Drug development takes about a decade.
The vitamin supplement market is unregulated so I'm sure there will be "GDF-11" supplements on the market in less than a year. This is just too good to pass up.
Will it work? Your guess is as good as mine.
You could, though, throw a piece of plastic packaging material out the airlock. I can think of no more appropriate way to declare 'humans are here, this is our planet now.'
That's so 50 years ago.
From the link:
Man's first act on the moon was to throw trash on it - Armstrong discarded a duffle bag with some junk in it.
Wait a minute, is there something I've been missing out on here? Should you take atmospheric tests for CO2 from just one spot, a volcanic spot?
Weather patterns combined with the jet stream keep the atmosphere well-mixed and fairly homogeneous, especially at high altitude. That's why the recording station is on Mauna Loa:
Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a monitoring site because, located far from any continent, the air sampled is a good average for the central Pacific. Being high, it is above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present.
Volcanoes don't emit just CO2, they also emit other detectable gasses which can then be used to determine if the volcano is contaminating the measurements:
The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data.
From http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=289
... Van Riper actually rigged the exercise himself, by materializing forces out of thin air to make attacks, then claimed he was being unfairly bashed by the higher ups because he hadnt followed the script.
Also what I understand from reading some more level headed articles on the matter, in many ways the exercise wasnt even meant to be a real simulation of war. Instead it was a series of experiments each designed to test a specific new concept or tactic of combination thereof. In some cases tests were being conducted for the purpose of creating better simulations in future exercises. Two forces didnt simple stand up and slug it out, so declaring a winner and loser isnt even relevant.
There was also this post:
Anybody can "achieve success" in an exercise by arbitrarily creating forces that were not on the original manifest, simply refusing to accept that assets had been destroyed and continuing to use them and by reading through the scenario rules and manifests and saying "aha It doesn't say I can't do thus and so".
It's rather like playing a chess game in which one player ignores any of his pieces taken by his opponent, assumes all of his own pieces are queens and then adds extra pieces every time he feels like it. Then stands up, beats his chest and claims loudly that's he's won.
The problem is that doing all that means the exercise is worthless, nobody learns anything of value from it and the time and resources invested in that exercise are wasted. The only thing Van Riper's actions achieved was to boost his own ego and already excessive self-esteem. In terms of military planning and threat analysis, his contributions were worth far less than nothing.
There appears to be a lot less there than you think.
So when 2016 rolls around with no significant change to the ice caps can we cut this stupid "ice caps r gunna melt" meme?
No? I didn't think so.
You must be trolling because It's hard for a rational person to look at this chart and think there will be "no change" when 2016 rolls around. (Hit "download attachment" to see the chart).
In 1979 the minimum was over 16,000 cubic kilometers of Arctic ice. In 2005 the minimum was 9,000 cubic kilometers. Last year it was just above 3,000. The best curve fit of the data (seen on the chart) shows the Arctic will probably be ice-free by 2016.
Please give specific examples to demonstrate reactionary bias in Fox News' reporting.
There are way too many to list in a Slashdot post so you can start with these:
http://foxnewslies.net/
http://www.politicususa.com/fox-news-hosts-speak-words-written-laughing.html
http://aattp.org/category/fox-news-lies-2/
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=8583
In fact, Fox has admitted to lying in Federal Appellate Court:
"repeat offenders will not be pursued as they are not the kind of people we can reach"
From http://blogs.computerworld.com/internet/21817/six-ways-pirates-can-get-around-coming-six-strikes
(my emphasis):
Later during the interview, when asked what happens if you get Strike 7, 8 or 9, Lesser said, "Once they've been mitigated, they've received several alerts, we're just not going to send them any more alerts. Because they are not the kind of customer that we're going to reach with this program."
I think "riding it out" as recommended in the blog is a Bad Idea. To me, the "with this program" caveat implies they have other plans for people who ignore them, probably involving the courts. By time you rack up six strikes they will have lots of evidence of infringement, and plenty of evidence that you ignored their warnings. Defending yourself in court against that kind of evidence is hard (read expensive).
And that is the case in climate studies, thermometers are frequently placed in locations that introduce errors, so the data has to be adjusted; the locations are not spatially uniform so the data has gridded; and on top of all that, the thermometers recorded Tmin and Tmax so historically the data point, Tave was the midpoint between Tmin and Tmax. The reality is any real direct measurements is very remote to climatology.
Your post makes a
( ) theoretical (X) specious ( ) crackpot ( ) incoherent
argument denying anthropogenic global warming. You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong.
(X) Your post contains one or more logical errors
(X) Logical fallacy
(X) Your post contains one or more factual errors
( ) Online searching has failed to find scientific support for the posted theory(s)
( ) Your source or reference is not from the field of climate science
( ) Your source actually never said that
(X) Citation please
( ) An idea is not responsible for the people who support it
( ) The mothership is not coming to save us
( ) Please use a keyboard that you know
Specifically, you fail to understand that
( ) Global warming is a long-term global trend
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
( ) Local trends have little to do with long-term global trends
( ) Short-term trends have little to do with long-term global trends
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_uncertainty_analysis
( ) Peak temperatures only happen every once in a while
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
( ) The Earth is warming up
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nasa-giss_1880-2009_global_temperature.svg
(X) Surface temperature measurements are valid and meaningful
(X) http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/temperature-record-reliability-attack.php
( ) Other planets are not warming up
( ) http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.php
( ) The sun is not warming up
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
( ) CO2 levels have increased 35% in 150 years due to human activity
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
( ) Factors other than CO2 also affect climate
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
( ) The absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases is well understood
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
( ) Water vapor is fully represented in all climate models
( ) http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/climate-scientists-hide-water-vapor.php
( ) Scientists did not predict an ice age in the 70s
( ) http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
( ) CO2 fertilization effects are far too weak to offset current rates of increase
( ) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
( ) Globally, glaciers are melting and the trend is accelerating
( ) http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
( ) Arctic sea ice is melting and the trend is accelerating
( ) http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
( ) Scientific consensus does exist
( ) http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php
( ) Global warming is not a good thing
( ) http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.php
( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
( ) Emails are not science and they are not data
( ) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, I think you're misinformed.
( ) Wishful thinking will not get you far in the world.
( ) How the hell did you manage to get on the internet?
( ) Just try me, asshat! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
"[Google] deliberately polluting OpenStreetMap's data"
See here for more on this:
http://opengeodata.org/google-ip-vandalizing-openstreetmap
Or 10 cents worth of EEPROM.
Boss: Let's see, 10c * 1,000,000 production run = $100,000 to replace a web interface that costs us nothing because we can sell customers usage patterns to advertisers?
Boss: You're fired.
If they can turn a profit on selling Falcon 9 launches anywhere near the price points they claim to be able to achieve, then it will change the universe.
Indeed, the Walmart of space. People like the GP like to sneer at the lowest-cost vendor but lowering the cost of access to space into a whole new range like SpaceX is doing is damn hard, and the payoff is going to be incredible.
Can you say Telecom explosion? Clinton prospered because our ability communicate went supernova.
I don't buy that argument at all. While Clinton did a LOT better than Bush (both 41 and 43), GDP growth in the 50's and 60's beats the pants off Clinton's numbers. And they did it while paying off the debt from WWII and rebuilding Europe with the Marshall plan and building the interstate system and fighting the commies in Korea and Vietnam and going to the moon.
And most importantly, they did it without a "telecom explosion". They also did it without artificially low interest rates and easy credit fueling a housing bubble. Telecommunications is certainly a significant part of the economy but it just doesn't hold a candle to housing, and housing is where Clinton got a lot of his pop.
Romney would have won if we didn't have the electoral college (according to the popular vote), sooo...
Nope, Obama got the popular vote too:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president?hpt=elec_racenav
An hour ago when you posted Obama was behind but he's ahead now. The only states still counting votes are the ones that Obama is winning so he'll stay in front.
Which is too bad in the sense that if the electoral vote and popular vote were split maybe there would be some momentum to get rid of the electoral college.
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.
