I come to slashdot for its nerdy news - not to read posts with insults about someone being either fat, ugly, an unattractive lesbian, an actress in a shmaltzy Tom Hanks movie, someone who got their hand seriously infected hand while fishing, or having a magazine changed to their name and then cancelled.
Can you please clarify which of the above insults you are implying, so that I can know exactly what I should be outraged about.
Thankyou,
One who cares
>> I am not American, but I'd guess most open-source enthusiasts out there are better
>> informed than the average Joe and are more likely to be opposing the war in the
>> first place.
Yeah!
We don't need to translate the documents - we're better informed and know what they say before we even read them!
The fine wikipedia says: "Synfuel is any liquid fuel obtained from coal"
And it was invented by the Nazi's: "The best known process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis which was used on a large scale in Germany during the WW2."
And: "At the present price of crude petroleum, synfuels are not competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies. However, they offer the potential to replace petroleum-based fuels if oil prices continue to rise. "
So, If I understand correctly, Jimmy Carter started the subsidy program to produce fuel the Nazi way - who would have guessed.
Permafrost will keep the vault below freezing point and the
seeds will further be protected by metre-thick walls of
reinforced concrete, two airlocks and high security blast-
proof doors.
Sounds like a challenge!
I'm forming a high skills mercenary team to go in and get those seeds.
I'll need an Olympic level biathlete , a demolitions expert, a Harrier pilot, a (preferably beautiful) horticulturist, an eskimo, a fence, and possibly an astronaut and/or a Mason.
>>"Opposed by more than 600 independent organizations
>> (including the National Governors Association)
They seem to be stretching the truth on this one, the truth is that the official National Governors Association position is that they will happily make any kind of ID's requested as long as the federal government provides the funds.
EDC-18. Driver's License and Personal Identification Card Integrity
The motor vehicle driver's license, which is issued by each state, is used as an official identification document as well as a document that demonstrates an individual's knowledge and ability to operate a motor vehicle. States also issue personal identification cards that can be used as an official identification document. Most driver's licenses and personal identification cards have common elements displayed, such as a photo, a signature, a unique identifier number, and the individual's physical description. This has made the state-issued driver's license and personal identification card the most acceptable forms of identification in America.
Governors are concerned about the security and integrity of state driver's licenses, state personal identification cards, and the identification process. They are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents.
In making changes to the current system of issuing driver's licenses and personal identification cards, Governors believe that any rule or regulation requiring a change to the driver's license document or the personal identification card document should only apply to newly issued, renewed, and duplicate driver's licenses and identification cards produced by a state. Furthermore, any rulemaking body that is prescribing new standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards must perform an assessment of the annual benefits and costs of its recommendations. The federal government should provide adequate funding to states to implement any required mandate stemming from the rulemaking. At no time should the rulemaking body propose an unfunded mandate on states.
The crocodiles are the largest and the heaviest of present-day reptiles. In former times the Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus) and the estuarine crocodile (Crocodilus porosus) attained a length of almost nine metres (about 30 feet), but today, specimens rarely exceed six metres (20 feet). Other species, for example, the smooth-fronted caiman (Paleosuchus) and the dwarf crocodile (Osteolaemus tetraspis) are about 1.7 metres (six feet) in length.
How will anyone prove that the weeds contain DNA from Monsanto plants and did not become resistant due to random mutations?
Classical Darwinian evolutionists believe that evolution is due to random mutations which are then supported/discarded through reproductive advantages/disadvantages which they confer.
Intelligent Design proponents believe that evolution is due to both random mutations and "other" mutations which are then supported/discarded through reproductive advantages/disadvantages which they confer.
The distinction between the two is those "other" mutations mentioned above. Intelligent Design proponents believe that those other non-random mutations are producted in organisms through an outside force.
It will be interesting to see what scientific method is used to prove that the DNA in the "superweeds" came from the Monsanto GM crops and was not the product of random mutations.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that "In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents."
But, no one in this superweed discussion is trying to claim any sort of religious/creationist basis for the mutations, but they are claiming that the mutations found are non-random and due to genetic modification by Monsanto.
If the mutations are non-random, what are they then?
You left out the most important part of the article!
During his speech on the House floor, Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, moved ''Monopoly" money from a box labeled ''poor" to one labeled ''millionaires" to illustrate the point.
"New information obtained by Black Box Voting investigator Jim March shows that mail-in votes in upcoming Nov. 8 elections will lack crucial safeguards. The Diebold "GEMS defect" -- the ability for anyone with access to change vote results on the "mother ship" that tallies and controls election results -- has now been acknowledged by Diebold, but has not been mitigated in most locations, and it is worse for mail-in votes. The GEMS defect has been proven. The risks are significant. Mail-in votes are at exceptional risk because they are counted on a system that lacks protective features found on polling place machines. While the precinct-based optical scan machines made by Diebold produce a results tape, the same machines, when counting mail-in ballots, use a different program and do not store vote tallies on a memory card, nor do they produce an independent results tape. Therefore the defective GEMS program holds the only record for absentee vote totals. "
Hey Black Box dudes - why aren't the mail-in ballots themselves a pretty good paper trail for themselves!?!?
Yep - same as criminology - not a science.
The story of the attack on Mirecki is not a testable hypothesis and it is not falsifiable. The story of the attack has never been published in a peer-reviewed article in a journal of criminology. The story is therefore mythological.
Exactly. The story of the attack on Mirecki is not a testable hypothesis and it is not falsifiable. The story of the attack has never been published in a peer-reviewed article in a journal of criminology. The story is therefore mythological.
"New information obtained by Black Box Voting investigator Jim March shows that mail-in votes in upcoming Nov. 8 elections will lack crucial safeguards. The Diebold "GEMS defect" -- the ability for anyone with access to change vote results on the "mother ship" that tallies and controls election results -- has now been acknowledged by Diebold, but has not been mitigated in most locations, and it is worse for mail-in votes.
The GEMS defect has been proven. The risks are significant. Mail-in votes are at exceptional risk because they are counted on a system that lacks protective features found on polling place machines.
While the precinct-based optical scan machines made by Diebold produce a results tape, the same machines, when counting mail-in ballots, use a different program and do not store vote tallies on a memory card, nor do they produce an independent results tape. Therefore the defective GEMS program holds the only record for absentee vote totals. "
Hey Black Box dudes - why aren't the mail-in ballots themselves a pretty good paper trail for themselves!?!?
>> At best it's simply a "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution."
There is currently a worldwide multibillion dollar business based on intelligent design. (Human) engineers have been designing organisms for years.
Some scientists claiming that intelligent design should not be taught because some religious people believe in it is silly. Scientists should focus on the message, not the messenger - newscientist is much very good at this
As an example scientists are actually having difficulty determining if a particular plant is naturally occurring, whether it was created, or whether it is a cross between a naturally occurring plant and a human-created plant.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/d n7729
Researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, tested the herbicide glufosinate ammonium on plants in fields previously sowed with oilseed rape modified to carry a gene conferring resistance to the herbicide. But a single charlock plant carried on growing happily, raising fears that the gene for herbicide resistance had crossed over to the charlock and created a herbicide-resistant strain.
For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses.
Here are two sides of this particular debate:
1) "There is no superweed and there never has been," echoes Brian Johnson, ecological geneticist at English Nature, the nature advisers to the British government. "It's more likely that herbicide resistance in charlock has evolved naturally."
or
2) But according to some media reports, "genetic testing of the purported hybrid showed that it carries the same gene as the GM crop."
How do you decide which hypothesis is correct? You do science. But what if science shows that the new plant was not evolved naturally through mutation and/or natural selection, but was in fact created? Then you have a provable example of intelligent design.
Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?
"Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. - But with a population of only 4.5 million, Norway is the largest per-capita producer of oil by far."
A portion of the oil goes into plastics, and a small amount is used for lubricating, but over 95% is burned for fuel. Does Norway take no responsibility for this?"
But under Kyoto, Norway is responsible only for what they personally burn - they are not responsible, even though they are the ones who take transfer the oil from its location below ground to a location where it is made available for burning.
This seems about as ethical as a vegetarian who raises livestock to sell to a slaughterhouse.
While some scientists are claiming that intelligent design should not be taught because some religious people believe in it, other scientists are actually having difficulty determining if a particular plant is naturally occurring, whether it was created, or whether it is a cross between a naturally occurring plant and a human-created plant.
Researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, tested the herbicide glufosinate ammonium on plants in fields previously sowed with oilseed rape modified to carry a gene conferring resistance to the herbicide. But a single charlock plant carried on growing happily, raising fears that the gene for herbicide resistance had crossed over to the charlock and created a herbicide-resistant strain.
For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses.
Here are two sides of this particular debate:
1) "There is no superweed and there never has been," echoes Brian Johnson, ecological geneticist at English Nature, the nature advisers to the British government. "It's more likely that herbicide resistance in charlock has evolved naturally."
or
2) But according to some media reports, genetic testing of the purported hybrid showed that it carries the same gene as the GM crop.
Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?
Can I use this to find dna-paterniti-testing?
on
Wireless Positioning
·
· Score: 1
Can I use this to find the nearest dna-paterniti-testing location and
a place to redeem my free Applebee's dinner for 2?
The posted article does not mention that the patient also had a Lumbar laminectomy performed.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/
We have to be cautious. One patient does not a treatment make. Also, the authors note that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit. But still, this is a wonderful story that offers tremendous hope for paralyzed patients. Typically, it has been extensively ignored in the American media (although it has gotten some foreign press attention). (Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?)
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/ar ticle545.html
"The goal of a laminectomy is to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or spinal nerve by widening the spinal canal. This is done by removing or trimming the lamina (roof) of the vertebrae to create more space for the nerves."
You say:
"Maybe the author is on to something. Perhaps he would publish in a serious journal, or make the data freely available?"
The whole point of the Micheals' article is that the Science data only goes back to the 70's and that data that goes back longer shows something different.
Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming.
You are wrong - the article compares frequency to frequency AND severity to severity.
There is a section titled "How Frequent" and there is also a section titled "How Intense".
Plus it's right there in charts in blue, green, and red!
Did you even read the article or view the graphs before posting?
When the title of the graph is "Number of Hurricanes" that is frequency.
When the title of the other graph is "Percentage of Hurricanes" you can see (by reading!) that it refers to the percentage of hurricanes of each (intensity or force or severity) cat1 vs cat2+3 vs cat4+5.
So the article does include comparisons based on severity - but only if you read it!
According to the Louisiana governor: "Blanco said President George W. Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."
But the Mayor had to sleep on it on start the evacuation the next morning:
In an interview on Eyewitness News, Nagin said his Saturday night dinner was interrupted by an urgent call from Governor Kathleen Blanco who asked Nagin to call the Hurricane Center.
Nagin said the Hurricane Center Chief told the mayor that if it was possible at all, he should order an evacuation due to winds that could reach 145 miles per hour sustained and 170 mile per hour gusts.
Nagin said he would consider ordering evacuations by Sunday morning and may employ buses and trains to help get people out of the city.
The mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday morning at 10 AM - over 14 hours after the president, governor, and the chief of the Hurricane center had requested it.
Slashdot Mirror
If humans kill animals, it is the humans' fault. If animals kill humans, it is the humans' fault.
Yep - that pretty much sums it up.
I come to slashdot for its nerdy news - not to read posts with insults about someone being either fat, ugly, an unattractive lesbian, an actress in a shmaltzy Tom Hanks movie, someone who got their hand seriously infected hand while fishing, or having a magazine changed to their name and then cancelled. Can you please clarify which of the above insults you are implying, so that I can know exactly what I should be outraged about. Thankyou, One who cares
Yeah!
We don't need to translate the documents - we're better informed and know what they say before we even read them!
I'll say!
I'd be happy to give my scientific opinion about almost anything if I could do it in a secret meeting!
The fine wikipedia says: "Synfuel is any liquid fuel obtained from coal"
And it was invented by the Nazi's: "The best known process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis which was used on a large scale in Germany during the WW2."
And: "At the present price of crude petroleum, synfuels are not competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies. However, they offer the potential to replace petroleum-based fuels if oil prices continue to rise. "
So, If I understand correctly, Jimmy Carter started the subsidy program to produce fuel the Nazi way - who would have guessed.
/P.
And they both smoked tobacco!
Thanks! I had forgotten who wrote the giant ragweed book - I'll go to the library today and check it out. Ugmoe
Sounds like a challenge!
I'm forming a high skills mercenary team to go in and get those seeds.
I'll need an Olympic level biathlete , a demolitions expert, a Harrier pilot, a (preferably beautiful) horticulturist, an eskimo, a fence, and possibly an astronaut and/or a Mason.
Equal Opportunity Employer
They seem to be stretching the truth on this one, the truth is that the official National Governors Association position is that they will happily make any kind of ID's requested as long as the federal government provides the funds.
Here is the official NGA statement:
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358ec 82f5b198d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=3f90d3add6da 2010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
Policy Position
printable version
03/03/2005
EDC-18. Driver's License and Personal Identification Card Integrity
The motor vehicle driver's license, which is issued by each state, is used as an official identification document as well as a document that demonstrates an individual's knowledge and ability to operate a motor vehicle. States also issue personal identification cards that can be used as an official identification document. Most driver's licenses and personal identification cards have common elements displayed, such as a photo, a signature, a unique identifier number, and the individual's physical description. This has made the state-issued driver's license and personal identification card the most acceptable forms of identification in America.
Governors are concerned about the security and integrity of state driver's licenses, state personal identification cards, and the identification process. They are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents.
In making changes to the current system of issuing driver's licenses and personal identification cards, Governors believe that any rule or regulation requiring a change to the driver's license document or the personal identification card document should only apply to newly issued, renewed, and duplicate driver's licenses and identification cards produced by a state. Furthermore, any rulemaking body that is prescribing new standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards must perform an assessment of the annual benefits and costs of its recommendations. The federal government should provide adequate funding to states to implement any required mandate stemming from the rulemaking. At no time should the rulemaking body propose an unfunded mandate on states.
Isn't the crocodile the world's largest lizard?
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38416
The crocodiles are the largest and the heaviest of present-day reptiles. In former times the Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus) and the estuarine crocodile (Crocodilus porosus) attained a length of almost nine metres (about 30 feet), but today, specimens rarely exceed six metres (20 feet). Other species, for example, the smooth-fronted caiman (Paleosuchus) and the dwarf crocodile (Osteolaemus tetraspis) are about 1.7 metres (six feet) in length.
How will anyone prove that the weeds contain DNA from Monsanto plants and did not become resistant due to random mutations?
Classical Darwinian evolutionists believe that evolution is due to random mutations which are then supported/discarded through reproductive advantages/disadvantages which they confer.
Intelligent Design proponents believe that evolution is due to both random mutations and "other" mutations which are then supported/discarded through reproductive advantages/disadvantages which they confer.
The distinction between the two is those "other" mutations mentioned above. Intelligent Design proponents believe that those other non-random mutations are producted in organisms through an outside force.
It will be interesting to see what scientific method is used to prove that the DNA in the "superweeds" came from the Monsanto GM crops and was not the product of random mutations.
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decisi on_20051220.pdf
In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
But, no one in this superweed discussion is trying to claim any sort of religious/creationist basis for the mutations, but they are claiming that the mutations found are non-random and due to genetic modification by Monsanto.
If the mutations are non-random, what are they then?
During his speech on the House floor, Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, moved ''Monopoly" money from a box labeled ''poor" to one labeled ''millionaires" to illustrate the point.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1303 7.html
"New information obtained by Black Box Voting investigator Jim March shows that mail-in votes in upcoming Nov. 8 elections will lack crucial safeguards. The Diebold "GEMS defect" -- the ability for anyone with access to change vote results on the "mother ship" that tallies and controls election results -- has now been acknowledged by Diebold, but has not been mitigated in most locations, and it is worse for mail-in votes. The GEMS defect has been proven. The risks are significant. Mail-in votes are at exceptional risk because they are counted on a system that lacks protective features found on polling place machines. While the precinct-based optical scan machines made by Diebold produce a results tape, the same machines, when counting mail-in ballots, use a different program and do not store vote tallies on a memory card, nor do they produce an independent results tape. Therefore the defective GEMS program holds the only record for absentee vote totals. "
Hey Black Box dudes - why aren't the mail-in ballots themselves a pretty good paper trail for themselves!?!?
Yep - same as criminology - not a science. The story of the attack on Mirecki is not a testable hypothesis and it is not falsifiable. The story of the attack has never been published in a peer-reviewed article in a journal of criminology. The story is therefore mythological.
Exactly. The story of the attack on Mirecki is not a testable hypothesis and it is not falsifiable. The story of the attack has never been published in a peer-reviewed article in a journal of criminology. The story is therefore mythological.
Black Box Voting is complaining that there is no paper trail for the counting of mail-in paper ballots.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1303 7.html
"New information obtained by Black Box Voting investigator Jim March shows that mail-in votes in upcoming Nov. 8 elections will lack crucial safeguards. The Diebold "GEMS defect" -- the ability for anyone with access to change vote results on the "mother ship" that tallies and controls election results -- has now been acknowledged by Diebold, but has not been mitigated in most locations, and it is worse for mail-in votes. The GEMS defect has been proven. The risks are significant. Mail-in votes are at exceptional risk because they are counted on a system that lacks protective features found on polling place machines. While the precinct-based optical scan machines made by Diebold produce a results tape, the same machines, when counting mail-in ballots, use a different program and do not store vote tallies on a memory card, nor do they produce an independent results tape. Therefore the defective GEMS program holds the only record for absentee vote totals. "
Hey Black Box dudes - why aren't the mail-in ballots themselves a pretty good paper trail for themselves!?!?
There is currently a worldwide multibillion dollar business based on intelligent design. (Human) engineers have been designing organisms for years.
Some scientists claiming that intelligent design should not be taught because some religious people believe in it is silly. Scientists should focus on the message, not the messenger - newscientist is much very good at this
As an example scientists are actually having difficulty determining if a particular plant is naturally occurring, whether it was created, or whether it is a cross between a naturally occurring plant and a human-created plant. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/d n7729
Researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, tested the herbicide glufosinate ammonium on plants in fields previously sowed with oilseed rape modified to carry a gene conferring resistance to the herbicide. But a single charlock plant carried on growing happily, raising fears that the gene for herbicide resistance had crossed over to the charlock and created a herbicide-resistant strain.
For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses.
Here are two sides of this particular debate:
1) "There is no superweed and there never has been," echoes Brian Johnson, ecological geneticist at English Nature, the nature advisers to the British government. "It's more likely that herbicide resistance in charlock has evolved naturally."
or
2) But according to some media reports, "genetic testing of the purported hybrid showed that it carries the same gene as the GM crop."
How do you decide which hypothesis is correct? You do science. But what if science shows that the new plant was not evolved naturally through mutation and/or natural selection, but was in fact created? Then you have a provable example of intelligent design.
Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?
"Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. - But with a population of only 4.5 million, Norway is the largest per-capita producer of oil by far."
A portion of the oil goes into plastics, and a small amount is used for lubricating, but over 95% is burned for fuel. Does Norway take no responsibility for this?"
But under Kyoto, Norway is responsible only for what they personally burn - they are not responsible, even though they are the ones who take transfer the oil from its location below ground to a location where it is made available for burning.
This seems about as ethical as a vegetarian who raises livestock to sell to a slaughterhouse.
But, the money's good!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/d n7729
Researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, UK, tested the herbicide glufosinate ammonium on plants in fields previously sowed with oilseed rape modified to carry a gene conferring resistance to the herbicide. But a single charlock plant carried on growing happily, raising fears that the gene for herbicide resistance had crossed over to the charlock and created a herbicide-resistant strain.
For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses.
Here are two sides of this particular debate:
1) "There is no superweed and there never has been," echoes Brian Johnson, ecological geneticist at English Nature, the nature advisers to the British government. "It's more likely that herbicide resistance in charlock has evolved naturally."
or
2) But according to some media reports, genetic testing of the purported hybrid showed that it carries the same gene as the GM crop.
Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?
Can I use this to find the nearest dna-paterniti-testing location and a place to redeem my free Applebee's dinner for 2?
Anyone know where I can get dna-paterniti-testing done?
The posted article does not mention that the patient also had a Lumbar laminectomy performed.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/ We have to be cautious. One patient does not a treatment make. Also, the authors note that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit. But still, this is a wonderful story that offers tremendous hope for paralyzed patients. Typically, it has been extensively ignored in the American media (although it has gotten some foreign press attention). (Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?)
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/ar ticle545.html
"The goal of a laminectomy is to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or spinal nerve by widening the spinal canal. This is done by removing or trimming the lamina (roof) of the vertebrae to create more space for the nerves."
You do not read the article before posting.
You say: "Maybe the author is on to something. Perhaps he would publish in a serious journal, or make the data freely available?"
The whole point of the Micheals' article is that the Science data only goes back to the 70's and that data that goes back longer shows something different.
Free Republic linked to the article in Tech Central Station http://www.techcentralstation.com/091605F.html which used data from the national hurricane center. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/hurdat.html
Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming.
You are wrong - the article compares frequency to frequency AND severity to severity.
There is a section titled "How Frequent" and there is also a section titled "How Intense".
Plus it's right there in charts in blue, green, and red!
Did you even read the article or view the graphs before posting?
When the title of the graph is "Number of Hurricanes" that is frequency.
When the title of the other graph is "Percentage of Hurricanes" you can see (by reading!) that it refers to the percentage of hurricanes of each (intensity or force or severity) cat1 vs cat2+3 vs cat4+5.
So the article does include comparisons based on severity - but only if you read it!
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wE7Dn7WQ_9kJ:ww w.thewmurchannel.com/hurricanes/4887230/detail.htm l+new+orleans+%2Bmayor+evacuation+%2Bdinner+%2Bsun day+%2Bsaturday&hl=en
According to the Louisiana governor: "Blanco said President George W. Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."
But the Mayor had to sleep on it on start the evacuation the next morning:
http://weblog.sinteur.com/?m=20050828
In an interview on Eyewitness News, Nagin said his Saturday night dinner was interrupted by an urgent call from Governor Kathleen Blanco who asked Nagin to call the Hurricane Center.
Nagin said the Hurricane Center Chief told the mayor that if it was possible at all, he should order an evacuation due to winds that could reach 145 miles per hour sustained and 170 mile per hour gusts.
Nagin said he would consider ordering evacuations by Sunday morning and may employ buses and trains to help get people out of the city.
The mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday morning at 10 AM - over 14 hours after the president, governor, and the chief of the Hurricane center had requested it.