for it. That makes it an asset. I'm sure other stake holders like vendors wanted the money borders agreed to pay them too. The judges' job is to figure out how to break promises AND contracts in the most fair and equitable way.
Yeah, its all a bit stupid. The main point was that borders agreed to not sell your information to anyone. Well, they also promised to pay their suppliers money for the goods and services provided. In a bankruptcy, the judge ends up deciding who's promises are kept and at what level. It should not be a surprise to anyone that these lists could be sold in the case of a bankruptcy. In fact, I'd argue people should be thankful that they ended up in the hands of barns and nobles, rather than Jim's discount organ enlargement and credit theft inc.
Slashdot Mirror
There was an awesome speed metal band that went by the name of Green Jello, but they were forced to change it to Green Jelly after Kraft foods the maker of Jell-O complained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Jell%C3%BF
That's absurd. This is Microsoft, they'll bid 45 billion.
Actually, that's how my family made its money when it moved here: bootlegging during prohibition. They did very well for themselves. But, bitcoin, that's just a tax on people who suck at macroeconomics.
Man, you're a jerk!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/10/14/1840224/throwable-36-camera-ball-takes-spherical-panoramas
I understand your frustration with your inability to counter scientific arguments that you intuitively disagree with. Its not expected that a layman could offer up a scientifically valid counter argument imminently (or after any period of time really) after the publication of an article they disagree with. The rational thing would be to suggest that researchers look into the suggested period of time and deforestation to see if agrees or disagrees with this research, rather than arbitrary declare that the research would support your position.
Let me repost the important part of the theory:
Article's theory: An area the size of california was reforested over 200 years causing the little ice age.
The climate change they are attributing to the amount of reforestation, not the change in population that caused the reforestation. So, I'm assuming that they have the amount of land reforested more accurate than the number of people. Again, the important part of the theory is the amount of reforestation, not the number of people. It is not scientific to make up numbers and wildly guess the out come of your numbers to oppose a more scientific idea.
Article's theory: An area the size of california was reforested over 200 years causing the little ice age
Your theory: removal of X amount of forest over 200 years should have resulted in Y amount of warming which we didn't see. We actually saw a temperature change of Z.
You need to figure out what X , Y and Z are before making that a legitimate argument. The article has real numbers and real research behind it, your speculation does not rise to the level of a rebuttal.
Its acceptable and funny to make fun of Canadians, because it makes no sense. You've got a pretty decent economy, health care system, education system, great beer, doughnuts, ect. Its an ironic insult, that is really an insult at one's own nationality. Plus, everyone knows that the best comedians are Canadian, and they've given us a lot of material to work with.
So you'll just have to live with being praised with humour, or you'll have to move to the states.
Careers such as leather-making, rife-ling, fishing or canoe guide? Oh, yeah wouldn't want my child to miss those exciting career opportunities! Please keep in mind, I'm not against making things with leather, learning how to use rifles, fishing, or canoeing, but the rigid system of getting the badges. Life is about finding the true value of a skill for you, while ignoring the invaluable parts. The merit badge system does the opposite.
Are you kidding? Do you not see the value in having a child discover that he's not limited to the available choices, but can chart his own future? Set his own goals and then set about achieving them? Sure he might set a Mars explorer badge with completely unrealistic steps like : 1) build rocket 2) visit moon, but it would not only teach him how to break down a larger task into smaller goals, but it would also teach him the true difficulty of doing anything worthwhile.
Disagree strongly. Ham radio is a bad choice when compared with actual socialization with peers that don't use ham radios. I'm afraid its a stereotype, but one I've found to be rather true: ham radio operators are generally very socially awkward in real social situations. That doesn't mean that ham radio caused the akwardness, but it didn't help that much if any at all. The scout idea is much better than that, but again, I'd recommend avoiding the merit badges and create your own.
You can teach busy work by having a child count beach sand. Just as useful as the merit badge system.
The social aspect is the only good part of scouts, where you learn how to burn different types of materials and discover which kinds of knives cut different materials best.
When I do have kids, I may have them join, but I'll come up with my own renegade merit badge system.
1)Boy scouts only requirement is that you be non-atheist. I still wouldn't suggest it though. The merit badge requirements are sad busy work. It woudl be stifling.
2)Ham radio is not a good idea for socialization.
4) good idea. Labor is good for those who aren't used to it, and allows them to get a better understanding of how people interact with each other. I'd recommend retail. Unfortunately, he's still too young.
The right conclusion, is that people suck at organizing emails into folders. Therefore, for most people putting emails in folders is a waste of time.
Eh, I already did that and it stuck me in this crazy alternate universe without flying cars or moon condos. I'm afraid to do it again.
We're not idiots, we're incompetent.
I was trying to find a funny way to say I wasn't kind to delicate glass objects. But yeah, if you are violent drunk don't drink and/or hunt yetis.
Yeah, those are expensive. I try to drink only beverages that don't make me violent in klein bottles.
http://www.kleinbottle.com/
They're $35 for the cheapest, and sometimes have a long lead time. For vodka, I'll stick to what ever is clean.
That's ridiculous. These men are scientists!
They'll be drinking vodka from test-tubes and beakers, obviously.
Yup, Haskell shops don't post job openings, they head hunt.
Great analogy! Its just like when your head explodes in a black hole the brain turns into a 66 Chevy! Color me convinced!
Yeah, no. Its an asset. How do I know its an asset? Because B&N was willing to pay money for it. That makes it an asset. I'm sure other stake holders like vendors wanted the money borders agreed to pay them too. The judges' job is to figure out how to break promises AND contracts in the most fair and equitable way.
Yeah, its all a bit stupid. The main point was that borders agreed to not sell your information to anyone. Well, they also promised to pay their suppliers money for the goods and services provided. In a bankruptcy, the judge ends up deciding who's promises are kept and at what level. It should not be a surprise to anyone that these lists could be sold in the case of a bankruptcy. In fact, I'd argue people should be thankful that they ended up in the hands of barns and nobles, rather than Jim's discount organ enlargement and credit theft inc.
Yes you can, you charge the customer more than you pay and hide the extra in the monthly charges. Some phones are free to consumers.
Do you really think the phone companies were paid by the manufacturers to distribute those phones?
Now, does that mean they paid retail? Not necessarily or even probable, but your reasoning was just silly wrong.