You don't have to mark your ballot, and even if you did, that would require them to check your ballots before you dropped it in the box, which they don't do.
You can drop in a blank ballot, draw a penis on it, or whatever you like; if it doesn't follow the rules it's called "informal" and not counted.
What you're describing is still quite common - it's called the donkey vote (numbering the ballot from the top), is a valid vote, and actually gives the top candidates a slight edge.
Hello?... Ah... I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better.... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Vladimir.... Clear and plain and coming through fine....I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine.... Good.... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine.... I agree with you, it's great to be fine.... a-ha-ha-ha-ha... Now then, Vladimir, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb....The *Bomb*, Vladimir.... The *hydrogen* bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ah... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing.... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Vladimir.... Let me finish, Vladimir.... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?!...Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Vladimir?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?... *Of course* I like to speak to you!... *Of course* I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Vladimir. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call.... Listen, if it wasn't friendly... you probably wouldn't have even got it.... They will *not* reach their targets for at least another hour.... I am... I am positive, Vladimir.... Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick.... Well, I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run-down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes.... Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we're unable to recall the planes, then... I'd say that, ah... well, ah... we're just gonna have to help you destroy them, Vladimir.... I know they're our boys.... All right, well listen now. Who should we call?...*Who* should we call, Vladimir? The... wha-whe, the People... you, sorry, you faded away there.... The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters.... Where is that, Vladimir?... In Omsk.... Right.... Yes....Oh, you'll call them first, will you?... Uh-hu... Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Vladimir?... Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information....Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm... I'm sorry, too, Vladimir....I'm very sorry.... *All right*, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well.... I am as sorry as you are, Vladimir! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are.... So we're both sorry, all right?!... All right.
500 kw/h per day is even more nonsensical. Energy over time cubed?
Maybe they meant kWh per day. That would almost make sense, but come on... it's not hard to get it right the first time instead of leaving people to guess which errors were made to infer the right value.
There's only about a kW of solar power available per square metre, and solar panels aren't anywhere near 100% efficient, so it can't be the output of the panels.
This is why it's bad to have the scientifically illiterate writing articles - they mangle the units beyond recognition so you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
As I recall, the heat forcing of CO2 is something like 5x that of a standard diatomic gas, ie N2 or O2, which make up a huge fraction of the atmosphere. When I ran this calculation before, CO2 was only barely a net heat forcer in the absence of water vapor. Including water vapor it slightly reduces the heat forcing of the atmosphere.
You recall incorrectly. The radiative forcing of the top three gases in the atmosphere - N2, O2 and Ar - is precisely zero as can be demonstrated from symmetry.
Argon is monatomic and therefore has no vibrational or rotational modes. N2 and O2 are symmetric about the centre of their bond, so their vibrational and rotational modes do not involve an oscillating dipole and therefore are not infrared active.
Radiative forcing comes down to infrared absorption of outgoing heat from the earth - if there is no infrared absorption, there's no radiative forcing.
I agree that 84% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change) is not unanimous, but it's getting closer every year. Unless, ofcourse, you count the opinion of people who don't understand the science involved and blame other people for their own lack of understanding.
Like the EPA?. Tell me if you can spot the huge logic hole in this statement:
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period
Remember, these are the people writing policy and regulations concerning our rights with respect to climate change.
I think you made the point better than the parent to your post ever could.
You don't understand the science, so you call it a logic hole. In fact, if you think that's a logic hole your grasp of logic isn't too crash hot either.
Because the first steps towards a smallpox vaccine were based on the realisation that dairy workers who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. Vaccinia is very closely related to cowpox, but has diverged from it slightly since the its widespread use as a vaccine.
Because it was so successful as a vaccine, the name vaccination stuck.
Miss that part of the story, and it's nowhere near as interesting.
... he certainly didn't present a compelling argument to ban sales of iPhones.
There's a good reason for that. I didn't attempt to present an argument to ban sales of iPhones. You well and truly missed the point.
"Merchantable quality" is a phrase that comes up in warranty law here, in that it if it fails before it's reasonably expected to, it's defective and the consumer deserves a refund. How you got "ban sales of iPhones" from that is a mystery to me. Grandparent is right - if "shit happens", it should be Apple's problem, not mine.
If you think Apple products only ever fail due to user error, the Reality Distortion Field is alive and kicking.
Warranties are also supposed to cover defects that materialise after some time and are not apparent at purchase.
Here in Australia, the law covers how long the item is reasonably expected to last, given its cost and quality. Given that the phones are often sold with two year contracts, the one year warranty is certainly deficient from that perspective. Having had two iPhones fail between the one year warranty and the two that should apply, I'm not too pleased about Apple dodging their responsibilities under our warranty law.
A $1000 phone that only lasts 13 months can't really be considered of merchantable quality, regardless of how quickly the industry progresses.
Actually, both the median and the mode would be 10 unless I'm drastically under/overestimating the incidence of polydactyly and missing digits.
It's the median that is closest to the definition you're asking about, however if less than half the population has 10 digits, the median is exactly ten.
1360 W (solar constant) * pi * 6380000^2 (radius of earth squared) * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25 (seconds in year) / 3E8^2 (c^2) = 61000 tonnes. Marginally lower if you subtract albedo losses. If it's off by about a factor of four, the surface area of the earth might be used instead of the area of the earth's disk.
Science is sometimes just interesting, and our current understanding of the science overwhelmingly points towards anthropogenic greenhouse emissions being responsible for a quantifiable and observable degree of warming. Yes, the figures turn out to be much smaller than the dust gain and hydrogen/helium loss. But it's still an interesting calculation to perform, regardless of whether armchair physicists scream conspiracy or "green religion" nonsense.
If you do want to do the calculation, the chemical energy loss isn't the figure you should be using. It's already well understood that the direct heat output from burning fossil fuels is a very small proportion of the heat budget. It's the difference between the solar energy input and radiative energy output that you need to use - the radiative forcing as it is known.
That's about 1.6 W/m^2 right now. Times the surface area of the earth, that's about 8.2E14 W. Over a year, that's 2.6E22 J. Divided by c^2, that's about 290 tonnes. I'm not exactly what figures were used (whether different estimates of the forcing were used, which contributions to the forcing were counted as "global warming", whether variables such as El Nino, La Nina and solar variations were taken into account, and over what timescale), so there may be something I did differently. But yes, the calculation does give tons.
That you think a team of Cambridge University physicists didn't "try [math] sometime" because your arm-waving armchair explanation disagrees with their calculation is truly an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your post is indeed insightful. It sheds insight as to why climate change denial is so widespread here on slashdot.
Raising the surface temperature by 1 C isn't the same thing as raising the temperature of the entire earth by 1 C.
The calculation doesn't involve the volume, mass, or internal temperature of the earth - it's a straight radiative forcing calculation. Current estimates of the radiative forcing (difference between the solar energy* we receive from the sun and the energy we radiate into space) are about 1.6 W/m^2 from memory. Over the whole earth that's about 2.5E22 J over the course of a year. Divide by the speed of light squared, you get close to the right answer (I get about 280 tonnes, but I might be missing a minor correction factor or they might be using a lower estimate for the radiative forcing).
I wouldn't necessarily applaud them for this - operating under the laws of a specific country may well be a case of having their hands tied.
However this is the right way to go about applying government censorship, if there is such a thing. Let those in the censoring country see a "your government has banned this tweet" message, and letting everyone else see "The X government has banned this Tweet, but here it is because you're not in X" will shed light on what was being censored, will shed light on the censorship itself, and both the attention and the trivial nature of defeating censorship will let those in the relevant country see it anyway.
That range isn't an uncertainty, it's an ambiguity.
Because of overlaps with other contributions, saturation effects at some wavelengths and other non-linearities, the answers to the questions "How much of a greenhouse effect would CO2 provide on its own" and "How much would the greenhouse effect reduce if we removed all CO2" are different. The net forcing is very well characterised, both from known absorption characteristics and spectral measurements - it's the feedbacks to the system which contribute the uncertainty.
I'd have thought 3D televisions were by definition - in 3D mode they have a left image and a right image. Send different sources to the left and right channels and the TV won't know the difference.
All you have to do is instead of having two pairs of glasses each with a left and right filter, have one pair with two left filters, and another with two right filters. Surely it's been done before.
It's not a lack of silicon in the Earth's crust that pushes recycling into making economic sense, it's the tremendous amount of energy that is required to refine silicates into solar-grade silicon, as well as the associated chemical processing and carbon dioxide emissions.
To get metallurgical-grade silicon, the SiO2 is reacted with carbon in an arc furnace, producing carbon dioxide directly, but more importantly indirectly from the energy input to the arc furnace. To purify it to the point of solar-grade silicon, there are several more high-energy steps involved (reacting it with HCl and back again, then melting and recrystalising it for the more efficient crystalline silicon, etc.).
It generally takes a few years of output to make up for the energy put in to make the panels, and most of that is the processing of silicon itself. Recycling the silicon at the end of its life cycle would cut down on that by quite a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to mark your ballot, and even if you did, that would require them to check your ballots before you dropped it in the box, which they don't do.
You can drop in a blank ballot, draw a penis on it, or whatever you like; if it doesn't follow the rules it's called "informal" and not counted.
What you're describing is still quite common - it's called the donkey vote (numbering the ballot from the top), is a valid vote, and actually gives the top candidates a slight edge.
Hello? ... Ah ... I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? ... Oh-ho, that's much better. ... yeah ... huh ... yes ... Fine, I can hear you now, Vladimir. ... Clear and plain and coming through fine....I'm coming through fine, too, eh? ... Good, then ... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine. ... Good. ... Well, it's good that you're fine and ... and I'm fine. ... I agree with you, it's great to be fine. ... a-ha-ha-ha-ha ... Now then, Vladimir, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb. ...The *Bomb*, Vladimir.... The *hydrogen* bomb! ... Well now, what happened is ... ah ... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of ... well, he went a little funny in the head ... you know ... just a little ... funny. And, ah ... he went and did a silly thing. ... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes ... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Vladimir. ... Let me finish, Vladimir. ... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?! ...Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Vladimir? ... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? ... *Of course* I like to speak to you! ... *Of course* I like to say hello! ... Not now, but anytime, Vladimir. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call. ... Listen, if it wasn't friendly ... you probably wouldn't have even got it. ... They will *not* reach their targets for at least another hour. ... I am ... I am positive, Vladimir. ... Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick. ... Well, I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run-down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes. ... Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we're unable to recall the planes, then ... I'd say that, ah ... well, ah ... we're just gonna have to help you destroy them, Vladimir. ... I know they're our boys. ... All right, well listen now. Who should we call? ...*Who* should we call, Vladimir? The ... wha-whe, the People... you, sorry, you faded away there.... The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters. ... Where is that, Vladimir? ... In Omsk. ... Right. ... Yes. ...Oh, you'll call them first, will you? ... Uh-hu ... Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Vladimir? ... Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information. ...Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm ... I'm sorry, too, Vladimir. ...I'm very sorry. ... *All right*, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well. ... I am as sorry as you are, Vladimir! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are. ... So we're both sorry, all right?! ... All right.
The first "F" stands for fixed?
My interpretation made much more sense.
What? These results can't be right.
I've never even been to Kilmarnock.
Yo, Mr White!
A human simply does not have the resonant cavity to produce such notes.
Anyone can make glottal clicks at 0.18 Hz (about 5 clicks per second).
Also known as about five seconds per click.
500 kw/h per day is even more nonsensical. Energy over time cubed?
Maybe they meant kWh per day. That would almost make sense, but come on... it's not hard to get it right the first time instead of leaving people to guess which errors were made to infer the right value.
There's only about a kW of solar power available per square metre, and solar panels aren't anywhere near 100% efficient, so it can't be the output of the panels.
This is why it's bad to have the scientifically illiterate writing articles - they mangle the units beyond recognition so you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
As I recall, the heat forcing of CO2 is something like 5x that of a standard diatomic gas, ie N2 or O2, which make up a huge fraction of the atmosphere. When I ran this calculation before, CO2 was only barely a net heat forcer in the absence of water vapor. Including water vapor it slightly reduces the heat forcing of the atmosphere.
You recall incorrectly. The radiative forcing of the top three gases in the atmosphere - N2, O2 and Ar - is precisely zero as can be demonstrated from symmetry.
Argon is monatomic and therefore has no vibrational or rotational modes. N2 and O2 are symmetric about the centre of their bond, so their vibrational and rotational modes do not involve an oscillating dipole and therefore are not infrared active.
Radiative forcing comes down to infrared absorption of outgoing heat from the earth - if there is no infrared absorption, there's no radiative forcing.
I agree that 84% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change) is not unanimous, but it's getting closer every year.
Unless, ofcourse, you count the opinion of people who don't understand the science involved and blame other people for their own lack of understanding.
Like the EPA?. Tell me if you can spot the huge logic hole in this statement:
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period
Remember, these are the people writing policy and regulations concerning our rights with respect to climate change.
I think you made the point better than the parent to your post ever could.
You don't understand the science, so you call it a logic hole. In fact, if you think that's a logic hole your grasp of logic isn't too crash hot either.
From the latin vacca, or cow.
Because the first steps towards a smallpox vaccine were based on the realisation that dairy workers who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. Vaccinia is very closely related to cowpox, but has diverged from it slightly since the its widespread use as a vaccine.
Because it was so successful as a vaccine, the name vaccination stuck.
Miss that part of the story, and it's nowhere near as interesting.
... he certainly didn't present a compelling argument to ban sales of iPhones.
There's a good reason for that. I didn't attempt to present an argument to ban sales of iPhones. You well and truly missed the point.
"Merchantable quality" is a phrase that comes up in warranty law here, in that it if it fails before it's reasonably expected to, it's defective and the consumer deserves a refund. How you got "ban sales of iPhones" from that is a mystery to me. Grandparent is right - if "shit happens", it should be Apple's problem, not mine.
If you think Apple products only ever fail due to user error, the Reality Distortion Field is alive and kicking.
Warranties are also supposed to cover defects that materialise after some time and are not apparent at purchase.
Here in Australia, the law covers how long the item is reasonably expected to last, given its cost and quality. Given that the phones are often sold with two year contracts, the one year warranty is certainly deficient from that perspective. Having had two iPhones fail between the one year warranty and the two that should apply, I'm not too pleased about Apple dodging their responsibilities under our warranty law.
A $1000 phone that only lasts 13 months can't really be considered of merchantable quality, regardless of how quickly the industry progresses.
I think part of that comment must have disappeared due to the angled brackets.
I mean if less than half the population has fewer than 10 digits and less than half the population has more than 10 digits, the median is exactly ten.
Actually, both the median and the mode would be 10 unless I'm drastically under/overestimating the incidence of polydactyly and missing digits.
It's the median that is closest to the definition you're asking about, however if less than half the population has 10 digits, the median is exactly ten.
It's actually about 60,000 tonnes per year.
1360 W (solar constant) * pi * 6380000^2 (radius of earth squared) * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25 (seconds in year) / 3E8^2 (c^2) = 61000 tonnes. Marginally lower if you subtract albedo losses. If it's off by about a factor of four, the surface area of the earth might be used instead of the area of the earth's disk.
Science is sometimes just interesting, and our current understanding of the science overwhelmingly points towards anthropogenic greenhouse emissions being responsible for a quantifiable and observable degree of warming. Yes, the figures turn out to be much smaller than the dust gain and hydrogen/helium loss. But it's still an interesting calculation to perform, regardless of whether armchair physicists scream conspiracy or "green religion" nonsense.
If you do want to do the calculation, the chemical energy loss isn't the figure you should be using. It's already well understood that the direct heat output from burning fossil fuels is a very small proportion of the heat budget. It's the difference between the solar energy input and radiative energy output that you need to use - the radiative forcing as it is known.
That's about 1.6 W/m^2 right now. Times the surface area of the earth, that's about 8.2E14 W. Over a year, that's 2.6E22 J. Divided by c^2, that's about 290 tonnes. I'm not exactly what figures were used (whether different estimates of the forcing were used, which contributions to the forcing were counted as "global warming", whether variables such as El Nino, La Nina and solar variations were taken into account, and over what timescale), so there may be something I did differently. But yes, the calculation does give tons.
That you think a team of Cambridge University physicists didn't "try [math] sometime" because your arm-waving armchair explanation disagrees with their calculation is truly an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your post is indeed insightful. It sheds insight as to why climate change denial is so widespread here on slashdot.
Raising the surface temperature by 1 C isn't the same thing as raising the temperature of the entire earth by 1 C.
The calculation doesn't involve the volume, mass, or internal temperature of the earth - it's a straight radiative forcing calculation. Current estimates of the radiative forcing (difference between the solar energy* we receive from the sun and the energy we radiate into space) are about 1.6 W/m^2 from memory. Over the whole earth that's about 2.5E22 J over the course of a year. Divide by the speed of light squared, you get close to the right answer (I get about 280 tonnes, but I might be missing a minor correction factor or they might be using a lower estimate for the radiative forcing).
*Per unit time, per unit area
I wouldn't necessarily applaud them for this - operating under the laws of a specific country may well be a case of having their hands tied.
However this is the right way to go about applying government censorship, if there is such a thing. Let those in the censoring country see a "your government has banned this tweet" message, and letting everyone else see "The X government has banned this Tweet, but here it is because you're not in X" will shed light on what was being censored, will shed light on the censorship itself, and both the attention and the trivial nature of defeating censorship will let those in the relevant country see it anyway.
That is something that arguably can be applauded.
Why not? The Pepsi I mix it with tastes flat otherwise.
[ducks]
That range isn't an uncertainty, it's an ambiguity.
Because of overlaps with other contributions, saturation effects at some wavelengths and other non-linearities, the answers to the questions "How much of a greenhouse effect would CO2 provide on its own" and "How much would the greenhouse effect reduce if we removed all CO2" are different. The net forcing is very well characterised, both from known absorption characteristics and spectral measurements - it's the feedbacks to the system which contribute the uncertainty.
Not necessarily.
As someone on Vodafone in Australia, this should immediately have started ringing alarm bells.
No way they'd have the problems fixed in 24 hours.
I'd have thought 3D televisions were by definition - in 3D mode they have a left image and a right image. Send different sources to the left and right channels and the TV won't know the difference.
All you have to do is instead of having two pairs of glasses each with a left and right filter, have one pair with two left filters, and another with two right filters. Surely it's been done before.
It's not a lack of silicon in the Earth's crust that pushes recycling into making economic sense, it's the tremendous amount of energy that is required to refine silicates into solar-grade silicon, as well as the associated chemical processing and carbon dioxide emissions.
To get metallurgical-grade silicon, the SiO2 is reacted with carbon in an arc furnace, producing carbon dioxide directly, but more importantly indirectly from the energy input to the arc furnace. To purify it to the point of solar-grade silicon, there are several more high-energy steps involved (reacting it with HCl and back again, then melting and recrystalising it for the more efficient crystalline silicon, etc.).
It generally takes a few years of output to make up for the energy put in to make the panels, and most of that is the processing of silicon itself. Recycling the silicon at the end of its life cycle would cut down on that by quite a lot.