Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I don't believe you
That's not true. You're just doing your best to play like you really think all of this is just a misunderstanding. It's not, and you know it. I know you've already spent ten seconds and Googled for things like this, but I'll play along if it makes you feel better. Here's just one random first-on-Google example:
I never claimed that. I don't know where you got that idea.
You've speculated that her records were kept correctly (despite what she and everyone else says), and that there's no evidence she's done anything wrong. The implication then, by you, is that she did things correctly - and the ONLY way that could be, is if there was some sort of mechanism in place to do what the 2009 NARA and other rules required. But there wasn't. SHE SAID THERE WASN'T. So you are tap-dancing around the whole "show me proof" thing in order to avoid just plain facing what the woman involved has herself been saying. Why, I can't imagine. Are you working for her or her party?
What's this question have to do with anything? I see no relation.
Yeah, sure. It was someone else hacking your account when you complained that the current people looking at the matter weren't objective and a-political enough for you. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you if you found the prior investigation - which was run by HER party - to be likewise. You're implying it's not, which means you're being hypocritical on the subject. Only the party you don't like can be political in such matters, or only the party you favor can be objective?
Politicians often spin for short-term gain and don't care about fact-checkers much
The politicians doing the spin, here, are the ones relying on the fact that the person they're backing has conveniently destroyed records. The politicians conducting the investigation are relying on the documents SHE cherry-picked, and those are the ones that show the date gaps, a matter which they (unlike her, with tens of thousand of mixed-in emails we'll never see) will be placing right in front of your nose to review. Asserting that they're probably lying as they talk about public records you can review, while proposing the exact opposite about a stridently partisan person who has just been caught avoiding the very rules she said her department employees must all follow, shows how objective you're (not) being.
Where is this rule written?
This has been the case for a long time. Jason Baron, former director of litigation with the National Archives, explains the problem here. He said in an interview that "Clinton’s use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to emails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal emails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department’s discretion. Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions.” That's been true of federal records for decades: the agency archivists decide what's private, not the person running her official email on a server she's keeping in her home.
When cornered you seem to get wordy
Who's cornered? Not me. I'm just explaining the facts to someone who seems really desperate for them to go away.
We've been carefully growing for two full seasons, with some plants getting multiple cycles. No losses at all, other than one hailstorm, which we now prophylactically deal with by having the project under a bit of roof where it can still get the sun it needs, but hail can't hit it straight on. Not a perfect solution, but it's something. And it has worked.
I am convinced that the details matter.
Well, not really. The issue is that there are lots and lots of AC devices out there, so what you're doing is converting to a form that is in most common use. If you have surplus power that is free (solar as under discussion), there's no problem, resource-wise, in doing it just that way. Which makes it not very moronic at all. Kind of convenient, actually.
Considerations for a free, non-polluting resource have to be approached with an open mind. The range of consequences is different. They can be quite favorable.
It is MUCH easier to power them off than to build a solar+battery+inverter+separate cirquit[sic] to power them.
Oh, no doubt. But that wasn't what the GP was saying. Also, even though it's easier, it uses up a costly resource when it's on. The solar powered widgets do not. So you save some; the solar system saves all. Food for thought. Gotta figure the ROI. It's not that hard, either. Plus there's the dependability issue. Power fails, your devices keep running... that's nothing to sneer at.
*change* that undermines human plans represents a big challenge.
Not when the change is so slow that you have generations to decide to move away from it, or alter your investments, it isn't. Every generation typically goes into new homes. Somewhere. Eventually, a generation (not this one or any one soon) will go... "y'know honey, instead of moving here in Miami, let's check out Vermont." Or where ever.
And you know what's kind of irritating? I never hear anyone going on about sea level rise mention this little fact: Change is the hottest possible breeding ground for opportunity. Change means employment, undertakings, recovery, rehabilitation, relocation, new methods, new ideas, new crops, new businesses. And so on.
Since you obviously haven't been here for a while, many parts of Florida are underwater at high tide.
But not newly underwater. Sea levels have risen about 200 mm, or about 7.8 inches in the last century (1910 to 2008) (also, the rate of rise hasn't changed much, either -- see linked graph again.) Which time period has to include almost all, or perhaps all, of Florida's sewer infrastructure -- Miami was officially incorporated as a city with a population of just over 300 on July 28, 1896. Fort Lauderdale was incorporated even later -- 1911. This tells us quite handily that region's sewage infrastructure was built during that 7.8 inch rise.
So if Florida's infrastructure is seeing drainage run backwards due to an 8 inch change in levels, that is clearly related to absolutely dismal design and implementation -- not to sea level rise. I mean, good grief. What do you think the design criteria were? "If anything at ALL happens, sewers should overflow?" Please refer to the actual data when making claims. Also: If your public officials have been telling you that this is due to sea level rise, they are lying through their teeth, and you should take them to task for it. Good luck with that.
Florida is fighting that losing battle quietly.
Yes, no doubt. But they aren't fighting with sea level rise. They're fighting with incompetence.
The fact that it's getting warmer isn't proof that AGW is correct; at best, it's proof that it might not be completely wrong. I'm not saying that you're guilty of that fallacy, but I've seen many posts here by AGW fanatics that essentially say exactly that.
you can say the drought was exacerbated by record high temperatures
You can say it -- the question is, can you show it? Take a look at the actual data and you will see that although the average is running a little warm, all of 2012, 2013, 2014 and what we've had thus far of 2015 are just about devoid of record temperature excursions.
My understanding is that it is lack of precipitation -- not high temperatures -- that account for California's current problems. Which you can also see on that same page on the bottom graph. The span from March through October is devoid of precipitation. In the background in the darker color, you can see the "normal" (the average) for the region.
Dustbowl, anyone? Much, much worse than California's problems -- and definitely not attributable to "global warming" in any significant way.
Have you seen the flooding in south Florida over the past few years?
Well, yes, but you really shouldn't bring up the favorable consequences in order to fight Global Warming.
Um, Jeb AFAIK has never held a Congressional seat at the Federal level, so it's not like he had a chance to vote on it. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have voted for it.
But yeah, Hillary is basically a Republican with a "(D)" next to her name, except maybe for the HillaryCare thing she tried.
He's probably unelectable thanks to some stupid moves he's made -- he voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
Walker is still in his first term and he dropped out of college, which is a big negative (in my view). He was only one semester short of a degree, but he's never bothered to finish? Something's not quite right there.
Christy is a corrupt New Jersey politician.
What makes you think these people are unelectable based on these factors? I think you're vastly overestimating the competence of Republican voters.
My prediction is that we're going to have a Republican president elected in 2016, and it'll be Jeb Bush. He's going to run against Hillary Clinton. After Obama disillusioning the progressives and blacks, turnout on the Democrat side is going to be weak because no one except middle-aged and up white women are excited about Clinton. Bush is going to win the Republican nomination somehow. Bush speaks fluent Spanish and is married to a Mexican-American woman. Republican voters are going to vote for him just because he's Republican, and the Latinos are all going to vote for him too because of the above factors, and because he'll appeal to their religious sensibilities with his anti-abortion rhetoric, plus his positive views on immigration reform.
Oh, I have no doubt they considered ending it. Probably in a "how much power would we lose if" type scenario but consideration likely was there at some point.
I doubt that. She seems like less of a bitch than Hillary, is more media and business friendly in ways Hillary simply tries to put on a show about, and not too many people outside the tech world actually hate her.
Outside of her name sounding foreign, I would think she has just as much chance as any other woman running. I bet she would be picked as a vice president candidate too- if the primaries don't get too ugly.