Really? i guess every dish cooked uses the same available ingredients so by that definition there are no new recipes.
I am sure you can argue that the iphone built on existing technologies, but almost every tech does. But to say it did not revolutionise the market when it came out is surely stretching the argument. Phones before the iphone were very different to phones afterwards. it completely changed the game.
"Only one other type of product can get away with charging 2 - 3x more than anyone else...a fashionable one."
Or one that adds 2 - 3x the value. The iPad just works and is ahead of the competition. That is why it commands a higher price. That is why a BMW costs more than a Daihatsu.
Violating these diplomatic issues would have more ramifications around the world than Julian Assange could do. Every American, British etc embassy would suddenly be a little less safe. I doubt they want to set any examples here. The conventions around embassy and diplomatic immunity has saved people from murder charges so it seems the convention is enforced even in situations where we would prefer it was not. Julian is small fry by comparison.
Sadly, this scenario of "the end of civilisation" is more likely than nuclear war. Presumably, just like the black death, not all would die, but the impact would be just as devastating as any WWIII
Just go to the Southern Hemisphere and the water goes down the plug hole in a different direction. I think toilet spin is more to do with its design rather than the coriolis force.
So the only thing you are truly truly worried about is the tax which is designed to reduce CO2 use and modify peoples behaviour. Cosmic rays, Methane, Sunspots all have very minor parts to play. CO2 is the elephant in the room and the fact that you are avoiding it tells me that you are in the camp that is desperate to find an alternative reason. There isn't. Changes in temperature in recent years is being understood better. It turns out that the oceans as a shortterm sink was higher than expected. There are a lot of brains focussed on this issue and while not all of the answers are there, there is no doubt that CO2, not sunspots, methane etc is the prime driver. As the system becomes more unstable expect the changes to become so too. Whether you like it or not we are sliding down this slippery slope and the pain in the future will outweigh anything seen to date.
Widespread fuel use has only happened since 1900 and with population explosion the effects are largely within the past 100 years which is what the data shows. The effects in the prior 1000 years was minor and irrelevant to the background noise of global warming. Looking around for one data point perhaps unexplained (i doubt that it is, and can see many references to it) is also cherry picking. If you want everything explained 100% before accepting the theory then that is just being difficult. There is so little evidence for any alternative it is beyond doubt.
Parts of Antartica are cooling which fits the models correctly. If you are proposing that disproves global warming then you are wrong. Denialists try to cherry pick the one dataset that fits their worldview rather than read widely across the evidence. Cherrypicking would let you "disprove" evolution and gravity.
It is just as silly as the stuff written in the old and new testament and in islam. All these primitive tribal religions were full of this nonsense. I have dug into it but i am sure buddhists, shintoists etc have equally embarrassing things. All religion is stupid and to follow the dictates of the writings of goatherders means you get what you expect.
That's just a cop out to imply that you can choose which scientific facts you want. That is a vote. It is not. Good luck on choosing not to believe in gravity. We should not teach children creationism in science classes, leave it for fantasy subjects like religion.
The burden of proof is on the biblebashers. Should he be forced to believe in fairies unless he can categorically prove they don't exist? It is not an unfounded claim he is making. There is no magic fairy in the sky. There is no proof to support it and there is proof that no god is needed to get from the big bang to now.
In my country and many other countries water and gas was initially put in by Government owned organisations which were later privatised but still maintain certain semi-monopolies (eg one water infrastructure, not many pipes per street). The point about socialism is that the free market is good at some stuff and not others. The free market is trying to wring out the last pennies from the copper network (pun intended) which delays the move to fibre and other technologies. Wireless is useful but a bandaid, not a solution. Sometimes vital infrastructure needs a kick along by Government before it can eventually be handed over to free enterprise for exploitation. When "free enterprise" in Australia rolled out broadband they put two sets of cables down each street and neither put cables down my street, despite the fact that every house in my street has satellite TV because they cant get cable. The waste in that rollout shows that free enterprise has no monopoly on good sense. I know that socialism=evil in the minds of many americans and it was not my term, but the other poster.
"This is especially so if "we" specifically refers to the West rather than "we, but only if India and China are included and will cooperate"."
Is this your real concern or just a strawman? This is the do nothing unless everyone does something, preferably first. Do you do that at home? Refuse to mow your lawn until every other house does it? Don't pick up trash unless everyone else does it first? You do realise that global warming hurts us and will hurt us first and hurt us more. And why would China and India be expected to do anything if the countries who produce orders of magnitude more CO2 per capita won't lift a finger. If the rich are not going to clean up the neighbourhood and expect the poor to do it first, what sort of message does that send? Yes, China and India need to be part of this and there are mechanisms such as carbon taxes that will make that happen but nothing will happen seriously until the U.S. gets on board.
The point about this quantum tunneller is not about his skills in climate forecasting. The point is firstly, that one person in a very large society disagrees and this is so amazing that it is news. One person disagreeing is not news and not a big deal. Since when did everyone agree with everything?
What does that tell you about the consensus? The fact it is a shock suggests that it is amazing that someone would disagree with GW. Perhaps as silly as disagreeing with evolution....and yes, as a quantum tunneller, his opinion is perhaps more political than science based, so i am inclined to dismiss his opinion as much as the average joe on the street. Though i am always happy to listen.
Internet access is fast becoming as important as water, gas, electricity, roads etc and having the correct infrastructure is not something to be solely left to private enterprise. If we need a bit of socialism to solve it then lets have some socialism.
aha.
"Ivar Giaever, an 82-year-old Norwegian who shared the 1973 Nobel Award for work related to quantum tunneling, left the 48,000 member organization earlier this month because of the APA’s position arguing that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue."
An expert on quantum tunnelling! Can i get his opinion on car maintenance, Dress making and 1980 pop music? I am sure he is just as qualified.
Doesn't it remind you of the "this doctor does not believe that smoking causes cancer"? Except that in this case he is not even in the field.
Indeed. Surely the U.S. needs to increase its share of defense spending above the 41% of world defense spending. And only 5 times china? Even though they have to worry about neighbours like Russia and India, the U.S. spins it as all being against the U.S. Why? To justify increased defense spending. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Space should be funded by all countries and we get things moving in our lifetime, not have to wait for our grandchildren's lifetimes...
There is always a need that can be justified but can you assure yourself they will limit it to that need?
It is good that you don't feel threatened but when you do it will be too late.
How about they show how this information will be protected, not abused, used only for the purpose they said it was going to be used before we let them. Large companies have trouble protecting confidential info such as credit cards. What is the likelihood that a government agency or simply a private eye might get access to this info? Pretty high i would assume.
And this information is kept forever and could be trotted out many years in the future. Do you want to be justifying what you did twenty years ago? Is it any of their business?
Sex with you must be a bundle of fun. Do they need to sign both copies and have a thirdparty witness each time? Do you keep a Justice of the peace outside the door?
While his behaviour was not ideal, i have seen much worse out there go unprosecuted. The over reactions on this issue are unbelievable. Most seems driven by Americans upset over the embarrassment of the information released, when Assange was not the person taking the secrets, he was merely passing them on. And you don't see the New York Times and other newspapers shut down for running those stories.
It may be a shock to you but the first humans weren't called Adam and Eve.
The bible has all sorts of things written into it that are taken from other religions. Noah and the Ark is a story that appears in other religions, particularly the Sumerians who live in a very wet swamp likely prone to flooding (Hello!!!!).
"Pagan" societies in Europe had forms of marriage long before they found christianity. The romans had marriages again, long before they unfortunately created christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? i guess every dish cooked uses the same available ingredients so by that definition there are no new recipes.
I am sure you can argue that the iphone built on existing technologies, but almost every tech does. But to say it did not revolutionise the market when it came out is surely stretching the argument. Phones before the iphone were very different to phones afterwards. it completely changed the game.
"Solar-panel beanie"
way to be cool..... :)
"Only one other type of product can get away with charging 2 - 3x more than anyone else...a fashionable one."
Or one that adds 2 - 3x the value. The iPad just works and is ahead of the competition. That is why it commands a higher price. That is why a BMW costs more than a Daihatsu.
Violating these diplomatic issues would have more ramifications around the world than Julian Assange could do. Every American, British etc embassy would suddenly be a little less safe. I doubt they want to set any examples here. The conventions around embassy and diplomatic immunity has saved people from murder charges so it seems the convention is enforced even in situations where we would prefer it was not. Julian is small fry by comparison.
Sadly, this scenario of "the end of civilisation" is more likely than nuclear war. Presumably, just like the black death, not all would die, but the impact would be just as devastating as any WWIII
Saw that on Fox News?
Just go to the Southern Hemisphere and the water goes down the plug hole in a different direction. I think toilet spin is more to do with its design rather than the coriolis force.
You are thinking that the U.S. invented the dollar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar
So the only thing you are truly truly worried about is the tax which is designed to reduce CO2 use and modify peoples behaviour. Cosmic rays, Methane, Sunspots all have very minor parts to play. CO2 is the elephant in the room and the fact that you are avoiding it tells me that you are in the camp that is desperate to find an alternative reason. There isn't. Changes in temperature in recent years is being understood better. It turns out that the oceans as a shortterm sink was higher than expected. There are a lot of brains focussed on this issue and while not all of the answers are there, there is no doubt that CO2, not sunspots, methane etc is the prime driver. As the system becomes more unstable expect the changes to become so too. Whether you like it or not we are sliding down this slippery slope and the pain in the future will outweigh anything seen to date.
Widespread fuel use has only happened since 1900 and with population explosion the effects are largely within the past 100 years which is what the data shows. The effects in the prior 1000 years was minor and irrelevant to the background noise of global warming. Looking around for one data point perhaps unexplained (i doubt that it is, and can see many references to it) is also cherry picking. If you want everything explained 100% before accepting the theory then that is just being difficult. There is so little evidence for any alternative it is beyond doubt.
Parts of Antartica are cooling which fits the models correctly. If you are proposing that disproves global warming then you are wrong. Denialists try to cherry pick the one dataset that fits their worldview rather than read widely across the evidence. Cherrypicking would let you "disprove" evolution and gravity.
It is just as silly as the stuff written in the old and new testament and in islam. All these primitive tribal religions were full of this nonsense. I have dug into it but i am sure buddhists, shintoists etc have equally embarrassing things. All religion is stupid and to follow the dictates of the writings of goatherders means you get what you expect.
omg, sounds like a boring place. send me to hell :)
After we die there is nothing, but i guess god botherers can't accept that
That's just a cop out to imply that you can choose which scientific facts you want. That is a vote. It is not. Good luck on choosing not to believe in gravity. We should not teach children creationism in science classes, leave it for fantasy subjects like religion.
The burden of proof is on the biblebashers. Should he be forced to believe in fairies unless he can categorically prove they don't exist? It is not an unfounded claim he is making. There is no magic fairy in the sky. There is no proof to support it and there is proof that no god is needed to get from the big bang to now.
When Netflix mails you DVDs then your broadband can come by road too. Perhaps not the best solution though.
In my country and many other countries water and gas was initially put in by Government owned organisations which were later privatised but still maintain certain semi-monopolies (eg one water infrastructure, not many pipes per street). The point about socialism is that the free market is good at some stuff and not others. The free market is trying to wring out the last pennies from the copper network (pun intended) which delays the move to fibre and other technologies. Wireless is useful but a bandaid, not a solution. Sometimes vital infrastructure needs a kick along by Government before it can eventually be handed over to free enterprise for exploitation. When "free enterprise" in Australia rolled out broadband they put two sets of cables down each street and neither put cables down my street, despite the fact that every house in my street has satellite TV because they cant get cable. The waste in that rollout shows that free enterprise has no monopoly on good sense. I know that socialism=evil in the minds of many americans and it was not my term, but the other poster.
"This is especially so if "we" specifically refers to the West rather than "we, but only if India and China are included and will cooperate"."
...and yes, as a quantum tunneller, his opinion is perhaps more political than science based, so i am inclined to dismiss his opinion as much as the average joe on the street. Though i am always happy to listen.
Is this your real concern or just a strawman? This is the do nothing unless everyone does something, preferably first. Do you do that at home? Refuse to mow your lawn until every other house does it? Don't pick up trash unless everyone else does it first? You do realise that global warming hurts us and will hurt us first and hurt us more. And why would China and India be expected to do anything if the countries who produce orders of magnitude more CO2 per capita won't lift a finger. If the rich are not going to clean up the neighbourhood and expect the poor to do it first, what sort of message does that send? Yes, China and India need to be part of this and there are mechanisms such as carbon taxes that will make that happen but nothing will happen seriously until the U.S. gets on board.
The point about this quantum tunneller is not about his skills in climate forecasting. The point is firstly, that one person in a very large society disagrees and this is so amazing that it is news. One person disagreeing is not news and not a big deal. Since when did everyone agree with everything?
What does that tell you about the consensus? The fact it is a shock suggests that it is amazing that someone would disagree with GW. Perhaps as silly as disagreeing with evolution.
Internet access is fast becoming as important as water, gas, electricity, roads etc and having the correct infrastructure is not something to be solely left to private enterprise. If we need a bit of socialism to solve it then lets have some socialism.
aha. "Ivar Giaever, an 82-year-old Norwegian who shared the 1973 Nobel Award for work related to quantum tunneling, left the 48,000 member organization earlier this month because of the APA’s position arguing that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue."
An expert on quantum tunnelling! Can i get his opinion on car maintenance, Dress making and 1980 pop music? I am sure he is just as qualified.
Doesn't it remind you of the "this doctor does not believe that smoking causes cancer"? Except that in this case he is not even in the field.
fnord en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord
Indeed. Surely the U.S. needs to increase its share of defense spending above the 41% of world defense spending. And only 5 times china? Even though they have to worry about neighbours like Russia and India, the U.S. spins it as all being against the U.S. Why? To justify increased defense spending. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Space should be funded by all countries and we get things moving in our lifetime, not have to wait for our grandchildren's lifetimes...
There is always a need that can be justified but can you assure yourself they will limit it to that need?
It is good that you don't feel threatened but when you do it will be too late.
How about they show how this information will be protected, not abused, used only for the purpose they said it was going to be used before we let them. Large companies have trouble protecting confidential info such as credit cards. What is the likelihood that a government agency or simply a private eye might get access to this info? Pretty high i would assume.
And this information is kept forever and could be trotted out many years in the future. Do you want to be justifying what you did twenty years ago? Is it any of their business?
Sex with you must be a bundle of fun. Do they need to sign both copies and have a thirdparty witness each time? Do you keep a Justice of the peace outside the door?
While his behaviour was not ideal, i have seen much worse out there go unprosecuted. The over reactions on this issue are unbelievable. Most seems driven by Americans upset over the embarrassment of the information released, when Assange was not the person taking the secrets, he was merely passing them on. And you don't see the New York Times and other newspapers shut down for running those stories.
It may be a shock to you but the first humans weren't called Adam and Eve.
The bible has all sorts of things written into it that are taken from other religions. Noah and the Ark is a story that appears in other religions, particularly the Sumerians who live in a very wet swamp likely prone to flooding (Hello!!!!).
"Pagan" societies in Europe had forms of marriage long before they found christianity. The romans had marriages again, long before they unfortunately created christianity.