I never claimed they were the same people. I said they kill their own to kill others. Using your power of deduction and knowledge that they are different people, then it's logical to deduce that Iranian or more aptly Palestinian and Lebanese people are in the Jewish populations they attack. Israel doesn't ban any of those people from existing in their country.
Israel is purposely ambiguous about their nuclear capabilities.
They are sort of like Saddam and his disarmament in which he made claims that weren't true to appear stronger then they are. No third party or country has (publicly) verified Israel's possession of Nuclear weapons one way or another. Israel is not part of the non-proliferation treaties and the IAEA doesn't not inspect their stocks.
Israel has never officially claimed to have nuclear weapons outside of strategically placed sound bytes to make it appear they have them. Seeing how it's better to error on the side of caution, most countries treat them as if they have nuclear weapons. Some countries may know one way or another about Israel's nuclear capabilities but they haven't committed any official statements about it outside of their internal intelligence. Some countries use the possibility to their advantage to some degree.
Talking about entire Europe is dumb. And I bet that even the person talking about "all of Europe" was most likely talking about EU, as opposed to talking about places like Georgia.
Take it up with the person who started it. I'm simply staying within the parameters.
The significant number here is the number of cars when compared to number of people. You then tarted talking about geographic and the like. And now when that argument does not work, you start to backpedal....
And your point is what? The number of cars per person is about one for every 2 people, that's about one car per household. Why is it one car per household? Because the majority of the population lives in a family unit with a husband and wife and possible one or two or more kids. That puts two or more people in the same home meaning there are enough cars for every home to have one. It's the about the same in the US despite there being more cars. Actually, the average household size in Europe is between 2.4 and 2.6 so this leaves us with a little over one car per household.
No it's not. Your argument of "cars per square mile" is totally retarded. I have NEVER seen anyone make that comparison when talking about these issues.
If your the one who doesn't understand, the only thing retarded would be you. Now, larger land mass means larger number of vehicles to get around that land mass. That is if it's inhabitable. This has nothing to do with population density, it has everything to do with the need for transportation. You erroneously and likely fraudulently attempted to bring Finland into the mix knowing that it geographical makeup makes over half of the country inaccessible or impractical by car travel. It has over 179,584 islands, 187,888 lakes larger then 50 meters squared. 30% or more of it is covered by a glacier and only 8% of it's land is able to be cultivated. What happens is that you have an extremely large area that has it's population concentrated into dense locations where it's actually livable and sustainable. But the population density doesn't reflect that when you attempt to use the entire mass.
Then why are you doing area/car-comparisons here?
To show how pointless your example was. I already explained that once. Or do you have some comprehension problem?
But your "theory" should work in FInland as well? And why could we compare "Europe" to USA but not Finland?
As I explained earlier, There are specific to finland that makes it not work. These specifics are well known and your attempt to pull it up without consideration is fraudulent at best.
Anyone who claims that difference of 76% is "about the same" is a retard. The only one grasping at straws around here is you.
As I explained earlier, the effect is about the same therefore it's about the same. Anyone being retarded would be you in ignoring the real facts and instead concentrating on a specific data point without consideration of those real facts. There are enough cars in Europe for at least one car per household which is the same in the US. The dynamics of that household and use requirements are irrelevant.
That you do not need cars to enjoy life? Duh! Sure, you can have a car and enjoy life, I never made any claims that lack of cars is required for happy life. Hell, I own a car as well! But you do not NEED one to enjoy life.
I don't think you compregend what you means. When I say you to you, it means you. When you say you to me, it means me. When you say you to everyone else, it means everyone else. You (as in you) cannot make absolute statements about others when enjoying life is a personal interpretation that completely removed you (as in you) from the interpretation. Here, let me fix your s
Iran and Iraq has openly supported terrorist. Iraq, when under Saddam, was offering bounties to the families of suicide bombers and when Saddam was kicked out of power, Iran attempted to step up and keep it going. That's in addition to funneling money and so on to terrorist groups to enable their actions. Hamas is known for suicide bombings and they do not care if they kill their own in the process.
Where did I say Israel was a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? I did just check and was very surprised that Iran had signed it.
The only way someone is obligated to any international treaty is if they sign and ratify it. There is no world government that violates the sovereign right of a nation. That is until that nation loses in a war and then it is subject to the conquering nations rules.
But the fact remains that both Israel and Iran have nukes. Should we give special credit to Israel for saying "screw you we are developing nukes and not signing?" Does that mean North Korea were fine to openly withdraw from the treaty and develop nuclear weapons?
The fact is, Iran signed a treaty, they are obligated to the terms of that treaty and have certain responsibilities concerning the treaty. Now, just because someone doesn't sign a treaty doesn't mean that we can't be concerned over their actions. North Korea and Iran both have some pretty serious human rights issues as well as openly hostile intentions. This differs from Israel in that their human rights concerns seem to be retalitory and defensive with their hostilities being concealed. When has Israel ever called for the destruction of a complete race of people? Iran has. When has Israel threatened to destroy a city and wipe it and everything in it off the map? Iran and North Korea both have and they have done it not when threatened, but when attempting to posture themselves with third party organizations. Israel is also the only democratic government of the bunch.
Are you actually saying that it is ok to breach international treaties if you do it openly and refuse to sign them in the first place? Are you saying that Iran can build all the nukes they please if they simply withdraw from the treaty?
I'm saying that if a country doesn't sign on to a treaty, they can't be held for violations to the terms of that treaty. Now treaty participating counties can refuse to do business with them, they can sanction the economic flow by not allowing other treaty members from doing business in the country and so on. But if Iran withdraws from any treaty, then they are not subject to it's terms. However, it's not likely to be in Iran's best interest to do so. This is because it's economic structure could be threatened by their rhetoric as well as their sovereignty.
I suggest you spend some time learning what sovereignty is, how countries are actually obligated to international treaties, hell- you should probably figure out what a damn treaty is too. Treaties are international by default. You have been walking around half cocked from being completely ignorant of the subject you are speaking about and you owe it to at least yourself to do a cursory bit of self education. It appears the masters in charge of your education have failed you in a seriously negligent way. You probably need to question most of everything they taught you.
If there was 10 pounds of food in your intestine that came out of your mouth by throwing up, I suggest that you get some colon blow (use it until you get explosive diarrhea) and some breath mints. It's bound to be smelling like shit.
And the US funds Israel which recently killed 1600 civilians using white phosphorus supplied by the US. This was also in violation of international treaties just like Iran's Nuclear ambitions. When Israel developed their nuclear weapons they violated the same treaty as Iran.
Your also wrong about the 1600 civilians being killed by the white phosphorous. It was 1600 civilians taking shelter in a UN school and the entrance was bombed along with the phosphorous explosion. Israeli UAVs recorded what appears to be two hamas aiming and fireing shoulder fired rockets and Israeli armor divisions as the justification with the attacking of the building.
I am not saying I am happy with Iran having nukes, but I am also not happy with Israel having them. Especially when Israel are just as likely to use them. The problem for us is the that if Israel use them against their neighbours, then Russia will be unhappy and may just retaliate against us since we are supporting the country financially and militarily.
I don't see Russia doing anything. The US wouldn't either. In fact, we would tell Israel we wouldn't support them like we did in the 6 day war.
Lets not forget that both countries are built on religion and religion has caused too many wars already. Both countries also are moving away from democracy, Iran by rigging elections, and Israel by intimidating non-jewish citizens who try and vote. Both have an armed forces that is becoming more fanatical in the use of embedded religious teachers in with the troops
I don't see religion being a problem. It's the use of religion to justify horrible acts that is a problem. simply having religious people or leaders in the troops isn't a problem at all.
This is why we should have acted more strongly against Israel when they developed theirs, we set a precedent that we would ignore people breaching the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty if we like the country that was breaching it. This makes it much harder for countries breaching it now to take it seriously when they feel threatened by nuclear equipped neighbours.
Again, Israel has never signed onto or been a part of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. You are simply acting on incorrect information here. A simply google search would have show you this.
We can try and enforce our will by military means alone, but this is a dangerous path since it results in us having to keep our armed forces in place all over the world to enforce our will against the will of the indigenous population. That is certainly not what the founding fathers of the US had in mind when they drew up the constitution.
Your 0 for 3 right now in the facts department. I'm not sure what you are getting at here outside of some other misconception about foreign affairs. Please elaborate a little more.
Great, are you now arguing that it's ok because they are the equivalent of the KKK? I don't want the KKK to have nukes either. Do you? I'm not sure how you made the argument for Iran having Nukes any better.
Wh Europe? Why not whole of Eurasia? Why the arbitary selection? Fact remains that EU matches USA in lifestyle and purchasing-power better than whole of Europe does.
Because the op I responded to said "Signed, all of Europe." You can follow along can't you?
IS this the "population-density"-argument? Fine, let's play that game:
NO, it's the I can pull useless numbers out of real ones and pretend they are significant too argument.
So, population-density is 50% of that of USA. So by your logic there should be more cars in Finland than there is in USA: Yet that is not the case.
No, actually, that's your logic. I never made any connections to population density and the amount of cars. I made a connection to the area of the country/group and the amount of cars to get people around in it. Population density and cars do not have a direct connection. Neither does area/car. And Finland is not Europe, it's Finland.
No, it is not. Difference of 76% is not "about the same"
Yes, it is. When you consider usage. your grasping for straws and it isn't working.
Yet they are enjoying their lives just fine without cars....
And yet, there are plenty of people there enjoying their lives with cars just fine. What's your point. The op I replied to made an absolute statement that Europe didn't need cars. I showed that wasn't the case and in fact, usage is pretty similar to the US. Your coming in attempting to ring bells by changing the point and intent doesn't distract from that. Some people need/want cars, some do not.
Lol.. Way to be a history revisionist. We did not give Iraq any chemical or biological weapons. We took their names off the banned list and allowed them to purchase the chemical and biological technology from US and allied companies. I repeat, we did not give it to them, we allowed them to purchase it.
And no, we have and always had equipment that is desert-ready. The Yuma proving grounds is in a fucking desert. Carter didn't bother checking if the plan he micromanaged used desert capable crafts. Thats more of an indication of the failure Carter was as a president too. He ran the economy to crap in less then 4 years, caused one of the biggest bouts of inflation, created the real estate hodge podge that caused millions of farmers to almost go under, many of which might have if it wasn't for a bunch or guilty democrats starting farm aid.
By the end of Carters term as president, even the democrats in congress refused to support him. He was so bad of a president, he was the first president I know of to have a pariody song of him playing on the radio. It was set to the tune of the Oscar Myer hot dog song and went like this, My Peanut has a first name, j-i-m-m-y My peanut has a last name, c-a-r-t-e-r, And all I have to say, Is Jimmy Carter has a way of fucking the USA.
And yes, they bleeped the word fucking- but it was on the radio and we all knew what was missing.
And I'd like to know why it took someone 3 hours to get Windows working. I can backup, do a clean install, and apply patches and install software in three hours.
You will have to ask someone who claim it took 3 hours to get windows running. However, depending on the internet connections speed, it can take sufficiently longer then 3 hours to patch a windows system along. It's supposedly going to take a day or more just to upgrade to windows 7.
This guy's anecdote is not about the ease of use for Linux or inferiority of Windows. It's about how much more he knows about Linux than Windows. His Linux upgrade went fine, but he messed up the Windows upgrade. He complains lost a disc he needed for Windows and had to download one which was 200 MB. Nevermind the fact that it's his fault he lost the CD, he also would have had to download the Linux ISO.
I think you are confusing posts. I replied to the guy who claimed to of spent 3 hours with Lilo because he added a new drive. I responded with the easiest ways to do that in case he or anyone else reading needs to do it again in the future. It appears that you are thinking of the post before his which I did not reply to.
In my Linux experience, for every system that worked fine out of the box, I've dealt with one that needed drivers not in the distro, configuration the installer did not perform but should have, and on more than one occasion getting a system that would not boot because of kernel or bootloader issues ("noapic nolapic" anyone?). I've had problems installing Windows, too, but I've done that so many times I basically don't even need to think anymore and it still comes out right or I'm familiar with how to fix all the common and uncommon problems which arise. HDD not detecting? No SATA drivers. I have a USB floppy or I can use nLite. I'm to the point now that I know that if I'm going to install XP that I should look for the driver disk before I even begin.
I've seen the same problems in linux and windows. However, in recent times, they are rare in both. Adding and removing drives still seems require some extre special love in most cases. But that's to be expected.
This isn't the fault of Windows or Linux. You just need more experience.
Actually, what I spoke about is the fault of both. Actually, it's limitations on both. It has nothing to do with experience, if lilo or the boot.ini get out of whack, you will not have a booting system until it's fixed. As I said before, adding or removing drives is the easiest way to mess them up. They are easy to fix though and shouldn't take 3 hours.
That's a fallacy. The US supported Iraq at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq protection money to ward off Iran. The US paid Iraq very little money and only gave them trucks- not weapons.
As for Kuwait, the US has had ties with Kuwait since the beginning of our country and before. Even when Kuwait was run under the Ottoman empire, it gave US war ships safe harbor in preparation for the invasion of Tripoli (Thomas Jefferson, the first president with real balls and the chance to display them). There is nothing in anyone's mind that makes Iraq think we would support it over a 200+ year old ally. Iraq was never really friendly with the US in the first place. it was solely an enemy of my enemy is my friend relationship.
Yep, Iran most certainly would. Their president is a twelver and it's part of his religious identity to cause problems.
Everyone claims Israel has nukes. That may be true, but I do not remember them ever threatening the use of them, nor stating they were much more then defensive. To that point, they do not even pull them out when attacked. It might change is attacked by Iran but Israel has shown no advocate towards attacking Iran.
Iran wanting nukes because of Israel is just a bleeding heart cover to gain the cooperation of the ignorant and like minded.
When America starts breeding and sanctioning suicide bombers that walk into crowded markets to blow up 30 of their own innocent people just to wound or kill 2 innocent civilians from whatever country they have a hard on for at the time, we can take their opinion a little more seriously,
Fortunately, that is unacceptable for most of the world and being so, their opinion on what we have and do not use is totally irrelevant to what they do and should be allowed to have.
Why did it take you 3 hours? Were you attempting to move a partition or something?
If it was just boot order, then you can generally fix that in the bios without having to touch Lilo.
If it's the drive ordering moving partitions, then it's pretty simple. Either boot to a utility CD or floppy or just press the shift key before the lilo screen appears and type init=/bin/sh to get to a shell. Mount your drive, got/etc/lilo, edit the lilo.conf to reflect the new drive assignments, then run lilo and it will commit the change.
BTW, this isn't abnormal at all. It can and does happen with dual boot and regular windows systems too. There has been many occasions where I have had to enter the recovery console or use a live linux CD to change the boot.ini of a windows box after adding or removing a drive.
This also happens quite a bit when needing to copy a partition to a new drive (both windows and linux).
Of course, if it works for you, then more power to you. For me, it's 6 miles to the nearest thing that resembles public transportation and to that, it only covers about a 15 square block range unless you transfer to another bus which will take you another 30 square blocks and that's about it. Actually, the second bus is a little of an exaggeration. It will make three stops about 30 blocks away (by a mall). It completely misses places like the DMV or Title offices, three industrial parks where decent paying jobs are on the other edge of town and so on. It also costs about $5 bucks to catch both rides one way. That would be a ten dollar trip and about 45 minutes (assuming you didn't have to wait for the buses to show up) to make a ten minute drive across town.
The nearest subway is about 800 miles away. The nearest commuter train is about 350 miles away (although they are attempting to get a light rail system running across the state). The Bus system in the next town over (which is also the capitol city of my state) is a little better, you can get all over the town for about $15 once you figure the system out. My first try costs me $35, took two hours one way and it's the last time I used the park and ride spaces on the outskirts of the town. The $15 figure was quoted to me by a rider on that trip. It was about 20 miles one way which means in my Toyota, it would have costs me about $19.00 in insurance, fuel, wear and tear (that's what I could have deducted for business travel on my taxes). I have other dreadful experience with public transportation when away on business too.
However, I want to stress a modifier here. The word "You" is very personal and doesn't mean it will fit in everywhere. That was the point I wanted to drive home. Well, that and the fact that while different, Europe isn't all that different then the US. I own and work a farm and do IT for several companies so I'm pretty much always on call. Even a proper public transportation system probably wouldn't cut it for me. However, there probably are quite a few people who would be just as happy with it as there already are people perfectly content. The problem is making it pay for itself. In Europe, that's done by making driving extremely expensive. In the US, it's usually tax money floating it because no one would ride if they charged what was needed to keep it self sufficient.
What about a project that uses the coolant properties of Freon and freon substitutes to power generators that create electricity and charge batteries or a capacitor.
The idea isn't free energy or anything, it's more or less reclaiming unused energy in cooling devices. Take something like a small powered laser or a charges nickel catalyst and place it in the freon lines with a valve controlling the pressure to be directed at some sort of turbine or generate pump before the freon goes from liquid to gas just to be cooled and re-compressed. The concept is that there should be some recoverable energy availible in the cooling process that can be used to either power fans or charge capacitors that can ease the power draw on electric motors during start up and operation in the system.
If successful, not only could this increase the performance of energy intensive cooling in space craft, it could also lead to more efficient heating/cooling and refrigeration applications on earth.
BTW, I believe the M&Ms floating around in zero gravity is a personal endeavor of the astronauts playing around between missions. It signified the actual lack of gravity as well as provides a useful distraction from an otherwise intense work schedule. I do not think any mission has been adapted solely to fling M&Ms around in space.
For one, the EU is not Europe. I didn't make a claim for just part of Europe, I made the claim for all of Europe in general.
For two, considering that the EU is geographically smaller then the US by about 2,124,259 square miles (56.6% smaller), there is less need for a car by as many people in the EU. However, the EU is not Europe. On a per square mile basis, the US has about 60.5 cars per square mile area. In contrast, the EU (which again is only part of Europe) has 126.7 cars per square miles. That's more then twice as many cars per square miles of area then the US.
For three, when we look at some of those countries in the list, we find that in the top 14 spots, those countries have at least one car for every 2 people or better. OF those countries, 7 or half of them are in Europe. of the next 11 countries, they are all within 8% of 1 vehicle for every two people and they are all European countries.
Now, assuming the population is families with two or more people per household, that would mean one or more cars per home on average. With multiple cars being owned by the same people in the US, (I for one have 5 cars, a truck, motorcycle, a pulling truck, a race car, and a SUV and live by myself) only one car can be driven at one time. SO the effect is the same.
As for about the same, it is about the same. The differences in car ownership in Europe has more to do with the expense then people magically not needing them to enjoy life. There are a lot more costs associated with car ownership in Europe then in America. For this reason, it's probable that less people own multiple cars then in the US. the distribution seems to remain close enough in usage without much more then a cursory understanding.
Actually, for the last 3-5 or so years, the seas have been cooling and capturing carbon. In 2005-6 there was a study by someone at the university of Colorado (who monitors a network of Ocean bathythermographs deployed by the Argo program and jason-1 satellite which monitor sea surface temps and ocean level rises). I can't find the study in a non-pay site and I'm not going to link to but anyways, the study showed that all of the claimed warming to date thought to of been caused by the Anthropogenic global warming can be explained by differences in ocean surface temperatures. It said that it didn't rule out Anthropogenic causes but questions the statement of importance.
Your getting the cart before the horse with your assumption that the ocean is warmed by the air. In fact, the ocean has more of an impact on the temps of the air then the air does on the ocean. Just ask the coastal dwellers who get cool breezes coming off the ocean that keep the temps a comfortable level in an otherwise hostile environment. California comes to mind where LA can be 90 degree F and just a few miles away (less then 100) it can be a cool and mild 75 degrees F because of the winds coming off the ocean. Another source for this is the El Nino and la nina effect in the southern pacific oscillations. Of course there are decadal oscillation anomalies in every large body of water. And these vary to such a degree that the IPCC has admitted that their models have problems processing them.
Furthermore, Christopher Monckton has released a study surrounding issues with the IPCC claims which you should read. Some of the key points as outlined elsewhere,
The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 F (0.6 C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
"Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Now keep in mind, this report does not dispute Anthropogenic climate change, it's pointing to verifiable mathematical flaws causing it's over statement by the IPCC. This is also something of a concern when one of the IPCC lead author has recently went on record claiming the science of global warming is too uncertain at this point in time. There is also a Dr. Essenhigh that claims the IPCC models are incorrect too. His Paper is unavailable for non-paying people (or I couldn't find it) but here is an abstract of it and some comment from a notorious denier.
In short, the issue is a lot more complex then you were led to believe and your comment reflects that profusely.
I got my data from Wikipedia which cited a February 4 2007 report from Florida Today as it's source.
As for the moon and mars, NASA's budget for 1992 when Clinton took office was $13.961 billion dollars. When Clinton left office and Bush took over, NASA's budget was $13.428 billion. That's an overall decrease of 533 million in eight years. In 2005 when Bush proposed the moon-mars mission, NASA's budget was $15.602 billion or $1.641 billion more then when Clinton took office and $2.174 billion more from when Clinton left office.
Bush initially purposed a 880 million dollar increase in NASA's budget to cope with the moon-mars missions (planning and development at this stage). Congress slashed that and actually cut NASA's funding by 477 million. However, by the end of Bush's term, NASA funding had increased again to $17.318 billion. This is also when certain parts of the moon-mars plans started coming together and needed funding. It also addressed a few funding lapses in other areas. That's $1.716 billion more then 2005 when Bush purposed the moon-mars goals. It's a $3.890 billion difference from when Clinton left and Bush took office.
If you can call that extra 1.716 billion dollars a budget cut, then I not sure what to say to you. I mean with increased costs and all, it could be worse, they could have left with less money then they came in under Bush with. That's what happened with Clinton in office and as it stands now, they are almost 4 billion ahead.
But without the addition of CO2 from human activity the releases from the natural sources would be absorbed by the environment keeping CO2 levels relatively stable like they've been for the last 600,000 years. As it is over half of the CO2 released by human activities gets absorbed but enough doesn't to raise the level in the atmosphere.
No it wouldn't. And I do not understand what mislead you into thinking this. There have been natural Co2 variations through out history and at times that humans weren't even present. The Co2 cycles seem to indicate that for 12Co2, it has a life span of about 5-6 years and for 14Co2, it's about 15 years. This means that an abrupt release of Co2 will take about 15 years maximum to be absorbed into the natural process. The anthropogenic Co2 follows this curve too.
Historically, and to some degree with the current Co2 levels, they trail warmth periods suggesting that warming oceans and thawing glaciers dump a lot of the excess Co2 into the atmosphere. However, I'm not denying that Human released Co2 isn't happening nor that it isn't contributing to the so called problem. I'm denying that it's the sole problem and you should too.
Much of the reason cars cost more in the EU is because of taxes (like the 180% car tax in Denmark, where you see A LOT of bicycles). Also, look at the public transit over in Europe. You can actually use it as your sole (except for the bike, of course) means of transportation.
In Denmark, or certain other locations. But this isn't unusual compared to the US, in densely populated cities like New York City, Boston and so on, a lot of people can do the same with the public transportation system (bus, subway and so on). But this goes back to a personal level of enjoyment of life too. Some people will never leave their home town for a vacation and be perfectly satisfied. Some leave their state and even country for a vacation and find that fulfills their level of enjoyment.
As for the numbers, if there are 0.77 cars per person (we'll even assume no one has more than 1 car for himself; if you take that into account, the numbers fall more into my favor), you can match up each car to a person and 23% of the population will be without a personal car - they'll be sharing one with their spouse, which implies most of the time that one of the two doesn't need the car to get to work, or they'll have no car at all. In Europe, there is slightly less than 0.5 cars per capita. Assuming no one has multiple cars for himself, that means that a considerable number of people HAVE NO CAR WHATSOEVER.
The numbers of motor vehicles listed on the wikipage included commercial and non-commercial vehicles and it appears that when you track the source, it's limited to 1999 with some stats including up to 2004 and 2006 (at least that's what the comments on the Nation Master site say, the links to the information source there seems to be broken and defaults to the UN stats page.)
Anyways, all I did to get my numbers is scrolled down on the wiki page to the total number of cars- it lists the US and European Union, so I went to their wiki page to retrieve the populations listed and simply divided. The bottom line is that in the US and Europe, there is at least one car for every household. Now that doesn't mean everyone has a car and I'm not attempting to imply it. I have 5 cars, a pickup truck, a motorcycle, and a sport utility vehicle at present so I know I am throwing the US stats off. That count isn't including my toys like my pulling truck or a junk race car that I have been spending about 10 years deciding if I want to rebuild or not.
While we will find in densely populated areas that people can get buy without a car at all and sometimes they do. However, when you start getting away from those areas, more and more people have them. Well, they do where the government hasn't made it too expensive to own a car. We have some places in the US that make it almost too expensive to own a car too. Usually this just traps the poor into being subservient of the public transportation and shit paying jobs close to the hell holes they are forced to live in. Back in 1995, I was part of a project that attempted to help the poorer intercity dwellers get more of life if they wanted to. You would be surprised at how many people who were stuck using public transportation would benefit from owning their own transportation in job opportunities alone. Unfortunately, that program is completely gone now.
And that would be relevant if the air was at a constant saturation level. Unfortunately, or fortunately if your subjected to it, the air isn't at a maximum concentration level. There are many factors controlling this such as temperature and temperature differences between sources of water/moisture and the air.
The problem with measuring this is that humidity is relative. However, a way of distinguishing the amount of water vapor in the air is by the dew point. The dew point is the temp at which the saturation levels cause the moisture to condense (precipitation). In 2000, in my area, for September 28th, the humidity was 89% and the dew point was 45 degree F. In contrast, tonight(the same day but this year), the dew point is at 58 degrees F and the humidity is currently at 80%. However because the dew point is higher, we know that the amount of water vapor is greater because we know it is relative to the temperature.
It doesn't surprise me. In the last couple of decades, democrats have typically been harder on NASA's budgets then any other political group.
In 1995 with a democrat congress and administration, NASA's budget was cut by $553.8 million. The NASA budget cuts from after the 1995 cut until 2004 totaled $410.3 million and was spread over 5 more cuts with 3 of the 5 occurring during the Clinton administration (with a republican controlled congress). All be told, since 1995 and until 2004 (that's when my data points end), NASA's budget was cut by $902 million when Clinton was president and only $62.1 million with 2 cuts during Bush's first term.
Slashdot Mirror
I never claimed they were the same people. I said they kill their own to kill others. Using your power of deduction and knowledge that they are different people, then it's logical to deduce that Iranian or more aptly Palestinian and Lebanese people are in the Jewish populations they attack. Israel doesn't ban any of those people from existing in their country.
Israel is purposely ambiguous about their nuclear capabilities.
They are sort of like Saddam and his disarmament in which he made claims that weren't true to appear stronger then they are. No third party or country has (publicly) verified Israel's possession of Nuclear weapons one way or another. Israel is not part of the non-proliferation treaties and the IAEA doesn't not inspect their stocks.
Israel has never officially claimed to have nuclear weapons outside of strategically placed sound bytes to make it appear they have them. Seeing how it's better to error on the side of caution, most countries treat them as if they have nuclear weapons. Some countries may know one way or another about Israel's nuclear capabilities but they haven't committed any official statements about it outside of their internal intelligence. Some countries use the possibility to their advantage to some degree.
Take it up with the person who started it. I'm simply staying within the parameters.
And your point is what? The number of cars per person is about one for every 2 people, that's about one car per household. Why is it one car per household? Because the majority of the population lives in a family unit with a husband and wife and possible one or two or more kids. That puts two or more people in the same home meaning there are enough cars for every home to have one. It's the about the same in the US despite there being more cars. Actually, the average household size in Europe is between 2.4 and 2.6 so this leaves us with a little over one car per household.
If your the one who doesn't understand, the only thing retarded would be you. Now, larger land mass means larger number of vehicles to get around that land mass. That is if it's inhabitable. This has nothing to do with population density, it has everything to do with the need for transportation. You erroneously and likely fraudulently attempted to bring Finland into the mix knowing that it geographical makeup makes over half of the country inaccessible or impractical by car travel. It has over 179,584 islands, 187,888 lakes larger then 50 meters squared. 30% or more of it is covered by a glacier and only 8% of it's land is able to be cultivated. What happens is that you have an extremely large area that has it's population concentrated into dense locations where it's actually livable and sustainable. But the population density doesn't reflect that when you attempt to use the entire mass.
To show how pointless your example was. I already explained that once. Or do you have some comprehension problem?
As I explained earlier, There are specific to finland that makes it not work. These specifics are well known and your attempt to pull it up without consideration is fraudulent at best.
As I explained earlier, the effect is about the same therefore it's about the same. Anyone being retarded would be you in ignoring the real facts and instead concentrating on a specific data point without consideration of those real facts. There are enough cars in Europe for at least one car per household which is the same in the US. The dynamics of that household and use requirements are irrelevant.
I don't think you compregend what you means. When I say you to you, it means you. When you say you to me, it means me. When you say you to everyone else, it means everyone else. You (as in you) cannot make absolute statements about others when enjoying life is a personal interpretation that completely removed you (as in you) from the interpretation. Here, let me fix your s
Iran and Iraq has openly supported terrorist. Iraq, when under Saddam, was offering bounties to the families of suicide bombers and when Saddam was kicked out of power, Iran attempted to step up and keep it going. That's in addition to funneling money and so on to terrorist groups to enable their actions. Hamas is known for suicide bombings and they do not care if they kill their own in the process.
It's the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
The only way someone is obligated to any international treaty is if they sign and ratify it. There is no world government that violates the sovereign right of a nation. That is until that nation loses in a war and then it is subject to the conquering nations rules.
The fact is, Iran signed a treaty, they are obligated to the terms of that treaty and have certain responsibilities concerning the treaty. Now, just because someone doesn't sign a treaty doesn't mean that we can't be concerned over their actions. North Korea and Iran both have some pretty serious human rights issues as well as openly hostile intentions. This differs from Israel in that their human rights concerns seem to be retalitory and defensive with their hostilities being concealed. When has Israel ever called for the destruction of a complete race of people? Iran has. When has Israel threatened to destroy a city and wipe it and everything in it off the map? Iran and North Korea both have and they have done it not when threatened, but when attempting to posture themselves with third party organizations. Israel is also the only democratic government of the bunch.
I'm saying that if a country doesn't sign on to a treaty, they can't be held for violations to the terms of that treaty. Now treaty participating counties can refuse to do business with them, they can sanction the economic flow by not allowing other treaty members from doing business in the country and so on. But if Iran withdraws from any treaty, then they are not subject to it's terms. However, it's not likely to be in Iran's best interest to do so. This is because it's economic structure could be threatened by their rhetoric as well as their sovereignty.
I suggest you spend some time learning what sovereignty is, how countries are actually obligated to international treaties, hell- you should probably figure out what a damn treaty is too. Treaties are international by default. You have been walking around half cocked from being completely ignorant of the subject you are speaking about and you owe it to at least yourself to do a cursory bit of self education. It appears the masters in charge of your education have failed you in a seriously negligent way. You probably need to question most of everything they taught you.
If there was 10 pounds of food in your intestine that came out of your mouth by throwing up, I suggest that you get some colon blow (use it until you get explosive diarrhea) and some breath mints. It's bound to be smelling like shit.
I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your information from but Israel has never signed on to the Nuclear non proliferation treaties.
Your also wrong about the 1600 civilians being killed by the white phosphorous. It was 1600 civilians taking shelter in a UN school and the entrance was bombed along with the phosphorous explosion. Israeli UAVs recorded what appears to be two hamas aiming and fireing shoulder fired rockets and Israeli armor divisions as the justification with the attacking of the building.
I don't see Russia doing anything. The US wouldn't either. In fact, we would tell Israel we wouldn't support them like we did in the 6 day war.
I don't see religion being a problem. It's the use of religion to justify horrible acts that is a problem. simply having religious people or leaders in the troops isn't a problem at all.
Again, Israel has never signed onto or been a part of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. You are simply acting on incorrect information here. A simply google search would have show you this.
Your 0 for 3 right now in the facts department. I'm not sure what you are getting at here outside of some other misconception about foreign affairs. Please elaborate a little more.
Great, are you now arguing that it's ok because they are the equivalent of the KKK? I don't want the KKK to have nukes either. Do you? I'm not sure how you made the argument for Iran having Nukes any better.
Because the op I responded to said "Signed, all of Europe." You can follow along can't you?
NO, it's the I can pull useless numbers out of real ones and pretend they are significant too argument.
No, actually, that's your logic. I never made any connections to population density and the amount of cars. I made a connection to the area of the country/group and the amount of cars to get people around in it. Population density and cars do not have a direct connection. Neither does area/car. And Finland is not Europe, it's Finland.
Yes, it is. When you consider usage. your grasping for straws and it isn't working.
And yet, there are plenty of people there enjoying their lives with cars just fine. What's your point. The op I replied to made an absolute statement that Europe didn't need cars. I showed that wasn't the case and in fact, usage is pretty similar to the US. Your coming in attempting to ring bells by changing the point and intent doesn't distract from that. Some people need/want cars, some do not.
Lol.. Way to be a history revisionist. We did not give Iraq any chemical or biological weapons. We took their names off the banned list and allowed them to purchase the chemical and biological technology from US and allied companies. I repeat, we did not give it to them, we allowed them to purchase it.
And no, we have and always had equipment that is desert-ready. The Yuma proving grounds is in a fucking desert. Carter didn't bother checking if the plan he micromanaged used desert capable crafts. Thats more of an indication of the failure Carter was as a president too. He ran the economy to crap in less then 4 years, caused one of the biggest bouts of inflation, created the real estate hodge podge that caused millions of farmers to almost go under, many of which might have if it wasn't for a bunch or guilty democrats starting farm aid.
By the end of Carters term as president, even the democrats in congress refused to support him. He was so bad of a president, he was the first president I know of to have a pariody song of him playing on the radio. It was set to the tune of the Oscar Myer hot dog song and went like this,
My Peanut has a first name,
j-i-m-m-y
My peanut has a last name,
c-a-r-t-e-r,
And all I have to say,
Is Jimmy Carter has a way of fucking the USA.
And yes, they bleeped the word fucking- but it was on the radio and we all knew what was missing.
You will have to ask someone who claim it took 3 hours to get windows running. However, depending on the internet connections speed, it can take sufficiently longer then 3 hours to patch a windows system along. It's supposedly going to take a day or more just to upgrade to windows 7.
I think you are confusing posts. I replied to the guy who claimed to of spent 3 hours with Lilo because he added a new drive. I responded with the easiest ways to do that in case he or anyone else reading needs to do it again in the future. It appears that you are thinking of the post before his which I did not reply to.
I've seen the same problems in linux and windows. However, in recent times, they are rare in both. Adding and removing drives still seems require some extre special love in most cases. But that's to be expected.
Actually, what I spoke about is the fault of both. Actually, it's limitations on both. It has nothing to do with experience, if lilo or the boot.ini get out of whack, you will not have a booting system until it's fixed. As I said before, adding or removing drives is the easiest way to mess them up. They are easy to fix though and shouldn't take 3 hours.
You don't think Iran funding Hamas and Hezbollah and supporting them with weapons and training that they lob into civilian Jewish populations count?
That's a fallacy. The US supported Iraq at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq protection money to ward off Iran. The US paid Iraq very little money and only gave them trucks- not weapons.
As for Kuwait, the US has had ties with Kuwait since the beginning of our country and before. Even when Kuwait was run under the Ottoman empire, it gave US war ships safe harbor in preparation for the invasion of Tripoli (Thomas Jefferson, the first president with real balls and the chance to display them). There is nothing in anyone's mind that makes Iraq think we would support it over a 200+ year old ally. Iraq was never really friendly with the US in the first place. it was solely an enemy of my enemy is my friend relationship.
Yep, Iran most certainly would. Their president is a twelver and it's part of his religious identity to cause problems.
Everyone claims Israel has nukes. That may be true, but I do not remember them ever threatening the use of them, nor stating they were much more then defensive. To that point, they do not even pull them out when attacked. It might change is attacked by Iran but Israel has shown no advocate towards attacking Iran.
Iran wanting nukes because of Israel is just a bleeding heart cover to gain the cooperation of the ignorant and like minded.
When America starts breeding and sanctioning suicide bombers that walk into crowded markets to blow up 30 of their own innocent people just to wound or kill 2 innocent civilians from whatever country they have a hard on for at the time, we can take their opinion a little more seriously,
Fortunately, that is unacceptable for most of the world and being so, their opinion on what we have and do not use is totally irrelevant to what they do and should be allowed to have.
Why did it take you 3 hours? Were you attempting to move a partition or something?
If it was just boot order, then you can generally fix that in the bios without having to touch Lilo.
If it's the drive ordering moving partitions, then it's pretty simple. Either boot to a utility CD or floppy or just press the shift key before the lilo screen appears and type init=/bin/sh to get to a shell. Mount your drive, got /etc/lilo, edit the lilo.conf to reflect the new drive assignments, then run lilo and it will commit the change.
BTW, this isn't abnormal at all. It can and does happen with dual boot and regular windows systems too. There has been many occasions where I have had to enter the recovery console or use a live linux CD to change the boot.ini of a windows box after adding or removing a drive.
This also happens quite a bit when needing to copy a partition to a new drive (both windows and linux).
Of course, if it works for you, then more power to you. For me, it's 6 miles to the nearest thing that resembles public transportation and to that, it only covers about a 15 square block range unless you transfer to another bus which will take you another 30 square blocks and that's about it. Actually, the second bus is a little of an exaggeration. It will make three stops about 30 blocks away (by a mall). It completely misses places like the DMV or Title offices, three industrial parks where decent paying jobs are on the other edge of town and so on. It also costs about $5 bucks to catch both rides one way. That would be a ten dollar trip and about 45 minutes (assuming you didn't have to wait for the buses to show up) to make a ten minute drive across town.
The nearest subway is about 800 miles away. The nearest commuter train is about 350 miles away (although they are attempting to get a light rail system running across the state). The Bus system in the next town over (which is also the capitol city of my state) is a little better, you can get all over the town for about $15 once you figure the system out. My first try costs me $35, took two hours one way and it's the last time I used the park and ride spaces on the outskirts of the town. The $15 figure was quoted to me by a rider on that trip. It was about 20 miles one way which means in my Toyota, it would have costs me about $19.00 in insurance, fuel, wear and tear (that's what I could have deducted for business travel on my taxes). I have other dreadful experience with public transportation when away on business too.
However, I want to stress a modifier here. The word "You" is very personal and doesn't mean it will fit in everywhere. That was the point I wanted to drive home. Well, that and the fact that while different, Europe isn't all that different then the US. I own and work a farm and do IT for several companies so I'm pretty much always on call. Even a proper public transportation system probably wouldn't cut it for me. However, there probably are quite a few people who would be just as happy with it as there already are people perfectly content. The problem is making it pay for itself. In Europe, that's done by making driving extremely expensive. In the US, it's usually tax money floating it because no one would ride if they charged what was needed to keep it self sufficient.
What about a project that uses the coolant properties of Freon and freon substitutes to power generators that create electricity and charge batteries or a capacitor.
The idea isn't free energy or anything, it's more or less reclaiming unused energy in cooling devices. Take something like a small powered laser or a charges nickel catalyst and place it in the freon lines with a valve controlling the pressure to be directed at some sort of turbine or generate pump before the freon goes from liquid to gas just to be cooled and re-compressed. The concept is that there should be some recoverable energy availible in the cooling process that can be used to either power fans or charge capacitors that can ease the power draw on electric motors during start up and operation in the system.
If successful, not only could this increase the performance of energy intensive cooling in space craft, it could also lead to more efficient heating/cooling and refrigeration applications on earth.
BTW, I believe the M&Ms floating around in zero gravity is a personal endeavor of the astronauts playing around between missions. It signified the actual lack of gravity as well as provides a useful distraction from an otherwise intense work schedule. I do not think any mission has been adapted solely to fling M&Ms around in space.
For one, the EU is not Europe. I didn't make a claim for just part of Europe, I made the claim for all of Europe in general.
For two, considering that the EU is geographically smaller then the US by about 2,124,259 square miles (56.6% smaller), there is less need for a car by as many people in the EU. However, the EU is not Europe. On a per square mile basis, the US has about 60.5 cars per square mile area. In contrast, the EU (which again is only part of Europe) has 126.7 cars per square miles. That's more then twice as many cars per square miles of area then the US.
For three, when we look at some of those countries in the list, we find that in the top 14 spots, those countries have at least one car for every 2 people or better. OF those countries, 7 or half of them are in Europe. of the next 11 countries, they are all within 8% of 1 vehicle for every two people and they are all European countries.
Now, assuming the population is families with two or more people per household, that would mean one or more cars per home on average. With multiple cars being owned by the same people in the US, (I for one have 5 cars, a truck, motorcycle, a pulling truck, a race car, and a SUV and live by myself) only one car can be driven at one time. SO the effect is the same.
As for about the same, it is about the same. The differences in car ownership in Europe has more to do with the expense then people magically not needing them to enjoy life. There are a lot more costs associated with car ownership in Europe then in America. For this reason, it's probable that less people own multiple cars then in the US. the distribution seems to remain close enough in usage without much more then a cursory understanding.
Actually, for the last 3-5 or so years, the seas have been cooling and capturing carbon. In 2005-6 there was a study by someone at the university of Colorado (who monitors a network of Ocean bathythermographs deployed by the Argo program and jason-1 satellite which monitor sea surface temps and ocean level rises). I can't find the study in a non-pay site and I'm not going to link to but anyways, the study showed that all of the claimed warming to date thought to of been caused by the Anthropogenic global warming can be explained by differences in ocean surface temperatures. It said that it didn't rule out Anthropogenic causes but questions the statement of importance.
Your getting the cart before the horse with your assumption that the ocean is warmed by the air. In fact, the ocean has more of an impact on the temps of the air then the air does on the ocean. Just ask the coastal dwellers who get cool breezes coming off the ocean that keep the temps a comfortable level in an otherwise hostile environment. California comes to mind where LA can be 90 degree F and just a few miles away (less then 100) it can be a cool and mild 75 degrees F because of the winds coming off the ocean. Another source for this is the El Nino and la nina effect in the southern pacific oscillations. Of course there are decadal oscillation anomalies in every large body of water. And these vary to such a degree that the IPCC has admitted that their models have problems processing them.
Furthermore, Christopher Monckton has released a study surrounding issues with the IPCC claims which you should read. Some of the key points as outlined elsewhere,
Now keep in mind, this report does not dispute Anthropogenic climate change, it's pointing to verifiable mathematical flaws causing it's over statement by the IPCC. This is also something of a concern when one of the IPCC lead author has recently went on record claiming the science of global warming is too uncertain at this point in time. There is also a Dr. Essenhigh that claims the IPCC models are incorrect too. His Paper is unavailable for non-paying people (or I couldn't find it) but here is an abstract of it and some comment from a notorious denier.
In short, the issue is a lot more complex then you were led to believe and your comment reflects that profusely.
I got my data from Wikipedia which cited a February 4 2007 report from Florida Today as it's source.
As for the moon and mars, NASA's budget for 1992 when Clinton took office was $13.961 billion dollars. When Clinton left office and Bush took over, NASA's budget was $13.428 billion. That's an overall decrease of 533 million in eight years. In 2005 when Bush proposed the moon-mars mission, NASA's budget was $15.602 billion or $1.641 billion more then when Clinton took office and $2.174 billion more from when Clinton left office.
Bush initially purposed a 880 million dollar increase in NASA's budget to cope with the moon-mars missions (planning and development at this stage). Congress slashed that and actually cut NASA's funding by 477 million. However, by the end of Bush's term, NASA funding had increased again to $17.318 billion. This is also when certain parts of the moon-mars plans started coming together and needed funding. It also addressed a few funding lapses in other areas. That's $1.716 billion more then 2005 when Bush purposed the moon-mars goals. It's a $3.890 billion difference from when Clinton left and Bush took office.
If you can call that extra 1.716 billion dollars a budget cut, then I not sure what to say to you. I mean with increased costs and all, it could be worse, they could have left with less money then they came in under Bush with. That's what happened with Clinton in office and as it stands now, they are almost 4 billion ahead.
No it wouldn't. And I do not understand what mislead you into thinking this. There have been natural Co2 variations through out history and at times that humans weren't even present. The Co2 cycles seem to indicate that for 12Co2, it has a life span of about 5-6 years and for 14Co2, it's about 15 years. This means that an abrupt release of Co2 will take about 15 years maximum to be absorbed into the natural process. The anthropogenic Co2 follows this curve too.
Historically, and to some degree with the current Co2 levels, they trail warmth periods suggesting that warming oceans and thawing glaciers dump a lot of the excess Co2 into the atmosphere. However, I'm not denying that Human released Co2 isn't happening nor that it isn't contributing to the so called problem. I'm denying that it's the sole problem and you should too.
In Denmark, or certain other locations. But this isn't unusual compared to the US, in densely populated cities like New York City, Boston and so on, a lot of people can do the same with the public transportation system (bus, subway and so on). But this goes back to a personal level of enjoyment of life too. Some people will never leave their home town for a vacation and be perfectly satisfied. Some leave their state and even country for a vacation and find that fulfills their level of enjoyment.
The numbers of motor vehicles listed on the wikipage included commercial and non-commercial vehicles and it appears that when you track the source, it's limited to 1999 with some stats including up to 2004 and 2006 (at least that's what the comments on the Nation Master site say, the links to the information source there seems to be broken and defaults to the UN stats page.)
Anyways, all I did to get my numbers is scrolled down on the wiki page to the total number of cars- it lists the US and European Union, so I went to their wiki page to retrieve the populations listed and simply divided. The bottom line is that in the US and Europe, there is at least one car for every household. Now that doesn't mean everyone has a car and I'm not attempting to imply it. I have 5 cars, a pickup truck, a motorcycle, and a sport utility vehicle at present so I know I am throwing the US stats off. That count isn't including my toys like my pulling truck or a junk race car that I have been spending about 10 years deciding if I want to rebuild or not.
While we will find in densely populated areas that people can get buy without a car at all and sometimes they do. However, when you start getting away from those areas, more and more people have them. Well, they do where the government hasn't made it too expensive to own a car. We have some places in the US that make it almost too expensive to own a car too. Usually this just traps the poor into being subservient of the public transportation and shit paying jobs close to the hell holes they are forced to live in. Back in 1995, I was part of a project that attempted to help the poorer intercity dwellers get more of life if they wanted to. You would be surprised at how many people who were stuck using public transportation would benefit from owning their own transportation in job opportunities alone. Unfortunately, that program is completely gone now.
And that would be relevant if the air was at a constant saturation level. Unfortunately, or fortunately if your subjected to it, the air isn't at a maximum concentration level. There are many factors controlling this such as temperature and temperature differences between sources of water/moisture and the air.
The problem with measuring this is that humidity is relative. However, a way of distinguishing the amount of water vapor in the air is by the dew point. The dew point is the temp at which the saturation levels cause the moisture to condense (precipitation). In 2000, in my area, for September 28th, the humidity was 89% and the dew point was 45 degree F. In contrast, tonight(the same day but this year), the dew point is at 58 degrees F and the humidity is currently at 80%. However because the dew point is higher, we know that the amount of water vapor is greater because we know it is relative to the temperature.
It doesn't surprise me. In the last couple of decades, democrats have typically been harder on NASA's budgets then any other political group.
In 1995 with a democrat congress and administration, NASA's budget was cut by $553.8 million. The NASA budget cuts from after the 1995 cut until 2004 totaled $410.3 million and was spread over 5 more cuts with 3 of the 5 occurring during the Clinton administration (with a republican controlled congress). All be told, since 1995 and until 2004 (that's when my data points end), NASA's budget was cut by $902 million when Clinton was president and only $62.1 million with 2 cuts during Bush's first term.