Error: ORA-00018 Maximum number of sessions exceeded

nolaegghead · December 2016

SGH said:

nolaegghead said:

Mensa

That's a mighty "gay" sounding word there.

I think you might be thinking of "NAMBLA".

HeavyG · December 2016

pgprescott said:

Hey, what is that ideal temp for the earth, or the inhabitants? Which ever you would like to answer. What if it's 10 degrees warmer and that would benefit the most area of the earth? How does one determine that? How did that big hole in the ozone go away? Cmon guys! Little help here, please!

You're just trolling us now aren't you?

Obviously Nature has demonstrated that life can be found and thrive in almost every spot on the planet where temps can range from well below zero °F to places where temps exceed a hundred °F. In that sense there is no ideal temp. From a strictly human perspective tho most of us prefer something more moderate. I prefer 70°F myself.

Change over time. That is the crux of the problem.

Too much change over too short a time means billions of humans can't simply pick up and rebuild their cities and other infrastructure in different/better locations. Too expensive, too chaotic, too ripe for conflict. Too many changes in food resources/availability. Too many changes in availability of fresh potable water. Etc., etc., etc. You know..."gobbley goop".

pgprescott · December 2016

nolaegghead said:

All you Mensa members should start a thread about junk science and formulate your theorem for submission to the scientific community. Everyone will get an "atta-boy" from each other!

I've know many brilliant individuals, none of them have ever felt the need to continually brag about how they are brilliant. Those who want to brag or insinuate they are Mensa members must have serious short comings. Just saying.

pgprescott · December 2016

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Hey, what is that ideal temp for the earth, or the inhabitants? Which ever you would like to answer. What if it's 10 degrees warmer and that would benefit the most area of the earth? How does one determine that? How did that big hole in the ozone go away? Cmon guys! Little help here, please!

You're just trolling us now aren't you?

Obviously Nature has demonstrated that life can be found and thrive in almost every spot on the planet where temps can range from well below zero °F to places where temps exceed a hundred °F. In that sense there is no ideal temp. From a strictly human perspective tho most of us prefer something more moderate. I prefer 70°F myself.

Change over time. That is the crux of the problem.

Too much change over too short a time means billions of humans can't simply pick up and rebuild their cities and other infrastructure in different/better locations. Too expensive, too chaotic, too ripe for conflict. Too many changes in food resources/availability. Too many changes in availability of fresh potable water. Etc., etc., etc. You know..."gobbley goop".

Hey now, these are damn pressing questions that need, no demand, answers! I can't have all the east coast folks swallowed up by a magical tsunami. West coast maybe, but not east coast. If we can identify the ideal temperature then we can implement the destructive programs to get there. Without a legitimate target, we are hopelessly adrift.

JohnInCarolina · December 2016

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Hey, what is that ideal temp for the earth, or the inhabitants? Which ever you would like to answer. What if it's 10 degrees warmer and that would benefit the most area of the earth? How does one determine that? How did that big hole in the ozone go away? Cmon guys! Little help here, please!

You're just trolling us now aren't you?

Obviously Nature has demonstrated that life can be found and thrive in almost every spot on the planet where temps can range from well below zero °F to places where temps exceed a hundred °F. In that sense there is no ideal temp. From a strictly human perspective tho most of us prefer something more moderate. I prefer 70°F myself.

Change over time. That is the crux of the problem.

Too much change over too short a time means billions of humans can't simply pick up and rebuild their cities and other infrastructure in different/better locations. Too expensive, too chaotic, too ripe for conflict. Too many changes in food resources/availability. Too many changes in availability of fresh potable water. Etc., etc., etc. You know..."gobbley goop".

Hey now, these are damn pressing questions that need, no demand, answers! I can't have all the east coast folks swallowed up by a magical tsunami. West coast maybe, but not east coast. If we can identify the ideal temperature then we can implement the destructive programs to get there. Without a legitimate target, we are hopelessly adrift.

Do you need your target mean temperature to within a few degrees, or less? To within a tenth of a degree perhaps? One one hundredth?

Do we need to maintain it throughout the year? Or are fluctuations permitted? How large can they be?

SemolinaPilchard · December 2016

pgprescott said:

I've know many brilliant individuals, none of them have ever felt the need to continually brag about how they are brilliant. Those who want to brag or insinuate they are Mensa members must have serious short comings. Just saying.

That reminds of a visit to the mechanic shop I had one day. The owner and I were looking under the hood of my car. Some guy that worked for him comes walking up, looks at the engine and says "man, that engine is dirty!!" The owner gives him a what in the hell are you doing look. Now the motor was not clean, it had never been cleaned. But it did not have an oil leak, or had a spill during an oil change. I turn to the doofus and asked "what in the hell is wrong with you, what if someone made fun of what you drive?" He laughed, pointed at a 4 wheel drive with giant tires and said "you can't." I said "I can't? Judging by the size of the tires I can tell that you are compensating for something, my guess is a tiny little penis." The owner busted out laughing, and the guy walked off.

onedbguru · December 2016

nolaegghead said:

All you Mensa members should start a thread about junk science and formulate your theorem for submission to the scientific community. Everyone will get an "atta-boy" from each other!

You must be confused. Liberals are the ones giving out "participation" trophies. It is the conservatives that tell the truth like "you suck at playing <insert sport here>". And your idea couldn't be any worse than coming up with a conclusion and then trying to make the data fit... Climate Change is PURELY a political position to appease the "green" people.

pgprescott · December 2016

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Hey, what is that ideal temp for the earth, or the inhabitants? Which ever you would like to answer. What if it's 10 degrees warmer and that would benefit the most area of the earth? How does one determine that? How did that big hole in the ozone go away? Cmon guys! Little help here, please!

You're just trolling us now aren't you?

Obviously Nature has demonstrated that life can be found and thrive in almost every spot on the planet where temps can range from well below zero °F to places where temps exceed a hundred °F. In that sense there is no ideal temp. From a strictly human perspective tho most of us prefer something more moderate. I prefer 70°F myself.

Change over time. That is the crux of the problem.

Too much change over too short a time means billions of humans can't simply pick up and rebuild their cities and other infrastructure in different/better locations. Too expensive, too chaotic, too ripe for conflict. Too many changes in food resources/availability. Too many changes in availability of fresh potable water. Etc., etc., etc. You know..."gobbley goop".

Hey now, these are damn pressing questions that need, no demand, answers! I can't have all the east coast folks swallowed up by a magical tsunami. West coast maybe, but not east coast. If we can identify the ideal temperature then we can implement the destructive programs to get there. Without a legitimate target, we are hopelessly adrift.

Do you need your target mean temperature to within a few degrees, or less? To within a tenth of a degree perhaps? One one hundredth?

Do we need to maintain it throughout the year? Or are fluctuations permitted? How large can they be?

You can just use the same criteria used in the climate change temperature studies. I believe they claim to be accurate to within a fraction of a degree, correct? They also claim to measure the entire earth for the entire year, correct?

As as far as fluctuations are concerned, isn't that resolved by providing a mean? So no

JohnInCarolina · December 2016

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Hey, what is that ideal temp for the earth, or the inhabitants? Which ever you would like to answer. What if it's 10 degrees warmer and that would benefit the most area of the earth? How does one determine that? How did that big hole in the ozone go away? Cmon guys! Little help here, please!

You're just trolling us now aren't you?

Obviously Nature has demonstrated that life can be found and thrive in almost every spot on the planet where temps can range from well below zero °F to places where temps exceed a hundred °F. In that sense there is no ideal temp. From a strictly human perspective tho most of us prefer something more moderate. I prefer 70°F myself.

Change over time. That is the crux of the problem.

Too much change over too short a time means billions of humans can't simply pick up and rebuild their cities and other infrastructure in different/better locations. Too expensive, too chaotic, too ripe for conflict. Too many changes in food resources/availability. Too many changes in availability of fresh potable water. Etc., etc., etc. You know..."gobbley goop".

Hey now, these are damn pressing questions that need, no demand, answers! I can't have all the east coast folks swallowed up by a magical tsunami. West coast maybe, but not east coast. If we can identify the ideal temperature then we can implement the destructive programs to get there. Without a legitimate target, we are hopelessly adrift.

Do you need your target mean temperature to within a few degrees, or less? To within a tenth of a degree perhaps? One one hundredth?

Do we need to maintain it throughout the year? Or are fluctuations permitted? How large can they be?

You can just use the same criteria used in the climate change temperature studies. I believe they claim to be accurate to within a fraction of a degree, correct? They also claim to measure the entire earth for the entire year, correct?

As as far as fluctuations are concerned, isn't that resolved by providing a mean? So no

LOL

Error: ORA-00018 Maximum number of sessions exceeded

Comments

Categories