Well, it starts out with Ecclesiastes, which again takes up Isaiah. However, do you imply that you only behave ethically because you believe there is someone waiting on the other side? I don't want to go into details about what light that sheds on the personality of someone who derives his ethics, or rather morality, from such a worldview. I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at here.
Guess so - put em into a Piper Cub every couple of months. However, I am reluctant to place blame at this point. You gotta remember that they were inside the mother of all thunderstorms - turbulence would have all your indications fluctuate all over the place. They should not have been there in the first place. Why they were there is another quite interesting question.
Increasing throttle is half of it - and they did that. To quickly regain speed, you push the nose down, too. That did not happen. And that is actually interesting. Either they could not do it because they lost attitude control at this point, or they thought they could not do it, because they thought they had no altitude to sacrifice for speed.
Actually, this makes the most sense of all I heard so far. Since - as I had to learn by painful correction to my mistaken initial assumptions - the stall warning went off, but the system still recorded the PF maintaining and even forcing a nose up attitude, loss of control surface movement seems somewhat probable. The throttle went to TO/GA, so they definitely tried stall recovery - which makes it quite improbable that they would have willingly forced nose up. Unless they were seriously mistaken about altitude and thought they could not sacrifice a single foot for speed. Nose-down attitude for stall recovery should be pretty much standard procedure, after all.
You are aware that there is not only a statistical connection between CO2 concentration and temperature, but also a physical mechanism that you can test in the laboratory? In your analogy - the tribesman actually took a look at the wiring of the car and found that the radio is not wired into the starter circuit? I can measure the IR spectrum of CO2, actually, I, personally DID measure it. Physical chemistry lab II, back then, before the war. We also know the mechanism of radiation equilibria. As to the Mindcontrolled causes global warming hypothesis - first, you cannot propose any mechanism. Second, you cannot deliver any correlation - global warming started before I was born. So, you have no grounds to propose this hypothesis on at all. Dismissed. Try harder.
True, losing airspeed indication makes the situation very difficult, but not impossible to handle. As long as you know altitude, attitude and throttle setting, as well as the resulting climb/sink rate for a certain trim, you can still work it out. In the middle of a thunderstorm out of hell, at night, with hell breaking loose all around you, well... yeah, then all bets are off. But generally speaking, you can handle a plane without airspeed indication, and that is trained for.
I stand corrected. Didn't read the linked article and only went by what a local news source reported, which, quite obviously, was utter crap. Interesting though. Why would the PF maintain nose-up after a stall warning? Especially when he went TO/GA to get out of it? Did he believe that he had no altitude to work with?
At this point, I would not conclude that anything is wrong with the original research - only that more experiments are needed. Pretty standard. No peer reviewer tries to reproduce experiments, usually. They just offer methodological criticism. And the criticism offered so far could pretty much be overcome by some discussion with the reviewer. The original research is not the strongest, but neither is the criticism. It is interesting enough stuff to publish it, if only to get the discussion going and more people interested in picking up the subject. I see no failure there. Business as usual.
The interesting part is the fact that they don't report any stall warning being heard on the CVR. I am not sure how it is implemented in Airbus planes, but the stall warning horn and stick shaker should make quite some ruckus that should be detectable on the CVR. This opens up more questions than it answers for now.
Yeah, can't see any causality there so far. The speeds given in the press releases I read only show that there was a stall. If this happened due to faulty speed readings, pilot error - maybe due to loss of orientation in a very confused environment -, or the pilot fighting an actually correct behavior of the plane is completely open so far.
True. Small nitpick, though - they wouldn't compete against carbon, but against phosphorus. They are still carbon based, but supposedly work with As instead of P in their DNA and in their energy metabolism.
You can be sure that they are trying to reproduce it - it just takes time. Establishing a completely new system takes not weeks but months or years and leaves some PhD candidates along the road. We'll see more definitive data next year or so.
Pretty much how it works. At this point, you do methodological criticism. Everyone gets hit with that - in most cases it doesn't get that public, though. That's the price you pay for doing press releases in that scope. I personally just got my publications ripped apart in pretty much closed conferences. Reproducing it comes later - establishing a system to work with weird extremophiles takes time. The tests for reproducibility will take a couple of months more and burn up some PhD candidates, as usual... Then we'll see.
Well, the fact that we never get identical conditions is covered by the theory of errors. Don't see how similar conditions are not present in climate science. The basic point is, after all, to make a prediction and see if it comes true. That's what is happening.
It's a normal part of the scientific process. Holding a PhD in Biochemistry myself, with focus on Biophysical Chemistry, and I kinda agree with your son there. Interesting data, but needs some more rigor. But, well, that is not unusual - works like this all the time. We'll see more papers on this soon, then we'll learn more.
Your wit is scalding. Now how about learing some facts, so you can use it to some useful end? Starting point: The scientific community does not give a rats arse about Al Gore or the left. Don't burn yourself on those strawmen.
Nice way of showing that you didn't remotely follow the science there. Protip: Watts is not part of it. There are multiple data sets, multiple models, a strong, controversial discussion about the building of said models - and still, a consensus on the basic facts, because they are bloody obvious by now. If you think reproducibility means "taking two different earths", you don't have the slightest grasp about what science actually is. This is actually so exceedingly dumb that i fail to grasp how someone can come up with that argument.
True. Everyone should at least have done it once, to get the full appreciation. These days I only slaughter the fish I catch - if I catch them, they seem to be a step ahead of me lately - but growing up in deep country and being used to slaughtering whatever gets on the table gives you some perspective.
Yeah, works about the same - I don't get the trademark angle though. I agree that they have good cause to want to stop a news agency associating them with an activity they are not ultimately responsible for. But why take the trademark route for that? It's slightly weird, imo. I'd aim for libel, not for trademark infringement. But that might be specifics of the respective legal systems here.
True. How trademark law could be used to block news photographs in newspapers is beyond me, however - and I am working in the IP field, not in the US though. What category would they even register for?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it starts out with Ecclesiastes, which again takes up Isaiah. However, do you imply that you only behave ethically because you believe there is someone waiting on the other side? I don't want to go into details about what light that sheds on the personality of someone who derives his ethics, or rather morality, from such a worldview. I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at here.
Guess so - put em into a Piper Cub every couple of months. However, I am reluctant to place blame at this point. You gotta remember that they were inside the mother of all thunderstorms - turbulence would have all your indications fluctuate all over the place. They should not have been there in the first place. Why they were there is another quite interesting question.
Increasing throttle is half of it - and they did that. To quickly regain speed, you push the nose down, too. That did not happen. And that is actually interesting. Either they could not do it because they lost attitude control at this point, or they thought they could not do it, because they thought they had no altitude to sacrifice for speed.
Actually, this makes the most sense of all I heard so far. Since - as I had to learn by painful correction to my mistaken initial assumptions - the stall warning went off, but the system still recorded the PF maintaining and even forcing a nose up attitude, loss of control surface movement seems somewhat probable. The throttle went to TO/GA, so they definitely tried stall recovery - which makes it quite improbable that they would have willingly forced nose up. Unless they were seriously mistaken about altitude and thought they could not sacrifice a single foot for speed. Nose-down attitude for stall recovery should be pretty much standard procedure, after all.
You are aware that there is not only a statistical connection between CO2 concentration and temperature, but also a physical mechanism that you can test in the laboratory? In your analogy - the tribesman actually took a look at the wiring of the car and found that the radio is not wired into the starter circuit? I can measure the IR spectrum of CO2, actually, I, personally DID measure it. Physical chemistry lab II, back then, before the war. We also know the mechanism of radiation equilibria. As to the Mindcontrolled causes global warming hypothesis - first, you cannot propose any mechanism. Second, you cannot deliver any correlation - global warming started before I was born. So, you have no grounds to propose this hypothesis on at all. Dismissed. Try harder.
Sounds like the good old "loose lips sink ships". Except for the fact that we are not in a world war, where it actually made sense.
True, losing airspeed indication makes the situation very difficult, but not impossible to handle. As long as you know altitude, attitude and throttle setting, as well as the resulting climb/sink rate for a certain trim, you can still work it out. In the middle of a thunderstorm out of hell, at night, with hell breaking loose all around you, well... yeah, then all bets are off. But generally speaking, you can handle a plane without airspeed indication, and that is trained for.
I stand corrected. Didn't read the linked article and only went by what a local news source reported, which, quite obviously, was utter crap. Interesting though. Why would the PF maintain nose-up after a stall warning? Especially when he went TO/GA to get out of it? Did he believe that he had no altitude to work with?
At this point, I would not conclude that anything is wrong with the original research - only that more experiments are needed. Pretty standard. No peer reviewer tries to reproduce experiments, usually. They just offer methodological criticism. And the criticism offered so far could pretty much be overcome by some discussion with the reviewer. The original research is not the strongest, but neither is the criticism. It is interesting enough stuff to publish it, if only to get the discussion going and more people interested in picking up the subject. I see no failure there. Business as usual.
The interesting part is the fact that they don't report any stall warning being heard on the CVR. I am not sure how it is implemented in Airbus planes, but the stall warning horn and stick shaker should make quite some ruckus that should be detectable on the CVR. This opens up more questions than it answers for now.
Yeah, can't see any causality there so far. The speeds given in the press releases I read only show that there was a stall. If this happened due to faulty speed readings, pilot error - maybe due to loss of orientation in a very confused environment -, or the pilot fighting an actually correct behavior of the plane is completely open so far.
True. Small nitpick, though - they wouldn't compete against carbon, but against phosphorus. They are still carbon based, but supposedly work with As instead of P in their DNA and in their energy metabolism.
You can be sure that they are trying to reproduce it - it just takes time. Establishing a completely new system takes not weeks but months or years and leaves some PhD candidates along the road. We'll see more definitive data next year or so.
Pretty much how it works. At this point, you do methodological criticism. Everyone gets hit with that - in most cases it doesn't get that public, though. That's the price you pay for doing press releases in that scope. I personally just got my publications ripped apart in pretty much closed conferences. Reproducing it comes later - establishing a system to work with weird extremophiles takes time. The tests for reproducibility will take a couple of months more and burn up some PhD candidates, as usual... Then we'll see.
Pretty much sums it up. I gotta ask, though - did you make your username just in the hope to get that post in one of these days? ;)
You do win the internets, good Sir. I salute you. I need to have this made into a t-shirt.
Well, the fact that we never get identical conditions is covered by the theory of errors. Don't see how similar conditions are not present in climate science. The basic point is, after all, to make a prediction and see if it comes true. That's what is happening.
It's a normal part of the scientific process. Holding a PhD in Biochemistry myself, with focus on Biophysical Chemistry, and I kinda agree with your son there. Interesting data, but needs some more rigor. But, well, that is not unusual - works like this all the time. We'll see more papers on this soon, then we'll learn more.
Your wit is scalding. Now how about learing some facts, so you can use it to some useful end? Starting point: The scientific community does not give a rats arse about Al Gore or the left. Don't burn yourself on those strawmen.
Nice way of showing that you didn't remotely follow the science there. Protip: Watts is not part of it. There are multiple data sets, multiple models, a strong, controversial discussion about the building of said models - and still, a consensus on the basic facts, because they are bloody obvious by now. If you think reproducibility means "taking two different earths", you don't have the slightest grasp about what science actually is. This is actually so exceedingly dumb that i fail to grasp how someone can come up with that argument.
You might want to try to read the literature?
True. Everyone should at least have done it once, to get the full appreciation. These days I only slaughter the fish I catch - if I catch them, they seem to be a step ahead of me lately - but growing up in deep country and being used to slaughtering whatever gets on the table gives you some perspective.
Yeah, works about the same - I don't get the trademark angle though. I agree that they have good cause to want to stop a news agency associating them with an activity they are not ultimately responsible for. But why take the trademark route for that? It's slightly weird, imo. I'd aim for libel, not for trademark infringement. But that might be specifics of the respective legal systems here.
Agreed. It does stand on shaky ground.
True. How trademark law could be used to block news photographs in newspapers is beyond me, however - and I am working in the IP field, not in the US though. What category would they even register for?