There is a difference between whoring and being raped. I know that Google is harvesting all my information and selling it to the ad men. I'm okay with it because I know where it is going and who is using it. (Thanks Slashdot!!) There is also an opt-out option available should I ever want it. (Not a take-back option, but a no-more option.) The news we see suggest that, if the government wants to know more about me, they are going to tap my phones and GPS tag my car. There is a huge difference there. A prostitute is not a victim of rape, all because of choice. Also, Google is never going to come to me and say "Your searches for grandpa porn is beyond the good taste of society, come with us you deviant," whereas that kind of regulation is a large part of our government today. Which, as a gay man, is a concern of mine. Rick Perry, a presidential candidate in the USA, as far as I understand, is in favor of a federal sodomy law. I'd really like to have some protection from a hidden government camera in my bedroom.
What you said NoisySplatter. I was on the wing side, but I knew a lot of smart infantry guys, who were in it for their own reasons. Plus, on a more cynical note, infantry has the largest casualty percentage (One would assume, I have no numbers.), so the Marines always need more riflemen. If you say infantry, I don't think any ASVAB score will dissuade the recruiter from hooking you up.
The PR thing amuses me. There was the press conference today about MAYBE water on Mars. WTF? If it is above 75% certainty, say "We found water on Mars!" Any less certainty than 75%, why say anything at all?
What? There aren't many places that don't have temperature changes. I live in Pennsylvania. Tomorrow is forecast to have a high of 86 and a low of 67 (or a high of 30 and a low of 19 if you are measuring properly). That sounds like a proper variance to me. I imagine that any desert or temperate location would benefit from this material. Tropical and polar locations would be screwed, but who cares about Greenland?
Bring me evidence! This study, while from a questionable source and published in a dodgy manner, will count as evidence if other climatologist find that the findings are accurate. You didn't present any evidence and parroted one of the most offensive arguments against scientific inquiry. "Oh my, the world is just too complex for poor little mortal minds. Understanding is impossible. Dear me, we should just sit here and accept our fates."
You messed up. The top of a plateau is still the highest point, so you didn't disprove anything. The study also points to the idea that China was polluting on such a large scale that it was actually helping the temperature. Once they stop building coal power plants, the temperature will begin to rise again.
Okay, you missed the metaphor. Evolution was the rock. Evolution is demonstrable. Evidence of it goes back thousands of years. Any notion of "it was created that way" is Last Tuesdayism. It is an understandable out, but it cannot be used to disprove evolution.
Yes, I consolidated the many, many outcomes of the climate into three possibilities. It is called generalizing. Scourge me now. The earth may heat, then cool, then heat again, all without CO2 affecting the temperature. It may heat up, kill us all and then go into an ice age all due to CO2. It may heat up and become Venus's sister, killing us all. The earth is heating up. Period. Shouldn't we try something?
Nope. They just cannot ignore one of the legs of science in favor of their personal fairytale and be seen as a completely credible source. Maybe this paper is absolutely correct. Great! I'd like to see some reproducibility first, before I swallow it whole.
Why is the beginning important? I do not know where the rock comes from, only that it is there. I may never know the beginnings of the rock, but that does not mean that the rock is not there.
Great post, but so? It is getting warmer. There is data supporting this statement. Warmer has several negative effects that we don't want. Shouldn't we work towards cooler? Since carbon dioxide has been demonstrated to help retain heat, shouldn't part of the solution be to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Then, if the heating is found to be unrelated and the world begins to cool, perhaps that would be the appropriate time to go back to releasing the CO2?
Do a list with the three possibilities: 1. earth warming by itself, not going to stop 2. earth warming with help from CO2 3. earth warming, but in the future will cool by itself #1 means we're screwed no matter what we do. #2 means we're screwed only if we do nothing. #3 means we're fine, no matter what. #2 is the swing vote here. Do we want a 2/3 chance of warming or cooling? (If we are going to ignore the models completely.)
I, for one, will maintain a state of humble wonder at the world around us.
No. Anyone who advocates this stance is advocating ignorance and advocating self inflicted blindness. How many people flung themselves from the heights, before one flew? I bet you that not one of them was humble. Science consists of two questions, "Why?" and "Why not?" Neither can be asked with your gaze on the ground.
Global warming is bad, not because it harms the planet. That is impossible. It is bad because it will kill us and our children and kittens. Pollution doesn't hurt the planet, it hurts us and our children and kittens. I like kittens too much to let them suffer through weird mutations. Polar bears too. Don't save the planet. Save us. And the kittens.
Now c'mon, that is right out of freaking Star Trek. Anyone who can say that truthfully deserves a little worship. Plus, the first Wikipedia reference I could find says that lithium-ion batteries lose 20% capacity per year. Who keeps a PC for more than 5 years? Much less a cell phone or tablet. (No, I'm not thinking 5x20=100, so don't go there. 5 years is just the average time I keep a PC)
I never said that ATMs were a bad thing. I'm saying that it is disingenuous to suggest that ATMs haven't negatively impacted the employment of tellers. Which is what you did and the article did to use as an opportunity to say nasty things about Obama. It is lame.
You are absolutely right. I have no idea where I got the impression that Diebold was the only player in the ATM game. I never would have thought up all those other possibilities either. Thank you.
The original argument was that automation kills jobs. You are using an overall rosy picture to hide the truth of a local level. Yes, there are more tellers and more branches. The banking industry is doing well. However, as I demonstrated, they are employing tellers per branch at a decreasing rate. They are using less people to run the same responsibilities. I have 3 bank branches nearby. That would, in 1980, imply 36 bank teller jobs. Today, it means 15 jobs. So ATMs don't replace tellers at all? They just sit there and look pretty? There was absolutely no load transference from the tellers to the ATM at all? Why is it illogical to assume that, if it takes 12 people to do a job before the ATM and only 5 after the ATM (trending downward BTW), the ATMs are at least partially responsible? Do you think that the buggy whip shops closed up overnight?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between whoring and being raped. I know that Google is harvesting all my information and selling it to the ad men. I'm okay with it because I know where it is going and who is using it. (Thanks Slashdot!!) There is also an opt-out option available should I ever want it. (Not a take-back option, but a no-more option.) The news we see suggest that, if the government wants to know more about me, they are going to tap my phones and GPS tag my car. There is a huge difference there. A prostitute is not a victim of rape, all because of choice. Also, Google is never going to come to me and say "Your searches for grandpa porn is beyond the good taste of society, come with us you deviant," whereas that kind of regulation is a large part of our government today. Which, as a gay man, is a concern of mine. Rick Perry, a presidential candidate in the USA, as far as I understand, is in favor of a federal sodomy law. I'd really like to have some protection from a hidden government camera in my bedroom.
What you said NoisySplatter. I was on the wing side, but I knew a lot of smart infantry guys, who were in it for their own reasons. Plus, on a more cynical note, infantry has the largest casualty percentage (One would assume, I have no numbers.), so the Marines always need more riflemen. If you say infantry, I don't think any ASVAB score will dissuade the recruiter from hooking you up.
Totally this. What is ironic about human complexity? Plus it is is abbreviated "it's" not "its" like it is in the summary.
The PR thing amuses me. There was the press conference today about MAYBE water on Mars. WTF? If it is above 75% certainty, say "We found water on Mars!" Any less certainty than 75%, why say anything at all?
What? There aren't many places that don't have temperature changes. I live in Pennsylvania. Tomorrow is forecast to have a high of 86 and a low of 67 (or a high of 30 and a low of 19 if you are measuring properly). That sounds like a proper variance to me. I imagine that any desert or temperate location would benefit from this material. Tropical and polar locations would be screwed, but who cares about Greenland?
Yes, because moderation is impossible. All or nothing, Your way or the the highway!
This reply makes no sense. What was the purpose of the question then? You were already familiar with the study and why it was done. So why ask me?
Bring me evidence! This study, while from a questionable source and published in a dodgy manner, will count as evidence if other climatologist find that the findings are accurate. You didn't present any evidence and parroted one of the most offensive arguments against scientific inquiry. "Oh my, the world is just too complex for poor little mortal minds. Understanding is impossible. Dear me, we should just sit here and accept our fates."
You messed up. The top of a plateau is still the highest point, so you didn't disprove anything. The study also points to the idea that China was polluting on such a large scale that it was actually helping the temperature. Once they stop building coal power plants, the temperature will begin to rise again.
Yes, because being taxed is sooooo much worse than the extinction of humanity and its supporting ecology. The horror!!.
If I was a citizen of the Maldive, I could associate dry land with good and ocean rising with bad.
I apologize as well. I was unnecessarily combative.
Okay, you missed the metaphor. Evolution was the rock. Evolution is demonstrable. Evidence of it goes back thousands of years. Any notion of "it was created that way" is Last Tuesdayism. It is an understandable out, but it cannot be used to disprove evolution.
Yes, I consolidated the many, many outcomes of the climate into three possibilities. It is called generalizing. Scourge me now. The earth may heat, then cool, then heat again, all without CO2 affecting the temperature. It may heat up, kill us all and then go into an ice age all due to CO2. It may heat up and become Venus's sister, killing us all. The earth is heating up. Period. Shouldn't we try something?
Not really, because then we'd have all that coal we saved.
Nope. They just cannot ignore one of the legs of science in favor of their personal fairytale and be seen as a completely credible source. Maybe this paper is absolutely correct. Great! I'd like to see some reproducibility first, before I swallow it whole.
Why is the beginning important? I do not know where the rock comes from, only that it is there. I may never know the beginnings of the rock, but that does not mean that the rock is not there.
Great post, but so? It is getting warmer. There is data supporting this statement. Warmer has several negative effects that we don't want. Shouldn't we work towards cooler? Since carbon dioxide has been demonstrated to help retain heat, shouldn't part of the solution be to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Then, if the heating is found to be unrelated and the world begins to cool, perhaps that would be the appropriate time to go back to releasing the CO2?
Do a list with the three possibilities:
1. earth warming by itself, not going to stop
2. earth warming with help from CO2
3. earth warming, but in the future will cool by itself
#1 means we're screwed no matter what we do. #2 means we're screwed only if we do nothing. #3 means we're fine, no matter what. #2 is the swing vote here. Do we want a 2/3 chance of warming or cooling? (If we are going to ignore the models completely.)
No. Anyone who advocates this stance is advocating ignorance and advocating self inflicted blindness. How many people flung themselves from the heights, before one flew? I bet you that not one of them was humble. Science consists of two questions, "Why?" and "Why not?" Neither can be asked with your gaze on the ground.
Global warming is bad, not because it harms the planet. That is impossible. It is bad because it will kill us and our children and kittens. Pollution doesn't hurt the planet, it hurts us and our children and kittens. I like kittens too much to let them suffer through weird mutations. Polar bears too. Don't save the planet. Save us. And the kittens.
Warmest decade on record. How is that not the data?
Here is another article.
Now c'mon, that is right out of freaking Star Trek. Anyone who can say that truthfully deserves a little worship. Plus, the first Wikipedia reference I could find says that lithium-ion batteries lose 20% capacity per year. Who keeps a PC for more than 5 years? Much less a cell phone or tablet. (No, I'm not thinking 5x20=100, so don't go there. 5 years is just the average time I keep a PC)
I never said that ATMs were a bad thing. I'm saying that it is disingenuous to suggest that ATMs haven't negatively impacted the employment of tellers. Which is what you did and the article did to use as an opportunity to say nasty things about Obama. It is lame.
You are absolutely right. I have no idea where I got the impression that Diebold was the only player in the ATM game. I never would have thought up all those other possibilities either. Thank you.
The original argument was that automation kills jobs. You are using an overall rosy picture to hide the truth of a local level. Yes, there are more tellers and more branches. The banking industry is doing well. However, as I demonstrated, they are employing tellers per branch at a decreasing rate. They are using less people to run the same responsibilities. I have 3 bank branches nearby. That would, in 1980, imply 36 bank teller jobs. Today, it means 15 jobs. So ATMs don't replace tellers at all? They just sit there and look pretty? There was absolutely no load transference from the tellers to the ATM at all? Why is it illogical to assume that, if it takes 12 people to do a job before the ATM and only 5 after the ATM (trending downward BTW), the ATMs are at least partially responsible? Do you think that the buggy whip shops closed up overnight?