Fri, Apr 18, 2014, 12:24 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Good Friday


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Altria Group Inc. Message Board

carsonogenik 164 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 9, 2014 7:06 PM Member since: Dec 30, 2001
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • carsonogenik by carsonogenik Feb 28, 2014 7:01 PM Flag

    As per the NSIDC (National Snow & Ice Data Center)
    a) ASIE metric describes the area (sq km * 1million) of ocean with at least 15% sea ice
    b) ASIE is measured daily with final results reported monthly and compared year over year. (The set I am looking at represents the Nov-March interval)
    c) The ASIE baseline, or benchmark, represents an average of values taken from 1981-2010
    d) For all years following 2010, monthly ASIE values fall below the benchmark, but within 2 standard deviations
    e) Peak ASIE historically occurs between Feb (last 2 weeks) and March (first 2 weeks).
    January Benchmark: 14.5m sq km
    Jan 2010: 13.81
    Jan 2011: 13.60
    Jan 2012: 13.83
    Jan 2013: 13.78
    Jan 2014: 13.73

    Since Jan 1980, rate of decrease in ASIE is approx 3.2%/decade (+/- 0.5%).

    "Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below average during January, remaining just within two standard deviations of the long-term average. The average extent for January was 13.73 million square kilometers (5.30 million square miles). This is 800,000 square kilometers (309,000 square miles) less than the 1981 to 2010 average, and 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the previous record low for the month of January set in 2011. Sea ice extent remains below average in the Barents Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Bering Sea. While recent winters have seen more extensive sea ice in the Bering Sea, this is the first January since 2005 for which below average conditions have been observed there. Extent is close to average in Baffin Bay, the Labrador Sea, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence."

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 28, 2014 5:43 PM Flag

    In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” by around 2013

    a) I doubt Gore was 'hysterical."
    b) The article you are misquoting actually reads: "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
    Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years."

    Evidently you don't understand the difference between "could" and "would." This is but one problem among US conservadroids (but its a biggie): they cannot help but misrepresent data. Even when they cite an article that anyone can look up, they will intentionally distort the language. They cannot ever, ever be trusted to give an honest or accurate account.

  • carsonogenik by carsonogenik Feb 24, 2014 10:45 PM Flag

    In May 2010, Ramis contracted an infection that resulted in complications from autoimmune inflammatory vasculitis. He lost the ability to walk, but after relearning to do so, he suffered a relapse of the disease in late 2011. On February 24, 2014, Ramis died at his Chicago home from complications arising from vasculitis. He was 69 years old.

    Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, Heavy Metal

  • Reply to

    Stupidest person of the year: Julie Boonstra

    by al.gore27 Feb 24, 2014 7:07 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 24, 2014 9:26 PM Flag

    It is very ironic that you liberals are helping out poor people like her, stinky, happyloser and Diaper Man.

    It actually isn't ironic at all: even stupid people deserve affordable health care.

    I don't agree that Boonstra "deserves to die of cancer." On the other hand, she and her family are going to have to live with the fact that she's been publicly outed as an ignorant, idiotic Koch Brothers tool.
    Even if she retracts everything and apologizes to Gary Peters, she can't unsay what she said.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 24, 2014 8:50 PM Flag

    ANSWER: Pure semantics: the term "climate change" carries less politically-charged meaning than "global warming." Although both are objectively true, "global warming" is more accurate, and is thus the better term.

    "Climate change" refers to the degree of change applied a set of long-term weather patterns specific to a localized, geographic region.

    "Global warming" on the other hand refers to the observed and uncontested fact that the mean temperature of the planet's atmosphere has increased over the past 250 years.

    Amusingly, a Koch-funded study found that temperature increased by 2.5°F (on land) since 1773.

    NASA (Jan 2014):
    The average temperature in 2013 was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 degrees Celsius), which is 1.1 °F (0.6 °C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) since 1880, according to the new analysis. Exact rankings for individual years are sensitive to data inputs and analysis methods.

    IPCC (Jan 2014)
    Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (note: IPCC conclusions are based on multiple studies).

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 24, 2014 5:30 PM Flag

    Now that is an easy one we are smarter and richer than the Dems.

    So you are claiming that Republicans are the party of the wealthy.

    However, in point of fact, every study that measures "smarts" between Republicans and Democrats has concluded that Democrats are smarter.

    Psychology Today
    "(11/4/2013) In both the Senate and House, Democrats were significantly smarter than Republicans when looking at just the top 1%, and more likely to attend an “elite school.” Specifically Harvard. Among Democrats, 15.1% of Senators and 12.4% of House members attended Harvard. Among Republicans these percentages were 8.9% and 1.3%, respectively."

    Extending the sets to conservatives v liberals, liberals are smarter.

    "(2/26/2010) So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant."

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 24, 2014 5:09 PM Flag

    Our so-called "news" media bears most of the blame; every topic that comes up is portrayed as having two equally valid sides, meaning anything is worthy of "debate," no matter how patently ridiculous one viewpoint is. Most of this happens at the cable news level. With a few exceptions, print media is a much better format for rigorous analysis, but cable news is essentially worthless: it has devolved into idiotic panel discussions. I don't see an easy fix for this; the problem appears to be at the structural level, where every channel is vying for ratings. Information doesn't sell that well...but drama does. Increasingly, news outlets have become cogs in much larger media/business empires: the WSJ op-ed pages have always been a joke, but since Murdoch bought the paper it has truly become bottom-shelf.

    In addition, most Americans lack basic reasoning skills. I began to attempt to outline this problem a few days ago with a post about basic logic, focusing on the difference between deductive & inductive forms of reasoning. Deductive arguments, the most basic and abstract form of reasoning, are either valid or invalid; the conclusion MUST directly follow from the stated premises, even when the premises are not true. (If true, they are either 100% true or 0% true; there is no "in between" truth value) A deductive argument takes one of four types:
    a) valid and true
    b) valid and untrue
    c) invalid and true
    d) invalid and untrue

    Inductive arguments on the other hand are a different animal entirely; conclusions necessarily rely on factually true assumptions/observations. Where deductive logic reasons from the general to the particular, inductive logic reasons from the particular to the general (and are thus fact- or value-dependent). Owing to its structure, arguments based on inductive reasoning can thus never be 100% true. However, deductively valid arguments (statistics) can be employed to reduce error rates, thereby increasing truth value.

  • Reply to

    Basic Logic

    by carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 8:41 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 10:56 PM Flag

    "Ahhhhhh yes, but what does Mother Nature say?"

    Mother Nature doesn't care about humanity's economics or politics.

    "Many of us believe this is just a liberal gambit to gain control of a major segment of the economy."

    Right: because your rightwingnut tribal belief structure forestalls any capacity to absorb empirical data that you perceive as contra-indicating service to conservative/business/capital/business industry.
    The CIA, the FBI and the NSA (none of which can be labelled "liberal") have been modeling global warming/climate change scenarios for the past couple of decades. Why? Because they all forecast decreasing resources - chief of among being potable water.

    "So, can you just answer one question? Why the change from Global Warming to Climate Change?"

    Global Warming refers to exactly the same thing as [Global] Climate Change. To answer your question: the difference is rhetorical & political, not logical. Purely a semantic issue.

    "From the recent weather patterns, it is not a politically correct moniker, it is changed to, Climate Change."

    I seriously doubt weather patterns care about political labels.

  • Reply to

    Sleazebag Exxon CEO changes his tune on fracking

    by al.gore27 Feb 21, 2014 7:38 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 9:49 PM Flag

    Amusingly, Forbes cited Tillerson as one of the top 50 most influential billionaires in 2011, yet couldn't provide a net worth estimate.

    Total compensation (2012): $40.2M+
    XON Stock Ownership (2013): 2,111,333 shares (approx $200 million)

    via Wikipedia
    "Tillerson re-established his position during a shareholder meeting on May 28, 2008. The Rockefeller family sponsored a non-binding resolution to separate the CEO and chairman positions that Tillerson holds in order to maintain a system of checks and balances. The Rockefeller family also wanted Exxon Mobil to invest more in alternative energy. The resolution did not obtain the necessary majority and Tillerson held on to both job titles."

    "In 2009, Exxon Mobil acquired XTO Energy, a major natural gas producer, for $31 billion in stock. Some writers have stated that "Tillerson’s legacy rides on the XTO Deal."[10]

    "In 2011 Tillerson signed an agreement with Russia, for drilling in the Arctic, that could be valued up to $300 billion.[11]"

    [11] refers to a great UK Telegraph article with pix of Tillerson gladhanding Stalin wannabe Putin.

    Absent further information, I can only presume the majority of Mr Tillerson's wealth is kept offshore and away from prying eyes.

  • carsonogenik by carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 8:41 PM Flag

    First, the requisite vocabulary:

    premise; conclusion; deduction; induction; validity

    Let's begin with deduction, the simplest form of logic:

    premise1: n 0
    premise2: n+1 n
    Conclusion: n+1 0

    The logical conclusion is irrefutable.
    What is interesting about deductive-based reasoning is that all premises need to be 100% true; otherwise the result is a paradox. As a corollary, any deductive argument is necessarily either 100% true or not; there is no middle ground.

    On the other hand, inductive arguments are based on summary case evidence. By its very nature, inductive logic cannot ever prove anything with 100% certainty. Which explains the following weasel/conservative reasoning that has been adopted by conservatives and intellectual cowards in the "news" media:

    premise1: 99.99% scientists agree that global warming exists
    premise2: 99.95% scientists agree that human industry is the cause of global warming
    Conclusion: still room for doubt! both sides should have equal weight!

  • Reply to

    Ruh-roh for the Fat Boy

    by al.gore27 Feb 21, 2014 4:47 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 6:02 PM Flag

    Even if Fatso manages to dodge indictment or prosecution, his career in public service (haha) is over. Assuming he isn't classy enough to hang himself or stroke out, Faux News can always use another "political consultant." And/or write a book delineating himself as a tragic hero, brought down by the corrupt Obama/Marx culture typified by the lamestream media.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 4:59 PM Flag

    First of all, crazyrodent's post is a copy&paste job from a Breitbart article.

    What's more interesting is the fact that nobody is remarking that despite self-promoting itself as the global leader in FREEDOM, the US has always ranked pretty lousy in this annual study (World Press Freedom Index).
    Please note that years cited refer to the year of published findings, not the actual year measured - there is a lag of 1 year; i.e. 2014 reflects 2013 data, etc.

    2014: 46
    2013: 32
    2012: 47
    2011: (for unknown reasons, the report released in 2012 aggregates results from 2011 and 2012)
    2010: 20
    2009: 20
    2008: 36
    2007: 48
    2006: 53
    2005: 44
    2004: 22
    2003: 31
    2002: 17

    "The 2014 World Press Freedom Index spotlights the negative impact of conflicts on freedom of information and its protagonists. The ranking of some countries has also been affected by a tendency to interpret national security needs in an overly broad and abusive manner to the detriment of the right to inform and be informed. This trend constitutes a growing threat worldwide and is even endangering freedom of information in countries regarded as democracies. Finland tops the index for the fourth year running, closely followed by Netherlands and Norway, like last year. At the other end of the index, the last three positions are again held by Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea, three countries where freedom of information is non-existent. "

    I would be among the first to criticize the Obama administration for its lousy policies toward the press. They have a bad record. Obama's campaign promises of greater transparency in government are at this point an absurd joke, especially given what we now know (thanks to Edward Snowden) about the NSA's blantantly unconstitutional data-gathering policies & procedures. But what is also worth noting is that these policies were implemented under Dumbya and greenlighted by a Republican Congress.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 21, 2014 2:44 PM Flag

    ...a 3rd grade education

    You talking about overall quality or last completed grade?

    learn to spell,

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 19, 2014 10:28 PM Flag

    As to changing depends, if I used them I would not want a gay guy
    Anywhere near them.

    You flatter yourself: I seriously doubt any self-respecting gay guy would be caught dead within a mile of you or your diapers.

    Incidentally, this is a common fear among homophobes:
    "OMG I am so sexy that gay men couldn't help but want me!"

    Adding just one level of your delusional worldview to the others...

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 19, 2014 10:13 PM Flag

    After retiring in the late 1987, Lyons has gone full wingnut. Not to mention pimping himself.

    LION Associates, founded in 1988, is an international consulting firm with unique global experience dealing with commercial and goverment policies and programs. Its efforts are primarily directed towards anti-terrorism, security services, defense procurement, foreign policy and security affairs, international marketing and trade/project development.

    LION Associates is headed by Admiral James "Ace" Lyons, Jr. USN (ret), former four star admiral, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and the Father of the Navy Seal Red Cell Program. Staffed by former Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine, government agency and private sector specialist, Lion Associates' personnel serve on advisory boards of leading national laboratories and agencies such as the DIA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the DTRA. The permanent staff is augmented by a highly-qualified advisory board and a select network of associates and strategic alliance partners functioning as a cohesive, integrated team that capitalizes on the complementary skills and extensive depth of resources to mobilize for and manage seamless mission.

    "A bookshelf of paper will not deter the terrorist"
    Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. USN (ret)

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 19, 2014 9:02 PM Flag

    From the WSJ blog:

    McNider and Christy: Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change
    It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the 'consensus' and said the Earth was round.

    In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

    But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

    First, the Flat Earth Society still exists. Look it up.
    Second, science, and particularly the technology & methodology used to obtain and measure data, has progressed a tad or two since "ancient times."
    Third, to qualify the consensus regarding climate change as "so-called" is ridiculous. It's beyond 99.99% as confirmed by accredited scientific studies in peer-reviewed publications.

    Anyone here familiar with six sigma as a business-operative term? It is basically an oversimplified statistical term describing the success rate of n-number of outputs/operations/cases.
    1 sigma (σ) describes a standard deviation of any sample size (n) as being the square root of the mean/average value of whatever sample size being tested.

    For n=1000000
    1σ=1 standard deviation, or approx 690.000/million. (31% "success" rate)
    2σ=2 standard deviations - approx 309,000/million (69%)
    3σ= ...(93.9%)

    There is no actual scientific debate; merely a political debate.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 19, 2014 7:50 PM Flag

    John Kerry Mocks Those Who Deny Climate Change

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday called climate change perhaps the world's "most fearsome" destructive weapon and mocked those who deny its existence or question its causes, comparing them to people who insist the Earth is flat.

    In a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials, Kerry tore into climate change skeptics. He accused them of using shoddy science and scientists to delay steps needed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the risk of imperiling the planet.

    A day earlier, the U.S. and China announced an agreement to cooperate more closely on combating climate change. American officials hope that will help encourage others, including developing countries like Indonesia and India, to follow suit.

    China and the United States are the biggest sources of emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that are said to cause the atmosphere to trap solar heat and alter the climate. Some scientists say such changes are leading to drought, wildfires, rising sea levels, melting polar ice, plant and animal extinctions and other extreme conditions.

    Lack of evidence?? I don't think so. No matter how many million$ the Brothers Koch toss into the mix, the deniers are increasingly shewn as pathetic morons, if not outright lunatics and/or liars.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 19, 2014 7:32 PM Flag

    Ah, but you declared
    "She [Hillary Clinton] and Obama had said that Al-Qaeda had been defeated."

    A demonstrably false statement, pathetic liar.

    Apparently car washing is not in your future (you lack the academic credentials); however, have you considered a career in washing dishes?

  • Reply to

    Ed Mezvinsky

    by andimsupposedtobecrazy Feb 19, 2014 6:24 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Feb 19, 2014 7:24 PM Flag

    "He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a #$%$ and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached."

    Nixon was all of those things. Mezvinsky was hardly "outspoken" in the way you imply: most Americans agreed with his statements.

    "He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years."

    So what? Mezvinsky was under investigation by President Clinton's DOJ for years, culminating in his eventual indictment and prosecution.

    "After serving less than five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008 and remains on federal probation."

    Wrong again; Mezvinsky's federal probation expired in 2011.

    "About now you are saying, “So what!”
    Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky.
    That’s right; Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton's father-in law.
    Now Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5 million dollar NYC apartment."

    Again, so what? Do you believe Marc Mezvinksy should be held accountable for his father's sins?? How very old school (Christian/Muslim/Klingon) of you.

    Basically you are quoting from a Freerepublic article...
    Do You Know This Guy?
    Posted on 2/14/2014 5:43:34 PM by Windflier

    ...which itself describes nothing more or less than a peurile attempt at attacking Hillary Clinton's 2016 bid for the White House.

38.45+0.09(+0.23%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Weibo Corporation
NasdaqGSThu, Apr 17, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
SandRidge Energy, Inc.
NYSEThu, Apr 17, 2014 4:01 PM EDT