My old boss gave me a bottle of acai juice one time... not bad with Gosling's black seal rum. Just dilute the acai juice a bit first or its going to be really strong. Best use I could find for it. Personally, every time I see one of those MonaVie stickers on someone's car I mentally substitute the word idiot in its place.
Try Imitrex sometime... my copay for seven pills was $100. The box would last me about 3-4 days. Or how about Norvasc. Then I lost my insurance for a few months and was paying out of pocket for my meds. I was paying over $300/mo just for the Norvasc, had to completely stop taking the Imitrex, and never mind the medical bills. If I had continued taking the Imitrex I would have spent somewhere around $2500 a month on that alone. I have a really hard time finding pity for you and your $90/mo prescription for hair loss.
as far as the site, it was the first one that came on a google search. if the site is only silly, it is one up on fox and nbc
I'm not doing your research for you. The burden of proof is upon you.
seems like every site i quote is silly as far as you are concerned
That would be because prisonplanet.net and larouchepac.com are conspiracy theorist fantasy lands.
do you agree that phillip expresses some interest in doing genocide.
I would agree that the prince's opinions as portrayed are unacceptable. But I still don't understand what he has to do with climate change, and would argue that his opinions are totally irrelevant in any case.
treat this like an intelligence gathering problem
I have better things to do than chase down evidence for your completely unsupportable argument. Believe whatever you want, I honestly don't care, but you don't get to decide for yourself what the facts are.
What exactly does that idiot have to do with global warming supporters? I wasn't aware Prince Philip was an authority on climate change. That site is quite amusing by the way, I hope you only read it for entertainment. The comments are even better (I had a better one but it didn't get past the lameness filter... "Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."):
POSSIBLY FOR THE REASON IN MY TOP POST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alex and david icke maximum respect go`s out to you guy`s !!!!!!!! The only people in the media that is exposing my previous post the rest have been gagged !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOOK`S LIKE THIS PLACE IS THE ONLY PLACE TO GET INFO YOU CAN TRUST !!!!!
pls guy`s even if your not from the UK join the group i posted above ! there`s 7 1/2 thousand on there already !
I also thought this article was fitting considering the OP:
...so when you talk about a bridge being good in europe or a roman empire guy, there is a bit of a subject change.
If you insist. Back to the original topic, shall we?
Now let us consider the nitpicking about 12o nations. your url did not talk at all about the number nations and did not mention the g77
If you had bothered to actually read the article you would have seen this near the bottom:
Sudan holds the presidency of the group of 77 developing nations, and its negotiator attacked the European Union and the US for what he called insufficient emissions cuts.
Not being familiar with the g77, and upon reading this sentence, I found it a reasonable (although apparently incorrect) assumption that there are indeed 77 developing nations in the group of 77 developing nations.
now about the not enough money to pay for the coffins quoting. I think i misusedd the quote, just as you say.
Misused is a considerable understatement; to misquote someone in such a manner is extremely dishonest. Accusing people of supporting genocide is quite a claim to make when the only citation you give is on Lyndon LaRouche's website. In case you didn't know, LaRouche served several years in federal prison for fraud. How you could reference anything on his site in good faith is completely and utterly beyond me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about and can give another citation. To save you the hassle of a few clicks, here are your words again:
i was talking about nwgers who explictly push genocide and giving an explanation for their behavior.
n passing, it is a little flakey to talk about professionalism, pre 1820. that is about when, hmm, harvard, implemented the concept around lawyers.
You are getting hung up on the label again.
and for engineers the idea is the scientist figure things out and the engineers apply it, and that is hard to do with out a quantative science base
While it may not have been called science, to say that there was no empirical knowledge is not true. The engineers of Rome knew how arches worked, it was not just a guess.
you might think of a professional as someone with a certain attitude of responsibility to his client.
A professional is one who is skilled and knowledgeable in their field of work, which certainly describes many people before 1820.
and I vaguely have an engineering degress, MSE.
You also didn't seem to pay attention in English class.
sometimes i use words in a deeper way than you do
I'm not sure how you could glean that information from a few posts on slashdot.
sometime i try to be a bit funny, and then sometimes the words are intentional ambiguous, which is part of humor,and I expect sometime I am flakey.
So you are an intentionally poor communicator? You're not very funny after all.
the sudan guy
That is nether deep nor humorous. Ambiguity there serves no purpose other than to keep you from actually having to look up the information.
And I found the quote from Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping: "Ten billion dollars under the current scenarios will not buy the poor of developing countries coffins, let alone address the serious problems that this challenge is causing"
His point was precisely the opposite of what you claim it was. Di-Aping wants to keep warming below 1 degree, and he feels that the current agreement limiting warming to 2 degrees is not enough. That is what happens when you get your "facts" from right-wing hacks with an axe to grind. Did you even bother to do your own research, or did you just take their word for it?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12768
The main page of that site has a photoshopped pic of Obama with a Hitler mustache. Somehow I just can't take them seriously. The only info I could find that was anything close to what you are talking about was China pushing its "population control" policies.
I'm not sure how calling people sheep isn't insulting.
I'm not going to list all the examples of bad science in the last fifty years.
I didn't ask you to. I don't understand how you intended the second sentence to be taken as a general statement in the context of the first. But the way this usually works is the person making the claims has to supply some evidence, not just make vague claims and expect others to do the research for them. But you don't seem to want to cite your evidence or provide sources.
My point was simply that being skeptical hardly makes one the bad guy.
And I'm skeptical that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1991. Ask all the questions you want, it doesn't make them relevant.
I talked about no structural engineers, no professional engineers, and no science base for the bridge building.
Tell that to Vitruvius. While we have not have highly developed mathematical models that tell us exactly how our bridges will perform for very long, that doesn't mean we've just been stacking bricks since ancient times.
But as i said, people manage to build bridges that did not fall down. This was pretty much a new thing.
Notreally. Just because every last one of them didn't survive until today doesn't mean they didn't serve their intended purpose. What is your evidence of chronic bridge collapse before the mid 19th century?
It was pretty much trial and error, so you would expect there had been some successes in the past to work from.
Only a few thousand.
so where did i say someone was uneducated?
Right here, where you imply bridge builders before 1850 had no idea what they were doing:
not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized
By educated I meant possessing knowledge, not a piece of paper. Like I said before, there have been professional engineers since ancient times. While Emily Roebling may have not been the best example, I was simply attempting to point out she received training specifically in bridge building. Where did that knowledge come from? While John A. Roebling did make some improvements in bridge designs of the mid 19th century, he was building on the work of thousands of other engineers dating back to antiquity. To say empirical thought was not involved in engineering before this point is false. Don't get stuck on labels.
Odd, the way you seem to equate non-scientist to uneducated.
Is everything interesting or odd to you? You are the only one making that comparison, even if it is in false contrast.
oops, I have seen that somewhere before!
I'm not sure what you are attempting to insinuate. May I only point out that you do not know me or what my background is.
looks he himself introduced the wire rope tech that made this sort of thing actually work,
The first permanent wire rope bridge was built in Annonay, France in 1822. Considering John Roebling was 16 and in Germany I don't think he helped very much.
so i doubt things were working before then.
You admit this is speculation that bridges collapsed left and right before 1850 then?
But you know, I said "structural engineer" in exact quote of the original comment.
Pedantry. While increased knowledge of loading and materials made structural engineering a field and profession in its own right, to say it didn't exist at all before 1850 is certainly false. The number of structures from ancient times that still stand today is testament to their understanding, though limited it may have been by today's standards. What the OP said was "You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges". A better statement would have been "You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design contemporary bridges". The fact is that the engineers of ancient times did not have degrees, and nobody else did either. Yet to say they were unqualified as a blanket statement is simply untrue. If you want to talk about the doctors of the time, that is a different story.
i was talking about nwgers who explictly push genocide and giving an explanation for their behavior.
Not being pedantic here but wouldnt sea levels rise if there was more ice?
Depends on where the ice is. If the ice is on land because it fell there as snow, the oceans fall. If it is floating in the ocean, it doesn't make a lick of difference if it is ice or not.
Not being pedantic here but wouldnt sea levels rise if there was more ice? So the giant ice cubes would push more water volume out of the way?
The expansion is offset by how much of the ice sticks out of the water.
An experiment you can do on your desk:
Put a single cube of ice in a glass. Fill the glass to the brim and set it down. The ice is sticking out of the water right? Now let it melt. The water level should still be exactly where it was when the ice was ice, even though the total volume of water (including the ice sticking out of the glass) is less.
No, some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate is the only peer reviewed paper I am aware of that said anything about an ice age. So that makes 1 paper for GC and thousands of papers for GW. Are you aware of any other peer reviewed papers supporting GC? I don't have access to the articles that cite this one to see if they make the same kind of claims, however the abstracts do not.
We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.
Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. I am curious as to what you are attempting to reference.
When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.
Insulting your readers is truly the sign of a towering intellect.
Skeptics I have time for. Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.
You mean like that publicity stunt that dude named Columbus pulled when all the "peer-reviewed" "science" agreed that the earth was flat?
Yeah the 1493 edition of the Journal of Cartography was really exciting.
I had little faith to begin with - because as history shows, most of the time the "consensus" in science has been Flat. Out. Wrong.
You have no understanding of how science works.
Have your peers shove those journals up your ass - I'm going snowboarding.
So how does that wooden snowboard ride? Oh you use one made with modern materials? Did you send a letter to your friends last week to meet you on the slopes or will you call them on your cel phone? Have fun walking up that mountain too, you obviously have no use for a lift.
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in warm fuzzy ignorance. But I think I'll take the truth, even if it isn't warm and fuzzy.
funny, mid 19th century america, we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down. not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized, so almost by definition, there was no "science" in sight
Emily Warren Roebling might not have had a formal education, but to say she was uneducated is laughable. Do you often talk about things you know nothing about?
awg is happily dead. I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good. so I think it is time to do the post-mortem. sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet
Ah, apparently you do.
some people just like genocide.
Yeah just kill everyone you don't agree with, sounds reasonable to me.
so how do we avoid another awg? One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the "settled", "consensus", "petition" stuff. people on both sides play at this on slashdot even. It looks to me that even "scientists" play at it and not even on just awg. what do you think?
It would be easier to tell you what I thought about it if your commet made a lick of sense. Please learn how to construct a sentence, it makes communicating much easier.
They're more or less the same thing - the spread of malware is unauthorized file copying. The only way to fully prevent malware is to stop users from installing software, since they sometimes install malware.
So your solution is to set up a walled garden where only the Powers That Be decide what I can put on my machine?
The idea of not letting people install whatever they want on their own computers may sound ludicrous
Because it is. I would not buy a computer that I can't write my own software for, which is why something like an iPhone or an iPad just isn't very useful to me. And no, jailbreaking isn't a fix for that, just a band-aid. Now not everyone has this kind of requirement, so let me give another example: Apple rejecting the Google Voice app.
iPhone is the #1 smartphone, so it's far from just a joke or a paranoid fantasy.
[citation needed]
It's here, and a lot of people like it.
And they are the same people who don't understand the technology they use on a daily basis.
Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning. I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...
So we should ban the lottery too? How about TV? That argument is ridiculous.
Now, what is the justification for a cocaine-user's pleasure?
There is enough suffering in the world already, we don't need more so you can feel morally superior.
What did he do to deserve, what a Trainspotting's character describes as "thousand times the most intense orgasm you've ever experienced"?
If you didn't get your information about drugs from bad movies you might actually know what you're talking about. Besides, Trainspotting wasn't even about cocaine. Legalization is about harm reduction; people will use drugs regardless of legality.
I wouldn't want one of them to marry my daughter, for example, as he may decide one day to stop caring for her.
Again, if you didn't get your information about drugs from bad movies you might actually know what you're talking about. Hard drugs like cocaine definitely have serious consequences if they are abused. But so does alcohol, which is perfectly legal and socially accepted. I worked at a 24 hour convenience store in Maryland right after I graduated high school. The law in MD is the booze has to be locked up from 2 AM until 6 AM. I had people that would come in at 2 AM with whatever change they scrounged together to buy some beer. I would see the same people at 6 to get some more. So because I like to have a beer with dinner every now and then I'm going to end up out on the street like those people? Because you seem to imply that everyone who enjoys the occasional bump of coke is going to turn into a junkie.
So, even if cocaine did absolutely no harm to the body by itself -- and the devices in TFA promise the cocaine-like effects without the chemical additiction -- I wouldn't want to be near a user.
User != abuser
But your drug is perfectly fine, right? Its not like alcohol is directly and indirectly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in this country every year.
Annual causes of deaths in the US:
Tobacco 435,000 Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000 Alcohol 85,000 Microbial Agents 75,000 Toxic Agents 55,000 Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347 Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000 Suicide 30,622 Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000 Homicide 20,308 Sexual Behaviors 20,000 All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000 Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600 Marijuana 0
I know that tomorrow night on my drive home I will be far more worried about drunk drivers than cocaine abusers.
You haven't paid attention to the small print in the bottom of most of the election ads have you?
I lived in Florida during the 2008 election. For your information, I have seen more of that small print than I ever cared to. Don't assume the person you are talking to is uninformed unless they have demonstrated their ignorance.
Guess what they have now a days? WEBSITES!
A PAC is not some informal group of politically minded people, it is a legal entity that accepts donations for political purposes, which may or may not have a website. The fact this was a website is only relevant insofar as the vehicle for the message, as well as for receiving donations. If they had printed flyers with the same content the PAC would still be in violation.
If you notice, as long as its not a Leadership PAC, and they aren't funding one of their own for election, what they're doing is NOT against FEC regulations.
If you are reading Wikipedia for your information on this matter you may be slightly over your head. The documentation from the FEC is fairly clear. When you register a PAC you have to declare some basic information, such as if you are only supporting or opposing a single candidate, multiple candidates, if they are affiliated with some other group, etc. When "Mycongressmanisnuts.com" registered as a PAC, they reported the purpose of the committee was to "supports/opposes more than one Federal candidate". Emphasis mine. Thus far the only action the committee has taken is to attack Grayson, which by itself is fine by me (the guy is an idiot). They should have checked the box marked "This committee supports/opposes only one candidate" as that is how they have operated.
Keep in mind we have these rules to help shut down dishonesty like the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth".
Also: Thank you for raising your point in a way that doesn't make you seem like a jackass, like the previous replier did.
There is enough idiocy out there already. (Just look at what we're discussing here)
From the complaint: Moreover, in the Fox 35 interview, when the interviewer said "so your goal is to unseat him [meaning Grayson]" Ms. Langley's response was "absolutely, that is our entire goal"
If you can provide reference to one single instance of that PAC promoting any candidate instead of tearing down Grayson (which is easy to do, the guy is a moron) I will concede your point. But as of right now, Mycongressmanisnuts.com promotes no candidate. Besides, what politician would want to be affiliated with Mycongressmanisnuts.com? Someone not familiar with the controversy would definitely get the wrong idea.
As for the rest, all she has to do is give money to more than one candidate and she's off the hook.
Somehow I doubt that. The FEC sent them a letter requesting clarification. You would think that if they were going to change things, the would have done it by the deadline on that letter, which is the 17th.
The fact that she's not raised a ton of money is an unavoidable practical defense on her part with regard to that.
I fail to see how that applies to misrepresenting the purpose of the PAC.
Sorry, no matter how you try to twist it, its still a political OP-ED site
I think the line is when you start trying to raise money. From the PAC's site:
To be successful, we need your help. Please join our effort by making a contribution today! Through paid advertising and grassroots activities, we will hold Alan Grayson accountable for his votes and actions.
Since when does an "op-ed site" have paid advertising against a particular candidate? If all they were doing is pushing an opinion, by all means go right ahead. But if you want to accept donations "for the purpose of influencing a federal election" you need to play by the rules everyone else plays by.
That site is run by a registered political action committee that is actively trying to raise money for the 2010 election. The allegation is that the PAC did not fill out their Statement of Operations form truthfully, thus breaking the law. You're going to get in trouble if you fuck up your taxes, why should this be any different? I completely agree that Grayson is a total moron, but it looks to me that he actually has a valid complaint, however minor that complaint might be.
If that site was a just a blog I would have to agree that this is sheer lunacy, but when you are a registered PAC trying to raise money for the 2010 campaign the rules are a little different. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a political fundraising issue.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>
So this is your main account eh?
My old boss gave me a bottle of acai juice one time... not bad with Gosling's black seal rum. Just dilute the acai juice a bit first or its going to be really strong. Best use I could find for it. Personally, every time I see one of those MonaVie stickers on someone's car I mentally substitute the word idiot in its place.
Try Imitrex sometime... my copay for seven pills was $100. The box would last me about 3-4 days. Or how about Norvasc. Then I lost my insurance for a few months and was paying out of pocket for my meds. I was paying over $300/mo just for the Norvasc, had to completely stop taking the Imitrex, and never mind the medical bills. If I had continued taking the Imitrex I would have spent somewhere around $2500 a month on that alone. I have a really hard time finding pity for you and your $90/mo prescription for hair loss.
as far as the site, it was the first one that came on a google search. if the site is only silly, it is one up on fox and nbc
I'm not doing your research for you. The burden of proof is upon you.
seems like every site i quote is silly as far as you are concerned
That would be because prisonplanet.net and larouchepac.com are conspiracy theorist fantasy lands.
do you agree that phillip expresses some interest in doing genocide.
I would agree that the prince's opinions as portrayed are unacceptable. But I still don't understand what he has to do with climate change, and would argue that his opinions are totally irrelevant in any case.
treat this like an intelligence gathering problem
I have better things to do than chase down evidence for your completely unsupportable argument. Believe whatever you want, I honestly don't care, but you don't get to decide for yourself what the facts are.
What exactly does that idiot have to do with global warming supporters? I wasn't aware Prince Philip was an authority on climate change. That site is quite amusing by the way, I hope you only read it for entertainment. The comments are even better (I had a better one but it didn't get past the lameness filter... "Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."):
POSSIBLY FOR THE REASON IN MY TOP POST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alex and david icke maximum respect go`s out to you guy`s !!!!!!!!
The only people in the media that is exposing my previous post the rest have been gagged !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOOK`S LIKE THIS PLACE IS THE ONLY PLACE TO GET INFO YOU CAN TRUST !!!!!
pls guy`s even if your not from the UK join the group i posted above ! there`s 7 1/2 thousand on there already !
I also thought this article was fitting considering the OP:
Russian capital Moscow covered by record 63cm snowfall
...so when you talk about a bridge being good in europe or a roman empire guy, there is a bit of a subject change.
If you insist. Back to the original topic, shall we?
Now let us consider the nitpicking about 12o nations. your url did not talk at all about the number nations and did not mention the g77
If you had bothered to actually read the article you would have seen this near the bottom:
Sudan holds the presidency of the group of 77 developing nations, and its negotiator attacked the European Union and the US for what he called insufficient emissions cuts.
Not being familiar with the g77, and upon reading this sentence, I found it a reasonable (although apparently incorrect) assumption that there are indeed 77 developing nations in the group of 77 developing nations.
now about the not enough money to pay for the coffins quoting. I think i misusedd the quote, just as you say.
Misused is a considerable understatement; to misquote someone in such a manner is extremely dishonest. Accusing people of supporting genocide is quite a claim to make when the only citation you give is on Lyndon LaRouche's website. In case you didn't know, LaRouche served several years in federal prison for fraud. How you could reference anything on his site in good faith is completely and utterly beyond me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about and can give another citation. To save you the hassle of a few clicks, here are your words again:
i was talking about nwgers who explictly push genocide and giving an explanation for their behavior.
n passing, it is a little flakey to talk about professionalism, pre 1820. that is about when, hmm, harvard, implemented the concept around lawyers.
You are getting hung up on the label again.
and for engineers the idea is the scientist figure things out and the engineers apply it, and that is hard to do with out a quantative science base
While it may not have been called science, to say that there was no empirical knowledge is not true. The engineers of Rome knew how arches worked, it was not just a guess.
you might think of a professional as someone with a certain attitude of responsibility to his client.
A professional is one who is skilled and knowledgeable in their field of work, which certainly describes many people before 1820.
and I vaguely have an engineering degress, MSE.
You also didn't seem to pay attention in English class.
sometimes i use words in a deeper way than you do
I'm not sure how you could glean that information from a few posts on slashdot.
sometime i try to be a bit funny, and then sometimes the words are intentional ambiguous, which is part of humor,and I expect sometime I am flakey.
So you are an intentionally poor communicator? You're not very funny after all.
the sudan guy
That is nether deep nor humorous. Ambiguity there serves no purpose other than to keep you from actually having to look up the information.
over 120 nations
It was 77.
And I found the quote from Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping: "Ten billion dollars under the current scenarios will not buy the poor of developing countries coffins, let alone address the serious problems that this challenge is causing"
His point was precisely the opposite of what you claim it was. Di-Aping wants to keep warming below 1 degree, and he feels that the current agreement limiting warming to 2 degrees is not enough. That is what happens when you get your "facts" from right-wing hacks with an axe to grind. Did you even bother to do your own research, or did you just take their word for it?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12768
The main page of that site has a photoshopped pic of Obama with a Hitler mustache. Somehow I just can't take them seriously. The only info I could find that was anything close to what you are talking about was China pushing its "population control" policies.
I didn't insult my readers.
I'm not sure how calling people sheep isn't insulting.
I'm not going to list all the examples of bad science in the last fifty years.
I didn't ask you to. I don't understand how you intended the second sentence to be taken as a general statement in the context of the first. But the way this usually works is the person making the claims has to supply some evidence, not just make vague claims and expect others to do the research for them. But you don't seem to want to cite your evidence or provide sources.
My point was simply that being skeptical hardly makes one the bad guy.
And I'm skeptical that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1991. Ask all the questions you want, it doesn't make them relevant.
Skeptics I have time for.
Doesn't seem like it.
I talked about no structural engineers, no professional engineers, and no science base for the bridge building.
Tell that to Vitruvius. While we have not have highly developed mathematical models that tell us exactly how our bridges will perform for very long, that doesn't mean we've just been stacking bricks since ancient times.
But as i said, people manage to build bridges that did not fall down. This was pretty much a new thing.
Not really. Just because every last one of them didn't survive until today doesn't mean they didn't serve their intended purpose. What is your evidence of chronic bridge collapse before the mid 19th century?
It was pretty much trial and error, so you would expect there had been some successes in the past to work from.
Only a few thousand.
so where did i say someone was uneducated?
Right here, where you imply bridge builders before 1850 had no idea what they were doing:
not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized
By educated I meant possessing knowledge, not a piece of paper. Like I said before, there have been professional engineers since ancient times. While Emily Roebling may have not been the best example, I was simply attempting to point out she received training specifically in bridge building. Where did that knowledge come from? While John A. Roebling did make some improvements in bridge designs of the mid 19th century, he was building on the work of thousands of other engineers dating back to antiquity. To say empirical thought was not involved in engineering before this point is false. Don't get stuck on labels.
Odd, the way you seem to equate non-scientist to uneducated.
Is everything interesting or odd to you? You are the only one making that comparison, even if it is in false contrast.
oops, I have seen that somewhere before!
I'm not sure what you are attempting to insinuate. May I only point out that you do not know me or what my background is.
looks he himself introduced the wire rope tech that made this sort of thing actually work,
The first permanent wire rope bridge was built in Annonay, France in 1822. Considering John Roebling was 16 and in Germany I don't think he helped very much.
so i doubt things were working before then.
You admit this is speculation that bridges collapsed left and right before 1850 then?
But you know, I said "structural engineer" in exact quote of the original comment.
Pedantry. While increased knowledge of loading and materials made structural engineering a field and profession in its own right, to say it didn't exist at all before 1850 is certainly false. The number of structures from ancient times that still stand today is testament to their understanding, though limited it may have been by today's standards. What the OP said was "You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges". A better statement would have been "You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design contemporary bridges". The fact is that the engineers of ancient times did not have degrees, and nobody else did either. Yet to say they were unqualified as a blanket statement is simply untrue. If you want to talk about the doctors of the time, that is a different story.
i was talking about nwgers who explictly push genocide and giving an explanation for their behavior.
What you said was:
awg is happily dead. I exerted myself
It would have been nice if the IPCC had simply relied on climate researchers.
Yes, a few mistakes were made. But this is how science works, you identify the bad data and move on.
Yet, as Anthony Watts
I stopped reading here. You tell us to rely on climate research then immediately reference an unpublished broadcast weatherman? Give me a break.
And here is the rebuttal, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
I don't know about you but I am more inclined to trust the Journal of Geophysical Research than I am inclined to trust Watts and his buddies.
Not being pedantic here but wouldnt sea levels rise if there was more ice?
Depends on where the ice is. If the ice is on land because it fell there as snow, the oceans fall. If it is floating in the ocean, it doesn't make a lick of difference if it is ice or not.
Not being pedantic here but wouldnt sea levels rise if there was more ice? So the giant ice cubes would push more water volume out of the way?
The expansion is offset by how much of the ice sticks out of the water.
An experiment you can do on your desk:
Put a single cube of ice in a glass. Fill the glass to the brim and set it down. The ice is sticking out of the water right? Now let it melt. The water level should still be exactly where it was when the ice was ice, even though the total volume of water (including the ice sticking out of the glass) is less.
No, some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate is the only peer reviewed paper I am aware of that said anything about an ice age. So that makes 1 paper for GC and thousands of papers for GW. Are you aware of any other peer reviewed papers supporting GC? I don't have access to the articles that cite this one to see if they make the same kind of claims, however the abstracts do not.
We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.
Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. I am curious as to what you are attempting to reference.
When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.
Insulting your readers is truly the sign of a towering intellect.
Skeptics I have time for. Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.
Consider me skeptical.
You mean like that publicity stunt that dude named Columbus pulled when all the "peer-reviewed" "science" agreed that the earth was flat?
Yeah the 1493 edition of the Journal of Cartography was really exciting.
I had little faith to begin with - because as history shows, most of the time the "consensus" in science has been Flat. Out. Wrong.
You have no understanding of how science works.
Have your peers shove those journals up your ass - I'm going snowboarding.
So how does that wooden snowboard ride? Oh you use one made with modern materials? Did you send a letter to your friends last week to meet you on the slopes or will you call them on your cel phone? Have fun walking up that mountain too, you obviously have no use for a lift.
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to live in warm fuzzy ignorance. But I think I'll take the truth, even if it isn't warm and fuzzy.
funny, mid 19th century america, we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down. not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized, so almost by definition, there was no "science" in sight
Emily Warren Roebling might not have had a formal education, but to say she was uneducated is laughable. Do you often talk about things you know nothing about?
awg is happily dead. I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good. so I think it is time to do the post-mortem. sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet
Ah, apparently you do.
some people just like genocide.
Yeah just kill everyone you don't agree with, sounds reasonable to me.
so how do we avoid another awg? One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the "settled", "consensus", "petition" stuff. people on both sides play at this on slashdot even. It looks to me that even "scientists" play at it and not even on just awg. what do you think?
It would be easier to tell you what I thought about it if your commet made a lick of sense. Please learn how to construct a sentence, it makes communicating much easier.
If you ask stupid questions, you don't have to be smart to answer them.
They're more or less the same thing - the spread of malware is unauthorized file copying. The only way to fully prevent malware is to stop users from installing software, since they sometimes install malware.
So your solution is to set up a walled garden where only the Powers That Be decide what I can put on my machine?
The idea of not letting people install whatever they want on their own computers may sound ludicrous
Because it is. I would not buy a computer that I can't write my own software for, which is why something like an iPhone or an iPad just isn't very useful to me. And no, jailbreaking isn't a fix for that, just a band-aid. Now not everyone has this kind of requirement, so let me give another example: Apple rejecting the Google Voice app.
iPhone is the #1 smartphone, so it's far from just a joke or a paranoid fantasy.
[citation needed]
It's here, and a lot of people like it.
And they are the same people who don't understand the technology they use on a daily basis.
[1] [2]
...
Hrmm... you are correct I seemed to have cited misleading data.
The actual number seems to be 22,073 deaths from alcohol consumption in 2006 vs 0 for marijuana, ever.
Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning. I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...
So we should ban the lottery too? How about TV? That argument is ridiculous.
Now, what is the justification for a cocaine-user's pleasure?
There is enough suffering in the world already, we don't need more so you can feel morally superior.
What did he do to deserve, what a Trainspotting's character describes as "thousand times the most intense orgasm you've ever experienced"?
If you didn't get your information about drugs from bad movies you might actually know what you're talking about. Besides, Trainspotting wasn't even about cocaine. Legalization is about harm reduction; people will use drugs regardless of legality.
I wouldn't want one of them to marry my daughter, for example, as he may decide one day to stop caring for her.
Again, if you didn't get your information about drugs from bad movies you might actually know what you're talking about. Hard drugs like cocaine definitely have serious consequences if they are abused. But so does alcohol, which is perfectly legal and socially accepted. I worked at a 24 hour convenience store in Maryland right after I graduated high school. The law in MD is the booze has to be locked up from 2 AM until 6 AM. I had people that would come in at 2 AM with whatever change they scrounged together to buy some beer. I would see the same people at 6 to get some more. So because I like to have a beer with dinner every now and then I'm going to end up out on the street like those people? Because you seem to imply that everyone who enjoys the occasional bump of coke is going to turn into a junkie.
So, even if cocaine did absolutely no harm to the body by itself -- and the devices in TFA promise the cocaine-like effects without the chemical additiction -- I wouldn't want to be near a user.
User != abuser
But your drug is perfectly fine, right? Its not like alcohol is directly and indirectly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in this country every year.
Annual causes of deaths in the US:
Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0
I know that tomorrow night on my drive home I will be far more worried about drunk drivers than cocaine abusers.
You haven't paid attention to the small print in the bottom of most of the election ads have you?
I lived in Florida during the 2008 election. For your information, I have seen more of that small print than I ever cared to. Don't assume the person you are talking to is uninformed unless they have demonstrated their ignorance.
Guess what they have now a days? WEBSITES!
A PAC is not some informal group of politically minded people, it is a legal entity that accepts donations for political purposes, which may or may not have a website. The fact this was a website is only relevant insofar as the vehicle for the message, as well as for receiving donations. If they had printed flyers with the same content the PAC would still be in violation.
If you notice, as long as its not a Leadership PAC, and they aren't funding one of their own for election, what they're doing is NOT against FEC regulations.
If you are reading Wikipedia for your information on this matter you may be slightly over your head. The documentation from the FEC is fairly clear. When you register a PAC you have to declare some basic information, such as if you are only supporting or opposing a single candidate, multiple candidates, if they are affiliated with some other group, etc. When "Mycongressmanisnuts.com" registered as a PAC, they reported the purpose of the committee was to "supports/opposes more than one Federal candidate". Emphasis mine. Thus far the only action the committee has taken is to attack Grayson, which by itself is fine by me (the guy is an idiot). They should have checked the box marked "This committee supports/opposes only one candidate" as that is how they have operated.
Keep in mind we have these rules to help shut down dishonesty like the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth".
Also: Thank you for raising your point in a way that doesn't make you seem like a jackass, like the previous replier did.
There is enough idiocy out there already. (Just look at what we're discussing here)
Did you even bother to read the complaint?
From the complaint: Moreover, in the Fox 35 interview, when the interviewer said "so your goal is to unseat him [meaning Grayson]" Ms. Langley's response was "absolutely, that is our entire goal"
If you can provide reference to one single instance of that PAC promoting any candidate instead of tearing down Grayson (which is easy to do, the guy is a moron) I will concede your point. But as of right now, Mycongressmanisnuts.com promotes no candidate. Besides, what politician would want to be affiliated with Mycongressmanisnuts.com? Someone not familiar with the controversy would definitely get the wrong idea.
As for the rest, all she has to do is give money to more than one candidate and she's off the hook.
Somehow I doubt that. The FEC sent them a letter requesting clarification. You would think that if they were going to change things, the would have done it by the deadline on that letter, which is the 17th.
The fact that she's not raised a ton of money is an unavoidable practical defense on her part with regard to that.
I fail to see how that applies to misrepresenting the purpose of the PAC.
Sorry, no matter how you try to twist it, its still a political OP-ED site
I think the line is when you start trying to raise money. From the PAC's site:
To be successful, we need your help. Please join our effort by making a contribution today! Through paid advertising and grassroots activities, we will hold Alan Grayson accountable for his votes and actions.
Since when does an "op-ed site" have paid advertising against a particular candidate? If all they were doing is pushing an opinion, by all means go right ahead. But if you want to accept donations "for the purpose of influencing a federal election" you need to play by the rules everyone else plays by.
That site is run by a registered political action committee that is actively trying to raise money for the 2010 election. The allegation is that the PAC did not fill out their Statement of Operations form truthfully, thus breaking the law. You're going to get in trouble if you fuck up your taxes, why should this be any different? I completely agree that Grayson is a total moron, but it looks to me that he actually has a valid complaint, however minor that complaint might be.
Does it make a difference that it was a blog?
If that site was a just a blog I would have to agree that this is sheer lunacy, but when you are a registered PAC trying to raise money for the 2010 campaign the rules are a little different. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a political fundraising issue.