i agree completely, there is nothing worse for *any* cause than an uneducated follower. look for my post farther down that details some of the whacky ideas that sort of sheepleism has lead to.
Thank you. This is what we need for meaningful discussion, not ranting and raving about various one off pieces of 'evidence' And of course, once again, I find myself reiterating my stance on "fixing' AGW.
Anything We Do To Fix It, Must Not Cause Harm IF We Are In Error.
seriously, In the last year, I have seen, here on/. as well as from many other news sources, the following ideas:
1. genetically re-engineering kangaroos to not pass methane.
2. genetically re-engineering cows to not pass methane.
3. spreading reflective particles in the upper atmosphere.
4. spreading iron oxide in the sea to promote plankton growth to absorb carbon and sequester it on the bottom of the sea.
5. using machines to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and storing it in large inflatable tubes on the bottom of the sea.
6. manufacturing large insulating blankets to wrap the glaciers in to prevent melting (seriously? you think we can make those without adding more pollutants than you are going to compensate for?)
and that is just the start of a long and ridiculous list. Any one of these ideas could backfire hugely, the genetic engineering ones could wipe out entire species, the particles could poison animals, or cause far greater cooling than was needed, iron oxide in the sea could cause oxygen drops, kill other marine life, or other things. balloons of CO2 in the sea could rupture, rip lose and damage habitat, to name a few.
You want a good, useful, effective way to scrub Carbon? grow bamboo. Bamboo can be manufactured into lumber, textiles, flooring, countertops, window blinds, and any number of other products. It sequesters carbon by growing, and grows quickly, allowing larger amounts to be stored. Plants only absorb carbon when growing, so old growth forest is not as useful as a rapidly growing product.
The point is, DO NO HARM. we need a hippocratic oath for fighting global warming, or we are going to put ourselves into a bigger mess than we already are in.
actually it looks like its about... 25km long, and about uh.. 7-9 km wide at its widest point. its 200m thick, and ice tends to do that 2/3rds of it is underwater thing, so about 400 feet of it are under water. This is not to say that you further examples are flawed, just that the berg is *HUGE*
now, I'm still processing all the data for myself on global warming, and have not made my final decision one way or the other. I am leaning towards the idea that anything we do to prevent/correct global warming *That Does Not Cause More Harm If We Are Wrong* is a good idea. That said, I do have this question:
Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?
Now, I don't pretend that/. is the pinnacle of human communication or anything, but it seems to me that if you want to have a rational discussion abut the subject, and perhaps attract a few more people to your cause (saving the planet from humanity?) then opening with generalizing insults may not be the way to go.
i have a question:
how do you know its payed for itself? it seems to me that the only way it would definitively pay for itself is if it was used in the process of catching an intruder red handed with enough of your belongings in hand to equal the cost of the systems installation. until it does that, it has been a financial black hole.
Improper training does this. Watch the dog whisperer. its not about using "confrontational training methods" its about understanding how dogs work (pack mentality) and training them within that structure.
watch 'the dog whisperer' on the national geographic channel some time. you'll see that parent is correct in this case. If you are the dominant pack leader, then the dog will follow your lead. if you let the dog be the pack leader, it will be aggressive as it is trying to maintain its status as leader. Ceser Millan has shown this over and over: "Dogs are not People." dogs come from a pack mentality, and if you train them based on that fact instead of treating them like a humanchild or something, they will behave well.
if you look up the statistics, it turns out that "being shot with your own gun" basically happens slightly less often than 1 person being struck by lightning twice in the same week. also, 'conservatards' falls outside the realm of friendly debate, and strays into the realm of making you look like an asshole.
i operate that weapon on the principal of "1.45 round, then 4 rounds of 3 ball buckshot, then i get another gun out with larger ammo if i still need it."
that, and i also operate on the principal of "once people start shooting holes in you, your motivation tends to go downward" sure, a.22 makes a small hole in you, *but it makes a hole in you*
you may not kill on the first shot with 410 birdshot, but all except for the most hopped up meth head are going to be damn distracted, if not deterred.
this reminds me of that Dane Cook bit where he talks about how your day would be so much more interesting if you knew that when you got home, there would be a monkey in your house that you would have to do battle with.
where do you get your portcullis' from? my last supplier was using sub-par materials, and they broke down after only one weekend sedge by the local hordes. also, do yours come with complimentary moat crocodiles?
I replied before people posted the wikipedia article, clif-note version vs full article is going to lack some details, and paying attention to post nesting is always helpful.
you all seem to be forgetting the thousands of industries that require you to actually be there. like construction, manufacturing, the laying of pipes, cable, fiber, etc. farming, mining, utility repair, utility instillation, etc etc etc. Additionally, the day its possible for me to telecommute my construction job, is the day i kill myself, as humans have become superfluous to there own existence.
thats a myth. while its true that glass 'flows' it does not flow fast enough to 'go wavy' the wavy glass you see in old houses and such was wavy the day it was made.
quick primer on sheet glass:
the way we make large panes of sheet glass now is usually to float molten glass on a bead of molten tin (which has a lower melting point than glass) this allows the glass to slowly cool in a controlled environment and be perfectly flat.
the way we *used* to make sheet glass was to place a large gob of molten glass on a spinning wheel much like a potters wheel, and let centripetal force draw it out into a large sheet, however, this caused the outer edge to be thicker than the inner areas of the sheet, and caused ripples. These huge discs where then cut into panes, which where installed thick edge downward.
extra example: If glass flowed fast enough to make noticeable ripples in 80 years (you can find rippled glass in houses that old and younger) then the windows in places like notre dam cathedral should be puddles in the bottoms of the window frames.
even more unsettling, is having several checks of your credit score in a short period (less than a month, more than 7ish days) can make it go down. (all checks inside of a particular period, which is around 7 days, all count together as one check against your score, after 7 days, they are counted individually, and each reduce your score by X amount)
Slashdot Mirror
i agree completely, there is nothing worse for *any* cause than an uneducated follower. look for my post farther down that details some of the whacky ideas that sort of sheepleism has lead to.
Thank you. This is what we need for meaningful discussion, not ranting and raving about various one off pieces of 'evidence' And of course, once again, I find myself reiterating my stance on "fixing' AGW.
/. as well as from many other news sources, the following ideas:
Anything We Do To Fix It, Must Not Cause Harm IF We Are In Error.
seriously, In the last year, I have seen, here on
1. genetically re-engineering kangaroos to not pass methane.
2. genetically re-engineering cows to not pass methane.
3. spreading reflective particles in the upper atmosphere.
4. spreading iron oxide in the sea to promote plankton growth to absorb carbon and sequester it on the bottom of the sea.
5. using machines to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and storing it in large inflatable tubes on the bottom of the sea.
6. manufacturing large insulating blankets to wrap the glaciers in to prevent melting (seriously? you think we can make those without adding more pollutants than you are going to compensate for?)
and that is just the start of a long and ridiculous list. Any one of these ideas could backfire hugely, the genetic engineering ones could wipe out entire species, the particles could poison animals, or cause far greater cooling than was needed, iron oxide in the sea could cause oxygen drops, kill other marine life, or other things. balloons of CO2 in the sea could rupture, rip lose and damage habitat, to name a few.
You want a good, useful, effective way to scrub Carbon? grow bamboo. Bamboo can be manufactured into lumber, textiles, flooring, countertops, window blinds, and any number of other products. It sequesters carbon by growing, and grows quickly, allowing larger amounts to be stored. Plants only absorb carbon when growing, so old growth forest is not as useful as a rapidly growing product.
The point is, DO NO HARM. we need a hippocratic oath for fighting global warming, or we are going to put ourselves into a bigger mess than we already are in.
actually it looks like its about... 25km long, and about uh.. 7-9 km wide at its widest point. its 200m thick, and ice tends to do that 2/3rds of it is underwater thing, so about 400 feet of it are under water. This is not to say that you further examples are flawed, just that the berg is *HUGE*
more along the lines of alarming powers of estimation. i think i'm going to hire him to estimate everything for me.
thank you.
now, I'm still processing all the data for myself on global warming, and have not made my final decision one way or the other. I am leaning towards the idea that anything we do to prevent/correct global warming *That Does Not Cause More Harm If We Are Wrong* is a good idea. That said, I do have this question:
/. is the pinnacle of human communication or anything, but it seems to me that if you want to have a rational discussion abut the subject, and perhaps attract a few more people to your cause (saving the planet from humanity?) then opening with generalizing insults may not be the way to go.
Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?
Now, I don't pretend that
the fire marshal has better tools that a boot heel.
If i'd not already posted, i'd mod you hilarious.
i find it hilarious that someone stole part of your security system.
that said, your advice is most helpful.
i have a question:
how do you know its payed for itself? it seems to me that the only way it would definitively pay for itself is if it was used in the process of catching an intruder red handed with enough of your belongings in hand to equal the cost of the systems installation. until it does that, it has been a financial black hole.
Improper training does this. Watch the dog whisperer. its not about using "confrontational training methods" its about understanding how dogs work (pack mentality) and training them within that structure.
watch 'the dog whisperer' on the national geographic channel some time. you'll see that parent is correct in this case. If you are the dominant pack leader, then the dog will follow your lead. if you let the dog be the pack leader, it will be aggressive as it is trying to maintain its status as leader. Ceser Millan has shown this over and over: "Dogs are not People." dogs come from a pack mentality, and if you train them based on that fact instead of treating them like a humanchild or something, they will behave well.
if you look up the statistics, it turns out that "being shot with your own gun" basically happens slightly less often than 1 person being struck by lightning twice in the same week. also, 'conservatards' falls outside the realm of friendly debate, and strays into the realm of making you look like an asshole.
Hail the castle doctrine.
i operate that weapon on the principal of "1 .45 round, then 4 rounds of 3 ball buckshot, then i get another gun out with larger ammo if i still need it."
that, and i also operate on the principal of "once people start shooting holes in you, your motivation tends to go downward" sure, a .22 makes a small hole in you, *but it makes a hole in you*
you may not kill on the first shot with 410 birdshot, but all except for the most hopped up meth head are going to be damn distracted, if not deterred.
this reminds me of that Dane Cook bit where he talks about how your day would be so much more interesting if you knew that when you got home, there would be a monkey in your house that you would have to do battle with.
you make a fantastic point. unless your doors are steel framed, you can open it with a couple well placed kicks.
where do you get your portcullis' from? my last supplier was using sub-par materials, and they broke down after only one weekend sedge by the local hordes. also, do yours come with complimentary moat crocodiles?
other than the fact you tend to sound like you are saying "Oh, Sex"... i've defaulted to using "Mac OS Ten point whatever"
i knew i felt funny yesterday...
I replied before people posted the wikipedia article, clif-note version vs full article is going to lack some details, and paying attention to post nesting is always helpful.
you all seem to be forgetting the thousands of industries that require you to actually be there. like construction, manufacturing, the laying of pipes, cable, fiber, etc. farming, mining, utility repair, utility instillation, etc etc etc. Additionally, the day its possible for me to telecommute my construction job, is the day i kill myself, as humans have become superfluous to there own existence.
BED of molten glass, not bead. not properly proofreading for the lose.
thats a myth. while its true that glass 'flows' it does not flow fast enough to 'go wavy' the wavy glass you see in old houses and such was wavy the day it was made.
quick primer on sheet glass:
the way we make large panes of sheet glass now is usually to float molten glass on a bead of molten tin (which has a lower melting point than glass) this allows the glass to slowly cool in a controlled environment and be perfectly flat.
the way we *used* to make sheet glass was to place a large gob of molten glass on a spinning wheel much like a potters wheel, and let centripetal force draw it out into a large sheet, however, this caused the outer edge to be thicker than the inner areas of the sheet, and caused ripples. These huge discs where then cut into panes, which where installed thick edge downward.
extra example: If glass flowed fast enough to make noticeable ripples in 80 years (you can find rippled glass in houses that old and younger) then the windows in places like notre dam cathedral should be puddles in the bottoms of the window frames.
even more unsettling, is having several checks of your credit score in a short period (less than a month, more than 7ish days) can make it go down. (all checks inside of a particular period, which is around 7 days, all count together as one check against your score, after 7 days, they are counted individually, and each reduce your score by X amount)