bascule

Does the concept of an "upper decker" exist in the UK?

Can you point to a single person in these forums who does that?

This just in, the immortal god Kim Jong Il, fearless leader, has repurposed his amazing weather control powers in order to control the movement of ions. The result? Nuclear fusion! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8676678.stm

What properties does this $169 - $329 product add to the water beyond normal water? It claims to "ionize" the water. What does that mean? Is there such a thing as "ionized water" beyond the natural ionization of water? Wouldn't you need to add some impurities to get the water to "ionize" and wouldn't that defeat the point? Seems like they're charging you a lot for something that doesn't do anything water can't.

And the industry response is to astroturf as citizens groups, according to a leaked PowerPoint obtained by ThinkProgress: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/netneutrality-grover-afp/

oIHBUGvAUMo Gordon Brown, texture like sun... Err, sorry, that's not it... That's him, right? Sure. Sorry, ignorant yank here. Gordon Brown has resigned as prime minister of the UK, effective immediately. Does someone on that side of the pond want to let us Yanks know what that feels like? I can't imagine what it would be like if our president resigned.

http://skepticblog.org/2010/04/22/bill-nye-selling-out-to-the-man/ -avhXHLDwAk Bill Nye is apparently now hocking homeopathy for dirt. How disheartening.

Most games use UDP. UDP is a low latency protocol as compared to TCP, but carries with it the potential for dropped packets. Dropped packets are okay though when you're trying to communicate the positions of various players or units within a virtual world. This is because units positions are constantly changing, so if some packets get dropped their movement will just get jerkier. Every new packet that comes in with a new position invalidates the previous packet, so it's okay if a few get dropped here and there. A lag of 2 seconds is completely ridiculous. Even when I was playing games (at least UDP-based ones) over a dialup modem connection my lag averaged around 300ms. After initially moving to a cable modem, my ping averaged about 50ms. Nowadays it averages about 9ms.

Yeah I tried. I think I'm about done here.

The projections are based on model output, which is in turn based on the physical science. While there are many nonlinearities and uncertainties in the system, projections based on climate models are certainly not "assumptions" or a "hypothesis" Furthermore, there's substantially more to the case for anthropogenically forced climate change than future projections. As you noted yourself, you're addressing 2 chapters of an 11 chapter report. Are you familiar with the concept of "pot. kettle. black"? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Incorrect. You might try reading IPCC AR4 Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf Or, as you're a layman, this Wikipedia article might be more your speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Ample information about the physical science basis of climate change, including attribution and human factors, is available as part of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm That, by the way, is what you're labeling as a "hypothesis"

Yes, that's what you're doing here: You're relegating one of the central topics of modern climate science to mere "hypothesis". That is not the case. The science of anthropogenically forced climate change is supported by a wealth of evidence. For someone who's accusing scientists of being "so convinced they are right that anyone questioning their line is somehow insulting them," you sure are taking an awful lot personally.

Anyone considered trolling them with an intentionally fake-as-possible paper full of indecipherable language and see if they accept it?

You're position has now changed from debate and open forum to personally charged attacks. This is exactly what I was hoping for as it demonstrates my theory that debate can not occur because it quickly turns from facts or analysis of facts' date=' to mud slinging.[/quote'] There's nothing personally charged here, but clearly you disagree with modern climate science and level arguments against it, namely that modern climate science hasn't advanced to the level of a theory and is still at the level of a hypothesis. I'm sorry if I've offended you personally, but your opinions aren't scientific and contradict the science on the matter. Climate scientists have reconstructed the general circulation of the atmosphere within computer models. Let me present you with a video which demonstrates the level at which modern climate science is able to reconstruct the climate system. This is not a hypothesis: tbXwRP0CQNA As this is a science-related subforum it's science and not opinions that count, and if you wish to contradict the conclusions of climate science you need to present a scientific argument, not simply write off the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists as mere "hypothesis". The science behind climate change is sound. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's an ad hominem. Even if a scientist is campaigning politically that does not make the information that scientist is presenting wrong. Scientific theories must be judged independent of the scientists who present them. Anything less is a logical fallacy.

That's pretty much what's going on. There's a bunch of people who are all "we can't trust the law to deal with terrorists!" These are the same people making a fuss that we can't try terrorists in civilian courts. Essentially, there's an extremely paranoid subset of Americans who want to bypass the whole America/Constitution thing and waterboard suspected terrorists without a trial, because terrorists can't be trusted.

Yes, she's a moderate, much like Obama. Unfortunately, we had to deal with the Republicans shoving Alito and Roberts down the country's collective throats. The Democratic response is: let's nominate an uncontroversial moderate! Ok, except that doesn't restore the balance of the supreme court. I'd like a balanced Supreme Court, but that's not what Bush and ilk (i.e. Karl Rove) left us with. Bipartisanship doesn't really work when one side's all "we don't want to stir the pot" and the other is all "screw you all!"

Yes, and evolution deniers label "darwinism" a religion too. It doesn't make their position any less informed, or change the fact they're denying the knowledge that science has to offer because it conflicts with their personal opinions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Remember what I was talking about earlier in regard to misrepresenting science? That's what you're doing here. Climate science has advanced far beyond the level of mere hypothesis. You claim otherwise. This is simply wrong. No, their frustration results from the misrepresentation of science. As I noted earlier: There is comparatively little legitimate criticism of climate science compared to a massive and ignorant cacophony of anti-science proponents voicing their uninformed opinion.

My city recently introduced a bicycle sharing program: http://denver.bcycle.com/ The community maintains a fleet of bicycles. In order to use them, you have to sign up on the web site, pay a flat membership fee ($70/yr, iirc), and then insert your credit card at any stand to obtain a bicycle. Information about what bicycles are available where is available through the web site (also mobile apps). The first 30 minutes of usage are free. After that, you are charged a sliding scale depending on how long you keep the bike. A host of other features are offered, including GPS-based routed tracking (you can look up where you went on the web site after the fact) I'm not really sure how I feel about this program. For starters, at $70/yr, I think it's fairly expensive. I purchased my Schwinn LeTour bike for $50 and put about $50 worth of parts into it to make it ridable, so in my eyes the cost of participating in the program is comparable to purchasing a low-end bike for yourself. I haven't tried riding on any of the bikes from the bike sharing program, but as an unusually tall person I don't think these bikes would fit me well. My current road bike has a 63cm frame. Second, I was talking to a Parisian friend of mine about a similar program on their side of the pond. He noted that people often borrow bikes from this program to ride downhill, then leave the bikes at the bottom of the hill. As a result, they load up trucks with several bikes and truck them back to the top of the hill. I'm not really sure how I feel about that. If it motivates more people to ride bikes instead of drive, I think that approach is great, but I worry that it might detract from people purchasing their own bikes and actually riding them uphill instead of letting a truck do that for them. Overall, I think this could lead to a unique set of hybrid solutions for people getting around town. If you need to make a lot of short trips in succession, you could do it on bike, then take a bus to get back to where you originally started, instead of using a car for the whole thing. Or, you could just bike it the whole way and burn some more calories. I also know a lot of people aren't the DIY type, and if they purchased a used bike they would have to take it into a shop and spend upwards of $100 to get it into ridable condition. I really like the DIY approach to bicycle maintenance and try to fix as many problems as possible without having to take it to a mechanic. But I understand many people aren't going to be comfortable with that approach and will take their bikes to a mechanic to fix something as simple as a flat tire. So having a community-maintained bicycle fleet is a plus in that regard. And if you do get a flat tire, you need only find the nearest bicycle station, drop off the broken bike there, and pick up a fixed one. As someone who has walked a bike home several miles with a flat tire, interchangeable bikes sound like a great idea for that scenario. What do you think?

I prefer to call out misinformation campaigns for what they are. I have absolutely no qualms with labeling any anti-science camps as "deniers", because at the same time they're claiming the scientists don't know what they're talking about and denying the legitimacy of the science. You've got your causation backwards. The label is applied as a result of the active misinformation campaigns. Removing the labels would not legitimize the debate. It was never a valid debate to begin with. On one side you have scientists. They research the issue, look at all the available data and interpretations, and choose what best fits the totality of information available. On the other hand you have the climate science deniers. They start with the foregone conclusion that everything the scientists have concluded is wrong, then work backwards finding information that fits their foregone conclusion. Information that works against their foregone conclusion is rejected. "It's been really cold this winter in Texas! So much for global warming!" While climate scientists can point out that "global warming" refers to the long-term trend in global mean surface temperature and does not mean that winter stops being cold, and furthermore that we should expect more erratic weather including colder winters in certain locations, such subtleties are generally lost on these people. Richard Dawkins is actively avoiding giving mindshare to evolution deniers. I certainly find that respectable. Science most certainly takes sides. Modern physicists are resolutely against the idea of luminiferous aether. If you were to deny relativity and claim that light instead travels through luminiferous aether, scientists would be resolutely against you and suggest you study the Michelson–Morley experiment. Scientists have policy recommendations to make based on their conclusions. What I'm suggesting is these scientists remove themselves from the political process, and instead educate politicians to become advocates for their policy recommendations, rather than trying to participate directly in the political process, which I agree would make them biased. This is more or less how the IPCC functions: they compile their evidence then provide a comprehensive set of policy recommendations based upon the evidence they've collected. What you seem to be suggesting is that scientists not directly make any sort of policy recommendations, instead throwing their conclusions out there and letting politicans attempt to comprehend their evidence and come to their own conclusions about what sorts of policies should be enacted. I strongly disagree with this approach because politicians are laymen and cannot make prudent policy decisions without the direct input of scientists. Politicians and scientists should be working hand-in-hand on this sort of policy, but I'd prefer scientists be removed from the political process itself. Instead scientists can be called as experts and asked specific questions by politicians as part of the debate. In this debate, it's "big industry" that stands to lose a lot more as part of a sound policy response to climate change. I find it rather odd you're worried that the government will sell out Joe Average to Big Industry as part of climate science policy changes. If anything, it's industry that will suffer. In the event that costs are passed on to the consumer, this will motivate changes in consumer behavior which will hopefully lead them to make different choices. Imagine the US passed a $10 tax on each incandescent light bulb sold (or let's say any lamp which emits X lumens / watt equivalent to an incandescent light bulb). This would motivate consumers to seek more energy efficient alternatives. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You can't personally verify the standard model either. Does that mean you doubt it? And that's just one of countless examples of modern science that a layman cannot personally verify, because they don't have the equipment or expertise to do so.

I'm not sure how supporting Bush-like anti-terrorism policies would help make her more liberal, and as far as I'm concerned that's a totalitarian/authoritarian issue, not a liberal/conservative one.

I think she's insufficiently liberal to balance out SCOTUS's current conservative bias.

I'll happily accept relevant SCOTUS precedent. However, even then, there's always a part of the Constitution you can point at and say "that's what authorizes it". For example, in your Air Force example, it's authorized under Article 1, Section 8 (the Air Force grew out of the Army Air Corps). Where's the equivalent for revoking the citizenship of terrorists? If you really think "terrorists" are aiding and abetting enemies of the US, then they should be tried with treason.

Please show me where in the Constitution it says your citizenship can be revoked for committing a "terrorist" act. If you are convicted of a crime, you should be thrown in jail. "Terrorism" doesn't change this.

Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, the first female Solicitor General, as a Supreme Court justice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8669268.stm Kagan has generally been received well among Democrats. Republicans apparently have "questions" for her. I've seen many complaints among non-Democrat liberals that she's too moderate and won't provide the balance needed to offset the conservative influence Bush added to the court with Roberts and Alito. I generally agree with this position and would like to see a more liberal nominee, however I don't directly oppose Kagan, other than I think it's a bit creepy how much she looks like Kevin James.

That's really the problem. Granting the government the power to arbitrarily revoke people's citizenship based on vague criteria is begging for abuse. This reminds me of Gitmo... surely we can detain people indefinitely without trial when they're terrorists? Terrorists don't deserve rights. Except what happens if they're not terrorists?