JayB

How - exactly - would trading power generated by burning fossil fuels for nuclear power "selfishly fuck future generations with a hotter planet"?

I'd be perfectly happy to make that trade, and I expect that I'll have plenty of company before long.

Hey - CBS and I agree on something. The price of crude will determine when and to what extent the oil sands are exploited. Using nuclear power to extract the oil from the oil sands will result in a drastic reduction in the amount of CO2 released per gallon of fuel generated by this process. The opposition to nuclear power amongst folks who are ostensibly concerned about global warming is a wonder to behold. If the most significant and immediate threat facing the environment is global warming, then there can be no serious opposition to expanding nuclear power on environmental grounds. Most of the more vocal folks in the environmental movement seem to be less concerned with addressing the complex trade-offs involved with mitigating environmental problems than engaging in a sustained rhetorical assault on the modern market economy. Too little analysis, too much fantasizing about magically taking mankind back to an organic-tribal-pre-modern-paleo-eden that never existed in the first place.

I think the total cig-count is up to ~20, so I think that if I ever bought a pack, they'd disintegrate before I ever got around to smoking them.

I have this pack-a-decade habit that I'm pretty concerned about as well. If I'm having some beers around a campsite and someone offers me a cigarette, I usually take it. Seriously, though, I think you could probably treat yourself to a smoke now and then without it having any effect whatsoever on your longevity. If you are a climber, especially one who enjoys alpine climbing, the occasional smoke is probably one of the last things likely to cut your life short. The only caveat is that if you doubt your ability to use willpower to voluntarily limit your nicotine intake, you should bash the bejesus out of yourself and expect, descend into a state of acute self-loathing, and expect to find yourself hunched over and hacking out roofing-tar in two years or less.

WTF? That'd make some good stock material for anyone that wanted to sell some tire-chains.

One other comment is that both in terms of volume and margin-per-sale, coffee will probably end up generating most of the sales for this kind of a business, so I would think that the goal of a coffee store that also happens to sell climbing literature has a much better chance of succeeding than a place that sells climbing literature and also happens to serve coffee. Another thing that might be worth considering is that I would bet that climbers would be most likely to swing by and hang-out on weekday evenings, so you'd need to do what you could to capture consistent local business during the rest of the day, whether that be from commuters, students, stay-at-home parents, or whatever the prevailing species happens to be where you set-up shop.

Might be worthwhile to meet with folks that actually run independent coffee-shops and bookstores and getting their insights, so that you can get a sense of what they have to say regarding major challenges that they have to deal with, what kind of numbers you'd need to make the venture work, etc. Launching this right next to or in conjunction with an existing shop, like Second Ascent might help generate some FF/REI type synergy. Climbers looking for gear head over for a bit of reading and coffee, climbers that stop in for coffee head next door looking for gear, etc.

I get the "Ro" part, but where does the "Bo" part come into play here?

Bobo's aren't all bad. Whenever I've been to a dinner party at a Bobo's house, they've had good food there, and so long as I put on a scopalamine patch a few hours before hand I manage not to puke when I have to listen to them wax poetic about the qualities of the wild siberian hummus or the Tunisian slate countertop or any other of a gazillion equally nauseating topics.

Since sweat and urine aren't all that different from one another, I suspect that you cat caught a whiff of the residual sweat on the gear and either figured it was cool to let fly, or got idea that some other animal had marked its territory on its home turf and let fly-with some return fire. The next time that you get some new gear put it in the same room with the old gear and perform a controlled experiment.

You can believe whatever you want. Yet the willingness to assume that our limited observations of the fossil record are sufficient evidence to dispose of any notion of divine intervention require an equal amount of faith to the belief of intelligent design and an omnipotent creator. Your point seems to be that "magical causes" are not a necessary assumption for explaining our origin. I have no argument with this point, but it's important to acknowledge that even if you believe the fossil record traces our origins back to single cells that existed "3 billion years ago", that doesn't preclude the influence of a cosmic, creative force in the process. Perhaps when we finally understand all of the dimensions of these "physical laws which governed the universe", we will only understand the "mind of God" instead proving God is absent. Please remember that all dating techniques depend on extrapolating an observable mathematical relationship, namely that the rate of change of some isotope is proportional to the quantity of the isotope present in the sample, which leads to a model wherein the quantity of some isotope is an exponential function of time. This is verifiable within the parameters of a very limited range of known dates. To assume the model is correct for billions of years through history is a major leap of faith. Again - two propositions that cannot be proven with absolute certainty are not equally likely to be accurate. You wouldn't accept this line of reasoning in any other sphere, so why do you insist that it's acceptable here? If $10,000 dissapears from your home, and determining what happened to it with absolute certainty proves to be impossible, and the police told you that magical dissapearance was just as likely as theft, would you accept this explanation? Why not? What does your overstatement of the uncertainties associated with dating by radioisotopes have to do with the fundamental questions that I posed, and that you didn't even attempt to answer? Even if the margin of error involved in fixing the age of the earth with radioisotopes was plus-or-minus three billion years, and even if your bizzare contention that the physical laws which govern radioactive decay have changed massively since a conglomeration of matter coalesced into the body that we call Earth had any merit whatsoever, the original questions still stand. To restate: Firstly what, in your mind, are the essential characteristics of life? Secondly, at at which point did the being that you have postulated no longer have to actively manipulate matter in order to create or sustain life? Since matter assembles into atoms, which can combine in definite proportions to form compounds, which can themselves form higher-order structures in the absence of any devine intervention whatsoever, what specific actions were necessary to bridge the gap between these inherent properties of matter and the properties that you assert are the specific domain of life as you've defined it. Finally, having defined what "life" means in concrete terms, specify until what stage in the origin of life it was necessary for the being you posit to physically manipulate matter, and explain how it is that life can continue in the absence of that direct manipulation of matter if such an intervention in the physical universe was a necessary step in the origin of life. If you even attempt seriously think about these questions, much less construct answers that are informed by the state of contemporary scientific knowledge, I think you'll find that the line between "life" and "non-life" is less clear than you've imagined, and the necessity and scope of the magical causation that you're clinging to as an explanatory device in the void created by personal incredulity and incomprehension becomes less and less clear.

The '95 is indeed a fine vintage.

If an event or phenomenon can't be observed directly or reproduced, then we have no recourse but to rank explanations that presuppose nothing other than the operation of physical law upon matter with...magical causes? It'd be interesting to see how you define life, and then go on to specify at which point in the genesis of life the involvement of the creator that you posit begins and ends. Per your definitions/understanding, is a virus alive? How about cell-free expression systems capable of translating RNA into proteins? If the said being's involvment ends at the moment of the big-bang, the moment the physical laws that have governed the universe from that point onwards were established, how does this practically differ from explanations which omit the said creator? If your creator's involvement was more extensive, how far into the genesis of life did it extend? Since elements can unite in definite ratios to form compounds, and the said compounds can form complex structures, and both clearly occur in the absence of any divine intervention whatsoever, we can assume that this being stepped in to physically manipulate matter until which stage in the genesis of life? The fossil record extends back 3 billion years, to the arrival of single-celled organisms. Did this being stop directly manipulating matter once it had established a population of autocatalytic molecules? Archeabacteria? Eubacteria? Eukaryotes? The fossil record extends back three-billion years, to the single-cell stage. At what point in the fossil record did the active manipulation of matter cease and the simple operation of physical law commence to be sole factor the governed the rise of man? At the primate stage? 10,000 years ago? Is this being still engaged in physically manipulating matter, so that, for example, every sub-process involved in the duplication of genetic material in every single cell of every single living being on Earth requires this being's active engagement? If not, and processes which constitute life can occur in the absence of this being's direct involvement now, why, exactly, was this being's direct involvement a necessary requirement for any stage of life in the past?

Nope. Vin starts with a "J"

It's not so much about supporting the UAW, which I'll avoid if at all possible. I think that unionized American workers make poor quality vehicles. I'd never buy a domestic truck for that very reason. This has been the case for at least the past 40+ years, and I don't imagine that this will change anytime soon. Why is this the case? Who knows? Who cares - not me, and evidently, not them. For whatever reason, perhaps it's the jumping-jacks in the blue suits or being ritually shamed in front of their team-members for every error or something, this is not the case for automobiles coming out of Japan. All things being equal, I think that either Japanese workers - unionized or not - or non-unionized American workers are more likely to turn out a quality vehicle. If it's impossible to find a truck that fits the bill, I'll buy something else. The main reason why I bought a Pickup instead of a 4Runner in the first place was that my I wanted to buy a Toyota engine, chassis, drive-train, suspension, clearance, etc with the cheapest possible wrapping around it. Next time I might be able to swing a wrapper with a few more frills, like a couple more doors and an extra row of seats.

Wow, Jay, how do you continually come up with these priceless and informative revelations? You mean we don't have to stick a thermometer into the sun to postulate its core temperature? A stunning concept; secondary...primary...I'm confused already! Were you born gifted, or raised in a utopian commune of genuii? You really need a blog. The world needs to know this stuff. You are your own parody. The only reason I wrote the original point was to refute the claim that the scope of scientific proof is limited to events that are reproducible or observable, or both. This seemed to the central argument that the creationists amongst us were relying upon when attempting to assert that evolution cannot be proven because these preconditions cannot be satisfied. The second point was that even if two propositions cannot be proven with absolute certainty, it's possible to apply tests to each in conjunction with the available evidence and determine which is the more valid of the two. This post was a response to Seahawks et al, and it wasn't clear to me why you responded at all, much less with a needless jibe. It seemed most likely to me that you either misunderstood the post or just skimmed it and went into "auto-retort" mode out of habit. I'm glad that you are well aquainted with these points. After reading through the posts on this topic, it seemed to me that not everyone was familiar with them.

Yes, flouride boy, I did, but thanks. Did you even read what I wrote? If the capacity to make such measurments came along at some point after the theory was proposed, so it'd fit into the general theme of "predictions made by a theory that were subsequently empirically verified." Direct observation of a particular phenomenon is nice, but it's not an essential component of a scientific proof if you can observe, measure, or otherwise verify secondary phenomena that result from whatever it is that you aren't able to verify directly.

Here is an example of a phenomenon predicted by the Theory of Plate Tectonics. 1. Observable Fact: When a magnetic ore is in a molten state and placed in a magnetic field, the magnetic domains within a magnetic field will align with the said field. 2. Observable Fact: The orientation of the Earths magnetic field varies over time. 3. Necessary consequence of observable facts one and two: If molten rock emerges from the sea-floor and solidifies, the magnetic domains within that rock will necessarily be aligned with the Earth's magnetic field. 4. Primary Hypotheses: The earth's continents are not fixed in place, but move over geologic timescales. In some locations the continents move towards one another, in other areas, they move apart. Some areas where continents move apart occur underneath oceans. 5. Test: If continents move apart as the Theory of Plate Tectonics predicts, and molten rock emerges where they do so, then the magnetic domains within the rock that's formed when the rock solidifies will not be constant, but will vary in accordance with shifts in the Earth's magnetic field. This graphic constitutes one of many proofs that the Theory of Plate Tectonics rests upon, and is in no way less forceful or compelling because no one was around to watch the continents move apart and collide. In the same way, one of the Theory of Evolution's predictions is that the more closely related two organisms are, the more precisely their DNA sequences will resemble one another. The idea of molecular phylogeny has been around since long before anyone had identified DNA, much less proposed a molecular mechanism for genetic inheritance. Once both science and technology advanced to the point that it became possible to test this hypothesis, the findings were in perfect accordance with the predictions made by the Theory of Evolution. The fact that there were no immortal observers with ABI 3700 automated sequencers present to analyze sequence data for each new species as it observed doesn't make the proof any less compelling. The real story here isn't absolute proof or observability, it's which side is best able to unite the factual evidence with the most logically compelling explanation. If a murder occurs that no one observes directly, there are those who would argue that it's impossible to know who committed the murder with absolute certainty, therefore all explanations are equally plausible. Others would argue that although no one was actually there to observe the event, and it is by it's very nature non-reproducible, the fact that a given individual's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, the DNA taken from the tissue found underneath the victim's fingernails, the footprints on the rug that match the suspect's shoes, tire-tracks that match the suspects on car on the dirt-driveway, and a series of debit card-transactions that lead from the suspects home to the precise vicinity of the murder on the day the crime occured make the theory that the suspect committed the murder much more likely to be true than the theory that invisible transexual gnomes with magical powers emerged from the light-sockets and planted the evidence to frame the suspect, or any of the infinity of other explanations that one could possibly conjure up to explain what happened. Is it possible to say with absolute certainty that the suspect committed the crime? No, but it's the most consistent with both the evidence, rationality, and logic, so it's incumbent upon the jurors to make their decision based upon the most probable, logically defensible explanation, despite the fact that none of them was present at the scene of the crime to observe the event. The same rules apply in science.

Aristarchus was a actually punk band that conjoined the terms "Aristocracy, Anarchy, and the "U.S." into a single name.

What in your mind distinguishes garden-variety faith from blind-faith?

Is this the oxymoronic statement thread? Here's a few: "Promiscuity is the new chastity." "Starvation is the new gluttony." "Corruption is the new integrity."

Hey Kevin: Thanks for taking the time to convert the footage and post it for everyone.