You need to mention the other: "My version of gun control is keeping both hands on the grip." (or something like that — I don't actually own a gun and I probably never will)
Or should I be browsing with the bar between "abbreviated" and "hidden" dragged down all the way?
Since I do that with the hidden (but not abbreviated), I was not aware of the problem. Now I see what you're talking about. You can't click on what isn't there, I suppose.
there still is no way to "close" a thread or to easily skip to the next top-level thread. when someone (usually an early poster) posts some flamebait comment it is very difficult to find the next top-level comment. There should be a [+] entry in the title bar of each comment where one can close all replies to that comment.
There is a way: click on the title to close it and all replies to that comment. Click on it again to open it back up.
or is stuck running IE. (Remember us, that lonely lost majority of the internet?)
Obviously, that's not an exclusive or you're using there. One could argue that it's redundant. After all if B implies A, then asserting A is the same as asserting A or B. (Do not mod his post redundant, however. That's not what I mean. I'm just making a joke.)
I think we might be using different definitions of "high density", though. You don't make a subway line that travels in a 2-dimensional grid. I don't know if Phoenix already has a subway system or not, but I can tell you that several other big cities do, and they work fairly well without being set in a grid. Buses, of course, can travel in a 2-dimensional grid quite fine. I know that in most public transit systems (including Atlanta's) the amount of time it takes to travel is excessive compared to the amount of time it would take to travel by car. If buses were more frequent and had more routes, this would be far less of an issue. However, they can't do that because not enough people use public transit. Of course, more people would use public transit if buses were more frequent and had more routes — although possibly not enough. Governments spend lots of money on supporting roads, etc., but as soon as they talk about spending money on public transit a lot of people suddenly get up in arms (I'm not saying you're one of these people). A city with 4 million people ought to be able to solve this problem even more efficiently than a city with a puny 40,000.
The not-so-nice part about the internet
on
YouTube for Science?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's the nice part about the internet, I have to want to go to a website.
The not-so-nice part is that this applies to other people, too.;) Those who need the exposure to popularized science the most are those least likely to seek it out.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Suburbs of Phoenix (which really doesn't make sense--the whole city is basically suburban; there is no real downtown of any density) aren't "unwilling" to embrace public transit, they're unable.
Hogwash. They're perfectly able to if they just had the political will to do so. There are lots of different styles of public transit, and I'm certain there are ones that would work in Phoenix. Again, it works in Charlottesville with a population of 40,000. Don't tell me it can't work in a suburb where people are traveling more than 15 miles each way to go to work. Short drive to a park & ride, hop on a subway/bus line, get close to high density job locations. That would meet most of the transportation needs of those with significant commutes in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
I've never seen ANY city [with zoning regulations that make it easier to work near where you live].
Then you should look around. Several decent sized cities in Washington are doing this, and, as I've previously mentioned, Charlottesville has this. Most big cities don't, mind you, but they could if they chose to. Atlanta has actually improved in this regard. (For example, they've opened up a lot of nice housing near a large computer/seminconductor producing area, including IBM, in NW Atlanta. By near, I mean literally within walking distance.)
Which is more important to you: finding a job in a profession you're interested in, that you earned a college degree in, that you have experience in, etc.? Or finding a place to work where you can conveniently walk to work?
A lot of people assume this, which is exactly why I mentioned it. What profession are you and your wife in that you somehow can't manage this? For the record, the last time I had a job like working in the mall or flipping burgers (I was a movie theater manager) was when I was in my early 20's, putting myself through college. Currently, I do computational neuroscience (towards a Ph.D.) and my wife works at a school for children with autism. Both of our jobs are less than a 1.5 miles from where we live. Granted, it gets more complicated if you also want to live very close to your siblings, parents, or cousins.
Finally, you'll notice that you don't need all three of these. Any one by itself would go a long way.
I wasn't trying to convince you, as I suspected you'd already seen the evidence and had disregarded what didn't fit into your worldview — much like you tried to deny the fact that it was the global warming deniers who started with the personal attacks on this thread.
What, exactly, do you doubt? I know you've been around enough to see quite a bit of evidence, but I'll humor you. Tell me what you doubt, and I'll provide the evidence.
So I thought it was an indicator that people who "install... Windows... [need]... professional help," although maybe I'm taking part of that out of context.
My point was they don't have to be like NYC. Of course, most American cities aren't like Phoenix, either. I live in Charlottesville, VA, (population approximately 40,000), and we have a pretty decent public transit system. I walk to work almost every day.
This wasn't my point but the problem boils down to a few factors: (1) the willingness of the city/suburb to embrace public transportation (many suburbs of Atlanta, like Phoenix, are lousy in this regard), (2) sane zoning regulations that make it easier to work near where you live, and (3) the willingness of the people to seek out working/living arrangements so they work near where they live. Too many people think they have "no choice".
With no solid proof and the lacking of answer, chastising someone as non believer hanging on the fringe works better. Right?
That seems to be what some people think. I'll give you a clue: it's the same people who use phrases such as "Church of Global Warming".
Do you actually believe that the newly discovered ocean current will be your savior? They were already aware that something was responsible for transference between these systems, and this supports that it. It doesn't contradict anything. It does help them improve their models so they can make even more exact predictions.
Look into the distribution of missile silos across our country, and reconsider whether it will be a good thing if each state is recognized as an independent country.
I'm talking about the world going through temperature cycles, and that we haven't left the expected range yet.
As for temperature cycles, I'd say you're right. However, all models (and current temperature trends) suggest that we will in our lifetime. (This depends on how you're defining "expected range". I'm keeping it in the range of human civilization.)
I don't feel that there's a great risk of polar caps melting away in my lifetime, and I expect to have a good long lifetime ahead of me.
Actually, the Arctic ocean is expected to be ice free in the summers by 2040. When it comes to the Antarctic, you're most likely completely correct (unless massive improvements are made in longevity technology).
I'm pretty sure that China is a bigger polluter than America.
That used to be true only in regards to particulate pollution, but indicators are that it now (as of this year) has us beat in greenhouse gas emissions as well. As for my poetry, I never claimed to be an English major.:)
I'm a certified lifeguard. Do you know how to get someone who is likely to drown but still conscious out of the water? You get close enough to them that they'll start to come after you, then you make them chase you back to the shore. If you get close enough for them to grab you, they will grab you, and hold you there just to have more time.
They must have changed things quite a bit since I became certified. We were taught to approach them (circling around) from behind (so they can't grab us) and then put an arm over one shoulder and under the other. (To be fair, at this time we were also being taught to use H2O2 to rinse out our mouths after giving mouth-to-mouth to reduce the risk of AIDS transmission. However, AIDS was still quite new back then.) Sure, in some cases conscious people could "chase you back to the shore", but not in all cases. I think it is extremely unethical if they're teaching that technique now.
I think your point is that both global warming and evolution are both essentially groups of theories rather than theories themselves. I.e., there are several models of global warming that each make slightly different predictions (AKA "conclusions"). Evolution (AKA Darwinian evolution) also refers to several slightly different theories, each of which make slightly different predictions. The simplest conception of evolution (possibly the one you're thinking of) is better stated as a law than a theory. Laws state what is happening, theories explain how (and what, of course). (Although most lay persons don't understand this, I'm assuming that you realize that theories are better than laws.)
If that is your gripe, you should realize that the same thing is true about general relativity and quantum mechanics. Each of these theories is really more a "group" of related theories. In general relativity, for example, do you want to use a Schwardzchild metric or one of my metrics (probably not)? (If you want to be exact, you would use some version of a Kerr-Newman metric, but that's a different story.)
500C for ammonia -- well, firstly we have 538C, but even if the temperature required is hotter than the steam we have a pretty good start!
You want to extract the heat to run the turbines that generate electricity, though. It's much less than 538C by the time it becomes "waste heat". That said, you're still right that this water would still be easier to heat up to 538C than water at the ambient temperature.
The important point is that it would work here. Well, for certain definitions of "here". Denmark and New York both have cold climates. I'm not sure how practical this would be in the South.
If we knew this was a problem based on Europe's experience, why haven't we done anything to prevent it from happening here?
For the same reason that we didn't do anything about our crumbling infrastructure after being told repeatedly about it. Most politicians (Republican/Democrat and American/Otherwise) are more reactive than proactive — unless, of course, they figure they can get cheap political points out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to mention the other: "My version of gun control is keeping both hands on the grip." (or something like that — I don't actually own a gun and I probably never will)
However, this is one persuasive argument for making guns illegal!
(I feel compelled to point out that I'm only joking.)
They were merely replacing KDE.
You could try google.com, freerepublic.com, dailykos.com, etc. There are millions more to choose from! ;)
And, presumably, those who need it the most won't know how to use AdBlock (or similar means) to avoid seeing the advertisements.
I think we might be using different definitions of "high density", though. You don't make a subway line that travels in a 2-dimensional grid. I don't know if Phoenix already has a subway system or not, but I can tell you that several other big cities do, and they work fairly well without being set in a grid. Buses, of course, can travel in a 2-dimensional grid quite fine. I know that in most public transit systems (including Atlanta's) the amount of time it takes to travel is excessive compared to the amount of time it would take to travel by car. If buses were more frequent and had more routes, this would be far less of an issue. However, they can't do that because not enough people use public transit. Of course, more people would use public transit if buses were more frequent and had more routes — although possibly not enough. Governments spend lots of money on supporting roads, etc., but as soon as they talk about spending money on public transit a lot of people suddenly get up in arms (I'm not saying you're one of these people). A city with 4 million people ought to be able to solve this problem even more efficiently than a city with a puny 40,000.
Hogwash. They're perfectly able to if they just had the political will to do so. There are lots of different styles of public transit, and I'm certain there are ones that would work in Phoenix. Again, it works in Charlottesville with a population of 40,000. Don't tell me it can't work in a suburb where people are traveling more than 15 miles each way to go to work. Short drive to a park & ride, hop on a subway/bus line, get close to high density job locations. That would meet most of the transportation needs of those with significant commutes in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Then you should look around. Several decent sized cities in Washington are doing this, and, as I've previously mentioned, Charlottesville has this. Most big cities don't, mind you, but they could if they chose to. Atlanta has actually improved in this regard. (For example, they've opened up a lot of nice housing near a large computer/seminconductor producing area, including IBM, in NW Atlanta. By near, I mean literally within walking distance.)
A lot of people assume this, which is exactly why I mentioned it. What profession are you and your wife in that you somehow can't manage this? For the record, the last time I had a job like working in the mall or flipping burgers (I was a movie theater manager) was when I was in my early 20's, putting myself through college. Currently, I do computational neuroscience (towards a Ph.D.) and my wife works at a school for children with autism. Both of our jobs are less than a 1.5 miles from where we live. Granted, it gets more complicated if you also want to live very close to your siblings, parents, or cousins.
Finally, you'll notice that you don't need all three of these. Any one by itself would go a long way.
I wasn't trying to convince you, as I suspected you'd already seen the evidence and had disregarded what didn't fit into your worldview — much like you tried to deny the fact that it was the global warming deniers who started with the personal attacks on this thread.
What, exactly, do you doubt? I know you've been around enough to see quite a bit of evidence, but I'll humor you. Tell me what you doubt, and I'll provide the evidence.
Evidently, some are now saying it could happen as early as 2030! (OK, by "some are", I mean "someone is", but I still found it interesting!)
So I thought it was an indicator that people who "install... Windows ... [need] ... professional help," although maybe I'm taking part of that out of context.
My point was they don't have to be like NYC. Of course, most American cities aren't like Phoenix, either. I live in Charlottesville, VA, (population approximately 40,000), and we have a pretty decent public transit system. I walk to work almost every day.
This wasn't my point but the problem boils down to a few factors: (1) the willingness of the city/suburb to embrace public transportation (many suburbs of Atlanta, like Phoenix, are lousy in this regard), (2) sane zoning regulations that make it easier to work near where you live, and (3) the willingness of the people to seek out working/living arrangements so they work near where they live. Too many people think they have "no choice".
That seems to be what some people think. I'll give you a clue: it's the same people who use phrases such as "Church of Global Warming".
Do you actually believe that the newly discovered ocean current will be your savior? They were already aware that something was responsible for transference between these systems, and this supports that it. It doesn't contradict anything. It does help them improve their models so they can make even more exact predictions.
It's the squirrels!
Look into the distribution of missile silos across our country, and reconsider whether it will be a good thing if each state is recognized as an independent country.
I think your point is that both global warming and evolution are both essentially groups of theories rather than theories themselves. I.e., there are several models of global warming that each make slightly different predictions (AKA "conclusions"). Evolution (AKA Darwinian evolution) also refers to several slightly different theories, each of which make slightly different predictions. The simplest conception of evolution (possibly the one you're thinking of) is better stated as a law than a theory. Laws state what is happening, theories explain how (and what, of course). (Although most lay persons don't understand this, I'm assuming that you realize that theories are better than laws.)
If that is your gripe, you should realize that the same thing is true about general relativity and quantum mechanics. Each of these theories is really more a "group" of related theories. In general relativity, for example, do you want to use a Schwardzchild metric or one of my metrics (probably not)? (If you want to be exact, you would use some version of a Kerr-Newman metric, but that's a different story.)
The important point is that it would work here. Well, for certain definitions of "here". Denmark and New York both have cold climates. I'm not sure how practical this would be in the South.