Do you want to explain how "how much of the literature have you read?" refutes my point?
It's a pertinent question. When someone claims that there is effectively no evidence in favor of AGW, they'd damn well better know what is actually being written in the relevant science journals otherwise it's little different than what the creationists do. i.e. a YEC claiming evolution doesn't exist ought to be fairly knowledgeable of any scientific papers on the subject of evolution just as AGW deniers. This isn't an unreasonable request, that is that if your going to make a claim either way you ought to know what the hell you're talking about.
I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell. The idea is absurd. It's very mafia-ish at the very least.
A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device. Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced.
There's nothing in what I said that is any more philosophical than any of your hypotheses. The method of travling through time that I've sugested (wormholes) isn't easily testable but it is no less so than the multiuniverse concept or time paradoxes in general. Certainly no less out there than what Hawking has posited (chronology protection conjecture) and Einstein's equations don't adequately address the issue as they are to a degree incompatible with quantum physics for which a complete theory of quantum gravity is required to better answer the question of whether time travel can occur and in what fashion.
So this lady was suing because of what? Being slightly inconvenienced?
In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.
And Vista wasn't bad at all. Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers.
That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine. To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.
Besides, this was already covered under anti-trust legislation as illegal tying as Vista was the unwanted product tethered to the purchase of most OEM computers. Unfortunately, the chances of this ever being enforced are slim in the United States.
The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented."
Yeah really... Microsoft isn't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft's expense after all.
My personal hypothesis is that either you can't change history, only fulfill it because it has already happened, or you end up in a different time line. Yay!
I believe your second hypothesis is far more likely. A multiverse with 2-d time with loops forbidden. A very large if not nearly infinite number of timelines splitting off from one another with time travel being possible between timelines but not recursively (ie you can't go back and kill your own grandfather in your own timeline but you could in another) I hypothesize that timelines that self intersect always result in the severing of the intersection its self. The running hypothesis concerning self-intersecting timelines (that I happen to agree with) is that any self intersection (by say a wormhole) would result in a feedback loop that inevitably collapses the connection explaining why self intersection would be such an unstable state.
You should go stand in front of an unprotected x-ray machine or microwave for a while and tell me how your little theory works out for you.
The 1100 watts of microwaves from your microwave are of the riht band(s) to act on the water molecules in your body. Your cell phone and other wireless devices do not use these bands. The vast majority of the EM that is emitted by these devices goes right through you without doing anything. Now I should also add that the perforated sheet of metal that lets you see through the glass also reflects the EM from the microwave and thus very little EM actually escapes because it is a faraday cage. You can stand in front of one all day long compltely uninjured. X-ray machines O.T.O.H. are shielded (for the operators) by a significant quantity of Lead. Further, microwave EM is not radiologically equivalent to X-rays as microwave EM is not ionizing. X-rays are. Big difference.
"Possibly" is better than "can't." A project that doesn't have enouh people to be resurrected by OSS would have even less chance of surviving had it been closed source.
Yes but the difference between OSS and proprietary software is that if the main OSS developers just lose interest in the project, the project can be forked/development work taken over by another part of the OSS community. The question is whether there is enough interest in the OSS community to resurrect Ubiquity.
People thrive on information that reinforces their point of view and reject information that challenge it. How is this news?
That's basically what newspapers and TV stations thrive on.
Well if the study found the complete opposite was true, would you be so quick to defend the results as they would in that case conflict with what you already expected? As has been pointed out in previous discussions, what seems to be completely obvious must also be tested and the results are not worthless as news just because they confirm what you already suspected.
The buggy whip manufacturer is concerned with the development of the "automobile" which raises troubling questions: If a machine could pull a load every bit as good as a horse, what is so special about horses? And was there really any soul behind the act of pulling a cart or are horses just sophisticated chemical engines? At the ned of the day, it's just another case of human beings believing that there is something supernaturally special about them instead of us just being very sophisticated organic nanotechnology with a few members that possess pretty good algorithms for creating music.
Except that the larger elements have much shorter half-lives. Unless there's a stable (or nearly so) element, we won't find anything hiher than ~Americium we won't find a quantity of higher elements worth mentioning. Uranium is the heaviest element in nature in any quantity (Plutonium and Americium occur in trace quantities due to spontaneous fission and the neutron irradiation that results) Supernovae and black holes might have the conditions neccessary to forge super heavy elements but the stability of these elements is the real problem.
Why care if that country wants to hide behind a second great internet wall?
Even if that were true (which is debatable) There is the minority to consider. Just because a majority decides to throw their rights away does not make it ok to force that decision on to those who aren't ok with giving up their rights to free speech.
Try to explain the concept of evolution over time to most folk.
Fixed that for you. People are on average, very stupid. It's a cultural thing that there's such a distrust of nuclear power and science in general in this country and it will end the US's economic dominance very soon if it hasn't already. Then China will be manufacturing all the west requires in terms of green tech and Europe will make the real strides toward a greener economy.
*oopse there meant 6 digit... Hell the EPA estimates that just by changing diesel engine designs could result in a reduction of 15,000 fatalities due to air pollution annually. Since Chernobyl occurred that'd be ~360,000 dead just by using older diesel tech.
It is estimated that 8,000 tons of Uranium and 20,000 tons of Thorium are released into the environment on a yearly basis just from burning Coal. I wonder what kind of environmental impact that has? Probably negative I'm sure. That's not even including all the Mercury, Arsenic, Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and various carcinogens. China is what happens when Coal remains the dominant source of energy instead of alternatives like nuclear. China's environment is effectively dead as a result. The acid rain from the Coal plants is enough to make farming difficult if not impossible in areas and is slaughtering any remaining wildlife. The health problems caused by remaining a fossil fuel society are numerous with estimates placing the deathtoll in the 5 digit range annually. That's more than died from all nuclear reactor accidents combined just in one year.
Why can't we simply accept that this is the 21st century, and nothing should be censored? Ever.
Politicians never got that upgrade. The bug in their code that compels them to control various aspects of peoples' lives for whatever reason has not been patched nor is there any real sign that it ever will be.
Wrong. They want trillions to flow into producing today's tech, en-masse, right now. End of story.
Only certain kinds of tech like wind farms and solar panels and in some cases, Ethanol...
NF3 is only just now becoming recognized as a greenhouse gas for a reason -
Don't forget chemicals used in the manufacture of these cells. My point was that no energy source is perfect and the longer we wait to replace fossil fuel plants the harder it will be to mitigate AGW. We need to use every clean tech we have and that includes nuclear power.
Fusion itself can breed tritium.
D+D => He3+n and D+T=>He4+n are neutron sources that an be used to breed Tritium from Li6 although the fuel will probably have to run a bit lean on Tritium to make up for neutron losses. This makes Q=inf slightly more difficult to acheive. However, the irradiation of various reactor components by neutrons could pose a problem eventually. It's an active part of the research.
Two very closely related nonsense claims. When will people stop pushing this FUD? Let's start with wind. There was ONE -- read it, ONE -- wind farm, built early on, that had bird kill problems:
Do you know why I mentioned it? It was the subject of a lawsuit brought on by C.B.D.
Right -- fair and balanced, as if bogus claims are on equal footing as valid ones. "Some say" wind kills birds. "Some say" coal causes health problems. Both have problems -- there's your equivalence, right?
They're stupid claims and so is the notion that we should abandon nuclear power as an option. That is the point.
Do you even comprehend how much radioactive material several to dozens of billions of curies per reactor is? Nuclear has great potential but also great risk.
What is the risk is by pumping out 30 billion tons of CO2 every year? What is the risk of building even more coal plants instead of using every single low carbon tech we have? Right now we can reduce emissions. In the long term we'll probably see more solar and fusion energy become commonplace, right now nuclear is a bridge to reduce emissions now while we get the others up and running. Do you know what is sick about all of this? France actually gets it. They didn't cower in fear over the technology and now they have one of the lowest CO2/capita of any industrialized nation. If the US merely swapped out Coal for Nuclear we wouldn't be so afraid of Kyoto's targets for CO2 reduction. Hell we'd pretty much be there now if we hadn't essentially stopped building new reactors.
Show me a single anti-nuclear environmentalist of note who's not equally also anti-coal.
The problem is that the anti-nuclear types tend to want perfect technology and that of course can never exist. Solar cell production releases NF3 a super greenhouse gas. Coal destroys the environment wholesale. Nuclear produces nuclear waste. Fusion requires Tritium (for now) which is only produced using nuclear fission reactors and a lithium blanket. Geothermal can cause earthquakes. Wind kills birds and bats. They all have problems and we will get no where by attacking every single technology that we have. CO2 emissions must be reduced and they must be reduced right fucking now not when some hypothetical perfect technology comes along. Nuclear is better than Coal and you'd have to be a complete moron to not see an advantage in at least replacing Coal plants with Nuclear reactors.
Again, for good reason. And see my post higher up comparing the radiation exposure from a single nuclear accident with that from all of the coal emissions in US history,
You are out of touch with reality. Completely. Do you even comprehend how much pollution Coal plants produce? Apparently not. 27 billion tons of CO2 a year from fossil fuels is destroying this planet and here you are whining about two reactor accidents in 40 year old designs. It is because of stupidity like that that the environment hasn't a fucking chance.
NIMBY and Greenpeace. Coal is responsile for the deaths of over 40,000 people a year in the United States due to various pollution caused by Coal plants. I wonder why people are screaming so loud to stop nuclear plants when Coal is by far the greater danger to life and the environment.
As for it being "the cheapest source of electricity", the market sure didn't consider it to be for the past couple decades,
Again, red tape. Coal plants do not have to run through nearly as much red tape which is extremely odd considering all of the pollution that is released by them. CO2 causing global warming, various NOX and SOx causing acid rain, Mercury and even relatively large quantities of Thorium and Uranium release from burned Coal due to the fact that the living organisms that later formed these coal deposits concentrated these radioactive elements. This is why Coal ash is radioactive to some degree. The estimated release of radioactive elements by Coal plants is on an annual basis much larer than all nuclear accidents combined. Ever.
The quantity of Uranium that is in higher grade ores is limited although the quantity of Uranium at lower concentrations is enormous. Fossil fuels are much more likely to run out long before Uranium does.
Slashdot Mirror
That is some nasty hyperbole you've got there.
It's a pertinent question. When someone claims that there is effectively no evidence in favor of AGW, they'd damn well better know what is actually being written in the relevant science journals otherwise it's little different than what the creationists do. i.e. a YEC claiming evolution doesn't exist ought to be fairly knowledgeable of any scientific papers on the subject of evolution just as AGW deniers. This isn't an unreasonable request, that is that if your going to make a claim either way you ought to know what the hell you're talking about.
I agree. Unfortunately there seem to be an ever growing number of anti-AGW mods on /. as of late and you've got modded down for it.
A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device. Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced.
There's nothing in what I said that is any more philosophical than any of your hypotheses. The method of travling through time that I've sugested (wormholes) isn't easily testable but it is no less so than the multiuniverse concept or time paradoxes in general. Certainly no less out there than what Hawking has posited (chronology protection conjecture) and Einstein's equations don't adequately address the issue as they are to a degree incompatible with quantum physics for which a complete theory of quantum gravity is required to better answer the question of whether time travel can occur and in what fashion.
In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.
That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine. To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.
Besides, this was already covered under anti-trust legislation as illegal tying as Vista was the unwanted product tethered to the purchase of most OEM computers. Unfortunately, the chances of this ever being enforced are slim in the United States.
Yeah really... Microsoft isn't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft's expense after all.
I believe your second hypothesis is far more likely. A multiverse with 2-d time with loops forbidden. A very large if not nearly infinite number of timelines splitting off from one another with time travel being possible between timelines but not recursively (ie you can't go back and kill your own grandfather in your own timeline but you could in another) I hypothesize that timelines that self intersect always result in the severing of the intersection its self. The running hypothesis concerning self-intersecting timelines (that I happen to agree with) is that any self intersection (by say a wormhole) would result in a feedback loop that inevitably collapses the connection explaining why self intersection would be such an unstable state.
The 1100 watts of microwaves from your microwave are of the riht band(s) to act on the water molecules in your body. Your cell phone and other wireless devices do not use these bands. The vast majority of the EM that is emitted by these devices goes right through you without doing anything. Now I should also add that the perforated sheet of metal that lets you see through the glass also reflects the EM from the microwave and thus very little EM actually escapes because it is a faraday cage. You can stand in front of one all day long compltely uninjured. X-ray machines O.T.O.H. are shielded (for the operators) by a significant quantity of Lead. Further, microwave EM is not radiologically equivalent to X-rays as microwave EM is not ionizing. X-rays are. Big difference.
"Possibly" is better than "can't." A project that doesn't have enouh people to be resurrected by OSS would have even less chance of surviving had it been closed source.
Yes but the difference between OSS and proprietary software is that if the main OSS developers just lose interest in the project, the project can be forked/development work taken over by another part of the OSS community. The question is whether there is enough interest in the OSS community to resurrect Ubiquity.
Well if the study found the complete opposite was true, would you be so quick to defend the results as they would in that case conflict with what you already expected? As has been pointed out in previous discussions, what seems to be completely obvious must also be tested and the results are not worthless as news just because they confirm what you already suspected.
The buggy whip manufacturer is concerned with the development of the "automobile" which raises troubling questions: If a machine could pull a load every bit as good as a horse, what is so special about horses? And was there really any soul behind the act of pulling a cart or are horses just sophisticated chemical engines? At the ned of the day, it's just another case of human beings believing that there is something supernaturally special about them instead of us just being very sophisticated organic nanotechnology with a few members that possess pretty good algorithms for creating music.
Except that the larger elements have much shorter half-lives. Unless there's a stable (or nearly so) element, we won't find anything hiher than ~Americium we won't find a quantity of higher elements worth mentioning. Uranium is the heaviest element in nature in any quantity (Plutonium and Americium occur in trace quantities due to spontaneous fission and the neutron irradiation that results) Supernovae and black holes might have the conditions neccessary to forge super heavy elements but the stability of these elements is the real problem.
Even if that were true (which is debatable) There is the minority to consider. Just because a majority decides to throw their rights away does not make it ok to force that decision on to those who aren't ok with giving up their rights to free speech.
Fixed that for you. People are on average, very stupid. It's a cultural thing that there's such a distrust of nuclear power and science in general in this country and it will end the US's economic dominance very soon if it hasn't already. Then China will be manufacturing all the west requires in terms of green tech and Europe will make the real strides toward a greener economy.
*oopse there meant 6 digit... Hell the EPA estimates that just by changing diesel engine designs could result in a reduction of 15,000 fatalities due to air pollution annually. Since Chernobyl occurred that'd be ~360,000 dead just by using older diesel tech.
It is estimated that 8,000 tons of Uranium and 20,000 tons of Thorium are released into the environment on a yearly basis just from burning Coal. I wonder what kind of environmental impact that has? Probably negative I'm sure. That's not even including all the Mercury, Arsenic, Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and various carcinogens. China is what happens when Coal remains the dominant source of energy instead of alternatives like nuclear. China's environment is effectively dead as a result. The acid rain from the Coal plants is enough to make farming difficult if not impossible in areas and is slaughtering any remaining wildlife. The health problems caused by remaining a fossil fuel society are numerous with estimates placing the deathtoll in the 5 digit range annually. That's more than died from all nuclear reactor accidents combined just in one year.
Then I'd like to see Coal get its just reward. If Coal were regulated like Nuclear is, there wouldn't be any. It'd be uneconomical.
Politicians never got that upgrade. The bug in their code that compels them to control various aspects of peoples' lives for whatever reason has not been patched nor is there any real sign that it ever will be.
Only certain kinds of tech like wind farms and solar panels and in some cases, Ethanol...
Don't forget chemicals used in the manufacture of these cells. My point was that no energy source is perfect and the longer we wait to replace fossil fuel plants the harder it will be to mitigate AGW. We need to use every clean tech we have and that includes nuclear power.
D+D => He3+n and D+T=>He4+n are neutron sources that an be used to breed Tritium from Li6 although the fuel will probably have to run a bit lean on Tritium to make up for neutron losses. This makes Q=inf slightly more difficult to acheive. However, the irradiation of various reactor components by neutrons could pose a problem eventually. It's an active part of the research.
Do you know why I mentioned it? It was the subject of a lawsuit brought on by C.B.D.
They're stupid claims and so is the notion that we should abandon nuclear power as an option. That is the point.
What is the risk is by pumping out 30 billion tons of CO2 every year? What is the risk of building even more coal plants instead of using every single low carbon tech we have? Right now we can reduce emissions. In the long term we'll probably see more solar and fusion energy become commonplace, right now nuclear is a bridge to reduce emissions now while we get the others up and running. Do you know what is sick about all of this? France actually gets it. They didn't cower in fear over the technology and now they have one of the lowest CO2/capita of any industrialized nation. If the US merely swapped out Coal for Nuclear we wouldn't be so afraid of Kyoto's targets for CO2 reduction. Hell we'd pretty much be there now if we hadn't essentially stopped building new reactors.
The problem is that the anti-nuclear types tend to want perfect technology and that of course can never exist. Solar cell production releases NF3 a super greenhouse gas. Coal destroys the environment wholesale. Nuclear produces nuclear waste. Fusion requires Tritium (for now) which is only produced using nuclear fission reactors and a lithium blanket. Geothermal can cause earthquakes. Wind kills birds and bats. They all have problems and we will get no where by attacking every single technology that we have. CO2 emissions must be reduced and they must be reduced right fucking now not when some hypothetical perfect technology comes along. Nuclear is better than Coal and you'd have to be a complete moron to not see an advantage in at least replacing Coal plants with Nuclear reactors.
You are out of touch with reality. Completely. Do you even comprehend how much pollution Coal plants produce? Apparently not. 27 billion tons of CO2 a year from fossil fuels is destroying this planet and here you are whining about two reactor accidents in 40 year old designs. It is because of stupidity like that that the environment hasn't a fucking chance.
NIMBY and Greenpeace. Coal is responsile for the deaths of over 40,000 people a year in the United States due to various pollution caused by Coal plants. I wonder why people are screaming so loud to stop nuclear plants when Coal is by far the greater danger to life and the environment.
Again, red tape. Coal plants do not have to run through nearly as much red tape which is extremely odd considering all of the pollution that is released by them. CO2 causing global warming, various NOX and SOx causing acid rain, Mercury and even relatively large quantities of Thorium and Uranium release from burned Coal due to the fact that the living organisms that later formed these coal deposits concentrated these radioactive elements. This is why Coal ash is radioactive to some degree. The estimated release of radioactive elements by Coal plants is on an annual basis much larer than all nuclear accidents combined. Ever.
The quantity of Uranium that is in higher grade ores is limited although the quantity of Uranium at lower concentrations is enormous. Fossil fuels are much more likely to run out long before Uranium does.