Add to this: when water evaporates, it leaves behind salt. What do you do with it? Collect it? Dump it into the ground?
I'd also like to mention: what kind of asshole patents a method that, in his eyes, could save the world from some pretty bleak times? Whatcouldpossiblygowrong is one appropriate tag, but the other is also asshole.
Here's an interesting aspect: the placebo effect IS real. In other words, belief has a statistically significant effect on the evolution and outcome of a certain set of diseases. If your family members truly believe that oscillococcinum works, it WILL - to a certain statistical extent. Yes, they could take a sugar pill for less money, but I'm also pretty sure the effect wouldn't be as strong.
There might be a benefit to letting your family stay (reasonably) ignorant.:)
Couple of years - about 10. Which would be beginning to change trends that have been pretty consistent. Just because the people you ask don't have that answer doesn't mean no one has. Read the papers.
As with all studies, give me a verification and access to the raw numbers. Until then, I question exactly what that study showed. By my personal anecdotal experience, conservatives are no more likely to give than liberals.
Imagine if the Federal Government let New York keep that money in state...instant balanced budget and then some.
You know what would happen if NY would be allowed to keep all of its money? It would spend it all in a heartbeat, and be in the same position as earlier.
The problem isn't lack of revenue. The problem is politicians who see state revenue as a giant cash box with which to bribe their constituents.
It's pudge. Read his blog/website. He's about as authoritarian as they come.
The problem with the authoritarian type is that they see no problem with laws that are mutually exclusive, nor do they see problems with laws that produce bad side effects. It's the law, it has to be obeyed. If it's a bad law, the courts will throw it out. Any issues that arise during the process of throwing out the bad law are merely consequences of disobeying the law, and should therefore be supported by the general population.
Fun, isn't it? In this world view, there is no way out of a bad law, unless someone in the legislature decides to change the law. Everyone else is lawbreaking scum.
You completely missed the point. It's irrelevant that grapes have grown in England, as no one is growing grapes there now. In other words, a better grape-growing climate in England will be 100% wasted. However, it will negatively affect every grower who is growing plants that are adapted to the current weather.
It is not a question of what weather is right. It's merely a question of what is the weather that we have adapted? And the answer to that is the weather we're having now. Optimality in this case is determined by what the immediate effect of change is.
I've also seen memos sent from the president of the company assuring any and all that the company will not be sold under any and all circumstance. 3 months later, the company was sold.
Leaders lie if it is necessary for their own safety or the safety of their organization. Sad, but true.
But it is also significantly more expensive than regular Internet offered by ATT or Comcast. I pay about $70 for naked DSL, which is throttled to 768Kbit due to distance from DSLAM. That's about three times as much as the offering from AT - which, granted isn't just naked DSL.
Ah.... Overpopulation. I remember that problem from my highschool days as well. You know what else I remember? That the only real solution to the problem was some form of genocide, eugenics or Homo Sapiens specific Aids/flu virus. And that's when I realized that I was full of crap and grew up. The only thing more far-fetched than those solutions is the one of off-earth colonies. I'd love to see it, but I also know it won't happen in my lifetime.
Sadly, they'll see the public smackdown as just another example of a wide-spanning conspiracy. Some people cannot entertain the thought that they might be wrong, and therefore they cannot be taught anything. Sad, but true.
Yes. Because the republic we're in is systematically different from a democracy. Right? Or are you conflating direct democracy with representative democracy? I'm sure you don't have an agenda to push here.
Or, you know, he could think that global warming is largely influenced by humans after having researched the issue. You realize that there is a chance that you could be wrong, no?
I think the trade-off is more along the lines of "Can this guy tell me what is snake-oil and what isn't, or is he going to just help me bend some arms?"
Quite often, that's where the issue is with underlings. You either get the smart ones who can tell you "this is stupid, this might work, and this has the best chance of accomplishing that goal", or you get the ones who play all the political games you need to have played to get your decision implemented. Judging from the appointment, it seems to me that Obama decided he needed someone in place who understood the basic physics of energy. I'm hoping that that means that we will get away from the idiocy that is corn-based ethanol.
Here's the problem with your approach: how do you know whether a crime has been committed? When someone's been convicted of that crime in a court of law, duh. Oh, wait..... that means that in order to prove that someone committed a crime, you need to remove that person's anonymity. Convenient, isn't it? You don't need to actually prove anything to remove someone's anonymity, you merely need to state that you think that something illegal happened.
And that's smack-dab in the middle of having no anonymous speech at all.
Feel free to sell your new product. Just don't pretend it is something entirely new that isn't built on decades of thousands of people laying a ground work that you're exploiting without giving back.
Here's the point: as an entrepreneur, you get to develop whatever you want and sell it at whatever price you want. What you don't get to do is ask for a government enforced monopoly anytime you change the color on a gizmo or add some random feature, which was probably culled from somewhere else anyway.
Pascal's wager - or the gp's modification thereof - isn't an appeal to numbers. It's a risk assessment, based on total probability of cost and benefit. If you're the only not joining a faith, you risk exclusion from society. Some people look forward to it, some don't. Pascal's wager provides some context in which to make the decision to join a belief system, even if you don't have a belief system to start.
mmmhh... looks like I borked my reply. As a quick summary, I'll just say two things: computational physics work with assumptions that would make a climatologist blush, and models are always non-physical.
Look, from one physicist to another: if you're looking for truth, you're looking in the wrong place. Philosophy will tell you all (and more) about Truth. Science merely tells you about whether models are able to accurately predict events. The fact that we get some insight into how things work is almost incidental, and always subject to revision.
The models are working, if a bit conservative in their predictions. Whether they meet your standard of physicality is irrelevant.
To some extent, it's pretty irrelevant whether humans are changing it or not. The true question is "What is the cost of the changing climate, and what is the cost of fixing it?" This of course begs the question of whether the change is manmade or not, but it's not the starting point.
The problem with the current climate change is that we have adapted and fine-tuned our civilization within a very narrow range of climate fluctuations. If that is changing significantly (and signs are it is), the cost will be tremendous. The tundra might become fertile fields once the permafrost is gone, but that means that the midwest farmer will be looking at a desert. Think he will just relocate at a whim to Canada? No.
I guess the long and short is that the Maldives are the canaries in the coal mine. Their problems will become everyone's at some point. Maybe later, maybe in a different fashion, but pain is coming. When UPS optimizes their deliveries to preferably make right-turns rather than left-turns, I can guarantee you that weather differences will impact their bottom line as well.
Not the same thing. Sharkskin was indeed known for a while to present an extremely slippery surface. What these researchers found is an additional effect: that the sharkskin can raise the individual "teeth" so that a turbulent layer gets created. This turbulent water layer prevents flow dissociation, which in turn reduces drag.
There was a 2-man boat at the last Olympics that was using dimples in its coating rather than the fairly standard sharkskin approach - it didn't win, but it was noted due to its novely.
I'm just curious - wouldn't the larger story count imply that Obama is more vetted than McCain? No? Oh, I see - it's not the number of articles you have a problem with, it's the content. At this point, I can only tell you the obvious: more people disagree with you than agree. Get over it.
Be careful with how you measure your bottomline then. If it's money - do you want to be the guy who shot his entire family, then himself, because he lost his high-paying finance job?
Once I'm safe....
How do you measure safety? What is an acceptable risk? How "safe" do you need to be? The point is that from your description of your concerns, it's impossible to determine whether you're a selfish, narrowminded idiot or a conservative, concerned family man. "Safety" and "bottom line", despite all appearances, are not definite states of being or metrics.
A)It's Democratic Party. Learn your political system. B) Today's Republican's have all of the Nazi's love of Big Government, with the additional love of military and unquestioning patriotism.
There was more to Nationalsozialismus than just work programs, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Add to this: when water evaporates, it leaves behind salt. What do you do with it? Collect it? Dump it into the ground?
I'd also like to mention: what kind of asshole patents a method that, in his eyes, could save the world from some pretty bleak times? Whatcouldpossiblygowrong is one appropriate tag, but the other is also asshole.
Here's an interesting aspect: the placebo effect IS real. In other words, belief has a statistically significant effect on the evolution and outcome of a certain set of diseases. If your family members truly believe that oscillococcinum works, it WILL - to a certain statistical extent. Yes, they could take a sugar pill for less money, but I'm also pretty sure the effect wouldn't be as strong.
There might be a benefit to letting your family stay (reasonably) ignorant. :)
Couple of years - about 10. Which would be beginning to change trends that have been pretty consistent. Just because the people you ask don't have that answer doesn't mean no one has. Read the papers.
As with all studies, give me a verification and access to the raw numbers. Until then, I question exactly what that study showed. By my personal anecdotal experience, conservatives are no more likely to give than liberals.
You know what would happen if NY would be allowed to keep all of its money? It would spend it all in a heartbeat, and be in the same position as earlier.
The problem isn't lack of revenue. The problem is politicians who see state revenue as a giant cash box with which to bribe their constituents.
It's pudge. Read his blog/website. He's about as authoritarian as they come.
The problem with the authoritarian type is that they see no problem with laws that are mutually exclusive, nor do they see problems with laws that produce bad side effects. It's the law, it has to be obeyed. If it's a bad law, the courts will throw it out. Any issues that arise during the process of throwing out the bad law are merely consequences of disobeying the law, and should therefore be supported by the general population.
Fun, isn't it? In this world view, there is no way out of a bad law, unless someone in the legislature decides to change the law. Everyone else is lawbreaking scum.
You completely missed the point. It's irrelevant that grapes have grown in England, as no one is growing grapes there now. In other words, a better grape-growing climate in England will be 100% wasted. However, it will negatively affect every grower who is growing plants that are adapted to the current weather.
It is not a question of what weather is right. It's merely a question of what is the weather that we have adapted? And the answer to that is the weather we're having now. Optimality in this case is determined by what the immediate effect of change is.
I've also seen memos sent from the president of the company assuring any and all that the company will not be sold under any and all circumstance. 3 months later, the company was sold.
Leaders lie if it is necessary for their own safety or the safety of their organization. Sad, but true.
But it is also significantly more expensive than regular Internet offered by ATT or Comcast. I pay about $70 for naked DSL, which is throttled to 768Kbit due to distance from DSLAM. That's about three times as much as the offering from AT - which, granted isn't just naked DSL.
Ah.... Overpopulation. I remember that problem from my highschool days as well. You know what else I remember? That the only real solution to the problem was some form of genocide, eugenics or Homo Sapiens specific Aids/flu virus. And that's when I realized that I was full of crap and grew up. The only thing more far-fetched than those solutions is the one of off-earth colonies. I'd love to see it, but I also know it won't happen in my lifetime.
One day, you might get there too.
Sadly, they'll see the public smackdown as just another example of a wide-spanning conspiracy. Some people cannot entertain the thought that they might be wrong, and therefore they cannot be taught anything. Sad, but true.
Yes. Because the republic we're in is systematically different from a democracy. Right? Or are you conflating direct democracy with representative democracy? I'm sure you don't have an agenda to push here.
Or, you know, he could think that global warming is largely influenced by humans after having researched the issue. You realize that there is a chance that you could be wrong, no?
I think the trade-off is more along the lines of "Can this guy tell me what is snake-oil and what isn't, or is he going to just help me bend some arms?"
Quite often, that's where the issue is with underlings. You either get the smart ones who can tell you "this is stupid, this might work, and this has the best chance of accomplishing that goal", or you get the ones who play all the political games you need to have played to get your decision implemented. Judging from the appointment, it seems to me that Obama decided he needed someone in place who understood the basic physics of energy. I'm hoping that that means that we will get away from the idiocy that is corn-based ethanol.
Here's the problem with your approach: how do you know whether a crime has been committed? When someone's been convicted of that crime in a court of law, duh. Oh, wait..... that means that in order to prove that someone committed a crime, you need to remove that person's anonymity. Convenient, isn't it? You don't need to actually prove anything to remove someone's anonymity, you merely need to state that you think that something illegal happened.
And that's smack-dab in the middle of having no anonymous speech at all.
Awesome. Only on slashdot can you find treegeeks discussing the production habits of white vs red oaks. Thanks for the insight.
Feel free to sell your new product. Just don't pretend it is something entirely new that isn't built on decades of thousands of people laying a ground work that you're exploiting without giving back.
Here's the point: as an entrepreneur, you get to develop whatever you want and sell it at whatever price you want. What you don't get to do is ask for a government enforced monopoly anytime you change the color on a gizmo or add some random feature, which was probably culled from somewhere else anyway.
Pascal's wager - or the gp's modification thereof - isn't an appeal to numbers. It's a risk assessment, based on total probability of cost and benefit. If you're the only not joining a faith, you risk exclusion from society. Some people look forward to it, some don't. Pascal's wager provides some context in which to make the decision to join a belief system, even if you don't have a belief system to start.
mmmhh... looks like I borked my reply. As a quick summary, I'll just say two things: computational physics work with assumptions that would make a climatologist blush, and models are always non-physical.
Look, from one physicist to another: if you're looking for truth, you're looking in the wrong place. Philosophy will tell you all (and more) about Truth. Science merely tells you about whether models are able to accurately predict events. The fact that we get some insight into how things work is almost incidental, and always subject to revision.
The models are working, if a bit conservative in their predictions. Whether they meet your standard of physicality is irrelevant.
To some extent, it's pretty irrelevant whether humans are changing it or not. The true question is "What is the cost of the changing climate, and what is the cost of fixing it?" This of course begs the question of whether the change is manmade or not, but it's not the starting point.
The problem with the current climate change is that we have adapted and fine-tuned our civilization within a very narrow range of climate fluctuations. If that is changing significantly (and signs are it is), the cost will be tremendous. The tundra might become fertile fields once the permafrost is gone, but that means that the midwest farmer will be looking at a desert. Think he will just relocate at a whim to Canada? No.
I guess the long and short is that the Maldives are the canaries in the coal mine. Their problems will become everyone's at some point. Maybe later, maybe in a different fashion, but pain is coming. When UPS optimizes their deliveries to preferably make right-turns rather than left-turns, I can guarantee you that weather differences will impact their bottom line as well.
Not the same thing. Sharkskin was indeed known for a while to present an extremely slippery surface. What these researchers found is an additional effect: that the sharkskin can raise the individual "teeth" so that a turbulent layer gets created. This turbulent water layer prevents flow dissociation, which in turn reduces drag.
There was a 2-man boat at the last Olympics that was using dimples in its coating rather than the fairly standard sharkskin approach - it didn't win, but it was noted due to its novely.
I'm just curious - wouldn't the larger story count imply that Obama is more vetted than McCain? No? Oh, I see - it's not the number of articles you have a problem with, it's the content. At this point, I can only tell you the obvious: more people disagree with you than agree. Get over it.
Keep blaming the media for your loss. It'll make the Republican exile from power that much longer.
A)It's Democratic Party. Learn your political system.
B) Today's Republican's have all of the Nazi's love of Big Government, with the additional love of military and unquestioning patriotism.
There was more to Nationalsozialismus than just work programs, you know.