.....And another Global Warming Denial Myth goes poof......
There is another theory. It applies not only to earth, but to the other planets as well, Mars in particular. Measurements indicate that Mars is definitely getting warmer also. Since Martians don't drive SUVs or burn coal in the power stations, their global warming must be due to some other cause. The one commonality is that we both use the same sun for energy. So that is the source of global warming.
It is interesting that there are two references to an overheated sun in the ancient writings of the Bible. One is in Isaiah 30:26 and the other in Revelation 16:8, both of which talk about man's corruption and the judgments of God, at the end time on rebellious mankind. Words of punishment and judgment are highly unpleasant, but there IS justice in the Universe and we are given a glimpse of some of what this will entail.
We humans like to think ourselves to be in control of our destiny, but that is the biggest fantasy we collectively entertain. There is one true God, His name is Jesus, who came to earth and who ultimately runs the entire Universe. (Ephesians 2:5-11)
.....I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon.....
So you can't find Dr. Dick Morgan, Bob Carter takes bribes, so what about:
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama.
These people are more learned that you or I and do not agree with other learned guys, who tells use we are all going to burn and/or flood BECAUSE of human activity, who have just as many degrees. So now you choose to BELIEVE the burn boys and I actually believe in global warming in a way you and those like you will scoff at derisively.
The ancient book of Isaiah, part of the Jewish and Christian holy writings contains many sections that concern themselves with the Last Days, a time of judgment, when God Himself will once again assume sovereign, complete control of His creation, including mankind. If you would take the time to read what is written there to get the context, you'd come across the following verse:
(Isaiah 30:26 The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.)
I do believe what is written, that there will indeed be some dramatic global warming, but humans will have nothing whatsoever to do with it. There is already evidence that the sun is putting out more energy:
.....I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon.....
So you can't find Dr. Dick Morgan, Bob Carter takes bribes, so what about:
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama.
These people are more learned that you or I and do not agree with other learned guys, who tells use we are all going to burn and/or flood BECAUSE of human activity, who have just as many degrees. So now you choose to BELIEVE the burn boys and I actually believe in global warming in a way you and those like you will scoff at derisively.
The ancient book of Isaiah, part of the Jewish and Christian holy writings contains many sections that concern themselves with the Last Days, a time of judgment, when God Himself will once again assume sovereign, complete control of His creation, including mankind. If you would take the time to read what is written there to get the context, you'd come across the following verse:
You should able to google for that information just as well as I and/or write the author of the article. Do you really think that article is a fabrication? If so, complain to the Canada Free Press editors. Just because a majority of a certain group of people believes a particular thing, doesn't automatically make their belief true. There are a number of other scientists mentioned. Are they also fabrications?
.....the essentially free energy from oil are not things that are likely to be duplicated......
Sunshine is free and fossil fuels are nothing more than stored sunshine. Mankind will have to use that perfectly splendid thermonuclear fusion furnace 93 million miles away from here. Only a small fraction of the solar energy each day would suffice for all of mankind. One day the now still photosynthesis mystery may become known and we will make it the abundant, cheap source of all energy.
Man's downfall will likely be the sad fact that we cannot get along with one another. A nasty world war would reduce the population dramatically. In addition to the direct destruction caused by modern warfare, a nuclear winter would cut short any sort of warming and make death by starvation and disease kill a large fraction of humanity. With the posession of WMD's in the hands of many, the scenario written up in pictorial symbolism of the last book of the Bible, Revelation, doesn't sound so far fetched, unfortunately.
...The great problem of our time is figuring out how to have enough food for the coming population, say in ~30 years....
There was a jerk named Paul Ehrlich who wrote a book in the 60s, or perhaps even earlier called "The Population Bomb", that made the same nonsensical prognostications. By his figuring, humanity should have starved itself to near extinction by now.
Actually, if global warming were true, large areas now frozen would become inhabitable and agriculturally viable. So bring on REAL global warming and make the planet more productive.
......Interesting how the huge spike in the temperature of the earth.....
How huge is the "spike" of the average temperature of the WHOLE earth, since we are talking about GLOBAL warming. There may be localities where the temperature has risen more, but then there are other places where it has dropped. For the planet as a whole it has been remarkably constant, within about a degree C. over the time span we have actual MEASUREMENTS.
Here is an excerpt from an article: Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
......I would also like to point out that if the Earth does have cyclical weather, thats not going to make me any happier about dying from natures wonderful cycle......
More likely, you'll die of "natural causes" in bed, than climate related reasons. Bed is in fact the most dangerous place to be, since more people die there than in any other single place. Automobiles are also rather dangerous and should be avoided.
Many, if not most processes in nature are cyclical. We depend on the regular cyclical motions of atoms, the earth and moon to govern our lives and technology. Why should it be so far fetched that climate should also have regular rhythms, some long term and others short term? We know from recorded history that there were warm periods and cold periods. Long term natural records, such as tree rings and ice cores also indicate rhythmic patterns.
.....Do you want to continue to assassinate the character of the scientists who are trying to do something about it? Or do you just want to sit in your air conditioned H2 and hope you don't run out of gas?.....
How about facing the facts or REAL science? Scientists do not all agree on the existence of global warming, let alone its cause and even less that humans have anything to do with it. Look at the following article for one:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Global warming means just that, GLOBAL, not in a few select regions of the arctic zones. If the truly AVERAGE temperature of the WHOLE planet is taken in consideration, nobody has measured any change within the accuracy limits we are able to determine this overall WORLDWIDE trend. A melting glacier here or there does NOT make for GLOBAL warming. It is junk science to the highest degree to take measurements of a given area and then apply that to the whole earth.
......companies would sabotage each others' nets with useless chatter and jamming until the entire network was useless......
The interference problem occurs mostly with the older, now existing legacy modulation and signaling systems. The roads analogy is more or less correct with these technologies. However, advanced digital coding combined with frequency hopping and multiplexing make interference much less of a problem and allow much more information to be transmitted in a given channel. Ordinary modems on phone lines started out at 300bps. The entire cell phone network depends on the re-use of the same frequency bands for thousands or even millions of phones, all communicating just fine, thank you. Like I said, there is no physics reason why communications channels need interfere with one another. Broadcasting stations can emit multiple channels in the same spectrum space that in the old analog days allowed for only one program. Cable systems can service hundreds of Internet connections in the same channel space occupied by a single analog TV channel.
Existing providers may use these tired old arguments to preserve their monopolies and use the force of law to squash their competition. Laws can slow down progress, but can never, ever stop it. Eventually, just like cell phones, everyone will get their communications services without stringing a bothersome spider web of wires all over. In some countries, wireless phones far outnumber the old fashioned wired variety.
....Since I can hide my voip traffic by tunneling it on port 80, for example,.....
Another way to prevent content based filtering is encryption. If there is no way to tell what kind of data the stream of packets represents, there is no way to filter or redirect it. Intel or some upstart could come up with a cheap hardware encryption chip that could be incorporated into every network interface. Such a technological advance and ubiquitous encryption would however meet with fierce legal resistance from government snoopers euphemistically calling themselves "law enforcement".
..... Do you pay for the actual last mile between the nearest junction box and your house? And who owns that last mile, the phone company you're buying from?.....
Advances in wireless communications will eliminate the 'last mile' problem. Advanced new techniques and chips will allow much better, interference free use of existing electromagnetic spectrum. Upstarts will take advantage of this and eat both the cable companies and telco's lunch. It costs a lot of money to build and maintain all those wires. In the future, the telcos will own the main pipes from city to city, but within each town, the high speed signals will travel through space, the same way that cell phones do today. New technology is always very disruptive to the existing business models. Think of how cell phones have already changed all of society. There are no laws of physics that make 100Mb/s cell phone type wireless connections impossible.
The horse and buggy industry gave way to the automobile. The music and video content business is now in upheaval and the communications business is next for a fundamental change. Laws, like the DMCA and the now pending network legislation can impede, but never stop technological progress. Eventually such laws will become as meaningless as the rules and regulations applying and formulated for horses and buggies about a hundred years ago.
....So what about the sea species (squid IIRC) where the optic nerve is on the back side?.......
Octopi and related sea creatures don't see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It's more like 'a compound eye with a single lens'. They are cold blooded creatures for one thing and optical requirements for underwater vision also are radically different than for the air.
Software design is markedly different than for physical objects, since software is not physical. There are no know methods or mathematical models that we know of that can give us reasonable assurance that the software is bug free. Extensive and expensive testing is the ONLY way to determine the quality of non-trivial software.
Many of the 'designs' of nature are still unduplicated despite much research and very much a mystery. Exploring these mysteries is what makes science what it is and very rewarding. Trying to determine the origin of these mysteries is outside of the realm of real science, but belongs in the realm of faith.
......It is complicated, but good parents cannot have bad kids, by definition of 'good parent.' A truely good parent will have raised a good child.....
Unfortunately, good parents CAN and sometimes do have bad kids. We humans have a will and conscience, yet can and do use that will to go against what our conscience tells us to be true and good. Good parent can help their children to make good choices, but there is no way that any parent can GUARANTEE that the child will indeed make the good choices. We adults often make choices we know to be wrong. If this were not so, our jails and prisons would not be filled to overflowing.
......Another funny thing here is the $30m figure. You cant even sue someone for that much.....
In the USA you CAN sue anybody for any amount and for any or no reason. Whether she (mostly her lawyer) gets anywhere is up to Myspace.com in how much they are willing to spend on defense rather than settling the blatant extortion attempt out of court and thereby encouraging more such lawsuits. IMHO this is one case that the defendant should fight to the bitter end, rather than settling and thereby give other lawyers the idea of making some easy money. Yes, it may cost more than a quick settlement for a few thousand$ now, but then such a settlement will signal to other robber lawyers, that there is some easy money to be made in the future. I'm sure her lawyer KNOWS that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell to win if this case would come before a jury. If every lawsuit HAD to, by law be resolved by a judge or jury, with no out of court settlements possible, the number of lawsuits would dwindle close to zero.
.....Yes I can believe it wasn't designed by someone who knew anything at all about optics. We have a blind spot wich the brain fills in. This is because part of optic nerve is in front of the retina......
Repeating someone's ignorant statements isn't exactly the most intelligent thing to do.
Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said: 'The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.' He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead. This doesn't spoil vision, because the nerves are virtually transparent because of their small size and also having about the same refractive index as the surrounding vitreous humour. In fact, what limits the eye's resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil's size), so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference.
Any explanation of how the form and function of a structure, such as the eye, came to be, without the application of an intelligence, takes far more FAITH than I can muster. I can see that your faith in blind chance, or whatever other mechanism, is greater than mine in God. I congratulate you in your great faith. I pray that someday you will see fit to redirect this faith to the one true God who loves you.
Thanks for posting that link. I knew the resolution and other characteristics of our eyes were rather good, but never knew the details as related to photography. According to that site, the human eye is still almost five times better than this new chip. Can anyone still believe that the human eye was not DESIGNED by someone who knows just a little about optics and the properties of light?
......Yeah, but someone has to point -- and keep trained on -- the damn thing to YOU. That someone is a wrongdoer and should be but in jail.....
Only if a person has already come to the attention of the enforcers will they go to the trouble and expense to single out that one from the millions of ordinary people. The problem comes in if you get singled out by corrupt enforcers, merely because you have expressed criticism or exposed wrongdoing of the government, especially if the it is true. People in general get very upset if their evil deeds are exposed and will, if they have the power, have your head chopped off. In such situations you have to count the cost of speaking up for truth and righteousness. Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Bonhoffer and countless others paid with their lives rather than keep silent against the evils committed by those in power. In the private sphere, speaking out and exposing corporate wrongdoing will, at the very least get you fired, if the corporate powers think they can get away with it.
When there is sufficient corruption in a government, it doesn't really matter whether they are watching you or not, they'll just come and get you in the middle of the night, like the nazis did with the Jews and others. If it comes to such a scenario, you have to decide whether to go meekly and get snuffed later, or use a weapon and take a few of the secret police with you before they make Swiss chess out of you. That is why the right to bear arms is a good protection against the sort of tactics the nazi used. If enough dissenters take out enough government agents, then the tactic of secretly arresting dissenters and "undesirables" not longer works. Such activity then has to either cease or be done openly. Doing so openly entails the risk of a popular revolt, which is the last thing a repressive government wants to precipitate.
..... but the government can't do NOTHING that isn't authorized by law......
Your double negative implies just the opposite of what I think you may have meant.
Those that are supposed to represent the people can and will do anything that we let them get away with. When we re-elect the same people for decades, even if the make bad laws, who can be blamed for that? When a large percentage of people, especially those who tend to complain about government, don't bother to register and vote, whose fault is that?
As for someone watching you in your backyard, just run Google Earth sometime and you'll know that that sort of watching has been going on for a long time. Modern satellite technology allows the reading of a newspaper headline from space.
.....use this tool to collect unauthorized information......
Authorized on unauthorized by whom? For the government, all information that is not securely encrypted, it is by definition authorized. If it is encrypted, the sender and recipients thereof are by definition suspects of a crime and need to be investigated.
.....but what happens when the 'bad guys' start building drones of their own?......
How about hacking the control system and taking it where the police doesn't want it to go? It would be sort of like the hackers making a PC Zombie, only this one flies.
In the article: "There must have been some sort of communication interference," said De La Torre as he inspected the multicolored wires and circuitry spilling out of his damaged drone.
Actually it was a hacker who made the $25K toy airplane crash into the empty lot.
......That is why I said before, DRM the technology is not wrong, DRM the technology is not evil, BAD uses of DRM are......
All DRM, by definition is breakable, because the recipient and the attacker are one and the same. In order to watch or listen, the key has to be used at some point. The evil is not in the DRM, but making it illegal by way of the DMCA to allow anyone to go fishing for the key. If the DMCA did not exist, DRM would have disappeared by now.
.....it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen......
How about selling the product for a lower price and making it more convenient to buy than to steal. The iTMS shows the way to do it with music. Yes, it is possible to get the same music free from some places on the Internet, but it is nor anywhere near as easy, not is the quality uniform. If Apple made iTMS DRM free, they would not sell fewer iPods and the number of downloads would increase, because now everybody could use the easy to use iTunes program to download music to all the other players also. Ipods would still work seamlessly with iTunes, whereas the other players are more troublesome. None of the copying technologies from the piano rolls forward have ever DECREASED the amount of money creative people have made in the long term.
In fact DRM is wonderful, great and there should be more of it. What is bad is that the makers of DRM, with the DMCA, have gotten the law on their side in cat and mouse game of breaking all DRM. Let Sony and whoever wants to come up with the most draconian DRM they can pay someone to invent, but then allow someone even more clever come up with and legally distribute tools to break the encryptions.
All content creators have to realize that the easier it has become to copy their work, the more money they have made in the long run. Starting with the piano rolls, which were really early digital copies, through the VCRs, easier copying has always meant more money for artists and all their hangers on. Binary bits are inherently copyable. Does anyone really believe that Apple would sell fewer iPods and there would be fewer music downloads from iTunes if Apple simply dropped the DRM?
Trying to prevent, by law, digital copying, is like trying to prevent the tide from coming in. Up until now, content makers have always figured out how to use the new, better copying technology available to the public to make more money than ever. I predict that in 20 to 30 years, DRM will be regarded in the same way as we today regard prohibition laws enacted in the early 1900s. These laws back then even rose to the level of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment, not just a plain dumb law, such as the DMCA.
.......You assume that the reason for this majority share in new tech is due solely to the fact that you have such able graduates......
The greatness and quality of our institutions of higher learning and their faculties enables them to turn out such able graduates, regardless of whether they are American citizens or not. Our system of freedom, often then offers better opportunities for fulfillment and yes, money, to these able graduates, both US and foreign. Education can be thought of as a commodity, much like any other. It just happens that so far, the US has and does offer a desirable education for both US and foreigners who come here, if they can.
Slashdot Mirror
.....And another Global Warming Denial Myth goes poof......
_ ID=2736
There is another theory. It applies not only to earth, but to the other planets as well, Mars in particular. Measurements indicate that Mars is definitely getting warmer also. Since Martians don't drive SUVs or burn coal in the power stations, their global warming must be due to some other cause. The one commonality is that we both use the same sun for energy. So that is the source of global warming.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
also
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article
and
http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html
It is interesting that there are two references to an overheated sun in the ancient writings of the Bible. One is in Isaiah 30:26 and the other in Revelation 16:8, both of which talk about man's corruption and the judgments of God, at the end time on rebellious mankind. Words of punishment and judgment are highly unpleasant, but there IS justice in the Universe and we are given a glimpse of some of what this will entail.
We humans like to think ourselves to be in control of our destiny, but that is the biggest fantasy we collectively entertain. There is one true God, His name is Jesus, who came to earth and who ultimately runs the entire Universe. (Ephesians 2:5-11)
.....I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon.....
_ ID=2736
So you can't find Dr. Dick Morgan, Bob Carter takes bribes, so what about:
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson,
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology,
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University,
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama.
These people are more learned that you or I and do not agree with other learned guys, who tells use we are all going to burn and/or flood BECAUSE of human activity, who have just as many degrees. So now you choose to BELIEVE the burn boys and I actually believe in global warming in a way you and those like you will scoff at derisively.
The ancient book of Isaiah, part of the Jewish and Christian holy writings contains many sections that concern themselves with the Last Days, a time of judgment, when God Himself will once again assume sovereign, complete control of His creation, including mankind. If you would take the time to read what is written there to get the context, you'd come across the following verse:
(Isaiah 30:26 The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.)
I do believe what is written, that there will indeed be some dramatic global warming, but humans will have nothing whatsoever to do with it. There is already evidence that the sun is putting out more energy:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
also
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article
and
http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html
There are many similar articles you can google for. We humans were created by and ultimately are subject to God's sovereign purposes.
.....I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon.....
So you can't find Dr. Dick Morgan, Bob Carter takes bribes, so what about:
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson,
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology,
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University,
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama.
These people are more learned that you or I and do not agree with other learned guys, who tells use we are all going to burn and/or flood BECAUSE of human activity, who have just as many degrees. So now you choose to BELIEVE the burn boys and I actually believe in global warming in a way you and those like you will scoff at derisively.
The ancient book of Isaiah, part of the Jewish and Christian holy writings contains many sections that concern themselves with the Last Days, a time of judgment, when God Himself will once again assume sovereign, complete control of His creation, including mankind. If you would take the time to read what is written there to get the context, you'd come across the following verse:
.....Can you tell me who this guy is?......
You should able to google for that information just as well as I and/or write the author of the article. Do you really think that article is a fabrication? If so, complain to the Canada Free Press editors. Just because a majority of a certain group of people believes a particular thing, doesn't automatically make their belief true. There are a number of other scientists mentioned. Are they also fabrications?
.....the essentially free energy from oil are not things that are likely to be duplicated......
Sunshine is free and fossil fuels are nothing more than stored sunshine. Mankind will have to use that perfectly splendid thermonuclear fusion furnace 93 million miles away from here. Only a small fraction of the solar energy each day would suffice for all of mankind. One day the now still photosynthesis mystery may become known and we will make it the abundant, cheap source of all energy.
Man's downfall will likely be the sad fact that we cannot get along with one another. A nasty world war would reduce the population dramatically. In addition to the direct destruction caused by modern warfare, a nuclear winter would cut short any sort of warming and make death by starvation and disease kill a large fraction of humanity. With the posession of WMD's in the hands of many, the scenario written up in pictorial symbolism of the last book of the Bible, Revelation, doesn't sound so far fetched, unfortunately.
...The great problem of our time is figuring out how to have enough food for the coming population, say in ~30 years....
There was a jerk named Paul Ehrlich who wrote a book in the 60s, or perhaps even earlier called "The Population Bomb", that made the same nonsensical prognostications. By his figuring, humanity should have starved itself to near extinction by now.
Actually, if global warming were true, large areas now frozen would become inhabitable and agriculturally viable. So bring on REAL global warming and make the planet more productive.
......Interesting how the huge spike in the temperature of the earth.....
h tm
How huge is the "spike" of the average temperature of the WHOLE earth, since we are talking about GLOBAL warming. There may be localities where the temperature has risen more, but then there are other places where it has dropped. For the planet as a whole it has been remarkably constant, within about a degree C. over the time span we have actual MEASUREMENTS.
Here is an excerpt from an article:
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
The whole article may be found here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.
......I would also like to point out that if the Earth does have cyclical weather, thats not going to make me any happier about dying from natures wonderful cycle......
More likely, you'll die of "natural causes" in bed, than climate related reasons. Bed is in fact the most dangerous place to be, since more people die there than in any other single place. Automobiles are also rather dangerous and should be avoided.
Many, if not most processes in nature are cyclical. We depend on the regular cyclical motions of atoms, the earth and moon to govern our lives and technology. Why should it be so far fetched that climate should also have regular rhythms, some long term and others short term? We know from recorded history that there were warm periods and cold periods. Long term natural records, such as tree rings and ice cores also indicate rhythmic patterns.
.....Do you want to continue to assassinate the character of the scientists who are trying to do something about it? Or do you just want to sit in your air conditioned H2 and hope you don't run out of gas?.....
h tm
How about facing the facts or REAL science? Scientists do not all agree on the existence of global warming, let alone its cause and even less that humans have anything to do with it. Look at the following article for one:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.
Here is a short excerpt paragraph:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Global warming means just that, GLOBAL, not in a few select regions of the arctic zones. If the truly AVERAGE temperature of the WHOLE planet is taken in consideration, nobody has measured any change within the accuracy limits we are able to determine this overall WORLDWIDE trend. A melting glacier here or there does NOT make for GLOBAL warming. It is junk science to the highest degree to take measurements of a given area and then apply that to the whole earth.
......companies would sabotage each others' nets with useless chatter and jamming until the entire network was useless......
The interference problem occurs mostly with the older, now existing legacy modulation and signaling systems. The roads analogy is more or less correct with these technologies. However, advanced digital coding combined with frequency hopping and multiplexing make interference much less of a problem and allow much more information to be transmitted in a given channel. Ordinary modems on phone lines started out at 300bps. The entire cell phone network depends on the re-use of the same frequency bands for thousands or even millions of phones, all communicating just fine, thank you. Like I said, there is no physics reason why communications channels need interfere with one another. Broadcasting stations can emit multiple channels in the same spectrum space that in the old analog days allowed for only one program. Cable systems can service hundreds of Internet connections in the same channel space occupied by a single analog TV channel.
Existing providers may use these tired old arguments to preserve their monopolies and use the force of law to squash their competition. Laws can slow down progress, but can never, ever stop it. Eventually, just like cell phones, everyone will get their communications services without stringing a bothersome spider web of wires all over. In some countries, wireless phones far outnumber the old fashioned wired variety.
....Since I can hide my voip traffic by tunneling it on port 80, for example,.....
Another way to prevent content based filtering is encryption. If there is no way to tell what kind of data the stream of packets represents, there is no way to filter or redirect it. Intel or some upstart could come up with a cheap hardware encryption chip that could be incorporated into every network interface. Such a technological advance and ubiquitous encryption would however meet with fierce legal resistance from government snoopers euphemistically calling themselves "law enforcement".
..... Do you pay for the actual last mile between the nearest junction box and your house? And who owns that last mile, the phone company you're buying from?.....
Advances in wireless communications will eliminate the 'last mile' problem. Advanced new techniques and chips will allow much better, interference free use of existing electromagnetic spectrum. Upstarts will take advantage of this and eat both the cable companies and telco's lunch. It costs a lot of money to build and maintain all those wires. In the future, the telcos will own the main pipes from city to city, but within each town, the high speed signals will travel through space, the same way that cell phones do today. New technology is always very disruptive to the existing business models. Think of how cell phones have already changed all of society. There are no laws of physics that make 100Mb/s cell phone type wireless connections impossible.
The horse and buggy industry gave way to the automobile. The music and video content business is now in upheaval and the communications business is next for a fundamental change. Laws, like the DMCA and the now pending network legislation can impede, but never stop technological progress. Eventually such laws will become as meaningless as the rules and regulations applying and formulated for horses and buggies about a hundred years ago.
....So what about the sea species (squid IIRC) where the optic nerve is on the back side?.......
Octopi and related sea creatures don't see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It's more like 'a compound eye with a single lens'. They are cold blooded creatures for one thing and optical requirements for underwater vision also are radically different than for the air.
Software design is markedly different than for physical objects, since software is not physical. There are no know methods or mathematical models that we know of that can give us reasonable assurance that the software is bug free. Extensive and expensive testing is the ONLY way to determine the quality of non-trivial software.
Many of the 'designs' of nature are still unduplicated despite much research and very much a mystery. Exploring these mysteries is what makes science what it is and very rewarding. Trying to determine the origin of these mysteries is outside of the realm of real science, but belongs in the realm of faith.
......It is complicated, but good parents cannot have bad kids, by definition of 'good parent.' A truely good parent will have raised a good child.....
Unfortunately, good parents CAN and sometimes do have bad kids. We humans have a will and conscience, yet can and do use that will to go against what our conscience tells us to be true and good. Good parent can help their children to make good choices, but there is no way that any parent can GUARANTEE that the child will indeed make the good choices. We adults often make choices we know to be wrong. If this were not so, our jails and prisons would not be filled to overflowing.
......Another funny thing here is the $30m figure. You cant even sue someone for that much .....
In the USA you CAN sue anybody for any amount and for any or no reason. Whether she (mostly her lawyer) gets anywhere is up to Myspace.com in how much they are willing to spend on defense rather than settling the blatant extortion attempt out of court and thereby encouraging more such lawsuits. IMHO this is one case that the defendant should fight to the bitter end, rather than settling and thereby give other lawyers the idea of making some easy money. Yes, it may cost more than a quick settlement for a few thousand$ now, but then such a settlement will signal to other robber lawyers, that there is some easy money to be made in the future. I'm sure her lawyer KNOWS that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell to win if this case would come before a jury. If every lawsuit HAD to, by law be resolved by a judge or jury, with no out of court settlements possible, the number of lawsuits would dwindle close to zero.
.....Yes I can believe it wasn't designed by someone who knew anything at all about optics. We have a blind spot wich the brain fills in. This is because part of optic nerve is in front of the retina......
Repeating someone's ignorant statements isn't exactly the most intelligent thing to do.
Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:
'The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.'
He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead. This doesn't spoil vision, because the nerves are virtually transparent because of their small size and also having about the same refractive index as the surrounding vitreous humour. In fact, what limits the eye's resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil's size), so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference.
Any explanation of how the form and function of a structure, such as the eye, came to be, without the application of an intelligence, takes far more FAITH than I can muster. I can see that your faith in blind chance, or whatever other mechanism, is greater than mine in God. I congratulate you in your great faith. I pray that someday you will see fit to redirect this faith to the one true God who loves you.
.....put it at 300-500 megapixels......
Thanks for posting that link. I knew the resolution and other characteristics of our eyes were rather good, but never knew the details as related to photography. According to that site, the human eye is still almost five times better than this new chip. Can anyone still believe that the human eye was not DESIGNED by someone who knows just a little about optics and the properties of light?
......Yeah, but someone has to point -- and keep trained on -- the damn thing to YOU. That someone is a wrongdoer and should be but in jail.....
Only if a person has already come to the attention of the enforcers will they go to the trouble and expense to single out that one from the millions of ordinary people. The problem comes in if you get singled out by corrupt enforcers, merely because you have expressed criticism or exposed wrongdoing of the government, especially if the it is true. People in general get very upset if their evil deeds are exposed and will, if they have the power, have your head chopped off. In such situations you have to count the cost of speaking up for truth and righteousness. Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Bonhoffer and countless others paid with their lives rather than keep silent against the evils committed by those in power. In the private sphere, speaking out and exposing corporate wrongdoing will, at the very least get you fired, if the corporate powers think they can get away with it.
When there is sufficient corruption in a government, it doesn't really matter whether they are watching you or not, they'll just come and get you in the middle of the night, like the nazis did with the Jews and others. If it comes to such a scenario, you have to decide whether to go meekly and get snuffed later, or use a weapon and take a few of the secret police with you before they make Swiss chess out of you. That is why the right to bear arms is a good protection against the sort of tactics the nazi used. If enough dissenters take out enough government agents, then the tactic of secretly arresting dissenters and "undesirables" not longer works. Such activity then has to either cease or be done openly. Doing so openly entails the risk of a popular revolt, which is the last thing a repressive government wants to precipitate.
..... but the government can't do NOTHING that isn't authorized by law......
Your double negative implies just the opposite of what I think you may have meant.
Those that are supposed to represent the people can and will do anything that we let them get away with. When we re-elect the same people for decades, even if the make bad laws, who can be blamed for that? When a large percentage of people, especially those who tend to complain about government, don't bother to register and vote, whose fault is that?
As for someone watching you in your backyard, just run Google Earth sometime and you'll know that that sort of watching has been going on for a long time. Modern satellite technology allows the reading of a newspaper headline from space.
.....use this tool to collect unauthorized information......
Authorized on unauthorized by whom? For the government, all information that is not securely encrypted, it is by definition authorized. If it is encrypted, the sender and recipients thereof are by definition suspects of a crime and need to be investigated.
.....but what happens when the 'bad guys' start building drones of their own?......
How about hacking the control system and taking it where the police doesn't want it to go? It would be sort of like the hackers making a PC Zombie, only this one flies.
In the article: "There must have been some sort of communication interference," said De La Torre as he inspected the multicolored wires and circuitry spilling out of his damaged drone.
Actually it was a hacker who made the $25K toy airplane crash into the empty lot.
......That is why I said before, DRM the technology is not wrong, DRM the technology is not evil, BAD uses of DRM are......
All DRM, by definition is breakable, because the recipient and the attacker are one and the same. In order to watch or listen, the key has to be used at some point. The evil is not in the DRM, but making it illegal by way of the DMCA to allow anyone to go fishing for the key. If the DMCA did not exist, DRM would have disappeared by now.
.....it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen......
How about selling the product for a lower price and making it more convenient to buy than to steal. The iTMS shows the way to do it with music. Yes, it is possible to get the same music free from some places on the Internet, but it is nor anywhere near as easy, not is the quality uniform. If Apple made iTMS DRM free, they would not sell fewer iPods and the number of downloads would increase, because now everybody could use the easy to use iTunes program to download music to all the other players also. Ipods would still work seamlessly with iTunes, whereas the other players are more troublesome. None of the copying technologies from the piano rolls forward have ever DECREASED the amount of money creative people have made in the long term.
......The fact is, not all DRM is bad,......
In fact DRM is wonderful, great and there should be more of it. What is bad is that the makers of DRM, with the DMCA, have gotten the law on their side in cat and mouse game of breaking all DRM. Let Sony and whoever wants to come up with the most draconian DRM they can pay someone to invent, but then allow someone even more clever come up with and legally distribute tools to break the encryptions.
All content creators have to realize that the easier it has become to copy their work, the more money they have made in the long run. Starting with the piano rolls, which were really early digital copies, through the VCRs, easier copying has always meant more money for artists and all their hangers on. Binary bits are inherently copyable. Does anyone really believe that Apple would sell fewer iPods and there would be fewer music downloads from iTunes if Apple simply dropped the DRM?
Trying to prevent, by law, digital copying, is like trying to prevent the tide from coming in. Up until now, content makers have always figured out how to use the new, better copying technology available to the public to make more money than ever. I predict that in 20 to 30 years, DRM will be regarded in the same way as we today regard prohibition laws enacted in the early 1900s. These laws back then even rose to the level of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment, not just a plain dumb law, such as the DMCA.
.......You assume that the reason for this majority share in new tech is due solely to the fact that you have such able graduates......
The greatness and quality of our institutions of higher learning and their faculties enables them to turn out such able graduates, regardless of whether they are American citizens or not. Our system of freedom, often then offers better opportunities for fulfillment and yes, money, to these able graduates, both US and foreign. Education can be thought of as a commodity, much like any other. It just happens that so far, the US has and does offer a desirable education for both US and foreigners who come here, if they can.