Fair point, and I agree. I also realize that the full cycle cost for coal does not factor any of the environmental damage done (mercury poisoning, etc.) in the mining and burning of coal. So you can either demand that everything somehow account for all of the externalities, or you don't do it on any of them. But to demand it on nuclear and not do it for any of the status quo systems will not ever show nuclear to be economically viable. Personally I am willing to pay more for electricity from nuclear plants.
I'll second this. I'm an architect and have a friend who is also an architect who had a plan to add to his existing house using some shipping containers. After drawing the detailed plans, the city refused to permit (I'm not sure exactly why, but he scrapped the idea). You'll want to put together a fairly detailed set of drawings, calling out the shipping container (or other shell), how it is finished, insulated, how the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems interact, the windows and exits (for life and safety code), etc. I would make sure to have all the decisions made before I started, and consult with the various engineers (MEP, structural, civil) before going to the permitting authority. The biggest deal (depending on your location I suppose) is the insulation. If you can rely on passive solar for heat and you can find some good heat storage mechanism (I'd recommend water) then you may be able to get by with less insulation but it depends on the climate. Shipping containers seem like a great idea (as do A/C fuselage) but are very hard to insulate, esp given the limited interior size which a fur out for any reasonable insulation would make even smaller. I think you'd be better off with using recycled wood products with integral insulation (like SIPs for instance), or even rammed earth or earth block (like adobe) and doing the majority of the labor yourself.
Yes, the drag will increase by 10% for any 5% increase in velocity. Which was my point. To further that example take a look at the resultant power curves. Any doubling of velocity requires a quadrupling of power to overcome the drag. Again, the point is that a small change in one area (velocity) can lead to a much larger change in another (drag, power requirements).
Your thought experiment is telling. You start with an assertion, and then simply make a wild ass guess (a one percent reduction in CO2 will have little to no effect on the system). This is far less rigorous than what the climate scientists are doing.
The system is indeed resilient enough to handle CO2 as you eloquently point out. What is not so clear is if human habitation and the ecosystem it relies on is resilient enough to handle it. From what we know it appears as if it is not. Surely the earth has been in a state to support the human loving ecosystem for a very small percentage of its existence. We did not rush past that tipping point as humans in any time during our existence.
The first replier deals with the CO2 cycle nicely enough, I will second the idea that understanding the carbon cycle is fairly important to contributing to what should be a productive debate.
The troll mods I would guess are because you are implying that the report in question (the one which used the 2035 number for the glacier melt) was supposedly to use only scientific sources. In fact that working group paper by definition was to use all sorts of sources, and specifically states that as the case. I would not call the 2035 error a mere typo, but I would also not try to use it as a means to discredit the science behind the WGI (the one which deals with the actual science) report. In my mind, your post (perhaps purposefully) obfuscates this difference.
Your analogy fails, to fix it there would be two sections to the college research paper, one that deals with scientific sources and the other that includes other sources such as the media reports and public opinion. Wikipedia turns out to be a pretty good jumping off point for the second section, though any good professor would still likely mock you for stopping at Wikipedia.
All of the CO2 in the atmosphere == 100%. You cannot blame a tiny fraction (5%) for the effects caused by the whole.
This is where you lack necessary knowledge apparently. A lot of attributes of a fluidic system occur on non-linear scales. Take drag on an object moving through a fluid. It varies as a function of velocity squared. So the last 5% can have an enormous effect on the drag force. What I suggest that you do is look at heat balance in the atmosphere with CO2 levels as a variable, and the oceans as a heat storage mechanism. What the climate scientists have found is that the CO2 levels act in a non linear way on the amount of heat that is trapped by the atmosphere, and then stored in the oceans (and land as well, but water has 3 times the heat capacity of stone, and the atmosphere stores very little heat). If you do a thought experiment you could most likely prove that you could in fact blame that last 5% for some significant effects.
Aside from this bit, which the parent addressed specifically: Arbitrarily raising the price of breathing? You raise good questions. Understand that your questions have nothing to do with the science of global warming, but with the politics of taxation. One problem that I see is that there is a large group that wishes to conflate these questions as a way to cloy the process and preserve the status quo. They are a well funded group, and hit emotional buttons in a large portion of the population who seem to lack the interest or motivation to learn about the actual climate science. What we need is some good political debate on how to deal with what the science is presenting. Until the shouting dies down this debate cannot happen.
Automan. A terrible show, but I watched it. I was just getting into programming and found the representations to be laughable (esp. cursor). But the 90 degree full speed corners in his car were a lot of fun.
These questions are dealt with where I live. It is a civil and not criminal matter. The municipality is accusing you, and you are given a chance to challenge. If you were not driving your car at that time you may provide the name and address of the person who was. The private corporation has no police powers it is purely a civil matter and your legal status for driving (eg, points on your license etc.) is not affected. As for deconflicting between multiple cars in the view of the speed gun, this is the best area to challenge. Of course one of the benefits to having this be civil only is that the burden of proof is much lower. I agree that this is a problem, but I don't think it is constitutional.
Only with the most literal of readings. In reality the accuser is the city (or more problematically a company), and the camera is merely the tool used to document the traffic infraction. So as I see it the problem is that the court system is bypassed completely, though in my city the red light camera system does provide you with the opportunity to challenge, but this is not done through the normal court system as it is all privatized. I do have problems with how it is all set up, but do not believe that it is a constitutional problem.
I am interested in how speeding cameras are against the constitution. That statement itself seems clearly false. There is no right to drive, rather it is a privilege granted by the various state governments. The use of public roads (and even more so private roads) comes with absolutely no expectation of privacy with regards to the path and speed of the vehicle (contents, conversation within, etc. are clearly different). So to what constitutional right are you referring? Your attitude regarding following the rules is disturbing in light of your apparent regard for this as an unconstitutional law. If it was in fact unconstitutional, would not the patriotic person be obligated to break it?
I have read it. More than once, though I find the monologues to be quite overdone I skip most of them. I think the rape scene to which you refer happened in the Fountainhead.
One other note, as you have proven not to be trolling, I did look at the referenced site, and agree with much of what is there. I do ride according to most of those suggestions. Let me ask you this, when approaching a light that is red, with a cyclist waiting to the right, do you pull up along side, or wait behind? If you are turning right which do you do? I think it is ok for a car to pull up alongside, and this happens quite often, more often than me being in the traffic cell when we get to a light as a matter of fact. What happens quite often is that a car wanting to turn right will wait until the green light and then do it expecting that the cyclist will wait for them. I agree that in the event the cyclist is later to the light it is right to wait in line, but finding cars sitting behind the cyclist in agreement is a rarity. More often than not the attitude from drivers is that cyclists should never slow a car down or be in front.
I suppose your trouble visualizing it may be because it hasn't happened to you. Car passes and just as it goes past slows down and turns without signalling. I've had barely enough time to turn right as well to avoid being hit, and on both occasions also lucky to have clear road after making the right rather than run into a parked car. These are split second events with neither time nor room to somehow pass on the left.
Nice troll hatta. Most of the time in those accidents the car is turning right after just passing the cyclist. I've seen the studies for my state, and have helped to put some of the reports together. Seems like you have a bone to pick with cyclists, some of whom are pricks out to piss off as many people who they can, none of whom deserve to die. Just like the lazy fatass drivers don't deserve to die after killing a cyclist.
Traffic does not have the right to flow with out impediment. The law of the land is that bicycles have the right to the road, share the road if you will (with the notable exception of interstate highways, and in some circumstances this is allowed but only on the shoulder). A bicycle is entitled to take up a lane, and sharing the road does not mean that the car is entitled to pass the bicycle. I have issues with how critical mass goes about its business, but as a bike commuter find it disgusting how fatasses in cars treat me while on a bike.
Would it be a troll if in response to someone complaining about Vista's slowness I was to suggest that the buy a new machine? I think it would be, and I think suggesting that similar web bloat be fixed by a faster internet connection is a perfect analog.
Bad analogy. Police don't provide security, they maintain control. The military may provide security, but only for itself. As for intelligence agencies, they are largely a misnomer. So in the end all you have is yourself, and your community.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point, and I agree. I also realize that the full cycle cost for coal does not factor any of the environmental damage done (mercury poisoning, etc.) in the mining and burning of coal. So you can either demand that everything somehow account for all of the externalities, or you don't do it on any of them. But to demand it on nuclear and not do it for any of the status quo systems will not ever show nuclear to be economically viable. Personally I am willing to pay more for electricity from nuclear plants.
In this day and age.
I'll second this. I'm an architect and have a friend who is also an architect who had a plan to add to his existing house using some shipping containers. After drawing the detailed plans, the city refused to permit (I'm not sure exactly why, but he scrapped the idea). You'll want to put together a fairly detailed set of drawings, calling out the shipping container (or other shell), how it is finished, insulated, how the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems interact, the windows and exits (for life and safety code), etc. I would make sure to have all the decisions made before I started, and consult with the various engineers (MEP, structural, civil) before going to the permitting authority. The biggest deal (depending on your location I suppose) is the insulation. If you can rely on passive solar for heat and you can find some good heat storage mechanism (I'd recommend water) then you may be able to get by with less insulation but it depends on the climate. Shipping containers seem like a great idea (as do A/C fuselage) but are very hard to insulate, esp given the limited interior size which a fur out for any reasonable insulation would make even smaller. I think you'd be better off with using recycled wood products with integral insulation (like SIPs for instance), or even rammed earth or earth block (like adobe) and doing the majority of the labor yourself.
Your nickname is apt.
Yes, the drag will increase by 10% for any 5% increase in velocity. Which was my point. To further that example take a look at the resultant power curves. Any doubling of velocity requires a quadrupling of power to overcome the drag. Again, the point is that a small change in one area (velocity) can lead to a much larger change in another (drag, power requirements).
Your thought experiment is telling. You start with an assertion, and then simply make a wild ass guess (a one percent reduction in CO2 will have little to no effect on the system). This is far less rigorous than what the climate scientists are doing.
The system is indeed resilient enough to handle CO2 as you eloquently point out. What is not so clear is if human habitation and the ecosystem it relies on is resilient enough to handle it. From what we know it appears as if it is not. Surely the earth has been in a state to support the human loving ecosystem for a very small percentage of its existence. We did not rush past that tipping point as humans in any time during our existence.
The first replier deals with the CO2 cycle nicely enough, I will second the idea that understanding the carbon cycle is fairly important to contributing to what should be a productive debate.
The troll mods I would guess are because you are implying that the report in question (the one which used the 2035 number for the glacier melt) was supposedly to use only scientific sources. In fact that working group paper by definition was to use all sorts of sources, and specifically states that as the case. I would not call the 2035 error a mere typo, but I would also not try to use it as a means to discredit the science behind the WGI (the one which deals with the actual science) report. In my mind, your post (perhaps purposefully) obfuscates this difference.
Your analogy fails, to fix it there would be two sections to the college research paper, one that deals with scientific sources and the other that includes other sources such as the media reports and public opinion. Wikipedia turns out to be a pretty good jumping off point for the second section, though any good professor would still likely mock you for stopping at Wikipedia.
All of the CO2 in the atmosphere == 100%. You cannot blame a tiny fraction (5%) for the effects caused by the whole.
This is where you lack necessary knowledge apparently. A lot of attributes of a fluidic system occur on non-linear scales. Take drag on an object moving through a fluid. It varies as a function of velocity squared. So the last 5% can have an enormous effect on the drag force. What I suggest that you do is look at heat balance in the atmosphere with CO2 levels as a variable, and the oceans as a heat storage mechanism. What the climate scientists have found is that the CO2 levels act in a non linear way on the amount of heat that is trapped by the atmosphere, and then stored in the oceans (and land as well, but water has 3 times the heat capacity of stone, and the atmosphere stores very little heat). If you do a thought experiment you could most likely prove that you could in fact blame that last 5% for some significant effects.
That's some good well thought out skepticism. Something that the "deniers" lack entirely.
Aside from this bit, which the parent addressed specifically: Arbitrarily raising the price of breathing? You raise good questions. Understand that your questions have nothing to do with the science of global warming, but with the politics of taxation. One problem that I see is that there is a large group that wishes to conflate these questions as a way to cloy the process and preserve the status quo. They are a well funded group, and hit emotional buttons in a large portion of the population who seem to lack the interest or motivation to learn about the actual climate science. What we need is some good political debate on how to deal with what the science is presenting. Until the shouting dies down this debate cannot happen.
The new DEC
Automan. A terrible show, but I watched it. I was just getting into programming and found the representations to be laughable (esp. cursor). But the 90 degree full speed corners in his car were a lot of fun.
Dubya
That's true too. And gun shops are not responsible for criminals robbing people at gun point.
it is a civil suit (where i live anyway). And it is this way purposely as otherwise the problems you present would be valid criticisms.
These questions are dealt with where I live. It is a civil and not criminal matter. The municipality is accusing you, and you are given a chance to challenge. If you were not driving your car at that time you may provide the name and address of the person who was. The private corporation has no police powers it is purely a civil matter and your legal status for driving (eg, points on your license etc.) is not affected. As for deconflicting between multiple cars in the view of the speed gun, this is the best area to challenge. Of course one of the benefits to having this be civil only is that the burden of proof is much lower. I agree that this is a problem, but I don't think it is constitutional.
Only with the most literal of readings. In reality the accuser is the city (or more problematically a company), and the camera is merely the tool used to document the traffic infraction. So as I see it the problem is that the court system is bypassed completely, though in my city the red light camera system does provide you with the opportunity to challenge, but this is not done through the normal court system as it is all privatized. I do have problems with how it is all set up, but do not believe that it is a constitutional problem.
I am interested in how speeding cameras are against the constitution. That statement itself seems clearly false. There is no right to drive, rather it is a privilege granted by the various state governments. The use of public roads (and even more so private roads) comes with absolutely no expectation of privacy with regards to the path and speed of the vehicle (contents, conversation within, etc. are clearly different). So to what constitutional right are you referring? Your attitude regarding following the rules is disturbing in light of your apparent regard for this as an unconstitutional law. If it was in fact unconstitutional, would not the patriotic person be obligated to break it?
I have read it. More than once, though I find the monologues to be quite overdone I skip most of them. I think the rape scene to which you refer happened in the Fountainhead.
Sounds like you are a rarity, I salute you.
I don't think John Galt raped anyone, perhaps you are getting confused with Howard Roark?
One other note, as you have proven not to be trolling, I did look at the referenced site, and agree with much of what is there. I do ride according to most of those suggestions. Let me ask you this, when approaching a light that is red, with a cyclist waiting to the right, do you pull up along side, or wait behind? If you are turning right which do you do? I think it is ok for a car to pull up alongside, and this happens quite often, more often than me being in the traffic cell when we get to a light as a matter of fact. What happens quite often is that a car wanting to turn right will wait until the green light and then do it expecting that the cyclist will wait for them. I agree that in the event the cyclist is later to the light it is right to wait in line, but finding cars sitting behind the cyclist in agreement is a rarity. More often than not the attitude from drivers is that cyclists should never slow a car down or be in front.
I suppose your trouble visualizing it may be because it hasn't happened to you. Car passes and just as it goes past slows down and turns without signalling. I've had barely enough time to turn right as well to avoid being hit, and on both occasions also lucky to have clear road after making the right rather than run into a parked car. These are split second events with neither time nor room to somehow pass on the left.
Nice troll hatta. Most of the time in those accidents the car is turning right after just passing the cyclist. I've seen the studies for my state, and have helped to put some of the reports together. Seems like you have a bone to pick with cyclists, some of whom are pricks out to piss off as many people who they can, none of whom deserve to die. Just like the lazy fatass drivers don't deserve to die after killing a cyclist.
Traffic does not have the right to flow with out impediment. The law of the land is that bicycles have the right to the road, share the road if you will (with the notable exception of interstate highways, and in some circumstances this is allowed but only on the shoulder). A bicycle is entitled to take up a lane, and sharing the road does not mean that the car is entitled to pass the bicycle. I have issues with how critical mass goes about its business, but as a bike commuter find it disgusting how fatasses in cars treat me while on a bike.
Would it be a troll if in response to someone complaining about Vista's slowness I was to suggest that the buy a new machine? I think it would be, and I think suggesting that similar web bloat be fixed by a faster internet connection is a perfect analog.
Bad analogy. Police don't provide security, they maintain control. The military may provide security, but only for itself. As for intelligence agencies, they are largely a misnomer. So in the end all you have is yourself, and your community.