Slashdot Mirror

It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Here are (some of) the researchers publications:

http://www.psychology.sdsu.edu/new-web/FacultyLabs/twenge/TwengePublications.htm

In the most recent one, they selected a set of questions from the overall data set and then assigned scores to the various responses to those questions, and then analyzed the scored responses for correlations. The results are on the last page of this pdf:

http://www.psychology.sdsu.edu/new-web/FacultyLabs/twenge/MTFself-views508.pdf

I don't really have the knowledge to have much of an opinion about the statistical significance of the changes, but even in the case where the results are extremely statistically significant, they don't appear to be particularly meaningful (that is, given the results, you still wouldn't have much reason to predict that someone from the beginning of the study was less narcissistic than someone from the end, the differences within the groups are much larger than the differences between them).

So assuming a similar methodology, the information presented in the article isn't anywhere near enough to draw any conclusions about whether the ideas presented are interesting, or simply the researchers personal axe.

Thank you for injecting a bit of scientific realism into a discussion that has so far consisted of opinion and anecdote.

Whenever I read studies like these my first question is whether the samples involved are comparable. What kinds of kids were taking the MMPI in 1938? What kinds of kids take them today? Might the differences in the samples be sufficient to account for the observed differences in scores? If there are differences, are they controlled for in the study design? I visited Dr. Twenge's website and didn't see any obvious links to the study in question so we can begin to evaluate its scientific validity. I did skim one study comparing student responses from the "Measuring the Future" surveys in 1975 and 2006, which claims to show that "there has been a small increase in positive self-views across the generations, but that this has not been accompanied by an increase in general self-competence." Yet I saw no sophisticated multivariate analysis that might tell us whether these were "real" changes in attitudes, what other variables were correlated with those attitudes, or how changes in those other variables might affect the observed change in attitudes.

For those interested in methodlogical problems in the social sciences, there's no better place to start than with Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley's Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research . For a highly-readable introduction to what they call "threats to validity" in social scientific research, Campbell's "Reforms as Experiments" [pdf] is a good place to start.

OK, to put it in Slashdot standard units, look at this picture:
http://arweb.sdsu.edu/es/virtualtour/childrens_ctr.html

Now imagine this one joining the game:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22158290@N04/2139767266/

That's the kind of scale we're talking about.

(Note, the photos were chosen for amusement, not accuracy. They are intended to show "big" and "small", not specific ratios.)

Whoa, there's an awesome streetview of San Diego State University in there!

I wonder if the camera is sensitive enough to see the classroom overcrowding, herpes under the skirts of sorority sisters, and traces of cocaine on the Homeland Security majors' noses!

Biodiesel from algae is most desirable when it is part of a system. For instance, algae can be produced in wastewater pond systems and processed for biodiesel, then it can be processed again for butanol, thus serving as part of the sewage treatment process, and providing fuelstocks for two direct-replacement fuels, one for diesel and one for gasoline. David Ramey of ButylFuel, LLC told me in an email conversation that they would like to use this type of processed algae cake feedstock, but that so far they have been unable to secure a reliable source of the stuff which is not salt-contaminated, which is a problem for their process. (You could also process the waste algae for alcohol, but it is unlikely to be as efficient as Butanol and it is not a 1:1 replacement for gasoline. Butanol can also be mixed into diesel fuel, but that's not its claim to fame.)

At least one consent decree between the US Government and IBM offers good case law to pursue access to service manuals and parts.

For instance the 1956 consent decree over tabulating equipment (see section VI(c) in particular.

I made a good living for almost 10 years servicing various IBM office machines, buying parts mostly directly from IBM. Before 1956, this was impossible, and after it was pretty much only under threat of further legal action.

It is frustrating that we haven't exercised that right, as demonstrated by the consent decree.

You're confusing the issue. The "eco-hippies" that want less pollution also ask for simpler lifestyles, "organic" food, and other impractical ideas.

Fail. AIWPS or similar technologies used in place of "conventional" wastewater treatment would allow us to produce more than adequate supplies of organic fertilizer, and if we planted crops in guilds instead of monocultures the production of food per acre would rise substantially. This would of course eliminate the ability to harvest mechanically, but since most people are not really getting good nutrition under the current system (which requires that the crops be shipped long distances, so they are grown for shipping and not nutrition, and then often picked unripe and gassed to give the appearance of freshness) it should be regarded as a failure anyway. Big agribusiness spends a lot of money to convince us that we need to buy their particular products every year, because they know how susceptible the masses are to advertising.

Only one of those groups is going to get what they want. Organic food off family farms and "buying local" is a non starter. So is "local generation."

Any jackass can get on eBay and get a grid-tie solar system that you literally plug into the wall.

The connection between Rayleigh scattering and refraction is very fundamental. Both are due (from the point of view of electromagnetic theory) to the electrical polarization of the scatterers by the incident electromagnetic wave. The waves re-radiated by the dipoles induced in the scatterers by the incident field are incoherent, as seen by an observer located to the side of the incident beam of light. But, in the forward direction, the re-radiated waves are completely coherent with the incident waves, but retarded in phase. These retarded waves make the incident wave train propagate more slowly in the scattering medium than in a vacuum; the ratio of the speed of propagation in vacuo to the speed in the medium is just the refractive index of the medium. Thus refraction and Rayleigh scattering are two aspects of a single phenomenon.

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/extinction/extintro.html

The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era

On the contrary, ethanol as a fuel is not only a solution, it's a mature technology.

What's wrong with your statement is that ethanol is mostly coming from unsustainable feedstocks. When they start making it from algae produced during the cleaning of dirty water (alongside biofuel and fertilizer) instead of corn needed for food for humans. Or perhaps it's only that the users of Ethanol are immature? Show me some practical cellulosic ethanol production and that your fuel has come from sustainable sources, and I'll pipe down. A bit.

Any gasoline engine will run, with reduced performance, on ethanol. Tuning a car to run on ethanol is a relatively simple task.

Current gasoline engines suck. Ethanol has a lower energy density than Gasoline. The tradeoff just isn't there. Meanwhile Chrysler built several Turbine-powered cars in the 1960s and they had but two major flaws: One, they wore out their drivetrains, a flaw which can be eliminated by the use of a series hybrid-electric power system; Two, they were noisy and had a lot of hot exhaust, a flaw which can be mitigated by reducing the mass of the vehicle overall and using a hybrid power system, enabling the use of a substantially smaller turbine. Such an engine could be built to run on nearly any fuel, although certain different classes of engine might only be capable of burning certain ranges of fuels.

To convert a whole country to ethanol, as was done in Brazil in the late 1970s, is simple.

If your feedstock crops are grown on oil, as ours are, this is really not viable. It's also not viable if you depend on slash-and-burn Agriculture. Interesting that you mention Brazil, huh? Thanks for that one.

I don't really disagree that Hydrogen is not any kind of answer, at least not a complete one. I would also say that it's simply not useful to us as an energy storage medium right now, although it may well be at some point in the future. But I would also say that increasing the demand for Ethanol when the increased demand is already causing new environmental problems and is likely to cause far more would be almost as shortsighted as continuing to pump oil out of the ground and release its carbon into the atmosphere. Again, I propose AIWPS which solves this problem (producing feedstocks useful for the production of both ethanol and biodiesel) while cleaning water and fixing carbon. (Some percentage of the carbon will end up in the portion of the stock not useful for making fuel, which is fertilizer; some percentage of that carbon will also be fixed in the soil.) Increasing ethanol consumption as things stand now will only cause more harm.

On the contrary, ethanol as a fuel is not only a solution, it's a mature technology.

What's wrong with your statement is that ethanol is mostly coming from unsustainable feedstocks. When they start making it from algae produced during the cleaning of dirty water (alongside biofuel and fertilizer) instead of corn needed for food for humans. Or perhaps it's only that the users of Ethanol are immature? Show me some practical cellulosic ethanol production and that your fuel has come from sustainable sources, and I'll pipe down. A bit.

Any gasoline engine will run, with reduced performance, on ethanol. Tuning a car to run on ethanol is a relatively simple task.

Current gasoline engines suck. Ethanol has a lower energy density than Gasoline. The tradeoff just isn't there. Meanwhile Chrysler built several Turbine-powered cars in the 1960s and they had but two major flaws: One, they wore out their drivetrains, a flaw which can be eliminated by the use of a series hybrid-electric power system; Two, they were noisy and had a lot of hot exhaust, a flaw which can be mitigated by reducing the mass of the vehicle overall and using a hybrid power system, enabling the use of a substantially smaller turbine. Such an engine could be built to run on nearly any fuel, although certain different classes of engine might only be capable of burning certain ranges of fuels.

To convert a whole country to ethanol, as was done in Brazil in the late 1970s, is simple.

If your feedstock crops are grown on oil, as ours are, this is really not viable. It's also not viable if you depend on slash-and-burn Agriculture. Interesting that you mention Brazil, huh? Thanks for that one.

I don't really disagree that Hydrogen is not any kind of answer, at least not a complete one. I would also say that it's simply not useful to us as an energy storage medium right now, although it may well be at some point in the future. But I would also say that increasing the demand for Ethanol when the increased demand is already causing new environmental problems and is likely to cause far more would be almost as shortsighted as continuing to pump oil out of the ground and release its carbon into the atmosphere. Again, I propose AIWPS which solves this problem (producing feedstocks useful for the production of both ethanol and biodiesel) while cleaning water and fixing carbon. (Some percentage of the carbon will end up in the portion of the stock not useful for making fuel, which is fertilizer; some percentage of that carbon will also be fixed in the soil.) Increasing ethanol consumption as things stand now will only cause more harm.

And not in a work of fiction. In a technical paper he wrote during his "day-job" as a math professor at San Diego State.

"The Coming Technological Singularity:
How to Survive in the Post-Human Era

Vernor Vinge
Department of Mathematical Sciences
San Diego State University

(c) 1993 by Vernor Vinge

Abstract

Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.

Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be guided so that we may survive? These questions are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further dangers) are presented...."

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

The night before the Challenger disaster, there was a teleconference between NASA and Morton Thiokol (MTI--the company that designed and built the boosters). NASA asked MTI on recommendation for launch. At first MTI did not support a launch if the temperature was below 53 F (12 C). NASA was surprised by this and took the meeting offline. The managers then met without the engineers. The managers then challenged MTI to prove that the shuttle was not safe instead of the more cautious stance of proving that the shuttle was safe. MTI relented under pressure and recommended launch.

In the Columbia disaster, engineers were concerned about the foam strike. They requested images to be taken to determine the extent of damage since they did not have enough information. They were met with resistance with one manager refusing to "be Chicken Little" and Columbia's flight director, Le Roy Cain saying "I consider it [the foam strike] to be a dead issue."

The final Columbia report said:

Management seemed more concerned about the staff following proper channels (even while they were themselves taking informal advice) than they were about the analysis.

and

Managers' claims that they didn't hear the engineers' concerns were due in part to their not asking or listening.

That's an interesting development in a well-known genetic heart defect. Myosin binding protein C is well known, and mutations in MYPBC3 are one of the most common causes of heart defects in humans (and cats).

If parents are comfortable with prenatal testing and abortion, this genetic defect could be effectively eliminated, in the same way that Down's syndrome has declined dramatically. In principle, the MYPBC3 defect would eventually be eliminated from the population.

MYPBC3 is a pretty cool protein, BTW. It connects the light chains and the heavy chains that make up muscle fibers. Obviously if the proteins that make up muscle fibers come apart you're going to have problems.

Here's a beautiful illustration http://pawpeds.com/pawacademy/health/mybpc3/figure1.jpg which shows how MYPBC3 comes out of the thick filament and holds onto the thin filament, sort of like this:
____________
====/==/====

(That illustration comes from an article here http://pawpeds.com/pawacademy/health/mybpc3/ about how Dr. Kittleson, in a stroke of nominative determinism, studied the defect in kittens.)

Another common cause of heart defects is protein called beta-myosin heavy chain (MYH7). MYH7 also comes out of the heavy chain. It's the one that looks like a bean pod. It looks a little like this:
____________
====P==P====

Here's a kewl animation of how it works http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/movies/actin_myosin.html with myosin walking along actin filaments. If you don't think this animation is funny, then molecular biology is not one of your aptitudes.

Or just do a Google image search for actin and myosin http://images.google.com/images?rls=ig&hl=en&q=actin+and+myosin

I'm sorry to say that the Wikipedia entries on this subject are not too user-friendly right now. Somebody should work on that.

Either you or the tour guide were very much mistaken. The famous story about the guy in the underground jail cell refers to the May 8, 1902 eruption of Mt. Pelée on Martinique, a different volcano on a different island.

It's okay to go back over your writing and edit it for grammer. No one will think less of you for it - most people do it already as a matter of courtesy to their readers.

For more information on writing for others' consumption, please see this article by Kurt Vonnegut: http://literature.sdsu.edu/onWRITING/vonnegutSTYLE.html

"(American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

This page has a good quote:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

"I have never heard a skeptic making that ridiculous claim. It seems you are putting up a straw man in order to be able to kick it. The skeptics are not that dumb."

I guess you just proved them wrong, eh?

Research isn't hard, it takes all of two seconds to type "CO2 volcanoes" into google: http://www.google.es/search?q=co2+volcanoes

Try it sometime.

Please see the following:

• advanced integrated wastewater pond systems, Tuba Ertas, Victor Miguel Ponce
• ScienceDirect - Water Science and Technology : Methane fermentation, submerged gas collection, and the fate of carbon in advanced integrated wastewater pond systems (abstract only, sorry. But it's just the full paper about the first link.)

In short, this is not an insurmountable problem, and the solution will produce algae and methane.

Now, this is very true.

As it so happens, you are entirely correct.

I became aware of this through a friend. He became aware of it while working on such a project. There is in fact a relevant patent. You probably would be more interested in reading ADVANCED INTEGRATED WASTEWATER POND SYSTEMS (AIWPS) By Tuba Ertas and Victor M. Ponce or Methane fermentation, submerged gas collection, and the fate of carbon in advanced integrated wastewater pond systems (the basis for the patent, I believe?)

Here are some resources that might help you out.

Overview of the field:
http://bioinformatics.sdsu.edu/education.htm

News:
http://news.thinkgene.com/
http://www.bioinformatics.org/

Org:
http://www.iscb.org/

I assume you've crawled through Wikipedia already -- they break it down pretty well. Also, remember that a startup can be anything, not just a specific kind of work like you've seen in school. It's common in the biotech industry to make your career out of a string of startups; you'll get a pike of options from each, and most won't go anywhere, but one or two probably will, and you can benefit from that even after you've left.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/longnow/

The truth of the matter is that man has this Power of Denial...

The Hindu Arabic Decimal system was denied for 300 years.
The observations of Galileo were denied for 350 years (by the catholic church until the early 1990s)
and I'm sure there are plenty more examples of human denial.

Ultimately Man will not, cannot invent a machine smarter than himself anymore than a theoretical one dimensional being can comprehend a two dimensional object or being ... nor can a theoretical two dimensional being comprehend a three dimensional object or being, etc...

Computers will never genuinely be anything more than an extension of man.

However, it is well within human deception to lead the masses to believing otherwise. Which would be very insulting and demeaning to those such a lie is imposed upon.

Hard reality.... http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

So called Artificial Intelligence is nothing more then the by-product illusion of automating enough to deceive those humans interacting to believe its not a machine or a machine better than man.

Genuine intelligence is built upon the progression of:
Gas, liquid, solid, single cell life, plant life, animal life, consciousness...intelligence

Just as there is a build up of things, structures, technology in society that are a prerequisite of what we have built upon our knowledge, so it is with what is required of genuine knowledge.

Besides, we have plenty enough artificially intelligent people fu&'in things up as it is, we don't need a machine built by faulty human intelligence to give us something worse then the calculation that resulted in the Trillion Dollar Bet and repercussions of dotcom boom and bust, worldcom, enron and 9/11....

And even if such a machine was built and gave us solid information, what makes anyone think we as a whole would believe it and act upon the information when we can't seem to even do what we know we can do To fix the genuine problems terrorist otherwise use to promote followers...????

*sigh*

OMG I have to cry; Someone's just accused Charles Stross of not only looking through the world through a narrow straw, but ignorance in looking to future technology...

Seriously, give some respect, where respect is due: After Vernor Vinge, Charles Stross practically wrote the book on the Singularity.

They'll do it like this.

googling "Webster spelling reform" will pull up a few references.

Like some essays by him.

Some of the reforms worked, some didn't.

Uhh, you are all correct. Volcanoes tend to either cool or warm the earth. For example Mount Pinatuba cooled the earth by 3 degrees over a multi year period.

See this: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html
"The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space."

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer". It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.

I had thought that the material thrown into the atmosphere and spread around the world by the rotation of the earth simply reduced the available sunlight that could warm the ground, but that link says it was sulfur dioxide gas, not just particulates. I remember the Mt. St. Helens aircraft warning, so they would not sustain damage from solid material blasted airborne from the volcano.

Didn't we have some effect from the material thrown into the atmosphere from Mt. St. Helens as far as overall global temperatures is concerned? That link refers to the "haze effect", resulting in very red sunsets.
So we would have 2500 times the 600 cubic miles of material (If all the force of the volcano results in material in the atmosphere) if the Yellowstone Supervolcano has a major eruption.
Would that not result in a lowering of temperatures worldwide, the Sun not able to warm the earth, and that meaning "a period without summers", perhaps years long, with no crops being able to be grown due to the cold?
Famine, freezing to death, or what.
Have to remember that these things are on a geological time scale, don't expect Yellowstone to appear on the evening news anytime soon. That said, there have been lots of big volcanos in the last century or so, plenty of them on film or television.
But that is volcanos worldwide, not for one that has been "asleep" for so long.

Human Action is destroying us. Don't drink the anti-global-warming koolaid from a couple of discredited scientists.

It sounds like you will agree that there is substantial global warming and that this global warming will cause massive economic disasters, at a minimum, in terms of terrible agricultural failures. But you disagree about the causes.

1. These effects are at least additive - and maybe multiplicative. So the sun being in a warming cycle (which I'm not confirming or denying) does NOT mean that there isn't human caused global warming. If human behavior has a large impact - even if it's not the ONLY impact - and if we have a chance to massively improve the future of our race by reducing our greenhouse emissions, our obligation is not diminished by the existance of other causes. It would only be diminished if our part in global warming was insignificant.

2. Volcanos are not a cause of global warming; they cause more COOLING than warming.

"Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html
This is not the only source, but had a nice quotable paragraph.

Someone I know refers to it a "cow-milker" :-P

I think it is interesting, huge weight savings over a pressure fed with none of the high-speed parts of a turbopump. Flowmetrics wasn't the first to come up with the idea although they were the first to put it on a rocket and have patented several ideas relating to it. I'd like to see it running in a bigger concept than the SDSU rocket though. (Steve and Carl, faculty advisors for the projects work at Flowmetrics)

(They were pumping martinis at the Joint Propulsion Conference 2 years ago... very nice... and yummy)

No intervention? There have been decades of intervention. Check out one list of IBM Antitrust Suit Records which claims a printed length of 41 linear feet - and that list ends in 1980. You might also want to read up on the most famous case with Telex v. IBM. It's kind of interesting. The last linked article was written in 1974 before all the appeals started.

Synopsis: The Government mopped the courtroom floor with IBM for a dozen years ending in 1982 with the slowest, most expensive bureaucratic paper chase ever undertaken by the DOJ. The DOJ ultimately dropped the suit. IBM started slipping in the marketplace at the hands of Silicon Valley startups, automatically disproving a monopoly condition. They lost two-thirds of their worth over the next several years.

Although IBM posessed huge market power at one time, they were also subject to market forces and competition in spite of what the Government was unsuccessfully trying to prove against them. The DOJ had no case after that. Many say Microsoft is on the leading edge of their downward slide right now.

IBM is still the constant subject of numerous Antitrust actions triggered by competitors, the latest being Wallace vs. IBM over bundling Linux on their machines at an unbeatable price (free).

Examples of sanctioned monopolies would be utilities like power companies, the phone company, gas companies, cable television companies etc. The Government moves very slowly but is always examining accusations of monopoly in the free enterprise system, usually in response to competitors complaining.

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.

The Secure Hardware Environment. ;)

Inevitable, in my book.

Put a hard legal limit on the processing power any person is allowed to possess.

Nice; You'll also need to put a hard legal limit on the ability of people to congre-^H^H^H to network their intellig-^H^H^H devices.

Alternatively.. make it a crime to use facial recognition software without the consent of the person who's face is to be recognized.

Sure, but how are you going to monitor something like that? You'll need something like the Secure Hardware Environment.

Re: your gun analogy.

I don't think your work by analogy really works here.

Consider: The laws around guns and murder are very complex. Can you own a gun? Why would you want to own a gun? For what purposes is it legal to own a gun? Where can you point a gun? Can you have something that looks like a gun, but isn't? When is murder legal? When is murder illegal? When is it illegal, but you can get away with it?

Are our answers to those questions shaped by how easy it is to get ahold of a gun? Are our answers to those questions shaped by our ability to gather evidence from the scene of a crime? If you couldn't find bullets, blood, or any other evidence, after a gun had been used, is it reasonable to believe that our laws about guns would be different? Is it reasonable to believe that our world would be different, if that's how things worked?

If so, then I don't think your gun analogy works very well.

backwards countries have more privacy protection laws than advanced ones?

Backwards countries fear empowered people. "Ideas," and such.

Privacy, especially a forced privacy, hinders the flow of ideas; Just ask any Iranian blogger, who is having privacy forced onto them.

By limiting the processor count and such, you are forcing privacy on people. You're also, quite materially, limiting their intelligence.

I think if we limit our intelligence, as a people, we'll just end up harming ourselves.

Wow. Tha's insightful commentary there. /sarcasm

Since when does the political leanings of the boss dictate the leanings of the Employees? It's a matter of a culture among media elites. Not a conspiriacy of corporations. Most members of the main stream media lean hard to the left. So hard that it colors all the reporting they do. This has been proven with several studies down over the last 30 years. See here: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/media_bias.h tm

Here's a salient quote from the article "Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

Go ahead and spend some time going through all the links on the site and reading up on it a bit. The Liberal bias in the American media (and the BBC, as recently admitted by them in a leaked internal memo) is obvious. Rupert Murdoch be damned, the Lib Media Elites will report it the way they want to. If you can't see it then you have been so blinded by partisanship that I can't help you.

To be fair, Kurzweil predicted this first.

No, there have been many predictions of this sort way before Kurzweil's. One notable prediction is, of course, Vinge's The Coming Technological Singularity, copyright 1993.

Vinge's timeline: let me more specific: I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030

Vinge goes beyond the BT guy's prediction, though. Vinge postulates that once you have a computer that can think as well as a human, it will think of ways to make itself more powerful -- to think faster. Then that rev will be able to think (faster) of ways to make itself even faster. An exponential curve that leads to...a singularity. A phase change of "intelligence" that we may not be able to understand.

A shrubbery, you say?

I have just one question, were these "children" in possession of a Herring? Ah yes, just as I thought. Indeed, plainly this caper was part of that infamous criminal cohort the Knights who 'til recently said "Ni", now commonly referred to as the Knights who say "Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringmm".

http://lorien.sdsu.edu/~carroll/shrub.html

You guys know exactly where we're headed, right?

I hope you've been reading your Vinge. This is equivalent to homework, if you're a technologist (programmers, that means you.)

Our destination is the Secure Hardware Environment (SHE).

That is, every computing device will have to have a section for the government built in, and the government will require access to just a small part of network traffic.

Further: All manufacturing will be observed. (see: Don't Try This at Home, and Remote Biology Labs -- how could it be allowed to work out any other way?) The US government (not sure which parts) is already rejecting chips for computers where the manufacturing process is unknown or unwatched (link lost; sorry.)

This will be done for your safety.

See also: Big Brother Takes a Controlling Interest in Chips. Rainbows End.

I recently read Human Acclimatization and Adaptation to Stresses. The article explains, unsurprisingly in retrospect, that altitude training has different effects on different people. Some are helped, some remain the same or worsen. But the majority of athletic improvement should be attributed to the other big condition of a high altitude camp: the absence of stresses of normal life. The article also suggested that an athlete often ends up unintentionally training less intensley due do the difficulties of low oxygen. Upon returning to sea level, the athlete is well rested not from any changes due to low oxygen but due to the unintentional taper, and thus improves performance. Another interesting fact mentioned was "with elite athletes, training effects are so specific that there is no beneficial carry-over of circulatory improvements in one activity to another". For example, improvements in running do not translate to improvements in cycling; I'm interested in a more in-depth explanation of that phenomenon.

You no what? It aint never gonna happen.

Agreed, especially considering it was originally proposed in 1789 by our most famous dictionary's namesake, so if he can't get it going, well then, I ask you, who really can?

Here in Germany the law considers stations like the "Home Shopping Channel" as a continuous commercial. Scary thought accidentally switching to this channel with your brand new 40-inch HDTV-Philips TV.

I found some pictures of new devices from Philips:
Model "Eye-opener":
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec296/assignments /clockwork_orange_eyes.jpg

Philips also invented a "painless" (individual user experience may vary) little injection into your eye to intensify the effect of the advertisement imagery: http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/stage/2003/04/clock work/eye_main.jpg

Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:

According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.

This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.

Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.

As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.

Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).

After all that I found another source which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.

As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons while another indicates 400 million tons.

Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.

I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.

Interesting.... sounds a lot like this vehicle by San Diego State University Department of Mechanical Engineering HEV (hybrid electric vehicle) Team.

It also uses a AC Propulsions electric motor (200hp) (which is what the kids used) and a Volkswagon turbo-charged direct-injection diesel engine.

The SDSU site goes into great detail about other engine considerations and why they decided on what they chose based on scientific data and research.

The Internet Archive shows the site has been http://www.engineering.sdsu.edu/~hev/index.htm">ma inly unchanged since 2000, long before the kids started their project in 2003.

Did the kids give any credit to San Diego State University for pretty much stealing their entire concept?

Interesting.... sounds a lot like this vehicle by San Diego State University Department of Mechanical Engineering HEV (hybrid electric vehicle) Team.

It also uses a AC Propulsions electric motor (200hp) (which is what the kids used) and a Volkswagon turbo-charged direct-injection diesel engine.

The SDSU site goes into great detail about other engine considerations and why they decided on what they chose based on scientific data and research.

The Internet Archive shows the site has been http://www.engineering.sdsu.edu/~hev/index.htm">ma inly unchanged since 2000, long before the kids started their project in 2003.

Did the kids give any credit to San Diego State University for pretty much stealing their entire concept?

Neither one of you is 100% right or 100% wrong. See http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html Global Warming and Ozone Holes are THEORIES until we really know how what we observe (or think we observe) can be validated via scientific proof via experiments. We know a lot less about climate than we think we do.

Unless there is a distinct and pronounced rise in the mean temperature that can be shown to begin with the industrial revolution, I don't see this to be anything significant.
From the data in TFA, it only shows that there is currently a spike in the median temperature, and that there have been previous spikes and lulls.
In geological terms, IIRC we are between ice ages - 10K years into a 20K cycle. Guess what, I expect it to be warm right now & then start cooling off in the next 1K years or so.
I see lots of proof of global climate change, but I have seen very little data showing it starts with the industrial revolution and the increased production of greenhouse gasses by humans.
Compare 100 million cubic metres of gas of CO2 from 1 lake (184K Metric Tons) with 5652 Metric tons for the US in 2000. 30X the CO2 output of the US in it's worst recorded year - almost 8 times the entire worlds output. You think those numbers are bad? 1,800 tons per day of SO2 from a Hawaii volcano - with even more CO2.
Am I anti-polution control, heck no. I like breathing. But when it comes to claiming that humans are having a huge influence, I just think people are underestimating Mother Nature.

It would appear that, as usual, Rush doesn't know what he's talking about.

As the mother of said "six-year-old daughter" who truly has initiated an interest in chess (all on her own), I feel the need to weigh in on this discussion. First, we are aware that people are better teachers. I am a qualified teacher and we know the importance of socially mediated interactions. It is reassuring to know that if a cyborg-parent lacking in the ability to teach through modeling and zone of proximal development, that Slashdot readers would be ready to stay them on the humane track. However, I did not think Slashdot was the forum for advice on how to interact with your children. When seeking out the best chess software for kids, it must be said, I would definitely consider Slashdot the place to go for solid software advice. Being the incredibly hip, socially progressive crowd, I would also expect leading edge advice that encompassess accessibility, platform independence, and overall usability. Thanks to all of you who did provide that.

A major volcanic eruption would cause far more climate disruption than human activity ever has.

Do you just make this stuff up to justify your wasteful lifestyle?

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced. -- http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html

Notice how I link to an educational site, written by scientists. What possible source of information do you have for your claim that volcanic activity is a greater contributor than mankind? The Rush Limbaugh Fan Club? The SUV Enthusiast Blog? The Oil Funded Think Tank of the Month? Take your head out of the sand.

Exactly wrong.

Yes, of course. The system has been going on for billions of years. And what we know of it gives us a timescale for natural changes that also happen to be millions of years. This makes an unprecedented change in a timescale of a hundred years hugely significant. Obviously, in a few millions years time, GW effects might calm down. But our models aren't dealing with geological spans of time, but the sort of timescales that human civilisations operate on. In which case, our data is certainly sufficient to give at least some conclusions.

Sure, everyone has heard that one major volcanic eruption vents more carbon dioxide than all the cars ever constructed by man combined, but that can't really be right, because we are more important than some stupid volcano.

The IPCC models incorporate the effects of volcanic eruptions. Scientists aren't stupid. You can see some of the code they used at http://climatechange.unep.net/jcm/doc/jcm/mod/radf or.html

In any case, your 'everyone' is wrong, dead wrong.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.

Here is the best test flight of all, IMO. Full ignition was not achieved. However, termainal velocity was achieved. P.S. Does anyone else wonder if this is the state of this contest?