No, I understand the concept perfectly. I just don't agree with it.
Actually it is quite clear from your responses that you do not understand.
Yes, but you are still observing the present moment. Just because the light reaches you later doesn't mean you are observing the past.
Actually you are observing light from the past at the present moment. Note the subtle but important difference from what you said. The fact that the light has been altered is irrelevant.
You also aren't even observing the past, you are observing the present - the light waves as they are currently striking your eye. Just because they traveled for a while doesn't mean you are seeing the past.
It's like saying if someone visits me from China, I have traveled back in time the 12 hours that it took for them to reach me. In other words, it's total nonsense.
No, you are completely missing the concept.
When you see something you are always seeing the past - what that object looked like when the light left it.
Think of it this way... when you see our sun, you are seeing how it looked 8 minutes ago. If the sun blew up right now (ignoring all the other issues associated with the sun exploding), you wouldn't see the explosion for another 8 minutes even though it already happened.
These Christian Fundamentalists are going to get a shock when they get reincarnated as a rabbit in an area about to be bulldozed by a developer for a new subdivision...
Well the attitude I've heard from several creationists is why worry about the environment when God is coming down to destroy it anyway and take us away to heaven?
The core of the matter is that we're allowing our government to assume we are criminals, which is evil and the basis of a police state.
No, the core of the matter is that paranoid freaks like yourself, and crazy gun nuts like a lot of the posters here think they have the God given right to do as they feel and damn the consequences.
No one has the right to fly on an airplane. You are a passenger, not the aircraft owner, and as such are subject to the rules set by the airline. Go buy your own plane, get a pilots license and I'm sure that you can carry as many guns on it and fly without id to your hearts content. Jesus, you whiners make me sick. And what a waste of resources and time this stupid lawsuit was. He's obviously got a lot more money than brains or common sense.
On another note, I always thought that they had a good idea when they considered arming the pilots themselves. When you realize that 95% of airline pilots are ex-military, it seemed a good compromise. Never could understand why it failed...
It failed because a majority of the pilots got together, said guns on an aircraft was a colossaly stuipid idea, and refused to implement it.
Lets expand on your example of using computers to make manual operations more efficient.
A camera does no more / less than if there was a cop there personally watching what was going on. So effectively the camera makes the cop more efficient by allowing him to remotely view areas he would of otherwise had to be at and watch manually. Exactly the same as the computer that you say is ok.
That's right! And cops used to be able to catch criminals without computers too - we should get rid of that intrusive technology as well. In fact the cops used to be able to catch criminals while on foot, without guns and only a baton. Lets get rid of all this useless intrusive technology and make them go back to the old tried and true methods...
At no point does the abstract refute the current consensus regarding global glacial mass loss, or state that Antarctica as a whole is in mass balance.
Ok, so when the sensing method shows massive amounts of melting of the glacier, then that is ok, but when that exact same model and data show an increase in the other secion of the glacier, you can conveniently just throw out that portion?? Come-on. Either the data and model is accurate or it not. If the model is wrong for a huge area, then you cant draw conclusions from the model for another area just because it matches popular journalism...
No, bzzz, wrong.
Fuck, do you know how annoying that is? Do you speak like that in public, making annoying game show noises? Debate maturely or not at all.
After adjusting for bias due to smoothing and to GRACE's limited spatial resolution, and removing post glacial rebound (PGR) effects, the rate in West Antarctica is -77 ± 14 km3/year, similar to a recent estimate of ice mass loss from satellite altimetry and remote sensing data. The prominent East Antarctic feature in the Enderby Land region has a rate of +80 ± 16 km3/year. Published snow/ice mass rates from remote sensing measurements indicate approximate ice mass balance in this region...
So, with better data, it shows no net loss of ice in the region, consistant with earlier estimates...
I remember when 'entrapment' was obviously illegal, and
cases of entrapment would get tossed out of court.
You're right. Instead they should equip the robot deer with some serious firepower and blow these asshole illegal hunters out of the water. That'll stop poaching in it's tracks.
However, contrary to the pretty pictures and unfounded claims in parent's reference, the Antarctica Ice sheet is growing smaller. Not only have we witnessed the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf, but rivers of meltwater are draining the Antarctic ice. Indeed, NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) shows declines in the ice pack in both Antarctica and Greenland. Add to this the study I cited earlier which shows even greater declines in mountain glaciers across the globe and the pattern becomes hard to refute.
No, it's actually fairly easy to refute... From the Washington Post article you reference:
Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise.
The ice pack decline and the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf occurs in an area less then 4% of the total continent land area. The remaining 96% of the continent has had a stable climate for about 40 years. Also 99% of the continent remains so cold that melting simply does not occur. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/FAQs/ faq_02.html "Losing mass at a significant rate" is sensationalist journalism at best..
I wouldn't say that calling global warming 'highly doubtful' is inflammatory. While I have no doubt that continued destruction and pollution of our environment will have profound if not irreversable negative impact on our planet, attributing the sinking of an island to global warming is irresponsible journalism at best.
Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."
So given all of these environmental observations (not minor discrepancies but huge anomalies) that are contrary to the global warming prediction, I think its perfectly acceptableto have doubts as to the actual cause of sinking islands.
That's just wrong. When the Brits signed the Treaty of Paris after the American Revolution, the British Empire was recognizing the thirteen colonies as soverign states.
On paper sure, but not in practice. That's why the british ships' captains felt empowered to take American citizens off American ships and recruit them to fight in the British - France war. They believed these people to be effectively british subjects and therefore required to serve the country.
Actually that's not quite true either. At the time, the British considered the US citizens members of the British empire so they were recruiting them for the war against France - that explains the taking of citizens off of merchant ships (I dont agree that was right, but the British did not recognize the soverignty of the US at the time). Britain didn't want the US trading with France because of the ongoing war with France and Napoleon - the Hitler of the day.
The US invaded Canada (BNA at the time) because they saw a strategic value of owing all of North America - and some arrogant US polititians thought that they would be freeing the Canadians from British rule.
But yes, the battle of New Orleans utterly failed..
The U.S. Army can't lose, right? The game sounds realistic to me;)
Ha! You obviously have a short memory and don't recall the time that Canada invaded (as a response to a US invasion of Canada) and kicked your ass all the way to New Orleans...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is quite clear from your responses that you do not understand.
No, you are completely missing the concept.
When you see something you are always seeing the past - what that object looked like when the light left it.
Think of it this way... when you see our sun, you are seeing how it looked 8 minutes ago. If the sun blew up right now (ignoring all the other issues associated with the sun exploding), you wouldn't see the explosion for another 8 minutes even though it already happened.
These Christian Fundamentalists are going to get a shock when they get reincarnated as a rabbit in an area about to be bulldozed by a developer for a new subdivision...
There are no moose on Canadian coins..
The animals are Beaver, Caribou, Loon and Polar Bear..
Well the attitude I've heard from several creationists is why worry about the environment when God is coming down to destroy it anyway and take us away to heaven?
Morons...
Hows that Michigan Militia membership working out for you?
If you don't like the rules for flying on an airplane, don't fly on the frikken airplane! Simple isn't it?
No, the core of the matter is that paranoid freaks like yourself, and crazy gun nuts like a lot of the posters here think they have the God given right to do as they feel and damn the consequences.
No one has the right to fly on an airplane. You are a passenger, not the aircraft owner, and as such are subject to the rules set by the airline. Go buy your own plane, get a pilots license and I'm sure that you can carry as many guns on it and fly without id to your hearts content. Jesus, you whiners make me sick. And what a waste of resources and time this stupid lawsuit was. He's obviously got a lot more money than brains or common sense.
It failed because a majority of the pilots got together, said guns on an aircraft was a colossaly stuipid idea, and refused to implement it.
Sounds like you are a reckless driver that got caught one too many times.
Lets expand on your example of using computers to make manual operations more efficient.
A camera does no more / less than if there was a cop there personally watching what was going on. So effectively the camera makes the cop more efficient by allowing him to remotely view areas he would of otherwise had to be at and watch manually. Exactly the same as the computer that you say is ok.
That's right! And cops used to be able to catch criminals without computers too - we should get rid of that intrusive technology as well. In fact the cops used to be able to catch criminals while on foot, without guns and only a baton. Lets get rid of all this useless intrusive technology and make them go back to the old tried and true methods...
Ok, so the first American settlers had no clue where they were either...
It was a joke, get over it...
Ok, so when the sensing method shows massive amounts of melting of the glacier, then that is ok, but when that exact same model and data show an increase in the other secion of the glacier, you can conveniently just throw out that portion?? Come-on. Either the data and model is accurate or it not. If the model is wrong for a huge area, then you cant draw conclusions from the model for another area just because it matches popular journalism...
Fuck, do you know how annoying that is? Do you speak like that in public, making annoying game show noises? Debate maturely or not at all.Ok, heres a more recent publication, posted AFTER the NASA report that you cite: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026369 .shtml
So, with better data, it shows no net loss of ice in the region, consistant with earlier estimates...
No, it's actually fairly easy to refute... From the Washington Post article you reference:
The ice pack decline and the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf occurs in an area less then 4% of the total continent land area. The remaining 96% of the continent has had a stable climate for about 40 years. Also 99% of the continent remains so cold that melting simply does not occur. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/FAQs/ faq_02.html "Losing mass at a significant rate" is sensationalist journalism at best..
I wouldn't say that calling global warming 'highly doubtful' is inflammatory. While I have no doubt that continued destruction and pollution of our environment will have profound if not irreversable negative impact on our planet, attributing the sinking of an island to global warming is irresponsible journalism at best.
While ocean levels are rising around the world, Arctic levels are falling http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322. stm and the model predicting the globabl warming trend cannot explain why.
Another unexplained action is while consensus is that the planet is getting warmer and glaciers are melting, the Antarctic ice sheet - by far the biggest in the word is actually growing larger: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_She et.htm. Glaciers in California are also growing: http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14317368p -15234887c.html
Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."
But with the increase in global temperature, the worlds deserts would increase in size causing more environmental destruction you say? Not so - the Sahara desert, the largest desert in the world, is actually shrinking, again contrary to the global warming model. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523610.300 -africans-go-back-to-the-land-as-plants-reclaim-th e-desert.html
So given all of these environmental observations (not minor discrepancies but huge anomalies) that are contrary to the global warming prediction, I think its perfectly acceptableto have doubts as to the actual cause of sinking islands.
And the US Midwest is roughly in the center of the US and much of it is in the Eastern time zone. Americans have absolutely no sense of direction.
Blind people don't really need free wheelchairs...
Your mom is calling - it's way past your bedtime little boy.
There was nothing intellectual in that post, it was naieve and misleading. And he didn't have a friggin clue what he was talking about.
It was meant to be a humerous post - get a grip...
Actually that's not quite true either. At the time, the British considered the US citizens members of the British empire so they were recruiting them for the war against France - that explains the taking of citizens off of merchant ships (I dont agree that was right, but the British did not recognize the soverignty of the US at the time). Britain didn't want the US trading with France because of the ongoing war with France and Napoleon - the Hitler of the day.
The US invaded Canada (BNA at the time) because they saw a strategic value of owing all of North America - and some arrogant US polititians thought that they would be freeing the Canadians from British rule.
But yes, the battle of New Orleans utterly failed..
Ha! You obviously have a short memory and don't recall the time that Canada invaded (as a response to a US invasion of Canada) and kicked your ass all the way to New Orleans...