You don't fund studies whose goal is skepticism. You don't fund studies with a goal, full stop. Papers don't get published in peer reviewed journals with Aim: To Disprove General Relativity. You fund studies to gather evidence, and produce a conclusion that would enlighten you about the subject in question. Gravity Probe B was not sponsored by a wide consortium of companies with an interest in etheric theory.
The only studies being done are the ones in peer reviewed papers, gathering new evidence to test climate theory. You can't balance that with people paid to spout discredited nonsense about old data with no peer review. And almost all of the former support gw.
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.
But how different is application of physical force to, say, denial of essential services if the customer does not bargain, or a situation where education is controlled by corporate sponsors? Why is physical force to limit freedom bad, whilst subtler forms of psychological manipulation, from billboard ads and banner ads and so on, ok? There's plenty of ways Coke can force you to watch their commercials - install screens on every street, say, so that when you go out to buy food, you cannot help but view their ads.
There is no morality inherent in a capitalist system - it has to be imposed from outside. It is silly to champion any version of it as the pure and good and proved system. Rather, we should recognise particular compromises to freedom we require to remove that which we find obscene.
My understanding of fair trade is that it pays a fixed, *low* amount for coffee, irrespective of the market. It's not about forcing up prices, but instead offering an insurance against volatility in the market price. (which is important when most sellers have very little in terms of savings)
If the price is set fairly (heh), it should have no such impact.
The system favours the rich, because the rich can manipulate the rules of the system. In an extreme case, if the rich were to employ the mafia to shoot people who do not participate in the trade, then naturally all the poor people would make a trade where they give away everything for no return - the trade would then be beneficial to the rich, obviously, but also beneficial to the poor, since they don't get shot. But just? Hardly.
From advertising to propaganda to education to law and so on, control of people's perceptions and reality of 'their best interest' is an established strategy. Why grant regulation by elected governments special attention as only one of such maneuvers?
There's a big difference between having thermometers, and an organised meteological service keeping temperature records using accurate equipment at the same location for a period of time. According to wikipedia:
The arrival of the electrical telegraph in 1837 afforded, for the first time, a practical method for gathering quickly information on surface weather conditions from over a wide area. This data could be used to produce maps of the state of the atmosphere for a region near the Earth's surface and to study how these states evolved through time. To make frequent weather forecasts based on these data required a reliable network of observations, but it was not until 1849 that Smithsonian Institute began to establish an observation network across the United States under the leadership of Joseph Henry [1]. Similar observation networks were established in Europe at this time.
Note that the dates are pretty much precisely 150 years ago.
They still make wine in England today. And some people think that it tastes better than French wine. And Africa, where it is a whole lot hotter than France, doesn't make good wine at all. How 'good' wine tastes is no indicator of global temperature conditions.
The thing is, we do not *want* to return to the situation of over 3000 years ago, because it is not a situation in which modern civilisation has arisen.
As for the 150 years thing, it's because they had no thermometers 150 years ago, so their records only go back 150 years.
And in this case, the 30 years figure is because observations of this kind done with satellites has only been possible for 30 years, and any prior event would be impossible to measure.
Liberty doesn't arise when the government fears its people. The vast majority of genocidal incidents, from Stalin to Mao to Hitler and so on, arose in an atmosphere where the average citizen was fanatically in support of the dictator, but the dictator had a paranoid and irrational fear of the people.
A tyranny where the people are conscious enough of their oppression to feel *fear* of the government is one that will very soon collapse, likely into liberty. One where the fear goes the other way is one that is very liable to commit horrific crimes - and get away with it.
Sure he does. All crime prevention cameras have warning signs around them to point them out. Else, they would be useless for deterrence. Also, cameras are far more accountable than police officers, because by law every accused has the right to request access to the camera footage of the case and use it as evidence in favour of himself. Access to camera monitoring rooms are also controlled and logged (else, there would be risk for tampering with potential evidence), so you would know the individuals responsible.
Yes, but what I said was that terminating implies rational. Certainly, there are non-terminating rational numbers (in fact, ALL rationals have non-terminating expansions in the form of 0.9999...), but what I mean is that any discussion of Pi having a final decimal digit means one exists, which means there is a finite decimal expansion, which means that it is rational, which pi isn't.
Also, boo to the mod who thought modding me off topic was a worthwhile use of mod points.
1. It isn't remotely self-sufficient. ISS 2 (or whatever) probably won't be fully self-sufficient either, but it'll let us work on the logistics issue first. 2. It is strictly a space lab. If we want it to be a portal into the rest of the solar system, we need to have something where we can construct and refit spacecraft in orbit. 3. It is very low orbit.
You know, I still like them to explore the multiple universes storyline. (Remember the mysterious mirror that they discovered before Apophis' first invasion? I don't buy the idea that they really packed that away forever. What about mirror universe versions of the mirror?) A sort of Stargate version of Sliders, really.
Correlation may not equal causation, but it is still something. Correlations are sources of information by which why hypothesis may be discriminated from another, and this synthesis of statistical correspondances is the method by which all science is done. Where are those declaring that correlation does not equal causation to the germ theory of medicine, to the efficient markets principle, to the prevailing philosophies and ideologies of the world. What climatologists have done is develop a model based on well agreed on science and confirmed this model according to all measurements they have done. There is nothing more that they could do.
There are many, many factors that affect global warming, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
But how much information is enough? No skeptic has ever given a hint as to the amount of evidence there is that we need to amass before we do anything. Solar radiance, volcanic action, interaction between gases, microclimate vs overall climate are all understood and discussed in the scientific literature. At what point do we stop waving our hands at unspecific unknowns, and quit moving the goalposts? Isn't it true that those asking for such things are not waiting for the truth, but are just waiting for someone to give a more convenient answer?
And why do people think acting against global warming is socialist?
That's because there's been a concerted project by certain companies to portray themselves as though they were the entirity of the free market. While companies in Europe are petitioning for stronger environmental measures to create incentives for technological development, these companies continue to adopt get rich quick short term strategies and use propaganda to get the government to subsidise them.
The proposed policies are no more 'big government' than such things as government grants for national security and Iraq reconstruction, and no more socialist than any legislation. It is *not* going to destroy capitalism, and in terms of cost, it is likely to be a fraction of the aforementioned cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, if this armour becomes prevalent, we should consider reintroducing cavalry.
Isn't high quality porn an oxymoron?
You don't fund studies whose goal is skepticism. You don't fund studies with a goal, full stop. Papers don't get published in peer reviewed journals with Aim: To Disprove General Relativity. You fund studies to gather evidence, and produce a conclusion that would enlighten you about the subject in question. Gravity Probe B was not sponsored by a wide consortium of companies with an interest in etheric theory.
The only studies being done are the ones in peer reviewed papers, gathering new evidence to test climate theory. You can't balance that with people paid to spout discredited nonsense about old data with no peer review. And almost all of the former support gw.
Out by a factor of a hundred.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cl
But how different is application of physical force to, say, denial of essential services if the customer does not bargain, or a situation where education is controlled by corporate sponsors? Why is physical force to limit freedom bad, whilst subtler forms of psychological manipulation, from billboard ads and banner ads and so on, ok? There's plenty of ways Coke can force you to watch their commercials - install screens on every street, say, so that when you go out to buy food, you cannot help but view their ads.
There is no morality inherent in a capitalist system - it has to be imposed from outside. It is silly to champion any version of it as the pure and good and proved system. Rather, we should recognise particular compromises to freedom we require to remove that which we find obscene.
My understanding of fair trade is that it pays a fixed, *low* amount for coffee, irrespective of the market. It's not about forcing up prices, but instead offering an insurance against volatility in the market price. (which is important when most sellers have very little in terms of savings)
If the price is set fairly (heh), it should have no such impact.
I think you are being naive.
The system favours the rich, because the rich can manipulate the rules of the system. In an extreme case, if the rich were to employ the mafia to shoot people who do not participate in the trade, then naturally all the poor people would make a trade where they give away everything for no return - the trade would then be beneficial to the rich, obviously, but also beneficial to the poor, since they don't get shot. But just? Hardly.
From advertising to propaganda to education to law and so on, control of people's perceptions and reality of 'their best interest' is an established strategy. Why grant regulation by elected governments special attention as only one of such maneuvers?
Now I'm imagining Ford telling Portman how much he likes sand.
Note that the dates are pretty much precisely 150 years ago.
Why do you think that global warming has only been going on for 20 years?
They still make wine in England today. And some people think that it tastes better than French wine. And Africa, where it is a whole lot hotter than France, doesn't make good wine at all. How 'good' wine tastes is no indicator of global temperature conditions.
The thing is, we do not *want* to return to the situation of over 3000 years ago, because it is not a situation in which modern civilisation has arisen.
As for the 150 years thing, it's because they had no thermometers 150 years ago, so their records only go back 150 years.
And in this case, the 30 years figure is because observations of this kind done with satellites has only been possible for 30 years, and any prior event would be impossible to measure.
How can it be a free state if they are being watched, then?
When we can watch them back.
It's a dumb statement either way.
Liberty doesn't arise when the government fears its people. The vast majority of genocidal incidents, from Stalin to Mao to Hitler and so on, arose in an atmosphere where the average citizen was fanatically in support of the dictator, but the dictator had a paranoid and irrational fear of the people.
A tyranny where the people are conscious enough of their oppression to feel *fear* of the government is one that will very soon collapse, likely into liberty. One where the fear goes the other way is one that is very liable to commit horrific crimes - and get away with it.
So the problem is the camera operator makes a mistake or calls you nigger or whatever.
You think that they don't record whatever is being said through the speakers?
Sure he does. All crime prevention cameras have warning signs around them to point them out. Else, they would be useless for deterrence. Also, cameras are far more accountable than police officers, because by law every accused has the right to request access to the camera footage of the case and use it as evidence in favour of himself. Access to camera monitoring rooms are also controlled and logged (else, there would be risk for tampering with potential evidence), so you would know the individuals responsible.
Yes, but what I said was that terminating implies rational. Certainly, there are non-terminating rational numbers (in fact, ALL rationals have non-terminating expansions in the form of 0.9999...), but what I mean is that any discussion of Pi having a final decimal digit means one exists, which means there is a finite decimal expansion, which means that it is rational, which pi isn't.
Also, boo to the mod who thought modding me off topic was a worthwhile use of mod points.
Mathematically, it is provable that there is *no* last digit of Pi. (Else, it would be rational, but we know that Pi is transcendental)
Checking whois leads to Chris C Kemp: (Notice website similarities)
http://www.chrisckemp.com/
This guy doesn't seem to have any connections to google or NASA, true, though I don't know if phishing is an accurate accusation.
But be careful, folks.
Well, I'm feeling lucky.
In a word, contrarotation.
Have two rotating components that rotate in opposite directions. If helicopters can manage it, then so can space stations.
ISS isn't a proper space colony, though.
1. It isn't remotely self-sufficient. ISS 2 (or whatever) probably won't be fully self-sufficient either, but it'll let us work on the logistics issue first.
2. It is strictly a space lab. If we want it to be a portal into the rest of the solar system, we need to have something where we can construct and refit spacecraft in orbit.
3. It is very low orbit.
Run the game on emulation! That way, you can use save states for that sort of stuff.
BTW, the ending sucks.
You know, I still like them to explore the multiple universes storyline. (Remember the mysterious mirror that they discovered before Apophis' first invasion? I don't buy the idea that they really packed that away forever. What about mirror universe versions of the mirror?) A sort of Stargate version of Sliders, really.
Correlation may not equal causation, but it is still something. Correlations are sources of information by which why hypothesis may be discriminated from another, and this synthesis of statistical correspondances is the method by which all science is done. Where are those declaring that correlation does not equal causation to the germ theory of medicine, to the efficient markets principle, to the prevailing philosophies and ideologies of the world. What climatologists have done is develop a model based on well agreed on science and confirmed this model according to all measurements they have done. There is nothing more that they could do.
There are many, many factors that affect global warming, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
But how much information is enough? No skeptic has ever given a hint as to the amount of evidence there is that we need to amass before we do anything. Solar radiance, volcanic action, interaction between gases, microclimate vs overall climate are all understood and discussed in the scientific literature. At what point do we stop waving our hands at unspecific unknowns, and quit moving the goalposts? Isn't it true that those asking for such things are not waiting for the truth, but are just waiting for someone to give a more convenient answer?
And why do people think acting against global warming is socialist?
That's because there's been a concerted project by certain companies to portray themselves as though they were the entirity of the free market. While companies in Europe are petitioning for stronger environmental measures to create incentives for technological development, these companies continue to adopt get rich quick short term strategies and use propaganda to get the government to subsidise them.
The proposed policies are no more 'big government' than such things as government grants for national security and Iraq reconstruction, and no more socialist than any legislation. It is *not* going to destroy capitalism, and in terms of cost, it is likely to be a fraction of the aforementioned cases.