“Even if there was loss of competition between these two, it gives comcast a much larger bargaining position against other providers and will make it harder or any other provider to grow. Additionally, with the lack of net neutrality it will mean that comcast has potentially too much control over the speed and even content of anything reached over the internet.”
“Totally agree. Get "married" in your church if you'd like, but don't expect any change in the eyes of the government. Want to enter into some sort of civil union with whoever you feel trustworthy enough to be contractually bound.. go for it. Neither is dependent on the other and both would be done for different reasons.”
nzchicago on Jan 26, 2014 at 22:54:16
“Except one state cannot go it alone, because it's citizens will lose all their federal marriage benefits. So this plan won't work.”
“I hear your worries, but I think it's a manageable process. If no one was "married" by the state then you could choose to get "married" in a religious ceremony if you so choose. If you then wanted to be acknowledged by the state as a official couple, you would file paper work to receive your civil union. A civil union would grant you rights similar to what is currently granted to spouses, but would not be limited by religiously motivated norms. Being "married" through a religious ceremony would cause no change in your government standing, only by becoming a civil union would there by any change in the relationship between the two persons.
This has been brought up before in California during their back and forth legal battles. A judge asked "when did the government get in the business of marriages?". The answer.. when they figured out we buy more stuff as a couple with 2.5 children. Same reason they give a mortgage tax deduction... so you buy stuff to fill your home. Have to drive that consumer economy somehow.”
“I appreciate your sentiment, but read no agenda into the article. Maybe I read too quickly, but it seemed to merely be a summary of the findings.
How is the "green" community pushing this article? Some people did some studies and then an article was written about it. I would hope that people in midwestern suburbs would not read this article and take a defensive posture. Instead, I would hope it would provoke a person to contemplate their carbon footprint and maybe rethink something about their lifestyle.
I grew up in suburbs around St. Louis. I can assure you that the St. Louis metropolitan area is the epitome of the situation described in this article. I commuted hours each day to school then work. I look back now and wonder if it was necessary and really the best choice for many reasons. Not the least of which is the absurd energy required to hurl a 2 ton object along at 60 mph for 2 hours a day.
At the very least it's interesting to see the impact that being a daily commuter and owning a large home has on a particular lifestyles energy consumption.”
“Thanks for the link, but it was my mistake for thinking it would be more than a piece of propaganda written by someone in the Heartland Institute.
I find very few things more ironic than questioning the validity and political bias of scientists who operate in a system of skepticism enabled by peer review based on the rantings of non-experts who have an obvious agenda (to keep getting paid by corporations who aren't interested in a change in the status quo). Their sole function being to confuse the public about the scientific consensus and portray issues that are largely settled as up in the air.
What exactly is the agenda for scientists to make this stuff up? They work their entire lives to build credibility and respect within their field, then they're going make up data or exaggerate the seriousness for what reason?
1. Money? No, if they wanted to make money they wouldn't have entered academia.
2. Funding? No, there are much less controversial ways to get funding than enabling a global hoax.
3. Notoriety? No, they risk every ounce of respect and credibility every time they publish results. No real scientist risks that for a little fame.”
I hardly feel made to look like a fool. You have presented to me links to blog posts authored by non-scientists covering people's life works. You're trying to present an article written in Forbes as an unbiased reflection on the study? If there were major errors or faulty logic with the conclusions drawn in that paper, there would be a wealth of scholarly articles contradicting it.
I have presented to you 2 articles that appear in scientific journals in contrast to your references. Please show me the corresponding literature which shows there is a massive group of climate scientists who don't regard our actions as having definitive impact on global warming. I've presented evidence which leads me to conclude the vast majority of scientists in the field support AGW. You have not presented a shred of evidence to the contrary.”
“Apologies, the paper i linked in this post, did indeed reflect 97% of abstracts that took a position as opposed to 97% of scientists. An important distinction although I don't believe it in anyway invalidates the study.
This study was an attempt to encompass all literature on the subject. Thus an important data point is the number of articles in the area that took no position. They are effectively a null data point. Not every paper written involving climate change attempts to make a determination regarding the validity of AGW. For that reason, they only examine the papers that do make that assertion one way or another. Why does it invalidate results to say that of the scientists that wrote a paper which led to a conclusion 97% agreed with AGW?
Regardless how you'd like to attempt to discount the results using hypothetical situations, the VAAAST 90%+ majority land of published artciles on the side of AGW.
Do you realize how frustrating it is to provide links to someone that reference refereed journals and international communities of scientists to be show broken links to heartland.org as a supposed refutation of years of work?
I now totally understand why reddit has banned pseudoscience from their climate change discussion threads.”
cristoballs on Jan 7, 2014 at 16:10:51
“Further, I checked the link to the Heartland website. It's not broken. And I can understand how frustrating it must be to people who holds themselves in such high regards are made to look like fools by people they smugly look on. So, I can see why it's important for such delicate egos to silence any opposition.”
cristoballs on Jan 7, 2014 at 16:00:33
“I only posted the link to the Heartland website, as a source for the information I cited, so as not to be called out for plagiarism. The relevant information is in the comment that I posted. And yes, it is relevant to the discussion regardless of the source. Again, I don't dispute that 90% of the articles that weren't ignored show support for human contribution to climate change. However, that's still entirely different from saying there's consensus among 97% of climate scientists. On top of that, there is a broader question of what constitutes supporting AGW? I, myself, can accept that human activity affects the earth's climate. However, what I remain skeptical on is the severity of the situation. A recent Forbes' article pointed this out as well, that many of those scientists who published papers "supporting" AGW vary on the level that humans actually contribute.
"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
“Tobacco company strategy all over again. The worth of an energy company is primarily found in the above ground resources that have already been extracted. It makes up the bulk of their portfolio. Now imagine you're exxon mobil and told that if we burn all of the oil that's already been drilled we would do unimaginable damage to the atmosphere. Suddenly exxon mobil isn't that valuable and their exploration expenditures make no sense.
It's already happening. More and more retirement and hedge funds are divesting from fossil fuels as their uses must necessarily become more narrow. We won't be replacing fossil fuels in many applications for a long long time, but we shouldn't use them where another source of energy will suffice.”
Can't wait to hear your arguments against why these papers should discounted. As opposed to your survey that is the supposed source for the 97% number. which btw... if you follow the link to the story, then follow the link to the supposed source of the survey you get this:
“Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024.
That is a paper that attempts to quantify this result and lands on the 97% number. This is not a survey, it is a review of peer-reviewed literature by scientists in the discipline. The 97% is real and accurate. You are on the wrong side.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."”
cristoballs on Jan 7, 2014 at 15:11:02
“"97% of the world's climate scientists..."
It's funny how people who think they're so intelligent, and then proceed to show how blind to the facts you are. From what you just copied and pasted, it doesn't say anything about there being consensus among "97% of the world's climate scientists". Quite clearly, the abstract shows that the number comes from a review of scientific abstracts. Somewhere between 35-66% (of the abstracts reviewed) expressed NO OPINION on the issue. It's only when you ignore those abstracts that you end up with the 97% figure. And that's 97% of self-rated papers which ALSO expressed a position on global warming. It doesn't say anything of the number of scientists who contributed. Hypothetical situation: What if one scientist wrote 9 papers supporting AGW, and another scientist wrote only one paper rejecting it. Would it be fair to suggest that 90% of scientists support AGW, when it was an even split? No. Please explain then how you get from 97% of abstracts that take a position on global warming that 97% of the world's climate scientists support AGW.”
John Vincent Sharp on Jan 7, 2014 at 15:08:42
This if from NASA. But nice try. Sorry we are not biting.
Nov 20, 2013 at 13:52:49
“One of the few direct multipliers to productivity is morale. The easiest way to make things more efficient and productive almost immediately, is improving morale. Doing dishes with someone who thinks they are at the bottom of the food chain will do wonders for morale.”
“Software development is a very different beast. It thrives in a cooperative environment. When things are competitive workers strategically work so that they are perceived to be as successful as possible. This leads to people hoarding knowledge to gain advantages instead of collaborating and sharing. It's bad news and 100% opposite to what the most successful software development companies do. (Outliers like Google aside. They are successful because they hire extremely talented driven people)”
“It's merely that the ends do not justify the means. While heavily for more gun control, violating constitutional rights is not an option. The 2nd amendment has had wide interpretations, mainly owing to the fact that people want to read more rights into it than I believe are there. In comparison, the 4th amendment is relatively straightforward and S&F clearly violates the intention and words of the law.”
“No, they have already gerrymandered districts to such a degree that there is nearly no mix of races at voting booths. What you will find, however, is much longer lines and understaffed offices in minority districts. This is without even mentioning the systematic erosion of voting rights directed at minorities and young people, so that it's more difficult for them to vote in the first place.”
Acemkr6 on Oct 31, 2013 at 19:08:35
“erosion of voting rights for minorities and young people??? I would love to see the facts on this.”
“That's dumb. There are always the easiest places to make cuts or changes in any situation.
In this situation, wailing about something that only takes up 1% of the national budget is indeed fruitless. One not only has to take into account the amount of the cut, but also the value of what is being cut. At this point in our history, foreign aid can be seen of something of great value. Our international reputation is not what it once was, and we are able to provide a great help to many nations as well as increase foreign policy leverage through foreign aid.
Defense spending, if one takes the most conservative figures and doesn't factor in prior debt service due to defense, is 20% of our federal budget.
Defense = 20% (41% of the entire world's defense budget and 600% of China's)
Education + Foreign Aid + Transportation + Infrastructure + Science R&D + All other discretionary spending = 13%
“Social security does not add to the debt, by law. What adds to the debt is the fact that we have to make good on the "borrowing" we've done from the SS trust fund. It's a manufactured issue. We bought bonds with SS trust fund that mature and have to be paid back. In that sense, it adds to our deficit, but like everything else we pay for by raising the debt limit, it was a conscious spending choice at some point. Another issue is that instead of paying the bond holders when they mature with existing capital, we just issue more bonds to pay the old ones. The difference is the interest, and what adds to our debt.
It would be akin to us being mad at China for loaning us money buy buying bonds, then saying it's China's fault that we're running a deficit.
Ironically, if social security vanished tomorrow, the deficit would not change. (assuming that the existing payments still had to be made)”
“I agree to an extent. Models, theories, and representations are rarely wholly overturned. I think it would be much more correct to say that they are constantly adapting to fit new experimental evidence.
I'm also not sure if you're trying to "cheapen" the science because it's based on models and theories? If a model or theory can correctly predict the outcome of situations accurately, it's a good one. Whether or not there are actually things such as protons, electrons, and neutrons doesn't change the fact that we can predict how chemicals will react based on those models.”
PunditOne on Nov 10, 2013 at 02:35:31
Nano science is a brand new field, and has revolutionary implications already being implemented in commerce already.
Medicine: Adults can't grow new brain cells---the meme of the last hundred years. Once it dies, it's gone forever.
Observed now: new brain cells grew in old brains! All the time! Every adult brain!”
PunditOne on Nov 10, 2013 at 02:33:59
“Models, theories, representations that predict outcomes well are good maps to follow.
But we must be prepared to toss the 'good' maps, when while we're following the footpath on the map, we come across a fast flowing river that isn't on the map.
Too many people mistake physical laws as the real thing. It's not. The real thing is separate from the physical laws.
As famous professor and father of semantics, S.I. Hayakawa, said, "The map is NOT the thing."
Whether one calls a sea change in science an adaptation rather than a revolution, is a matter of perspective.
The Copernican REVOLUTION. I'm sure you've heard that phrase.
It isn't called Copernican Adaptation.
Chemistry looks pretty solid for the last decades, unless there's a revolution you want to tell me about?
Cosmology has been undergoing a series of rapid revolutions in my lifetime.
maybe physics too (from Newtonian to Einsteinian to Quantum Mechanics to Quantum Field to String Theory (string not proven, and now looks to maybe on the verge of being discarded)...
There are many revolutions going on within Science right now. We just don't know about them, since we are no longer scientists generalists. Sheer quantity of knowledge exponentially rising has outstripped the capacity of any one scientist to keep abreast of it all.
There are too many subfields of science, and new science fields opening up that we've never heard of. These are reaching in and exploding our previous concepts previously thought forever set in stone.”
“I'm sure it's that he "only" has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. Keep in mind that degree came before we made Master's degrees the new bachelors and actually required people to know things before getting a undergraduate degree.”
“As a scientist... All I can say is that it's possible that God was the source of the "Big Bang"
There is most certainly no proof that is the case however, it's merely one of several hypotheses about what existed prior the beginning of what we know. Most responsible scientists that I know stop at the big bang and don't speculate about before it, because that's all it would be, speculation.
Hard evidence and repeatable science provides us with everything you see around you.”
PunditOne on Sep 19, 2013 at 02:43:44
Your last sentence perhaps you may rephrase that as:
"Hard evidence and repeatable science provides us with what we think we know about everything you see around you."
We are using models & representations to describe nature and natural laws, but our models & theories get overturned with every generation of fresh thinking.”
“But that should play right into the ol' free market system right? Some doctors will refuse to treat medicare and medicaid patients because they don't feel thy can make any money doing it. Other doctors will see that as an opportunity to grow their practice and innovate so as to provide for this now unserviced group of people.”
fenerli on Jul 25, 2013 at 17:47:49
“Sure they can grow their practice but this will diminish the quality of care because now you have to see more patients to get the same amount of income. Seeing more patients means less time with each patient meaning a larger possiblity of either misdiagnosis or missing something. The other option is to start ordering more expensive tests to makeup the costs. None of these seem like it will be helpful for the consumer.”
“Let's all be even more honest. Borders does not equal boarders. Hard to take a comment seriously beyond that. Not to mention the fact that the Democrats would like to make those "illegal" immigrants part of the tax base, thus paying for themselves.”
“The filibuster, when used correctly, is a powerful tool of the minority to bring attention to causes and express disdain. It is not meant to paralyze government eternally and when properly used cannot.
If the republicans in congress would like to begin actually filibustering, then I would applaud them for standing up for their principles, much as I did Rand Paul's filibuster. However the republicans in the senate do not use this power judiciously and hold up legislation by merely indicating they would filibuster. It's all a sham and is ruining our governing body.”