Except that the NSF has a stake in him being actually right. I'm thinking you are in deep with the funding malice? "We have to make up global warming to get more funding!" Yes? If some Joe Scientist off the street can prove him wrong, why wouldn't it happen? I don't know what stories you follow, but I'd refer you to the 'new form of life that thrives on arsenic' story. The scientific community fell on that poor lady scientist (who wrote the paper) like starving wolves. The NSF could not possibly fund all the research being done. A non-NSF climatologist would have come forward, desperate to make a name for emself. And then it would have gotten messy, with investigations and questions about NSF's oversight and budget. On the other hand, the API has a vested interest in absolving blame for the petroleum industry, seeing as how the petroleum industry cuts their checks and they are not accountable to anyone but the petroleum industry. They are not a government agency, no matter how many Congresscritters they buy.
Whaaaa? Are you a troll? Your comment doesn't seem to have any meaning. I have no idea what you mean by:
CEO:Employee Pay Ratio is utter bullshit unless all CEOs make the same level pay.
Are you seriously saying that you can't figure out how to compensate for the differences in CEO pay from company to company?
In the second part, where did you pull your numbers? Is there a reason you think they are relevant? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of inflation and buying power? Have you had any economics at all?
I think that the statement, in context, is damning. He was trying to say that the benefits and money made by the corporation go to the people of the corporation. Things like Apple's war chest demonstrates that this isn't literally the case. (I do not have an issue with the practice, for it does make sense to put some away for harder times. War-chesting is just a good literal example.) On a less literal level, the CEO vs worker pay ratio (a cursory attempt to Google past the political BS on this issue says that the ratio is somewhere around 1 to 400) would indicate that the wealth benefits very few people, which is what his hecklers were protesting about. So, essentially, he lied to the crowd, either by omission or commission, depending on what he really believes.
Why would we take that into consideration? It seems like every time that the federal budget comes up, there are funding cuts for NASA. They lose money whether or not they lose astronauts.
They are a minority. Duh. The majority naturally reshapes the world to suit itself. Just as the giant has to check where he steps, the majority must think of minorities. Especially when a minority just wants a little fair treatment. For example, straight people can marry people they are in love with, whereas gays cannot. Why is asking for gay marriage not fair?
I don't get it. Yours is the third or fourth comment I've seen lamenting the failure rate. If you are sexually active, with multiple partners, you should be getting tested every 6 months minimum. With an over-the-counter version for about $20, I'm probably going to do it every month. (I'm a bit of a hypochondriac, but I do get laid occasionally.) I like to think of myself as unusually unlucky, but 6 times in a row? That is rather improbable.
That is what I adore about narcissistic and selfish behavior, it always has a rationalization. Your argument boils down an either/or scenario, we either preserve the park for future generations or we take what we want from the park regardless of consequence. Since 'these "historical places" aren't going to last forever,' makes the preservation option impossible, so we should take what we want. Since this is Slashdot, you should already know that the false dilemma is an invalid argument. Preservation is about making something last for as long as possible. It actually hurts my head to try to think like you and argue about this. I can't come up with an actual reason for not trying to preserve a park, especially one like the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone. Do you not understand cumulative damage? Please tell me.
When we look back now, we don't see humor, we see homosexual. That is why people try to distance themselves from the West series. Essentially, "I love Batman, but I'm not gay!" dressed up a little PC.
Why, why, why are these stories always "save peoples lives" angled? How cool would it be to dive with this stuff running in your veins? I bet the liquid is incompressible too. I wonder what the ratio of volume of the liquid versus how much oxygen contained within it is.
Plus, why a projector? They sell video glasses for any phone, at a couple of different transparencies. Seems like that would be more effective than a projector.
Do you like the smell of smog? I would hazard a guess that you do not. Fine, you don't believe in global warming. I disagree with you, but won't bother to argue the point. Maybe you should jump on the green bandwagon for the better quality environment it provides you? Stuff like smog, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer have become less of a problem because we implemented 'sweeping policy changes' and 'engineering measures' to solve the issue.
Oil is going away, shouldn't we figure out what to do next?
Isn't energy efficiency better that waste?
What exactly about the global warming policies do you disagree with that wouldn't lead to a cleaning, smarter, stronger future?
How is the question ambiguous? It clearly asked if the people believed in atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, or creationism. 46% said creationism. That is pretty damning. There are no competing theories on evolution, that is where the science is at. I hate to use the all or nothing (but it feels so right), but if you don't believe (you have to believe, unless you are someone intimately familiar with the field, in that case, you can know) that evolution is currently the most likely explanation to our current physical existence and appearance, then you aren't a science-lover.
Okay, here it is. In and around 1800, CO2 was about 0.028% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is currently around 0.0395%. This data comes from the ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica and current observation. Have you ever played with a scale? The old-timey ones with the scale on one side and the counter-weights on the other? It doesn't take much to cause a huge imbalance, and if you are going to argue that the world is a little more robust than that, I would refer you to the 150 acres per minute of rainforest lost, the 30 mile per year that the Sahara desert's border is moving south, and the more than 700 documented animals that humanity has caused to go extinct (since the 1600s). CO2 is one facet in a larger, we-are-changing-the-whole-of-the-earth problem.
This is the spawn of the the idea that if you get reeeealllly close to an 18-wheeler, the suction of the displaced air will pull you along a bit, saving gas. The problem being that "reeeealllly close" translates to red smear after one sudden braking on the trucks part. Basically, they are trying to invent a button to let you air drag without dying.
He thinks that you think we are doing it "for a noble cause, to protect our allies." Not that you agree that it is noble, only that you believe that those who are doing it are doing it for nobility's sake. He feels that that is untrue, he believes that the military/industrial complex of the United States, the private companies that leech defense money off the government, are spending money to corrupt our politicians into these delusions of "world police" to continue receiving defense money. Same thought, different angle. We all think it is bullshit and that it needs to stop.
When have you been among the rational? Is there a Rational-land? Can you give me directions? Human beings are NOT rational.
Who would build your roads? Who would care for the orphans? Who would insure that the burger you eat isn't half rat? Who would arrest the wicked? A lage enough percentage of people are shit-heels without a basic notion of decency, that we (humanity as a whole) require an outside ordering influence. We need government.
Slashdot Mirror
You could also include it into the high school curriculum like driver's ed.
Except that the NSF has a stake in him being actually right. I'm thinking you are in deep with the funding malice? "We have to make up global warming to get more funding!" Yes?
If some Joe Scientist off the street can prove him wrong, why wouldn't it happen? I don't know what stories you follow, but I'd refer you to the 'new form of life that thrives on arsenic' story. The scientific community fell on that poor lady scientist (who wrote the paper) like starving wolves. The NSF could not possibly fund all the research being done. A non-NSF climatologist would have come forward, desperate to make a name for emself. And then it would have gotten messy, with investigations and questions about NSF's oversight and budget.
On the other hand, the API has a vested interest in absolving blame for the petroleum industry, seeing as how the petroleum industry cuts their checks and they are not accountable to anyone but the petroleum industry. They are not a government agency, no matter how many Congresscritters they buy.
Whaaaa? Are you a troll? Your comment doesn't seem to have any meaning. I have no idea what you mean by:
Are you seriously saying that you can't figure out how to compensate for the differences in CEO pay from company to company?
In the second part, where did you pull your numbers? Is there a reason you think they are relevant? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of inflation and buying power? Have you had any economics at all?
Why did you respond?
I think that the statement, in context, is damning. He was trying to say that the benefits and money made by the corporation go to the people of the corporation. Things like Apple's war chest demonstrates that this isn't literally the case. (I do not have an issue with the practice, for it does make sense to put some away for harder times. War-chesting is just a good literal example.) On a less literal level, the CEO vs worker pay ratio (a cursory attempt to Google past the political BS on this issue says that the ratio is somewhere around 1 to 400) would indicate that the wealth benefits very few people, which is what his hecklers were protesting about. So, essentially, he lied to the crowd, either by omission or commission, depending on what he really believes.
Why would we take that into consideration? It seems like every time that the federal budget comes up, there are funding cuts for NASA. They lose money whether or not they lose astronauts.
Tell me about it. I would love this job. Stare at a screen all day? I do that anyway!
They are a minority. Duh. The majority naturally reshapes the world to suit itself. Just as the giant has to check where he steps, the majority must think of minorities. Especially when a minority just wants a little fair treatment. For example, straight people can marry people they are in love with, whereas gays cannot. Why is asking for gay marriage not fair?
That is the most awesome idea ever.
I don't get it. Yours is the third or fourth comment I've seen lamenting the failure rate. If you are sexually active, with multiple partners, you should be getting tested every 6 months minimum. With an over-the-counter version for about $20, I'm probably going to do it every month. (I'm a bit of a hypochondriac, but I do get laid occasionally.) I like to think of myself as unusually unlucky, but 6 times in a row? That is rather improbable.
Are you being sarcastic? Why would ice float if it wasn't changing density?
That is what I adore about narcissistic and selfish behavior, it always has a rationalization. Your argument boils down an either/or scenario, we either preserve the park for future generations or we take what we want from the park regardless of consequence. Since 'these "historical places" aren't going to last forever,' makes the preservation option impossible, so we should take what we want. Since this is Slashdot, you should already know that the false dilemma is an invalid argument.
Preservation is about making something last for as long as possible. It actually hurts my head to try to think like you and argue about this. I can't come up with an actual reason for not trying to preserve a park, especially one like the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone. Do you not understand cumulative damage? Please tell me.
When we look back now, we don't see humor, we see homosexual. That is why people try to distance themselves from the West series. Essentially, "I love Batman, but I'm not gay!" dressed up a little PC.
Because he totally has done that before.
Why, why, why are these stories always "save peoples lives" angled? How cool would it be to dive with this stuff running in your veins? I bet the liquid is incompressible too. I wonder what the ratio of volume of the liquid versus how much oxygen contained within it is.
Plus, why a projector? They sell video glasses for any phone, at a couple of different transparencies. Seems like that would be more effective than a projector.
Do you like the smell of smog? I would hazard a guess that you do not. Fine, you don't believe in global warming. I disagree with you, but won't bother to argue the point. Maybe you should jump on the green bandwagon for the better quality environment it provides you? Stuff like smog, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer have become less of a problem because we implemented 'sweeping policy changes' and 'engineering measures' to solve the issue.
Oil is going away, shouldn't we figure out what to do next?
Isn't energy efficiency better that waste?
What exactly about the global warming policies do you disagree with that wouldn't lead to a cleaning, smarter, stronger future?
How is the question ambiguous? It clearly asked if the people believed in atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, or creationism. 46% said creationism. That is pretty damning. There are no competing theories on evolution, that is where the science is at. I hate to use the all or nothing (but it feels so right), but if you don't believe (you have to believe, unless you are someone intimately familiar with the field, in that case, you can know) that evolution is currently the most likely explanation to our current physical existence and appearance, then you aren't a science-lover.
Yes, because 'all or nothing' is a totally valid world view and a good response to a 'everything in moderation' post. You are a true idiot.
Okay, here it is. In and around 1800, CO2 was about 0.028% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is currently around 0.0395%. This data comes from the ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica and current observation.
Have you ever played with a scale? The old-timey ones with the scale on one side and the counter-weights on the other? It doesn't take much to cause a huge imbalance, and if you are going to argue that the world is a little more robust than that, I would refer you to the 150 acres per minute of rainforest lost, the 30 mile per year that the Sahara desert's border is moving south, and the more than 700 documented animals that humanity has caused to go extinct (since the 1600s). CO2 is one facet in a larger, we-are-changing-the-whole-of-the-earth problem.
This is the spawn of the the idea that if you get reeeealllly close to an 18-wheeler, the suction of the displaced air will pull you along a bit, saving gas. The problem being that "reeeealllly close" translates to red smear after one sudden braking on the trucks part. Basically, they are trying to invent a button to let you air drag without dying.
and the flavor is "Why not Zoidberg?"
Wow, I should read all the replies to a post before I reply. Everybody jumped on that train quick.
Actually 131916, you are.
He thinks that you think we are doing it "for a noble cause, to protect our allies." Not that you agree that it is noble, only that you believe that those who are doing it are doing it for nobility's sake. He feels that that is untrue, he believes that the military/industrial complex of the United States, the private companies that leech defense money off the government, are spending money to corrupt our politicians into these delusions of "world police" to continue receiving defense money. Same thought, different angle. We all think it is bullshit and that it needs to stop.
When have you been among the rational? Is there a Rational-land? Can you give me directions? Human beings are NOT rational.
Who would build your roads? Who would care for the orphans? Who would insure that the burger you eat isn't half rat? Who would arrest the wicked? A lage enough percentage of people are shit-heels without a basic notion of decency, that we (humanity as a whole) require an outside ordering influence. We need government.