Slashdot Mirror

This feels like a situation of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?'

While you have a logic point regarding the weight deforming the crust, I think it's an secondary effect of the venting prior and may have predicated the more recent in crease in eruptions.

Venting in the mid Atlantic ridge as an example:
https://link.springer.com/arti...

Professor Quansheng Ge of the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, did a reconstruction of the past 2000 years of temperatures in China. Prof. Ge’s team found that the most rapid warming in China occurred over AD 1870-2000, at a rate of 0.56 ± 0.42C (100 yr); however, temperatures recorded in the 20th century may not be unprecedented in the last 2000 years, as reconstruction showed records for the period from 981 to 1100, and again from 1201 to 1270, were comparable to those of the present warm period, but with an uncertainty of ±0.28C to ±0.42C at the 95% confidence interval. Since 1000 CE–the period covering the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and the present warm period–temperature variations over China have typically been in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
The study is published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. https://link.springer.com/arti...

It is argued that formal verifications of programs, no matter how obtained, will not play the same key role in the development of computer science and software engineering as proofs do in mathematics. Furthermore the absence of continuity, the inevitability of change, and the complexity of specification of significantly many real programs make the formal verification process difficult to justify and manage. It is felt that ease of formal verification should not dominate program language design.

De Millo, Richard A., Richard J. Upton, and Alan J. Perlis. "Social processes and proofs of theorems and programs." The mathematical intelligencer 3.1 (1980): 31-40. (Reprinted from Communications of the ACM, Vol. 22, No. 5, May 1979.)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03023394

The source is Cheng et al., (2017), but it is entirely consistent with any other recent study of ocean warming.

Fucknuts, Vice is NOT "the source"
https://link.springer.com/arti...

...it was physically impossible for the top tenth (or however much it was) of each WTC to pulverise COMPLETELY the lower, much larger (and much thicker steel beams) part... How did the core columns manage to collapse all the way down? Detached core columns at the point of initiation of collapse would - by definition- have taken the path of least resistance - i.e. vertical core columns would have slid sideways and NOT HIT other vertical core columns below. After a short period of time the collapse should have been arrested, and over.

Here, have a link to a paper:
"The first part of this paper presents an experimental investigation on explosive spalling of six full-scale normal strength reinforced concrete slabs subjected to conventional fire curve ISO834 and severe hydrocarbon fire curve, performed at the Fire Research Centre, University of Ulster, UK focusing on concrete thermal behaviour and the explosive spalling phenomenon. Each slab was loaded with 65% of its BS8110 design load and was heated from the bottom side only. Temperatures profile was recorded at three depths within the slabs and the moisture content was also measured before and after the tests."

If that's not enough info for you, you can read this entire PhD thesis on the topic.

i.e. at high temperatures high-strength concrete comes apart. If the temperature is high enough it will lose all cohesion.

The airplanes were fully fueled. The fuel basically ignited on crash and flooded the top floors and then dripped down over the elevator shafts and stairs. The temperature was high enough that the concrete lost cohesion and you basically ended up with what looked like a controlled implosion. OBL was a civil engineer. He certainly had the know how to analyze the problem and know this would happen in the first place.

If you would like to use this as evidence for a sweeping and universal hypothesis, shouldn't you at least have a brief look at the retraction notice that the story is based on?

https://link.springer.com/arti...

From a first glance, all of the papers come from China (click on affiliations to see which institutes they work at). China and India have been notorious as paper mills for decades. So why are you extrapolating this to work from countries where peer reviewers are ,a, very easy for editors to directly find and contact, and ,b, can usually be communicated with directly without the need for a translator?

Read this http://link.springer.com/artic... and then say you are jumping for joy at the thought of consuming soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate, hmm, i can imagine the taste and goodness of the high temperature acid bath. Soy protein isolate not a food any more, just the cheapest possible molecular chain you can get away with calling it food. If there was cheaper worse shit they could get away with calling food, they would. Personally I read that article and it sent a shudder down my spine and made me nauseas to think of some of the crap I have eaten. Here read about your 'food?' for a change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you think that shit is healthier than chicken, you are an idiot.

A better (and free download) link for the article which is not behind the pay wall is here.

Read this http://link.springer.com/artic... and then say you are jumping for joy at the thought of consuming soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate, hmm, i can imagine the taste and goodness of the high temperature acid bath. Soy protein isolate not a food any more, just the cheapest possible molecular chain you can get away with calling it food. If there was cheaper worse shit they could get away with calling food, they would. Personally I read that article and it sent a shudder down my spine and made me nauseas to think of some of the crap I have eaten. Here read about your 'food?' for a change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you think that shit is healthier than chicken, you are an idiot.

The Springer article was paywalled but didn't seem to mention anything about health (or taste).

The "Health Effects" section in the Wikipedia article starts like this:

A meta-analysis concluded soy protein is correlated with significant decreases in serum cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations.[41] High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol did not change. Although there is only preclinical evidence for a possible mechanism, the meta-analysis report stated that soy phytoestrogens – the isoflavones, genistein and daidzein – may be involved in reducing serum cholesterol levels.[41]

In general "processed==bad" and "natural==good" isn't a bad rule-of-thumb to use for healthy eating.

But the moment you have proper evidence that a particular processed food is good, or a natural one bad, forget the default rule and use the evidence instead.

Read this http://link.springer.com/artic... and then say you are jumping for joy at the thought of consuming soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate, hmm, i can imagine the taste and goodness of the high temperature acid bath. Soy protein isolate not a food any more, just the cheapest possible molecular chain you can get away with calling it food. If there was cheaper worse shit they could get away with calling food, they would. Personally I read that article and it sent a shudder down my spine and made me nauseas to think of some of the crap I have eaten. Here read about your 'food?' for a change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you think that shit is healthier than chicken, you are an idiot.

This could happen on any web page you happen to have visited and left open, in some cases the browser can be minimised and screen locked

https://link.springer.com/arti...

I'm sorry, I assumed anyone discussing gender and pay would be informed on the relevant science. Two supporting links from the last two years since you don't seem to be up on the conversation; you can find dozens if not hundreds on the same subject.
Constrained by Emotion: Women, Leadership, and Expressing Emotion in the Workplace
"For instance, women incur social and economic penalties for expressing masculine-typed emotions because they violate proscriptions against dominance for women. At the same time, when women express female-typed emotions, they are judged as overly emotional and lacking emotional control, which ultimately undermines women’s competence and professional legitimacy."

The Price Women Leaders Pay for Assertiveness—and How to Minimize It
"To test this popular view, my colleague Larissa Tiedens, of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, and I recently synthesized 71 studies testing reactions to people who behave assertively. We found that women, on average, were disparaged more than men for identical assertive behaviors. Women were particularly penalized for direct, explicit forms of assertiveness, such as negotiating for a higher salary or asking a neighbor to turn down the music. Dominance that took a verbal form seemed especially tricky for women, compared with men making identical requests."

Taking the MD5 and the SHA1 of something isn't significantly more secure than just taking the SHA1 of said something. This was demonstrated in 2004 here: http://link.springer.com/chapt... This was then further elaborated and improved upon here: http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/07... So, don't concatenate hashes kids. It doesn't do what you think it does. Using a proper hash from the start is the only safe way to do things. Even if nobody has figured out how to do it yet the math conclusively shows that breaking SHA1+MD5 is not significantly harder than just breaking SHA1. This is why TLS 1.1 and earlier need to go away.

That's for concatenated hashes. As in, you hash the two hashes to form one number, usually by XOR'ing the numbers together. Which can be shown to increase the solution space considerably.

What I've been curious about, is if you maintain two hashes separately.

You have blob X here, with SHA-1 of S(X) and MD5 M(X). Can you find a blob Y with both a SHA-1 of S(X) and MD5 of M(X)?

It's easy to see if you XOR S(X) and M(X) you make it much easier - but what if we kept them separate, so the SHA-1 AND MD5 has to match. (With concatenation, you don't have to match, the final result has to match, but individually inside you have to find a S(Y)+M(Y) that equals S(X)+M(X), and not S(Y)==S(X) AND M(Y)==M(X).

The only concatenation that wouldn't be easier is if you literally concatenated the bytes together - so 128 bits of MD5 followed by 160 bits of SHA-1 to form a 288 bit MD5/SHA-1 hash that enforces the property that the two hashes individually MUST match simultaneously.

Taking the MD5 and the SHA1 of something isn't significantly more secure than just taking the SHA1 of said something. This was demonstrated in 2004 here: http://link.springer.com/chapt... This was then further elaborated and improved upon here: http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/07... So, don't concatenate hashes kids. It doesn't do what you think it does. Using a proper hash from the start is the only safe way to do things. Even if nobody has figured out how to do it yet the math conclusively shows that breaking SHA1+MD5 is not significantly harder than just breaking SHA1. This is why TLS 1.1 and earlier need to go away.

On the order of 15 micrograms per kilogram. Adult humans need 2.4 micrograms per day.

Nature wrote a solid article on the dangers. IMO it's going to lead to some seriously damaged humans before it's closer to perfected. But IMO it will be improved until it's in common use, unless a different technique comes along. In the mean time there's little point to banning it.

Governments that fight markets never win. If Europe and the US ban this technology that just means progress will continue in other places. And there are other reasons than eliminating disease. I could argue the ethics, but that's not the point. Like it or not people are going to do it. We live in the last fully nature-made generation.

there are "ethical" funds out that don't invest in "dumping trash in oceans, distributing child labor, sex trafficking" (I'm not sure which S&P500 companies do that last one on your list though) - but guess what? They make much poorer returns than funds who have no such restrictions.

No they don't. To quote from the abstract:

After controlling for investment style, we find no evidence of significant differences in risk-adjusted returns between ethical and conventional funds for the 1990â"2001 period.

Also more recently in the same vein:
https://ideas.repec.org/p/jau/...
http://link.springer.com/artic...

Can you supply any references for the debunked consensus? When I originally looked into the matter, I found several papers confirming the consensus, but it has been a few years since I looked

Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
a 2016 survey of american meteorological society members about climate change Initial Findings graph on page 11 shows 33% of AMS members believe the climate change is at least equally or more attributable to natural causes.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Climate Consensus Con Game
Sorry, global warmists: The ‘97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction
The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up
Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books
Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

a) you reveal your ignorance of agriculture. suffice to say, land isn't arable simply because of air temperatures. b) there is much evidence to the contrary. many common crop plants, in the face of higher temperatures or higher CO2 amounts, lose their agricultural usefulness. among the problems: -become toxic -don't grow -become more easily infested by pests

I have one critique here. Plant growth is increased by CO2 concentration, all else being equal. Dunno if you have access to journals, but there's data in the free part of this paper:

the growth stimulation of 156 plant species was found to be on average 37% http://link.springer.com/artic...

There's one recent study which was heavily publicized that found that CO2 concentration plus nitrogen level changes plus temperature changes (basically trying to fully replicate predicted post-warming conditions) decreased plantgrowth, and the headlines were frequently something like "High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth" http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02...

Headlines like that are bullshit; simulated post-warming environments can retard plant growth, not CO2 levels alone.

According to this the median diamond grade is 0.25 carats/tonne of rock mined. And that's for established mines. Finding a 1-carat gem-quality stone within that is really rare given that the median size is much smaller than that and most of them are only industrial grade. They're rare, but the technology for mining and concentrating them is very efficient.

The degree to which the mining operations exploit people depends on where the mines are. Sierra Leone? Horrible conditions. They don't call them "blood diamonds" for nothing. Canada? There are effective labour and safety laws, plus the mines have deals with the local indigenous peoples for jobs and royalties.

Sure it maybe correlates, but that in no way means it is influenced in any way by genetics.

The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.

Discrimination

Citation needed.

and low income have been shown over and over again to influence IQ levels directly. IE a causation.

Yes, extreme poverty resulting in malnutrition or abuse can lower IQ. But the base IQ was genetic. So much so that adopted adults’ IQ is so unrelated to the IQ of their adoptive mother that in some studies the correlation shows up as nonsignificantly negative. You can fuck kids up, but you can't really make them much smarter than they were born, due to their genetics.

And of course as predicted the handwave:

You are just blowing smoke.

And the ad hominem:

And anyone who modded you up is probably of equally low IQ. Are you all self hating blacks per chance?

Better question: are you perhaps a self-hating white? Why else deny the completely obvious, well-studied, and easily available via a google search research on the heritability of intelligence and the differences between geographically separated human haplogroups? I say specifically "self-hating white" because you can't really be anything else. No one else in the world believes this tripe. Go to China, to Japan, to India, to any non-western scientifically developed nation and ask their anthropologists and geneticists if different groups of humans (for lack of a better word "races") have differences in intelligence distributions and they'll say "of course." Ask the Africans in Africa even, they'll agree. Only white-guilt plagued western leftists will cover their eyes and ears and shout insults. Oh and then will turn right around and claim their moral superiority over the religious and conservatives because they FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.

Science does not agree with you. Early school programs do not boost IQ and adopted adults’ IQ is so unrelated to the IQ of their adoptive mother that in some studies the correlation shows up as nonsignificantly negative. So Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's adopted African kids are going to have IQs the correlate to their birth parents, and not to Brangelinas', even though they had it as good or better than Shiloh.

I'm not assuming. It's science. Intelligence is inherited. It is nature, not nurture.

Also, as I predicted, the specious handwave:

Why are you naively assuming it has anything to do with being born with anything?

Followed by the ad hominem:

It's obvious to anyone with a handful of braincells to group together that environment and opportunities are going to far out-way

Ahh, yes; the "Those were only regional variations; there was no effect on global temperatures" handwave. Because of course, research like An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula (published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115) that show that the effects of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period reached all the way to Antarctica get swept under the rug for contradicting the pravda about AGW.

Or the 1973 study in China that found warm and cold periods corresponding to periods in Europe: “The world climate during the historical times fluctuated. The numerous Chinese historical writings provide us excellent references in studying the ancient climate of China. The present author testifies, by the materials got from the histories and excavations, that during Yin-Hsu at Anyang, the annual temperature was about 2 higher than that of the, present in most of the time. After that came a series of up and down swings of 2—3 with minimum temperatures occurring at approximately 100 B. C. (about the end of the Yin Dynasty and the beginning of the Chou Dynasty), 400 A. D. (the Six Dynasties), 1200 A. D. (the South Snug Dynasty), and 1700 A. D. (about the end of the Ming Dynasty and the beginning of the Ching Dynasty). In the Han and the Tang Dynasties (200 B. C.—220 A. D. and 600—900 A. D.) the climate was rather warm." [Chu Ko-Chen 1973: China National Knowledge Infrastructure], also this study by the same author.

Or the Chinese study of tree rings in Tibet that found that current temperatures are part of a normal cycle, and elevated temperatures have appeared repeatedly in the past: Amplitudes, rates, periodicities and causes of temperature variations in the past 2,485 years and future trends over the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau [Chinese Sci Bull].

Or warming in America, across the Atlantic from Europe: 'Holocene Climate and Environmental Change in Central New York': "Working with two sediment cores extracted from the extreme southern end of Cayuga Lake in central New York researchers "found paleolimnological evidence for the Medieval Warm Period (~1.4-0.5 ka), which was warmer and wetter than today." This evidence included weight percent total carbonate, total organic matter, non-carbonate inorganic terrigenous matter, carbonate stable isotopes, carbon isotope values of total organic matter and fossil types (gastropods, ostracods, bivalves, oogonia) and amounts, all of which were used to interpret past climate based on their relationship to modern climate data for the Finger Lakes region of the state. And to make their findings perfectly clear, they repeat that the "data for central New York suggest a warmer, wetter climate than today."" [Henry T. Mullins, William P. Patterson, Mark A. Teece and Adam W. Burnett 2011: Journal of Paleolimnology].

Or in Alaska: 'Six Millennia of Summer Temperature Variation based on Midge Analysis of Lake Sediments from Alaska': "The authors conducted a high-resolution analysis of midge assemblages found in the sediments of Moose Lake in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.....The results of the study are portrayed in the accompanying figure, where it can be seen, in the words of Clegg et al., that "a piecewise linear regression analysis identifies a significant change point at ca 4000 years before present (cal BP)," with "a decreasing trend after this point." And from 2500 cal BP to the present, there is a clear multi-centennial oscillation about the declining trend line, with its peaks and valleys defining the temp

Show me some real evidence that an intelligent being caused the Big Bang and I'll believe it.

It depends on what you consider to be evidence. Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation is one of the popular paper promoting the simulation hypothesis. You'll find a bunch of other "compelling" bits like the Bostrom equation and a host of other equally pointless arguments.

The simulation hypothesis, if you haven't guessed, is just creationism with a science-flavored candy shell. So sweet, apparently, that pop-sci idiots like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ray Kurzweil buy in to it -- to say nothing of the legions of poorly-educated science fans than keep paychecks flowing to televangelists like Tyson, Dawkins, Harris, etc. I guess it was only a matter of time.

It's as though they've been selling pretend science to pretend scientists for so long they've run out of raw product and had to make some substitutions to meet the demand. A bit like the bear-shaped jar of pretend honey I ran across the other day labeled "honey-flavored syrup". It's cheap to produce, tastes similar, and sells pretty well as most consumers won't examine the product beyond the shape of the bottle. It just doesn't contain any actual honey.

Tyson has the most skin in the simulation game. Presumably, it's because he hasn't yet figured out that he's actively promoting creationism. I wonder what he'll do once someone pulls him aside and points out the obvious...

Weak antibacterial properties will leave populations of higher resistance bacteria in your 'kitchen colony'.

If that were the actual motivation for banning anti-microbial agents, they wouldn't be banning iodine or phenol.

We were a lot dirtier (in many ways) in the 1960s, it hasn't harmed us (I can see the flame comments already building under this!) and may have been of benefit to our immune systems.

(1) In the 1960's, antibacterial soaps were already half the soap market in the US.

(2) Antibacterial soaps came into widespread use because there was good scientific evidence that they did reduce the incidence of bacterial skin infections. citation.

(3) People generally use antibacterial soaps not out of germ-phobia, but in order to reduce body odor, something that they are actually moderately effective for.

(4) Although science has recognized the importance of microbiomes and exposure to pathogens, little is known about how to translate those results into medical choices. In fact, there is probably a lot of individual variation, with some people benefiting from antimicrobials and others being harmed by them.

(5) The FDA's decision is based on a risk/benefit tradeoff to human health. First, as the FDA itself states, there is little compelling evidence of either risk or benefit, so their decision is based on the principle "it might be dangerous and we know of no health benefit, therefore we ban it". Second, many products have benefits other than health benefits that the FDA simply isn't entitled to, or even qualified to, evaluate or judge.

Overall, you're using the same Orwellian reasoning that the FDA is using; the FDA decision is not rooted in sound science, but in guesswork, speculation, and preferences.

What the FDA could have done instead is required manufacturers of antibacterial soaps to label their products better.

There is just a simple keystroke typo. It should have read broader .

The broader agents work for the broader agency , a very broad agency. See details here:

https://link.springer.com/arti...
 

I can accept you received a score of four because the mod thought this was an interesting 'idea'. However it's an idea that looks to be entirely wrong.

Here's why, "The shift toward higher rates of sexual inactivity among Millennials and iGenâ(TM)ers was more pronounced among women and absent among Black Americans and those with a college education."

Here's the link. http://link.springer.com/artic....

Key word=absent. While what you think is correct is incorrect, I can see how many people are intuitively grasping at the concept.

This is the correct link. http://link.springer.com/artic.... Still just a pay walled abstract though. Not sure we can get anything else unless someone links to an archived copy of the story.

The police couldn't have known if backing off wouldn't lead to her shooting someone by trying some stupid shit like stealing a car on gunpoint.

White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.

Nice victim rhetoric. However according to empirical evidence[1] [2](paywalled) it is entirely false.

So no one actually reads TFA and check out the links??? I am surprise how TFA made a conclusion out of a totally different topic research which is the link cited in TFA.

TFA portion

Published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour by researchers from three US universities, the study involved the analysis of data collected through the nationwide General Social Survey that has asked US adults about their sexual behaviour almost every year since 1989.

Cited link in TFA

Changes in American Adults’ Reported Same-Sex Sexual Experiences and Attitudes, 1973–2014
We examined change over time in the reported prevalence of men having sex with men and women having sex with women and acceptance of those behaviors in the nationally representative General Social Survey of U.S. adults (n’s = 28,161–33,728, ages 18–96 years), 1972–2014 ...

Why is a study about homosexual and bisexual behaviour actually being on the increase (eventual source of the 'story',) that doesn't mention abstinence in it's heading or abstract being hijacked into a news story about something the study wasn't exploring?

The number of U.S. adults who had at least one same-sex partner since age 18 doubled between the early 1990s and early 2010s (from 3.6 to 8.7 % for women and from 4.5 to 8.2 % for men). Bisexual behavior (having sex with both male and female partners) increased from 3.1 to 7.7 %, accounting for much of the rise, with little consistent change in those having sex exclusively with same-sex partners.

(emph mine)

Well, one way to reply to a post calling out confirmation bias ... is to double down on the confirmation bias. Apparently I get to represent all liberals now (or at least the ones you don't like, with that bit of no-true-scotsman mixed in under cover of "I didn't mean everybody").

Let's get back to your original claim, which can be distilled to 'liberals conform more than conservatives'. A few minutes of googling turned up no shortage of studies which appear to have reached the exact opposite conclusion. Here are a few studies and some related articles:
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://link.springer.com/artic...
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu...
https://www.researchgate.net/p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.psychologicalscienc...

praised Somalia for its lack of a central government

Citation needed.

Surely you could have found a better link to support your point.

Why? Because ad hominem is now a valid argument?

The article I linked to — by Thomas DiLorenzo — was written in 1996 and has been cited by economists quite often since then.

Surely you could have come up with a better rebuttal.

“Credibility may require climate researchers to decrease their carbon footprint,” Attari said. “Effective communicators about climate change do sometimes discuss their own behavior and our research indicates that this can be a good way to enhance their credibility,” Attari added. “Whether the climate scientists are male or female, what they do in private can have a pronounced effect on how their message is perceived by the public.” Climate scientists are more credible when they practice what they preach Attari, S. Z. et al. (2016). Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice, Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2

Watts has an interesting post on who in the Climate Debate has and hasn't Renewable Solar on their personal residences, Study: ‘Climate scientists are more credible when they practice what they preach’ – but my aerial surveys show many don’t.

If most of the true believers can't make the effort then why should the average 6-pack Joe? Additionally why should Americans "Set the Example" for the World to follow when the People calling for the Americans to set the example, can't set the example?

The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.

This is my primary concern as well. Child pornography is something that should be prevented, but people are going overboard with this - it's in the same vein as the war on terrorism. Child pornography is definitely despicable, but most of the efforts against it are either extremely creepy - such as this, handing over power to an almost completely unknown organization - or evoke incredible amounts of self-righteousness, especially when people start accusing each other of this crime without any proof. Between the overreach of trying to stop, it's hard to say you support, especially when the countries most against it consume almost all of it.

Furthermore, the approach we use today is fundamentally flawed. Currently, we try to block all images of it, but we can only target those existence that we know of - and even then, it's trivial to add an extra byte here and there to through of the checksumming. This creates a drive to make more of it, which more people get, before that too gets blocked. It's very profitable for these businesses and only encourages the cycle, so with all these programs in effect we're making the problem worse and worse. Most shockingly of all, when you legalize child porn, rates of it actually go down, and sex abuse goes much farther down. Given what we know about ancient societies, where children also engaged in sex and didn't show any signs of being traumatized, it's a really hard issue to grasp, because all of the morals we grew up with are being disproved by numbers. If it weren't for the fact I'd be put on a government watchlist for the rest of my life, I might even suggest that perhaps the issue is more complex than we think.

As much as I hate rewarding lazinness. Plenty of papers out there that argue TCR is well south of 2deg per doubling of CO2: a position that surely will get you labelled as a filthy denier. What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?. Be careful handling subversive materials not sanctioned by your tribal elders...

http://link.springer.com/artic...

You seem to be conflating TCR and ECS. TCR is Transient, ECS is Equilibrium. People tend to talk about ECS versus 2 degrees K.
IPCC AR5 estimate TCR as 1.0-2.5K (CI95). Lewis and Curry, your link, estimate it as 0.9-2.5K; not a big difference. Their CI95 ECS estimate, however, is 1.05–4.05 K.

As much as I hate rewarding lazinness. Plenty of papers out there that argue TCR is well south of 2deg per doubling of CO2: a position that surely will get you labelled as a filthy denier. What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?. Be careful handling subversive materials not sanctioned by your tribal elders...

http://link.springer.com/artic...

You're a sexist. Lesbians exist. And science proves that both sexes like to look at tits and ass, and men are less critical of beauty standards than women.

Yes, Michael "Hockey Stick!" Mann.... Others say it was global. And if you dig, you'll also find the Little Ice Age was generally global as well.

First off, direct link to the corresponding journal article (open access).

The "linguistics technique" is apparently supervisory control theory. I'm not too familiar with it, but apparently in supervisory control theory you model both the capabilities of the robots and the goals you want as formal system, in the form of discrete states for each actor, and events which cause transitions between the states (i.e. the robot is a finite state machine). These events can either be controlled (the robot performs an action) or uncontrolled (something happens in the environment outside the robot's control).

The twist that supervisory control theory apparently brings to the party (and I'll admit I'm a bit unclear on this part) is that it encodes the FSM as generators which can propose possible sequences of events, and then looks for paths through the FSM which will bring you to the desired state. Paths which don't arrive at your desired state or are inconsistent with the structure of the FSM are trimmed. The linguistics part of it is that the paths are viewed as "words" composed of event "letters", and various linguistics theories are used to limit the space of possible "words" that are consistent with the "grammar" (the FSM structure) and which will arrive at your desired end conditions.

From what I understand, most of the processing is done up front, and the possible end states and paths to get there are machine translated to an actual control program that not only acts like it obeys the FSM, but also is able to direct it's actions toward the desired end state.

The paper is a little technically dense, though (and quite slanted toward formal method worship), so I'd appreciate any corrections/additions anyone with more experience would have.

You can't "convert" someone to become a lesbian. Or straight, for that matter. Sexual attraction is fixed before birth.

Of all the bizarre ideas you have about gender and sexuality, that one is weirdest. Even Kinsey suggested otherwise.

http://link.springer.com/artic...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...

Your argument has been made much of by people seeking legal change in the status of gays/lesbians but it has shall we say a more complicated relation with actual scientific fact.

The original scientific paper can be found at http://link.springer.com/artic...
and the supplementary material can be found at http://static-content.springer...

The original scientific paper can be found at http://link.springer.com/artic...
and the supplementary material can be found at http://static-content.springer...

No one in climate science is interested in answering those questions. It's all "X is caused by global climate change", where X can be literally anything,

If you read what actual climate scientists say, and not the hype in the press, they in fact don't say "It's all "X is caused by global climate change", where X can be literally anything," Over and over, they say things like, no particular storm can be attributed to global warming-- it's a long term global effect. Over and over and over. But the press likes disaster stories. They'll keep looking until they can find a way to write the story that makes it a disaster story, and bury the "other scientists caution that there's not enough data to attribute X to climate change" on page 2.

with pictures of polar bears in the background.

I've read a lot of papers by climate scientists, and never seen one with "pictures of polar bears in the background." I think I can safely say that if what you're reading has pictures of polar bears in the background, you're reading the popular press, and not a scientific paper. Even the paper (one paper-- count it, one) that talked about dead polar bears in the arctic didn't have pictures of polar bears in the background.

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]

You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

I see your Collier's magazine reference from 50 years ago and raise you a recent peer-reviewed article:

"Why the NASA Approach Will Likely Fail to Send Humans to Mars for Many Decades to Come"

http://link.springer.com/chapt...

Why introduce science into the argument at this late date? Pay attention to the important question - in which state will the money be spent?

I see your Collier's magazine reference from 50 years ago and raise you a recent peer-reviewed article:

"Why the NASA Approach Will Likely Fail to Send Humans to Mars for Many Decades to Come"

http://link.springer.com/chapt...

Actually concatenating hashes together doesn't do much for security at all. In fact it does almost nothing. See: http://link.springer.com/chapt...

"Expanded solar-system limits on violations of the equivalence principle" James Overduin, Jack Mitcham and Zoey Warecki, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 31, Number 1. IOP: http://m.iopscience.iop.org/ar... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1202

"Four-Qubit Entanglement Classification from String Theory", L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani, and W. Rubens
Physical Review Letters 105, 100507. APS: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4915

"Permutation orbifolds and holography", Felix M. Haehl, Mukund Rangamani Journal of High Energy Physics 2015:163 Springer: http://link.springer.com/artic... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2759

"Quest for the Perfect Liquid: Connecting Heavy Ions, String Theory, and Cold Atoms" Barbara Jacak, John E. Thomas, Clifford Johnson, Symposium at tahe AAAS Amual Meeting 2009 https://www.bnl.gov/aaas09/per...

As far as the frame of reference problem goes, does your wife ever have the kids play Simon Says? Kids seem to catch on pretty fast to the concept when it's their turn to be leader (and the other kids will be quick to correct them when they're wrong!). :-)

It is interesting, I think, to consider that almost 50 years of educational research may have been overlooked or disregarded in the making of the learn-to-code tutorials being used by schools around the world (LOGO, which most of the tutorials are patterned after, is a child of the 60s). From Understanding turn commands in Logo: A cognitive perspective: "It is argued that in order for children to handle meaningful programming projects they need to master a set of prerequisite skills. These skills, involving the development of elaborated and explicated spatial concepts, include a distinction between right and left, the intentional reference to the Turtle as a frame of reference...".