"...the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died.."
Your reference, of course, was to those killed by Saddam. The number killed in the last three years is much shallower. Even the BBC, a particularly strident anti-Iraq war rag, puts it at 37,626 tops.
Butt-load of crap there. Your premise that 'side two' says "Global Warming is not really happing" is false. They really say "Global Warming is happening and humans are contributing, but we don't know the influence of the contribution and sure's hell don't know the influence of attempts to 'correct' the situation".
See? Take out the spin. You got any sane suggestions for DOING SOMETHING?
I'm sure the real data is either kept locked away or drowned out by the noise of paid-for studies and nonsense pseudo-science.
Yeah, there's quite a derth of info on GW, pollution, urban expansion, threatened species, etc (some of which is paid-for and nonsense). All of it hidden away in Google.
Those Africans would do well to climb that ladder of technology so they can feed themselves, live healther, have fewer children, etc. Luxury, by the way, is a relative term. They would consider a real house a luxury over a hut, even if it's a double-wide.
Perhaps you missed the internal and external parasites which radically reduce the life-span of the Khaletians? Not to mention the friggin' blecharoids that sneak into their huts at night and take their offspring off of the dirt floor right under their olfactory pads.
I'm not even going to get into the the last pandemic of garuda virus.
Anybody can construct an abstract future history that supports their current predjudices. His was optomistic, yours negative. Population control -- in and of itself -- is not a bad thing (just like, say, atomic energy).
Sometimes even the false and impossible ideas are what work.
Your post doesn't make sense. In fact, it's self-contradicting.
Examples:
... nearly all of society at one time knew that the universe rotated around Earth.
Last time I checked, the idea that the Earth rotated about the sun was a true idea that actually worked. Not the other way around. It was the false idea -- clung too inanely -- that failed.
After that came mezmorize (hypnosis)...
Repeat above process.
Now adays, we have cold Fusion. When Pons/Stanley... 2 were basically ruined professionally.
Here we have the crux. Cold fusion is not being done. It wasn't the fact they believed in cold fusion, it was the fact that no one could replicate their experiments that sank them. See, their theories weren't discarded, they actually said they'd done it and produced the experiment for others to try.
Well, if you clip his actual comment it sounds bad, sure.
Restored: "Seriously? All the geeks I know work 70+ hour work weeks... then again I think a lot of that is self-imposed... "
That would be the "otherwise doing something". They work the time because of desire for IP reward or bonus or just love of tech. However, I've known lots of geeks over the last 35+ and don't recall any working 70+. That's a geek delusion of heroic grandure, m'thinks.
Does not follow. A German in germany is not subject to the USPTO. He wouldn't have been able to battle anyway, international displutes weren't regularly entertained in mid 1800's.
And you've been brainwashed by the "corporations are eeeeeviiiillll" crowd. Provide some statistics instead of simply regurgitating their selling points, please.
"(and yes - that's including the pharmaceutical industry, even if it means a slight change in how they work)"
Easy to say in so trite a manner. Please explain these "slight" changes, why they are needed and how the pharm industry can accomplish the shift and still be productive. Please be succint.
Why, you missed the definition. It's if you benefit from something that can be shown to be a ripped-off copy of something we invented, then we reserve the right to sue your ass.
"... because a patent restricts the rights of millions of other people to do what they want with their own property."
You do realize that before a patent is awarded (and a short time thereafter), there is no property for other people to lament the restrictions applied to?
"But such objectiveness is not needed if they get away from the idea that inventors are entitled to patents."
So you believe an inventor should invest their time/money/talent into something and just sit and hope they can make money off of it before some well-monied schmoe takes it and pumps the crap out of it, forcing our poorer inventor(s) to get next to nothing for their efforts?
"Patents need to be seen as a privilege and not a right..."
They are now. You must have something (ignoring the PO's problems for this sentence) to patent and do so. There is your privilege, no one comes to your house checking of you have things to patent.
The PO has horrible problems, not the least of which is pug-ignorance. That in no way negates the desirablilty of allowing an inventor to make a living inventing.
"3 cents per page with a passable laser, and if you like, you can put four pages on every side of the sheets."
Well, yeah, at friggin' 7pt. I can't read that and don't want to try. So, at 10pt, you would spend $9 printing a 300 page novel and a number of dollars more for the binding compared to a $5 paperback. Probably not. If you're comparing to a decent hardback, it's a further loss of quality comparison.
"And how is it the ASTM E119 certified steel in the World Trade Towers weaken/melt after exposure to an uncontrolled & undirected jet fuel fire?"
"See Letter from Underwriters Laboratories(UL) to NIST."
One problem there: "911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action."
See? It wasn't a letter from UL.
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all."
Good thing he's speaking for himself. No steel will melt at red-hot temperatures, as these are only 800F or so. Steel melts near white-hot. That's a simple fact he shouldn't make a mistake on.
More from link:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."
If that's what was found, then the steel inspected didn't survive the jet fuel explosion. As a reference, wood combusts at 441F. Jet fuel combusts at well over several thousand F. The structural steel would have become red-hot in minutes, this is where steel weakens, not melts. The building was experiencing wind and other variables, the mass of an airliner inside it -- the latter understandably unaccounted for in construction.
Again, from link:
"Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C."
I'm sure most didn't. But it doesn't take most to destabalize a structure that immense, only some. I also have a real problem with the statement. I personally watched the TV and saw the impacts. Vast balls of jet fuel flame engulfed more than three damn panels. I don't buy that.
Like the man said, apples and oranges. A $500 computer today is to a $3000 computer of 1991 as using Lotus Word is to using NotePad.
Let's just look at your prices, though. $1000 to $2-3K => $3000 to $5000. Now, I see right there you've skewed your data, so let's correct it. I've seen new computers selling for $500. That's half the 1991 price you gave. That's not even corrected for inflation.
Was your point that it's harder to get stuff now-a-days or easier?
The problem is that very few ideas are being bandied about that would replace this lost ice, and of those, even fewer are being assessed to decide if their possibility of destroying the planet is outweighed by our desire to return the ice distribution of Antarctica to where it was three years ago.
"When are the legislatures going to learn that it's experience that matures people."
Because it's not. If that were so, people would learn from their mistakes. There are too many immature people who have arm-length DUI records and too many immature programmers who continue to perform badly with their team-mates for this to be true. People don't learn from experience if their brains aren't ready to. QED.
No, it's not semantics. The human brain does not "mature", that is, cease it's major developments, until certain times in life. Yes Virginia, there is a bell curve associated with those times -- when the glands kick in, when the eyes develop, when the frontal lobes are fully functional -- but that doesn't negate the general idea that there is a time of maturity. And no, it's not "accurate" in the sense that you can set a watch by it, but that does not negate it's usefulness in psychological studies.
"Maturity sets in when responsibility is a requirement."
The hell it does. You haven't noticed the "immature, unable to get along with others" segment of our society (which has a broad age range)?
Perhaps you were referring to children thrust into situations (like your example) being able to survive. Note: survival != maturity. It only equals acting appropriately to survive.
There is an element of CNS physical maturity in the resultant overall appearance of maturity. The CNS is not done developing until late teens at best, so yeah, there's an age element to maturity.
Our planet comes back to the same "spot" (well relatively close anyhow) every year... why should time be any different?
Well, perhaps because our planet doesn't to that either. You seem to have forgotten that our star rotates around a galactic center and wobbles up and down on that path as well. Add to that our galaxy's movement and you miss the mark rather significantly.
Slashdot Mirror
"...the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died.."
Your reference, of course, was to those killed by Saddam. The number killed in the last three years is much shallower. Even the BBC, a particularly strident anti-Iraq war rag, puts it at 37,626 tops.
Butt-load of crap there. Your premise that 'side two' says "Global Warming is not really happing" is false. They really say "Global Warming is happening and humans are contributing, but we don't know the influence of the contribution and sure's hell don't know the influence of attempts to 'correct' the situation".
See? Take out the spin. You got any sane suggestions for DOING SOMETHING?
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://alimohamed.blogspot.com/
http://baghdadgirl.blogspot.com/
http://democracyiniraq.blogspot.com/
http://www.friendsofdemocracy.info/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://inlovewithiraq.blogspot.com/
Read what actual, really there all the time, Iraqis say.
That would be called a pre-PC history book.
I'm sure the real data is either kept locked away or drowned out by the noise of paid-for studies and nonsense pseudo-science.
Yeah, there's quite a derth of info on GW, pollution, urban expansion, threatened species, etc (some of which is paid-for and nonsense). All of it hidden away in Google.
Those Africans would do well to climb that ladder of technology so they can feed themselves, live healther, have fewer children, etc. Luxury, by the way, is a relative term. They would consider a real house a luxury over a hut, even if it's a double-wide.
Perhaps you missed the internal and external parasites which radically reduce the life-span of the Khaletians? Not to mention the friggin' blecharoids that sneak into their huts at night and take their offspring off of the dirt floor right under their olfactory pads.
I'm not even going to get into the the last pandemic of garuda virus.
Anybody can construct an abstract future history that supports their current predjudices. His was optomistic, yours negative. Population control -- in and of itself -- is not a bad thing (just like, say, atomic energy).
Interesting quote. Not applicable. There's no one doing these things.
Sometimes even the false and impossible ideas are what work.
... nearly all of society at one time knew that the universe rotated around Earth.
... 2 were basically ruined professionally.
Your post doesn't make sense. In fact, it's self-contradicting.
Examples:
Last time I checked, the idea that the Earth rotated about the sun was a true idea that actually worked. Not the other way around. It was the false idea -- clung too inanely -- that failed.
After that came mezmorize (hypnosis)...
Repeat above process.
Now adays, we have cold Fusion. When Pons/Stanley
Here we have the crux. Cold fusion is not being done. It wasn't the fact they believed in cold fusion, it was the fact that no one could replicate their experiments that sank them. See, their theories weren't discarded, they actually said they'd done it and produced the experiment for others to try.
Well, if you clip his actual comment it sounds bad, sure.
Restored: "Seriously? All the geeks I know work 70+ hour work weeks... then again I think a lot of that is self-imposed... "
That would be the "otherwise doing something". They work the time because of desire for IP reward or bonus or just love of tech. However, I've known lots of geeks over the last 35+ and don't recall any working 70+. That's a geek delusion of heroic grandure, m'thinks.
Does not follow. A German in germany is not subject to the USPTO. He wouldn't have been able to battle anyway, international displutes weren't regularly entertained in mid 1800's.
And you've been brainwashed by the "corporations are eeeeeviiiillll" crowd. Provide some statistics instead of simply regurgitating their selling points, please.
"(and yes - that's including the pharmaceutical industry, even if it means a slight change in how they work)"
Easy to say in so trite a manner. Please explain these "slight" changes, why they are needed and how the pharm industry can accomplish the shift and still be productive. Please be succint.
In other words, you're bullshitting.
Why, you missed the definition. It's if you benefit from something that can be shown to be a ripped-off copy of something we invented, then we reserve the right to sue your ass.
"... because a patent restricts the rights of millions of other people to do what they want with their own property."
You do realize that before a patent is awarded (and a short time thereafter), there is no property for other people to lament the restrictions applied to?
"But such objectiveness is not needed if they get away from the idea that inventors are entitled to patents."
So you believe an inventor should invest their time/money/talent into something and just sit and hope they can make money off of it before some well-monied schmoe takes it and pumps the crap out of it, forcing our poorer inventor(s) to get next to nothing for their efforts?
"Patents need to be seen as a privilege and not a right..."
They are now. You must have something (ignoring the PO's problems for this sentence) to patent and do so. There is your privilege, no one comes to your house checking of you have things to patent.
The PO has horrible problems, not the least of which is pug-ignorance. That in no way negates the desirablilty of allowing an inventor to make a living inventing.
"3 cents per page with a passable laser, and if you like, you can put four pages on every side of the sheets."
Well, yeah, at friggin' 7pt. I can't read that and don't want to try. So, at 10pt, you would spend $9 printing a 300 page novel and a number of dollars more for the binding compared to a $5 paperback. Probably not. If you're comparing to a decent hardback, it's a further loss of quality comparison.
"And how is it the ASTM E119 certified steel in the World Trade Towers weaken/melt after exposure to an uncontrolled & undirected jet fuel fire?"
"See Letter from Underwriters Laboratories(UL) to NIST."
One problem there: "911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action."
See? It wasn't a letter from UL.
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all."
Good thing he's speaking for himself. No steel will melt at red-hot temperatures, as these are only 800F or so. Steel melts near white-hot. That's a simple fact he shouldn't make a mistake on.
More from link:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."
If that's what was found, then the steel inspected didn't survive the jet fuel explosion. As a reference, wood combusts at 441F. Jet fuel combusts at well over several thousand F. The structural steel would have become red-hot in minutes, this is where steel weakens, not melts. The building was experiencing wind and other variables, the mass of an airliner inside it -- the latter understandably unaccounted for in construction.
Again, from link:
"Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C."
I'm sure most didn't. But it doesn't take most to destabalize a structure that immense, only some. I also have a real problem with the statement. I personally watched the TV and saw the impacts. Vast balls of jet fuel flame engulfed more than three damn panels. I don't buy that.
Like the man said, apples and oranges. A $500 computer today is to a $3000 computer of 1991 as using Lotus Word is to using NotePad.
Let's just look at your prices, though. $1000 to $2-3K => $3000 to $5000. Now, I see right there you've skewed your data, so let's correct it. I've seen new computers selling for $500. That's half the 1991 price you gave. That's not even corrected for inflation.
Was your point that it's harder to get stuff now-a-days or easier?
The problem is that very few ideas are being bandied about that would replace this lost ice, and of those, even fewer are being assessed to decide if their possibility of destroying the planet is outweighed by our desire to return the ice distribution of Antarctica to where it was three years ago.
Indeed. Organisms such as subterranean bacteria, which comprise vast tons of organic material. Living material. Some of which dine on coal.
"When are the legislatures going to learn that it's experience that matures people."
Because it's not. If that were so, people would learn from their mistakes. There are too many immature people who have arm-length DUI records and too many immature programmers who continue to perform badly with their team-mates for this to be true. People don't learn from experience if their brains aren't ready to. QED.
No, it's not semantics. The human brain does not "mature", that is, cease it's major developments, until certain times in life. Yes Virginia, there is a bell curve associated with those times -- when the glands kick in, when the eyes develop, when the frontal lobes are fully functional -- but that doesn't negate the general idea that there is a time of maturity. And no, it's not "accurate" in the sense that you can set a watch by it, but that does not negate it's usefulness in psychological studies.
"Maturity sets in when responsibility is a requirement."
The hell it does. You haven't noticed the "immature, unable to get along with others" segment of our society (which has a broad age range)?
Perhaps you were referring to children thrust into situations (like your example) being able to survive. Note: survival != maturity. It only equals acting appropriately to survive.
There is an element of CNS physical maturity in the resultant overall appearance of maturity. The CNS is not done developing until late teens at best, so yeah, there's an age element to maturity.
Afterward, the U.S. could top and advertize with:
Dragonfly -
Damn Right, America's Got Optics! New'n Friggin' Largest Yet!
Our planet comes back to the same "spot" (well relatively close anyhow) every year... why should time be any different?
Well, perhaps because our planet doesn't to that either. You seem to have forgotten that our star rotates around a galactic center and wobbles up and down on that path as well. Add to that our galaxy's movement and you miss the mark rather significantly.