I'm an engineer at Pratt & Whitney. I'll have to say that may be close, but Star Wars takes the cake.
You'd be mistaken... it certainly never achieved it's lofty goals of rendering nuclear weapons impotent, but it did help hasten the demise of the USSR as they were pushed to economic collapse.
I hope you like walking around the world and curing your diseases with water.
Ah - homeopathy!
I've been watching the farce that is the new ICANN process. They seem to think that the only test for a new top-level domain suffix is that it will make money for the corporate owner.
Actually - that is quite sensible. Only tld's which are in demand are likely to make money.
The problem, of course, is that there is nothing remotely free market about the tender process - and the tld's authorised are just insane (though
In theory, it wouldn't really bother me as long as the characters sounded the same - that's one of the benefits of cartoons - that the "actors" never age on screen, so you can repeatedly recast the voices and keep the show going for decades... but in reality, the voice actors have grown into the role and provide numerous nuances that make up part of who the characters are. Replacing them all at once would certainly be noticeable, IMO.
People need to settle down though. Pretending that they're never going to watch if one one the voice actors is replaced doesn't fool anyone - you will still watch (at least at first), and you know it. Yes, I'm worried - but the voice actors aren't the whole show. Painting the producers as the big greedy corporates playing hardball is a bit one-side - the voice actors are playing the same game, which is as it should be... I suspect they will come to some agreement in the end.
Economics has nothing to do with global warming. It has plenty to do with policy decisions, regardless of what the policy decision is about.
Which is to say, that it has everything to do with global warming... not whether it's happening, but certainly in how we should react - which is kinda the whole point of the climate change movement in the first place.
I didn't suggest he is not a scientist. Please see my original post. I suggested that simply having a physics and an economics degree didn't qualify him as a climatologist.
I know - I wasn't referring exclusively to your post... sorry for the confusion.
I suggested that simply having a physics and an economics degree didn't qualify him as a climatologist.
And on that note, my point stands... to get a handle on the whole climate change issue requires a range of discipline which includes physics and economics (in fact, the latter is very important in determining costs of action vs inaction, etc).
Be fair. No real scientist would be seen dead with a degree in economics.
That's a pity, because it's an important discipline when it comes to AGW. Think of all the questions concerning warming:
At least two of those are economic questions rather than scientific... so even if you accept that there is a "scientific consensus" on the topic of AGW, the matter still isn't over - and that's where economics comes in handy.
I disagree. Informed debate is healthy. Is this guy expressing a carefully considered opinion or spewing political ideology? The distinction matters.
Perhaps... but then of course, you can just close down any debate by declaring the opposition uninformed - something that seems to happen a lot with AGW.
You're right. I could actually have done even better and stopped after the subject line. I'd like to see anyone who believes that "the sole purpose of government is politics" try to do without police, fire departments, an educated population, the common defense, lifesaving NIH research, the Internet itself, roads, and clean water.
You think education can't exist without government? Or that research wouldn't happen? About the only two you got right were police and common defense.
And the Internet thing is just hilarious... if government hadn't been creating monopolies, and stamping out competition in communications sector, we'd have had an internet analogue (though perhaps different) decades sooner.
We progress in spite of government, not because of it
The guy had a physics degree, and an economics degree. Neither which fully qualifies him to report on Global Warming.
What does, in your opinion?
The problem with "climate science" is that it really does require a broad application of disciplines - suggesting that someone with a degree in physics in not a scientist, or not qualified to report on GW is absurd. As for economics, this is an even more important discipline when it comes to determining what action, if any, should be taken (eg, cost benefit analysis of various approaches, etc).
What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results. Searching for "sql server" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.
So, no different to Google then?
Doing a comparison in my current window, Google is indeed more compressed, but both show 8 non-ad results before I scroll down (Google is more compressed, so gets extra ads at top... and Bing seems to have a "Best match" category in addition to ads). Searching for something more commercially competitive (like "web hosting") produces more ads (for both engines), but again, I can see 8 not ads on each.
That said, it will take some work to oust Google as #1 search engine... competition can't hurt though
by following your same logic, cars have been growing bigger and bigger for the last 20 years, there has to be an end for this nonsensical waste of productive resources
How is it nonsensical? People clearly like big cars, but you don't, so it's nonsensical... yeah, cars are a lot bigger and roomier than they once were (not just SUVs) - this is a good thing.
Personally, I think people buying a Prius is irrational - but it's their call. And I love this attitude that "people only want it because of marketing" - as though that's a bad thing. Somebody convinces you to buy something you want? for some reason, that's a bad thing; but hey, government legislating what you are allowed to buy/required to have? all good!
In fact, we're so bad at making decisions, that they should decide everything for us... what to eat (no fast food), what to wear (nothing too revealing), what to watch (swear words are bad), what to view online, etc...
Smaller cars as a whole are better for everyone.
Whether we want them or not, huh? I'm so glad that we have people like you to make the right decisions for all of us.
If people thought small cars were better for them, they'd be buying them... If there is a negative externality that they are not taking into account - figure out it's cost, and add it to the product (for the record, I think the negative externality argument is overused and doesn't apply here - but I'd rather have a tax on some of my options than to have those options removed)
If people wanted smaller cars they'd be buying them... depriving them of this liberty under the guise of helping the environment (which this won't do) is a mistake.
For the record, I am somewhat skeptical about the climate change hype - which I think is over-exaggerated. But even if I accept CO2 as a negative externality (which I don't), then the correct response is a carbon tax. Cost the stuff appropriately and let the market decide - don't legislate inefficient results. Don't let the government "pick winners" and definitely not a cap and trade, which is too open to corruption.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
