Slashdot Mirror

The "sanitary regulated onesie living" was a reflection of the fact that they were on the flagship of a psudo-military vessel. Militaries around the world wear much stupider things in this day and age:

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima...
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... --I'd take a Star Trek onsie over this any day

The civilians depicted did not dress in onesies, far from it - the costume design (especially in TOS) for the aliens/civilians was as varied and out there as it gets - again, it was a contrast of normalization (everyone dressing the same - a very 50s attitude) vs the creativity that is possible when you don't have the expectation of the norm (what the alien cultures provided)

In TNG they started to bring in more personality to the characters with Picard's anthropology, Riker's music, Worf's Klingon culture, etc and the sets "10 forward", the holodeck, etc without losing the ability to contrast. In DS9 they used the contrast to great effect - especially with what they did with Jake and Nog. Jake became less and less "federation-like" in his attitudes and dress as the story progressed while Nog made the opposite journey.

Throughout TOS/TNG/DS9 there were always very clear distinctions between "military" and non-military dress, attitudes, & culture for all the major races.

Megalosaurus already exists. Its original scientific name was "Scrotum humanum". No, I'm not making this up.

I see a lot of doctors and nurses bicycle to work where I live, to the nearby hospitals. At least I used to a couple years back. White hipster kids are slowly leaving the area, and there are irreversible transformations at the nearby hospitals, which may have longterm effects on the budget and bottom line of the whole city and region, especially when it comes to tourist-health-care, people visiting for a surgery from far away land because they heard the local hospitals are best at it, or at least used to be, that kind of cash cow may go on for a while longer then just stop, unless they can mobilize a whole new gang of different class of customers, but still of affluence, I'd say mostly from Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, etc, and stay away from a financial implosion. Some people are so fed up with "discrimination" that they will shortsightedly drive entire businesses out of business by trying to fix "discrimination" issues. And then how do you gain from the whole thing? At least you used to get tax revenue to your own area from these "discriminatory" punks that used to work there, once the place goes out of business, then there is nothing. Nothing. You get a whole lot of this: http://media.salon.com/2011/10... and this http://media.cmgdigital.com/sh... and this http://i1109.photobucket.com/a... and this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... and this http://blog.preservationnation... and this http://www.museumofthecity.org... How many times have you seen it? Let's fix what's wrong with America today, it's discrimination, once we fix that, everything'll be alright. You know I'm saying?

He's not kidding, people, the vikings in Dublin are all over this shit

I'll just leave this here.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Last time we had the kind of temperatures we are heading for, the dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Normally, organisms have millions of years to adapt to these kind of changes. This is how we are headed to an extinction event.

I have an Oculus Rift and there actually is a browser plug-in that lets you use Google street view with the oculus. You don't get 3D images, but everything is to scale and the headtracking works perfectly. It's very very cool. I went back to the house I grew up in, some cities, etc.

An interesting sensation, though, was that you were seeing everything from the height of the Google car cameras. And it was pretty strange feeling so tall.

Sounds like nobody wants to live there. Wonder why that is..

Yeah, I wonder... it's so awful here:

http://www.peterurbanski.com/d...
http://www.michaelyamashita.co...
http://vtsports.com/wp-content...
http://summit.jacksonwhelan.ne...
http://mediad.publicbroadcasti...
https://img0.etsystatic.com/00...
http://www.usappleblog.org/wp-...
http://www.discoverkillington....
http://qcc-vt-photo-media.s3.a...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
http://girlgonetravel.com/wp-c...
http://www.bangngangan.com/ima...
http://www.discoverbristolvt.c...
http://www.waterskiingvermont....

Sounds like nobody wants to live there. Wonder why that is..

Yeah, I wonder... it's so awful here:

http://www.peterurbanski.com/d...
http://www.michaelyamashita.co...
http://vtsports.com/wp-content...
http://summit.jacksonwhelan.ne...
http://mediad.publicbroadcasti...
https://img0.etsystatic.com/00...
http://www.usappleblog.org/wp-...
http://www.discoverkillington....
http://qcc-vt-photo-media.s3.a...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
http://girlgonetravel.com/wp-c...
http://www.bangngangan.com/ima...
http://www.discoverbristolvt.c...
http://www.waterskiingvermont....

Some things never really change.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... Google Chrome Beta 1 ca. 2008. Notice how the URL appears.

Hoover Dam cost $49m to build. Today, the price tag would be over $10b. Stuff gets more expensive over the years. Today the power plant produces 4.2TWh per annum. At $100/MWh, that's $420,000,000 of power per year. Kind of significant ROI.

The bottom line is, long term projects like nuclear or hydro will always cost massively more in the future than today simply because of inflation. This is another reason why these are strategic assets to invest in.

As for decommissioning of nuclear power? It sits there for a few decades with a few guards on duty. Then you haul it away and melt it down and make new steel out of it.

Now, how much would it cost to decommission our coal and oil facilities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Sorry, but waiting for some nuclear isotopes to decay vs. literal, irreversible destruction of entire ecosystems is kind of cheap to me.

PS. And worrying about "terrists" getting waste products from nuclear plant is crazy. You can't do anything with it! You might as well start panicing about all the radioactive Americium in each smoke detector.

I never understood this either, and I'd like to know the answer. Given your options are (a) send a human being in to try and carefully remove each mine, risking getting blown up in the process, or (b) just send in some hardened version of this thing, you'd think (b) would be the better option.

Some things never really change, do they?

Some things never really change, do they?

Some things never really change, do they?

This is high end. You guys aren't adding enough zeroes to your estimates of prices either.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

This is high end. You guys aren't adding enough zeroes to your estimates of prices either.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

The Pontiac Aztek was pretty repellent. Or maybe repulsive.

The Aztek doesn't look all that out of place compared to all the little "crossover" SUV's rolling around now. If you want to see repulsive check out the Juke. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...

... "Oh frak."

Water siphons have been demonstrated to 24 meters. Water can resist -280 atmospheres pressure without vaporizing. Corresponding to possible siphon heights of more than 2800 meters. Siphons can operate in a vacuum. Siphoning of mercury has been demonstrated to more than 30cm above the barometric height, even in glass which mercury adheres poorly to.

24 meter siphon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Siphon of ionic liquid in vacuum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Siphon of mercury to 30cm above barometric height:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...

Negative pressures of -280 atmospheres in water have been demonstrated in the ingenious Z-tube:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Z-tube is a z-shaped tube nearly filled with liquid and set on a spinning table. If the liquid starts to shift away from the center, the "height" of the liquid in the bent inward ends "rises" toward the center, increasing pressure in that end and returning the liquid to the center. By measuring the spinning speed and the distance from the center to the liquid level in the ends, the pressure can be calculated. It helps if the tube is of a material the liquid will adhere well to. And the tube must be very clean and the liquid degassed to prevent cavitation.

Another example of negative pressures in water are in the xylem of very tall trees. The water does not rise by capilary action very far. The water is pulled up by action in the leaves at top. Negative pressures of several atmospheres are achieved in tall trees.

So, many people are correct that liquid cohesion DOES pull the liquid over the top of a siphon in SOME siphons. And everyone agrees that all siphons rely on gravity (or similar acceleration) for their effect. But most practical siphons don't rely on liquid cohesion. And some siphons CAN'T use liquid cohesion to pull the liquid over. It is not the case that only one of the theories: atmospheric pressure, gravity, or liquid cohesion, is the answer to how a siphon works. All three of those explanations are involved. We don't have to choose just one.

One example is the siphoning of CO2 gas, which has been demonstrated. And a demonstration you can easily do with a garden hose is like figure 4 of the Wikipedia siphon article, fill the tall down side of a siphon with water, but leave the top and short up side with only air. When the water in the tall down leg is released, gravity will reduce the pressure at the top of the siphon and atmospheric pressure will push the water from the upper reservoir up and over the siphon. Since the water on each side of the siphon is not touching at the start of this experiment, liquid cohesion cannot explain what force raises the water. The air at the top of the siphon, though reduced in pressure, is still at positive pressure relative to complete vacuum, and therefore it is trying to expand, and pushing DOWN on BOTH sides of the siphon. Since gravity is also pulling down, only atmospheric pressure can supply the force to push the liquid up into the low pressure zone created at the top of the siphon by gravity pulling down the liquid in the taller down tube.

Another observation of the difference between vacuum siphons and practical siphons is that in practical siphons, small and even fairly large air bubbles can flow over the siphon without much change in its working. Whereas in a vacuum siphon, a bubble or void will immediately expand to break the siphon.

In practical siphons near sea level, liquid cohesion is not only unnecessary, it cant even contribute, because all the fluids in the siphon are at positive pressure relative to complete vacuum and therefore all the molecules are being squished together and are repelling each other. There can be no pulling in siphons ne

A lot of very tall buildings such as the Word Trade Center and Willis (formerly Sears) Tower actually do have a number of elevators that don't go to the bottom (or top).

You are correct. But what I was talking about was more than plywood.

Basically I was thinking that the 3D printer/carver is done when it can do this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

But more likely to be something like: http://www.alzohawoodwork.com/...

Think of a lumber mill that could buy a $100,000 machine that could turn out at least the second type of design by just selecting from a menu. The price differential from the same chair that had to go through the usual logistics chain would be massive. Plus if the robot is carving the thing then it could do it in the style of a technically difficult wood worker instead of the simplistic techniques of an assembly line. So for way less money you could get way more chair. The lumber mill could then sell way more wood. They don't care if it is a 2x4 or a bunch of chair parts, especially if they can charge a bit more for the chair parts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

The Atari joysticks that came with my Atari 2600 outlasted all other joysticks of its age.

My neighbour and I "upgraded" to others that kept breaking. For example the TAC-2 was advertised as unbreakable such that if you break it, you get to replace it free of charge (imagine that guarantee today!) so we replaced our broken TAC-2's 2-3 times each.

Nothing beat the original Atari Joysticks.

Also, Microsoft peripherals such as keyboards and mice are typically very good. If only their software was as good...

Yes, but his experimental platform is far from perfect, wouldn't you agree?

He's talking parabolic flights in powered aircraft, which lasts, what, maybe 30 seconds, and could not easily be shielded from all sorts of vibrations.

So the good geologist's work probably can't account for a moon-sized platform, or a mixed particle size, or the inclusion of water ice, etc. The angles do vary with gravity, grain size, grain polishing, binding agent inclusion, etc.

Still the Subject study uses a wide definition of the Angle of Repose ("anything between about 25 to 40 depending on size and type of particles involved."), and they suggest that all (or most) of these observed ridge shapes fit within that definition. While they mention water ice in their theory they don't seem to acknowledge its ability to drastically increase the Angle of Repose, easily up to 60 degrees in terrestrial gravity).

We are talking about little kids. You tend to get them the Big Blocks instead.

... because little kids don't have the dexterity to use regular Legos. The reason two year old kids can use an iPad and aren't ready for standard Legos is because the latter requires more skill.

How did we go from building blocks for 2-year old kids to standard lego blocks? You know there is a difference, do you? If not, please STFU. Just to help you and those who sadly do not know the difference:

• * Building blocks (suitable for toddlers):
  • - Like this: http://www.target.com/p/b-one-...
  • - Or like this (which I use for my 1.5 year old daughter) : http://www.target.com/p/mega-b...
• * Standard Lego Blocks:
  • - Like these: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

TFA claims claims that exposing kids to technology is causing our civilization to spiral down the drain,

TFA is not claiming that. You are claiming that it does, though.

but provides no evidence whatsoever, other than anecdotes and conjecture.

Anecdotes and conjecture are valid form of preliminary evidence with which to request further scrutiny of something.

Also, from personal anecdote (feel free to dismiss because ZOMFG anecdote!) kids at that early stage require specific stimulus to develop hand fine grained motor skills. Playing with sand, clay or building blocks (not standard lego blocks, but building blocks for toddlers) help do that.

Going into the (ZOMG!) anecdote: One of my nephews had a learning disability co-related to not developing hand fine motor skills, some type of proprioception problem related to ADHD/Asperger/Autism. He simply could not hold a pen without it falling off his fingers. Good fortune it was detected on time, and was put on specific corrective therapy to develop not just finger strength but the necessary coordination to do what he needed to do with his hands during that state of his body/mind development.

Feel free to dismiss this as you wish. Whatever gets your intellectual kicks.

With that said, I'm not against kids using technology. I was delightfully fascinated when I saw my older daughter (now 5) using my smart phone at the age of 2, and I'm fascinated how my youngest one (1.5 year old) fiddled her way into unlocking my phone (despite it being locked with a swipe-shape lock.)

But I keep my daughters away from technology if that precludes them from the other type of tactile-proprioceptive activities that have been developed over time to assist in their development: finger painting, puzzles, blocks, sculpting with silly putty, running around.

All those things are fun, but they are not just for fun. They have an evolutionary purpose.

There is a reason why kids play with soil instinctively. It is not just curiosity. It is the child mind and body instinctively seeking activities that trigger learning and development.

Anybody remember this guy? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

They do have hills, just not very big ones. I'm not exactly sure what the relief scale is here, but Veluwezoom National Park has hills up to 110m in height.

Not sure what's meant by "the railcar of the robot arm,"

This.
Which became this.
Down the length of this.

Not sure what's meant by "the railcar of the robot arm,"

This.
Which became this.
Down the length of this.

200% of the increase? Err... math is not your strong point is it? How do you get more than 100% of the increase? Wait, I don't want to know what passes for reasoning in your head.

It's simple. Our CO2 emissions are about twice the size of the observed CO2 increase.

Average global temp is on the rise, but has been doing so since the end of the last ice age.

Got a source for that, big boy?

Geez, go use google.

here let me do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

look for the chart showing temps going up since last ice age peak of 20K years ago.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Yup, temperatures rose from about -20Ky to about -10Ky, and they have been slowly falling since. Temperatures have not been rising since the end of the last ice age.

show a correlation between any solar parameter and global average temperatures.

TSI:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisir...

easy correlation there. Match to warming trends, much stronger than CO2.

Looks like you have some serious problems reading graphs. Maybe you should see an opthalmologist.

Do you realy see a correlation here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1975/offset:-1366/scale:0.5/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/mean:12

How about here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/mean:12/scale:150/offset:320/plot/esrl-co2

Why are they dumb?

The earth IS the center of the universe. To say any other point in the universe is the center of the universe is equally as dumb, if not more so.

We can observe from here that the earth is the center of the universe. If we measure the expansion of the universe, EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IS MOVING AWAY FROM THE EARTH AT ALMOST PRECISELY THE SAME RATE AS EVERY OTHER THING. This is because the universe is expanding.

Allow me to illustrate. This is what it looks like from Earth. If point A is Earth, and point A is where you are, that's what the universe looks like. See?

By contrast, This is what it looks like from Alpha Centauri Bb. If point B is Alpha Centauri Bb, and point B is where you are, this is what the universe looks like. See?

Because we are only able to measure from fairly close to "on the Earth", the only observable reality is that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Do you get it now? Or does a more compact diagram help?

I'm not a tropical medicine expert or anything (and even if I claimed to be, would you trust a guy who impersonates an opinionated fungus on the internet recreationally?); but according to Our Wiki Overlords, corroborated by assorted googling, the current treatements of choice appear to be a number of antiprotozoal drugs found to work against this organism; but nothing particularly specific to it, and definitely nothing that targets the specific genetic and chemical pathways the ameoba exploits to achieve the 'nibbling' attack. Again, nonexpert here; but the use of a grab-bag of nonspecifics suggest that it hasn't (yet) done anything brutally clever in terms of drug resistance; but that existing understanding of the organism probably hadn't provided any really elegant attacks against this organism in particular, leaving 'probably best to use stuff that works on protozoa, since it is one.' as the standard.

The researchers did experimentally disrupt this process(once with a drug, in a second case with a genetically crippled ameoba strain) as part of demonstrating that the 'nibbling' was the mechanism behind human cell death(which can apparently cause some ghastly intestinal trouble), so presumably there is some hope that we'll be able to weaponize the mode of attack they used, and get an elegant, selective, unlikely-to-interfere-with-other-eukaryotes-like-the-patient, drug that will prevent the horrible-death-by-intestinal-nibbling; but nothing in pill form just yet, certainly not that you could just go shoving into patients without killing some little fuzzy animals first.

(Also, if Malaria is anything to go by, the statistical answer to 'how do you treat it?' is 'On average, you don't. Protozoa are tough motherfuckers and it mostly just kills poor people in ghastly countries anyway. Let's go find a cure for hair loss and midlife limp-dick syndrome...')

So the explanation for the translating being completely wrong is the author wasn't actually writing Egyptian?

No, you misunderstand. Joseph purchased several papyri. They got passed around, sold, re-sold, lost, damaged, found again, re-purchased. So we have only scraps and fragments of those papyri Joseph purchased. We don't know which papyrus the Book of Abraham came from, and we don't know if that papyrus is among the surviving ones. The only one we definitely still have that definitely shows up in the Book of Abraham is fragments of one drawing. What he published in the Book of Abraham matches the remaining scraps as far as they exist. There are some features of the drawing that Egyptologists claim are "wrong," but they are saying the drawing is "wrong" because it does not match a classical Egyptian funerary drawing. The point is it's not supposed to match. It's a variation of an Egyptian funerary drawing used to tell a different story. As far as the text, Joseph's process of re-translating the Bible is instructive. He worked from and compared different versions of the Bible (he favored Luther's German Bible), but there are also large passages that he received as direct revelation. The existing text was more a jumping-off point. This is in contrast to the Book of Mormon, which he translated directly without interpolation.

Except for some reason we can't actually see the trees (I'm not sure what you mean by seeing them).

Let me put it a different way. If a blind man came to you and tried to prove to you there are no trees, you would not be swayed. You tell him you have seen the trees, and he says he has not. You take him out and let him feel the bark of a tree. He says he has it on good authority that what he is feeling is corrugated iron. He says he has never seen wood furniture, or leaves, or fruit at the market.

And yet his limited experience does not and cannot negate your experience of actually seeing trees. He is simply lacking a sense that you have. God is not a theoretical construct to me, just as trees are not to you. Joseph Smith is not an exercise in "what if." What he did is a fact. The first and best evidence of what he did is the Book of Mormon itself. Returning to our tree analogy, I have seen the tree and personally picked fruit from the branches of that tree and tasted it. So your cleverest argument that it is not a tree, but rather a papier mache imitation of a tree built by a charlatan carries no weight with me. Even if you happen to find what you believe to be a scrap of newspaper or a dab of plaster near the tree, that does not change the fact that I know from personal experience that it is, in fact, a tree.

I promise you, I am much more intimately familiar with this tree than you are. If it were a fraud, I would know it, because I have examined, analyzed, picked apart, and scrutinized it with all the same senses you possess. But what's more, I have seen and tasted it with senses you inherently possess but have not refined enough to be sensitive to them.

And that is why there is nothing to debate. Every time you bring up some point you think is damning evidence of a fraud, I see only a distraction; at best a "Hmm. Well, that's something I don't know yet." The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are their own best evidence of what they claim to be. Trying to prove or disprove them by indirect methods is a pointless exercise in futility that will convince neither side.

I think I found the figure you you're referring to. It's this one, right? I don't think that figure lets you distinguish small from zero due to its very poor dynamic range. A logarithic second axis would be much more informative.

Here is an example of an MTF from an experiment I've worked on. It looks quite similar to the figure on the Wikipedia page, and by eye one might think that's it's reached zero by 18000 or so. But consider the logarithmic version of the same graph. As you can see, the graph had only fallen by about 20 dB by that point, and even at the end of the figure it's only down by 45 dB or so. So I don't think the Wikipedia figure supports your point.

Denmar, Norway, Iceland, and Greece all have a state religion. Spain, Portugal and Ireland, though without a state religion, give legal privileges to the Catholic church (Finland has a similar relationship with the Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church). The UK not only has a state religion, but the Head of State is also the Supreme Head of the Church of England. North of this line, the climate sucks. South of that line, trains don't run on time.

But Santa is real in the sense that there was a historical person later called St. Nicholas or Santa Claus. He was born in the late 3rd century between 270 and 286 AD, died at Dec 6 probably in one of the years 326 AD, 345 AD, 351 AD or 365 AD. He was buried in Myra (today's Demre in Turkey), and his grave was broken into in 1087 AD, his remains taken and again buried in the Basilica di San Nicola of Bari, Italy. You can still visit his sarcophagus in Demre and his remains in Bari. And yes, he is famous for anonymously sending gifts to people.

Plants. Plants take in CO2 and release O2 as part of respiration. It's known that increasing CO2 spurs plant growth (there are placed you can get CO2 systems for hydroponic growth). The graph you linked shows a sawtooth graph with spikes of CO2 and then random-walk decreases over tens of thousands of years until another spike occurs. What your graph misses is the last 100 years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Also, there aren't any fighter aircraft which fold their wings for storage that I can think of.

Think harder.

http://www.aviationspectator.c...

http://wwwdelivery.superstock....

http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/a...

http://www.highgallery.com/car...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

http://strangecosmos.com/image...

http://www.vehiclehi.com/thumb...

I like the way you single out North Americans, as if they indeed are somehow more corrupt than Europeans or Africans or South Americans or Asians or Australians.....

Anybody who claims that has never been to Russia. There are other countries in Europe where corruption is rife but from talking with people who have done business there, Russia is like the wild west (along with Belarus and the Ukraine). One guy I talked to called Russia a "kleptocracy". Take a look at this map of perceived corruption around the world:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
High index is clean, a low one is corrupt. As you can see much of Eastern Europe (i.e. ex Warsaw pact) is at least two steps up from Russia. And the USA is perceived as being about as corrupt as Western Europe (i.e. W-Europe more or less as it is defied by Eurovoc).

... building it so that it can withstand the 1G of pulling force across the spokes that will have to exist is the hard part.

Sadly, we have no experience building structures that put loads on cables.

... 20,000 maps under the sea.

He imported a Civic, not an Accord. There are two cars called the "Civic Type R", one of which is made in Japan (and also sold in the US) and the other is made in England (and sold in Europe). The former looks like this:

http://www.allvehicles.co.uk/c...

The latter looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

I don't see purple.

Yes, some of Tatars don't like Russians too much, but your generalization is, well...

Given that it all happened over half a century ago, it's like saying all Jews who ran from Hitler still hate and/or distrust Germans. Most of Tatars living there now only know about all of this from books.

PS: Also, even 100 years ago Crimean tatars weren't "vast majority" - in 1897 there were 35.6% tatars there (with ~33% Russians), and by 1940s, when deportation started, they were already under 20%.

rgbatduke says: February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and, B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual. A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured. In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions. So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age. It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to increased uncertainty in the final claim. Still, taking it for what it is worth — a possibly accurate reconstruction of the planet’s temperatures in the Holocene (post the Wisconsin glaciation, but including the Younger Dryas) that is at any rate the best we can do with the data and methods available (biased or not) at this time, what does it tell us? First, the climate now is not warmer than it was in the Holocene Optimum (do not make the mistake of conflating the high frequency, high resolution “2004 data point with the smoothed low frequency, low resolution data in the curve — even the figure’s caption warns against doing that — for the very good reason that in every 300 year smoothed upswing it is statist

the Klein one is clearly orange, not yellow

By whose definition of what constitutes yellow, and what constitutes orange?

For example, is this one yellow or orange?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

What about this one, orange or red?
http://www.parameters.com.au/i...

What if the latter is just red enough to constitute orange, but in comparison the former isn't...and thus falls back to being yellow enough to be considered yellow as far as any trade dress claims would go?

Unfortunately, that's one of the issues at play here.

( Note that I don't disagree that it is orange; assuming it's a faithful image, then its hue is almost exactly at 30 degrees on the color wheel. )

Users experiencing minor projectile vomiting are wearing it wrong.

iEye* user?

Here's what pictures from satellites look like at 1:00 a.m. over water: Picture

Not all satellites. Here's what the ocean looks like from TerraSAR-X at 1:00 am, or 1:00 pm. or when it's clear or cloudy. http://www.astrium-geo.com/en/... and http://www.astrium-geo.com/en/... Also most sensor platforms have NIR and some have deeper IR bands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... albeit these are more vulnerable to moisture conditions and at much lower resolutions.

Citation