Re:The difference is about 0.1% over a sunspot cycle
Which is about 10 times as much change as we've seen in actual surface temperatures over the last 20 years.
7611 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Not exactly. We're using more total energy but we're using it more efficiently. "We" in this instance being the entire planet and not just the GB or the US. There is some debate about how much less we might be using if all the places coming online were using current technology.
I think your essential point still stands: we're not on the exponential curve the alarmists cry havoc about. More probably a straight line and possibly asymptotically decreasing.
Actually Efros is onto something even though he doesn't acknowledge having a solid handle on it. Yellowstone was one of the first parts of the US to be designated a federal nature preserve. As such, the government position on any sort of exploitation of resources in the area gets an even more jaundiced view than the econazis in these part give a Lewis Page article. It's getting to the point where they don't even want tourists in the park even though that's specifically part of its mission.
No they don't. Here's an economic truth for you that everybody denies:
Nobody knows how to make a pencil from start to finish, but the stores are filled with them.
Same thing applies to electronics.
No other part of the company is just another cost center. Each part thinks it is unique and ought to have special consideration. But the other parts of the company eventually come to understand that they have to communicate with management and understand the operations of the company. Only IT seems to persist in the belief that management needs to learn to speak its unique language.
This is our, or perhaps your problem to fix, not management's.
I've been sitting on the other side of the table in a non-IT context. We knew the guy asking for money. We knew he was planning to overspend his budget by 10% figuring that was allowed. So we cut his budget by an extra 10% so that when he overspent by 10% he'd still be about where we needed him to be. The people who weren't planning to overspend their budgets by 10% got what they asked for, at least in as much as we could fund them in any given year. The thing about budgets is that the guys running the numbers aren't really setting them. They are reporting them. They know how much money the company is going to generate and they know what all the Wants the company has. But Wants always exceed Income, so something has to give. The budget planning process is supposed to be about doing that rationally.* Oh, and for the record, the guy we knew would overspend was in a high visibility, high PR, medium impact on on "business" position.
The budgeting guys are as smart as you are. And they're watching your behavior on the numbers, not the way you set your budget.
So if you're getting your budget cut by 50% and can't make do, find another job. You've either got an asshole for in finance and you won't be able to change it, or a problem elsewhere in your IT management system which you probably won't be able to change that either.
*To the best of my knowledge the only time we shorted IT was once when I overlooked one of the needs we'd have for storage on a server. As I was the one submitting the request on that one, I can't really blame the budget committee for that one. If I had asked for it, I think I would have gotten it.
Interestingly, when the author started his study he assumed your lies were true and he was finally going to produce the statistically solid proof the hoplophobes hadn't been able to. It was his own work on the subject that changed his thinking on the issue.
PC use isn't declining, only PC sales. At the moment the roomie's nephew is staying for 8 weeks. He was commenting on the really nice case I had. I said it was the last hand build I did and when I built it, I finally said to hell with budgets, I'm building what I want. So I got myself a nice case, top end power supply, maxed the RAM and got a quad processor. It started with a high end graphics card as well, but since I don't play MMO shooters, I didn't see the need to replace it with equivalent when the old one died. Then I had to look up when Vista was released to date how long ago I built the PC. Vista was just being released at the time and I built myself a dual boot XP/Vista system which was migrated to XP/Win 7. That was about 8 years ago.
I might build myself another new system after Windows 10 is released (mostly so I have a system that will last about 8 years for Windows 7), but that will depend on how much I spend when I finally replace my now 14 year old car.
I'll second that. I've only ever had one kidney stone, but as I was attempting to get an X-ray at the SECOND facility and they were again trying to pull the "You need to schedule that at least 3 days in advance" crap, I believe I told the receptionist that if I weren't already in such pain I'd likely kill for not paying attention to my doctors orders. Or something to that effect. That attracted the attention of a manager who quickly took over for the receptionist and got me through as quickly as they could.
Have you ever told it to wait for the signal?
I did once, and still sometimes inadvertently fat poke it. It's a truly amazing option. It never seems to find satellite signal, so I invariably wind up canceling, then planning again from last position.
For even more amusement, I've sometimes left the device on all the way home, and am using the "Plan from last Known Position" option in the house. As I walk to the car it finds satellite data, and starts replanning the route.
Seems pretty clear to me and gives you a third option which is sometimes preferred.
The TomTom one is annoying because they chose the wrong default. Here in the US, if it includes a toll road, you probably want to take it as opposed to losing an hour of your life to traffic on a four hour trip.
What's worse is that it doesn't necessarily reverse routes for planning. This past weekend I was using one to get to a friend's house. For the first part of the journey it was okay. It took me up I270 to the PA Turnpike, across to Philly and north to my friend's house. For the return trip it wanted me to go south on I95 then back up I270 to get home. Because of this I spent an hour in hyperspace trying to get to the toll road.
You also have to wonder a bit if they're fudging a bit on "what it's supposed to do". By definition the car should be following all the rules of the road including following other vehicles at an appropriate distance, watching for turn signals, signalling, checking lanes before you switch, etc.
Now while I'd like to follow all those rules all the time, the simple fact of the matter is that given where I live and drive, I can't. Everybody else on the road here seems to define "safe following distance" as aligning your front bumper at about the midpoint of the rear quarter panel of the car next to you. Give them any more distance than that and they will cut you off with an unsignalled lane change. Speaking of which, turn signals were obviously meant to be optional equipment not mandatory. If you can't tell by the positioning of the car that he's about to change lanes, too bad sucker. One of my favorite moves is the Maryland Double. In this maneuver you turn from the second lane on a multilane highway through the right lane before executing your actual turn onto the exit ramp. All within about 50 yards of the hard separation of the exit lane. The other day I had the pleasure of watching someone execute the Quadruple Maryland. (And people wonder why our car insurance rates are so high here.)
So if they've had to adapt their programming to take care of real world problems yeah, I can see a near miss on a lane change. And in a certain sense, it still is "doing what it's supposed to do."
Nope. What we have here is a failure to appreciate cultural differences. In the US, you don't take a chance on a lawsuit. Even if you win, it costs too damn much in lawyers fees. Which is why your court ruling is so absurd. There's no way to avoid the risk of being sued. If you don't wipe the record, the perp sues. If you do wipe the record, the source sues. Either way you damn Europeans are going to sue Google just because you don't like how successful they've been.
Difficult to say. There are sever problems on both sides of those types of crimes. The two obvious US cases which illustrate both sides are:
Childcare center out near Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. Attorney General made a made for himself convicting the owners of a childcare company of pedophilia charges against kids under 10. When one of the kids was finally old enough to actually understand the case, he told the new AG the testimony was coached and he/she had never been sexually assaulted. On further investigation all the other "victims" confirmed the testimony was coached.
Jerry Sandusky pedophilia case. Sandusky was able to continue to abuse teenage boys for 14 years beyond the first police reports. First reported case was in 1998, police investigated but because of his standing in the community and some fast footwork, no charges were filed. The next set of allegations occurred in 2002, but this was investigated only by the Penn State University and no real action was taken. Charges were finally filed on Nov 5, 2011; 40 counts with 7 victims identified.
There's a lot of damage done in both cases. Public scrutiny seems to be required. The problem is that it needs to be scrutiny of a judicial temperament until the verdict is rendered. Only then can the parental temperament kick in.
Meh. It depends. If the "tax break" is structured in such a way that it is only possible for one company (or a small handful) to get it, it's a subsidy. If it's the sort of tax break generally available to any business, it's not.
Personally I'd rather we did away with ALL business tax breaks and just gave them a lower flat rate. But we'll never get that past the busybodies who want to engineer the economy form the Congress/Parliament.
There's a simple, easy way to implement the core of that idea without going as far as you did:
Impose an import tariff on all good manufactured in a country that doesn't meet your standards to buy real offsets for the pollution. Provide the manufacturer with the option of voluntarily meeting your standards and having one of your inspectors check the plant to avoid the tax.
I don't think you'd even need a treaty to effect the change, just a simple law passed wherever you happen to live. Everybody would benefit.
No fault of law. There is the fault of people who think that by outlawing guns they will make the world safe. This has proven to be ineffective wherever tried, even Britain.
Had even a few of the people in that church been properly armed, the "mental defect" would not have killed so many people.
I will also note that to a great extent the "mental defect" was radicalized by none other than The Big 0 himself. Hate speech directed at others on the basis of the color of their skin is always likely to set his type off.
Incorrect. Some of them will, some of them claim it stands for racism. Granted the ones who claim it stands for racism put their politics in front of their scholarship, but they are still titled as scholars. And who can blame them when Southern Loyalists are as willing to spin history as they are?
Lincoln didn't have the authority to free slaves in the US. He did have the authority to do it in the conquered territories. Freeing them required a Constitutional amendment (several actually as each was used to address a specific point. Funny how they didn't pull this omnibus crap back then) which was taken up as soon as the war was over and passed quite quickly thereafter (a mere 8 months, lightning fast for the time given it need approval from both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the states).
As a Pennsylvanian I was quite aware that slaves were not merely bought and sold across the whole of the US from colonial times, I learned about the trade triangle (rum and goods to Africa, Slaves to the Americas especially Jamaica and Cuba, and sugar to New England) which quite obviously was as evil if not more as owning the slaves. However it was equally true that by the time of the Civil War not only had owning slaves fallen out of favor in the North, many if not most of them had amended their constitutions so that slavery within their borders was illegal. In fact, that was the whole point of the Dred Scott case. Scott lived for 4 years in a territory where it was illegal to be a slave. On that basis he sued to be permanently freed. Then a racist Chief Justice rewrote the laws of the States from the bench. It's a blow from which our court system has never really recovered. Now it's blase for justices at all levels of the courts to rewrite laws to fit their political views.
So by you it is good to not honor war dead by displaying their regimental colors?
Because that's what it is/was doing in South Carolina. It wasn't flying over the capital where Democrat Fritz Hollings hoisted it as governor. It was moved from there years ago under a Republican governor and instead flies/flew at the memorial honoring SC's dead civil war soldiers.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019