My comments were here http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2782855&cid=39662181. If you read it you will find that I was not denying the science.
I am uncommitted as to whether GW is real. Anecdotally, considering the last few years, am dubious. However as an energy engineer, I cannot deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 concentration has gone from 0.028% to nearly 0.04% and this would have a warming effect.
And btw engineers are real scientists. They have extra qualifications like an honors degree in reality on top of all that physics and math and chemistry that "theoretical" scientists have.
You commented on "Chinese Firms Ignore Licensing Mandate For Stem Cell Therapy" that stem cell therapy was "smoke and mirrors" (well words to that effect). Could you explain why it seems to work on horses? Or is the whole article fake?
in the first place, we cannot stop using carbon fuels without starving about three quarters of the world's people. Even to reduce carbon use by 50% would cost about one billion people. (think fertilizers, farm machinery, irrigation pumps, food transport, refrigeration and all the support infrastructure for the above).
In the second place, what is it that we must be alarmed about? About less than a meter rise of sea level by 2100AD? (so ask the people from Holland to build dykes.) By a few new deserts? (What about the existing deserts that will become fertile from increased rainfall). About a few oldies getting heat stroke? (buy them air conditioners.)
There is no way that the cost of all those remedies would even reach one tenth of the cost of not using carbon based fuels.
And in any case, photo electricity and energy storage costs should reach grid parity within a decade or two without any subsidies at all. (subsidies might reduce that time by about 5% at a cost of $mega billions.
The real reason that NASA gets those $billions climate subsidy is so that it's research will allow government to levy a beaut new TAX. And it will get kudos for levying a MORALLY justified tax.
But then I am alarmist too. As soon as I hear about government subsidy for research, I automatically suspect a justification for a new tax.
I just bet that Huawei networking has really neat built in ways to censor all sorts of content from pirated stuff, child porn, maybe even (gasp!) political comments. So maybe our (Oz) government really isn't interested in censorship?
Nah. On second thoughts, they were just too dumb to notice the opportunity.
So when John Howard banned guns what happened? A lot less people got killed by guns, but all of the people saved were suicides. What happened was the suicides just found another way to do it. On the other hand, lots of criminals now have guns, and are shooting them off in weekly "drive by" incidents.
A few years ago a home invader was shot dead by a pensioner in Queensland and got off scott free. Over the next few years home invasions in Australia increased in all states but (you guessed it) Queensland, I wonder why?
A bloke called John Lott wrote a research paper called "more guns less crime (see " http://www.barvennon.com/lott.pdf2 ) which proved that guns reduce most crimes. The best efforts of "liberals" in the last fifteen years have not disproved his evidence.
Yeah, great idea. So the only people who have drugs and guns are the criminals? And they know that we are unarmed, because we are the law abiding people?
The motion picture and SOPA people are quite desperate. A substitute for the closed megauploads site was up within days. I suspect the move by artists to sell direct is gaining traction, which will put paid to the agent business.
Since the fall of the Shah, US foreign policy is biased against Iran. At least that is the opinion I have formed after following the Israeli blog http://samsonblinded.org/blog/ . For instance, Saudi Arabia can get Nukes, but practically nobody reports it. OTOH from comments already posted on slashdot, this sale to Iran appears technically trivial
The technology is out of Pandora's box. It cannot be wound back by legislation. Even if government doesn't use it, others will.
It should be fairly easy to place "sentinels" on personal data that will warn me when someone is investigating me. So the parent who is worried about security for a teenager will know when someone (possibly exactly who) is taking an unwarranted interest.
Those who fight the spread of this technology also fight the development of an active defense. Appointing guardians will not work.
The real problem is that the teaching process is integrated with the examination process.
Take the MCSE as a contrary example. How you learn the material is your problem. You may go out and buy a load of textbooks for $50 and then, when you are ready, apply (pay $100 or whatever) to do an exam, or you can pay $5000 attend a course and do the same ($100) exam.
So I should be able to attend MIT and get a BE, or go online and just present at the exam, pay an "examination fee" and get my BE. (of course there is a lab component, but there should be an alternative stream like in medicine, where the graduate has a MB BS = bachelor medicine + bachelor surgery).
Unions do not like this option, because it means less paying members. The elite (liberals) do not like it, because poor people will get high qualifications. The poor but clever students would love it, but they have no political power.
More likely than federal public servants being sacked for wrongdoing is a witch hunt to find out who leaked the binary. Oh and also an attempt will be made to hire a proper programmer in place of their script kiddy.
Come on. Using all that emotive language. Three billion tonnes is three billion cubic meters, which is three cubic kilometers which is less than a cubic mile.
Isnt the reason for copyright to grant secure profits to reward the innovator? Since the time to market and the market size has increased substantially, should not the life of copyrights and patents be reduced?
Alternatively, why does the argument matter? The present cost of stopping and reversing GW far exceeds the cost of repairing any damage that it might do. otoh it is predictable from the cost curve of photoelectricity that grid parity will crossover within 1-2 decades. Just ignore the "problem" and it will go away.
When the laws governing patents were first written, the world was a slower place. Now a novel technology can be implemented in days to months, rather than half a decade. Also the market is much bigger, meaning a higher return. I suggest that the life of patent and copyright laws should be reduced. A few drug companies will bitch, but maybe the drug testing procedures need review.
Having been addicted for a period to WoW I could imagine that it would give you experience and practice in exactly those skills needed to do what this guy did. Organizing ammo and weapons, planning so no enemy comes unexpected, attacking two targets, even the camoflage.
Slashdot Mirror
My comments were here http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2782855&cid=39662181. If you read it you will find that I was not denying the science. I am uncommitted as to whether GW is real. Anecdotally, considering the last few years, am dubious. However as an energy engineer, I cannot deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 concentration has gone from 0.028% to nearly 0.04% and this would have a warming effect. And btw engineers are real scientists. They have extra qualifications like an honors degree in reality on top of all that physics and math and chemistry that "theoretical" scientists have.
I said nearly the same thing yesterday, and my score has been going backwards ever since.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/12/176200/ex-nasa-employees-accuse-agency-of-extreme-position-on-climate-change
So good luck when all the alarmists wake up!
You commented on "Chinese Firms Ignore Licensing Mandate For Stem Cell Therapy" that stem cell therapy was "smoke and mirrors" (well words to that effect). Could you explain why it seems to work on horses? Or is the whole article fake?
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22998/
Could you please advise, for the record, where it says that "Leighton Steward" "organized" this letter.
So CO2 causes global warming. So what?
in the first place, we cannot stop using carbon fuels without starving about three quarters of the world's people. Even to reduce carbon use by 50% would cost about one billion people. (think fertilizers, farm machinery, irrigation pumps, food transport, refrigeration and all the support infrastructure for the above).
In the second place, what is it that we must be alarmed about? About less than a meter rise of sea level by 2100AD? (so ask the people from Holland to build dykes.) By a few new deserts? (What about the existing deserts that will become fertile from increased rainfall). About a few oldies getting heat stroke? (buy them air conditioners.)
There is no way that the cost of all those remedies would even reach one tenth of the cost of not using carbon based fuels.
And in any case, photo electricity and energy storage costs should reach grid parity within a decade or two without any subsidies at all. (subsidies might reduce that time by about 5% at a cost of $mega billions.
The real reason that NASA gets those $billions climate subsidy is so that it's research will allow government to levy a beaut new TAX. And it will get kudos for levying a MORALLY justified tax.
But then I am alarmist too. As soon as I hear about government subsidy for research, I automatically suspect a justification for a new tax.
Assume two lakes with a water level difference of 2 meters (a bit over 6 feet).
20000 watts = mgh
Where m = kg/s, g=9.8, h=2m
Solving for m gives 1000 kg/s (1000 liters sec - about 400 gallons/sec)
So 100% efficient needs one tonne water per second. That size about 50% efficient.
That's a pretty big turbine. 2 tonnes of water a second. A NS a lot of water.
Huh? Didn't he (or you) mean North Korea? Isn't that the rocket the Japanese threaten they will shoot down?
I just bet that Huawei networking has really neat built in ways to censor all sorts of content from pirated stuff, child porn, maybe even (gasp!) political comments. So maybe our (Oz) government really isn't interested in censorship?
Nah. On second thoughts, they were just too dumb to notice the opportunity.
So when John Howard banned guns what happened? A lot less people got killed by guns, but all of the people saved were suicides. What happened was the suicides just found another way to do it. On the other hand, lots of criminals now have guns, and are shooting them off in weekly "drive by" incidents.
A few years ago a home invader was shot dead by a pensioner in Queensland and got off scott free. Over the next few years home invasions in Australia increased in all states but (you guessed it) Queensland, I wonder why?
A bloke called John Lott wrote a research paper called "more guns less crime (see " http://www.barvennon.com/lott.pdf2 ) which proved that guns reduce most crimes. The best efforts of "liberals" in the last fifteen years have not disproved his evidence.
Yeah, great idea. So the only people who have drugs and guns are the criminals? And they know that we are unarmed, because we are the law abiding people?
Comics are a great educator. For instance SMBC encapsulates just how desperate are the efforts to stop piracy, see http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2508#comic
Or consider how corporations control government regulatory processes, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2497#comic (btw I had to look up "regulatory Capture" to fully appreciate the science behind that strip.)
Who cares about "like"? I trust Abbott more than I trust Gillard. I like Gillard more than I like Abbott. So I'll vote for Abbott.
The motion picture and SOPA people are quite desperate. A substitute for the closed megauploads site was up within days. I suspect the move by artists to sell direct is gaining traction, which will put paid to the agent business.
Since the fall of the Shah, US foreign policy is biased against Iran. At least that is the opinion I have formed after following the Israeli blog http://samsonblinded.org/blog/ . For instance, Saudi Arabia can get Nukes, but practically nobody reports it. OTOH from comments already posted on slashdot, this sale to Iran appears technically trivial
The technology is out of Pandora's box. It cannot be wound back by legislation. Even if government doesn't use it, others will.
It should be fairly easy to place "sentinels" on personal data that will warn me when someone is investigating me. So the parent who is worried about security for a teenager will know when someone (possibly exactly who) is taking an unwarranted interest.
Those who fight the spread of this technology also fight the development of an active defense. Appointing guardians will not work.
Qui autem custodit Virgil?
The real problem is that the teaching process is integrated with the examination process. Take the MCSE as a contrary example. How you learn the material is your problem. You may go out and buy a load of textbooks for $50 and then, when you are ready, apply (pay $100 or whatever) to do an exam, or you can pay $5000 attend a course and do the same ($100) exam. So I should be able to attend MIT and get a BE, or go online and just present at the exam, pay an "examination fee" and get my BE. (of course there is a lab component, but there should be an alternative stream like in medicine, where the graduate has a MB BS = bachelor medicine + bachelor surgery). Unions do not like this option, because it means less paying members. The elite (liberals) do not like it, because poor people will get high qualifications. The poor but clever students would love it, but they have no political power.
More likely than federal public servants being sacked for wrongdoing is a witch hunt to find out who leaked the binary. Oh and also an attempt will be made to hire a proper programmer in place of their script kiddy.
Come on. Using all that emotive language. Three billion tonnes is three billion cubic meters, which is three cubic kilometers which is less than a cubic mile.
Ask Julian Assange. He was the second victim after copyrights. Probably real original reason that any seizures happened.
Isnt the reason for copyright to grant secure profits to reward the innovator? Since the time to market and the market size has increased substantially, should not the life of copyrights and patents be reduced?
Alternatively, why does the argument matter? The present cost of stopping and reversing GW far exceeds the cost of repairing any damage that it might do. otoh it is predictable from the cost curve of photoelectricity that grid parity will crossover within 1-2 decades. Just ignore the "problem" and it will go away.
If you have steam, why bother to turn it into electricity? Steam delivered to each wheel and through a turbine or pistons would be more efficient.
When the laws governing patents were first written, the world was a slower place. Now a novel technology can be implemented in days to months, rather than half a decade. Also the market is much bigger, meaning a higher return. I suggest that the life of patent and copyright laws should be reduced. A few drug companies will bitch, but maybe the drug testing procedures need review.
Having been addicted for a period to WoW I could imagine that it would give you experience and practice in exactly those skills needed to do what this guy did. Organizing ammo and weapons, planning so no enemy comes unexpected, attacking two targets, even the camoflage.
Is this a case for SuperWikiLeaks?