How long has the air conditioner been there. Has the AC been replaced with one that blows more strongly or directly on the sensor. Was the nearby driveway originally gravel, how frequently is it repaved (Fresh pavement is much darker than old pavement).
If you actually downloaded the pdf from surfacestations.org you'd see that many of the sensors have been upgraded from manual temperature gages that needed to monitored daily with a pencil and paper, to electronic sensors that report back automatically. In many of the cases the new sensor was located much closer to the sources of extranious heat that then old sensor. Usually becase the old sensor was on the other side of a perminant structure such as a paved road and it would be prohibitively expensive and troublesome for those installing the new sensor to rip up the road and bury the power and data cables. Instead the moved the sensor to a more convenient, but more biased location
Some of these sensors have been around a long time and the environment has changed, or the sensors have been moved without anyone taking note of it. In the PDF is a smattering of photo's and their associated temperature data, and the 2 sensors that were actually well placed had COOLING trends in the data. Bad data is bad, no matter how (in)convenient the trends it contains.
I think a big part of the problem for me is their persistence in trying to reduce a complex system to a single number, the mean global temperature. It seems to me as though they do far too much data manipulation to come up with a single number that any TV personality can understand.
Unfortuantely, this dramatic over simplification results in personal observations by most people that are obviously inconsistent with what the talking heads on TV are trying to scare them with. That creates the skeptics, but it's the tribalism in the climatologist community (along with a handful of vocal and qualitifed critics) that turn skeptics into deniers.
I would be classified as a skeptic. I'm not convinced that they are wrong, I'm just not convinced that they are right. The first one would be my fault, the second is theirs. I'm not one of the "earth can't change" types. I'm positive that it is changing, I'm just not convinced that:
A We are responsible for it B That it's the end of the world as many seem to believe it is.
I am employed as a scientists, in an admitedly unrelated field. My industry is also under fire by "Skeptics" and I can relate to the frustration evidenced in the leaked emails. However, I've always believed that enganging those who are willing to listen, and ignoring those who made up their mind and as you say "Started with a conclusion and worked backwards". My industry is only recently taking the innitiative and it seems to be working.
P.S. I would NEVER use a word like "Hide" in context of normalizing a dataset. That smacks way too much of fraudulent data manipulation.
AFAIK, the iPhone OS was originally based on Mac OS 10.4. It contained the same basic kernel but a lot of the main OS files were removed because they weren't used. It also, contained iPhone specific code that prevents unsigned code from executing.
Consequently the iPhone inherits much of the stability and security baked into the desktop OS plus the iPhone specific security features minus those insecurities based on the code from the desktop OS that was axes to make the iPhone OS.
Every phone company has a grace period where you can back out of your contract and return the hardware. My Father-in-law took advantage of Verizon's. I think it was 30-d.
Just as when purchasing Apple's OS you can read the EULA before installing (never mind it being available on their website) and then return the disks for your money back.
There may still be EULA's that you can't read until after purchase and non-refundable, but if you can get your money back then there is no duress.
The concept of hell has evolved over time. During Dante's time it was believed that God was the source of all warmth and goodness. Since Hell was as far from God's presence while still remaining within creation, it was freezing cold. More recently that has transitioned to the fire and brimstone that we are all familiar with due to the view of Hell as a place of punishment.
And how, pray tell, are regular folks supposed to determine whether the maintenance has been adequate. AFAIK, no one is claiming a complete lack of maintenance, but that the maintenance was insufficient and that the engineers should have realized that it was insufficient. I'm not an engineer, how am I to know that the levees are inadquately being maintained, even if I have access to the pertinant data?
I agree that building a city below sea level is stupid, but it's the stupidity of the city and state government, not that of the citizenry that simply trusted them based on several decades of data indicating that they were safe (ie the city not having been flooded out of existence yet).
While this may be a disappointing loss it is not part of a "continued migration away from iPhone development." A handful of high profile prima dona's are leaving out of frustration with problems that, while legitimate, are ultimately solvable for the most part. Unless someone starts polling the iPhone development community and finds that this is consistent, then you can call it a migration. Until then it's annecdote from a vocal minority.
I don't expect this stuff to make it acceptable to ignore the normal tornado precautions you've outlined above. I just think it would complement the current best-practices. I've driven past homes that were destroyed, not by the tornado itself, but by the nearby tree that it ripped up and threw at the house. In this kind of situation I would expect reinforced walls to be a real bonus. Either way, I'd still be in the basement/windowless room when the tornado hit.
I'm actually amazed at the number of homes I've looked at that don't have a basement in Indiana. Most of the new homes are built on a concrete slab. The fact that they are anchored down to a cement slab is the only thing that makes them marginally more safe than a doublewide IMO.
The south east gets hurricanes, the mid west gets tornadoes, the north east gets nor'easters (The Perfect Storm) and blizzards, and the west coast gets earthquakes and forest fires. Where exactly can one live in the US without being potentially exposed to natural disasters??
I'm originally from the north east and live in the midwest for grad school. Someone needs to live here in order to grow all of the corn, soy, hogs and cattle that everyone everywhere else in the country eats. Don't go getting a chip on your shoulder because you don't happen to work in a profession that requires vast expanses of land for cultivation. 8 years in Indiana and I've never actually seen a tornado. We average 2 tornado sightings per year in my county and they've never come all that close to where I was at the time. My wife was born and raised here and she's only actually seen 1 tornado in almost 30 years and many I know have never seen one.
If your aim was humor I apologize for my tone, but a lot of people seem to think there are tornados every week and that we can somehow grow everything we need without having people there to actually do the work.
I think the goal is to keep the wall up long enough for you to get out alive, not to maintain the building up to code in the event of a bomb blast or a tornado tossed automobile. The roof will still fall in, but it may take 5-15 min instead of 5-15 seconds. I live in Tornado Alley and if I buy a home in this area I'd definitely consider buying this for my home to increase my families chance of escape if a tornado hits our home.
As of 2005, the "big four" music groups control about 70% of the world music market, and about 80% of the United States music market.
This would seem to indicate that it is still possible for musicians to operate without being represented by the "Big 4". That's not an insignificant number of musicians that did not sell their soul.
There is no reason why a musician has to try for the big time other than greed, which we all suffer from, but is not actually an excuse.
Musicians have several options, it's not like you have to sign with an oppressive record label if you don't want to. Often you make far more money if you do, so most musicians bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line. That is their choice to make. I'm always hearing interviews on NPR with musicians that are reasonably successful without signing onto a big label. It can be done, it's just harder work to get your music out there.
Both the record label and the musician are out to make money. The musician is the ultimate arbiter of how much they are willing to sacrifice for the easy money that the label is promising. While I'm not a fan of most record label tactics, I don't hold them solely accountable for their actions. If they didn't have so much desirable content, they wouldn't be able to be such dicks and get away with it. They don't create content, the musicians do. So, in my eyes they are equally culpable for the likes of the RIAA.
No one is entitled to the millions of dollars that some musicians can pull down. That they are willing to sell their soul for that possibility says a lot more about their character, than about the character of those purchasing said soul. No one in this day can honestly say that they didn't know the reputation labels have for screwing over musicians. If you enter into contract with them it is at your own peril.
Maybe if parents actually took an active interest in their kid's education things could get better; but I've come to the conclusion most parent's simply don't care.
My Grandmother, Wife, and several close friends are teachers. That is the single gripe that is consistent across all teachers I know. My grandmother and wife had issues with the administration, and my best friend had issues with other teachers, but every teacher I know gripes about the attitude of parents. They want their kid to get A's, but not to be challenged, disciplined, or even disappointed.
It's nothing new, but it is getting worse as far as I can tell. I remember kids goofing off in class and then bragging about how their mother/father came in and read the teacher the riot act to get them out of trouble. I on the other hand, was far more afraid of my parents than anything the school could legally do to me. I fully intend to put the fear of God into my children if I ever find out they are getting in trouble at school.
The teachers authority comes from the Parents! If you don't support your teachers ability to chastize your child when necessary, they will not be able to teach your child effectively. That requires you to be the Bad Guy at home and force them to study, do homework, and respect their teachers.
That's part of the reason my wife stopped teaching in the public school system. She kept having to devote a disproportionate amount of time to paperwork and dicipline measures.
Her school had a Principal, but not a VP to save money. The VP is usually the one responsible for handling dicipline issues. Since they didn't have one, and the Principal didn't want to be bothered, the teachers were told they cannot send kids to the office more than a couple of times a semester. For those problem children (we all remember them from school don't we) she was forced to try and dicipline them in class, which took away from actually teaching.
There was also the pressure not to spend money on her lessons that had already been budgeted for her. The reason being that any unspent money at the end of the year went into the Principals slush fund, which he used for stupid shit like rewaxing the floors in the gym, despite the fact that at the end of the school year the gym floor was going to be ripped up and replaced.
If a professor's students have trouble with the material in one of those readings, but never talks about them (thus never seeing their student's reaction) how will the professor know that the topic merits more time?
College students are adults. They should be fully capable and willing to go up to the Prof, either in class or during office hours and ask questions. Hell, I give out my email address so that I can answer questions in the evening, outside of office hours, or on the weekend. If you can't be bothered to fire of a 3 sentence email when confused, then you obviously don't care enough about your own education. Whether you like having to be an active participant in your own education or not is irrelevant.
So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.
You are operating under the assumption that methods cannot be developed to change the cost per unit of energy input. As costs go up, those with a keen eye for efficient design and a desire to make a lot of money will try to discover ways to make extraction cost effective and then patent it. They get to make tons of money off of the oil industry, and the industry gets to tap previously impractical wells.
By assuming that it is impossible no mater how much time or energy is put into the problem and then legislating from that assumption, they have kneecapped the entire oil industry in the US. I'm not a huge fan of any Politician that doubts the intelligence and fortitude of his own constituents. Especially when he's the president of the US, a country that is famous for it's problem solving abilities in the technical arena. It's akin to assuming that space flight will always be so expensive that only governments can afford to get involved, and then prohibiting any commercial research in that direction. Maybe the problem is too complex/expensive, but that doesn't mean you should prevent people from even trying to solve it if they want.
Reality D: No withheld data. IEA not lying, but the whistleblower is simply a dissenter who was unable to convince the others as to his fuzzy math vs. everyone else's fuzzy math or he is a liar. Press automatically believes the worst, gives free advertising to the whistleblower. Whistleblower writes book, makes lots of money, and possibly receives the Nobel Prize for going to a book signing. Oil prices jump all over the place, everyone panics and the global recession kicks back into high gear for another couple of years.
At least you can print PowerPoints. I had numerous good teachers print out all the slides in the 'notes' layout. Where 1/2 the page was the slide and the other half was blank. 3 hole punch it and toss it in your folder.
1) It kept you from wasting time replicating something that already existed
2) You could still mark it up in your own words so that you knew what it meant.
I've been guest lecturing in a couple of grad level classes for the past 4.5 years while working on my PhD and I used to do what you indicate here. However, I found that students would skip class, space out while I was speaking, and fail to ask questions when I wasn't being clear enough for them. By the 2nd class no one was taking any notes. Even when I went off script and indicated that they needed to take notes on what I was saying.
The last couple of times I've used PPT, but refused to print out the slides in any form (Except for a student who missed a bunch of time while sick, but I made sure to impress upon her the importance of getting the notes from someone else). By doing this grades have gone up despite me using the same basic slides and covering the same material. Forcing them to actually take handwritten notes means they get the experiential learning of writing the material down at least once.
One of the best professors I knew came to class with only 4 color markers. No prepared notes, no book, no equation sheet. The school rewarded him with a semester off because too many of my idiotic classmates failed his class one semester. (Where as classes in the previous 20 semesters he taught seemed to muster up at least 80% passing).
My advisor teaches this way. I always thought it was just him being too behind the times, but now I know that forcing us to take handwritten notes as he writes out the material on the overhead helps them learn the material and stay focused on what's going on in class.
The reason why exercise does not guarantee weight loss is nutrition. It's a numbers game. Going from being a couch potatoe to trying to run marathons will not work if you continue to eat more calories than you burn.
EI = Total amount of energy taken in
EO = Total amount of energy used for work
If you increase both EO and EI, there will be no weight loss. There will be other health benefits, but as long as you are taking in more calories than you are using in a given day you will gain weight.
Starving yourself can result in weight loss, but it will be unhealthy. The best way to loose weight is to exercise and modulate your caloric intake. People seem to fixate either on calories or exercise when BOTH are required to loose weight in a healthy way. That's why the Fad Diet of the week never seems to work for long. You get board with it, your body's metabolism adapts to the new cycle/source of energy intake and optimizes the efficiency of energy digestion and utilization. However, if you count calories AND exercise you will eventually burn off calories and loose the weight you want, and even if you fall off of the wagon occationally, you'll still have the high metabolic rate or controlled calorie intake to keep the minor slip up from leading to major weight gain.
If you can't live on $120k/year then you are/were financially irresponsible. Don't worry though, most Americans seem to be the same way these days.
My wife and I are living on less than a third of that and raising a child. I could probably pay off most of my debt in a 2 years if I had your salary and continued living with the budget I have now.
"Entitlement" is the first folly of anyone who is successful.
It is also the reason why many who inherit money do not pass on more than a fraction of that wealth to the next generation. It's the reason behind many tales of Rags-to-Riches and back in 3 generations.
The first generation works hard/get's luck/both and makes a mint despite being raised poor(er). Their children are raised with privileges and acquire a sense of entitlement, squandering their inheritance, the third generation is raised with much less advantage and if the sense of entitlement persists, they end up being poor.
I'm watching it happen in some of my cousins. Their mother was the adopted daughter of a diplomat who was politically active and is (maybe was) the mayor of their town in CT. My aunt is fairly wealthy, although not as rich as some in CT. Her daughters all spend money as if they've got a flock of chickens at home, each laying a golden egg a day. They've already started the decline into "rags" again. You and I might call it "Middle Class" but to them it is the same thing. Two cousins are married to blue collar types who don't make anywhere near enough to support them in the way they were accustomed to at home, and the 3rd is doing even worse. I'm confident that in a few years I will be doing much better than my cousins despite having far less opportunities handed to me growing up.
The puritans (I'm from MA so they come first to mind) believed in predestination and the favor of God. Essentially God is so powerful that he knows exactly what kind of person you are and whether you are destined for heaven or hell at birth. As a result those that are successful are so because they have the favor of God. He is allowing them to be successful because they are Good and destined for Heaven. Conversely, those who are poor and destitute are born sinners and are being punished by God for their own moral inadequacies.
Now, I don't ascribe to that world view and don't know any major religion that encourages it anymore, but it is illustrative. Ultimately, all morality is subjective. Many still believe that hard work is character building, and I'm a firm believer that you appreciate something less if it is given to you as opposed to you earning it. Now, that doesn't excuse the failure of many to help those incapable of helping themselves, but it is a judgement call in many cases to decide whether the needy person in front of you is there because of genuine need or because they simply don't want it enough.
I'm not trying to be combative, but I'd like to know your take on the philanthropy of the Gates Foundation. On one hand, they are probably the single largest philanthropic organization around and AFAIK, the money is coming exclusively from Bill and Melinda. OTOH, Bill is STILL the richest man in the world by a hefty margin, so he could definitely afford to give more than he already has. Where do you draw the line and say that "This person has done their fare share, but that person still needs to give more"?
Like a wealthy day trader who specializes in short sales may not know how to fix their car and his mechanic doesn't understand terminology such as calls, puts, longs, and shorts.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to divide knowledge, which is what you are describing here and intelligence. Knowledge is what you know, while intelligence is what you are capable of knowing and more importantly understanding. In my admittedly anecdotal example I was referring to individuals who know less about computers than I, but are very intelligent none-the-less.
Also, the parent is a hostile classist and has more than appropriate hostility toward those that have more than him. I provided anecdotal evidence in contradiction of his assertions that lacked even that much corroborating evidence. He's free to respond to my post with something more substantial than blind hate or anecdote at which point I'll address him directly.
While anecdote is inadequate in the face of rigorous scientific study, it is still far better than blind assertions without any attempt at verification.
Slashdot Mirror
As a scientist who is also skeptical, that's an awfully big thimble
Yes it does!
How long has the air conditioner been there. Has the AC been replaced with one that blows more strongly or directly on the sensor. Was the nearby driveway originally gravel, how frequently is it repaved (Fresh pavement is much darker than old pavement).
If you actually downloaded the pdf from surfacestations.org you'd see that many of the sensors have been upgraded from manual temperature gages that needed to monitored daily with a pencil and paper, to electronic sensors that report back automatically. In many of the cases the new sensor was located much closer to the sources of extranious heat that then old sensor. Usually becase the old sensor was on the other side of a perminant structure such as a paved road and it would be prohibitively expensive and troublesome for those installing the new sensor to rip up the road and bury the power and data cables. Instead the moved the sensor to a more convenient, but more biased location
Some of these sensors have been around a long time and the environment has changed, or the sensors have been moved without anyone taking note of it. In the PDF is a smattering of photo's and their associated temperature data, and the 2 sensors that were actually well placed had COOLING trends in the data. Bad data is bad, no matter how (in)convenient the trends it contains.
I think a big part of the problem for me is their persistence in trying to reduce a complex system to a single number, the mean global temperature. It seems to me as though they do far too much data manipulation to come up with a single number that any TV personality can understand.
Unfortuantely, this dramatic over simplification results in personal observations by most people that are obviously inconsistent with what the talking heads on TV are trying to scare them with. That creates the skeptics, but it's the tribalism in the climatologist community (along with a handful of vocal and qualitifed critics) that turn skeptics into deniers.
Thank You!
I would be classified as a skeptic. I'm not convinced that they are wrong, I'm just not convinced that they are right. The first one would be my fault, the second is theirs. I'm not one of the "earth can't change" types. I'm positive that it is changing, I'm just not convinced that:
A We are responsible for it
B That it's the end of the world as many seem to believe it is.
I am employed as a scientists, in an admitedly unrelated field. My industry is also under fire by "Skeptics" and I can relate to the frustration evidenced in the leaked emails. However, I've always believed that enganging those who are willing to listen, and ignoring those who made up their mind and as you say "Started with a conclusion and worked backwards". My industry is only recently taking the innitiative and it seems to be working.
P.S. I would NEVER use a word like "Hide" in context of normalizing a dataset. That smacks way too much of fraudulent data manipulation.
AFAIK, the iPhone OS was originally based on Mac OS 10.4. It contained the same basic kernel but a lot of the main OS files were removed because they weren't used. It also, contained iPhone specific code that prevents unsigned code from executing.
Consequently the iPhone inherits much of the stability and security baked into the desktop OS plus the iPhone specific security features minus those insecurities based on the code from the desktop OS that was axes to make the iPhone OS.
Every phone company has a grace period where you can back out of your contract and return the hardware. My Father-in-law took advantage of Verizon's. I think it was 30-d.
Just as when purchasing Apple's OS you can read the EULA before installing (never mind it being available on their website) and then return the disks for your money back.
There may still be EULA's that you can't read until after purchase and non-refundable, but if you can get your money back then there is no duress.
The concept of hell has evolved over time. During Dante's time it was believed that God was the source of all warmth and goodness. Since Hell was as far from God's presence while still remaining within creation, it was freezing cold. More recently that has transitioned to the fire and brimstone that we are all familiar with due to the view of Hell as a place of punishment.
And how, pray tell, are regular folks supposed to determine whether the maintenance has been adequate. AFAIK, no one is claiming a complete lack of maintenance, but that the maintenance was insufficient and that the engineers should have realized that it was insufficient. I'm not an engineer, how am I to know that the levees are inadquately being maintained, even if I have access to the pertinant data?
I agree that building a city below sea level is stupid, but it's the stupidity of the city and state government, not that of the citizenry that simply trusted them based on several decades of data indicating that they were safe (ie the city not having been flooded out of existence yet).
While this may be a disappointing loss it is not part of a "continued migration away from iPhone development." A handful of high profile prima dona's are leaving out of frustration with problems that, while legitimate, are ultimately solvable for the most part. Unless someone starts polling the iPhone development community and finds that this is consistent, then you can call it a migration. Until then it's annecdote from a vocal minority.
I don't expect this stuff to make it acceptable to ignore the normal tornado precautions you've outlined above. I just think it would complement the current best-practices. I've driven past homes that were destroyed, not by the tornado itself, but by the nearby tree that it ripped up and threw at the house. In this kind of situation I would expect reinforced walls to be a real bonus. Either way, I'd still be in the basement/windowless room when the tornado hit.
I'm actually amazed at the number of homes I've looked at that don't have a basement in Indiana. Most of the new homes are built on a concrete slab. The fact that they are anchored down to a cement slab is the only thing that makes them marginally more safe than a doublewide IMO.
The south east gets hurricanes, the mid west gets tornadoes, the north east gets nor'easters (The Perfect Storm) and blizzards, and the west coast gets earthquakes and forest fires. Where exactly can one live in the US without being potentially exposed to natural disasters??
I'm originally from the north east and live in the midwest for grad school. Someone needs to live here in order to grow all of the corn, soy, hogs and cattle that everyone everywhere else in the country eats. Don't go getting a chip on your shoulder because you don't happen to work in a profession that requires vast expanses of land for cultivation. 8 years in Indiana and I've never actually seen a tornado. We average 2 tornado sightings per year in my county and they've never come all that close to where I was at the time. My wife was born and raised here and she's only actually seen 1 tornado in almost 30 years and many I know have never seen one.
If your aim was humor I apologize for my tone, but a lot of people seem to think there are tornados every week and that we can somehow grow everything we need without having people there to actually do the work.
I think the goal is to keep the wall up long enough for you to get out alive, not to maintain the building up to code in the event of a bomb blast or a tornado tossed automobile. The roof will still fall in, but it may take 5-15 min instead of 5-15 seconds. I live in Tornado Alley and if I buy a home in this area I'd definitely consider buying this for my home to increase my families chance of escape if a tornado hits our home.
As of 2005, the "big four" music groups control about 70% of the world music market, and about 80% of the United States music market.
This would seem to indicate that it is still possible for musicians to operate without being represented by the "Big 4". That's not an insignificant number of musicians that did not sell their soul.
There is no reason why a musician has to try for the big time other than greed, which we all suffer from, but is not actually an excuse.
Musicians have several options, it's not like you have to sign with an oppressive record label if you don't want to. Often you make far more money if you do, so most musicians bite the bullet and sign on the dotted line. That is their choice to make. I'm always hearing interviews on NPR with musicians that are reasonably successful without signing onto a big label. It can be done, it's just harder work to get your music out there.
Both the record label and the musician are out to make money. The musician is the ultimate arbiter of how much they are willing to sacrifice for the easy money that the label is promising. While I'm not a fan of most record label tactics, I don't hold them solely accountable for their actions. If they didn't have so much desirable content, they wouldn't be able to be such dicks and get away with it. They don't create content, the musicians do. So, in my eyes they are equally culpable for the likes of the RIAA.
No one is entitled to the millions of dollars that some musicians can pull down. That they are willing to sell their soul for that possibility says a lot more about their character, than about the character of those purchasing said soul. No one in this day can honestly say that they didn't know the reputation labels have for screwing over musicians. If you enter into contract with them it is at your own peril.
Maybe if parents actually took an active interest in their kid's education things could get better; but I've come to the conclusion most parent's simply don't care.
My Grandmother, Wife, and several close friends are teachers. That is the single gripe that is consistent across all teachers I know. My grandmother and wife had issues with the administration, and my best friend had issues with other teachers, but every teacher I know gripes about the attitude of parents. They want their kid to get A's, but not to be challenged, disciplined, or even disappointed.
It's nothing new, but it is getting worse as far as I can tell. I remember kids goofing off in class and then bragging about how their mother/father came in and read the teacher the riot act to get them out of trouble. I on the other hand, was far more afraid of my parents than anything the school could legally do to me. I fully intend to put the fear of God into my children if I ever find out they are getting in trouble at school.
The teachers authority comes from the Parents! If you don't support your teachers ability to chastize your child when necessary, they will not be able to teach your child effectively. That requires you to be the Bad Guy at home and force them to study, do homework, and respect their teachers.
That's part of the reason my wife stopped teaching in the public school system. She kept having to devote a disproportionate amount of time to paperwork and dicipline measures.
Her school had a Principal, but not a VP to save money. The VP is usually the one responsible for handling dicipline issues. Since they didn't have one, and the Principal didn't want to be bothered, the teachers were told they cannot send kids to the office more than a couple of times a semester. For those problem children (we all remember them from school don't we) she was forced to try and dicipline them in class, which took away from actually teaching.
There was also the pressure not to spend money on her lessons that had already been budgeted for her. The reason being that any unspent money at the end of the year went into the Principals slush fund, which he used for stupid shit like rewaxing the floors in the gym, despite the fact that at the end of the school year the gym floor was going to be ripped up and replaced.
If a professor's students have trouble with the material in one of those readings, but never talks about them (thus never seeing their student's reaction) how will the professor know that the topic merits more time?
College students are adults. They should be fully capable and willing to go up to the Prof, either in class or during office hours and ask questions. Hell, I give out my email address so that I can answer questions in the evening, outside of office hours, or on the weekend. If you can't be bothered to fire of a 3 sentence email when confused, then you obviously don't care enough about your own education. Whether you like having to be an active participant in your own education or not is irrelevant.
So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.
You are operating under the assumption that methods cannot be developed to change the cost per unit of energy input. As costs go up, those with a keen eye for efficient design and a desire to make a lot of money will try to discover ways to make extraction cost effective and then patent it. They get to make tons of money off of the oil industry, and the industry gets to tap previously impractical wells.
By assuming that it is impossible no mater how much time or energy is put into the problem and then legislating from that assumption, they have kneecapped the entire oil industry in the US. I'm not a huge fan of any Politician that doubts the intelligence and fortitude of his own constituents. Especially when he's the president of the US, a country that is famous for it's problem solving abilities in the technical arena. It's akin to assuming that space flight will always be so expensive that only governments can afford to get involved, and then prohibiting any commercial research in that direction. Maybe the problem is too complex/expensive, but that doesn't mean you should prevent people from even trying to solve it if they want.
Reality D: No withheld data. IEA not lying, but the whistleblower is simply a dissenter who was unable to convince the others as to his fuzzy math vs. everyone else's fuzzy math or he is a liar. Press automatically believes the worst, gives free advertising to the whistleblower. Whistleblower writes book, makes lots of money, and possibly receives the Nobel Prize for going to a book signing. Oil prices jump all over the place, everyone panics and the global recession kicks back into high gear for another couple of years.
At least you can print PowerPoints. I had numerous good teachers print out all the slides in the 'notes' layout. Where 1/2 the page was the slide and the other half was blank. 3 hole punch it and toss it in your folder.
1) It kept you from wasting time replicating something that already existed 2) You could still mark it up in your own words so that you knew what it meant.
I've been guest lecturing in a couple of grad level classes for the past 4.5 years while working on my PhD and I used to do what you indicate here. However, I found that students would skip class, space out while I was speaking, and fail to ask questions when I wasn't being clear enough for them. By the 2nd class no one was taking any notes. Even when I went off script and indicated that they needed to take notes on what I was saying.
The last couple of times I've used PPT, but refused to print out the slides in any form (Except for a student who missed a bunch of time while sick, but I made sure to impress upon her the importance of getting the notes from someone else). By doing this grades have gone up despite me using the same basic slides and covering the same material. Forcing them to actually take handwritten notes means they get the experiential learning of writing the material down at least once.
One of the best professors I knew came to class with only 4 color markers. No prepared notes, no book, no equation sheet. The school rewarded him with a semester off because too many of my idiotic classmates failed his class one semester. (Where as classes in the previous 20 semesters he taught seemed to muster up at least 80% passing).
My advisor teaches this way. I always thought it was just him being too behind the times, but now I know that forcing us to take handwritten notes as he writes out the material on the overhead helps them learn the material and stay focused on what's going on in class.
This is stupid.
The reason why exercise does not guarantee weight loss is nutrition. It's a numbers game. Going from being a couch potatoe to trying to run marathons will not work if you continue to eat more calories than you burn.
EI = Total amount of energy taken in
EO = Total amount of energy used for work
If you increase both EO and EI, there will be no weight loss. There will be other health benefits, but as long as you are taking in more calories than you are using in a given day you will gain weight.
Starving yourself can result in weight loss, but it will be unhealthy. The best way to loose weight is to exercise and modulate your caloric intake. People seem to fixate either on calories or exercise when BOTH are required to loose weight in a healthy way. That's why the Fad Diet of the week never seems to work for long. You get board with it, your body's metabolism adapts to the new cycle/source of energy intake and optimizes the efficiency of energy digestion and utilization. However, if you count calories AND exercise you will eventually burn off calories and loose the weight you want, and even if you fall off of the wagon occationally, you'll still have the high metabolic rate or controlled calorie intake to keep the minor slip up from leading to major weight gain.
If you can't live on $120k/year then you are/were financially irresponsible. Don't worry though, most Americans seem to be the same way these days.
My wife and I are living on less than a third of that and raising a child. I could probably pay off most of my debt in a 2 years if I had your salary and continued living with the budget I have now.
"Entitlement" is the first folly of anyone who is successful.
It is also the reason why many who inherit money do not pass on more than a fraction of that wealth to the next generation. It's the reason behind many tales of Rags-to-Riches and back in 3 generations.
The first generation works hard/get's luck/both and makes a mint despite being raised poor(er). Their children are raised with privileges and acquire a sense of entitlement, squandering their inheritance, the third generation is raised with much less advantage and if the sense of entitlement persists, they end up being poor.
I'm watching it happen in some of my cousins. Their mother was the adopted daughter of a diplomat who was politically active and is (maybe was) the mayor of their town in CT. My aunt is fairly wealthy, although not as rich as some in CT. Her daughters all spend money as if they've got a flock of chickens at home, each laying a golden egg a day. They've already started the decline into "rags" again. You and I might call it "Middle Class" but to them it is the same thing. Two cousins are married to blue collar types who don't make anywhere near enough to support them in the way they were accustomed to at home, and the 3rd is doing even worse. I'm confident that in a few years I will be doing much better than my cousins despite having far less opportunities handed to me growing up.
Depends entirely on your view of morality.
The puritans (I'm from MA so they come first to mind) believed in predestination and the favor of God. Essentially God is so powerful that he knows exactly what kind of person you are and whether you are destined for heaven or hell at birth. As a result those that are successful are so because they have the favor of God. He is allowing them to be successful because they are Good and destined for Heaven. Conversely, those who are poor and destitute are born sinners and are being punished by God for their own moral inadequacies.
Now, I don't ascribe to that world view and don't know any major religion that encourages it anymore, but it is illustrative. Ultimately, all morality is subjective. Many still believe that hard work is character building, and I'm a firm believer that you appreciate something less if it is given to you as opposed to you earning it. Now, that doesn't excuse the failure of many to help those incapable of helping themselves, but it is a judgement call in many cases to decide whether the needy person in front of you is there because of genuine need or because they simply don't want it enough.
I'm not trying to be combative, but I'd like to know your take on the philanthropy of the Gates Foundation. On one hand, they are probably the single largest philanthropic organization around and AFAIK, the money is coming exclusively from Bill and Melinda. OTOH, Bill is STILL the richest man in the world by a hefty margin, so he could definitely afford to give more than he already has. Where do you draw the line and say that "This person has done their fare share, but that person still needs to give more"?
Like a wealthy day trader who specializes in short sales may not know how to fix their car and his mechanic doesn't understand terminology such as calls, puts, longs, and shorts.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to divide knowledge, which is what you are describing here and intelligence. Knowledge is what you know, while intelligence is what you are capable of knowing and more importantly understanding. In my admittedly anecdotal example I was referring to individuals who know less about computers than I, but are very intelligent none-the-less.
Also, the parent is a hostile classist and has more than appropriate hostility toward those that have more than him. I provided anecdotal evidence in contradiction of his assertions that lacked even that much corroborating evidence. He's free to respond to my post with something more substantial than blind hate or anecdote at which point I'll address him directly.
While anecdote is inadequate in the face of rigorous scientific study, it is still far better than blind assertions without any attempt at verification.