3. That there's a good chance we'll die if we don't do anything about global warming.
My responses:
1. Claimants have to prove that global warming is man-made. They have yet to do so.
2. Global warming may or may not be man-made. The planet's climate varies quite naturally, and we really have no idea why. In light of this fact, it may or may not be wise to let the idea of man-made global warming drive policy.
3. There's also a good chance that we'll just damn well have to learn to live with a changed climate. In the past, we managed to live with a much bigger population than was thought possible, when the alternative was the deaths of millions through starvation. In the near future, we'll have to learn to live with much less oil than we have now. (And, eventually, almost no oil at all.) This is no different.
In any case, I happen to think that since air pollution is killing millions worldwide every year that passes (a death toll that makes the recent tsunami look puny), we have an immediate, unambiguous reason to stop polluting.
Rules for simulations of complex, chaotic systems:
1. The number of CPUs in the simulation do not influence accuracy.
2. The number of variables in the model do not influence accuracy.
3. Accuracy is generally total crap, and no better than random guessing.
As it stands, we don't even know what caused the gross climate changes that we know definitely occurred (such as the ice ages), so why should we take a simulation like this seriously?
That's not a valid comparison. Computer technology evolves much faster than other technologies out of necessity, but not all technology evolves the same way.
For example, the 3rd world still uses plenty of technology that's regarded as obsolete in developed countries. For example, audio cassettes are still *very* common because lots of people have tape players, and either can't afford the $30 for a cheap CD player, or know that CDs don't tolerate dirt and moisture as well as tape.
Film is in a similar situation. Digital cameras are delicate and expensive, and you can still develop your own film in a one-horse town halfway up the Mekong, with the nearest digital photo booth a few hundred km away in HCMC.
So film will live on for decades yet; probably as a niche market for people who just plain like it, and definitely in the 3rd world as a commodity product.
I don't see that private SS accounts are any different to 401K accounts, or even plain old stock portfolios bought with your hard-earned cash. It's all the shareholder's money, and all shareholders deserve to know what's going on.
However, let's take a look at said graphs for a moment. They indicate that temperatures have risen by about 1 degree since 1500, or thereabouts. The trend appears to be sharply upwards at the moment.
Three points of interest:
1. The current trend started in 1500. There wasn't a lot of fossil fuel being burned by humans that year.
2. Global temperatures are hard to measure accurately. They vary so much from place to place and year to year that the errors are going to be large. Anyone who claims to be able to measure global temperature to within half a degree C is being disingenuous, at best.
3. Any figures like this that are presented without at least an estimate of uncertainty are misleading.
4. We don't have accurate records for most of the globe prior to the late 20th century. Some fudging is required to match proxy records (like tree rings and fossil pollen) to actual temperature measurements. These proxies have much bigger uncertainty than straight thermometer readings.
Damn, that's 4 things. Sorry, my mistake.
Look, I'm happy to agree that the planet is warmer than it was, and I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I agree that CO2 levels are rising due to human activity. But I *don't* buy the hysteria about global warming. The fact is, we don't know what's causing it. We do know it's being happening since 1500. Before that it was colder than it is now, and before that, it was warmer. The climate goes up and down, and people adapt.
There are far more valid reasons for reducing our use of fossil fuel. For example, air pollution kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. However, climate change sounds to me like a big idea that's caught the public imagination, to the detriment of discussion of real, immediate issues.
There are no "Nobel laureates" in economics, because there is no such thing as the "Nobel Prize in Economics".
The Norwegian Nobel Institute awards prizes in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. People who win these prizes can say they won the Nobel prize.
However, someone who wins the "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" hasn't won a "Nobel prize".
"On most of the foreign carriers, you see much more of a cross section in terms of age, and the service is generally much better."
Haven't flown much overseas, have we?
Service is highly variable between airlines and between flights. Overall, the US is no better and no worse than the world average.
As for UAL and AA (I've flown with both), the staff look to be about average age for that line of work. Or do you expect airlines to sack their staff when they hit 30?
Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a faith. The only way that it could be otherwise is if you can prove that gods, spirits, demons, and all the other occult mechanics of religion categorically do not exist.
We both know that such proof is impossible, so we are left with the conclusion that the only truly rational position is agnosticism.
Don't get me wrong... I'm an atheist. But I freely acknowledge that my belief that there are no gods, ghosts and afterlife is an act of faith, not logic.
Yes, and the only sources of helium at the time were in the USA. The German owners of the Hindenburg petitioned congress to allow access to enough helium for the airship, and at first they agreed. But they changed their minds because of Nazi government policies, and stopped the helium leaving the country at the last minute. So the Hindenburg had to be filled with hydrogen.
Re:I hate the term "green power", article full of
on
Hydrogen Buses In Iceland
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most countries probably have at least some geothermal reserves, which could feasibly be used for power. For example, Australia isn't exactly known for its volcanoes, but we do have a major geothermal energy project under way:
http://hotrock.anu.edu.au/cooper.htm
And the geothermal energy doesn't have to be next door. I'm sure there are plenty of geothermal sites in North America. They may not be enough to supply the whole nation's ebergy requirements, but they might cover some of it.
True enough, but Iceland is unique in having ready access to more geothermal energy than they'll ever need. Not renewable, yes, but there's more of it around than they'll ever need, and it doesn't significantly contribute to CO2 levels.
Oracle generally support the RDBMS for 4 years or so after release, but support doesn't cease all at once. Like MS, they phase it out. For example, 8.1.7 was officially desupported as of December 31, 2004 - it was first released in 2000, I think - so most customers don't get bugs fixed any more, unless they pay for a higher support level. Even then, bug fixes stop at the end of 2006.
(Oracle used to provide a last-ditch "support" service for *very* old RDBMS versions, where they gave you the source code and told you to fix it yourself, but they don't do that these days.)
...but nowhere near as useful as educating people.
For example, in the Indonesian city of Banda Aceh, the earthquake that triggered the tsunami on December 26 just about flattened everything. Now, many people who live by the sea in earthquake-prone areas know that large eathquakes can trigger tsunami, so it's prudent to head for higher ground, warning or not. However, in Banda Aceh, that didn't occur to anybody, and when the tsunami hit, everybody was in town, cleaning up after the quake.
So just explaining to people along the coast that they should head for higher ground after any major quake would save a lot more lives than a warning system.
(Interestingly, the sea gypsies in the region suffered few casualties from the tsunami, because they knew from their folklore that when the sea suddenly receded a long way, it was going to come back, and fast. So at the first sign of the approaching tsunami, they headed for the hills.)
I live in the same world that you do. Not only that, but my employer lost 250 staff on September 11... *and* they're in risk management.
And do I have to remind you what the word "significantly" means? Decreased travel hardly made a dent in the US economy as a whole, the Afghan war was a small blip in US government spending, and the security issues that you mention are part of your incompetent government's mishandling of the situation - not really a consequence.
If you want to see how badly the event affected the US economy, look at things like unemployment and GDP. Unemplyment rose slightly from 5.0% in late 2001 to a peak of 6.3% in 2003, but it took a while, and it would be a stretch to attribute that to Sept 11. US GDP kept increasing - 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 all saw GDP growth.
Don't get me wrong - Sept 11, 2001 was a tragedy. But it wasn't an economic disaster, no matter what the politicians and media would have you believe.
I assume you're suggesting that the DJIA reflects the state of the US economy, and therefore CD sales. This is wrong on two points:
1. The DJIA doesn't accurately refelect the state of the economy; it only indicates the stock prices of some 30 large companies. (For example, it crashed spectacularly on September 11, 2001, but the US economy didn't change significantly that day.)
2. The only economic indicator that you could really use in this context is the unemployment rate. Any number of economic indicators could point to times being pretty bad, but if people have jobs, they'll buy CDs - and the unemployment rate hasn't changed all that much for a few years now.
Neoliberal? Corporatist? What is this, political buzzword bingo?
It sounds to me like you just don't want to read anything that contradicts your world view. That puts you in the same general area as Bill O'reilly fans.
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumptions appear to be:
1. That I have to prove my case.
2. That we can do something about global warming.
3. That there's a good chance we'll die if we don't do anything about global warming.
My responses:
1. Claimants have to prove that global warming is man-made. They have yet to do so.
2. Global warming may or may not be man-made. The planet's climate varies quite naturally, and we really have no idea why. In light of this fact, it may or may not be wise to let the idea of man-made global warming drive policy.
3. There's also a good chance that we'll just damn well have to learn to live with a changed climate. In the past, we managed to live with a much bigger population than was thought possible, when the alternative was the deaths of millions through starvation. In the near future, we'll have to learn to live with much less oil than we have now. (And, eventually, almost no oil at all.) This is no different.
In any case, I happen to think that since air pollution is killing millions worldwide every year that passes (a death toll that makes the recent tsunami look puny), we have an immediate, unambiguous reason to stop polluting.
Rules for simulations of complex, chaotic systems:
1. The number of CPUs in the simulation do not influence accuracy.
2. The number of variables in the model do not influence accuracy.
3. Accuracy is generally total crap, and no better than random guessing.
As it stands, we don't even know what caused the gross climate changes that we know definitely occurred (such as the ice ages), so why should we take a simulation like this seriously?
That's not a valid comparison. Computer technology evolves much faster than other technologies out of necessity, but not all technology evolves the same way.
For example, the 3rd world still uses plenty of technology that's regarded as obsolete in developed countries. For example, audio cassettes are still *very* common because lots of people have tape players, and either can't afford the $30 for a cheap CD player, or know that CDs don't tolerate dirt and moisture as well as tape.
Film is in a similar situation. Digital cameras are delicate and expensive, and you can still develop your own film in a one-horse town halfway up the Mekong, with the nearest digital photo booth a few hundred km away in HCMC.
So film will live on for decades yet; probably as a niche market for people who just plain like it, and definitely in the 3rd world as a commodity product.
I don't see that private SS accounts are any different to 401K accounts, or even plain old stock portfolios bought with your hard-earned cash. It's all the shareholder's money, and all shareholders deserve to know what's going on.
Oh my god! They have graphs! It must be true!
However, let's take a look at said graphs for a moment. They indicate that temperatures have risen by about 1 degree since 1500, or thereabouts. The trend appears to be sharply upwards at the moment.
Three points of interest:
1. The current trend started in 1500. There wasn't a lot of fossil fuel being burned by humans that year.
2. Global temperatures are hard to measure accurately. They vary so much from place to place and year to year that the errors are going to be large. Anyone who claims to be able to measure global temperature to within half a degree C is being disingenuous, at best.
3. Any figures like this that are presented without at least an estimate of uncertainty are misleading.
4. We don't have accurate records for most of the globe prior to the late 20th century. Some fudging is required to match proxy records (like tree rings and fossil pollen) to actual temperature measurements. These proxies have much bigger uncertainty than straight thermometer readings.
Damn, that's 4 things. Sorry, my mistake.
Look, I'm happy to agree that the planet is warmer than it was, and I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I agree that CO2 levels are rising due to human activity. But I *don't* buy the hysteria about global warming. The fact is, we don't know what's causing it. We do know it's being happening since 1500. Before that it was colder than it is now, and before that, it was warmer. The climate goes up and down, and people adapt.
There are far more valid reasons for reducing our use of fossil fuel. For example, air pollution kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. However, climate change sounds to me like a big idea that's caught the public imagination, to the detriment of discussion of real, immediate issues.
There are no "Nobel laureates" in economics, because there is no such thing as the "Nobel Prize in Economics".
The Norwegian Nobel Institute awards prizes in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. People who win these prizes can say they won the Nobel prize.
However, someone who wins the "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" hasn't won a "Nobel prize".
TacSat-1 is a small experimental satellite:
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/tacsat-1.htm
The interesting bit is that the second stage is derived from the lunar module descent motor.
Amazing! They managed to get sixty-year-old technology to work!
This is great news. Now, if only they can get their valve radios to work, they'll be in business.
"On most of the foreign carriers, you see much more of a cross section in terms of age, and the service is generally much better."
Haven't flown much overseas, have we?
Service is highly variable between airlines and between flights. Overall, the US is no better and no worse than the world average.
As for UAL and AA (I've flown with both), the staff look to be about average age for that line of work. Or do you expect airlines to sack their staff when they hit 30?
Advertisers and corporate relations departments produce bullshit... film at 11.
Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a faith. The only way that it could be otherwise is if you can prove that gods, spirits, demons, and all the other occult mechanics of religion categorically do not exist.
We both know that such proof is impossible, so we are left with the conclusion that the only truly rational position is agnosticism.
Don't get me wrong... I'm an atheist. But I freely acknowledge that my belief that there are no gods, ghosts and afterlife is an act of faith, not logic.
It runs a 'proprietary' OS, so I don't think there'll be many viruses or spyware programs out there.
Yes, and the only sources of helium at the time were in the USA. The German owners of the Hindenburg petitioned congress to allow access to enough helium for the airship, and at first they agreed. But they changed their minds because of Nazi government policies, and stopped the helium leaving the country at the last minute. So the Hindenburg had to be filled with hydrogen.
Most countries probably have at least some geothermal reserves, which could feasibly be used for power. For example, Australia isn't exactly known for its volcanoes, but we do have a major geothermal energy project under way:
http://hotrock.anu.edu.au/cooper.htm
And the geothermal energy doesn't have to be next door. I'm sure there are plenty of geothermal sites in North America. They may not be enough to supply the whole nation's ebergy requirements, but they might cover some of it.
True enough, but Iceland is unique in having ready access to more geothermal energy than they'll ever need. Not renewable, yes, but there's more of it around than they'll ever need, and it doesn't significantly contribute to CO2 levels.
Oracle generally support the RDBMS for 4 years or so after release, but support doesn't cease all at once. Like MS, they phase it out. For example, 8.1.7 was officially desupported as of December 31, 2004 - it was first released in 2000, I think - so most customers don't get bugs fixed any more, unless they pay for a higher support level. Even then, bug fixes stop at the end of 2006.
(Oracle used to provide a last-ditch "support" service for *very* old RDBMS versions, where they gave you the source code and told you to fix it yourself, but they don't do that these days.)
Nelson Mandela, presumably.
Nice troll.
How did it get "informative"?
...but nowhere near as useful as educating people.
For example, in the Indonesian city of Banda Aceh, the earthquake that triggered the tsunami on December 26 just about flattened everything. Now, many people who live by the sea in earthquake-prone areas know that large eathquakes can trigger tsunami, so it's prudent to head for higher ground, warning or not. However, in Banda Aceh, that didn't occur to anybody, and when the tsunami hit, everybody was in town, cleaning up after the quake.
So just explaining to people along the coast that they should head for higher ground after any major quake would save a lot more lives than a warning system.
(Interestingly, the sea gypsies in the region suffered few casualties from the tsunami, because they knew from their folklore that when the sea suddenly receded a long way, it was going to come back, and fast. So at the first sign of the approaching tsunami, they headed for the hills.)
It's not worth a cracker 'cause it doesn't have my first Usenet post, back in December '87.
I live in the same world that you do. Not only that, but my employer lost 250 staff on September 11... *and* they're in risk management. And do I have to remind you what the word "significantly" means? Decreased travel hardly made a dent in the US economy as a whole, the Afghan war was a small blip in US government spending, and the security issues that you mention are part of your incompetent government's mishandling of the situation - not really a consequence. If you want to see how badly the event affected the US economy, look at things like unemployment and GDP. Unemplyment rose slightly from 5.0% in late 2001 to a peak of 6.3% in 2003, but it took a while, and it would be a stretch to attribute that to Sept 11. US GDP kept increasing - 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 all saw GDP growth. Don't get me wrong - Sept 11, 2001 was a tragedy. But it wasn't an economic disaster, no matter what the politicians and media would have you believe.
I don't buy it.
I assume you're suggesting that the DJIA reflects the state of the US economy, and therefore CD sales. This is wrong on two points:
1. The DJIA doesn't accurately refelect the state of the economy; it only indicates the stock prices of some 30 large companies. (For example, it crashed spectacularly on September 11, 2001, but the US economy didn't change significantly that day.)
2. The only economic indicator that you could really use in this context is the unemployment rate. Any number of economic indicators could point to times being pretty bad, but if people have jobs, they'll buy CDs - and the unemployment rate hasn't changed all that much for a few years now.
Kodak still sell *billions* of dollars worth of film every year, much of it specialised stuff that you've never heard of.
Kodak will be in the film biz for a couple of decades yet, even if it becomes a much smaller part of its overall business.
What he *says* is irrelevant. What he *does* is what counts.
People like this - politicians, every one of 'em - are inveterate liars. You can only identify their agenda by looking at their actions.
And Powell's actions are unambiguous.
Neoliberal? Corporatist? What is this, political buzzword bingo?
It sounds to me like you just don't want to read anything that contradicts your world view. That puts you in the same general area as Bill O'reilly fans.