I had one young doctor think I should have my moles checked out that "looked cancerous"
I remember, about thirty years ago or so, having my doctor of the time remove a mole from my back after a physical. Officially, it was because it looked cancerous. Actually, as he explained, if he didn't find anything wrong, I'd have to pay for everything, but this way, he could bill my insurance and they'd pay it without batting an eye. I've no idea how things work now (Currently, I get all my medical care through the VA.) but I wonder how many harmless procedures are done simply to avoid having the patient pay.
So apart from the fact that "the Hockey Stick" starts climbing in 1700
Actually, if you'll look at this image of the graph, you'll see that it climbs between about 1750 and 1800, drops again, then starts its dramatic rise somewhere around 1900. If it were as accurate as you claim, the Hudson probably wouldn't have frozen over enough to allow people to walk on it, let alone drag cannon across. But please don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
I'd like to point out that during the Revolutionary War, it was possible to drag cannon across the Hudson River in Winter, because it was frozen solid. By 1830, that would have been impossible, and by about 1850, it had stopped freezing over. This shows (qualitatively, not quantitatively) that the climate was getting warmer before 1900, when the Hockey Stick starts climbing. If you go through the historical record of the era, you'll see numerous other examples, all of them inconsistent with the flat line of the graph. Face it: the graph simply doesn't represent history accurately, and if it doesn't, why should I expect it to predict the future?
Unlike the Global Warming Fanatics, I don't claim to be able to explain everything. You may be right about why the English stopped growing grapes, or there may be other reasons. I've heard that there are laments in chronicles of the era that they're unable to grow grapes or make wine any longer, but I can't cite them because I've never seen them for myself. If you prefer to dismiss this because it's "just hearsay," I shan't argue.
There's ample evidence (qualitative, not quantitative) in the historical record that there have been times in the past when it was colder than it is now, and times that it has been warmer. (Not just the Early Medieval Warm; there's reasons to think there was another warm period from about 100 BCE to 200 CE, followed by a cooling that lasted until about 500 CE.) All of this took place without the vast pouring of CO2 into the atmosphere that we're doing now. The climate changes for many reasons, but whatever the reason, it's constantly changing. That doesn't mean that I approve of all that CO2 dumping; it's probably not a good idea, even if it doesn't cause GW. The Hockey Stick is just a bad computer model that's supposed to predict the future when it can't even accurately represent the past.
"Debunked," as in, "fails to show effects that are known to have occurred." As I wrote above, the hockey stick doesn't show the dip caused by the Little Ice Age, and there's ample evidence that that happened. If it doesn't show what we already know happened, how can we believe its claims for the future?
Oh? Really? You mean that the Little Ice Age and the Early Medieval Warm never happened because a computer simulation doesn't show them? I don't think so.
But now that undeniable evidence shows the cracks in their warming theory, they rephrase their position as "climate change", but they do not change their conclusions.
So...what you're saying is...the GW fanatics are shifting their position to "climate change" the same way the Creationists shifted theirs to "Intelligent Design?" I must admit, your suggestion makes quite a bit of sense. And, of course, nobody in their right mind is going to deny that the climate is changing, because we all know (except, of course, for those poor deluded fools who still believe in the Hockey Stick Graph) that the climate is in a constant state of flux. Of course, when they say "climate change," what they really mean is, "it's going to get warming and It's All Our Fault."
3. Global temperature is dead accurate for 30 years. It has been measured to a high standard for a century, and has been reconstructed over millennium. It's been rising the whole time.
No it hasn't. That period includes The Little Ice Age, which, among other things, froze out the Viking colony on the West Coast of Greenland as well making it impossible to grow grapes for wine in England. If you're basing your post on the Hockey Stick Graph, you need to be told that it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be an artifact of badly handled data, and thoroughly debunked.
Simple: check the historical record. The one thing that we can be sure of about the climate is that it's always changing. Sometimes it's getting hotter, sometimes colder, but it's always in flux.
I was referring to wildfires in general.I know perfectly well what chaparral is
I'm glad you do. However, much of the discussion has been about Australia, where chaparral is as much of an issue as it is here, in Southern California, and I thought that that was where you were referring to. Also, many slashdotters have probably only heard of chaparral in news reports and don't have any idea how easy it is to set alight, so it seemed like an explanation would be welcome. Sorry if you thought I was putting you down, because that wasn't my intent.
This is not natural. If the fire was let to burn out on its own, the thick and highly flammable undergrowth would turn into fertilizer for the larger, healthier, and more fire resistant plants that have historically survived such wildfires.
That's a nice theory, and it's a shame that it's wrong. The arid parts of Western Australia are home to chaparral, the same as Southern California, although some of the species are different. Chaparral is notoriously prone to fire when conditions are right, and many of the species regrow quickly after a blaze. The plants aren't intruders that have pushed out the "more fire resistant native plants," they are the native plants. If you want to live there, you need to learn to keep the brush cut back, plant a barrier of less fire-prone plants around you and build a house that's not going to catch fire quickly when (not if) there's a wild fire.
It would be nice if the universe always worked the way we wanted it to. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Exactly. As I see it, both communism and socialism ignore human nature. They'd work just fine if there were a way to change human nature, but as it is, there isn't. And, if they did, would the result still be human?
Question: I have a picture of the LAST man on the moon in my screensaver
I sincerely hope not! I see nothing wrong with your having a picture of the last man so far to step on the Moon in your screensaver, but I do hope he's not the last man ever!
Liability? What liability? They get three valid complaints, they kick the infringer
No. There's no requirement that the complaints be valid, or that they even try to verify the complaint. Three unsubstantiated complaints and they can terminate your service. All somebody has to do is complain that you're infringing and you have problems. If they do it three times, you're out, with, AFAIK no recourse and no other provider. I can only guess that this company has either never heard of or doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty."
AIUI, alpha testing is in house only, to squash any bugs that keep it from working under normal circumstances. The testers exercise the program as well as they can, and do their best to help get it working. Then, it goes to the beta testers. They're people out in The Real World who use the software on for Real World work, and don't always know how it's supposed to work, or what to expect. They'll do a lot of things that the alpha testers never would have thought of doing, and try to make it do things it wasn't really designed to do. This is intended to find the bugs that slipped through alpha testing simply because the in-house testers knew better than to try things like that.
Of course, we're talking about Microsoft here. For all practical purposes, anybody who buys their newest product before the first Service Pack comes out is a beta tester.
AIUI, the.45 has a strong tendency to tumble. How good it is at penetrating a barrier would probably depend considerably on the angle of impact. I'd expect it to be far better at it when it hits point first than when it hits side-on. Of course, the damage done if it hits a soft target side-on is likely to be greater, so it's a bit of a trade off.
I do know of one case of ramming during WW II, but it was accidental and during a night action: a Japanese cruiser somehow managed to ram a PT boat, the 109 to be specific.
AIUI, the standard British tactic at the time was to fire on the down-roll, so that the shot went into the enemy's hull, killing the crew and dismounting the cannon. The French, OTOH, fired on the Up-roll to cut up the enemy's rigging and make it easier for them to escape if the fight went against them.
These were carronades, short barreled, and shot best from close distances.
The British never used carronades as their main battery, although I think a few American frigates did. As you say, they were a short range weapon. They also shot hollow shells, filled with musket balls, so that they hit with the impact of solid shot then shattered, with the effect of canister. Kind of a low-tech version of fragging the enemy.
Not exactly. No ships were rammed at Trafalgar, nor was it even attempted. What Nelson did was bring up his fleet in two columns (letting the enemy cross his T) and take it right through the enemy's line so that he ended up with ships down wind of the enemy, blocking any chance at retreat. As he went through, his ships sent rolling broadsides down the length of the enemy ships, causing considerable damage. As the Victory (his flagship) went through right behind the Bucentaire, the French flagship it sent its first broadside right up the enemy's stern. The Victory's guns were charged with triple-shot and canister on top. This ran the length of the ship dismasting it completely, dismounting almost half its guns and causing over 100 casualties. The Bucentaire fought on for well over an hour, but there was no question that the fight was decided by that one, devastating broadside.
Re:looks like it still loses history
on
BASH 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm 59, and haven't needed it yet. Either you need to get back on your meds, or get them changed, ASAP.
Because SeLinux is one of the things that keeps Linux secure. The way I see it is, instead of waiting until the Black Hats start targeting Linux and playing catch-up, they're trying to make Linux as secure as they can now, because that will make the Black Hat's job more difficult. That's what people mean by telling you to be pro-active instead of reactive.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember, about thirty years ago or so, having my doctor of the time remove a mole from my back after a physical. Officially, it was because it looked cancerous. Actually, as he explained, if he didn't find anything wrong, I'd have to pay for everything, but this way, he could bill my insurance and they'd pay it without batting an eye. I've no idea how things work now (Currently, I get all my medical care through the VA.) but I wonder how many harmless procedures are done simply to avoid having the patient pay.
Actually, if you'll look at this image of the graph, you'll see that it climbs between about 1750 and 1800, drops again, then starts its dramatic rise somewhere around 1900. If it were as accurate as you claim, the Hudson probably wouldn't have frozen over enough to allow people to walk on it, let alone drag cannon across. But please don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
I'd like to point out that during the Revolutionary War, it was possible to drag cannon across the Hudson River in Winter, because it was frozen solid. By 1830, that would have been impossible, and by about 1850, it had stopped freezing over. This shows (qualitatively, not quantitatively) that the climate was getting warmer before 1900, when the Hockey Stick starts climbing. If you go through the historical record of the era, you'll see numerous other examples, all of them inconsistent with the flat line of the graph. Face it: the graph simply doesn't represent history accurately, and if it doesn't, why should I expect it to predict the future?
Unlike the Global Warming Fanatics, I don't claim to be able to explain everything. You may be right about why the English stopped growing grapes, or there may be other reasons. I've heard that there are laments in chronicles of the era that they're unable to grow grapes or make wine any longer, but I can't cite them because I've never seen them for myself. If you prefer to dismiss this because it's "just hearsay," I shan't argue.
There's ample evidence (qualitative, not quantitative) in the historical record that there have been times in the past when it was colder than it is now, and times that it has been warmer. (Not just the Early Medieval Warm; there's reasons to think there was another warm period from about 100 BCE to 200 CE, followed by a cooling that lasted until about 500 CE.) All of this took place without the vast pouring of CO2 into the atmosphere that we're doing now. The climate changes for many reasons, but whatever the reason, it's constantly changing. That doesn't mean that I approve of all that CO2 dumping; it's probably not a good idea, even if it doesn't cause GW. The Hockey Stick is just a bad computer model that's supposed to predict the future when it can't even accurately represent the past.
"Debunked," as in, "fails to show effects that are known to have occurred." As I wrote above, the hockey stick doesn't show the dip caused by the Little Ice Age, and there's ample evidence that that happened. If it doesn't show what we already know happened, how can we believe its claims for the future?
Oh? Really? You mean that the Little Ice Age and the Early Medieval Warm never happened because a computer simulation doesn't show them? I don't think so.
That all depends on how fast BO can push this through Congress, doesn't it?
So...what you're saying is...the GW fanatics are shifting their position to "climate change" the same way the Creationists shifted theirs to "Intelligent Design?" I must admit, your suggestion makes quite a bit of sense. And, of course, nobody in their right mind is going to deny that the climate is changing, because we all know (except, of course, for those poor deluded fools who still believe in the Hockey Stick Graph) that the climate is in a constant state of flux. Of course, when they say "climate change," what they really mean is, "it's going to get warming and It's All Our Fault."
No it hasn't. That period includes The Little Ice Age, which, among other things, froze out the Viking colony on the West Coast of Greenland as well making it impossible to grow grapes for wine in England. If you're basing your post on the Hockey Stick Graph, you need to be told that it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be an artifact of badly handled data, and thoroughly debunked.
Simple: check the historical record. The one thing that we can be sure of about the climate is that it's always changing. Sometimes it's getting hotter, sometimes colder, but it's always in flux.
I'm glad you do. However, much of the discussion has been about Australia, where chaparral is as much of an issue as it is here, in Southern California, and I thought that that was where you were referring to. Also, many slashdotters have probably only heard of chaparral in news reports and don't have any idea how easy it is to set alight, so it seemed like an explanation would be welcome. Sorry if you thought I was putting you down, because that wasn't my intent.
That's a nice theory, and it's a shame that it's wrong. The arid parts of Western Australia are home to chaparral, the same as Southern California, although some of the species are different. Chaparral is notoriously prone to fire when conditions are right, and many of the species regrow quickly after a blaze. The plants aren't intruders that have pushed out the "more fire resistant native plants," they are the native plants. If you want to live there, you need to learn to keep the brush cut back, plant a barrier of less fire-prone plants around you and build a house that's not going to catch fire quickly when (not if) there's a wild fire.
Exactly. As I see it, both communism and socialism ignore human nature. They'd work just fine if there were a way to change human nature, but as it is, there isn't. And, if they did, would the result still be human?
I sincerely hope not! I see nothing wrong with your having a picture of the last man so far to step on the Moon in your screensaver, but I do hope he's not the last man ever!
No. There's no requirement that the complaints be valid, or that they even try to verify the complaint. Three unsubstantiated complaints and they can terminate your service. All somebody has to do is complain that you're infringing and you have problems. If they do it three times, you're out, with, AFAIK no recourse and no other provider. I can only guess that this company has either never heard of or doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty."
Of course, we're talking about Microsoft here. For all practical purposes, anybody who buys their newest product before the first Service Pack comes out is a beta tester.
AIUI, the .45 has a strong tendency to tumble. How good it is at penetrating a barrier would probably depend considerably on the angle of impact. I'd expect it to be far better at it when it hits point first than when it hits side-on. Of course, the damage done if it hits a soft target side-on is likely to be greater, so it's a bit of a trade off.
I do know of one case of ramming during WW II, but it was accidental and during a night action: a Japanese cruiser somehow managed to ram a PT boat, the 109 to be specific.
AIUI, the standard British tactic at the time was to fire on the down-roll, so that the shot went into the enemy's hull, killing the crew and dismounting the cannon. The French, OTOH, fired on the Up-roll to cut up the enemy's rigging and make it easier for them to escape if the fight went against them.
Wrong. Admiral Nelson commanded the fleet, but his flagship was commanded by Captain Hardy, an ancestor, I might add, of Oliver Norvell Hardy.
The British never used carronades as their main battery, although I think a few American frigates did. As you say, they were a short range weapon. They also shot hollow shells, filled with musket balls, so that they hit with the impact of solid shot then shattered, with the effect of canister. Kind of a low-tech version of fragging the enemy.
Not exactly. No ships were rammed at Trafalgar, nor was it even attempted. What Nelson did was bring up his fleet in two columns (letting the enemy cross his T) and take it right through the enemy's line so that he ended up with ships down wind of the enemy, blocking any chance at retreat. As he went through, his ships sent rolling broadsides down the length of the enemy ships, causing considerable damage. As the Victory (his flagship) went through right behind the Bucentaire, the French flagship it sent its first broadside right up the enemy's stern. The Victory's guns were charged with triple-shot and canister on top. This ran the length of the ship dismasting it completely, dismounting almost half its guns and causing over 100 casualties. The Bucentaire fought on for well over an hour, but there was no question that the fight was decided by that one, devastating broadside.
I'm 59, and haven't needed it yet. Either you need to get back on your meds, or get them changed, ASAP.
Because SeLinux is one of the things that keeps Linux secure. The way I see it is, instead of waiting until the Black Hats start targeting Linux and playing catch-up, they're trying to make Linux as secure as they can now, because that will make the Black Hat's job more difficult. That's what people mean by telling you to be pro-active instead of reactive.