Median rent for a 1 bedroom in silicon valley is $2200/mo
Depends on what commute you want - that sounds quite high, unless you're close to SF, or in one of the fancy neighborhoods. A few years back I had a 2-bedroom with garage for ~$1800/month in Fremont, which isn't a terrible commute to much of Silly Valley. There were reasonable 2-bedrooms near work for ~$2300 (unfashionable parts of town, no doubt, not that I cared).
SF is nuts, but I've never understood why anyone would want to live there.
Look at the Vostok data, please. Other cores are similar. It's a 100K year glaciation cycle, and temps change quite abruptly around the peaks. The Greenland ice cores show temp changes as aggressive as 15 degrees in 20 years.
Yes, there are orbital factors that affect insolation, but those cycles don't suddenly "pause" the way temps have for the past 10k years, and the longer cycles, such as the ice age we've been in for millions of years, aren't caused by them. It doesn't take much in terms of solar variance to radically affect the climate, and our models of the Sun are worse than our models of our own climate (which, frankly, suck - no one understands the feedback loops that cause the very fast temp changes around the onset of glaciation, there's only guesswork).
The Sun is by far the dominate factor in temps here on Earth. And it's not stable (and none of the climate guys are modeling it, not their field). So, whither solar radiance? absent Mankind - are we facing a huge drop in temps, or a huge spike? If you look at the ice core data, we've been in a historical anomaly for the past 10k years, and we'd normally have returned to glaciers covering Europe by now. The 100k year glaciation cycles are thought to be solar cycles, but no one knows why the cycle was broken. Over we overdue for a sharp return to the norm? Or is the current ice age ending, and we're due for a warm Earth (no ice at the poles, or anywhere year-round)? It's the biggest question: is the warming effect of man's CO2 a bad thing, or a good thing, or a rounding error?
It's a start. That's not that great - it sounds dismissive of the questioner "what science says! Don't you love science sexually? Are you a bad person from the wrong tribe?"
It's also doesn't address the more informed concerns at all, but that's OK, addressing the silly concerns is a good start. (The "It's the Sun" answer completely ignores the biggest question in the debate, IMO.)
There's nothing political about it. Just cold hard science. And the same applies to global warming.
Both are quite political: they are shibboleths. (Look that up, it's a Bible reference). They are tribal identifiers.
Someone who understands evolution as well as most people might still answer "no" if asked about humans, because he's a member of the "God-fearing people" tribe. Facts are irrelevant. It like asking about what team they support in the big game.
Someone with no scientific understanding of evolution at all might answer "yes" if asked about humans, because he's a member of the "I love science sexually" tribe. Similarly, he'll tell you that anyone who doesn't accept that Mother Gaea punishes the Sin of Carbon Emission is a "denier", because that's another tribal identifier. He can't tell you how a greenhouse works, but he for damn sure knows the right answer to those questions for a member of his tribe.
That's why it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about either topic. Fortunately, for evolution there is the talk.origins FAQ, where all the arguments against evolution are taken seriously and debunked carefully without calling anyone an idiot. For global warming there's no such resource - mostly because no one is actually interested in the topic, other than as a tribal identifier.
Not if you include those "others" in the message sending. A to B to C to D back to A. Two FTL messages, A to B and C to D, means A gets the message before he sends it (as everyone sees the message go back in time somewhere along the route).
Many things are important. Not all of the world's important things need to be discussed on Slashdot. Slashdot would be better with less politically-sensitive stuff. Fewer penis-and-vagina accounting stories. Fewer "they took our jerbs" stories. Fewer political clickbait stories.
Maybe try a month where all the stories are about something with a version number?
Most social expectations for the behavior of women, in most societies including our own, are created and enforced by women. Not all, of course, but most. Is that sexism? I don't care. But it's not "the patriarchy".
Put simply: pagers are amazingly reliable, and have nearly perfect coverage. In ideal circumstances, a pager adds nothing to a phone. In real-world circumstances, it does.
After all, if you're sitting at your desk where you made sure you have good cell phone coverage, you also have email and IM and so on, and the phone itself is almost redundant. But when you're at some random customer site, or driving through some place cell coverage is sparse, or in a variety of little cell-coverage dark spots, the pager just works.
But I bet she didn't expect this to happen under a government favoring corporations and trying to reduce the liberty of everyone else.
That book was about the merger of government and corporations! Bailouts and protections of failing companies was most of the plot. FFS, while it's hard to recommend it as the writing isn't great, you shouldn't complain about it if you won't make the effort.
Power investors buy physical gold. The only problem with this is when an investor takes his gold with him on a fishing trip and suffers a boating accident. This happens far, far more frequently than you might expect.
Boating accidents - they're not just for guns!
(For those not in on the joke: when the government starts ignoring the Second Amendment and tries to disarm the citizenry, they will discover that millions of high-end rifles with duly registered sales were tragically lost in boating accidents and so cannot be turned in).
I glance down at my map about as often as a glance down at my speedometer - when I'm sufficiently unsure of the result. Both are about the same level of distraction.
Some people actually do know better. Some of them do it for a living. Like most things one does for a living, there are screw-ups, and there are people who are mind-bogglingly good at it.
Oh, perhaps. These were smart guys though, they might have done more than just dismiss the data as noise (I agree they wouldn't have thought it was ether).
There's no difference between "change in speed of light", "change in distance", and "change in travel time for light". They're all the same thing. Don't both instruments detect very small changes in round-trip travel time for light, comparing one direction to the other?
Sure then 1880s apparatus wasn't going to detect gravity waves, but that's just a matter of sensitivity of the instrument. We still call an electron microscope a microscope.
Oh stop this nonsense. Causality being broken with FTL speeds is one of the most annoying and most wrong thing ever when it comes to FTL.
Causality breaking is subtle. For a simple one-way trip, in your reference frame, nothing will seem wrong, but from another reference frame you may appear to go back in time. If you have two pairs of ansibles (FTL telephones), each pair moving relative to the other, it's possible to send a message round trip (FTL to your connection, normal space to another endpoint, FTL to its connection, back to you) in such a way that you receive it before you send it.
The circumstances needed to break causality are somewhat contrived, but it's possible.
This is also why silly things like long-distance sensors in sci-fi wouldn't work either because light is still based on photons.
So a warp drive moving a whole ship FTL is somehow more believable than some sort of wave or particle that travels FTL and can be bounced off things in front of you? I find tachyons easier to believe than warp drives, myself (much as I hated particle-of-the-week Trek episodes)
Could society's embrace of GPS be eroding our cognitive maps?
I delivered pizza for a few years, before GPS, and a few hours of taking orders will disabuse you of this naive notion that most people have "cognitive maps". Most people do not know where they live! They can't tell you the nearest major intersection. What they know is a sequence of steps to follow to get to their house.
"Turn left at the big tree. Turn right where the church was before it burned down. Turn left where Johnny was hit by that drunk drive last year. Look for the red house."
I'm only slightly exaggerating. I really do encourage everyone to use maps, to learn to change your "pathing" dynamically when conditions change, to know where you are not just the steps you took to get there. To quote the REM song: "Stand in the place where you work. Now face north. Think about direction; wonder why you haven't before ". Can you do it without looking anything up?
Slashdot Mirror
Median rent for a 1 bedroom in silicon valley is $2200/mo
Depends on what commute you want - that sounds quite high, unless you're close to SF, or in one of the fancy neighborhoods. A few years back I had a 2-bedroom with garage for ~$1800/month in Fremont, which isn't a terrible commute to much of Silly Valley. There were reasonable 2-bedrooms near work for ~$2300 (unfashionable parts of town, no doubt, not that I cared).
SF is nuts, but I've never understood why anyone would want to live there.
425k years?
Look at the Vostok data, please. Other cores are similar. It's a 100K year glaciation cycle, and temps change quite abruptly around the peaks. The Greenland ice cores show temp changes as aggressive as 15 degrees in 20 years.
Yes, there are orbital factors that affect insolation, but those cycles don't suddenly "pause" the way temps have for the past 10k years, and the longer cycles, such as the ice age we've been in for millions of years, aren't caused by them. It doesn't take much in terms of solar variance to radically affect the climate, and our models of the Sun are worse than our models of our own climate (which, frankly, suck - no one understands the feedback loops that cause the very fast temp changes around the onset of glaciation, there's only guesswork).
The Sun is by far the dominate factor in temps here on Earth. And it's not stable (and none of the climate guys are modeling it, not their field). So, whither solar radiance? absent Mankind - are we facing a huge drop in temps, or a huge spike? If you look at the ice core data, we've been in a historical anomaly for the past 10k years, and we'd normally have returned to glaciers covering Europe by now. The 100k year glaciation cycles are thought to be solar cycles, but no one knows why the cycle was broken. Over we overdue for a sharp return to the norm? Or is the current ice age ending, and we're due for a warm Earth (no ice at the poles, or anywhere year-round)? It's the biggest question: is the warming effect of man's CO2 a bad thing, or a good thing, or a rounding error?
Why is it that the victims of an attack take all the blame for an attack such as this one?
If you're just walking along, minding your own business and get attacked by surprise, your attacker takes all the blame.
If you're a military sentry waling your patrol and get attacked by surprise, you are to blame, because alertness is your entire job.
If you operate key infrastructure, you're somewhere in between these cases, and some blame attaches to you if you're successfully attacked.
It's a start. That's not that great - it sounds dismissive of the questioner "what science says! Don't you love science sexually? Are you a bad person from the wrong tribe?"
It's also doesn't address the more informed concerns at all, but that's OK, addressing the silly concerns is a good start. (The "It's the Sun" answer completely ignores the biggest question in the debate, IMO.)
There's nothing political about it. Just cold hard science. And the same applies to global warming.
Both are quite political: they are shibboleths. (Look that up, it's a Bible reference). They are tribal identifiers.
Someone who understands evolution as well as most people might still answer "no" if asked about humans, because he's a member of the "God-fearing people" tribe. Facts are irrelevant. It like asking about what team they support in the big game.
Someone with no scientific understanding of evolution at all might answer "yes" if asked about humans, because he's a member of the "I love science sexually" tribe. Similarly, he'll tell you that anyone who doesn't accept that Mother Gaea punishes the Sin of Carbon Emission is a "denier", because that's another tribal identifier. He can't tell you how a greenhouse works, but he for damn sure knows the right answer to those questions for a member of his tribe.
That's why it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about either topic. Fortunately, for evolution there is the talk.origins FAQ, where all the arguments against evolution are taken seriously and debunked carefully without calling anyone an idiot. For global warming there's no such resource - mostly because no one is actually interested in the topic, other than as a tribal identifier.
You may be confusing me with s.petry.
Not if you include those "others" in the message sending. A to B to C to D back to A. Two FTL messages, A to B and C to D, means A gets the message before he sends it (as everyone sees the message go back in time somewhere along the route).
Contrived, but possible.
Many things are important. Not all of the world's important things need to be discussed on Slashdot. Slashdot would be better with less politically-sensitive stuff. Fewer penis-and-vagina accounting stories. Fewer "they took our jerbs" stories. Fewer political clickbait stories.
Maybe try a month where all the stories are about something with a version number?
Most social expectations for the behavior of women, in most societies including our own, are created and enforced by women. Not all, of course, but most. Is that sexism? I don't care. But it's not "the patriarchy".
And before any googleclippers respond, "it has" doesn't fucking fit either.
WTF is a googleclippers?
Does TFA count as pre-Godwinning the thread?
Put simply: pagers are amazingly reliable, and have nearly perfect coverage. In ideal circumstances, a pager adds nothing to a phone. In real-world circumstances, it does.
After all, if you're sitting at your desk where you made sure you have good cell phone coverage, you also have email and IM and so on, and the phone itself is almost redundant. But when you're at some random customer site, or driving through some place cell coverage is sparse, or in a variety of little cell-coverage dark spots, the pager just works.
They'd spit on 'em before they slid hard cold steel through their guts.
History shows they'd just shoot em and move on.
My landlord accept neither cash nor money orders. It's quite annoying.
But I bet she didn't expect this to happen under a government favoring corporations and trying to reduce the liberty of everyone else.
That book was about the merger of government and corporations! Bailouts and protections of failing companies was most of the plot. FFS, while it's hard to recommend it as the writing isn't great, you shouldn't complain about it if you won't make the effort.
Power investors buy physical gold. The only problem with this is when an investor takes his gold with him on a fishing trip and suffers a boating accident. This happens far, far more frequently than you might expect.
Boating accidents - they're not just for guns!
(For those not in on the joke: when the government starts ignoring the Second Amendment and tries to disarm the citizenry, they will discover that millions of high-end rifles with duly registered sales were tragically lost in boating accidents and so cannot be turned in).
I've never found a good simple explanation. The basic idea is:
<-A--B--
--C--D->
Arrows show motion, close to the speed of light.
A sends to B FTL. In the reference frame of C and D this seems to go back in time.
B sends to D. This takes normal time, but B and D are close.
D sends to C. In the reference frame of A and B this seems to go back in time.
C sends to A. This takes normal time, but C and A are close.
In all reference frames, the message returns to A before it was sent, because everyone sees one big backwards-in-time hop.
The map on my in-dash GPS is pretty nice that way. When I print a paper map, it takes a lot longer, so I try to memorize.
Yep, the map on my GPS is certainly more useful than a fold-up map, though maps I print out custom to my route work fine when I don't have a GPS.
I glance down at my map about as often as a glance down at my speedometer - when I'm sufficiently unsure of the result. Both are about the same level of distraction.
Some people actually do know better. Some of them do it for a living. Like most things one does for a living, there are screw-ups, and there are people who are mind-bogglingly good at it.
Oh, perhaps. These were smart guys though, they might have done more than just dismiss the data as noise (I agree they wouldn't have thought it was ether).
There's no difference between "change in speed of light", "change in distance", and "change in travel time for light". They're all the same thing. Don't both instruments detect very small changes in round-trip travel time for light, comparing one direction to the other?
Sure then 1880s apparatus wasn't going to detect gravity waves, but that's just a matter of sensitivity of the instrument. We still call an electron microscope a microscope.
Oh stop this nonsense. Causality being broken with FTL speeds is one of the most annoying and most wrong thing ever when it comes to FTL.
Causality breaking is subtle. For a simple one-way trip, in your reference frame, nothing will seem wrong, but from another reference frame you may appear to go back in time. If you have two pairs of ansibles (FTL telephones), each pair moving relative to the other, it's possible to send a message round trip (FTL to your connection, normal space to another endpoint, FTL to its connection, back to you) in such a way that you receive it before you send it.
The circumstances needed to break causality are somewhat contrived, but it's possible.
This is also why silly things like long-distance sensors in sci-fi wouldn't work either because light is still based on photons.
So a warp drive moving a whole ship FTL is somehow more believable than some sort of wave or particle that travels FTL and can be bounced off things in front of you? I find tachyons easier to believe than warp drives, myself (much as I hated particle-of-the-week Trek episodes)
TFS said
Could society's embrace of GPS be eroding our cognitive maps?
I delivered pizza for a few years, before GPS, and a few hours of taking orders will disabuse you of this naive notion that most people have "cognitive maps". Most people do not know where they live! They can't tell you the nearest major intersection. What they know is a sequence of steps to follow to get to their house.
"Turn left at the big tree. Turn right where the church was before it burned down. Turn left where Johnny was hit by that drunk drive last year. Look for the red house."
I'm only slightly exaggerating. I really do encourage everyone to use maps, to learn to change your "pathing" dynamically when conditions change, to know where you are not just the steps you took to get there. To quote the REM song: "Stand in the place where you work. Now face north. Think about direction; wonder why you haven't before ". Can you do it without looking anything up?