Love and competent parenting aren't the same thing. What made you think they were? Looks like you're too busy being shocked by the crime and the letter. Exactly how is it that a 29yo stepmother (who will already be treated hostile in any marriage with kids) with a 14yo stepson can be considered a competent source? She may be competent in other ways, but she's a tad out of range for being a motherly figure for a kid that old.
I agree with these other guys, everything she mentioned being tried was reactionary in nature. She expressed a lot of hatred, and that's really it. I've known a few people on the other side of the law, I just don't see how this girl knows what she's talking about.
Why should we? And while we're at it, why can't we whip back? After the bullshit they've put us and our friends and family through, why should we just walk away? It's not good enough that their business model has evaporated, the coke-snorting abusive record label executives need to hold up cardboard signs saying "Will work for food" before justice will be satisfied.
Heh, I missed the joke.:) How about we just get all the yankees up north to hold their breaths for one hour? And the republicans, and the christians, and hell, why not moslems and jews to? And the damn French, and the illegal immigrants (should be able to hold their breath for one hour before granted citizenship!), and anybody who says they're Rs like Ws (except small kids)...
Yes, but we're not adding any carbon to the atmosphere doing so. When we pump carbon that's been locked away inside the earth's crust for millions of years, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere. The environment has long since adapted (stabilized? whatever) to the levels of carbon that have been in the atmosphere in the meantime, so we are potentially disrupting whatever balance is there.
It's like this.:) Think of it like adding a value to one side of the equation without adding it to the other side. It's only good exactly as far as I said (because if you start including all the rules and math associated with equations, my analogy completely breaks down very quickly, which is why I say it's an "analogy", not "rigorous model of climate change"), but the idea is clear.
Something else I'm curious about, but haven't heard anything about it. Is it possible that we could ultimately suffocate ourselves? We're pulling carbon out, but not very much oxygen, if any, and mixing it with the oxygen in the atmosphere. Good for plants, they take in the CO2 and break it down, keeping the carbon. But is it possible for us to mix so much buried carbon with atmospheric oxygen to render portions of the planet or even the entire planet incapable of supporting oxygen-breathing life? It wouldn't take long to wipe out all animals, and the plants could probably survive long enough for a new oxygen breather to evolve and replenish the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...
Indeed, you either missed my point, or I made it somewhere else.:) The CAUSE isn't as important as the RESULTS. In short words, that means if the climate is warming to the point of dooming us, the cause doesn't matter, we're still doomed. Which in turn means we still need to solve the problem.
This is where the cause kicks in, but I think too much attention is being paid to it. If you ignore the issue of the cause, the fact that it's happening means we need to adapt. If you include the cause, and we are responsible for it, then cutting down our own emissions must be part of the solution, but it cannot be the whole solution. If you include the cause, and we are NOT responsible for it, then cutting down our own emissions won't help at all, and in some cases could cause us to fail to adapt (because we may need higher emissions to fuel the technology required to adapt). However, I've only given two choices for the cause. We may not be the sole cause of the warming, and we need to determine to the best of our ability what our contribution is and include addressing our contribution in the solution.
But let me stress, if the only solution we come up with is to reduce emissions, we're still fucked. We need to be thinking about what the natural resource distribution is going to look like and do our best to predict it, because we need to be moving agriculture and probably many other industries to the new land, moving people off land that is doomed, etc.
All assuming that global warming will be the disaster the really crazy people are predicting. I've seen people predict as much as the atlantic filling in all the way to the mississippi, and I just don't see how the assumption that the appalachian mountains, as wimpy as they are, can possibly be less than the 7m rise in the ocean NASA's predicting.
To be honest, I'd like to see private companies get into the solutions and just start implementing them. I've been asking myself how much I really believe this is going to happen and how much money I'm willing to lay out to bet that it'll happen quickly enough for me to get a return on it. As an individual, I could afford a fair amount of land out in the middle of nowhere, and if I choose well, I could make a killing selling it even at an ethical "I want to help save your life" price later on. Larger companies could certainly speculate as well, and if enough of them do it, the total risk can be distributed quite a bit. "I wonder why they're building a subdivision over there? Nobody's ever going to live there." (20 years later) "Wow, these houses sat up empty for a long time, but it's really good they were here!" That's my naive way to see it, I'm sure an economist could come up with many more parts of the solution that are needed to keep everyone happy, alive, well-fed, and so forth, throughout the predicted disaster.
Evaporating water alone doesn't make clouds. Water vapor alone doesn't make clouds. I live in a pretty humid area, but the sky is usually clear. I've lived in very dry areas that usually had some clouds in the sky. It's not good to assume that more water vapor will cause more clouds cover.
Because all of the self-correcting trends that we know about also caused at least 50% extinction of life on the planet, and took thousands of years to work out?
And the warmer atmosphere will prevent it from condensing and falling later.
Worse yet, warmer surface temperatures will cause tropical storms to rise in areas farther north/south than they currently do, which will increase the amount of hurricanes as well as the fury of individual hurricanes.
My main issue with this global warming thing isn't the scientific fervor, it's the political ball it's become. You see, the scientific fervor, imo, derives from the way scientists are generally treated by politicians and businessmen. If you're a scientist, and your research indicates someone will or should stop making money, or that potentially unpopular laws should be passed, you're hated by the powers that be. So I suspect something of a martyr syndrome going through the scientific community over this, and am willing to disregard hysterics from the scientific community for that reason.
However, they are smart people who know what they're talking about. They could be wrong, but I don't really see how any of the recommended measures, if taken incrementally to make the money-grubbing politicians and blood-sucking lawyers happy, will be bad for us on the whole. We get more efficient technology out of the deal, significant technological advances, and serious improvements in living conditions in exchange for what? Recognizing we might be capable of trashing our planet? Sounds good to me!
But what really irks me is the way politicians are playing the science card and trying to manipulate the scientific community. The damage we might suffer on the whole as a result of the fight is imo far greater than the damage we might cause to ourselves via global warming.
Right, but we also know that when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, there weren't that many power plants, cars, and stuff. Call me crazy, but the one thing about the man-made argument that makes the most sense is that we're currently pumping millions (billions?) of tons of carbon out of the ground that's been locked up for thousands/millions of years and mixing it with the oxygen that hasn't been locked up. The end result is that our atmosphere is more massive and more capable of retaining heat than it was before we started, and we have sufficient reason to believe that if we weren't doing what we're doing, our atmosphere would not be gaining all this extra mass.
So the planet is warming and the magnetic poles are unstable, but you'd have to be on the fringe of crazy to say you haven't observed anybody pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Chances are, you've done it directly yourself, and posting here shows you're likely an indirect cause of it, because computers need power, and the power comes from somewhere, and there are many more carbon-pumping electric plants than anything else.
So throw counter-arguments at me all you want. There's some evidence that previous fluctuations in carbon levels in the atmosphere had nothing to do with the lifestyles of the dominant species on the planet. There's plenty of evidence that the current increase is completely man-made, and there are very few, if any, models that don't predict global warming as atmospheric carbon levels increase. Sure, the planet could warm for other reasons, and may be doing so. That's no reason to ignore the stuff we definitely know.
Except that having a group that has already successfully lasted 30 months locked up here doesn't mean you have a group that can last 30 months in space. You're raising the bar and asking for a group that can last a total of 60 months locked up, in 30 month increments.
To improve your suggestion, I'd suggest running more like 3000 people through the test, profiling them, and comparing them to your control group (which is people who all live together, but are not locked up). Then you probably have a good idea what kind of person you're looking to hire for the job, as well as a few candidates.
Well, the tiny sample of Russians in general I've dealt with (some software developers, some students, etc) contradicts your testimony a tad. I guess that has something to do with a country with a population near 150 million, eh? OTOH, my experience with Americans is lifelong, and I've dealt with thousands of Americans in my life so far in all sorts of functions and relationships, and I find that there's not much difference between the GP's statement about Russians and anything I might observe about Americans.
If I try to extrapolate to other nationalities, members of which I've come into contact, I find that "learn their ways" holds true with all except Germans, for some reason. Arrogance doesn't hold out for many European countries, but does for the middle east, asia, India, and the south/central American nations. THe problem here, of course, is that I'm extrapolating from too small of a data set. I've known two people from central/south american nations, one from Argentina and one from Guatemala. Not exactly a good dataset...I've known more Russians than that! Heh.
Anyway, you do get my point, indeed. It was less about Russians vs Americans and more about people in general.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. At $10/unit, the label flopped. And you don't understand why an established label charges $8 more? Let's see. "Label flops if they charge less" vs "Label charges more for less value, but has been around for decades".
Um, Van Halen may not have been a cookie-cutter band, but they belong in the same category as Winger.
And the difference between Def Leppard and Bon Jovi is probably a bit greater than that. Def Leppard were really dedicated musicians that didn't have a lot of talent, while Bon Jovi were your standard megalomaniac fame-seekers, but had a lot of talent. I find the two essentially equal in my eyes, yet if you take On through the night up through Hysteria, and Bon Jovi up through Slippery When Wet (3 records each), I find I like more songs on the Bon Jovi offerings, with most of the songs I like being on the first two. However, on the Def Leppard offerings, I like the really commercial-sounding stuff on the later albums, in particular Hysteria.
Nevertheless, creatively, Def Leppard jumped the shark at the same time the drummer lost his arm. It's sad, because they worked so hard and kept the one-armed drummer and that was cool (compared to Megadeth dumping their drummer when he got knee surgery...). So I'm not trying to link jumping the shark with the drummer losing his arm, I don't think the two events are related, they just happened near the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me know how the brother turned out in another 40 years. Jeffrey Daumer hadn't killed anybody when he was 20 either.
Love and competent parenting aren't the same thing. What made you think they were? Looks like you're too busy being shocked by the crime and the letter. Exactly how is it that a 29yo stepmother (who will already be treated hostile in any marriage with kids) with a 14yo stepson can be considered a competent source? She may be competent in other ways, but she's a tad out of range for being a motherly figure for a kid that old.
I agree with these other guys, everything she mentioned being tried was reactionary in nature. She expressed a lot of hatred, and that's really it. I've known a few people on the other side of the law, I just don't see how this girl knows what she's talking about.
Nothing useful to see here.
Why should we? And while we're at it, why can't we whip back? After the bullshit they've put us and our friends and family through, why should we just walk away? It's not good enough that their business model has evaporated, the coke-snorting abusive record label executives need to hold up cardboard signs saying "Will work for food" before justice will be satisfied.
Yeah, I reposted when I got the joke. :)
Heh, I missed the joke. :) How about we just get all the yankees up north to hold their breaths for one hour? And the republicans, and the christians, and hell, why not moslems and jews to? And the damn French, and the illegal immigrants (should be able to hold their breath for one hour before granted citizenship!), and anybody who says they're Rs like Ws (except small kids)...
Yes, but we're not adding any carbon to the atmosphere doing so. When we pump carbon that's been locked away inside the earth's crust for millions of years, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere. The environment has long since adapted (stabilized? whatever) to the levels of carbon that have been in the atmosphere in the meantime, so we are potentially disrupting whatever balance is there.
It's like this. :) Think of it like adding a value to one side of the equation without adding it to the other side. It's only good exactly as far as I said (because if you start including all the rules and math associated with equations, my analogy completely breaks down very quickly, which is why I say it's an "analogy", not "rigorous model of climate change"), but the idea is clear.
Something else I'm curious about, but haven't heard anything about it. Is it possible that we could ultimately suffocate ourselves? We're pulling carbon out, but not very much oxygen, if any, and mixing it with the oxygen in the atmosphere. Good for plants, they take in the CO2 and break it down, keeping the carbon. But is it possible for us to mix so much buried carbon with atmospheric oxygen to render portions of the planet or even the entire planet incapable of supporting oxygen-breathing life? It wouldn't take long to wipe out all animals, and the plants could probably survive long enough for a new oxygen breather to evolve and replenish the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...
Indeed, you either missed my point, or I made it somewhere else. :) The CAUSE isn't as important as the RESULTS. In short words, that means if the climate is warming to the point of dooming us, the cause doesn't matter, we're still doomed. Which in turn means we still need to solve the problem.
This is where the cause kicks in, but I think too much attention is being paid to it. If you ignore the issue of the cause, the fact that it's happening means we need to adapt. If you include the cause, and we are responsible for it, then cutting down our own emissions must be part of the solution, but it cannot be the whole solution. If you include the cause, and we are NOT responsible for it, then cutting down our own emissions won't help at all, and in some cases could cause us to fail to adapt (because we may need higher emissions to fuel the technology required to adapt). However, I've only given two choices for the cause. We may not be the sole cause of the warming, and we need to determine to the best of our ability what our contribution is and include addressing our contribution in the solution.
But let me stress, if the only solution we come up with is to reduce emissions, we're still fucked. We need to be thinking about what the natural resource distribution is going to look like and do our best to predict it, because we need to be moving agriculture and probably many other industries to the new land, moving people off land that is doomed, etc.
All assuming that global warming will be the disaster the really crazy people are predicting. I've seen people predict as much as the atlantic filling in all the way to the mississippi, and I just don't see how the assumption that the appalachian mountains, as wimpy as they are, can possibly be less than the 7m rise in the ocean NASA's predicting.
To be honest, I'd like to see private companies get into the solutions and just start implementing them. I've been asking myself how much I really believe this is going to happen and how much money I'm willing to lay out to bet that it'll happen quickly enough for me to get a return on it. As an individual, I could afford a fair amount of land out in the middle of nowhere, and if I choose well, I could make a killing selling it even at an ethical "I want to help save your life" price later on. Larger companies could certainly speculate as well, and if enough of them do it, the total risk can be distributed quite a bit. "I wonder why they're building a subdivision over there? Nobody's ever going to live there." (20 years later) "Wow, these houses sat up empty for a long time, but it's really good they were here!" That's my naive way to see it, I'm sure an economist could come up with many more parts of the solution that are needed to keep everyone happy, alive, well-fed, and so forth, throughout the predicted disaster.
Evaporating water alone doesn't make clouds. Water vapor alone doesn't make clouds. I live in a pretty humid area, but the sky is usually clear. I've lived in very dry areas that usually had some clouds in the sky. It's not good to assume that more water vapor will cause more clouds cover.
Because all of the self-correcting trends that we know about also caused at least 50% extinction of life on the planet, and took thousands of years to work out?
And the warmer atmosphere will prevent it from condensing and falling later.
Worse yet, warmer surface temperatures will cause tropical storms to rise in areas farther north/south than they currently do, which will increase the amount of hurricanes as well as the fury of individual hurricanes.
Heh, I'll bite.
My main issue with this global warming thing isn't the scientific fervor, it's the political ball it's become. You see, the scientific fervor, imo, derives from the way scientists are generally treated by politicians and businessmen. If you're a scientist, and your research indicates someone will or should stop making money, or that potentially unpopular laws should be passed, you're hated by the powers that be. So I suspect something of a martyr syndrome going through the scientific community over this, and am willing to disregard hysterics from the scientific community for that reason.
However, they are smart people who know what they're talking about. They could be wrong, but I don't really see how any of the recommended measures, if taken incrementally to make the money-grubbing politicians and blood-sucking lawyers happy, will be bad for us on the whole. We get more efficient technology out of the deal, significant technological advances, and serious improvements in living conditions in exchange for what? Recognizing we might be capable of trashing our planet? Sounds good to me!
But what really irks me is the way politicians are playing the science card and trying to manipulate the scientific community. The damage we might suffer on the whole as a result of the fight is imo far greater than the damage we might cause to ourselves via global warming.
Right, but we also know that when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, there weren't that many power plants, cars, and stuff. Call me crazy, but the one thing about the man-made argument that makes the most sense is that we're currently pumping millions (billions?) of tons of carbon out of the ground that's been locked up for thousands/millions of years and mixing it with the oxygen that hasn't been locked up. The end result is that our atmosphere is more massive and more capable of retaining heat than it was before we started, and we have sufficient reason to believe that if we weren't doing what we're doing, our atmosphere would not be gaining all this extra mass.
So the planet is warming and the magnetic poles are unstable, but you'd have to be on the fringe of crazy to say you haven't observed anybody pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Chances are, you've done it directly yourself, and posting here shows you're likely an indirect cause of it, because computers need power, and the power comes from somewhere, and there are many more carbon-pumping electric plants than anything else.
So throw counter-arguments at me all you want. There's some evidence that previous fluctuations in carbon levels in the atmosphere had nothing to do with the lifestyles of the dominant species on the planet. There's plenty of evidence that the current increase is completely man-made, and there are very few, if any, models that don't predict global warming as atmospheric carbon levels increase. Sure, the planet could warm for other reasons, and may be doing so. That's no reason to ignore the stuff we definitely know.
We didn't need a specific state sanctioned effort to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we need it now?
They send them to the other Odessa, obviously.
He's just trying to beat RMS to calling for it to be named "GNU/Linux Foundation".
Try using the name "Homosexual" as your nickname in an online game sometime, then.
Too much wikiing for you.
Except that having a group that has already successfully lasted 30 months locked up here doesn't mean you have a group that can last 30 months in space. You're raising the bar and asking for a group that can last a total of 60 months locked up, in 30 month increments.
To improve your suggestion, I'd suggest running more like 3000 people through the test, profiling them, and comparing them to your control group (which is people who all live together, but are not locked up). Then you probably have a good idea what kind of person you're looking to hire for the job, as well as a few candidates.
Well, the tiny sample of Russians in general I've dealt with (some software developers, some students, etc) contradicts your testimony a tad. I guess that has something to do with a country with a population near 150 million, eh? OTOH, my experience with Americans is lifelong, and I've dealt with thousands of Americans in my life so far in all sorts of functions and relationships, and I find that there's not much difference between the GP's statement about Russians and anything I might observe about Americans.
If I try to extrapolate to other nationalities, members of which I've come into contact, I find that "learn their ways" holds true with all except Germans, for some reason. Arrogance doesn't hold out for many European countries, but does for the middle east, asia, India, and the south/central American nations. THe problem here, of course, is that I'm extrapolating from too small of a data set. I've known two people from central/south american nations, one from Argentina and one from Guatemala. Not exactly a good dataset...I've known more Russians than that! Heh.
Anyway, you do get my point, indeed. It was less about Russians vs Americans and more about people in general.
s/russian/american
THanks for the warning, but I'm an American and hve been dealing with that mentality my whole life.
YOu've driven a Peugeot? Owned one for longer than 6 months? I thought lemon was almost funny in that context.
I bought my wife a Coolio CD 10 years ago. That may have been the last CD I bought, too. Hmmmm......
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. At $10/unit, the label flopped. And you don't understand why an established label charges $8 more? Let's see. "Label flops if they charge less" vs "Label charges more for less value, but has been around for decades".
Um, Van Halen may not have been a cookie-cutter band, but they belong in the same category as Winger.
And the difference between Def Leppard and Bon Jovi is probably a bit greater than that. Def Leppard were really dedicated musicians that didn't have a lot of talent, while Bon Jovi were your standard megalomaniac fame-seekers, but had a lot of talent. I find the two essentially equal in my eyes, yet if you take On through the night up through Hysteria, and Bon Jovi up through Slippery When Wet (3 records each), I find I like more songs on the Bon Jovi offerings, with most of the songs I like being on the first two. However, on the Def Leppard offerings, I like the really commercial-sounding stuff on the later albums, in particular Hysteria.
Nevertheless, creatively, Def Leppard jumped the shark at the same time the drummer lost his arm. It's sad, because they worked so hard and kept the one-armed drummer and that was cool (compared to Megadeth dumping their drummer when he got knee surgery...). So I'm not trying to link jumping the shark with the drummer losing his arm, I don't think the two events are related, they just happened near the same time.
Are you the John Nowak whose wife just got arrested for going psycho on another astronaut?