The Chicago cameras are somewhere between 2nd and 3rd floor level and have pan and zoom cameras on them. It is quite likely that embarrassing but completely legal behavior will be seen and recorded by the system and used for the state's benefit. Your tax dollars at work.
There have been studies done about the use of CCTV in the UK and how a disproportionate amount of time was spent focused on good looking females, often focused closely on 'the good bits' to the detriment of the stated task of keeping an eye out for crime. It's a real problem.
Chicago has fixed point cameras spreading throughout high crime areas. In the UK the fixed point cameras can and do verbally chide petty scofflaws (litterers, jaywalkers).
The analogy breaks down because there are some very simple fixes that would drop our temperature significantly below where it is right now but are currently too expensive to do but may very well be economically practical, even cheap, in 20-40 years.
The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth is a variable. Given cheap enough launch costs we can adjust that variable, bring it under our control from outside the atmosphere without negative side effects. Today, we could gear up and do a similar effort inside an atmosphere (replicating Mt. Pinatubo's famous eruption of 1995) but there are some side effects. The side effects are likely less painful (in excess mortality worldwide) than creating a real CO2 limiting regime.
It makes real sense to hold off to see if we can get cheap launch and then solve global warming in 20-40 years without side effects. If we can't solve that problem, atmospheric launches of blocking particulates would solve the problem cheaper in 2050 than all the excess mortality caused by pulling capital out of development and into CO2 reduction for the next 40 years.
You shift capital on the massive scale that Kyoto style fixes require and people are going to die. They'll likely be poor and brown, dying in indirect ways that are difficult to point fingers on but that won't change a thing. They'll be dead. So once we recognize that all choices are bad choices that cause excess mortality, it's just a matter of triage and trying to figure out which solution has the smallest pile of bodies.
Cheap launch in 2040 and extra-atmospheric shading to reduce solar heating of the planet is about the smallest pile of bodies I've seen to fix this solution. We should give it a shot, for the children.
1. go to Lindzen's wikipedia page. 2. Find the external link to his listed publications 3. Scroll to bottom to find his most recent stuff 4. Find out that he's published several items in scientific journals in 2006 and has several things in the works for 2007. 5. Conclude that the parent poster is just regurgitating his own myopic political viewpoint and isn't above libeling an accomplished scientist he disagrees with.
Lindzen may be right or wrong. I'm not professionally qualified to tell for sure. But he certainly is a working scientist with plenty of recent work (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Publicati onsRSL.html) under his belt like:
215. Chou, M.-D. and R.S. Lindzen (2002) Comments on "Tropical convection and the energy balance of the top of the atmosphere." J. Climate, 15, 2566-2570. [pdf]
216. Lindzen, R.S. (2003) The Interaction of Waves and Convection in the Tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 3009-3020. [pdf]
217. Chou, M.-D. and R.S. Lindzen (2005) Comments on "Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis". J. Clim. 18, 2123-2127.
218. Kennel, C.F., R.S. Lindzen, and W. Munk (2004) William Aaron Nierenberg (1919-2000) - A biographical memoir. Biographical Memoirs of the N.A.S., 85, 1-20.
219. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) A generalized momentum framework for looking at baroclinic circulations. In press J. Atmos. Sci.
220. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton (in press).
221. Rondanelli, R., V. Thayalan, R. S. Lindzen, and M. T. Zuber (2006) Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars. Accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.
They have Inspector Generals for that and there have already been trials and convictions regarding stolen funds. Sometimes investigations take longer. There have been zero pardons regarding stolen funds so the process of the investigations will likely go beyond the Bush administration and any political pressure that crew can bring to bear. You're libeling an awful lot of dedicated men and women.
Unlike the UN, the accountability system in the US is pretty well developed and we have regular elections that help keep it that way.
There are all sorts of ways to have democracy without having world government. Not all of them have anything to do with the US. The Catholic world, for instance, has a principle called subsidiarity which recoils at the idea of centralizing everything.
Now some things do have to be centralized. But they are few and far between. There were international bodies before the League of Nations (like the ITU). The League wasn't a fit body of global governance. It crashed and burned and the worthwhile bits eventually transferred themselves to the UN. That's falling apart now and it seems very unlikely that the global warming boys are any cleaner.
Until we do have a reliable, accountable way to have global governance we need to maintain freedom of action. It may never happen.
This is the same crew that can't manage to handle pedophile rapists among their ranks of workers (and this is a literal example, not hyperbole). That's why it's scary. If you're in, you can commit crimes and be protected but if you're out, go pound sand for justice.
They have a premium "no lines no waiting" service. It costs $99 a year. If you've got an apple store in the area it's worth investing in the service (http://www.apple.com/retail/procare/)
The local guy was a moron not to try to sell you on the procare contract. For somebody on the clock, a 4 hour wait makes the contract pay for itself in 1 visit.
Rupert Murdoch goes left or right as suits his commercial interest. Fox is as it is because a sufficiently large demographic of americans wants it and nobody else was supplying it. That it is somewhat less biased to the left is a happy accident for those on the right.
And no, I'm not a partisan of any of the news channels. I think that they all stink, just in different ways.
Were you to actually read the article, you would find that the % of Safari users (which only run on OS X) exceeds the % of Mac users by about %0.5 (slightly higher than that but varying over the 2 months reported in the article). Since noise exceeds signal here (0.5 > 0.3) I wouldn't worry too much about this study though it would probably make a great case study on the misuse of statistics.
I've had historically good experience with Mac hardware but your mileage may vary. For corporate use, I'd always get the warranty. At that point, most of your troubles are reduced to timely backups and having sufficient spares to rotate them through but that's the case with all manufacturers.
Apple used to charge more for their hardware and insist that their vendors provide higher specced components. Now they charge as much or a bit less than Dell, HP, et al and they have about the same number of problems.
What flavors of Linux have Steve Jobs yelling and screaming so the herd of cats known as your ISV ecosystem maintains a decent level of consistency across programs? That's the one that I want.
If a BC era herder writes up a highly sophisticated treatise on string theory stating that this is, in fact, how the universe works, once the original docs are authenticated as coming from that era you pretty much have to come to the conclusion that God exists because there is no other explanation for someone of that background knowing such things. Knowledge destroys faith whether by denying it or confirming it what you have afterwards is not faith, blind or otherwise.
My point was to bring up an example of how science can go wrong not to provide an exhaustive list. Lysenkoism is merely the most obvious episode. The problem with evolution is that its professionals inadequately police themselves and permit an awful lot of unscientific christian bashing to go on under color of science (read up on Dawkins for a strong example).
Once "science" as a profession leaves behind the scientific method and countenances pseudoscience if it's a particular, favored brand, then all that matters is who is holding the whip hand and it all becomes a political struggle. And why should we support that?
A copy of Vista is not simply a physical copy of the retail box but a Vista license wrapped up in whatever form you like (retail, pre-installed, volume licensing). A company ordering 100 Vista licenses and a single physical copy of the software traditionally gets marked down as a sale of 100 copies, not 1.
Yes, yes, because every master chef imparts his recipes along with every meal. The Bible, for the vast majority of christians, is a guidebook to eternal salvation. It is not meant to be a scientific text and not vetted for that at the synods that established the canon of scripture.
The revealed truth that we have from God through the prophets and Jesus is that God prefers that we have faith. If he were to put the secrets of the universe in front of us on a silver platter, that would destroy faith. This was established long before there was a scientific method. We're not talking about ex post facto argumentation.
I'm one of those people who suspect that God used evolution as his tool in the process of creation so you can say that I believe in scientific evolution. It fits the best evidence we've got right now. So what I'm saying has nothing to do with the immediate question at hand, just the larger question of the reliability of scientific peer review.
Unfortunately, the idea of scientific independence is something of a myth. Lysenkoism swept the Soviet academy, for instance, on the back of political patronage. That's a relatively uncontroversial example of modern scientific error spread widely. A growing number of people are saying that global warming is either that way now or headed that way. It's hazardous to your funding to say "I don't see anthropogenic global warming evidence in my specialty". It's very hazardous to say "I don't see global warming coming from humans at all".
It's not anti-free market. It just puts the onus on consumers to financially kneecap producers who set such contracts. That's going to be ugly. The problem isn't that the producers get this power. The problem is said financial kneecapping is likely to be stopped by congressional intervention. *That end game* is what is going to be anti-free market.
Every state has a military code. They're pretty much all modeled after a suggested federal code. Militias outside the National guard, specifically the unorganized militia are a staple in all of the one's I've looked through. Try reading the actual law instead of just somebody's talking points. Most decent public libraries have a state code, read yours instead of being led around by the nose. The relevant section won't be more than a page or two.
The term organized is a term of art in military law. The actual term of the amendment is simply militia. Every legal code that I've checked has a dual tier militia system in their military code (and I've checked the federal code and two state codes so feel free to come up with a counterexample). The unorganized militia still counts as militia and thus the 2nd amendment does apply. The militia is the whole of the people. Read the Federalist Papers and the relevant legal codes.
The PRC does not have a 2nd amendment. The PRC does, however, have a large agricultural and mining population with ready access to explosives. There are an awful lot of bombings in the PRC. Very often the message sender does it in suicide fashion. That he does not survive the exercise does not mean that the message was not received. There are lots of ways to use guns to send a message. The foremost one is their very presence, framing the relationship between the people and the government in subtle ways that rarely have to be stated and most often aren't even consciously acknowledged.
Texas was a bit of a strange case as the redistricting was done by federal court, not by legislature in 2001. Texas had gone very much over to the Republican camp yet the remains of the 1991 Democrat gerrymander led the Congressional delegation to still be majority Democrat in 2002. That's not something that happens very often.
That's only a temporary 'fix' as purposefully degrading and delaying data in this fashion eventually becomes illegal if you do it badly enough, long enough. And on the down side, when a neighborhood goes "good" that delay will hold down housing values in the new "hip" up and coming area. It also will hold down tax assessments.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chicago cameras are somewhere between 2nd and 3rd floor level and have pan and zoom cameras on them. It is quite likely that embarrassing but completely legal behavior will be seen and recorded by the system and used for the state's benefit. Your tax dollars at work.
There have been studies done about the use of CCTV in the UK and how a disproportionate amount of time was spent focused on good looking females, often focused closely on 'the good bits' to the detriment of the stated task of keeping an eye out for crime. It's a real problem.
Chicago has fixed point cameras spreading throughout high crime areas. In the UK the fixed point cameras can and do verbally chide petty scofflaws (litterers, jaywalkers).
I wasn't talking about Chirac, but about the UN. A quick google for UN pedophile and rapist yields plenty of urls including this one:d =1471
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?i
The analogy breaks down because there are some very simple fixes that would drop our temperature significantly below where it is right now but are currently too expensive to do but may very well be economically practical, even cheap, in 20-40 years.
The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth is a variable. Given cheap enough launch costs we can adjust that variable, bring it under our control from outside the atmosphere without negative side effects. Today, we could gear up and do a similar effort inside an atmosphere (replicating Mt. Pinatubo's famous eruption of 1995) but there are some side effects. The side effects are likely less painful (in excess mortality worldwide) than creating a real CO2 limiting regime.
It makes real sense to hold off to see if we can get cheap launch and then solve global warming in 20-40 years without side effects. If we can't solve that problem, atmospheric launches of blocking particulates would solve the problem cheaper in 2050 than all the excess mortality caused by pulling capital out of development and into CO2 reduction for the next 40 years.
You shift capital on the massive scale that Kyoto style fixes require and people are going to die. They'll likely be poor and brown, dying in indirect ways that are difficult to point fingers on but that won't change a thing. They'll be dead. So once we recognize that all choices are bad choices that cause excess mortality, it's just a matter of triage and trying to figure out which solution has the smallest pile of bodies.
Cheap launch in 2040 and extra-atmospheric shading to reduce solar heating of the planet is about the smallest pile of bodies I've seen to fix this solution. We should give it a shot, for the children.
1. go to Lindzen's wikipedia page.
i onsRSL.html) under his belt like:
2. Find the external link to his listed publications
3. Scroll to bottom to find his most recent stuff
4. Find out that he's published several items in scientific journals in 2006 and has several things in the works for 2007.
5. Conclude that the parent poster is just regurgitating his own myopic political viewpoint and isn't above libeling an accomplished scientist he disagrees with.
Lindzen may be right or wrong. I'm not professionally qualified to tell for sure. But he certainly is a working scientist with plenty of recent work (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Publicat
215. Chou, M.-D. and R.S. Lindzen (2002) Comments on "Tropical convection and the energy balance of the top of the atmosphere." J. Climate, 15, 2566-2570. [pdf]
216. Lindzen, R.S. (2003) The Interaction of Waves and Convection in the Tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 3009-3020. [pdf]
217. Chou, M.-D. and R.S. Lindzen (2005) Comments on "Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis". J. Clim. 18, 2123-2127.
218. Kennel, C.F., R.S. Lindzen, and W. Munk (2004) William Aaron Nierenberg (1919-2000) - A biographical memoir. Biographical Memoirs of the N.A.S., 85, 1-20.
219. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) A generalized momentum framework for looking at baroclinic circulations. In press J. Atmos. Sci.
220. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton (in press).
221. Rondanelli, R., V. Thayalan, R. S. Lindzen, and M. T. Zuber (2006) Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars. Accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.
Oh, you mean like the ITU? But that's been around long before the big spread of democracy...
They have Inspector Generals for that and there have already been trials and convictions regarding stolen funds. Sometimes investigations take longer. There have been zero pardons regarding stolen funds so the process of the investigations will likely go beyond the Bush administration and any political pressure that crew can bring to bear. You're libeling an awful lot of dedicated men and women.
Unlike the UN, the accountability system in the US is pretty well developed and we have regular elections that help keep it that way.
There are all sorts of ways to have democracy without having world government. Not all of them have anything to do with the US. The Catholic world, for instance, has a principle called subsidiarity which recoils at the idea of centralizing everything.
Now some things do have to be centralized. But they are few and far between. There were international bodies before the League of Nations (like the ITU). The League wasn't a fit body of global governance. It crashed and burned and the worthwhile bits eventually transferred themselves to the UN. That's falling apart now and it seems very unlikely that the global warming boys are any cleaner.
Until we do have a reliable, accountable way to have global governance we need to maintain freedom of action. It may never happen.
This is the same crew that can't manage to handle pedophile rapists among their ranks of workers (and this is a literal example, not hyperbole). That's why it's scary. If you're in, you can commit crimes and be protected but if you're out, go pound sand for justice.
Scary enough?
They have a premium "no lines no waiting" service. It costs $99 a year. If you've got an apple store in the area it's worth investing in the service (http://www.apple.com/retail/procare/)
The local guy was a moron not to try to sell you on the procare contract. For somebody on the clock, a 4 hour wait makes the contract pay for itself in 1 visit.
Rupert Murdoch goes left or right as suits his commercial interest. Fox is as it is because a sufficiently large demographic of americans wants it and nobody else was supplying it. That it is somewhat less biased to the left is a happy accident for those on the right.
And no, I'm not a partisan of any of the news channels. I think that they all stink, just in different ways.
Were you to actually read the article, you would find that the % of Safari users (which only run on OS X) exceeds the % of Mac users by about %0.5 (slightly higher than that but varying over the 2 months reported in the article). Since noise exceeds signal here (0.5 > 0.3) I wouldn't worry too much about this study though it would probably make a great case study on the misuse of statistics.
I've had historically good experience with Mac hardware but your mileage may vary. For corporate use, I'd always get the warranty. At that point, most of your troubles are reduced to timely backups and having sufficient spares to rotate them through but that's the case with all manufacturers.
Apple used to charge more for their hardware and insist that their vendors provide higher specced components. Now they charge as much or a bit less than Dell, HP, et al and they have about the same number of problems.
What flavors of Linux have Steve Jobs yelling and screaming so the herd of cats known as your ISV ecosystem maintains a decent level of consistency across programs? That's the one that I want.
If a BC era herder writes up a highly sophisticated treatise on string theory stating that this is, in fact, how the universe works, once the original docs are authenticated as coming from that era you pretty much have to come to the conclusion that God exists because there is no other explanation for someone of that background knowing such things. Knowledge destroys faith whether by denying it or confirming it what you have afterwards is not faith, blind or otherwise.
My point was to bring up an example of how science can go wrong not to provide an exhaustive list. Lysenkoism is merely the most obvious episode. The problem with evolution is that its professionals inadequately police themselves and permit an awful lot of unscientific christian bashing to go on under color of science (read up on Dawkins for a strong example).
Once "science" as a profession leaves behind the scientific method and countenances pseudoscience if it's a particular, favored brand, then all that matters is who is holding the whip hand and it all becomes a political struggle. And why should we support that?
A copy of Vista is not simply a physical copy of the retail box but a Vista license wrapped up in whatever form you like (retail, pre-installed, volume licensing). A company ordering 100 Vista licenses and a single physical copy of the software traditionally gets marked down as a sale of 100 copies, not 1.
Yes, yes, because every master chef imparts his recipes along with every meal. The Bible, for the vast majority of christians, is a guidebook to eternal salvation. It is not meant to be a scientific text and not vetted for that at the synods that established the canon of scripture.
The revealed truth that we have from God through the prophets and Jesus is that God prefers that we have faith. If he were to put the secrets of the universe in front of us on a silver platter, that would destroy faith. This was established long before there was a scientific method. We're not talking about ex post facto argumentation.
I'm one of those people who suspect that God used evolution as his tool in the process of creation so you can say that I believe in scientific evolution. It fits the best evidence we've got right now. So what I'm saying has nothing to do with the immediate question at hand, just the larger question of the reliability of scientific peer review.
Unfortunately, the idea of scientific independence is something of a myth. Lysenkoism swept the Soviet academy, for instance, on the back of political patronage. That's a relatively uncontroversial example of modern scientific error spread widely. A growing number of people are saying that global warming is either that way now or headed that way. It's hazardous to your funding to say "I don't see anthropogenic global warming evidence in my specialty". It's very hazardous to say "I don't see global warming coming from humans at all".
It's not anti-free market. It just puts the onus on consumers to financially kneecap producers who set such contracts. That's going to be ugly. The problem isn't that the producers get this power. The problem is said financial kneecapping is likely to be stopped by congressional intervention. *That end game* is what is going to be anti-free market.
Every state has a military code. They're pretty much all modeled after a suggested federal code. Militias outside the National guard, specifically the unorganized militia are a staple in all of the one's I've looked through. Try reading the actual law instead of just somebody's talking points. Most decent public libraries have a state code, read yours instead of being led around by the nose. The relevant section won't be more than a page or two.
The term organized is a term of art in military law. The actual term of the amendment is simply militia. Every legal code that I've checked has a dual tier militia system in their military code (and I've checked the federal code and two state codes so feel free to come up with a counterexample). The unorganized militia still counts as militia and thus the 2nd amendment does apply. The militia is the whole of the people. Read the Federalist Papers and the relevant legal codes.
The PRC does not have a 2nd amendment. The PRC does, however, have a large agricultural and mining population with ready access to explosives. There are an awful lot of bombings in the PRC. Very often the message sender does it in suicide fashion. That he does not survive the exercise does not mean that the message was not received. There are lots of ways to use guns to send a message. The foremost one is their very presence, framing the relationship between the people and the government in subtle ways that rarely have to be stated and most often aren't even consciously acknowledged.
Texas was a bit of a strange case as the redistricting was done by federal court, not by legislature in 2001. Texas had gone very much over to the Republican camp yet the remains of the 1991 Democrat gerrymander led the Congressional delegation to still be majority Democrat in 2002. That's not something that happens very often.
That's only a temporary 'fix' as purposefully degrading and delaying data in this fashion eventually becomes illegal if you do it badly enough, long enough. And on the down side, when a neighborhood goes "good" that delay will hold down housing values in the new "hip" up and coming area. It also will hold down tax assessments.