Comment Re:Profit over safety (Score 2) 128
I am GM of a nuclear power plan
And I am Jack's liver.
I am GM of a nuclear power plan
And I am Jack's liver.
I read that in the sense of, "Let's say that I'm in the position of being a general manager", as a hypothetical rather than something to be taken literally.
And there are more people who believe (terrestrial) solar energy will become economically viable but think castles in the skies of Venus are just that. Castles in the air.
To be fair, we have solar energy, getting more economical by leaps and bounds, while our rockets are still blowing up at launch.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
You seen to think that by just saying that you will make it true.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Since you said you were quoting numbers from the IPCC, I would suggest that linking to the IPCC reports would be relevant. Since you now say it is "more than useless" to link to the source that you claimed to have based your post on, I'd say that your post is "more than useless."
I haven't seen anything to make me think you have actually read any of the IPCC reports-- I suspect your poorly-remembered data is something you poorly-remembered from some political blog somewhere. Have you actually read anything from the IPCC, the work you claim to be quoting?
High enough, the climate is nice.
This is the only reason people live in Canada. Because if you're high enough, you don't really care about the climate.
Historically racists have called black people apes and monkeys. Therefore this accidentally and somewhat embarrassingly mimics that behaviour.
Historically white people were not, to my knowledge, insulted and discriminated against by being compared to seals and dogs. It's a bit more embarrassing to have women labeled as dogs because they are sometimes called bitches as an insult.
It's really not hard to understand. Context and history attach additional meanings and sentiments to some words.
Say, people are beginning to pay attention. High enough, the climate is nice. Possibly not as nice as Jamaica. But nicer than, say, the moon:
I always get a kick out of the fact that some of the same people who think solar energy will never be viable will embrace the idea of human colonies in the clouds over Venus or on Mars.
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Correct in the last part: some of them are wrong.
The actual IPCC documents are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
An interesting graphic comparing various sources of climate change is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...
I love stories like this one, which are proven conclusively in the comments section under them.
Could not one of average intelligence yet above-average perseverance perform an experiment building on another's experiment and be called a "successful" scientist.
Maybe, but they still have to write it up and get it published, and that's where the above-average intelligence comes in. There are drones in science, like in every field, but they don't get "successful" without publishing. And often that means working with others, and working with others requires above-average intelligence.
Intelligence is of little concern and to be honest I'd like to know what defines intelligence.
If only there was some sort of reference that we could use to find such a definition...
"noun
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
or...
" A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.""
No matter how you define, it is most definitely not the same as "education". I'm not sure if you've ever gotten a PhD or been on PhD committees or been an adviser to PhD candidates, but "education" only gets you partway there (and not that big a part).
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it a try, but at her advanced age, my dog's favorite toy is a bed on which to take a nap. I could probably interest her in a tennis ball or treat, though.
Unless I'm drastically misinterpreting your quote, you are requiring them to do that:
No, my point was that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars is not the only way to get a medallion here. There's a lottery every year when they put new medallions into circulation. The winners get the medallions for just a nominal fee.
Now, regarding the special medallions, those are not the ones that are hundreds of thousands of dollars. They're much more readily available for the cost of a license, and after a certain period of serving the underserved locations of the city, there are ways to get the regular medallion. All of these new rules were put in place long after I was a weekend warrior cabdriver during grad school, so I don't know the exact details, just what I've had hacks tell me when I was in their cabs.
It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.
That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.
Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.
Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.
It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.
The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."
Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.
OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's
It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.
and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.
"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.
I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.
Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.
I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...
What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.
Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."
What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics
