The guy who posts a link to actual research on the subject gets modded flamebait while the guy who makes unsupported claims, some of which are contradicted by that very research which was linked to gets modded insightful.
Some of the possibilities are:
(A) The guy making unsupported claims has a lot of sock puppets with mod points. (B) Slashdot is filled with people that don't care about the facts. (C) Slashdot is the victim of an organized astroturf.
Wow. I'm hurt Mr. Anonymous.
NO, I don't have any sock puppets. I don't have that sort of time.
There is a very clear link between storms, hurricanes and increased atmospheric temperature. I actually thought it was common knowledge by now, so I didn't bother posting links. As to why or who modded the other guy flamebait, I don't know, but the idea that I'd spent extra time creating and logging in with sock puppets is so hilarious from my perspective, that it almost made me smile.
The argument is now whether the observable changes are predominantly attributable to man's impact on the environment, or to the natural climatic lifecycle of the Earth.
Is there, really? I believe this question has been answered pretty decisively by the scientific community, with a resounding consensus that man's actions are moderately to significantly affecting global warming.
as long as you can get there and survive there due to the hurricanes.
Increasing the total energy in the atmosphere will not result in a well-behaved warming, but in more variable and extreme weather patterns, and there will be more hurricanes and storms at seas. This little game humanity is playing with the Earth may well end up in tears.
So... you work with laser-formed BS? You didn't really answer my question, so I am guessing only.
The BS symposium looks fun, but unless I can send in an abstract, I won't get funding for a trip to the US. And actually, getting the visa last time was such a major PITA, that I am not really looking forward to it, now that I think of it.
Anyway the short version is high efficiency works, but apparently failed economically for bulk energy production. Ooops. Time for a new business plan. The purpose of yer low light camera sensor isn't to charge a battery, so its possibly useful regardless of manufacturing dollars per watt delivered.
Using femtosecond lasers for treating silicon surfaces was never going to be price-competitive for solar panel production. DRIE black silicon on the other hand, could be made competitive, if/when production scale DRIE equipment appears, specifically modified (and simplified) for black silicon forming. The strong plasma that is required, however, limits scalability. Still, not entirely impossible.
How nice - me too! But we tend to call it "silicon nanograss" - it's more sexy, because it has "nano" in the name. Ours is the DRIE kind of black silicon. What's yours?
I know, and I think I wrote so myself in the OP. I read Nature News rather regularly at work (at the coffee table, believe it or not) and this article was, in comparison to the ones I read, sub par. It wasn't quite the kind of shite BBC News would publishes (online) regarding science and technology, but it deviated into that sad direction.
..it's a rather poor article. It talks in very basic terms about proteins and their folding, talks a bit more about the scientist who founded the institute behind the computer, and says fuck-all about the construction of the computer itself.
Bah. For a publishing house of Nature Publishing Group's (intellectual and economic) muscle, one should expect more.
Not too highly, just wrongly. There are plenty of games that are generally well-loved by their respective community, and have a lower mark than Civilization V, which is generally hated by its community (and for good reason).
I'm afraid gamerankings is broken: it has Civilization V at over 90%, even though most of those who played it long enough (i.e. at least 350 turns) have run into the various crashes, the 69 city limit, the large map crashes, the extremely limited (moronic?) AI etc.
Farsi uses the arabic script - in fact, farsi and arabic written languages are indistinguishable. If the whole point of.IRAN is to support the farsi script, then why have it as a separate entity from an arabic TLD?
Kids, mineral oil is very much organic, composed of hydrocarbons with a few tens of carbon atoms. But I thought this was general knowledge, at least around/.
I know Slashdot is the arch-enemy of good writing practices, so this post will be modded to hell, but I again feel I must point out that lately, the capitalization of titles of Slashdot submissions got completely out of hand. The rule is simple: if you want to capitalize your headlines, you capitalize every word except - prepositions ("of", "to", "in", "for", "with" and "on") - articles ("the, "a" and "an") - and some other obvious exceptions.
On Slashdot, the editors are so ignorant that they usually capitalize each and every word. But this title, "Meet NELL, the Computer That Lears From the Net", shows that capitalizing every word is not even a policy, in addition to misspelling "learn".
I know Slashdot is the enemy of good writing practices, so this post will be modded downto hell, but I feel I must point out that lately, the capitalization of titles of Slashdot submissions got completely out of hand. The rule is simple: if you want to capitalize your headlines, you capitalize every word except - prepositions ("of", "to", "in", "for", "with" and "on") - articles ("the, "a" and "an") - and some other obvious exceptions.
On Slashdot, the editors are so ignorant that they usually capitalize each and every word. But this title, "IBM's Plans For the Cell Processor ", shows that capitalizing every word is not even a policy!
I guess all that goes out of the window the one (extremely likely) time that 1988 Ford Taurus stops working in the middle of traffic. That's a moment money can't buy.
Also, let me add that unless planned obsolescence is added in a fully electric vehicle, it should not need any maintenance for several decades.
According to an extensive research article published in The Lancet (highest impact factor medical journal), cannabis is both less damaging AND less addictive than either tobacco or alcohol.
I don't necessarily agree that the M1 needs a gas fueled engine, because it is 67 (not 70) tons heavy. The Merkava Mk. IV is 65 tons, and yet it uses a diesel engine. The power/ton of the Abrams is 24.5 hp/ton, while for the Merkava it is 23 hp/ton - not a huge difference at all. Max speed on road/flat terrain is 64 Km/h for the Merkava and 67.6 for the Abrams. Again, not much of a difference. The Merkava's range is 500 Km vs. the Abrams' 465 - so here the difference is slightly more evident.
Well, then the villain should have thought about it before he started spamming people. I don't give a shit that the fine is "excessive", if it will scare the pests from spamming us.
How about sending some targeted "Hello world" transmissions towards that object first? If they have any intelligent life and a SETI program in place, they may hear us and answer back.
More likely, it would go somewhat like this: "Hey, we got a message from... that point there. Oh, an exoplanet, just perrrrfect for us! Let's warp there, kill/eat/analprobe/enslave those fools and live the life!"
Read Mayflower II, an award-winning, excellent short novel by Stephen Baxter, probably the best contemporary hard Sci-Vi writer. The topic is, indeed a generation ship (one where multiple generations have to pass before the destination is reached). It's absolutely perfectly and vigorously on topic for this entire thread and your post in particular.
No. Four times the mass does not imply that you would weigh 4 times as much unless the planet's radius is the same as the earth's. That is quite unlikely. A planet with 4 times as much mass as the earth is almost certainly going to be proportionally larger in volume as well. Gravity is proportional to mass, but inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of that mass. In the end, if the planet is made of the same sort of rocky material, it will have a similar density, and thus similar gravity.
Actually, you're wrong, as well. If we assume a similar composition, and a 4 times larger mass to imply a 4 times larger volume, the radius will be cubic square of 4 times larger, that is 1.587. Considering that gravity follows the inverse square law, and because of a curious mathematical identity, where 4/(4^(1/3))^2=4^(1/3)=1.587, it turns out that the gravity would be 4^(1/3) = 1.587 times greater. Your numbers were way off.
This is rather elementary, if you care to turn your gray matter on instead of criticizing other people. Who may have been wrong, but so were you.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy who posts a link to actual research on the subject gets modded flamebait while the guy who makes unsupported claims, some of which are contradicted by that very research which was linked to gets modded insightful.
Some of the possibilities are:
(A) The guy making unsupported claims has a lot of sock puppets with mod points.
(B) Slashdot is filled with people that don't care about the facts.
(C) Slashdot is the victim of an organized astroturf.
Wow. I'm hurt Mr. Anonymous.
NO, I don't have any sock puppets. I don't have that sort of time.
But as for links, here a few:
Study links more hurricanes, climate change or
Warming doubles number of hurricanes both referring to this paper but containing their own research, too.
Then there is this: Research Meteorologists See More Severe Storms Ahead: The Culprit -- Global Warming
There is a very clear link between storms, hurricanes and increased atmospheric temperature. I actually thought it was common knowledge by now, so I didn't bother posting links. As to why or who modded the other guy flamebait, I don't know, but the idea that I'd spent extra time creating and logging in with sock puppets is so hilarious from my perspective, that it almost made me smile.
The argument is now whether the observable changes are predominantly attributable to man's impact on the environment, or to the natural climatic lifecycle of the Earth.
Is there, really? I believe this question has been answered pretty decisively by the scientific community, with a resounding consensus that man's actions are moderately to significantly affecting global warming.
as long as you can get there and survive there due to the hurricanes.
Increasing the total energy in the atmosphere will not result in a well-behaved warming, but in more variable and extreme weather patterns, and there will be more hurricanes and storms at seas. This little game humanity is playing with the Earth may well end up in tears.
So... you work with laser-formed BS? You didn't really answer my question, so I am guessing only.
The BS symposium looks fun, but unless I can send in an abstract, I won't get funding for a trip to the US. And actually, getting the visa last time was such a major PITA, that I am not really looking forward to it, now that I think of it.
Anyway the short version is high efficiency works, but apparently failed economically for bulk energy production. Ooops. Time for a new business plan. The purpose of yer low light camera sensor isn't to charge a battery, so its possibly useful regardless of manufacturing dollars per watt delivered.
Using femtosecond lasers for treating silicon surfaces was never going to be price-competitive for solar panel production. DRIE black silicon on the other hand, could be made competitive, if/when production scale DRIE equipment appears, specifically modified (and simplified) for black silicon forming. The strong plasma that is required, however, limits scalability. Still, not entirely impossible.
I'm getting my Ph.D researching black silicon.
How nice - me too! But we tend to call it "silicon nanograss" - it's more sexy, because it has "nano" in the name. Ours is the DRIE kind of black silicon. What's yours?
It's Nature News, not Nature.
I know, and I think I wrote so myself in the OP. I read Nature News rather regularly at work (at the coffee table, believe it or not) and this article was, in comparison to the ones I read, sub par. It wasn't quite the kind of shite BBC News would publishes (online) regarding science and technology, but it deviated into that sad direction.
..it's a rather poor article. It talks in very basic terms about proteins and their folding, talks a bit more about the scientist who founded the institute behind the computer, and says fuck-all about the construction of the computer itself.
Bah. For a publishing house of Nature Publishing Group's (intellectual and economic) muscle, one should expect more.
Not too highly, just wrongly. There are plenty of games that are generally well-loved by their respective community, and have a lower mark than Civilization V, which is generally hated by its community (and for good reason).
I'm afraid gamerankings is broken: it has Civilization V at over 90%, even though most of those who played it long enough (i.e. at least 350 turns) have run into the various crashes, the 69 city limit, the large map crashes, the extremely limited (moronic?) AI etc.
Farsi uses the arabic script - in fact, farsi and arabic written languages are indistinguishable. If the whole point of .IRAN is to support the farsi script, then why have it as a separate entity from an arabic TLD?
And they wouldn't export all the garbage they sell at the local Wal-Mart and just about every other department store.
Which would mean less lead and cadmium in toys, cosmetics and kitchenware. I can only hope.
In fact, Bing is based on an excellent search engine, called FAST, on which also alltheweb.com was based.
Oh yeah, so MS didn't innovate diddly-doo. As usual! Those dozens of billions in the bank sure buy a lot of innovation, don't they?
This may be a clue to Microsoft that not everybody loves the ribbon. At least not madly enough to pay for it.
Mineral oil is better because it's inorganic
What? How the f##k did this idiocy get modded up?
Kids, mineral oil is very much organic, composed of hydrocarbons with a few tens of carbon atoms. But I thought this was general knowledge, at least around /.
I know Slashdot is the arch-enemy of good writing practices, so this post will be modded to hell, but I again feel I must point out that lately, the capitalization of titles of Slashdot submissions got completely out of hand. The rule is simple: if you want to capitalize your headlines, you capitalize every word except
- prepositions ("of", "to", "in", "for", "with" and "on")
- articles ("the, "a" and "an")
- and some other obvious exceptions.
On Slashdot, the editors are so ignorant that they usually capitalize each and every word. But this title, "Meet NELL, the Computer That Lears From the Net", shows that capitalizing every word is not even a policy, in addition to misspelling "learn".
I know Slashdot is the enemy of good writing practices, so this post will be modded downto hell, but I feel I must point out that lately, the capitalization of titles of Slashdot submissions got completely out of hand. The rule is simple: if you want to capitalize your headlines, you capitalize every word except
- prepositions ("of", "to", "in", "for", "with" and "on")
- articles ("the, "a" and "an")
- and some other obvious exceptions.
On Slashdot, the editors are so ignorant that they usually capitalize each and every word. But this title, "IBM's Plans For the Cell Processor ", shows that capitalizing every word is not even a policy!
I guess all that goes out of the window the one (extremely likely) time that 1988 Ford Taurus stops working in the middle of traffic. That's a moment money can't buy.
Also, let me add that unless planned obsolescence is added in a fully electric vehicle, it should not need any maintenance for several decades.
[citation needed]
Here you go kind (anonymous) sir:
Nutt, King, Saulsbury, & Blakemore: Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet, 2007 369, 1047-1053
According to an extensive research article published in The Lancet (highest impact factor medical journal), cannabis is both less damaging AND less addictive than either tobacco or alcohol.
I don't necessarily agree that the M1 needs a gas fueled engine, because it is 67 (not 70) tons heavy. The Merkava Mk. IV is 65 tons, and yet it uses a diesel engine. The power/ton of the Abrams is 24.5 hp/ton, while for the Merkava it is 23 hp/ton - not a huge difference at all. Max speed on road/flat terrain is 64 Km/h for the Merkava and 67.6 for the Abrams. Again, not much of a difference. The Merkava's range is 500 Km vs. the Abrams' 465 - so here the difference is slightly more evident.
Well, then the villain should have thought about it before he started spamming people. I don't give a shit that the fine is "excessive", if it will scare the pests from spamming us.
How about sending some targeted "Hello world" transmissions towards that object first? If they have any intelligent life and a SETI program in place, they may hear us and answer back.
More likely, it would go somewhat like this: "Hey, we got a message from... that point there. Oh, an exoplanet, just perrrrfect for us! Let's warp there, kill/eat/analprobe/enslave those fools and live the life!"
Read Mayflower II, an award-winning, excellent short novel by Stephen Baxter, probably the best contemporary hard Sci-Vi writer. The topic is, indeed a generation ship (one where multiple generations have to pass before the destination is reached). It's absolutely perfectly and vigorously on topic for this entire thread and your post in particular.
No. Four times the mass does not imply that you would weigh 4 times as much unless the planet's radius is the same as the earth's. That is quite unlikely. A planet with 4 times as much mass as the earth is almost certainly going to be proportionally larger in volume as well. Gravity is proportional to mass, but inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of that mass. In the end, if the planet is made of the same sort of rocky material, it will have a similar density, and thus similar gravity.
Actually, you're wrong, as well. If we assume a similar composition, and a 4 times larger mass to imply a 4 times larger volume, the radius will be cubic square of 4 times larger, that is 1.587.
Considering that gravity follows the inverse square law, and because of a curious mathematical identity, where 4/(4^(1/3))^2=4^(1/3)=1.587, it turns out that the gravity would be 4^(1/3) = 1.587 times greater. Your numbers were way off.
This is rather elementary, if you care to turn your gray matter on instead of criticizing other people. Who may have been wrong, but so were you.