You missed the GP's point: the problem is not that true negatives were found; the problem is that they were not published. Because they were not published, future researchers might waste more effort re-discovering them.
Of course. But if I'm going to use an antenna, then what the fuck would I be paying the cable company for?!
More to the point, I think the situation violates at least the spirit (if not the letter) of the FCC's must-carry rules.
The answer to both of those issues ("green" fuels for aviation and trucking) is biofuel or synthetic (hydrocarbon) fuel. (FYI, we had an article here about the latter just a few days ago.)
Nobody said we need to be "carbon-less;" it's sufficient to be "carbon-neutral."
Excuse me; let me clarify: I'm talking about laws restricting people's ability to get on the ballot as a candidate (especially when said candidate lacks affiliation with the Democrat or Republican Party).
Having laws restricting who can vote is a different issue.
Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:
And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.
If the science can be discredited, should the federal government really be using it to impose burdensome regulations onto the public?
There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.
In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.
You are right, but my -rhetoric- question was about this "transition from a hardware-dependent business to [...] services" - i am almost sure that IBM has stoped being a "hardware-dependent business" a long time ago!
They did, but they're not "agile" enough to have realized it yet!
That's why such groups used to be called "special interest groups," to highlight the fact that their point of view is distinct and different from the general interest of society.
Glass... is made from the most abundant stuff on earth.
Okay, so you're right: silica (SiO2) is made from the #1 (Oxygen) and #2 (Silicon) most common elements in Earth's crust. But spinel (MgAl2O4) is made from #1, #3 (Aluminum) and #8 (Magnesium), which isn't bad either.
Of course, given that a big sheet of something like Sodium (#6) would probably be pretty damn expensive, I suspect that the abundance of the material's constituent elements is not necessarily the biggest factor in its price.
Really, hmm so you think the need to send boats out to the turbines to service them on a regular basis will have [an insignificant] effect ?
Yes. Moreover, any effect it did have would be worth it compared to the benefit of avoiding coal.
To make an analogy, coal emits more radiation per megawatt during its normal operation than nuclear power plants have released cumulatively, even including the worst disasters. Similarly, fossil fuel power (coal, oil, and natural gas) pollutes more in its normal operation than wind power would even during the biggest disaster possible.
Even if the concern is about other ships and the fuel they're using for propulsion, it's still not reasonable. After all, the ships can just go around the same way they avoid any other fixed obstacle (reefs, islands, whatever). It's certainly not a big enough issue to make it worth continuing to use a polluting form of power generation instead!
Massachusetts just shut down it's offshore wind farm program and more are dying (a welcome event for those of us that pay our own bills ) http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
That project failed because it didn't meet its financing deadline, because people opposed to it tied it up in court for too long. In other words, it didn't die because it was economically bad; it died because NIMBYs and reactionary anti-environmentalists like yourself murdered it.
Take this ludicrous bullshit (quoted from the article), for example:
The Cape Cod Times reports that Charles McLaughlin, Barnstableâ(TM)s assistant town attorney, said: "The townâ(TM)s concerns include the possibility that a collision between a boat and the large electric service platform the project requires could spill thousands of gallons of oil into the sound."
So, this town's conclusion is (incredulously) that the wind farm is bad because one of the oil tankers that it renders obsolete might hit it. That's not the fault of the wind farm; that's the fault of the goddamn oil tankers!
Most of the shopping channels get on your cable system though having a local TV transmitter. Cable companies are "required to carry" any and all local over the air stations. It was the "deal" that was made to allow cable systems to exist, many decades ago. So you are going to get those no matter what.
[Citation needed]
I mean, that's true in theory, but in practice, since the [OTA] digital switchover, the cable company where I live has been getting away with downgrading stuff that would be 1080i with an antenna to 480p (unless you pay an extra bribe for them to leave it HD), and omitting broadcast subchannels entirely.
If I could have gotten a cable package without sports channels (which would have been much cheaper than anything actually offered), I might actually still have it. As it is, the cable company lost me as a customer in part because of their dumbass deal with ESPN.
Isn't that what I said?
Even if the boat is full of water, as long as it's still floating when you plug the leak you've solved the problem. (Or at least, the most important problem.)
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
