Slashdot Mirror

There's a lot of stuff in those filters that can be processed into useful, marketable minerals. Just gotta figure out a good way to separate it all.

Planes and most boats will require fossil fuels for the foreseeable future

Or they could use hydrogen, burned or in fuel cells. Solar and wind need country-sized scale to smooth out variations, and storage to make up the difference, but we have many different technologies for that. The rest is just a question efficiency. And if the generating capacity gets cheap enough, even that becomes unimportant.

Not sure about Germany's 2030 plan, but this Stanford study outlines a path to 100% renewable energy in the US by 2050, for less cost than business-as-usual.

Nobody is suggesting we turn off all fossil fuels RIGHT NOW (that would be a strawman). What is being suggested is that we phase out fossil fuel dependencies and phase in a mix of the many carbon-neutral energy technologies (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal etc etc) over the next few decades, rather than pretending we don't need to do anything, ever.

There have been numerous major studies about this. For example, the Stern Review makes it clear that the costs of inaction easily outweigh the costs of transitioning our energy supply, and more recently this Harvard Univesity study concludes that not only can the US switch to 100% renewable energy by 2050, it can do so while spending less than business-as-usual.

That STEP link you quoted elsewhere is interesting, though "pre-industrial carbon levels in 10 years" sounds wildly optimistic without throwing massive amounts of cash at it to develop it at huge scale.

You seem to think that a carbon tax would kill the economy. Carbon price legislation has been proposed in the US at least four times, and has accordingly been studied by the Congressional Budget Office as well as the EPA, EIA, and others (see citations), and concluded the impact would be less than 1% on GDP, compared to business as usual - without even considering the additional economic impact of climate change on the BAU scenario.

Assuming that this process is 10% efficent let's take a look at the numbers.

Let's say you can dedicate half of the 1.1GWT (thermal) of the nimitz to aviation fuel production, if you're holding off coast.

And let's assume conservativley that the process is 20% efficent.

Diesel (pretty close to JP1) has an energy density of 35 MJ/L. This means at 20% efficency you'll be needing 175mj to create 1 liter of JP1.

At 1/2 1GWT you're looking at about 3 liters of fuel per second, or about 172,000 liters a day, or about 40,000 gallons. The nimitz has about 3 million gallons of fuel capacity so the refueling time of the entire tank from 0 would be around 2 months. According to this article here

http://large.stanford.edu/cour... (Also about marine jet fuel fabrication, provides some of the hard numbers) 3 million gallons is enough to refuel the onboard fleet about 20 times. So onboard fuel production would provide 1/3 of a full tank of gas for each aircraft onboard per day. Not terribly good, or bad.

Western Governor's University and Excelsior (both non-profit) are the best online options, especially if you want self-paced. They are both very cost-effective and regionally accredited. You should check out the details of the programs that each offers to see if they provide what you want. I know WGU's IT programs are very solid, but I'm not sure about their software development options. I know they just recently added a Software Development concentration option for a Bachelor's degree, but the program guide hasn't been posted yet so I'm not sure of the exact courses offered.

If you end up getting your bachelor's, Georgia Tech now offers their well-respected MS in CS degree online. The admissions requirements are stricter than the online-only schools, but not too onerous.

If you don't really want a degree, but would like some formal training, Stanford and MIT both have strong no-credit open course ware offerings - they also have paid-for online certificate programs.

That problem is already solved. It is called SRP With SRP, even if the attacker has full access to the host, they cannot reverse engineer the passphrase.

Sure, so long as you will change every client in existence to run special software...

It's "solved" but not practical.

That problem is already solved. It is called SRP With SRP, even if the attacker has full access to the host, they cannot reverse engineer the passphrase.

It is surprising that the figures were so low for certain colleges in more expensive areas. They are basically saying that a Stanford grad will make an average of $117.5k per year throughout their career. And they don't say that the ROI is adjusted for inflation, so that actually means that their inflation adjusted average salary is $96.5k (assuming 3% inflation and $30k average salary for a high school graduate). That just seems insanely low.

Stanford releases salary statistics for outgoing seniors, and according to their numbers the average starting salaries of graduating seniors in 2012 was almost $94k. This data only comes from approximately 30% of students, so it could just be that only the successful ones respond, but I doubt that the number could be as low as this Payscale study shows. The Payscale study could only be true if the average Stanford student never gets a raise beyond just cost of living increases. The Stanford students could be lying in the college statistics, but so could the people inputting their salaries into Payscale.

It seems that either this entire study is bogus, or perhaps they are adjusting for things like cost of living. I am leaning towards the study being bogus.

"We think we speak the English, or French, of today. But our English or French language of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that language has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our language remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago."
https://prelectur.stanford.edu...

The key thing is that most of them are self made, and aren't born into wealth. Some 70% of them, in fact.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/ne...

Honestly I'm sick of this invented war that some people call class warfare. It just doesn't fucking exist, nobody has declared war on anybody else except for the OWS types, and even then they make up less than 1% of the population themselves.

I mentioned Aho, Hopcroft & Ullman before. Another series of books/lectures to consume to change your brain about what you're doing when you're programming is Donald Knuth's series The Art of Computer Programming. You can start from here: http://cs.stanford.edu/~uno/ta... Go find some of his stuff on YouTube. You will undoubtedly cook your brain a bit, so give yourself plenty of rest between episodes of exposure.

I don't claim to be an imaging expert, but a few odd details about the experimental method jumped out at me. It's been known for some time now that diffusive and other scene-perturbing objects (e.g. grossly distorting 'lenses' such as a Coke bottle) can be nullified using a structured light technique to characterize and effectively 'undo' the perturber. A simple structured light example is to replace the light source with a DLP projector and take multiple images with only one pixel illuminated at a time. More clever implementations can replace the single pixels with speckle patterns, zebra stripes, etc., and replace the 2D imager with a single-pixel photocell. Other neat tricks can then be performed such as reconstructing the image from the POV of the light source rather than the imaging device.

The experimentals shown in this paper all seem to have two things in common: 1) the "object" in each case is a backlit, 2D binary pattern on a transparency film or similar, with a relatively small illuminated area, and 2) an extremely narrowband (laser, actually) light source is used. The paper does mention several times that the light source is non-coherent, but it is a laser under the hood. This explains the numerous references to "speckle" in the images, which may leave most readers scratching their heads since things don't normally speckle when looked at through a slice of onion under ordinary light. Speckling is a laser (de)coherence phenomenon where the rays are put slightly out of coherence so as to interfere constructively and destructively.

These things suggest to me that while the paper is definitely interesting, there is no need to worry about the neighbors snapping passable nudes through your shower door or Feds cataloging your grow farm via pictures of a blank wall through your window. This sounds more like a modest extension to what's already been done stirring coherent and structured-light in a pot with convolution and autocorrellation methods.

Since the coherence length of cheap semiconductor lasers (e.g. laser pointers) can be on the order of 1mm or less, it's possible to call even a straight-up laserbeam "non-coherent narrowband light" with a somewhat straight face. Likewise, the quasi-point-sources created using a sparse geometric 2D aperture in transparency film, backlight by the aforementioned source, is pretty close to structured light for practical purposes. The takeaway message is these are very special lighting and "scene" conditions that are not representative of everyday photographic circumstances. So not to worry just yet :-)

The two used much different frequency regimes. The Stanford paper looked for waves with periods of 30 minutes to 24 hours. The one in the article looked for waves with periods of 1 to 20 seconds.

Here is the null result. I presume there are new analytical techniques every few years.

Hopefully they will get the merger of the paper battery, graphene nano tubes,
and super capacitors to the point we can 3d print batteries out of carbon
and paper...

http://news.stanford.edu/news/...

STEM covers a wide range of fields; while there is a shortage of computer scientists and engineers (mostly due to the fact that many non-CS engineers go into software), there is an oversupply of biologists and other sciences. http://csl.stanford.edu/~pal/e...

I'm expecting a report any time now regarding hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and leaks of hydrogen..

look no further, though it is largely positive compared to the alternatives of natural gas and petroleum.

A few folk here have commented using incomplete or inaccurate definitions of p-values. A p-value is the probability of finding new data as or more extreme as data you observed assuming a null hypothesis is true. A couple of salient criticisms not mentioned in the article are a) why should more extreme data be lumped in with what was observed and b) what if "new" data can't sensibly be obtained.

In a less technical sense, what the article didn't get into so much is that there is a strong publication bias towards results that are significant (i.e. small p-values), to the point where you need <0.05 to even consider submitting. Some key reading: http://www.stanford.edu/~neilm/qjps.pdf. The short version is to not believe it when the news says that "recent research shows...".

Personally, I wait for evidence to accumulate before, say, changing my diet. And if you really want to get it right, dig through the literature yourself. Some of my saddest moments have come from statistics consulting where mostly people come to you looking for permission to run an inappropriate analysis, not understand their data or fit the "right" model. They want to get published, and that's just how things are done.

Average losses from line loss is 6.6%, so I think that 30% would be a worst of the worst case scenario, something indicating that the grid is operating under abnormal circumstances that are normally avoided. For example, if Fairbanks suffers a generator failure, there's a feeder line to gain power from Anchorage.

Checking up more: a 100 mile 765 kV line carrying 1000 MW of energy can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%..

Roughly speaking, any power generation system is going to put the necessary transmission systems in to keep losses to under 2%. Even a thousand kilometer transmission line should be under 7% East Coast to West Coast is about 4.5k km.
HVDC is even better at only 3.5% per 1k km. So you're only looking at 16% for transmitting power from one coast to the other for use.

Actually, no. It is renewables that have the capacity to sustain an even larger population while depletable don't. Wind along could provide several times current power consumption. http://news.stanford.edu/news/... Solar has much greater potential.

As far as I can determine, the content should be in the public domain.

First, on the book itself. As a 1932 book, it isn't automatically public domain, since only books published before 1923 are old enough to automatically be public domain due to age. However, works published between 1923 and 1963 had to file copyright renewals after 28 years to receive an extended copyright, and it's estimated that Michael Lesk, the Stanford Library, and a transcription effort by Project Gutenberg volunteers, the complete book renewal records are now indexed in machine-readable / searchable form, so you can pretty reliably determine whether a book from 1923-1963 (assuming the U.S. was the original place of publication) is out of copyright. And this one does not appear to have had its copyright renewed.

Having determined that the original book is out of copyright, any scans of it are probably also out of copyright, since a scan of a work doesn't constitute a new creative work, merely a reproduction of the original, so a new copyright doesn't attach. The leading U.S. case there that's generally followed is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel , which held that Corel wasn't violating Bridgeman Art Library's copyright by copying their JPGs of paintings from a CD-ROM, because JPGs of public-domain paintings don't get a new copyright. Though it isn't a Supreme Court case and isn't binding on all courts, it seems to be generally followed.

As far as I can determine, the content should be in the public domain.

First, on the book itself. As a 1932 book, it isn't automatically public domain, since only books published before 1923 are old enough to automatically be public domain due to age. However, works published between 1923 and 1963 had to file copyright renewals after 28 years to receive an extended copyright, and it's estimated that Michael Lesk, the Stanford Library, and a transcription effort by Project Gutenberg volunteers, the complete book renewal records are now indexed in machine-readable / searchable form, so you can pretty reliably determine whether a book from 1923-1963 (assuming the U.S. was the original place of publication) is out of copyright. And this one does not appear to have had its copyright renewed.

Having determined that the original book is out of copyright, any scans of it are probably also out of copyright, since a scan of a work doesn't constitute a new creative work, merely a reproduction of the original, so a new copyright doesn't attach. The leading U.S. case there that's generally followed is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel , which held that Corel wasn't violating Bridgeman Art Library's copyright by copying their JPGs of paintings from a CD-ROM, because JPGs of public-domain paintings don't get a new copyright. Though it isn't a Supreme Court case and isn't binding on all courts, it seems to be generally followed.

Meanwhile my neighbor down the street's daughter flies F16s, she was bored with her Cessna 172 by the age of 15.

And who inspired her? Who made her say, "I wish to fly, too"? I admit she is dedicated to be an F16 pilot, but dedication and inspiration are different things.

Mae Jemison has stated that Nichelle Nichols inspired her. Inspiration is not false merely because the source is fiction. Fiction is a mirror of us. Of our ideals and dreams. That's the power of fiction. It allows us to strip away all the human failings to see the ideal. To see beyond what is to what is possible. How narrow your vision if it cannot see beyond what already exists.

It's an estimate with order of magnitude error right there in time and another significant error in CO2 quantity (with a ceiling of 2 PgC incidentally rather than the 1 PgC claimed in the article).

The quote from that review paper is a summary of references 54-56 which are Payne et al. 2010, Wignall 2011 and Shen et al. 2011. The quantities of carbon come from Fig. 3 in Payne et al. 2010, but the 20kyr timespan comes from Shen et al. 2011 where it only refers to the second carbon isotope excursion. The PgC/year range is a summary of all those references' PgC/year estimates, but with each using their own quantities and their own timespans to avoid mixing apples and oranges.

We also don't have a good idea what else was released, which might have been more lethal than the CO2 (for example, sulfates or fluorides).

A few sentences down in Honisch et al. 2012:

"Knoll et al.(59) inferred the preferential survival of taxa with anatomical and physiological features that should confer resilience to reduced carbonate saturation state and hypercapnia (high CO2 in blood) and preferential extinction of taxa that lacked these traits, such as reef builders (32)."

To be consistent with the fossil evidence in Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), your "more lethal" extinction mechanism would have to have the same marine extinction pattern as that expected from a massive release of CO2. Also, the PETM doesn't have an obvious volcanic culprit but does have a carbon isotope excursion, rapid warming, and a similar (albeit smaller) marine extinction pattern.

Finally, it's worth noting that even if your assertion is complete and accurate, it would take at minimum a millennium for current rates of CO2 production and 13,000 PgC (the lower bound) to put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to match the impact of this extinction event. The upper bound increases that to over four millennia. We should be able to figure things out long before that happens.

Species adapt to climate change by migration and/or evolution, both of which have rate limits past which extinctions become more likely. In light of this, why should the total be more important than the rate?

What is the hurry? Sure, we don't want to run the situation out for a few millennia until we end up in a huge global extinction event. But we can figure things out in far less time than that.

Just suppose the national academies are right to say that we should try to limit global warming to "only" 2C. All else being equal, warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. Here are three different ways to achieve that. Notice that the longer we wait to address the CO2 problem, the steeper our emissions cuts will have to be.

Our music studio only records live sound (no MIDI). We use CCRMA on Fedora20. It has a ton of stuff you might find useful. We use it for the RT prempt capabilities so musicians can auto-punch-in/out during recording without have to go back and time-shift tracks later. Our "sound card" is a pair of Echo Audiofire 12's for the 24 mics around the studio.

Physicists sometimes have it easy. This kind of thing is akin that old joke about treating a cow like a sphere.
Look with the chemical origin of life, that it was governed by physics is not in debate.
What matters are the details, what came first; RNA world, life on a metallic surface, or some thing else?
I have this to toss at so-called astrobiologists who claim that life is spontaneous and easy.
If it is so easy why is there only one kind of life -- 20 amino acids, 4 DNA/RNA bases? To a bio organic chemist the "selection" of this chemical code is arbitrary. Why do we not live in an ecosystem with a shadow "alternative" biosphere? After all life existed for 3 billion years on this planet before even becoming multi-cellular. Plenty of time for chemical weirdos to develop a four base genetic code templating for D chirality beta amino acid chains with side chains made of silicon.
Step off physicists, this field belongs to chemists.

I am not cherry-picking.

But you are. You cherry picked the article and blog from which you choose to read comments.

Bear in mind that the posters are referring to STANFORD UNIVERSITY which is one of the top 15 Universities in the physical sciences worldwide. Most of the posters claim that professors of climate science at Stanford University are just fucking idiots compared to them. Most claim that the professors know nothing about their OWN FIELD of expertise, but the commenters have it all figured out.

So have you actually read the article that they're commenting on? First, the author's area of expertise is not climate science nor do they have a degree from Stanford. They were hired to write positive things about Stanford University, which they did.

So it's not Stanford University, particularly not a climate researcher, but a guy writing for a newsletter for Stanford University.

Second, we have to consider whether there actually is a legitimate grievance here. For example, from the article:

But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive.

Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.

Note every sentence in that stretch contains a qualifying term or what your quoted poster called "weasel words". The problem with such things is that they might happen or they might not. Such a statement as the above would be mostly factually true (aside from the "likely" qualifier in the second sentence), even if the only way it could happen was for humanity to devote its entire energies to make that come true as a prediction rather than doing what it does now.

It's also worth noting here that the Stanford article discusses a review of literature and computer models, not new research. No actual "denier" concerns are addressed by the work in question such as whether the research and computer models in question accurately reflect the state of Earth's climate. But there's another opportunity to regurgitate the usual climate change propaganda.

I am far more humble than almost anyone in the climate denier camp.

Sure, you are.

That brings us to my third point. Just because some of your ideological foes happen to exhibit rather painful intellectual flaws doesn't mean that your argument is correct. That's a variation of the straw man argument where you're attacking only a weak sideshow rather than the core legitimate concern.

Nor does it mean that you don't exhibit those same painful intellectual flaws.

You should read the actual report and not just the summary. I have.

Check this out:

click me

Note that California is not listed -- nor do they do Charter by Charter check/comparison. There are Charter schools that are just terrible.

Now read this:

click me, too

Look at page 22.

"Charter schools are not homogeneous. They vary along a number of
dimensions: Thus, there is no single charter school effect. These
differences affect accessibility, achievement, operation, and gover-
nance as our outline below suggests."

I selected the school my children attend. I did the research. They out perform our local K-5 and 6-8. 9-12 also, with the exception of the magnet program within that school.

You dismiss Charter schools based on averages and comparison -- and I see my family picking a school that works well based on a little leg work and research and picking the best.

"Truly awful teachers get canned, no problem. At least here in Colorado. "

Good for Colorado. CA, it's not so easy. LAUSD has taken a lot of flack and last year the sacked something like 100-200 "lemon" teachers. Guess what? The union has sued. And the teachers aren't "really" fired. They're in what's called "teacher jail". They basically collect a paycheck while awaiting the results of an investigation. No teachers have REALLY been fired yet.

How much resources are used to get rid if bad teachers? Our county will end up spending between $100k-over a million in litigation costs per teacher -- with most never being fired. Some will "retire" where we get to spend MORE of our resources paying them for the rest of their lives when they should be fired with cause (like sleeping in class -- can't tell you how many there were of those). Some will end up teaching at some other school in the district and very very few are actually let go.

Again, you talk about tossing more money at the problem. Again, I disagree. The teachers at our school make less than the local average for teachers. Clearly, money is not the primary factor of the discrepancy in performance.

That may sound OK to a non-engineer, but if one is an engineer, then one knows that if you're developing multiple technologies from scratch, all at once, it will be a big project and it will take a long time. Just look at how long, and how many people it took to turn the groundbreaking Gravity Probe B into reality. That is some top-notch, unique engineering, it took dozens of people a half of a century to accomplish.

This mask would need a whole bunch of new technologies: new batteries, new motors, new turbines, water transport with very low friction losses, etc. It may be doable, but unless someone shows me a long string of graduate degrees obtained while this was being worked on, I call it a big fat bullshit.

Engineering - sometimes it's ultra-hard, and most of you have no clue.

New knowledge needs time to connect to everything you already know, but once it is acquired you have a better understanding than someone younger with a fresher mind who memorizes with ease. At least I like to believe that. There has to be an upside. And I just found this:

As adults age, their performance on many psychometric tests changes systematically, a finding that is widely taken to reveal that cognitive information-processing capacities decline across adulthood. Contrary to this, we suggest that older adults’ changing performance reflects memory search demands, which escalate as experience grows. A series of simulations show how the performance patterns observed across adulthood emerge naturally in learning models as they acquire knowledge. The simulations correctly identify greater variation in the cognitive performance of older adults, and successfully predict that older adults will show greater sensitivity to fine-grained differences in the properties of test stimuli than younger adults. Our results indicate that older adults’ performance on cognitive tests reflects the predictable consequences of learning on information-processing, and not cognitive decline. We consider the implications of this for our scientific and cultural understanding of aging. -- Ramscar &al: The Myth of Cognitive Decline: Non-Linear Dynamics of Lifelong Learning (PDF) , via languagelog

Next time it takes you double the time to learn something, consider yourself blessed!

Point of clarification: The financial crisis was caused by fraud and bad debt, not technology. The government actually did convene a quiet inquiry into the crisis (the FCIC - Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) and results were found, but no action has been taken on it because it was (and continues to be) so very lucrative for many in the political-financial complex:

1) Conclusions of Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - home page.

2) "We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable. The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble. While the business cycle cannot be repealed, a crisis of this magnitude need not have occurred. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in the stars, but in us.

Despite the expressed view of many on Wall Street and in Washington that the crisis could not have been foreseen or avoided, there were warning signs. The tragedy was that they were ignored or discounted. There was an explosion in risky subprime lending and securitization, an unsustainable rise in housing prices, widespread reports of egregious and predatory lending practices, dramatic increases in household mortgage debt, and exponential growth in financial firms’ trading activities, unregulated derivatives, and short-term “repo” lending markets, among many other red flags. Yet there was pervasive permissiveness; little meaningful action was taken to quell the threats in a timely manner." -- From the summary document, page 3 actual, xvii in the document: Conclusions Of The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (PDF),

An amusing meme I've seen recently is attributing any standard of living improvement to the financial sector, instead of to the actual technology which causes the actual improvement.

Point of clarification: The financial crisis was caused by fraud and bad debt, not technology. The government actually did convene a quiet inquiry into the crisis (the FCIC - Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) and results were found, but no action has been taken on it because it was (and continues to be) so very lucrative for many in the political-financial complex:

1) Conclusions of Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - home page.

2) "We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable. The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble. While the business cycle cannot be repealed, a crisis of this magnitude need not have occurred. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in the stars, but in us.

Despite the expressed view of many on Wall Street and in Washington that the crisis could not have been foreseen or avoided, there were warning signs. The tragedy was that they were ignored or discounted. There was an explosion in risky subprime lending and securitization, an unsustainable rise in housing prices, widespread reports of egregious and predatory lending practices, dramatic increases in household mortgage debt, and exponential growth in financial firms’ trading activities, unregulated derivatives, and short-term “repo” lending markets, among many other red flags. Yet there was pervasive permissiveness; little meaningful action was taken to quell the threats in a timely manner." -- From the summary document, page 3 actual, xvii in the document: Conclusions Of The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (PDF),

An amusing meme I've seen recently is attributing any standard of living improvement to the financial sector, instead of to the actual technology which causes the actual improvement.

You've not demonstrated that rap is 'objectively bad music' (a claim far too broad to be meaningful, but no matter), you've just adopted an interpretation of 'music' just narrow enough to exclude rap.

lack of harmony and melody

Indeed. Rhythm and rhyme are emphasised instead, and we certainly see those in 'ordinary' musical genres.

and the part about its empty lyrics

For a counter-example, I submit Eminem's Lose Yourself. An inspirational message, and the author's life-story.

Empty lyrics are not inherent to rap music, but yes, they do plague the genre.

It lacks the basic elements of 'music'! Something cannot be considered 'good music' when it discards every core element of music. Rap music is a form of noise, not music.

And we're back to my original point.

Relevant: classical theory of concepts, in philosophy. In a word: it's unsustainable to impose rigid requirements when defining things. In the way that not all tables have legs, not all music has melody.

The cognoscenti recognize midnight preceding November 17, 1858 as the beginning of time.

wtf. Slasdot doesn't like "open parenthesis" followed by "less than". Anyhow:

The EPA's "global warming potential" equivalency factors include a value for residence time in the atmosphere. The IR spectrum for water vapor is irrelevant as its residence time (less than 10 days) is three orders of magnitude lower than CO2 (36,500 days, or 100 yrs).

See: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ali1/
Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential [wikipedia.org]

And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor [wikipedia.org]

Yeah, but start billing somebody every time they look at your page and you can guarantee that people won't be coming to your site very often, or the number of page views will go down quite a bit.

But to-date, nobody has set up a payment method that is as easy to get into as the one proposed here, and you end up having to create accounts all over the web, give out credentials to people you don't trust etc. If I could do it one place, and expect to see minuscule page view rates I think you could sell it.

All of the current methods of doing this are simply too expensive to process and the web sites have an inflated concept of their value.

This is due to the current ad based revenue model where advertisers end up paying anywhere from 10 cents to 4 or 5 bucks per click, and web site developers earn virtually nothing on those clicks, and the rest flows to google.

The actual cost of a web page view is minuscule, and the actual earnings a company needs to make are similarly small, because the volume of hits means they can make money even at 100th of a cent, or even less.

I tossed out a quarter of a cent in my example above, but that is very much probably excessive.
It would be hard to measure on a site like Slashdot, because just defining what is a Page View is not clear due to all the
server transactions that occur in support of posting.

But on CNN, or the NYT, or any blog site you are interested in, I think I could justify paying somewhere between 1/100th and 1/10th of a cent per story view (not the landing page).

Most of the problems were addressed in a Stanford Study and they all center around the friction and transaction costs..

I thought I'd also leave you with this since you must be out of practice. There exist complete, formal proofs for both theorems. I'm not really sure where you picked up this misguided notion that they aren't theorems, but an appeal to authority ("I have studied") is useless when you don't back it up with a citation, unlike what I've done, from multiple sources now. Frankly, I won't believe a claimed authority on logic when they mix up theorems and theories.

I think there was a recent article on Slashdot about osmotic energy... the interface between the fresh water and the salty water could be used to generate the electricity to do the pumping. http://mahb.stanford.edu/whats-happening/osmotic-energy/

It takes about five years, lots of concrete = lots of CO2 emissions, to build a 1GW reactor. You'd need to complete about one per week for the next 35 years to replace ONE-SEVENTH of the energy we now get from fossil fuels. (Pascala and Socolow, Science pdf 2004) (Stanford pdf on implementing sustainable energy.) Finish one reactor per week. Good luck with that.

And if you managed that, you'd run out of fuel for those reactors within a couple of decades. (Don't start with the but-but thorium!, or fusion, or god-knows-what-all. The testing and permitting on new tech would take us way past peak oil.)

You'd have to take care of the expected waste, plus the unexpected waste from accidents, for ever.

Meanwhile, Germany is implementing soloar and energy efficiency and is AHEAD of its targets.

The more time, effort, and money we waste chasing nukes, the less we have for a real solution.

You could, in fact Stanford did it ~10 years ago
https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/highspeedarray/

Because I can't edit my post, here is a paper battery management systems: http://www.stanford.edu/~adurieux/cgi-bin/Website/downloads/Antoine_DURIEUX_MSE303_Paper.pdf

And it looks as if you don't understand how science works, either

I may not know enough about Kant to fully understand why Kantians were challenged by Relativity theory, but I do know that the philosophy of science is an unsettled field. Perhaps the best way to understand science is to do science, and not simply argue whether "a priori" and "a posteriori" are adequate containers for human knowledge.

On the other hand, you are correct, and I was in the wrong-- to the extent that the "invariance of light" relies on experimental data, it is a posteriori.

I've looked at a couple of links, one in the Slashdot post and the one you posted, but couldn't find a list of specific data points you are collecting.

Links I went to:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/11/what's-in-your-metadata
http://metaphone.me/learnmore

Is there a link to the data point information, or could you provide more information? Data points by source would be great (potentially obvious, but seeing sources would make things clearer and more transparent).

Thank you.

Since the experiment involves human subjects, it has presumably been vetted by Stanford's Institutional Review Board.

Don't confuse the Wiki as a tool with Wikipedia.

A lot of the discussion here doesn't seem to have much to do with TFA. (Surprise, surprise...)

People seem to be missing the importance of "scholarly canons" in the summary. TFA is NOT about open-access publishing (except indirectly). This is NOT about Wikipedia (except perhaps as a model of how to do certain aspects of a scholarly encyclopedia better than Wikipedia).

TFA holds up Scholarpedia as its main exemplar of a better kind of scholar online encyclopedia of canonic knowledge in a particular field.

That's not the only one out there, and Scholarpedia does have its issues. Personally, I think if our goal is to produce a standard scholarly encyclopedia for a particular discipline (or for many disciplines), we could also take the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a great example of a model project of collaboration by scholars to produce a summary of research and ideas in a discipline...

... and it's been around for nearly 20 years already. Long before most of these other things have existed.

I don't trust wikipedia for stuff like this. I found info from Stanford.edu.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html

Migrating birds in the Caribbean are mostly observed around 10,000 feet, although some are found half and some twice that high. Generally long-distance migrants seem to start out at about 5,000 feet and then progressively climb to around 20,000 feet ... Perhaps the most impressive altitude record is that of a flock of Whooper Swans which was seen on radar arriving over Northern Ireland on migration and was visually identified by an airline pilot at 29,000 feet.

Citation?
Most charts do not show this, for example: http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf

You need to get your eyes checked. Your own link shows real (inflation adjusted) income increasing from $24k to $40k over fifty years, which is a 66% gain.

Citation?
Most charts do not show this, for example: http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf

Planet CCRMA at Home (CCRMA is pronounced ``karma'') is a collection of free, open source rpm packages (RPM stands for RPM Package Manager) that you can add to a computer running Fedora, 17, 18 or 19, or CentOS 5 (not all applications are built on the 64 bit version) to transform it into an audio workstation with a low-latency kernel, current audio drivers and a nice set of music, midi and audio applications (what if you are not using Fedora or CentOS?).

In particular, familiarize yourself with qjackctl and the jack server that it controls; it's a bit like the *nix concept of piping I/O, but for sound and sound apps.