Ok NOAA is only about 50% accurate with predictions more than 4 days out and it goes down drastically after than. Last year was supposed to be a record year for major named tropical storms, and it had among the fewest. and I am supposed to believe these yahoos when they try to predict the climate 10, 20 or more years into the future?
10 to 20 years is MUCH easier to predict than "tomorrow". I can't tell you with any degree of accuracy how your health will be tomorrow, but I can tell you with near 100% certainty that 150 years from now, you'll be dead.
So, here is MY theory <snip>
Nice... a completely moronic theory, obviously written with the intention of sounding deliberately moronic in order to make people think that all theories are equally as daft. Of course, your theory has NO evidence backing it up, unlike pretty much every serious theory regarding anthropogenic climate change
Oh yeah, one more thing....Greenland was once f-ing GREEN people.
The southern part of Greenland, which is the only area where people ever really built serious settlements, is still quite green in summer most years. Most of the island is pretty much covered in snow and ice all year round, but that southern tip can be relatively pleasant. Also, when it was settled first by the Scandinavians, it was during the medieval warm period, which is what I assume you're referring to, so it was likely even "greener" at that time. The medieval warm period however is NOT evidence against anthropogenic climate change, no matter how often people bring it up.
Have you ever noticed than on Slashdot, it's only the climate change sceptics/deniers that bring up Al Gore? He's hardly a "high priest of global warming" - more like a "nutty guy on the side who every serious climatologist wishes would just shut up once in a while"
Can someone point me, with no magical PhD to set me straight, where I've gone wrong?
Certainly...
First, we had global warming which was supposed to obviously describe the global increase in temperatures affecting climate everywhere...
No, I don't think anyone has ever seriously pushed that except perhaps some VERY misguided media. "Global Warming" (better referred to as Climate Change) causes a gradual and non-linear rise in average global temperature. If it's 0.1 degrees cooler there, and 0.2 degrees warmer here, then the global average is higher. So, it's quite possible for some places to be colder. It's ALSO quite possible for some time periods to be colder. If it's 0.1 degrees cooler this year, and 0.2 degrees warmer next year, then over 2 years, the temperature has increased by 0.05 per year. Some places may even be completely unaffected for long periods and experience a very stable climate, while others have more drastic effects. When you're talking global averages, there's a LOT of room to move on smaller scales.
...and was supposed to already be in effect.
It is already in effect - things are warmer now than they would be were we not affecting the environment.
However, another natural cycle, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into new warmth.
Now with this it seems global warming isn't actually supposed to be here, yet.
That's not really right either. The temperature is currently warmer than it should be - let's call it "warm". It will REMAIN "warm" for around 10 years, and will then get WARMER. That's a flat point on a graph, but it's definitely not saying that we haven't started warming yet! Also, as with any chaotic system, it may have fluctuations within the next 10 years as well - it may be REALLY hot in 2012, and REALLY cold in 2015, but these alone would mean nothing at all. If it was ALSO really cold in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and onwards, and we saw a trend of it getting colder and colder during those years, then we'd need to seriously rethink our ideas about climate change. That may happen, although it's more likely not to.
Of course, the big difference between the 21st century global climate change and the pre-Ice Age global climate change is that somehow the humans are at fault for the present predicament
Yes, that is one big difference (we're not the SOLE cause, but we're not helping). The other big difference (and in fact, the one which leads to the conclusion that is the first difference) is how quickly it's happening... the pre-Ice Age climate change took a long time, and was very gradual. This climate change is happening MUCH more quickly.
And here I thought warming and cooling were just normal climate changes which have occurred irregardless of human existence.
They are perfectly normal, and would happen "irregardless(sic) of human existence". However, that doesn't mean that our activities can't ALSO have an effect on the environment.
I agree with you about Al Gore. Not having lived in the US, or been too interested in the politics until things started getting affected in the rest of the world, I had never even heard of Al Gore until his name started appearing a lot on Slashdot. He does seem like a bit of a looney-tune and having him "on my side" is probably NOT a good thing. However, what do you propose anyone does about it? On Slashdot, I see the name Al Gore in a LOT of posts from climate change sceptics, however very rarely (if ever) from people on the "pro" side of the debate. So, it's not really like he's being given that much credit anyway...
According to the Eurobarometer "Social Values, Science, and Technology" from 2005, 52% of Europeans believe in a god, however with people under 40 years old, it's only 45%, and 44% for people 16 to 25. The two countries with the lowest percentage of people believing in a god were Estonia and the Czech Republic, with 16% and 19% respectively. If you cut off the top and bottom five countries, the average falls to 49% (the top 5 have a traditionally strong religious background, and just cutting them off, while leaving the bottom 5, gives an average of 43%). I do think these figures are too high in general for a supposedly educated world, but it's definitely more favourable than your 70% figure seems to indicate!
I still find it really funny when people use "socialism" as a bad word. I rather enjoy living in a socialist democracy with a lot of personal freedom, but at the same time having a part of my income taken and various controls in place for the betterment of everyone (including me). It generally means I don't have to put up with homeless bums begging change from me at every street corner; know that if I need it, there's medical attention for me; and live in a society where the vast majority of people very satisfied with their lives in general. I compare this to the last place I lived, which was decidedly "free market" oriented, where I constantly had bums begging for change, had to pay for every doctor visit, and had to constantly listen to the bitching and whining of people around me about how crappy life was. Something that people against socialism just don't seem to get is that by improving the lives of others, you are directly improving your own life by not having to deal with "the dregs of society" anymore (as those dregs are all elevated up by your contributions) - that's WELL worth paying for (and can't work on an individual choice basis, because most people would choose not to, and then complain about it anyway - reference, the last place I lived)
Give me well planned socialism any day.
Does anyone know if there's something like the Eurobarometer surveys comparing the US states as well as European countries? I was recently reading this (warning: PDF link), and would love to see the US states listed there as well to see comparisons.
Shikaku pointed out further up that there's StartSSL... FF3 accepted their certificate fine when I visited (although, honestly, other than a very quick visit to their page, I haven't really looked at it - perhaps the free certificates they offer aren't accepted... no idea)
Translation: We were wrong about global cooling, we were wrong about global warming. Instead of being wrong, I want to invent a phrase that allows me to be right no matter what.
Pretty much no-one doing real research on this has actually called it "Global Warming" except colloquially. "Climate Change" has been the accepted term for pretty much as long as we've been studying it.
Whether or not you think it's happening, it's a weak argument to complain that people on the "pro" side of the debate are "changing the name".
Furthermore, PLEASE stop trotting out the old "Global Cooling" thing - that was NEVER a strongly accepted theory anywhere by anyone (I'm not saying NO-ONE believed it, just that it was a very small number of people, and they were rather stupid)
And lastly, I'm interested - what percentage of people on both sides do you actually think truly believe what they're saying? You said (regarding people that are on the pro side of the debate): '"I'm a prick that wants to control the lives of other people, but I don't have the balls to leave my mama's basement... so, I'm going to make the guv'ment do it!"ism."', which despite the trolling, makes it appear as if you actually think people on the pro side of the debate don't really believe it's happening, but are just using it as an excuse to control people. On the other side of the coin, it's also occasionally said that people on the con side of the debate actually do think there is anthropogenic climate change, but just "have their heads in the sand", because they expect it to have no real effect until well after their deaths and don't want to rock their own financial boat in the meantime. My personal estimates for people who actually believe what they're saying are somewhere around: Pro: 99.9% Con: 99.9% Leaving aside my opinion on which side is correct, and the relative actual numbers of each side, you can see that I generally believe that most people on BOTH sides of the debate are being honest... I'd be interested to see if your opinion differs on this.
I guess that depends on the definition of "cooking"... in the same way that you can fry an egg on a really hot frypan even after you've turned the stove off, you can do the same thing on a hot rock. For reference, what I "cooked" was pancakes. If you use good quality home-made pancake mix (nice and thin (thicker than french crepes, but MUCH thinner than "English style" pancakes)), they take about 10 to 15 seconds to solidify on a moderately hot surface (about 5 seconds on a REALLY hot frypan, but that tends to leave the centre gooey), and the surface's heat was sufficient to do that without a requirement for continued heat input.
It's also worth noting that for each side of the pancake, and after each pancake, a different rock had to be used (it would take about 20 minutes for the rock to achieve the suitable temperature again if wiped clean and left exposed to the sun)
So, maybe it doesn't fit your definition of "cooking", but it's definitely possible.
You definitely can... I've cooked on dark coloured rocks in Sydney, Australia in the middle of the day. (it was a hot summer day, around 42 or 43 Celsius (107 to 110 Fahrenheit) ambient temperature and the rocks were getting VERY hot indeed)
I don't mean to sound "anti-American", but I've never understood the American viewpoint on the "Boston Tea Party".
It was quite clearly an act of gross vandalism, without a reasonable cause, and only really escalated out of control to the point that it did because of the stubbornness of the governor. Please don't trot out the old "taxation without representation" thing again, as it's pretty likely that the Taxation of Colonies Act would have been passed even had America not begun a revolutionary war (the direct precursor to it (the Conciliatory Resolution) was already passed BEFORE the revolution began).
I think America did very well for itself after that point (up until a few years ago, but that's another story), but I don't think there is actually much evidence that it was necessarily BECAUSE of gaining independence (this seems to be automatically assumed a lot of the time). I actually believe America could have done just as well had it remained a British colony - and would likely have been able to maintain better relations with Europe in the process. This gets back to the topic at hand about colonisation... regardless of the American revolution, it WAS a British colony, and the people "running the country" today are largely descendants of those same colonists, and so the US CAN be used as a good example of a very strong outcome from colonisation. (it's possible that had it not been colonised, the native Americans may have done very good things with the country as well (especially if they had strong contact with Europe instead of colonisation), but we'll simply never know, because that's not what happened).
I've always thought of self-awareness as being able to understand your (the self's) place in the grand scheme of society, Earth, and the Universe.
In that case, I'm not self-aware, as I certainly don't understand my place in the grand scheme of anything.
No, self-awareness basically means "aware of one's own existence as a separate entity from others" (rather than the alternative where the realisation of the world exists, but not that the being itself is really one of the "objects" in its environment). For example, my computer has no "awareness" that it exists - it simply carries out the functions given to it (which can be loosely thought of as its environment).
I would consider almost all animals above the level of bugs and small fish to be at least somewhat self-aware, so I do disagree with the general consensus it seems. I also think (along with most of Slashdot it seems) that the mirror test is a truly awful test for testing self-awareness anyway - there are MANY factors it doesn't take in to account.
I now have a disturbing image of my boss (a weird Japanese guy) doing very bad Karaoke of The Cure's greatest hits. I don't think it'd paralyse me, but it'd definitely register on the "WTF" scale, somewhere around "OMGWTFBBQ" or maybe even higher.
Even secular humanists believe that human beings have a certain dignity or quality not found in most or possibly any other Earth species. So unless someone is a true, hard-core atheist -- note that when pressed, most self-described 'atheists' aren't really atheists, they're really anything from agnostics to secular humanists in terms of philosophy -- then generally they will believe that humans are special.
Any chance you could describe the difference between "secular humanist" and "atheist" in your definitions? I am most DEFINITELY an atheist (in fact, I generally consider religion to be a mental disorder - and, like most mental disorders is tolerable in small amounts, but in extreme cases is VERY scary), but also consider myself to loosely follow the guidelines of secular humanism (although, don't really pay that much attention to any particular philosophical guidelines - I just follow "what feels right" for me and it just happens to match secular humanism relatively closely).
Actually, I would have thought that by its very definition, secular humanism is a philosophy that would generally only be followed by atheists. Atheism is a lack of religion, and says nothing about philosophy. Secular humanism is a philosophy, not a religion (although, as stated, I think by having the world "secular" in it, it implies a lack of religion IN the philosophy).
Definitions: Secular(adj): Of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations. Source Atheist(n): a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Source
So, I think a secular humanist would in general be an atheist. It would be possible, but VERY odd for a religious person to be a secular humanist (belief in a higher power, but rejecting the philosophy of it to follow a secular philosophy). It is certainly NOT possible to say what you said with, "...aren't really atheists, they're really anything from agnostics to secular humanists..." as one does not logically preclude the other.
Now, also just to clarify on topic here: No, I don't believe humans are anything "special", I generally prefer humans to other species (roughly the order of priority to me is: "humans I know and like", "other creatures I know and like", "humans I don't know", "other creatures I don't know", "humans I know and don't like", "other creatures I know and don't like" (yes, I would rather save the life of my pet cat than some random stranger (human or otherwise) that I've never met)) however as other posters have pointed out, that's quite natural and requires no "special status" (just as a cat generally prefers other cats to any other species).
The most amazing feats of intelligence I've seen from birds would be from Keas. I've watched three of them tear a car apart, piece by piece - including unscrewing screws, and working together to handle heavier parts. Amazingly intelligent, even if a little destructive (I can forgive them that though, as it appears they only do it out of curiosity, which is something I pretty much never fault)
For those of you unaware of the Kea, it's a rather unique kind of parrot, found in the mountains and other high-altitude areas of Southern New Zealand (where I grew up). More detail, as usual, at Wikipedia
Then there's the opposite. I've looked at a beautiful simple lawn sculpture of a rabbit, thinking I've never seen one that detailed before in my life... then it twitched.
Kookaburras (Australia's most famous member of the Kingfisher family) also do this a lot. I'd never seen one before and then moved to Australia a few years back (I've since left again). When I was looking for a place to rent, I noticed a "stuffed bird" sitting on a fencepost, and thought how odd it was to put it there. As I was staring it at, it turned its head around to face the other way (looking 90 degrees left turning to 90 degrees right) and it nearly gave me a heart attack! It was just so perfectly still before and after the movement, and even during the (very fast) movement, the rest of its body was completely statue-like. Those things really know how to NOT move.
It doesn't work that way. You can get energy out of fusion and fission until you hit iron at the middle, which is at an energy well.
Which, all in all, would be a pretty nice "waste material" to have.
Of course we're nowhere near capable of being able to actually do this reasonably as a power production method, but if we could, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about all of that "iron waste".
Payroll tax sure, but income tax? Companies don't pay income tax, individuals do (unless there's something weird in the US system that I don't know about - I am a foreigner after all!). You can't assume the company will lower people's wages to "even out" the money the people are no longer paying in income tax, since they're now paying the same tax on purchases - incomes must remain (comparative to prices) the same as they are, regardless of whether there's a direct tax on them or not. I can see other costs being reduced significantly, which would help somewhat, but I think it's a dubious claim that people visiting the country would be paying the same prices as they were before. The whole point of the tax is shifting it OFF people's incomes and ON to prices. So, if someone's income remains the same (as it was before tax), they're now making more money (in the hand), and the price of an item will also be higher. OR, the income is reduced accordingly and the price of an item remains "the same". If prices rise and gross income remains the same, the value of the currency will change - either way it's the same to someone from another country who is already paying income taxes at home. As I see it, if people are to come off "equal" (more or less) under this system compared to the current system, and the taxes have shifted from income to sales, there's no possible way other than sales tax rebates that foreign visitors won't get shafted by this. The only way for the "dollar value" of the item to remain the same would revalue the currency, so the foreigners would still lose out in the exchange from their home currency.
Example for clarity:
I want to visit the US and stay in a hotel while I'm there. Currently, the hotel will charge me $200 a night.
The new tax system comes in, and the hotel price rises to $260 a night. This makes no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" has increased an equivalent amount. However, for ME, I'm paying $60 a night more, which is pretty substantial. The alternative is to keep the cost at $200, and reduce US pay by an equivalent amount (so their new "take home pay" is identical to before - simply the amount that was paid in tax now no longer exists). This is, again, no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" hasn't changed. At first glance, this looks okay for me since it was $200 before, and it's $200 after. However doing this will increase the value of the dollar (by the simple fact that the "same amount of pay" now has more purchasing power), and I'll feel the difference when I change my Euro in to dollars.
My biggest concern about "Fair Tax" would be the impact on tourism. Those of us who live outside of the US still pay our income taxes, and would suddenly find everything in the US being MUCH more expensive than it was previously (I assume we wouldn't get a tax rebate on our purchases when we leave the country?). That'd have fairly negative effects on the amount of international tourism you get (granted, some places would hardly notice, but others might be hurt pretty badly by it).
"Don't need it", I'll agree with. "Couldn't build it", I completely DISagree with - New Zealand is a high-tech first-world country. It certainly has a stereotypical image in the eyes of the rest of the world as being a little "rural", but I assure you that if NZ really wanted a nuclear power plant, it's WELL within their technical and financial capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok NOAA is only about 50% accurate with predictions more than 4 days out and it goes down drastically after than. Last year was supposed to be a record year for major named tropical storms, and it had among the fewest. and I am supposed to believe these yahoos when they try to predict the climate 10, 20 or more years into the future?
10 to 20 years is MUCH easier to predict than "tomorrow". I can't tell you with any degree of accuracy how your health will be tomorrow, but I can tell you with near 100% certainty that 150 years from now, you'll be dead.
So, here is MY theory <snip>
Nice... a completely moronic theory, obviously written with the intention of sounding deliberately moronic in order to make people think that all theories are equally as daft. Of course, your theory has NO evidence backing it up, unlike pretty much every serious theory regarding anthropogenic climate change
Oh yeah, one more thing....Greenland was once f-ing GREEN people.
The southern part of Greenland, which is the only area where people ever really built serious settlements, is still quite green in summer most years. Most of the island is pretty much covered in snow and ice all year round, but that southern tip can be relatively pleasant. Also, when it was settled first by the Scandinavians, it was during the medieval warm period, which is what I assume you're referring to, so it was likely even "greener" at that time. The medieval warm period however is NOT evidence against anthropogenic climate change, no matter how often people bring it up.
Please don't lump the French in with the rest of us... we don't like them either.
Have you ever noticed than on Slashdot, it's only the climate change sceptics/deniers that bring up Al Gore?
He's hardly a "high priest of global warming" - more like a "nutty guy on the side who every serious climatologist wishes would just shut up once in a while"
Can someone point me, with no magical PhD to set me straight, where I've gone wrong?
Certainly...
First, we had global warming which was supposed to obviously describe the global increase in temperatures affecting climate everywhere...
No, I don't think anyone has ever seriously pushed that except perhaps some VERY misguided media. "Global Warming" (better referred to as Climate Change) causes a gradual and non-linear rise in average global temperature. If it's 0.1 degrees cooler there, and 0.2 degrees warmer here, then the global average is higher. So, it's quite possible for some places to be colder.
It's ALSO quite possible for some time periods to be colder. If it's 0.1 degrees cooler this year, and 0.2 degrees warmer next year, then over 2 years, the temperature has increased by 0.05 per year. Some places may even be completely unaffected for long periods and experience a very stable climate, while others have more drastic effects. When you're talking global averages, there's a LOT of room to move on smaller scales.
...and was supposed to already be in effect.
It is already in effect - things are warmer now than they would be were we not affecting the environment.
However, another natural cycle, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into new warmth.
Now with this it seems global warming isn't actually supposed to be here, yet.
That's not really right either. The temperature is currently warmer than it should be - let's call it "warm". It will REMAIN "warm" for around 10 years, and will then get WARMER. That's a flat point on a graph, but it's definitely not saying that we haven't started warming yet! Also, as with any chaotic system, it may have fluctuations within the next 10 years as well - it may be REALLY hot in 2012, and REALLY cold in 2015, but these alone would mean nothing at all. If it was ALSO really cold in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and onwards, and we saw a trend of it getting colder and colder during those years, then we'd need to seriously rethink our ideas about climate change. That may happen, although it's more likely not to.
Of course, the big difference between the 21st century global climate change and the pre-Ice Age global climate change is that somehow the humans are at fault for the present predicament
Yes, that is one big difference (we're not the SOLE cause, but we're not helping). The other big difference (and in fact, the one which leads to the conclusion that is the first difference) is how quickly it's happening... the pre-Ice Age climate change took a long time, and was very gradual. This climate change is happening MUCH more quickly.
And here I thought warming and cooling were just normal climate changes which have occurred irregardless of human existence.
They are perfectly normal, and would happen "irregardless(sic) of human existence". However, that doesn't mean that our activities can't ALSO have an effect on the environment.
All clearer for you now?
I agree with you about Al Gore. Not having lived in the US, or been too interested in the politics until things started getting affected in the rest of the world, I had never even heard of Al Gore until his name started appearing a lot on Slashdot. He does seem like a bit of a looney-tune and having him "on my side" is probably NOT a good thing. However, what do you propose anyone does about it?
On Slashdot, I see the name Al Gore in a LOT of posts from climate change sceptics, however very rarely (if ever) from people on the "pro" side of the debate. So, it's not really like he's being given that much credit anyway...
It's generally a better idea to take it off BEFORE setting fire to it...
According to the Eurobarometer "Social Values, Science, and Technology" from 2005, 52% of Europeans believe in a god, however with people under 40 years old, it's only 45%, and 44% for people 16 to 25. The two countries with the lowest percentage of people believing in a god were Estonia and the Czech Republic, with 16% and 19% respectively. If you cut off the top and bottom five countries, the average falls to 49% (the top 5 have a traditionally strong religious background, and just cutting them off, while leaving the bottom 5, gives an average of 43%). I do think these figures are too high in general for a supposedly educated world, but it's definitely more favourable than your 70% figure seems to indicate!
I still find it really funny when people use "socialism" as a bad word. I rather enjoy living in a socialist democracy with a lot of personal freedom, but at the same time having a part of my income taken and various controls in place for the betterment of everyone (including me). It generally means I don't have to put up with homeless bums begging change from me at every street corner; know that if I need it, there's medical attention for me; and live in a society where the vast majority of people very satisfied with their lives in general. I compare this to the last place I lived, which was decidedly "free market" oriented, where I constantly had bums begging for change, had to pay for every doctor visit, and had to constantly listen to the bitching and whining of people around me about how crappy life was. Something that people against socialism just don't seem to get is that by improving the lives of others, you are directly improving your own life by not having to deal with "the dregs of society" anymore (as those dregs are all elevated up by your contributions) - that's WELL worth paying for (and can't work on an individual choice basis, because most people would choose not to, and then complain about it anyway - reference, the last place I lived)
Give me well planned socialism any day.
Does anyone know if there's something like the Eurobarometer surveys comparing the US states as well as European countries? I was recently reading this (warning: PDF link), and would love to see the US states listed there as well to see comparisons.
Shikaku pointed out further up that there's StartSSL... FF3 accepted their certificate fine when I visited (although, honestly, other than a very quick visit to their page, I haven't really looked at it - perhaps the free certificates they offer aren't accepted... no idea)
Translation: We were wrong about global cooling, we were wrong about global warming. Instead of being wrong, I want to invent a phrase that allows me to be right no matter what.
Pretty much no-one doing real research on this has actually called it "Global Warming" except colloquially. "Climate Change" has been the accepted term for pretty much as long as we've been studying it.
Whether or not you think it's happening, it's a weak argument to complain that people on the "pro" side of the debate are "changing the name".
Furthermore, PLEASE stop trotting out the old "Global Cooling" thing - that was NEVER a strongly accepted theory anywhere by anyone (I'm not saying NO-ONE believed it, just that it was a very small number of people, and they were rather stupid)
And lastly, I'm interested - what percentage of people on both sides do you actually think truly believe what they're saying? You said (regarding people that are on the pro side of the debate): '"I'm a prick that wants to control the lives of other people, but I don't have the balls to leave my mama's basement... so, I'm going to make the guv'ment do it!"ism."', which despite the trolling, makes it appear as if you actually think people on the pro side of the debate don't really believe it's happening, but are just using it as an excuse to control people. On the other side of the coin, it's also occasionally said that people on the con side of the debate actually do think there is anthropogenic climate change, but just "have their heads in the sand", because they expect it to have no real effect until well after their deaths and don't want to rock their own financial boat in the meantime.
My personal estimates for people who actually believe what they're saying are somewhere around:
Pro: 99.9%
Con: 99.9%
Leaving aside my opinion on which side is correct, and the relative actual numbers of each side, you can see that I generally believe that most people on BOTH sides of the debate are being honest... I'd be interested to see if your opinion differs on this.
I guess that depends on the definition of "cooking"... in the same way that you can fry an egg on a really hot frypan even after you've turned the stove off, you can do the same thing on a hot rock. For reference, what I "cooked" was pancakes. If you use good quality home-made pancake mix (nice and thin (thicker than french crepes, but MUCH thinner than "English style" pancakes)), they take about 10 to 15 seconds to solidify on a moderately hot surface (about 5 seconds on a REALLY hot frypan, but that tends to leave the centre gooey), and the surface's heat was sufficient to do that without a requirement for continued heat input.
It's also worth noting that for each side of the pancake, and after each pancake, a different rock had to be used (it would take about 20 minutes for the rock to achieve the suitable temperature again if wiped clean and left exposed to the sun)
So, maybe it doesn't fit your definition of "cooking", but it's definitely possible.
You definitely can... I've cooked on dark coloured rocks in Sydney, Australia in the middle of the day. (it was a hot summer day, around 42 or 43 Celsius (107 to 110 Fahrenheit) ambient temperature and the rocks were getting VERY hot indeed)
I don't mean to sound "anti-American", but I've never understood the American viewpoint on the "Boston Tea Party".
It was quite clearly an act of gross vandalism, without a reasonable cause, and only really escalated out of control to the point that it did because of the stubbornness of the governor. Please don't trot out the old "taxation without representation" thing again, as it's pretty likely that the Taxation of Colonies Act would have been passed even had America not begun a revolutionary war (the direct precursor to it (the Conciliatory Resolution) was already passed BEFORE the revolution began).
I think America did very well for itself after that point (up until a few years ago, but that's another story), but I don't think there is actually much evidence that it was necessarily BECAUSE of gaining independence (this seems to be automatically assumed a lot of the time). I actually believe America could have done just as well had it remained a British colony - and would likely have been able to maintain better relations with Europe in the process. This gets back to the topic at hand about colonisation... regardless of the American revolution, it WAS a British colony, and the people "running the country" today are largely descendants of those same colonists, and so the US CAN be used as a good example of a very strong outcome from colonisation. (it's possible that had it not been colonised, the native Americans may have done very good things with the country as well (especially if they had strong contact with Europe instead of colonisation), but we'll simply never know, because that's not what happened).
I've always thought of self-awareness as being able to understand your (the self's) place in the grand scheme of society, Earth, and the Universe.
In that case, I'm not self-aware, as I certainly don't understand my place in the grand scheme of anything.
No, self-awareness basically means "aware of one's own existence as a separate entity from others" (rather than the alternative where the realisation of the world exists, but not that the being itself is really one of the "objects" in its environment). For example, my computer has no "awareness" that it exists - it simply carries out the functions given to it (which can be loosely thought of as its environment).
I would consider almost all animals above the level of bugs and small fish to be at least somewhat self-aware, so I do disagree with the general consensus it seems. I also think (along with most of Slashdot it seems) that the mirror test is a truly awful test for testing self-awareness anyway - there are MANY factors it doesn't take in to account.
As usual, Wikipedia may help.
New Zealand fiords of course... they're closer.
(yes, that's the correct spelling in NZ... nowhere else though, we're just crazy)
I wonder what's the ravenese equivalent for "Oh shi--"
Oh, that's easy... "Nevermore".
(actually, that's ravenese for pretty much anything, which makes conversation a little difficult sometimes, and confuses famous poets...)
I now have a disturbing image of my boss (a weird Japanese guy) doing very bad Karaoke of The Cure's greatest hits. I don't think it'd paralyse me, but it'd definitely register on the "WTF" scale, somewhere around "OMGWTFBBQ" or maybe even higher.
Even secular humanists believe that human beings have a certain dignity or quality not found in most or possibly any other Earth species. So unless someone is a true, hard-core atheist -- note that when pressed, most self-described 'atheists' aren't really atheists, they're really anything from agnostics to secular humanists in terms of philosophy -- then generally they will believe that humans are special.
Any chance you could describe the difference between "secular humanist" and "atheist" in your definitions? I am most DEFINITELY an atheist (in fact, I generally consider religion to be a mental disorder - and, like most mental disorders is tolerable in small amounts, but in extreme cases is VERY scary), but also consider myself to loosely follow the guidelines of secular humanism (although, don't really pay that much attention to any particular philosophical guidelines - I just follow "what feels right" for me and it just happens to match secular humanism relatively closely).
Actually, I would have thought that by its very definition, secular humanism is a philosophy that would generally only be followed by atheists.
Atheism is a lack of religion, and says nothing about philosophy. Secular humanism is a philosophy, not a religion (although, as stated, I think by having the world "secular" in it, it implies a lack of religion IN the philosophy).
Definitions:
Secular (adj): Of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations. Source
Atheist (n): a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Source
So, I think a secular humanist would in general be an atheist. It would be possible, but VERY odd for a religious person to be a secular humanist (belief in a higher power, but rejecting the philosophy of it to follow a secular philosophy). It is certainly NOT possible to say what you said with, "...aren't really atheists, they're really anything from agnostics to secular humanists..." as one does not logically preclude the other.
Now, also just to clarify on topic here: No, I don't believe humans are anything "special", I generally prefer humans to other species (roughly the order of priority to me is: "humans I know and like", "other creatures I know and like", "humans I don't know", "other creatures I don't know", "humans I know and don't like", "other creatures I know and don't like" (yes, I would rather save the life of my pet cat than some random stranger (human or otherwise) that I've never met)) however as other posters have pointed out, that's quite natural and requires no "special status" (just as a cat generally prefers other cats to any other species).
The most amazing feats of intelligence I've seen from birds would be from Keas. I've watched three of them tear a car apart, piece by piece - including unscrewing screws, and working together to handle heavier parts. Amazingly intelligent, even if a little destructive (I can forgive them that though, as it appears they only do it out of curiosity, which is something I pretty much never fault)
For those of you unaware of the Kea, it's a rather unique kind of parrot, found in the mountains and other high-altitude areas of Southern New Zealand (where I grew up). More detail, as usual, at Wikipedia
Then there's the opposite. I've looked at a beautiful simple lawn sculpture of a rabbit, thinking I've never seen one that detailed before in my life... then it twitched.
Kookaburras (Australia's most famous member of the Kingfisher family) also do this a lot. I'd never seen one before and then moved to Australia a few years back (I've since left again). When I was looking for a place to rent, I noticed a "stuffed bird" sitting on a fencepost, and thought how odd it was to put it there. As I was staring it at, it turned its head around to face the other way (looking 90 degrees left turning to 90 degrees right) and it nearly gave me a heart attack! It was just so perfectly still before and after the movement, and even during the (very fast) movement, the rest of its body was completely statue-like. Those things really know how to NOT move.
It doesn't work that way. You can get energy out of fusion and fission until you hit iron at the middle, which is at an energy well.
Which, all in all, would be a pretty nice "waste material" to have.
Of course we're nowhere near capable of being able to actually do this reasonably as a power production method, but if we could, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about all of that "iron waste".
Sadly, I believe "Star Trek: Generations" applies to that... Kirk died, twice. And it still sucked.
Payroll tax sure, but income tax? Companies don't pay income tax, individuals do (unless there's something weird in the US system that I don't know about - I am a foreigner after all!). You can't assume the company will lower people's wages to "even out" the money the people are no longer paying in income tax, since they're now paying the same tax on purchases - incomes must remain (comparative to prices) the same as they are, regardless of whether there's a direct tax on them or not. I can see other costs being reduced significantly, which would help somewhat, but I think it's a dubious claim that people visiting the country would be paying the same prices as they were before. The whole point of the tax is shifting it OFF people's incomes and ON to prices. So, if someone's income remains the same (as it was before tax), they're now making more money (in the hand), and the price of an item will also be higher. OR, the income is reduced accordingly and the price of an item remains "the same". If prices rise and gross income remains the same, the value of the currency will change - either way it's the same to someone from another country who is already paying income taxes at home. As I see it, if people are to come off "equal" (more or less) under this system compared to the current system, and the taxes have shifted from income to sales, there's no possible way other than sales tax rebates that foreign visitors won't get shafted by this. The only way for the "dollar value" of the item to remain the same would revalue the currency, so the foreigners would still lose out in the exchange from their home currency.
Example for clarity:
I want to visit the US and stay in a hotel while I'm there. Currently, the hotel will charge me $200 a night.
The new tax system comes in, and the hotel price rises to $260 a night. This makes no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" has increased an equivalent amount.
However, for ME, I'm paying $60 a night more, which is pretty substantial.
The alternative is to keep the cost at $200, and reduce US pay by an equivalent amount (so their new "take home pay" is identical to before - simply the amount that was paid in tax now no longer exists). This is, again, no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" hasn't changed. At first glance, this looks okay for me since it was $200 before, and it's $200 after. However doing this will increase the value of the dollar (by the simple fact that the "same amount of pay" now has more purchasing power), and I'll feel the difference when I change my Euro in to dollars.
Or, am I fatally misunderstanding something here?
My biggest concern about "Fair Tax" would be the impact on tourism. Those of us who live outside of the US still pay our income taxes, and would suddenly find everything in the US being MUCH more expensive than it was previously (I assume we wouldn't get a tax rebate on our purchases when we leave the country?). That'd have fairly negative effects on the amount of international tourism you get (granted, some places would hardly notice, but others might be hurt pretty badly by it).
"Don't need it", I'll agree with. "Couldn't build it", I completely DISagree with - New Zealand is a high-tech first-world country. It certainly has a stereotypical image in the eyes of the rest of the world as being a little "rural", but I assure you that if NZ really wanted a nuclear power plant, it's WELL within their technical and financial capabilities.