I just mulitplied the 4.2 joules by the 10 starting number in the target temperature - which was simpler than writing 4.2 * 10 thousand trillion trillion.
Every American I've ever spoken to has agreed that the supreme court is ruining the country with a history of terrible decisions. No two American's I've ever spoken to have been able to agree on which decisions were wrong.
Forget Charisma, he's as informed about the world as a dead fish is about space travel. That was his greatest undoing.
The president's single most important job (and the area where he wields by far the greatest power) is foreign policy - a candidate who can't name a single foreign leader he respects (and indeed failed to name any at all), doesn't know what 'A leppo' is (at a time when that city is a major crisis the next administration will HAVE to continue responding to in SOME way - not arguing for any particular policy, but the president will have to understand the issue to choose one) and who actually tried to blow that all off with 'If I don't know where they are, I can't bomb them' (as if that ever stopped George W. Bush)... no.
Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln didn't make a massive mistake in going to war with the South. Sure he forced them back into the union where the emancipation proclamation could be enforced - but what did that actually achieve ? The South sure didn't become any less racist. Jim Crow still happened, and Trump still got elected (and the South were pretty critical to that process).
What if Lincoln had just let them secede and offered citizenship to any slave who could make it to the border instead ? Before - slaves had to free to states where they could live, but could still be returned. One of the seccession's major driver was Southern States being furious that states like New York and Maryland refused to return runaway slaves (so it was actually OPPOSING states rights, not defending it). But if they were suddenly granted citizenship in a different COUNTRY - then trying to get them back would be an act of war. That would change the picture greatly.
The South could have been left to rot, and would likely have ended up looking a lot like it looks now anyway. Perhaps slavery would have ended there in time - or just de facto ended when there were no black people left and no country willing to sell them new ones. Trump couldn't have won the United States but a Trump-alike may have won the confederate states. So what ?
Of course you're talking about a change so massive i't's impossible to really predict the final outcomes - especially since these two countries would rather dislike each other but also be each other's most critical economic partners. The confederates may well have chosen to expand territory by invading Mexico, Cuba and perhaps even Panama (many Americans wanted Cuba to be ceased for a very long time after all). Who knows ?
But I do sometimes wonder if going to war against the confederates and bringing them back into the union by force of conquest wasn't a mistake - even if you were doing it to free the slaves ? If there wouldn't have been better results by just offering the slaves safe harbour.
Not to mention, when they were written, the only 'people' they applied to were white and male. Over time we've been expanding the scope of who are considered people as well. Hell Romani-Americans didn't even get to vote until 1992 (fixing that may, in fact, be the single best thing Bill Clinton did as president).
Temperature is a measure of the vibration rate of particles - it's not found in vacuums. I suspect the article/summary is oversimplifying or just using temperature as a convenient layman's analogue for heat (unless it refers to the vibration rates of particles in the early universe).
EIther way - do you have any idea how much energy it would take to build a beam that could heat anything up that much ? The amount of energy needed to heat something up depends on the specific heat of the substance, the amount you are heating up and the starting temperature. The last one doesn't much matter considering how huge the heat-up here is - it will be immeasurably small a factor. If we use water then 1g takes 1 calorie to heat up by 1 celcius. A calorie is 4.2 joules of energy. So you would need 42 thousand trillion trillion joules of energy to raise just one gram of water that high. Just about any other substance - the number goes up.
As of 2012 Humanity produced 155105 TW/H of energy. That is just over 5.5 trillion joules.
No problem, we just need to multiply the total energy production on earth by about ten thousand trillion times and we can do the experiment you're proposing.
But as the summary explains - we don't need to. The theory makes predictions about the universe which will be true if it holds, and false if inflation is correct - all we need to do is develop sufficiently good measurement technology to see if the prediction is true or not - which we should have fairly soon, and the fact that we are close to being able to do sufficiently accurate measurements to test it is literally the story you are commenting on.
It was "10 Jiggawatts" - which is not a unit the S.I. Has defined but based on the movie is equal to to the electricity in the average lightning strike. Which Google informs me is near enough 10-billion watts. So we can conclude that a Jiggawatt is a billion Watts.
Considering they invested in robotic maintenance - they clearly did consider it, and made it as cheap as possible.
Indeed- considering the low cost of labour in India, it is rare for mechanisation to be more cost-effective there (for now anyway), this would be an example where that is true. The only maintenance remaining are highly-skilled jobs like replacing panels that go faulty.
Of course, what you lot always forget is that it's perfectly valid to ignore maintenance costs - since they exist for *all* power plants, coal and nuclear need constant maintencance too, by more highly trained people than solar needs, and more of them - so generally their maintenance costs are higher (and thats without factoring in the costs of spare parts, replacing parts in hazardous conditions etc. etc. etc. - what you think the bearings in a steam turbine don't wear out like every other bearing in every other machine ever built ?)
Solar panels don't stop working when it's cloudy, in fact they operate surprisingly close to the same capacity as on a non-cloudy day. Clouds only block visible spectrum photons (and a bit of IR) - but the vast majority of solar radiation is *not* in the visible spectrum. That's why you can get sunburn on a cloudy day - and in fact it's more common because the IR blocking means you don't feel sun-heat so you don't know you're getting fried by the UV.
Solar panels use whatever photons there are, clouds barely affect them.
How can people still claim that coal is competitive ? It takes an average of 5 years to build a coal plant - and that's assuming it finishes on schedule, which they never do.
I never said he is perfect, he just isn't who republicans claimed he was. The things you complained about - liberals also disliked, that's why we wanted an actual leftist this time. Why Sanders had so much support. But republicans acted like he was Fidel Castro, when in fact, he was the most Reagan-like president since Reagan himself ! And frankly - those scandals, bad as they are, pale in comparison to Reagan's scandals. At least Obama didn't actually commit high treason against the USA while he was president and then get a 4-star general to be his fall-guy.
Except that only 'they are all innocent until proven guilty' is the only thing that counts as 'presumption of innocence'.
You only have the word of generals and politicians that any of them did anything. For all you know they were just kidnapped of the streets to get people in there so Bush could say 'look how many terrorists I caught' with no investigation at all. You simply don't, in fact, know.
The amount of constant panicking conspiracy theories can only be explained by people being truly scared to their bones of Obama. Since his center right policies contained nothing to fear, not once, the fear (never seen of past democrats - not even FDR, JFK or carter who were far more socialist than Obama) that does not fit your explanation. The fear and hatred Obama evoked was unique. Trump may match it but his actual policies inspire that fear. People are right to be scared they may lose the insurance paying for their lifesaving meds if he repeals the ACA. People are right to worry he could lead to their marriages losing legal status and their families torn appart. He promised to do those things
But for Obama there was no reason to be afraid - the fear had no connection to his ideas or words or actions. The only explanation left is his identity. When you have eliminated all other possibilities whatever is left, however improbable, must be true. And this was a panicked response. It was not a sudden reversal of opinion on a policy (that would be mere hypocrisy) it was a panicked belief that he was trying to become a tyrant. That kind of irrational fear is not explicable by run if the mill politics.
Nonody gives a fuck about 'mean things' when you promise politics straight out if the nuremberg laws though only an idiot would NOT assume you intend to do what those laws led to.
>Okay, so morally, we should expect our police officers to be shot at first before ever using their service firearms? No. Like the UK - our police officers should not be armed at all.
>Are you sure you've learned it?:) And given that pessimistic view of humanity, should we be letting them drive around in cars? We already limit that to those who have passed an exam to prove they at least know how to do so at a minimum safety standard. That many don't drive that way after the test is a sad fact, but it would be a LOT worse without licensing. So why can't we do the same with guns ? Why can we not at least restrict gun ownership to people who have proven they know how to be responsible with them ? I can't imagine why anybody would want one in a residence, it makes as much sense to me as using a caterpillar crane for your commute to work - but is that not a feasible compromise ?
>Do you walk on sidewalks defensively too? Yes actually.
> And if you're allowed to have a car to drive defensively, why would you decline to allow people to defend themselves with firearms? False analogy - using a car defensively REDUCES the risk of ANYBODY dying. Using a gun defensively just increases the risk of it being somebody else who dies. That aside - because I proved I know how to use a car safely before I was allowed to drive one.
>Absolutely. I'm an optimist:) Then what the fuck do you need a gun for ? Optimists don't worry about negligible risks like violent crime.
>I agree entirely. Practice and training are key, and you'd be horrified to hear that most police only have to qualify with their sidearm once a year, and a passing score can be as low as 70% in some jurisdictions. Yet another reason to disarm the population - because once we do, we can disarm the cops. I really don't trust cops with guns - but I can't in good conscience take their guns away and let you keep yours.
>That's an awfully nice pistol for that kind of accuracy:) Yes, when you're in a competition as a professional you invest in the best gear. I wouldn't say I can do it that often with a *cheap* pistol. A top quality weapon, in perfectly maintained condition. But it was locked up, in a safe, at a gun club. Never in my home. I stopped shooting after I finished university, lost interest, haven't touched a gun in over a decade. I doubt I would be quite that good if I picked one up now - but it wouldn't take more than a few shots to hit my target. But in the one in a million chance of an attack - I believe my knowing how to burst both your eardrums before you can blink is much more reliably a good way to save lives and protect my family than my skills with a gun - and comes with zero risk of my child getting her hands on it and shooting my wife.
> I'd estimate the longest distance you'd want to even attempt a shot would be 21 feet Well that's competition shooting - it's a test of marksmanship, it's not supposed to test your self defense skills. A human body is a lot bigger than a bulls eye.
>I take it if the data showed a reverse ratio, you'd reconsider your position? I might, but I'd need another piece of data. A reasonable projection - based on the century long continuous decline in voilent crime rates - of when that reverse would come into being if it really hadn't done so already. If that period is sufficiently far in the future - then I'd reconsider. If we're 5 to 15 years away, then we may as well plan ahead.
>That's a wonderful amount of self-security you have:) I hope you can accept that for victims of crime, this is cold comfort. I'm aware of that. But then so is the fact that somebody else got off slightly better because they were armed. That this is extremely rare an event doesn't help. Guns are really not very good tools for self defense. A responsible gun owner, by definition, is not keeping his gun ready - that would not be responsible. And a gun that isn't ready, isn't
True, but not nearly as BIG a threat to democracy as giving the white house to a known fascist demagogue. The electoral college was invented for one reason and one reason only: to over-rule the voters and deny Trump the presidency.
The fact that they won't is all the proof you need that the thing is obsolete.
Have you considered that he may not KNOW who did it ? It's generally very difficult to sue somebody you can't identify - serving process requires an address.
If's entirely possible that after he takes office, and command of America's surveilance state, that lawsuit will come.
The emoluments clause of the constitution DOES apply to the president and makes conflicts of interest not just a crime but a constitutional violation that makes him unfit for office.
No. You know what was called racist ? When you people attacked the president for the EXACT SAME SHIT that you PRAISED when Bush did them - and got your panties in a bunch in wild-assed conspiracy theories.
Republicans praised the military for doing exercises in Texas in 2003. The then-governor Rick Perry held a party to welcome them. When they held the EXACT SAME excercises in 2012 - half of Texas were trying to get them kicked out, the governor sent the state guard to monitor them and everybody was declaring that they were really being deployed as the first stage for Obama to declare martial law and become dictator.
Notice how the events were IDENTICAL but the REACTION was completely different - THAT was the racism. When the exact same thing looks evil JUST because it's the black guy doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I just mulitplied the 4.2 joules by the 10 starting number in the target temperature - which was simpler than writing
4.2 * 10 thousand trillion trillion.
Thanks, I didn't know that - though it makes sense.
Every American I've ever spoken to has agreed that the supreme court is ruining the country with a history of terrible decisions. No two American's I've ever spoken to have been able to agree on which decisions were wrong.
Forget Charisma, he's as informed about the world as a dead fish is about space travel. That was his greatest undoing.
The president's single most important job (and the area where he wields by far the greatest power) is foreign policy - a candidate who can't name a single foreign leader he respects (and indeed failed to name any at all), doesn't know what 'A leppo' is (at a time when that city is a major crisis the next administration will HAVE to continue responding to in SOME way - not arguing for any particular policy, but the president will have to understand the issue to choose one) and who actually tried to blow that all off with 'If I don't know where they are, I can't bomb them' (as if that ever stopped George W. Bush)... no.
Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln didn't make a massive mistake in going to war with the South. Sure he forced them back into the union where the emancipation proclamation could be enforced - but what did that actually achieve ? The South sure didn't become any less racist. Jim Crow still happened, and Trump still got elected (and the South were pretty critical to that process).
What if Lincoln had just let them secede and offered citizenship to any slave who could make it to the border instead ? Before - slaves had to free to states where they could live, but could still be returned. One of the seccession's major driver was Southern States being furious that states like New York and Maryland refused to return runaway slaves (so it was actually OPPOSING states rights, not defending it).
But if they were suddenly granted citizenship in a different COUNTRY - then trying to get them back would be an act of war. That would change the picture greatly.
The South could have been left to rot, and would likely have ended up looking a lot like it looks now anyway. Perhaps slavery would have ended there in time - or just de facto ended when there were no black people left and no country willing to sell them new ones.
Trump couldn't have won the United States but a Trump-alike may have won the confederate states. So what ?
Of course you're talking about a change so massive i't's impossible to really predict the final outcomes - especially since these two countries would rather dislike each other but also be each other's most critical economic partners. The confederates may well have chosen to expand territory by invading Mexico, Cuba and perhaps even Panama (many Americans wanted Cuba to be ceased for a very long time after all). Who knows ?
But I do sometimes wonder if going to war against the confederates and bringing them back into the union by force of conquest wasn't a mistake - even if you were doing it to free the slaves ? If there wouldn't have been better results by just offering the slaves safe harbour.
Not to mention, when they were written, the only 'people' they applied to were white and male. Over time we've been expanding the scope of who are considered people as well. Hell Romani-Americans didn't even get to vote until 1992 (fixing that may, in fact, be the single best thing Bill Clinton did as president).
Temperature is a measure of the vibration rate of particles - it's not found in vacuums. I suspect the article/summary is oversimplifying or just using temperature as a convenient layman's analogue for heat (unless it refers to the vibration rates of particles in the early universe).
EIther way - do you have any idea how much energy it would take to build a beam that could heat anything up that much ? The amount of energy needed to heat something up depends on the specific heat of the substance, the amount you are heating up and the starting temperature. The last one doesn't much matter considering how huge the heat-up here is - it will be immeasurably small a factor. If we use water then 1g takes 1 calorie to heat up by 1 celcius. A calorie is 4.2 joules of energy.
So you would need 42 thousand trillion trillion joules of energy to raise just one gram of water that high. Just about any other substance - the number goes up.
As of 2012 Humanity produced 155105 TW/H of energy. That is just over 5 .5 trillion joules.
No problem, we just need to multiply the total energy production on earth by about ten thousand trillion times and we can do the experiment you're proposing.
But as the summary explains - we don't need to. The theory makes predictions about the universe which will be true if it holds, and false if inflation is correct - all we need to do is develop sufficiently good measurement technology to see if the prediction is true or not - which we should have fairly soon, and the fact that we are close to being able to do sufficiently accurate measurements to test it is literally the story you are commenting on.
It was "10 Jiggawatts" - which is not a unit the S.I. Has defined but based on the movie is equal to to the electricity in the average lightning strike. Which Google informs me is near enough 10-billion watts. So we can conclude that a Jiggawatt is a billion Watts.
I think the correct reading is: "It's not my intention to belittle you, but I just did anyway". Like, it was a collateral damage belittling.
Considering they invested in robotic maintenance - they clearly did consider it, and made it as cheap as possible.
Indeed- considering the low cost of labour in India, it is rare for mechanisation to be more cost-effective there (for now anyway), this would be an example where that is true. The only maintenance remaining are highly-skilled jobs like replacing panels that go faulty.
Of course, what you lot always forget is that it's perfectly valid to ignore maintenance costs - since they exist for *all* power plants, coal and nuclear need constant maintencance too, by more highly trained people than solar needs, and more of them - so generally their maintenance costs are higher (and thats without factoring in the costs of spare parts, replacing parts in hazardous conditions etc. etc. etc. - what you think the bearings in a steam turbine don't wear out like every other bearing in every other machine ever built ?)
Solar panels don't stop working when it's cloudy, in fact they operate surprisingly close to the same capacity as on a non-cloudy day.
Clouds only block visible spectrum photons (and a bit of IR) - but the vast majority of solar radiation is *not* in the visible spectrum. That's why you can get sunburn on a cloudy day - and in fact it's more common because the IR blocking means you don't feel sun-heat so you don't know you're getting fried by the UV.
Solar panels use whatever photons there are, clouds barely affect them.
And in just 8 months.
How can people still claim that coal is competitive ? It takes an average of 5 years to build a coal plant - and that's assuming it finishes on schedule, which they never do.
I never said he is perfect, he just isn't who republicans claimed he was. The things you complained about - liberals also disliked, that's why we wanted an actual leftist this time. Why Sanders had so much support.
But republicans acted like he was Fidel Castro, when in fact, he was the most Reagan-like president since Reagan himself ! And frankly - those scandals, bad as they are, pale in comparison to Reagan's scandals. At least Obama didn't actually commit high treason against the USA while he was president and then get a 4-star general to be his fall-guy.
Except that only 'they are all innocent until proven guilty' is the only thing that counts as 'presumption of innocence'.
You only have the word of generals and politicians that any of them did anything. For all you know they were just kidnapped of the streets to get people in there so Bush could say 'look how many terrorists I caught' with no investigation at all.
You simply don't, in fact, know.
The amount of constant panicking conspiracy theories can only be explained by people being truly scared to their bones of Obama. Since his center right policies contained nothing to fear, not once, the fear (never seen of past democrats - not even FDR, JFK or carter who were far more socialist than Obama) that does not fit your explanation.
The fear and hatred Obama evoked was unique. Trump may match it but his actual policies inspire that fear. People are right to be scared they may lose the insurance paying for their lifesaving meds if he repeals the ACA. People are right to worry he could lead to their marriages losing legal status and their families torn appart. He promised to do those things
But for Obama there was no reason to be afraid - the fear had no connection to his ideas or words or actions. The only explanation left is his identity. When you have eliminated all other possibilities whatever is left, however improbable, must be true.
And this was a panicked response. It was not a sudden reversal of opinion on a policy (that would be mere hypocrisy) it was a panicked belief that he was trying to become a tyrant. That kind of irrational fear is not explicable by run if the mill politics.
Nonody gives a fuck about 'mean things' when you promise politics straight out if the nuremberg laws though only an idiot would NOT assume you intend to do what those laws led to.
S/joke/law/g
Its a joke intended to illustrate the ridiculousness of the infamous North Carolina bathroom joke.
>Okay, so morally, we should expect our police officers to be shot at first before ever using their service firearms?
No. Like the UK - our police officers should not be armed at all.
>Are you sure you've learned it? :) And given that pessimistic view of humanity, should we be letting them drive around in cars?
We already limit that to those who have passed an exam to prove they at least know how to do so at a minimum safety standard. That many don't drive that way after the test is a sad fact, but it would be a LOT worse without licensing. So why can't we do the same with guns ? Why can we not at least restrict gun ownership to people who have proven they know how to be responsible with them ? I can't imagine why anybody would want one in a residence, it makes as much sense to me as using a caterpillar crane for your commute to work - but is that not a feasible compromise ?
>Do you walk on sidewalks defensively too?
Yes actually.
> And if you're allowed to have a car to drive defensively, why would you decline to allow people to defend themselves with firearms?
False analogy - using a car defensively REDUCES the risk of ANYBODY dying. Using a gun defensively just increases the risk of it being somebody else who dies. That aside - because I proved I know how to use a car safely before I was allowed to drive one.
>Absolutely. I'm an optimist :)
Then what the fuck do you need a gun for ? Optimists don't worry about negligible risks like violent crime.
>I agree entirely. Practice and training are key, and you'd be horrified to hear that most police only have to qualify with their sidearm once a year, and a passing score can be as low as 70% in some jurisdictions.
Yet another reason to disarm the population - because once we do, we can disarm the cops. I really don't trust cops with guns - but I can't in good conscience take their guns away and let you keep yours.
>That's an awfully nice pistol for that kind of accuracy :)
Yes, when you're in a competition as a professional you invest in the best gear. I wouldn't say I can do it that often with a *cheap* pistol. A top quality weapon, in perfectly maintained condition. But it was locked up, in a safe, at a gun club. Never in my home. I stopped shooting after I finished university, lost interest, haven't touched a gun in over a decade. I doubt I would be quite that good if I picked one up now - but it wouldn't take more than a few shots to hit my target. But in the one in a million chance of an attack - I believe my knowing how to burst both your eardrums before you can blink is much more reliably a good way to save lives and protect my family than my skills with a gun - and comes with zero risk of my child getting her hands on it and shooting my wife.
> I'd estimate the longest distance you'd want to even attempt a shot would be 21 feet
Well that's competition shooting - it's a test of marksmanship, it's not supposed to test your self defense skills. A human body is a lot bigger than a bulls eye.
>I take it if the data showed a reverse ratio, you'd reconsider your position?
I might, but I'd need another piece of data. A reasonable projection - based on the century long continuous decline in voilent crime rates - of when that reverse would come into being if it really hadn't done so already. If that period is sufficiently far in the future - then I'd reconsider. If we're 5 to 15 years away, then we may as well plan ahead.
>That's a wonderful amount of self-security you have :) I hope you can accept that for victims of crime, this is cold comfort.
I'm aware of that. But then so is the fact that somebody else got off slightly better because they were armed. That this is extremely rare an event doesn't help. Guns are really not very good tools for self defense. A responsible gun owner, by definition, is not keeping his gun ready - that would not be responsible. And a gun that isn't ready, isn't
True, but not nearly as BIG a threat to democracy as giving the white house to a known fascist demagogue.
The electoral college was invented for one reason and one reason only: to over-rule the voters and deny Trump the presidency.
The fact that they won't is all the proof you need that the thing is obsolete.
While Trump is only worth pissing off.
>He's a urinal cake.
Hey now, that's not fair. Urinal cakes are actually worth pissing on.
Have you considered that he may not KNOW who did it ?
It's generally very difficult to sue somebody you can't identify - serving process requires an address.
If's entirely possible that after he takes office, and command of America's surveilance state, that lawsuit will come.
The emoluments clause of the constitution DOES apply to the president and makes conflicts of interest not just a crime but a constitutional violation that makes him unfit for office.
No. You know what was called racist ?
When you people attacked the president for the EXACT SAME SHIT that you PRAISED when Bush did them - and got your panties in a bunch in wild-assed conspiracy theories.
Republicans praised the military for doing exercises in Texas in 2003. The then-governor Rick Perry held a party to welcome them.
When they held the EXACT SAME excercises in 2012 - half of Texas were trying to get them kicked out, the governor sent the state guard to monitor them and everybody was declaring that they were really being deployed as the first stage for Obama to declare martial law and become dictator.
Notice how the events were IDENTICAL but the REACTION was completely different - THAT was the racism. When the exact same thing looks evil JUST because it's the black guy doing it.