I'm getting tired of running around in your circles. But I will tell you this: I am a scientist, I took physics as part of my education, and I don't have to rely upon websites for those predisposed to weak understandings to know what to believe. (You don't even refer to the words of Mr. Tyson: you refer to some secondary summary for those who need sound-bites.) When you are capable of having a real discussion rather than spewing forth nonsense, then let me know...
I've entertained your references there, and they don't provide a theory or an explanation of how Earth could have a runaway greenhouse effect such as that posited for Venus. They are of no value toward verification of your ideas.
The Earth isn't wrapped in foil. It is exposed to the same radiation as Venus, but at a lower exposure. The Earth orbits 150 million km from the Sun, for Venus it's 106 million km. As the exposure goes down by the cube, that makes the Earth's exposure (106/150)^3 = 35% that of Venus. That is why the Earth is cooler than Venus. I don't need a degree in Astrophysics to understand that.
Even Einstein had to prove his theories over the best theories of his day, and many of his theories turned out to be wrong. I have seen nothing from the global warming fanatics but fearmongering, and no real science. (Science requires verification against collected data, not against quotes from website summaries.)
Your claim that Tyson said something in an episode of Cosmos is not a citation.
Common sense had better apply to most theories: common sense was developed in your ancestors that survived the winters and famines. It is not always accurate, but it is a better starting place than psychopathic fantasy.
If you hold your hand closer to a light bulb or a heating element, it will get warmer. That is all the evidence needed. If you cannot understand that, then I don't suppose I have much to talk about with you.
I'm quite curious what this "evidence" is that you recite that suggests the conditions of Venus billions of years ago. As far as I know, only the Russians have landed anything on Venus, and those crafts basically took a few pictures and died within a couple of hours due to the extreme conditions.
And, of course, you tried the old shift-the-burden-of-proof gambit. I really don't care whether you trust my answer or not. Common sense will tell you that the Earth has already experienced this "runaway greenhouse" effect resulting in the present temperate conditions. The basic reason that the atmosphere is not 800 degrees C is because the Earth isn't subjected to the same intensity of solar radiation as Venus. Not even your claimed friend Mr. Tyson suggests that Earth is destined to become another Venus if CO2 emissions are not discontinued. Why should I put credibility to any of your claims?
Not even the most extreme global warming activists believe that there will be 10 degrees of warming (degrees C or F). The changes measured in the atmosphere and the oceans to date are so small as to be barely detectable. Comparing the Earth to Venus is like comparing a rocket-propelled grenade to a nuclear warhead. Both can kill you if you get close enough, but the preventative measures are entirely different. Telling people to build nuclear bomb shelters in the face of a grenade attack won't ultimately bring credibility.
The truth is that for 99 percent of the people alive today and for many generations to come, the impact of burning fossil fuels on them will be (at most) slightly higher utility costs in the summer from running their air conditioners a little longer. For those in cooler climates, it may actually be desirable. I predict that the present global warming craze will ultimately go the way of alien invasion prevention and Tarot Cards.
No. The stupidity arises in yet another Slashdot story worded to provoke controversy here. The subject says: "Soda pop damages your cells' telomeres". None of those professors apparently made that claim. We get treated to one comment after another posted here about that silly conclusion based upon the foolish interpretation of the original poster here.
Even if this report was generated by one hundred professors of the top universities, top in their fields, making all the corrections for age and reporting bias, published in the most respected journals of the highest institutions, it would only have proven a correlation in their particular study. Is it worthy of further investigation? Perhaps, but don't try to turn a firecracker into an atomic bomb.
Looking at this the other way: soda pop has been around for about a century, and no one has noticed any serious trends toward a shorter lifespan. (Otherwise the FDA would have become involved.) I trust the FDA more than I trust eight professors anxious to get their story out. This story gets a yawn out of me until I see some definite causation.
From their recitation of methods: "Diet was assessed using 24-hour dietary recalls."
So, in other words, they asked a bunch of people what they drank in the last 24 hours, measured their telomeres, and observed a correlation between those who remembered they consumed 20oz. of soda and white blood cells in an aged condition. Does anyone think it's possible that older people just consume more soda (as opposed to other drinks)? Does anyone think that older people just might be more likely to admit they'd consumed soda?
What if I did a study that showed that those who had eaten macaroni and cheese in the last 24 hours had younger cells. Would that prove that macaroni and cheese was good for you, or would that prove that kids prefer to eat macaroni and cheese?
It's really too bad that you're not the authority on this subject: your solution is so simple-minded. Not that I expect it will do much good for you, but here's a place you could get a little understanding of one exception to the exclusionary rule:
I made no mention of violated rights being limited to fourth amendment seizures. If the state has to break laws to investigate someone, their rights ARE violated.
Unless the method violated someone else's rights, or violated an inconsequential rule or regulation.
Yes, I am. Not all illegal methods of collecting evidence violate the rights of the accused against unconstitutional searches and seizures. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence against the accused if he can show the independent source.
Wow. You claim that because the government overstepped a defendant's rights in collecting evidence on one occasion, that that evidence is excluded forever no matter how the government might get it?
My advice to you is: don't ever try to go to law school. You will fail.
Oh, don't worry. I'll never represent you. You'd tell me some fiction about your case and I'd wind up being made a fool of by the other side. I doubt you'd pay your lawyer, anyway.
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison.
No, I didn't.
Ooooh, I just can't resist:
"And besides, who needs to use a criminal action in open court when we have the secret FISA courts with secret laws and a prison where everything done is in secret? This is police state 101."
Oh, and please say one more time for us: 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'.
Parallel construction: hey, I'll admit I had to look that one up. But if the government can find an independent source of evidence to convict the bad guy that doesn't involve illegally-collected evidence, then they haven't violated his rights (at least as to the crime charged). You can put a negative label on it if you like, but the cops get to do it.
"Whisper’s policy toward sharing user data with law enforcement has prompted it on occasions to provide information to both the FBI and MI5. Both cases involved potentially imminent threats to life, Whisper said, a practice standard in the tech industry."
That sounds like investigating to me, and although you might not consider Whisper to be your friend, the government doesn't care whether it is or not.
So you think because I didn't bother to counter your argument (about wiretapping), that you've somehow proven a grand right to privacy? HAHAHAHA!
It would be nice if you'd get your concepts straight and use proper terminology. I think by "parallel construction" you mean "independent discovery": a prosecutor gets to use evidence against you collected independently from illegally-collected evidence.
You don't have a right to be anonymous to the government. Your "right to privacy" does not mean the government has to erase you from all their databases. That is what is nonsensical.
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison. I guess that you've changed your mind.
Does the FISA court rubber-stamp warrants? Nobody in the public really knows, because it's a secret court. That is what I find wrong about that court...
Actually, I do get it, and I am a lawyer. If you look elsewhere here in this thread: I indeed did make the comment that this company was likely to be a party in a class-action suit.
I'd just like to see some thought applied before people start spouting forth about their "rights".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting tired of running around in your circles. But I will tell you this: I am a scientist, I took physics as part of my education, and I don't have to rely upon websites for those predisposed to weak understandings to know what to believe. (You don't even refer to the words of Mr. Tyson: you refer to some secondary summary for those who need sound-bites.) When you are capable of having a real discussion rather than spewing forth nonsense, then let me know...
Excuse me. I should have used the square in my calc. That makes it 50%.
I've entertained your references there, and they don't provide a theory or an explanation of how Earth could have a runaway greenhouse effect such as that posited for Venus. They are of no value toward verification of your ideas.
The Earth isn't wrapped in foil. It is exposed to the same radiation as Venus, but at a lower exposure. The Earth orbits 150 million km from the Sun, for Venus it's 106 million km. As the exposure goes down by the cube, that makes the Earth's exposure (106/150)^3 = 35% that of Venus. That is why the Earth is cooler than Venus. I don't need a degree in Astrophysics to understand that.
Even Einstein had to prove his theories over the best theories of his day, and many of his theories turned out to be wrong. I have seen nothing from the global warming fanatics but fearmongering, and no real science. (Science requires verification against collected data, not against quotes from website summaries.)
Your claim that Tyson said something in an episode of Cosmos is not a citation.
Common sense had better apply to most theories: common sense was developed in your ancestors that survived the winters and famines. It is not always accurate, but it is a better starting place than psychopathic fantasy.
If you hold your hand closer to a light bulb or a heating element, it will get warmer. That is all the evidence needed. If you cannot understand that, then I don't suppose I have much to talk about with you.
I'm quite curious what this "evidence" is that you recite that suggests the conditions of Venus billions of years ago. As far as I know, only the Russians have landed anything on Venus, and those crafts basically took a few pictures and died within a couple of hours due to the extreme conditions.
And, of course, you tried the old shift-the-burden-of-proof gambit. I really don't care whether you trust my answer or not. Common sense will tell you that the Earth has already experienced this "runaway greenhouse" effect resulting in the present temperate conditions. The basic reason that the atmosphere is not 800 degrees C is because the Earth isn't subjected to the same intensity of solar radiation as Venus. Not even your claimed friend Mr. Tyson suggests that Earth is destined to become another Venus if CO2 emissions are not discontinued. Why should I put credibility to any of your claims?
Not even the most extreme global warming activists believe that there will be 10 degrees of warming (degrees C or F). The changes measured in the atmosphere and the oceans to date are so small as to be barely detectable. Comparing the Earth to Venus is like comparing a rocket-propelled grenade to a nuclear warhead. Both can kill you if you get close enough, but the preventative measures are entirely different. Telling people to build nuclear bomb shelters in the face of a grenade attack won't ultimately bring credibility.
The truth is that for 99 percent of the people alive today and for many generations to come, the impact of burning fossil fuels on them will be (at most) slightly higher utility costs in the summer from running their air conditioners a little longer. For those in cooler climates, it may actually be desirable. I predict that the present global warming craze will ultimately go the way of alien invasion prevention and Tarot Cards.
What prevents extreme greenhouse effects from pushing Earth into a Venus-like state?
A: Its more distant orbit from the Sun.
Legal: adj.; the ones who pay us money.
No. The stupidity arises in yet another Slashdot story worded to provoke controversy here. The subject says: "Soda pop damages your cells' telomeres". None of those professors apparently made that claim. We get treated to one comment after another posted here about that silly conclusion based upon the foolish interpretation of the original poster here.
Even if this report was generated by one hundred professors of the top universities, top in their fields, making all the corrections for age and reporting bias, published in the most respected journals of the highest institutions, it would only have proven a correlation in their particular study. Is it worthy of further investigation? Perhaps, but don't try to turn a firecracker into an atomic bomb.
Looking at this the other way: soda pop has been around for about a century, and no one has noticed any serious trends toward a shorter lifespan. (Otherwise the FDA would have become involved.) I trust the FDA more than I trust eight professors anxious to get their story out. This story gets a yawn out of me until I see some definite causation.
Isn't that what I said?
From their recitation of methods: "Diet was assessed using 24-hour dietary recalls."
So, in other words, they asked a bunch of people what they drank in the last 24 hours, measured their telomeres, and observed a correlation between those who remembered they consumed 20oz. of soda and white blood cells in an aged condition. Does anyone think it's possible that older people just consume more soda (as opposed to other drinks)? Does anyone think that older people just might be more likely to admit they'd consumed soda?
What if I did a study that showed that those who had eaten macaroni and cheese in the last 24 hours had younger cells. Would that prove that macaroni and cheese was good for you, or would that prove that kids prefer to eat macaroni and cheese?
Welcome to stupidity, my friends...
Yeah. I thought that one would go over your head. QED.
It's really too bad that you're not the authority on this subject: your solution is so simple-minded. Not that I expect it will do much good for you, but here's a place you could get a little understanding of one exception to the exclusionary rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Williams
I made no mention of violated rights being limited to fourth amendment seizures. If the state has to break laws to investigate someone, their rights ARE violated.
Unless the method violated someone else's rights, or violated an inconsequential rule or regulation.
Yes, I am. Not all illegal methods of collecting evidence violate the rights of the accused against unconstitutional searches and seizures. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence against the accused if he can show the independent source.
Wow. You claim that because the government overstepped a defendant's rights in collecting evidence on one occasion, that that evidence is excluded forever no matter how the government might get it?
My advice to you is: don't ever try to go to law school. You will fail.
You're doing a pretty crappy job of concealing your identity, for someone who supposedly cares so much about his privacy.
Oh, don't worry. I'll never represent you. You'd tell me some fiction about your case and I'd wind up being made a fool of by the other side. I doubt you'd pay your lawyer, anyway.
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison.
No, I didn't.
Ooooh, I just can't resist:
"And besides, who needs to use a criminal action in open court when we have the secret FISA courts with secret laws and a prison where everything done is in secret? This is police state 101."
Oh, and please say one more time for us: 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'.
That's you, Mr. Jones, isn't it?
I'm not going to bother with you any more, Mr. Jones. Enjoy your fantasy...
Parallel construction: hey, I'll admit I had to look that one up. But if the government can find an independent source of evidence to convict the bad guy that doesn't involve illegally-collected evidence, then they haven't violated his rights (at least as to the crime charged). You can put a negative label on it if you like, but the cops get to do it.
"Whisper’s policy toward sharing user data with law enforcement has prompted it on occasions to provide information to both the FBI and MI5. Both cases involved potentially imminent threats to life, Whisper said, a practice standard in the tech industry."
That sounds like investigating to me, and although you might not consider Whisper to be your friend, the government doesn't care whether it is or not.
So you think because I didn't bother to counter your argument (about wiretapping), that you've somehow proven a grand right to privacy? HAHAHAHA!
It would be nice if you'd get your concepts straight and use proper terminology. I think by "parallel construction" you mean "independent discovery": a prosecutor gets to use evidence against you collected independently from illegally-collected evidence.
You don't have a right to be anonymous to the government. Your "right to privacy" does not mean the government has to erase you from all their databases. That is what is nonsensical.
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison. I guess that you've changed your mind.
Does the FISA court rubber-stamp warrants? Nobody in the public really knows, because it's a secret court. That is what I find wrong about that court...
Actually, I do get it, and I am a lawyer. If you look elsewhere here in this thread: I indeed did make the comment that this company was likely to be a party in a class-action suit.
I'd just like to see some thought applied before people start spouting forth about their "rights".