I think this is the only industry where making "copies" has any relevance -- cars, microwave owens, sneakers, blazers, airplanes all look alike if you cover the trademarks -- and I'd venture a guess it's because one actor has business model that depends completely on the "coolness factor". And it's not Samsung.
I'm too lazy to search, but I've read plenty of reports where the loser in an election there received more votes than there are registered voters.
That'd be somewhat difficult with the every adult citizen being automatically "registered" and average turnout over Europe being in the low to high 60's...
As a pure side note: did you know that the original luddites did not destroy all machines, nor were they against technology? They destroyed machines that made second rate products, or were used without second thoughts in a destructive (for the community) manner.
In that sense, you are a luddite, and should be proud of it!:-)
I understood from the live footage that it was actually the computer on the Falcon that cut off the engines right after ignition, not any engineer or manager. I may be wrong, though.
I also noticed that if SpaceX had to build the launch pad, the infrastructure, the launch control and the flight control centers, they might come up with bigger bill. But then again, NASA wasn't building the earlier rockets either, was it? So what exactly is new in this endeavour?
Since nuclear reactors automatically shut down during an earthquake in Japan, they have always had to have serious backup power for nuclear energy. With what so huge power generation units, even in Europe there has to be backup for maintenance breaks and whatnots -- the grid can't just loose 1200MW at one go for a month or so. IN other words, they have always reliad heavily on carbon power, too.
Anyway, the latest research gives nuclear higher carbon footprint than nuclear, so for all we know, it's good for everybody. Latest, meaning all the easy fuel having been pretty much used up, and having to dig deeper and more cubic miles of the ore to get more fuel to expanding market... all done by oil-based machinery.
See, while coal plants become better at CO2/MW decade by decade, nuclear reactors actually become worse.
It's about Polish and Czech not wanting to deal with their eastern neighbours in a neighbourly manner -- and they may have good reasons not wanting to -- so they are looking for a powerful ally to guarantee their security.
Nobody seriously believes NATO is really worth anything in solving problems or confrontations (there's historical precedents of Western Europe being both unwilling and uncapable of dealing with any Eastern Europe security issue -- why would they give a crap today?).
So you make a direct deal to have so important military installation on your own ground that you actually become somebody's bitch in exhange for some level of security. Wich means you don't have to deal with your suspectible neighbour by yourself.
The fact that you also become the ground zero of the WW3 is just a "security" bonus!
Europe's biggest problem is the non-uniformity of its financial policies but on the other hand it's the greatest safeguard.
The biggest problem in Europe is the absolute uniformity of it's financial policy to secure Germany's economy no matter what the price is for any other nation in the Europe.
That and the fact that they still -- against any evidence or sense -- think austerity can save an already contracting economy...
Science is *all about* not trusting someone's conclusions
What utter and absolute trash! About 99.9% of science is based on trusting someone's conclusions. It's when your results don't agree with earlier results you start to ponder, and then you check, verify and reverify what you did because it's (at least) as likely to be your error.
When you're sure that somebody made mistake, you want to know what mistake, how you can explain the differing results, and in the end hopefully have a better understanding of the phenomena.
Only very, very randomly is there such a new concept, or observation, or hypothesis that it's not based on earlier research. Because science just works.
Kind of the entire point of the AGW fiasco - they didn't have either data or algorithms or even the rationale behind their data choices presented so as to allow others to *duplicate* their work.
Here I agree, the sceptics have done no science at any point, so they naturally have no data, no algorithms or even better explanation for observed warming. But then, not doing science is not science, so I don't quite get the point you try to make.
Note that word - duplicate
Well, you don't actually want to duplicate anything, but you definately would like to have confirming results from a completely different kind of approach. Doing things precisely the same way time and time again is engineering, not science, so I kinda miss your point, again.
Ahum, regarding new drugs, it's mostly public funding, at best 50-50 split, but then private companies get tax brakes for R&D, so it's basically from the public purse anyway. Just sayin'
Oh, but people aren't allowed back to Fukushima or the surrounding area not because of the tsunami. It's because of the reactors were left without cooling too long.
People are not allowed back to Chernobyl area because, in the end, the reactor was left wihtout cooling for too long.
See a pattern here?
It's not the tsunami's, or crew making 'human errors', it's the inherent nature of the reactors to go critical and melt when left without cooling. And there's more ways for that to happen than any engineer has ever imagined... even algae growth in the seawater used for the secondary system can force the engineers to shut down the reactor before they run out of cooling water...or heat wave that preheats the same water.
So many external parameters completely out of the control of anybody.
Well, to be consistent, you should extend that claim to all the following studies that reached the same conclusion. With different methods, differnet datasets, different observations. By different researchers.
Otherwise you at least also have to admit that Mann actually did a brilliant fabrication, since people have been able to replicate the result with real data.
Anyway, until you tell us what you mean by "hide the decline" fraud (what decline was hidden, from who, and where?) there's not much point continuing. You seem to be the kind of sceptic who can't be convinced otherwise (which, you should know, is very anti-sceptic behaviour).
Meanwhile we could get back to the normal scienctific process, where fabrications and frauds are relatively easy to point out, since they won't stand on their own. If the DA really believes Mann is wrong, he can publish his research and get the Nobel, he don't need all old correspondence of Mann to do that, now. Especially since Mann, so I've been told, fabricated all the data...
Is there any more ways to repeat the same message for you to see the utter undefendability of your position?
Here's another tip: if it's not correct, you prove it in the field of science, not law.
Unless, of course, you can't. Then sue. It's only certain kind of people who insist on science being decided on courtrooms. One name for them is "anti-science", because that's what it is, the very idea that if you disagree with a study, you can disprove it without science. Anti-science.
Erhm, one of the most prevalent argument against the "theory of Global Warming" is that it's completely based on models...
Which, of course, is bollocks. There is no theory of Global Warming, or Climate Change. There's theory (and physics model) of Earth's Climate, and climate change is what comes out of it when you add CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas).
As stated elsewhere in this thread, these models can do both projections and predictions, and apparently with a great skill, too. Which means that science works.
Corporations (in finance, mostly) have long used kind of reverse Voight-Kampff test to find sociopaths. Having ethics can hinder making money, you know.
It's just figuring out (fast) what treatment is the best for a specific individual with a specific condition.
For example, you take a sample of a persons tumor, and in a lab attack it simultanously with over 200 different treatment combinations. Find the most effective combination and report it to the doctor of the patient. Very likely the same cocktail of medication won't work (as efectively) on any other patient.
On a more general level, there are treatments that are completely uneffective when patient has certain genotype, so checking for that before starting the treatment would be smart move, too. Or the other way around, the treatment is effective only with certain genotype.
We don't need to know "why", we only need to couple a patient with treatment that works. We don't need large datasets, we need individual, or personalized, medication.
I gather all trees know how to use ample sunlight to survive and reproduce, the 'selection' happens when the daily/weekly/monthly dose of photons gets quite low.
So, no, I don't think it' s pure coincidence. Loosing the leafs may have more to do with freezing temperatures and no phosynthesis anyway.
Could you, please, also tell us what are the error bars in climate statistics between 1998-2005, and whether that allows us to define any trewns at all?
Also, could you try to make the same claim starting,say, from 1997, or 1999, just to show if your claim has any robustsness.
Or, perhpas, if you were just cherry picking and misusing the data... you wouldn't do that, would you?
Money creates jobs, somehow. If we just pour enough of it to business, the business will eventually hire everybody. Forget all that pesky demand stuff, the ideology of greed and oppression presented as economic theory bypasses all the middlemen and makes it simple.
If the whole point of the competition is to provide affordable services/products, but the competitions can't do those, what's the point of being pro-competition?
If the community can provide it, let them. The ISPs can still compete with speed, quality and added services if they want to. And being commercial, they're sure to be able to beat the social(ist) services hands down, without this kind of government regulation...
Oddly enough climate change is something that comes out of the physics models when you put in what we understand of the climate. It has nothing to do with correlation, it's pure mechanical causation. As it happens, the observations do confirm the model.
And it also happens, that the exact same people who were arguing against CFC -> Ozone hole causation and smoking -> lung cancer causation started arguing against climate change. They obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.
Oh, and the actual mechanism of how smoking causes lung cancer was partly revealed a few year back, but is still not completely understood.
The old article somehow forgot to mention, or emphasize, that coal burning power plants don't exactly emit the fly ash, but nowadays capture 99% of it.
The problems begin when it's not reused but stored in a badly designed landfill and leaks into the groundwater. After all, the things that form the fly ash are the things that are not coal, but impurites from the rock surrounding the original coal ore. So they're pretty much as radioactive as the very ground you're walking on.
Coal power has many problems, but radioactive waste is not one of them.
...a pebble bed design based on the work in South Africa is being deployed in China.
Both South Africa and China licenced 50's German design, that had commercialy failed miserably in the 1980's (when it run out of subsidies). South Africa spent 12 years and 1 billion dollars before finally dropping it last year as completely unfeasible.
China planned originally have their's running last year, but the current target is 2013, if ever.
Pebble Bed Reactors are uncontrollable, and run at much higher temperatures than 'regular' LWRs. They have to be cooled by gas, and hope that no oxygen gets into the reactor running several hundred degrees over the autoignition temperature of the graphite moderator.
BBMR is not modern design, nor is it a viable design: even if all issues were solved and it could produce above the 10 MW of the only working PBMR ever made, it would never produce more than 100 MW per unit, so it would be around 10 times more expensive that current nuclear constructions. Remember, it's not the running of reactor that costs, but comissioning and decomissioning -- Germans estimate it takes 100 years to decomission the only working one!
It was not, repeat not, 9 at Fukushima. I can't find the power dissipation map anywhere, but with (bad) luck it was somewhere sixish (?).
Nowdays TEPCO is probably saying that the tsunami was ove 30 meters high when it hit the pwoer plant, with way it has been raising since the catastrophe...
But the main point is, that after the earthquake and tsunami, the damn energy generators were running for over an hour. So they were not damaged by the events. They failed on their own! Like huge diesel engines that have been neglected for a long time -- they start, in short order burn trough their piston rings and die.
Everything happened because a power plant was left without power! That's what nuclear engineers call safe nowadays?
Come on, guys, fezz up: if a reactor is left without cooling for any* reason for a relatively short time (years, if we look at the spent fuel rods), it will be a bad thing. Any kind of reactor. They are not 'safe', and never will be. Admit that, and we can start discussing the future of nuclear power.
Like the pebble bed fiasco, or the travelling wave wet dream.
Btw, did you know what the quake-tsunami double blow did to Japan's wind power farms? Nothing. They're now madly milling electricity out of the thin air to cover all the nuclear that disappeared from the grid...
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is the only industry where making "copies" has any relevance -- cars, microwave owens, sneakers, blazers, airplanes all look alike if you cover the trademarks -- and I'd venture a guess it's because one actor has business model that depends completely on the "coolness factor". And it's not Samsung.
I'm too lazy to search, but I've read plenty of reports where the loser in an election there received more votes than there are registered voters.
That'd be somewhat difficult with the every adult citizen being automatically "registered" and average turnout over Europe being in the low to high 60's...
As a pure side note: did you know that the original luddites did not destroy all machines, nor were they against technology? They destroyed machines that made second rate products, or were used without second thoughts in a destructive (for the community) manner.
:-)
In that sense, you are a luddite, and should be proud of it!
Then there was this Soviet entry on the Pacific theatre* that had a lot to do with both Japanese surrender and the haste to drop the bombs.
*Matchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, which destroyed the Japanese Kwantung Army of over 1.2 million in a week (capturing +600k POWs).
I understood from the live footage that it was actually the computer on the Falcon that cut off the engines right after ignition, not any engineer or manager. I may be wrong, though.
I also noticed that if SpaceX had to build the launch pad, the infrastructure, the launch control and the flight control centers, they might come up with bigger bill. But then again, NASA wasn't building the earlier rockets either, was it? So what exactly is new in this endeavour?
Since nuclear reactors automatically shut down during an earthquake in Japan, they have always had to have serious backup power for nuclear energy. With what so huge power generation units, even in Europe there has to be backup for maintenance breaks and whatnots -- the grid can't just loose 1200MW at one go for a month or so. IN other words, they have always reliad heavily on carbon power, too.
Anyway, the latest research gives nuclear higher carbon footprint than nuclear, so for all we know, it's good for everybody. Latest, meaning all the easy fuel having been pretty much used up, and having to dig deeper and more cubic miles of the ore to get more fuel to expanding market... all done by oil-based machinery.
See, while coal plants become better at CO2/MW decade by decade, nuclear reactors actually become worse.
So - what's really going on here?
It's about Polish and Czech not wanting to deal with their eastern neighbours in a neighbourly manner -- and they may have good reasons not wanting to -- so they are looking for a powerful ally to guarantee their security.
Nobody seriously believes NATO is really worth anything in solving problems or confrontations (there's historical precedents of Western Europe being both unwilling and uncapable of dealing with any Eastern Europe security issue -- why would they give a crap today?).
So you make a direct deal to have so important military installation on your own ground that you actually become somebody's bitch in exhange for some level of security. Wich means you don't have to deal with your suspectible neighbour by yourself.
The fact that you also become the ground zero of the WW3 is just a "security" bonus!
Europe's biggest problem is the non-uniformity of its financial policies but on the other hand it's the greatest safeguard.
The biggest problem in Europe is the absolute uniformity of it's financial policy to secure Germany's economy no matter what the price is for any other nation in the Europe.
That and the fact that they still -- against any evidence or sense -- think austerity can save an already contracting economy...
Science is *all about* not trusting someone's conclusions
What utter and absolute trash! About 99.9% of science is based on trusting someone's conclusions. It's when your results don't agree with earlier results you start to ponder, and then you check, verify and reverify what you did because it's (at least) as likely to be your error.
When you're sure that somebody made mistake, you want to know what mistake, how you can explain the differing results, and in the end hopefully have a better understanding of the phenomena.
Only very, very randomly is there such a new concept, or observation, or hypothesis that it's not based on earlier research. Because science just works.
Kind of the entire point of the AGW fiasco - they didn't have either data or algorithms or even the rationale behind their data choices presented so as to allow others to *duplicate* their work.
Here I agree, the sceptics have done no science at any point, so they naturally have no data, no algorithms or even better explanation for observed warming. But then, not doing science is not science, so I don't quite get the point you try to make.
Note that word - duplicate
Well, you don't actually want to duplicate anything, but you definately would like to have confirming results from a completely different kind of approach. Doing things precisely the same way time and time again is engineering, not science, so I kinda miss your point, again.
Ahum, regarding new drugs, it's mostly public funding, at best 50-50 split, but then private companies get tax brakes for R&D, so it's basically from the public purse anyway. Just sayin'
Oh, but people aren't allowed back to Fukushima or the surrounding area not because of the tsunami. It's because of the reactors were left without cooling too long.
People are not allowed back to Chernobyl area because, in the end, the reactor was left wihtout cooling for too long.
See a pattern here?
It's not the tsunami's, or crew making 'human errors', it's the inherent nature of the reactors to go critical and melt when left without cooling. And there's more ways for that to happen than any engineer has ever imagined... even algae growth in the seawater used for the secondary system can force the engineers to shut down the reactor before they run out of cooling water...or heat wave that preheats the same water.
So many external parameters completely out of the control of anybody.
Well, to be consistent, you should extend that claim to all the following studies that reached the same conclusion. With different methods, differnet datasets, different observations. By different researchers.
Otherwise you at least also have to admit that Mann actually did a brilliant fabrication, since people have been able to replicate the result with real data.
Anyway, until you tell us what you mean by "hide the decline" fraud (what decline was hidden, from who, and where?) there's not much point continuing. You seem to be the kind of sceptic who can't be convinced otherwise (which, you should know, is very anti-sceptic behaviour).
Meanwhile we could get back to the normal scienctific process, where fabrications and frauds are relatively easy to point out, since they won't stand on their own. If the DA really believes Mann is wrong, he can publish his research and get the Nobel, he don't need all old correspondence of Mann to do that, now. Especially since Mann, so I've been told, fabricated all the data...
Is there any more ways to repeat the same message for you to see the utter undefendability of your position?
Here's another tip: if it's not correct, you prove it in the field of science, not law.
Unless, of course, you can't. Then sue.
It's only certain kind of people who insist on science being decided on courtrooms. One name for them is "anti-science", because that's what it is, the very idea that if you disagree with a study, you can disprove it without science. Anti-science.
Erhm, one of the most prevalent argument against the "theory of Global Warming" is that it's completely based on models...
Which, of course, is bollocks. There is no theory of Global Warming, or Climate Change. There's theory (and physics model) of Earth's Climate, and climate change is what comes out of it when you add CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas).
As stated elsewhere in this thread, these models can do both projections and predictions, and apparently with a great skill, too. Which means that science works.
Corporations (in finance, mostly) have long used kind of reverse Voight-Kampff test to find sociopaths. Having ethics can hinder making money, you know.
It's not a buzzword, nor is it a holy grail.
It's just figuring out (fast) what treatment is the best for a specific individual with a specific condition.
For example, you take a sample of a persons tumor, and in a lab attack it simultanously with over 200 different treatment combinations. Find the most effective combination and report it to the doctor of the patient. Very likely the same cocktail of medication won't work (as efectively) on any other patient.
On a more general level, there are treatments that are completely uneffective when patient has certain genotype, so checking for that before starting the treatment would be smart move, too. Or the other way around, the treatment is effective only with certain genotype.
We don't need to know "why", we only need to couple a patient with treatment that works. We don't need large datasets, we need individual, or personalized, medication.
Well, it says that the projected increase is 8% for next year... wouldn't that be a sign of people wanting these thingamalings?
I gather all trees know how to use ample sunlight to survive and reproduce, the 'selection' happens when the daily/weekly/monthly dose of photons gets quite low.
So, no, I don't think it' s pure coincidence. Loosing the leafs may have more to do with freezing temperatures and no phosynthesis anyway.
Could you, please, also tell us what are the error bars in climate statistics between 1998-2005, and whether that allows us to define any trewns at all?
Also, could you try to make the same claim starting,say, from 1997, or 1999, just to show if your claim has any robustsness.
Or, perhpas, if you were just cherry picking and misusing the data... you wouldn't do that, would you?
No, no, no...
Money creates jobs, somehow. If we just pour enough of it to business, the business will eventually hire everybody. Forget all that pesky demand stuff, the ideology of greed and oppression presented as economic theory bypasses all the middlemen and makes it simple.
Magic hand, baby, magic hand.
If the whole point of the competition is to provide affordable services/products, but the competitions can't do those, what's the point of being pro-competition?
If the community can provide it, let them. The ISPs can still compete with speed, quality and added services if they want to. And being commercial, they're sure to be able to beat the social(ist) services hands down, without this kind of government regulation...
Oddly enough climate change is something that comes out of the physics models when you put in what we understand of the climate. It has nothing to do with correlation, it's pure mechanical causation. As it happens, the observations do confirm the model.
And it also happens, that the exact same people who were arguing against CFC -> Ozone hole causation and smoking -> lung cancer causation started arguing against climate change. They obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.
Oh, and the actual mechanism of how smoking causes lung cancer was partly revealed a few year back, but is still not completely understood.
The old article somehow forgot to mention, or emphasize, that coal burning power plants don't exactly emit the fly ash, but nowadays capture 99% of it.
The problems begin when it's not reused but stored in a badly designed landfill and leaks into the groundwater. After all, the things that form the fly ash are the things that are not coal, but impurites from the rock surrounding the original coal ore. So they're pretty much as radioactive as the very ground you're walking on.
Coal power has many problems, but radioactive waste is not one of them.
...a pebble bed design based on the work in South Africa is being deployed in China.
Both South Africa and China licenced 50's German design, that had commercialy failed miserably in the 1980's (when it run out of subsidies). South Africa spent 12 years and 1 billion dollars before finally dropping it last year as completely unfeasible.
China planned originally have their's running last year, but the current target is 2013, if ever.
Pebble Bed Reactors are uncontrollable, and run at much higher temperatures than 'regular' LWRs. They have to be cooled by gas, and hope that no oxygen gets into the reactor running several hundred degrees over the autoignition temperature of the graphite moderator.
BBMR is not modern design, nor is it a viable design: even if all issues were solved and it could produce above the 10 MW of the only working PBMR ever made, it would never produce more than 100 MW per unit, so it would be around 10 times more expensive that current nuclear constructions. Remember, it's not the running of reactor that costs, but comissioning and decomissioning -- Germans estimate it takes 100 years to decomission the only working one!
It was not, repeat not, 9 at Fukushima. I can't find the power dissipation map anywhere, but with (bad) luck it was somewhere sixish (?).
Nowdays TEPCO is probably saying that the tsunami was ove 30 meters high when it hit the pwoer plant, with way it has been raising since the catastrophe...
But the main point is, that after the earthquake and tsunami, the damn energy generators were running for over an hour. So they were not damaged by the events. They failed on their own! Like huge diesel engines that have been neglected for a long time -- they start, in short order burn trough their piston rings and die.
Everything happened because a power plant was left without power! That's what nuclear engineers call safe nowadays?
Come on, guys, fezz up: if a reactor is left without cooling for any* reason for a relatively short time (years, if we look at the spent fuel rods), it will be a bad thing. Any kind of reactor. They are not 'safe', and never will be. Admit that, and we can start discussing the future of nuclear power.
Like the pebble bed fiasco, or the travelling wave wet dream.
Btw, did you know what the quake-tsunami double blow did to Japan's wind power farms? Nothing. They're now madly milling electricity out of the thin air to cover all the nuclear that disappeared from the grid...