Do they refuse to accept tax payments from any residents who are employed by any company with ties to the nuclear industry? Because that would be blood money, yanno?
Now let's not get crazy here (even though there used to be a funny farm in Takoma). Politicians not taking money? HA! The cost to show if money is clean or not is clearly way to high with all the other worrying they have to do with the silly outdated nuclear bit. They should update themselves as even some of the founders of Green Peace have admitted the nuclear scare was and is a load of crap. Even after the Japanese reactors, some of that old tired scare stuff came up again. They can be operated safely and we can recycle the waste like every other country. Get rid of Jimmy Carter's stupid decision to not recycle nuclear waste. Gojira lives, eh?
For a Microsoft Pad to succeed it would have to not just be better than what else is out there, it has to be a lot better. A no brainer. Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company and they COULD do that I suppose. However their track record sucks. I know I wouldn't even look at one because I would consider it a total waste of my time and I don't even own a pad from any of them. I just don't think they have the tallent. They also would need to ditch the current windows OS and get a real OS to power it. Something not in mode 0. Something like Unix underneath. Could happen. Stranger things have happened like {Obama was elected}|{Bush was elected, twice!}.
However, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee a right to use those weapons. Obviously, in fact, using them against the government would be an act of treason, just as the Revolution itself was treason, and thus barred by the Constitution.
No, as your cited article correctly notes, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep arms as a deterrent to a tyrannical government. It says nothing about using them, or using them against criminals. The latter right is more properly found in the 5th Amendment.
Why would you think that? Having a gun and not being able to use it is idiotic, those guys weren't idiots. Every amendment was carefully thought out and considered essential. Why go through the trouble of adding it as an individual right - which the first 10 amendments are? You do have the right to bear arms - and use them! You have the right to a well regulated malitia too. You are not allowed to set up a "malitia" (aka outlaw gang) and go around shooting up people, of course. You do have a duty and right to put down the Government if they become tyranical. That of course goes along with the Armed services that have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Not treason. If I could go back and talk to those guys, I'd add that we have a right to be able to participate in duels. We got rid of more fools that way than you could shake a stick at. Unfortunately we got rid of some very good Americans that way too. Andrew Jackson could probably be considered a serial killer for that reason. He whacked a lot of people that way.
my guess is that this site has just pushed some readers/commenters away. Maybe it's the content or a change of readership...
Well it's pushing me away, I can tell you that! I think it's both. Content and what's left of the readership isn't what it used to be. Maybe we were reading more from Cmdrtaco (Rob) than we realized.
I was about his age when I got my first microscope and a few years later a chem set. Made out of bakelite from the 1940s or 1950s the light source was from a mirror below. Don't go and by the best. You won't get so mad if something happens to it. Get one with a light. Mine was missing slides and had none of the tools with it. I got very resourceful. A local hobby shop had stuff. Expensive though. No internet back then.
Being the scientist that I am today I can fast forward you a bit. You can put two standard slides together and look at stuff and it's totally reusable. Sometimes tough to separate though and easy to break. Be patient, they will separate. When he gets a bit older you can get the slides that are disposeable. That's for the top wet-mount slide. Just run under the faucet and it's down the drain. The glass breaks up and goes away. Very fine glass. I didn't get to those until I was in college.
Try taking it to different places. Local water runoff. Try a stream, pond. Then go to the sea or one of the great lakes. You never know what you'll find.
I have a usb microscope. I'm tempted to put it on ebay. I haven't used it in years.
WTF? That's why they call it work. Want to be a Security guard who watches the monitor for 8 hours a day? How about a guy making sand castings for an engine block (that's really tough by the way)? How about writting code all day long.
There is one downside for them. It's called 3-oh UH UH! Once they turn 30, they are mostly done. Few women look that nice after 30. Tossed aside for a 20 some year old.
Trend is towards more skin?!?!?! Great! I can look but still can't touch. Haven't been able to touch for over 30 years.
Looking at the replies it's clear that so many/. people have no clue just how pervasive Linux is out there. Storing your stuff in the cloud - that would be Linux with like one exception. Storing your stuff in a San, NAS, that would also be Linux. Your Android, Set top box, F5, firewall, almost anything - that would be Linux. There are exceptions, however not many. Microsoft is in the clear minority. According to Netcraft their web server is at it's lowest share since about 1997. IE Browsers are at a low point too as so many phones run Linux or anything other than Windows.
The world is changing away from Microsoft. Most people don't know it yet.
Before you BSD people get upset, I know about BSD and the others. They have strong points and perhaps do some things better than Linux. I used to use BSD before there was such a thing as Linux. For better or worse it was passed by. I'd love it if the unices would unite and become one instead of being so fragmented.
Clearly the folks scoffing not... because when you add that meter to the substantial increase of serious storm surge from more frequent category 4 and 5 hurricanes (another gift from climate change),...
Would you please be so kind as to prove it? In fact, we have had weaker and fewer. Just imagine if this happened today - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hog_Island_(New_York) . A mile island off NYC washed completely away! This would somehow be "proof" had it happened today. Hogwash. We've had terrible hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamies and snake oil/manure salesmen for thousands of years.
Cloud computing - psft! That's so 2011. We're onto Tsunami computing. That's where you can access terrabytes of data with just two lines of code! Here's an example (Presented by a hot chick with short skirt): #include "stuff" run stuff;
See, how simple is that. Stuff has everything you need!
I understand "Cloud computing" is wearing out just like "utility computing" - what cloud was called before.
Not sure about you, I have a paid for cable that's just for Internet access. I paid to have the bandwidth increased, though lately it can be really suck city! Sunday I had upload speeds around 10K. That's pathetic. 1990 called and said "Ha ha." I should get 2M, that's what I'm paying for. Regardless, it isn't free.
Now spammers as they are being busted don't have to try to destroy the drive anymore or swallow it. Just push a button. They get off scot free. Law enforcement may decide to taze the 'bro first.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Having expertise in any one area does not mean one has good judgement, which is ideally what lawmakers should have. Look at nobel prize winner Kary Mullis' statements on how HIV doesn't cause AIDS..
Very good point. However understand that a lot of our Congressmen are dumber than a box of rocks. Recently it came to light that even Osama Bin Laden mentioned that Biden is a complete idiot. Such as it is when the only ones willing to be our leaders are fools because only a fool is willing to take the job. Sort of like agreeing to be kicked in the crotch every day. Hey, if you like that, we have a job for you!
Dubunked? Talking points - as if that somehow means something? Do tell. What thouroughly debunked "talking points"? The scientific method? The fact that the UN is on their 5th model? The fact that CO2 is clearly behind the heat curve? Ok, Scientific method - Go ahead and try to debunk that one.
Lastly, I have yet to read or hear anyone that was able to explain how from 1992 to 1993 Global warming went from something that is happening to Man is doing it? No scientific note, not even a foot note. It was just inserted in by Mr. Strong. If you want to even pretend that you have a point, explain how we get a conclusion like that without any scientific fact? Try as you might, you won't find why in that report.
Clearly not what I expected as a response from you. As I said and still say - if I'm wrong explain why. You don't have to do it directly. Just show me where they show that CO2 actually "traps" as they call it - Heat. Keep in mind "It's obvious" isn't scientific. Neither is anecdotal evidence. Science demands reproduceable, definitive results from an experiment. All doubt would go away at that point. Good luck with that, you'll need it.
You are constantly spewing new lies in your continued...And again you keep bashing actual scientists... You are basically admitting that this is all about politics to you, and that you are denying simple scientific facts because you are worried what someone might do about them.
Looks like you'll never get it. I am an actual scientist. I have no problem supporting science that's science. It's great. They are facts. You can rely on them. You can reproduce results. You can plan the future around them. Something I make a great deal of money doing.
Back in the early 1980s I did the many years of study to understand this stuff. I managed to pull up his paper in an effort to support him in the Goddard library (now online as I sent to you). I couldn't support his science with a good conscience for the reasons I outlined before. I.e. "sun heats us up, we get warm, later we get CO2" to "more CO2 means we get more heat". That could be, however he hasn't proved it. He also won't consider anything else. I honestly think he's wrong. What I told you were not lies. They are fact, some by very respected news and science outlets. You have chosen to ignore them too. I thought for sure if you bothered to look up mars and the disappearing CO2 that you would capitulate. Hard to deny what you can see with your own eyes. I bet you chose to not even look. As for politics, I addressed it simply because the left has chosen to combine science with politics (which is predictable - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228752/comrade-lysenko-copenhagen/alex-alexiev#). You get bad science when that happens. That with scientists that produce papers with results that cannot be duplicated.... because it's crap in an effort to get yet another grant, it's bad. Seems like the NY Times picks up these crap studies all the time and publishes them. Sometimes I can't believe we made it to the moon. Yet I saw it them do it. BTW, I really don't care if you think we never made it there. Seems like I'm hearing that crap from young people more and more.
So I'm giving up on you. One day I sincerely hope you understand the truth. If you don't, that's ok too. Just don't pretend that you know what you are talking about, because you don't.
The problem with your talking points is that they are blatant lies.
No, stuborn fact. You just don't realize it yet.
Then what is the relevance? Do you really not understand the difference between local (2% of the planet or so) and global? But you didn't specify the US did you? You wrote: "The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s" - nothing about this only being the US. You have been caught red-handed again.
What do you mean again? You haven't caught me the first time. Perhaps it was my fault. I presumed that if you had anywhere near knowledge in this area that you pretend you do, you would know precisely what I was talking about. Mr. Hansen is after all, an 800 Lbs gorilla in the room. Hard to know about this subject and not know about him and what happened. More to my point that you don't know what you are talking about.
Actually, the sun has had a cooling trend for nearly 40 years. And how did you miss the part of that page which says "bout 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase"? Face it, you were just spewing another denialist talking point because you are clueless, and now you are trying to pretend that the article supports your nonsense.
Ok, now is where I can really hit you with a clue-by-four. OTHER planets have been warming and you can see it (stuborn facts again), the sun isn't cooler. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlhttp://reinep.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/sun-is-getting-hotter-burning-the-planet-according-to-swiss-and-german-scientists/ Many, Many other articles on this as well. Even Pluto has been warming though to be fair, that's not scientific since it's beyond the capability of our instruments to conclusively say that. Clearly there is reason to believe that, however. Some denier sites or I suppose "green sites" to you try to explain the damning evidence away. No man on Mars to get rid of that CO2 ice. So they try to baffle you with bullshit, something they do really well. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Speaking of Mr. Hansen (above), he had an article in the NY Times today. "Sky is falling" sums it up. Apparently he can't read his own predictions. He says he was right. Even your skeptical site says he was wrong. Not surprising I found some sites that say he was right. Not that I expect you'll have any sort of clue how to read and understand it (you need to be a scientist who works with this stuff or a very bright guy, otherwise you'll probably misunderstand it), it's here - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf . Yes, that really is the famous report. Not to say he's all wrong, there is some very good information in that report. If you're really bright you'll see why I disagree with him and you'll likely agree with me from now on. I guess I'll see how bright you are. Not if you agree with me or not of course. Being bright doesn't mean you agree with me. Maybe you'll understand what I was saying about the Gaia scientists in the beginning. You probably need a lot more context for that though.
Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. I realize that you hate science and can't be bothered to refer to actual scientists, though.
Al is irrelevent? Thanks for the laugh! Of course you're right about Al and science. At best he was just a washed up newspaper reporter who wanted to be super man and save the world. Remember Al as you pay more for electric, gas and just about everything else coming up. See how irrelevent you think it is as you pay Al a bunch of money. By then I'm hopeful that you'll realize it's a bunch of money for nothing. Income ensured by laws.
In the old days I protected it via 12 volt battery. Charger charged the 12v battery, on the other side I made a power supply that had to provide 12, +5 leads. Worked very well. I think that computer consumed a whole 20 watts, if that. Not even a fan cooled CPU.
In the 1990s I got a Best UPS with the Ferro transformer. I still use them and they work very well though they are a bitch to get today. Even then, a bolt hit about 15' away, a tree. It knocked out my parrallel card to the printer. $15 later and I was back in action.
Another noteable hit was about 6 years ago. My house was in a really bad spot. Bolt after bolt after bolt was hitting outside, very close. Heavy rain. It fried my cable modem, switch, some other interfaces. It was because the cable coming in wasn't connected to the ground. So the ground was through my machine. I think all it took was about $200 at Best Buy and I was back in action.
I've never had a case where it took out my machine entirely. Just the interface cards.
Conventional wisdom now seems to be to get yourself a 8' copper rod. You'll want to sink that into the ground, about 6" below the surface and pull a lead from that to ground your house and anything coming in. Be sure to call miss-utility before digging or sinking a rod if you do it. Better yet, get an electrical contractor to do it. Yes, he'll probably say it's un-necessary. Depends on where you are. In some counties they now require 3 - 8' rods hooked together. Lots of crazy stuff I found as I had to replace a perfectly good breaker box because the City didn't think a 40 year old box was any good anymore. So if you do anything to do with electric, you must replace it. I had to replace the weather head. Some places like Las Vegas have some of the strictest rules. I had to put cat-5 in conduit. No lose plenum for them!
Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points...(more BS)...
When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation. If you have a point, make it. "talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand. Sadly, a lot of idiots still don't get it. Moving on...
The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??
I never said it was globally. Good that you found the point I was making. I don't think you understand it though.
Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.
You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right? Ever hear of the little ice age? Probably TMI for you. Nice of you to help prove my point.
Where science isn't is if you add CO2 will you get more temperature. In the past all we can say is that CO2 seems to follow temperature. No kidding, less ice, more biological activity. The reverse, adding CO2 (effect) to the atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean you'll get heat (cause). That's the crap science. If you understood anything about science you would know that. We know methane is being released for example and you can show that traps heat. No doubt about that.
Don't feel bad. A lot of people are fooled by them. The question is, are you still fooled. Member of Al Gore's/Mr. Strong's church of Man Made Global Warming? Life member maybe? Offended by that statement? Re-read the GW_History article again.
Interesting. Let me start by saying that I believe things are warming up. For some reason people on/. seem to think that if you disagree with the CO2 part, you disagree with GW entirely. Not sure why.
Out of curiosity have you ever read about the Scientific Method? It's here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Skip down to the elements part. Look at that cycle. So we have the theory that CO2 is causing warming. Predictions were made, even published by the UN. 5 of them to date. That's because the previous 4 failed. They fail because as anyone who bothers to look at the data can see, the CO2 in relation to temperature doesn't work. May help to mention that the warmest decade in the 1900s was the 1930s. Check out the historical graphs going back millions of years. You'll see spikes in temperature, then a corresponding spike in CO2. Going back to the scientific method one must conclude that CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature rise. It's something else. CO2 is probably a symptom of warmer temperatures. Not the cause.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me why. I'm open to scientific constructive comments.
I'm very sane. By your tone you probably think I'm denying that it's getting warmer. I'm not. I disagree that man has something to do with it as far as CO2 goes. For that I have a very good scientific basis for that theory. BTW don't be insulting, you're not that smart.
Now what was that you were saying about warming back then? The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s. That's an undeniable fact as "scientist" Mr. Hanson of Goddard found out after he said he made a Y2K error (which in my opinion was a very intentional lie, I have my reasons). Errors (very convenient ones, like not using a statician to do statistics. I.e. the East Anglia email dump bit. Somehow they found they weren't guilty of wrongdoing.) abound with the MMGW crowd. The UN has revised their predictions a bunch of times as their "science has been decided" models fail to predict where we are today or even in the past if you run them backwards. As I said before, if a theory doesn't work, it's crap. When you continue to make models that fail, that's wishful thinking. Some may even say insanity (keep doing the same thing and expect different results). Some may call that a religion. They are up to 5 failed models last I checked. Remember fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well they've fooled people (perhaps you) 4 times so far. Still haven't learned.
Here sport, look at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . Look at how temperature spikes (red) then the co2 comes up behind it. Look at around 450, see that spike? See the co2 spike? Look around 310, see the red spike, then the co2 one next to it to the right? Look harder and you'll see it even more. Not my graphs, these are stuborn fact. Even a high school student would admit that we get the temperature, then the co2. It's a symptom, not the cause. There is no demonstrable way to show that CO2 "traps" heat that I've seen. We are asked to believe them. I can demonstrate the Methane on the other hand traps heat. I can also show that it's being released. No money to be stolen from people on that though.
Or so it seems. If you think you are that good of a scientist, show me why I'm wrong. I'm very open to constructive science.
The error I asked you to admit is to MMGW. I simply don't see science that supports your assertion that it's fact. From the models as I mentioned above show it isn't a fact. Otherwise, they'd be right. They are wrong and they know it. That's why they keep revising it and they revise it downwards. You should know it too. Admit it.
Science isn't a religion. First, Mr. Lovelock is the basis for what you think about Man Made GW. He started it (before him, some scientists were trying to convince us we had global cooling BTW). Now you don't want to listen to him because you don't agree with him. I'd be inclined to think you are part of a religion - environmentalism. Did your science teacher teach you about science or perhaps the teacher was a liberal arts teacher who knows nothing. Science says that in order to prove something you must be able to reproduce results. No doubt about it. That's why it's science. To Mr. Lovelock's credit, the science doesn't support his predictions. That is, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and if CO2 were actually responsible for warming, we'd be a lot warmer now. There is no doubt about that.
Therefore, if you want to claim at all that you are based in science, you MUST admit your error. Otherwise, you're the one who is being religious. I've seen GW scientists block anything that contradicts their theory, including the cosmic rays. Other things that really have a good shot at explaining what is happening. Trouble is, there is no money to be had with those theories. Man isn't to blame.
Science deals with evidence, not proof. And there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Once again you are just spewing denialist talking points.
Stop being in denial yourself. The data is out there. They were trying to keep the Adriatic out of Venice at least as far back as the 1300s. It isn't us. Fact is, there is nothing to show scientifically that CO2 has anything to do with warming. Symptom maybe, not cause.
Against my better judgment, and since you actually responded about something of substance, acetaldehyde, I'll reply.
Know the feeling. Sometimes you save a life by sticking in there. Sometimes you get the equivelent of a punch in the face as their personal character flaws show. One guy was so bad it was a lot worse than a punch in the face.
(liver, universal)
Yet I'm the one who has provided references that one of the functions of the liver is to clear toxins in tandem with the kidneys, while you have provided no references. Here's another reference for you, since you are fixated on acute poisons:
"Approximately 80% of absorbed cyanide is metabolized to thiocyanate in the liver by the mitochondrial sulfur transferase enzyme rhodanese and other sulfur transferases. Thiocyanate is excreted in the urine."
So all of those references I posted you *Didn't* read? I'm certainly trying to not spoon feed like a public school teacher. I want you to look, learn. Hopefully learn how to learn and study. Not sure why you think I'm fixated on acute poisons. You do remember me mentioning drinking for 30 years, right? You even commented and seemed to make fun about it. Flew right over your head, obviously. I also mentioned toxicity and poisons. Something I still think you don't have a good understanding of yet.
You ignored it in your subsequent post, and if you thought I might be right about it then you should either acknowledge it or shut the fuck up until you learn otherwise.
Too bad your parents didn't address your mouth better. Improve your manners. I ignored it because I presumed that you bothered to look at it and you were a lot further along with understanding. I don't know you so it's sometimes very difficult to determine if I'm dealing with a genius, average guy and sometimes an idiot that manages to make a good point sometimes. Sometimes even a genius says idiotic things. You're not a genius, that's for sure. However it is good that you didn't just roll over and capitulate. When you are shown to be wrong however, you really should admit it.
Wow, great reference. A "colleague" said in a conversation that I wasn't privy to that he agreed it was "full of shit."
Well it isn't as if I could conference you in. Even if I could, I have a feeling you wouldn't have understood what we were saying. You're having trouble with what I consider basic concepts and trying hard to not insult or be condencending to you.
What, in particular, do you want me to note?
You found it -
Under normal metabolism, alcohol is broken down in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde, which is then converted by the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the harmless acetic acid. Disulfiram blocks this reaction at the intermediate stage by blocking the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.
What part of "harmless acetic acid" during normal metabolism do you not understand? What is so hard about this? There - I spoon fed you. Question is, are you going to spit it out and show more personal character flaws. Yes, I know if you drink too much it's a poison. Yes I know it causes organ damage, again if you drink too much.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, as the chemical reactions of alcohol make it always toxic, unlike water or normal food, and alcohol isn't required for life, unlike water or normal food. Just like cyanide, the dosage for alcohol is important, though of course cyanide is a much more acute poison.
Don't play with cyanide. That's a tough way to go. Alcohol is not required for life? You really are green. Please go back and read those articles again. It still hasn't sunk in yet. Tell you what, visit a good Biology teacher while she is eating
Slashdot Mirror
Nice contemporary video to promote women in science.
Do they refuse to accept tax payments from any residents who are employed by any company with ties to the nuclear industry? Because that would be blood money, yanno?
Now let's not get crazy here (even though there used to be a funny farm in Takoma). Politicians not taking money? HA! The cost to show if money is clean or not is clearly way to high with all the other worrying they have to do with the silly outdated nuclear bit. They should update themselves as even some of the founders of Green Peace have admitted the nuclear scare was and is a load of crap. Even after the Japanese reactors, some of that old tired scare stuff came up again. They can be operated safely and we can recycle the waste like every other country. Get rid of Jimmy Carter's stupid decision to not recycle nuclear waste. Gojira lives, eh?
For a Microsoft Pad to succeed it would have to not just be better than what else is out there, it has to be a lot better. A no brainer. Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company and they COULD do that I suppose. However their track record sucks. I know I wouldn't even look at one because I would consider it a total waste of my time and I don't even own a pad from any of them. I just don't think they have the tallent. They also would need to ditch the current windows OS and get a real OS to power it. Something not in mode 0. Something like Unix underneath. Could happen. Stranger things have happened like {Obama was elected}|{Bush was elected, twice!}.
However, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee a right to use those weapons. Obviously, in fact, using them against the government would be an act of treason, just as the Revolution itself was treason, and thus barred by the Constitution.
No, as your cited article correctly notes, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep arms as a deterrent to a tyrannical government. It says nothing about using them, or using them against criminals. The latter right is more properly found in the 5th Amendment.
Why would you think that? Having a gun and not being able to use it is idiotic, those guys weren't idiots. Every amendment was carefully thought out and considered essential. Why go through the trouble of adding it as an individual right - which the first 10 amendments are? You do have the right to bear arms - and use them! You have the right to a well regulated malitia too. You are not allowed to set up a "malitia" (aka outlaw gang) and go around shooting up people, of course. You do have a duty and right to put down the Government if they become tyranical. That of course goes along with the Armed services that have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Not treason.
If I could go back and talk to those guys, I'd add that we have a right to be able to participate in duels. We got rid of more fools that way than you could shake a stick at. Unfortunately we got rid of some very good Americans that way too. Andrew Jackson could probably be considered a serial killer for that reason. He whacked a lot of people that way.
my guess is that this site has just pushed some readers/commenters away. Maybe it's the content or a change of readership...
Well it's pushing me away, I can tell you that! I think it's both. Content and what's left of the readership isn't what it used to be. Maybe we were reading more from Cmdrtaco (Rob) than we realized.
Could be you are just older. I've noticed the same thing too... and I'm closing in on my 50s fast.
Maybe they just don't teach manners in school anymore. Could be it's such a PC world in school it bottles it up and they're lashing out online.
I was about his age when I got my first microscope and a few years later a chem set. Made out of bakelite from the 1940s or 1950s the light source was from a mirror below. Don't go and by the best. You won't get so mad if something happens to it. Get one with a light. Mine was missing slides and had none of the tools with it. I got very resourceful. A local hobby shop had stuff. Expensive though. No internet back then.
Being the scientist that I am today I can fast forward you a bit. You can put two standard slides together and look at stuff and it's totally reusable. Sometimes tough to separate though and easy to break. Be patient, they will separate. When he gets a bit older you can get the slides that are disposeable. That's for the top wet-mount slide. Just run under the faucet and it's down the drain. The glass breaks up and goes away. Very fine glass. I didn't get to those until I was in college.
Try taking it to different places. Local water runoff. Try a stream, pond. Then go to the sea or one of the great lakes. You never know what you'll find.
I have a usb microscope. I'm tempted to put it on ebay. I haven't used it in years.
WTF? That's why they call it work. Want to be a Security guard who watches the monitor for 8 hours a day? How about a guy making sand castings for an engine block (that's really tough by the way)? How about writting code all day long.
There is one downside for them. It's called 3-oh UH UH! Once they turn 30, they are mostly done. Few women look that nice after 30. Tossed aside for a 20 some year old.
Trend is towards more skin?!?!?! Great! I can look but still can't touch. Haven't been able to touch for over 30 years.
Looking at the replies it's clear that so many /. people have no clue just how pervasive Linux is out there. Storing your stuff in the cloud - that would be Linux with like one exception. Storing your stuff in a San, NAS, that would also be Linux. Your Android, Set top box, F5, firewall, almost anything - that would be Linux. There are exceptions, however not many. Microsoft is in the clear minority. According to Netcraft their web server is at it's lowest share since about 1997. IE Browsers are at a low point too as so many phones run Linux or anything other than Windows.
The world is changing away from Microsoft. Most people don't know it yet.
Before you BSD people get upset, I know about BSD and the others. They have strong points and perhaps do some things better than Linux. I used to use BSD before there was such a thing as Linux. For better or worse it was passed by. I'd love it if the unices would unite and become one instead of being so fragmented.
Clearly the folks scoffing not ... because when you add that meter to the substantial increase of serious storm surge from more frequent category 4 and 5 hurricanes (another gift from climate change), ...
Would you please be so kind as to prove it? In fact, we have had weaker and fewer. Just imagine if this happened today - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hog_Island_(New_York) . A mile island off NYC washed completely away! This would somehow be "proof" had it happened today. Hogwash. We've had terrible hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamies and snake oil/manure salesmen for thousands of years.
Let me get that bottle of Whiskey out! Woo hoo!
I've seen it before, and I'll see it again.
Cloud computing - psft! That's so 2011. We're onto Tsunami computing. That's where you can access terrabytes of data with just two lines of code! Here's an example (Presented by a hot chick with short skirt):
#include "stuff"
run stuff;
See, how simple is that. Stuff has everything you need!
I understand "Cloud computing" is wearing out just like "utility computing" - what cloud was called before.
Not sure about you, I have a paid for cable that's just for Internet access. I paid to have the bandwidth increased, though lately it can be really suck city! Sunday I had upload speeds around 10K. That's pathetic. 1990 called and said "Ha ha." I should get 2M, that's what I'm paying for. Regardless, it isn't free.
Now spammers as they are being busted don't have to try to destroy the drive anymore or swallow it. Just push a button. They get off scot free. Law enforcement may decide to taze the 'bro first.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Having expertise in any one area does not mean one has good judgement, which is ideally what lawmakers should have. Look at nobel prize winner Kary Mullis' statements on how HIV doesn't cause AIDS..
Very good point. However understand that a lot of our Congressmen are dumber than a box of rocks. Recently it came to light that even Osama Bin Laden mentioned that Biden is a complete idiot. Such as it is when the only ones willing to be our leaders are fools because only a fool is willing to take the job. Sort of like agreeing to be kicked in the crotch every day. Hey, if you like that, we have a job for you!
...thourougly debunked talking points
Dubunked? Talking points - as if that somehow means something? Do tell. What thouroughly debunked "talking points"? The scientific method? The fact that the UN is on their 5th model? The fact that CO2 is clearly behind the heat curve?
Ok, Scientific method - Go ahead and try to debunk that one.
UN's 5th model - yup, it is. More depending on how you count. How can you debunk fact? Each time it was revised down. Here's a rundown from the first one - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?&grcc=99999&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion . How the crazy MMGW crowd has been wrong time and time again - http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html (not for faint of heart. If you want the truth, it's there.)
CO2 is clearly behind the curve? Just look at the graph. How can you debunk what you can see with the naked eye? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . That's the plot they don't like to show you. Ok, say you don't understand that, it's related. Then look at this real life plot with temperatures and CO2 - http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e65ad371970c-pi . Tough to be a true believer in mmgw if you know the facts.
Lastly, I have yet to read or hear anyone that was able to explain how from 1992 to 1993 Global warming went from something that is happening to Man is doing it? No scientific note, not even a foot note. It was just inserted in by Mr. Strong. If you want to even pretend that you have a point, explain how we get a conclusion like that without any scientific fact? Try as you might, you won't find why in that report.
Clearly not what I expected as a response from you. As I said and still say - if I'm wrong explain why. You don't have to do it directly. Just show me where they show that CO2 actually "traps" as they call it - Heat. Keep in mind "It's obvious" isn't scientific. Neither is anecdotal evidence. Science demands reproduceable, definitive results from an experiment. All doubt would go away at that point. Good luck with that, you'll need it.
You are constantly spewing new lies in your continued ...And again you keep bashing actual scientists ... You are basically admitting that this is all about politics to you, and that you are denying simple scientific facts because you are worried what someone might do about them.
Looks like you'll never get it. I am an actual scientist. I have no problem supporting science that's science. It's great. They are facts. You can rely on them. You can reproduce results. You can plan the future around them. Something I make a great deal of money doing.
Back in the early 1980s I did the many years of study to understand this stuff. I managed to pull up his paper in an effort to support him in the Goddard library (now online as I sent to you). I couldn't support his science with a good conscience for the reasons I outlined before. I.e. "sun heats us up, we get warm, later we get CO2" to "more CO2 means we get more heat". That could be, however he hasn't proved it. He also won't consider anything else. I honestly think he's wrong. What I told you were not lies. They are fact, some by very respected news and science outlets. You have chosen to ignore them too. I thought for sure if you bothered to look up mars and the disappearing CO2 that you would capitulate. Hard to deny what you can see with your own eyes. I bet you chose to not even look. As for politics, I addressed it simply because the left has chosen to combine science with politics (which is predictable - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228752/comrade-lysenko-copenhagen/alex-alexiev#). You get bad science when that happens. That with scientists that produce papers with results that cannot be duplicated.... because it's crap in an effort to get yet another grant, it's bad. Seems like the NY Times picks up these crap studies all the time and publishes them. Sometimes I can't believe we made it to the moon. Yet I saw it them do it. BTW, I really don't care if you think we never made it there. Seems like I'm hearing that crap from young people more and more.
So I'm giving up on you. One day I sincerely hope you understand the truth. If you don't, that's ok too. Just don't pretend that you know what you are talking about, because you don't.
The problem with your talking points is that they are blatant lies.
No, stuborn fact. You just don't realize it yet.
Then what is the relevance? Do you really not understand the difference between local (2% of the planet or so) and global? But you didn't specify the US did you? You wrote: "The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s" - nothing about this only being the US. You have been caught red-handed again.
What do you mean again? You haven't caught me the first time. Perhaps it was my fault. I presumed that if you had anywhere near knowledge in this area that you pretend you do, you would know precisely what I was talking about. Mr. Hansen is after all, an 800 Lbs gorilla in the room. Hard to know about this subject and not know about him and what happened. More to my point that you don't know what you are talking about.
Actually, the sun has had a cooling trend for nearly 40 years. And how did you miss the part of that page which says "bout 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase"? Face it, you were just spewing another denialist talking point because you are clueless, and now you are trying to pretend that the article supports your nonsense.
Ok, now is where I can really hit you with a clue-by-four. OTHER planets have been warming and you can see it (stuborn facts again), the sun isn't cooler. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html http://reinep.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/sun-is-getting-hotter-burning-the-planet-according-to-swiss-and-german-scientists/ Many, Many other articles on this as well. Even Pluto has been warming though to be fair, that's not scientific since it's beyond the capability of our instruments to conclusively say that. Clearly there is reason to believe that, however. Some denier sites or I suppose "green sites" to you try to explain the damning evidence away. No man on Mars to get rid of that CO2 ice. So they try to baffle you with bullshit, something they do really well. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Speaking of Mr. Hansen (above), he had an article in the NY Times today. "Sky is falling" sums it up. Apparently he can't read his own predictions. He says he was right. Even your skeptical site says he was wrong. Not surprising I found some sites that say he was right. Not that I expect you'll have any sort of clue how to read and understand it (you need to be a scientist who works with this stuff or a very bright guy, otherwise you'll probably misunderstand it), it's here - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf . Yes, that really is the famous report. Not to say he's all wrong, there is some very good information in that report. If you're really bright you'll see why I disagree with him and you'll likely agree with me from now on. I guess I'll see how bright you are. Not if you agree with me or not of course. Being bright doesn't mean you agree with me. Maybe you'll understand what I was saying about the Gaia scientists in the beginning. You probably need a lot more context for that though.
Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. I realize that you hate science and can't be bothered to refer to actual scientists, though.
Al is irrelevent? Thanks for the laugh! Of course you're right about Al and science. At best he was just a washed up newspaper reporter who wanted to be super man and save the world. Remember Al as you pay more for electric, gas and just about everything else coming up. See how irrelevent you think it is as you pay Al a bunch of money. By then I'm hopeful that you'll realize it's a bunch of money for nothing. Income ensured by laws.
In the old days I protected it via 12 volt battery. Charger charged the 12v battery, on the other side I made a power supply that had to provide 12, +5 leads. Worked very well. I think that computer consumed a whole 20 watts, if that. Not even a fan cooled CPU.
In the 1990s I got a Best UPS with the Ferro transformer. I still use them and they work very well though they are a bitch to get today. Even then, a bolt hit about 15' away, a tree. It knocked out my parrallel card to the printer. $15 later and I was back in action.
Another noteable hit was about 6 years ago. My house was in a really bad spot. Bolt after bolt after bolt was hitting outside, very close. Heavy rain. It fried my cable modem, switch, some other interfaces. It was because the cable coming in wasn't connected to the ground. So the ground was through my machine. I think all it took was about $200 at Best Buy and I was back in action.
I've never had a case where it took out my machine entirely. Just the interface cards.
Conventional wisdom now seems to be to get yourself a 8' copper rod. You'll want to sink that into the ground, about 6" below the surface and pull a lead from that to ground your house and anything coming in. Be sure to call miss-utility before digging or sinking a rod if you do it. Better yet, get an electrical contractor to do it. Yes, he'll probably say it's un-necessary. Depends on where you are. In some counties they now require 3 - 8' rods hooked together. Lots of crazy stuff I found as I had to replace a perfectly good breaker box because the City didn't think a 40 year old box was any good anymore. So if you do anything to do with electric, you must replace it. I had to replace the weather head. Some places like Las Vegas have some of the strictest rules. I had to put cat-5 in conduit. No lose plenum for them!
Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points...(more BS)...
When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation. If you have a point, make it. "talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand. Sadly, a lot of idiots still don't get it. Moving on...
The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??
I never said it was globally. Good that you found the point I was making. I don't think you understand it though.
Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.
You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right? Ever hear of the little ice age? Probably TMI for you. Nice of you to help prove my point.
Where science isn't is if you add CO2 will you get more temperature. In the past all we can say is that CO2 seems to follow temperature. No kidding, less ice, more biological activity. The reverse, adding CO2 (effect) to the atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean you'll get heat (cause). That's the crap science. If you understood anything about science you would know that. We know methane is being released for example and you can show that traps heat. No doubt about that.
Finally, about the models. Very accurate eh? I guess you missed this article too - http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/new-nasa-data-casts-doubt-on-global-warming-models ? There was a really nice graph showing the UN predictions and reality somewhere. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it. They were not even close.
I bet you are STILL not convinced. It's time to get you mad as you realize you've been duped, played for a sucker - http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm . Read it if you dare. I bet you won't. Too long, too much information, etc.. Then your character flaws will come out again. Check this out - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Don't feel bad. A lot of people are fooled by them. The question is, are you still fooled. Member of Al Gore's/Mr. Strong's church of Man Made Global Warming? Life member maybe? Offended by that statement? Re-read the GW_History article again.
HTH and Best wishes.
Interesting. Let me start by saying that I believe things are warming up. For some reason people on /. seem to think that if you disagree with the CO2 part, you disagree with GW entirely. Not sure why.
Out of curiosity have you ever read about the Scientific Method? It's here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Skip down to the elements part. Look at that cycle. So we have the theory that CO2 is causing warming. Predictions were made, even published by the UN. 5 of them to date. That's because the previous 4 failed. They fail because as anyone who bothers to look at the data can see, the CO2 in relation to temperature doesn't work. May help to mention that the warmest decade in the 1900s was the 1930s. Check out the historical graphs going back millions of years. You'll see spikes in temperature, then a corresponding spike in CO2. Going back to the scientific method one must conclude that CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature rise. It's something else. CO2 is probably a symptom of warmer temperatures. Not the cause.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me why. I'm open to scientific constructive comments.
I'm very sane. By your tone you probably think I'm denying that it's getting warmer. I'm not. I disagree that man has something to do with it as far as CO2 goes. For that I have a very good scientific basis for that theory. BTW don't be insulting, you're not that smart.
Check out the article about global cooling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling . Obviously you didn't even bother to google it.
Now what was that you were saying about warming back then? The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s. That's an undeniable fact as "scientist" Mr. Hanson of Goddard found out after he said he made a Y2K error (which in my opinion was a very intentional lie, I have my reasons). Errors (very convenient ones, like not using a statician to do statistics. I.e. the East Anglia email dump bit. Somehow they found they weren't guilty of wrongdoing.) abound with the MMGW crowd. The UN has revised their predictions a bunch of times as their "science has been decided" models fail to predict where we are today or even in the past if you run them backwards. As I said before, if a theory doesn't work, it's crap. When you continue to make models that fail, that's wishful thinking. Some may even say insanity (keep doing the same thing and expect different results). Some may call that a religion. They are up to 5 failed models last I checked. Remember fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well they've fooled people (perhaps you) 4 times so far. Still haven't learned.
Here sport, look at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . Look at how temperature spikes (red) then the co2 comes up behind it. Look at around 450, see that spike? See the co2 spike? Look around 310, see the red spike, then the co2 one next to it to the right? Look harder and you'll see it even more. Not my graphs, these are stuborn fact. Even a high school student would admit that we get the temperature, then the co2. It's a symptom, not the cause. There is no demonstrable way to show that CO2 "traps" heat that I've seen. We are asked to believe them. I can demonstrate the Methane on the other hand traps heat. I can also show that it's being released. No money to be stolen from people on that though.
Or so it seems. If you think you are that good of a scientist, show me why I'm wrong. I'm very open to constructive science.
The error I asked you to admit is to MMGW. I simply don't see science that supports your assertion that it's fact. From the models as I mentioned above show it isn't a fact. Otherwise, they'd be right. They are wrong and they know it. That's why they keep revising it and they revise it downwards. You should know it too. Admit it.
Science isn't a religion. First, Mr. Lovelock is the basis for what you think about Man Made GW. He started it (before him, some scientists were trying to convince us we had global cooling BTW). Now you don't want to listen to him because you don't agree with him. I'd be inclined to think you are part of a religion - environmentalism. Did your science teacher teach you about science or perhaps the teacher was a liberal arts teacher who knows nothing. Science says that in order to prove something you must be able to reproduce results. No doubt about it. That's why it's science. To Mr. Lovelock's credit, the science doesn't support his predictions. That is, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and if CO2 were actually responsible for warming, we'd be a lot warmer now. There is no doubt about that.
Therefore, if you want to claim at all that you are based in science, you MUST admit your error. Otherwise, you're the one who is being religious. I've seen GW scientists block anything that contradicts their theory, including the cosmic rays. Other things that really have a good shot at explaining what is happening. Trouble is, there is no money to be had with those theories. Man isn't to blame.
Science deals with evidence, not proof. And there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans. Once again you are just spewing denialist talking points.
So I guess you missed the article where the GAIA scientist (dude that started the MMGW Bullshit) admitted he was wrong? http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
Stop being in denial yourself. The data is out there. They were trying to keep the Adriatic out of Venice at least as far back as the 1300s. It isn't us. Fact is, there is nothing to show scientifically that CO2 has anything to do with warming. Symptom maybe, not cause.
Against my better judgment, and since you actually responded about something of substance, acetaldehyde, I'll reply.
Know the feeling. Sometimes you save a life by sticking in there. Sometimes you get the equivelent of a punch in the face as their personal character flaws show. One guy was so bad it was a lot worse than a punch in the face.
(liver, universal)
Yet I'm the one who has provided references that one of the functions of the liver is to clear toxins in tandem with the kidneys, while you have provided no references. Here's another reference for you, since you are fixated on acute poisons:
"Approximately 80% of absorbed cyanide is metabolized to thiocyanate in the liver by the mitochondrial sulfur transferase enzyme rhodanese and other sulfur transferases. Thiocyanate is excreted in the urine."
So all of those references I posted you *Didn't* read? I'm certainly trying to not spoon feed like a public school teacher. I want you to look, learn. Hopefully learn how to learn and study. Not sure why you think I'm fixated on acute poisons. You do remember me mentioning drinking for 30 years, right? You even commented and seemed to make fun about it. Flew right over your head, obviously. I also mentioned toxicity and poisons. Something I still think you don't have a good understanding of yet.
You ignored it in your subsequent post, and if you thought I might be right about it then you should either acknowledge it or shut the fuck up until you learn otherwise.
Too bad your parents didn't address your mouth better. Improve your manners.
I ignored it because I presumed that you bothered to look at it and you were a lot further along with understanding. I don't know you so it's sometimes very difficult to determine if I'm dealing with a genius, average guy and sometimes an idiot that manages to make a good point sometimes. Sometimes even a genius says idiotic things. You're not a genius, that's for sure. However it is good that you didn't just roll over and capitulate. When you are shown to be wrong however, you really should admit it.
Wow, great reference. A "colleague" said in a conversation that I wasn't privy to that he agreed it was "full of shit."
Well it isn't as if I could conference you in. Even if I could, I have a feeling you wouldn't have understood what we were saying. You're having trouble with what I consider basic concepts and trying hard to not insult or be condencending to you.
What, in particular, do you want me to note?
You found it -
Under normal metabolism, alcohol is broken down in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde, which is then converted by the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the harmless acetic acid. Disulfiram blocks this reaction at the intermediate stage by blocking the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.
What part of "harmless acetic acid" during normal metabolism do you not understand? What is so hard about this? There - I spoon fed you. Question is, are you going to spit it out and show more personal character flaws. Yes, I know if you drink too much it's a poison. Yes I know it causes organ damage, again if you drink too much.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, as the chemical reactions of alcohol make it always toxic, unlike water or normal food, and alcohol isn't required for life, unlike water or normal food. Just like cyanide, the dosage for alcohol is important, though of course cyanide is a much more acute poison.
Don't play with cyanide. That's a tough way to go.
Alcohol is not required for life? You really are green. Please go back and read those articles again. It still hasn't sunk in yet. Tell you what, visit a good Biology teacher while she is eating