Try watching just about any movie without the music. It won't seem as dramatic or scary or sad or whatever they're shooting for because we're trained to associate certain types of music with certain types of emotional responses.
I find this amusing since it appears on the same page as an article about Apple banning an app publisher because the app gave users instructions on how to repair Apple devies. Naturally Apple makes more money if they get paid to do the repairs or if users just toss the broken device and buy a new one. It's the same principle as Amazon makes more money if they only sell devices that can connect to their for-pay Prime streaming.
Reminds me of the Beavis and Butthead episode, Sexual Harrassment, where they sued a classmate because she was always "like giving them stiffies and stuff".
Really? Down here in COS there's only 1 place that does diesel emissions "testing" (really they just test the opacity of the exhaust and don't look for any particular gas) and that runs me $50 every 2 years. I'd love to avoid that fee.
No, I'm not equating the two arguments. I'm pointing out that neither side appears to be convincing anyone who believes otherwise and we just see the same points posted over and over again. I was not making any judgement about which side has the stronger case.
I started getting fed up with TV back in the 90s when they cancelled multiple shows I really loved after a single season. My So-Called Life and Space: Above and Beyond were 2 examples. In the mid 2000s, I dropped cable and went to disc only viewing.
Now I make it a point to not even look at a series until it has gone for three seasons. No more wasting my time on one-season wonders. I will occasionally violate the rule for a good reason. For example, I got into Veronica Mars after only 2 seasons because Joss Whedon said it was the best show he'd ever seen. That was good enough for me.
Anyway, I'm relying on the rest of you folks to watch the current series and keep them going long enough to reach the point where I might become interested and check them out.
It does seem that any article related to "global warming" tends to results in the same endless arguments by both sides being posted yet again - "the 10 hottest years in history were within the last 18 years", "there has been no warming trend over the last 20 years", "yeah, but, a lot of the heat is going into the ocean", etc., etc.
Everyone appears to have divided up into camps on this issue and no one is going to change their "beliefs" and switch sides, so any "discussion" is about on the level of 2 groups of monkeys screetching at each other and tossing their dung.
That was a long stretch to go from my stating a particular bill was politically motivated to "I'm an idiot who thinks that government = god and will solve all".
What I DO think is that forcing the EPA to try and reveal the raw data, including people's names and health information, from outside studies will lead to people being less likely to participate in such studies and those carrying out those studies being less likely to cooperate with the EPA.
Let's say I participate in a study examining whether people downwind from a power plant have increased rates of lung ailments. Do I want to be harrassed by those who disagree with the study's results as a result of that?
A peer-reviewed study is required to list the methodology of how the individuals participating in the study were selected, but not the actual names. People are more likely to share personal health data, as an example, if they are guaranteed it will be kept private. To force the EPA to try and reveal that private data would lead to the participants being harassed, second-guessed, criticized and so-forth by people who are not qualified in the field, but disagree with the conclusion.
"Open and Reproducible" is a nice phrase. It sounds so sensible, how could anyone be against it.? If you read the articles linked to, you find the bill requires EPA to jump through hoops and obtain the raw data that went into third-party peer-reviewed studies. Often times, that raw data contains names and facts about individuals and releasing it would have privacy concerns.
This bill is about adding extra, unnecessary work in an attempt to slow down and hobble the EPA, not about "open science".
I'd like to be able to speak "where's the cheapest gas within 5 miles?" or "where's the nearest some chain restaurant?" for example and have the car look it up and display the answer. That would beat pulling over to search on a phone or tablet, or worse, trying to use one while in motion.
The article title says bridge. The picture at the top of the article shows a bridge. The actual article text says 55 mile long tunnel. Is there an actual bridge in these plans or not?
Please tell us who exactly who was "pumping" all that CO2 and Methane into Earth's atmosphere back when CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were much warmer?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there something wrong with the Earth's gravity?
Can I run it on a banana peel and some stale beer? Then what good is it?
stock prices for implant manufacturers dropped 50% today.
I thought they were working on that.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/donovan/the+intergalactic+laxative_20282958.html/
who think the moon landings were a hoax.
Try watching just about any movie without the music. It won't seem as dramatic or scary or sad or whatever they're shooting for because we're trained to associate certain types of music with certain types of emotional responses.
Did you swallow your kid's See 'N Say?
I find this amusing since it appears on the same page as an article about Apple banning an app publisher because the app gave users instructions on how to repair Apple devies. Naturally Apple makes more money if they get paid to do the repairs or if users just toss the broken device and buy a new one. It's the same principle as Amazon makes more money if they only sell devices that can connect to their for-pay Prime streaming.
Yes, he's been offered a position as a bishop with a chance to move up to cardinal.
"Watch their assimilation"? You mean, like by the Borg?
Reminds me of the Beavis and Butthead episode, Sexual Harrassment, where they sued a classmate because she was always "like giving them stiffies and stuff".
How do I block THIS ad?
I didn't say that was the ONLY fee I'd like to avoid. It's just the one that is relevant to this topic.
Really? Down here in COS there's only 1 place that does diesel emissions "testing" (really they just test the opacity of the exhaust and don't look for any particular gas) and that runs me $50 every 2 years. I'd love to avoid that fee.
No, I'm not equating the two arguments. I'm pointing out that neither side appears to be convincing anyone who believes otherwise and we just see the same points posted over and over again. I was not making any judgement about which side has the stronger case.
I started getting fed up with TV back in the 90s when they cancelled multiple shows I really loved after a single season. My So-Called Life and Space: Above and Beyond were 2 examples. In the mid 2000s, I dropped cable and went to disc only viewing.
Now I make it a point to not even look at a series until it has gone for three seasons. No more wasting my time on one-season wonders. I will occasionally violate the rule for a good reason. For example, I got into Veronica Mars after only 2 seasons because Joss Whedon said it was the best show he'd ever seen. That was good enough for me.
Anyway, I'm relying on the rest of you folks to watch the current series and keep them going long enough to reach the point where I might become interested and check them out.
It does seem that any article related to "global warming" tends to results in the same endless arguments by both sides being posted yet again - "the 10 hottest years in history were within the last 18 years", "there has been no warming trend over the last 20 years", "yeah, but, a lot of the heat is going into the ocean", etc., etc.
Everyone appears to have divided up into camps on this issue and no one is going to change their "beliefs" and switch sides, so any "discussion" is about on the level of 2 groups of monkeys screetching at each other and tossing their dung.
That was a long stretch to go from my stating a particular bill was politically motivated to "I'm an idiot who thinks that government = god and will solve all".
What I DO think is that forcing the EPA to try and reveal the raw data, including people's names and health information, from outside studies will lead to people being less likely to participate in such studies and those carrying out those studies being less likely to cooperate with the EPA.
Let's say I participate in a study examining whether people downwind from a power plant have increased rates of lung ailments. Do I want to be harrassed by those who disagree with the study's results as a result of that?
A peer-reviewed study is required to list the methodology of how the individuals participating in the study were selected, but not the actual names. People are more likely to share personal health data, as an example, if they are guaranteed it will be kept private. To force the EPA to try and reveal that private data would lead to the participants being harassed, second-guessed, criticized and so-forth by people who are not qualified in the field, but disagree with the conclusion.
"Open and Reproducible" is a nice phrase. It sounds so sensible, how could anyone be against it.? If you read the articles linked to, you find the bill requires EPA to jump through hoops and obtain the raw data that went into third-party peer-reviewed studies. Often times, that raw data contains names and facts about individuals and releasing it would have privacy concerns.
This bill is about adding extra, unnecessary work in an attempt to slow down and hobble the EPA, not about "open science".
nt
I'd like to be able to speak "where's the cheapest gas within 5 miles?" or "where's the nearest some chain restaurant?" for example and have the car look it up and display the answer. That would beat pulling over to search on a phone or tablet, or worse, trying to use one while in motion.
The article title says bridge. The picture at the top of the article shows a bridge. The actual article text says 55 mile long tunnel. Is there an actual bridge in these plans or not?
I'm still in mourning over Jerry Goldsmith passing back in 2004.
Please tell us who exactly who was "pumping" all that CO2 and Methane into Earth's atmosphere back when CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were much warmer?
Volcanoes