All categories - 15 June 2007

I know that I had to go at "folder settings" at the configuration screen, but the setting to view the extensions of files isn't there with Vista.. Where do I edit it?

2007-06-15 07:21:40 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Software

without paying $250?

2007-06-15 07:21:37 · 2 answers · asked by Eric 1 in Rock and Pop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_military_spending_2005.svg

2007-06-15 07:21:28 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

2007-06-15 07:21:23 · 10 answers · asked by lily girl 1 in Philosophy

I just caught a lady I kinda like in basketball. And even though I think she's pretty cool, I just don't think this should be tolerated.

2007-06-15 07:21:13 · 13 answers · asked by Meatball ;) 3 in Polls & Surveys

is it warmer now? rain more? hows it changed your town/city/country? and what do you do to help slow it down?

2007-06-15 07:21:06 · 8 answers · asked by joshua 2 in Global Warming

ok ive been with this guy for 6 months now the only problem is our religions his jehovah witness and im a christian ive already explained to him that i will never change my faith for no one as this is what i believe in and he has also made the same thing clear about his religion but the major problem is we really like eachother and have already started looking at places to move into should i end it now before things go further or should i continue the relationship any help would be appriciated

2007-06-15 07:21:02 · 9 answers · asked by likkle 3 in Singles & Dating

Even when we make it in the playoffs we are predicted to be swept or lose in 5 (Cavs) which was predicted in Detroit, but even when we are having a great season so far, and leading in the Central, ( Indians) every one is acting like Detroit is ahead of us. I guess we just can't get any respect, but we don't care because we still have the best fans in the country and we will win the Central and go far in the playoffs. and by the way i expect almost everybody to disagree with this, the only people the will agree are Cleveland fans, every one else won't give us the time of day.

2007-06-15 07:21:02 · 21 answers · asked by petedapenguin 1 in Baseball

people say it means something backwards? what does it mean?

2007-06-15 07:20:41 · 4 answers · asked by Yoko Ono 1 in Other - Entertainment

his poop when I was cleaning the yard before I mowed, and yesterday I found my 6 year old son's sock in his poop!!! What can I do to make him stop eating things like this? I buy him things to chew on, that are safe for him, but he picks up anything and puts it in his mouth. I know this is VERY dangerous for him, which is why I am asking advice on how to get him to stop. Thanks.

2007-06-15 07:20:37 · 10 answers · asked by Corona 5 in Dogs

im blonde.how bout you?

2007-06-15 07:20:33 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

Everytime I hear about someone having a "breech" baby these days, they are all getting scheduled for inductions. However, my boyfriend's mother delivered both of her sons (my boyfriend and his brother) breech. In fact, my boyfriend was frank breech when he came out (That's butt first and then feet, not feet first). Why are they insisting these days that all breech babies must come out by c-section and back a few years ago, they just delivered them and they turned out fine?

2007-06-15 07:20:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pregnancy

Leave a comment if ur as crazy about westlife espically Nicky and Georgina as I am!!!

2007-06-15 07:20:24 · 15 answers · asked by becciogorman 2 in Baby Names

Am I being brain washed by Satan?

2007-06-15 07:20:18 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

about "happy endings" is she referring to reading me a book with a Happy ending?

2007-06-15 07:20:17 · 15 answers · asked by bust15nutz 3 in Singles & Dating

How do i know if I'm getting a good deal or not or how much one generally costs?

2007-06-15 07:20:12 · 7 answers · asked by channy 2 in Maintenance & Repairs

2007-06-15 07:20:10 · 17 answers · asked by ♥Pretty♥ ♥Kitty♥ 7 in Polls & Surveys

its my bread truck, looks like a fedex and ups truck (grumman-olsan body).

2007-06-15 07:20:00 · 2 answers · asked by oyepossum 1 in Maintenance & Repairs

Where do you think we go when we die? Will we see are love ones that had passed away before us?

2007-06-15 07:19:57 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

I have come back to wipe out the earth and start society over. Why is it such a mess?? You all have ruined the earth with your sex, drugs and crime. Now is the time! Prepare yourselves. Who wants to be my first victim??? Bring on the plagues!!

2007-06-15 07:19:55 · 8 answers · asked by Mr. Luva Luva 4 in Religion & Spirituality

I am currently a natural 36C but I am considering getting breast implants. I would like to be a Large D or DD. I am 5 6" and weigh about 145lb, I am trying to get down to 125-130lb though Does anyone have experience with getting breast implants, even if they were not small to begin with?

Thanks!

2007-06-15 07:19:53 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Skin & Body

I'm gonna take my dads car 'round the clubs and streets tonight. Wanna come?

2007-06-15 07:18:59 · 51 answers · asked by Wolf guy lupine 5 in Polls & Surveys

I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train
By David Evans
5/28/2007

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.
In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.
2. Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
3. Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
4. There were no other credible causes of global warming.
This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
2. Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3. The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4. There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.
The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!
Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.
But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?
None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.
Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.
The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.
I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.
I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.
Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.
Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.
Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.
________________________________________
David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak

2007-06-15 07:18:59 · 5 answers · asked by MIkE ALEGRIA 1 in Other - News & Events

2007-06-15 07:18:55 · 6 answers · asked by xbabyphatx 1 in Weather

i purchased a acer laptop from comet in february the pin inside the charging hole has snapped off. i contacted comet they told me to contact acer. i did they told me i would need to send forty nine pounds before they could give me a cfollection date to repair my laptop. surley comet are responsible for the faulty goods not the manafacturer.

2007-06-15 07:18:48 · 5 answers · asked by ynotell 1 in Laptops & Notebooks

I hear WalMart is looking for a new greater.

2007-06-15 07:18:43 · 25 answers · asked by BC 2 in Politics

2007-06-15 07:18:42 · 6 answers · asked by Hot Emo Chick 2 in Cycling

2007-06-15 07:18:33 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

I bet this is pretty common question between husbands and wives. I say this because men tend to frequent the doctor less than women. (I am a male and I do not frequent it unless I have to.)

My question is about our 3 year old. The doctor claims she needs a checkup in two weeks, and that she needs one every three months. She was just at the doctor a couple weeks ago for a post scarlett-fever checkup, and she was fine. She is a healthy girl. They weight and measure her each time she goes.

I think this "recommended check-up" is just to make money. My wife says I'm not a doctor, so how do I know. I am a human and have common sense. I dont remember going to the doctor that often as a kid, and dont feel she needs a check up right now.

Does she need it? How often do you take your kids?

2007-06-15 07:18:32 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Toddler & Preschooler