Getting raw data from climatologists or researchers is impossible. In some infamous cases, the raw data was destroyed. In virtually every other case the requests for data are ignore or refused.
Add to this the complexity of the science. Assessing an 'average global temperature' is not as easy, apparently, as checking the thermometers around the world. And that's what the climatologists say. I believe them.
I was not only alive then, I was interested. And that controversy didn't engage the anarchists and shit-disturbers anywheres as much as warming has. Wasn't so easy to rally around.
I'm not sure it started out as a matter of exaggeration. When warming was first being discussed, the anarchists, anti-industrialists, and America-haters leapt on board and took this up as proof of their cause's righteousness. They did most of the exaggerating. Now it's all these groups fully invested in warming.
Remember when the next Ice Age was the big concern? For some of these groups, any disaster will do, thank you.
There is no point in making this claim. The scientists will refute it with copious data, and the deniers will bring out their own. Then everybody argues over what the data really means.
In the 50s, the 'rich' were plowing their capital into expansion. Postwar, we were virtually the only working economy in the world. Today, we may be in precisely the opposite situation.
So taking capital for government operation is a good idea now? Even Kennedy spoke of reducing taxes to encourage investment and economic activity, spyurring growth and in the end more tax revenue overall.
But that's one of the economic arguments. The other side has their points. Eisenhower was so right about economists.
Oh, that's funny. And pathetic. Really, you can't tell a front-page troll from pandering to the liberal/. masses, fairly slobbering at the prospect of demonizing the Right in favor of such rational concepts as taxing more in a recession, expanding government to reduce government debt, cutting entitlement programs in the same recession, spreading debt reduction over 4-5 election cycles, and preaching civility to the opposition while practising the most vile forms of libel and slander against that same opposition, with a straight face?
Not that the other side has a clue, nor any compulsion to do the very same thing, beginning with taxation, through cutting entitlements in the worst economy in decades, and finally just wanting it to be THEIR key that locks the door on recovery.
Really, too funny../ caters to all the loonies, if you squint a little.
"By the way, didn't we already have a tax like that... The Alternative Minimum Tax... As I recall, because of inflation, that sort of "Go after the rich" tax has been a failure because now it targets the middle class."
That's not a failure to the people who are so desperate to tax the rich. They are similarly intent on taxing everyone except the 'poor'. And often, but not always, themselves.
Nol, the government gets that revenue from other taxpayers. Me, for instance. And perhaps you.
Again, the equaton shouldn't be how much in taxes we pay, it should be how much we need to pay for a well-functioning government. It's the well-functioning part where the argument bogs down. Too much? Too little? Wrong things?
We're in a bind now that was inevitable - economic conditions warrant goverment expansion, but both the tax base and debt load make that counterproductive. Our fault. Our fix. Painful no matter what we do.
One of my first network gigs, they converted from twinax to Cat5 for an army of 5150 terminals. Some glad to get rid of triax, but as they brought up the twisted pair terminals, they had trouble keeping some of them online for more than a few minutes. IBM subbed the cabling work out, and it took them weeks to give up and admit they had no idea what was wrong.
At this point the powers-that-be were discussing the problem in the machine room, and their telecom tech was feeding another stick of gum into his mouth when I asked if they could stand a little advice. I recommended they loosen the cable ties that they used to bundel up the cable runs in the room and the various MDF rooms, they were pretty but very, very tight. Solved the problem. Turns out twinax waveform at the time was essentially a square wave, and UTP is not sielded like twinax. Crosstalk was the culprit. The clue? One big complaint from users was that they would get someone else's session for an instant on the scrren, then the terminal reset and they had to log in. Another session? Not exactly, but it did sometimes paint a little of screen from another session (cable) before it flipped out. Very unusual.
This should not affect Ethernet, being resistant to all forms of interference including crosstalk etc, but no point in testing the theory. Velcro ties don't cause the crimping that ties do, and that crimping was the culprit. Compression shorts do still happen, not as often as they used to in telecom.
And yes, plant ties are the bargain. Maybe soaking a few rolls in black dye to avoid the stigma of 'plant' ties will give you the panache you were looking for. Salt water sets the dye, avoids ruboff and black fingers. Or sell green as the new black.
Yeah, well, Mexico's government complains that the drug violence would be nil if the U.S. would control the drug demand up north. Point taken.
Then they claim actually closing the border would just be unacceptable. So preventing most of the drugs from crossing the border in Arizona is not a solution, apparently. I know, the cartels will just make more submarines, but raising their expenses might, just might, distract them from killing each other and innocent citizens in Mexico. Maybe.
Of course, our government isn't helping much with programs like Fast 'n Furious.
You mean getting the big bucks, caught fighting dogs and abusing them, hanging with the entourage and playing with guns, acting out, that Michael Vick?
Or ruining your life with outrageous behaviour and your idiot homies, doing prison time, finding Jesus, committing to a straight life, getting back in shape, working as hard as you ever did, taking the advice of decent men, and then earning your pay? Oh, and speaking to various groups about your shortcomings, as well as making financial contributions to groups that deal with the results of the animal abuse you used to perpetrate. And humbling yourself in public when called out for your past.
If only I had mod points, I would not be AMENing you.
As a Republican, I concur - there's not a nickel's difference between our two parties. they each want power to ingratiate themselves with voters, engorge themselves from the public trough and from the lobbyists/corporations, and to punish their enemies real and imagined.
And they both fear a third party uprising, for the very same reasons.
HFT accounts for 60-70% of volume every day, news or not, events or not, doesn't matter.
If you trade on current events, you do live and die by that sword. But the quants implement trader speculations and blend them into the stream of HFT that is pure arbitrage, on a microsecond scale.
Yes, other than the occasional flash crashes caused by interacting or misperforming algorithms, market swings are often driven by news and events. And these swings usually correct well, with exceptions.
HFT distorts this by playing the game on an entirely different scale.
I'm still stuck on why the machine trades are backed out. It's not like the blackjack table where you ask for your chips back 'cause your double didn;t pan out.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting raw data from climatologists or researchers is impossible. In some infamous cases, the raw data was destroyed. In virtually every other case the requests for data are ignore or refused.
That argument is singularly disingenuous.
Add to this the complexity of the science. Assessing an 'average global temperature' is not as easy, apparently, as checking the thermometers around the world. And that's what the climatologists say. I believe them.
I was not only alive then, I was interested. And that controversy didn't engage the anarchists and shit-disturbers anywheres as much as warming has. Wasn't so easy to rally around.
You assume facts not in evidence, about me.
I'm with ya. Really. Really. But we don't yet have the power.
You mean they might nit gave been destroyed?
I'm not sure it started out as a matter of exaggeration. When warming was first being discussed, the anarchists, anti-industrialists, and America-haters leapt on board and took this up as proof of their cause's righteousness. They did most of the exaggerating. Now it's all these groups fully invested in warming.
Remember when the next Ice Age was the big concern? For some of these groups, any disaster will do, thank you.
"global temperatures haven't risen since 1998"
There is no point in making this claim. The scientists will refute it with copious data, and the deniers will bring out their own. Then everybody argues over what the data really means.
Lost. We are lost.
Amen. For instance, the fact of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers is just someone's opinion. Actually, many opinions.
There's history, and there's opinion. Knowing the difference is helpful.
That was. My. Point.
We could use some expansion. So is taxing 'excess' income going to work?
That is the other side of the argument - if you raise taxes on high incomes sufficiently, you encourage re-investement and deferral of the income.
Whatchathink, /.ers?
In the 50s, the 'rich' were plowing their capital into expansion. Postwar, we were virtually the only working economy in the world. Today, we may be in precisely the opposite situation.
So taking capital for government operation is a good idea now? Even Kennedy spoke of reducing taxes to encourage investment and economic activity, spyurring growth and in the end more tax revenue overall.
But that's one of the economic arguments. The other side has their points. Eisenhower was so right about economists.
My president is making every effort to bring that to fruition. Good progress so far.
Against my wishes, by the way.
Oh, that's funny. And pathetic. Really, you can't tell a front-page troll from pandering to the liberal /. masses, fairly slobbering at the prospect of demonizing the Right in favor of such rational concepts as taxing more in a recession, expanding government to reduce government debt, cutting entitlement programs in the same recession, spreading debt reduction over 4-5 election cycles, and preaching civility to the opposition while practising the most vile forms of libel and slander against that same opposition, with a straight face?
Not that the other side has a clue, nor any compulsion to do the very same thing, beginning with taxation, through cutting entitlements in the worst economy in decades, and finally just wanting it to be THEIR key that locks the door on recovery.
Really, too funny. ./ caters to all the loonies, if you squint a little.
"By the way, didn't we already have a tax like that... The Alternative Minimum Tax... As I recall, because of inflation, that sort of "Go after the rich" tax has been a failure because now it targets the middle class."
That's not a failure to the people who are so desperate to tax the rich. They are similarly intent on taxing everyone except the 'poor'. And often, but not always, themselves.
We are well on our way to having NO middle class.
Nol, the government gets that revenue from other taxpayers. Me, for instance. And perhaps you.
Again, the equaton shouldn't be how much in taxes we pay, it should be how much we need to pay for a well-functioning government. It's the well-functioning part where the argument bogs down. Too much? Too little? Wrong things?
We're in a bind now that was inevitable - economic conditions warrant goverment expansion, but both the tax base and debt load make that counterproductive. Our fault. Our fix. Painful no matter what we do.
"Or questionable involvement in wars that have no impact on us?"
How about "Or questionable involvement in wars that may harm us or have no impact on us?"
Trust me, wars have impacts on us. Even the ones we aren't involved in, few as they are.
One of my first network gigs, they converted from twinax to Cat5 for an army of 5150 terminals. Some glad to get rid of triax, but as they brought up the twisted pair terminals, they had trouble keeping some of them online for more than a few minutes. IBM subbed the cabling work out, and it took them weeks to give up and admit they had no idea what was wrong.
At this point the powers-that-be were discussing the problem in the machine room, and their telecom tech was feeding another stick of gum into his mouth when I asked if they could stand a little advice. I recommended they loosen the cable ties that they used to bundel up the cable runs in the room and the various MDF rooms, they were pretty but very, very tight. Solved the problem. Turns out twinax waveform at the time was essentially a square wave, and UTP is not sielded like twinax. Crosstalk was the culprit. The clue? One big complaint from users was that they would get someone else's session for an instant on the scrren, then the terminal reset and they had to log in. Another session? Not exactly, but it did sometimes paint a little of screen from another session (cable) before it flipped out. Very unusual.
This should not affect Ethernet, being resistant to all forms of interference including crosstalk etc, but no point in testing the theory. Velcro ties don't cause the crimping that ties do, and that crimping was the culprit. Compression shorts do still happen, not as often as they used to in telecom.
And yes, plant ties are the bargain. Maybe soaking a few rolls in black dye to avoid the stigma of 'plant' ties will give you the panache you were looking for. Salt water sets the dye, avoids ruboff and black fingers. Or sell green as the new black.
When you read comments like yours it becomes immediately clear why women don't listen to us, and don't pay much attention to what we write.
Leave me out of your misogyny please. And let up on the roids.
Yeah, well, Mexico's government complains that the drug violence would be nil if the U.S. would control the drug demand up north. Point taken.
Then they claim actually closing the border would just be unacceptable. So preventing most of the drugs from crossing the border in Arizona is not a solution, apparently. I know, the cartels will just make more submarines, but raising their expenses might, just might, distract them from killing each other and innocent citizens in Mexico. Maybe.
Of course, our government isn't helping much with programs like Fast 'n Furious.
You mean getting the big bucks, caught fighting dogs and abusing them, hanging with the entourage and playing with guns, acting out, that Michael Vick?
Or ruining your life with outrageous behaviour and your idiot homies, doing prison time, finding Jesus, committing to a straight life, getting back in shape, working as hard as you ever did, taking the advice of decent men, and then earning your pay? Oh, and speaking to various groups about your shortcomings, as well as making financial contributions to groups that deal with the results of the animal abuse you used to perpetrate. And humbling yourself in public when called out for your past.
Same Michael Vick. I assume you meant that one.
"kind of like how people on the right scream "YEAH!" when asked if they would just let the poor die without health insurance"
You are an idiot. Or malicious, I can't readily tell which.
If only I had mod points, I would not be AMENing you.
As a Republican, I concur - there's not a nickel's difference between our two parties. they each want power to ingratiate themselves with voters, engorge themselves from the public trough and from the lobbyists/corporations, and to punish their enemies real and imagined.
And they both fear a third party uprising, for the very same reasons.
Not good for America. Not even good for Mexico.
HFT accounts for 60-70% of volume every day, news or not, events or not, doesn't matter.
If you trade on current events, you do live and die by that sword. But the quants implement trader speculations and blend them into the stream of HFT that is pure arbitrage, on a microsecond scale.
Yes, other than the occasional flash crashes caused by interacting or misperforming algorithms, market swings are often driven by news and events. And these swings usually correct well, with exceptions.
HFT distorts this by playing the game on an entirely different scale.
I'm still stuck on why the machine trades are backed out. It's not like the blackjack table where you ask for your chips back 'cause your double didn;t pan out.