Slashdot Mirror

Archiving suggests write-only, but this paper shows that the technology can be used for rewritable storage as well.

I hope it's not write-only - I'd like to be able to read it. Write-once would be acceptable for archiving.

Archiving suggests write-only, but this paper shows that the technology can be used for rewritable storage as well.

And if that were the case, there would be documented accidents.

Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes: There are. Thousands of them. Educate yourself.

* That's the most charitable explanation I can muster for your (1) playing dumb that speeding cars hurting/killing pedestrians are a significant problem, and (2) presenting a generic Wikipedia cite as "peer-reviewed literature." But on the other hand, after reading one of your other comments in this thread -- "I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding." -- the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.

Even the early academic studies (PDF warning) of the effectiveness of pair programming found that you didn't quite get as much out of a pair team as two individuals working independently. However the code quality is generally a lot better in terms of correctness or readability.

If you have a few individuals who are new to an organization or becoming acclimated to a new project they've not worked on previously, pairing can make some sense. On the other hand if you've got a rock-star developer that's head-and-shoulders above the rest, it's probably not worthwhile to pair them with another person.

Citation on the mines causing radioactive contamination?

Ask and ye shall receive. http://www.nti.org/analysis/ar...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/...

http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/tex...

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercp...

http://thestarphoenix.com/busi...

http://masecoalition.org/navaj...

http://worstpolluted.org/proje...

http://technology.infomine.com...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

http://forgottennavajopeople.o...

http://www.sric.org/uranium/do...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/0...

http://thestarphoenix.com/busi...

if you haven't heard much about the "stellarator", the twisted design is actually a resulting design from an evolutionary algorithm.

robotic evolution will happen quickly.

What do you mean "you were using"? Gravitational potential energy at Earth at sea level is 9,81 * ChangeInAltitude * mass. 35,5 m/s * 9,81 * 20000 = 7MJ/s = 7MW. If you "were using" 2,4MW then you were only climbing at 12,2m/s meaning your entire trip takes 41 days - over a month. Which means that your elevator has laughably worthless throughput. And 20k kg climber requires a massive elevator massing millions of tonnes *with* unobtanium. So you're proposing to launch millions of tonnes of unobtanium to GEO in order to send a fraction of 20tonnes up once every 41 days? Good luck with that.

You could expect 60% efficiency

That's exceedingly optimistic even for monochromatic light (which I see we're back to discussing). Have you ever priced the sort of Spectrolab cells you're proposing here? And anyway the highest monochromatic conversion rate ever recorded - lab scale - was 53%.

Remember that PV efficiency goes up as the light gets brighter

Only when you can keep the cells cooled to the same ambient temperature (and it's only a relatively small gain). How exactly do you propose to ditch megawatts of waste heat up there? Heat is a killer to solar cell efficiency. And several megawatts shining on a relatively small area is otherwise known as "vaporizing it".

No comments about the 0,1%-ish efficiency of the sorts of lasers that actually have the coherency and power to beam over such distances, I see. Even over the distances of your "in-orbit" lasers, of which apparently you want there to be hundreds of thousands if you want to ensure that there's one close to the tower at all altitudes at all points in time. Hundreds of thousands of multi-megawatt lasers each consuming a gigawatt or so of power. In order to launch a fraction of 20 tonnes to GEO once every 41 days. Great strategy.

Economically the construction cost will be huge, but once you have one you can build more relatively cheaply because it costs very little to get mass into orbit.

There is nothing "cheap" about what you're proposing. Your capital costs are nonsensically high, and you have to pay interest on capital costs if you want to live in the real world, and interest accrues interest. You will never, ever reach an economically valid argument for it. And for what gain? If you're turning $0,08/kWh industrial-rate grid electricity into climbing power at 0,05% efficiency then you're paying $160/kg to get to orbit, several times the price to orbit of what's possible with a rocket if it can be made reusable with minimal turnaround costs between flights (as mentioned earlier, the Shuttle's propellant cost to orbit was only $80/kg, most of that in the SRBs, which aren't the cheapest of propellants). And of course it's not even close to a Lofstrom loop, which can be made without unobtanium and deliver payloads at an energy cost to orbit of about $1,60/kg, with present tech.

Speed isn't a huge problem if your cable can support multiple climbers.

So you want to make your cable even bigger, heavier, and more expensive. How many times more expensive do you want to make it? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times? Why not just say that your cable is going to be the mass of the moon's worth of unobtanium while you're at it?

And again, we're only talking about the most basic of problems with space elevators here, let alone actually getting into the countless engineering problems, some of which have no known solutions, and none of which you really have a mass safety margin to properly address. The resonance issues are some of my favorite ones: from the climbers, from the atmosphere, from the sun and from the moon. You have a giant cable which has basically zero ability to damp itself, and no mass leeway to install any sort of damping system of the sort

From the perspective of a space elevator, it's not. Read this paper linked from the article. There's no talk of space elevators, that's just their way to entice the reader into listening to them.

That is to say, the space elevator mention is just clickbait.

As the paper notes, "experimentally measured tensile Young's modulus for SWNTs ranges from 320 GPa to 1.47 TPa with the breaking strengths ranging from 13 to 52 GPa". A material with the density of SWNTs is generally considered to need at least 100-120 GPa irreversible yield strength (less than breaking strength) to make a "practical" elevator (although if you read those proposals it's hard to come across with any conclusion other than that they're being way too optimistic even with those numbers). Note: 13-52 GPa for individual tubes. Ropes of multiple tubes are 1-2 orders of magnitude weaker.

So what about these diamond nanothreads?

The yield strength experienced more than 25% reduction (from ~ 75 GPa to ~ 56 GPa) for the DNT-14 when the sample length increases from ~ 13 nm to 26 nm. Afterward, it fluctuates around 56 GPa. Unlike the yield strain, the yield strength for all considered DNTs saturates to a similar value (around 56 GPa) and exhibits a relation irrelevant with the constituent units for the investigated length scope (fro ~13 - 92 nm)

  Their data is pretty consistent, with graphs showing a clear dropoff and stabilization around 56 GPa. Obviously nm-sized fibers are pretty worthless for the purposes of an elevator, there'd be way too little Van der Walls holding them together into a rope.

Now, these are just simulations. But more often than not real world seems to underperform simulations rather than overperform, so I wouldn't get too optimistic about the real-world greatly exceeding these figures. For example, early simulations of SWNTs said they'd be around 120GPa; few believe nowadays that they can even approach those figures.

But what about the density side of the equation? After all, a material can be weaker, but if it's correspondingly lighter, then that's not a problem. The density is not in the paper, but this cites the tenacity (breaking strength over mass) as 4.1e10^7 N-m/kg. While the yield strength is going to be a bit less than the breaking strength, it shouldn't be too far off - this means that the density should be somewhere less than - but not too much less than - 1,37g/cm^3. That's on the same order as SWNTs, unfortunately.

Short answer? We're still nowhere even remotely close to being even capable of making a space elevator.

Space elevators face such numerous problems anyway (really don't want to have to go into them all) that they're really not a fruitful avenue of pursuit. We'd do far better to direct such efforts to more realistic access methods, such as a Lofstrom loop or variant thereof, which requires no unobtanium and is far more efficient (space elevators lose huge amounts of energy to transmission losses, throwing away a large chunk of the advantage that they gain from bypassing the rocket equation). Active suspension via recirculating kinetic transfer, by one means or another, is something we can do today.

Pretty sure that fermions , bosons and helium-4 aren't conductors.

All conductors are fermions or bosons, and not all conductors form superconductors as seen in some of the coldest states achieved with sodium and rhubidium, or even simple alloys in the case of the Kondo effect... and you said

Any experiment running close to absolute zero is using superconductivity.

Which contains so much wrong, because as pointed out other states near absolute zero, and this is irrelevant for a large number (and probably actual majority) of experiments involving entanglement.

As I understand the Stern-Gerlach it shows you entanglement exists,

You can find intro level text freely available that describe how it generates entanglement.

Even your link to the "original test" says nothing about the photon source.

They used an atomic cascade in the original experiment. But there are lots of off the shelf entangled photon sources... as already stated and the point was that it is done with photons which involves simple optics and no supercooled components. SPDC components are off the shelf now and used in undergrad labs.

At this point, either your trolling, or you have so much confidence in your vague superficial impressions of things that you don't seem to be actually reading or looking up anything. I don't think there is any point in continuing this, but for anyone else who stumbles upon this, they can see the links to things that were easy to find and hopefully realize that answers/corrections are easy enough to find for anyone with reading comprehension.

Anyone who genuinely wants to debunk global warming should start here, trust me, climate scientists will respond with collective sigh of releif should anyone succeed.

RealClimate.org maybe wouldn't be the best place to start. There's a lot of very aggressively close minded chaps dominating the forums. I know, who'd have thought that could happen on an internet forum?

Real climate is also co-founded by Michael Mann, whom I really take some issue with. Tell me I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but his paleo reconstructions of temperature have really bothered me in the past. Nothing to do with the results, not as much to do even with his methodology now that his later work is addressing and correcting problems. The presentation and usage of the 'hide the decline' trick in graphs is just disgusting. When your paleo reconstruction ends around 1900, just end the graph there. If your paleo reconstruction doesn't show the same temperature rise since 1900 as instrumental, then show that too. What you DO NOT DO, is paste in the instrumental record with a thick enough line to hide the paleo reconstruction since 1900. Even further, don't point to the overlapped instrumental part of the graph as startling and clear evidence of an abrupt trend in the data starting at 1900.

If your wanting to have an open and honest discussion about the evidence, that's a difficult environment. Even scientists with a decent publishing record within the field like Lindzen are put under a microscope for criticism for not conforming to the 'consensus'. Even researchers widely embraced and accepted like Mauritsen have their results heavily disputed and interpreted there. When statisticians like McShane and Wyner take issue with the statistical methods in Mann and others work, Mann takes to his blog for the 'final' word while leaving out any response to their real and legitimate questions and arguments. I'm not anticipating that it's going to be a particularly receptive audience as you seem to believe.

Martian regolith contains perchlorates. It's toxic. We're not talking about nutrient levels. It's up to 2% by mass perchlorate ion..

First you have to bake the regolith to break down the perchlorates. Then you have to rinse it to remove the extra salts. Then if you have a reverse osmosis system you could add the water back in....

From what I read the perchlorate content is 0.5-1.0%, which is still a lot, but there is no need to "high-ball" the estimate. Watney would have known about this quite well, and could very well chosen soil at the low end of the range.

Also the perchlorate removal process could be a lot simpler than you assert. As the article above points out: "Perchlorate salts are very soluble in water...". Simply leaching the soil through his evaporative recovery cycle could remove perchlorates just fine (although the length of time to do this would likely be a problem giving his limited quantity of water).

Your reference to "reverse osmosis" mystifies me. The water is being recovered by simple condensation is quite pure.

Sure, but they weren't exactly out there to write scientific journals.

Nice side-effect, though.

Beating test cycles by engineering to the test is hardly a new phenomenon, and it is the bulk of why current EU tests are being replaced by new standards currently in development that are harder to game. Even with this improvement, expect some level of optimization for test conditions while either ignoring or even harming real world performance.

The relentless cycle beating has had a myriad of harmful effects beyond just not accomplishing the purpose.

• * Regulators start to believe their emissions goals can actually be met, even when they realistically cannot while maintaining adequate driving performance. People just don't baby the throttle the way the NEDC does.
• * Somehow, the problems the controls were intended to alleviate aren't getting any better, so they crank them down tighter. The engineering gets even more optimized for the test. The cars get nice "green" certifications, and everyone wonders where the smog is coming from.
• * Often, this engineering means smaller engines and turbos, which inevitably don't last as long as the larger displacement engines they replace. It also means increased mechanical complexity. Guess who picks up the tab for this? Us.
• * The smaller, boosted engines may do just fine in emissions testing, and even performance testing on the dyno, but often they are not as good as the larger, naturally aspirated engines they replace for real-world tasks. This is particularly true with trucks, where you'll see V-8s being replaced by turbo-4s. They may still have the same or even better power on paper, but they now have spool-up lag and have to operate in a higher RPM range to haul cargo and/or passengers, and really can struggle with towing loads due to the lesser torque.

It remains to be seen that diesels with urea injection "cannot realistically meet emissions goals". VW wanted to avoid that system on these cars for various reasons.
Meanwhile, it's immensely clear that emissions are hugely cleaner than they were pre1970; performance is as good as or better; and today's little engines working hard last 200k easily while the big lazy v8s of the day would be lucky to hit 100K.
And big rig diesels have always been mainstays of turbocharging, other than the GM Rootes blowers, precisely because they are driven more on highways and run at a narrow range of rpms for long periods of time compared to passenger cars and turbo lag isn't encountered very often, and the increase in efficiency is worth big bucks, and diesels are more efficient that gasoline engines which are not direct injected. http://forums.anandtech.com/sh... And torque is not less with a turbocharger, http://www.blogcdn.com/www.aut... http://image.fourwheeler.com/f... http://www.gizmag.com/bmw-adds...

Beating test cycles by engineering to the test is hardly a new phenomenon, and it is the bulk of why current EU tests are being replaced by new standards currently in development that are harder to game. Even with this improvement, expect some level of optimization for test conditions while either ignoring or even harming real world performance.

The relentless cycle beating has had a myriad of harmful effects beyond just not accomplishing the purpose.

• * Regulators start to believe their emissions goals can actually be met, even when they realistically cannot while maintaining adequate driving performance. People just don't baby the throttle the way the NEDC does.
• * Somehow, the problems the controls were intended to alleviate aren't getting any better, so they crank them down tighter. The engineering gets even more optimized for the test. The cars get nice "green" certifications, and everyone wonders where the smog is coming from.
• * Often, this engineering means smaller engines and turbos, which inevitably don't last as long as the larger displacement engines they replace. It also means increased mechanical complexity. Guess who picks up the tab for this? Us.
• * The smaller, boosted engines may do just fine in emissions testing, and even performance testing on the dyno, but often they are not as good as the larger, naturally aspirated engines they replace for real-world tasks. This is particularly true with trucks, where you'll see V-8s being replaced by turbo-4s. They may still have the same or even better power on paper, but they now have spool-up lag and have to operate in a higher RPM range to haul cargo and/or passengers, and really can struggle with towing loads due to the lesser torque.

[CORRECTED LINK to ARTICLE, 150 comments]
Ask Slashdot: Best Payloads For Asteroid Diverter/Killer Mission?

TheRealHocusLocus writes:

The Emergency Asteroid Defence Project has launched a crowdfunded IndieGoGo campaign to help produce a set of working blueprints for a two-stage HAIV, or Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle. This HAIV paper (PDF) describes the use of a leading kinetic impactor to make a crater --- a following nuclear warhead would detonate in the crater for maximum energy transfer. The plans would be available for philanthropists to bring to prototype stage, while your friendly local nuclear weapon state supplies the warhead. This may be a best-fit solution. But just ask Morgan Freeman: these strategies could fail. What --- if any --- backup strategy could be integrated into an HAIV mission as a fail-safe in case the primary fails? Here is a review of strategies (some fanciful, few deployable) if we have to divert an asteroid with very short lead time. A gentle landing on the object may not be feasible, and we must rely on things that push hard or go boom. For example: detonating nearby to ablate surface materials and create recoil in the direction we wish to nudge. Also, with multiple warheads and precise timing, would it be possible to create a "shaped" nuclear explosion in space?

Cherry-picking or bad science. or you are just a conspiracy nutter.

I go with all of the above.

Can anyone actually point me to something that has made it to production utilizing carbon nanotubes?

The following looks like a good reference.

http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

From a previous job reinsurers often will insure policies of other reinsures. This has previously lead to some bad situations in the past with huge tangled webs.

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

At worst it was a fairly successful mission.

Rosetta, the orbiter, plays a very large role, and has been functioning properly.

Philae the lander was designed for two missions:
-Short term, upon landing do a battery of tests powered by primary (non-rechargable) battery. This was a success
-Long term, small battery of tests over a long period of time, powered by secondary (rechargable) battery and solar cells.

The choice of power systems was for the reason of the risk of what happened. It landed in shade but the primary batteries allowed the tests to complete. Because they aren't NASA, Nuclear based RTG power isn't viable.

Here's some interesting papers on the actual missions and design of the vehicles:

http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/wo...

Too bad what you learned was wrong.

Whether the estimate is correct or not

It's not. It's based on the LNT-Linear No Threshold-model, that we today know is too conservative. Tjernobyl, Iran and Taiwan among others, have taught us as much.

Now, it's still a nice conservative model, and we don't know what to replace it with, or even if it should be replaced (being conservative and all), so everything is based on that. That has the nice side effect that we tend to err on the side of caution, but the downside is that people believe that "ultimately" there will be scores of cancers etc. from very low level dosages received by very large populations. That won't happen, we know that by now. If it did, then it would have already happened in the aforementioned instances and many more.

So, smart money is on basically no extra cases of cancer from long term exposure from Fukushima.

And this is the trick: continuity is a core aspect of the experience of consciousness; otherwise, this scenario is identical to killing the original and "activating" the cloned mind.

One thing that could throw a kink into the scenario, however, is the possibility (albeit, IMHO, less than even) that some core aspects of consciousness are encoded as quantum information, in which case it cannot be cloned (by the no-cloning theorem). Some hints that this may be the case are to be found in recent experimental research: the most important result is http://www.researchgate.net/pu... but also see http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... and http://iopscience.iop.org/1742... as well as, for an overview of this area, http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonloc...

Send all these people to an unoccupied part of Antarctica that has no life bigger than a bacteria or lichen, and get them to set up a self-sustaining colony there with no resupply and no rescue from emergencies for about 2 years. If they can manage that, then they *might* be ready to try the substantially harsher conditions on Mars. At least Antarctica has breathable air, higher air pressure, a thicker radiation-screening atmosphere, and plenty of (ice) water in known quantities and without impurities (perchlorates may be a major challenge on Mars [PDF]). It should be easy by comparison.

So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.

I respectfully disagree. Here is a study that shows that men and women are equally likely to be victims of domestic abuse, but that feminists try to "conceal, deny, and distort the evidence."

ABSTRACT Aims. In the last 5 years a deluge of articles on the topic of Internet addiction (IA) has proposed many candidate symptoms as evidence of this proposed disease. We critically reviewed the current approach to the measurement and identification of this new excessive behavior syndrome.

A critical review of "Internet addiction" criteria with suggestions for the future - ResearchGate. Available from:
A_critical_review_of_Internet_addiction

even more:

I do agree with the need to teach emotion in sex ed. That's a fantastic idea, although it may not fly in an age where gender equality seems to mean there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism. Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Go ahead, explain http://www.researchgate.net/pu... then.

there is a better article here: http://www.csmonitor.com/Scien...
you can read the full paper (for free) here: http://www.researchgate.net/pr...

The android app called dnset allows Turkish people to overcome the censorship. It changes the DNS server of android mobile phone without requiring root permissions. A paper about the censorship of 2014 is available here: https://www.researchgate.net/p... The app can be downloaded from the play store: https://play.google.com/store/...

This paper seems to indicate that the capability of the random number generator varies based on implementation, if this is the case then it seems that the foundation for OpenSSL is suspect. Will rand and prng be part of the audit (they were not mentioned in the linked article)

ABSTRACT OpenSSL is the most widely used library for SSL/TLS on the Android platform. The security of OpenSSL depends greatly on the unpredictability of its Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG). In this paper, we reveal the vulnerability of the OpenSSL PRNG on the Android
http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

"Earlier this month Reverend Dr. Christopher J. Benek raised eyebrows on the Internet by stating his belief that Christians should seek to convert Artificial Intelligences to Christianity if and when they become autonomous."

They won't waste time on Christianity but expend much effort in discovering the true nature of the supreme AI .. [Ray_Kurzweil]_The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines.pdf

Showing these murders serves as a gut punch to the free world. It enables us to have a visceral reaction to this brutality,

And this is exactly why the video should not be shown or viewed. Our reaction to terrorism should NOT be an emotional one, for a number of reasons:

1) It screws with our understanding of how likely a situation is to occur. People "feel" that their children are more in danger of being abducted now than 20 years ago precisely be because there is more graphic reporting of abductions, not because more abductions occur. Similarly, graphic evidence of violence influences our perception of how likely that violence is to occur.

2) It's screws with how we respond to such incidents. Juries that are presented graphic imagery of a murder are far more likely to convict than those who are not, even if the crimes are identical. Citation

3) It gives our government far too much power. The reason so many draconian measures were easily passed post-9/11 is EXACTLY because it had a massive emotional reaction from the people. Our reaction should be based on reason, not a our "visceral reaction to brutality".

I'm not worried about Fox doing ISIS's work for them. I'm worried about them influencing the militant "let's glass the whole middle east" segment of America.

Looks mostly theoretical.
https://www.researchgate.net/p...

murder isn't the only way people are killed by guns.

True, but the mortality rates are different. For gunshot wounds, mortality rate is 22%, while that for stab wounds was 4% (source, though from 1994 and I wonder with more cell phones whether faster trauma admission speeds may enhance differential mortalities due to differential bleed rates between the two modalities).

And there's this: http://www.cafe-cba.org/assets...

Page 85, line Chronic Mortality * Premature deaths...
40000 yearly deaths based on PM

And this: http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

They estimate that every increase of 10 micrograms of particulate PM2.5 (2.5 as a 2.5 micrometer particulate) per cubic meter (g/m3) would lead to a 6% increase of death due to illness resulting from these particulates.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/general/pdf/cba_health_impact.xls

Modern wheat has much lower protein content than it would be possible with a healthy genome. Also, modern wheat plants are little Frankenstein monsters with highly polyploid genomes riddled with mobile elements. Turns out that higher protein content can be achieved by fixing some of the problems caused by inbreeding during selection: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... [researchgate.net] "

i'm not sure what your point is, but from a cooking standpoint there are reasons for using flour with lower protein amounts, e.g. cakes and sweat breads, a higher protein level makes for a denser more elastic bread/dough... it sounds like you think when it comes to flour the higher the protein the better...?

Do you realize that this was the desired outcome? Other varieties of wheat still exist. We don't use them for most things on purpose.

Modern wheat has much lower protein content than it would be possible with a healthy genome. Also, modern wheat plants are little Frankenstein monsters with highly polyploid genomes riddled with mobile elements. Turns out that higher protein content can be achieved by fixing some of the problems caused by inbreeding during selection: http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

But no, that's eviiiiiil GMO and natural breeding can't be wrong.

But we cultivated the less-healthy kind on purpose. And if you made it healthier, it wouldn't taste as sweet.

Not modern "we". Maize was cultured by Native Americans and its loss of fat was a genetic accident. Corn with higher fat content would have been even more nutritional (fat is more energy-rich), healthier (less sugars!) and probably just as tasty. See: http://www.plantphysiol.org/co...

Then there are soybeans. Do you know that soy can't be eaten without processing because it's enriched in anti-nutritional compounds? We can now eliminate them through GM by knocking out relevant genes. Is it also TEH EVILZ?

Black holes do not exist
Jean-Pierre Petit
04/2014

ABSTRACT We reconsider classical features of Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, which are the fundamental basis of the black hole model, through new space and time coordinates which transform the object into a space bridge linking two folds of the [...]

Parer available for download

The Oculus Rift tracking method, with various lights blinking at different rates, was first used in Twinkle Box, in 1974. It was really clunky then. They had to use rotating-disk cameras because vidicons had too much lag, and the wearer had to wear a big electronics box. Same idea, though.

Black holes do not exist
Jean-Pierre Petit
04/2014

ABSTRACT We reconsider classical features of Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, which are the fundamental basis of the black hole model, through new space and time coordinates which transform the object into a space bridge linking two folds of the [...]

Parer available for download

Or, it could be that researchers specifically made zebrafish more transparent[pdf] to make it even easier to study them.

Predicted the 1960's (Kerr-induced self-focusing: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... ), and it was a big part of SDI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... and was again applied to space-to-ground weapons systems in 2009: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab...

It was ale demonstrated at LLNL in 2009: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... and 2010: http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

What's new about this one is that they've renamed the tunnel as the desired artifact, rather than describing it in beams going down the tunnel.

Predicted the 1960's (Kerr-induced self-focusing: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... ), and it was a big part of SDI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... and was again applied to space-to-ground weapons systems in 2009: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab...

It was ale demonstrated at LLNL in 2009: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... and 2010: http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

What's new about this one is that they've renamed the tunnel as the desired artifact, rather than describing it in beams going down the tunnel.

This could lead to the acceptance of alternative cosmologies that have been bubbling up for years. Try these links:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...
http://vixra.org/pdf/1404.0123...
http://www.researchgate.net/pu...