Ok, do you have any sort of numbers, rough estimates, an article written on a blog somewhere, or anything that shows this is true in a quantifiable way? The requirements being that the private company must be able to launch a vehicle to go orbital with the same level of safety as the space shuttle. This company must include the costs associated with:
1) Building the crew vehicle 2) Building the rocket/airplane/hot air balloon/slingshot that gets the crew vehicle up to orbit 3) Building or leasing the infrastructure required to process and launch the vehicle 4) Ground and Mission operations 5) Telemetry and tracking 6) Vehicle recovery 7) Liability Insurance 8) Government licensing 9) Training 10) Expendables 11) Whatever I didn't think of...
This is simply the summary report or abstract if you will for policymakers (SPM). In other words, the document that is directed to and approved by the government representatives. The real report won't be out for another 3 months - it is still being edited. What is most disturbing, however, is the process being used to "edit" the final report. From Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work comes the following:
Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. (page 5)...
The Session of the Panel will review and adopt the longer report of the Synthesis Report, section by section, i.e. roughly one page or less at a time. The review and adoption process for the longer report of the Synthesis Report should be accomplished in the following manner: - When changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report are required either to conform it to the SPM or to ensure consistency with the underlying Assessment Reports, the Panel and authors will note where changes are required in the longer report of the Synthesis Report to ensure consistency in tone and content. The authors of the longer report of the Synthesis Report will then make changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report. Those Bureau members who are not authors will act as Review Editors to ensure that these documents are consistent and follow the directions of the Session of the Panel - The longer report of the Synthesis Report is then brought back to the Session of the Panel for the review and adoption of the revised sections, section by section. If inconsistencies are still identified by the Panel, the longer report of the Synthesis Report is further refined by the Authors with the Assistance of the Review Editors for review and adoption by the Panel. This process is conducted section by section, not line by line. (page 8)
Think about this for a moment. What this means in practical terms is that the detailed reports, the science, if you will, are being edited so that they are consistent with the policy summary, the summary by the way that is edited in part and approved by policy wonks not scientists. In other words, the data/reports are being made to fit with the conclusions. This is known as cooking the data.
Since the early drafts of the IPCC FINAL report are somewhat available, it will be an interesting exercise to do a comparison between those and what the final "consistent" report has to say.
My inspiration to get into the space arena were from the Viking landers back in 1976, so I appreciate your response and can certainly understand your point of view. I'm a big believer in the robotic planetary missions and do believe it would be a grave error to shift all of those funds into the VSE.
Agreed, it is vastly more expensive, difficult, and dangerous to send humans into space rather than these marvelous machines. If we are talking STRICTLY bang-for-the-buck, robot explorers are perhaps the most cost-effective way of exploring planets. No argument.
Having said that, I believe that it is also a grave error to conform ourselves to proxy space travel. For the first time in 35 years, we are actually talking and doing something about real human space exploration. Robotic explorers do not inspire to the same degree that human explorers do - even when we're not really exploring (i.e. space shuttle). Dr. Sagan stated in his book "Pale Blue Dot":
When we first venture to a near-Earth asteroid, we will have entered a habitat that may engage our species forever. The first voyage of men and women to Mars is the key step in transforming us into a multiplanet species. These events are as momentous as the colonization of the land by our amphibian ancestors and the descent from the trees by our primate ancestors."
This is a common theme that permeates almost all discussions that talk about sending humans into space. Why don't we just send robots? They're more capable, able to do more work, less costly, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with, or at least the work of, Dr Steven Squyre, Mars Exploration Rover PI (Spirit and Opportunity robots). He gave the following message at a NASA Administrator's Symposium back in 2004 and repeated the same message at ISDC in LA last year. It's a long read but well worth it. I've emphasized the central points:
I'd like to finish this on a slightly lighter note by telling you a story. We had a lot of discussion yesterday about humans versus robots. And as the robot guy here, I want to tell a story about the experience that I had that really taught me a lot about that particular topic. We were at first trying to figure out how to use a set of rovers on Mars to really do scientific exploration. The technology folks at JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] built a wonderful little vehicle called FIDO. And FIDO was a great test rover - you could take it out in the field and you didn't worry about getting a few scratches in the paint.
We took it out to a place called Silver Lake in the Mojave Desert about 1997. And we went out there and it was the first time I had ever been out in the field. So I went out there with my team - a bunch of really high-priced geologic talent - some serious field geologists. And we got the rover out there and, of course, the rover breaks down. First time I've ever been out in the field, it's dusty, it's dirty, you know, the rover's not working. So okay, what am I going to do with all these bored geologists I've got on my hands? So I said, "Look, let's go on a geology walk. Let's go on a little field trip." So everybody got their boots and their rock hammers and their hand lenses and everything. And I picked up a notebook and a stopwatch. And we walked out to a nearby ridge where I knew there was some interesting geology exposed and we sat down - or rather I sat down - and they went off and they started geologizing.
And I started timing them. You know, how long does it take for Andy Knoll to walk over to that rock? How long does it take Ray Arvidson to pick that thing up and break it open with his rock hammer and look at it with a hand lens? And they were doing a lot of things that our rovers couldn't do, but I focused on the things they were doing that our rovers could do. And, you know, I did it as quantitatively as I could - this was hardly a controlled experiment. And when I looked at the numbers afterwards, what I found was that what our magnificent robotic vehicles can do in an entire day on Mars, these guys could do in about 30-45 seconds.
We are very far away from being able to build robots - I'm not going to see it in my lifetime - that have anything like the capabilities that humans will have to explore, let alone to inspire. And when I hear people point to Spirit and Opportunity and say that these are examples of why we don't need to send humans to Mars, I get very upset. Because that's not even the right discussion to be having. We must send humans to Mars. We can't do it soon enough for me. You know, I'm a robot guy. I mean, I love Spirit and Opportunity - and I use a word like "love" very advisedly when talking about a hunk of metal.
But I love those machines. I miss them. I do. But they will never, ever have the capabilities that humans will have and I sure hope you send people soon.
No kidding. All you have to do is scan of his list of publications to understand that Joel Bleifuss is not exactly an impartial observer - more like someone who has a vendetta:
"The Importance of Not Getting Over It" "Lies Judith Miller Told Us" "DeLay May Be Gone, But His Legacy Isn't" "No Child Left Unrecruited" "Bush Apologistas" "Stand Up For Peace" "Christian Restorationists" "The New New Orleans"
From his article "The New New Orleans" Back on message, Bush said, "This poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity."
That's undisputedly true, but in a strange permutation of racial politics, the color of the skin of those displaced by Katrina has been used to deflect attention away from a system of class oppression that is an equal opportunity disabler.
While race certainly has its role, American poverty is most firmly rooted in a class system--a system maintained by an economy that allocates the wealth of society to those who already have the most. One of the ways that wealth is created is to ensure that unskilled workers are not paid a living wage.
Let's take a look at Steve Freeman - he is the academic of the two. His web page is located here. He is a professor of organization, strategy, and entrepreneurship. PhD in Organization Studies from MIT. His list of papers and research are certainly impressive in the field of business organization. OK, I might want him if I were starting up a business, but certainly not as a pollster - he lacks the experience.
The real clincher though is from the FAQ: Have you been able to obtain the "pure" data from the polling consortium? Data has been made available, but not the data that could be used to verify the validity of the election
Has evidence come to light since the publication of these pieces which would explain this exit poll discrepancy? No such evidence has come to light. All indications are that if the primary exit poll data were made available, it would conclusively show count corruption and identify where count corruption occurred. Unless there is some great public pressure or successful legal action, none of this primary exit poll data will be released.
Was the count accurate? There is little reason to have any confidence in the official count, and many reasons to question it.
He's kidding right? They don't have the data that would verify the validity of the election????????? So wouldn't this be the same data that would invalidate the election? The FAQ continues....
Have your papers been peer reviewed? Yes. There is no formal mechanism for papers like this (nor is there any good forum in which to publish them), but when I leave a "t" uncrossed in these papers, people write to the dean and demand my dismissal (actually, they do that anyway). The conclusions of the initial paper, in fact, has been accepted, and the "debate" has moved on.
I guess refereed journals such as "The Journal of Politics", "Journal of the American Statistical Association", "Political Analysis", "American Journal of Political Science" are not good forums to publish their results in. Translation: We couldn't find a reputable journal who would publish our results in so we'll release a book. I am also glad that although they couldn't publish their work, the results have been accepted and the "debate" has moved on.
It's unusual in germany to go to prison for your first misdeed. Except really hard crimes like homicide, second degree murder, forays, raping of course.
Statistically, you do have a valid point. But, the researchers may be onto something. I mean how many happy psychosomantic people do you know? It's like the old joke: What is the worst thing you can say to a pyschosomantic? You look great!
racism/[rey-siz-uhm]/ -noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I'm confused... which definition of racism applies here?
9. They combat credit card fraud by making it impossible to actually purchase minutes. Once you sign up for Skype and put a credit card on it - THAT credit card is the ONLY one you can use - EVER. First rule of business: repeat business.
From one Moore hater to another, there is ONE Michael Moore movie that you HAVE to see. Michael Moore wrote and directed Canadian Bacon . Plot summary: "The U.S. President, low in the opinion polls, gets talked into raising his popularity by trying to start a cold war against Canada." Absolutely hilarious and highly recommended. This was before he became a spoof of himself.
Right, why spend millions of dollars on satellites that are now able to directly benefit mankind when we can send over $100 million/year to the National Endowment for the Arts? Someone remind me what it is their mission is...
The Wright brothers, who developed and flew the first airplane, were from Ohio.
The Wright brothers were way ahead of their time -- they knew that Ohio was no place for a spaceport. So they launched their first vehicle from KittyHawk, North Carolina for multiple reasons:
1) They knew that since it was closer to the equator, it would be easier to go orbital. They only lacked the funding to make it happen.
2) They knew that the radar and telemetry tracking capabilities were much superior in North Carolina.
3) They performed a flight safety analysis and determined that it would be less dangerous to launch over the sea than to launch where their flight may take them over densely-populated areas.
But most importantly,
4) Credibility. No one from Ohio has accomplished anything of note without first moving out of state:):):).
I made some tongue-in-cheek comments here on Slashdot about a year ago how we could tackle the problem of global warming and blame enviromentalists for causing the problem in the first place:
... so, how do we control the Green House Effect? There are two, separate distinct ways:
a) Control the amount of Greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto protocol (boring)
or
b) Control the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, striking the earth and re-radiating as infared radiation (interesting possibilities)
I personally like b) because we can shift the blame for global warming:.....
1) We can blame the environmentalists for Global Warming. Those pesky clean air laws eventually allowed more sunlight to strike the earth. Allowing factories to continue billowing thick clouds of black soot would OBVIOUSLY lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface - PROBLEM SOLVED.
2) We can blame the anti-nuke crowd for Global Warming. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty essentially outlawed atmospheric, underwater, and outer space testing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, among their many other wonderful attributes, kick up large amount of dust and debris into the atmosphere which PREVENTS sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. Remember Carl Sagan and his "Nuclear Winter" scenario? Regular distribution of nuclear explosions and carefully placed nuclear charges down volcanoes would keep Global Warming in check - PROBLEM SOLVED
3) Another avenue to solve Global Warming is to change the albedo or reflectance of earth's surface. The more sunlight is reflected harmlessly back into space rather than absorbed by the earth and re-radiated as infared radiation, the better control we will have over Global Warming. Two Words: Large mirrors. Remember the Bond flicks, "Diamonds are Forever", "The Man With The Golden Gun", and "Die Another Day"? Those films made use of the ol concentrated-sunlight-leads-to-world-domination ploy. Same idea here but in reverse.
NASA stole #3 and now a Nobel Prize scientist just stole #1. Wonder if there is still time to get a patent on idea #2, my personal favorite, before someone else steals it. Never realized before that there was a market for insanely stupid ideas. Time to write up that business plan...
I always thought that the story of "Happy Birthday" being protected by copyright was an urban legend, up until 5 minutes ago, when I saw this article on Snopes. According to the article, the owner of the "Happy Birthday" copyright receives 2 million dollars annually in royalties. I'm definitely in the wrong business...
Wow, I would have never thought that the Boy Scouts of America were becoming that evil. I guess the BSA is going to have to add merit badges for incompetent management, outsourcing, and hostile business takeovers in addition to their recently announced copyright merit badge.
Oh, you mean the Business Software Alliance? I suppose they could have their own merit badges if they wanted.
I don't know about your credit card, but when I charge something, they require something a bit more concrete than "less than the price of a good cell phone".
USB 1.1 is obviously better. USB 1.1 is simply USB 1.0 with bug fixes. Now USB 2.0 adds additional functionality and performance but I'm going to wait for the bug fix in USB 2.1
I was talking about science in general. Although, I dare say that I'm more familiar with the science behind global warming than most folks here on Slashdot. Back in my university days circa 1978, I did a bit of research and computer modeling on the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on global temperatures some 14 years before Al Gore invented global warming. I'm sure I still have the punched cards and printout somewhere that ran on an old IBM 360/370. Back then, the federal government was not pouring billions of dollars into global warming research. The peer-reviewed papers were relatively few compared to today. From my recollection, the "official" pre-industrial level of CO2 was around 292 ppm and the expected warming with a doubling of the CO2 concentration was 2.4 C globally with around a 12 C increase at the poles. I'll see if I can't dig up the research paper. How's your math?
Here's one of the references (from memory and with a bit of help from google):
There are a few more but I'll have to find the paper. I might even throw in the source code if you ask nicely.
The science-by-consensus argument to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is fallacious. From Wikipedia, which I might add, has one of the best explanations of the scientific method that I've seen:
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases .
Yes, I personally believe that the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels is man-made. I also believe that increasing concentrations of CO2 will lead to increase warming. How much of a warming is open to debate as it has always has been from day one. What is less settled are the global and local effects of this warming. Everything from negligible all the way to "Day After Tomorrow" type scenarios using unvalidated models - this is where I have my doubts.
This is precisely the reason I posted Asimov's Corollary. People, especially non-scientists, become so emotionally and almost religiously attached to a particular theory that any evidence or theory to the contrary is treated as blasphemy. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong... are you?
Slashdot Mirror
New rule: No more new rules. It is so last year :).
Seriously, though, there is nothing scarier than the uttered phrase "There ought to be a law ...".
Ok, do you have any sort of numbers, rough estimates, an article written on a blog somewhere, or anything that shows this is true in a quantifiable way? The requirements being that the private company must be able to launch a vehicle to go orbital with the same level of safety as the space shuttle. This company must include the costs associated with:
...
1) Building the crew vehicle
2) Building the rocket/airplane/hot air balloon/slingshot that gets the crew vehicle up to orbit
3) Building or leasing the infrastructure required to process and launch the vehicle
4) Ground and Mission operations
5) Telemetry and tracking
6) Vehicle recovery
7) Liability Insurance
8) Government licensing
9) Training
10) Expendables
11) Whatever I didn't think of
This is simply the summary report or abstract if you will for policymakers (SPM). In other words, the document that is directed to and approved by the government representatives. The real report won't be out for another 3 months - it is still being edited. What is most disturbing, however, is the process being used to "edit" the final report. From Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work comes the following:
...
Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
(page 5)
The Session of the Panel will review and adopt the longer report of the Synthesis Report, section by section,
i.e. roughly one page or less at a time. The review and adoption process for the longer report of the Synthesis
Report should be accomplished in the following manner:
- When changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report are required either to conform it to the
SPM or to ensure consistency with the underlying Assessment Reports, the Panel and authors will
note where changes are required in the longer report of the Synthesis Report to ensure consistency
in tone and content. The authors of the longer report of the Synthesis Report will then make changes
in the longer report of the Synthesis Report. Those Bureau members who are not authors will act as
Review Editors to ensure that these documents are consistent and follow the directions of the
Session of the Panel
- The longer report of the Synthesis Report is then brought back to the Session of the Panel for the
review and adoption of the revised sections, section by section. If inconsistencies are still identified
by the Panel, the longer report of the Synthesis Report is further refined by the Authors with the
Assistance of the Review Editors for review and adoption by the Panel. This process is conducted
section by section, not line by line.
(page 8)
Think about this for a moment. What this means in practical terms is that the detailed reports, the science, if you will, are being edited so that they are consistent with the policy summary, the summary by the way that is edited in part and approved by policy wonks not scientists. In other words, the data/reports are being made to fit with the conclusions. This is known as cooking the data.
Since the early drafts of the IPCC FINAL report are somewhat available, it will be an interesting exercise to do a comparison between those and what the final "consistent" report has to say.
My inspiration to get into the space arena were from the Viking landers back in 1976, so I appreciate your response and can certainly understand your point of view. I'm a big believer in the robotic planetary missions and do believe it would be a grave error to shift all of those funds into the VSE. Agreed, it is vastly more expensive, difficult, and dangerous to send humans into space rather than these marvelous machines. If we are talking STRICTLY bang-for-the-buck, robot explorers are perhaps the most cost-effective way of exploring planets. No argument. Having said that, I believe that it is also a grave error to conform ourselves to proxy space travel. For the first time in 35 years, we are actually talking and doing something about real human space exploration. Robotic explorers do not inspire to the same degree that human explorers do - even when we're not really exploring (i.e. space shuttle). Dr. Sagan stated in his book "Pale Blue Dot": When we first venture to a near-Earth asteroid, we will have entered a habitat that may engage our species forever. The first voyage of men and women to Mars is the key step in transforming us into a multiplanet species. These events are as momentous as the colonization of the land by our amphibian ancestors and the descent from the trees by our primate ancestors."
This is a common theme that permeates almost all discussions that talk about sending humans into space. Why don't we just send robots? They're more capable, able to do more work, less costly, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with, or at least the work of, Dr Steven Squyre, Mars Exploration Rover PI (Spirit and Opportunity robots). He gave the following message at a NASA Administrator's Symposium back in 2004 and repeated the same message at ISDC in LA last year. It's a long read but well worth it. I've emphasized the central points:
I'd like to finish this on a slightly lighter note by telling you a story. We had a lot of discussion yesterday about humans versus robots. And as the robot guy here, I want to tell a story about the experience that I had that really taught me a lot about that particular topic. We were at first trying to figure out how to use a set of rovers on Mars to really do scientific exploration. The technology folks at JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] built a wonderful little vehicle called FIDO. And FIDO was a great test rover - you could take it out in the field and you didn't worry about getting a few scratches in the paint.
We took it out to a place called Silver Lake in the Mojave Desert about 1997. And we went out there and it was the first time I had ever been out in the field. So I went out there with my team - a bunch of really high-priced geologic talent - some serious field geologists. And we got the rover out there and, of course, the rover breaks down. First time I've ever been out in the field, it's dusty, it's dirty, you know, the rover's not working. So okay, what am I going to do with all these bored geologists I've got on my hands? So I said, "Look, let's go on a geology walk. Let's go on a little field trip." So everybody got their boots and their rock hammers and their hand lenses and everything. And I picked up a notebook and a stopwatch. And we walked out to a nearby ridge where I knew there was some interesting geology exposed and we sat down - or rather I sat down - and they went off and they started geologizing.
And I started timing them. You know, how long does it take for Andy Knoll to walk over to that rock? How long does it take Ray Arvidson to pick that thing up and break it open with his rock hammer and look at it with a hand lens? And they were doing a lot of things that our rovers couldn't do, but I focused on the things they were doing that our rovers could do. And, you know, I did it as quantitatively as I could - this was hardly a controlled experiment. And when I looked at the numbers afterwards, what I found was that what our magnificent robotic vehicles can do in an entire day on Mars, these guys could do in about 30-45 seconds.
We are very far away from being able to build robots - I'm not going to see it in my lifetime - that have anything like the capabilities that humans will have to explore, let alone to inspire. And when I hear people point to Spirit and Opportunity and say that these are examples of why we don't need to send humans to Mars, I get very upset. Because that's not even the right discussion to be having. We must send humans to Mars. We can't do it soon enough for me. You know, I'm a robot guy. I mean, I love Spirit and Opportunity - and I use a word like "love" very advisedly when talking about a hunk of metal.
But I love those machines. I miss them. I do. But they will never, ever have the capabilities that humans will have and I sure hope you send people soon.
No kidding. All you have to do is scan of his list of publications to understand that Joel Bleifuss is not exactly an impartial observer - more like someone who has a vendetta:
....
"The Importance of Not Getting Over It"
"Lies Judith Miller Told Us"
"DeLay May Be Gone, But His Legacy Isn't"
"No Child Left Unrecruited"
"Bush Apologistas"
"Stand Up For Peace"
"Christian Restorationists"
"The New New Orleans"
From his article "The New New Orleans"
Back on message, Bush said, "This poverty has roots in generations of segregation and discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity."
That's undisputedly true, but in a strange permutation of racial politics, the color of the skin of those displaced by Katrina has been used to deflect attention away from a system of class oppression that is an equal opportunity disabler.
While race certainly has its role, American poverty is most firmly rooted in a class system--a system maintained by an economy that allocates the wealth of society to those who already have the most. One of the ways that wealth is created is to ensure that unskilled workers are not paid a living wage.
Let's take a look at Steve Freeman - he is the academic of the two. His web page is located here. He is a professor of organization, strategy, and entrepreneurship. PhD in Organization Studies from MIT. His list of papers and research are certainly impressive in the field of business organization. OK, I might want him if I were starting up a business, but certainly not as a pollster - he lacks the experience.
The real clincher though is from the FAQ:
Have you been able to obtain the "pure" data from the polling consortium? Data has been made available, but not the data that could be used to verify the validity of the election
Has evidence come to light since the publication of these pieces which would explain this exit poll discrepancy? No such evidence has come to light. All indications are that if the primary exit poll data were made available, it would conclusively show count corruption and identify where count corruption occurred. Unless there is some great public pressure or successful legal action, none of this primary exit poll data will be released.
Was the count accurate? There is little reason to have any confidence in the official count, and many reasons to question it.
He's kidding right? They don't have the data that would verify the validity of the election????????? So wouldn't this be the same data that would invalidate the election? The FAQ continues
Have your papers been peer reviewed? Yes. There is no formal mechanism for papers like this (nor is there any good forum in which to publish them), but when I leave a "t" uncrossed in these papers, people write to the dean and demand my dismissal (actually, they do that anyway). The conclusions of the initial paper, in fact, has been accepted, and the "debate" has moved on.
I guess refereed journals such as "The Journal of Politics", "Journal of the American Statistical Association", "Political Analysis", "American Journal of Political Science" are not good forums to publish their results in. Translation: We couldn't find a reputable journal who would publish our results in so we'll release a book. I am also glad that although they couldn't publish their work, the results have been accepted and the "debate" has moved on.
It's unusual in germany to go
to prison for your first misdeed. Except really hard crimes
like homicide, second degree murder, forays, raping of course.
Or doing the funny walk
Ok, I missed the punch-line. Could someone please explain this to me :):)
Statistically, you do have a valid point. But, the researchers may be onto something. I mean how many happy psychosomantic people do you know? It's like the old joke: What is the worst thing you can say to a pyschosomantic? You look great!
March 12, 1986 Oracle IPO
March 13, 1986 Microsoft IPO
and I didn't buy any!
Hmmm ....
/[rey-siz-uhm]/
... which definition of racism applies here?
racism
-noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I'm confused
ROFLMAO - I think a couple of my internal organs just burst.
9. They combat credit card fraud by making it impossible to actually purchase minutes. Once you sign up for Skype and put a credit card on it - THAT credit card is the ONLY one you can use - EVER. First rule of business: repeat business.
From one Moore hater to another, there is ONE Michael Moore movie that you HAVE to see. Michael Moore wrote and directed Canadian Bacon . Plot summary: "The U.S. President, low in the opinion polls, gets talked into raising his popularity by trying to start a cold war against Canada." Absolutely hilarious and highly recommended. This was before he became a spoof of himself.
Wanna be my campaign manager? :)
Right, why spend millions of dollars on satellites that are now able to directly benefit mankind when we can send over $100 million/year to the National Endowment for the Arts? Someone remind me what it is their mission is ...
The Wright brothers, who developed and flew the first airplane, were from Ohio.
:):):).
The Wright brothers were way ahead of their time -- they knew that Ohio was no place for a spaceport. So they launched their first vehicle from KittyHawk, North Carolina for multiple reasons:
1) They knew that since it was closer to the equator, it would be easier to go orbital. They only lacked the funding to make it happen.
2) They knew that the radar and telemetry tracking capabilities were much superior in North Carolina.
3) They performed a flight safety analysis and determined that it would be less dangerous to launch over the sea than to launch where their flight may take them over densely-populated areas.
But most importantly,
4) Credibility. No one from Ohio has accomplished anything of note without first moving out of state
Neither is Ireland :):):):)
Hartman's Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation states that any article or statement about correct grammar, punctuation, or spelling is bound to contain at least one eror.
.... :):):)
Ahem
NASA stole #3 and now a Nobel Prize scientist just stole #1. Wonder if there is still time to get a patent on idea #2, my personal favorite, before someone else steals it. Never realized before that there was a market for insanely stupid ideas. Time to write up that business plan
I always thought that the story of "Happy Birthday" being protected by copyright was an urban legend, up until 5 minutes ago, when I saw this article on Snopes. According to the article, the owner of the "Happy Birthday" copyright receives 2 million dollars annually in royalties. I'm definitely in the wrong business ...
Wow, I would have never thought that the Boy Scouts of America were becoming that evil. I guess the BSA is going to have to add merit badges for incompetent management, outsourcing, and hostile business takeovers in addition to their recently announced copyright merit badge.
Oh, you mean the Business Software Alliance? I suppose they could have their own merit badges if they wanted.
I don't know about your credit card, but when I charge something, they require something a bit more concrete than "less than the price of a good cell phone".
USB 1.1 is obviously better. USB 1.1 is simply USB 1.0 with bug fixes. Now USB 2.0 adds additional functionality and performance but I'm going to wait for the bug fix in USB 2.1
Here's one of the references (from memory and with a bit of help from google):
Manabe, Syukuro, and Richard T. Wetherald (1975). "The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model." J. Atmospheric Sciences 32: 3-15.
There are a few more but I'll have to find the paper. I might even throw in the source code if you ask nicely.
The science-by-consensus argument to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is fallacious. From Wikipedia, which I might add, has one of the best explanations of the scientific method that I've seen:
Yes, I personally believe that the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels is man-made. I also believe that increasing concentrations of CO2 will lead to increase warming. How much of a warming is open to debate as it has always has been from day one. What is less settled are the global and local effects of this warming. Everything from negligible all the way to "Day After Tomorrow" type scenarios using unvalidated models - this is where I have my doubts.
This is precisely the reason I posted Asimov's Corollary. People, especially non-scientists, become so emotionally and almost religiously attached to a particular theory that any evidence or theory to the contrary is treated as blasphemy. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong