The problem is people like you who claim "The science is settled". The science is never settled, stop using this false claim to shut down opposition. If the science was so concrete, their predictions would have come true. But the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed. The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would. And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either. Therefore, they got something wrong. So go back, study some more, examine some more, find the mistakes, and try again. But don't tell me the "science is settled" and demand I pay double the current rate for electricity when all of your predictions about what will happen are turning out false.
Tax write-offs are not revenue. The oil industry does not receive "revenue" from the government. They receive tax breaks, incentives, deductions, and such based on them spending, or investing, earned revenue on research, development, and expansion. They're basically reducing tax payments on revenue today to ensure a continued flow of revenues (and taxes on revenues) 10 or 20 years down the road.
7 billion people....did you know there are estimated to be 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nematode sea worms? Assuming an average weight of 10ng (they can range in size from 4ng to 3400ng), that's at minimum 400 billion kilos of sea nematodes. And yet they're pretty much invisible to the 7 billion people living on earth. From space, aside from the Great Wall of China, humans are pretty much invisible on this planet (unless you look at night). Despite the millions of roads we've built, the only thing you see is vegetation. Point is, it's all dependent on your frame of reference. To your eyes, it would seem humans have a huge impact. In geologic time, we're nothing. I'm sure 65 million years ago, the case could have been made for dinosaurs having a huge impact on the earth.
Not exactly true. The organization loses money because there's not enough profit on the TV sets they sell to pay for the organization. Maybe they should restructure their organization?
Don't EVER buy the introductory Lenovo G series laptops. They are absolute garbage. And for anyone shopping for laptops, stop looking at processor speed, memory, hard drive, and low prices. Laptops are like cars. There's a reason BMW's cost triple the price of a hyundai with similar horsepower, and there's a reason the Lenovo T series cost triple the price of the G series with the same processor and RAM.
while I would agree with you that they aren't shipping for free, and stores aren't buying them because they don't sell, you're missing one important point. Stores like to have stock, because telling a customer that they'll have to wait for their order is a very good way to lose a sale. So when you have 1 model of iPhone, and 10 different models of Android phone, you need to stock a lot more Android phones just to make sure you have stock of them all. And I can guarantee you that some aren't selling nearly as well as others, and these will end up either being returned or being discounted or written off.
Uh, he actually stated right after the 32.8 million that he still needs to add the 2 million Apple TV's, which would put iOS at 34.8 million. You should probably finish reading people's posts before you start flaming them.
first, it was two species. Second, if the acidification of the ocean was the cause of the death of a section of the coral reef, THE ENTIRE REEF SHOULD BE DEAD! the acidity of the ocean would be uniform, you won't get patches of higher acidity killing off parts of the reef. There are a million and one different causes of reefs dying. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans isn't one of them. The experiment performed revealed the exact opposite of the "predictions" being made. The higher the CO2, the bigger and quicker the corals grew. Why? Pretty simple: corals primarily depend on algae for nutrients. More CO2 = more algae. More algae = more food for corals. More food = larger corals.
Uh, not really...
"following 14 months incubation under reduced pH conditions, all coral fragments survived and added new skeletal calcium carbonate.....This was done, however, at a reduced rate of calcification compared to fragments growing in the normal pH treatment.....Yet in spite of this reduction in skeletal growth, they report that "tissue biomass (measured by protein concentration) was found to be higher in both species after 14 months of growth under increased CO2."....." and they write that "since calcification is an energy-consuming process... a coral polyp that spends less energy on skeletal growth can instead allocate the energy to tissue biomass,".....In concluding their paper, Krief et al. say "the long acclimation time of this study allowed the coral colonies to reach a steady state in terms of their physiological responses to elevated CO2," and that "the deposition of skeleton in seawater with arag 1 demonstrates the ability of both species to calcify by modifying internal pH toward more alkaline conditions."" [Krief, S., Hendy, E.J., Fine, M., Yam, R., Meibom, A., Foster, G.L. and Shemesh, A. 2010]
1: "Progressive" is not equal to "making progress"
2: "Progressives" tend to be anti-progressive on most issues, ie anti-nuclear, against new hydro dams, against new development, etc. They do however favor windmills, which is actually a regression. Windmills became obsolete centuries ago due to "progress", ie the development of steam power.
3: Being "progressive" on an issue doesn't necessarily mean it's always right. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"!
Yes, smarter people are less social. They spend more time learning, less time socializing. I can base that on direct observations of my family members as well as my various friends throughout school, university, and in the various careers I've had. Yes, smart people socialize. But they don't do it as much, they're usually uncomfortable meeting new people, they enjoy more "alone time" than the average person, and on and on.
It's not a horrible analogy. Smarter people tend to be less social. Social people tend to be not as smart. This isn't the case 100% of the time, but more often than not it is. Now take ants or bees as an example of a social species. How much have they evolved over the last billion years? By now, they should have some seriously kickass shit going on if they've been evolving "a host of new behavioral traits: individual identification, communication, family recognition, etc", shouldn't they? Yet from all of our fossil evidence, it would appear that ants haven't changed much at all from prehistoric times, and I'm guessing bees haven't either.
That socially overactive bimboslut who's flunking math class is actually much smarter than the super nerd in the corner who doesn't have any friends but aces all his math tests. Yes, that's right, being social and interacting with others is the new measure of smart!
because they don't plan on hiring a new CEO whose experience is in selling sugary water? Because they aren't locked into a single processor platform? Because the hardware is subsidized by the wireless carriers through the locked in contracts, so cutthroat price wars aren't going to happen?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is people like you who claim "The science is settled". The science is never settled, stop using this false claim to shut down opposition. If the science was so concrete, their predictions would have come true. But the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed. The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would. And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either. Therefore, they got something wrong. So go back, study some more, examine some more, find the mistakes, and try again. But don't tell me the "science is settled" and demand I pay double the current rate for electricity when all of your predictions about what will happen are turning out false.
Tax write-offs are not revenue. The oil industry does not receive "revenue" from the government. They receive tax breaks, incentives, deductions, and such based on them spending, or investing, earned revenue on research, development, and expansion. They're basically reducing tax payments on revenue today to ensure a continued flow of revenues (and taxes on revenues) 10 or 20 years down the road.
7 billion people....did you know there are estimated to be 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nematode sea worms? Assuming an average weight of 10ng (they can range in size from 4ng to 3400ng), that's at minimum 400 billion kilos of sea nematodes. And yet they're pretty much invisible to the 7 billion people living on earth. From space, aside from the Great Wall of China, humans are pretty much invisible on this planet (unless you look at night). Despite the millions of roads we've built, the only thing you see is vegetation. Point is, it's all dependent on your frame of reference. To your eyes, it would seem humans have a huge impact. In geologic time, we're nothing. I'm sure 65 million years ago, the case could have been made for dinosaurs having a huge impact on the earth.
Not exactly true. The organization loses money because there's not enough profit on the TV sets they sell to pay for the organization. Maybe they should restructure their organization?
'nuff said
learn how to spell them first. Pretentious
how many subsidies have been paid to solar and wind power industries in the past three years?
if he's smart, he's already bought a few shares, so when he gets his 50%, he has complete control.
Don't EVER buy the introductory Lenovo G series laptops. They are absolute garbage. And for anyone shopping for laptops, stop looking at processor speed, memory, hard drive, and low prices. Laptops are like cars. There's a reason BMW's cost triple the price of a hyundai with similar horsepower, and there's a reason the Lenovo T series cost triple the price of the G series with the same processor and RAM.
while I would agree with you that they aren't shipping for free, and stores aren't buying them because they don't sell, you're missing one important point. Stores like to have stock, because telling a customer that they'll have to wait for their order is a very good way to lose a sale. So when you have 1 model of iPhone, and 10 different models of Android phone, you need to stock a lot more Android phones just to make sure you have stock of them all. And I can guarantee you that some aren't selling nearly as well as others, and these will end up either being returned or being discounted or written off.
Uh, he actually stated right after the 32.8 million that he still needs to add the 2 million Apple TV's, which would put iOS at 34.8 million. You should probably finish reading people's posts before you start flaming them.
Dell's Market Capitalization: $25.13 Billion
Microsoft's Market Capitalization: $236.95 Billion
Verizon's Market Capitalization: $100.61 Billion
Bank of America Corporation Market Capitalization: $138.27 Billion
Hewlett Packard Market Capitalization: $99.49 Billion
Bank of China Market Capitalization: ???
cue the drum roll.....
Apple Market Capitalization: $311.23 Billion.
Asphalt and asphalt shingles
Internet Explorer 5 debuted in 1999. Firefox didn't arrive until the end of 2004.
first, it was two species. Second, if the acidification of the ocean was the cause of the death of a section of the coral reef, THE ENTIRE REEF SHOULD BE DEAD! the acidity of the ocean would be uniform, you won't get patches of higher acidity killing off parts of the reef. There are a million and one different causes of reefs dying. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans isn't one of them. The experiment performed revealed the exact opposite of the "predictions" being made. The higher the CO2, the bigger and quicker the corals grew. Why? Pretty simple: corals primarily depend on algae for nutrients. More CO2 = more algae. More algae = more food for corals. More food = larger corals.
Uh, not really... "following 14 months incubation under reduced pH conditions, all coral fragments survived and added new skeletal calcium carbonate.....This was done, however, at a reduced rate of calcification compared to fragments growing in the normal pH treatment.....Yet in spite of this reduction in skeletal growth, they report that "tissue biomass (measured by protein concentration) was found to be higher in both species after 14 months of growth under increased CO2."....." and they write that "since calcification is an energy-consuming process ... a coral polyp that spends less energy on skeletal growth can instead allocate the energy to tissue biomass,".....In concluding their paper, Krief et al. say "the long acclimation time of this study allowed the coral colonies to reach a steady state in terms of their physiological responses to elevated CO2," and that "the deposition of skeleton in seawater with arag 1 demonstrates the ability of both species to calcify by modifying internal pH toward more alkaline conditions."" [Krief, S., Hendy, E.J., Fine, M., Yam, R., Meibom, A., Foster, G.L. and Shemesh, A. 2010]
So what were the oceans like during the Mesozoic era, when CO2 concentrations were over 2000ppm? Were the fish swimming in oceans of acid?
1: "Progressive" is not equal to "making progress"
2: "Progressives" tend to be anti-progressive on most issues, ie anti-nuclear, against new hydro dams, against new development, etc. They do however favor windmills, which is actually a regression. Windmills became obsolete centuries ago due to "progress", ie the development of steam power.
3: Being "progressive" on an issue doesn't necessarily mean it's always right. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"!
Yes, smarter people are less social. They spend more time learning, less time socializing. I can base that on direct observations of my family members as well as my various friends throughout school, university, and in the various careers I've had. Yes, smart people socialize. But they don't do it as much, they're usually uncomfortable meeting new people, they enjoy more "alone time" than the average person, and on and on.
I think the argument is about intelligence, not taste, or self control for that matter....
It's not a horrible analogy. Smarter people tend to be less social. Social people tend to be not as smart. This isn't the case 100% of the time, but more often than not it is. Now take ants or bees as an example of a social species. How much have they evolved over the last billion years? By now, they should have some seriously kickass shit going on if they've been evolving "a host of new behavioral traits: individual identification, communication, family recognition, etc", shouldn't they? Yet from all of our fossil evidence, it would appear that ants haven't changed much at all from prehistoric times, and I'm guessing bees haven't either.
Cats are smarter than Oxford Scientists
That socially overactive bimboslut who's flunking math class is actually much smarter than the super nerd in the corner who doesn't have any friends but aces all his math tests. Yes, that's right, being social and interacting with others is the new measure of smart!
because they don't plan on hiring a new CEO whose experience is in selling sugary water? Because they aren't locked into a single processor platform? Because the hardware is subsidized by the wireless carriers through the locked in contracts, so cutthroat price wars aren't going to happen?
je me souviens. J'ai un jaune gross crayon.