Slashdot Mirror

@BadAstronomer Do you support Hayhoe's statement? ""Among climate scientists--people who spend their lives researching our world there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change, and the fact that humans are the primary cause."

You somehow have a problem with that? Explain.

Then...

So I could be the most passionate sermonizer in the world about Climate Change, but Hayhoe would still be a flake.

CONTEXT??? You've shown no context. What was the conversation? Where is the surrounding context? You haven't shown that the comment there was either incorrect or unprovoked. But from here it looks like a hypothetical. Possibly even a question. How would I know?

Then... this is a real hoot.

Interesting. @KHayhoe doesnâ(TM)t show examples of this âoemajorityâ of allegedly misogynous emails. ... t occurs to me that without evidence, these claims of hers might be legitimately labeled âoemisandrousâ.

And? That is a plain statement of fact. *IF* there is no evidence, claims "might" be labeled...

Please explain where you disagree with the logic there. More:

@AvaPlaint @tan123 @KHayhoe I also love that she cited skeptical http://science.com/ as a âoescience resourceâ. âoe97%â anybody?

and...

@AvaPlaint @tan123 I was referring to @KHayhoe comment re: skeptical science blog, and Cookâ(TM)s âoe97%â nonsense.

and...

.@KHayhoe can be a captivating and persuasive speaker. Itâ(TM)s too bad so many things she says are just false.

Well, what of those things? You made the claim. You are obligated to show where any of those tweets were falsehoods or "unprovoked insults". There is LOTS of evidence that Keyhoe's statements were scientific falsehoods. But you haven't shown where I met any of the criteria you need to make your point.

I particularly like this one:

There are few people more dangerous than âoesky is fallingâ alarmists who believe their own alarming tales. Smiles and all.

Please explain where that statement is false. Or for that matter, "unprovoked". You haven't done any of that.

Another good one:

Wrong! Simply not true. Cold weather kills FAR more people than hot weather does, worldwide.

Another solid matter of statistics. "Change" has not been shown to kill people. Cold weather does. And it does so at many times the rate that hot weather kills people.

I like this one too. What's the matter? You don't like satire?

How did we get to this point, where political ideology determines whether we agree w scientists on climate change? http://prairiefirenewspaper.co...

Yes, exactly. Why do Leftists belong to this Globular Warmunist cult, when the majority of people donâ(TM)t? Itâ(TM)s a mystery.

This is actually satire. She wonders why political ideology (she is quite clearly referring to the political Right) "determines" whether we agree blah blah...

The satire part comes in because (A) it's a correlation, not a determination, and if she doesn't understand the difference she should turn in her scientist badge, and (B) she doesn't realize that as a staunch Leftist, she contributes as much of that "political divide" as anyone else. And that lack of understanding on her part is just plain knee-slappingly hilarious! But insult? Really? I insulted her less than she did all by herself.

Nice lineu

The article states that since 1790 the earth's global temperature has risen 0.8 degrees. In almost a quarter of a millenia this is the change. Excuse me if I remain skeptical that this was caused by human activity.

I go to a number of sites for "news" news; I find that the "same" news is very different coming from different countries:
BBC News, which everyone's familiar with;
CNN, the epitome of US government-sanctioned news;
The Economist, of course;
The Times of London,
Japan Today,
Pravda,
The Beijing Review,
Le Monde, and
The Tehran Times

...and a couple of sites for tech and science news:
EurekAlert, a great site for science and medicine press releases,
the former, but still running, Hacker News Network,
BottomQuark,
the phenomenal journal Nature,
Science magazine,
and, of course, The Source.

Some good comics, most of which you will all know, but which I love; here are a couple you might not know:
Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, a comic that actually features a female sysadmin/techgoddess, and
Bateman Political cartoons, a fun political comic updated regularly.

And, of course, take a look at my sig... Click every day.

Assuming you don't qualify for any of the discounts, one year of Science costs $250US. You also have the option of paying $5US for a *single* article on their website.

Look here for prices: https://aaas.realtimepub.com/membership/new_member _setup.asp

OK you need a bit of a schooling.

While it is nice to believe that electricity somehow as something to do with "electrons" (you could have at least came up with a more plausible name), and that it can't go faster than the speed of light, that story is just not believable anymore. This usually goes hand in hand with the myth that light is somehow propagated through "photons". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The new theory is the 'reverse light theory', which states that light is simply an absence of darktrons. In fact, a full 103% (+/- 2%) of scientists now believe that the reverse light theory is the correct model.

So what does this have to do with electricity? Well since darktrons (which carry the signal in optic cables) are always being evacuated by 'light' sources, they tend to have very slow and erradic behaviour. Place a lamp by your optic cable and you'll see your latency double. Deceptitrons (aka protons), the active ingredient in copper, however, create a force field which nullifies the effect of the 'light' sources. This means that one can get theoretically unlimited speeds through a copper wire. Infinite speeds are not uncommon, and one scientist has even reached speeds of infinity plus three. Not to be outdone, a scientist in Germany is aiming for speeds of two infinity, which would most likely secure him a Nobel prize.

Why climate change ? Woo, big question; there's lots of evidence, and various contrarian theories (eg: observed temperature change is due to solar oputput variations) have been knocked down one by ne. Latest doom-watch for us Euro-weenies : tghe Gulf Stream (well the upstream end of it, off Greenland) is being severely disrupted. Shut down the gulf stream and suddenly central/southern Europe regains the climate of other areas on our latitude: Siberia, northern Canada ....

There's too much to give precise URLs, but for starters search these for 'climate change' :

• BBC
• New Scientist
• Nature,
• Science,
• IPCC
• UN Environmental Program
• hell, even CNN ...

The news article motivating this thread arises from this article in yesterday's issue of Science: "Visible Cone-Beam Tomography With a Lensless Interferometric Camera," by D. L. Marks, R. A. Stack, D. J. Brady, D. C. Munson Jr., and R. B. Brady, Science Jun 25 1999: 2164-2166 There is a better news article in describing the work in Science itself: "3D Camera Has No Lens, Great Depth of Field," by Daniel Radov, Science Jun 25 1999: 2066-2067. These are available through Science's web site, but a subscription is required. Science offers a 1 day subscription to the web site.

The paper uses a combination of interferometric imaging algorithms (which image with infinite depth of field ) and computer tomography algorithms ( which combine infinite depth of field images to produce 3D models) to produce a 3D image of a plastic toy. Opacity is not a problem due to the linearity of the imaging process.

As several posters have noted at this site, pinhole cameras also have infinite depth of field. We wrote an paper about using pinhole cameras for tomography in Optics Letters last year. Unfortunately, the depth of field of a pinhole camera comes at the expense of resolution. This is not true of interferometric cameras.

"Interferometric" refers to measurements of cross-correlation functions to isolate intensity contributions from different points in the object space. The algorithms used are very similar to those used in radio astronomy.

"Tomography" means slice (tomo) plotting. "Computer" is the C in CAT scan or CT. Current usage applies tomography to most 3D imaging schemes. "Coherence tomography" is a point by point scanning scheme which, ironically, is not tomographic at all. Tomography allows parallel data acquisition, which ultimately leads to real-time 3D video and holodecks. Real-time 3D was not demonstrated in the Science article, however, because it requires a dense sensor array. See http://www.phs.uiuc.edu/Beowulf for progress on this front.

Concern about DARPA and big brother issues is unnecessary. A sensor array has no better chance of seeing inside opaque objects than a single camera. Anyway, why should big brother waste a lot of effort to get information people will volunteer in exchange for supermarket dicount cards.