You are lying to yourself. It is common among people that want to be 'edgy'. Tattoos are a persons personal business. When you take your personal business and publicly display it, you are in a literal sense, asking people to judge you personally. If I wear a T-Shirt with a picture on it, I am fully aware that people will make judgements about me based on that. In fact, I am aware that it is intentional. If I wear my T-Shirt with Pac-Man on it, I am telling the world that I like old school arcade games. Conversely, if I wear underwear with Pac-Man on it, I am telling only a select few something about myself.
The same goes for tattoos, except, choosing a T-Shirt and underwear is less a sign of deep commitment to the subject and/or bad life choices.
Granted. Although in theory, if the bio-fuel worked (which includes being cheaper than petrol, the machinery and transportation would be using the bio-fuel to grow the crops. I don't know about the fertilizer. Just that being able to make fuel out of crops wouldn't mean that petroleum would stop being used in fertilizer, so that may be a small concern.
You don't have to worry about the CO2 emissions. One of the benefits of bio-fuel is that the carbon in the plants was taken out of the air. With bio-fuels you only add as much CO2 to the air as you take out.
I had high hopes that fuel cells would become viable, not for cars, but for homes. If photovoltaic got good enough, and fuel cells got cheap, we wouldn't need the electric company. A refrigerator sized device on the back of my house with panels on the roof would be awesome. Use the panels to run the house and fill the tanks during the day, and then use the hydrogen to last through the night. The is no reason you couldn't charge an electric car off of a system like this either.
Unfortunately, it appears that fuel cells will never be the norm due to the materials needed to make them. I'll keep my fingers crossed for a breakthrough though.
Newtonian mechanics don't work under some conditions.
That doesn't mean that we throw them away, it just means that we only use them under the conditions where they work.
Here is what we know:
* Researchers used tree ring data as a temperature proxy in their published climate predictions.
* Researchers found that when compared to direct measurement, tree ring data does not match actual temperatures.
* Researchers continue to use tree ring data (that they now know is invalid) when it shows rising temperatures.
* Researchers drop tree ring data when it show dropping temperatures. (AKA 'hide the decline')
* Hacker breaks into researchers email and finds email that the researcher tells another researcher about selectively dropping data.
* The email clearly states the purpose of dropping the data is to change the outcome of the prediction.
* Hacker releases email to the public.
* Climate research community declares on fraud committed.
No one has explained how using data from a known bad source. You have made 3 posts in an attempt to do so and still have not given any explanation. You have stated that it is known the data is bad, Newtonian mechanics doesn't work under some situations, and that the researchers admitted that their data was bad.
I'm not sure how much welding is the key. As I understand it, the primary reason to use metal for the hull is to protect against space debris. The reason you would need to weld is so that you get air tight structures out of the metal. It seems that metal structures that clip, bolt or rivet together would be more than adequet if an inflatable structure was put inside. Metal on the outside to stop the debris from puncturing the soft air tight inside.
I agree. "Sick Time" just encourages people to lie anyway. It encourages an us against them mentality with the employer. This is something the employer should not want. As I explained to one employer a long long time ago. (Wow, 15 years flies by fast.) "I can tell you now that I am going to use 'sick time' when this project is over, or I can call you up that morning and lie to you leaving you without coverage. I am trying to do you a favor."
Strawman arguments also don't work under some conditions. That doesn't make them valid. So, at this point, no one has yet explained why the 'hide the decline' statement wasn't exactly the kind of fraud that they were accused of. All I keep hearing is that 'it wasn't fraud". They were just hiding data that didn't agree with their conclusions.
So, when the data doesn't fit, just don't use that data. You like every other person who has tried to defend this keeps saying that the tree rings are not reliable, but it is OK to use when it gives the results you want. I am looking for an explanation that doesn't include only including the data when it shows what you want or is unverifiable while throwing away the data when it doesn't show what you want.
Peak Oil is most certainly a sham. There are something like a dozen different definitions, and those who swear by it keep cycling through them in an attempt to sound like it makes sense. The definitions range from bizarrely ridiculous, to irrelevant non-issues, to conditions that have continued to repeat themselves for the last 70 years.
Unless you define what you mean by 'peak oil', your question cannot be answered.
I still have never heard a reasonable explanation on how the 'climategate' wasn't a case of fraud. The explanation I heard was that the researchers didn't do anything unethical, they just hide the data that contradicted the outcome they wanted. As I understand it, the tree ring data was used up until direct measurements started being taken. They 'hide' the tree ring data after that because the tree ring data didn't match up with the actual temperatures. The tree ring data was shown to be invalid, yet the continued to use it anyway when it produced the outcome they were looking for.
Did I miss some announcement where they removed tree ring data completely, or are they still using known bad data?
Most people seem to forget that Melody isn't a Time Lord. At least she isn't a Gallifreyan Time Lord. She is a human that was warped by Tardis into a human variant of a Time Lord.
No, the bravado of James Bond is completely uninteresting coming from a woman. It is the same reason that making Starbuck a woman was stupid. The first thing they always do is try to show how the woman is just as tough in a street fight as a man. So, what do they do? They have a 120 lb. woman get in a fist fight with a 250 pound man who is used to brawling. They have her beat him up to show us that she really is as tough as a man. I have no problem with a Buffy because they have an explanation. Magic. Resident Evil? Genetic engineering. If your going to claim that a 120lb woman can beat the crap out of a 250lb male brawler, you have to have SOME kind of explanation. The next thing they do is try to show how she is as much of a 'Manizer' she is, just like her male counterpart was a 'Womanizer'. The problem is that it isn't impressive that a hot chick can get laid. It really isn't impressive if an ugly chick can get laid. The reason that Bond's womanizing is interesting is that it plays into the fantasy that a guy can be so cool that he can do what all of us men want to do but can't. Namely, bang lots of hot chicks.
It would be far more wise to do a spin off. I suspect that there is a good chance that if they resurrected River Song, they could do a decent spin off. She just wouldn't be "The Doctor". She would need to define her own name.
You are a fringe case. Having 'pigs' walk up to your monitor eating tacos and jabbing at your screen is not normal. It is likely that you elicit that specific behavior somehow. I offer every single ATM as evidence of my point. While the screens tend to be fairly scratched up, I have yet to see one with food on it. My guess is that you haven't either. These are touch screens that will see many orders of magnitude more people using them than your monitor ever will, and will have be seen by the users as being owned by a faceless corporation instead of someone they might want to avoid upsetting.
The only conclusion that can be made based off your statement and the empirical evidence is that either you are massively exaggerating the problem. You are over sensitive. Or, people are trying to piss you off specifically.
Because many of these people have to get up and drive a 4000 pound death machine the next morning. Some of use are lucky enough to be able to go right back to sleep when startled awake in the middle of the night. Not everyone is so lucky. Some of us have infants that will sleep through the alarm. Not everyone is so lucky. Waking up these less fortunate people is not only a danger to them, but it is a danger to everyone else that has to be on the road with them.
On my house, on T-Mobile, my son's Samsung Galaxy S2 went off four times. The first two times, I was wandering around the house at night, trying to figure out what alarm was going off. It wasn't loud enough to be the smoke alarm, but I was having to go through the list of alarms. Was it a gas leak? A water leak? A power supply that was going to catch fire? The third time it went of, I had tracked down the location of the noise to his phone. I didn't know how to turn it off, and I was too groggy to figure it out at that time, so I had to just pull the battery. The next morning when I put the battery back in, he got another alert. I then looked up online how to disable the alert.
On mine and my wife's Nexus 4s, the alarm was blaring. At least on those, it gave me the immediate option to disable AMBER Alerts. So, in my house, we got a total of 6 alarms after everyone had gone to sleep for the night. It's a good thing that my 13 week old infant isn't one of those light sleepers that refuse to go back to sleep. No doubt that there will be thousands of people who will lose a significant part of their nights sleep because the alarm woke a sleeping baby.
My guess is that the AMBER Alert will cause more harm than it will help.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that? They don't seem to be a problem with any other safety equipment requirements.
You are lying to yourself. It is common among people that want to be 'edgy'. Tattoos are a persons personal business. When you take your personal business and publicly display it, you are in a literal sense, asking people to judge you personally. If I wear a T-Shirt with a picture on it, I am fully aware that people will make judgements about me based on that. In fact, I am aware that it is intentional. If I wear my T-Shirt with Pac-Man on it, I am telling the world that I like old school arcade games. Conversely, if I wear underwear with Pac-Man on it, I am telling only a select few something about myself.
The same goes for tattoos, except, choosing a T-Shirt and underwear is less a sign of deep commitment to the subject and/or bad life choices.
The promise of fuel cells was that they would be much longer lasting than batteries as well as cleaner.
Granted. Although in theory, if the bio-fuel worked (which includes being cheaper than petrol, the machinery and transportation would be using the bio-fuel to grow the crops. I don't know about the fertilizer. Just that being able to make fuel out of crops wouldn't mean that petroleum would stop being used in fertilizer, so that may be a small concern.
And that makes four.
You don't have to worry about the CO2 emissions. One of the benefits of bio-fuel is that the carbon in the plants was taken out of the air. With bio-fuels you only add as much CO2 to the air as you take out.
I had high hopes that fuel cells would become viable, not for cars, but for homes. If photovoltaic got good enough, and fuel cells got cheap, we wouldn't need the electric company. A refrigerator sized device on the back of my house with panels on the roof would be awesome. Use the panels to run the house and fill the tanks during the day, and then use the hydrogen to last through the night. The is no reason you couldn't charge an electric car off of a system like this either.
Unfortunately, it appears that fuel cells will never be the norm due to the materials needed to make them. I'll keep my fingers crossed for a breakthrough though.
Where is the straw?
Newtonian mechanics don't work under some conditions. That doesn't mean that we throw them away, it just means that we only use them under the conditions where they work.
Here is what we know:
* Researchers used tree ring data as a temperature proxy in their published climate predictions.
* Researchers found that when compared to direct measurement, tree ring data does not match actual temperatures.
* Researchers continue to use tree ring data (that they now know is invalid) when it shows rising temperatures.
* Researchers drop tree ring data when it show dropping temperatures. (AKA 'hide the decline')
* Hacker breaks into researchers email and finds email that the researcher tells another researcher about selectively dropping data.
* The email clearly states the purpose of dropping the data is to change the outcome of the prediction.
* Hacker releases email to the public.
* Climate research community declares on fraud committed.
No one has explained how using data from a known bad source. You have made 3 posts in an attempt to do so and still have not given any explanation. You have stated that it is known the data is bad, Newtonian mechanics doesn't work under some situations, and that the researchers admitted that their data was bad.
I'm not sure how much welding is the key. As I understand it, the primary reason to use metal for the hull is to protect against space debris. The reason you would need to weld is so that you get air tight structures out of the metal. It seems that metal structures that clip, bolt or rivet together would be more than adequet if an inflatable structure was put inside. Metal on the outside to stop the debris from puncturing the soft air tight inside.
On what planet? Here on Earth, sterilization for both men and women is an outpatient procedure with a recovery time of a few days.
I agree. "Sick Time" just encourages people to lie anyway. It encourages an us against them mentality with the employer. This is something the employer should not want. As I explained to one employer a long long time ago. (Wow, 15 years flies by fast.) "I can tell you now that I am going to use 'sick time' when this project is over, or I can call you up that morning and lie to you leaving you without coverage. I am trying to do you a favor."
PTO is the way to go.
Strawman arguments also don't work under some conditions. That doesn't make them valid. So, at this point, no one has yet explained why the 'hide the decline' statement wasn't exactly the kind of fraud that they were accused of. All I keep hearing is that 'it wasn't fraud". They were just hiding data that didn't agree with their conclusions.
So, when the data doesn't fit, just don't use that data. You like every other person who has tried to defend this keeps saying that the tree rings are not reliable, but it is OK to use when it gives the results you want. I am looking for an explanation that doesn't include only including the data when it shows what you want or is unverifiable while throwing away the data when it doesn't show what you want.
There doesn't appear to be one.
Peak Oil is most certainly a sham. There are something like a dozen different definitions, and those who swear by it keep cycling through them in an attempt to sound like it makes sense. The definitions range from bizarrely ridiculous, to irrelevant non-issues, to conditions that have continued to repeat themselves for the last 70 years.
Unless you define what you mean by 'peak oil', your question cannot be answered.
I still have never heard a reasonable explanation on how the 'climategate' wasn't a case of fraud. The explanation I heard was that the researchers didn't do anything unethical, they just hide the data that contradicted the outcome they wanted. As I understand it, the tree ring data was used up until direct measurements started being taken. They 'hide' the tree ring data after that because the tree ring data didn't match up with the actual temperatures. The tree ring data was shown to be invalid, yet the continued to use it anyway when it produced the outcome they were looking for.
Did I miss some announcement where they removed tree ring data completely, or are they still using known bad data?
I've not seen one driving texter who was not identifiable from behind.
I'm not going to defend texting while driving, but this pretty well sums up most people's arguments about text/phone use while driving.
It's amazing how far some people will go to rationalize that cell phones are evil.
Most people seem to forget that Melody isn't a Time Lord. At least she isn't a Gallifreyan Time Lord. She is a human that was warped by Tardis into a human variant of a Time Lord.
So, Quantum Leap?
What difference does it make? It's a bloody TV show!
Great. Then it is settled. The Doctor stays male.
Look how well that worked with Hercules/Xena.
No, the bravado of James Bond is completely uninteresting coming from a woman. It is the same reason that making Starbuck a woman was stupid. The first thing they always do is try to show how the woman is just as tough in a street fight as a man. So, what do they do? They have a 120 lb. woman get in a fist fight with a 250 pound man who is used to brawling. They have her beat him up to show us that she really is as tough as a man. I have no problem with a Buffy because they have an explanation. Magic. Resident Evil? Genetic engineering. If your going to claim that a 120lb woman can beat the crap out of a 250lb male brawler, you have to have SOME kind of explanation. The next thing they do is try to show how she is as much of a 'Manizer' she is, just like her male counterpart was a 'Womanizer'. The problem is that it isn't impressive that a hot chick can get laid. It really isn't impressive if an ugly chick can get laid. The reason that Bond's womanizing is interesting is that it plays into the fantasy that a guy can be so cool that he can do what all of us men want to do but can't. Namely, bang lots of hot chicks.
It would be far more wise to do a spin off. I suspect that there is a good chance that if they resurrected River Song, they could do a decent spin off. She just wouldn't be "The Doctor". She would need to define her own name.
You are a fringe case. Having 'pigs' walk up to your monitor eating tacos and jabbing at your screen is not normal. It is likely that you elicit that specific behavior somehow. I offer every single ATM as evidence of my point. While the screens tend to be fairly scratched up, I have yet to see one with food on it. My guess is that you haven't either. These are touch screens that will see many orders of magnitude more people using them than your monitor ever will, and will have be seen by the users as being owned by a faceless corporation instead of someone they might want to avoid upsetting.
The only conclusion that can be made based off your statement and the empirical evidence is that either you are massively exaggerating the problem. You are over sensitive. Or, people are trying to piss you off specifically.
Because many of these people have to get up and drive a 4000 pound death machine the next morning. Some of use are lucky enough to be able to go right back to sleep when startled awake in the middle of the night. Not everyone is so lucky. Some of us have infants that will sleep through the alarm. Not everyone is so lucky. Waking up these less fortunate people is not only a danger to them, but it is a danger to everyone else that has to be on the road with them.
On my house, on T-Mobile, my son's Samsung Galaxy S2 went off four times. The first two times, I was wandering around the house at night, trying to figure out what alarm was going off. It wasn't loud enough to be the smoke alarm, but I was having to go through the list of alarms. Was it a gas leak? A water leak? A power supply that was going to catch fire? The third time it went of, I had tracked down the location of the noise to his phone. I didn't know how to turn it off, and I was too groggy to figure it out at that time, so I had to just pull the battery. The next morning when I put the battery back in, he got another alert. I then looked up online how to disable the alert.
On mine and my wife's Nexus 4s, the alarm was blaring. At least on those, it gave me the immediate option to disable AMBER Alerts. So, in my house, we got a total of 6 alarms after everyone had gone to sleep for the night. It's a good thing that my 13 week old infant isn't one of those light sleepers that refuse to go back to sleep. No doubt that there will be thousands of people who will lose a significant part of their nights sleep because the alarm woke a sleeping baby.
My guess is that the AMBER Alert will cause more harm than it will help.