In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C."
So, why the misleading headline? Maybe the author is responsible: http://www.desmogblog.com/matthew-warren
Of course, that does raise the question as to why he would have written the article in the first place.
We're currently approaching a minimum in solar output (end of 2006) for the current 11-year cycle. The high was more than 5 years ago. 2005 was the hottest year on record.
Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle.;)
Ahh, but so far all the terrorists have been Muslim.
Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Ted Kaczynski: Do these names ring a bell to you? Also, there's the fact that you can't tell who's Muslim just by looking at them.
Sorry to rant, but ignorance like you've spouted really frustrates me. Welcome to the real world.
I hope you see the humor here, but I suspect that you do not.
and did not have control over the estate with which to sell them.
I doubt it. That is what being an executor means.... Of course, if you are correct, that leaves some mighty big questions, such as: how did the shares get sold, and who did it, and if it wasn't Al Gore, then why were they in his tax filings?
Here's a site with some answers:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/275 /index.php
Short answer: "Al Gore is the executor and recipient of a trust which has holdings in Occidental Petroleum..." The key word there is "trust". That means he has no control over what they buy or sell.
As for the other claims, I'm not claiming Gore is perfect. I wouldn't be surprised if his campaign accepted contributions from less-than-savory groups.
However, Gore did not purchase the shares and did not have control over the estate with which to sell them. Defenders of Gore dismissed this as a claim of 'guilt by inheritance'.
What process do you propose that would extract free energy (as in the thermodynamic sense) from the vacuum without reducing entropy? If you're proposing to use the Casimir effect, how would that be done - even in theory? Now, I can't say for certain that the 2nd law would be violated, since you haven't specifically said how vacuum energy would be used. I just know that the 2nd law invariably trips up anyone trying to create a perpetual energy machine. (Well, either that or pointing out that flying monkeys can't be created ex nihilo.)
Having said that, I'll agree the 2nd law gets overused - especially when trying to disprove evolution, since the Earth is not a closed system.
Finally, if I'm going to go to the German fount of folkisms, I prefer "In der Not, frißt der Teufel Fliegen." (Meaning: In an emergency, the devil will eat flies. Equivalent English folkism: Beggars can't be choosers. I can't say I understand *how* these are equivalent, but that's what the so-called experts say.)
I know what the Casimir effect is, and I was mostly joking. I say mostly, because I'm quite certain a similar process as Maxwell's demon would, indeed, prevent one from extracting energy via the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (and it's relationship to entropy). Granted, the 2nd law can be broken on small scales, but is always obeyed on average.
As I recall, the travelling salesperson algorithm (I assume this is what you meant by TSP) can be converted to a satisfiability problem in polynomial time. Furthermore, it is trivial to verify the satisfiability problem in polynomial time. Are you arguing that TSP cannot be converted to SAT (or 3-SAT, as is usually done) in P, or that 3-SAT is not verifiable in P?
All NP problems are verifiable in P. So, although probability does still factor in (because in many situations there's a significant chance the correct answer won't come up), you can verify you have the right answer in P.
I've seen the term QP used before at a quantum computing seminar. I certainly didn't coin it. There is a very important distinction between P and QP - namely that QP is, as you guessed, a polynomial time algorithm on a quantum computer. Google on "Quantum Polynomial" and NP if you want more info. Here's a link that Google Scholar turned up, as well (I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting - judging from the title it seems they are claiming that QP=NP):
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://arxiv. org/abs/quant-ph/9908080
I almost agree with your sentiment. You shoouldn't just look at how many issues you agree on with politician X, but also (1) whether politician X can be expected to have an effect on those issues, and (2) how important those issues are. There are a lot of issues I care about, but right now I feel very strongly about the environment. Education is also important for me, but only for those races where the politician in question can have an impact on education. I also care about my civil rights and about America being as safe as possible without sacrificing our liberties. That last one, however, isn't going to have far less of an impact on who I vote into City Council.
On the other hand, sometimes I vote for a candidate for other reasons. In our most recent City Council elections, I voted for the only Republican running and two other Democrats (there were 3 seats to fill). All other seats on the City Council are held by Democrats, and I thought that this Republican (Rob Schilling) had demonstrated that he brought some novel ideas to the Council. Sadly, he was not elected. What I'm trying to justify here, however, is that the value of politician X might depend on who else is in office.
The Democrats would be different in 2006, because there'd still be a Republican in the White House. The US historically does better when one party is not in complete control.
Don't you recall from your American History class that some territories voted to allow slavery when they became states? I'd say that, in those states at least, a majority of white men (the only people that supposedly counted back then) supported slavery - not just rich land owners.
By the way, rich also meant that you owned 20 or more slaves. Not just that you owned a slave. In order to get out of serving in the Confederate Army you had to own 20 or more slaves.
"Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing."
Huh? How does a signing statement, which carries no weight of law, 'accomplish the same thing' as a line-item veto. Do you even know what these things are?
Signing statements are Bush's way of saying he's going to ignore such-and-such provision of the law. I.e., he's going to not enforce that law. That de facto accomplishes the same thing as a line-item veto in many cases.
If you could guarantee you were only using bandwith that would otherwise go unused. However, in the router case, connecting to the network results in the owner having less "water" to use on his own lawn.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is trivial to show that it is true for all n < 10^100.
Of course, that does raise the question as to why he would have written the article in the first place.
We're currently approaching a minimum in solar output (end of 2006) for the current 11-year cycle. The high was more than 5 years ago. 2005 was the hottest year on record.
Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle. ;)
Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Ted Kaczynski: Do these names ring a bell to you? Also, there's the fact that you can't tell who's Muslim just by looking at them.
I hope you see the humor here, but I suspect that you do not.
We have Senators George "Macaca" Allen and John "not Mark" Warner.
Here's a site with some answers: http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/275 /index.php
Short answer: "Al Gore is the executor and recipient of a trust which has holdings in Occidental Petroleum..." The key word there is "trust". That means he has no control over what they buy or sell.
As for the other claims, I'm not claiming Gore is perfect. I wouldn't be surprised if his campaign accepted contributions from less-than-savory groups.Or do you not consider him an economist?
From Answers.com (via Wikipedia)
So, I'd go with the following amendments:
I, IV, V, VI, IX, X, XV
I'm still holding my breath on XXII.
Driving recklessly, however, is bad. ;)
What process do you propose that would extract free energy (as in the thermodynamic sense) from the vacuum without reducing entropy? If you're proposing to use the Casimir effect, how would that be done - even in theory? Now, I can't say for certain that the 2nd law would be violated, since you haven't specifically said how vacuum energy would be used. I just know that the 2nd law invariably trips up anyone trying to create a perpetual energy machine. (Well, either that or pointing out that flying monkeys can't be created ex nihilo.)
Having said that, I'll agree the 2nd law gets overused - especially when trying to disprove evolution, since the Earth is not a closed system.
Finally, if I'm going to go to the German fount of folkisms, I prefer "In der Not, frißt der Teufel Fliegen." (Meaning: In an emergency, the devil will eat flies. Equivalent English folkism: Beggars can't be choosers. I can't say I understand *how* these are equivalent, but that's what the so-called experts say.)
I know what the Casimir effect is, and I was mostly joking. I say mostly, because I'm quite certain a similar process as Maxwell's demon would, indeed, prevent one from extracting energy via the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (and it's relationship to entropy). Granted, the 2nd law can be broken on small scales, but is always obeyed on average.
As I recall, the travelling salesperson algorithm (I assume this is what you meant by TSP) can be converted to a satisfiability problem in polynomial time. Furthermore, it is trivial to verify the satisfiability problem in polynomial time. Are you arguing that TSP cannot be converted to SAT (or 3-SAT, as is usually done) in P, or that 3-SAT is not verifiable in P?
Maxwell's demon would never permit you to harvest vacuum energy.
All NP problems are verifiable in P. So, although probability does still factor in (because in many situations there's a significant chance the correct answer won't come up), you can verify you have the right answer in P.
I've seen the term QP used before at a quantum computing seminar. I certainly didn't coin it. There is a very important distinction between P and QP - namely that QP is, as you guessed, a polynomial time algorithm on a quantum computer. Google on "Quantum Polynomial" and NP if you want more info. Here's a link that Google Scholar turned up, as well (I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting - judging from the title it seems they are claiming that QP=NP): http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://arxiv. org/abs/quant-ph/9908080
Actually, it would mean that QP = NP. This is considered more likely than P = NP, but as with P=?NP no one has yet shown it to be true or false.
I almost agree with your sentiment. You shoouldn't just look at how many issues you agree on with politician X, but also (1) whether politician X can be expected to have an effect on those issues, and (2) how important those issues are. There are a lot of issues I care about, but right now I feel very strongly about the environment. Education is also important for me, but only for those races where the politician in question can have an impact on education. I also care about my civil rights and about America being as safe as possible without sacrificing our liberties. That last one, however, isn't going to have far less of an impact on who I vote into City Council.
On the other hand, sometimes I vote for a candidate for other reasons. In our most recent City Council elections, I voted for the only Republican running and two other Democrats (there were 3 seats to fill). All other seats on the City Council are held by Democrats, and I thought that this Republican (Rob Schilling) had demonstrated that he brought some novel ideas to the Council. Sadly, he was not elected. What I'm trying to justify here, however, is that the value of politician X might depend on who else is in office.
The Democrats would be different in 2006, because there'd still be a Republican in the White House. The US historically does better when one party is not in complete control.
Don't you recall from your American History class that some territories voted to allow slavery when they became states? I'd say that, in those states at least, a majority of white men (the only people that supposedly counted back then) supported slavery - not just rich land owners.
By the way, rich also meant that you owned 20 or more slaves. Not just that you owned a slave. In order to get out of serving in the Confederate Army you had to own 20 or more slaves.
I'm not sure if you're pointing out my grammar error or whether it genuinely confused you. By "this phrase" I was refering to "taped out".
Per TFA, "completion of the design". I was also confused by this phrase in the summary.
If you could guarantee you were only using bandwith that would otherwise go unused. However, in the router case, connecting to the network results in the owner having less "water" to use on his own lawn.