It's spherical, it orbits a star, it should be a planet.
And by the same definition, so should Ceres. Nobody ever thinks of Ceres. Always being kicked around and forgotten by school teachers, and then exploited by both Earth and Mars.. #freeceres #waterislife #opa
Yeah I got that part, but I was presuming the standard Android permissions dialog was shown before install, and was just curious as to how the program managed to raise a custom overlay so early. If it's talking about a later-stage specific permission escalation (e.g. SuperSU or as introduced in Marshmallow) while the app is already running, I can see how that works.
If that's so, then I guess that limits the damage that can be done to/mnt/sdcard (which could still be enough). I'm surprised that unknown code can be downloaded and executed before the install privileges dialog has completed, though. Or am I missing something else?
At least it's a minor threat to mainstream markets, but I imagine it's aimed more at the vast and growing Chinese base, where sideloading and unvetted stores are the norm.
Of course, users can't grant root access to anything, on a stock phone regardless of version. Only rooted phones would be potentially vulnerable, and all others wouldn't show an admin-access dialog at all.
This is on top of requiring the user to actually want to sideload an app called Porn'o'Rama in the first place, if that's what it was really called.
If you can come up with a tax regime that has broadly similar impact (to living costs, lifestyle etc) over a population with very wide differences of ability to contribute, and is also effective and enforceable, then I imagine there's some economics departments that might want to talk to you. It's not a simple problem.
The mixed income/consumption tax approach is far from perfect, but most "obvious" alternatives are worse, or are too difficult to administer or enforce.
Ah I see, it's your opinion - hence the redefinition of "fact".
So you feel the only reasonable standard is one a business can meet without difficulty, regardless of the external costs to everyone else. Which of course would mean there'd be no pressure to develop new technologies that meet these higher standards (such as catalytic converters or electric vehicles), and LA would look more like Beijing.
It's obvious that not ALL companies are cheating (Tesla certainly isn't), and there's certainly no evidence that consumers are ignoring these standards either - if they were, VW wouldn't have been faced with such a huge public scandal.
"Overly ambitious" standards? In whose opinion, the car manufacturers or those who suffer the consequences?
This isn't some civic protest akin to Prohibition, these are regulations designed to avoid Tragedy of the Commons scenarios with real costs to society. In the UK alone, nitrogen dioxide emissions cause 23,500 extra deaths, costing around £13bn per year.
Corporations already get a sweeter tax deal than "real" people ever did. People can't deduct their rent or supplies or other daily costs of being able to get work done.
Imagine if you only got taxed on your disposable income. Better still, imagine if you lived simultaneously at home and in a tax haven, and your working self paid most of your net revenue as a skill-set licence to the tax-free self who was living it up for you in the Bahamas.
Malware like this is possible because Android *does* offer you control, like sideloading. It's iOS that restricts control (and apparently many users need to be controlled for their own good).
Google can also nuke this shit, but only if its Play Services is installed. Most Chinese android devices are unassociated with Google, apart from using the AOSP codebase.
News: Check out these undersea volcanoes you hadn't heard of. Studies are hinting that their eruptions may be more sporadic than regular. Assumption: Scientists hadn't heard of these volcanoes either. Postulate: This must mean any effect they have is new & unaccounted for. Factoid: A volcano puts out lots of smoke & hot stuff. Assumption: Volcanoes put out more smoke & hot stuff than people. Preconception: My lifestyle couldn't possibly be bad in any way, therefore humans couldn't negatively affect the environment. Oblig. Politicisation: Anyone who says otherwise is a "leftist" Supposal: All these new volcanoes are increasing temperatures far beyond what people could do. Conclusion: THAT must be the real reason for global warming! I KNEW it couldn't be us! This explains EVERYTHING!
Congratulations on your data-free chain of reasoning. Wrong from the beginning, of course - as the summary says, these volcanoes are already known to account for 70% of eruptions, so their thermal & CO2 output is already factored in. Plus of course, the data already showed that average volcanic CO2 output is under 1% that of humans, and their thermal output is far smaller again. New studies "hinting" that these eruptions might happen in bursts rather than continuously doesn't change that.
Certainly; cost is always a factor, including for nuclear. Almost anything is possible, given enough time & money, but cost effectiveness is still paramount - IF you consider all significant lifetime factors, including capital, ongoing, post-lifetime, and at least best estimates of external societal costs.
I'd love to see more comprehensive levelised cost comparisons of a much wider range of grid options, including solar & wind backed by a range of different storage technologies, nuclear, and even fossil-fueled options too. It'd be fascinating to see how these have been changing over time, and how they change by site, payoff times, residual/decomissioning costs and externalities. Too much discussion is reduced to "it just isn't practical" and "this is better, because reasons", or "that would be too expensive".
This AETA updated report on energy options for NSW, Australia, is an excellent start, and has some great information in graph form towards the end, including . Unfortunately, a change in government since the original report has resulted in carbon prices being excluded, which is unfortunate as that was a reasonable proxy for the many external costs to society, but even without that it can still add some much needed reality to the picture. Got any links to even more comprehensive studies?
There are many mature grid-scale storage technologies right now, and more that are newer but already commercially available (e.g. reflow batteries). You could argue that cost or efficiencies limit the practicality of some types in some situations, but to repeatedly wave them all away and claim that nuclear is the "only" option (with zero supporting data) requires a deliberate effort to keep one's mind firmly closed.
Luckey's original estimates were for a product similar to the first devkit - single, off-the-shelf screen, only higher resolution.
Then they realised they needed more, like positional tracking, low persistence, and even higher resolution, or they risked too many people getting simsickness and another VR failure to launch. And now they had the capability of ordering custom components to fix that, like the dual hidpi OLED screens in the final product. This also explains the lengthy wait.
Since lettuce has far more water than calories, that's not much of a surprise. You'd have to eat a mountain of lettuce to get the same caloric intake as a couple of rashers of bacon. But few people eat lettuce for the calories; vegetarians often get most of theirs from nuts, mushrooms & soy, for example - none of which appear to be covered in the study
eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change
Sure, but less so than most diets involving meat (disclaimer: not a vegetarian). The study also includes dairy foods and even seafood, which seems odd for a vegetarian diet but maybe bolsters their desired conclusion (cheese in particular is pretty GHG-intensive). The result seems to be more useful for fuelling misleading media quotes like the above, than for making informed decisions.
Maybe you didn't know that "down under" is a colloquialism referring to the country of Australia.
Compare the mass murders in Australia before the Port Arthur Massacre, with afterwards (when the gun laws were tightened drastically). 0% is quite close to the truth, depending on how you define a mass shooting.
* More concise * Language-independent * Flexible precision (8FW4V7FW+G2 and "Paris V7FW+G2" both point to the Arc de Triomphe) * Can refer to cities (8FW4), suburbs (8FW4V7), blocks of a few metres (8FW4V7FW+G2), or even a specific door * Can use just the last characters for near-by locations (e.g. FW+G2) * Unique and easily generated from lat/long * FOSS support * Already supported by Google Maps
Good, but the rate of increase in distance to the moon isn't constant (it was faster in the past), and it's thought that the moon formed at a distance of only about 20 to 30 thousand kilometers.
By your maths, 4B years ago would've put the moon at 60% its current distance, but at formation it is more likely to have been only 6% of current distance. Assuming similar mass to today, 60% closer implies more like 4.6x the current tidal force - but 6% distance might be 4,600x stronger forces (probably more, given that the distance to the Earth's surface was even closer). How this translates into actual tidal sizes is left as an exercise for someone who knows more than I do.
Of course back then there probably wasn't much water around, given terrestrial temperatures in the thousands of degrees, but there may have been some impressive magma tides instead.
Dyson himself has said that he doesn't know much about the technical details (he's a physicist, not a climatologist), only that he feels that the climate is very complicated, and that there's too much expert reliance on the models. That's fine as an opinion, but proves nothing.
Of your linked list, just looking through the names shows mostly qualifications in physics, geophysics, paleogeophysics, chemistry, botany, ecology, geology, biogeography - and the ex-Greenpeace guy. Compare that to the hundreds of actual, practicing climatologists who contributed their data to the IPCC reports, and the thousands more who have published studies explicitly or implicitly confirming climate change.
There's no alarmism there, only reams of scientific evidence showing that the earth IS warming, and will in all likelihood continue warming at even faster rates (as it has been doing for 150 years). There are also numerous studies demonstrating that, unchecked, this will be very expensive for us to adapt to (those that can).
What we DO about that is an entirely separate question. "Alarmism" could certainly apply to some proposed responses (mostly to the wilder, straw-man suggestions like "destroy the economy"), but there are also plenty of sane, well-reasoned proposals that will have a long-term net benefit to the economy, even without considering the avoided costs of climate change adaption. I leave it to the political debate as to which to choose - but that is entirely orthogonal to the science.
Many of your questions are answered here, with links provided to further data. If you'd like more in-depth information about the exact process, why not contact an actual climatologist? There are some around who are taking the time to talk to the public, e.g. at RealClimate.
Slashdot Mirror
It's spherical, it orbits a star, it should be a planet.
And by the same definition, so should Ceres. Nobody ever thinks of Ceres. Always being kicked around and forgotten by school teachers, and then exploited by both Earth and Mars.. #freeceres #waterislife #opa
We've been doing that since we started painting on cave walls. Or was it enriching and educating ourselves? Up to you.
Yeah I got that part, but I was presuming the standard Android permissions dialog was shown before install, and was just curious as to how the program managed to raise a custom overlay so early. If it's talking about a later-stage specific permission escalation (e.g. SuperSU or as introduced in Marshmallow) while the app is already running, I can see how that works.
If that's so, then I guess that limits the damage that can be done to /mnt/sdcard (which could still be enough). I'm surprised that unknown code can be downloaded and executed before the install privileges dialog has completed, though. Or am I missing something else?
At least it's a minor threat to mainstream markets, but I imagine it's aimed more at the vast and growing Chinese base, where sideloading and unvetted stores are the norm.
Of course, users can't grant root access to anything, on a stock phone regardless of version. Only rooted phones would be potentially vulnerable, and all others wouldn't show an admin-access dialog at all.
This is on top of requiring the user to actually want to sideload an app called Porn'o'Rama in the first place, if that's what it was really called.
Which are not built into Android, and are certainly not part of the core OS.
If you can come up with a tax regime that has broadly similar impact (to living costs, lifestyle etc) over a population with very wide differences of ability to contribute, and is also effective and enforceable, then I imagine there's some economics departments that might want to talk to you. It's not a simple problem.
The mixed income/consumption tax approach is far from perfect, but most "obvious" alternatives are worse, or are too difficult to administer or enforce.
Ah I see, it's your opinion - hence the redefinition of "fact".
So you feel the only reasonable standard is one a business can meet without difficulty, regardless of the external costs to everyone else. Which of course would mean there'd be no pressure to develop new technologies that meet these higher standards (such as catalytic converters or electric vehicles), and LA would look more like Beijing.
It's obvious that not ALL companies are cheating (Tesla certainly isn't), and there's certainly no evidence that consumers are ignoring these standards either - if they were, VW wouldn't have been faced with such a huge public scandal.
"Overly ambitious" standards? In whose opinion, the car manufacturers or those who suffer the consequences?
This isn't some civic protest akin to Prohibition, these are regulations designed to avoid Tragedy of the Commons scenarios with real costs to society. In the UK alone, nitrogen dioxide emissions cause 23,500 extra deaths, costing around £13bn per year.
Corporations already get a sweeter tax deal than "real" people ever did. People can't deduct their rent or supplies or other daily costs of being able to get work done.
Imagine if you only got taxed on your disposable income. Better still, imagine if you lived simultaneously at home and in a tax haven, and your working self paid most of your net revenue as a skill-set licence to the tax-free self who was living it up for you in the Bahamas.
Really? Can you link me to the the source page on AOSP where some of these spying APIs are defined?
Malware like this is possible because Android *does* offer you control, like sideloading. It's iOS that restricts control (and apparently many users need to be controlled for their own good).
Google can also nuke this shit, but only if its Play Services is installed. Most Chinese android devices are unassociated with Google, apart from using the AOSP codebase.
News: Check out these undersea volcanoes you hadn't heard of. Studies are hinting that their eruptions may be more sporadic than regular.
Assumption: Scientists hadn't heard of these volcanoes either.
Postulate: This must mean any effect they have is new & unaccounted for.
Factoid: A volcano puts out lots of smoke & hot stuff.
Assumption: Volcanoes put out more smoke & hot stuff than people.
Preconception: My lifestyle couldn't possibly be bad in any way, therefore humans couldn't negatively affect the environment.
Oblig. Politicisation: Anyone who says otherwise is a "leftist"
Supposal: All these new volcanoes are increasing temperatures far beyond what people could do.
Conclusion: THAT must be the real reason for global warming! I KNEW it couldn't be us! This explains EVERYTHING!
Congratulations on your data-free chain of reasoning. Wrong from the beginning, of course - as the summary says, these volcanoes are already known to account for 70% of eruptions, so their thermal & CO2 output is already factored in. Plus of course, the data already showed that average volcanic CO2 output is under 1% that of humans, and their thermal output is far smaller again. New studies "hinting" that these eruptions might happen in bursts rather than continuously doesn't change that.
Certainly; cost is always a factor, including for nuclear. Almost anything is possible, given enough time & money, but cost effectiveness is still paramount - IF you consider all significant lifetime factors, including capital, ongoing, post-lifetime, and at least best estimates of external societal costs.
I'd love to see more comprehensive levelised cost comparisons of a much wider range of grid options, including solar & wind backed by a range of different storage technologies, nuclear, and even fossil-fueled options too. It'd be fascinating to see how these have been changing over time, and how they change by site, payoff times, residual/decomissioning costs and externalities. Too much discussion is reduced to "it just isn't practical" and "this is better, because reasons", or "that would be too expensive".
This AETA updated report on energy options for NSW, Australia, is an excellent start, and has some great information in graph form towards the end, including . Unfortunately, a change in government since the original report has resulted in carbon prices being excluded, which is unfortunate as that was a reasonable proxy for the many external costs to society, but even without that it can still add some much needed reality to the picture. Got any links to even more comprehensive studies?
There are many mature grid-scale storage technologies right now, and more that are newer but already commercially available (e.g. reflow batteries). You could argue that cost or efficiencies limit the practicality of some types in some situations, but to repeatedly wave them all away and claim that nuclear is the "only" option (with zero supporting data) requires a deliberate effort to keep one's mind firmly closed.
Luckey's original estimates were for a product similar to the first devkit - single, off-the-shelf screen, only higher resolution.
Then they realised they needed more, like positional tracking, low persistence, and even higher resolution, or they risked too many people getting simsickness and another VR failure to launch. And now they had the capability of ordering custom components to fix that, like the dual hidpi OLED screens in the final product. This also explains the lengthy wait.
Since lettuce has far more water than calories, that's not much of a surprise. You'd have to eat a mountain of lettuce to get the same caloric intake as a couple of rashers of bacon. But few people eat lettuce for the calories; vegetarians often get most of theirs from nuts, mushrooms & soy, for example - none of which appear to be covered in the study
eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change
Sure, but less so than most diets involving meat (disclaimer: not a vegetarian). The study also includes dairy foods and even seafood, which seems odd for a vegetarian diet but maybe bolsters their desired conclusion (cheese in particular is pretty GHG-intensive). The result seems to be more useful for fuelling misleading media quotes like the above, than for making informed decisions.
Maybe you didn't know that "down under" is a colloquialism referring to the country of Australia.
Compare the mass murders in Australia before the Port Arthur Massacre, with afterwards (when the gun laws were tightened drastically). 0% is quite close to the truth, depending on how you define a mass shooting.
I'm surprised nobody's brought up Open Location / Plus Codes yet:
* More concise
* Language-independent
* Flexible precision (8FW4V7FW+G2 and "Paris V7FW+G2" both point to the Arc de Triomphe)
* Can refer to cities (8FW4), suburbs (8FW4V7), blocks of a few metres (8FW4V7FW+G2), or even a specific door
* Can use just the last characters for near-by locations (e.g. FW+G2)
* Unique and easily generated from lat/long
* FOSS support
* Already supported by Google Maps
You might be interested in the Launch Loop.
Much more accurate than your assorted straw men, anyway.
Good, but the rate of increase in distance to the moon isn't constant (it was faster in the past), and it's thought that the moon formed at a distance of only about 20 to 30 thousand kilometers.
By your maths, 4B years ago would've put the moon at 60% its current distance, but at formation it is more likely to have been only 6% of current distance. Assuming similar mass to today, 60% closer implies more like 4.6x the current tidal force - but 6% distance might be 4,600x stronger forces (probably more, given that the distance to the Earth's surface was even closer). How this translates into actual tidal sizes is left as an exercise for someone who knows more than I do.
Of course back then there probably wasn't much water around, given terrestrial temperatures in the thousands of degrees, but there may have been some impressive magma tides instead.
I'm asking *you* (or anyone else who's responding) to answer the questions.
I see; you're after an argument, not information. Have fun with that!
Dyson himself has said that he doesn't know much about the technical details (he's a physicist, not a climatologist), only that he feels that the climate is very complicated, and that there's too much expert reliance on the models. That's fine as an opinion, but proves nothing.
Of your linked list, just looking through the names shows mostly qualifications in physics, geophysics, paleogeophysics, chemistry, botany, ecology, geology, biogeography - and the ex-Greenpeace guy. Compare that to the hundreds of actual, practicing climatologists who contributed their data to the IPCC reports, and the thousands more who have published studies explicitly or implicitly confirming climate change.
There's no alarmism there, only reams of scientific evidence showing that the earth IS warming, and will in all likelihood continue warming at even faster rates (as it has been doing for 150 years). There are also numerous studies demonstrating that, unchecked, this will be very expensive for us to adapt to (those that can).
What we DO about that is an entirely separate question. "Alarmism" could certainly apply to some proposed responses (mostly to the wilder, straw-man suggestions like "destroy the economy"), but there are also plenty of sane, well-reasoned proposals that will have a long-term net benefit to the economy, even without considering the avoided costs of climate change adaption. I leave it to the political debate as to which to choose - but that is entirely orthogonal to the science.
Many of your questions are answered here, with links provided to further data. If you'd like more in-depth information about the exact process, why not contact an actual climatologist? There are some around who are taking the time to talk to the public, e.g. at RealClimate.