Slashdot Mirror

Basically, what you are suggesting is that vaccinations cause autoimmune. Yet, logically, that makes little sense.

No, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. Current vaccines do not (or at least are not known to) cause autoimmune disorders, although vaccinations can trigger preexisting autoimmune conditions.

As far as I'm aware, nobody knows exactly what actually causes autoimmune conditions to begin with, beyond that the immune system somehow gets confused about what it should attack. My best guess is that viruses, because they often end up getting their DNA mixed up with DNA from the host, can sometimes end up causing a few cells to produce substances (e.g. proteins) that contain a mixture of the viral coat and some aspect of the host's cells, and that in some rare cases, this causes the immune system to recognize those two things as being related, and starts attacking the host organism inadvertently.

This is, incidentally, exactly how many bacterial vaccines work; they combine some portion of the bacterium's structure with something that the immune system already knows how to attack. I could easily imagine a scenario where a batch of the bacteria genetically engineered to produce those substances gets inadvertently contaminated via viral DNA transfer, resulting in batches of the vaccine that trigger autoimmune conditions, either in a few unlucky individuals, or worse, en masse.

But the bigger risk, IMO, is the possibility that the vaccine itself could make a superbug more likely. Researchers in Canada and Hong Kong during the 2009–2010 flu season (H1N1) discovered that people who got the 2008 flu shot (with H1N1 coverage) had twice the risk of getting the strain of H1N1 that circulated in the 2009–2010 season as unvaccinated people. Of course, another study in 2017 showed the exact opposite effect, so there are a lot of giant question marks here.

But at least at a conceptual level, vaccines train your immune system to attack certain things, and as your immune system learns what to attack, its reactions to new threats does decrease somewhat. That's why kids who are exposed to more germs by age 1 are less likely to develop allergies later in life. It is unclear to what extent this effect could result in something that you might otherwise have fought off from becoming deadly, but at the very least, it is sufficient reason to approach expansion of vaccination in new areas with some degree of caution, as over-vaccination might turn out to be just as harmful as prophylactic antibiotic use in the long run.

And no, I'm not an epidemiologist, but I've read a lot on the subject over the years.

Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.

That's very unspecific, and goes against climate scientists' overwhelming consensus, specifically that recent calculations concludes that the Earth is warming orders of magnitude faster than from natural forces. Neither "normal climate variability" nor "heat waves" seems to account for past data, nor is able to predict future trends better than AGW.

High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.

And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.

I couldn't find a source that only night temperatures will increase -- what's yours? The closest I could find was this article explaining why night-time temperatures are warming faster than day-time temperatures. They're both still warming though.

By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").

Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...

http://www.surfacestations.org/

You do not take into account how that data is used and verified. A quick search presents convincing skeptical arguments that these measurements are still reliable as a whole, as they show the same corroborating trends whether they're urban or rural, or lumped into random groups (which would emphasize any inaccuracies from placement of stations):
https://skepticalscience.com/s...
https://skepticalscience.com/B...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (5 min video -- UQx DENIAL101x 2.4.1.1v2 Building a robust temperature record)

.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-15]

.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

I haven't expended ANY energy to avoid writing anything down. I've written down the proper and necessary equations not just once but many times now. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-13]

Ironically, Jane's still trying hard to avoid writing down his energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he'd try to write down that equation just once, he might realize that the nonsensical equation he's written down many times isn't proper or necessary.

I don't need to write down a "conservation of energy equation" in regard to Spencer's experiment. I don't refuse to do it because I can't, as you have clearly implied. I refuse to do it because this is a dead issue. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-13]

If Jane actually could write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms, Jane would see that "radiative power from the walls" can't cancel out.

Once again, the only way Jane's final term could cancel with the radiative power in term "(e*s)*T4^4" to obtain Jane's final equation would be if "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out" equals "(e*s)*T4^4". But it's being emitted by the source, which is at temperature T1. If reflections confuse you, just remember that the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation where there aren't any reflections at all. In that case, all that power is being absorbed and re-emitted, not reflected.

If Jane would write down an energy conservation equation and think about it, he might realize that he's been endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong" using Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense that violates conservation of energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But since Jane's Slayer brainwashing is so thorough that he can't bring himself to write down that equation, Jane will probably keep endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong".

Ironically, if Jane's Slayer nonsense was right, Jane would also have "proven wrong" Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

... YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. ... If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-06]

No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theory represents "established" physics. Fascina

That's ridiculous, Jane. Notice that "net radiative power out" equals negative "net radiative power in". Since Jane seems to agree that "net radiative power out" is positive, "net radiative power in" can't be zero. It has to be negative, which just means more radiative power is flowing out than flowing in.

Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself. Just no. Any spherical boundary you draw within this system has additional input: your vaunted electrical power. I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-12]

Electrical power isn't radiative power, so it wouldn't be included in net radiative power.

... I have written down all I need to write down to answer Spencer's challenge. I solved for the correct temperature, and showed your own answer to be utterly wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-11]

Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly, which led him to the absurd conclusion that Jane was only off by about 0.1% when Jane was actually off by ~100%.

So Jane hasn't written down all he needs to give the correct answer to Spencer's challenge. To give the correct answer, Jane has to draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from source

This is the same answer that Prof. Brown and Dr. Joel Shore tried to explain to Jane. It's also the same answer that underlies the positions taken by the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

... YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. ... If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-06]

No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theor

... These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-25]

Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him. Lonny Eachus personally asked Dr. Joel Shore about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him. And now Jane/Lonny Eachus fantasizes that these physicists agree with his Sky Dragon Slayerism? Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus should read those exchanges again, and notice that Prof. Brown and Dr. Shore told Jane/Lonny Eachus the same things I am. That's because Prof. Brown, Dr. Shore and I are simply reiterating elementary mainstream physics.

... Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-25]

How bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

That's why Jane, Dr. Latour and the rest of the Slayers disagree with the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.

Again, how did we detect the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

If Sky Dragon Slayers could answer these questions without resorting to gray Oreos or basketball player gloves, physicists might take the Slayers more seriously.

.. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. Be a man and admit the truth.. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]

... Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. ...

... I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Completely backwards, as usual. I've already shown that my solution keeps electrical heating power constant. Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly, which led him to the absurd conclusion that Jane was only off by about 0.1% when Jane was actually off by ~100%.

... because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Good grief, Jane. How did the Sky Dragon Slayers brainwash you into endlessly regurgitating this nonsense? Once again, radiation is absorbed by any surface with absorptivity > 0. Jane's either hopelessly confused about the very term "NET" which he keeps capitalizing, or Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Again, how do Slayers think we detected the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do Slayers think uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why do Slayers think Venus is hotter than Mercury?

... I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

.. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. Be a man and admit the truth.. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]

.

.. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you? .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-23]

If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out". For instance:

There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-23]

That's exactly the equation Jane should be using to calculate electrical heating power! It has separate terms for "power in" and "power out" so it can describe power entering and exiting a boundary. If Jane would use that equation, he'd honestly be only saying there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter.

Instead, Jane insists that electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.

There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct. .. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-23]

So Jane refuses to retract his absurd claim that view factors vary as the radius ratio, which violates conservation of energy. A cynic might have expected as much, given how Jane flagrantly violates conservation of energy by incoherently ignoring radiative power passing in through a boundary around the heat source.

.. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. I only replied on the off-chance that you really were ignorant and could be educated. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-20]

Jane's campaign of educating ignorant, stupid physicists about physics has only just begun. Jane still needs to educate Prof. Brown and Lonny Eachus still needs to educate Dr. Joel Shore.

Then, Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate the "ignorant" and "stupid" American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. ..

... It is the engineering textbook answer. Claiming it is nonsense does not make it so. It was your own model that violated conservation of energy. But to see why, it's easiest to solve the general case first, then look at a specific case. I told you I had reasons to solve the general case first. ... Well, then, I guess you do admit defeat. It doesn't take much time to obtain a textbook on the subject (you were given references 2 years ago and it's not that hard to find others) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-01]

No, the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers told you it's the engineering textbook answer. I showed you MIT's final expression which reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. Physicists and engineers have been using thermodynamics for decades in the real world that contradicts Dr. Latour's Slayer nonsense.

That's why Jane, Dr. Latour and the rest of the Slayers disagree with the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.

... I am disputing that given reasonable chosen dimensions it is anywhere near an intractable problem. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-01]

I never said the problem is intractable. Just that it's more complicated than the spherically symmetric problem. Again, do you dispute that equilibrium temperatures for a non-enclosing plate would vary across the plate surfaces rather than being simple numbers like with a spherically symmetric fully enclosing plate?

Maybe I should explain that. Consider Dr. Spencer's first illustration. Presumably the heated plate at "150F" has finite conductivity, so its lack of spherical symmetry means that its corners will be cooler than the plate's side's midpoints. That's because the corners are closer to the cold chamber walls than those midpoints.

An integral over the heated plate's surface might average to "150F" but (unlike a spherically symmetric plate) it can't have that temperature everywhere as long as it has finite conductivity. But at least the single heated plate has bilateral symmetry; the left and right hand side midpoints have the same temperature.

Adding a cool plate removes even that bilateral symmetry. The left hand side's midpoint warms the least because it's still radiating to the 0F chamber walls. The right hand side's midpoint warms the most because it's now radiating to the (initially) 100F cold plate.

Since enclosing a spherically symmetric plate warms it from 150F to ~233.8F for area ratios similar to Earth's, the right hand side's midpoint won't warm past ~233.8F. But it has to warm to conserve energy because at equilibrium power in = power out.

I can't be more specific without programming a finite element model. But Dr. Latour never even allowed for the heated plate's temperature to be different on each side. As long as we're only considering materials with finite conductivity, this would only be poss

A large body of scientists who are PHYSICISTS agree with me. A large body of scientists who are CLIMATE RESEARCHERS disagree. ... which group should I listen to? The ones whose SPECIALTY it is, or the tyros? Go learn a little humility yourself. Like for example learning to admit when you're wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.

Maybe Jane doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

... None of your citations even mention Latour, much less try to refute him. You are just making your usual straw-man arguments again. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

All those professional physics societies agree that our CO2 emissions are causing warming, which Dr. Latour and the Slayers deny. Jane's claimed that physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics, and that Jane "takes the physicists' word for it." I'm skeptical.

... To the best of my knowledge -- and I have been following the issue -- not one physicist has even attempted to refute LaTour's analysis, while a number of physicists have backed him up. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

rgbatduke is Prof. Brown, a physicist who'd refuted Dr. Latour's analysis directly to Jane, but as usual Jane just doubled down. On a Slayer blog post about Prof. Brown, Lonny Eachus even repeated Jane's arguments to physicist Joel Shore, who refuted Lonny.

Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

... As for your heating the walls, the argument all along has been about something that is warmed from a cooler state to equilibrium. Whether your point about heating the walls is correct or not isn't part of it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Of course it is. The heated plate reaches equilibrium at 150F with the chamber walls at 0F, then the chamber walls are warmed to 149F and the heated plate warms from a cooler state to a warmer equilibrium. This is a simple way to see that Slayer claims like these are wrong:

... Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics? Do you understand that it is not possible for a cooler body to increase the heat of a warmer body via infrared radiation? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

... An object that is radiating at a certain black-body temperature WILL NOT absorb a less-energetic photon from an outside source. This is am extremely well-known corollary of the Secon

http://www.uib.no/news/nyheter/2013/05/the-drones-of-oil

There you go :)

Very funny. It wasn't that impressive, but I think this is the link they forgot.

The fact of the matter is this. The rules Muslim claim to follow. They do not follow them self. So when extremist claim that the "west" has "insulted" them. It is nonsense. The fact is that this cases and many more are just excuses by extremist to invoke violence agents people they do want to subjugate.

Here are few examples of Muhammad pictures over the past few hundred years.

http://www.hf.uib.no/religion/popularikonografi/exhib02.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

Doing what extremist wants is nothing but saying that they have won. As I free person I do not accept that from anyone. That being a religion, the state, corporation or the state.

Wow, that's impressive. Scandinavians are early adapters of technology, and cellphone ownership is pretty high (at least in Norway, probably the same in Sweden and Denmark).

Number of registered cellphone subscriptions in Norway in 2007 : > 5 million [ 1 ]
Estimated population in 2011: < 5 million [ 2 ]

In other words, cellphone subscriptions passed 100% of the population in 2007. People without cellphones here are few and far between.

[ 1 ] http://medienorge.uib.no/?cat=statistikk&medium=it&queryID=341
[ 2 ] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Norway

Perhaps this idea might interest you: http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/num-intro.htm/

I am not sure whether this indicates a lowering of level or just a change in the way the world works. Latin got obsoleted in "serious" scientific publications. Could correct English become obsolete in the same way ?

Not really, since Latin was an advanced language in many ways as rich as English, it's just that it wasn't being spoken and didn't have the necessary lexical input so it was replaced by English over time. But even so, I suppose the real test of your idea would be whether the same ideas could be communicated just as well using a modified form of English. After all, who cares if I'm using "cuz" rather than "because" or "lol" rather than whatever the correct form of "lol" is in standard English? If what I'm telling you makes sense to you, and it's what I want to communicate to you, then that's all that matters.

Try reading some English written a couple of hundred years ago (for example here) . It's not exactly fluent, and contains many things we might today call grammatical mistakes.

I'd argue that it's an even smaller percentage than that. PET scans of brain activity show only small areas that are active at any one instant, and even then the temporal resolution is such that the snapshots are 'fuzzy'. I'd suggest less than 1% of the neurons (say a billion) are active at any one time, suggesting to me that perhaps a computing cluster of a hundred multi-gigaherz cores could simulate the activity of a human brain well enough.

Those are all good ideas, but perhaps you should take a look at this site. It's summary a potential movie version of the Akallabeth, or the fall of Numenor. I think it would be a very good film, if not much of an action film.

Pudge, you still blew it.

Huh. Then why do you agree with my point?

After citing one of McIntyre and McKitrick's papers in a peer-reviewed social-science journal (I would have picked their one example from a more serious journal, the Geophysical Research Letters 2005 paper, but OK), you went straight to:

In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited...

Your link proving that "fact" was to a webpage set up by McIntyre and McKitrick themselves.

... and?

I thought we were talking about science and how we know scientific debate is occurring or not. You apparently still don't understand that scientists self-publishing doesn't count

I was publishing it as a useful summary. Since when is that disallowed? The main point was the actual peer-reviewed paper I linked to, which addressed the majority of claims in the summary, in detail. If I had left out the link to the summary, it would not have weakened my position at all. It was just added so you could better understand the issues without troubling yourself to actually look at the peer-reviewed article, and because it traced some of the history of the existing peer-reviewed papers in the discussion. There is nothing remotely improper about my adding that link.

If I had added that link, and there was no mention of a recent paper in it, and I had not added in any other information about recent papers, well, that would be improper. It's a good thing I didn't do that.

Anyway, to avoid further digression, I'll allow that the scientific debate over the "hockey stick" graph has not quite ended yet.

Which was, of course, my point, so it's troubling that you said I "blew it" when in fact I gave you precisely what you asked for in order to back up the point of mine that you claimed was false. My truth is a bit too inconvenient for you, I guess.

Give that just a few years, probably. From what I've read, McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis on that topic is so flawed, and has been dissected so thoroughly, that, real soon now, it's going to turn into an embarrassment for any serious journal that publishes their work.

What you've read is wrong.

Maybe the methods used to draw the "hockey stick" were flawed (though it's not looking that way).

Then you should really read M&M's recent paper.

Getting back to what I actually said in the review of the movie, that has no impact on what I identified as Gore's main point

Funny how you attack me even though none of what you said has had an impact on MY main point, and then you say this. Boggling. (Also, you should really be using the <quote> tag!)

There are minor errors. They don't detract from Gore's main point, on which the scientific debate has ended. And the main point is scary, and almost too big to think about or talk about. The earth is warming, because of us.

Except, of course, as everyone knows, this isn't true (that the scientific debate on this has ended). And to the extent is true, the scientists who claim the debate is, or should be, over, are not worthy of being called scientists, because the unassailable fact is that there has never been causation actually shown. Only correlation. The "hockey stick graph," even if upheld, shows no causation whatsoever. To say the debate has ended because of correlation is, simply, a very stupid thing to do. But that's what you're claiming, and that's what many scientists are claiming. And it's sad.

And then as to the rest, that "big changes are coming" and "our best estimates are that it's going to be really bad," how can you sit there with a straight face and say the debate has ended over such things which are not remotely provable and haven't happened yet? This is gues

Pudge, you still blew it. After citing one of McIntyre and McKitrick's papers in a peer-reviewed social-science journal (I would have picked their one example from a more serious journal, the Geophysical Research Letters 2005 paper, but OK), you went straight to:

In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited...

Your link proving that "fact" was to a webpage set up by McIntyre and McKitrick themselves. I thought we were talking about science and how we know scientific debate is occurring or not. You apparently still don't understand that scientists self-publishing doesn't count; by that standard the jury is still out on whether humans evolved from animals and whether the earth goes around the sun. You might as well just point out that McIntyre has a website. Not every word that comes out of a scientist's mouth is a work of science; the peer-review check is critical to the scientific process.

Anyway, to avoid further digression, I'll allow that the scientific debate over the "hockey stick" graph has not quite ended yet. Give that just a few years, probably. From what I've read, McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis on that topic is so flawed, and has been dissected so thoroughly, that, real soon now, it's going to turn into an embarrassment for any serious journal that publishes their work.

But the "hockey stick" graph is just one way of reconstructing temperature, and it corroborates the many other ways that we know the earth is warming. Maybe the methods used to draw the "hockey stick" were flawed (though it's not looking that way). Getting back to what I actually said in the review of the movie, that has no impact on what I identified as Gore's main point:

There are minor errors. They don't detract from Gore's main point, on which the scientific debate has ended.

And the main point is scary, and almost too big to think about or talk about. The earth is warming, because of us. Sometime in the next hundred years, our environment is going to change in big ways. We can't predict it with much accuracy yet, but the best estimates we have are that it's going to be -- measured in lives and dollars -- really bad.

(a) The earth is warming, (b) because of humans, (c) big changes are coming, (d) we can't predict them very well yet but (e) our best estimates are that it's going to be really bad. You're welcome to try to find a single recent paper that argues with any of that. As a hint: McIntyre and McKitrick's "alternative" reconstructions all clearly show substantial global warming throughout the 20th century and they at no point deny that global warming is anthropogenic via CO2 emissions. There's not just scientific consensus on this, but, as far as anyone can tell, unanimity.

And while nobody has a crystal ball, the lack of substantial negative-feedback mechanisms found for this planet's greenhouse effect (quite the contrary, apparently), the ties between CO2 and temperature, and the current CO2 levels being far outside the norm for the past almost-million-years point to really bad stuff starting sometime this century.

I guess I recognize that you aren't going to accept any of this, because you don't really understand what the science is saying:

With global-warming-caused-by-man, there are innumerable potential theories, and right at the top of the list is "it's merely coincidental." [...] The claim being made is that man causes global warming, but the data does not show that. It shows only correlation, not causation. This is true. If you disagree, show me one paper that actually shows causation. I'll wait.

The Silmarillion is a huge, sprawling history of Middle Earth spanning from creation myth right up until the end of the Third Age (so effectively LOTR is just the final blink of the eye). From reading the article, it seems Peter Jackson was under the impression they'd be making two prequel films (of which one would be The Hobbit) back-to-back, but this wouldn't make sense unless they covered adjacent chronologies. I'd fear studio-led creation here, were it not for the existence of a very well-thought-out treatment for a film based on The Akallabeth; the most relevant portion of The Silmarillion for those who were interested in the mythology behind The Lord of the Rings.

The fun question is, will the studios ever get daft enough to want to take the Silmarillion to the silver screen?

As other posters have noted, the entire Silmarillion in itself isn't filmable. It's worth remembering that JRRT didn't write it as one book; it's a collection of stories posthumously edited and compiled by his son Christopher. But with that said, many of the stories in it would make excellent movies. As an example, there's a brilliant but very long film treatment of the Akallabeth available over here. As I said, it's very long but an excellent read if you have an hour or two to spare!

The comments I made about "concepts" notwithstanding, whenever I see a picture of Bjarne Stroustroup it always looks like he spent two nights without sleep trying to debug some diabolical problem or just emerged from under a gigantic pile of bricks that fell on him.

http://www.lstud.ii.uib.no/~s1099/images/Bjarne_th .jpg (some poor guy's home page, can't find this image elsewhere on google images)

I think he needs a vacation and some sort of spa treatment.

I don't see why being a professor would disqualify Tolkien from geek-hood -- more likely it does just the opposite. In any case, it's a list of books for geeks, not books by geeks, so JRR's personal geek level isn't that relevant.

That said, any author who goes to the trouble of inventing entire languages complete with full grammar and vocabulary, just for the characters in his books to use, is probably a geek ;^)

Your Grandmother's PC has more than enough CPU cycles to encrypt all of her network traffic. A 333 MHz Celeron can encrypt 7.771E6 bytes/second with DES. See Efficient Implementation of the Data Encryption Standard.

2. Elven

Elvish. Or if you want to be technical, Quenya and Sindarin.

TFA didn't have it, but there's an artist's rendering of this species here (from http://www.mi.uib.no/~respl/tolkien/mapdocs/index2 .html)

Some sources for scanned Scandinavian books, some OCRd:

* Numerous encyclopedias (bibliographical, etc), as well as literature at Project Runeberg

* Encyclopedias regarding Danish parishes at Statsbiblioteket

* Misc. pre-1900 legal texts as well as dictionary of Danish 1300-1700, at Digitalhylla

* Codex Holmiensis
(midieval Danish law)
* H.C. Andersen's manuscripts

If it follows a proper structure, as opposed to baby talk you might do around an infant, why shouldn't it count as a language? I imagine the only thing that so far invalidates it in your view is that Tammet so far is the only speaker of it.

Thousands of languages have gone extinct over the years. There are probably a number today where its body of speakers is down to a handful of people. Sometimes even two last speakers who got into a fight and no longer talk to one another. Do those languages no longer count?

Would you count Esperanto, Klingon (go ahead, laugh,) or even Tolkein's creations as languages? When did they become a language? Surely at some point, they were only known by their developers.

And Elvish. We can't forget Sindarin.

Unfortunatly, Peter Jackson will not be doing the prequel, and after the ring was destroyed the stories of middle earth all seemed pretty boring so no sequels were released. I have personally E-Mailed Perter Jackson's "people" and he has no plans to do the hobbit which is the book that started it all.

enlish is actually pretty damn easy :)

I'll just pretend you meant to say Elvish, and agree. It is beautiful, though.

pedo mellon a minno (Speak, friend, and enter)

Whether Aarseth is correct or not, he is certainly not an amatuer.
He is the author of Cybertext which is cited in practically every paper on videogames.
He is also the co-founder of the Department of Humanistic Informatics at the University of Bergen as well as the co-founder of Games Studies an academic e-journal about videogames.
Finally, he is Associate Professor, Principal Researcher at the Center of Computer Games Research at the Department of Digital Aesthetics & Communication at the IT University of Copenhagen which is pretty much the largest group of videogame academics in the world.

So again, whether or not he is right, and i haven't yet read this latest article so i don't have an opinion, one cannot correctly say that he is an amatuer.

.
Last thing I would do is lay the wiring alongside the water pipes. Water is a service that is [1] always breaking/leaking somewhere, [2] always being upgraded for new homes, and [3] has workers tearing up the ground surrounding the pipes like they were digging for pirate gold.

My personal opinion here is wireless, there is equipment out there with good ranges. And if the community expands, slap in repeaters.

jon

An older version is already online (legally).

Go check it out and decide for yourself. While you're at it, you might even want to check out the specs. A word of caution, however. The specs are really intended for card and GL server manufacturers. As a result, it tends to go into a lot of details that are often irrelevant to developing OpenGL applications.

Here's a list of other email narratives: http://huminf.uib.no/~jill/txt/emailnarratives.htm l

You answer with dogma internal to your faith. (-: Even claims the bible to be perfect!? :-) I asked for an answer, not a politican's answer-another-question. If there should be a god, why would he be Xian? (When discussing Bertrand Russel and faith/reason in protestantism -- read his chapter on Roussau in his big book on philosophy... you're wrong.)

(-: My fault -- I assumed that on slashdot even a believer would be able to reason. :-)

If the fault was that you couldn't understand my bad presentation of the argument, I'm willing to rewrite it. (But then you would have asked.)

If you missed the point: The religious people are making a very extreme statement (a powerful supernatural being exists, he is a member of my cult). To not be laughed at -- considering the number of cults with contradicting statements -- you need very good support. Internal dogma isn't.

Yes, I've read up on religious arguments. They stink and never answer simple arguments like this. (I never read C S Lewis after finding this. Well, except for his self biography on when he became religious. Laughed my ass off.)

That is agnosticism.

An irrelevant word definition. See 101-103 here. This was your main problem with atheism? (-: You are 99.99% as much atheist as me, it's just that you are atheist for a god less... :-)

Yes, yes -- I know about Xian dogma -- trinity ("3 for the price of 1"), etc. Internal dogma point for one of multiple Jewish heresies are neither interesting or a serious argument that it happens to be the only true religion.

Will just comment on this:

You say all religions call for violence and death

Who am I fooling, there is no way you'll answer my argument seriously -- you'll just spout bible references.

about Sindarin :-)

It's these huge text masses about weird languages that can make one wonder about the authors mental state!

For starters, go here.

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg

Or direct links too..

http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd1.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd2.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd3.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd4.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd5.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd6.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd7.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd8.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd9.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd10.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd11.jpg
http://www.student.uib.no/~st09155/SW/jd12.jpg