Union leaders are elected to office by the union members. They are a layer of management to the business that employs a union organization. So almost every union leader you point at is a winner of an election with exceptions being appointees by elected union leaders. Can you imagine how a union adds more organizational politics to the workplace?
I took that class at UoP. I already knew the subject matter. It was an easy class for me. One other person in that class (could have been you) also knew the subject and he worked in the field (I did not have employment in that field). Him and I were on the same team. The rest of the students in the class struggled with the assignments. The class was 5 weeks long and was just one of many classes as part of a degree program. What did you expect from the other students who did not have any experience (paid or unpaid) with the subject? The class was geared for people who had no experience with the subject. The class wasn't an end-all and be-all to database administration nor was the degree program about computer programming or computer science. UoP doesn't have any CS degree programs or I would have been signed up for it. Did you take the two C++ classes they offered as electives? I did. Again, same thing. I knew the subject already as did several of the other students who elected to take those classes. The students who did not have experience or knowledge in that subject area struggled through it. Same with Java programming. I was in the business degree program. I would have thought that the more business managers know about computer programming, the more respect they would have for and get from people who do computer programming for a living. Computer programmers are not just born with the knowledge. They had to start out somewhere. So why would you diss on a school that offered classes related to computer programming for degree programs that are not Computer Science?
BTW, I finished a masters degree but it isn't in computer science or business. It's in the scientific study of behavior and thought processes and it's from UoP. And I am much better off for it personally and professionally. So you go on with your big bad self, trashing the school where you got your undergrad degree.
While this sounds like posturing that would never actually get passed, I really I hope I am wrong. I went to the University of Phoenix because I was working full time and night program CS degrees at real schools simply did not exist 5 years ago. I knew then that I would only pay for the degree if I was planning on getting a Masters degree at a real school right after. I even called two local schools to ensure they would admit graduate students with UoP undergrad degrees. (BTW, I am in my last semester of my Masters program now)
My UoP degree definitely helped with my career, but only because I was an experienced software developer long before I enrolled. It only helped because of ridiculous HR requirements for applicants with degrees only. The education was atrocious. My second semester database class consisted of just these four assignments: 1) Create a Database, 2) Create a Table, 3) Create Foreign Key Relationships, 4) Load Data into the Tables, 5) Create a Report. They even gave us the commands so all we needed to do was paste them into the console. This may be the most egregious example of the poor curriculum I can think of, but the rest of it was almost as bad.
My fellow students who didn't already know the material were struggling to understand it with no help in sight. I would help them on the forums and over emails, but I knew they would never get the necessary instruction to ever get hired in this field, let alone keep any job they weaseled their way into. It was really sad that they were spending potentially over $50k for a worthless degree. I never said anything to them because I did not want to risk being kicked out after spending so much money.
I hope the government really does start to do something. This problem was primarily caused by real universities that do not offer sufficient night programs for adult students, but it has progressed to the point where government intervention is necessary. These online schools really could provide decent educations if they were forced to. If their programs were decent they would fill a very large void in our country's education system, but in their current form they are nothing more than a parasite.
When speed is measured, it's measured between two objects.But only the speed of one object is explicitly stated and the other object is implied. For example, "a car is going 30 miles per hour." But what is the other object the car is traveling 30 miles an hour in relation to? Is it the speed limit sign? That's implied. A car can be traveling 50 miles an hour in reference to a car traveling the opposite way while simultaneously traveling at 20 miles an hour compared to another car traveling the same direction. Use any reference point as stationary you want. I prefer to use Earth. You can choose Earth's sun or some other point in space. But when you talk about the speed of an object, you are talking about two points that are moving further or closer together. The rate at which those two points move toward or away from the other is the speed of the two objects in relation to one another. The speed limit sign and the car that just passed it have the same speed value, the speed limit sign is going 30 miles per hour slower than the car or the car is going 30 miles per hour faster than the sign. Either way you look at it, the two objects are going 30 miles per hour away from each other. Now you can use some other point in space as one of your points of reference but I think the speed of the observer should be one of those reference points as it has always been. Because when the observer says, 'that far away object that is red shifting seems to be increasing speed away from me" we know that the observer is using his or her self as one of the reference points.
Not trying to convince anyone. Just pointing out what I thought should have been obvious - the speed of one object requires a reference point. That doesn't mean that the reference point is the center of the universe. Sure would be nice to find the center of the universe including the point where speed is zero.
The matter's gravitational influence is the only thing being detected because the object is going faster than light away from earth. Light and gravity do not travel at the same speed. I think this bothered Einstein and (I heard) he tried to solve that problem all the way to his final days.. Anything traveling faster than light away from earth is not going to be "seen" because any light from that (gravitational) mass is not reaching us; but, the gravity is. Trying to figure out exactly how much faster gravity is compared to light is the hard part. We know gravity as at least as fast as light but it may not be equally as fast. According to big bang theory, the mass of the viewable universe (read: that part of the matter ratio traveling within one light speed of one another) can be traced back to within a small percentage of it's age. Mass ejected from the point of origin had to compel mass faster than the speed of light (in relation to earth) away from point of origin. And there is a possibility that mass is traveling slower than the speed of light in relation to earth. A wide range of speeds the universe is traveling but for some reason, people confine themselves to the idea that only things that can be "seen visually" are detectable. Gravity can be detected when matter can not be visually detected if it's understood that a significant amount of matter is traveling outside the speed of light in relation to earth's speed.
I have a bachelors of science in business but I have no management responsibilities where I work. I am currently pursuing a masters in psychology so the menial labor I get paid to do allows me to stay focused on school. The way I see uneducated managers is like how you might imagine the experience of riding on a bus driven by an unlicensed spoiled brat. That's the way organizations are managed where decision-makers do everything they can to appear superior by comparison. Do they care about the performance of the organization? Why should they when demand is legally protected or when any failure can be pinned on something or someone else? Anyway, thank you for pointing out that organizations have the human capital necessary but decision makers refuse, for one reason or another, to recognize it as an opportunity to improve the organization.
You've heard of SWOTT analysis? Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, Trends and Threats from inside the organization and outside the organization are analyzed. Turns out the decision-makers (the few of them who actually do a SWOTT analysis for their organization) parse the off-spec of the organization's human capital as a threat instead of opportunity.
There are some cases also where this misalignment of skills and management expectations is more of a management deficiency. Many organizations have technical people who are quite willing and capable, but they have been pigeon-holed and beaten down by policies which incentivize apathy. I have worked with long-time developers in quasi-government jobs who have skills only on legacy systems, and I have had the pleasure of helping them participate in the development of modern SOA interfaces. Most of these people just need an opportunity to learn, grow, and feel like their contributions will be meaningful. And it is not expensive, in fact if it looks expensive you are doing it wrong! You don't need or want conventional "training" for them, and if it is done right, it can cost little or nothing in extra time. These people have a goldmine of lost productivity to tap into -- productivity that poor management has beaten out of them and that good management can cash in on.
Oh, you mean there are real people who are not members of the human race living among us on Earth? Really? The only race of people that live in the real world of Earth are humans. The Orcs, Nightelves, Globlins, and Trolls only exist in Wow and slashdot. Did you ever wonder how the word race ever became the root word of racism?
Thank you sir! I attended both coed and all boys schools (back in the late 70s early 80s) as well and can vouch for everything you said. I even boarded at three different all boy schools - one from 5th to 8th grade, another during freshman year, and another during sophomore year. I am guessing that you did not attend school in the U.S. - and if so I wanted you to know the experience you described is the same in the U.S. in both coed and all boys schools. That is to say that the coed schools are dominated by the feminist culture. It's still like that at the University level. I'm currently attending master level classes (break ends on Monday). Almost every class I have been in during my journey through bachelor degree and now master degree have been instructed by females. The few classes where the instructor was male seemed to try hard at being a feminist. The only exception were the instructors of programming C++ and java. In those classes, the number of male students either equaled or exceeded the number of female students. I am now about half way through a masters in psychology degree and so far every class except one has had a female instructor and I have either been the only male or the only one of two male students in the class. The female students get away with far more mistakes than I. I see what the article talks about first hand and I also see how this has affected organizations. After a generation or two of raising females to believe they can do no wrong and that they are intellectually superior to males, you get employer based cultures that put those beliefs into practice. Maybe that could explain how the U.S. economy is in the shitter and the standard of living has been on the decline for the last several decades.
Robbins and Judge (2009), "...define political behavior in organizations as activities that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organization but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization" (p. 461). I thought I would throw this APA formatted blob out there for you. Its significance to the context of this discussion is positively correlated to your understanding of the cultural influences within a society.
Increased spending does not necessarily translate into better medical treatment. It is entirely possible to decrease spending while increasing medical care through efficiency gains. Same deal with civilian healthcare and even educational systems.
How much more simple can it be explained? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Even a not so good at math type of person knows if you leave out the greenhouse gas that causes 95% of the greenhouse effect, the numbers will be all wrong.
Common sense might tell you that seafloor spreading and the geothermal activity account for more of an increase in ocean and ground temperatures than air temperature can possible account for. Can't link you to any common sense so you'll have to discover that on your own.
Riddle: Why did the U.S. Department of energy leave off water vapor as a significant greenhouse gas in its 2000 report on significant greenhouse gases?
Answer: To make human emission of carbon dioxide seem more significant than it really is.
However, scientists are not stupid and know there is money to be made solving for fictitious problems created from politics.
If the law passes and science books explaining evolution must be changed to accommodate the religious point of view then just start the book chapter off with the religious point of view and then the rest of the chapter can explain how that point of view stacks up against evolution. Start off with how the great library in Alexandria and most of the science books were destroyed at the orders of the Christian Emperor Theodosius I in 391 and then whatever science books survived were destroyed by the Arab army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas in 642. Then move the subject to how religious leaders proved that Galileo Galilei was wrong by persecuting him and continue on from there to Charles Robert Darwin's evolution and beyond. That way, the youngsters can get a good whiff of how religious dogma affects the study of biology while at the same time making the "strengths and weaknesses" of creationism easier for biology teachers to teach about.
I am not sure if you were describing Li formula or not but money and debt are the same thing. Banks can create money they don't even have simply by conjuring money as credit to a borrower into existence out of nothing. I know how absurd that comes across and you might have already known. Here is a 47 minute video that explains exactly what I am talking about. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 (starts off kind of slow but the first 10 minutes should give you a clear idea)
"But if it had an 8mp camera, a TV tuner, a cheaper rate plan, a higher-res screen, a clamshell design and proper buttons? It wouldn't matter who made it, people there would buy it." (badasscat, Feb. 27)
People would buy it over here too but here suppliers rule demand so we end up with whatever suppliers want demand to have. That's not the only reason but it's the biggest reason.
What? You thought over here was a free market? Don't be silly. That's only a myth.
And what about the man made contribution of CO2 compared to natural contributions of CO2 in the atmosphere? When water reaches saturation in the atmosphere, does the ensuing rain not scrub some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere? If not, then can the remaining CO2 actually continue to increase the effect by a few more degrees without the presence of the water vapor?
In all of the "discussions" about the greenhouse gasses, why is not water vapor mentioned? Sure, you say water vapor is incorporated into all climate models but why is it not incorporated in the discussions or even the official reports concerning the greenhouse effect? The core of the Earth is hot. There is sea floor spreading. Heat escapes through the crust into the land and oceans and the land and oceans warm up. But for some reason, it is man made CO2 in the atmosphere that gets all the blame for heating the oceans and the permafrost lands which is causing ice to melt. The ice melting is cited as "evidence" that man made CO2 in the atmosphere is causing unnaturally fast global warming. Yea, something stinks and it's not methane laced water vapor.
True, the information is a weak or invalid argument to the original claim but I did find a good hiding place for information that is very inconvenient to those who believe CO2 levels are so important to the greenhouse effect while at the same time giving the information to the few of you who may understand it. Does water vapor have a saturation level? YES, it does. Is Methane gas a greenhouse gas? YES, it is. Do humans believe they have more control of Earth's climate with their CO2 footprint than nature has with all of those natural greenhouse gas emissions everywhere (such as the STRONG methane emissions on the Siberian shelf)? Yes, they do. Is this information you're now reading buried in the middle of a/. discussion concerning the greenhouse effect and saturation levels of a (rather small element of) greenhouse gas? YES, it is. Are we having fun yet?
You're not sure what to do about it? But, you gave the answer already. You don't break the ethics guidelines because you get paid well at your job. This implies that you could lose your job if you were to deviate from ethic guidelines. Now, about how you took the high road to discredit your team mates on slashdot...grow up.
If the RIAA takes the money and runs it's because RIAA lawyers don't want the case to go to trial (where the facts are examined). After all, it was a summary judgment. I hope it goes to trial but I doubt it will.
It cost me $6,000USD to find out that lawyers do not necessarily follow the rules. What? You think just because it's a "rule" means that it always happens? Maybe with laws of nature (two solids can not exist in same place at same time) it's true; but believe me, human made rules are specifically designed to be broken - they get broken by accident and on purpose regularly.
Surely keeping the judge in ignorance of the facts on a procedural technicality is not valid in any court of law, even in the US?
The US has two types of courts: civil courts and criminal courts. Although keeping the criminal court judge ignorant of any facts is not encouraged (but happens), keeping a civil court judge ignorant of the facts is greatly encouraged. Why? The answer has to do with how criminal court deals with freedom and money while civil court deals only with money.
If you read the editorial as if someone is pointing out what's wrong then you might better appreciate your experience here.
Re:Good riddance! (have-some-bad-news-though)
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Converting SUV engines to use water as fuel (the modern steam engine) is a threat to your bias against SUVs and when multiplied by the rest of the SUV haters would explain why this technology (www.drivewithwaterfuel.com) is not being implemented on a wide scale. Did you all tell the OIL barons to lower supply?
BTW, water vapor makes up 95% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When the (local) atmosphere reaches saturation, it rains (read: adds fresh water to environment).
I can see the points you made all around me. Many people have argued that supply and demand in the market place creates balance and this is true in every kind of market except one - the labor market. The labor market is composed of real people who together actually create (or as the younger gen is says: actually OWN) the market place. Real people make demands and work to supply the market place. The fallacy (and it is shared by millions of real people) is that labor is nothing more than a commodity in the marketplace.
So the fallacy leads to the notion that companies (the groups which supply the market place) will either screw themselves or they will respect their labor as real people instead of as a commodity who's marketplace value can be manipulated. I personally don't see most American managed companies doing the respect thing and that leaves companies screwing themselves. But wait, if companies screw themselves then it will create supply problems which creates problems for everyone in the market place (except the rich who ran the companies into the ground in the first place).
As a forty year old who has worked at the same place for 22 years and will have that pension coming when I am 48, All I see is the pendulum swinging the other way. I'll be leaving this labor market and going into another... and I am not going to whine one single bit. Instead, I'll be making jokes about Americans while I am half a world away. ahahah
Makes sense that the national guard would let that sort of equipment through especially considering the purpose that it serves. Checking to see if the driver is legit is one thing but the equipment itself would have to be about all the credentials needed. I bet some of that impassable debris were abandoned vehicles.
while I am on this subject I have to ask: Who exactly owns the equipment on the tower? Is the equipment leased by the providers from a cell tower owner or is space for the carriers equipment rented by the cell tower owner? Or who even owns those towers? I ask because I am kinda heavily reliant on EVDO and I just have to know these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Union leaders are elected to office by the union members. They are a layer of management to the business that employs a union organization. So almost every union leader you point at is a winner of an election with exceptions being appointees by elected union leaders. Can you imagine how a union adds more organizational politics to the workplace?
I took that class at UoP. I already knew the subject matter. It was an easy class for me. One other person in that class (could have been you) also knew the subject and he worked in the field (I did not have employment in that field). Him and I were on the same team. The rest of the students in the class struggled with the assignments. The class was 5 weeks long and was just one of many classes as part of a degree program. What did you expect from the other students who did not have any experience (paid or unpaid) with the subject? The class was geared for people who had no experience with the subject. The class wasn't an end-all and be-all to database administration nor was the degree program about computer programming or computer science. UoP doesn't have any CS degree programs or I would have been signed up for it. Did you take the two C++ classes they offered as electives? I did. Again, same thing. I knew the subject already as did several of the other students who elected to take those classes. The students who did not have experience or knowledge in that subject area struggled through it. Same with Java programming. I was in the business degree program. I would have thought that the more business managers know about computer programming, the more respect they would have for and get from people who do computer programming for a living. Computer programmers are not just born with the knowledge. They had to start out somewhere. So why would you diss on a school that offered classes related to computer programming for degree programs that are not Computer Science?
BTW, I finished a masters degree but it isn't in computer science or business. It's in the scientific study of behavior and thought processes and it's from UoP. And I am much better off for it personally and professionally. So you go on with your big bad self, trashing the school where you got your undergrad degree.
While this sounds like posturing that would never actually get passed, I really I hope I am wrong. I went to the University of Phoenix because I was working full time and night program CS degrees at real schools simply did not exist 5 years ago. I knew then that I would only pay for the degree if I was planning on getting a Masters degree at a real school right after. I even called two local schools to ensure they would admit graduate students with UoP undergrad degrees. (BTW, I am in my last semester of my Masters program now)
My UoP degree definitely helped with my career, but only because I was an experienced software developer long before I enrolled. It only helped because of ridiculous HR requirements for applicants with degrees only. The education was atrocious. My second semester database class consisted of just these four assignments: 1) Create a Database, 2) Create a Table, 3) Create Foreign Key Relationships, 4) Load Data into the Tables, 5) Create a Report. They even gave us the commands so all we needed to do was paste them into the console. This may be the most egregious example of the poor curriculum I can think of, but the rest of it was almost as bad.
My fellow students who didn't already know the material were struggling to understand it with no help in sight. I would help them on the forums and over emails, but I knew they would never get the necessary instruction to ever get hired in this field, let alone keep any job they weaseled their way into. It was really sad that they were spending potentially over $50k for a worthless degree. I never said anything to them because I did not want to risk being kicked out after spending so much money.
I hope the government really does start to do something. This problem was primarily caused by real universities that do not offer sufficient night programs for adult students, but it has progressed to the point where government intervention is necessary. These online schools really could provide decent educations if they were forced to. If their programs were decent they would fill a very large void in our country's education system, but in their current form they are nothing more than a parasite.
Hello,
When speed is measured, it's measured between two objects.But only the speed of one object is explicitly stated and the other object is implied. For example, "a car is going 30 miles per hour." But what is the other object the car is traveling 30 miles an hour in relation to? Is it the speed limit sign? That's implied. A car can be traveling 50 miles an hour in reference to a car traveling the opposite way while simultaneously traveling at 20 miles an hour compared to another car traveling the same direction. Use any reference point as stationary you want. I prefer to use Earth. You can choose Earth's sun or some other point in space. But when you talk about the speed of an object, you are talking about two points that are moving further or closer together. The rate at which those two points move toward or away from the other is the speed of the two objects in relation to one another. The speed limit sign and the car that just passed it have the same speed value, the speed limit sign is going 30 miles per hour slower than the car or the car is going 30 miles per hour faster than the sign. Either way you look at it, the two objects are going 30 miles per hour away from each other. Now you can use some other point in space as one of your points of reference but I think the speed of the observer should be one of those reference points as it has always been. Because when the observer says, 'that far away object that is red shifting seems to be increasing speed away from me" we know that the observer is using his or her self as one of the reference points.
Not trying to convince anyone. Just pointing out what I thought should have been obvious - the speed of one object requires a reference point. That doesn't mean that the reference point is the center of the universe. Sure would be nice to find the center of the universe including the point where speed is zero.
The matter's gravitational influence is the only thing being detected because the object is going faster than light away from earth. Light and gravity do not travel at the same speed. I think this bothered Einstein and (I heard) he tried to solve that problem all the way to his final days.. Anything traveling faster than light away from earth is not going to be "seen" because any light from that (gravitational) mass is not reaching us; but, the gravity is. Trying to figure out exactly how much faster gravity is compared to light is the hard part. We know gravity as at least as fast as light but it may not be equally as fast. According to big bang theory, the mass of the viewable universe (read: that part of the matter ratio traveling within one light speed of one another) can be traced back to within a small percentage of it's age. Mass ejected from the point of origin had to compel mass faster than the speed of light (in relation to earth) away from point of origin. And there is a possibility that mass is traveling slower than the speed of light in relation to earth. A wide range of speeds the universe is traveling but for some reason, people confine themselves to the idea that only things that can be "seen visually" are detectable. Gravity can be detected when matter can not be visually detected if it's understood that a significant amount of matter is traveling outside the speed of light in relation to earth's speed.
I have a bachelors of science in business but I have no management responsibilities where I work. I am currently pursuing a masters in psychology so the menial labor I get paid to do allows me to stay focused on school. The way I see uneducated managers is like how you might imagine the experience of riding on a bus driven by an unlicensed spoiled brat. That's the way organizations are managed where decision-makers do everything they can to appear superior by comparison. Do they care about the performance of the organization? Why should they when demand is legally protected or when any failure can be pinned on something or someone else? Anyway, thank you for pointing out that organizations have the human capital necessary but decision makers refuse, for one reason or another, to recognize it as an opportunity to improve the organization.
You've heard of SWOTT analysis? Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, Trends and Threats from inside the organization and outside the organization are analyzed. Turns out the decision-makers (the few of them who actually do a SWOTT analysis for their organization) parse the off-spec of the organization's human capital as a threat instead of opportunity.
There are some cases also where this misalignment of skills and management expectations is more of a management deficiency. Many organizations have technical people who are quite willing and capable, but they have been pigeon-holed and beaten down by policies which incentivize apathy. I have worked with long-time developers in quasi-government jobs who have skills only on legacy systems, and I have had the pleasure of helping them participate in the development of modern SOA interfaces. Most of these people just need an opportunity to learn, grow, and feel like their contributions will be meaningful. And it is not expensive, in fact if it looks expensive you are doing it wrong! You don't need or want conventional "training" for them, and if it is done right, it can cost little or nothing in extra time. These people have a goldmine of lost productivity to tap into -- productivity that poor management has beaten out of them and that good management can cash in on.
Oh, you mean there are real people who are not members of the human race living among us on Earth? Really? The only race of people that live in the real world of Earth are humans. The Orcs, Nightelves, Globlins, and Trolls only exist in Wow and slashdot. Did you ever wonder how the word race ever became the root word of racism?
Thank you sir! I attended both coed and all boys schools (back in the late 70s early 80s) as well and can vouch for everything you said. I even boarded at three different all boy schools - one from 5th to 8th grade, another during freshman year, and another during sophomore year. I am guessing that you did not attend school in the U.S. - and if so I wanted you to know the experience you described is the same in the U.S. in both coed and all boys schools. That is to say that the coed schools are dominated by the feminist culture. It's still like that at the University level. I'm currently attending master level classes (break ends on Monday). Almost every class I have been in during my journey through bachelor degree and now master degree have been instructed by females. The few classes where the instructor was male seemed to try hard at being a feminist. The only exception were the instructors of programming C++ and java. In those classes, the number of male students either equaled or exceeded the number of female students. I am now about half way through a masters in psychology degree and so far every class except one has had a female instructor and I have either been the only male or the only one of two male students in the class. The female students get away with far more mistakes than I. I see what the article talks about first hand and I also see how this has affected organizations. After a generation or two of raising females to believe they can do no wrong and that they are intellectually superior to males, you get employer based cultures that put those beliefs into practice. Maybe that could explain how the U.S. economy is in the shitter and the standard of living has been on the decline for the last several decades.
Robbins and Judge (2009), "...define political behavior in organizations as activities that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organization but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization" (p. 461). I thought I would throw this APA formatted blob out there for you. Its significance to the context of this discussion is positively correlated to your understanding of the cultural influences within a society.
Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Increased spending does not necessarily translate into better medical treatment. It is entirely possible to decrease spending while increasing medical care through efficiency gains. Same deal with civilian healthcare and even educational systems.
How much more simple can it be explained? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Even a not so good at math type of person knows if you leave out the greenhouse gas that causes 95% of the greenhouse effect, the numbers will be all wrong.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ...shows how U.S. department of energy misleads the cause.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101102724 ...shows how the null hypothesis (read: human-made CO2 concentration is significant enough to change global climite) was protected via sabotage.
Common sense might tell you that seafloor spreading and the geothermal activity account for more of an increase in ocean and ground temperatures than air temperature can possible account for. Can't link you to any common sense so you'll have to discover that on your own.
"Instead of blaming them for leaving, why don't we stop chasing them away?" (XanC, 8.22.09)
What makes you think "we" are responsible for their decision on whether to leave or stay?
I don't blame them for leaving. The U.S. marketplace is going to hell and IBM knows it. The solution is exactly what IBM is doing.
bush bashing - bash bash bash.
Riddle: Why did the U.S. Department of energy leave off water vapor as a significant greenhouse gas in its 2000 report on significant greenhouse gases?
Answer: To make human emission of carbon dioxide seem more significant than it really is.
However, scientists are not stupid and know there is money to be made solving for fictitious problems created from politics.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Back to your bush bashing republican hate speech.
If the law passes and science books explaining evolution must be changed to accommodate the religious point of view then just start the book chapter off with the religious point of view and then the rest of the chapter can explain how that point of view stacks up against evolution. Start off with how the great library in Alexandria and most of the science books were destroyed at the orders of the Christian Emperor Theodosius I in 391 and then whatever science books survived were destroyed by the Arab army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas in 642. Then move the subject to how religious leaders proved that Galileo Galilei was wrong by persecuting him and continue on from there to Charles Robert Darwin's evolution and beyond. That way, the youngsters can get a good whiff of how religious dogma affects the study of biology while at the same time making the "strengths and weaknesses" of creationism easier for biology teachers to teach about.
I am not sure if you were describing Li formula or not but money and debt are the same thing. Banks can create money they don't even have simply by conjuring money as credit to a borrower into existence out of nothing. I know how absurd that comes across and you might have already known. Here is a 47 minute video that explains exactly what I am talking about. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 (starts off kind of slow but the first 10 minutes should give you a clear idea)
"But if it had an 8mp camera, a TV tuner, a cheaper rate plan, a higher-res screen, a clamshell design and proper buttons? It wouldn't matter who made it, people there would buy it." (badasscat, Feb. 27)
People would buy it over here too but here suppliers rule demand so we end up with whatever suppliers want demand to have. That's not the only reason but it's the biggest reason.
What? You thought over here was a free market? Don't be silly. That's only a myth.
And what about the man made contribution of CO2 compared to natural contributions of CO2 in the atmosphere? When water reaches saturation in the atmosphere, does the ensuing rain not scrub some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere? If not, then can the remaining CO2 actually continue to increase the effect by a few more degrees without the presence of the water vapor?
In all of the "discussions" about the greenhouse gasses, why is not water vapor mentioned? Sure, you say water vapor is incorporated into all climate models but why is it not incorporated in the discussions or even the official reports concerning the greenhouse effect? The core of the Earth is hot. There is sea floor spreading. Heat escapes through the crust into the land and oceans and the land and oceans warm up. But for some reason, it is man made CO2 in the atmosphere that gets all the blame for heating the oceans and the permafrost lands which is causing ice to melt. The ice melting is cited as "evidence" that man made CO2 in the atmosphere is causing unnaturally fast global warming. Yea, something stinks and it's not methane laced water vapor.
True, the information is a weak or invalid argument to the original claim but I did find a good hiding place for information that is very inconvenient to those who believe CO2 levels are so important to the greenhouse effect while at the same time giving the information to the few of you who may understand it. Does water vapor have a saturation level? YES, it does. Is Methane gas a greenhouse gas? YES, it is. Do humans believe they have more control of Earth's climate with their CO2 footprint than nature has with all of those natural greenhouse gas emissions everywhere (such as the STRONG methane emissions on the Siberian shelf)? Yes, they do. Is this information you're now reading buried in the middle of a /. discussion concerning the greenhouse effect and saturation levels of a (rather small element of) greenhouse gas? YES, it is. Are we having fun yet?
Here is your link: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
You're not sure what to do about it? But, you gave the answer already. You don't break the ethics guidelines because you get paid well at your job. This implies that you could lose your job if you were to deviate from ethic guidelines. Now, about how you took the high road to discredit your team mates on slashdot...grow up.
If the RIAA takes the money and runs it's because RIAA lawyers don't want the case to go to trial (where the facts are examined). After all, it was a summary judgment. I hope it goes to trial but I doubt it will.
It cost me $6,000USD to find out that lawyers do not necessarily follow the rules. What? You think just because it's a "rule" means that it always happens? Maybe with laws of nature (two solids can not exist in same place at same time) it's true; but believe me, human made rules are specifically designed to be broken - they get broken by accident and on purpose regularly.
Surely keeping the judge in ignorance of the facts on a procedural technicality is not valid in any court of law, even in the US?
The US has two types of courts: civil courts and criminal courts. Although keeping the criminal court judge ignorant of any facts is not encouraged (but happens), keeping a civil court judge ignorant of the facts is greatly encouraged. Why? The answer has to do with how criminal court deals with freedom and money while civil court deals only with money.
If you read the editorial as if someone is pointing out what's wrong then you might better appreciate your experience here.
BTW, water vapor makes up 95% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When the (local) atmosphere reaches saturation, it rains (read: adds fresh water to environment).
So the fallacy leads to the notion that companies (the groups which supply the market place) will either screw themselves or they will respect their labor as real people instead of as a commodity who's marketplace value can be manipulated. I personally don't see most American managed companies doing the respect thing and that leaves companies screwing themselves. But wait, if companies screw themselves then it will create supply problems which creates problems for everyone in the market place (except the rich who ran the companies into the ground in the first place).
As a forty year old who has worked at the same place for 22 years and will have that pension coming when I am 48, All I see is the pendulum swinging the other way. I'll be leaving this labor market and going into another... and I am not going to whine one single bit. Instead, I'll be making jokes about Americans while I am half a world away. ahahah
Makes sense that the national guard would let that sort of equipment through especially considering the purpose that it serves. Checking to see if the driver is legit is one thing but the equipment itself would have to be about all the credentials needed. I bet some of that impassable debris were abandoned vehicles.
while I am on this subject I have to ask: Who exactly owns the equipment on the tower? Is the equipment leased by the providers from a cell tower owner or is space for the carriers equipment rented by the cell tower owner? Or who even owns those towers? I ask because I am kinda heavily reliant on EVDO and I just have to know these things.