Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality.
Maybe so, but does it do anything negative for our air quality? In any case, plants sure seem to like increased CO2, so there's one positive benefit to increased CO2. There is plenty of pollution that we create, though in the US, at least, we've gotten a lot better about it. CO2 is not pollution. At least not at levels we're capable of creating in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.
Do you also believe that any pharmaceutical that has a particular effect in a petri dish should be approved and assumed to work in humans? Both the human body and the climate system of the Earth are complex systems where simple extrapolations do not always work.
In any case, the amount of CO2 has gone from a very small amount to a very small amount.
Even if that's true (and I have no idea one way or the other), you haven't said anything to contradict the GP. Not to mention that you and he probably have a different geography in mind.
Well I'm glad you do remember it even if your political bias makes you disregard everything you don't want to hear.
I guess I'm less glad to understand that your political bias makes you assume odd things about those with whom you disagree.
Massive fail. Hansen's work is understanding planetary climates, which involves creating climate models. He's one of the foremost climate scientists in the world.
If anything, the failure is Hansen's. He's not doing science any more. His mind is made up, and believes that his models are more correct than observations. Though perhaps your statement is more a reflection on the sad state of climate science than on Hansen.
You may also recall the Bush Administration trying to silence James Hanson the NASA scientist.
Well, I remember the stories in the media which had lots of quotes from Hansen saying the administration wasn't allowing him to speak to the media. Anyways, the GP was talking about climate scientists. Why drag Hansen into the conversation?
Yeah, when you have two monitors, it seems to only want to use the primary monitor's resolution. I've found, however, that if I tell that monitor to be bigger than it really is, and make sure that the task bar is set to autohide before I make my connection, I can get it to be the correct size. After the connection is made, I can set the primary monitor back to its normal resolution.
I've never even tried to get it to span.
A bunch of "things aren't broken why fix them" arguments combined with some vaugely offensive, jingoistic, BS that the US is the "only country that believes in free speech".
I think that's misrepresenting TFA slightly. I thought his point was that an international body would certainly have members whose idea of free speech is really pretty poor (TFA has some examples).
But in all seriousness, how many countries have free speech at least as robust (or more so) as the US does?
I really don't know much about LISP, but I'm having a hard time understanding why "performing a pass over each function" rules out being a "pure interpreter." Maybe we just have different definitions of what that means. Could you please clarify?
Isn't that exactly what you quoted? If it's possible for malware to do this on your machine, then somehow it's already gotten past UAC, whether by some other hole, or by the user allowing it. What, exactly, do you suppose UAC is supposed to do in that case?
Why would we want to remove the CO2? Now it's back where it can do some good. I guess we can't stop you from wanting to ruin lives based on unvalidated computer models, but I sure hope we can stop you from actually doing it.
I don't doubt that you could get some short term cost savings by fiat. But longer term, it will be a disaster. It's going to reduce the supply of medical care. That's definitely the situation in Britain, which has a fairly long track record of public health. They've gotten to the point where rather than adding health care providers, they're adding bureaucrats to manage the system.
And then what will Canadians do who need quick care? Won't anyone think of the Canadians?
Yes, I'm concerned about that, too. Obama is convinced that he can raise lots of money by raising the taxes on the upper income brackets. Something like 40% of wage earners have zero income tax liability already. And many of those "wealthy" earners are really small business owners, who in turn employ many of those 40%. So taxing them will ultimately hurt employment and wages. Then there's the sleight of hand in calling the proposed transfer payments tax cuts.
And then there's free trade. Take Columbia, for instance. They're one of our best allies in South America, and Obama is against a free trade agreement with them. One specific company that this will hurt is Caterpillar, which has a lot of union employees. By opposing the agreement, Caterpillar exports will be subject to taxes that will make them less competitive with construction equipment from other countries, such as Japan. I think it's important to note that agreeing to this deal does a lot more for American interests, since most of our imports from Columbia are already duty free. The main effect will be to reduce the taxes on American exports. I simply can't make sense of this.
Speaking of unions, there's the issue of secret ballots. It amazes me that Democrats can, with straight faces, claim that they're against intimidation in unionization efforts, yet want to hand over a magnificent tool for unions to intimidate prospective members.
Now, how about health care? Obama says he wants to reduce costs, but the details of how he plans to do this seem to be the exact opposite. Increased mandates for coverage. Reduce competition. Increase the role of government.
The poor do not tend to become rich, but they tend to move up. Most people are not rags to riches stories, but it's certainly possible to move from poor to middle class. That's not to say that there isn't a more or less permanent underclass, but I don't think you can attribute that to "feudal lords" keeping them down, as the GGP claimed.
I'm certainly not implying that working hard is a guaranteed path to success, but if you're poor, it's more likely to raise your fortunes than not working. There are always many things that contribute to great success, not the least of which is luck. Knowing the right people helps, too. That's just life. Not everyone is a naturally gifted athlete. Nevertheless, the likening of the modern USA with medieval feudal economies is just wrong.
It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:
Do not tax anyone. Consequently, all the resources - wealth - in the society are concentrated on a few hands, and the rest live a miserable life or outright starve, just like it was during the industrial revolution. Since starving people have nothing to lose but their chains, such conditions can and have led to bloody revolutions.
Tax people, therefore taking some of that concentrated wealth back from those who have it and redistribute it to the poor, thus preventing anyone from starving or getting truly desperate but having to put up with whining libertarians who'd rather "let them eat cake".
Ok, let's ignore, for the moment, the silly assumption that the only way anyone who is currently poor can increase their economic wealth is to have it redistributed to them in the form of taxes. We could, alternatively, use taxes to fund the government, to provide services best provided by the government. We'll all disagree about what these are, but things like national defense, police, fire and roads would be on my list. Ideally, we'd do all of this with the minimum of taxation, period.
The modern societies that have something resembling feudal lords typically have high taxation, supposedly for the benefit of the poor. It's difficult to imagine how you think your little rant applies to the real world, especially to the situation that currently exists in the United States. The poor tend not to remain poor, and the highest earners tend to turn over quite a bit as well. And here's a hint: the poor who improve their standings are the ones who don't rely on forced redistribution of wealth through taxation.
This is the only explanation I can find for why McCain has any significant proportion of the vote, because if most people were to read and understand his plans for the presidency, they would realize that he doesn't have their interests at heart.
This is the fun bit about politics, because I would say the same thing, but with Obama where you put McCain. Not that I'm a big McCain fan, just that I don't care for Obama's ideas.
Conservative talk radio is consistent? Actually let's put this in context. [fill in the blank] talk radio is consistent?
Nice reading comprehension there. He said that their true and stated agenda is consistent. Since you failed to understand the first time, what he meant was that (whether or not you agree with them) they weren't pretending to be something other than what they are.
Or perhaps it's because they're still waiting on some scientific evidence that doesn't rely on unvalidated computer models. And that doesn't try to ignore past temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. The IPCC is a political body, and shouldn't be confused with science. Trying to make the world a better place by inventing doomsday scenarios to justify attempts to destroy modern economies is a much worse way to make yourself feel better.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm especially impressed that they think the climate or some other force of nature cares for their laws.
Actually, that's basically what they're saying to the EPA.
Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality.
Maybe so, but does it do anything negative for our air quality? In any case, plants sure seem to like increased CO2, so there's one positive benefit to increased CO2. There is plenty of pollution that we create, though in the US, at least, we've gotten a lot better about it. CO2 is not pollution. At least not at levels we're capable of creating in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.
Do you also believe that any pharmaceutical that has a particular effect in a petri dish should be approved and assumed to work in humans? Both the human body and the climate system of the Earth are complex systems where simple extrapolations do not always work.
In any case, the amount of CO2 has gone from a very small amount to a very small amount.
I find it impossible to believe that good anti-AWG ideas really have been suppressed for 50 years or however long it is.
That just means you haven't been paying attention.
Even if that's true (and I have no idea one way or the other), you haven't said anything to contradict the GP. Not to mention that you and he probably have a different geography in mind.
You probably mean that the Schrodinger equation describes the shape of the orbitals.
Well I'm glad you do remember it even if your political bias makes you disregard everything you don't want to hear.
I guess I'm less glad to understand that your political bias makes you assume odd things about those with whom you disagree.
Massive fail. Hansen's work is understanding planetary climates, which involves creating climate models. He's one of the foremost climate scientists in the world.
If anything, the failure is Hansen's. He's not doing science any more. His mind is made up, and believes that his models are more correct than observations. Though perhaps your statement is more a reflection on the sad state of climate science than on Hansen.
Well, I remember the stories in the media which had lots of quotes from Hansen saying the administration wasn't allowing him to speak to the media. Anyways, the GP was talking about climate scientists. Why drag Hansen into the conversation?
Yeah, when you have two monitors, it seems to only want to use the primary monitor's resolution. I've found, however, that if I tell that monitor to be bigger than it really is, and make sure that the task bar is set to autohide before I make my connection, I can get it to be the correct size. After the connection is made, I can set the primary monitor back to its normal resolution. I've never even tried to get it to span.
I think that's misrepresenting TFA slightly. I thought his point was that an international body would certainly have members whose idea of free speech is really pretty poor (TFA has some examples).
But in all seriousness, how many countries have free speech at least as robust (or more so) as the US does?
No, mostly cognitive incoherence.
I really don't know much about LISP, but I'm having a hard time understanding why "performing a pass over each function" rules out being a "pure interpreter." Maybe we just have different definitions of what that means. Could you please clarify?
Isn't that the whole purpose of Wikipedia?
D also runs on Windows, which is probably the source of the original conditional compilation.
Isn't that exactly what you quoted? If it's possible for malware to do this on your machine, then somehow it's already gotten past UAC, whether by some other hole, or by the user allowing it. What, exactly, do you suppose UAC is supposed to do in that case?
Huh. And here I thought we were spending it all on Social Security, Medicare and interest.
This is a really dumb way to think about things. Or a troll.
Why would we want to remove the CO2? Now it's back where it can do some good. I guess we can't stop you from wanting to ruin lives based on unvalidated computer models, but I sure hope we can stop you from actually doing it.
I don't doubt that you could get some short term cost savings by fiat. But longer term, it will be a disaster. It's going to reduce the supply of medical care. That's definitely the situation in Britain, which has a fairly long track record of public health. They've gotten to the point where rather than adding health care providers, they're adding bureaucrats to manage the system.
And then what will Canadians do who need quick care? Won't anyone think of the Canadians?
Yes, I'm concerned about that, too. Obama is convinced that he can raise lots of money by raising the taxes on the upper income brackets. Something like 40% of wage earners have zero income tax liability already. And many of those "wealthy" earners are really small business owners, who in turn employ many of those 40%. So taxing them will ultimately hurt employment and wages. Then there's the sleight of hand in calling the proposed transfer payments tax cuts.
And then there's free trade. Take Columbia, for instance. They're one of our best allies in South America, and Obama is against a free trade agreement with them. One specific company that this will hurt is Caterpillar, which has a lot of union employees. By opposing the agreement, Caterpillar exports will be subject to taxes that will make them less competitive with construction equipment from other countries, such as Japan. I think it's important to note that agreeing to this deal does a lot more for American interests, since most of our imports from Columbia are already duty free. The main effect will be to reduce the taxes on American exports. I simply can't make sense of this.
Speaking of unions, there's the issue of secret ballots. It amazes me that Democrats can, with straight faces, claim that they're against intimidation in unionization efforts, yet want to hand over a magnificent tool for unions to intimidate prospective members.
Now, how about health care? Obama says he wants to reduce costs, but the details of how he plans to do this seem to be the exact opposite. Increased mandates for coverage. Reduce competition. Increase the role of government.
The poor do not tend to become rich, but they tend to move up. Most people are not rags to riches stories, but it's certainly possible to move from poor to middle class. That's not to say that there isn't a more or less permanent underclass, but I don't think you can attribute that to "feudal lords" keeping them down, as the GGP claimed.
I'm certainly not implying that working hard is a guaranteed path to success, but if you're poor, it's more likely to raise your fortunes than not working. There are always many things that contribute to great success, not the least of which is luck. Knowing the right people helps, too. That's just life. Not everyone is a naturally gifted athlete. Nevertheless, the likening of the modern USA with medieval feudal economies is just wrong.
Ok, let's ignore, for the moment, the silly assumption that the only way anyone who is currently poor can increase their economic wealth is to have it redistributed to them in the form of taxes. We could, alternatively, use taxes to fund the government, to provide services best provided by the government. We'll all disagree about what these are, but things like national defense, police, fire and roads would be on my list. Ideally, we'd do all of this with the minimum of taxation, period.
The modern societies that have something resembling feudal lords typically have high taxation, supposedly for the benefit of the poor. It's difficult to imagine how you think your little rant applies to the real world, especially to the situation that currently exists in the United States. The poor tend not to remain poor, and the highest earners tend to turn over quite a bit as well. And here's a hint: the poor who improve their standings are the ones who don't rely on forced redistribution of wealth through taxation.
This is the fun bit about politics, because I would say the same thing, but with Obama where you put McCain. Not that I'm a big McCain fan, just that I don't care for Obama's ideas.
Nice reading comprehension there. He said that their true and stated agenda is consistent. Since you failed to understand the first time, what he meant was that (whether or not you agree with them) they weren't pretending to be something other than what they are.
Or perhaps it's because they're still waiting on some scientific evidence that doesn't rely on unvalidated computer models. And that doesn't try to ignore past temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. The IPCC is a political body, and shouldn't be confused with science. Trying to make the world a better place by inventing doomsday scenarios to justify attempts to destroy modern economies is a much worse way to make yourself feel better.