I don't care if you shoot someone who you reasonably believe is trying to do you harm.
You don't, for one second, really believe that I'm planning on robbing or assaulting you. Because my postings on slashdot are part of some evil plot, you know, to get you to put down your gun so I can take your wallet.
If you shoot a shoplifter (not a robber with a gun, but a shoplifter), you'll probably be tried for murder, even if they were taking your stuff, even if you think it's justified. Which is at least one reason why you should "trust your life to such assumptions". IANAL, but it's happened before. If you really don't believe me, test it next chance you get. It is, as you say, your life.
Well, put it another way; every _acomplished_ biologist in the past 50 years, i.e. every biologist who has propounded a theory which proved to be more predictive than past theories has believed that species evolve. We're all biologists, physicists, theologists. Some of us have just done better work than others.
If you have an exception to this, I'd like to hear it, and what empirically verifiable discovery the person made.
But I can factually tell you that human activity has altered the earth's atmosphere within our lifetime in such a way that it would cause global warming to some degree.
The question is; to what degree, and if the earth does have more heat coming in, how is that extra energy distributed? It doesn't necessarily mean it's hotter outside. It could result in more tornadoes, stronger winds, more ice on the polar ice caps, less ice on the polar ice caps, more evenly distributed temperatures, less evenly distributed temperatures, etc.
Method 1: counting layers. Sure, getting an exact result for an ice core 100,000+ years old might be hard, but not that hard. A yearly cycle is a learly cycle, count the number and you count the years. Its not as if the year ever changes in length.
And it's not as if ice ever melts.
Method 2: Match a marker in the ice (such as a layer of volcanic ash) with the corresponding marker in an ice core that has already been dated. Sure, any error in the original dating will appear as an uncertainty in the new ice core too. Your point is?
That any error in the original dating will appear in the new ice core too. And if the other methods have errors, this one will inherit them.
In fact, your comment sounds suspicously like the typical creationist argument "radiocarbon dating sometimes gives incorrect answers due to contaminated samples; therefore all radiocarbon dating is wrong; therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old."
Are you arguing against people or reasons? Radiocarbon dating can be unreliable. But it's a little easier to doublecheck since it doesn't try to go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old is incorrect because the evidence to support that conclusion is weak, not because creationists made it.
Method 4: given rainfall (err, snowfall;) data, self-consistently determine the age of the ice core from the rate of accumulation of ice. Your refutation of the method is...?
This assumes a lot that it can't prove?
You say: About the only thing you can conclusively say is that an ice section below another ice section is probably the older one. And an ice section a lot lower is probably a lot older.
In geology, it is usually true that lower layers of earth are older than upper layers. Factors that can alter this are earthquakes, folding, volcanoes etc etc. In almost all cases its pretty obvious by looking around the area that something has caused the inversion. This occurs is on timescales of millions to hundreds of millions of years.
So the two of you are agreeing on this point. Don't act so surprised.
Finally, error analysis is a rather basic part of any scientific method. What makes you think that ice core climatologists wouldn't do error analysis?
That's more an argument from authority than anything else.
You seem to be arguing in terms of who is and who is not an authority rather than addressing the reasons he's giving. How does error analaysis make inaccurate methods accurate?
I'm not saying that you're wrong and he's right, but you haven't given any reasons to support your argument.
I tried switching to linux on my second computer to prevent a disruption while I did all my work on my first (i.e. laptop).
I tried 3 different distros but none would work with my broadband service + ethernet card. Not sure if the problem was with my ethernet card or with the service itself. It was a year ago and I can't remember. Since I wanted to be able to get on the internet, I switched back to windows. I'll try Linux again in a year or two.
It's one thing to do what you have to in self defense. But minimal use of force is imperative.
If someone is shoplifting and you catch them and they cooperate you have no cause to harm them.
If someone is robbing your house and you shoot them and incapacitate them and they're clearly unarmed, you call the police, you don't fire a second round into their body.
Advocating the possibility of the death penalty for all crimes is a literally draconian law code. It would result in a lot of accidental and deliberate murders.
And if you do kill someone, the burden of proof should be on you (the supposed victim) to PROVE that you were threatened.
Yeah, but there's so much to colonize near to Earth. The oceans. Antarctica. The moon. Heck, near earth orbit has a ton of energy waiting to be exploited.
There's very little immediate utility in going to Mars. It's not the most effective place for a colony since it's hard to ship material back to Earth. It's not a solution to overpopulation, given the energy required to get people there in the first place.
It may offer a deterant to Mutually Assured Destruction by providing an outpost that can't be destroyed in a first strike, but what is it good for that a space station in near earth orbit is not?
Also in abundance were hearty guffaws for the corny and sometimes suggestive jokes of the one-and-only Mac King, a Las Vegas lounge act with a thing for card tricks.
The right side of things? After all is said and done, the CIA thinks in terms of strict power relationships as much as any government does.
Look at America. Americans can't even 'unprogram' themselves. They will put up with the rape of women in El Salvador, the 'collateral (sp?)' murders of civilians... all if they think it's for a purpose.
It's not that we're on the right side of things, as much as we're on the more enjoyable side of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Worst... cosmic explosion... ever!
Hey The media do the same thing with every disaster. There have been about 12 "Trials of the century" this century.
So we're not the only species which uses tools.
But we're still the only species which uses robot monkeys!
...that scientists are getting fairly sophisticated at using monkeys.
I don't care if you carry a gun or not.
I don't care if you shoot someone who you reasonably believe is trying to do you harm.
You don't, for one second, really believe that I'm planning on robbing or assaulting you. Because my postings on slashdot are part of some evil plot, you know, to get you to put down your gun so I can take your wallet.
If you shoot a shoplifter (not a robber with a gun, but a shoplifter), you'll probably be tried for murder, even if they were taking your stuff, even if you think it's justified. Which is at least one reason why you should "trust your life to such assumptions". IANAL, but it's happened before. If you really don't believe me, test it next chance you get. It is, as you say, your life.
How is anyone ever 'clearly unarmed'?
Shoplifters in grocery stores, for instance, usually don't carry pistols.
Once again, shooting might be an extreme reaction to shoplifting
It migth be an illegal reaction, too, except in Texas.
Well, put it another way; every _acomplished_ biologist in the past 50 years, i.e. every biologist who has propounded a theory which proved to be more predictive than past theories has believed that species evolve. We're all biologists, physicists, theologists. Some of us have just done better work than others.
If you have an exception to this, I'd like to hear it, and what empirically verifiable discovery the person made.
It's not incorrect to say that the sun is the center of the universe.
Your mathematical models for the motions of planets will be needlessly complex, though.
But I can factually tell you that human activity has altered the earth's atmosphere within our lifetime in such a way that it would cause global warming to some degree.
The question is; to what degree, and if the earth does have more heat coming in, how is that extra energy distributed? It doesn't necessarily mean it's hotter outside. It could result in more tornadoes, stronger winds, more ice on the polar ice caps, less ice on the polar ice caps, more evenly distributed temperatures, less evenly distributed temperatures, etc.
Method 1: counting layers. Sure, getting an exact result for an ice core 100,000+ years old might be hard, but not that hard. A yearly cycle is a learly cycle, count the number and you count the years. Its not as if the year ever changes in length.
And it's not as if ice ever melts.
Method 2: Match a marker in the ice (such as a layer of volcanic ash) with the corresponding marker in an ice core that has already been dated. Sure, any error in the original dating will appear as an uncertainty in the new ice core too. Your point is?
That any error in the original dating will appear in the new ice core too. And if the other methods have errors, this one will inherit them.
In fact, your comment sounds suspicously like the typical creationist argument "radiocarbon dating sometimes gives incorrect answers due to contaminated samples; therefore all radiocarbon dating is wrong; therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old."
Are you arguing against people or reasons?
Radiocarbon dating can be unreliable.
But it's a little easier to doublecheck since it doesn't try to go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old is incorrect because the evidence to support that conclusion is weak, not because creationists made it.
Method 4: given rainfall (err, snowfall;) data, self-consistently determine the age of the ice core from the rate of accumulation of ice. Your refutation of the method is...?
This assumes a lot that it can't prove?
You say: About the only thing you can conclusively say is that an ice section below another ice section is probably the older one. And an ice section a lot lower is probably a lot older.
In geology, it is usually true that lower layers of earth are older than upper layers. Factors that can alter this are earthquakes, folding, volcanoes etc etc. In almost all cases its pretty obvious by looking around the area that something has caused the inversion. This occurs is on timescales of millions to hundreds of millions of years.
So the two of you are agreeing on this point. Don't act so surprised.
Finally, error analysis is a rather basic part of any scientific method. What makes you think that ice core climatologists wouldn't do error analysis?
That's more an argument from authority than anything else.
You seem to be arguing in terms of who is and who is not an authority rather than addressing the reasons he's giving. How does error analaysis make inaccurate methods accurate?
I'm not saying that you're wrong and he's right, but you haven't given any reasons to support your argument.
I tried switching to linux on my second computer to prevent a disruption while I did all my work on my first (i.e. laptop).
I tried 3 different distros but none would work with my broadband service + ethernet card. Not sure if the problem was with my ethernet card or with the service itself. It was a year ago and I can't remember. Since I wanted to be able to get on the internet, I switched back to windows. I'll try Linux again in a year or two.
There's a simple way to recognize the most ethical people in government. They either resign are forced out when they haven't done anything wrong.
It's one thing to do what you have to in self defense. But minimal use of force is imperative.
If someone is shoplifting and you catch them and they cooperate you have no cause to harm them.
If someone is robbing your house and you shoot them and incapacitate them and they're clearly unarmed, you call the police, you don't fire a second round into their body.
Advocating the possibility of the death penalty for all crimes is a literally draconian law code. It would result in a lot of accidental and deliberate murders.
And if you do kill someone, the burden of proof should be on you (the supposed victim) to PROVE that you were threatened.
Bollywood has a method of preventing their movies from being copies which is virutaly foolproof.
They produce mostly Hindi musicals.
...As of yesterday $1 = 0.532510 Brittish Pounds .
Yeah, but there's so much to colonize near to Earth. The oceans. Antarctica. The moon. Heck, near earth orbit has a ton of energy waiting to be exploited.
There's very little immediate utility in going to Mars. It's not the most effective place for a colony since it's hard to ship material back to Earth. It's not a solution to overpopulation, given the energy required to get people there in the first place.
It may offer a deterant to Mutually Assured Destruction by providing an outpost that can't be destroyed in a first strike, but what is it good for that a space station in near earth orbit is not?
It'll happen, sure, but it'll be a while.
The planet actually has an atmosphere. If we could find a way to seed the upper atmosphere and cool it down or somthing...
Or because
1. He was good looking
2. His family was rich and owned newspapers.
3. He didn't realize what the hell he was getting into
Heh. It's like looking for your keys under a lamp post. That's not where you lost them, but that's where the light is.
If not, they should hire someone capable of explaining it to them in language that they could understand.
It's an article about how they couldn't find a blonde capable of understanding the awards she was giving out.
There's almost nothing on what these advances mean to the industry.
Makes sense. It's a totally different audience who is interested in these things.
Also in abundance were hearty guffaws for the corny and sometimes suggestive jokes of the one-and-only Mac King, a Las Vegas lounge act with a thing for card tricks.
Steve Jobs as a thing for card tricks?
For "best performance as a real corporation"
The normals won't remember 42. It's a number.
They'll understand goatse all too well.
The right side of things? After all is said and done, the CIA thinks in terms of strict power relationships as much as any government does.
Look at America. Americans can't even 'unprogram' themselves. They will put up with the rape of women in El Salvador, the 'collateral (sp?)' murders of civilians... all if they think it's for a purpose.
It's not that we're on the right side of things, as much as we're on the more enjoyable side of things.