"Free" markets don't have pointless regulations. True, a totally free market wouldn't have ANY regulations (imposed by the government), but we don't have to go that far to get things to where they at least work.
I don't think you have ever owned a Mac there, friend.
One of the primary selling points is their longevity. I have two Macs from 2006-7 that I still use on a regular basis. I'm typing this on a 2007 model now. Finally had to shelve my 2003 model a few years ago as it can't handle playing high res video.
As an amusing anecdote, I will tell you about my experience with Mac vs PC in a laboratory environment. My lab has always been all Mac, even before I got there. I was allowed to get a new iMac back in 2008 as I needed a higher resolution screen to do graphics manipulation on electron micrographs. A couple of years later, another member of our lab wanted a new computer, but insisted on a PC (he had to run some stats software and couldn't into boot camp). So we got him one. A couple of years later, he wanted another one, complaining that his had slowed down so much it was unusable. I was still using my 2008 model, and it was running like a champ. It still works fine, so far as I know, as I have since moved on. Also of note is that we had another Mac from the early 90's running our HPLC, which still works, though that probably isn't a fair comparison as we never used it for anything else.
Just because its hot in the house doesn't mean its on fire, though.
I like how someone with an opinion contrary to yours has a name. Really allows for dehumanization and lets you just ignore any opinion you don't like. Pretty cool psychological trick.
How did this become about the NSA? They made it about them. They are reading this right now. EVERYTHING is about the NSA now.
The problem here is government over-reach and violation of rights, on quite literally every front. It has to stop, one way or another. Either they do it voluntarily (not happening), or they cause an economic collapse. Hope you're ready for that.
Yeah, forcing EVERYONE out of the cities (not just the people originally from the countryside), killing everyone with an education, and having people build earthworks dams with no planning doesn't count as "doing stupid shit".
Yes. Most authoritarian political systems are like that. Some are not. Khmer Rouge didn't have any actual rules, for example. Just "kill whoever you want" and "do stupid shit". Sort of like our last two administrations with their drone assassination programs.
As in, it's been thrusting violently in and out of your anus for the last 13 years, and now it is reaching its "crescendo".
This makes people want to never, ever, EVER travel to the US. The NSA has now made it so that no-one wants to do business, much less purchase technological devices (one of our largest exports) ever, EVER again. Our government is destroying our economy, completely and totally, and on multiple fronts. I don't know that even bureaucrats can be this fucking stupid.
You said you don't get it, but you demonstrated that you do. It's not about being able to "hold" photons, it's about the number of different energies of photons it can absorb and re-emit. CO2 can only absorb a very specific few, like having a blanket that only holds in a specific wavelength of IR (heat). You'd get pretty cold pretty fast, even if you piled on more and more layers of that "blanket". Water vapor, however, has a very broad peak, meaning it can absorb and reemit almost ANY IR photon that comes into contact with it. A much thinner water vapor blanket will keep things much warmer than a much thicker CO2 blanket. Taking the metaphor a little further, on average, the water vapor "blanket" is much thicker than the CO2 blanket anyways, and the amount of heat forcing from the CO2 amounts to little more than noise as opposed to the signal from the water vapor.
Water vapor is more significant to global warming, and human activity is a fairly minor source (compared to say, the oceans, or the rainforests), but significant enough to account for the warming we have seen. The CO2 blanket may be twice as thick as it was a hundred years ago, but a water vapor blanket that is 1% thicker than 100 years ago will cause much, much more warming. Even if you throw away said blanket every three days, that doesn't mean there is no more water vapor being pumped into the atmosphere from combustion, or from cooling towers, or from water that can't absorb into the ground because it is blocked by concrete or asphalt, or water that is being run across crop land. This theory matches fairly closely the profile of actual economic growth we have seen over the last century too. Humanity's real economic growth stalled starting about 15 years ago (the tech bubble), with China and other emerging markets growing while the west shrinks.
My theory gives a testable prediction--warming will correlate with economic growth. If the world economy shrinks, we will get cooler. If it grows, we will get warmer. It also suggests that runaway warming is unlikely, as we can take measures to reduce atmospheric humidity fairly easily (better drainage systems, vapor traps on cooling towers and combustion-based plants, planting more trees, use of improved irrigation methods, etc).
So if CO2 displaces an equal amount of, say, water vapor, the net effect will be warming? How about if it displaces the same volume of CFCs? Now, how about if it displaces an equal amount of the weighted average of the atmosphere? Anyone proclaiming AGW MUST peforme these thought exercises.
Now, if you could tell me that climate scientists are actually concerned with the THICKENING of the atmosphere, rather than the increase of the average heat capacity, then I would be happy to listen. But from what I have heard, that is not the argument, and I have been on this tack for quite a long time, as you are probably aware, having gone into it with me before. I have mostly argued with idiots on the internet who never took a physical chemistry course, and thus are unable to understand the significance of an IR spectrum, and certainly not the significance of an IR+RAMAN spectrum.
Rising temperatures help humanity up to a point. The vast tundra of Canada and Siberia turning into grain belts would greatly benefit humanity by any measure. But that won't happen because of CO2. Perhaps sustained water vapor emission, or a nice dose of CFCs would dot the trick. I'm not one to want to engineer the climate, though.
I'm glad you acknowledge that ocean acidification is a major if not THE MAJOR problem going forward.
You'll get further with the claim that ground up babies cures AIDS, even if you have irrefutable proof.
Climate denial is a litmus test. Deny that CO2 causes global warming as a scientist and you will lose EVERYTHING, no matter what your field is.
CO2 will warm up a cold planet that doesn't have an earthlike atmosphere. But CO2's heat capacity is on average about the same as the remainder of the atmosphere, barring water vapor, and a good bit less when it is included. Assuming a constant atmospheric thickness, more CO2 doesn't do squat.
That doesn't mean that increasing CO2 concentration isn't a problem. It's fucking catastrophic! The seas are boiling masses of carbonic acid now, with jellyfish taking over our fisheries. But hardly anyone talks about THAT. No, it's all about "climate change". Honestly, who gives a fuck about a couple of degrees of change when the ocean ecosystem is collapsing?
You think that's bad, wait until you see the IR spectrum for water vapor.
The other product of combustion. It may not persist, but we sure put a lot of it in the air on a continuous basis. It probably won't cause a snowball effect, but it does help to explain the "pause" in warming over the last 15 years--the world hasn't grown much during that time on a net basis, and lots of places are actually shrinking.
What he is saying is that guns in the hands of the populace PREVENT such things from ever even being discussed, sort of like how no-one ever discusses building a residential development inside the caldera of a volcano. That would just be stupid. But take away the magma, and it might just happen.
Not really. It's just that Snowden's revelations have focused more on the US than other countries. Most other Western countries are just as bad, and will only get worse as their economies continue to deteriorate (same with the US).
Good thing you weren't around in the 1930's. The Nazis would have sent you in ahead of their troops, and they'd have been able to march to Oporto, The Bering Strait, and the Cape of Good Hope.
Freedom of expression doesn't really help against invading armies.
As to the US government "Our army had been battling AK-47s and IEDs for ages now buddy, you don't stand a chance against our army"
Why can't I hold all these lulz? You really think the us military would win a war against 10,000,000 guerillas armed with rifles in the middle of both their supply lines and their manufacturing base? Never mind the fact that you probably live next door to one or more. Talk about a fucking red zone. You talk about "rising up" while also wanting individual people to be disarmed. The doublethink is so enormous I can't believe your head hasn't exploded. The kinds of guns you are talking about "enabling the next set of tyrants" aren't rifles in the hands of the citizens. You are talking about tanks, helicopters, and APCs. You know, the kinds of things that GOVERNMENTS have. Rifles in the hands of citizens have never been used to oppress ANYONE, and YOU KNOW IT.
Slashdot Mirror
But how are you going to get the dumptrucks through? It's all just a series of tubes, isn't it?
>Highly regulated
Well there's your problem.
"Free" markets don't have pointless regulations. True, a totally free market wouldn't have ANY regulations (imposed by the government), but we don't have to go that far to get things to where they at least work.
>Test things properly
>failure after three years
>in the computer industry
Yup. I buy Macs for their longevity. If they stopped working after three years, you might as well buy a PC for far less and get the same lifespan.
I don't think you have ever owned a Mac there, friend.
One of the primary selling points is their longevity. I have two Macs from 2006-7 that I still use on a regular basis. I'm typing this on a 2007 model now. Finally had to shelve my 2003 model a few years ago as it can't handle playing high res video.
As an amusing anecdote, I will tell you about my experience with Mac vs PC in a laboratory environment. My lab has always been all Mac, even before I got there. I was allowed to get a new iMac back in 2008 as I needed a higher resolution screen to do graphics manipulation on electron micrographs. A couple of years later, another member of our lab wanted a new computer, but insisted on a PC (he had to run some stats software and couldn't into boot camp). So we got him one. A couple of years later, he wanted another one, complaining that his had slowed down so much it was unusable. I was still using my 2008 model, and it was running like a champ. It still works fine, so far as I know, as I have since moved on. Also of note is that we had another Mac from the early 90's running our HPLC, which still works, though that probably isn't a fair comparison as we never used it for anything else.
Just because its hot in the house doesn't mean its on fire, though.
I like how someone with an opinion contrary to yours has a name. Really allows for dehumanization and lets you just ignore any opinion you don't like. Pretty cool psychological trick.
How did this become about the NSA? They made it about them. They are reading this right now. EVERYTHING is about the NSA now.
The problem here is government over-reach and violation of rights, on quite literally every front. It has to stop, one way or another. Either they do it voluntarily (not happening), or they cause an economic collapse. Hope you're ready for that.
Yeah, forcing EVERYONE out of the cities (not just the people originally from the countryside), killing everyone with an education, and having people build earthworks dams with no planning doesn't count as "doing stupid shit".
Yes, but one can simply walk into Mordor. Not so much with the US.
Yes. Most authoritarian political systems are like that. Some are not. Khmer Rouge didn't have any actual rules, for example. Just "kill whoever you want" and "do stupid shit". Sort of like our last two administrations with their drone assassination programs.
As in, it's been thrusting violently in and out of your anus for the last 13 years, and now it is reaching its "crescendo".
This makes people want to never, ever, EVER travel to the US. The NSA has now made it so that no-one wants to do business, much less purchase technological devices (one of our largest exports) ever, EVER again. Our government is destroying our economy, completely and totally, and on multiple fronts. I don't know that even bureaucrats can be this fucking stupid.
You said you don't get it, but you demonstrated that you do. It's not about being able to "hold" photons, it's about the number of different energies of photons it can absorb and re-emit. CO2 can only absorb a very specific few, like having a blanket that only holds in a specific wavelength of IR (heat). You'd get pretty cold pretty fast, even if you piled on more and more layers of that "blanket". Water vapor, however, has a very broad peak, meaning it can absorb and reemit almost ANY IR photon that comes into contact with it. A much thinner water vapor blanket will keep things much warmer than a much thicker CO2 blanket. Taking the metaphor a little further, on average, the water vapor "blanket" is much thicker than the CO2 blanket anyways, and the amount of heat forcing from the CO2 amounts to little more than noise as opposed to the signal from the water vapor.
Water vapor is more significant to global warming, and human activity is a fairly minor source (compared to say, the oceans, or the rainforests), but significant enough to account for the warming we have seen. The CO2 blanket may be twice as thick as it was a hundred years ago, but a water vapor blanket that is 1% thicker than 100 years ago will cause much, much more warming. Even if you throw away said blanket every three days, that doesn't mean there is no more water vapor being pumped into the atmosphere from combustion, or from cooling towers, or from water that can't absorb into the ground because it is blocked by concrete or asphalt, or water that is being run across crop land. This theory matches fairly closely the profile of actual economic growth we have seen over the last century too. Humanity's real economic growth stalled starting about 15 years ago (the tech bubble), with China and other emerging markets growing while the west shrinks.
My theory gives a testable prediction--warming will correlate with economic growth. If the world economy shrinks, we will get cooler. If it grows, we will get warmer. It also suggests that runaway warming is unlikely, as we can take measures to reduce atmospheric humidity fairly easily (better drainage systems, vapor traps on cooling towers and combustion-based plants, planting more trees, use of improved irrigation methods, etc).
So if CO2 displaces an equal amount of, say, water vapor, the net effect will be warming? How about if it displaces the same volume of CFCs? Now, how about if it displaces an equal amount of the weighted average of the atmosphere? Anyone proclaiming AGW MUST peforme these thought exercises.
Now, if you could tell me that climate scientists are actually concerned with the THICKENING of the atmosphere, rather than the increase of the average heat capacity, then I would be happy to listen. But from what I have heard, that is not the argument, and I have been on this tack for quite a long time, as you are probably aware, having gone into it with me before. I have mostly argued with idiots on the internet who never took a physical chemistry course, and thus are unable to understand the significance of an IR spectrum, and certainly not the significance of an IR+RAMAN spectrum.
Rising temperatures help humanity up to a point. The vast tundra of Canada and Siberia turning into grain belts would greatly benefit humanity by any measure. But that won't happen because of CO2. Perhaps sustained water vapor emission, or a nice dose of CFCs would dot the trick. I'm not one to want to engineer the climate, though.
I'm glad you acknowledge that ocean acidification is a major if not THE MAJOR problem going forward.
Huh? Physicists have GREAT predictive power. You have to build multi-billion dollar devices to get unpredictable results these days.
Don't care about the rest of your post. Don't drag physics down to the level of climate "science" and geology, you filthy dirt person.
You'll get further with the claim that ground up babies cures AIDS, even if you have irrefutable proof.
Climate denial is a litmus test. Deny that CO2 causes global warming as a scientist and you will lose EVERYTHING, no matter what your field is.
CO2 will warm up a cold planet that doesn't have an earthlike atmosphere. But CO2's heat capacity is on average about the same as the remainder of the atmosphere, barring water vapor, and a good bit less when it is included. Assuming a constant atmospheric thickness, more CO2 doesn't do squat.
That doesn't mean that increasing CO2 concentration isn't a problem. It's fucking catastrophic! The seas are boiling masses of carbonic acid now, with jellyfish taking over our fisheries. But hardly anyone talks about THAT. No, it's all about "climate change". Honestly, who gives a fuck about a couple of degrees of change when the ocean ecosystem is collapsing?
Hey, douches are people too!
"Science is not like politics."
I see you have never applied for a grant. Sorry, that's "science", not science.
Presumably one would manufacture the gasses on Mars rather than shipping them there.
Politicians can't think that far ahead. Their bloodlust will easily overcome their fear of worldwide ecological disaster.
Wow, so those fun experiments where people lower the register of their voices are actually really damaging to the environment?
Remind me to stick with helium. But wait, we're running out of our reserves of that stuff.
"No fun allowed."
-Mother Nature
Sure, but how many other CFCs are floating around out there?
You think that's bad, wait until you see the IR spectrum for water vapor.
The other product of combustion. It may not persist, but we sure put a lot of it in the air on a continuous basis. It probably won't cause a snowball effect, but it does help to explain the "pause" in warming over the last 15 years--the world hasn't grown much during that time on a net basis, and lots of places are actually shrinking.
What he is saying is that guns in the hands of the populace PREVENT such things from ever even being discussed, sort of like how no-one ever discusses building a residential development inside the caldera of a volcano. That would just be stupid. But take away the magma, and it might just happen.
Not really. It's just that Snowden's revelations have focused more on the US than other countries. Most other Western countries are just as bad, and will only get worse as their economies continue to deteriorate (same with the US).
Good thing you weren't around in the 1930's. The Nazis would have sent you in ahead of their troops, and they'd have been able to march to Oporto, The Bering Strait, and the Cape of Good Hope.
Freedom of expression doesn't really help against invading armies.
As to the US government "Our army had been battling AK-47s and IEDs for ages now buddy, you don't stand a chance against our army"
Why can't I hold all these lulz? You really think the us military would win a war against 10,000,000 guerillas armed with rifles in the middle of both their supply lines and their manufacturing base? Never mind the fact that you probably live next door to one or more. Talk about a fucking red zone. You talk about "rising up" while also wanting individual people to be disarmed. The doublethink is so enormous I can't believe your head hasn't exploded. The kinds of guns you are talking about "enabling the next set of tyrants" aren't rifles in the hands of the citizens. You are talking about tanks, helicopters, and APCs. You know, the kinds of things that GOVERNMENTS have. Rifles in the hands of citizens have never been used to oppress ANYONE, and YOU KNOW IT.