So if it's warmer, the ozone hole gets BETTER? It's global warming man!
If I remember correctly...
Ozone is created by lightning from thunderstorms.
The warmer the surface, in general, the more likely it is that thunderstorms will occur.
Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, therefore it is less likely that thunderstorms will occur in Antarctica, and less ozone will be produced in that area.
Consequently, we can assume that global warming would reduce the size of the ozone hole if that warming could be focused on Antarctica, or was at least proportional.
If anyone knows more than I on this, (yes, I am an old weather forecaster, but if you are sure of your data,) please correct me.
I have a family member with an autistic spectrum disorder. Occasionally, she will become overly anxious, needing some sort of sensory input. One way to calm her is to have her lay on a bean bag chair, put another on top of her, and gently sit on the top bean bag. The pressure gives her sensory input, and calms her down tremendously. I didn't believe this would work, but luckily, professional therapists were aware of this and educated me.
Its impossible not to pass on greater operating costs to consumers.
I don't think it is totally impossible, but I do think it is very highly improbable. A friend of mine from a Texas oil family once told me (in 2003) that an $18 a barrel price allows all oil producers in Texas to be profitable. Assuming similar pricing in California, there is at least a little room to absorb an increase in costs. However, the speculators drive prices more than producers, so they would determine the price, and in my opinion, they would likely drive the price up. Thus, in my totally unscientific estimate, the odds of every slashdotter getting laid within the next 24 hours are higher than the odds of the costs not being passed on to the consumer, but it theory, there is still an electron-microscopically small possibility that prices don't rise.
I live in California, I am very familiar with the proposition, and the way the proposition is written, the oil companies will be paying the tax directly. The oil companies are prohibited from directly passing this extra cost directly to consumers. Several economists have pointed out that the cost to consumers nationwide will rise, however, since the additional tax will make California oil less attractive, and thus indirectly encourage more oil importation, which will raise oil prices nationwide, and probably worldwide. Thus, everyone will pay the tax indirectly.
It's hard to find any grown man today who hasn't seen the classic man-flick "Top Gun."
Surely you jest. I saw it, and being in the Navy at the time, hated it, since it was nothing like the real Navy, and apparently a chick-flick. There are emotional issues, a love conflict, (boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl-again story line,) the men-playing-volleyball scene, and the ending with the protagonist confronting personal demons and finding self-actualization. Take away the F-14s, and it is your stereotypical chick-flick. I would say all it needs is Meg Ryan, but she's already there.
To be fair, I am kind of biased. Most (definitely not all) of the Navy (and other military) pilots I have known followed orders to the tee to safely complete their mission, and would never act like Maverick, so the whole screenplay is bull. Even the pilots who were bigger-penises-than-supernovae-would-require-to-re produce-if-they-were-mammals" would still follow orders. Additionally, I heard from one of the enlisted plane captains at Miramar at the time that Tom Cruise treated them like they were way low-class during filming. Way, way, uncool to treat the people responsible for the aircraft you are about to fly in like that. Apparently he's changed since then, but even so, I still consequently hate that movie, even more than most other chick-flicks.
Couple SR-71 with an unmanned capability like predator drone, and you have a deadly combination of eyes in sky.
Although not supersonic, the Global Hawk operates at 60,000 feet, can stay aloft longer than 24 hours, and is sort of an unarmed jet version of the Predator A and Predator B.
...than the plane, and that is why the Marines often have their own air support, and that is also why every Marine pilot also has infantry training. Or do I have that wrong?
The summary states it is a slowdown in sales, while the article states that it is a slowdown in the GROWTH of sales. Sales are still increasing, but not as fast as they once were.
who would benefit by finding evidence for global warming. Let's assume the government is neutral, and really interested in the truth. (I know, this is considered quite a stretch by the majority here, but follow me o this one if you will.) If the study finds no evidence, funding dries up. If the study finds evidence or is non-conclusive, funding for further studies looking for clarifications, causes and further explanation is available. So, if I am a professional researcher, it is in my best interest to conduct the studies in such a way that I have continued work. I know this isn't scientifically ethical, and it isn't how I work, but I can't vouch for the ethics of others, so it is a possibility.
1. Take something obvious or counterintuitive (Doesn't matter if it will really work or not) 2. Label it with impressive sounding phrases 3. Copyright a bunch of specific steps (methodology) to do the obvious 4. Write and publish a 400 page book about the methodology steps using your new phrases 5. Sell it to PHBs and incompetents 6. Profit! 7. When complaints about non-success arrive, arrange seminars at hundreds of dollars per seat. 8. Give Seminar 9. More Profit!
Hmmm, since I have all of the steps down, maybe I should write a book...
Yes, I read the parent. I still think ALL DRM is bad. I don't make illegal copies, but anything that restricts my right to make LEGAL copies is inherently a bad thing. Since DRM applications cannot know whether I am making a legal copy or an illegal copy, any limit on copying unfairly restricts my legal right to make backup copies. Thus, I do not want DRM software on my computer, whether it be Sony's or someone elses.
* No, the intention to introduce DRM itself is not bad...
Any software that is installed on my computer without my permission is inherently bad. I paid for my computer, not Sony, not the RIAA. Thus, neither Sony nor the RIAA have the right to install software on my computer. If someone wants me to have DRM software on my computer, they should buy me that computer.
AOL can put whatever they damn well want in their terms and privacy policy. It doesn't give them any moral authority to violate my right to privacy.
I don't want to be construed as agreeing with the decision to release the data, but I think you over-estimate your right to privacy.
By using their site, do you agree to their terms, and those terms mean you agree to waive your privacy rights? Everyone has a choice whether or not to use the service, so if you use the service, and they have the relevant conditions in their terms, they aren't violating any rights.
Now I agree that making the data public was very stupid, and if I were an AOL user I would be very angry, but I don't believe it was legally or morally wrong if you voluntarily waived your rights to privacy. And I definitely believed that the person authorizing the data release should be given the chance to pursue other opportunities.
The Professors' view is understandable, since qualifications to edit a subject aren't verified. And yes, I have seen a false statement or two, and edited the one I knew for a 100% fact to be false. Others may have quoted the statement for their academic research prior to the edit, so I see your professors' point
Are you suggesting that if an American company is unwilling to develop the technology, the rest of the world can't either? Interesting how you have a problem with a foreign nation competing in a market that the US *DOES NOT WISH* to compete in.
I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world can't compete in an area that US companies are unwilling to compete in. What I am suggesting is that the US government shouldn't help foreign companies to compete against US companies unless there is something in it for the US.
Sharing technology is not new. When it's done at a price that is amenable to both parties, everyone wins.
I agree.
Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, but being angry at Japan is not the solution. You should be angry at other American companies for not wanting to spend development dollars to create American jobs building American made products.
I am not angry at anyone, especially a country I lived in for nine years. I just prefer that my tax dollars are not used to help foreign competition unless the US sees some other return on the investment.
I would agree with you totally given an even playing field. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Japanese government would provide help (subsidies) to the japanese aircraft industry, allowing them to operate profitably, resulting in competition to Boeing.
Problem is, most people will keep on thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Barbaric.
There are a few good reasons NOT to share technology, the best one being competitive advantage. In this particular case, the US is the people who paid for the research, and the THEM is those who did not pay for the research. As a U.S. taxpayer, I prefer that technology developed with U.S. tax dollars is NOT shared in a way that would give non-U.S. firms a competitive advantage over U.S. firms, (possibly causing a loss of U.S. jobs,) unless there is some other benefit to the U.S. In this case, if Japan develops a supersonic airliner, their aircraft industry would benefit at the expense of other airline manufacturers, such as Boeing and Airbus. Since Boeing is a U.S. company, sharing this technology with Japan could result in the loss of U.S. jobs. That isn't exactly a good use of tax dollars, in my opinion.
I would expect other countries to behave similarly. I could be wrong, though.
I think the whole "Six Pack Abs" thing is a crock. I've consumed quite a few six packs, and my abs look nothing like that. Others who have consumed more six packs than I have consumed have abs that look even less like his than mine.
I doubt that Google will really make a run into another major market (like office software or operating systems) until they've exhausted the growth of ad revenue.
An intelligent business is always looking for ways to use its strengths to increase profit. To do otherwise is to invite death. I think that Google has intelligent management, so I think that Google will be constantly searching for ways to increase profit. On the other hand, developing office software and/or operating systems does not necessarily preclude increasing advertising revenue, and thus profit.
If I were in Google managment, I would encourage development of Google Linux. Make it incredibly simple, incredibly stable, and incredibly free, (as in beer and speech). As Google Linux catches on, Microsoft loses the monopoly on the browser of the masses, and the associated advertising revenue shifts to Google for the default bookmarks in Mozilla/Firefox/whatever. Athough Google Linux development would have high fixed costs, it would have low variable costs, and would be quite profitable in the long run.
i still need to slide them down the crack of my ass.
Actually, given the quality of a lot of the music these days, that is probably better than sticking them in a player and suffering the audio torture that would result. Of course, given the quality of movies, similar could be said of DVDs.
...However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose....
Agreed. There are national security exceptions to the FOIA, and I would be real surprised if the DoD didn't refuse to provide a lot of the data based on those exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember correctly...
Ozone is created by lightning from thunderstorms.
The warmer the surface, in general, the more likely it is that thunderstorms will occur.
Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, therefore it is less likely that thunderstorms will occur in Antarctica, and less ozone will be produced in that area.
Consequently, we can assume that global warming would reduce the size of the ozone hole if that warming could be focused on Antarctica, or was at least proportional.
If anyone knows more than I on this, (yes, I am an old weather forecaster, but if you are sure of your data,) please correct me.
I have a family member with an autistic spectrum disorder. Occasionally, she will become overly anxious, needing some sort of sensory input. One way to calm her is to have her lay on a bean bag chair, put another on top of her, and gently sit on the top bean bag. The pressure gives her sensory input, and calms her down tremendously. I didn't believe this would work, but luckily, professional therapists were aware of this and educated me.
I don't think it is totally impossible, but I do think it is very highly improbable. A friend of mine from a Texas oil family once told me (in 2003) that an $18 a barrel price allows all oil producers in Texas to be profitable. Assuming similar pricing in California, there is at least a little room to absorb an increase in costs. However, the speculators drive prices more than producers, so they would determine the price, and in my opinion, they would likely drive the price up. Thus, in my totally unscientific estimate, the odds of every slashdotter getting laid within the next 24 hours are higher than the odds of the costs not being passed on to the consumer, but it theory, there is still an electron-microscopically small possibility that prices don't rise.
I live in California, I am very familiar with the proposition, and the way the proposition is written, the oil companies will be paying the tax directly. The oil companies are prohibited from directly passing this extra cost directly to consumers. Several economists have pointed out that the cost to consumers nationwide will rise, however, since the additional tax will make California oil less attractive, and thus indirectly encourage more oil importation, which will raise oil prices nationwide, and probably worldwide. Thus, everyone will pay the tax indirectly.
It's hard to find any grown man today who hasn't seen the classic man-flick "Top Gun."
e produce-if-they-were-mammals" would still follow orders. Additionally, I heard from one of the enlisted plane captains at Miramar at the time that Tom Cruise treated them like they were way low-class during filming. Way, way, uncool to treat the people responsible for the aircraft you are about to fly in like that. Apparently he's changed since then, but even so, I still consequently hate that movie, even more than most other chick-flicks.
Surely you jest. I saw it, and being in the Navy at the time, hated it, since it was nothing like the real Navy, and apparently a chick-flick. There are emotional issues, a love conflict, (boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl-again story line,) the men-playing-volleyball scene, and the ending with the protagonist confronting personal demons and finding self-actualization. Take away the F-14s, and it is your stereotypical chick-flick. I would say all it needs is Meg Ryan, but she's already there.
To be fair, I am kind of biased. Most (definitely not all) of the Navy (and other military) pilots I have known followed orders to the tee to safely complete their mission, and would never act like Maverick, so the whole screenplay is bull. Even the pilots who were bigger-penises-than-supernovae-would-require-to-r
Couple SR-71 with an unmanned capability like predator drone, and you have a deadly combination of eyes in sky.
Although not supersonic, the Global Hawk operates at 60,000 feet, can stay aloft longer than 24 hours, and is sort of an unarmed jet version of the Predator A and Predator B.
...than the plane, and that is why the Marines often have their own air support, and that is also why every Marine pilot also has infantry training. Or do I have that wrong?
The summary states it is a slowdown in sales, while the article states that it is a slowdown in the GROWTH of sales. Sales are still increasing, but not as fast as they once were.
who would benefit by finding evidence for global warming. Let's assume the government is neutral, and really interested in the truth. (I know, this is considered quite a stretch by the majority here, but follow me o this one if you will.) If the study finds no evidence, funding dries up. If the study finds evidence or is non-conclusive, funding for further studies looking for clarifications, causes and further explanation is available. So, if I am a professional researcher, it is in my best interest to conduct the studies in such a way that I have continued work. I know this isn't scientifically ethical, and it isn't how I work, but I can't vouch for the ethics of others, so it is a possibility.
A lot of business management books work that way.
1. Take something obvious or counterintuitive (Doesn't matter if it will really work or not)
2. Label it with impressive sounding phrases
3. Copyright a bunch of specific steps (methodology) to do the obvious
4. Write and publish a 400 page book about the methodology steps using your new phrases
5. Sell it to PHBs and incompetents
6. Profit!
7. When complaints about non-success arrive, arrange seminars at hundreds of dollars per seat.
8. Give Seminar
9. More Profit!
Hmmm, since I have all of the steps down, maybe I should write a book...
Yes, I read the parent. I still think ALL DRM is bad. I don't make illegal copies, but anything that restricts my right to make LEGAL copies is inherently a bad thing. Since DRM applications cannot know whether I am making a legal copy or an illegal copy, any limit on copying unfairly restricts my legal right to make backup copies. Thus, I do not want DRM software on my computer, whether it be Sony's or someone elses.
* No, the intention to introduce DRM itself is not bad...
Any software that is installed on my computer without my permission is inherently bad. I paid for my computer, not Sony, not the RIAA. Thus, neither Sony nor the RIAA have the right to install software on my computer. If someone wants me to have DRM software on my computer, they should buy me that computer.
AOL can put whatever they damn well want in their terms and privacy policy. It doesn't give them any moral authority to violate my right to privacy.
I don't want to be construed as agreeing with the decision to release the data, but I think you over-estimate your right to privacy.
By using their site, do you agree to their terms, and those terms mean you agree to waive your privacy rights? Everyone has a choice whether or not to use the service, so if you use the service, and they have the relevant conditions in their terms, they aren't violating any rights.
Now I agree that making the data public was very stupid, and if I were an AOL user I would be very angry, but I don't believe it was legally or morally wrong if you voluntarily waived your rights to privacy. And I definitely believed that the person authorizing the data release should be given the chance to pursue other opportunities.
You forgot to include the vice-versa.
The Professors' view is understandable, since qualifications to edit a subject aren't verified. And yes, I have seen a false statement or two, and edited the one I knew for a 100% fact to be false. Others may have quoted the statement for their academic research prior to the edit, so I see your professors' point
I don't know the air-pressure at 11km, but I'd guess around 15% of that at sea-level.
I think it is between 20% and 25%, depending upon weather and latitude, based on the heights of the 200hPa and 250hPa pressure surfaces.
On my annual reviews, I'm not lazy, I'm "innovative and efficient."
Are you suggesting that if an American company is unwilling to develop the technology, the rest of the world can't either? Interesting how you have a problem with a foreign nation competing in a market that the US *DOES NOT WISH* to compete in.
I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world can't compete in an area that US companies are unwilling to compete in. What I am suggesting is that the US government shouldn't help foreign companies to compete against US companies unless there is something in it for the US.
Sharing technology is not new. When it's done at a price that is amenable to both parties, everyone wins.
I agree.
Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, but being angry at Japan is not the solution. You should be angry at other American companies for not wanting to spend development dollars to create American jobs building American made products.
I am not angry at anyone, especially a country I lived in for nine years. I just prefer that my tax dollars are not used to help foreign competition unless the US sees some other return on the investment.
I would agree with you totally given an even playing field. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Japanese government would provide help (subsidies) to the japanese aircraft industry, allowing them to operate profitably, resulting in competition to Boeing.
Problem is, most people will keep on thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Barbaric.
There are a few good reasons NOT to share technology, the best one being competitive advantage. In this particular case, the US is the people who paid for the research, and the THEM is those who did not pay for the research. As a U.S. taxpayer, I prefer that technology developed with U.S. tax dollars is NOT shared in a way that would give non-U.S. firms a competitive advantage over U.S. firms, (possibly causing a loss of U.S. jobs,) unless there is some other benefit to the U.S. In this case, if Japan develops a supersonic airliner, their aircraft industry would benefit at the expense of other airline manufacturers, such as Boeing and Airbus. Since Boeing is a U.S. company, sharing this technology with Japan could result in the loss of U.S. jobs. That isn't exactly a good use of tax dollars, in my opinion.
I would expect other countries to behave similarly. I could be wrong, though.
I think the whole "Six Pack Abs" thing is a crock. I've consumed quite a few six packs, and my abs look nothing like that. Others who have consumed more six packs than I have consumed have abs that look even less like his than mine.
I doubt that Google will really make a run into another major market (like office software or operating systems) until they've exhausted the growth of ad revenue.
An intelligent business is always looking for ways to use its strengths to increase profit. To do otherwise is to invite death. I think that Google has intelligent management, so I think that Google will be constantly searching for ways to increase profit. On the other hand, developing office software and/or operating systems does not necessarily preclude increasing advertising revenue, and thus profit.
If I were in Google managment, I would encourage development of Google Linux. Make it incredibly simple, incredibly stable, and incredibly free, (as in beer and speech). As Google Linux catches on, Microsoft loses the monopoly on the browser of the masses, and the associated advertising revenue shifts to Google for the default bookmarks in Mozilla/Firefox/whatever. Athough Google Linux development would have high fixed costs, it would have low variable costs, and would be quite profitable in the long run.
Of course, I could be wrong.
As more of these planets are found using microlensing, perhaps someone could put together the "Rocky Planet Picture Show."
Sorry, had to do that.
i still need to slide them down the crack of my ass.
Actually, given the quality of a lot of the music these days, that is probably better than sticking them in a player and suffering the audio torture that would result. Of course, given the quality of movies, similar could be said of DVDs.
...However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose....
Agreed. There are national security exceptions to the FOIA, and I would be real surprised if the DoD didn't refuse to provide a lot of the data based on those exceptions.