There's nothing misleading about spending 50% more raw hours without power per year. My power might go out once or twice a year, at the most. It went out when we had a hurricane, and that downed the underground lines too by flooding the subway tunnel they were in.
Well, if I were molested as a child, and I grew up with the impression that molesting a child was a good thing for me to do, hmm. I guess I'd molest a child? Except, as it stands, there are a lot of very mean people with tasers and shit that will beat me to death if I do that. So, maybe it seems like a good idea, but there are consequences?
Holding someone accountable for their actions has more functions than "application of justice". Justice is something that's nice to think about, but it's really a dumb concept. It's mostly deciding what we do and don't want in our society that counts. If your wife sucks some guy's dick because he put a knife to your throat, and then doesn't tell you because she feels terrible about it, well... maybe we give her a pass. If she sucks some guy's dick and doesn't tell you because she's a lying, cheating slut... maybe she can go to hell. And how is that justice? It didn't hurt you none, and you weren't around anyway to get your dick sucked, so what do you care? Oh but you get a divorce because she's been sucking dicks.
The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app. An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is [..] too drunk.
I am going to come over to your house to borrow some eggs, and fuck your wife and daughter. Then while you're screaming about it, I'll just talk about how you're getting upset over me borrowing eggs.
I assume he was making an appeal to emotion by comparing a large amount of energy to a frightening and destructive force. The same appeal works whether it's accurate or not--in fact, if you say it's like 50 nuclear bombs exploding every hour, it's probably more scary since 400,000 crosses the line twice.
Think about the imagery of a nuclear bomb. What is it? Destruction. Not worrying, slow change that causes chaos and sweeping environmental changes and loss of species and adaptation up to and including new species eventually. No, destruction. You and I know very well that "global warming" will at worst extinct humans, and introduce new life--just as the Jurassic period had all kinds of critters we don't see today and lacked all of the amazing flora and fauna of modern age, the next aeons will show a world that looks nothing like what we live in today, an alien planet radically different from ours. But the imagery given is mean to emphasize that what will be left is only a burnt, cold rock unhabitable to any life.
I know very well what the guy was saying; but I've already learned neuroscience and psychology.
That is different than what I've read. I've read that there were 11944 or whatever (who needs to track the full number?) papers on global warming and a bunch of them didn't find any evidence leading to a firm conclusion. In other words, the jury's out.
Somebody is bullshitting me, and when I find out who I'm going to write "GLOBAL WARMING" on a crowbar and hit them with it.
You want to know a secret? It's like that in real life, too. I've had an incident where some dude on the street jumped me... I grabbed him, turned and shoved him into a wall. "Oops, sorry homes... thought you was someone else, my bad!" Had three guys--all a lot bigger than me--crowded around me at a parking meter shouting threats demanding money... ignored them, then walked right toward the biggest one simply because I was going that way and he happened to be there (if that's where the little guy was, I would have just walked toward him). They all immediately backed down and looked confused.
They're all fucking scared. Internet, real life, street gangs and high school bullies, they're all pussies and that's all they'll ever be. And the ones that aren't are probably going to beat the shit out of you regardless. So be ready to kick some ass.
You mentioned specifically that the app should be able to tell you if you're too drunk. Once you're drunk, you're too drunk. The question you should ask yourself is: Have I had too many beers to know when I've metabolized the alcohol? Most people go by the 1 hour after 1 beer rule; if you've had 2 beers and then been sitting sipping soda for 2 hours, you're good. If you got BLITZED, you're not driving until you sleep it off.
If you can't figure out that the behavior of CONSUMING INTOXICANTS needs a self-imposed buffer, you're fucked. If you want a gadget to pass a test on you, you're fucked.
The takedown notice is itself unsound. WhatsApp is descriptive of their service, and they're claiming--among other things--that the use of APIs is a copyright violation (established Microsoft v. IBM not) and that mentioning WhatsApp is a trademark violation (Trademark means that you cannot use it as an endorsement or to label an unaffiliated product; mentioning that Product X is Product X is exactly what Trademark is for).
Except those DeSades, fuck those guys. Stick with the TechGeists, or the Kaffe Boys--nobody likes them, but they're cool. Dewleys are retards, but they're pretty decent guys overall if you can get over being, you know, better than them.
The "I'm gonna punch people in the nose" crowd are hilarious to me.
Let's face it: there's people you don't piss off, and then there's people that are going to punch you anyway. Well, with that first group, don't piss them off unless you have good reason--I mean let's face it, cock-blocking a rapist is going to piss them off and they will probably punch you, but this is good reason to start some shit. That second group... is going to punch you anyway. So what do you do about it?
Your "adaptive response to global warming" is "stop global warming".
The assertion was that without human input--without humans living on this planet, at all--the climate would change. With humans living on this planet, with carbon caps, with emission controls, and whathaveyou, the climate will change. Carbon caps are not adaptation to this; when it is impossible to grow wheat in our wheat field, we will need to have adapted to this. Not by carbon caps, but by being able to grow in the new climate.
You are ignoring the argument, and bypassing logic and reasoning by pretending the question you've been posed is a different question. It's like if someone says: "There are wild wolves in the forest which occasionally eat people, so we must adapt to prevent wolves from attacking our villages." Your response is: "We have domesticated dogs. More people just need to own dogs, then the dogs won't attack us." Yes but what about the WOLVES that are still in the FOREST?
That's climate change. You can have your electric cars and emissions controls and fancy renewable energy, but the climate will still change. Will those things help you survive in a radically different global climate? Answer: No.
The Hiroshima fireball was 370 metres (1,200 ft) in diameter, with a surface temperature of 6,000 C.
The surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers.
It seems to me that 400,000 of these could raise the surface temperature of the earth quite a bit. That's 24,000,000,000 square meters of the surface experiencing a 1 degree temperature raise. 40,000 square kilometers experiencing some 300 meter high heat wave of 1 degree too hot per day. In 13 days, the entire earth's surface has raised by 1 degree. When you account for the oceans, the land, and convection mixing this in, you're talking more like 300 times as much energy needed to get a 1 degree raise--a year to raise the temperature 1 degree, including the temperature of the oceans and upper atmosphere. With no escape to space; this is gain.
My god. By 2012 the average summer temperature in Baltimore would be 155F.
Making your own clothes with a basic sewing machine is clown shoes. Use a Singer Serger, a 5 spool one with mock-safety (3 stitch overlock and chain) and full safety (3 stitch overlock and double chain) stitch.
You'd only have to collapse the universe and then influence it at roughly the moment when it cooled down enough that photons had less mass than protons.
So you are a proponent of stricter emission controls, carbon caps, and forced adoption of green technologies even if they are more expensive? Being as how those are the surest ways of adapting rapidly enough to preserve the greatest amount of your freedom of choice as can be preserved over the next 30 to 50 years?
Emissions control to do what? Carbon caps would accomplish what, precisely? Would these adapt us to the inevitable change of climate, or simply cease the change?
You see, the OP said that we must adapt to changes that are coming. Changes that will make it hard to grow food here, but easy to grow food there. And you said... well then let's stop doing [list of shit that we presume causes these changes].
So, no, you know not what you say. You are the Fool of the Court.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing misleading about spending 50% more raw hours without power per year. My power might go out once or twice a year, at the most. It went out when we had a hurricane, and that downed the underground lines too by flooding the subway tunnel they were in.
Even this WSJ http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
Well, if I were molested as a child, and I grew up with the impression that molesting a child was a good thing for me to do, hmm. I guess I'd molest a child? Except, as it stands, there are a lot of very mean people with tasers and shit that will beat me to death if I do that. So, maybe it seems like a good idea, but there are consequences?
Holding someone accountable for their actions has more functions than "application of justice". Justice is something that's nice to think about, but it's really a dumb concept. It's mostly deciding what we do and don't want in our society that counts. If your wife sucks some guy's dick because he put a knife to your throat, and then doesn't tell you because she feels terrible about it, well... maybe we give her a pass. If she sucks some guy's dick and doesn't tell you because she's a lying, cheating slut... maybe she can go to hell. And how is that justice? It didn't hurt you none, and you weren't around anyway to get your dick sucked, so what do you care? Oh but you get a divorce because she's been sucking dicks.
Create the expectation.
Huge massive thing with 8 billion functions screws up 1 function. See? Huge massive thing is all waste, no efficiency.
Studies show buried lines have more down time than overhead lines.
The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app. An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is [..] too drunk.
I am going to come over to your house to borrow some eggs, and fuck your wife and daughter. Then while you're screaming about it, I'll just talk about how you're getting upset over me borrowing eggs.
I assume he was making an appeal to emotion by comparing a large amount of energy to a frightening and destructive force. The same appeal works whether it's accurate or not--in fact, if you say it's like 50 nuclear bombs exploding every hour, it's probably more scary since 400,000 crosses the line twice.
Think about the imagery of a nuclear bomb. What is it? Destruction. Not worrying, slow change that causes chaos and sweeping environmental changes and loss of species and adaptation up to and including new species eventually. No, destruction. You and I know very well that "global warming" will at worst extinct humans, and introduce new life--just as the Jurassic period had all kinds of critters we don't see today and lacked all of the amazing flora and fauna of modern age, the next aeons will show a world that looks nothing like what we live in today, an alien planet radically different from ours. But the imagery given is mean to emphasize that what will be left is only a burnt, cold rock unhabitable to any life.
I know very well what the guy was saying; but I've already learned neuroscience and psychology.
I'm pretty sure alcoholics know they're drunk.
That is different than what I've read. I've read that there were 11944 or whatever (who needs to track the full number?) papers on global warming and a bunch of them didn't find any evidence leading to a firm conclusion. In other words, the jury's out.
Somebody is bullshitting me, and when I find out who I'm going to write "GLOBAL WARMING" on a crowbar and hit them with it.
You want to know a secret? It's like that in real life, too. I've had an incident where some dude on the street jumped me... I grabbed him, turned and shoved him into a wall. "Oops, sorry homes... thought you was someone else, my bad!" Had three guys--all a lot bigger than me--crowded around me at a parking meter shouting threats demanding money... ignored them, then walked right toward the biggest one simply because I was going that way and he happened to be there (if that's where the little guy was, I would have just walked toward him). They all immediately backed down and looked confused.
They're all fucking scared. Internet, real life, street gangs and high school bullies, they're all pussies and that's all they'll ever be. And the ones that aren't are probably going to beat the shit out of you regardless. So be ready to kick some ass.
I'll skip most of the discussion and just say this: It'll teach you to keep your head up when moderately drunk.
God I don't even do that the other 3 weeks.
You mentioned specifically that the app should be able to tell you if you're too drunk. Once you're drunk, you're too drunk. The question you should ask yourself is: Have I had too many beers to know when I've metabolized the alcohol? Most people go by the 1 hour after 1 beer rule; if you've had 2 beers and then been sitting sipping soda for 2 hours, you're good. If you got BLITZED, you're not driving until you sleep it off.
If you can't figure out that the behavior of CONSUMING INTOXICANTS needs a self-imposed buffer, you're fucked. If you want a gadget to pass a test on you, you're fucked.
The takedown notice is itself unsound. WhatsApp is descriptive of their service, and they're claiming--among other things--that the use of APIs is a copyright violation (established Microsoft v. IBM not) and that mentioning WhatsApp is a trademark violation (Trademark means that you cannot use it as an endorsement or to label an unaffiliated product; mentioning that Product X is Product X is exactly what Trademark is for).
They sell ads on YouTube videos.
Dude, you know plumbers don't wear ties.
Except those DeSades, fuck those guys. Stick with the TechGeists, or the Kaffe Boys--nobody likes them, but they're cool. Dewleys are retards, but they're pretty decent guys overall if you can get over being, you know, better than them.
The "I'm gonna punch people in the nose" crowd are hilarious to me.
Let's face it: there's people you don't piss off, and then there's people that are going to punch you anyway. Well, with that first group, don't piss them off unless you have good reason--I mean let's face it, cock-blocking a rapist is going to piss them off and they will probably punch you, but this is good reason to start some shit. That second group... is going to punch you anyway. So what do you do about it?
Win.
If you need someone to tell you you're drunk, you're too stupid to live.
Just as long as you don't bring that faggot canadian invention "Hockey" with it.
Your "adaptive response to global warming" is "stop global warming".
The assertion was that without human input--without humans living on this planet, at all--the climate would change. With humans living on this planet, with carbon caps, with emission controls, and whathaveyou, the climate will change. Carbon caps are not adaptation to this; when it is impossible to grow wheat in our wheat field, we will need to have adapted to this. Not by carbon caps, but by being able to grow in the new climate.
You are ignoring the argument, and bypassing logic and reasoning by pretending the question you've been posed is a different question. It's like if someone says: "There are wild wolves in the forest which occasionally eat people, so we must adapt to prevent wolves from attacking our villages." Your response is: "We have domesticated dogs. More people just need to own dogs, then the dogs won't attack us." Yes but what about the WOLVES that are still in the FOREST?
That's climate change. You can have your electric cars and emissions controls and fancy renewable energy, but the climate will still change. Will those things help you survive in a radically different global climate? Answer: No.
The Hiroshima fireball was 370 metres (1,200 ft) in diameter, with a surface temperature of 6,000 C.
The surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers.
It seems to me that 400,000 of these could raise the surface temperature of the earth quite a bit. That's 24,000,000,000 square meters of the surface experiencing a 1 degree temperature raise. 40,000 square kilometers experiencing some 300 meter high heat wave of 1 degree too hot per day. In 13 days, the entire earth's surface has raised by 1 degree. When you account for the oceans, the land, and convection mixing this in, you're talking more like 300 times as much energy needed to get a 1 degree raise--a year to raise the temperature 1 degree, including the temperature of the oceans and upper atmosphere. With no escape to space; this is gain.
My god. By 2012 the average summer temperature in Baltimore would be 155F.
Making your own clothes with a basic sewing machine is clown shoes. Use a Singer Serger, a 5 spool one with mock-safety (3 stitch overlock and chain) and full safety (3 stitch overlock and double chain) stitch.
You'd only have to collapse the universe and then influence it at roughly the moment when it cooled down enough that photons had less mass than protons.
So you are a proponent of stricter emission controls, carbon caps, and forced adoption of green technologies even if they are more expensive? Being as how those are the surest ways of adapting rapidly enough to preserve the greatest amount of your freedom of choice as can be preserved over the next 30 to 50 years?
Emissions control to do what? Carbon caps would accomplish what, precisely? Would these adapt us to the inevitable change of climate, or simply cease the change?
You see, the OP said that we must adapt to changes that are coming. Changes that will make it hard to grow food here, but easy to grow food there. And you said... well then let's stop doing [list of shit that we presume causes these changes].
So, no, you know not what you say. You are the Fool of the Court.