We are one of the highest taxing countries in the world. It is cheaper for folks to do business elsewhere.
I agree with your point that zero taxes are also bad. We need government like we need air to breathe and governments need money to operate. Right now we are over taxed and we over spend.
One of the results of over taxation is outsourcing, of people, jobs and businesses. Make it affordable to do business here and you will see an increase in revenues, and jobs.
The best analogy is a sub way system. If you raise rates, you lower participation. People take cars or do something else. Lower rates, and more people ride == more revenue. Yes, you can lower it to where revenue will drop. It's a curve. But you raise it too much, and you will loose revenue.
A business works the same way, if prices are hiked, demand will be reduced and there will be fewer sales. It's the old adage, I'd rather take a large sack of coins to the bank than a handful of cash.
Not all obligations would stop being fulfilled. There will still be cash flow. Somethings would not receive any money, yes, but we can prioritize our debts, and pay the ones that have the most impact on our government (i.e. interest on debt, bonds, etc). It's what normal people have to do.
So...lets get on with it. We need to stop spending so much money in places that have no value. Leave the debt ceiling where it is and let's face the music now instead of later. Raising taxes will only further DECREASE revenue. That's right, if you drop that gear into 4th while going up a hill, it's only going to stall your engine.
STOP SPENDING! Just stop spending, cut the budget to fit what monies we have.
It will be missed. The space shuttle had amazing capabilities. We should have improved on this design. We are going backwards not forward with these new Apollo like designs. We need a space shuttle, we need to improve the space shuttle by learning to use the atmosphere to aid in lifting things into orbit. This requires wings.
The payload capability of the space shuttle is incredible. As far as I know, we don't have anything on the drawing board to match it.
I agree with the cancellation of the shuttle program, it was very expensive, but the problem comes from not having the guts to go and improve on the shuttle concept. We are taking a step backwards.
I don't know if we'd have the images and science we have today w/o the shuttle. Look at the Hubble. How many times was that thing fixed because we had the shuttle? I mean, we pulled up along side a satellite, pulled it into our flying repair shop, fixed it and redeployed it. How cool is that?
I disagree...working with QNX and paying customers has been nice. Their applications engineers are very helpful and will go the extra mile to get developers what they need.
We've had great experiences with them.
I remember there was a time there would be professionally managed mainframes that companies would then use to do things with on a timeshare basis. Seems that 'Cloud' computing is more or less a return to that model.
>When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.
The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.
>Again, I've repeatedly stressed that science democratic.
I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.
We the folks are trying to examine both sides of this sometimes hard to understand argument, and when one dismisses the other with words such as "science isn't democratic", then (in my view) you've left their arguments unanswered and your credibility questioned.
Like I said, I have more reading to do, I'm sure we'll be speaking again.
I'm not claiming giant conspiracies amongst scientists, however, I think the author raises some valid points that require further explanation.
There was once a time when it was consciences that the earth was flat. A didn't take a scientist to prove them wrong. Okay, I understand that we are much more sophisticated in sorting out what is truth and what is not. But I also wish to point out that there was a time were all sorts of "models" that accurately predicted the movement of celestial bodies under premise that the earth was in the center of the galaxy. One notable multi-disciplined individual begged to differ. We know what happened to him when he did.
Bottom line? I naturally wary scientific "consciences". It doesn't exist. So until the views of the educated and qualified folks who don't write for the New Scientist are addressed w/o name calling (i.e. skeptics) I think it is utter foolishness to consider the science settled. Anyone who doesn't take into account and rejects the views of qualified folks in order to establish scientific theory as consciences should be regarded with suspicion.
By the way, the loss of glaciers are non-events. It has occurred before and will occur again.
Until scientists models start predicting the future accurately, GW is going to be a hard sell.
I will agree with you that I certainly have more reading to do. However, I must say that the New Scientist is not he end all be all and neither is it a final authority. It is troubling to me that you reject papers from other peer-reviewed journals (as seems apparent in one of the responses to posts to your article). It raises questions in my mind why include some and exclude others.
Bottom line, there are too many creditable people who argue against your point of view. The most prominent and surprising is Claude Allegre, who was one of the first to warn about man-mande global warming. He has sense recanted and now considers global warming to be:
The main problem I have with your position is the incessant manipulation of temperature data by those who really believe in global warming. This article points this out.
How can we believe these pretty charts when temperature data is so easily manipulated?
Sunlight makes ozone, in the winter time, there is very little, it starts to go away. In the summer, it comes back. Wow, you know, if I remember correctly, we didn't notice the hole previously mostly because we couldn't see it until fairly recently (last 40-50 years or so?). I wonder what the ozone hole would have looked like if we had the ability to tack it 100 years ago.
The idea that we affected it in the first place is another example of the arrogance us human beings have. The earth is a heck of a lot more resilient than we give it credit.
How would you explain the obvious temperature "adjustments" NASA makes to it's data to fit global warming theory (linked in my original post).
Go Bush, it was about time someone stood up for people instead of the environment for once. We're natural too.
The inaccuracies and tampering being done by some folks at NASA and elsewhere is not only dangerous to freedom, but undermining the credibility of good scientists and shouldn't be tolerated.
You are implied they are biased. The folks claiming global warming are financed by their respective governments. Governments seem to be always looking for new ways to raise revenues. Why can't government be biased? What evidence do you have that supports the idea that government agencies are neutral?
It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians. Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance'
The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong. No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined. The models aren't working. It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about. Here is an article that illustrates this problem.
The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.
You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer. Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth. Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality , and the regular folks understand that.
What if the earth was making hydrocarbons in abundance?
I think it is referred to as a-biotic production. There is a TON of heat, and pressure below the crust of the earth. It makes sense to me that this could be occurring. What going to happen when we figure out that we aren't going to run out of oil?
I think there was a paper published by Western WA University Spokane, but I'm not sure where to find it today.
Kevin
Why have temperatures since 2001 basically flalined? And why is there so many adjustments and modifications made to the data resulting in so much disparity between the pretty graphs 'proving' we're warming?
I reject the premise that the world is broken to the point that we need to leave it.
This earth has an amazing ability to fix itself. Take a look at Chernobyl, life is flourishing there where there was massive radiation at one point. Humans have to get over themselves. Life has been here long before we were and it will be here long after we're gone.
We have to get over the CO2 thing too, we exhale the stuff for crying out loud. Most plants love the stuff, have you noticed?
If the flash drive fails, yes you can continue to read from it, but you also have to consider what is meant by reading.
You can always read the raw data from the device, that will never change. There is nothing that prevents the electrical signals from forming a proper read transaction on the IO pins of the flash IC chip.
However, when you consider the software that is on top of the raw data (a file system for example), this is where you will have the trouble.
With older CF cards, the concept of wear leveling was not implemented, I don't know about newer ones. This being the case, the directory structure for a file would more than likely reside in the same physical location on the flash. Opening, writing, closing a file with the same name would no doubt wear that space out as the directory entry gets hammered. Once that has "worn out", data is lost because the file system can no longer track it (even though the actual data may be viable).
Also consider the device that does support wear leveling. At some point it will run out of places to wear. Some large files will remain static and won't move (they are only read), some files will be moved all over the device by the device's ASIC as the data in the file is updated or changed. At some point, the flash will run out of cells. This could happen as some critical directory entry is being updated, and the whole file system could be corrupted because there are no more viable flash cells to use.
Your data might still be there is all its binary glory, but w/o a viable file system data structure to access it, well, you're toast. Unlike a harddrive that burped and lost a few bytes, a worn out flash drive has no recordable medium available to do any file system data structure repairs.
There are a number of places where it has been graphed, just google "t2lt" or dump it in excel.
My big question is that I've seen NASA graphs that look far more damaging than what the raw data shows. This has been of concern to me as I do not understand why there is such a difference. In looking around, I found this article that discusses this point.
I'm very concerned that the whole global warming argument is really about money, not protecting the planet. Like the above article says, taking the temperature of the planet isn't rocket science.
I remain unconvinced, I would like to see what happens to global temperatures for the next couple of years.
If the climatologists are correct and we don't do anything, the consequences will be hard to bear.
If the climatologists are wrong and we act like they are right, the consequences will be hard to bear.
We have to this right...let's keep the debate going, it's very important.
Kevin
Very glad they are doing this. It sends a message to those who spend a lot of time creating something that they have recourse if someone tries to steal their ideas.
It sends a strong message to those who would steal something that is not theirs that they better think twice.
We have to have consequences or economic progress is stifled.
Now if we could only recognize that taxes are a form of theft, not only do non-producers approve, they legitimize using guns and force to collect them.
Slashdot Mirror
Bond market is not worried about the possibility of raising the debt limit. The rates are still effectively zero.
Never said it would be easy or painless, only necessary.
We are one of the highest taxing countries in the world. It is cheaper for folks to do business elsewhere.
I agree with your point that zero taxes are also bad. We need government like we need air to breathe and governments need money to operate. Right now we are over taxed and we over spend.
One of the results of over taxation is outsourcing, of people, jobs and businesses. Make it affordable to do business here and you will see an increase in revenues, and jobs.
The best analogy is a sub way system. If you raise rates, you lower participation. People take cars or do something else. Lower rates, and more people ride == more revenue. Yes, you can lower it to where revenue will drop. It's a curve. But you raise it too much, and you will loose revenue.
A business works the same way, if prices are hiked, demand will be reduced and there will be fewer sales. It's the old adage, I'd rather take a large sack of coins to the bank than a handful of cash.
Not all obligations would stop being fulfilled. There will still be cash flow. Somethings would not receive any money, yes, but we can prioritize our debts, and pay the ones that have the most impact on our government (i.e. interest on debt, bonds, etc). It's what normal people have to do.
So...lets get on with it. We need to stop spending so much money in places that have no value. Leave the debt ceiling where it is and let's face the music now instead of later. Raising taxes will only further DECREASE revenue. That's right, if you drop that gear into 4th while going up a hill, it's only going to stall your engine.
STOP SPENDING! Just stop spending, cut the budget to fit what monies we have.
It will be missed. The space shuttle had amazing capabilities. We should have improved on this design. We are going backwards not forward with these new Apollo like designs. We need a space shuttle, we need to improve the space shuttle by learning to use the atmosphere to aid in lifting things into orbit. This requires wings.
The payload capability of the space shuttle is incredible. As far as I know, we don't have anything on the drawing board to match it.
I agree with the cancellation of the shuttle program, it was very expensive, but the problem comes from not having the guts to go and improve on the shuttle concept. We are taking a step backwards.
I don't know if we'd have the images and science we have today w/o the shuttle. Look at the Hubble. How many times was that thing fixed because we had the shuttle? I mean, we pulled up along side a satellite, pulled it into our flying repair shop, fixed it and redeployed it. How cool is that?
I disagree...working with QNX and paying customers has been nice. Their applications engineers are very helpful and will go the extra mile to get developers what they need. We've had great experiences with them.
You know...plants do it, why can't we? I love it.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
....what they used to call timeshare.
I remember there was a time there would be professionally managed mainframes that companies would then use to do things with on a timeshare basis. Seems that 'Cloud' computing is more or less a return to that model.
Funny how things never seem to change.
>When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.
The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.
>Again, I've repeatedly stressed that science democratic.
I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.
We the folks are trying to examine both sides of this sometimes hard to understand argument, and when one dismisses the other with words such as "science isn't democratic", then (in my view) you've left their arguments unanswered and your credibility questioned.
Like I said, I have more reading to do, I'm sure we'll be speaking again.
Best Regards...
I'm not claiming giant conspiracies amongst scientists, however, I think the author raises some valid points that require further explanation.
There was once a time when it was consciences that the earth was flat. A didn't take a scientist to prove them wrong. Okay, I understand that we are much more sophisticated in sorting out what is truth and what is not. But I also wish to point out that there was a time were all sorts of "models" that accurately predicted the movement of celestial bodies under premise that the earth was in the center of the galaxy. One notable multi-disciplined individual begged to differ. We know what happened to him when he did.
Bottom line? I naturally wary scientific "consciences". It doesn't exist. So until the views of the educated and qualified folks who don't write for the New Scientist are addressed w/o name calling (i.e. skeptics) I think it is utter foolishness to consider the science settled. Anyone who doesn't take into account and rejects the views of qualified folks in order to establish scientific theory as consciences should be regarded with suspicion.
By the way, the loss of glaciers are non-events. It has occurred before and will occur again.
Until scientists models start predicting the future accurately, GW is going to be a hard sell.
I will agree with you that I certainly have more reading to do. However, I must say that the New Scientist is not he end all be all and neither is it a final authority. It is troubling to me that you reject papers from other peer-reviewed journals (as seems apparent in one of the responses to posts to your article). It raises questions in my mind why include some and exclude others.
Bottom line, there are too many creditable people who argue against your point of view. The most prominent and surprising is Claude Allegre, who was one of the first to warn about man-mande global warming. He has sense recanted and now considers global warming to be:
"...over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank." (see Allegre's second thoughts
I look forward to a continued lively debate on the subject.
The main problem I have with your position is the incessant manipulation of temperature data by those who really believe in global warming. This article points this out. How can we believe these pretty charts when temperature data is so easily manipulated?
Last link in my original post. It is the lower troposphere temperature readings.
Sunlight makes ozone, in the winter time, there is very little, it starts to go away. In the summer, it comes back. Wow, you know, if I remember correctly, we didn't notice the hole previously mostly because we couldn't see it until fairly recently (last 40-50 years or so?). I wonder what the ozone hole would have looked like if we had the ability to tack it 100 years ago.
The idea that we affected it in the first place is another example of the arrogance us human beings have. The earth is a heck of a lot more resilient than we give it credit.
How would you explain the obvious temperature "adjustments" NASA makes to it's data to fit global warming theory (linked in my original post).
Go Bush, it was about time someone stood up for people instead of the environment for once. We're natural too.
The inaccuracies and tampering being done by some folks at NASA and elsewhere is not only dangerous to freedom, but undermining the credibility of good scientists and shouldn't be tolerated.
You are implied they are biased. The folks claiming global warming are financed by their respective governments. Governments seem to be always looking for new ways to raise revenues. Why can't government be biased? What evidence do you have that supports the idea that government agencies are neutral?
It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians. Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance'
The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong. No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined. The models aren't working. It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about. Here is an article that illustrates this problem.
The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.
You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer. Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth. Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality , and the regular folks understand that.
Kevin
Hmmm...so they've figured out that storing hydrogen with carbon is actually a great idea.
Funny, the earth has being doing that for billions of years. Man, it sure takes us awhile to catch on.
What if the earth was making hydrocarbons in abundance? I think it is referred to as a-biotic production. There is a TON of heat, and pressure below the crust of the earth. It makes sense to me that this could be occurring. What going to happen when we figure out that we aren't going to run out of oil? I think there was a paper published by Western WA University Spokane, but I'm not sure where to find it today. Kevin
Why have temperatures since 2001 basically flalined? And why is there so many adjustments and modifications made to the data resulting in so much disparity between the pretty graphs 'proving' we're warming?
I mention it in a previous post here
I reject the premise that the world is broken to the point that we need to leave it.
This earth has an amazing ability to fix itself. Take a look at Chernobyl, life is flourishing there where there was massive radiation at one point. Humans have to get over themselves. Life has been here long before we were and it will be here long after we're gone.
We have to get over the CO2 thing too, we exhale the stuff for crying out loud. Most plants love the stuff, have you noticed?
If the flash drive fails, yes you can continue to read from it, but you also have to consider what is meant by reading.
You can always read the raw data from the device, that will never change. There is nothing that prevents the electrical signals from forming a proper read transaction on the IO pins of the flash IC chip.
However, when you consider the software that is on top of the raw data (a file system for example), this is where you will have the trouble.
With older CF cards, the concept of wear leveling was not implemented, I don't know about newer ones. This being the case, the directory structure for a file would more than likely reside in the same physical location on the flash. Opening, writing, closing a file with the same name would no doubt wear that space out as the directory entry gets hammered. Once that has "worn out", data is lost because the file system can no longer track it (even though the actual data may be viable).
Also consider the device that does support wear leveling. At some point it will run out of places to wear. Some large files will remain static and won't move (they are only read), some files will be moved all over the device by the device's ASIC as the data in the file is updated or changed. At some point, the flash will run out of cells. This could happen as some critical directory entry is being updated, and the whole file system could be corrupted because there are no more viable flash cells to use.
Your data might still be there is all its binary glory, but w/o a viable file system data structure to access it, well, you're toast. Unlike a harddrive that burped and lost a few bytes, a worn out flash drive has no recordable medium available to do any file system data structure repairs.
Kevin
I found a link to raw NOAA satellite data
There are a number of places where it has been graphed, just google "t2lt" or dump it in excel.
My big question is that I've seen NASA graphs that look far more damaging than what the raw data shows. This has been of concern to me as I do not understand why there is such a difference. In looking around, I found this article that discusses this point.
I'm very concerned that the whole global warming argument is really about money, not protecting the planet. Like the above article says, taking the temperature of the planet isn't rocket science.
I remain unconvinced, I would like to see what happens to global temperatures for the next couple of years.
If the climatologists are correct and we don't do anything, the consequences will be hard to bear.
If the climatologists are wrong and we act like they are right, the consequences will be hard to bear.
We have to this right...let's keep the debate going, it's very important.
Kevin
Very glad they are doing this. It sends a message to those who spend a lot of time creating something that they have recourse if someone tries to steal their ideas.
It sends a strong message to those who would steal something that is not theirs that they better think twice.
We have to have consequences or economic progress is stifled.
Now if we could only recognize that taxes are a form of theft, not only do non-producers approve, they legitimize using guns and force to collect them.
That, my friends, is what should concern you.
Kevin
...just over 50% of Americans believe so-called global warming is a problem.
The 47% that got things right falls nicely with the 41% who have figured out that global warming is a scam.
Hopefully as Americans get more educated, they'll recognize another financial scam when they see one.
Kevin