Which raises the question of the right to know things, the right to apply those things we know, perhaps things figured out independently of any "IP owner".
DingDing! It's all about access to knowledge, and ultimately, power. Yeah, right now, it's about entertainment. Notice how all kinds of things are being called IP nowadays, and how everyone is trying to monetize (bleagh) it? Welcome to the new world of IP haves and IP have nots. It's the new way to institutionalize social and economic strata. The US thinks it's good because it is on top of the knowledge pyramid now, but this won't last much longer.
IP laws only benefit the ones who have knowledge, and only by keeping others in the dark. It's the dark ages all over again, with monks the only ones with access to knowledge, and thereby holding an incredible position of power.
Very true. However, you are making one mistake. Just because something happened once and happened again doesn't mean that the same thing was responsible for the event. Furthermore, if you look at the environments when the earth warmed and cooled dramatically, notice something? That's right, no humans around, and dramatic impact on fauna and flora.
The data that exists now is enough to verify whether certain man-made events had an impact or not. That's what's concerning.
Causation: Hi. I'm Causation. Correlation: And I'm Correlation. Causation, you don't actually exist. Just because one event followed another doesn't mean that there's causation. Causation: CO2 is more efficient at absorbing infrared than N2 or O2. Physics - it works, bitch.
At which point causation beats correlation to a bloody pulp.
Interesting. I remember the hype about Talisman, and how it was going to revolutionize graphics generation. Thanks for that little bit of history there.
The only thing I'm interested in is the optimal temperature for humans. And right now, we've pretty much optimized ourselves to live with the current temperatures. Change that, and we will be impacted.
We can live in a broad range of temperatures, and pretty well at that. But changing to a different range of temperatures will cost a ton of money.
Now it doesn't go the full 1.2% we'd need to explain the Global Warming (unless it went up as a different rate before), but it almost halves the effect we can blame ourselves for.
Ding ding ding! No one in the scientific community has ever argued that solar forcing is irrelevant. The argument is that solar forcing only explains about 30% of the changes seen in global temperatures, with about 50% due to CO2 emissions (numbers from memory, relationships between numbers about right). I'm actually surprised how close your back-of-the-envelope calculation was to the real deal.
I find it interesting that a single drop in month over month average temperatures constitutes a cooling trend. Not to mention that temperatures climbed back up, and back down.... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Really, get a grip on statistics. You come across like a complete crackpot when you claim that single data point indicates any trend whatsoever.
Not sure that being able to change the entire drive-train in under 4 minutes is in the spirit of competition. As for the Wankel.. you have a point there.
However, pit stops sap time that cannot be made up by being just marginally faster. You have to be significantly faster. Fuel efficiency is a major component of pit stop strategies, and much better than mandating max fuel consumption.
But KE is what governs the results of the impact. KE needs to be dissipated before the vehicle comes to rest. And safety is all about what happens until a vehicle comes to rest.
But that's the point - one set of data points is of far better quality than the other. To even put them on any sort of equal footing is foolish.
As for supporters of solar forcing claiming that the earth isn't heating up... just read a few of the posts here or some of the blogs and websites that believe that. It's not a 100% overlap, but it's pretty significant.
I always found this assertion interesting. The highly indirect measurements of the temperature of the outer planets, which could potentially indicate a warming over the last few years, are taken at face value. Yet the increase in temperature on Earth, measured in countless ways and recorded over hundreds of years, mean nothing.
That restriction already exists. It's called a pit stop. Endurance races like the 24 hours of Le Mans are won on one thing: fewer pit stops. If you can stop less often than your competitors while still turning laps within a couple of seconds of the leader, you will win. That's the idea behind Audi's Diesel cars in those races, and they have been tremendously successful.
Not to mention that if this is an actual safety feature, I'd imagine that a lot of people would want to spring for it. Which, of course, means lots of tall cars on the road... which reduces visibility... which forces people to buy ever taller cars... until everyone is in an AT-AT. Hey, Deathwalkers for everyone!
Horse shit. Have you seen the sizes of the Civics? The Civic of 79 was a tiny little hatchback, about the size of a Mini of the day. Today's Civic is the size of an Accord in the 90s.
Safety devices added very little in terms of weight. What was added was sheer size. In general, cars went up about two sizes in the last 15 years. A Civic went from a subcompact to an intermediate car, and an intermediate car went to a full-size car.
ABS doesn't add much weight. It's electronics that modulates the brake power. If you have assisted braking, ABS means almost no extra weight. Air bags are.... bags that are filled with air. They do add weight, but no more than a few pounds. Crumple zones are engineering design features, not actual metal. So they don't add any weight on their own. Passenger cages.... I'll give you that.
It actually revolves far more around comfort, luxury and size. That 93 Civic is much smaller than the 2006 Civic, which is the size of the old Accords.
In order for the miata to have the same energy-of-impact as the excursion, it would only need to be going 40% faster.
Odd - slashdot managed to eat my post during preview.
In any case, here's the equation you want: E=0.5m*v^2. Know that the weight of a Miata is 940 Kg and that of an excursion is 3261kg. For the Miata to have the same kinetic energy as the Excursion at 30 mph, the Miata has to drive at 55 mph.
Who is the idiot who is driving 55 in a 30 mph zone?
I didn't know when they were going up. I only thought it was plausible that they would go up - and that I didn't want to be caught driving a gas guzzler while prices are high. So I provisioned. Lookie there, it's working out nicely.
Luck is the meeting of opportunity and preparation. I was able to prepare for high gas prices by buying a fuel-efficient car. I was not able to prepare for high gas prices by investing money, because I didn't have any money to invest... which, funnily enough, was part of the reason I bought the fuel-efficient car.
Good. I hope I don't hear a peep out of you when you pay $100 every 10 days to fill up your car. I hope I don't hear any opinion from you about how to lower gas prices, because you have obviously no need for lower gas prices.
Here's something I'd like to make clear: trucks are necessary for some people. You have obviously a need for one. Congratulations (and no sarcasm intended - I'd be one of the people enlisting your help to haul stuff).
But as you pointed out yourself, there a jobs that require these things. Going grocery shopping or driving to work in your monster truck would make no sense, and I suspect that you don't do that. But plenty of people do that - they bought a Firebird or a Ford Explorer as an everyday car, and now want the government to save their butt from gas prices to which they've contributed. That's my beef with these types of car owners, and I have absolutely no mercy or empathy for them. AT $5 a gallon, it becomes cost efficient to trade down, especially if you drive more than 50 miles a day.
Here's what cracks me up: apparently, the kids are so easily influenced that just listening to some rap song or playing some video game corrupts their minds. However, the parents and community, with whom the kids interact far more than with their music and games, is incapable of influencing them.
The only conclusion I can draw: parents and preachers are less involved in their kids lives than music and videogames. Either that, or they are less interactive than Nico Bellic.
Welcome to climatology. I hope you stay long enough to learn about the multiple things affecting the climate, and the multiple things the climate affects. No, it's not easy.
The reason it doesn't snow in Antarctica is not because it's too cold - it's because it is one of the driest placest on earth. That's why everyone's so concerned about it melting: ice melt will just flow into the ocean, and there will be no additional water vapor in the air.
Slashdot Mirror
DingDing! It's all about access to knowledge, and ultimately, power. Yeah, right now, it's about entertainment. Notice how all kinds of things are being called IP nowadays, and how everyone is trying to monetize (bleagh) it?
Welcome to the new world of IP haves and IP have nots. It's the new way to institutionalize social and economic strata. The US thinks it's good because it is on top of the knowledge pyramid now, but this won't last much longer.
IP laws only benefit the ones who have knowledge, and only by keeping others in the dark. It's the dark ages all over again, with monks the only ones with access to knowledge, and thereby holding an incredible position of power.
What? We're talking about man-made warming, right? Do you even understand causation? At this point, I'm really not sure.
Very true. However, you are making one mistake. Just because something happened once and happened again doesn't mean that the same thing was responsible for the event. Furthermore, if you look at the environments when the earth warmed and cooled dramatically, notice something? That's right, no humans around, and dramatic impact on fauna and flora.
The data that exists now is enough to verify whether certain man-made events had an impact or not. That's what's concerning.
Causation: Hi. I'm Causation.
Correlation: And I'm Correlation. Causation, you don't actually exist. Just because one event followed another doesn't mean that there's causation.
Causation: CO2 is more efficient at absorbing infrared than N2 or O2. Physics - it works, bitch.
At which point causation beats correlation to a bloody pulp.
Interesting. I remember the hype about Talisman, and how it was going to revolutionize graphics generation. Thanks for that little bit of history there.
The only thing I'm interested in is the optimal temperature for humans. And right now, we've pretty much optimized ourselves to live with the current temperatures. Change that, and we will be impacted.
We can live in a broad range of temperatures, and pretty well at that. But changing to a different range of temperatures will cost a ton of money.
Ding ding ding! No one in the scientific community has ever argued that solar forcing is irrelevant. The argument is that solar forcing only explains about 30% of the changes seen in global temperatures, with about 50% due to CO2 emissions (numbers from memory, relationships between numbers about right). I'm actually surprised how close your back-of-the-envelope calculation was to the real deal.
I find it interesting that a single drop in month over month average temperatures constitutes a cooling trend. Not to mention that temperatures climbed back up, and back down.... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Really, get a grip on statistics. You come across like a complete crackpot when you claim that single data point indicates any trend whatsoever.
Not sure that being able to change the entire drive-train in under 4 minutes is in the spirit of competition. As for the Wankel.. you have a point there.
However, pit stops sap time that cannot be made up by being just marginally faster. You have to be significantly faster. Fuel efficiency is a major component of pit stop strategies, and much better than mandating max fuel consumption.
But KE is what governs the results of the impact. KE needs to be dissipated before the vehicle comes to rest. And safety is all about what happens until a vehicle comes to rest.
The term you're looking for is solar forcing.
But that's the point - one set of data points is of far better quality than the other. To even put them on any sort of equal footing is foolish.
As for supporters of solar forcing claiming that the earth isn't heating up... just read a few of the posts here or some of the blogs and websites that believe that. It's not a 100% overlap, but it's pretty significant.
I always found this assertion interesting. The highly indirect measurements of the temperature of the outer planets, which could potentially indicate a warming over the last few years, are taken at face value. Yet the increase in temperature on Earth, measured in countless ways and recorded over hundreds of years, mean nothing.
Nice confirmation bias you got going there.
That restriction already exists. It's called a pit stop. Endurance races like the 24 hours of Le Mans are won on one thing: fewer pit stops. If you can stop less often than your competitors while still turning laps within a couple of seconds of the leader, you will win. That's the idea behind Audi's Diesel cars in those races, and they have been tremendously successful.
Not to mention that if this is an actual safety feature, I'd imagine that a lot of people would want to spring for it. Which, of course, means lots of tall cars on the road... which reduces visibility... which forces people to buy ever taller cars... until everyone is in an AT-AT. Hey, Deathwalkers for everyone!
One difference - the water droplet's shape is heavily controlled by surface tension forces. Cars don't have the same problem.
Horse shit. Have you seen the sizes of the Civics? The Civic of 79 was a tiny little hatchback, about the size of a Mini of the day. Today's Civic is the size of an Accord in the 90s.
Safety devices added very little in terms of weight. What was added was sheer size. In general, cars went up about two sizes in the last 15 years. A Civic went from a subcompact to an intermediate car, and an intermediate car went to a full-size car.
ABS doesn't add much weight. It's electronics that modulates the brake power. If you have assisted braking, ABS means almost no extra weight. Air bags are.... bags that are filled with air. They do add weight, but no more than a few pounds. Crumple zones are engineering design features, not actual metal. So they don't add any weight on their own. Passenger cages.... I'll give you that.
It actually revolves far more around comfort, luxury and size. That 93 Civic is much smaller than the 2006 Civic, which is the size of the old Accords.
Odd - slashdot managed to eat my post during preview.
In any case, here's the equation you want: E=0.5m*v^2. Know that the weight of a Miata is 940 Kg and that of an excursion is 3261kg. For the Miata to have the same kinetic energy as the Excursion at 30 mph, the Miata has to drive at 55 mph.
Who is the idiot who is driving 55 in a 30 mph zone?
I didn't know when they were going up. I only thought it was plausible that they would go up - and that I didn't want to be caught driving a gas guzzler while prices are high. So I provisioned. Lookie there, it's working out nicely.
Luck is the meeting of opportunity and preparation. I was able to prepare for high gas prices by buying a fuel-efficient car. I was not able to prepare for high gas prices by investing money, because I didn't have any money to invest... which, funnily enough, was part of the reason I bought the fuel-efficient car.
Funny how it works.
Good. I hope I don't hear a peep out of you when you pay $100 every 10 days to fill up your car. I hope I don't hear any opinion from you about how to lower gas prices, because you have obviously no need for lower gas prices.
Somehow, I doubt that's how this works.
Here's something I'd like to make clear: trucks are necessary for some people. You have obviously a need for one. Congratulations (and no sarcasm intended - I'd be one of the people enlisting your help to haul stuff).
But as you pointed out yourself, there a jobs that require these things. Going grocery shopping or driving to work in your monster truck would make no sense, and I suspect that you don't do that. But plenty of people do that - they bought a Firebird or a Ford Explorer as an everyday car, and now want the government to save their butt from gas prices to which they've contributed. That's my beef with these types of car owners, and I have absolutely no mercy or empathy for them. AT $5 a gallon, it becomes cost efficient to trade down, especially if you drive more than 50 miles a day.
A little note on debate practice: pointing out flaws is easy. Constructive criticism is hard. People appreciate one, and find the other annoying.
No, you don't have to suggest alternatives when pointing out flaws. But it makes you sound like a whiner.
Here's what cracks me up: apparently, the kids are so easily influenced that just listening to some rap song or playing some video game corrupts their minds. However, the parents and community, with whom the kids interact far more than with their music and games, is incapable of influencing them.
The only conclusion I can draw: parents and preachers are less involved in their kids lives than music and videogames. Either that, or they are less interactive than Nico Bellic.
Welcome to climatology. I hope you stay long enough to learn about the multiple things affecting the climate, and the multiple things the climate affects. No, it's not easy.
The reason it doesn't snow in Antarctica is not because it's too cold - it's because it is one of the driest placest on earth. That's why everyone's so concerned about it melting: ice melt will just flow into the ocean, and there will be no additional water vapor in the air.