Water vapor is dependent on the temperature, not the other way around. Why? Because water vapor rains out very quickly. The temperature differentials in the basic day-night cycle is enough to remove water vapor as a forcing of temperature.
True. The point here is though that Einstein's work was quickly pored over and accepted first by theoretical physicists as at least mathematically correct, if odd, and then by experimental physicists as tests became possible.
Ten years after Einstein first published his papers on Special Relativity, the theory was basically accepted as sound. Even in the first few years, follow-up work done by others did a lot to solidify the math behind the theory. In short, there is always the goal in science of upending the consensus: it's the quickest way to immortality. However, scientific consensus quickly builds up around ground-breaking theories that are testable, have predictive value and that are mathematically sound.
Arguing that the scientific consensus might be wrong about AGW now is like arguing in 1925 that scientific consensus about Special Relativity might be wrong: you're welcome to try it, but it's going to take real work to be taken seriously.
While scientific discoveries are by definition going against current scientific consensus, science-based policy, engineering and decision-making by definition relies on the latest scientific consensus. To argue that going with scientific consensus when planning into the future is wrong is fundamentally misunderstanding how science works.
And in doing so, you're opting for the far more expensive option. #1 You will be dealing with far more outbreaks than if you would make vaccinations mandatory, which is significantly more expensive to the government and society as a whole. #2 You will have to expand the very expensive police and court system to deal with the additional cases coming in. This also costs a lot of money.
It's funny how US libertarians regularly claim to be for smaller governments, but in doing so, invariably end up in situations where they have to significantly expand the government to deal with the fallout.
Wow, he won the caucus in a single county. Congratulations, he will be able to run as a republican for County Commissioner in St. Charles County. Yeah, it's easy to see how he is going to win the Republican nomination for president of the US from that. And he got 7k people to show up at one rally? Congratulations, he can qualify as an also ran. Wake me up when he gets to 100k.
I'd much rather have a candidate with support that's an inch wide and a mile deep than a candidate with support that is a mile wide but only an inch deep.
Except the candidate with support a mile wide has more support than the one a mile deep. Again, you're suffering from a classical mental condition. You might want to look into it.
You're assuming both sides have valid positions. They don't. One side is based on the principle of scientific inquiry, the other one on a book written by goat herders a couple of thousand years ago.
The biggest problem in the US right now is that everyone is assumed to have a valid opinion. in the vast majority of cases, there are a few valid opinions, and a whole lot of completely wrong intuitions, gut feelings and "everyone knows" positions.
Couple of hundred, maybe a thousand people tops in each. He needs the support of a few tens of million people total to win. As the saying goes, his support is a mile deep and an inch wide.
It's things like going back to the gold standard that are completely idiotic non-starters that scare me. That, and complete isolationism, coupled with extreme laissez-faire capitalism, doesn't work.
He has some good ideas on some details, but he is terrible with the grand strategy. Pray he never gets close to the presidency.
This coarse understanding of the brain is a step-up from the object-level understanding we have know. From there, we can refine the model in gradual steps.
It's definitely a study with flaws, but it's also a study that advances the current state of the art.
Patience, grass hopper. The neural interfaces to allow for Total Recall to become reality are still a few coarse and flawed studies away.
Simple solution: invent some alien bugs that are coming to infest, and presto! humanity will be one giant tribe, united against another tribe. Problem solved. FOREVER!
Europe has had the longest period of interstate peace in its history, MAINLY because of the Cold War (something few Europeans I've met will credit) and the likelihood of nuclear annihilation. It's had very little to do with general Euro-amity.
You clearly have no clue. The cold war and nuclear annihilation was something that Europe would have to bear in case the pissing match between the US and Russia would turn violent. It was something that was quite outside their control, and quite something of a nightmare.
The reason people in Europe disagree with you on this point is because they know better - they know why the wars were fought, and why they weren't. You might want to read a bit more. Travel doesn't give you historical insight.
And prior to that, once the most economically successful and the least authoritarian country of the socialist block it had the best chance for smooth transition to post-soviet era
What the fuck - Tito was the leader of the least authoritarian country of the socialist block? Really? Do you also consider Castro an englightened, democratic leader? What about that guy from Iraq - Hussein something or other. I mean, he lead a secular party, surely he was leading Iraq on the way to a post-Islamic era?
Newsflash: the only reason Yugoslavia didn't fall apart was because Tito brutally repressed any time of dissent or splinter faction.
Funny how none of your links support the idea that universities should be protected from Chinese spies. It almost sounds like the fact that they might actually LEARN something there is not really surprising!
As ugly and imperfect as the US may be, don't you think its principles and ideals and those of its allies are worth protecting?
The problem arises when in the name of protecting principles and ideals, processes and procedures are enacted that kill off those exact principles and ideals.
And that's exactly what is happening right now. What good is it to fight a war, when fighting the war means you are the same as your enemy?
By the way, China holds another lesson that is far more important than all this handwringing about Communists (which they really aren't): that even if you conquer a country, you might not actually conquer the people. And that's really all that matters.
Sadly, since stand your ground laws are fairly new, there isn't much data on this. Here are some interesting statistical comparisons though on racial disparities when it comes to crack and powder cocaine. Notice that there are a lot of factors at work here, some of which are related to the specifics of the laws, and some to which drugs are more targeted by laws. But at some point, the question has to be answered: why do so many factors conspire to create much longer sentences for black people convicted of cocaine crimes?
Finally, "without evidence to the contrary, the police were legally prohibited from doing anything but taking the shooter at his word". Fair enough. But what do you consider evidence to the contrary? Assume for a second that the shooter's word is unreliable (motive in case shooting was unwarranted). What would constitute evidence that the shooter was not acting in self-defense? Wounds to the shooter's head? Could as well have been self-defense on the part of the dead guy. The point is that we really don't know what the police deemed lack of evidence, because the only thing that was in the police report was some bruises on the shooter. For me, identifying lack of evidence requires that there is at least evidence for searching - not just taking a look at a scene and going "yep, self-defense."
Stand your ground laws are doubly dangerous: they allow for confrontations to escalate quickly, and for the shooter to go away free as long as there are no witnesses to the shooting.
Feel free to address the point here. So far, I see nothing but rhetorical devices that are designed to elicit an emotional response, rather than a rational discussion.
Ah, the attempt to put a new meaning to the word racist, and derail the conversation into a discussion on semantics. Cute. You're behind the times though, and even the Stormfront people have settled on just coining a new term, after their attempts to redefine the word failed pretty miserably.
The question is: am I right in my assertion? Based on conviction rates alone of specific sets of crimes that ought to be colorblind (crack convictions, for example), I am. I am interested to hear your counter argument. What you've presented so far is not one.
In other words, you have no idea what racism actually is. Congratulations on growing up as part of the privileged class. Now leave your protected world and get some experience in other parts of the world.
You are saying that everyone needs to work your value of tolerance into their belief system, changing that belief system as necessary.
Yes, but tolerance itself is a very different value than "brush your teeth", "eat an apple a day" or "work hard" and "pray to a specific entity in a specific place". Here's why: * tolerance is a value that allows for the peaceful coexistence of a lot of people with lots of different ideas on what is "right. Intolerance is a value that focuses on segregation across many lines. * tolerance is a value focuses on the acceptance of others. intolerance is a value that focuses on the rejection of others.
As a result, intolerance of intolerance is absolutely not the same thing as generic intolerance. And quite frankly, anyone who claims that it is is either is a shining example of why a liberal arts education is important, or ought to live life alone, outside any group.
You're again missing the problem entirely. Everyone is aware that there a nutjobs out there who will shoot someone if they thing someone is looking at them funny. The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense. You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.
That's the difference, and that's why all your attempts at moral equivocation are absolutely laughable: in the words of Token Black, "You just don't get it."
Government-funded NPR.... yeah, no. It's member-station funded for the large majority, and the member stations are funded to 60% (depending on the station) by listener contributions. Unless you have an axe to grind or are willing to delve into the details of their funding, NPR is listener-funded. As for why he was fired: I'd say he was fired for being a moronic news analyst. Not sure that him being black had anything to do with it, but Fox News definitely got some marketing and PR miles out of it.
Fair enough. But how many Instagram users are NOT already on Facebook? To expand your analogy, this is like buying cattle that is sitting in a small little fence that is already surrounded by a much larger fence - your fence. This means that one of three things is true: Instagram users are for some reason largely not on Facebook, there's something about the Instagram app that is special, or Zuckerberg got suckered. I hope it's the last one, but... who knows. I'm still curious to see if I'm missing something here.
OK, I have to admit it: I don't get it. What is it about Instragram that is worth $1Billion? Isn't it just a photo app with some built-in filters and sharing tools? Kinda like any other semi-advanced photo app?
So again - 1 $Billion? I mean, grats to the Instagram founders for cashing out in a massive fashion. But is this just another AOL? Is Facebook just grasping at straws in terms of trying to grow?
And this is exactly why scientists study things - because a gut feeling is not the same as data, no matter how much you'd like to believe that.
Fortunately for us, there are people willing to take your ridicule and ask obvious questions, with the idea that the answer might not be nearly as obvious as anyone thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Water vapor is dependent on the temperature, not the other way around. Why? Because water vapor rains out very quickly. The temperature differentials in the basic day-night cycle is enough to remove water vapor as a forcing of temperature.
True. The point here is though that Einstein's work was quickly pored over and accepted first by theoretical physicists as at least mathematically correct, if odd, and then by experimental physicists as tests became possible.
Ten years after Einstein first published his papers on Special Relativity, the theory was basically accepted as sound. Even in the first few years, follow-up work done by others did a lot to solidify the math behind the theory. In short, there is always the goal in science of upending the consensus: it's the quickest way to immortality. However, scientific consensus quickly builds up around ground-breaking theories that are testable, have predictive value and that are mathematically sound.
Arguing that the scientific consensus might be wrong about AGW now is like arguing in 1925 that scientific consensus about Special Relativity might be wrong: you're welcome to try it, but it's going to take real work to be taken seriously.
While scientific discoveries are by definition going against current scientific consensus, science-based policy, engineering and decision-making by definition relies on the latest scientific consensus. To argue that going with scientific consensus when planning into the future is wrong is fundamentally misunderstanding how science works.
And in doing so, you're opting for the far more expensive option.
#1 You will be dealing with far more outbreaks than if you would make vaccinations mandatory, which is significantly more expensive to the government and society as a whole.
#2 You will have to expand the very expensive police and court system to deal with the additional cases coming in. This also costs a lot of money.
It's funny how US libertarians regularly claim to be for smaller governments, but in doing so, invariably end up in situations where they have to significantly expand the government to deal with the fallout.
Wow, he won the caucus in a single county. Congratulations, he will be able to run as a republican for County Commissioner in St. Charles County. Yeah, it's easy to see how he is going to win the Republican nomination for president of the US from that. And he got 7k people to show up at one rally? Congratulations, he can qualify as an also ran. Wake me up when he gets to 100k.
I'd much rather have a candidate with support that's an inch wide and a mile deep than a candidate with support that is a mile wide but only an inch deep.
Except the candidate with support a mile wide has more support than the one a mile deep. Again, you're suffering from a classical mental condition. You might want to look into it.
You're assuming both sides have valid positions. They don't. One side is based on the principle of scientific inquiry, the other one on a book written by goat herders a couple of thousand years ago.
The biggest problem in the US right now is that everyone is assumed to have a valid opinion. in the vast majority of cases, there are a few valid opinions, and a whole lot of completely wrong intuitions, gut feelings and "everyone knows" positions.
Couple of hundred, maybe a thousand people tops in each. He needs the support of a few tens of million people total to win. As the saying goes, his support is a mile deep and an inch wide.
I think there was a psychological study out there that actually identified your syndrome. Ah, right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect
It's things like going back to the gold standard that are completely idiotic non-starters that scare me. That, and complete isolationism, coupled with extreme laissez-faire capitalism, doesn't work.
He has some good ideas on some details, but he is terrible with the grand strategy. Pray he never gets close to the presidency.
This coarse understanding of the brain is a step-up from the object-level understanding we have know. From there, we can refine the model in gradual steps.
It's definitely a study with flaws, but it's also a study that advances the current state of the art.
Patience, grass hopper. The neural interfaces to allow for Total Recall to become reality are still a few coarse and flawed studies away.
Simple solution: invent some alien bugs that are coming to infest, and presto! humanity will be one giant tribe, united against another tribe. Problem solved. FOREVER!
Europe has had the longest period of interstate peace in its history, MAINLY because of the Cold War (something few Europeans I've met will credit) and the likelihood of nuclear annihilation. It's had very little to do with general Euro-amity.
You clearly have no clue. The cold war and nuclear annihilation was something that Europe would have to bear in case the pissing match between the US and Russia would turn violent. It was something that was quite outside their control, and quite something of a nightmare.
The reason people in Europe disagree with you on this point is because they know better - they know why the wars were fought, and why they weren't. You might want to read a bit more. Travel doesn't give you historical insight.
And prior to that, once the most economically successful and the least authoritarian country of the socialist block it had the best chance for smooth transition to post-soviet era
What the fuck - Tito was the leader of the least authoritarian country of the socialist block? Really? Do you also consider Castro an englightened, democratic leader? What about that guy from Iraq - Hussein something or other. I mean, he lead a secular party, surely he was leading Iraq on the way to a post-Islamic era?
Newsflash: the only reason Yugoslavia didn't fall apart was because Tito brutally repressed any time of dissent or splinter faction.
Fucking moron.
Funny how none of your links support the idea that universities should be protected from Chinese spies. It almost sounds like the fact that they might actually LEARN something there is not really surprising!
As ugly and imperfect as the US may be, don't you think its principles and ideals and those of its allies are worth protecting?
The problem arises when in the name of protecting principles and ideals, processes and procedures are enacted that kill off those exact principles and ideals.
And that's exactly what is happening right now. What good is it to fight a war, when fighting the war means you are the same as your enemy?
By the way, China holds another lesson that is far more important than all this handwringing about Communists (which they really aren't): that even if you conquer a country, you might not actually conquer the people. And that's really all that matters.
Juan Williams was a news analyst, not an opinion writer.He was on Fox News as an official representative of NPR, not as a private citizen.
The rest of your argument is about as wrong as your statements on Juan Williams.
Notice that being a racist and knowing what racism is are two different things. Hence why they are called two different things.
Idiot.
Sadly, since stand your ground laws are fairly new, there isn't much data on this. Here are some interesting statistical comparisons though on racial disparities when it comes to crack and powder cocaine. Notice that there are a lot of factors at work here, some of which are related to the specifics of the laws, and some to which drugs are more targeted by laws. But at some point, the question has to be answered: why do so many factors conspire to create much longer sentences for black people convicted of cocaine crimes?
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf
See also the additional reading at the end.
Finally, "without evidence to the contrary, the police were legally prohibited from doing anything but taking the shooter at his word". Fair enough. But what do you consider evidence to the contrary? Assume for a second that the shooter's word is unreliable (motive in case shooting was unwarranted). What would constitute evidence that the shooter was not acting in self-defense? Wounds to the shooter's head? Could as well have been self-defense on the part of the dead guy. The point is that we really don't know what the police deemed lack of evidence, because the only thing that was in the police report was some bruises on the shooter. For me, identifying lack of evidence requires that there is at least evidence for searching - not just taking a look at a scene and going "yep, self-defense."
Stand your ground laws are doubly dangerous: they allow for confrontations to escalate quickly, and for the shooter to go away free as long as there are no witnesses to the shooting.
Feel free to address the point here. So far, I see nothing but rhetorical devices that are designed to elicit an emotional response, rather than a rational discussion.
Ah, the attempt to put a new meaning to the word racist, and derail the conversation into a discussion on semantics. Cute. You're behind the times though, and even the Stormfront people have settled on just coining a new term, after their attempts to redefine the word failed pretty miserably.
The question is: am I right in my assertion? Based on conviction rates alone of specific sets of crimes that ought to be colorblind (crack convictions, for example), I am. I am interested to hear your counter argument. What you've presented so far is not one.
In other words, you have no idea what racism actually is. Congratulations on growing up as part of the privileged class. Now leave your protected world and get some experience in other parts of the world.
No, it's not.
You are saying that everyone needs to work your value of tolerance into their belief system, changing that belief system as necessary.
Yes, but tolerance itself is a very different value than "brush your teeth", "eat an apple a day" or "work hard" and "pray to a specific entity in a specific place". Here's why:
* tolerance is a value that allows for the peaceful coexistence of a lot of people with lots of different ideas on what is "right. Intolerance is a value that focuses on segregation across many lines.
* tolerance is a value focuses on the acceptance of others. intolerance is a value that focuses on the rejection of others.
As a result, intolerance of intolerance is absolutely not the same thing as generic intolerance. And quite frankly, anyone who claims that it is is either is a shining example of why a liberal arts education is important, or ought to live life alone, outside any group.
You're again missing the problem entirely. Everyone is aware that there a nutjobs out there who will shoot someone if they thing someone is looking at them funny. The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense. You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.
That's the difference, and that's why all your attempts at moral equivocation are absolutely laughable: in the words of Token Black, "You just don't get it."
Government-funded NPR.... yeah, no. It's member-station funded for the large majority, and the member stations are funded to 60% (depending on the station) by listener contributions. Unless you have an axe to grind or are willing to delve into the details of their funding, NPR is listener-funded. As for why he was fired: I'd say he was fired for being a moronic news analyst. Not sure that him being black had anything to do with it, but Fox News definitely got some marketing and PR miles out of it.
Fair enough. But how many Instagram users are NOT already on Facebook? To expand your analogy, this is like buying cattle that is sitting in a small little fence that is already surrounded by a much larger fence - your fence. This means that one of three things is true: Instagram users are for some reason largely not on Facebook, there's something about the Instagram app that is special, or Zuckerberg got suckered. I hope it's the last one, but... who knows. I'm still curious to see if I'm missing something here.
OK, I have to admit it: I don't get it. What is it about Instragram that is worth $1Billion? Isn't it just a photo app with some built-in filters and sharing tools? Kinda like any other semi-advanced photo app?
So again - 1 $Billion? I mean, grats to the Instagram founders for cashing out in a massive fashion. But is this just another AOL? Is Facebook just grasping at straws in terms of trying to grow?
And this is exactly why scientists study things - because a gut feeling is not the same as data, no matter how much you'd like to believe that.
Fortunately for us, there are people willing to take your ridicule and ask obvious questions, with the idea that the answer might not be nearly as obvious as anyone thought.