Then show me anyone who did it before. Most pundits can't even call the next president.
Nate Silver's predictions are unprecedented in accuracy. I should know, I won a bundle gambling on both elections simply following Nate's predictions. Whilst others confidently predicted the wrong results.
Right. And still, you're not them. So again, there is no real need to persuade you.
As to them, they are well aware that AGW is real. But they will act in their business interest regardless. That's why governments need to use carrot and stick for them.
I have read enough information to tell me that the "science" behind global warming is much thinner than behind evolution and the big bang.
You are kidding. We know very little about the big bang, or even if there was one. If if there was how it was caused: Strings? The multiverse? Scientists have many different and competing theories, and no way yet to choose between them.
But you don't question all of that because the big-bang doesn't affect your lifestyle. You simply accept the most commonly presented theories.
By comparison with the big bang, AGW is a paragon of certainty.
Thank you. You couldn't have made a clearer demonstration of the cognitive problem you have. Your dismissal of AGW is entirely about what you wish were true politically, and nothing to do with the science.
There's a big trade off between field of view and size of the objects that can be seen. Think fish eye views, or peep-holes in apartment doors.
The elimination of blind spots you are suggesting would make an image so much like a fish eye view that it would be worthless. Heck it could already be done with sideview mirrors, but they don't because it would be useless.
Note I'm not saying that they don't do it a little, for sure they do. And even for the little they currently do, they need to add the warning that vehicles may be closer than they appear. My point is that they can't do it the the extent of eliminating side blind spots. You will and should still turn your head to look to your side before changing lane.
"Do your worst. You're not scary." Now who is the denier?
Huh? What am I denying? Your belief that you are Rambo? Or your belief that you are the establishment with the power of life and death over mere mortals?
You don't seem to be clear whether you are the victim or the oppressor. Let me help you... you're neither. You're just some average person posting your opinion on the internet.
If someone like me, who totally believes in science and evolution and the big bang and everything else scientific about our world, doubts global warming, then you have a problem. Global warming has become a political thing, it is about money and power now, not science.
If you think politics trumps science, then you're the one with the problem. And it very much is a cognitive problem. You've decided on a political position and you are letting that modify your otherwise rational view of science. That's the wrong way round. The science is what it is. You have to deal with it.
If it shows on the dash, then that would certainly be a bad idea. I'm imagining the screen for the driver side view would be embedded in the door (and of course at an angle to face the driver. So it would be just below where you would look for a traditional sideview mirror.
The passenger side screen would be OK to embed in the dash though. It would actually be nearer the driver that way, and less likely to be obstructed by he passenger.
Not at all. The OP had decided not to discuss rear view cameras, and open the debate out to the entirety of government health and safety legislation - denigrated as "the nanny state". It's thus not at all off topic to show why government took on such powers in the first place, and show evidence that private industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
The drumbeat today sounds much like that, if you dare deny "The Truth" then you're just a denier and should be rolled over.
It sounds like a myth that never happened?
I think the creationists who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old are nuts, but they are entitled to their opinions and views and I would never wish to crush that. They have their views, I have mine, we can coexist.
Which is fine because their view is harmless and irrelevant. Global warming is neither. It's happening, and it can't be ignored, or not acted on because a few deniers refuse to accept science.
You don't want to coexist, you want to change my way of life without my permission. That is how you start a war.
But if you live on a particularly busy road, once you stop you may not be able to reverse because there's traffic immediately behind you.
Of course it will also be difficult to reverse out onto such a road. But at least then you can pick a gap, and it's more clear to any other traffic what manoeuvre you are doing.
Galileo was in a minority of scientists, persecuted by the religious conservatives.
Religious conservatives in America are also trying to argue against the scientists now on AGW. They are loud-mouthed but have increasingly little power. Certainly far less power to persecute "blasphemers" than in Galileo's time.
Actually, it's the opposite. The worst speed to be entering a traffic light is near zero. You've slowed down to a low speed because of someone slowing to turn right ahead of you. The traffic behind you collapses to be nearly bumper to bumper at 15 MPH in a 40 zone. The light is timed for 40 MPH. You don't realize that the light is about to turn yellow, so rather than just coming to a stop, you decide to enter the intersection.
None of that makes any sense, since the going slower approaching the junction scenario is under advisement of the technology that knows exactly when the light will change. There is no "you don't realise that the light is about to turn",
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually surprisingly easy to do.
Then show me anyone who did it before. Most pundits can't even call the next president.
Nate Silver's predictions are unprecedented in accuracy. I should know, I won a bundle gambling on both elections simply following Nate's predictions. Whilst others confidently predicted the wrong results.
Right. And still, you're not them. So again, there is no real need to persuade you.
As to them, they are well aware that AGW is real. But they will act in their business interest regardless. That's why governments need to use carrot and stick for them.
Sorry, I don't see it. It's not something I've ever found to be an issue in 25 years of driving. Maybe you're being too aggressive in accelerating?
Amazing how they've replaced all that with the 350 Chromebooks they've bought. Oh, that's right, they haven't. It's a pilot.
Going on the rate Munich switched to a Windows alternative, you've got 10 years to wait for those Windows machines to be replaced.
Is auto-didacticism a dirty word where you come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Right. So there was no blog.
And now it's "the computers" that are wrong? Fuck me, you are an imbecile.
I have read enough information to tell me that the "science" behind global warming is much thinner than behind evolution and the big bang.
You are kidding. We know very little about the big bang, or even if there was one. If if there was how it was caused: Strings? The multiverse? Scientists have many different and competing theories, and no way yet to choose between them.
But you don't question all of that because the big-bang doesn't affect your lifestyle. You simply accept the most commonly presented theories.
By comparison with the big bang, AGW is a paragon of certainty.
Thank you. You couldn't have made a clearer demonstration of the cognitive problem you have. Your dismissal of AGW is entirely about what you wish were true politically, and nothing to do with the science.
Was that the one where there were some supposed "red-necks" chasing them down the highway?
That oil companies have lobbying power doesn't mean you have any.
What blog? You're imagining things now.
There's a big trade off between field of view and size of the objects that can be seen. Think fish eye views, or peep-holes in apartment doors.
The elimination of blind spots you are suggesting would make an image so much like a fish eye view that it would be worthless. Heck it could already be done with sideview mirrors, but they don't because it would be useless.
Note I'm not saying that they don't do it a little, for sure they do. And even for the little they currently do, they need to add the warning that vehicles may be closer than they appear. My point is that they can't do it the the extent of eliminating side blind spots. You will and should still turn your head to look to your side before changing lane.
"Do your worst. You're not scary."
Now who is the denier?
Huh? What am I denying? Your belief that you are Rambo? Or your belief that you are the establishment with the power of life and death over mere mortals?
You don't seem to be clear whether you are the victim or the oppressor. Let me help you... you're neither. You're just some average person posting your opinion on the internet.
If someone like me, who totally believes in science and evolution and the big bang and everything else scientific about our world, doubts global warming, then you have a problem.
Global warming has become a political thing, it is about money and power now, not science.
If you think politics trumps science, then you're the one with the problem. And it very much is a cognitive problem. You've decided on a political position and you are letting that modify your otherwise rational view of science. That's the wrong way round. The science is what it is. You have to deal with it.
There is nothing that a camera can show you that cannot be done with curved mirrors.
Given enough mirrors. Look at periscopes. However the camera solution to removing blind spots would be more practical on a car.
If it shows on the dash, then that would certainly be a bad idea. I'm imagining the screen for the driver side view would be embedded in the door (and of course at an angle to face the driver. So it would be just below where you would look for a traditional sideview mirror.
The passenger side screen would be OK to embed in the dash though. It would actually be nearer the driver that way, and less likely to be obstructed by he passenger.
At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.
Don't forget complexity of the change required.
Flies eyes are segmented and see completely different to us. It could be that there's some sort of visual effect of stripes and segmented eyes.
Evolving stripes is much easier than evolving a different kind of eye or vision system.
Zebras have stripes because biting flies have an aversion to landing on striped surfaces.
Which article is that the last paragraph of? I don't see it.
AFAICS, they seem to have got as far as identifying that it has something to do with biting insects, but the specifics are not known yet.
Not at all. The OP had decided not to discuss rear view cameras, and open the debate out to the entirety of government health and safety legislation - denigrated as "the nanny state". It's thus not at all off topic to show why government took on such powers in the first place, and show evidence that private industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
Is it? Once, the most informed scientific position was that the Earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was put on trial for heresy...
That's not true. There was never a scientific position that the earth was flat. It's a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
The drumbeat today sounds much like that, if you dare deny "The Truth" then you're just a denier and should be rolled over.
It sounds like a myth that never happened?
I think the creationists who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old are nuts, but they are entitled to their opinions and views and I would never wish to crush that. They have their views, I have mine, we can coexist.
Which is fine because their view is harmless and irrelevant. Global warming is neither. It's happening, and it can't be ignored, or not acted on because a few deniers refuse to accept science.
You don't want to coexist, you want to change my way of life without my permission.
That is how you start a war.
Do your worst. You're not scary.
Ideally, yes.
But if you live on a particularly busy road, once you stop you may not be able to reverse because there's traffic immediately behind you.
Of course it will also be difficult to reverse out onto such a road. But at least then you can pick a gap, and it's more clear to any other traffic what manoeuvre you are doing.
Galileo was in a minority of scientists, persecuted by the religious conservatives.
Religious conservatives in America are also trying to argue against the scientists now on AGW. They are loud-mouthed but have increasingly little power. Certainly far less power to persecute "blasphemers" than in Galileo's time.
Actually, it's the opposite. The worst speed to be entering a traffic light is near zero. You've slowed down to a low speed because of someone slowing to turn right ahead of you. The traffic behind you collapses to be nearly bumper to bumper at 15 MPH in a 40 zone. The light is timed for 40 MPH. You don't realize that the light is about to turn yellow, so rather than just coming to a stop, you decide to enter the intersection.
None of that makes any sense, since the going slower approaching the junction scenario is under advisement of the technology that knows exactly when the light will change. There is no "you don't realise that the light is about to turn",
Oh, there's no doubt that AGW is happening. That's no longer debatable.
And by the way, there isn't a zero trend even for the weather temperature of the last 15 years. Simply a rise smaller than the models would suggest.
As to a 1 in 20 chance, I've won on horses with worse odds than that! ;-)
I am on this.