That was the first thing that occurred to me too. Anyone can throw up walls and a roof on the cheap. That's NOT the problem. Then problem is:
1) Finding the LAND to put it on (and KEEPING it) 2) Security of the land/household (your house is only as secure as your ability to defend it from someone else wanting to take it) 3) The amenities and infrastructure needed to make the house sanitary and comfortable (I.e. sewer service, plumbing, affordable electricity, etc.).
The physical house itself is the LEAST of poor people's problems. Just look at the slums of Rio, if you want a good example. Plenty of houses--but they're built on illegal land in gang-infested neighborhoods with filthy open sewers.
It's pretty clear that you haven't any sort of clue whatsoever, as you're willing to spew ignorant bullshit like the above.
And it's pretty clear you have no clue how science works in the REAL world. Scientists aren't robots; they're human beings who want tenure, grants, jobs, the respect of the colleagues, etc. And you're not going to get ANY of those things if you're the one guy challenging (or even subtly questioning) the groupthink.
Believe me, I saw it time and again when I was in academia. Some grad students had their tongue so far up their committee's asses that a quick turn could break their necks. I saw professors so desperate to publish that they would force all their grad students to put their names on any paper the student delivered or published, whether or not the prof. had ever even *seen* said paper (the term "Publish or perish" didn't come out of nowhere, you know). Do you REALLY think that's the kind of environment that encourages true HONESTY and intellectual debate? Hardly. Disagreeing with the wrong person could stop your career dead in its tracks, regardless of how well you could support your contentions.
And it's even *worse* in the private sector, where disagreeing with your employer or challenging them is the quickest way to the unemployment line.
Addressing the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth and attempting to determine whether a global warming is being caused by man are two VERY different questions. I mean the latter is the REAL question. It's not whether there *is* climate change or not (there is and always has been), it's whether mankind is causing it and, if so, what can be done about it. And it's very hard to come up with a hard science answer to those questions. You can model it, but models depend in large part on certain assumptions made by the modelers, the accuracy of the model, etc. And scientists have a terrible track record of predicting the future.
Sometimes they do things that are so stupid and crazy that I wonder if there isn't some agent provocateur calling the shots at the top. They seem to actual WANT to discredit themselves.
The post-processing is, but that part can be replicated in some lab in Oslo.
That's the "human interpretation of the data" part, subject to the various foibles and subjectivity of the humans doing the interpretation (just as historians interpret historical data and documents). I doubt you can replicate that in a test tube.
If this so-called "environmental science" were as hard a science as physics or chemistry, you would have a point. And even physics or chemistry aren't completely above being subjected to the games of those willing to cook numbers and grant-whore. And in case you didn't read my post, you would see that I don't trust the hillbillies either.
And what is this "environmental science" but some scientists' INTERPRETATION of data? This isn't a field where the experiments can be replicated in some lab in Oslo, only where the interpretations of the data can be debated (and implications considered).
The rich ruling class are dicks and always have been. But their bullshit doesn't explain the increasingly shrill voices from the pro side of this argument. Fifteen years ago, proponents of global warming were saying this could me a 1 or 2 degree average temperature increase over the next 100 years. Now some of them are blaming localized WEATHER patterns on it.
If there are reasonable voices in this, they're being drowned out at this point. A 1 or 2 degree average temperature increase over the next 100 years is not causing a fucking drought in Texas.
Except I don't buy that "environmental science" is any more an unbiased field of science than I buy that "ethnic studies" is an unbiased field of history.
What started out as a well-supported observation that the earth was starting to slowly warm, followed by the suggestion that humans pumping tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may be at least partly to blame, has turned into a goddamned politicized mess. On one side you have grant-whores and alarmists, who have taken this reasonable observation and hyped it more-and-more over the last fifteen years into some increasingly alarmist Chicken Little hyperbole. On the other side you have a bunch of bible-thumping right-wing corporatists who think that if we just let mega-corporations do whatever the fuck they want (including pumping whatever shit into the air they feel like), then we would all live in some libertarian utopia.
Frankly, I'm sick of all the bullshit from both sides. I've got a grant-whore "environmental scientist" (when did that even become a hard science?) screaming in one ear that we're all going to die if we don't go all-solar/all-wind in the next twenty years. In the other ear, I've got Jesusy McAnnRaynd telling me that Exxon only wants to give me love and flowers, and would never, ever hurt me. And frankly, I just want to punch BOTH of them at this point.
Both sides have taken to over-exaggerating and over-hyping every bit of evidence they touch. And I've come to distrust them both.
They want animals to be treated like humans and be covered by the same laws, which would result in them all being locked up for indecent exposure and public indecency.
Not to mention all the leg-humping dogs who would be up on sexual assault charges.
Or I guess you could always start your own country and refuse to recognize anyone else's patents. Of course, that would probably require lots of guns too.
The streaming service is the one they want people using because it has low operating costs, and thus better profit. That's the one that's getting to keep the recognized brand, and the one they're putting effort into improving.
Too bad they can't get the studios to go along with that plan.
You know, I remember as a kid learning about the great inventions and inventors and thinking how cool it would be to come up with the next great idea. Now when I think about coming up with the next great idea, all I can picture is how I would even *begin* to deal with all the patent lawsuits that would inevitably follow.
Maybe there is someone out there who has the grain of insight in his mind that could lead to a radical advance in propulsion that could make a manned mission to Mars practical. But if the first thing that some venture capitalist tells him is "We'd love to fund this, but there is no way we can afford to defend you in the onslaught of patent lawsuits" how is it ever going to materialize? Patent trolls and patent collectors make it harder and harder for anything that isn't mainstream and almost immediately marketable from ever making it past the concept phase.
It could also be increased press scrutiny from the U.S. press now that the Russkies are the go-to's for transporting astronauts. The U.S. press has never missed an opportunity to bad-mouth even the most minor of Soviet/Russian technical problems. Now that the shuttle is gone and people are bitching about how we have to rely on Russia, they've focused in on the Soyuz--picking apart every minor problem as some catastrophe waiting to happen (I can almost picture them with their fingers crossed). The U.S. press has an established narrative for everything, and their space narrative has always been that the U.S. is ahead of the Russians at all times (even back in the early-mid 60's when this CLEARLY wasn't the case).
Chinese defense contractors announced today that they have made a series of tremendous advancements in submarine, missile, and nuclear power plant component technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Should the exemption granted for jailbreaking cell phones apply to game consoles like the Xbox 360 and PS3 as well?
That was the first thing that occurred to me too. Anyone can throw up walls and a roof on the cheap. That's NOT the problem. Then problem is:
1) Finding the LAND to put it on (and KEEPING it)
2) Security of the land/household (your house is only as secure as your ability to defend it from someone else wanting to take it)
3) The amenities and infrastructure needed to make the house sanitary and comfortable (I.e. sewer service, plumbing, affordable electricity, etc.).
The physical house itself is the LEAST of poor people's problems. Just look at the slums of Rio, if you want a good example. Plenty of houses--but they're built on illegal land in gang-infested neighborhoods with filthy open sewers.
"OMG! Climate alarmism! We're all going to diiiiiie!"
No, more like "Calm down, people. We're NOT all going to diiiiie."
It's pretty clear that you haven't any sort of clue whatsoever, as you're willing to spew ignorant bullshit like the above.
And it's pretty clear you have no clue how science works in the REAL world. Scientists aren't robots; they're human beings who want tenure, grants, jobs, the respect of the colleagues, etc. And you're not going to get ANY of those things if you're the one guy challenging (or even subtly questioning) the groupthink.
Believe me, I saw it time and again when I was in academia. Some grad students had their tongue so far up their committee's asses that a quick turn could break their necks. I saw professors so desperate to publish that they would force all their grad students to put their names on any paper the student delivered or published, whether or not the prof. had ever even *seen* said paper (the term "Publish or perish" didn't come out of nowhere, you know). Do you REALLY think that's the kind of environment that encourages true HONESTY and intellectual debate? Hardly. Disagreeing with the wrong person could stop your career dead in its tracks, regardless of how well you could support your contentions.
And it's even *worse* in the private sector, where disagreeing with your employer or challenging them is the quickest way to the unemployment line.
Addressing the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth and attempting to determine whether a global warming is being caused by man are two VERY different questions. I mean the latter is the REAL question. It's not whether there *is* climate change or not (there is and always has been), it's whether mankind is causing it and, if so, what can be done about it. And it's very hard to come up with a hard science answer to those questions. You can model it, but models depend in large part on certain assumptions made by the modelers, the accuracy of the model, etc. And scientists have a terrible track record of predicting the future.
Probably since about the time Rand Paul became their golden boy in Kentucky.
No, so I can *tell* you why moderates like me don't care...because the extremists have become the public face of both sides.
And yet you took the time to respond.
Sometimes they do things that are so stupid and crazy that I wonder if there isn't some agent provocateur calling the shots at the top. They seem to actual WANT to discredit themselves.
Ayn Rand was an Atheist.
Just don't tell the Tea Partiers.
First one, then the other.
The post-processing is, but that part can be replicated in some lab in Oslo.
That's the "human interpretation of the data" part, subject to the various foibles and subjectivity of the humans doing the interpretation (just as historians interpret historical data and documents). I doubt you can replicate that in a test tube.
If this so-called "environmental science" were as hard a science as physics or chemistry, you would have a point. And even physics or chemistry aren't completely above being subjected to the games of those willing to cook numbers and grant-whore. And in case you didn't read my post, you would see that I don't trust the hillbillies either.
And what is this "environmental science" but some scientists' INTERPRETATION of data? This isn't a field where the experiments can be replicated in some lab in Oslo, only where the interpretations of the data can be debated (and implications considered).
The rich ruling class are dicks and always have been. But their bullshit doesn't explain the increasingly shrill voices from the pro side of this argument. Fifteen years ago, proponents of global warming were saying this could me a 1 or 2 degree average temperature increase over the next 100 years. Now some of them are blaming localized WEATHER patterns on it.
If there are reasonable voices in this, they're being drowned out at this point. A 1 or 2 degree average temperature increase over the next 100 years is not causing a fucking drought in Texas.
Except I don't buy that "environmental science" is any more an unbiased field of science than I buy that "ethnic studies" is an unbiased field of history.
What started out as a well-supported observation that the earth was starting to slowly warm, followed by the suggestion that humans pumping tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may be at least partly to blame, has turned into a goddamned politicized mess. On one side you have grant-whores and alarmists, who have taken this reasonable observation and hyped it more-and-more over the last fifteen years into some increasingly alarmist Chicken Little hyperbole. On the other side you have a bunch of bible-thumping right-wing corporatists who think that if we just let mega-corporations do whatever the fuck they want (including pumping whatever shit into the air they feel like), then we would all live in some libertarian utopia.
Frankly, I'm sick of all the bullshit from both sides. I've got a grant-whore "environmental scientist" (when did that even become a hard science?) screaming in one ear that we're all going to die if we don't go all-solar/all-wind in the next twenty years. In the other ear, I've got Jesusy McAnnRaynd telling me that Exxon only wants to give me love and flowers, and would never, ever hurt me. And frankly, I just want to punch BOTH of them at this point.
Both sides have taken to over-exaggerating and over-hyping every bit of evidence they touch. And I've come to distrust them both.
They want animals to be treated like humans and be covered by the same laws, which would result in them all being locked up for indecent exposure and public indecency.
Not to mention all the leg-humping dogs who would be up on sexual assault charges.
Fuck it, we're going full-on batshit.
Or I guess you could always start your own country and refuse to recognize anyone else's patents. Of course, that would probably require lots of guns too.
The streaming service is the one they want people using because it has low operating costs, and thus better profit. That's the one that's getting to keep the recognized brand, and the one they're putting effort into improving.
Too bad they can't get the studios to go along with that plan.
Well, that's what you and your girlfriend get for wearing red shirts that day.
You know, I remember as a kid learning about the great inventions and inventors and thinking how cool it would be to come up with the next great idea. Now when I think about coming up with the next great idea, all I can picture is how I would even *begin* to deal with all the patent lawsuits that would inevitably follow.
Maybe there is someone out there who has the grain of insight in his mind that could lead to a radical advance in propulsion that could make a manned mission to Mars practical. But if the first thing that some venture capitalist tells him is "We'd love to fund this, but there is no way we can afford to defend you in the onslaught of patent lawsuits" how is it ever going to materialize? Patent trolls and patent collectors make it harder and harder for anything that isn't mainstream and almost immediately marketable from ever making it past the concept phase.
It could also be increased press scrutiny from the U.S. press now that the Russkies are the go-to's for transporting astronauts. The U.S. press has never missed an opportunity to bad-mouth even the most minor of Soviet/Russian technical problems. Now that the shuttle is gone and people are bitching about how we have to rely on Russia, they've focused in on the Soyuz--picking apart every minor problem as some catastrophe waiting to happen (I can almost picture them with their fingers crossed). The U.S. press has an established narrative for everything, and their space narrative has always been that the U.S. is ahead of the Russians at all times (even back in the early-mid 60's when this CLEARLY wasn't the case).
Chinese defense contractors announced today that they have made a series of tremendous advancements in submarine, missile, and nuclear power plant component technology.