Even more insightful - the conservatives essentially support in various guises a plutocracy, while the liberals have trouble deciding which of several agendas they most prefer - and thus the consistency of the recent conservative ascendency over the 'waffling' liberals. (Of course, the conservatives have managed to coopt the religious conservatives as a power base, apparently because they both use the word "conservative" and both favor centralized control, but it's pretty funny, because mostly these two groups are diametrically opposed, or at least orthogonal in their real goals).
...because it's clumsy and esthetically unappealing. You used both words in grammatically correct ways, but it took your correcting comment for even me to see it (and I unfortunately look at my students using these words incorrectly all the time). Good writing is more than correct grammar usage. Correct grammar is merely the necessary foundation. Think poetry, think great dialog. Think of some terribly written book you've suffered through. Even most of the last have correct grammar because most books (except some computer books;-)) have editors who go through and clean up the grammar and try to clean up some of the writing.
For those worried about gov't erosion of civil liberties, well, no computers, no cell phones, maybe no electronics - I guess that about takes care of the problem, nothing to worry about, case closed.
Nice job, everyone.
(Too bad it'll just be ignored. I can see it now - as usual - oh, yeah, the law is the law, and everyone must obey it, unless of course it inconveniences us.)
Going to a movie theatre doesn't include a hidden bug at the start of the movie that confirms to some marketing droid that I'm a real person and they should feel free to spam my future visits with an extra 30 minutes of commercials before the movie starts.
That's funny. Seems like I've been seeing about 30 minutes of commercials before most of the movies I've been to.
Really good shows have great writers, cast, production. Those are based on some small number of people who actually have the gumption to create a vision (it has to be a popular one with fans, with a bit of actor charisma thrown in, admittedly). Why does anyone like shows by Joss Whedon, say? He can actually write, and then he gets that writing on film.
The parent should not be modded all the way to +5 Interesting. Humorous, maybe. The real truth, at least for MY body, is that less sleep, that is, less efficient body functioning, means that my body has to make up the energy somewhere else. Where? With food. If I have plenty of sleep, less food is needed; if I'm running on sleep deficit, I get very hungry; if I'm skipping both food and sleep (very bad, I try to avoid it), I have often gotten sick. I don't know if this has been checked in a wide-scale study with many types of people, but they do know there's less growth hormone released, less efficient memory processing, and other decreases in healing speed and body functioning with too little sleep. And caffeine is like punching up the adreneline - it works for awhile, but ultimately you end up being more tired.
Your comment is at bottom true, but also pretty stupid.
Pretty often, we're trading in some pretty nice species and habitat, say an entire continent of elm trees, for some pretty 'nothing' replacement, like a bug or a fungus.
"Invasive" essentially means fast. Some species ruins the living conditions for another too fast for the second to adapt to it. Thus,
the crappy species takes over in a time measured in years, in a single person's memory, while the adaptation and comeback takes centuries, in a time measured at its shortest in human generations.
And what if the invasive species is a human parasite, like some of those that live in the Nile River, or the SARS virus (you know, the HIV virus is an 'invasive' organism) - you gonna be so blase if one of them comes to live in your nice "civilized" section of the world? Hey, it's just natural selection.
It's great the photos are there, but as an example, those for Houston, a major city, are greater than 7 years old - a lot of development and changes therefore are missing. It's probably the same for most of them.
Chaos now has a relatively precise meaning in science - that very small, perhaps nearly invisible, initial conditions can produce, under some conditions, disproportionately large divergences in outcomes. But, if understood, this can make a system more, not less, predictable, for there are patterns to the kinds of changes that happen. The weather pattern over the earth is not well-understood, by any means, but we know at least two things - mankind is doing things that, theoretically, could produce a warmer earth, AND, the earth is getting warmer. Causality, or, more to the point, the importance of other factors affecting said causality, is not irrefutably established, but caution definitely would advise some courses of action over others. Those who say we don't understand so should do nothing are worse than B.F. Skinner, who in his time said, essentially, we don't understand the brain's workings, so we won't even try to investigate it. They have their heads in the sand, and are not doing any thinking worthy of the name. (And they may be pushing some sort of other agenda, and are hoping you are too stupid to think for yourself.) You don't light a fire in your house, and then notice the temperature rising, and claim "the proof isn't in yet, so I'll just keep burning!"
Actually, we briefly sent troops into northern Russia during the civil war in Russia after WWI. That's why the Russian Communists were so distrustful of us.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter here if the sea has gone up and down many times. And which scientists have you (actually) been talking to? If the sea goes up enough now it's a catastrophe - for man. We have a lot of very expensive coastal real estate a lot of people are going to be bent on keeping dry, if possible. And we are taxing the environment as a whole pretty heavily to feed 6 billion people. Large climate changes will mean a) that we probably won't be able to do all 6 billion for a bit, or b) we will have to make very large (and thus given the scale, very 'quick') and therefore very expensive adjustments on getting the food from somewhere new on the globe as arable land areas shift around. Whole civilizations have come into being (China) in order to deal with the flooding of one river (Yellow River). Whole civilizations, and much smaller ones than ours, have collapsed when their food production did. And you think having the ocean flood is not the most important news you've recently heard? Exactly how are you defining "fringe"?
The poster's comments about ideologues is dead-on. The scientific consensus is that much of the effect of global warming is due to man's civilization. That does not mean there are no dissenters, or that various scientistics do not dispute various details. That's the way science works. Note the "increasingly strong evidence" phrase.
As for your comment "not been proven mathematically" - proof is a word that is most apt to describe the mathematical chain of reasoning used. Does it follow accepted mathematical rules? But when math is used in science, its job is to model reality-based processes. To do this evidence must be used. If the input facts are incorrect or incomplete, or even inappropriate (not relevant to the process that a researcher is trying to model), and/or the process being studied is incorrectly modeled, conclusions based on that model are garbage (not to say a great deal can't be learned from them, which is ideally going in to making a new and improved model). Out of pure physics, there are very nice mathematical models of the "standard model" of particle physics, and also now of string theory. Which is right? Who knows? There isn't enough confirming evidence yet.
In other words, whether it has been "mathematically proven" is both irrelevant and an argument meant to obfuscate. (Whether it has been mathematically modeled, on the other hand, is very much to the point.) Scientists in various disciplines are in basic agreement on lots of their discipline's evidence and that it is 'true', pending further evidence, but may not be able to contain said evidence in an adequate mathematical model. But most actual working climatologists have already decided what the evidence represents. That is not what they are debating, but rather the 'how', 'how much', and 'when'. I'm sorry you disagree, but it means you either have not been reading the actual scientists' work, or are deliberately ignoring it.
It is always amazing to me how little so many people understand the process of science, or what the concepts of "theory" and "model" do, especially when those people are engineers or otherwise technically sophisticated.
Is there anyone besides me that thinks this might not be such a Good Thing? How long will Google remain good with [some unknown number of] rich investors snapping constantly at their heels to make PROFITS!, PROFITS!, PROFITS!
Might be time to begin comparison shopping on just how well the other search engines do their jobs.
While some don't like the gel pens because they take a moment to dry, and thus can be smeared, regular ball points put much less ink on the page, produce scratchy-looking writing, and frequently skip. The gels have much darker, more beautiful ink, and the best just flow when you're writing script or Chinese or Japanese characters (who do you think first marketed them widely?).
But not all are created equal. Some suck. The best (all of these are black; some come in [many] other colors) are:
The Pentel Hybrid Gel Roller - very thin line, thin cylindered, normally nice to write with, but point very sharp; hard to find these days except at Wal-Mart
The Zebra Jimnie Gel Rollerball - much thicker line, sort of barrel-shaped pen body, great for paper you have to put pressure on, and due to its shape, pen is tough and cannot easily be broken; this pen brand has the very best colors of any gel - good quality primary colors, and real nice muted maroons and blue-greys, metallic copper and gold, etc., as well; available in boxes at office supply stores (at least the black is)
The best single all-purpose gel is the long-barreled Sanford uniball medium Gel pens (same type I first found in China, under a Japanese brand name), nice flowing ink, thickness between the two above, pen body or point can sometimes be broken by dropping on a concrete floor; I usually find it these days in supermarkets
Honorable mention to Sanford's uniball medium GEL_GRIP pen with a shorter barrel (though these a little more often glob the ink on the paper a bit), and
The Pentel Hybrid Gel Grip pen, if you can't find any of the above; this one's OK, and Pentel seems to be trying to replace the Hybrid Gel Roller mentioned above with this one, but the Roller is superior
These are all nicely writing pens for a reasonable price, but if you want real cheap, get the bics or whatever, and watch your lines skip and scratch!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Even more insightful - the conservatives essentially support in various guises a plutocracy, while the liberals have trouble deciding which of several agendas they most prefer - and thus the consistency of the recent conservative ascendency over the 'waffling' liberals. (Of course, the conservatives have managed to coopt the religious conservatives as a power base, apparently because they both use the word "conservative" and both favor centralized control, but it's pretty funny, because mostly these two groups are diametrically opposed, or at least orthogonal in their real goals).
This does indeed seem to be the current effective difference between the two.
...because it's clumsy and esthetically unappealing. You used both words in grammatically correct ways, but it took your correcting comment for even me to see it (and I unfortunately look at my students using these words incorrectly all the time). Good writing is more than correct grammar usage. Correct grammar is merely the necessary foundation. Think poetry, think great dialog. Think of some terribly written book you've suffered through. Even most of the last have correct grammar because most books (except some computer books ;-)) have editors who go through and clean up the grammar and try to clean up some of the writing.
For those worried about gov't erosion of civil liberties, well, no computers, no cell phones, maybe no electronics - I guess that about takes care of the problem, nothing to worry about, case closed.
Nice job, everyone.
(Too bad it'll just be ignored. I can see it now - as usual - oh, yeah, the law is the law, and everyone must obey it, unless of course it inconveniences us
Yes, you're the one with some visual sense - he looks exactly like Boyle as the monster in 'Young Frankenstein'.
Hey all you excited folks - What are the ten cities?
OK, so can anyone say what cities this is showing in?
Awesome! You're the man!
You rock!
Really good shows have great writers, cast, production. Those are based on some small number of people who actually have the gumption to create a vision (it has to be a popular one with fans, with a bit of actor charisma thrown in, admittedly). Why does anyone like shows by Joss Whedon, say? He can actually write, and then he gets that writing on film.
I want some mod-points for this one. :-)
Yeah, so how (and what) do the cells eat? (And do the researchers drop little drops of water on 'em so they don't dry out?)
Besides, people getting too little sleep are definitely more irritable, sometimes depressed, and food is comforting.
The parent should not be modded all the way to +5 Interesting. Humorous, maybe. The real truth, at least for MY body, is that less sleep, that is, less efficient body functioning, means that my body has to make up the energy somewhere else. Where? With food. If I have plenty of sleep, less food is needed; if I'm running on sleep deficit, I get very hungry; if I'm skipping both food and sleep (very bad, I try to avoid it), I have often gotten sick. I don't know if this has been checked in a wide-scale study with many types of people, but they do know there's less growth hormone released, less efficient memory processing, and other decreases in healing speed and body functioning with too little sleep. And caffeine is like punching up the adreneline - it works for awhile, but ultimately you end up being more tired.
- Pretty often, we're trading in some pretty nice species and habitat, say an entire continent of elm trees, for some pretty 'nothing' replacement, like a bug or a fungus.
- "Invasive" essentially means fast. Some species ruins the living conditions for another too fast for the second to adapt to it. Thus,
- the crappy species takes over in a time measured in years, in a single person's memory, while the adaptation and comeback takes centuries, in a time measured at its shortest in human generations.
And what if the invasive species is a human parasite, like some of those that live in the Nile River, or the SARS virus (you know, the HIV virus is an 'invasive' organism) - you gonna be so blase if one of them comes to live in your nice "civilized" section of the world? Hey, it's just natural selection.Best 'First Post' I ever saw.
It's great the photos are there, but as an example, those for Houston, a major city, are greater than 7 years old - a lot of development and changes therefore are missing. It's probably the same for most of them.
Chaos now has a relatively precise meaning in science - that very small, perhaps nearly invisible, initial conditions can produce, under some conditions, disproportionately large divergences in outcomes. But, if understood, this can make a system more, not less, predictable, for there are patterns to the kinds of changes that happen. The weather pattern over the earth is not well-understood, by any means, but we know at least two things - mankind is doing things that, theoretically, could produce a warmer earth, AND, the earth is getting warmer. Causality, or, more to the point, the importance of other factors affecting said causality, is not irrefutably established, but caution definitely would advise some courses of action over others. Those who say we don't understand so should do nothing are worse than B.F. Skinner, who in his time said, essentially, we don't understand the brain's workings, so we won't even try to investigate it. They have their heads in the sand, and are not doing any thinking worthy of the name. (And they may be pushing some sort of other agenda, and are hoping you are too stupid to think for yourself.) You don't light a fire in your house, and then notice the temperature rising, and claim "the proof isn't in yet, so I'll just keep burning!"
Actually, we briefly sent troops into northern Russia during the civil war in Russia after WWI. That's why the Russian Communists were so distrustful of us.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter here if the sea has gone up and down many times. And which scientists have you (actually) been talking to? If the sea goes up enough now it's a catastrophe - for man. We have a lot of very expensive coastal real estate a lot of people are going to be bent on keeping dry, if possible. And we are taxing the environment as a whole pretty heavily to feed 6 billion people. Large climate changes will mean a) that we probably won't be able to do all 6 billion for a bit, or b) we will have to make very large (and thus given the scale, very 'quick') and therefore very expensive adjustments on getting the food from somewhere new on the globe as arable land areas shift around. Whole civilizations have come into being (China) in order to deal with the flooding of one river (Yellow River). Whole civilizations, and much smaller ones than ours, have collapsed when their food production did. And you think having the ocean flood is not the most important news you've recently heard? Exactly how are you defining "fringe"?
Say, last March?
The poster's comments about ideologues is dead-on. The scientific consensus is that much of the effect of global warming is due to man's civilization. That does not mean there are no dissenters, or that various scientistics do not dispute various details. That's the way science works. Note the "increasingly strong evidence" phrase.
As for your comment "not been proven mathematically" - proof is a word that is most apt to describe the mathematical chain of reasoning used. Does it follow accepted mathematical rules? But when math is used in science, its job is to model reality-based processes. To do this evidence must be used. If the input facts are incorrect or incomplete, or even inappropriate (not relevant to the process that a researcher is trying to model), and/or the process being studied is incorrectly modeled, conclusions based on that model are garbage (not to say a great deal can't be learned from them, which is ideally going in to making a new and improved model). Out of pure physics, there are very nice mathematical models of the "standard model" of particle physics, and also now of string theory. Which is right? Who knows? There isn't enough confirming evidence yet.
In other words, whether it has been "mathematically proven" is both irrelevant and an argument meant to obfuscate. (Whether it has been mathematically modeled, on the other hand, is very much to the point.) Scientists in various disciplines are in basic agreement on lots of their discipline's evidence and that it is 'true', pending further evidence, but may not be able to contain said evidence in an adequate mathematical model. But most actual working climatologists have already decided what the evidence represents. That is not what they are debating, but rather the 'how', 'how much', and 'when'. I'm sorry you disagree, but it means you either have not been reading the actual scientists' work, or are deliberately ignoring it.
It is always amazing to me how little so many people understand the process of science, or what the concepts of "theory" and "model" do, especially when those people are engineers or otherwise technically sophisticated.
Might be time to begin comparison shopping on just how well the other search engines do their jobs.
But not all are created equal. Some suck. The best (all of these are black; some come in [many] other colors) are:
These are all nicely writing pens for a reasonable price, but if you want real cheap, get the bics or whatever, and watch your lines skip and scratch!