I commend you on your PC building skills. However, your one point anecdotal situation really doesn't disprove my statement.
Anyways, when you have a series of computers in a group, you will have some that fail before others do. That's just a given that is observed every day in life. I didn't say turning it off would make it fail, I said it increased the failure rates. I guess the way I focused on a singular computer instead of the group as a hole with a single early failure made that distinction unclear.
As for the heat cycles while turned on, they aren't as extreme in the ranges as when turned off completely. Take a piece of metal wire and bend it back and forth in a small arc. Eventually the wire will snap in the center of the bend or close to the point with the most pressure. Now take an identical piece and bend it in a larger arc. It takes less time to break now.
The point is that if one computer out of 25 fail early, the costs of replacing that desktop negates any savings from turning them all off for that year. And the environmental impact of manufacturing new computers probably offsets all of the carbon emissions perceived to have been saved too.
But thanks for taking the "maybe it was a mistake" path instead of the scolding "your wrong and a loser approach". It's comforting to know that there are still people capable and willing to give the benefit of doubt first.
If they switch to laptops, they'll save more than double that, plus not have to buy and maintain a UPS for each box (UPS batteries generally last 2 years, then they're pretty much due for a replacement if you want to have more than a few minutes w/o power). The savings come out to close to $100/person/year. The average home has 3 computers. Wouldn't you want to cut your electrical bill by a buck a day?
Laptops are often more expensive then desktop machines and they can't always deliver the same performance. This doesn't even start to mention the duplicate keyboards or monitors because the laptop versions are typically insufficient for long term productive work. So is it really a savings of $100 a year per person if I have to spend 3-400 dollars more per workstation? At best, it would be a sideways move. At worst, it would be a negative potentially running into the hundreds of dollars range.
That is so full of shit it's not funny. We're not talking an XBox360 with thermal issues here. You can safely spin up your computer thousands of times with no extra "thermal stress." Why do you continue to push a myth that has been totally debunked?
I suggest you do a google search on the subject. I know exactly what we are talking about and I know exactly how they work. I have seen this first hand and have enough experience with it to say you simply don't know what your talking about. My largest customer has 50 workstations. The floors that get turned off every night have a failure rate of more then 2:1 compared to the floors that stay up. Now these failures range from CPU over heating because a fan didn't come back on to hard drive failures but the common thing was that they took the workstations out of use. I have also seen this at other sites as well. The customers who turn everything off at night have a larger issue rate then customers who leave things running. This gets especially critical when the workstations start getting some age to them.
While affecting probably would have been more appropriate, effect isn't out of line altogether either. We aren't necessarily talking about the crime scene specifically but the interpretations or opinions of the crime scene created by the police's interpretation of it. The invalid DNA or contaminated cotton swabs wouldn't have changed the crime scene at all, it would have changed the opinions and interpretations of it. What matters in the discussion is how the police view the crime scene so if the invalid DNA effected their view that they were looking for a suspect that is connected with dozens of other crimes... And yes, I meant effected there too.
If that were the case then some mysterious phantom DNA that is specifically unique to one brand of cotton swabs wouldn't be a news story nor would it have the police looking for the same notorious woman in more then 20 crimes separated by national boundaries. In other words, when the DNA showed up on the control samples, someone would have put 2 and 2 together and it would have been caught. Well, that is assuming the police, as unintelligent as they are, are actually smart enough to notice the obvious.
And by all means, you didn't get in the way of any assumptions I had. Even if you think you did.
The story says $36 per desktop computer per year could be saved. Now that sound like a lot of money at a company with 500 desktops ($18,000). But that company will have at least 500 employees and probably more. At 10% more or 550 employees to work those 500 desktop computers, that brings the potential salary increases to about $32 a year. If the average person works 38 hours a week and 48 weeks a year (1842 hours), that's about a penny or less per hour raise.
But it gets even worse. The heat cycles of computers heating up when in use and cooling down when powered off will take a small toll on the life of the computer. So I guess the real question might be is if the computer lasts 2 years instead of 3 or 4 or even 5 years, how many of those would need to be replaced because the Co2 emitted from making the things from scratch outweighed the entire carbon savings from the $36 worth of electricity not in use assuming that the power for those computers don't already come from a Co2-less generating facility. My guess is that an early replacement on any of them will offset any environmental savings which sort of makes this idea more hand waving then anything.
Umm you forgot that along with "scientific evidence", they also claim the consensus is in and the science is settled so if you question it, you either hate people or work for an oil company.
I didn't say it "caused" a crime scene, you did because you failed to read the page you linked to.
Try look at the second sentence using the same word (different tense) that I did under the second definition.
They sailed away without effecting their purpose. --Jowett
Hmm.. "I said caught before it ever effected one crime scene". I could have said because it wasn't caught, it was effecting the crime scene, but what I really said was if they caught it, it wouldn't have been effecting the crime scene.
Of course we have to acknowledge that the difference between effected and effecting is one is after the fact and the other is during the fact. Anyways, I'm not sure where you lost control here but I would think it was because you didn't even read what you linked to. However, if you have a better explanation, I would like to hear it. I'm always in the mood for excused for when I do fuck up.
It could be entirely possible that the same police doing the collecting is also doing the testing. Perhaps not on the samples they collected themselves but testing other people's samples. Many of the lab technicians are or could be field certified and full blow cops to boot.
The problem that links this to the cops is that they create the procedures for collecting the evidence. If they aren't periodically sending blank samples in, then things like this happen. DNA, like Blood type evidence was originally supposed to be exculpatory evidence. It was supposed to say, the DNS of the semen doesn't match the suspect so it wasn't him. This was the same as the suspect is O negative and the blood at the crime scene was A positive so it wasn't him. When they changed from an "it couldn't be this guy" to an "it has to be this guy", the necessity for testing the control became real but no was smart enough to realize that and do it.
So yea, I still blame the cops and blame it on their barely average intelligence.
I don't think the idea is that we evolved from chimps (actually I think it is apes if I remember right), it was that chimps and people evolved from a common ancestor that was neither chimp or human. So basically, chimps and humans evolved from something that was the same. However, we have never found the missing link and some people attempt to claim there isn't one when that is brought up. It could be entirely possible that we aren't related at all and two species genetically similar evolved in parallel without any common ancestry.
It would probably benefit pack hunting. In fact, I think it may be done that way in several locations and time periods throughout history. Basically, you set up a group of shooters and have the flame holders chase the game in the direction of the shooters. You could use fire, dogs, people making loud and unnatural noises, the idea is all the same.
Anyways, I don't think tool use is sort of a specifically astute evolutionary advantage as much as the underlying principle that allows it is. cognitive resonance (if I used the right term properly) has not only allowed us to use tools, but it has allowed us to think about tool use in ways that give us an advantage over other species. We took a sharp stick and made it sharper by grinding the head to a point or by shaping rocks and bones then attaching them, we made it harder by drying it in a flame or by using other materials and compounds of materials, we made it straighter by shaping it with tools and using the compounds, we made it more accurate by using feathering that slows the back end down to keep it in a straight line and the sharp end pointing forward where the bulk of the force will be transferred, we angled the feathers to produce a spin to increase the accuracy, We then devised another tool altogether to increase the range of the arrow. Fire and cars don't give us the advantage, Tool use isn't evolutionary, it's the ability to think about things and solve problems, to use tools to make other tools, and to use that entire process to however we find advantageous to us even if it is just to fool around. The human trait is the ability to process and learn detailed experiences and to use other forces to supplement what we are naturally lacking.
Some animals might use sticks to flush termites or ants from a mound and get dinner, we cultivate both and have a store of food. Some animals swing on vines growing in the trees to get around or just have fun, we build vines out of plants and chemicals and put the where we want them. Some animals eat herbs or rocks and minerals to aid in digestion, we cook the food and create drugs to cure diseases and illnesses. Tool use is common in the evolutionary world, our detailed use and ability to solve problems on levels above the problem is where our evolution is.
That's a good question. Cops aren't really all that bright, they are methodical and when applied properly, it gets the job done but they aren't exactly the smartest group of people. It's entirely possible that a lot of evidence and/or leads have been discarded or neglected because of this.
Before anyone flames me for stating that cops aren't the brightest of the bunch, when doing science it's often the case where a sample of something is tested before it it treated with the substance being tested. These provide baselines for comparative results and it isn't uncommon for them to be randomly done throughout the course of the experiments because you need a control. Now, if they were the slightest bit intelligent in the subject, they would test raw material periodically to ensure it wasn't contaminated in the same ways they shoot and clean their own guns periodically to ensure they are ready for use. This entire mysterious woman contamination could have been caught before it ever effected one crime scene if something was periodically done to validate the test equipment they are using. Instead, they treat it with less suspicion then a flashlight and just assume that it works as advertised instead of "checking the batteries" every once in a while. Doesn't seem to bright to me.
Well, no. The $140M went to "intramural laboratory repair and renovation" for various institutions. The key here is "intramural". In other words, it was money for things those agencies were supposed to do anyways with the existing funding they had.
Now if they were under funded, then there is a proper place to fund them. But spending money that they were going to spend anyways, just because it's in a stimulus only means that the money originally allocated for intramural repair and renovation will be used in different ways. It added nothing to a stimulus.
Of course there could be a completely different definition for "intramural" that only applies to the use of the term in the stimulus bill and I'm not aware of it. But as far as I know, there isn't and the spending was not in addition to what was already being spent. It was no more a stimulus then it was without the funding there which is why it shouldn't have been there at all.
Lol.. wingnut, your not just biased, your a leader of the cult.
And no, Gore is not backed up by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That is a farce and the entire consensus is a farce purpetrated in order to advance those goals. Go ahead, look for the specific time and place where all the climate scientists voted or staked a position behind Al Gore. You won't find it and you won't even find a hard number to stake the claim majority from.
As is usual, take a look at the far side of anything and you will find idiots blindly following what was fed to them. You and your kind is actually worse then the born against religious zealots. At least they are blindly following something that has centuries of history behind it. You go and find a cult to surrender that just started and don't understand why we laugh at you. You are right, it is a sad day for me. It's a sad day anytime I discover another idiot too weak to think for himself or to even come close to applying some critical thinking skills. Oh well, It's ok, at least the walls are padded where you will eventually end up.
Why would he? Or should I say why would he any more then you?
His comments on volcano monitoring was about it being in the stimulus bill. So he have to ask, is volcano monitoring a stimulus to the economy and american people? My guess is no, it's a public service that either didn't exist before the stimulus bill was passed or it did and the funding was hidden in it because it wasn't justified in other spending bills.
The stimulus bill however was 100% pure deficit spending with the purpose of stimulating the economy to benefit the American people. In other words, it's an emergency bill so why was pet projects included and with at least 2 years of democrat control, why is it that volcano monitoring was such an emergency?
Jindal needs not be embarrassed. He just needs a smarter crowed to speak to.
Even if the changes are entirely natural, shifting weather patterns and rising ocean levels are, indeed, a threat to everyone.
First, I never said it wasn't a problem. Second, your confusing the argument from a certain sect of people as to why we shouldn't be imposing restrictions on the freedoms of people with what you think has happened. The sea level has been rising and weather patterns have been shifting since Man started keeping records. It's not a static element that all the sudden started looking different. But the way you make it out to be is that there is some pristine picture that we need to return back to. That would be impossible even if humans were the cause and removed from the planet today. The earth, weather, sea levels, and everything else will change and continue to change independent of our existence. We will never stop those changes and regardless of what you want to think, life will adapt and go on.
Not that I'm entirely sure why we would even vaguely want to listen to people who spent decades denying there was any problem at all, when they show up and explain what is causing the problem they've been denying for so long.
If the notion behind this is scientific and not some religious endeavor where science is has been turned into a religion, then you should listen to them because that is how science works. You can't claim to be scientific if your not including the discussion of the opposition. Well, you can claim to be but you will end up looking like a bunch of religious pseudoscience zealots pushing an agenda. It is like ID for mother earth.
And yes, in the past people have rejected the idea that water vapor wasn't being accounted for properly in the models, they have rejected the ideas that solar variances causes the inputs to change, they have rejected ideas about the faulty data being used and mistakes made by researchers. And they rejected all of that because of some tie to an oil company or political group that was opposite of their beliefs only to eventually be forced to consider it all later when their models didn't work or those anti global warming people ended up showing proof of the matter.
It's almost like you can't talk about their god unless you repeat what they say. But that has nothing to do with the arguments put forth by any political side. The arguments or solutions to the problems put forth by the pro global warming crowd don't fix anything, it only limits and restricts one persons freedoms in order to enrich someone else. Take Shell oil for instance, they gave up on wind and solar as being too expensive to focus on making the existing stuff cleaner and all you global warming freaks about started crying because it wasn't your way.
Especially when they show up with an explanation that just happens to mean that behavior they've been arguing for decades doesn't need to change, coincidentally still doesn't need to change.
Why does it need to change? Why can't coal be cleaned? Just because it isn't in practice today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. Why must wind and solar power be used instead? Why can't gas and oil exhaust be cleaned? why must cars be more efficient instead of just having cleaner exhausts?
You see, the problem is largely that lack of options allowed by your side. You side wants to limit individual freedoms and impose some central authority over people in ways and places it never has been before. Political solutions like Kyoto does nothing to reduce Co2 pollution, it only limits certain countries and encourages others to increase their production. Of the 138 some countries signed on, less the 40 have emissions caps. You have buffoons like Al Gore creating and showing misleading propaganda pieces that some courts have ruled to be fundamentally flawed and inaccurate- and he has the answer, spend money at his company so he can be rich.
It's not funny. People who support private enterprise have long pushed for the prosecution of scams. Gore should be no different in that regard. And yes, he is pushing a scam and not a bona-fide business.
You must be confused. The argument was never that it isn't happening, it was that it isn't happening in a way that was a problem. It's always been a natural cycle. The argument only shifted from if it was a problem to was it a problem greater then any natural changes.
Are you really that dense? None of the republicans said we should eliminate volcano monitoring. One republican said it shouldn't have been included in one specific bill. That bill BTW, was a stimulus package. If volcano monitoring is important, then why the hell wasn't it properly funded to begin with and instead injected as emergency spending in a stimulus package? We have had two years of democrat control, don't tell me they get a pass for ignoring it so as it needs to be shoved into a stimulus bill. The reality is that volcano monitoring is already funded and what the republicans rejected was the idea that increasing those funds was a stimulus designed to benefit the economy and the American people as the stimulus bill was being sold.
I don't know who modded you insightful but it should have been "Can't comprehend what I just read". Perhaps there is no tag for that so over rated or stupid might have worked. We have already wiped egg from our faces when they rushed the stimulus bill through without enough time to even read it while screaming "it doesn't have to be perfect" just to find that the administration forgot it asked for laws enabling AIG to pay bonuses and shit after screaming like monkeys about how bad it was. Perhaps if you would take some time and actually read things, you would have a better grasp on what is going on too.
You right but everyone else is too smart to realize that. She said Russia is Alaska's neighbor and can be seen from Alaska which is a correct statement. Tina Fey said "from my house" on SNL and people didn't know the difference. My only regret is that the star of "nailin palin" didn't look as much like Palin and Fey did.
This is what you can expect when the future get's their news from fake news shows and boasts about how informed they are because of it.
The GPL protects the individual programmer against the corporation that would use him and abuse him.
Not really, I could do all of the above while keeping it GPL compatible and there is nothing that could be done. There would be no need to compensate the programer or anything under the GPL. The only difference is that if I changed anything, then I would have to make those changes availible. But if I gave those changes only to my customers, you wouldn't get them without either finding a customer willing to give it away or buying the product yourself. It's the same effect.
It's more about Ideology then anything else. You have convinced yourself it's different because you believe in the Ideology, that's the biggest difference.
I was pretty confident of your ignorance. The ugly part was just a guess. Looks like a good one though. BTW, don't be too hard on your girlfriends, you don't want to poke a hole in them.
Oh yea, when you get out of school, come back and talk. Hopefully you would have learned something by then.
When your running AIG, you can put that into the contracts. However, the current contracts which were a condition of people offering their employment gives those people the bonuses.
It doesn't mean it is smart or that anyone has to like it. It just means that someone set conditions and people agreed to them.
Now think about this, you don't seem to like AIG's bonuses. Now what if someone arbitrarily decided that your contract was excessive and withheld half of your pay after you worked the time? Suppose the company you work for decides that all your stored sick time and vacation time is theirs now because you didn't do enough to make the company money. Suppose they also held your last 4 paychecks because you were over compensated while leaving you to believe they were on the way so you didn't walk out. Of course you have rights, it's in the contract, they can't do that, or can they? After all, that is what your asking of AIG, to go back on their contracts with people because you don't think those people added enough value to the company. Truth is, you really don't know how much value they did or didn't add to the company, for all we know, the people who got the bonuses could have made a profit in their divisions but another department lost more then they made.
So no matter how shitty you think the idea of AIG employees getting a bonus might be, taking that bonus or violating the contract isn't the way to approach it because the only thing separating you from them is whoever gets the public riled up. If it can be done to AIG employees, it can be done to you and that's not really a good thing. Deserve has everything to do with agreements as a condition to employment. It's not different then you contracting me to paint your house a certain color. You deserve to have me paint it the color you chose because you paid me for it just like AIG employees deserve to have their contracts honored even if new ones need to be negotiated.
Slashdot Mirror
I commend you on your PC building skills. However, your one point anecdotal situation really doesn't disprove my statement.
Anyways, when you have a series of computers in a group, you will have some that fail before others do. That's just a given that is observed every day in life. I didn't say turning it off would make it fail, I said it increased the failure rates. I guess the way I focused on a singular computer instead of the group as a hole with a single early failure made that distinction unclear.
As for the heat cycles while turned on, they aren't as extreme in the ranges as when turned off completely. Take a piece of metal wire and bend it back and forth in a small arc. Eventually the wire will snap in the center of the bend or close to the point with the most pressure. Now take an identical piece and bend it in a larger arc. It takes less time to break now.
The point is that if one computer out of 25 fail early, the costs of replacing that desktop negates any savings from turning them all off for that year. And the environmental impact of manufacturing new computers probably offsets all of the carbon emissions perceived to have been saved too.
Nah.. I screwed up.
But thanks for taking the "maybe it was a mistake" path instead of the scolding "your wrong and a loser approach". It's comforting to know that there are still people capable and willing to give the benefit of doubt first.
Laptops are often more expensive then desktop machines and they can't always deliver the same performance. This doesn't even start to mention the duplicate keyboards or monitors because the laptop versions are typically insufficient for long term productive work. So is it really a savings of $100 a year per person if I have to spend 3-400 dollars more per workstation? At best, it would be a sideways move. At worst, it would be a negative potentially running into the hundreds of dollars range.
I suggest you do a google search on the subject. I know exactly what we are talking about and I know exactly how they work. I have seen this first hand and have enough experience with it to say you simply don't know what your talking about. My largest customer has 50 workstations. The floors that get turned off every night have a failure rate of more then 2:1 compared to the floors that stay up. Now these failures range from CPU over heating because a fan didn't come back on to hard drive failures but the common thing was that they took the workstations out of use. I have also seen this at other sites as well. The customers who turn everything off at night have a larger issue rate then customers who leave things running. This gets especially critical when the workstations start getting some age to them.
While affecting probably would have been more appropriate, effect isn't out of line altogether either. We aren't necessarily talking about the crime scene specifically but the interpretations or opinions of the crime scene created by the police's interpretation of it. The invalid DNA or contaminated cotton swabs wouldn't have changed the crime scene at all, it would have changed the opinions and interpretations of it. What matters in the discussion is how the police view the crime scene so if the invalid DNA effected their view that they were looking for a suspect that is connected with dozens of other crimes... And yes, I meant effected there too.
If you can't be bothered to participate, then don't play in the game.
If that were the case then some mysterious phantom DNA that is specifically unique to one brand of cotton swabs wouldn't be a news story nor would it have the police looking for the same notorious woman in more then 20 crimes separated by national boundaries. In other words, when the DNA showed up on the control samples, someone would have put 2 and 2 together and it would have been caught. Well, that is assuming the police, as unintelligent as they are, are actually smart enough to notice the obvious.
And by all means, you didn't get in the way of any assumptions I had. Even if you think you did.
The story says $36 per desktop computer per year could be saved. Now that sound like a lot of money at a company with 500 desktops ($18,000). But that company will have at least 500 employees and probably more. At 10% more or 550 employees to work those 500 desktop computers, that brings the potential salary increases to about $32 a year. If the average person works 38 hours a week and 48 weeks a year (1842 hours), that's about a penny or less per hour raise.
But it gets even worse. The heat cycles of computers heating up when in use and cooling down when powered off will take a small toll on the life of the computer. So I guess the real question might be is if the computer lasts 2 years instead of 3 or 4 or even 5 years, how many of those would need to be replaced because the Co2 emitted from making the things from scratch outweighed the entire carbon savings from the $36 worth of electricity not in use assuming that the power for those computers don't already come from a Co2-less generating facility. My guess is that an early replacement on any of them will offset any environmental savings which sort of makes this idea more hand waving then anything.
Umm you forgot that along with "scientific evidence", they also claim the consensus is in and the science is settled so if you question it, you either hate people or work for an oil company.
I didn't say it "caused" a crime scene, you did because you failed to read the page you linked to.
Try look at the second sentence using the same word (different tense) that I did under the second definition.
Hmm.. "I said caught before it ever effected one crime scene". I could have said because it wasn't caught, it was effecting the crime scene, but what I really said was if they caught it, it wouldn't have been effecting the crime scene.
Of course we have to acknowledge that the difference between effected and effecting is one is after the fact and the other is during the fact. Anyways, I'm not sure where you lost control here but I would think it was because you didn't even read what you linked to. However, if you have a better explanation, I would like to hear it. I'm always in the mood for excused for when I do fuck up.
It could be entirely possible that the same police doing the collecting is also doing the testing. Perhaps not on the samples they collected themselves but testing other people's samples. Many of the lab technicians are or could be field certified and full blow cops to boot.
The problem that links this to the cops is that they create the procedures for collecting the evidence. If they aren't periodically sending blank samples in, then things like this happen. DNA, like Blood type evidence was originally supposed to be exculpatory evidence. It was supposed to say, the DNS of the semen doesn't match the suspect so it wasn't him. This was the same as the suspect is O negative and the blood at the crime scene was A positive so it wasn't him. When they changed from an "it couldn't be this guy" to an "it has to be this guy", the necessity for testing the control became real but no was smart enough to realize that and do it.
So yea, I still blame the cops and blame it on their barely average intelligence.
I don't think the idea is that we evolved from chimps (actually I think it is apes if I remember right), it was that chimps and people evolved from a common ancestor that was neither chimp or human. So basically, chimps and humans evolved from something that was the same. However, we have never found the missing link and some people attempt to claim there isn't one when that is brought up. It could be entirely possible that we aren't related at all and two species genetically similar evolved in parallel without any common ancestry.
It would probably benefit pack hunting. In fact, I think it may be done that way in several locations and time periods throughout history. Basically, you set up a group of shooters and have the flame holders chase the game in the direction of the shooters. You could use fire, dogs, people making loud and unnatural noises, the idea is all the same.
Anyways, I don't think tool use is sort of a specifically astute evolutionary advantage as much as the underlying principle that allows it is. cognitive resonance (if I used the right term properly) has not only allowed us to use tools, but it has allowed us to think about tool use in ways that give us an advantage over other species. We took a sharp stick and made it sharper by grinding the head to a point or by shaping rocks and bones then attaching them, we made it harder by drying it in a flame or by using other materials and compounds of materials, we made it straighter by shaping it with tools and using the compounds, we made it more accurate by using feathering that slows the back end down to keep it in a straight line and the sharp end pointing forward where the bulk of the force will be transferred, we angled the feathers to produce a spin to increase the accuracy, We then devised another tool altogether to increase the range of the arrow. Fire and cars don't give us the advantage, Tool use isn't evolutionary, it's the ability to think about things and solve problems, to use tools to make other tools, and to use that entire process to however we find advantageous to us even if it is just to fool around. The human trait is the ability to process and learn detailed experiences and to use other forces to supplement what we are naturally lacking.
Some animals might use sticks to flush termites or ants from a mound and get dinner, we cultivate both and have a store of food. Some animals swing on vines growing in the trees to get around or just have fun, we build vines out of plants and chemicals and put the where we want them. Some animals eat herbs or rocks and minerals to aid in digestion, we cook the food and create drugs to cure diseases and illnesses. Tool use is common in the evolutionary world, our detailed use and ability to solve problems on levels above the problem is where our evolution is.
Maybe you should warn them that it isn't a zombie warning system either. You know, just to cover all your bases.
That's a good question. Cops aren't really all that bright, they are methodical and when applied properly, it gets the job done but they aren't exactly the smartest group of people. It's entirely possible that a lot of evidence and/or leads have been discarded or neglected because of this.
Before anyone flames me for stating that cops aren't the brightest of the bunch, when doing science it's often the case where a sample of something is tested before it it treated with the substance being tested. These provide baselines for comparative results and it isn't uncommon for them to be randomly done throughout the course of the experiments because you need a control. Now, if they were the slightest bit intelligent in the subject, they would test raw material periodically to ensure it wasn't contaminated in the same ways they shoot and clean their own guns periodically to ensure they are ready for use. This entire mysterious woman contamination could have been caught before it ever effected one crime scene if something was periodically done to validate the test equipment they are using. Instead, they treat it with less suspicion then a flashlight and just assume that it works as advertised instead of "checking the batteries" every once in a while. Doesn't seem to bright to me.
Well, no. The $140M went to "intramural laboratory repair and renovation" for various institutions. The key here is "intramural". In other words, it was money for things those agencies were supposed to do anyways with the existing funding they had.
Now if they were under funded, then there is a proper place to fund them. But spending money that they were going to spend anyways, just because it's in a stimulus only means that the money originally allocated for intramural repair and renovation will be used in different ways. It added nothing to a stimulus.
Of course there could be a completely different definition for "intramural" that only applies to the use of the term in the stimulus bill and I'm not aware of it. But as far as I know, there isn't and the spending was not in addition to what was already being spent. It was no more a stimulus then it was without the funding there which is why it shouldn't have been there at all.
Lol.. wingnut, your not just biased, your a leader of the cult.
And no, Gore is not backed up by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That is a farce and the entire consensus is a farce purpetrated in order to advance those goals. Go ahead, look for the specific time and place where all the climate scientists voted or staked a position behind Al Gore. You won't find it and you won't even find a hard number to stake the claim majority from.
As is usual, take a look at the far side of anything and you will find idiots blindly following what was fed to them. You and your kind is actually worse then the born against religious zealots. At least they are blindly following something that has centuries of history behind it. You go and find a cult to surrender that just started and don't understand why we laugh at you. You are right, it is a sad day for me. It's a sad day anytime I discover another idiot too weak to think for himself or to even come close to applying some critical thinking skills. Oh well, It's ok, at least the walls are padded where you will eventually end up.
Why would he? Or should I say why would he any more then you?
His comments on volcano monitoring was about it being in the stimulus bill. So he have to ask, is volcano monitoring a stimulus to the economy and american people? My guess is no, it's a public service that either didn't exist before the stimulus bill was passed or it did and the funding was hidden in it because it wasn't justified in other spending bills.
The stimulus bill however was 100% pure deficit spending with the purpose of stimulating the economy to benefit the American people. In other words, it's an emergency bill so why was pet projects included and with at least 2 years of democrat control, why is it that volcano monitoring was such an emergency?
Jindal needs not be embarrassed. He just needs a smarter crowed to speak to.
Actually, you are the one that is confused.
First, I never said it wasn't a problem. Second, your confusing the argument from a certain sect of people as to why we shouldn't be imposing restrictions on the freedoms of people with what you think has happened. The sea level has been rising and weather patterns have been shifting since Man started keeping records. It's not a static element that all the sudden started looking different. But the way you make it out to be is that there is some pristine picture that we need to return back to. That would be impossible even if humans were the cause and removed from the planet today. The earth, weather, sea levels, and everything else will change and continue to change independent of our existence. We will never stop those changes and regardless of what you want to think, life will adapt and go on.
If the notion behind this is scientific and not some religious endeavor where science is has been turned into a religion, then you should listen to them because that is how science works. You can't claim to be scientific if your not including the discussion of the opposition. Well, you can claim to be but you will end up looking like a bunch of religious pseudoscience zealots pushing an agenda. It is like ID for mother earth.
And yes, in the past people have rejected the idea that water vapor wasn't being accounted for properly in the models, they have rejected the ideas that solar variances causes the inputs to change, they have rejected ideas about the faulty data being used and mistakes made by researchers. And they rejected all of that because of some tie to an oil company or political group that was opposite of their beliefs only to eventually be forced to consider it all later when their models didn't work or those anti global warming people ended up showing proof of the matter.
It's almost like you can't talk about their god unless you repeat what they say. But that has nothing to do with the arguments put forth by any political side. The arguments or solutions to the problems put forth by the pro global warming crowd don't fix anything, it only limits and restricts one persons freedoms in order to enrich someone else. Take Shell oil for instance, they gave up on wind and solar as being too expensive to focus on making the existing stuff cleaner and all you global warming freaks about started crying because it wasn't your way.
Why does it need to change? Why can't coal be cleaned? Just because it isn't in practice today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. Why must wind and solar power be used instead? Why can't gas and oil exhaust be cleaned? why must cars be more efficient instead of just having cleaner exhausts?
You see, the problem is largely that lack of options allowed by your side. You side wants to limit individual freedoms and impose some central authority over people in ways and places it never has been before. Political solutions like Kyoto does nothing to reduce Co2 pollution, it only limits certain countries and encourages others to increase their production. Of the 138 some countries signed on, less the 40 have emissions caps. You have buffoons like Al Gore creating and showing misleading propaganda pieces that some courts have ruled to be fundamentally flawed and inaccurate- and he has the answer, spend money at his company so he can be rich.
Yea, strange that.
It's not funny. People who support private enterprise have long pushed for the prosecution of scams. Gore should be no different in that regard. And yes, he is pushing a scam and not a bona-fide business.
You must be confused. The argument was never that it isn't happening, it was that it isn't happening in a way that was a problem. It's always been a natural cycle. The argument only shifted from if it was a problem to was it a problem greater then any natural changes.
Are you really that dense? None of the republicans said we should eliminate volcano monitoring. One republican said it shouldn't have been included in one specific bill. That bill BTW, was a stimulus package. If volcano monitoring is important, then why the hell wasn't it properly funded to begin with and instead injected as emergency spending in a stimulus package? We have had two years of democrat control, don't tell me they get a pass for ignoring it so as it needs to be shoved into a stimulus bill. The reality is that volcano monitoring is already funded and what the republicans rejected was the idea that increasing those funds was a stimulus designed to benefit the economy and the American people as the stimulus bill was being sold.
I don't know who modded you insightful but it should have been "Can't comprehend what I just read". Perhaps there is no tag for that so over rated or stupid might have worked. We have already wiped egg from our faces when they rushed the stimulus bill through without enough time to even read it while screaming "it doesn't have to be perfect" just to find that the administration forgot it asked for laws enabling AIG to pay bonuses and shit after screaming like monkeys about how bad it was. Perhaps if you would take some time and actually read things, you would have a better grasp on what is going on too.
You right but everyone else is too smart to realize that.
She said Russia is Alaska's neighbor and can be seen from Alaska which is a correct statement. Tina Fey said "from my house" on SNL and people didn't know the difference. My only regret is that the star of "nailin palin" didn't look as much like Palin and Fey did.
This is what you can expect when the future get's their news from fake news shows and boasts about how informed they are because of it.
Not really, I could do all of the above while keeping it GPL compatible and there is nothing that could be done. There would be no need to compensate the programer or anything under the GPL. The only difference is that if I changed anything, then I would have to make those changes availible. But if I gave those changes only to my customers, you wouldn't get them without either finding a customer willing to give it away or buying the product yourself. It's the same effect.
It's more about Ideology then anything else. You have convinced yourself it's different because you believe in the Ideology, that's the biggest difference.
I was pretty confident of your ignorance. The ugly part was just a guess. Looks like a good one though. BTW, don't be too hard on your girlfriends, you don't want to poke a hole in them.
Oh yea, when you get out of school, come back and talk. Hopefully you would have learned something by then.
When your running AIG, you can put that into the contracts. However, the current contracts which were a condition of people offering their employment gives those people the bonuses.
It doesn't mean it is smart or that anyone has to like it. It just means that someone set conditions and people agreed to them.
Now think about this, you don't seem to like AIG's bonuses. Now what if someone arbitrarily decided that your contract was excessive and withheld half of your pay after you worked the time? Suppose the company you work for decides that all your stored sick time and vacation time is theirs now because you didn't do enough to make the company money. Suppose they also held your last 4 paychecks because you were over compensated while leaving you to believe they were on the way so you didn't walk out. Of course you have rights, it's in the contract, they can't do that, or can they? After all, that is what your asking of AIG, to go back on their contracts with people because you don't think those people added enough value to the company. Truth is, you really don't know how much value they did or didn't add to the company, for all we know, the people who got the bonuses could have made a profit in their divisions but another department lost more then they made.
So no matter how shitty you think the idea of AIG employees getting a bonus might be, taking that bonus or violating the contract isn't the way to approach it because the only thing separating you from them is whoever gets the public riled up. If it can be done to AIG employees, it can be done to you and that's not really a good thing. Deserve has everything to do with agreements as a condition to employment. It's not different then you contracting me to paint your house a certain color. You deserve to have me paint it the color you chose because you paid me for it just like AIG employees deserve to have their contracts honored even if new ones need to be negotiated.