In a nuclear, or radioactive, decay formula, the variable that is in the exponent is t, for time. What are these other "numerous" examples you speak of?
Letting people get away with using the word "exponential" as a figurative description of increase is common, but when people use that word in the strict mathematical sense and incorrectly state that x^2 is exponential . . well, that's a different matter entirely.
While most are probably avoidable, saying that they are "in no way" unavoidable is somewhat over the top. Consider abortions for medical reasons, for instance (in cases where both the mother and child would die if the pregnancy came to term).
In many cases, legalising prostitution has increased human trafficking. Legalising prostitution increases the market and increases demand, hence the increase in human trafficking. Not just theory, there are statistics to back this up. [No citation given, do your own homework]
Wasting my time searching who knows where trying to verify *your* claims is not *my* homework. If you want to be taken seriously, back your own claims up. If not, you're just another stranger on the internet spewing bullshit.
So just like you argue that civilian innocents casualties are unavoidable in war, consider abortions, unavoidable civilian innocent casualties of life. Happy to put things in perspective for you.
If unborn are sacred due to innocence and not committing any sins, same applies for chicken, turkeys and buffaloes. So what did you have for thanksgiving?
The only basic logic you have is an arbitrary once that makes sense to you alone. It is called hypocrisy.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I couldn't let your abuse of logic go unchallenged.
So just like you argue that civilian innocents casualties are unavoidable in war, consider abortions, unavoidable civilian innocent casualties of life.
I'm pretty sure the part about being "unavoidable" is still under debate. Civilian casualties may be somewhat unavoidable depending on a number of issues, but abortions are in no way unavoidable.
If unborn are sacred due to innocence and not committing any sins, same applies for chicken, turkeys and buffaloes.
You are comparing innocent children to innocent . . . turkeys? That's just silly. Regardless of your views on abortion, valuing turkey life at the same level of human life is a bit over the top.
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I never said this was "high school grade SETTLED science", you did. So arguing that point is, well, pointless. Maybe you think everyone who posts something you disagree with is the same person and we all think with one big hive mind, but I assure you that is not the case. Secondly, I never claimed Dyson was incapable of anything. What I did was correct chipschap's mischaracterization of AC's post. You know, sort of how you are trying to mischaractarize my post by reading what you want to read and not what I wrote. Seems like you are the one arguing from emotion, friend.
Did you even read what GP wrote? About your "requirements" only requiring temperatures to be in the range of -35F to 202F? He's basically saying your requirements are bullshit. So why would anyone waste the effort of putting together a list for you? If you mean for your requirements to be different, maybe you should clarify, because GP makes it sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
The AC said no such thing. He said he doesn't put much weight into what a non-climate scientist says about climate science when actual climatologists say differently.
This whole sub-thread started with AC's "He also said that climate models were a joke, and are getting worse and are deviating more and more from what is actually happening. But he is only one of the worlds most distinguished physicists. I trust Al Gore more. His carbon trading system will save the planet!" This was in response to the summary and was referring to Dyson, not Obama. This thread is not linked to your joke about Obama, which is why it doesn't make sense to you.
While your argument appears to have merit, I believe the counter-argument is that we are so close to the tipping point that any delay in drastically reducing carbon emissions would have disastrous effects. Now that there's agreement that climate change is actually a thing, and there's agreement that a great majority of it is caused by man, the questions become: Exactly how big of a problem is it? How quickly do we need to act? How much resources do we need to put into this problem? etc.. While you seem to have made up your mind about these last questions, I think they are still open, and that the answers we do have seem to be pointing in the opposite direction as you would like.
Even some of the most fervent Obama supporters don't claim he is *always* on the right side of history. Most believe he is on the right side of history *most of the time* and wrong on a few things, where the few things is different depending on the person. For example there are quite a few Obama supporters that strongly disagree with his stance on warrant-less surveillance/NSA evesdropping, etc.
Or in the pixels my eye perceives. Art is about experiencing the artist's perspective or portrayal of a subject. If artist and the viewer are requirements for art to exist, so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?
It looks like you are begging the question though. Of course, if artist and viewer consider something to be art, then it is art. There's no argument there. The problem comes when the artist considers something to be art, but the viewer does not. Or vica versa. What if the viewer sees art, but the "artist" does not. Perhaps the artist does not even consider himself to be an artist. What then? Does this change the artness of whatever it is we are talking about?
Also, what about when neither "artist" nor viewer consider it to be art, but some random dude on the internet proclaims it is. Then is it art? In this case, I am referring to people who aren't looking at the thing specifically, but say things like "All video games are art. Period." Is this necessarily the case?
Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.
What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?
The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.
GP meant Depression in both places it is used. GP did also leave out a clause that would clarify the meaning and tie it to the Great Recession though. Here's what (s)he is trying to say: "..the unemployment rate *now*, if calculated the same way it was calculated during the Great Depression (as opposed to how they've changed the calculation to make the numbers look better) is higher than it was for all but one year of the Great Depression."
In other words, GP is claiming that the current REAL unemployment rate is a lot higher than what you hear in the news.
I directly countered claims you specifically put forth, using your own "evidence", as explained above. That's not a straw-man. Maybe you are just trying to teach me what a troll really looks like, eh?
"They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?"
How about first you explain why so many people are fond of straw men.
GP stated "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist)..," showing (s)he does in fact believe they were trolls, and then gave two pieces of evidence which I claim shows they weren't trolls at all. Please explain where you see a straw man in this argument.
..has really done down. These guys might as well hang a flashing neon TROLL or SHILL sign above their posts nowadays its so obvious. Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments?
Perhaps they weren't trolls at all, and simply had different opinions than you do. They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?
So this isn't about a statute of limitations. It's about something more like the U.S. 6th Ammendment which, basically, bans open ended investigations and other Kafkaesque stuff. Within a reasonable timeframe law enforcement has to bring formal charges to a court of law, specifying exactly what the person is accused of, the court decides and that's the end of it.
Not if the goal is to ensure *someone* is always supplying this service. Without regulation, you'd have wild fluctuations between too many drivers and not enough drivers, which means absurdly high prices and incredibly low prices. I'd rather have a reasonably regulated market so that I knew the service would be around when I needed it, and at a reasonable price.
When there are hundreds or thousands of cabbies on the streets, finding the ones with the best business model isn't likely. I've heard of people asking for a cabbie by name, but that is rare; mostly because people want the convenience of the nearest taxi, at the expense of most other things. So business model would not be the driving factor in determining which taxis remain operational. Instead, you'd have all these taxis on the roads and prices plummet until a large and random subset goes under. Then prices will soar, people will try their luck at being a taxi driver (again?) until the cycle repeats. This oscillatory pattern won't stabilize. Instead you'd have wildly fluctuating prices and at any point in time you wouldn't know whether you need to take $5 or $50 from the bank for the taxi ride home that night. So what makes this different from any other company or service? Simple. Just about everyone already has a car and a license. Without any other restrictions, you have yourself a ready made business. This is exactly what differentiates Uber from legitimate taxi companies.
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.
The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties. I would like to see countries where this is not so, and would be keen to find out how Google would feel about that:-).
Barring niche circumstances linking the crime to England, like the Scotsman travelling on official government business, or the raped person being English, or the rapist having a really long dick and so the crime was actually committed on the other side of the English Channel, then I don't believe this is true at all.
Slashdot Mirror
In a nuclear, or radioactive, decay formula, the variable that is in the exponent is t, for time. What are these other "numerous" examples you speak of?
Letting people get away with using the word "exponential" as a figurative description of increase is common, but when people use that word in the strict mathematical sense and incorrectly state that x^2 is exponential . . well, that's a different matter entirely.
but abortions are in no way unavoidable.
While most are probably avoidable, saying that they are "in no way" unavoidable is somewhat over the top. Consider abortions for medical reasons, for instance (in cases where both the mother and child would die if the pregnancy came to term).
Agreed. I did not mean for my statement to be all inclusive. I should have said "the vast majority" of abortions are in no way unavoidable. Quick google: http://www.nrlc.org/archive/ne... http://www.abortionfacts.com/f... https://www.quora.com/What-per...
In many cases, legalising prostitution has increased human trafficking. Legalising prostitution increases the market and increases demand, hence the increase in human trafficking. Not just theory, there are statistics to back this up. [No citation given, do your own homework]
Wasting my time searching who knows where trying to verify *your* claims is not *my* homework. If you want to be taken seriously, back your own claims up. If not, you're just another stranger on the internet spewing bullshit.
So just like you argue that civilian innocents casualties are unavoidable in war, consider abortions, unavoidable civilian innocent casualties of life. Happy to put things in perspective for you.
If unborn are sacred due to innocence and not committing any sins, same applies for chicken, turkeys and buffaloes. So what did you have for thanksgiving?
The only basic logic you have is an arbitrary once that makes sense to you alone. It is called hypocrisy.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I couldn't let your abuse of logic go unchallenged.
So just like you argue that civilian innocents casualties are unavoidable in war, consider abortions, unavoidable civilian innocent casualties of life.
I'm pretty sure the part about being "unavoidable" is still under debate. Civilian casualties may be somewhat unavoidable depending on a number of issues, but abortions are in no way unavoidable.
If unborn are sacred due to innocence and not committing any sins, same applies for chicken, turkeys and buffaloes.
You are comparing innocent children to innocent . . . turkeys? That's just silly. Regardless of your views on abortion, valuing turkey life at the same level of human life is a bit over the top.
I don't care what features they throw in, as long as they also let me disable it somehow.
Who do you think are climatologist?
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I never said this was "high school grade SETTLED science", you did. So arguing that point is, well, pointless. Maybe you think everyone who posts something you disagree with is the same person and we all think with one big hive mind, but I assure you that is not the case. Secondly, I never claimed Dyson was incapable of anything. What I did was correct chipschap's mischaracterization of AC's post. You know, sort of how you are trying to mischaractarize my post by reading what you want to read and not what I wrote. Seems like you are the one arguing from emotion, friend.
Did you even read what GP wrote? About your "requirements" only requiring temperatures to be in the range of -35F to 202F? He's basically saying your requirements are bullshit. So why would anyone waste the effort of putting together a list for you? If you mean for your requirements to be different, maybe you should clarify, because GP makes it sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
The AC said no such thing. He said he doesn't put much weight into what a non-climate scientist says about climate science when actual climatologists say differently.
This whole sub-thread started with AC's "He also said that climate models were a joke, and are getting worse and are deviating more and more from what is actually happening. But he is only one of the worlds most distinguished physicists. I trust Al Gore more. His carbon trading system will save the planet!" This was in response to the summary and was referring to Dyson, not Obama. This thread is not linked to your joke about Obama, which is why it doesn't make sense to you.
While your argument appears to have merit, I believe the counter-argument is that we are so close to the tipping point that any delay in drastically reducing carbon emissions would have disastrous effects. Now that there's agreement that climate change is actually a thing, and there's agreement that a great majority of it is caused by man, the questions become: Exactly how big of a problem is it? How quickly do we need to act? How much resources do we need to put into this problem? etc.. While you seem to have made up your mind about these last questions, I think they are still open, and that the answers we do have seem to be pointing in the opposite direction as you would like.
Even some of the most fervent Obama supporters don't claim he is *always* on the right side of history. Most believe he is on the right side of history *most of the time* and wrong on a few things, where the few things is different depending on the person. For example there are quite a few Obama supporters that strongly disagree with his stance on warrant-less surveillance/NSA evesdropping, etc.
Or in the pixels my eye perceives. Art is about experiencing the artist's perspective or portrayal of a subject. If artist and the viewer are requirements for art to exist, so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?
It looks like you are begging the question though. Of course, if artist and viewer consider something to be art, then it is art. There's no argument there. The problem comes when the artist considers something to be art, but the viewer does not. Or vica versa. What if the viewer sees art, but the "artist" does not. Perhaps the artist does not even consider himself to be an artist. What then? Does this change the artness of whatever it is we are talking about?
Also, what about when neither "artist" nor viewer consider it to be art, but some random dude on the internet proclaims it is. Then is it art? In this case, I am referring to people who aren't looking at the thing specifically, but say things like "All video games are art. Period." Is this necessarily the case?
Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.
What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?
The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.
landing on the Martian surface in the late 2030s
The US being the Hare, who is the tortoise? Hint: they all live in China.
. . but . . the Chinese live in China!
GP meant Depression in both places it is used. GP did also leave out a clause that would clarify the meaning and tie it to the Great Recession though. Here's what (s)he is trying to say: "..the unemployment rate *now*, if calculated the same way it was calculated during the Great Depression (as opposed to how they've changed the calculation to make the numbers look better) is higher than it was for all but one year of the Great Depression." In other words, GP is claiming that the current REAL unemployment rate is a lot higher than what you hear in the news.
I directly countered claims you specifically put forth, using your own "evidence", as explained above. That's not a straw-man. Maybe you are just trying to teach me what a troll really looks like, eh?
"They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?"
How about first you explain why so many people are fond of straw men.
GP stated "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist)..," showing (s)he does in fact believe they were trolls, and then gave two pieces of evidence which I claim shows they weren't trolls at all. Please explain where you see a straw man in this argument.
..has really done down. These guys might as well hang a flashing neon TROLL or SHILL sign above their posts nowadays its so obvious. Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments?
Perhaps they weren't trolls at all, and simply had different opinions than you do. They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?
So this isn't about a statute of limitations. It's about something more like the U.S. 6th Ammendment which, basically, bans open ended investigations and other Kafkaesque stuff. Within a reasonable timeframe law enforcement has to bring formal charges to a court of law, specifying exactly what the person is accused of, the court decides and that's the end of it.
What do you think a statute of limitations is?
Not if the goal is to ensure *someone* is always supplying this service. Without regulation, you'd have wild fluctuations between too many drivers and not enough drivers, which means absurdly high prices and incredibly low prices. I'd rather have a reasonably regulated market so that I knew the service would be around when I needed it, and at a reasonable price.
When there are hundreds or thousands of cabbies on the streets, finding the ones with the best business model isn't likely. I've heard of people asking for a cabbie by name, but that is rare; mostly because people want the convenience of the nearest taxi, at the expense of most other things. So business model would not be the driving factor in determining which taxis remain operational. Instead, you'd have all these taxis on the roads and prices plummet until a large and random subset goes under. Then prices will soar, people will try their luck at being a taxi driver (again?) until the cycle repeats. This oscillatory pattern won't stabilize. Instead you'd have wildly fluctuating prices and at any point in time you wouldn't know whether you need to take $5 or $50 from the bank for the taxi ride home that night. So what makes this different from any other company or service? Simple. Just about everyone already has a car and a license. Without any other restrictions, you have yourself a ready made business. This is exactly what differentiates Uber from legitimate taxi companies.
No, but the regime in China is definitely a Chinese regime, which is what the summary said.
Please link to a reputable news site reporting on a beheading in the USA attributed to ISIS.
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.
The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties. I would like to see countries where this is not so, and would be keen to find out how Google would feel about that :-).
Barring niche circumstances linking the crime to England, like the Scotsman travelling on official government business, or the raped person being English, or the rapist having a really long dick and so the crime was actually committed on the other side of the English Channel, then I don't believe this is true at all.