Yup. I recently bought a car with a double DIN head unit, and would love to trade it out with something that has the radio, GPS plus weather maps, OBD II, preferably XM, preferably comparative gas station search, and either AUX or USB to plug in my phone for music. My choices are most of these with a crappy interface for $1500 plus, or roll my own with about $800 in hardware and a lot of time. I'd love for Apple to jump into the aftermarket in car PC space. Thing is, it's probably too small of a market for them to address.
I am Wiccan. I hardly assume it to be evil. I was trying to think of something that many on the right would consider to be evil, and, well, personal experience is that there are a few on the right who think that of my religion.
I don't know that the Hyde amendment would apply, though, because I don't know if Obamacare replaces that part of the law or not. Heck, I'm not convinced Congress knows whether it does or not.
Dude, you have some serious misapprehensions about the right wing. Supporting law enforcement doesn't mean supporting lawbreaking by police or other government agents.
When granting power to government, always assume evil intent. Two examples:
Let's say Obamacare is upheld. The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth. So what prevents President Chimpy McHitlerburton from abortions from being covered? Privacy? Not if Obamacare is upheld, because that law puts the government directly or indirectly into the transaction.
Or what about the various attempts to bring religion into the government? Many of those attempts would make it legal to be explicitly religious in acts of government. So what prevents President Lefty Marx-Castro from making the religious parts of public ceremonies Wiccan?
Yes, but it would be foolish in the extreme to think that the people who have spent the last five or so decades fighting nuclear power tooth and claw are suddenly going to give up that fight. And the regulations are mostly on their side, which is why we rarely build nuclear plants. And any nuclear accident is seen as vastly more terrible than other kinds of accidents, which is why people argue in the wake of Fukushima (as they did to less effect in the wake of Chernobyl) that we should shut down all nuclear plants. I wouldn't recommend counting on nuclear power to be a practical alternative, even though it makes a large amount of sense even if there were no issue with man-made CO2. (I'm not convinced there is an issue with man-made CO2, but that aside....)
I think (and I could be wrong; it's been a while since I read on this) that the posited mechanism is that CO2 absobs more heat before it re-radiates it than many other chemicals. That would then imply that more energy would be trapped in the system (though I'm unclear on whether it's latent heat, and thus doesn't change the temperature of the system, or sensible heat, though I'd guess the latter), rather than being radiated out of the system into space. There is really very little question about CO2 being a "greenhouse gas." Fundamentally, without it, Earth would be a ball of ice, and in the past has been very nearly that when exceptional dips in CO2 have occurred.
My understanding is that the debate is not over which mechanisms in the environment increase the heat of the system, and which ones decrease it, but over which ones should be taken into account in models, to what degree, and whether the total overall balance leans towards increasing heat, decreasing heat, or equilibrium. It always made me shake my head a bit when Lovelock became a CAGW zealot, because that is in direct contrast to the Gaia Theory, which is Lovelock's most significant contribution to climatology. The Gaia Theory is often misstated as the idea that the Earth is a single living organism. In fact, it states that the Earth acts like a living organism in regulating its temperatures to remarkable stability through a system of feedback mechanisms which act in tension to prevent extremes in either direction. I never did hear an explanation of how Lovelock reconciled the two ideas, but apparently he's come back to the Gaia Theory.
What amuses me about this is the total lack of irony or self-awareness. You are accusing jmorris42 of "hyperbolic rhetoric spawning from extremist zealots" for saying that the prescriptions of CAGW "extremist zealots" are aimed at "dismantling civilization," while ignoring that the CAGW zealots themselves frequently engage in "hyperbolic rhetoric" about the end of the polar bears, the end of the ice caps, the end of winter, the end of life on Earth and the like. Even ignoring that, yes, many of the policy prescriptions of the CAGW extreme (not all CAGW advocates, mind you) would in fact be adequately and accurately summarized as "dismantling civilization," the failure to note the extreme of one claim while noting the extreme of the other is beautifully obtuse.
At GM at least, the car software is written by real engineers, the kind that hve passed certification tests and are responsible for life and death choices. The people who do web sites and apps and call themselves engineers (ie, people like me) aren't allowed near that stuff. And for good reason: it's an utterly different skill set.
I have a friend who apparently, when once presented with a noncompete that specified not doing business with any of the company's customers, asked for a customer list so he could be in compliance. Boy did that go nowhere fast.
I have. About 1 in 4 contracts over the years - with legit businesses - have had NDAs. Most of them I was able to sign. A few I gave them an alternative instead. (I've done the same thing with contracts, too.) Somehow, they're always surprised when you give them legal paperwork to sign, instead of the other way around.
Sure it is. Just like the population bomb and the radiation from the ozone hole frying us all and the coming ice age and global warming. It's all real and the only solution is turning over power to a global government. But do not worry, Comrade, if this doesn't work we can always go for, um, how about acid rain? Have we done that one?
But his intellectual heirs live on. I mean, we may indeed face economic collapse if we don't figure out how to spend less money than exists, but it's not going to be because of resource depletion.
My (certainly amateur) reading of the literature indicates that it's likely that all therapods were feathered, albeit mostly with thin insulating feathers that don't fossilize well. How is this unexpected?
Slashdot Mirror
How, then, do you explain their success, unless you assume everyone but you is a fool?
Yup. I recently bought a car with a double DIN head unit, and would love to trade it out with something that has the radio, GPS plus weather maps, OBD II, preferably XM, preferably comparative gas station search, and either AUX or USB to plug in my phone for music. My choices are most of these with a crappy interface for $1500 plus, or roll my own with about $800 in hardware and a lot of time. I'd love for Apple to jump into the aftermarket in car PC space. Thing is, it's probably too small of a market for them to address.
I don't know that the Hyde amendment would apply, though, because I don't know if Obamacare replaces that part of the law or not. Heck, I'm not convinced Congress knows whether it does or not.
Dude, you have some serious misapprehensions about the right wing. Supporting law enforcement doesn't mean supporting lawbreaking by police or other government agents.
Let's say Obamacare is upheld. The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth. So what prevents President Chimpy McHitlerburton from abortions from being covered? Privacy? Not if Obamacare is upheld, because that law puts the government directly or indirectly into the transaction.
Or what about the various attempts to bring religion into the government? Many of those attempts would make it legal to be explicitly religious in acts of government. So what prevents President Lefty Marx-Castro from making the religious parts of public ceremonies Wiccan?
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Yes, but it would be foolish in the extreme to think that the people who have spent the last five or so decades fighting nuclear power tooth and claw are suddenly going to give up that fight. And the regulations are mostly on their side, which is why we rarely build nuclear plants. And any nuclear accident is seen as vastly more terrible than other kinds of accidents, which is why people argue in the wake of Fukushima (as they did to less effect in the wake of Chernobyl) that we should shut down all nuclear plants. I wouldn't recommend counting on nuclear power to be a practical alternative, even though it makes a large amount of sense even if there were no issue with man-made CO2. (I'm not convinced there is an issue with man-made CO2, but that aside....)
I get confused. Is 5% of GDP small while 2.5% of GDP (the defense budget) unsustainable and unaffordable? Math is hard.
I think (and I could be wrong; it's been a while since I read on this) that the posited mechanism is that CO2 absobs more heat before it re-radiates it than many other chemicals. That would then imply that more energy would be trapped in the system (though I'm unclear on whether it's latent heat, and thus doesn't change the temperature of the system, or sensible heat, though I'd guess the latter), rather than being radiated out of the system into space. There is really very little question about CO2 being a "greenhouse gas." Fundamentally, without it, Earth would be a ball of ice, and in the past has been very nearly that when exceptional dips in CO2 have occurred.
My understanding is that the debate is not over which mechanisms in the environment increase the heat of the system, and which ones decrease it, but over which ones should be taken into account in models, to what degree, and whether the total overall balance leans towards increasing heat, decreasing heat, or equilibrium. It always made me shake my head a bit when Lovelock became a CAGW zealot, because that is in direct contrast to the Gaia Theory, which is Lovelock's most significant contribution to climatology. The Gaia Theory is often misstated as the idea that the Earth is a single living organism. In fact, it states that the Earth acts like a living organism in regulating its temperatures to remarkable stability through a system of feedback mechanisms which act in tension to prevent extremes in either direction. I never did hear an explanation of how Lovelock reconciled the two ideas, but apparently he's come back to the Gaia Theory.
From where does the grid power come, though? Generally from fossil fuels or nuclear power.
What amuses me about this is the total lack of irony or self-awareness. You are accusing jmorris42 of "hyperbolic rhetoric spawning from extremist zealots" for saying that the prescriptions of CAGW "extremist zealots" are aimed at "dismantling civilization," while ignoring that the CAGW zealots themselves frequently engage in "hyperbolic rhetoric" about the end of the polar bears, the end of the ice caps, the end of winter, the end of life on Earth and the like. Even ignoring that, yes, many of the policy prescriptions of the CAGW extreme (not all CAGW advocates, mind you) would in fact be adequately and accurately summarized as "dismantling civilization," the failure to note the extreme of one claim while noting the extreme of the other is beautifully obtuse.
At GM at least, the car software is written by real engineers, the kind that hve passed certification tests and are responsible for life and death choices. The people who do web sites and apps and call themselves engineers (ie, people like me) aren't allowed near that stuff. And for good reason: it's an utterly different skill set.
I have a friend who apparently, when once presented with a noncompete that specified not doing business with any of the company's customers, asked for a customer list so he could be in compliance. Boy did that go nowhere fast.
I have. About 1 in 4 contracts over the years - with legit businesses - have had NDAs. Most of them I was able to sign. A few I gave them an alternative instead. (I've done the same thing with contracts, too.) Somehow, they're always surprised when you give them legal paperwork to sign, instead of the other way around.
Sorry. Meant to respond to the same post you were responding to.
http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/2012/03/a_great_books_a.html
While CO2 is A high percentage of the Martian atmosphere, that atmosphere is very thin. Also the surface of Mars is quite cold and lacks liquid water.
Let's all give Dr Krawhn a hand.
You are demonstrating one of the reasons why Google's revenue per handset is lower.
Don't know if Dediu is a fan of Apple or not, but what does that have to do (either way) with his abilities as a financial analyst?
Does that just mean licensing some of their patents, or does it mean funding them directly?
Sure it is. Just like the population bomb and the radiation from the ozone hole frying us all and the coming ice age and global warming. It's all real and the only solution is turning over power to a global government. But do not worry, Comrade, if this doesn't work we can always go for, um, how about acid rain? Have we done that one?
But his intellectual heirs live on. I mean, we may indeed face economic collapse if we don't figure out how to spend less money than exists, but it's not going to be because of resource depletion.
FWIW, I wasn't promulgating a term; I was making an analogy.
My (certainly amateur) reading of the literature indicates that it's likely that all therapods were feathered, albeit mostly with thin insulating feathers that don't fossilize well. How is this unexpected?