text:
Yes, Prof. Derr, the Planet Is Heating Up
At the First Things blog, resident climate change denialist Thomas Sieger Derr (whose dishonest tactics Grant has exposed before), after weighing in on the cap and trade debate, lets loose with a predictable volley of faux-scientific silliness:
All this diplomatic turmoil is proceeding against a backdrop of growing public indifference. So the alarmist community has reacted predictably by issuing ever more apocalyptic statements, like the federal report Global Change Impacts in the United States issued last week which predicts more frequent heat waves, rising water temperatures, more wildfires, rising disease levels, and rising sea levelsheadlined, in a paper I read, as Getting Warmer. This is mostly nonsense, and it is certainly not getting warmer. The earth stopped warming in 1998 and since 2002 has been getting slightly cooler. Sea ice in the arctics is growing. Sea levels are not rising faster than their usual steady tiny pace. The incidence of severe storms is not increasing. And so on. If you want to worry about the climate, worry about colder weather and lower crop yields as the sun remains unusually quiet.For heavens sake, climate people, pay attention to real life, real time data and not your wobbly and unreliable computer models.
Let's go through this line by line, shall we?
The earth stopped warming in 1998 and since 2002 has been getting slightly cooler.
Actually, no. As the indispensable John Cook explains, 1998 happened to be an unusually warm year thanks to abnormally high levels of El Nio activity, but when we correct for that anomaly we find a consistent warming pattern that continues the trend of the past century-plus, with the eight warmest years on record all having occurred since 1998. The idea that global surface temperatures in an obviously extreme year can be taken as a straightforward data point to compare with temperatures from other years is as wobbly and unreliable a strategy for measuring climate trends as there could possibly be.
Sea ice in the arctics is growing.
Again: no, not really. Like the above-discussed claim about planetary temperature trends, misleading talk about sea ice has become a common trope among climate change denialists, most famously in a recent George Will column that the Washington Post fact-checkers seemed to have forgotten about. But it's every bit as dishonest when Derr appeals to it as when Will does: for one thing, it's only in the Antarctic where sea ice levels show a pattern of long term growth; and for another, as Cook helpfully explains once again, the increase of sea ice in the Antarctic is something that seems to be an effect of warming patterns in the region, not cooling ones.
Sea levels are not rising faster than their usual steady tiny pace.
Untrue. As the NOAA notes, the rate of sea level rise over the past century has been "significantly larger" than that of the past thousand years, and this trend is expected only to worsen as greenhouse gas levels rise. A similar point to that last one also holds for the incidence of severe storms, which is projected to increase as the Earth's climate warms; the fact that such an increase hasn't been observed since the relevant projections were issued in 2007 is no good reason to think that they are wrong.Mostly nonsense, indeed. If the First Things crowd ever decides to do one of those fundraising cruises that have become so popular of late, I know of a river in Egypt that would be an appropriate destination.P.S. None of this is to say that the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, which Derr begins by criticizing, is worthy of support. (Even many environmentalists think it may not be.) But it's entirely possible to argue that without pretending that global warming and its effects are any less real than Thomas Sieger Derr's evident penchant for intellectual dishonesty.
About the Author
John Schwenkler is an assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at Florida State University.
60 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Goes hand in hand with the First Things approach to the church and theology. We call it the "ostrich effect."
Not to be a denialist, but does anyone have any idea how we are measuring worldwide sea levels down to the millimeter for, say, 2,000 BC? Seems as if that's nearly an impossible task today.
I should have said difficult, not impossible.
Meteorology is a young science with many, many mysteries, and we don't even really know what all the variables are. Surely we should pay attention to alternate opinions. For instance, Freeman Dyson, a highly respected scientist though not a practicing meteorologist,, thinks that global warming is not the whole explanation of the obvious climate changes we've been experiencing. Should we look for possible alternative causes? And should we distinguish global warming and climate change as over-lapping but also somewhat different phenomena? In other words -- there might be more than one cause of climate change.Meteorology is a young science with many, many mysteries still. And we don't even really know what all the variables are. Surely we should pay attention to alternate theories(Why is it socially acceptable on blogs to call people dishonest but not to call them dum? Hmm.).
Also, from what little I can tell, whatever miniscule sea rise has occurred in the past few thousand years is a blip in a 100 million year trend in which sea levels have dropped by an estimated 250 or so meters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png Moreover, sea level today is at about the lowest it's every been in world history (as far as anyone can guess). So how do we know that we're not just seeing the tiniest bit of regression to the mean here? I'm not trying to be difficult or a "denialist," I'm just wondering why I should be freaking out over fractions of a millimeter.
It's not all that difficult to explain why people on the left see certain issues one way and people on the right see them the other way. But why the left should believe global warming to be a fact and the right should believe it is a hoax mystifies me. Is there any other empirical, scientific issue on which the left and the right tend to take opposite sides? I suppose a big one is evolution, but I don't think where a person is on the political spectrum has as much predictive value regarding beliefs on evolution as it does on global warming.
So which is it, Stuart Buck? Are we able to determine sea levels from 100 million years ago, or not? And it's not, by the way, those fractions of a millimeter themselves that are the cause for concern, but rather the whole mess of long-term trends of which they're only a part.And Ann Oliver: You're absolutely right that it's important not to oversimplify, and I think that provocative thinkers like Freeman Dyson are worth taking seriously. But Derr is not a scientist, and arguments like these ones are pure denialist claptrap.
David Nickol --ISTM that the reason global warming has become an issue is because many scientists say that people are the cause. This makes us responsible for it. We are not responsible for Boyle's laws -- but we are at least partially responsible for the amount of heat in the atmosphere, with attendant changes in weather. Being responsible implies that we must do something about it, which probably involves moretaxes, which conservatives always seem to thing are too high. Taxes, David, that's the big liberal/conservative divide.
I can understand how we might estimate historical sea levels on the order of meters or hundreds of meters; what I don't quite grasp is how we're so confident in historical measurements that are a thousand times more precise (down to the millimeter), or even how we reach that level of precision today. That doesn't seem contradictory to me at all.
"But why the left should believe global warming to be a fact and the right should believe it is a hoax mystifies me."David--I agree, it is intriguing how the left and right have different views on global warming, and life in general. My sense is that those on the right tend to rely upon their belief that, ultimately, God is in charge and He is good, so they don't fret about the cosmic things. The left tends to think this view is pollyannaish and irresponsible. The left, on the other hand, does not seem to possess the same equanimity in their soul, and believe they have the wherewithal and the responsibility to make sure things turn out right. And that if they don't, all hope is lost. The right tends to think this view is prideful and counterproductive.
John, You said: ". . . we find a consistent warming pattern that continues the trend of the past century-plus, with the eight warmest years on record all having occurred since 1998."If you follow the reference you'll find that refers to the U.S temperature's, not global temperature. Also, it notes that during that period 11 states were cooler than normal. Why is warming a concern but cooling is not?misleading talk about sea ice has become a common trope among climate change denialists,What is the "correct" level of sea ice? If is cause for concern then we must have some objective standard for determining what the levels should be, right? What are they?(For the record, I'm neither a believer or denier in global warming. I think its a case of we humans once again claiming to know more than we really do.)
Mark, which are the "cosmic" things that trusting in God excuses us from having to worry about? I'd like to make a list.
If you follow the reference youll find that refers to the U.S temperatures, not global temperature.
Sorry, but that's not right. The second reference goes here, which is a NASA report of global temperature trends, and notes that "[t]he eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990".
Also, it notes that during that period 11 states were cooler than normal. Why is warming a concern but cooling is not?
If there is evidence - as I take it there may be - that human actions contributed to those cold spells in the Plains and the southeast, then that would obviously be a concern as well.
If is cause for concern then we must have some objective standard for determining what the levels should be, right?
I don't see why this should be so. If human actions are helping to cause the earth to warm, ice to melt, sea levels to rise, natural habitats to be destroyed, etc., then that is cause for concern, period.
Mark,If it doesn't upset the equanimity in your soul too much, maybe you could tell us how the conservative obsession with national security fits your grand thesis about the "prideful" anxiety of the left and the right's trust in divine providence. If God has all the big stuff taken care of, why did we invade Iraq? Maybe you could also tell us how the holy resignation of the right compares with the solicitude and self-sacrifice we find in the Gospel. Your idea of trust sounds a lot like presumption to me.
Mollie--I could give you a list of things not to worry about, but that would be counterproductive because, being left of center, you'd still worry about them, and also worry that I'm NOT worrying about them. Seriously, though, as an example, take our president's reaction to the situation in Iran. Obama seems to be fretting about taking a strong stand in support of the protesters, worrying that it will harm his efforts at diplomacy. The left sees this as prudent. The right sees it as a missed opportunity, a loss of nerve, a failure to live up to the injunction to be not afraid. A true conservative would more likely have the confidence that doing that right thing (supporting the protestors) will in the end yield the best result, because that's the way God created the world. As evidence for that position, remember Reagan's calling the Soviet Union the evil empire that it was, and calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Many on the left fretted that he was courting disaster, but it seemed to work out pretty well, thank God.
The right sees it as a missed opportunity, a loss of nerve, a failure to live up to the injunction to be not afraid.
As an unapologetic conservative who thinks Obama's response to the situation in Iran has been characterized by too much "tough talking", I'd beg to differ with this characterization. Somehow I expect that occasional Commonweal contributor Andrew Bacevich would have a similar perspective, too.
"Be not afraid [to threaten military action against Iran]?" "Be not afraid [to continue to pollute]"? Is that really what Our Lord meant? If so I guess I am a hopeless worrywort. O me of little faith.
"If human actions are helping to cause the earth to warm, ice to melt, sea levels to rise, natural habitats to be destroyed, etc., then that is cause for concern, period."I may be reading this too literally, but what if human actions are not the cause? Would it still be a concern? Where I am coming from is similar to what Joe Carter seems to be saying - what is the right global temperature or range of temperatures? From that NASA data it seems like moving average of global temps has been rising since the late 19th century, so what year or years do we feel are "best" (however you feel that should be defined)?
Mark,You've really thrown me for a loop. Here I thought you were preaching resignation: Let God take care of the Iranians and global warming; there's nothing for us to do. But no! Trust in God turns out to require windy outrage in the first case and blithe resignation in the second. A very flexible quality, your conservative "trust." But, you know, I think I've got it now. Worried about how NAFTA affects peasants in Mexico or blue-collar workers in Detroit? Butt out, that God's business! Worried about the connection between Iraq's Baathists and al-Qaeda? Be not afraid to worry yours heads off -- or, rather, theirs! Afraid that too much moralizing from the White House might have unintended consequences in Tehran? Speak the truth, and let God worry about the consequences. Want to make sure workers get a living wage? Beware of unintended consequences!
One thought, Stuart, about how we can know ancient sea levels with some accuracy. Consider the graphic you posted from Wikipedia. There are two sets of data about sea levels, one labelled "Exxon Sea Level Curve" which is from a 1977 monograph, the first to try to show general globas sea levels over a half-billion years. The data this was based on was a large collection of proprietary oil exploration data. There were doubts about this curve due to the lack of detailed access to data, but later open studies (as this graphic shows) roughly agree with it.Detailed data and modelling of the pattern of geological stata is essential to oil exploration. The numbers are not published, of course, but I feel confident (and very conservative) in estimating that many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on this effort alone across the energy industry. The pattern of seafloor sediment deposition is closely tied to sea level, and detailed estimates of local and global sea levels are a result of this area of study.
Matthew--Can you explain to me what you see as the difference between windy outrage, moralizing, etc. and speaking out against persecution (of Iranian women, Mexican peasants, or whomever)? I'm having trouble understanding your pivot points."Speak the truth, and let God worry about the consequences." Yeah, I'm good with that. Except when your wife asks "if this dress makes me look fat."
John--You blog for Commonweal, claim people who question global warming are in denial, and think Obama talks too tough on defense--are you SURE you're a conservative?
Yes, Mark, it's just that I'm also firmly grounded in reality. And by the way, I blog at The American Conservative, too.
Claude Muncey --Having worked for The California Company. which (with a name change) is now one of the biggest oil exploration companies in the world, I'm very much inclined to trust the studies you mention. The people in the Paleontology dept. at the CA Co. were the smartest set of human beings I've ever encountered, except for the philosophy faculty at Cath U. 50 years ago. Brains, brains, brains. And I expect Exxon was just as smart.
I have no doubt that they were the smartest people who have ever lived, but I still wonder about how meaningful it is to say that something as ever-changing as the sea level has been measured, whether today and thousands of years ago, down to the tenth of a millimeter.
whether today OR thousands of years ago . . . .
JohnIm not sure if youre implying Im not firmly grounded in reality, people who hold a different opinion than you on global warming are not firmly grounded I reality, or something in between, but its good to see a Pat Buchanan conservative blogging here! How did you make it past the Commonweal call screeners? ;-)
OK, "its only in the Antarctic where sea ice levels show a pattern of long term growth," but considering that's where 90% of the ice on the face of the planet is - isn't that good news? And BTW the ice coverage in the Arctic this year is the most extensive it has been in years. Certainly that's not proof of a long term trend, but a trend has to start somewhere.Perhaps part of the reason that conservatives are skeptical is that we have so many examples of statist solutions being pushed in the name of urgent and undeniable crises that we just aren't buying it. Alar anyone? Thank God we outlawed DDT and saved large birds of prey - not so good for the hundreds of thousands of dead malaria victims in Africa. Ban off shore drilling or we will have unusable and uninhabitable coast lines.What's more, the left treats these things like religious beliefs. You don't agree, you are irrational and want the earth destroyed. A great example of this near irrational adherence to these articles of faith was when my son came home from college (a notedly liberal college) and said he was reading "The Population Bomb" in a freshman ecology class. Mind you, not to debunk it, but as a serious text. It would be kind of like having to read Merlin's "Principles of Alchemy" in Chem 101.Traditional conservatives and libertarians, when it comes to economic and social issues has always taken a skeptical view to alarmism, and they are usually right.
Sean Hannaway: As I noted above, the growth of sea ice in the Antarctic doesn't mean that warming isn't happening in that region - it is, and it's believed that the ice mass is increasing because of the warming. So no, it's no sign of a trend at all.
Perhaps part of the reason that conservatives are skeptical is that we have so many examples of statist solutions being pushed in the name of urgent and undeniable crises that we just arent buying it.
Yes, like the Iraq war and the PATRIOT Act, right? I have no problem at all with objecting to the proposed solutions - as I said in the post, there are plenty of reasons to think that Waxman-Markey is a bad bill. But the pretense that there's nothing to be concerned about is just absurd.
its good to see a Pat Buchanan conservative blogging here!Now now. Let's not go calling people names.
I remain unconvinced that we know much for sure on this issue (despite there being many other good reasons to radically rethink our environmental practices), but everyone knows that it just isn't playing fair when ANY evidence necessarily counts toward your thesis. Hey, more ice means its actually getting WARMER. Hey, colder temps are actually proof of the long term WARMING trend. Essentially, for a certain crowd, global warming is non-falsifiable...which is why so many on the other side see it is pseudo-religious rather than science. Why is it so hard to admit that we probably don't know what's going on? Especially when we have so many smart people on both sides of this issue:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
Hey, more ice means its actually getting WARMER. Hey, colder temps are actually proof of the long term WARMING trend.
Those are clear misrepresentations of what I said. We know that it's getting warmer because we can tell from our temperature measurements (including those in the Antarctic) that it's getting warmer, and small-scale idiosyncrasies like these are entirely compatible with the evidence we have for long-term planetary trends.
John you admitted that the long-term trend for antarctic sea ice is one of growth. In response to this trend you claimed, "its believed that the ice mass is increasing because of the warming." How did I misrepresent this claim? When lack both sea ice growth and sea ice diminution count as evidence of global warming your opponent has a hard time responding, doesn't she?
Because "it's believed that the ice mass is increasing because of the evident warming" is not the same as "it's believed that there is warming on the basis of the evident increase in ice mass", and it's the latter claim that you attributed to me in your comment.
But, John, I did not say that you said its believed that there is warming on the basis of the evident increase in ice mass." Rather I said that you said, "more ice means its getting warmer." If 'we get more ice because of warming', then it logically follows that 'more ice means its getting warmer' right? To be honest, its hard to believe we are talking about this minutia rather than the apparently non-falsifiable theory which the hard-liners put out there.Why not just admit that we don't know...and focus the argument for (much needed!) environmental reform on things to which most everyone can agree? It seems like the effort is more about wanting to the prove the skeptics wrong more than wanting to convince the middle. You'll likely never get the skeptics...they are making an economic argument anyway. Your job, in my opinion, is to convince people that are willing to go along...but get nervous about the things I mention above. Let's admit we don't know for sure...but then argue that's not a reason not to act...and that there are many reasons other than global warming to act.
I still wonder about how meaningful it is to say that something as ever-changing as the sea level has been measured, whether today and thousands of years ago, down to the tenth of a millimeter.Is that the claim being made? Here's what the NOAA entry says.Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.So, does this look believable to a layman?First of all, this is a rate *averaged* over 100 years, whose claimed accuracy is around .5/1.7 or +/- 30%. If one simply measured the difference over that period you'd see a *cumulative increase of 1.7 mm * 100 = 170mm (about 6.7 inches) over that time span, which doesn't seem to be a difficult quantity to measure within the stated accuracy limits. Secondly, the satellite estimates since 1992 seem to fit pretty well with tide gauge data since 1950. Understandably, the graph shows increasing error estimates prior to that. Thus, from this layman's perspective, the data since 1870 looks credible. With respect to estimates over several thousand years, My guess is the NOAA may be dealing with cumulative measures over periods of time which may be more readily ascertainable. Nonetheless, what's being claimed is an increase in the *rate* at which the sea level is rising. Nothing is said about measuring sea levels back then to tenths of a mm accuracy,In all this, the real question, of course, is whether or not the NOAA would publish data and assessments that would not pass muster with other experts in the field. My belief is they would be foolish to do so.
If we get more ice because of warming, then it logically follows that more ice means its getting warmer right?
No, that's not right, since an effect isn't always evidence for its cause, and "more ice means that it is getting warmer" clearly indicates that the increased ice mass supports the belief in global warming, which simply isn't what I said. We have independent reason for believing - indeed, knowing - that temperatures in the Antarctic are increasing, and a theory that explains how that evident warming could have caused the ice mass to increase; that's not at all the same as saying that the increasing ice mass means that things are getting warmer.
Why not just admit that we dont know ...
Because we do know, and many of the people who are claiming we don't are doing so for demonstrably bad reasons.
If this were a fight, they'd have to stop it.
more ice means its getting warmer. If we get more ice because of warming, then it logically follows that more ice means its getting warmer right? To be honest, its hard to believe we are talking about this minutia rather than the apparently non-falsifiable theory which the hard-liners put out there.Strictly speaking, "more ice" accords with a particular theory of global warming. The objection, of course, is that the phenomenon, which accords with the theory, has been used by denialists as evidence that the theory itself is incorrect.
OK, John...since you apparently really want to do this:1. You said "its believed that the ice mass is increasing because of the warming." Of course its the case that an effect isn't always evidence for its cause. But this is precisely what you are arguing here. The effect (increased ice mass) is evidence of its cause (warming). You are attempting to argue for a causal relationship. Your word 'because' here is key.2. I described this as 'more ice means its getting warmer.' Of course I'd be wrong to say this is what you had said if you hadn't already argued for a casual relationship between the warmth and ice. Perhaps the (supposed) warmer temperatures (there is disagreement about this) merely coincides with (rather than causes) the ice growth. But that's not the argument you made. You didn't even say, as you suggest directly above, that we have a 'theory' which 'could' explain a causal relationship. Because you argued precisely for a causal relationship--that ice mass is increasing BECAUSE of the warming--then I certainly was justified in saying that you mean that 'more ice means its getting warmer.' More ice exists, in your stated view, BECAUSE of warming temperatures. Perhaps this isn't what you meant, but its what you said.And I'm sure you can understand why, when a confused and open-minded person in the middle hears stuff like this, they might think that there is something fishy going on here. Not to mention that its just a gold-mine for skeptics to cite in their own arguments. "Look at these crazy nature-worshiping idiots. Any evidence at all counts for their religious beliefs in global warming."Why not just pull the rug from underneath them and make a different argument?
You said its believed that the ice mass is increasing because of the warming. Of course its the case that an effect isnt always evidence for its cause. But this is precisely what you are arguing here. The effect (increased ice mass) is evidence of its cause (warming). You are attempting to argue for a causal relationship. Your word because here is key.
No, that's still wrong. I am indeed arguing for a causal relationship, but you're once again confusing that with an evidential one: the increased ice mass is not evidence for the Antarctic global warming, which is something for which we have all the evidence we need in the form of temperature records. As Antonio Manetti rightly observes, all that I'm doing by pointing to the theorized dependence is criticizing those who use the phenomenon of increasing ice mass "as evidence that the theory [of global warming] itself is incorrect". In other words: I'm saying that the increased ice mass is not evidence that the temperatures are cooling (which they demonstrably aren't), not that it is evidence that they are.
Because you argued precisely for a causal relationshipthat ice mass is increasing BECAUSE of the warmingthen I certainly was justified in saying that you mean that more ice means its getting warmer. More ice exists, in your stated view, BECAUSE of warming temperatures.
Again, this is confused, since as I said - and as you seemed to agree - "X is happening because of Y" does not at all entail "X, therefore Y". The increased ice mass could have many different causes and so is compatible both with warming and cooling in the region; the reason we know that the Antarctic is in fact warming has nothing at all to do with the increasing ice mass, but is strictly a consequence of measuring the temperature.
Why not just pull the rug from underneath them and make a different argument?
As should hopefully be clear by now, that's exactly what I was doing.
John, "X is happening because of Y" surely DOES entail "X, therefore Y." However, and this looks to be what you actually meant, it does NOT entail "X, therefore ONLY Y." There might well be multiple causes for the ice growth...but you apparently want to argue that warming is ONE of them. You can't argue that warming is currently causing the ice growth and then at the same time argue that ice growth is not evidence of warming. You 'might have all the evidence you need' (though many smart people think you don't) appart from this evidence...but this still counts as evidence given your point of view. And strange evidence it is. Especially when the OPPOSITE trend, ice diminution, also counts as evidence for your thesis.Again, I say this as someone that wants your argument to be persuasive. But as the WSJ article points out, the trend has been disappointing...the environmentalists are not winning the public argument. I respectfully suggest taking a very different track. Beat your opponent on her own terms...admit that we don't know...and then show we should still act anyway.
You cant argue that warming is currently causing the ice growth and then at the same time argue that ice growth is not evidence of warming.
Yes, I can argue that, just as I can believe that A-Rod hit (i.e., was the cause of) that home run while still maintaining that the fact that such a home run was hit is no evidence at all that A-Rod was at bat. This is Critical Reasoning 101, really.
Wait. What? If the home run is being hit by A-Rod (X is happening because of Y), then it logically follows that A-Rod's home run implies A-Rod (X, therefore Y). Now, the homerun might have other causes, right? Wind blowing out, a hanging curveball, the game being largely over in the late innings (when he tends to hit them), etc. But A-Rod's homer-run does imply A-Rod.But perhaps this isn't where you are going.Perhaps you are no longer arguing, as you had stated originally, that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming." Just as any old home-run could have any number of causes, this ice could have any number of causes. Heck, it might not be connected to warming at all. But then obviously I would withdraw my criticism if you are changing your original claim.
But A-Rods homer-run does imply A-Rod.
Right, but a home run doesn't, and if you can't see how that shade of difference is relevant (note that I said "the ice mass", not "the ice mass whose increase is caused by global warming") then I don't know how I'm going to explain it to you. Just recognize, please, that by your lights, anyone who says something of the form "It may seem unlikely, but X led to Y" can apparently be accused of using the presence of Y as evidence for that of X. Thankfully, that's not how causal reasoning works.
John, are you expecting me to believe that when you said "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" you didn't mean the "the ice whose increase is caused by global warming." If you didn't mean that, your first claim becomes unintelligible. I think I've figured out what you actually disagree with. You're pressing the point here that you DON'T NEED the increase in antarctic ice to be evidence of warming. Well maybe, maybe not...but that's not what we're arguing about. I'm saying that it FOLLOWS LOGICALLY from your point of view that even increased ice counts as evidence for global warming. You may not need it. You might not want to use it. But the fact is that when you claim "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" you give your opponent an opening to press this point. And, in point of fact, many have. And they are winning the argument.My plea, which I don't want to get lost in the minutiae here, is that we stop trying to say things like "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" and take our opponents on on their own terms. This will get the middle back on our side.
If you didnt mean that, your first claim becomes unintelligible.
No, it only becomes non-tautological. If I'd said "The increase of the ice mass whose increase is caused by global warming is caused by global warming", I wouldn't have been saying anything substantive at all.
Im saying that it FOLLOWS LOGICALLY from your point of view that even increased ice counts as evidence for global warming.
And I'm saying that it doesn't, and that you've got the logic of ordinary causal statements blatantly wrong.
John, what does it mean to say that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" if the ice you're referring to isn't increasing because of the warming? My lack of critical thinking skills are bubbling up once more, I'll wager.
Yes, they are; your question is a bit like asking how Lois Lane could believe that Superman was not Clark Kent given that "Superman" and "Clark Kent" refer to the same person. The claim that the glass broke because a rock struck it does not, for the thousandth time, mean that the brokenness of the glass can be used as evidence that it was hit by a rock as opposed to, say, a ball: it's only because we have independent reason to believe that a rock was involved (or: that the temperatures in the Antarctic are in fact increasing, etc.) that we are in a position to make this causal claim, and so it can't be used to reason backwards in the way you suggest.
John, I simply don't know what to do with this statement:"the claim that the glass broke because a rock struck it does not, for the thousandth time, mean that the brokenness of the glass can be used as evidence that it was hit by a rock as opposed to, say, a ball"If it is in fact true that the glass broke because a rock struck it then OF COURSE the brokenness of the glass can be used as evidence that it was hit by a rock. (Though perhaps it was also hit by a ball as well.) How about this, is a situation where a the glass broke because a rock hit it, can you provide me a counter-example which would disprove my claim that it necessarily follows that the broken glass implies the rock? We need no independent reason. All we need is your original claim that 'X is happening because of Y.'Now, again, perhaps you want to retract your claim that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" and instead say something like "the ice mass is increasing, but in an event that may or may not be causally related, there is also antarctic warming." This seems to be the trajectory of most of your arguments...but yet you want to hold onto the much stronger claim for some reason.
Suppose Smith and Jones are in court, and Smith claims that Jones hit a baseball that broke Smith's window. And now suppose Jones stand before the judge and says, But see, your honor, according to Smith's view that my baseball broke his window, the broken window would be evidence that I hit it with a baseball. But OF COURSE it isn't such evidence: that the window was broken certainly shows that it COULD have been hit by my baseball, but it just as well could have been hit by a rock or a tree branch. So his causal claim is incorrect. By your lights, what would have gone wrong?(Hint: It's the same thing that would have gone wrong if a climate change denialist complained that I was using the increasing mass of Antarctic sea ice as evidence that the temperatures were increasing.)
Finally.As I suspected, your argument is not about what is actually implied in your original claim that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming." Rather, you are arguing about a climate change denialist's supposed claim that you were "using the increasing mass of Antarctic sea ice as evidence that the temperatures were increasing." I never said you did this...nor would they. I did say, several times (though not a thousand), that it FOLLOWS LOGICALLY from what you said. And therefore your opponent can (rightly) argue, "Dude, at these crazy people. Their point of view means that even an increase in sea ice counts as evidence for global warming." They aren't saying you SAID this...but merely that it follows logically from your original claim.Indeed, the situation we are arguing about is unlike the Smith/Jones situation. (Ah, these names bring back my analytic philosophy courses.) There, what happened is a matter of dispute. Perhaps the ball was totally responsible for the breaking of the glass. Perhaps something else was. But YOUR CLAIM, again, is that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming." That is already set. We know this. There is no debate. Now, what follows logically? Increased ice mass is evidence of (at least) the warming.Phew. Glad that's over with.
They arent saying you SAID thisbut merely that it follows logically from your original claim.
Well if that's what they're saying, then they're wrong, just as in the Smith/Jones case Jones is being obtuse if he claims that it "follows logically" from Smith's claim that the broken window can be used as evidence of the hit ball (which, of course, it can't be).I'm glad as anyone to have this be over, but I'd prefer to have the truth win out.
Oh I thought we had it figured out. I guess not.John, your claim that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" is NOT analogous to Smith's claim that Jones hit a ball through his window. Again, the latter claim is under dispute. Your claim is not. Your critic is taking you at your word...and seeing what is implied in that point of view. She is saying, "Sweet, let's agree that 'the ice mass is increasing because of the warming'...now what follows from this?" Since she is AGREEING with your claim that the ice is being caused by the warming, and not something else, she rightly claims that implied in your original claim is that the ice mass is evidence of the warming.Again, the issue is NOT about whether you NEED to use such evidence. Or that you DID use such evidence. Or whether or not there is OTHER evidence. The ONLY thing I'm arguing here is what is logically implied in your original claim that "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" and how our opponents use such an implication to frustrate our public policy goals.
So suppose Jones agrees arguendo that Smith's claim is true, and says he just wants to trace out its consequences. How would that change the situation? Smith would still be wrong in arguing that it follows logically from what Jones said that the broken window can be used as evidence for the hit ball! And so if Smith tried to use that (supposed) implication to frustrate Jones's attempt to get reimbursement for the damage to his window, the judge would laugh him out of court, which is just what those who believe in global warming should do to people who insist on imputing to their claims logical consequences that they simply don't have.
I absolutely need to go, so this is going to have to be my last post. But let me respond one last time. You did a sleight-of-hand move here:"Smith would still be wrong in arguing that it follows logically from what Jones said that the broken window can be used as evidence for the hit ball!"Smith, of course, would argue something stronger: that the broken window can be used as evidence for the ball the hit THAT WE BOTH AGREE BROKE THE WINDOW. That's the key difference. Once we admit that: "the window was broken by the ball" and "the ice mass is increasing because of the warming" we can then logically proceed to the implication that "there is a ball which broke the window" and "there is warming which caused the ice growth."Now, I need a drink.
Okay then, this is my last post as well.
Once we admit that: the window was broken by the ball and the ice mass is increasing because of the warming we can then logically proceed to the implication that there is a ball which broke the window and there is warming which caused the ice growth.
You're the one going in for sleight of hand. It's certainly true that "The window was broken by the ball" entails "There is a ball which broke the window". But that's not what Smith is objecting: his claim is that by Jones's logic the broken window can be used as evidence that it was hit by a ball, and in making this claim he's trying to insinuate that in Jones's mind anything would be evidence that Smith was at fault. (As you put it in your first comment: "... it just isnt playing fair when ANY evidence necessarily counts toward your thesis.") And this, of course, is just silly, as Jones's claim of Smith's responsibility has no such implication at all. In the same way, "The ice mass is increasing because of the warming" entails "There is warming which caused the increase in the ice mass", but it obviously doesn't entail that the increasing ice mass is itself evidence for global warming. (Your words again: "Hey, more ice means its actually getting WARMER.") If that really were implied, it would be devastating, and would indeed be evidence that defenders of the AGW consensus have a non-falsifiable position. But the claim that it's implied is bogus, and the only way you were (sort of) able to make things seem otherwise is by distorting the relevant claims beyond recognition. If increases in the mass of sea ice in a region were incompatible with rising temperatures, then those increases would count as evidence against global warming, but neither the claim that they aren't so incompatible nor the hypothesis that global warming is a cause of those increases have among their logical implications the idea that you began by insisting on.
Hey, guys,Let's go back to Logic 101. The fundamental principle John seems to be defending is modus ponens: If p, then q. p.---------------------- Therefore, q.As John says, other things besides p can imply q, so we can't argue, if p, then q, and q, therefore p.That is indisputable logically.However, to say that q happened BECAUSE p happened is a much stronger statement than simply saying simply "IF p, then q." It asserts that the particular nexus between p and q has been established.I think that some of the confusion here is that you are using "X" for the consequent (q) and Y for the assumed premises. Psychologically that's confusing.
Geez, you stay away from here for a few days and look what you miss :-). I'm at the same place on this issue that I think a lot of voters are. I'm not very well-read on global warming; if it's ever made an impact on my life so far, I'm not aware of it; I see that environmental issues are important but I'm not fervent about them; I'm a little confused by the conflicting claims; and basically I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude about the whole thing.I don't think the public is ready for the solution (and I'm told that Waxman-Markey is going to die in the Senate) because they haven't come to terms with the problem."Trust me on this one, it's a huge problem" isn't persuasive. All things being equal, I'd rather not disrupt the economy and my consumer habits without a really compelling reason. Don't ask me to trust you; don't throw numbers at me that the other guy can shoot down; don't imply that I'm an idiot if I don't immediately climb on your bandwagon. Take a deep breath, acknowledge that this is going to be a journey rather than an event, and start doing the patient and disciplined work of convincing a skeptical and distracted electorate who already have a lot of other problems that seem to them to be more urgent. If we're slow or obstinate or obtuse, don't get frustrated, try again. And btw, don't assume bad faith on the part of your opponents. Paul Krugman clearly is a True Believer about global warming. His apocalyptic column from yesterday was another collection of talking points from the "trust me / you're an idiot" manual. Reading it made me reflect that the rhetorical parallels between (some) pro-life advocates and (some) global warming advocates are actually pretty striking.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em


text:
Let $k$ be a field and $n$ a nonnegative integer. For any matrix $U\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(k\right)$, let $\mathrm{ad} U$ denote the map $\mathrm{M}_n\left(k\right)\to \mathrm{M}_n\left(k\right),\ V\mapsto UV-VU$. Thus, $\mathrm{ad} U$ is an element of the $k$-algebra $\mathrm{End}_k\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(k\right)\right)$.
Is it true that for every $n\times n$-matrix $A$ over $k$, and for every $m\in\mathbb N$, the endomorphism $\mathrm{ad}\left(A^m\right)$ can be written in the form $P\left(\mathrm{ad}A\right)$ for some polynomial $P\in k\left[X\right]$ satisfying $P\left(0\right)=0$ ?
I know that this holds when $A$ is diagonalizable, and in that case it is used in the proof of Cartan's Lemma from Lie algebra theory. If it holds generally and can be proven neatly, it could be used to tidy up the proof of Cartan's Lemma (which, in the form I know it, is rather ugly, requiring an algebraic extension of the ground field and the use of Jordan's normal form).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
App Store - Splashtop Touchpad for $0
normally $1.99
9 Comments add a comment
I paid for this about a month ago. The interface is a bit wonky, but overall it's a good app to have on the Touchpad. Today's price looks good, too.
@i1patrick: This is not for the touchpad. The HP store still has it listed at $6.99. This is the ipad/pod/phone version...
I paid for this app for my iPad 2 and when it works, it is great. However, I find that often it just doesn't connect for whatever reason. Using the 'cursor' on my iPad for Splashtop can be challenging at times. Also, make sure you don't have a screensaver active on your desktop our that's what you'll get on the iPad through Splashtop. Couldn't figure a way to get out of that one.
For free, though, I would suggest you go through the setup procedure to give the app a try.
@claudicina: I think there's confusion about using the word "TouchPad" as opposed to simply "touchpad."
I have splashtop for android, and its hands down the best app I have ever used. Highly recommended
I have this app on my Touchpad and it is the best app I've had for it. I'm sure it will be awesome on ipad/ipod as well.
@sarisin I've had that problem with the screensaver a couple times as well. I've found that holding ctrl+Esc (pulls up the Start menu) on my Touchpad's popup keyboard works and takes you to your PC screen.
I have been using CrazyRemote for a couple of years and it has been a fantastic app to use. Great options and one of the most stable remote desktop apps I have ever worked with.
But this price cant be beat!
I have this for my HP Touchpad and it sucks. It's not very responsive and scrolling through my computer is so slow and difficult. I also have this for my iPad 2, though, and it works like a charm. Not sure what's up with the Touchpad version, but I'm surprised anybody says it's good. I've even got my Touchpad overclocked, so a slow tablet isn't the problem.
Edit: Wait a second, I have Splashtop remote for my iPad 2 and HP Touchpad. This is Splashtop Touchpad and after clicking on the link, I see it is something completely different and I have no idea what this does. Even after looking at the page, I have no idea what this does or why I'd want it.
Edit2: Ok, now I got it. After going to their website, I see that this is so you can turn your iPhone (Ipod Touch, Ipad) into a Touchpad, like you'd find on a laptop, but complete with keyboard. I can only guess that this is for use when giving presentations in a classroom or auditorium, to work like an "air mouse" + keyboard.
I use this a lot when I am on business trips. It works sluggishly when using 3G, but when on WiFi, it works great. Very responsive.
I have an android phone and an Acer A500, btw. And it works great on both.
I can't say how well it works on Apple products, though.


text:
17th Southeastern NationalsWritten by on January 25, 2011 Goodguys Charlotte
When setting out to fly from my home on the West Coast to the East Coast for the Goodguys show in North Carolina, few goals needed to be set. First was to meet as many like-minded people as possible. When I say like-minded, I mean gearheads, aka garage tinkers, like you and me. Second, I look for the trucks that those guys built because they usually fit the bill for CLASSIC TRUCKS. Third, to have as much fun as possible with all of the above. This year marked the 17th annual Goodguys Southeastern nationals, and according to the locals and the vendors, it was sure to be a good one.
I started off the trip a few days early, driving into a huge lightning storm with a tornado watch, but as luck would have it the weather cleared up the day before the event. (I'm glad it cleared because in California we are only prepared for earthquakes, fires, and riots.) Friday was amazing. It was like I was back home in sunny San Diego, California-slight breeze and 75 degrees with tons of cool trucks to choose from. It was difficult to select the CT Finest Five picks, because in Charlotte there were so many nice pickups I could have picked the Finest 50.
When asked how I choose the Finest Five at a Goodguys event, my answer was simple: The truck has to have that "wow factor" when you first see it and then wow you again when you look closer. My "wow factor", as I call it, is probably slightly different from Riz's, but I know neither of us take into consideration how much money was spent. What's important to us is how much pride was put into it.
By mid Friday the autocross was running at full force with full-on race vehicles all the way to a stock stake bed Dodge. It was also really fun to take a ride in Greg from RideTech's truck. He brought his personal truck to the track to show off what their product will do on the autocross course. (Just an inside tip, it's not about luck or being an editor of a magazine that I'm able to ride in one of the many vendor's vehicles, all you have to do is ask and wait your turn.) Detroit Speed, RideTech, BFGoodrich are just a few of the vendors who were giving away rides around the track.
Friday came and went like a really good dream, and I headed back over to the autocross track to see what was going on Saturday morning. As it turns out, Kevin Bapst had taken the lead for the truck category and Greg was a smitten slower. Bapst held onto the time for the weekend and claimed the overall prize pack for the truck class. Check out the CT website under "Community" for a ridealong video with Greg.
As much as I hate to leave the track, there was so much stuff to see, like the swap meet area or the pumpkin car everyone was talking about. Many of the vendors were holding seminars for tuning and suspension, as well as displaying the vast amounts of new products available for purchase. If you're into sweets, the show happened to fall under Halloween, so there was plenty of candy floating around. By Sunday I was exhausted, but that's a good thing because everyone I met at the show was great and all the walking helped me sleep for the long flight home. By the way, when I got home it was raining cats and dogs. Go figure, I left the sunshine in Charlotte.
More Photos From This Article View Slideshow
Jack Reid's sweet little '56 Ford F-100 showed up late on Sunday to enjoy the sunshine. A clean and simple 351 followed by a C4 transmission.Kevin Bapst from Jackson, Ohio, ran the best time in the truck category. Bapst's truck has plenty of laps on the autocross track and is a well-tuned machine-a 406 small-block with a 700-R4 pushing the four 20-inch wheels around the track.Check out this '66 Ford longbed with power steering and disc brakes. I wanted to take it home but it wouldn't fit on the plane.Here's a '72 Chevy Cheyenne 400 small-block all the way from Rocky Mount, Virginia. Thanks for bringing your ride, Kevin Arrington. It looks great.Joe Lare, from Statesville, North Carolina, brought his '49 F-1 with Chevy power. A 350 small-block and 350 trans powered the grass green Ford.This is a '54 Chevy with hidden details. Check out the wheels and interior. Brent Wagner, from Pikeville, Kentucky, had a great idea on the overall build.Walter Moore from Winchester, Virginia, and his '30 Chevy truck also had a good plan when doing the exterior. The patina exterior was executed perfectly.
Getting 408 ci out of a 351 Windsor is one way to go. Doug Miller brought his '66 F-100 two-tone beauty.A blazing Blazer from Matthews, North Carolina. Adam Ponder stunned me with his '70 Chevy Blazer and then when I saw the 6.0L Chevy powerplant I was really in shock.Here is one for you Dodge folks: Gary Antonelli from Berlin Heights, Ohio, and his '56 Dodge Pickup. I love the split hood and lowered stance on this Mopar.Dan Carpenters' '56 Ford F-100 also had a Y-block powerplant, except this motor was packing three two-barrel carbs underhood. Sleeper Dan?This is one of my personal favorite Ford body styles. Bill and Teresa Huff and their '57 Ford F-100 with an original Y-block power.Unibody anyone? These are also very rare around California, and everywhere else for that matter. Jerry Whiteside, from Gramling, South Carolina, came to show off his '61 Ford Unibody and look for those hard-to-find parts in the swap meet area.
Chuck Hanna, from Mooresville, North Carolina, and his '58 Apache Stepside. The clean exterior and the red interior were to die for. Also the engine bay and motor is as detailed as the interior.Detroit Speed also held a class on suspension dos and don'ts. Lets just say one class was not enough. Even though Detroit Speed is known for building cars, the rules still apply to our trucks.Edelbrock was giving free carburetor tuning advice. I caught the last of this class but it was very informative. Remember to order the proper size cfm carb and rejet the carb to your needs.It was a "run what you brung" rule on the autocross. While it was not the fastest time of the weekend, when the driver left the course he had a huge smile on his face.A '55 Chevy Cameo? You don't see many of these anymore. Mark Gabriel came all the way from Boiling Springs, South Carolina, to attend the Goodguys show.For some reason the later C10s were catching my eye. Harry Hennis' '72 Chevy, of Chesapeake, Virginia, was no exception with the 20-inch Boss wheels and 454 big-block power followed by a 700-R4.
George Poteet let the truck's builders, the Hot Rod Garage, of Denton, Missouri, take his show-stopping '34 Ford out for a casual weekend at the Charlotte Speedway. It's a '32 coupe dash and a 327 Chevy motor with T5 transmission. A very nice pickup.David and Judy Miller, of Davidson, North Carolina, brought their '54 Ford F-100 to show off some of their style. Cool rolled and pleated interior, classy pinstripes, and whitewalls, how can you go wrong?


text:
I have an original figure in the SVG file. I need to break it randomly on parts, an example of which is specified below:
I have an idea, to use for partitioning Voronoi diagram (Fortune's algorithm). Can I then change the line of intersection of figures to give them a curvature? Can be obtained to identify each shape as a path? To create a game I'll be using cocos2d-x.
I have an original figure in the SVG file. I need to break it randomly on parts, an example of which is specified below:
I think you've got the right idea, but the execution is going to be immensely challenging. I'm presuming when you say 'in an SVG file' you mean that the shape is defined by one (or more — your sample figure has an internal hole!) stroke paths. Unfortunately, SVG paths can be remarkably complicated, with both quadratic and cubic Bezier curves and elliptical arc segments. The intersection of a line with any of these is a solved problem, but a highly non-trivial one, and even the matter of re-parametrizing Bezier curves to split them in two at the point of intersection is a little tricky — basically, what you're looking for is complex enough to take a small book to answer, not a forum post! That said, there are several excellent references out there; the short short version of the answer is that you want to use recursive subdivision along with the so-called 'variation diminishing' property of the Bezier curve (essentially, the property that a Bezier curve is contained within the convex hull of its control points) to narrow down the possible locations of an intersection (and note that a line can have multiple intersection points, and that's another special-case that you may have to take into account). And once you solve the intersection problem, you've still got a long road ahead — you're going to have a ton of bookkeeping to do to keep track of curve and line segments and partition them correctly into pieces. This isn't to discourage you at all; just be aware of the magnitude of what you're trying to do!
Fortunately, your other question — 'can I change the line of intersection of figures to give them curvature?' — has an easier answer: absolutely. Since you're already in SVG-land, I'd use Bezier curves here too: first, choose five points p1..p5 along the line segment you want to 'curve out', probably somewhat at random in roughly equally-spaced intervals; then displace them a small random distance off the line, and use them as the control points of two separate Bezier curves, one using points p0, p1, p2, p3 and the other using points p3, p4, p5, and p6 (where p0 and p6 here are the two endpoints of the original line segment). You can take advantage of the convex-hull property of the Bezier curve here too, making sure that your displaced points don't displace too far so that the two regions to either side of the curve(s) are still simple regions. This should give you the sort of curved boundary that you're after.


text:
By William H. Byrnes, Robert Bloink |
April 29, 2011
Boyd v. MetLife case highlights drawback of overlooking clients' beneficiary designations.
By Melanie Waddell |
April 1, 2006
A host of financial services firms are coming out with new products to help advisors protect their retirees' income streams--everything from annuities that offer longevity...
By Marlene Y. Satter |
May 1, 2002
The Feds launch a long-term care insurance program
Part I of a series of articles on working with ultra-high-net-worth clients from IMCA's Investments & Wealth Monitor take a look at generational differences in...
Learn how to build a better business and create loyal clients and advocates from the start.
Don't allow high-value prospects to leave you for more connected, more digitally-capable, advisors. Download this white paper and learn six distinctive strategies you can...
Sep 20, 2016
This webcast will review the key aspects of the amendments and the steps that funds and intermediaries can take in order to comply with the...
Aug 24, 2016
Many affected firms and individuals are well-versed in the complexities of the new rule but still have detailed questions. Others are still familiarizing themselves with...
Aug 10, 2016
Investing challenges are everywhere you look around the world. Brexit, central bank interest rate policies and the growing desire of investors to see their investments...
Copyright © 2016 ALM Media, LLC. All Rights reserved.
Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.
Register for an Account | Forgot Your Password


text:
I've recently become aware that one of my photos has been used by a national newspaper beyond its licensing terms (cc-by-sa-2.5, used without the required credit), and whilst I can pursue them for some compensation, I was wondering about how effective watermarking is as a deterrent for the future? After all, if somebody has little regard for copyright, what's to stop them cropping a watermark out?
I think adding your copyright info to the meta of the images is more important than a watermark. I understand both sides of the "to watermark, or not to watermark" discussion, and both have valid points.
But more important is that you should always added copyright and contact info to your file's meta data. There's really no excuse not to - it doesn't detract from the image at all, and it's fairly easy to do in a batch process with Photoshop, Bridge, or even Lightroom.
Of course, if you don't mind people using your images, well then don't bother. But if you do, there's no excuse for not having your copyright stuff in the file meta.
I'm not really sure, but I think that might even go further in a litigated case over copyright infringement, if it can be shown the violator's file has the meta there and they ignored it, that's pretty hard to fight from their side.
I think probably they do deter misuse. Psychologically, using an plain image without credit is a different beast than using one with COPYRIGHT ROLAND SHAW staring you in the face (or taking active steps to remove the watermark). Also, there's more opportunities for people in the chain who might not otherwise think of it to say "hey, do we have permission for that image?", and I think there's a good chance the situation you describe is due to ignorance rather than active malice ("all images on the Internet are free, aren't they?"). And if there's no watermark, it's easier to rationalize, e.g. "we'll talk to him later" and then forget about it.
On the other hand, I've never seen a watermark that didn't look awful, detracting significantly from the image. Perhaps it can be done "tastefully and artfully", but I've never seen it. So it's a tradeoff.
I use a D90, and i took some advice from Ken Rockwell, and put a copyright notice in the camera's comment field, which is stamped into the EXIF data of every image.
I am generally of the opinion that people with no respect for copyright will continue to ignore/subvert any deterrents that you use. If they can see it, they can steal it.
Watermarking, however, can be used as a marketing tool, and as long as it does not detract from the image itself it is completely valid.
As far as tracking down usage, there are lots of other tools, including Exif data or image tracking services like Digimarc, that you can use to discover infringement.
I think watermark, if done tastefully and artfully is worth it, perhaps not as a deterrent for copyright theft, but so if your images are seen, that it properly gets people to look you up. Yes they can crop out the watermark, but if you can prove that, then you probably can increase the damages awarded.
I also think that a well done watermark enhances an image, much like a well done image border, but that is clearly personal preference.
If you do portraits and the like, and you offer online proofs, I'd definitely put a big "PROOF" watermark across the image.
If you actually want your pictures to be printed, you drop the watermark. Editors are in a hurry and can't wait to buy a non-watermarked version. You'll have to find out who used your image and send the bills yourself though, but that's some money after all.
I must say that watermarking when done tastefully doesn't detract from an image. I personally think the most unobtrusive way to do it is to have a simple translucent white logo in the corner, roughly 10-15% of the width of the photo.
An example (of a friend's work) would be something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/teddibrice/4629473858/ though you could go further and simply stick it right against the edge.
You see it but it doesn't yell at you and gets the point across that this is their photo.
The most tasteful "watermarks" (if they can be called that) that I have seen are actually more akin to the postcard-style advertizing you sometimes see from studios. What I'm thinking of is a moderately translucent stripe that goes across the photo, often at the line 60% of the way down the photo - although a vertical stripe works too. The stripe is usually at something like 20% translucent (rather than the typical "watermark" which might by 90% translucent).
I'd be interested in other opinions.


text:
Investing in the United States: Is the U.S. Ready for FDI from China?
Edited by Karl P. Sauvant
{Edward Elgar Publishing: 2010}
Lecturer-in-Law Karl P. Sauvant, founding executive director of the Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment, edited a new book, Investing in the United States: Is the U.S. Ready for FDI from China?, which examines the impending influx of foreign direct investment into the U.S. economy from emerging markets, particularly China. "One of the world's most important bilateral relationships is that between China and the United States," Sauvant writes in the book's introduction. "An increasingly visible component of that relationship concerns foreign direct investment (FDI)."
The new publication, the result of a joint project by the U.S. Chinese Services Group of Deloitte and the Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment, features commentary from several noted scholars, including David N. Fagan, who specializes in national security law at Covington & Burling; Timothy Frye, a political science professor at Columbia University; and Curtis J. Milhaupt '89, Columbia Law School's Parker Professor of Comparative Corporate Law and the Fuyo Professor of Japanese Law. Throughout the publication, the authors outline the regulatory hurdles and challenges that emerging markets face when looking to invest in the
U.S. economy.
In his portion of the book, Milhaupt offers lessons learned from Japan's experience investing in the U.S. "Twenty years before China became a rising star in the global economy and a major potential source of outward foreign direct investment (FDI), another East Asian country—Japan—occupied this role," Milhaupt writes. But that period of increased Japanese FDI wasn't without controversy, the professor notes, and debates once raged over whether Japan's economic ascendance was a threat to U.S. interests. "Any influx of Chinese FDI into the United States will take place against a backdrop that bears a striking resemblance to the situation two
decades earlier."


text:
This special "Black Edition" touring tankbag from Touratech was designed to perfectly match the Triple Black BMW F800GS. Packed with features, it's the perfect companion for touring on and off road.
The "Companero Edition" touring tankbag for the BMW F800GS, F700GS, and F650GS Twin by Touratech gives your motorcycle up to 20 liters of functional storage, and looks great in its black, grey, and yellow Companero color scheme.
The practical tail rack bag is perfect for storing all kind of bits and pieces, such as tools, spare gloves etc.
If you have Touratech upper crash bars, these crash bar bags are a great way to add extra luggage capacity to your F800GS or F700GS while keeping the weight forward on the already rear-heavy motorcycle. These crash bar bags are designed specifically to fit on the Touratech upper crash bars for the BMW F800GS or F700GS twins and come complete with a special mounting system that will hold them secure no matter what the conditions. The high quality materials and stylish design compliment the sporty lines of the BMW GS.


text:
ALEDO (October 5, 2012)--During a nearly 25-minute call to 911, a 17-year-old calmly described how he shot his mother and younger sister to death in their home in Parker County.
Jake Evans, who remained in custody Friday, told the Parker County 911 operator early Thursday morning, "It's weird, I wasn't even really angry with them."
Authorities say he shot his mother, Jami Evans, 48, and his sister, Mallory, 15, at the family's upscale home near Aledo, about 20 miles west of Fort Worth.
He told the operator it "just kind of happened," and said he'd "been kind of planning on killing for a while now."
When the operator asked if he'd planned on killing them or "just anybody," Evans replied, "Pretty much just anybody."
The teenager is charged with capital murder and is held without bond.
Parker County Sheriff Larry Fowler said investigators believe Evans' father was out of town on business when the slayings took place.
He said Friday "it's a big mystery" why the teenager killed his mother and sister.


text:
12.1 Megapixel Digital Camera
Details http://shop.panasonic.com/support-only/DMC-ZS6K.html
- Ultra Compact 25mm Lens and 16X Intelligent Zoom
- Sonic Speed AF
- Batteries, Chargers + Adapters
- Cables
Firmware & Drivers
FIRMWARE Download Instructions
DMC-ZS6K Firmware Update DOWNLOAD Download and install instructions
- Version: 1.1
- Issues Addressed: Optimization of Light amount for INON external flash(S-2000/D-2000/Z-240)
- Release Date: 4-25-2013
- Operating Systems: windows/mac
- Digital Still Cameras - Connecting to a Mac
- How to Import Pictures Using iPhoto Software
- How to Transfer Pictures to a PC using the Photo Gallery Software.
- Photo Fun Studio 5 - How to Convert from AVCHD to MPEG2
- Photo Fun Studio 5 - How to Copy Photos to PC
- Photo Fun Studio 5 - How to Resize Photos
- Panasonic Digital Camera Software Install
SpecificationsExpand All
More Details
Effective Pixels12.1 Mega Pixels
- Sensor Size / Total Pixels / Filter 1/2.33-inch / 14.5 Total Megapixels / Primary Color Filter
- Aperture F3.3 - 4.9/ Multistage Iris Diaphragm (F3.3 - 6.3 (W) / F4.9 - 6.3 (T))
Optical Zoom12x
Focal Lengthf=4.1-49.2mm (25-300mm in 35mm equiv.)
- Extra Optical Zoom (EZ) 14.7x (4:3 / 8M), 18.8x (4:3 / 5M), 23.4x (under 3M)
- Intelligent Zoom 16x
LEICA DC VARIO-ELMAR 10 elements in 8 groups
(2 Aspherical Lenses / 3 Aspherical surfaces / 2 ED lenses)
- 2-Speed Zoom Yes
Optical Image StabilizerPower O.I.S. (Off / Auto / Mode1 / Mode2)
Photo & Movie
Digital Zoom4x ( Max. 48.0 x combined with Optical Zoom without Extra Optical Zoom )
(Max. 93.8 x combined with Extra Optical Zoom)
Focusing Area
Normal: Wide 50 cm - infinity / Tele 200 cm - infinity
Macro / Intelligent AUTO / Clipboard: Wide 3 cm - infinity / Tele 100cm - infinity
- Focus Range Display Yes
- AF Metering Face / AF Tracking / 11pt / 1pt HS / 1pt / Spot
- Focus Normal / Macro, Zoom Macro, Quick AF On/Off (On in Intelligent Auto), Continuous AF On/Off , AF Tracking
AF Assist LampYes
ISO SensitivityAuto / 80 / 100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600
High Sensitivity (ISO 1600-6400)
White BalanceAuto / Daylight / Cloudy / Shade / Halogen / White Set (Selectable at Portrait, Soft Skin, Transform, Self-Portrait, Sports, Panorama Assist, Baby, Pet, High Sensitivity, Highspeed Burst, Pinhole, Photo Frame, High Dynamic, Underwater)
ExposureProgram AE, Aperture Priority AE, Shutter Priority AE, Manual
Exposure Compensation1/3 EV Step, ± 2 EV
BacklightCompensation Yes (only in Intelligent AUTO mode)
Auto Bracketing( AE) +/- 1/3 EV ˜ 1EV step, 3 frames
Light Metering
Multiple /
Center-weighted/ Spot
- Face Detection Photo
- Still Image Scene Mode Portrait, Soft Skin, Transform, Self-Portrait, Scenery, Panorama Assist, Sports, Night Portrait, Night Scenery, Food, Party, CandleLight, Baby1, Baby2, Pet, Sunset, High sensitivity, Hi-Speed Burst, Flash Burst, StarrySky, Fireworks, Beach, Snow, Aerial
ShutterSpeed/Shutter System Still: 60 - 1/2000 sec Starry Sky Mode : 15, 30, 60sec.
- Shutter Interval approx. 1.0 sec
Self Timer2sec / 10sec
- Auto Review 1sec, 2sec, Hold
Picture Adjustment
Contrast +2steps
Sharpness +2steps
Saturation +2steps
Noise Reduction
- Image Quality Fine/Standard
Motion Picture Recording 4:3
VGA: 640 x 480 pixels, 30fps (Motion JPEG)
QVGA: 320 x 240 pixels, 30 fps (Motion JPEG)
- Motion Picture Recording 16:9 WVGA: 848 x 480 pixels, 30 fps (Motion JPEG)
- Motion Picture Recording HD Movie 1280x720 pixels 30fps (Motion JPEG)
- Aspect Ratio 4:3 / 3:2 / 16:9
- Intelligent Exposure Yes (Photo & Movie)
Real-time HistogramsYes
Composition Guide LinesYes (2 patterns)
- Scene Mode Help Screen Yes
LCD Monitor
3.0 " TFT Screen LCD Display (460K dots), AR Coat
Field of View : approx. 100% Wide Viewing AngleAUTO Power LCD mode, Power LCD mode
- Playback Mode Normal Playback, Slideshow, Category Playback, Travel Playback, Mode Playback, Favorites Playback
- Additional Playback Mode Yes (Motion JPEG)
- OSD Language English, Spanish
- Recording Media Built-in Memory, SD Memory Card, SDHC Memory Card, SDXC Memory Card
- Interface AV Output (NTSC only for N. America), mini HDMI, USB2.0 High speed
- Viera Link Yes
Video: Auto / 1080i / 720p / 480p
Audio: Stereo
Battery Life300 pictures (CIPA Standard)
- Built-in-Flash Auto, Auto/Red-eye Reduction, Forced On, Slow Sync./Red-eye Reduction, Forced Off 0.6 - 5.3m (Wide/ISO Auto), 1.0 - 3.6m (Tele/ISO Auto)
Included Software
PHOTOfunSTUDIO 5.0 Edition
Adobe Reader
Standard Accessories
Battery Charger, Battery Pack, Battery Case
AV cable, USB Cable
Hand Strap, CD-ROM
- Multi-Aspect Yes
- Quick Menu Yes
Continuous Shooting Mode
Full-Resolution Image, 2.3 frames/sec Max. 5 images-Standard, Max 3 images-Fine
High-speed Burst Mode: approx. 6.0 frames/sec-Image approx. 10 frames/sec-Speed
(recorded in 3M for 4:3, 2.5M for 3:2, 2M for 16:9)
- Focus Icon Select Yes (in Face Recognition only)
- Optical Zoom in Motion Picture Yes
- Macro Zoom Yes
- Orientation Detector Yes
- Playback Still Images with Audio Yes
- Slideshow Mode All / Still Images Only / Motion Picture Only / Travel / Category / Favorites BGM Effect (Natural / Slow / Swing / Urban / OFF)
- Show Histogram Yes
- Delete Image Single / Multi / All / All except Favorites
- PictBridge Support Single / Multi / All / Favorites / DPOF
- Flash Burst Continuous Shooting Mode Max. 5 images (Standard mode)
- Intelligent ISO Control Photo
- Face Recognition Photo
- Intelligent Scene Selector Photo (Portrait, Scenery, Night Portrait, Night Scenery, Sunset, Macro)
File Format
Still Image: JPEG(DCF/Exif2.21)
Image with Audio: JPEG (DCF / Exif2.21) + QuickTime
Motion picture: QuickTime Motion JPEG
- Mode Dial / Mode Button Intelligent Auto, P, A, S, M, Custom, My SCN1, My SCN2, SCN, Motion Picture, Clipboard
- Still Picture Recording 4:3 4000x3000(12M) / 3264x2448(8M) / 2560x1920(5M) / 2048X1536(3M) / 640X480(0.3M)
- Still Picture Recording 3:2 4176x2784 (11.5M) / 3392x2264 (7.5M) / 2656x1768 (4.5M) / 2048x1360 (2.5M) / 640x424 (0.3M)
- Still Picture Recording 16:9 4320x2432 (10.5M) / 3552x2000 (7M) / 2784x1568 (4.5M) / 1920x1080 (2M) / 640x360 (0.2M)
- Color Mode / Color Effect Standard, Black & White, Sepia, Cool, Warm, Happy (only in iA Mode)
- Copy / Title Edit / Text Stamp Yes / Yes / Yes
Approx. 217g with Battery and SD Memory Card (0.48 lb)
Approx. 195g without Battery and SD Memory Card (0.43 lb)
- Digital Red Eye Correction (Red-Eye Removal) Photo
- Mode Switch [Recording] / [Playback]
- Easy Zoom / Zoom Resume Yes/Yes
- Thumbnails / Zoomed Playback 12,30-thumbnails / Max 16x
- Calendar Display / Dual-Image Playback Yes / No
- Set Favorites / Rotate Image Yes / No
- DPOF Print Setting / Set Protection Yes / Yes
- Resize / Trim / Aspect Conv. / Leveling Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes
- Travel Date / World Time Yes / Yes
- Built-in-Memory Approx. 40MB
- Microphone / Speaker Stereo / Yes
PowerID-Security Li-ion Battery Pack (3.6V, Minimum: 895mAh) (Included)
AC Adaptor (Input: 110-240V AC) (Optional)
- AF Tracking Photo
- Intelligent Resolution Technology Photo
- Still Image with Audio Recording 5 sec
Dimensions (W x H x D)
103.3 x 59.6 x 32.6 mm
(4.07 x 2.35 x 1.28 in)
- Camera
Owner's Manuals
Owner's Manuals and Documentation
Warranty information
Advanced Features Manuals
FAQsFrequently asked questions about your product
I am a professional photographer who is seriously considering switching to the Lumix mirrorless cameras. Does Panasonic have, or can you suggest, a web site that demonstrates how professional photographers are successfully using the Lumix professional cameras?
In conjunction with our Panasonic.com web site, our Sales and Marketing team also runs LUMIXLOUNGE.COM This site features work from Panasonic's Luminary team of professional photographers who have migrated to the Lumx mirrorless cameras. The site also features schedules to live on-line and dealer events as well as convenient links to our latest firmware updates. Additional features to expand the site are already in progress.
Where can I find more support or ask questions about my product?
Click Here to visit the Panasonic Community to search for specific FAQs or tutorials for your product or ask questions directly to Panasonic or other customers.
What should I do if my product needs service?
If you have a TV, Microwave, Vacuum, or Massage Chair : Click Here to locate an Authorized Servicer in your area.For repairs and exchanges of all other products:Ship your product to:Panasonic Factory Service Center4900 George McVay DriveSuite B; Door-12McAllen, TX 78503 Please include your name, address, telephone number, email address, copy of your purchase receipt (for warranty service), and a description of what is wrong with the unit. Freight collect shipments will not be accepted. Panasonic is not responsible for damage that occurs in transit. All contents should be packaged for safe travel to the service center. Customer should use a reputable small package shipping company that is able to provide a package tracking number and insurance (if customer should so desire to insure their package).Units that are abused, damaged, infested with insects, have corrosion, etc. will be placed out-of-warranty.Once your unit arrives at the facility, you may contact us for status at:Email: firstname.lastname@example.com reference your Service Job number when contacting. You will be contacted if there is any cost you are responsible for.
Where can I find Firmware for my product?
1. Visit http://shop.panasonic.com/support 2. Enter your model number into the search box in the middle of the screen and click on the blue "Get Support" button. 3. Click on "Firmware & Drivers" in the floating menu on the left side of the screen.Note: If "Firmware & Drivers" is not listed in the floating menu, there are no firmware or driver updates available for your product.
Where can I find the Owner's Manual for my product?
1. Visit http://shop.panasonic.com/support 2. Enter your model number into the search box in the middle of the screen and click on the blue "Get Support" button. 3. Click on "Owner's Manuals" in the floating menu on the left side of the screen.
Where can I find Warranty information for my product?
1. Visit http://shop.panasonic.com/support 2. Enter your model number into the search box in the middle of the screen and click on the blue "Get Support" button. 3. Click on "Warranty" in the floating menu on the left side of the screen.Note: If "Warranty" is not listed in the floating menu, warranty information is also available in the Owner's Manual.


text:
Spreadin' The Jam
- Thursday 12-4am
A weekly 4-hour radio show focusing on live musical performances from some of the best live-music, touring jam bands, featuring highlights of current tours to must-hear gems from the archives.
I like to include local Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and other TX jam-band style artists if it fits.
Artists include:
Widespread Panic, Phish, Gov't Mule, Galactic, and TX based bands like Little Sister / Sister 7 & Soulhat from Austin, Olospo & The Transcenders from Dallas/Fort Worth, Plump from Houston and others.
- Wednesday Nights, 12mid - 4am Thursday
- 89.3 FM, KNON in Dallas - Fort Worth, TX
- iPhone and Android Streaming apps are available - search KNON and
join us online.
- - http://spreadinthejam.com [2]
- - email: email@example.com [3]
- -Connect with the show on Facebook [4]


text:
Worldwide Music was established in Great Britain in 1962 and later in the United States in 1974. We serve music educators, professional organizations, schools, conservatories, universities, music libraries, and churches throughout the world. Our service is highly regarded, for, with a very comprehensive and extensive inventory and with professional musicians of high caliber to administer it, we are able to research and supply hard-to-find titles and even items which may no longer be in print. A wide range of all classical recordings - CD & even new LP vinyl, including imports and deletions -are also available, to complement many titles of printed music on this site. We have earned our reputation on the basis of musical knowledge and for our reliable, fast, and friendly service.
Our day-to-day inventory increases regularly according to continuing and well-proven demand; it is selected from catalogues of some four hundred music publishers throughout the world. In addition, we are the exclusive distributor for Anglo-American Music Publishers, which holds copyrights of works by many highly-respected British composers, past and present.
Copyright 2013 Worldwide
Music InternationalNames of composers, publishers, records, and any other outside material used on this site
is property of its respective owner(s). No material on this site, outside or otherwise, may be copied without direct
permission from its owner(s).


text:
The ukulele is an instrument that is rich with history and tradition. First appearing in Hawaii in the 1800s, the 'uke' has found a unique home for itself in both traditional and popular music. Artists as diverse as Eddie Vedder, Amanda Palmer, Don Ho, and Jason Mraz have all made use of the ukulele over the years to add a special something to their classic songs. A great starting point for musicians of any age, the uke is an easy to learn instrument that will provide a challenge, as well as musical joy, for years to come. Before you purchase your new ukulele, there are some things you will want to keep in mind. Most importantly, keep in mind that ukuleles come in four main sizes – soprano, which are the smallest and have the highest pitch, concert, which offer a rich mid-range tone, tenor, which features a deep tone and long fret board, and baritone, which produces the lowest uke tones and is tuned differently from its counterparts.
Since each size is unique in tone, having an idea of which sounds work for you will go a long way in determining the right instrument for you. If you're a beginner who is taking their first steps into the world of the uke, you may be interested in picking up a package such as the Rogue Ukulele Starter Pack or the Alfred Teach Yourself to Play Ukulele Complete Starter Pack. Both sets offer an instrument, a carrying case, as well as educational information that will help you learn the basics. There are also starter kits specifically for children, which offer smaller instruments and lessons to help them get the most out of their uke from an early age. If you're an experienced uke player looking to upgrade to a new instrument, you're sure to find it here. From classically fashioned ukuleles to modern acoustic-electric options that let your sweet sounds ring through larger spaces, there are plenty of options for you to choose from.
Looking for a great new concert ukulele? Let the Luna Guitars Tattoo Concert Mahogany Ukulele or the Ibanez UEW30RWE EW Concert Ukulele bring wonderfully melodies to your favorites. Maybe you're looking for something truly unique? Check out the Lanikai LB6-S Openback Soprano Banjolele, which combines the tones of a banjo and a ukulele for something special that will stand out in any song. Ukuleles are made for performers of all ages and skill levels. With their wonderful tones and adaptable versatility, they make a great addition to your music, both live and on record. With a quality uke, you'll be able to take your listeners away on a warm, magical journey every time you play.
Our product catalog varies by country due to manufacturer restrictions. If you change the Ship-To country, some or all of the items in your cart may not ship to the new destination.


text:
I've looked them up in many dictionaries, it seems the two words have the same meaning, right? I don't know when we use each of them properly.
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
If you are accountable for something, you are in a position that requires you to report to or answer to someone for your actions and decisions.
If you are responsible for something, you may be the one to whom things are reported.
I think with accountability there is someone or some agency overseeing your actions; someone to whom you report.
With responsibility, you are the one in charge. "The buck stops here." One dictionary says when you are responsible, you have the ability to act without guidance or superior authority.
One simple google search gives the answer. If you are not satisfied, there are many more answers.
In a nutshell (from Merriam-Webster dictionary):
So, as you can see:
In my opinion, accountability refers to the quality which a person or body has when they are reliable in their behaviour, capable of taking justifiable actions or decisions; it also indicates that a certain (positive) behaviour or attitude are likely to be kept over time, so that you can trust the person or body.
Responsibility on the other hand refers to the fact of being in charge with something, of having control over someone, or having a duty to deal with something. The person who is responsible for such situations may be accountable, but it is not a necessary feature of the person himself.
Here's what I learned as an officer in the Navy - responsibility for a task can be delegated, while accountability cannot. As you may have read in other places on the inter-webs, responsibility may be shared among several people, but there can only be one person who is ultimately accountable ('held accountable') for a given task.
Responsibility is that you are in charge of doing a certain job. But you may not be blame for any mistake if there is. However, if you are responsible and at the same time accountable it means that you can be commended for doing something good but can be blame if you did otherwise.
protected by tchrist Feb 26 '15 at 2:02
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
European soccer roundup: Altidore scores league-high 8th goal for Alkmaar
Not a subscriber? You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition. CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.


text:
COPPERAS COVE (January 18, 2013)--The Megan Baab Memorial Classic Road Race will be held Saturday at the Copperas Cove Civic Center to raise money for student scholarships.
Baab, a Euless native, was attending college in North Carolina when she was hit by a truck while on her bicycle.
The race starts at 8:45 a.m. and will take participants approximately 50 miles before ending back at the civic center.
The cost to register is $40 on site but does not include BikeReg fees.
Cash prizes will be awarded.
Money raised will go toward the Megan Baab Memorial Scholarship Fund.
The civic center is located at 1206 West Avenue B.
For more information, call (254) 542-2719.


text:
I got some holy basil seeds (via mail) from a guy on an internet forum. I planted them and they are growing nicely. They taste similar to thai basil. Would one use holy basil to make pesto sauce? Are there other culinary uses for holy basil?
migrated from gardening.stackexchange.com Sep 7 '11 at 14:12
This question came from our site for gardeners and landscapers.
Use it the same as you would thai basil, or even "normal" basil. It's a little more strongly on the licorice flavor side of things than lettuce leaf basil, but it still works nicely in conjunction with tomatoes, garlic, and other "italian" flavors.
There was an article on pesto in the recent Saveur magazine. Here is what they wrote about Thai basil:
Here is a link to the Thai basil reference: http://www.saveur.com/gallery/Many-Shades-of-Green/4 Here is the article itself: http://www.saveur.com/article/Kitchen/Glorious-Pesto-1000088723


text:
Being obsessive I try to complete all quests in one area before moving on to the next. However when going to Accept a Quest I just noticed the two "new" quests are actually two quests I just turned in; standard "Kill X number of Y monsters" quests.
If I keep completing these quests will they keep returning as "new" quests or is something else going on here?


text:
I have a Shimano freewheel (MX-30) that came with my bike from new. Unfortunately the internals got all gunked up and it stopped working (never engaged and became free both ways). I have bought and fitted a replacement part, but I would like to know how I should lubricate / maintain the freewheel so that this does not happen again.
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
I love ATF (Automatic Transmission Fluid) for freewheel (not free hub) lube. What I do is lift the bike-- if someone can help you with this, it's a bit easier-- so that you can rotate the pedals (and make the back wheel spin). Ideally, the bike should be tilted to the non-drive side about 45-60 degrees. With the back wheel rotating, you can see where to lubricate. As Sheldon puts it:
BTW, thought I should add what I keep my ATF in for cycling purposes. I have some old plastic bottles that once held printer ink. They look similar to this:
I have repaired my Shimano free wheel or other like it and I will tell you how. An effective way to check or repair the inside of the free wheel is to learn first how to assemble and disassemble it and here is the video how
A large magnet will help catch the tiny buger sized bearings if carefully placed under the freewheel while loosening the lockring.
If no spanner tool is available you can use a hammer and a pointless concrete nail (use your imagination to figure out how to make the concrete nail less pointy using the hammer).
To open it with hammer and concrete nail, place the pointless nail in the shallow hole in the lockring pointing downward close to 45 degrees, then gently tap it rapidly with the hammer. Remember the lock ring loosens at clock wise. Just loosen it but don't remove the lockring completely yet or else removing the freewheel impatiently will scatter buger bearings all over the floor. The overall number of those bearings is less than 60 I guess. After loosening it only enough to be removed by dialing it like a rotary phone place the magnet under the freewheel. You can now remove the freewheel (BE AWARE THAT THE BEARING MIGHT SCATTER LIKE A BIG BANG THEORY)
Place it in the table with a towel, remove the lockring, spray it with WD 40 then magnet the bugerbearings on the top. Remove the thin spacer then the spring and sprawls, soak them in WD 40 or kerosene. Wipe it clean. After ALL the free wheel parts are completely free of any liquids and dirt you can now put the grease in. This has to be a Grade 3 lithium grease. Make sure all the internal parts are covered in grease not too thin and not too thick – make sure that the parts can move freely (because too much grease will make the sprawl stick to the inner freewheel and prevent it to do its function) after properly placing the sprawls and springs and spacer. For the bearings you already know where to put them the problem is just, how.
With your index finger and thumb greased pick up the new bearing and roll it like a buger to cover it in grease then stick it to its rightful place in the bearings.
With all the bearings in place put it back in the external freewheel. While forcing the internal freewheel in, rotate the outer freewheel clockwise so the sprawls would not interfere. Just put in the spacer, tighten the lock ring and there you go.
If you want to me to make detailed video email me firstname.lastname@example.com I will make it really short and really detailed as possible.


text:
SPIDER-MAN Turn Off The Dark - Broadway show
So this is less of a deal but more something interesting. There's apparently going to be a Spiderman show on broadway.
If you do want tickets (it actually looks pretty interesting), the presale code is SYN810
"Broadway's SPIDER-MAN Turn Off The Dark features a new score by 22-time Grammy® winners Bono and The Edge of U2 and direction by Tony Award® winner Julie Taymor (The Lion King) with flying, stunts and breathtaking designs from an international team of artists from Broadway, Cirque du Soleil, the Beijing Olympics and the Spider-Man films. Drawing on over 40 years of Marvel comics, co-book writers Julie Taymor and Glen Berger spin a spectacular new take on the mythic adventure that's familiar and fresh yet filled with unexpected twists and turns."
4 Comments add a comment
Ticketmaster responds:
There is a problem with your request
* The password you entered is not in our system. Please try again.
Ticketmaster has never given anyone a deal. They're the biggest crooks in the world!
@pxb006: Hence me saying "this isn't really a deal."
It's moreso for the humor in the fact that there's a Spiderman broadway show.
@daijizai: thats...odd. I know I put the presale code in correctly.
I googled it and found the code "tm0810", and this code worked for me.


text:
Steve Smith is the President and CEO of Food City, a grocery store chain in Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee that employs over 13,000 people.
You used a term that really struck me when it comes to Obamacare. You said there are 'unintended consequences.'
Well, I think there are. We look at the Obamacare law, the Affordable Care Act, as something that's really about people because it's dealing with very personal decisions when you come to health care. We try to put the politics of it aside, and look at what it does to our people. Because if you're in the service industry like we are at Food City, our success is predicated on the people we have and how well they execute. So, one of the unintended consequences, and if you're in the grocery business or the restaurant business, you have to have a lot of part-time people. We do 60 percent of our total volume between Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. So, if you think about that, the other days, the weekdays, are very slow. The weekends are very busy. So we have to augment our staff with a lot of part-time folks, a lot of young people, 15, 16, 17, 18-year-olds, but a lot of retirees as well. That's 67 to 68 percent of our part-time folks actually qualify for insurance either with their parents, or on Medicaid, or Medicare just as their age. But, if you think about the folks that we have, a lot of them would work 32, 33, 34 hours and by our standards, which should be classified as part-time folks. Unfortunately, under the new law, we can't work those folks more than 30 hours or more. So, we've had to reduce those folks' hours, at no fault of their own. They're good associates, do a great job for us, but if we don't, then we would basically have to offer them health care, which would add to our cost, and possibly to the consumer's cost. Then if they didn't take it, it would put them in a more difficult situation too. So, that's one of those unintended consequences. I think there's some good things about the health care law. The fact that 26-year-olds, or young people up to 26, can still be on their parents' insurance policy is one of those good things. Maybe taking the cap off for folks that have a lot of health care problems is probably a good thing, but there's also some unintended consequences. And I think that's where we wish that we could sit down, and legislators can sit down, and correct some of the things that have been passed.


text:
Earth Day-Hooray! (Hardcover)
Earth Day is on the way, and Ryan, Luke, and Carly have a plan. If they manage to collect and recycle 5,000 aluminum cans, they can make enough money to buy some beautiful flowers for nearby Gilroy Park.
CAN they do it?
Counting the cans gives Ryan, Luke, and Carly -- along with readers -- a lesson in place value. And facts about recycling throughout the story will help readers understand how important it is to take care of the earth.
About the Author
Stuart J. Murphy is a visual learning specialist. A graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design, he has a strong background in design and art direction. He also has extensive experience in the world of educational publishing. Drawing on all these talents, Stuart J. Murphy brings a unique perspective to the MathStart series. In MathStart books, pictures do more than tell stories; they teach math.
Stuart J. Murphy and his wife, Nancy, live in Boston.
Andriani creates artwork for children's books, magazines, and greeting cards.