Much as you don't have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, you also don't have the right to keep nuclear materials on your property without due consultation and consideration of those around you, and nor do you have the right to contribute to reductions in the suitability of atmospheric composition for human existence without the same.
You are not, for instance, allowed to simply start venting acidic fumes into the air in your local neighborhood either.
More importantly I really don't give a toss if people thousands of years from now, somehow having lost all knowledge of nuclear waste sites, radiation symbology, or the understanding and ability to detect radioactive materials - die from ancient radioactive waste.
Because if a situation exists where that is possible, then it means there were in fact far bigger disasters we failed to avert.
In fact it makes no sense to compare them anymore as the term "efficiency" becomes meaningless when you don't have to burn fuel.
Not quite. Your solar panels for example have a life time of X years, over which time they can be expected to produce n MWh of power. A more efficient vehicle will require less % of that power, which in turn means more of that output is available for the eventual replacement cost of the solar plant.
The original reason HDD data was recoverable was because the head did not perfectly create or remove magnetic regions on the media. Imperfections, head wobble, electrical noise - all contributed to creating variable sized domains. Now, magnetic polarization of materials has some odd effects - one is that inducing a region of magnetic polarity doesn't swamp out a neighboring region, it will first "push" it away. So if you write "1", then "0", then "1", the thin band of magnetism from the first "1" will be at the outer most edge of the track, with another thin band of "0" and finally the actual "1" that the head sees.
The "killer app" of magnetic force microscopy was then that you could stick the platters under MFM and beat the resolution of the head for reading the data - the oldest copy of the data would be squished up at the edge of the track, the second oldest further in and so on and so forth - you could actually read back several generations of hard disk data.
Of course, since that age, technology has changed - hard disks now use RF modulation to store multiple bits per space, bit densities have shot up, and heads track much more accurately - basically, the physics has been beaten out since we are now writing much more complex data, and almost every single bit of magnetically encodeable space on a hard disk is now used to encode data - there's (very little) space between platters, and what signal you get there is likely irrecoverably fuzzed RF if you can even see it at all.
Again, what is it with people casually dropping a vague "story from the emails". They're available, they're public domain. Presumably if there's an interesting story here then you'd like to share it so we can see it in it's entirety.
Maybe you should also link the relevant context, or indicate where one can find it.
Let's look at an example:
In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
This sounds vaguely unsettling. Except scientific papers are rejected all the time. It would be helpful to know which paper is being specifically referred to, maybe the nature of the criticisms. For example, there are many reasons to question aspects of various "hockey-stick" reconstructions. Did this author postulate massive deviations from the hockey-stick graph, or was he criticizing specific methodology? What were the rebuttals - what was the range of change in the result if we considered them.
It's almost like knowing the context of any specific private email exchange is very important to understanding its importance. It's almost like, the actual data, methodology and conclusions - you know - the science - and it's published criticisms - would be far more helpful then some heavily edited quotations.
Side point: it's generally considered dishonest to use ellipsis "..." multiple times in a quote to select key words. For example, it seems like you've eliminated detailed explanatory information about what aspects of the Mann hockey stick graph this author was talking about. That information being included might go a long way to support your argument!
It always grows back. The Australian Bush contains many species which have evolved to expect bush fires (seeds which only germinate once fire sweeps through).
Bush fires in the outback are a natural occurrence, and the Bush obviously regrows after they happen. It's a non-sensical soundbite that appeals to be preconceptions.
Acid rain isn't caused by excess CO2. Ocean acidification (which may well wipe out our fisheries) is.
Acid rain is caused by NOx and SO2 emissions. They have been substantially reduced in recent years by reductions of the sulfur-content of diesel, though not eliminated - we just kind of live with it.
Because near as I can tell, the only thing you will respond with is a reference to the one email where one guy mentions using a "trick". Which you know, turns out to be a reference to a particular means of formatting data, and not actually any attempt to obfuscate or otherwise lie.
The main problem is all the other potential life in the Sol system is still speculative.
We have a lot of good targets - but we need to actually go and look and find something.
Currently, we have a sample size of precisely 1.
But I do agree: if we were to find that life had independently evolved on another planet or moon in the solar system, then we could start thinking about commonality in the universe.
There are more practical issues - our technological age of reason isn't actually very old yet.
Take SETI and radio transmissions - we've only been emitting radio for 200 years, and we're rapidly confining the emissions or ditching them entirely (fiber optics). Who's to say that within the next, 50 years or so we won't discover some alternate broadcast technology which dispenses with radio entirely? (entangled particles come to mind, if communications by that route were ever to be possible).
The course of future technological development is always unclear - especially when you get to considering speculative technology like interstellar travel. Maybe it's only possible between star gravity wells or maybe future civilization trends towards virtual reality (i.e. cities and artificial illumination stop being used because constructs are just giant computing substrates).
Eh. It's all going to end up being carbon, just different types of carbon. Doped diamond is very nice semiconductor, it's just currently a pain to make.
Except there was nothing wrong with the Ptolemaic system - up until it did not match observations.
If the best resolution of your instrumentation is observing just the apparent passage of the sun from a fixed point on Earth, then it would be reasonable to conclude the sun in fact is travelling around the Earth. With only 2 reference points, you can't conclude anything else.
You could propose that the sun in fact is travelling around the Earth, but without additional measurement there's no way to establish this.
The system of epicycles is eventually rejected on the grounds of Occam's razor - far too many logical, but unobserved constructs have to be invented to support epicycles, compared to the (approximately correct) conclusion that Earth goes around the Sun, and the many other bodies we observe are similarly orbiting.
But you might note that that "theory" was also proven incorrect several times. Planets don't follow perfectly circular orbits, they also don't properly follow Newtonian orbits - it wasn't until General Relativity (and the discovery of a great many other planets) that we had an accurate model. And on top of all that, it turns out, the planets don't actually orbit "the sun" - they orbit a chaotically shifting point somewhere near, but not centered on the, the center of the sun.
The only reason you think it seems ridiculous to have dark matter, dark energy and Higgs bosons and "oh hey let's throw them out" is because you have little understanding of the size and scope of the theoretical framework of observations explained. There are numerous competing theories, but all have the problem that they require a multitude of other observations to differentiate. The first and foremost place to search is the simplest - the one with the least number of additional logical constructs. No result is still a result if you thoroughly establish it doesn't work.
There's no particular reason to think you can do that though.
The notion is that the Higgs field is pervasive throughout the universe, and that all other matter in moving through the field interacts with some amount of it and thus acquire mass (neatly explaining why things acquire mass when they move).
The Higgs particle is the "real" quantization of the field - most of the time it merely interacts with matter in the form of virtual Higgs-bosons, much like how the electric field interacts with virtual photons (i.e. two charges sitting next to each other exchange virtual photons, and that's why they repel or attract).
It wouldn't matter though: if one were to harvest a suitably large number of phone IDs, say, 10,000 or so, then you could easily randomize the ID used for Siri queries amongst that set of phones such that distinguishing "emulator" queries was effectively impossible.
Science has it's "over-optimists" wherever it's performed. It's why many of it's tenets and techniques exist: no matter who's doing it, humans are still human.
Development indicators. You know, GDP per capita, education levels, employment, happiness, health, crime rates, access to sanitation and food.
No sane person says "holy shit we're not increasing our population exponentially - disaster!" - because you know, doing that actually is a disaster, as China found out the hard way (and is having to take steps to alleviate - the hard way, and in the process creating a real demographic crisis with their huge imbalance of men to women).
Your so-called "demographic destruction" is a result of the opinions of the modern population who have decided planning for the future (and the highly predictable baby-boomer retirement) is a suckers game - tax breaks and deregulation for finance instead!
So rather then grandiose but ultimately useless symbols, you mean we'd actually have fixed a bunch of massive social problems? You might want to rethink your examples.
Have you ever looked after very young children? I love my kids, but I would not call looking after them leave. We've got the language all wrong. It's work, and a small mistake can have deadly consequences. It's worthwhile and important work that must be done. As they get older and more self sufficient that aspect fades but you still have to supplement their education if you want to be a good parent. You still have to cook and clean for them at least until they are teenagers (though they can progressively help with that).
It's leave from work for parenting responsibilities. Not "leave from work for a holiday". You know, somewhat like "sick leave" or personal leave for say, a funeral.
Nor is it always possible to be raising an infant while working a full time job. I don't want any airline pilot flying an aircraft I'm on half asleep at the controls because he was up all night tending to his infant so his wife could get sleep. Nor do I want a woman doing that job for equal pay. I want someone staying at home with the child who recognises their partner is doing a dangerous job that requires full concentration at work, who then gets up during the night and feeds the child instead of worrying about equality.
Children are not infants for most of their time as children and the portion of the population who are airline pilots is very small.
I fail to see your point, other then a pleading that "we must recognize women as different". Sure, and no one is proposing that we don't. That's why parental leave is usually structured towards longer paid maternity leave for mothers, and shorter periods for fathers. But once you give birth to a child, parenting responsibilities can be handled by either gender after 6-12 months, and definitely past the 3-4.
We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.
In other words we have not addressed the problem at all. All the work traditionally done by a woman is expected to be done in your "spare" time now. It is still unpaid and still devalued. No amount of pressing for equality while this is the case is going to work because all it does is work both parents into the grave early as they try to keep a paid full time job and a 24/7 childrearing one too.
And this is feminism's failure how? The problem you have is with everyone, and very much a voting public who don't see child-rearing as an important duty. But it's hardly the responsibility of those in the oppressed class to fix the worldview of everyone else when they're just looking for equal pay for equal work and the right to vote.
Well I didn't say we were done with that area, and we aren't by a long shot.
That's what the issue with paid-parental leave is - and the very important aspect that men should be similarly entitled to take time off to look after their children (and that it should be recognized as acceptable, even unusual not to).
But recognizing women as fully equal persons is a very important step to recognizing parenting as (1) something both sexes should be sharing in equally in a relationship and (2) as an important and worthy task.
We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.
While this would be more effective then tax cuts for the rich, it really wouldn't have had all that much stimulus effect. Most of poor and middle America is presently either paying off debt or saving money in fear of losing their jobs.
A sudden minor windfall would either have just gone to paying off those debts (putting the money back in the hands of those unlikely to relend it) or into bank accounts, resulting in the same thing again.
That must be why NASA has no problems recreating the Saturn V rockets, or why "bad documentation" is not one of the major complaints programmers will have about an API which doesn't have it.
Just because it's technically feasible doesn't make it productive. We'd never get anywhere if we have to constantly re-invent the wheel.
Slashdot Mirror
Destruction of the commons.
Much as you don't have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, you also don't have the right to keep nuclear materials on your property without due consultation and consideration of those around you, and nor do you have the right to contribute to reductions in the suitability of atmospheric composition for human existence without the same.
You are not, for instance, allowed to simply start venting acidic fumes into the air in your local neighborhood either.
More importantly I really don't give a toss if people thousands of years from now, somehow having lost all knowledge of nuclear waste sites, radiation symbology, or the understanding and ability to detect radioactive materials - die from ancient radioactive waste.
Because if a situation exists where that is possible, then it means there were in fact far bigger disasters we failed to avert.
You may not have noticed, but Libya has a massive coastline.
In fact it makes no sense to compare them anymore as the term "efficiency" becomes meaningless when you don't have to burn fuel.
Not quite. Your solar panels for example have a life time of X years, over which time they can be expected to produce n MWh of power. A more efficient vehicle will require less % of that power, which in turn means more of that output is available for the eventual replacement cost of the solar plant.
The original reason HDD data was recoverable was because the head did not perfectly create or remove magnetic regions on the media. Imperfections, head wobble, electrical noise - all contributed to creating variable sized domains. Now, magnetic polarization of materials has some odd effects - one is that inducing a region of magnetic polarity doesn't swamp out a neighboring region, it will first "push" it away. So if you write "1", then "0", then "1", the thin band of magnetism from the first "1" will be at the outer most edge of the track, with another thin band of "0" and finally the actual "1" that the head sees.
The "killer app" of magnetic force microscopy was then that you could stick the platters under MFM and beat the resolution of the head for reading the data - the oldest copy of the data would be squished up at the edge of the track, the second oldest further in and so on and so forth - you could actually read back several generations of hard disk data.
Of course, since that age, technology has changed - hard disks now use RF modulation to store multiple bits per space, bit densities have shot up, and heads track much more accurately - basically, the physics has been beaten out since we are now writing much more complex data, and almost every single bit of magnetically encodeable space on a hard disk is now used to encode data - there's (very little) space between platters, and what signal you get there is likely irrecoverably fuzzed RF if you can even see it at all.
Again, what is it with people casually dropping a vague "story from the emails". They're available, they're public domain. Presumably if there's an interesting story here then you'd like to share it so we can see it in it's entirety.
Hi! It looks like you're posting excerpts.
Maybe you should also link the relevant context, or indicate where one can find it.
Let's look at an example:
In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
This sounds vaguely unsettling. Except scientific papers are rejected all the time. It would be helpful to know which paper is being specifically referred to, maybe the nature of the criticisms. For example, there are many reasons to question aspects of various "hockey-stick" reconstructions. Did this author postulate massive deviations from the hockey-stick graph, or was he criticizing specific methodology? What were the rebuttals - what was the range of change in the result if we considered them.
It's almost like knowing the context of any specific private email exchange is very important to understanding its importance. It's almost like, the actual data, methodology and conclusions - you know - the science - and it's published criticisms - would be far more helpful then some heavily edited quotations.
Side point: it's generally considered dishonest to use ellipsis "..." multiple times in a quote to select key words. For example, it seems like you've eliminated detailed explanatory information about what aspects of the Mann hockey stick graph this author was talking about. That information being included might go a long way to support your argument!
Wow, it's almost like if you assume the worse and read some random emails out of context then you might be able to prove your preconceptions.
Maybe you'd like to post this compelling reading of yours.
It always grows back. The Australian Bush contains many species which have evolved to expect bush fires (seeds which only germinate once fire sweeps through).
Bush fires in the outback are a natural occurrence, and the Bush obviously regrows after they happen. It's a non-sensical soundbite that appeals to be preconceptions.
Acid rain isn't caused by excess CO2. Ocean acidification (which may well wipe out our fisheries) is.
Acid rain is caused by NOx and SO2 emissions. They have been substantially reduced in recent years by reductions of the sulfur-content of diesel, though not eliminated - we just kind of live with it.
Please support this claim.
Because near as I can tell, the only thing you will respond with is a reference to the one email where one guy mentions using a "trick". Which you know, turns out to be a reference to a particular means of formatting data, and not actually any attempt to obfuscate or otherwise lie.
The main problem is all the other potential life in the Sol system is still speculative.
We have a lot of good targets - but we need to actually go and look and find something.
Currently, we have a sample size of precisely 1.
But I do agree: if we were to find that life had independently evolved on another planet or moon in the solar system, then we could start thinking about commonality in the universe.
There are more practical issues - our technological age of reason isn't actually very old yet.
Take SETI and radio transmissions - we've only been emitting radio for 200 years, and we're rapidly confining the emissions or ditching them entirely (fiber optics). Who's to say that within the next, 50 years or so we won't discover some alternate broadcast technology which dispenses with radio entirely? (entangled particles come to mind, if communications by that route were ever to be possible).
The course of future technological development is always unclear - especially when you get to considering speculative technology like interstellar travel. Maybe it's only possible between star gravity wells or maybe future civilization trends towards virtual reality (i.e. cities and artificial illumination stop being used because constructs are just giant computing substrates).
Eh. It's all going to end up being carbon, just different types of carbon. Doped diamond is very nice semiconductor, it's just currently a pain to make.
Except there was nothing wrong with the Ptolemaic system - up until it did not match observations.
If the best resolution of your instrumentation is observing just the apparent passage of the sun from a fixed point on Earth, then it would be reasonable to conclude the sun in fact is travelling around the Earth. With only 2 reference points, you can't conclude anything else.
You could propose that the sun in fact is travelling around the Earth, but without additional measurement there's no way to establish this.
The system of epicycles is eventually rejected on the grounds of Occam's razor - far too many logical, but unobserved constructs have to be invented to support epicycles, compared to the (approximately correct) conclusion that Earth goes around the Sun, and the many other bodies we observe are similarly orbiting.
But you might note that that "theory" was also proven incorrect several times. Planets don't follow perfectly circular orbits, they also don't properly follow Newtonian orbits - it wasn't until General Relativity (and the discovery of a great many other planets) that we had an accurate model. And on top of all that, it turns out, the planets don't actually orbit "the sun" - they orbit a chaotically shifting point somewhere near, but not centered on the, the center of the sun.
The only reason you think it seems ridiculous to have dark matter, dark energy and Higgs bosons and "oh hey let's throw them out" is because you have little understanding of the size and scope of the theoretical framework of observations explained. There are numerous competing theories, but all have the problem that they require a multitude of other observations to differentiate. The first and foremost place to search is the simplest - the one with the least number of additional logical constructs. No result is still a result if you thoroughly establish it doesn't work.
There's no particular reason to think you can do that though.
The notion is that the Higgs field is pervasive throughout the universe, and that all other matter in moving through the field interacts with some amount of it and thus acquire mass (neatly explaining why things acquire mass when they move).
The Higgs particle is the "real" quantization of the field - most of the time it merely interacts with matter in the form of virtual Higgs-bosons, much like how the electric field interacts with virtual photons (i.e. two charges sitting next to each other exchange virtual photons, and that's why they repel or attract).
It wouldn't matter though: if one were to harvest a suitably large number of phone IDs, say, 10,000 or so, then you could easily randomize the ID used for Siri queries amongst that set of phones such that distinguishing "emulator" queries was effectively impossible.
Science has it's "over-optimists" wherever it's performed. It's why many of it's tenets and techniques exist: no matter who's doing it, humans are still human.
Development indicators. You know, GDP per capita, education levels, employment, happiness, health, crime rates, access to sanitation and food.
No sane person says "holy shit we're not increasing our population exponentially - disaster!" - because you know, doing that actually is a disaster, as China found out the hard way (and is having to take steps to alleviate - the hard way, and in the process creating a real demographic crisis with their huge imbalance of men to women).
Your so-called "demographic destruction" is a result of the opinions of the modern population who have decided planning for the future (and the highly predictable baby-boomer retirement) is a suckers game - tax breaks and deregulation for finance instead!
So rather then grandiose but ultimately useless symbols, you mean we'd actually have fixed a bunch of massive social problems? You might want to rethink your examples.
Have you ever looked after very young children? I love my kids, but I would not call looking after them leave. We've got the language all wrong. It's work, and a small mistake can have deadly consequences. It's worthwhile and important work that must be done. As they get older and more self sufficient that aspect fades but you still have to supplement their education if you want to be a good parent. You still have to cook and clean for them at least until they are teenagers (though they can progressively help with that).
It's leave from work for parenting responsibilities. Not "leave from work for a holiday". You know, somewhat like "sick leave" or personal leave for say, a funeral.
Nor is it always possible to be raising an infant while working a full time job. I don't want any airline pilot flying an aircraft I'm on half asleep at the controls because he was up all night tending to his infant so his wife could get sleep. Nor do I want a woman doing that job for equal pay. I want someone staying at home with the child who recognises their partner is doing a dangerous job that requires full concentration at work, who then gets up during the night and feeds the child instead of worrying about equality.
Children are not infants for most of their time as children and the portion of the population who are airline pilots is very small.
I fail to see your point, other then a pleading that "we must recognize women as different". Sure, and no one is proposing that we don't. That's why parental leave is usually structured towards longer paid maternity leave for mothers, and shorter periods for fathers. But once you give birth to a child, parenting responsibilities can be handled by either gender after 6-12 months, and definitely past the 3-4.
We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.
In other words we have not addressed the problem at all. All the work traditionally done by a woman is expected to be done in your "spare" time now. It is still unpaid and still devalued. No amount of pressing for equality while this is the case is going to work because all it does is work both parents into the grave early as they try to keep a paid full time job and a 24/7 childrearing one too.
And this is feminism's failure how? The problem you have is with everyone, and very much a voting public who don't see child-rearing as an important duty. But it's hardly the responsibility of those in the oppressed class to fix the worldview of everyone else when they're just looking for equal pay for equal work and the right to vote.
Clearly why China is a far more desirable country to live in the the United States.
Well I didn't say we were done with that area, and we aren't by a long shot.
That's what the issue with paid-parental leave is - and the very important aspect that men should be similarly entitled to take time off to look after their children (and that it should be recognized as acceptable, even unusual not to).
But recognizing women as fully equal persons is a very important step to recognizing parenting as (1) something both sexes should be sharing in equally in a relationship and (2) as an important and worthy task.
We get no where if it's "women's labor" since the entire issue was that "women's labor" wasn't recognized as important.
While this would be more effective then tax cuts for the rich, it really wouldn't have had all that much stimulus effect. Most of poor and middle America is presently either paying off debt or saving money in fear of losing their jobs.
A sudden minor windfall would either have just gone to paying off those debts (putting the money back in the hands of those unlikely to relend it) or into bank accounts, resulting in the same thing again.
That must be why NASA has no problems recreating the Saturn V rockets, or why "bad documentation" is not one of the major complaints programmers will have about an API which doesn't have it.
Just because it's technically feasible doesn't make it productive. We'd never get anywhere if we have to constantly re-invent the wheel.