Look, do you believe CFCs in the upper layers of the atmosphere are almost entirely due to man-made processes or not? If they are, in the interest of academic honesty, you should edit your first post which clearly suggests otherwise. If you believe there is a significant amount of naturally occurring CFCs in the upper layer of the atmosphere, where is a reputable publication that backs up this claim?
I don't know what CRISTA-SPAS is, I had to google Ad-Hom, I'm getting a PhD in math, not environmental science, and I'm not interested in reading a book published in 1968 or a random forum thread from 2002 which gives no sources in the opening post and seems highly political (as well as critical of scientists despite the OP in that thread providing no evidence of his scientific training).
You made an incredulous statement that is misleading and have not replied at all to my argument otherwise. If you really are interested in 'the truth,' then please let me know your reply to the first paragraph in this post. Thanks.
CFC's are not found that high in the atmosphere. Only Chlorine is found that high.
You would know all that I have posted had you read the thread I posted. I have looked elsewhere as well, the evidence that was posted is correct. The statements that were made fit the results and fall into the peer reviewed portion of what has been recorded over time.
You shouldn't discount the book written by the guy that first noted the gap in the Ozone layer because you think it's "old" Most of the Math you are studying is older than that book.
I do not spend much time here anymore. If you want answers look for yourself because the rest of these children here are not going to do the looking for you.
Your first TED piece I'm assuming? They're about ideas and not politics which this drifted into.
Which gets to an issue. At which point does something become political? If I lay out a campaign to eradicate polio (and leaders in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria oppose it, not to mention Jenny McCarthy and friends), is that political?
It becomes political when involve other people to do something to or for other people.
So you're saying product costing is a logical factor in employment, which is the largest fundamental of the discussion currently - and I'm the one who "needs to go back to school".
If you're going to spin bull****, that's fine, but at least stay on the damn topic.
You mean the discussion that was not even going on when I popped into the thread and decided to correct an error that was glaringly obvious to me?
You telling people to stay on topic when you derail every thread you participate in with endless fallacies and erroneous statements.... Why not try and at least attempt to be civil?
You mean him analyzing the link from his quote an referencing it as "Velocity of Money"? That you then consider super-alien to your idea, which shockingly "Velocity of Money" still rather fits?
And in fact was the discussion for 12 or so of the first 15 posts before you got involved?
If you actually read my original post you might see how out of line you are yet once again.
Additionally, it is very much an open forum, so the discussion that is going on is completely subject to viewing and replies. My other reply still stands, you need to start using google, or actually start reading some books on economics that are not complete garbage.
Mystery45: Funny you say that considering two of the strongest companies in the world I'm privy to knowing don't factor in any overhead costs into their product valuation - they actually pay their estimated overhead from profit the year before before dividends AFTER seeing what their sales were.
Those companies? Microsoft and Google.
What you say certainly applies to MANY corporations - but to imply to applies to all is absolutely wrong. (all food service corporations for example)
You are making a distinction of time based reasoning, that does not make him incorrect, it means that you are moving the goal posts in an attempt to convince him of your affirmation of correctness. This is why in actual economics, praxeological concerns are factored in to understand that whether you then or late, you are still paying.
This was the point I made several pages back and you continue to ignore it, or simply not understand it. I think I know which one it is.
Both of the companies you were referencing understand economics well enough to know how to shift payments around to lessen the impact on the bottom line, which is what matters to them. That the rest of the corporations do not understand how to do this properly does not negate that it still occurs for them, albeit at a different time period.
This is why Monetarist and Keynesian schools fail so horribly, they are incapable of using time as anything other than a multiplier for interest rates. This is why Praxeology exists. To add in the time preferences of all parties involved.
Then again it's easier to just call them tax cheats, and then throw them in jail for it eh?
^^ Ivy Leagues schools have high prices because the cost of the staff and the Inflationary effects of the demand to attend those schools, that is why they are called IVY LEAGUE. Because everyone wants to attend them.
And their life does impact your life. Wealth isn't infinite. Print too much money and it deflates in value. Layer too many derivatives and you undermine confidence in the currency. You can massage the money supply a heck of a lot but you can't make it infinite. There are people who have less every time someone else has more. You have less because someone else has more.
This zero-sum view of economics is about two and a half centuries out of date. Wealth may not be infinite, but it can grow and shrink. If it grows faster for you than for me, you'll have more wealth, but it doesn't follow that you're depriving me of anything; I have exactly the same amount that I would if you and your wealth had never even existed.
First, this website 'geologist-1011.net' is authored by a person who has only completed a BS in geology and works in the petroleum industry (from his CV on his website). Hence, one should be at least slightly suspicious of his claims.
Second, and more importantly, his claims are extremely misleading. Here is just one simple, relevant example of where he completely bends the truth. One of his major arguments is that CFCs do occur naturally, as a result of volcanic eruptions. He then cites the following
Jordan, A., 2003, "Volcanic Formation of Halogenated Organic Compounds", The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 3, Part P, pp. 121-139.
as main evidence of his claim. In the abstract of this paper, it states "The range of compounds detected [in volcanic emissions] includes chlorofluorocarbons..." [ie. Yes, CFCs do occur naturally!]. However, the main conclusion of this paper, which is stated 2 sentences later in the abstract, is never mentioned on his website:
"Emission rate estimates [from volcanoes] for halocarbons [the larger family which CFCs are a member of] result in very low global fluxes that are unlikely to have any significance for the global atmospheric budgets of relevant halogenated trace gases."
TLDR: CFCs do occur naturally, but in levels so low that they have no significance in global measurements of such gases -- something this website conveniently omits.
So while he makes valid claims (CFCs do occur naturally!) he insinuates invalid conclusions (manmade CFCs don't have a big impact on ozone depletion since CFCs are also naturally occuring).
This masking of the truth is used almost nonstop in environmental issues (as well as other scientific topics that have entered political debate). It creates an illusion that there is some sort of real debate in the scientific community on hot issues such as "ozone depletion," "climate change/global warming," "carbon dioxide emissions effect on the atmosphere," etc.... These issues are extremely complex, and simplified statements such as "CFCs are only manmade" become widespread. Although they are not 100% correct, they are true for all intents and purposes. If you put in the effort, you can also easily see that he does this over and over again on his website.
Interesting, attack the guy for sourcing data while he also paid attention to the Crista-Spas Project. That's a new level of Ad-Hom for this site. Very articulate.
Perhaps you should try and put your bias aside and dig deeper There is a reason that the argument on Ozone Depletion doesn't make the news anymore.
The discussion involves the subject of that book, and the work done by the Crista-Spas Project, as well as universities.
Additionally, you are correct there is no debate, and that is the problem. If there were a debate then I wouldn't be here posting that it's BS, because we would already know that it is.
Wow, dude. Do you have any medical experience? Are you a licensed psychologist? Judging by you not saying you are yet I'm gonna go with no. Don't come on here practically telling someone that you know better than their doctor does. This guy is not a 12 yr old who got locked in a room while his parents did meth for days on end. This is a grown adult who takes an extremely small dose of a harmless drug if not abused. There have been multiple studies highlighting the benefits of ADHD medications in adults as well as children.
Also, coming in here and practically saying "Bro, do you even lift?" brought me great laughs.
It's telling what sort of person calls it ADHD medication rather than what it actually is.
The guy already says the dosage is not high enough, and didn't like to come down from it. It's plain as day where I am sitting, you can defend drug abusing behavior all you wish. I will not.
Your sense of humor is rather sad and in poor taste when I was indicating that it was his health that was the problem, not the ability to lift weights. The guy is under weight for a male his height, and likely also has a high fat percentage. Add in sitting at desk for hours on end and you're going to have some issues with properly maintaining hormonal balance. It has nothing to do with psychology, and everything to do with physiology. That you are incapable of distinguishing the two tells me that you are the one that is actually uneducated on this matter.
Just to clarify, merit is the ability of pulling off something, not the effort evolved in pulling off something.
A runner's merit is his ability to run faster, not the effort he does while running. In a universe were effort is perceived as merit (and merit as it is in our universe not perceived at all), the winner of a marathon should be the runner who endured greater physical stress, not the one who managed to cross the line first. Maybe getting out of shape in order to have a harder time in running contest should be a viable strategy then...?
I hope people understand the consequences of considering merit and effort the same thing. It means we should look at the word based on the suffering of others and not on our own contentment. While it my look nice at first glance, it's is deeply against our nature and how we obtain satisfaction. There's little importance of someone who pass 100 hours week smashing boulders against a wall, no matter the effort taken in doing that.
In the USSA definitions are whatever we say they are at that point in time.
This kind work both ways.
Capitalism is meritocratic by it own free-trade nature. One earn money by providing something to someone, so he has the merit of providing it in a way people are willing to pay him.
However merit doesn't mean effort, so there's no reason to give higher social classes any kind of special admiration as the origin of wealth is not tied to effort, it is tied to merit.
There has never really been a true free-market anywhere though. So it's hard to truly say what exactly will happen, but we can theorize.
But come on - I've been very polite about this but he came in here knowing nothing about me except that I took some prescribed adderall and all of a sudden he's diagnosing my problems like some kind of a creepy message board doctor House.
Then he spends the next two pages talking about weight training in a thread about adderall. I tried to be nice to him but he gets in a snit about it and predicts that I'll be abusing prescription meds soon.
In spite of his claims to the contrary I'm thinking that he is most definitely not balanced.
No, like that guy above snickered about Bluelight and harm reduction, you have no idea what you are about to start stuffing into your blood stream, and are telling me that you will not be addicted to the feeling. Every future addict says the same thing. I know because that site I posted works with addicts. I have seen them come and go for over a decade now. I volunteer my time at a clinic to help people that are recovering from addiction to the same drugs you are about to start using. I work with the Salvation Army to help children that grew up in homes with that sort of thing.
Balanced is depending on whether or not you want to suffer the side effects of long term amphetamine use. I'm not balanced but you think a little pill is going to make your life easier. I would rather suck it up and be a man about it and improve myself without using a drug that gives the semblance of improvement. While you talk about being straight edge but only a little drug use...
This thread should have been locked and deleted the day you made it. It doesn't belong on here.
When the Adderall was working I wasn't procrastinating.
The first day I was so high I couldn't stop myself. That wasn't good. I got a lot of stuff done and I felt like I had superhuman powers of observation but it was too altered.
Then on about the third day I wasn't feeling particularly high or hyperactive. I was making responsible decisions and performing tasks that needed done as soon as I had the time. There was no procrastination. Might have still been a little high but I couldn't tell aside from being unusually confident.
By the fifth day I was starting to feel almost as if I wasn't taking medication at all but I was still noticably more succinct in conversation. Procrastination was possible but manageable.
Today is the eighth day and I feel like there's nothing in me even though I took the same dose again this morning. I was in full procrastination mode earlier and my wife was getting frustrated at me for talking in circles again.
I understand that the body builds a tolerance. Still - there ought to be a dose that will give me an effect that's somewhat like the way it felt between day 3 and day 5. I'll be talking to my physician about that as soon as she comes back from the long weekend.
Quoting this to make a point. Any external observer can see what the reaction you had was, and that you already think you need a higher dose.
As an aside - I think that Nidstyles means well but I was healthier than 99% of the population when I finished bootcamp and it didn't change my symptoms. Now I'm not so healthy but the symptoms are the same as ever.
But back to your story - I have no intention of using that much. I'm pretty straight-edge and I haven't deviated or even considered deviating from my prescribed dose. I've never smoked a cigarette or done any recreational drugs.
I am glad that you shared your experience however. It gives me a broader perspective. Thank you.
I'm not trying to say you were not healthy. I am trying to say that you should be larger than you are for your stress levels from what you have indicated. More muscle mass allows you to handle higher cortisol levels without it effecting you physically which creates mental issues with focusing. You honestly described exactly what I was going through when I left the Army. Lifting gave me back the body mass to be able to burn through the cortisol and remove stress from my body efficiently.
I'm saying you're hormones are out of whack, and that Adderall will not actually help you in any real fashion. You seem to have already made up your mind and will likely be abusing it soon enough though.
My advice is that you need to read more about how your body actually works before deciding to use those substances. If you want to find a better forum to discuss this topic at length PM me. I have been a member of Bluelight since 2001. I will send you my account info over there and we can discuss this openly with people that understand it far more than myself. My efforts are purely in harm reduction and keeping people away from things that can seriously damage you long term or even kill you.
I personally wouldn't play something without Force of Will or a deck that demands my opponent to play Force of Will.
The way I see it, playing a non-blue deck is all sunshine and rainbow until you play against some super combo deck that can tear you a new one.
I would also avoid creature heavy decks like Maverick or Death and Taxes. Its cool and all having a deck full a versatile creatures. You can have a creature based answer to everything... except Wrath of God, which answers your entire deck instead.
Sound more like you are just new or inexperienced. You'll get over that fear of combo eventually. I can't tell you how many times I have beaten combo with a few discard spells or just Thalia/Teeg and the beat down plan. You just have to learn how to keep your opponent on the back foot and trying to stop you rather than killing you. If you are the beat down, you have to do the beating.
I will play anything if it looks like fun. I played D&T for the longest time, and honestly it's best matchups are decks that are pitching things to FOW. Combo is not hard to beat either, it is uphill, but if you know what to watch for and since Rest in Peace is white...
The best way to learn how to beat a deck is to play it a while to see what it's weak to. Once you know that you get a better idea of how to build your SB and how to side.
I would play Junk before Maverick. Stoneblade is fine, just be ready for the mirror match, those often can go long.
OT -
I don't think there are any really bad decks in Legacy. I have played a lot of decks, and I played RUG Delver for almost a year and a half before I went back to a BUG Jace deck... You just have to be willing to work at the deck long enough to be able to see the tells/opening/tricks that are available at any given moment.
The reason I played RUG Delver so long was to get to know how the deck plays so it's not a rough matchup for me anymore. Was playing a CAB Jace deck before it, and kept getting destroyed every time I faced RUG Delver. For a while that is all everyone was playing.
I didn't say TEA party groups were hate groups, I was saying that the people who support the TEA party (alex jones), have been known to use incredibly racist rhetoric.
I don't know, some of the signs have a Papuan chieftain (I had no idea Kenya was in the South Pacific.) with Obama's face shooped on his head, with a caption "Obama(hammer and sickle)are".
I know, I know, nutpicking.
But when people listed on the SPLC site show up at Tea Party rallies, you know you have a problem.
The Southern Poverty Law Center isn't what it once one. It is far from non-partisan.
It was never non-partisan. That's like saying AIPAC was non-partisan. I got a chuckle out of that...
Non sequitor? You said all taxes for corps were generated by revenue when I kept stating that not all taxes were based upon revenue and it was possible for a corp to have a tax burden even while having zero revenue.
It is non sequitor for the obvious reason that the discussion was not involving PROPERTY TAXES, but on corporate specific taxation. Which means that we were discussing Corporate Taxation and it's laws and application.:thumbsup:
Even on corporate specific taxation - by the "they don't pay their taxes, their consumers do" theorem - they still pay taxes for any of the many corporations that actually consume products to produce their own.
And if say they overstock on something or undersell on something - they end up eating those secondary taxes. (Some is deductible but not all, by a pretty large margin)
Additionally, considering those that want lower corporate tax rates are quick to lump on every secondary tax that corporations are subject to, I consider them invariably entwined myself. If the average corporation was paying 20% in secondary taxes there'd be a much stronger argument for lowering corporate taxes, since secondary taxes should be considered as part of their total burden.
I actually disagree with the entire premise of corporate taxation, as I disagree with the Liberal thought of forming collective monopolies that are pure fictions and only exist due to the conditions of the legal framework built up to support them and subsidize them.
Let me know when we are on the same page. Until then I will just say that you're being ridiculous when you say that the consumer doesn't pay the corporate taxes when they are the ones funding those corporations either through their taxation and subsidization or actually purchasing.
Possession does not equate to ownership.
But maybe you're ok with the idea that a corp could have 15% corporate tax and 60% of other taxes tagged on top. It is a non sequitor if you don't consider them at all related - I'm sorry that I do.
Well here's the thing, it's a Logical Fallacy, that means it's not a matter of measure by opinion. It a pure logical condition that occurred from you bringing up issues that have no impact to the topic of discussion. You don't have a say whether it is or not, it just is a fallacy. There is no discussion to be had by examining it further.
CFC's are not found that high in the atmosphere. Only Chlorine is found that high.
You would know all that I have posted had you read the thread I posted. I have looked elsewhere as well, the evidence that was posted is correct. The statements that were made fit the results and fall into the peer reviewed portion of what has been recorded over time.
You shouldn't discount the book written by the guy that first noted the gap in the Ozone layer because you think it's "old" Most of the Math you are studying is older than that book.
I do not spend much time here anymore. If you want answers look for yourself because the rest of these children here are not going to do the looking for you.
It becomes political when involve other people to do something to or for other people.
If you actually read my original post you might see how out of line you are yet once again.
Additionally, it is very much an open forum, so the discussion that is going on is completely subject to viewing and replies. My other reply still stands, you need to start using google, or actually start reading some books on economics that are not complete garbage.
You are making a distinction of time based reasoning, that does not make him incorrect, it means that you are moving the goal posts in an attempt to convince him of your affirmation of correctness. This is why in actual economics, praxeological concerns are factored in to understand that whether you then or late, you are still paying.
This was the point I made several pages back and you continue to ignore it, or simply not understand it. I think I know which one it is.
Both of the companies you were referencing understand economics well enough to know how to shift payments around to lessen the impact on the bottom line, which is what matters to them. That the rest of the corporations do not understand how to do this properly does not negate that it still occurs for them, albeit at a different time period.
This is why Monetarist and Keynesian schools fail so horribly, they are incapable of using time as anything other than a multiplier for interest rates. This is why Praxeology exists. To add in the time preferences of all parties involved.
Then again it's easier to just call them tax cheats, and then throw them in jail for it eh?
Good post sir.
Interesting, attack the guy for sourcing data while he also paid attention to the Crista-Spas Project. That's a new level of Ad-Hom for this site. Very articulate.
Perhaps you should try and put your bias aside and dig deeper
The reason I make confident assertions is very well understood by reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-The-Atmosphere-G-M-B-Dobson/dp/B002K68L6W/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369988776&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Exploring+the+Atmosphere+George+Dobson
A discussion of the material found was had here:
http://www.sciforums.com/Ozone-Hole-fact-or-fiction-t-7017.html
The discussion involves the subject of that book, and the work done by the Crista-Spas Project, as well as universities.
Additionally, you are correct there is no debate, and that is the problem. If there were a debate then I wouldn't be here posting that it's BS, because we would already know that it is.
It's telling what sort of person calls it ADHD medication rather than what it actually is.
The guy already says the dosage is not high enough, and didn't like to come down from it. It's plain as day where I am sitting, you can defend drug abusing behavior all you wish. I will not.
Your sense of humor is rather sad and in poor taste when I was indicating that it was his health that was the problem, not the ability to lift weights. The guy is under weight for a male his height, and likely also has a high fat percentage. Add in sitting at desk for hours on end and you're going to have some issues with properly maintaining hormonal balance. It has nothing to do with psychology, and everything to do with physiology. That you are incapable of distinguishing the two tells me that you are the one that is actually uneducated on this matter.
In the USSA definitions are whatever we say they are at that point in time.
There has never really been a true free-market anywhere though. So it's hard to truly say what exactly will happen, but we can theorize.
No, like that guy above snickered about Bluelight and harm reduction, you have no idea what you are about to start stuffing into your blood stream, and are telling me that you will not be addicted to the feeling. Every future addict says the same thing. I know because that site I posted works with addicts. I have seen them come and go for over a decade now. I volunteer my time at a clinic to help people that are recovering from addiction to the same drugs you are about to start using. I work with the Salvation Army to help children that grew up in homes with that sort of thing.
Balanced is depending on whether or not you want to suffer the side effects of long term amphetamine use. I'm not balanced but you think a little pill is going to make your life easier. I would rather suck it up and be a man about it and improve myself without using a drug that gives the semblance of improvement.
This thread should have been locked and deleted the day you made it. It doesn't belong on here.
It's obvious you've already made up your mind:
Quoting this to make a point. Any external observer can see what the reaction you had was, and that you already think you need a higher dose.
I'm not trying to say you were not healthy. I am trying to say that you should be larger than you are for your stress levels from what you have indicated. More muscle mass allows you to handle higher cortisol levels without it effecting you physically which creates mental issues with focusing. You honestly described exactly what I was going through when I left the Army. Lifting gave me back the body mass to be able to burn through the cortisol and remove stress from my body efficiently.
I'm saying you're hormones are out of whack, and that Adderall will not actually help you in any real fashion. You seem to have already made up your mind and will likely be abusing it soon enough though.
My advice is that you need to read more about how your body actually works before deciding to use those substances. If you want to find a better forum to discuss this topic at length PM me. I have been a member of Bluelight since 2001. I will send you my account info over there and we can discuss this openly with people that understand it far more than myself. My efforts are purely in harm reduction and keeping people away from things that can seriously damage you long term or even kill you.
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/9/3553.full
Sound more like you are just new or inexperienced. You'll get over that fear of combo eventually. I can't tell you how many times I have beaten combo with a few discard spells or just Thalia/Teeg and the beat down plan. You just have to learn how to keep your opponent on the back foot and trying to stop you rather than killing you. If you are the beat down, you have to do the beating.
I will play anything if it looks like fun. I played D&T for the longest time, and honestly it's best matchups are decks that are pitching things to FOW. Combo is not hard to beat either, it is uphill, but if you know what to watch for and since Rest in Peace is white...
The best way to learn how to beat a deck is to play it a while to see what it's weak to. Once you know that you get a better idea of how to build your SB and how to side.
Sounds like a far better alternative than some of these suggestions.
OT -
I don't think there are any really bad decks in Legacy. I have played a lot of decks, and I played RUG Delver for almost a year and a half before I went back to a BUG Jace deck... You just have to be willing to work at the deck long enough to be able to see the tells/opening/tricks that are available at any given moment.
The reason I played RUG Delver so long was to get to know how the deck plays so it's not a rough matchup for me anymore. Was playing a CAB Jace deck before it, and kept getting destroyed every time I faced RUG Delver. For a while that is all everyone was playing.
It was never non-partisan. That's like saying AIPAC was non-partisan. I got a chuckle out of that...
I actually disagree with the entire premise of corporate taxation, as I disagree with the Liberal thought of forming collective monopolies that are pure fictions and only exist due to the conditions of the legal framework built up to support them and subsidize them.
Let me know when we are on the same page. Until then I will just say that you're being ridiculous when you say that the consumer doesn't pay the corporate taxes when they are the ones funding those corporations either through their taxation and subsidization or actually purchasing.
Possession does not equate to ownership.
Well here's the thing, it's a Logical Fallacy, that means it's not a matter of measure by opinion. It a pure logical condition that occurred from you bringing up issues that have no impact to the topic of discussion. You don't have a say whether it is or not, it just is a fallacy. There is no discussion to be had by examining it further.