In my opinion, let Richard Branson pay for his own frickin space port! While there are valid arguments that seaports and airports should be government funded as part of an industrial infrastructure, those arguments don't apply to spaceports, because there aren't any frickin spaceships to use them! This kind of corporate welfare needs to stop, especially for the likes of billionaire Branson.
Yes, I know the voters approved this. So what? If they think it's that important, they can donate out of their own pockets instead of their neighbors.
Cheap computers, the internet, Slashdot, the ability to have millions of people hear your whine
Radios, televisions, iPods, and cellphones
Books. Cheap affordable books
Affordable and available medicine. MRI, ultrasounds, EEG, stents, bypass surgeries, artificial knees, safe childbirth, etc
Modern dentistry, healthy teeth
Cheap eyeglasses, hearing aids
Bicycles, automobiles, airplanes, and the ability to travel the world
Cheap clothing and shoes. Underwear affordable enough to wear a clean set every day
Central heating and air conditioning
The elimination of extreme poverty and destitution
The elimination of slavery
And much much more. Industrialization has given us longer healthier and richer lives. It has made us, in real terms far wealthier than the kings of only a couple centuries past. Don't be blinded by a false nostalgia for the past. The lives of our ancestors were nasty, brutish and short.
interesting how you ignore the huge spike that nearly hits the top of that chart at the '00 mark, defying that normal schedule completely.
We must be looking at different charts then, because I see a huge spike that nearly hits the top of the chart every 100,000 years. Indee, it looks like we might be behind schedule! You can barely even SEE human history on that chart's scale.
looks like someone failed their macro and finance courses, and doesnt pay attention at all.
I have heard of theories that the money supply is the direct cause of economic growth, but only old embittered Keynesians believe it anymore. There is a correlation, of course, but no evidence of causation. In fact, a lot of evidence points the other way: the monetary supply follows economic growth. We had a couple of decades in the US where we tried to manage economic growth by twiddling the knobs of the monetary supply, but it led us into the stagflation of the 1970's. Nowadays the Fed Reserve uses a very mechanistic approach that seeks to stabilize the inflation rate at a low level, rather than trying to manipulate the economy itself. The remarkable prosperity of the 80s 90s and 00s (as compared to the rest of recorded human history) are a testament to this.
I just heard a great podcast by the late Milton Friedman on this very subject. Go listen to it at .
finally, if you cant google up any evidence showing co2 results in increased atmospheric heat retention, you have problems
You said: "temperature is related to atmospheric CO2". I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. It seems to me as if you were stating that CO2 causes changes to the temperature. I'm not finding any scientific studies arguing that CO2 is the primary causative for climate temperature change. Now that I read your statement again, I see that you are merely saying that there is some correlation.
Yes, I know that "correlation is not causation" is a tired refrain from the Evil Denialists(tm), but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Correlation is sufficient evidence to suspect causation, but it still remain insufficient to prove causation.
Before you call out the inquisition to torture me a renunciation from me, first hear me out. I am NOT saying CO2 is an inert gas and that we should be pumping gazillion tons of it in the atmosphere so we can have more pretty red sunsets. What I am saying is that CO2 has not been proven to be the primary cause for global increases in climate temperature.
In most cases, these "scientists" aren't even the scientists in the right field or discipline to be commenting on global warming as fact.
In most cases they aren't even scientists at all! What you read in the paper is a mishmash of predisgested statements interspersed with redacted quotes out of context. When you see the statement "scientists say...", you can rest assured that that is NOT what scientists say.
Please tell us what wer'e supposed to believe then. The story keeps changing. I want to believe whatever the papers tell me "scientists say...", but what "scientists say..." keeps changing! Is the sea going to rise eight inches, eight feet or eight meters? Will it happen in one year, ten years or a century? Does global warming predict more hurricanes or fewer? Larger hurricanes or smaller? Will New York become a glacier or a desert?
The scientific method: Gather data; form hypothesis; make prediction; experiment and observe; repeat.
We have a whole mess of data, and we have a few hypothesis. The next step is to make a prediction based on a hypothesis and observe. We can't create an experiment for obvious reasons, but we can still observe. Last year there was a prediction. I don't know if it was a scientific prediction, or merely the collection fear mongering of the mainstream media (it's becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference). The prediction was that this year's hurricane season would be much much worse than last. What did we observe? A rather mild hurricane season. The prediction failed and the hypothesis has been proven false. In fact, nearly all climate predictions over the past fifty years have failed.
There are two major problems with the current climate scare. One of them I alluded to above: the media-zation of science. We are basing public policy not on science, but on what the media filters, edits and digests for public consumption. We aren't seeing the data, but are only being told "scientists say...". When you look at the actual data, you'll find that scientists aren't necessarily saying what the media says "scientists say...". A few might be, but not all. It's most definitely not consensus. The consensus is only that the climate is changing and that human beings probably have some level of affect. How much the climate is changing, what level of affect humans have on it, and what are the consequences, are NOT agreed upon in the scientific community.
The second major problem is that this is a very complex area of study. VERY complex. The models used for prediction are EXTREMELY complex. They've been doing modeling on supercomputers since the first supercomputer. Oak Ridge NL announced a new record breaking supercomputer today, and it will be used for... climate modeling. There are simply too many variables and too sensitive to initial conditions. If a butterfly can flap its wings in China and affect the weather in Canada, then we're going to need lots and lots of supercomputers to model all the butterflys.
Are these the models that predicts history's worst hurricane season? If so, they need to be seriously reworked.
1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.
China spent billions to get those billions. This is an investment for them. While they could go nuts and sell off all their US investments, the results would end up hurting them a lot more than it would hurt the US.
So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead? Could it be instead, that a large middle class arises out of freedom? That it is freedom that diminishes the power of the aristocracy while simultaneously reducing destitution?
Yes. Once they get those, then the progress will follow. Science and technology doesn't happen in a vacumn, it happens in an environment where men are free to engage in intellectual curiosity.
This program recalls to mind China's earlier experiment with statist progress. "The Great Leap Forward" was an unmitigated disaster.
Re:Lots slam OSS for being useless and buggy
on
Thailand Bans YouTube
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Wait until the next story on what operating systems the various presidential candidate websites use, then you'll see how tightly bolted to the skull those Slashdot blinders are.
"OMG! Hitler's running Feisty Fawn! Go vote now! Oooh! The website licensed under GPLv3! Quick, go vote for his Final Solution before I cream my pants again!"
No one wants to spend ten hours a day bent over picking tomatoes. I've done it, and it sucks. But if you can import some illegal aliens who you can pay less than minimum wage, then you can stay under the shade of the progressivist veranda drinking mint juleps and weeping for the plight of the poor.
As student in computer engineering I have never been asked to write a paper.
What!?!? No reading and composition classes? No literature, history or philosophy? No humanity courses at all? No science classes where you have to write reports? What a shallow education you are getting.
I've been saying that since day one. Get tough as nails about illegal immigration, but otherwise give visas to anyone who has a job lined up, valid as long as they are employed.
And then you'll start seeing everyone's hypocrisy rising to the surface! The "pro-immigration" crowd is okay with immigration as long as it's poor Mexicans wanting the jobs "no one else wants", but they'll scream bloody murder when it's middle class Indians after *their* jobs.
I am in the situation where I have to use WEP. I would love to use VPN, but I have no idea how. What little networking knowledge I possess tells me that the other side of the connection has to be using VPN as well. If I can't run a dedicated VPN proxy server, then how the heck do I use VPN? How do I use VPN to get my email? Checkin code to SVN servers? Talk with boss over IM? Read Slashdot on my lunch break?
I said "most", not "all". Do you even know how to read?
To take just one tiny example, from this evening's headline: Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys, Bush only fired 8. But guess who's getting rake over the rusty razor blades for it?
Except that the EPA wasn't refusing to enforce the statute. What it was doing was not using the statute as grounds for not regulating emissions. This is very strange when you think about it. It's the SCOTUS equivalent of having to go back to the end of the line at the DMV because you filled out the wrong form.
Your'e not making any sense. If the CO2 drives out all of the oxygen, then it's harmful. Otherwise it's just as safe as nitrogen. Are you suggesting that nitrogen be regulated as a pollutant as well? Water vapor (THE major greenhouse gas)? Helium (thing of the children and their balloons)?
By your argument, EVERYTHING is a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA!
Precisely. The law is not a one way street. Most of the executive powers that make people "fear" Bush were in place during the Clinton administration. Take them away from Bush and you also take them away from any future Democrat presidents. That's why so much of the Democrat congress are acting so strangely: they want those laws, powers, and abuses in place when one of their own finally gets back in the White House.
I know that many of you are cheering that the SCOTUS turned Green and environmentalist, but that's not the case. This ruling isn't about global warming, or carbon, or even Al Gore's haircut. The ruling merely says that an executive department must stay within the bounds of a legislative statute. That the department happens to be the EPA and the statute the Clean Air Act is merely incidental.
To quote: "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."
Slashdot Mirror
The risk to reward ratio is pretty good on this one.
If the ratio is so great, how come Branson isn't willing to fund it himself? If it was a good investment, I would be investing with MY cash!
In my opinion, let Richard Branson pay for his own frickin space port! While there are valid arguments that seaports and airports should be government funded as part of an industrial infrastructure, those arguments don't apply to spaceports, because there aren't any frickin spaceships to use them! This kind of corporate welfare needs to stop, especially for the likes of billionaire Branson.
Yes, I know the voters approved this. So what? If they think it's that important, they can donate out of their own pockets instead of their neighbors.
I beg your pardon? I used the word "men" as the generic noun referring to human beings of both genders.
And much much more. Industrialization has given us longer healthier and richer lives. It has made us, in real terms far wealthier than the kings of only a couple centuries past. Don't be blinded by a false nostalgia for the past. The lives of our ancestors were nasty, brutish and short.
interesting how you ignore the huge spike that nearly hits the top of that chart at the '00 mark, defying that normal schedule completely.
We must be looking at different charts then, because I see a huge spike that nearly hits the top of the chart every 100,000 years. Indee, it looks like we might be behind schedule! You can barely even SEE human history on that chart's scale.
looks like someone failed their macro and finance courses, and doesnt pay attention at all.
I have heard of theories that the money supply is the direct cause of economic growth, but only old embittered Keynesians believe it anymore. There is a correlation, of course, but no evidence of causation. In fact, a lot of evidence points the other way: the monetary supply follows economic growth. We had a couple of decades in the US where we tried to manage economic growth by twiddling the knobs of the monetary supply, but it led us into the stagflation of the 1970's. Nowadays the Fed Reserve uses a very mechanistic approach that seeks to stabilize the inflation rate at a low level, rather than trying to manipulate the economy itself. The remarkable prosperity of the 80s 90s and 00s (as compared to the rest of recorded human history) are a testament to this.
I just heard a great podcast by the late Milton Friedman on this very subject. Go listen to it at .
finally, if you cant google up any evidence showing co2 results in increased atmospheric heat retention, you have problems
You said: "temperature is related to atmospheric CO2". I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. It seems to me as if you were stating that CO2 causes changes to the temperature. I'm not finding any scientific studies arguing that CO2 is the primary causative for climate temperature change. Now that I read your statement again, I see that you are merely saying that there is some correlation.
Yes, I know that "correlation is not causation" is a tired refrain from the Evil Denialists(tm), but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Correlation is sufficient evidence to suspect causation, but it still remain insufficient to prove causation.
Before you call out the inquisition to torture me a renunciation from me, first hear me out. I am NOT saying CO2 is an inert gas and that we should be pumping gazillion tons of it in the atmosphere so we can have more pretty red sunsets. What I am saying is that CO2 has not been proven to be the primary cause for global increases in climate temperature.
In most cases, these "scientists" aren't even the scientists in the right field or discipline to be commenting on global warming as fact.
In most cases they aren't even scientists at all! What you read in the paper is a mishmash of predisgested statements interspersed with redacted quotes out of context. When you see the statement "scientists say...", you can rest assured that that is NOT what scientists say.
here's a chart,
Nice chart. Interesting how it shows a cyclic pattern. Interesting how it shows we're in a warming period right on schedule.
remember temperature is related to atmospheric co2 in the same way economic growth is related to money supply.
Huh? What ass did you pull that one out of. Not only is it wrong climatologically, it's wrong economically.
You have doubted the received wisdom of Al Gore, and will now be categorized as a holocaust denier, flatearther, and moonlanding conspiracist.
Please tell us what wer'e supposed to believe then. The story keeps changing. I want to believe whatever the papers tell me "scientists say...", but what "scientists say..." keeps changing! Is the sea going to rise eight inches, eight feet or eight meters? Will it happen in one year, ten years or a century? Does global warming predict more hurricanes or fewer? Larger hurricanes or smaller? Will New York become a glacier or a desert?
The scientific method: Gather data; form hypothesis; make prediction; experiment and observe; repeat.
We have a whole mess of data, and we have a few hypothesis. The next step is to make a prediction based on a hypothesis and observe. We can't create an experiment for obvious reasons, but we can still observe. Last year there was a prediction. I don't know if it was a scientific prediction, or merely the collection fear mongering of the mainstream media (it's becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference). The prediction was that this year's hurricane season would be much much worse than last. What did we observe? A rather mild hurricane season. The prediction failed and the hypothesis has been proven false. In fact, nearly all climate predictions over the past fifty years have failed.
There are two major problems with the current climate scare. One of them I alluded to above: the media-zation of science. We are basing public policy not on science, but on what the media filters, edits and digests for public consumption. We aren't seeing the data, but are only being told "scientists say...". When you look at the actual data, you'll find that scientists aren't necessarily saying what the media says "scientists say...". A few might be, but not all. It's most definitely not consensus. The consensus is only that the climate is changing and that human beings probably have some level of affect. How much the climate is changing, what level of affect humans have on it, and what are the consequences, are NOT agreed upon in the scientific community.
The second major problem is that this is a very complex area of study. VERY complex. The models used for prediction are EXTREMELY complex. They've been doing modeling on supercomputers since the first supercomputer. Oak Ridge NL announced a new record breaking supercomputer today, and it will be used for... climate modeling. There are simply too many variables and too sensitive to initial conditions. If a butterfly can flap its wings in China and affect the weather in Canada, then we're going to need lots and lots of supercomputers to model all the butterflys.
Are these the models that predicts history's worst hurricane season? If so, they need to be seriously reworked.
1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.
China spent billions to get those billions. This is an investment for them. While they could go nuts and sell off all their US investments, the results would end up hurting them a lot more than it would hurt the US.
So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead? Could it be instead, that a large middle class arises out of freedom? That it is freedom that diminishes the power of the aristocracy while simultaneously reducing destitution?
Yes. Once they get those, then the progress will follow. Science and technology doesn't happen in a vacumn, it happens in an environment where men are free to engage in intellectual curiosity.
This program recalls to mind China's earlier experiment with statist progress. "The Great Leap Forward" was an unmitigated disaster.
Wait until the next story on what operating systems the various presidential candidate websites use, then you'll see how tightly bolted to the skull those Slashdot blinders are.
"OMG! Hitler's running Feisty Fawn! Go vote now! Oooh! The website licensed under GPLv3! Quick, go vote for his Final Solution before I cream my pants again!"
No one wants to spend ten hours a day bent over picking tomatoes. I've done it, and it sucks. But if you can import some illegal aliens who you can pay less than minimum wage, then you can stay under the shade of the progressivist veranda drinking mint juleps and weeping for the plight of the poor.
As student in computer engineering I have never been asked to write a paper.
What!?!? No reading and composition classes? No literature, history or philosophy? No humanity courses at all? No science classes where you have to write reports? What a shallow education you are getting.
I've been saying that since day one. Get tough as nails about illegal immigration, but otherwise give visas to anyone who has a job lined up, valid as long as they are employed.
And then you'll start seeing everyone's hypocrisy rising to the surface! The "pro-immigration" crowd is okay with immigration as long as it's poor Mexicans wanting the jobs "no one else wants", but they'll scream bloody murder when it's middle class Indians after *their* jobs.
"Won't someone Do Something(tm)! There Ought to be a Law(tm)! Think of the Children(tm)!"
What if the EPA said they don't have the authority to regulate pharmaceuticals? Would you call that "just an excuse"?
I am in the situation where I have to use WEP. I would love to use VPN, but I have no idea how. What little networking knowledge I possess tells me that the other side of the connection has to be using VPN as well. If I can't run a dedicated VPN proxy server, then how the heck do I use VPN? How do I use VPN to get my email? Checkin code to SVN servers? Talk with boss over IM? Read Slashdot on my lunch break?
I'm missing a key part of the puzzle here...
I said "most", not "all". Do you even know how to read?
To take just one tiny example, from this evening's headline: Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys, Bush only fired 8. But guess who's getting rake over the rusty razor blades for it?
Except that the EPA wasn't refusing to enforce the statute. What it was doing was not using the statute as grounds for not regulating emissions. This is very strange when you think about it. It's the SCOTUS equivalent of having to go back to the end of the line at the DMV because you filled out the wrong form.
Your'e not making any sense. If the CO2 drives out all of the oxygen, then it's harmful. Otherwise it's just as safe as nitrogen. Are you suggesting that nitrogen be regulated as a pollutant as well? Water vapor (THE major greenhouse gas)? Helium (thing of the children and their balloons)?
By your argument, EVERYTHING is a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA!
Precisely. The law is not a one way street. Most of the executive powers that make people "fear" Bush were in place during the Clinton administration. Take them away from Bush and you also take them away from any future Democrat presidents. That's why so much of the Democrat congress are acting so strangely: they want those laws, powers, and abuses in place when one of their own finally gets back in the White House.
I know that many of you are cheering that the SCOTUS turned Green and environmentalist, but that's not the case. This ruling isn't about global warming, or carbon, or even Al Gore's haircut. The ruling merely says that an executive department must stay within the bounds of a legislative statute. That the department happens to be the EPA and the statute the Clean Air Act is merely incidental.
To quote: "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."