Slashdot Mirror

Re: "Otherwise I might ask why you're not looking for "invisible pink unicorns galloping on a straight line kicking the galaxies in alignment". Because the data is equally suggesting that..."

It bears reminding that there are only two possible forces to work with at the intergalactic scale - gravitational and electric - so there is nothing at all extraordinary about checking to see if concepts related to electric discharges which are valid in the plasma laboratory are also present in astronomical imagery. The same exact process of reasoning is at play when astrophysicists invoke mechanical processes we've learned about here on Earth in astronomical imagery - e.g. astronomical bow shocks inferred from ships moving through water and redshifts inferred from the Doppler effect heard from a moving train.

Re: "Show me the simulations ..."

You've set up a sort of chicken-and-egg scenario here: The works of Arp and the EU are dismissed, so there are not enough people learning these models. So, these simulations you expect to see before you will start paying attention do not yet exist. This is a self-reinforcing feedback loop which actually deprives you of the information you need to formulate a meaningful opinion.

Is it possible to create a universe that looks like our observations, such that the largest scales are composed of electric circuits? We are left with the situation that science simply refuses to ask this fundamental question. Instead of focusing upon the creation of models which are rooted in the laboratory behaviors of the 99.999% of the universe that they can see (the cosmic plasma), they insist that they already know the answer of which force dominates at the largest scales (even though no test exists to confirm this, and even though the hypothesis leads us to a universe dominated by dark forces and matters). Cosmologists instead decide to spend their time trying to find the 95% of stuff that their models inform them must be there, but which the brightest minds have failed to find after considerable expenditure and time looking. If there exists any analogy to be made about looking for pink unicorns, it is much better suited to this existing search for dark matter.

Cosmology can spin its wheels like this for many decades - certainly well beyond the ends of the lifetimes of both you and me. What is missing from this approach is hedging. The lack of any hedging on this question leads to the situation where the field now builds a huge theoretical structure on top of a weak theoretical foundation. The price for the insistence that they already know the answer to a question that they have historically refused to ask is that all of this theoretical structure can one day be revealed to be a colossal waste of human resources.

When you go online to vocalize your support of their refusal to hedge, even though there are really only two possible answers here, you leave the impression that this risk-taking is normal. It's not. The public expects scientists to be rigorous. Ignoring one of the two fundamental forces at the largest scales is not rigorous. In fact, it reveals a systemic problem in our graduate programs: We are not teaching the method of multiple working hypotheses. This philosophical framework needs to be added into these programs.

Fortunately, it seems to me, this difficulty can be removed by the use of a second great intellectual invention, the "method of multiple hypotheses," which is what was needed to round out the Baconian scheme. This is a method that was put forward by T. C. Chamberlin, a geologist at Chicago at the turn of the century who is best known for his contribution to the Chamberlin-Moulton hypothesis of the origin of the solar system.

Chamberlin says our trouble is that when we make a single hypothesis, we become attached to it. "The moment one has offered an original explanation for

The Byzantine General's Problem defines a class of parallel problem that can be solved when M out of N components are correct. In fact, the term "Byzantine fault tolerance" is now used in any class of problem where you need M out of N components, where M is usually given as half N plus one, but a few links give 2/3rds.

So if you have a single point of failure, you don't have such a solution.

If you have two paths, you can't prove which is correct and still don't have such a solution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ssch...

All I have done is argued that in a system that has X layers, each layer must be independently fault tolerant or you're reliably transmitting bogus data.

You can further improve on this by using provable, secure software (so the result of each phase is predictable and unlikely to be altered) and encryption where nobody possesses both encryption and decryption keys (since it's effectively impossible to stuff the ballot box).

These extensions don't impact the Byzantine fault tolerance, except insofar as they reduce the chances of corruption to begin with.

This system would not be trivial to set up, but it beats all others as it answers all the usual objections.

20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair with one arc-minute (1/60th of a degree) of separation. There's some debate over exactly what that means. This resolution chart on this site is based it meaning 60 pixels per degree. Others argue it means 120 pixels per degree (two pixels needed per arc-minute to show two white lines separated by one arc-minute with a black line in between). But since that's just doubling the 60 pixels per degree standard, you can just halve the resolutions on the chart (i.e. the 1080p section corresponds to 4k, the 4k section corresponds to 8k).

I also like to point out that holograms require a resolution of about 600-1000 pixels per mm. So this isn't a pointless resolution race we're on. It'll take a few more decades, but GPU and display resolution are slowly creeping up to the point where they'll be able to generate and display holograms in real-time. An 8k display shrunk down would correspond to about a 10x5 mm hologram. (If you don't know how holograms work, this would appear as a 10x5mm "window" that you could look through to view the 3D image "behind" it.)

Different ship. The ship stuck in Montreal is the USS Little Rock. There's a visual of ice conditions at http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-... -- clearly not moving for a while. Its current status is at http://www.marinetraffic.com/e...

While there are worse places to be stuck than Montreal, but one wonders if the ship was properly designed and provisioned to winter-over comfortably in Montreal's sub-arctic Winter. There's a picture at https://i.cbc.ca/1.4501115.151...

Your comment reminded me of this:
poem on english pronunciation

Sunspots

University of Wisconsin, engineering school graduate gender breakdown. 2014 only year provided. From https://ecs.engr.wisc.edu/publ...

BS: male 467, female 115

MS: male 265, female 86

PhD: male 63, female 21

Bullshit on you. Also more than half as many MS grads as BS?...something fishy. Are they making Master's degrees cheap in terms of time and money? One year?

Because the damage to the road is not linear with weight or even with pressure; it's a fourth-power thing, meaning that all else (contact patch, driving conditions) being equal, a vehicle weighing 2000lbs does 16 times the wear of a vehicle weighing 1000lbs. From what I've read, the reason is that the heavier weight flexes the road more and over a larger area. This seems to have some explanation on the factors involved.

Someone else posted that buses in their area were 27500lbs; my CRV comes out to about 3500lbs, so the bus weighs 7.86 times as much and therefore is doing 3811 times as much damage to the road. (Exact numbers variable based on occupancy, but you get the idea.)

That said, this slideset indicates that a bus is considered to be about 850 times as damaging as a passenger car, rather than 3800. I think they're assuming (a) 3 axle buses and (b) a car weighing less than my CRV; a car weighing about 3400lbs on 2 axles vs a bus weighing 27500 on 3 axles would come out to 1700/axle vs 9166/axle; the weight ratio would be 5.39:1 and the damage ratio would be 845. However, the bus I ride in the morning is 2 axles, so it's hitting higher numbers.

Somehow Home Shopping Network is worth 2 billion dollars even with Amazon in the arena. I imagine people throwing money at the screen when any commercial airs; somebody must be buying. I can't understand why.

Inertia and habits play a large part in it. The average age of a QVC shopper is 53 and 95% of their sales come from repeat shoppers. So we're mostly talking about older people who got discovered QVC before the internet was a thing continue to shop with them because its an old habit they are comfortable with. It seems unlikely that younger shoppers will come on board so the days of QVC are likely numbered but not for a few decades more.

The accountants make the rules, and everybody knows it.

Speaking as an actual accountant I can assure you this is not actually true. Accountants can facilitate getting around the rules or in pointing out where the rules have nasty sharp teeth best avoided but they rarely have much say in what the actual rules are. Accountants aren't the ones robbing the mythical bank - they are the ones that provide the floor plans and sometimes drive the getaway car. The ones holding the figurative smoking gun tend to be financiers and lawyers. They are the ones who usually make the rules. If you need proof you merely have to examine the sorts of degrees held by most of Congress.

Dont try using semicolons; you don't know how.

Actually, I do.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handb...

Clause 1: "You're not an AC"

Clause 2; "therefore, you are disqualified".

In fact, you most often see semicolons used before a "therefore, ...", "however, ...", "but, ..." or "because, ..."

In the linked-to authority, this would be analogous to their example: " I like cows; however, I hate the way they smell."

"However" essentially == "Therefore" in this application. one is like an OUTER JOIN of two ideas or phrases, and the other is like an INNER JOIN, if my limited knowledge of SQL syntax serves... (pardon if I botched that analogy).

If I would have used a COMMA in my original comment, like I (assume) you wanted (since you didn't favor me with "corrected" version of my comment; but rather, just a snarky (and incorrect) remark), that would have been a "comma splice".

Don't fuck with me on semicolons. I use them often, and use them for good grammar; not evil.

Survey questionnaire design involves randomized phrasing for all questions, such that the proportion receiving any phrasing is comparable - like stratified sampling. Within research design that is a major component. Clauses are rotated in position, alternative valuations are used. Here is a good reference for those interested. Sampling remains a concern but through proper design all errors and bias are minimized.

2.2 Who did it first? Newton or Leibniz?

Because of the mass of Newton's surviving papers, it has now been established beyond doubt that Newton was the first to arrive at the calculus. He first developed his theory of "fluxions" in 1665-66. By the middle of 1665, Newton was able to set down the standard differential algorithms in the generality with which they were to be expounded by Leibniz two decades later. Further, this demonstrates that Newton could not have plagiarised anything from Leibniz precisely because of the fact that around 1665-66, Leibniz, at the age of twenty, still knew nothing of mathematics.

Source

I wrote where I am. Hint..

That said, lox has the same root word. It was even the English word through Old English (læx) until "salmon" (a word from Latin (salmonem) of unknown origin) took over. That actually happened with a lot of "food-related" terms, with Latin-origin terms (via French) replacing Germanic/Norse-origin terms - but usually the animal itself kept the Germanic/Norse. For example, you have cow (proto-germanic *kwon, Norse kýr/kú) but the food is beef (Latin bovem); swine (proto-Germanic swinan, Norse svín) and pig (unknown origin), but the food is pork (Latin porcus); lamb (proto-Germanic lambaz, Norse lamb), ewe (proto-Germanic *awi, Norse ær), sheep (West Germanic *skæpan), but the food is mutton (Latin multonem); etc. I guess food has always sounded fancier if you write it in French ;)

This pretty sums up my experiences reproducing experiments in the lab : ob. Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass

At last, an honest lab report.
My kid had to do a high school lab where they were supposed to demonstrate that a mixture of ice and water kept the same temp as it was heated until all the ice had melted, but of course their data proved the exact opposite; the thermometer kept going up all the time during which the ice was swimming around in the water sitting over the Bunsen burner (probably because it wasn't being stirred). So now, rather than teaching the kids about science, they're teaching the kids how to BS some random data into supporting what you are told it's supposed to say. Yeah, that's what we need more of.
I did see a HS science fair contestant's mandatory lab notebook once, that contained
"No work on the project this week.
No work on the project this week either.
No work on the project this week either. The project has ground to a halt"
which I thought was the most honest thing in anybody's notebooks.

This pretty sums up my experiences reproducing experiments in the lab : ob. Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass

I'm certain it's on the list somewhere.

I suspect I am feeding a troll, but just in case you are just completely incompetent.

The article from The Guardian has the links right in the article.
Giulio Tononi
Chiara Cirelli

First link in Google
Ohio Sleep Medicine Institute

I suspect I am feeding a troll, but just in case you are just completely incompetent.

The article from The Guardian has the links right in the article.
Giulio Tononi
Chiara Cirelli

First link in Google
Ohio Sleep Medicine Institute

There are no Giulio Tononi or Chiara Cirelli listed as professors on UoW's websites.

They are at the UofW School of Medicine, which is someone separate from UoW's academic campus. Here are their bios: Chiara Cirelli, Giulio Tononi.

There are no Giulio Tononi or Chiara Cirelli listed as professors on UoW's websites.

They are at the UofW School of Medicine, which is someone separate from UoW's academic campus. Here are their bios: Chiara Cirelli, Giulio Tononi.

Productivity has been going up all throughout the housing crisis and since. There has been inflation throughout as well, yet real wages have been stagnant. This has happened through automation and globalization, which should have been good for everyone. But it's clear the rules of the system are set up to funnel the money from the middle class to the wealthy throughout this process, as poverty has been on the rise since 2000. I don't see how this trend gets reversed, people have their bread and circuses.

Now and since before there was a USA.

http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491...

Only because they run out of Xenon. If people built them with exponentially larger xenon tanks, they could reach linearly higher speeds.

It's amazing, you seem to assume this will work but you don't even know why it would be useful or the physics of the existing systems well enough to make an informed judgement.

Your reading fails are getting tiresome. At no point have I said that I "assume this will work". I am merely allowing that as a possibility, whereas you are not. You:atheist=me:agnostic. Get it?

And for someone so completely skeptical, it escapes me why you would use a phrase like "If people built them with exponentially larger xenon tanks". So you're not talking about a geometrically larger tank, no. You want one that grows exponentially. Like a million, billion times bigger than current tanks? Maybe using every Xenon atom on Earth? Fine but I would say the exponential growth stops once you use every Xenon atom in the universe. Again, for someone so skeptical and stuck-in-the-mud, you're flying in pretty rarefied air here.

By the way, on this "Chemical Rockets" page, check out this graph. See how it tails off to the right? Turns out the efficiency is highest when ion escape velocity is about equal to vehicle veloocity. And drops off as the vehicle speed increases. That's whatchacall a limit...

Or, if you prefer wiki, you can see the same graph and some cool equations here

Only because they run out of Xenon. If people built them with exponentially larger xenon tanks, they could reach linearly higher speeds.

It's amazing, you seem to assume this will work but you don't even know why it would be useful or the physics of the existing systems well enough to make an informed judgement.

Your reading fails are getting tiresome. At no point have I said that I "assume this will work". I am merely allowing that as a possibility, whereas you are not. You:atheist=me:agnostic. Get it?

And for someone so completely skeptical, it escapes me why you would use a phrase like "If people built them with exponentially larger xenon tanks". So you're not talking about a geometrically larger tank, no. You want one that grows exponentially. Like a million, billion times bigger than current tanks? Maybe using every Xenon atom on Earth? Fine but I would say the exponential growth stops once you use every Xenon atom in the universe. Again, for someone so skeptical and stuck-in-the-mud, you're flying in pretty rarefied air here.

By the way, on this "Chemical Rockets" page, check out this graph. See how it tails off to the right? Turns out the efficiency is highest when ion escape velocity is about equal to vehicle veloocity. And drops off as the vehicle speed increases. That's whatchacall a limit...

Or, if you prefer wiki, you can see the same graph and some cool equations here

We need to send out probes to the 10 nearest star systems for pure science.
If we get a return on what's out there within 50 years, maybe we'll learn something.
We would get data on 26 stars by sending out such a mission set.

This doesn't seem out of line with other studies that link a more restricted caloric intake with youthfulness and better health.

This is great when the goal is to be the most youthful, and healthy person in the graveyard.

This doesn't seem out of line with other studies that link a more restricted caloric intake with youthfulness and better health.

Not just floss. Parachutes, too, suffer from a serious shortage of controlled trials demonstrating their efficacy.

Smith, Gordon CS, and Jill P. Pell. "Parachute use to
prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge:
systematic review of randomised controlled trials."
British Medical Journal 327.7429 (2003): 1459.

Article here.

The poverty line is what... somewhere in the $30k range? And UBI would be $10k? That's nowhere near enough to eliminate the need for welfare.

Where are you getting your numbers from? $12k for a single person http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/f... $30k is for a large family. And I've seen UBI set at a variety of numbers, the super-high and super-low ones from people that hate it trying to show how bad it is, and the middle numbers by those actually looking at it seriously (whether for or against). UBI of $10k per person would eliminate welfare (and pay more than welfare, especially if children get the full benefit), while paying more than poverty line for everyone other that a single person.

ZFS is not recommended for non-ECC RAM. RAM errors can get propagated to disk by application read operations, not just writes.
http://research.cs.wisc.edu/ad...

ZFS requires an absurd amount of RAM dedicated to managing storage.

And ZFS needs ECC RAM, errors must be detected because with ZFS there can be a write to the hard drive to fix a mismatched "checksum" when the software is requesting a read. Bad RAM is a much bigger problem with ZFS than other file systems. Its really not a good idea for consumer hardware.

Disputed, to put it mildly.

http://research.cs.wisc.edu/ad...

What about finding ways to protect people from the cosmic radiation during at least three years (x2) long journey to and from the planet?

A Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars only takes 9 months. 3 years is the time it would take to launch from Earth and travel to Mars via a Hohmann transfer orbit, wait for Mars to be in position for a Hohmann transfer back to Earth, then launch and travel to Earth.

False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?

No.
That's what you argued when you decided to present a raise in operating costs of fast food industry as "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost".

You do realize you imagined those "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost" out of "21.66 billion dollars" you calculated as a part of "the total U.S. fast food industry revenue"?
Not shoe industry. Not lollipop industry. "Total U.S. fast food industry."

Which you've argued will lose 1.3 million jobs. Out of 1.6 million total jobs in said industry.

In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.

Blah-blah-blah all jobs are digging ditches with bare hands so the entire cost of product is pure manual labor blah-blah-blah.
Which isn't true even with handjobs.

You are ignoring the fact that manual labor is a tiny part of the overall product price - while you're busy trying to prove that people making more money will actually be making less.
Which is not only immensely stupid as it is basically the argument that rich people are poor.
It is, again, proven wrong by your very numbers.

Even in your imaginary scenario the supposed cost increase is about 11.34% - while the wages of 1.3 million NEARLY DOUBLE.
I.e. Cost of life (i.e. cost of products and services) increases by less than 12% - while income jumps up by 81%.
Plus it's an instant injection of money into economy cause those people are already living on payday loans and working several jobs just to make ends meet.

Try to imagine what happens when a person working three jobs suddenly manages to live on "only" two jobs.
Will they keep slaving for that extra dollar because greed - or will they go "Holy shit! I can now sleep 8 hours a day AND see my kids - while paying all the bills and making more money. Is this that fabled American dream?"
What if they quit that third job? Will the business simply close their doors cause there's no one to sweep the floors?
Or will they hang a sign saying "Floor sweeper wanted"?

When the industry is paying wages which are below the poverty line for a single parent with two kids, then that parent MUST work two jobs for them to survive.
When that same parent is paid ABOVE the poverty line for a family of five - he/she doesn't need that extra job.
That job then does not get lost - it becomes a job opening.

Most of America had one of the coldest winters on record for the winter of 2013-14. A whole season. Low temperature records were dropping left-and-right all across the continent. Temps in Wisconsin went below -30 more than 30 days.

Citation needed. Lets take Wausau - well away from the moderating effects of teh lakes, yet still pretty northernly. Looks like there's only one day where the temperature hit -30 in 2013. There's not one day in 2014 that even hits -30F

What location are you thinking about that had more than 30 days with lows below -30?

Most of America had one of the coldest winters on record for the winter of 2013-14. A whole season. Low temperature records were dropping left-and-right all across the continent. Temps in Wisconsin went below -30 more than 30 days.

Citation needed. Lets take Wausau - well away from the moderating effects of teh lakes, yet still pretty northernly. Looks like there's only one day where the temperature hit -30 in 2013. There's not one day in 2014 that even hits -30F

What location are you thinking about that had more than 30 days with lows below -30?

...accuracy is unknown, but probably exaggerated. The study doesn't claim what you think it claims.

Says the guy who never even looked at it. You want numbers; where are the numbers backing your claims? Only got blog pages to "cite"?

no one who uses the IPCC reports as primary support can find anything in there.

Here are a handful of the many studies I found with 10 minutes of browsing through IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2.6:

Heatwaves
Donal et al 2013: Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century
Choi, G., et al., 2009: Changes in means and extreme events of temperature and precipitation in the Asia Pacific Network region

Precipitation
Allan, R. P., and B. J. Soden, 2008: Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes
Pryor, S. C., J. A. Howe, and K. E. Kunkel, 2009: How spatially coherent and statistically robust are temporal changes in extreme precipitation in the contiguous USA?

There are many more, on many areas. E.g. intense tropical storm frequency? Try Kossin et al 2007. All the pretty graphs, tables, and citations to peer-reviewed studies you could ever want - if you can be bothered to take a look.

Claims of "obfuscation" are pure bullshit. You obviously haven't checked for yourself, because you've already decided that nothing you want to see is going to be there (and heaven forbid that new data might pop your worldview bubble!).

The meteor would need to be at least the size of a fighter jet to be trackable.

Meteors leave long trails of ionized gas that are reflective to radar. Here is a radar meteor trail.

I doubt this is possible to do very well. Consider [1], where they were able to identify authors from compiled code. Not with close to 100% accuracy, but it's still surprising that your source code style is identifiable with optimization enabled and symbols stripped out.

[1] ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/...

Even if you use UW facilities for research? That's doubtful.

Doubt all you want, the facts are the facts.

Here's WARF:

UW–Madison faculty, staff and students are not obligated to assign their intellectual property to WARF, unless required to do so by federal law or the terms of a sponsored research agreement with a third party.

http://www.warf.org/about-us/f...

Here's the official UW Policy:

he UW is unique among U.S. universities in that it does not claim ownership rights in the intellectual property generated by its faculty, staff, or students, except when required by funding agreements. UW inventors do, however, have an obligation to disclose all inventions created while carrying out university duties, using any university funding, or using university premises, supplies, or equipment. It is the role of the UW–Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education to perform an equity review for each UW–Madison invention disclosure to determine what obligations may attach to each invention and who may have rights to the invention.

https://research.wisc.edu/proj...

Note that you have to disclose the invention to WARF. However, you don't have to give it to them. You have to disclose it because some (but not all) outside grants require inventions be assigned to the university, and WARF wants to make sure you're following the terms of the grant. However, that is not the University's fault. I speak as someone who has disclosed an invention to WARF. They looked it over, determined that it was not covered by a grant that requires I give up the invention, and told me that I could do what I wanted.

WARF and lawyers are the middleman

By that standard, it doesn't matter who owns the patent: any time there is a patent lawsuit there are middleman because lawyers are involved. Of course, that's a silly standard because they don't "make all the money" as you claimed a few posts ago. WARF doesn't really make money since it's a non-profit, and as noted above, despite your disbelief, you can cut WARF out of the loop.

>"you're all equal now, good luck with that!" and assume things will sort themselves out.

They will but not overnight. This may be modeled with markov chains:

Perhaps the most obvious result is that, in either system, there is little effect of the initial father’s class after two or three generations. That is, [...]converge rapidly to the “perfect mobility” matrix as t[ime] increases.

After three generation, the initial classes are indistinguishable. Let make time work for us!

https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~rch... has a github link and the original paper...

I found more information here: more information There is mention of 200m: "We believe the aquifer beneath Lake Vida is a remnant of a time when the water levels across [the valley] were much higher than present. Upwards of 200 meters higher,”. However, the instruments they were using were only capable of penetrating 600M so it's definately not 200 miles!!

So we shouldn't expect more than mediocre competence just so women feel less bad about themselves? Are they saying women are less capable of brilliance now? I can't believe that was intended, but sometimes I wonder if feminists get so wrapped up in their crusades, they miss (or purposely ignore) the logical missteps along the way.

"gender balanced" score

what is that?

Given the prevailing societal view that fewer women than men have special intellectual abilities..

“The argument is about the culture of the field,” Cimpian says. “In our current cultural climate, where women are stereotypically seen as less likely to possess these special intellectual gifts, emphasizing that those gifts are required for success is going to have a differential effect on men and women."

It's always a war against culture with these people. In reality, this is a fact, not a 'societal view'. Both genius and retardation are overrepresented in men.

The authors of this 'study' are likely biased and likely cherrypicking evidence to suit their position. Janet Hyde is not just a psychologist, she's a radical feminist.
A quick google search..
http://www.womenstudies.wisc.e...
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/0...
http://psych.wisc.edu/faculty-...

The article argues we should downplay competence and merit, and uprate effort and motivation. While the latter two are important, they cannot be the apex criteria when judging someone's output. Doing so undermines individual accomplishment and motivation. It also reenforces the relatively recent cultural intolerance for truth contradicting political correctness. Societies cannot function like this long term. If women want equal treatment and respect in a given field, they have to earn it in a meritocracy just like men. Attempts at bypassing it socially or legislatively just undermine the earning process from the get go. If the authors' argument is that women stay away because they can't emotionally handle the possibility of others (esp specific men) having innate superior ability, then the implication is they are not equally capable. The logic doesn't add up.

So we shouldn't expect more than mediocre competence just so women feel less bad about themselves? Are they saying women are less capable of brilliance now? I can't believe that was intended, but sometimes I wonder if feminists get so wrapped up in their crusades, they miss (or purposely ignore) the logical missteps along the way.

"gender balanced" score

what is that?

Given the prevailing societal view that fewer women than men have special intellectual abilities..

“The argument is about the culture of the field,” Cimpian says. “In our current cultural climate, where women are stereotypically seen as less likely to possess these special intellectual gifts, emphasizing that those gifts are required for success is going to have a differential effect on men and women."

It's always a war against culture with these people. In reality, this is a fact, not a 'societal view'. Both genius and retardation are overrepresented in men.

The authors of this 'study' are likely biased and likely cherrypicking evidence to suit their position. Janet Hyde is not just a psychologist, she's a radical feminist.
A quick google search..
http://www.womenstudies.wisc.e...
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/0...
http://psych.wisc.edu/faculty-...

The article argues we should downplay competence and merit, and uprate effort and motivation. While the latter two are important, they cannot be the apex criteria when judging someone's output. Doing so undermines individual accomplishment and motivation. It also reenforces the relatively recent cultural intolerance for truth contradicting political correctness. Societies cannot function like this long term. If women want equal treatment and respect in a given field, they have to earn it in a meritocracy just like men. Attempts at bypassing it socially or legislatively just undermine the earning process from the get go. If the authors' argument is that women stay away because they can't emotionally handle the possibility of others (esp specific men) having innate superior ability, then the implication is they are not equally capable. The logic doesn't add up.

I'm more concerned about star slime molds: they work as individuals, eating planets, comets and asteroids and, when the food supply in a planetary system gets low, aggregate with other individuals to form a star slime mold body that migrates to another planetary system (rinse, repeat). I am especially fearful of Fuligo septica astrophagus, the dog vomit slime mold star eater.

This still applies. /Olbg. Intel Santa GPU
http://www.dvhardware.net/news...

Through it should be said ...

"Debunking the 100X GPU vs. CPU Myth: An Evaluation of Throughput Computing on CPU and GPU"
http://sbel.wisc.edu/Courses/M...

... if your gas absorbs radiation, and becomes hotter, what happens to it? At the risk of oversimplifying things myself, it expands, and rises in the atmosphere. There, it radiates its heat out to space. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.

But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.

... Simple radiative heating of an already-warmer surface by cooler gases is a physical impossibility. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]

Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.

That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.

Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).

But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.

I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.

I would agree with the above sentiment above on project management or even business administration courses if you feel you enjoy working with the people more than the code/technology itself. There is always a spot for management that came up through the ranks and understands the actual job of those around them. There are some great alternatives to just an MBA that combine some business/accounting with other skills depending on your career path. One example is University of Wisconsin's Masters in Engineering Management (formerly Masters of Engineering in Professional Practice). There are other similar degrees to this one that might be closer to your ambitions than an MBA if you look around.