Yes, your eyes are pushed away from the light. So is the rest of you, at least the parts the light hits. That is the idea behind a solar sail. Of course, the force is minute, and hard to even measure in the atmosphere.
I would imagine "safe distance" and "postition that interferes" leaves plenty of wiggle room. The crux of the matter is whether the cops will define these terms in a reasonable way, or in a way as to minimize the risk of being filmed. The result remains to be seen.
i have to have some apathy for them if they deal with idiots who can't even read or comprehend what they read, on a regular basis.
I don't think the problem is not understanding, but expecting the police to go unresonably far to interpret the law in their favor, and disregard the law if they can't do that. This expectation is build on countless news stories of the police doing just that. Whether that is a reasonable expectation of real world police conduct, I cannot tell.
What was posted (there might be more in TFA, but hell if I am going to RTFA) doesn't pin it down to more than "interferes" and "a safe distance", which leaves plenty of wiggle room for the police to act as they do now.
What is to stop the officers from interpreting that as:
"a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of public/police"="a postion where they can see what is going on."
"move to a position that will not interfere"="move them to where they can not see what is going on"
"a safe distance"="enough distance that they cannot see what is going on"
Are you going to argue with them when they claim that? Even when they threaten to arrest you for not complying with their order? Do you expect a judge to agree with you? Do you expect the district atorney to file charges against cops who interpret the order like that?
So if I say "red and other colors", it is clear that red is not a color? Anyway, I am glad we cleared up what you meant.
Once that's accomplished, multiply the extraction quantity with the leakage factor and post it here so you actually contribute something.
So I am supposed to be doing you work now? Good luck with convincing people that way.
Of course, I would also need to divide by the area over which the spill occurs, integrate over the time and take biodegradation, photodegradation, evaporation and other partitioning into account. Feel free to answer when you have done that, and compared the damage to the economic value of the production.
Yes, there are large problems with fracking. I think the fate of the fracking fluid that returns to the surface is a big one (what do you do with massive amounts of water which contained nastiness from the start and has now been in contact with oil?). I think making sure the wells are constructed correct is a huge problem, especially in the US due to lacking regulation. Regulation is needed, as the industry clearly can't regulate itself.
However, the burning water is (probably) not a problem with fracking. All it does is derailing the discussion we should be having about the real problems, and make it easy for people who want to believe the gas companies to dismiss anything the critics have to say. Especially when the most publicized case have been shown to not have anything to do with fracking, but people keep linking to it anyway.
It most certainly is: In the most publicised case, it has been shown that the gas was from natural sources. Somehow Gasland, where the clip is from, forgot to mention that.
Of course, other cases might still result from fracking, but if there are many of them, why choose one that provably isn't as the poster child?
Its easy to pass off all the examples of polluted water and air is all. "Oh, well, you Mr Treehugger guy, your well was skanky all along, you're just blaming us for it, PROVE that you actually had drinkable water last year."
Oh, I see, I'm sorry, what was I thinking, asking people to back up their allegations in stead of accepting them at face value. Especially when other such allegations have turned out to be wrong.
I mean, yes, there's annecdote, but there's also a lot of plain old evidence that fraking in contaminating acquifers. Just because some geologists say "gosh that's unlikely" means jack.
Where? In the only case I can find where this has been established, the conditions were pretty unusual. It was much shallower than normal, and there was no (very little?) cap rock. I agree that we should stop fracking such places, or even that it shouldn't have been allowed, until we have a better idea what went wrong, and if we can do better in the future. However, I do not think that that should put a hold on all fracking.
If all computer sellers agree to not sell any computers for less than 2.000 $, that is illegal collution. If all welders make the same kind of agreement with what they offer to sell, that is somehow not covered by antitrust laws.
By the same measure, monopolies would be free to act in ways that are damaging to the consumer, and are illegal today. Of course, some* libertarians will not have a problem with this.
The point of fracking is to make small fractures in the oil and gas carrying rock to allow them to flow to the bore-hole. These cracks are made by injecting high-pressure fluid, mostly water. However, in order to get the oil/gas out, you need to remove the pressure. That will make the cracks close. To avoid this, sand is mixed with the water to keep the cracks open. However, for this to work, the sand must get in to the cracks, which means that the water must get in to the cracks. Water has a high surface tension, so if no surfactants are added, the water will not get very far into the cracks, so the sand will not get very far into the cracks, so the cracks will mostly close when the pressure is removed, so the fracking will not be very effective.
The additives also do other things, such as controlling the viscosity.
Another point is that it wouldn't thelp very much to use pure water. When the pressure is removed, a lot of the water which was put down into the bore hole will come up again. Most of this will have been in contact with oil-containing rocks, and will be polluted with oil. So even if you put pure water down, you will not get pure water up.
The theory is that investors will be more willing to invest in a company trying to find such a diagnosis if there is a better chance of the company finding it making a profit. That would lead to more resources being spent finding diagnosis mechanisms, which would lead to more being invented/discovered. If you have a better idea of how ensure investments in medicine, feel free to share. I like this idea, even though it builds heavily on the existing patent system, to the degree where it doesn't eliminate all monopoly protection.
m(brain)/m(body) is used as a rough estimate of intelligence in animals. The encaphalization ratio, which is what is used in TFA, is more precise, but harder to calculate. Both of them is rough enough to only work for comparisons between species, not between individuals within the same species.
With hydrogen, you have losses simply from it diffusing through whatever you try to keep it in. Furthermore, there are not good ways to store it in a moving vehicle. High-pressure tanks are to heavy, low-pressure tanks take up too much space, and metal hydrides and liquification is either to heavy or to energy-inefficient. Without some big breakthrough, it is not going to happen. And if we postulate a big breakthrough, that might as well happen with batteries, or alcohols, or any other techniques.
I would imagine riding a horse is far less energy efficient than driving in a car running on biofuel. Animals need constant energy upkeep, and you can't use them for a very large percentage of the time. Furthermore, horse are horribly ineffective, as they eat grass but don't use the cellulose.
I only know the situation in Denmark, but here, Carlsberg gives quite a lot of equipment to new bars, on the condition that the bar only sell draught beer marketed by Carlsberg.
Certainty of guilt is not the same thing. Reasonable doubt is a fine standard.
But what is reasonable doubt? If there is a 0.01% chance that a person is not guilty, is the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
If they do find any wrongful convictions, misguided police and prosecutors will be at the heart of each one. Will they always be malicious? Absolutely not, but they will still be negligent.
Doesn't this mean that nothing is beyond reasonable doubt? If somebody was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it wouldn't be negligent to punish them, would it?
That depends on the waist size, or smallest diameter anywhere on the beam. This is normally (a bit less than) the width of the beam at the source. If you can get a 10 m mirror, and are content to hit a 10 m target, you can shoot pretty far. Of course, the total amount of energy in this system is not tha impressive, as somebody else pointed out, it is enouh to turn 1 liter of boiling water into vapor.
in the furure, please read any linked material before jumping to conclusions like that. Who knows how many people have gotten the wrong idea from reading your uninformed comment.
The linked material says "asking them about if they had ever forced a woman to have sex against her will.", it doesn't detail it as physically or through drugs. Is there a source for the phrasing of the question in the study?
If [...] 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 guilty people go free so that [...] any [...] innocent person [...] don't lose [their] freedom it's a net win.
So we should not convict a person if there is a 0.01% chance that they are innocent? I would imagine that kind of certainty being quite hard to obtain, so wouldn't the logical consequnce be that we should not convict anybody? What kind of evidence would you demand before you would accept convicting somebody?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, your eyes are pushed away from the light. So is the rest of you, at least the parts the light hits. That is the idea behind a solar sail. Of course, the force is minute, and hard to even measure in the atmosphere.
i have to have some apathy for them if they deal with idiots who can't even read or comprehend what they read, on a regular basis.
I don't think the problem is not understanding, but expecting the police to go unresonably far to interpret the law in their favor, and disregard the law if they can't do that. This expectation is build on countless news stories of the police doing just that. Whether that is a reasonable expectation of real world police conduct, I cannot tell.
What was posted (there might be more in TFA, but hell if I am going to RTFA) doesn't pin it down to more than "interferes" and "a safe distance", which leaves plenty of wiggle room for the police to act as they do now.
What is to stop the officers from interpreting that as:
"a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of public/police"="a postion where they can see what is going on."
"move to a position that will not interfere"="move them to where they can not see what is going on"
"a safe distance"="enough distance that they cannot see what is going on"
Are you going to argue with them when they claim that? Even when they threaten to arrest you for not complying with their order? Do you expect a judge to agree with you? Do you expect the district atorney to file charges against cops who interpret the order like that?
Once that's accomplished, multiply the extraction quantity with the leakage factor and post it here so you actually contribute something.
So I am supposed to be doing you work now? Good luck with convincing people that way.
Of course, I would also need to divide by the area over which the spill occurs, integrate over the time and take biodegradation, photodegradation, evaporation and other partitioning into account. Feel free to answer when you have done that, and compared the damage to the economic value of the production.
Yes, there are large problems with fracking. I think the fate of the fracking fluid that returns to the surface is a big one (what do you do with massive amounts of water which contained nastiness from the start and has now been in contact with oil?). I think making sure the wells are constructed correct is a huge problem, especially in the US due to lacking regulation. Regulation is needed, as the industry clearly can't regulate itself.
However, the burning water is (probably) not a problem with fracking. All it does is derailing the discussion we should be having about the real problems, and make it easy for people who want to believe the gas companies to dismiss anything the critics have to say. Especially when the most publicized case have been shown to not have anything to do with fracking, but people keep linking to it anyway.
You should never talk to the police, for any reason, other than to identify yourself.
And to ask if you are free to leave.
If something happens and you are a witness, or worse, involved in a crime, wait for the trial.
Or get in touch with your lawyer, and run it through them. And have them present when talking to the police.
Never tell the police anything. It NEVER benefits you.
That pretty much sums it up, yes.
leaking methane and other potential endocrine disruptors
Methane is a potential endocrine disruptor? Do you have any citations for that?
It most certainly is: In the most publicised case, it has been shown that the gas was from natural sources. Somehow Gasland, where the clip is from, forgot to mention that.
Of course, other cases might still result from fracking, but if there are many of them, why choose one that provably isn't as the poster child?
Its easy to pass off all the examples of polluted water and air is all. "Oh, well, you Mr Treehugger guy, your well was skanky all along, you're just blaming us for it, PROVE that you actually had drinkable water last year."
Oh, I see, I'm sorry, what was I thinking, asking people to back up their allegations in stead of accepting them at face value. Especially when other such allegations have turned out to be wrong.
I mean, yes, there's annecdote, but there's also a lot of plain old evidence that fraking in contaminating acquifers. Just because some geologists say "gosh that's unlikely" means jack.
Where? In the only case I can find where this has been established, the conditions were pretty unusual. It was much shallower than normal, and there was no (very little?) cap rock. I agree that we should stop fracking such places, or even that it shouldn't have been allowed, until we have a better idea what went wrong, and if we can do better in the future. However, I do not think that that should put a hold on all fracking.
If all computer sellers agree to not sell any computers for less than 2.000 $, that is illegal collution. If all welders make the same kind of agreement with what they offer to sell, that is somehow not covered by antitrust laws.
By the same measure, monopolies would be free to act in ways that are damaging to the consumer, and are illegal today. Of course, some* libertarians will not have a problem with this.
*Depending on the definition of libertarians.
The point of fracking is to make small fractures in the oil and gas carrying rock to allow them to flow to the bore-hole. These cracks are made by injecting high-pressure fluid, mostly water. However, in order to get the oil/gas out, you need to remove the pressure. That will make the cracks close. To avoid this, sand is mixed with the water to keep the cracks open. However, for this to work, the sand must get in to the cracks, which means that the water must get in to the cracks. Water has a high surface tension, so if no surfactants are added, the water will not get very far into the cracks, so the sand will not get very far into the cracks, so the cracks will mostly close when the pressure is removed, so the fracking will not be very effective.
The additives also do other things, such as controlling the viscosity.
Another point is that it wouldn't thelp very much to use pure water. When the pressure is removed, a lot of the water which was put down into the bore hole will come up again. Most of this will have been in contact with oil-containing rocks, and will be polluted with oil. So even if you put pure water down, you will not get pure water up.
The theory is that investors will be more willing to invest in a company trying to find such a diagnosis if there is a better chance of the company finding it making a profit. That would lead to more resources being spent finding diagnosis mechanisms, which would lead to more being invented/discovered. If you have a better idea of how ensure investments in medicine, feel free to share. I like this idea, even though it builds heavily on the existing patent system, to the degree where it doesn't eliminate all monopoly protection.
Or they know about the Streisand effect.
There seem to be many possibilities as to what caulk is. What would this caulk be made of? Would it be legal to put that in a food product?
m(brain)/m(body) is used as a rough estimate of intelligence in animals. The encaphalization ratio, which is what is used in TFA, is more precise, but harder to calculate. Both of them is rough enough to only work for comparisons between species, not between individuals within the same species.
Clinical trials and research many times done on the taxpayer's dime at publicly funded universities and colleges.
No it isn't. Typically, publically funded research identifies the targets, drug companies makes the potential drugs and pays for the clinical trials.
As opposed to the total energy input of feeding a horse?
With hydrogen, you have losses simply from it diffusing through whatever you try to keep it in. Furthermore, there are not good ways to store it in a moving vehicle. High-pressure tanks are to heavy, low-pressure tanks take up too much space, and metal hydrides and liquification is either to heavy or to energy-inefficient. Without some big breakthrough, it is not going to happen. And if we postulate a big breakthrough, that might as well happen with batteries, or alcohols, or any other techniques.
I would imagine riding a horse is far less energy efficient than driving in a car running on biofuel. Animals need constant energy upkeep, and you can't use them for a very large percentage of the time. Furthermore, horse are horribly ineffective, as they eat grass but don't use the cellulose.
I only know the situation in Denmark, but here, Carlsberg gives quite a lot of equipment to new bars, on the condition that the bar only sell draught beer marketed by Carlsberg.
Certainty of guilt is not the same thing. Reasonable doubt is a fine standard.
But what is reasonable doubt? If there is a 0.01% chance that a person is not guilty, is the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
If they do find any wrongful convictions, misguided police and prosecutors will be at the heart of each one. Will they always be malicious? Absolutely not, but they will still be negligent.
Doesn't this mean that nothing is beyond reasonable doubt? If somebody was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it wouldn't be negligent to punish them, would it?
That depends on the waist size, or smallest diameter anywhere on the beam. This is normally (a bit less than) the width of the beam at the source. If you can get a 10 m mirror, and are content to hit a 10 m target, you can shoot pretty far. Of course, the total amount of energy in this system is not tha impressive, as somebody else pointed out, it is enouh to turn 1 liter of boiling water into vapor.
in the furure, please read any linked material before jumping to conclusions like that. Who knows how many people have gotten the wrong idea from reading your uninformed comment.
The linked material says "asking them about if they had ever forced a woman to have sex against her will.", it doesn't detail it as physically or through drugs. Is there a source for the phrasing of the question in the study?
If [...] 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 guilty people go free so that [...] any [...] innocent person [...] don't lose [their] freedom it's a net win.
So we should not convict a person if there is a 0.01% chance that they are innocent? I would imagine that kind of certainty being quite hard to obtain, so wouldn't the logical consequnce be that we should not convict anybody? What kind of evidence would you demand before you would accept convicting somebody?