But I guess it would take an IQ of > 150 to come up with such an extremely bright idea.
*Holds out hand*: You must be this good at word analogies and logic problems to have a good idea:P
I live in the one of the most sprawling cities in N.A., people around here are even more dependent on cars. It feels weird when their is a festival or very hot day and you see people walking around... you know... outside.
I just love armchair environmentalists - you know, condo-living yuppies who might venture outside of their six-block down-town metropolis life once a year (to vacation to another city). Save the environment, please!!
Agreed, density is a good thing.
I spend a great deal of time in very remote wilderness areas, and the thing that constantly amazes me is how life covers every square inch of our planet. Has for billions of years. No matter how harsh the environment, or what a particular area gets dealt in terms of weather that year, life always adapts.
Yeah, life has been great at adapting for billions of years. However, almost all species are extinct. Things change, and when they change rapidly it can be an issue.
I've seen stories here in Canada (no references) that Polat Bears are adapting to less sea ice, and it's no surprise to me.
I have yet to see those stories - they're in decline. I've read that they are wandering in to towns more to eat garbage.
We are making WAY too big of a deal out of a minute percentage change in temperatures year to year, the real world hands it much worse most of the time, and life pulls through fine.
Minute year to year, but it adds up. Like compound interest. Life pulls through, but do we want to be responsible for an extinction event, degradation of the planet, or our own misery, because we were unwilling to give up our current way of life and view of unlimited resources and profit to be had?
What are we worrying about?
The wonderful remote wilderness that us Canadians have the privilege to enjoy. And the rest of the planet.
I was referring to overall global temperature records and land records from the National Climatic Data Center. I was hoping that you wouldn't just fixate on ocean records.
This is largely corroborated with other data records, I'm not just sure if it is *all* of them.
Erm I kinda like having my computer with its internet connection.
Ok, so you like your computer to be on all the time. Try to make allowances in other places in your life.
Oh wait. Wind and solar power cant produce enough power to keep them going?
Bye bye internet. Do you realise how much power Google uses alone?
Google likely uses a lot of power. However, wind and solar do have lots of power capacity. Wind has 5x the current world capacity (theoretically). 20 seconds, Wikipedia. In a directed study, like the UK, they predicted about 50x their power demands. This doesn't even count solar, tidal, geothermal. Also, why you do think that a transition to renewable energy and improving efficiencies and standards (such as CCS) would suddenly cause existing power generation and infrastructure to blow up?
Remember that these idiots are wanting to ditch coal power, refuse to use nuclear (wtf?) and if everyone cant power their lives off a small pinwheel then your being wasteful.
Sounds like a bit of a hyperbole. From my experiences, nuclear has more proponents among environmentalists who see it as an appropriate measure to move towards renewables and away from coal than among the anti-AGW crowd.
If you want to make more legitimate criticisms, look towards energy density of storage and transportation mediums, as an example. Also, invest in companies that do battery research.
Ok, for a report this size, that is being used to massively change the living conditions of many millions of people downwards, how many errors need to be found before the results become questionable? At what point will you stop and say, I think we need to look deeper into this before we subject all these people to miserable living conditions based on these questionable results? There are so many "small errors" in this report that, if you wrote it as a school assignment, you'd probably get a failing grade.
Why do people have the notion that implementing strategies for energy diversity, combating climate change, etc. will put us into some kind of dark age?
I mean, unless you are Iraqi and your job is to set oil fields on fire or pump it into the Persian gulf when the Americans show up, or you get serious kicks out of being wasteful; how bad do you think living more sustainably or paying *slightly-somewhat* more for products and services would be? I'm genuinely curious as to what creature comforts or lifestyles would be so affected that living would noticeably go from (presumably) alright to "miserable".
None of us fucking ignorant idiots who are incapable of thinking for ourselves buy the idea that it's a scam anymore...
FTFY
Why so many adjectives on 'idiots'? Did think that 'ignorant idiots' or 'fucking idiots' wasn't far enough considering how little citation or evidence or you know, just words outside of an acronym, you seem to want to provide... ?
This exchange has confused me regarding what you're position is and what you think mine is.
I was just pointing out (as someone else did) that people who don't believe in AGW warming often point out 1998 and say that we have been cooling since then. I was just bringing up 2005, which by some records was warmer than 1998. (and 2009 as well, but some people don't trust data that recent). Not to mention all the other years in the 2000s that were warmer than years in the 90s. And 90s > 80s. And so on.
I wonder why you chose 1999... probably because you meant to choose 1998, a commonly cited year as it was very warm (even though 2005 was warmer). However, since 1997 or 1999, 2001-2009 have all been warmer. So... yeah, you're wrong based on mean surface temperatures (this argument also applies to 1990, and you get to add 2000 as being warmer). [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2007&month=13]
In the West of Canada, it's fairly common. Most people have been hunting at some point in their lives.
Could be very true, I just don't know many of them personally compared to the number of people I know / would have had a conversation by now bringing that aspect of their lives out.
Outside of the ultra-urban areas, it's fairly common.
Not everyone lives in Toronto and Montreal - both of which have active military bases and students in college and university who have done so.
Granted. Kingston and Victoria are probably better examples though. I've been to all these places (except Montreal, can't wait to go there), and I still find it rare to see military walking around (unless RMC just got out and it's a weekend or if you're near the bases or colleges) compared to the number of people. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because it absolutely does, just that it isn't "most people", or even a large fraction (say 5-10%).
It's just not a typical subject of conversation. And they don't travel around with handguns - most use shotguns or rifles for hunting and don't have our fascination with military-style weapons or ordinance.
True, out of the people I've known who have gone hunting or are in the military, less than half are fascinated with military weapons or ordinance. That population seems to be reserved for FPS gamers:P
First rule of understanding Canada - it's a big place and has a multi-cultural mosaic.
Very true. For example, I live here (Calgary). I was just trying to provide some anecdotes.
I agree with the GP. When I went to university, I met one person who had a military scholarship - out of hundreds of people I could name (although I guess some of them could've had a scholarship and I wouldn't have been aware of it).
Throughout my whole life: I think I have met six people who I could name that were actually involved in the military. The number of people who have held / used a a real gun (such as a firing range, not a paintball gun or airsoft gun)... easily still less than ten.
I understand the definitions, but I've always taken unusual to have more of a connotation of "not normal and not often". While uncommon has a more "normal, but not often".
I guess this difference in connotation is a result of being repeatedly told throughout school that someone is "normal, just not average".
By the way, speaking about confusing terms. Every time I read your sig I'm just about to congratulate and thank you for the gold.
No; only in-bred, redneck, Western Canadian hicks call the prairies "central" and ON+PQ "eastern" Canada.
I usually call the provinces and territories by their name. I would call the territories 'the North', BC as 'West Coast', BC, AB and Sask 'Western Canada', MB, ON and QC 'Central Canada', ON and QC by themselves as 'Eastern Canada', and NB, NL, NS and PEI 'Eastern Canada', 'Maritime/Atlantic' or 'East Coast' (although I better switch to Atlantic, as someone above mentioned).
I live in Alberta (Calgary). While I may be an ignorant hick, that's just what I've become accustomed the other parts of this fine country. I guess it looks confusing written down, but it's a fairly arbitrary distinction that has been likely been impressed upon me by media and my parents/friends.
AC, are you from Quebec as you referred to it as PQ rather than QC?
Slashdot Mirror
But I guess it would take an IQ of > 150 to come up with such an extremely bright idea.
*Holds out hand*: You must be this good at word analogies and logic problems to have a good idea :P
I live in the one of the most sprawling cities in N.A., people around here are even more dependent on cars. It feels weird when their is a festival or very hot day and you see people walking around... you know... outside.
I just love armchair environmentalists - you know, condo-living yuppies who might venture outside of their six-block down-town metropolis life once a year (to vacation to another city). Save the environment, please!!
Agreed, density is a good thing.
I spend a great deal of time in very remote wilderness areas, and the thing that constantly amazes me is how life covers every square inch of our planet. Has for billions of years. No matter how harsh the environment, or what a particular area gets dealt in terms of weather that year, life always adapts.
Yeah, life has been great at adapting for billions of years. However, almost all species are extinct. Things change, and when they change rapidly it can be an issue.
I've seen stories here in Canada (no references) that Polat Bears are adapting to less sea ice, and it's no surprise to me.
I have yet to see those stories - they're in decline. I've read that they are wandering in to towns more to eat garbage.
We are making WAY too big of a deal out of a minute percentage change in temperatures year to year, the real world hands it much worse most of the time, and life pulls through fine.
Minute year to year, but it adds up. Like compound interest. Life pulls through, but do we want to be responsible for an extinction event, degradation of the planet, or our own misery, because we were unwilling to give up our current way of life and view of unlimited resources and profit to be had?
What are we worrying about?
The wonderful remote wilderness that us Canadians have the privilege to enjoy. And the rest of the planet.
I was referring to overall global temperature records and land records from the National Climatic Data Center. I was hoping that you wouldn't just fixate on ocean records.
This is largely corroborated with other data records, I'm not just sure if it is *all* of them.
Erm I kinda like having my computer with its internet connection.
Ok, so you like your computer to be on all the time. Try to make allowances in other places in your life.
Oh wait. Wind and solar power cant produce enough power to keep them going? Bye bye internet. Do you realise how much power Google uses alone?
Google likely uses a lot of power. However, wind and solar do have lots of power capacity. Wind has 5x the current world capacity (theoretically). 20 seconds, Wikipedia. In a directed study, like the UK, they predicted about 50x their power demands. This doesn't even count solar, tidal, geothermal. Also, why you do think that a transition to renewable energy and improving efficiencies and standards (such as CCS) would suddenly cause existing power generation and infrastructure to blow up?
Remember that these idiots are wanting to ditch coal power, refuse to use nuclear (wtf?) and if everyone cant power their lives off a small pinwheel then your being wasteful.
Sounds like a bit of a hyperbole. From my experiences, nuclear has more proponents among environmentalists who see it as an appropriate measure to move towards renewables and away from coal than among the anti-AGW crowd.
If you want to make more legitimate criticisms, look towards energy density of storage and transportation mediums, as an example. Also, invest in companies that do battery research.
They would, but that overflows the register the used many times over.
Ok, for a report this size, that is being used to massively change the living conditions of many millions of people downwards, how many errors need to be found before the results become questionable? At what point will you stop and say, I think we need to look deeper into this before we subject all these people to miserable living conditions based on these questionable results? There are so many "small errors" in this report that, if you wrote it as a school assignment, you'd probably get a failing grade.
Why do people have the notion that implementing strategies for energy diversity, combating climate change, etc. will put us into some kind of dark age?
I mean, unless you are Iraqi and your job is to set oil fields on fire or pump it into the Persian gulf when the Americans show up, or you get serious kicks out of being wasteful; how bad do you think living more sustainably or paying *slightly-somewhat* more for products and services would be? I'm genuinely curious as to what creature comforts or lifestyles would be so affected that living would noticeably go from (presumably) alright to "miserable".
None of us fucking ignorant idiots who are incapable of thinking for ourselves buy the idea that it's a scam anymore...
FTFY
Why so many adjectives on 'idiots'? Did think that 'ignorant idiots' or 'fucking idiots' wasn't far enough considering how little citation or evidence or you know, just words outside of an acronym, you seem to want to provide ... ?
This exchange has confused me regarding what you're position is and what you think mine is.
I was just pointing out (as someone else did) that people who don't believe in AGW warming often point out 1998 and say that we have been cooling since then. I was just bringing up 2005, which by some records was warmer than 1998. (and 2009 as well, but some people don't trust data that recent). Not to mention all the other years in the 2000s that were warmer than years in the 90s. And 90s > 80s. And so on.
How do people like this figure out to use computers? Also, you've misspelled 'modded' in your sig.
Read?! Are you crazy? Somebody told me that it SNOWED last week! Why would I read something!?
What decade long decline? You mean since 2005 when it was really warm?
There's a funny SNL skit on "Voice Immodulation Disorder".
"I suffer from voice immodulation Tina. I'm unable to control the pitch or volume of my voice."
http://clipshack.com/Clip.aspx?key=5CAFD7C894F4C17C
Pretty much how I hear most people on the Internet...
I wonder why you chose 1999... probably because you meant to choose 1998, a commonly cited year as it was very warm (even though 2005 was warmer). However, since 1997 or 1999, 2001-2009 have all been warmer. So... yeah, you're wrong based on mean surface temperatures (this argument also applies to 1990, and you get to add 2000 as being warmer). [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2007&month=13]
My father worked two jobs just so we had enough money to throw into the hole!
In the West of Canada, it's fairly common. Most people have been hunting at some point in their lives.
Could be very true, I just don't know many of them personally compared to the number of people I know / would have had a conversation by now bringing that aspect of their lives out.
Outside of the ultra-urban areas, it's fairly common.
Not everyone lives in Toronto and Montreal - both of which have active military bases and students in college and university who have done so.
Granted. Kingston and Victoria are probably better examples though. I've been to all these places (except Montreal, can't wait to go there), and I still find it rare to see military walking around (unless RMC just got out and it's a weekend or if you're near the bases or colleges) compared to the number of people. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because it absolutely does, just that it isn't "most people", or even a large fraction (say 5-10%).
It's just not a typical subject of conversation. And they don't travel around with handguns - most use shotguns or rifles for hunting and don't have our fascination with military-style weapons or ordinance.
True, out of the people I've known who have gone hunting or are in the military, less than half are fascinated with military weapons or ordinance. That population seems to be reserved for FPS gamers :P
First rule of understanding Canada - it's a big place and has a multi-cultural mosaic.
Very true. For example, I live here (Calgary). I was just trying to provide some anecdotes.
I agree with the GP. When I went to university, I met one person who had a military scholarship - out of hundreds of people I could name (although I guess some of them could've had a scholarship and I wouldn't have been aware of it).
Throughout my whole life: I think I have met six people who I could name that were actually involved in the military. The number of people who have held / used a a real gun (such as a firing range, not a paintball gun or airsoft gun)... easily still less than ten.
Perhaps it is more common down East?
Every news agency in Canada? Google it... "taser cop drunk driving Robinson"
Canada?! I thought I told you to give a reliable source! Now you're just making up words and places!
I was told yesterday that I was a standard deviant.
Either that or he continues chasing you all the while wondering why no one blew a whistle yet...
I'd wager those 600 lbs football players can easily outpace and outlast a geek from some basement.
300 lbs (you switched the 'benches' and 'weighs' figures).
:P
I'm pretty sure a 600 lbs football player is just *fucked* if he tries to run
I understand the definitions, but I've always taken unusual to have more of a connotation of "not normal and not often". While uncommon has a more "normal, but not often".
I guess this difference in connotation is a result of being repeatedly told throughout school that someone is "normal, just not average".
By the way, speaking about confusing terms. Every time I read your sig I'm just about to congratulate and thank you for the gold.
Not to mention there's barely anything/anybody in the prairies.
I realize you said prairies, but if you count B.C., there is a 1/3 of Canada's population east of Ontario...
They call themselves Central Canada as they believe the rest of the country revolves around them...
It does - given the Earth's rotation -, but there are a crazy number of epicycles involved. Even Ptolemy couldn't figure this shit out.
No; only in-bred, redneck, Western Canadian hicks call the prairies "central" and ON+PQ "eastern" Canada.
I usually call the provinces and territories by their name. I would call the territories 'the North', BC as 'West Coast', BC, AB and Sask 'Western Canada', MB, ON and QC 'Central Canada', ON and QC by themselves as 'Eastern Canada', and NB, NL, NS and PEI 'Eastern Canada', 'Maritime/Atlantic' or 'East Coast' (although I better switch to Atlantic, as someone above mentioned).
I live in Alberta (Calgary). While I may be an ignorant hick, that's just what I've become accustomed the other parts of this fine country. I guess it looks confusing written down, but it's a fairly arbitrary distinction that has been likely been impressed upon me by media and my parents/friends.
AC, are you from Quebec as you referred to it as PQ rather than QC?
> walk to printer
There is rumbling around your feet.
> check girth
Feet not in sight. There is girth.
You have arrived at the printer to find the tray empty. Perhaps you didn't actually click 'Print' hard enough?
> goddamnit
To your credit, you seem absolutely true to your words, like Old Man Waterfall.