Pretty much by definition, photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere - It creates carbon compounds from atmospheric CO2, thus increasing biomass. Your statement is logically equivalent to "Water doesn't get you wet unless you come into contact with water."
That's not what happened - they borrowed the money to take the company private, using a loan secured by the company - they basically just borrowed the value of the stock they didn't already own. So, less than the company was worth. Since that was a loan made to the company, the company was responsible for paying it. in the meantime, the people who set up the deal got nice big commissions, and kept control of the company, milking it for "management fees" and the like as long as it could keep up both the fees and the interest payments. Now, the company is going under, the assets will pay some fraction of the debts. The people who made the deal in the first place walk away with all the money they collected over the last 13 years. I am not a financial expert, but that's the general idea.
Funny how one extreme use case is held up as an excuse for not changing things. Using the "200 miles" as a distance limit is telling, as it assumes that the technology will not improve at all, when it has already improved a great deal in the last decade.Charging technology is also improving greatly, it's ridiculous to assume that there won't be sufficient charging capacity installed as the number of electrics on the road increases. Consider this - auto driving cars would be able to convoy to reduce energy usage, and smoother traffic flow from auto-driving vehicles would reduce slowdowns and jams. That alone will greatly improve evacuation efficiency. This technology is rapidly approaching market, any electric car produced in 10 years should be capable of this functionality. So, instead of 10 hours on the road to go 200 miles, we have the scenario of 4 hours on the road, followed by an hour to charge, and then back on the road to go another 200 miles before the old-style cars would have made it to the first stop. (Though realistically we should see 300-400 miles between charges)
The question is to get YOU to read the citations, which would show you that the citations do not actually support the conclusions. It's trying to spoon-feed *you*.
No one is claiming that greenhouse gasses trap all the heat, only that they reduce the heat flow. The term "heat trap" is not intended to imply that all heat is trapped, it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
Pretty simple - there WASN'T a "pause" from 1998 to 2015. 1998 was well above the trend - an outlier, with both 1997 and 1999 significantly lower. 2015 was the first year that was higher than 1998, but the preceding and following years were not much lower - so the 3 year (or 5 year, or 10 year) average for the late 90s was significantly lower than the average for the last few years.
So at best you could say "There was a huge drop from 1998 to 1999, then steady warming, temperatures have been rising since 1999." Which sounds pretty odd, but is much more accurate than any so-called "pause".
If you are on this page, you probably understand something about signal processing and statistics -ask yourself why people have been saying there was a "pause" when the data - whether statistically analysed or just plain eyeballed - shows no such thing.
No. In the natural course of things, CO2 follows warming. Now, for the first time in the record, CO2 is leading temperature while temperature changes faster then ever recorded, AND in the opposite direction from the trend prior to the use of fossil fuels.. So this is literally unprecedented, Perhaps you should pay attention to the people who actually gather the data instead of the people who deliberately misstate it?
So what you're saying is that conservatives are more conscientious, but not when it comes to electing people who are actually conservatives. Is that correct?
I think this is pretty much a "no true Scotsman" argument - you've decided that liberals must be lazy, so any lazy person is a liberal in your eyes, and any hard-working one is a conservative. As you don't know the politics of everyone you encounter, it's easy to pigeonhole your co-workers and then ignore any evidence that contradicts your assumptions. You're dismissing the elected conservatives as liberals, which is very telling, as they certainly work to spread conservative values, and have the support of the half of the voters who self-identify as conservatives.
But the real question - in my experience, women are more conscientious than men. Across the board - they are more likely to double-check their work, they dot and cross various letters as appropriate, they are prone to make sure their work is right, whether it's washing dishes or debugging code or soldering circuit boards.
So as conscientiousness is a highly valued trait, if my observations are scalable across the IT industry, wouldn't this indicate that we need more women in the field? And that we should examine factors that may be driving them out of an industry that needs them?
It's not just "better PR and more customers" - "Raw talent" doesn't cut the mustard when you're a pain in the ass to work with. "Works well with others" is part of the core skillset. Obnoxious or abusive behavior reduces other people's productivity, particularly when you assume they can't do the work and thus refuse to co-operate with them.
I think you mean "the most highly educated women, those in academia, having higher standards". Granted, it seems like hate to the guys who don't measure up...
It's part of the cycle - (very simplified) Carbon in food gets eaten, in the form of carbohydrates. that carbon is combined with oxygen when the body processes the carbohydrates to release energy to keep the body running, this makes make CO2 That CO2 is released into the air. Plants absorb the CO2 from the air and convert it to sugars/starches/whatever, using energy from the sun Those sugars, starches, etc get eaten. So any carbon that is "stored" in life forms is temporary - it will eventually get released in the form of CO2, barring geological capture.
The carbon cycle is integral to understanding how CO2 increases and decreases "naturally" - there is a seasonal cycle, but over a year, as much CO2 is released by natural sources as is absorbed by natural sources. (there are minor natural sources and "sinks", but they are dwarfed by the biosphere)
The artificial "non-cycle" is Carbon or carbon containing materials are gathered. They are combined with oxygen to release energy, thus releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. So all the carbon that is harvested for fuel becomes part of atmospheric CO2.
Now, since the natural cycle is fairly "balanced", the level of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed relatively constant over historical time - until the industrial revolution, since then it has been rising steadily.
So any discussion of carbon in this area is referring to carbon that is already part of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or is going to be. It's easier to say "carbon" than to say "carbon-based fuels and the CO2 they produce".
So you're saying that toys that neither require nor inspire "learning, creativity, and discovery" should get an award that is specifically linked to "learning, creativity, and discovery". I'm not saying that creativity wasn't required to invent, say, Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, but exactly what do you learn playing it? "Hit faster than the other guy and you'll win!" Isn't really that difficult to understand, I'm pretty sure you know that halfway through the commercial. Clue and Uno at least exercise memory and logic skills, but you do more of that in a single tabletop RPG session (even pure Hack 'n Slash) than is any reasonable time frame of playing either.
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
No, you've been watching too much Fox News and/or Breitbart. They give grants of about 10% to other charities, for those charities to use or distribute. Most of the rest they spend on their own charity initiatives - ranging from Women's Health to training farmers in Africa to a wide variety or good causes. The actual administrative expenses are around 11%, which is quite good for charity organizations.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
So, how do you explain the wealth that they accumulated before Hillary was SoS? They made over $90 million from 2000 to 2006 in book and speech income, did that income source magically become "dirty" when she joined the Obama administration? I find your example lacking in specifics - which firm? What date? Was she in office at the time? Vague accusations indicate an unreliable source. And if the press could never learn about it, how do you know so "much" (actually very little) about it?
The entire US governments runs on "taking money... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
No, it's a charity, the books get audited. They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on. Not a cent to campaign funds or their own bank accounts. Their personal wealth is because - amazing as it may sound - organizations are willing to spend big bucks for the prestige of a former President giving a speech at their events.
If every institution has been so infiltrated, maybe it's because liberals tend to be concerned with facts and evidence, and institutions compete better when they don't consist solely of reality-challenged conservatives. just a possibility to consider.
The internal temperature is due to "primordial" heat and the heat due to decay of radioisotopes.
The radioisotopes involved have very-long half-lives, so this energy input is effectively constant over historical timescales. In fact, it is effectively constant over timescales of millions of years.
The primordial heat (heat from earth's formation) is comparable in magnitude to the heat from radioisotopes, The conduction of this energy to the surface is also effectively constant over millions of years.
Both of these are negligible compared the the solar flux - without the solar flux we would have a surface cold enough to freeze out the atmosphere.
That isn't to say that geological processes can't have an effect. For example, volcanic ash can block some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to a short term dip in temperatures until the ash falls out of the atmosphere. Volcanic CO2 is occasionally brought up in discussion, however it is negligible in comparison the CO2 release from fossil fuel use.
Maybe it's because you ignore the science you are asking to speak for itself, dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a "SJW", and the only "questioning" you did is effectively saying "Nuh-uh!".
You hear about the human "links" because people are more interested in humans, so that's what gets the news coverage.
Without being an expert in zoology, I can say a couple of things about your chosen examples: 1) All three seem to be chosen for the difficulty in finding ancestral fossils, due to the unlikelihood of fossil formation - the toucan is a jungle-dwelling bird, the manta is a sea creature with a skeleton made of cartilage, the stick insect is small and lacks bones(and is likely to be eaten whole by predators). 2) The centipede and stick insect are from very different branchs of the "tree of life". You might as well ask "Where's the missing link between dogs and jellyfish?" The common ancestor is so far back, it doesn't bear much obvious resemblance to either.(Yes, they are both creepy-crawlies, but that's not a biological classification.)
So, rather than looking at the big picture of biology, and saying "we've got 1000 transitional fossils for these groups of species, and a few dozen species we haven't found any for, but we're still looking...", some people have preferred to say "Hey, you haven't found this particular fossil, so evolution is bullshit!" This was frequently followed within a few years by "this particular fossil" being found, but there never seems to be a retraction of the "bullshit claim". Recently, "this particular fossil" has often been a bogus imaginary transitional form, i.e. "There should be a half-cow, half-manta fossil out there somewhere, or evolution is bullshit." (Which shows a profound and deliberate misunderstanding of, well, everything in the world.) This minimizes the chances of a new fossil find destroying the bogus argument, but it's still a bogus argument.
I am NOT saying you have made such a claim, but I wonder if you got your examples from those who do.
there's way too much prior art out there. I'm pretty sure I saw this described in a military handbook available at www.therangerdigest.com/.
(I don't remember which volume, but it's in there)
The whole point is to have excess capacity. Currently, we seem to be heading in the direction of _everything_ being network accessible. Can't find your shoes? Send them a command and they'll beep at you. Think your husband is cheating on you? Put a GPS-enabled credit card in his wallet, and track his wherabouts in realtime. Feeling down? Here's an injection of nano-sensors to track your brain chemistry, and also to let your wife know if you get 'excited' when she's not around. While each of these examples is trivial, the sum of all the plausible uses points towards every person on Earth having a need for dozens or hundreds of addresses eventually. Besides, how will the govt. keep track of us slashdotters without ATIANRWMI (Absolute Total Information Awareness, Now Really We Mean It) and a bug on every square inch of my skin?
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much by definition, photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere - It creates carbon compounds from atmospheric CO2, thus increasing biomass.
Your statement is logically equivalent to "Water doesn't get you wet unless you come into contact with water."
That's not what happened - they borrowed the money to take the company private, using a loan secured by the company - they basically just borrowed the value of the stock they didn't already own. So, less than the company was worth.
Since that was a loan made to the company, the company was responsible for paying it.
in the meantime, the people who set up the deal got nice big commissions, and kept control of the company, milking it for "management fees" and the like as long as it could keep up both the fees and the interest payments.
Now, the company is going under, the assets will pay some fraction of the debts. The people who made the deal in the first place walk away with all the money they collected over the last 13 years.
I am not a financial expert, but that's the general idea.
Funny how one extreme use case is held up as an excuse for not changing things. Using the "200 miles" as a distance limit is telling, as it assumes that the technology will not improve at all, when it has already improved a great deal in the last decade.Charging technology is also improving greatly, it's ridiculous to assume that there won't be sufficient charging capacity installed as the number of electrics on the road increases.
Consider this - auto driving cars would be able to convoy to reduce energy usage, and smoother traffic flow from auto-driving vehicles would reduce slowdowns and jams. That alone will greatly improve evacuation efficiency. This technology is rapidly approaching market, any electric car produced in 10 years should be capable of this functionality.
So, instead of 10 hours on the road to go 200 miles, we have the scenario of 4 hours on the road, followed by an hour to charge, and then back on the road to go another 200 miles before the old-style cars would have made it to the first stop. (Though realistically we should see 300-400 miles between charges)
The question is to get YOU to read the citations, which would show you that the citations do not actually support the conclusions. It's trying to spoon-feed *you*.
No one is claiming that greenhouse gasses trap all the heat, only that they reduce the heat flow. The term "heat trap" is not intended to imply that all heat is trapped, it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
Pretty simple - there WASN'T a "pause" from 1998 to 2015. 1998 was well above the trend - an outlier, with both 1997 and 1999 significantly lower. 2015 was the first year that was higher than 1998, but the preceding and following years were not much lower - so the 3 year (or 5 year, or 10 year) average for the late 90s was significantly lower than the average for the last few years.
So at best you could say "There was a huge drop from 1998 to 1999, then steady warming, temperatures have been rising since 1999." Which sounds pretty odd, but is much more accurate than any so-called "pause".
If you are on this page, you probably understand something about signal processing and statistics -ask yourself why people have been saying there was a "pause" when the data - whether statistically analysed or just plain eyeballed - shows no such thing.
No. In the natural course of things, CO2 follows warming. Now, for the first time in the record, CO2 is leading temperature while temperature changes faster then ever recorded, AND in the opposite direction from the trend prior to the use of fossil fuels.. So this is literally unprecedented, Perhaps you should pay attention to the people who actually gather the data instead of the people who deliberately misstate it?
So what you're saying is that conservatives are more conscientious, but not when it comes to electing people who are actually conservatives. Is that correct?
I think this is pretty much a "no true Scotsman" argument - you've decided that liberals must be lazy, so any lazy person is a liberal in your eyes, and any hard-working one is a conservative. As you don't know the politics of everyone you encounter, it's easy to pigeonhole your co-workers and then ignore any evidence that contradicts your assumptions. You're dismissing the elected conservatives as liberals, which is very telling, as they certainly work to spread conservative values, and have the support of the half of the voters who self-identify as conservatives.
But the real question - in my experience, women are more conscientious than men. Across the board - they are more likely to double-check their work, they dot and cross various letters as appropriate, they are prone to make sure their work is right, whether it's washing dishes or debugging code or soldering circuit boards.
So as conscientiousness is a highly valued trait, if my observations are scalable across the IT industry, wouldn't this indicate that we need more women in the field? And that we should examine factors that may be driving them out of an industry that needs them?
It's not just "better PR and more customers" - "Raw talent" doesn't cut the mustard when you're a pain in the ass to work with. "Works well with others" is part of the core skillset. Obnoxious or abusive behavior reduces other people's productivity, particularly when you assume they can't do the work and thus refuse to co-operate with them.
I think you mean "the most highly educated women, those in academia, having higher standards". Granted, it seems like hate to the guys who don't measure up...
Yes.
It's part of the cycle - (very simplified)
Carbon in food gets eaten, in the form of carbohydrates.
that carbon is combined with oxygen when the body processes the carbohydrates to release energy to keep the body running, this makes make CO2
That CO2 is released into the air.
Plants absorb the CO2 from the air and convert it to sugars/starches/whatever, using energy from the sun
Those sugars, starches, etc get eaten.
So any carbon that is "stored" in life forms is temporary - it will eventually get released in the form of CO2, barring geological capture.
The carbon cycle is integral to understanding how CO2 increases and decreases "naturally" - there is a seasonal cycle, but over a year, as much CO2 is released by natural sources as is absorbed by natural sources. (there are minor natural sources and "sinks", but they are dwarfed by the biosphere)
The artificial "non-cycle" is
Carbon or carbon containing materials are gathered.
They are combined with oxygen to release energy, thus releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. So all the carbon that is harvested for fuel becomes part of atmospheric CO2.
Now, since the natural cycle is fairly "balanced", the level of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed relatively constant over historical time - until the industrial revolution, since then it has been rising steadily.
So any discussion of carbon in this area is referring to carbon that is already part of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or is going to be. It's easier to say "carbon" than to say "carbon-based fuels and the CO2 they produce".
"Commercial Space Flight" without rockets? Using what? Pixie dust? Build a scramjet with 60s technology? Yeah, that woulda worked.
So you're saying that toys that neither require nor inspire "learning, creativity, and discovery" should get an award that is specifically linked to "learning, creativity, and discovery". I'm not saying that creativity wasn't required to invent, say, Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, but exactly what do you learn playing it? "Hit faster than the other guy and you'll win!" Isn't really that difficult to understand, I'm pretty sure you know that halfway through the commercial.
Clue and Uno at least exercise memory and logic skills, but you do more of that in a single tabletop RPG session (even pure Hack 'n Slash) than is any reasonable time frame of playing either.
They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.
No, you've been watching too much Fox News and/or Breitbart. They give grants of about 10% to other charities, for those charities to use or distribute. Most of the rest they spend on their own charity initiatives - ranging from Women's Health to training farmers in Africa to a wide variety or good causes. The actual administrative expenses are around 11%, which is quite good for charity organizations.
No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?
So, how do you explain the wealth that they accumulated before Hillary was SoS? They made over $90 million from 2000 to 2006 in book and speech income, did that income source magically become "dirty" when she joined the Obama administration?
I find your example lacking in specifics - which firm? What date? Was she in office at the time? Vague accusations indicate an unreliable source. And if the press could never learn about it, how do you know so "much" (actually very little) about it?
The entire US governments runs on "taking money ... while granting favors"
You're confusing campaign funding with putting millions of dollars directly in the Clinton family pockets, making them personally wealthy.
No, it's a charity, the books get audited. They don't draw a salary, the money gets spent on causes they feel it should be spent on. Not a cent to campaign funds or their own bank accounts.
Their personal wealth is because - amazing as it may sound - organizations are willing to spend big bucks for the prestige of a former President giving a speech at their events.
Not necessarily. Trial happen if the authorities believe they can convince a jury a crime has been committed, actual crime is not necessary.
No, because then you are adding overhead for no reason. "Developing" is not just coding, designing and planning are part and parcel of the job.
If every institution has been so infiltrated, maybe it's because liberals tend to be concerned with facts and evidence, and institutions compete better when they don't consist solely of reality-challenged conservatives. just a possibility to consider.
The internal temperature is due to "primordial" heat and the heat due to decay of radioisotopes.
The radioisotopes involved have very-long half-lives, so this energy input is effectively constant over historical timescales. In fact, it is effectively constant over timescales of millions of years.
The primordial heat (heat from earth's formation) is comparable in magnitude to the heat from radioisotopes, The conduction of this energy to the surface is also effectively constant over millions of years.
Both of these are negligible compared the the solar flux - without the solar flux we would have a surface cold enough to freeze out the atmosphere.
That isn't to say that geological processes can't have an effect. For example, volcanic ash can block some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to a short term dip in temperatures until the ash falls out of the atmosphere. Volcanic CO2 is occasionally brought up in discussion, however it is negligible in comparison the CO2 release from fossil fuel use.
Maybe it's because you ignore the science you are asking to speak for itself, dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a "SJW", and the only "questioning" you did is effectively saying "Nuh-uh!".
Actually, social scientists are constantly told their research is useless - maybe you haven't noticed because it's not your ox being gored.
You hear about the human "links" because people are more interested in humans, so that's what gets the news coverage.
Without being an expert in zoology, I can say a couple of things about your chosen examples:
1) All three seem to be chosen for the difficulty in finding ancestral fossils, due to the unlikelihood of fossil formation - the toucan is a jungle-dwelling bird, the manta is a sea creature with a skeleton made of cartilage, the stick insect is small and lacks bones(and is likely to be eaten whole by predators).
2) The centipede and stick insect are from very different branchs of the "tree of life". You might as well ask "Where's the missing link between dogs and jellyfish?" The common ancestor is so far back, it doesn't bear much obvious resemblance to either.(Yes, they are both creepy-crawlies, but that's not a biological classification.)
So, rather than looking at the big picture of biology, and saying "we've got 1000 transitional fossils for these groups of species, and a few dozen species we haven't found any for, but we're still looking...", some people have preferred to say "Hey, you haven't found this particular fossil, so evolution is bullshit!"
This was frequently followed within a few years by "this particular fossil" being found, but there never seems to be a retraction of the "bullshit claim".
Recently, "this particular fossil" has often been a bogus imaginary transitional form, i.e. "There should be a half-cow, half-manta fossil out there somewhere, or evolution is bullshit." (Which shows a profound and deliberate misunderstanding of, well, everything in the world.) This minimizes the chances of a new fossil find destroying the bogus argument, but it's still a bogus argument.
I am NOT saying you have made such a claim, but I wonder if you got your examples from those who do.
there's way too much prior art out there. I'm pretty sure I saw this described in a military handbook available at www.therangerdigest.com/. (I don't remember which volume, but it's in there)
The whole point is to have excess capacity. Currently, we seem to be heading in the direction of _everything_ being network accessible. Can't find your shoes? Send them a command and they'll beep at you.
Think your husband is cheating on you? Put a GPS-enabled credit card in his wallet, and track his wherabouts in realtime.
Feeling down? Here's an injection of nano-sensors to track your brain chemistry, and also to let your wife know if you get 'excited' when she's not around.
While each of these examples is trivial, the sum of all the plausible uses points towards every person on Earth having a need for dozens or hundreds of addresses eventually. Besides, how will the govt. keep track of us slashdotters without ATIANRWMI (Absolute Total Information Awareness, Now Really We Mean It) and a bug on every square inch of my skin?