One should add that in those places, individuals installing solar will decrease the air condition-induced peak demand, thus decreasing the overhead for the utilities, contrary to what the AC troll a few posts up in this thread asserted.
Do you really think transparent troll posts devoid of factual information or references and laden with fallacies and obscenities will convince anyone on this site? You're doing it wrong.
Also, it has the one million eyes. If you think there's something wrong with the citations or the article, by all means, tell us about it. Otherwise, buzz off.
Voting anyway is not a bad idea. It's the "uninformed, stupid and lazy" part that's the problem. And the media and politics get at least part of the blame for making them so.
You're joking, right? Before any ad is aired, its impact has been studied by people who do this for a living. Even if a certain percentage of people is going to investigate, a much larger percentage will just feel vindicated in their conformation bias, or not care but be subconsciously influenced by it anyway. Advertisements are well known (and indeed, designed) to at least partially target the subconscious. People just don't like to hear about it because it's creepy, and the media powers are the last to draw attention to it.
The pings are relatively hard evidence because nothing else could have made them (except, for the conspiracy theorists among us, a submarine deliberately spoofing the signal emitted by black boxes). Also, they are consistent with the satellite data. Finding chemical elements that are used in the construction of airplanes off the coast of Bangladesh, which is very polluted and in a general area where ships are being scrapped on the beaches? Neither hard evidence nor consistent. Free advertisement for GeoResonance, that's all what this is.
What??? How did you break into my webcam? I won't leave it at that! I will notify the FCC, the NSA, the FSB and Microsoft of your misdeeds! Too late to back out now, mister, you should be trembling in your boots! *nervously tugging handlebar mustache*
No, it is you who are incorrect. Even a hypothetical liquid with zero vapor pressure will not siphon over an apex higher than P(atmosphere) / (g * liquid density) above the liquid level in the upper reservoir. Otherwise, vacuum (instead of vapor) bubbles will form at the apex. If you set P to zero in the above formula, the apex cannot be higher than the liquid level in the upper reservoir, so you cannot satisfy the definition of a siphon. A true siphon manifestly does require pressure to run. As explained in TFA.
However, pressure is a necessary but insufficient condition. It is tempting to observe that atmospheric pressure seems to be be exerting work on the higher reservoir, and this is the base for the fallacy in the dictionary. This is a fallacy because an exactly equal amount work is exerted against athmospheric pressure by the lower level reservoir, and in total, there is no net pressure work because the volume stays the same. There is net gravitational work because there is a net flow of mass along the gravitational potential gradient, and that is the only true driving force, as Dr. Hughes correctly pointed out.
Now, real real-life liquids have interesting properties such as inertia, viscosity and the ability to form foam while evaporating, so it is not out of the question that a real-life syphon containing a well-chosen liquid, once set in motion, would continue working even if the apex is moved too high (or the pressure decreased too low) according to my formula. If the authors would have done more effort to study that regimen, then their paper would not have been so utterly dull and trivial. As it is, I was able to predict all their results (including the waterfall) by sitting in front of a sheet of paper for half an hour (yes, I did that before peaking at TFA - and getting surprised that my theoretically predicted waterfall actually materializes in reality). I could think of better things to do with a hypobaric chamber.
Also, some say that Obama did this to regain some political capital with powerful people he rubbed the wrong way earlier. Be that as it may, I'm not claiming he's free from blame. It gets somewhat harder to do the right thing when everything around you is rotten, but that's no excuse, merely a mitigating factor.
Ha, you fell into my "pedantic nitpicking" trap! I deliberately typed "draw" and not "stalemate" because a stalemate is a specific kind of draw where the player to move has no legal move. "You can't stop my DoS attack - but you cannot stop mine either" is more like a threefold repetition or a fifty-move rule kind of draw, where both parties still can do things, but it's always the same and nobody gets closer to winning.
To be fair, that is true up until "I won", which is a cynical echo of Bush's infamous "mission accomplished". Obama lost early and lost hard (one of the prime examples being the spectacular defeat of "Obamacare 1.0" in 2009) against the lobbyists, and it is now abundantly clear he doesn't have the power to go against them and they are actively drowning out the voices of the American people. President != dictator (and that's a good thing, even if the president happens to align with one's opinion).
Would it kill you tocheck from time to time whether your braindead stereotypes correspond to reality? It's not that you have to dig far through my posting history...
As you see, you lose the bet, so I get to keep on posting to slashdot, and you have to move your trolly ass elsewhere. That was what we were beting for, right?:-P
Some people just cannot be snapped out of the black-and-white thinking. I'm not glorifying NASA as the organization we have to thank for our present and future standard of living, that's just you setting up a strawman. Or what part of "significant issues" did you not understand? Nor am I willing to accept NASA is good for nothing, as the flamebait who started this thread implied. The truth lies in-between. HELLO, "SHADES OF GRAY"!
Not for me. It's still a far leap from the picture painted in that book to "an organization designed to enrich top managers and engineers" and "a jobs program designed to pay out huge paychecks and accrue great retirement benefits". There are shades of gray; the fact that an organization has significant issues doesn't automatically imply it's good for nothing.
You should read my post as well as the post I replied to again. There is not threat to speak of; this is FUD. Also, they're neither clear - they haven't released raw data - nor perfectly honest - the scientific community has long been aware of the time and energy distribution of these strikes, so "bigger than thought" is dishonest and it really should have been "bigger than appreciated by the general public".
Well, the point of DRM wasting bandwidth is largely valid, but given the absence of actual data, it should not merit more than one sentence. I think Bennett Haselton would get a lot more goodwill from this community if he were to, you know, START HIS OWN PRIVATE BLOG and submit his stories to/. through the normal channels. If his ramblings are worth reading, they get upvoted and make the front page; if not, he saves himself the pain of getting flamed to hell. And even if the editors were to post his stories despite being downvoted, at least it won't be as big an insult if they're links to a 3rd party blog than if they're presented as "slashdot editorials". Useless stories slipping through the editorial process are an almost-daily occurrence so most would write it down to inattention, whereas willfully posting mediocre blog posts as "editorials" is a slap in the face of the community.
Essentially what I was driving at would be like the Victorians seeing how much coal/iron/whatever they knew about, and trying to extrapolate future economic/industrial growth. Given what they had at their disposal, growth would be limited -- and it would be a much, much lower level than we're at even today.
This is too speculative to be a good argument. In reality, I think this was a "known unknown" for the real-world Victorians, i.e. they knew they hadn't prospected enough of the surface of the earth to make a good extrapolation of the total reserves of coal/iron/whatever, and they weren't really worried about running out. That is different now: all new discoveries and technological advances (e.g. fracking) notwithstanding, only so much juice can be squeezed out of the lemon, and we knowour oil production is going to become a problem sooner rather than later (and that's not even considering the greenhouse effect).
The clumsy argument doesn't imply your whole point is invalid, though. Fission, renewable energy, and ultimately fusion are still on the table, and I can easily see us moving away from fossil fuel for everything but sea and air transport and polymer synthesis in the short term. I just don't like how the fossil fuel industry and its political arm is standing on the progress brakes.
Then again, energy is by far not the only condition for economic growth. There are many more factors, and judging by trends in things such as stock prices, interest rates and ecological footprints, it does seem to me that we're starting to feel the limits (or at the very least a serious speed bump) approaching and that policymakers should factor that in. Until the next huge breakthrough - maybe fusion?
Slashdot Mirror
Case in point, exhibit A.
lead contaminating in the water, which is the most popular theory
Is this subtle sarcasm, lampooning how TFA tries to blame the fall of an empire on yet another side issue, or just plain ignorance of the theories surrounding the decline of the Roman empire?
One should add that in those places, individuals installing solar will decrease the air condition-induced peak demand, thus decreasing the overhead for the utilities, contrary to what the AC troll a few posts up in this thread asserted.
Is this discredited climate myth #11 again? Or just a climate-scientists-are-radical-environmentalist-nutjobs strawman?
Do you really think transparent troll posts devoid of factual information or references and laden with fallacies and obscenities will convince anyone on this site? You're doing it wrong.
{Citation needed} on every part of that post.
Wikipedia has citations. Do you?
Also, it has the one million eyes. If you think there's something wrong with the citations or the article, by all means, tell us about it. Otherwise, buzz off.
Voting anyway is not a bad idea. It's the "uninformed, stupid and lazy" part that's the problem. And the media and politics get at least part of the blame for making them so.
Tortoises all the way down?
You're joking, right? Before any ad is aired, its impact has been studied by people who do this for a living. Even if a certain percentage of people is going to investigate, a much larger percentage will just feel vindicated in their conformation bias, or not care but be subconsciously influenced by it anyway. Advertisements are well known (and indeed, designed) to at least partially target the subconscious. People just don't like to hear about it because it's creepy, and the media powers are the last to draw attention to it.
The pings are relatively hard evidence because nothing else could have made them (except, for the conspiracy theorists among us, a submarine deliberately spoofing the signal emitted by black boxes). Also, they are consistent with the satellite data. Finding chemical elements that are used in the construction of airplanes off the coast of Bangladesh, which is very polluted and in a general area where ships are being scrapped on the beaches? Neither hard evidence nor consistent. Free advertisement for GeoResonance, that's all what this is.
What??? How did you break into my webcam? I won't leave it at that! I will notify the FCC, the NSA, the FSB and Microsoft of your misdeeds! Too late to back out now, mister, you should be trembling in your boots! *nervously tugging handlebar mustache*
No, it is you who are incorrect. Even a hypothetical liquid with zero vapor pressure will not siphon over an apex higher than P(atmosphere) / (g * liquid density) above the liquid level in the upper reservoir. Otherwise, vacuum (instead of vapor) bubbles will form at the apex. If you set P to zero in the above formula, the apex cannot be higher than the liquid level in the upper reservoir, so you cannot satisfy the definition of a siphon. A true siphon manifestly does require pressure to run. As explained in TFA.
However, pressure is a necessary but insufficient condition. It is tempting to observe that atmospheric pressure seems to be be exerting work on the higher reservoir, and this is the base for the fallacy in the dictionary. This is a fallacy because an exactly equal amount work is exerted against athmospheric pressure by the lower level reservoir, and in total, there is no net pressure work because the volume stays the same. There is net gravitational work because there is a net flow of mass along the gravitational potential gradient, and that is the only true driving force, as Dr. Hughes correctly pointed out.
Now, real real-life liquids have interesting properties such as inertia, viscosity and the ability to form foam while evaporating, so it is not out of the question that a real-life syphon containing a well-chosen liquid, once set in motion, would continue working even if the apex is moved too high (or the pressure decreased too low) according to my formula. If the authors would have done more effort to study that regimen, then their paper would not have been so utterly dull and trivial. As it is, I was able to predict all their results (including the waterfall) by sitting in front of a sheet of paper for half an hour (yes, I did that before peaking at TFA - and getting surprised that my theoretically predicted waterfall actually materializes in reality). I could think of better things to do with a hypobaric chamber.
Here's the URL that is missing from the summary.
BTW, this is child's play compared to what Google can do. Not to even mention the NSA...
He is the one who proposed the current chairman for approval or rejection by the senate, following pressure from his party.
FTFY.
Also, chairman != dictator.
Also, some say that Obama did this to regain some political capital with powerful people he rubbed the wrong way earlier. Be that as it may, I'm not claiming he's free from blame. It gets somewhat harder to do the right thing when everything around you is rotten, but that's no excuse, merely a mitigating factor.
Ha, you fell into my "pedantic nitpicking" trap! I deliberately typed "draw" and not "stalemate" because a stalemate is a specific kind of draw where the player to move has no legal move. "You can't stop my DoS attack - but you cannot stop mine either" is more like a threefold repetition or a fifty-move rule kind of draw, where both parties still can do things, but it's always the same and nobody gets closer to winning.
To be fair, that is true up until "I won", which is a cynical echo of Bush's infamous "mission accomplished". Obama lost early and lost hard (one of the prime examples being the spectacular defeat of "Obamacare 1.0" in 2009) against the lobbyists, and it is now abundantly clear he doesn't have the power to go against them and they are actively drowning out the voices of the American people. President != dictator (and that's a good thing, even if the president happens to align with one's opinion).
Nope, if you insist on chess terms, that would be a draw.
Would it kill you to check from time to time whether your braindead stereotypes correspond to reality? It's not that you have to dig far through my posting history...
As you see, you lose the bet, so I get to keep on posting to slashdot, and you have to move your trolly ass elsewhere. That was what we were beting for, right? :-P
Handily in time to contend for the 2014 Ig Nobel price.
Some people just cannot be snapped out of the black-and-white thinking. I'm not glorifying NASA as the organization we have to thank for our present and future standard of living, that's just you setting up a strawman. Or what part of "significant issues" did you not understand? Nor am I willing to accept NASA is good for nothing, as the flamebait who started this thread implied. The truth lies in-between. HELLO, "SHADES OF GRAY"!
Not for me. It's still a far leap from the picture painted in that book to "an organization designed to enrich top managers and engineers" and "a jobs program designed to pay out huge paychecks and accrue great retirement benefits". There are shades of gray; the fact that an organization has significant issues doesn't automatically imply it's good for nothing.
You should read my post as well as the post I replied to again. There is not threat to speak of; this is FUD. Also, they're neither clear - they haven't released raw data - nor perfectly honest - the scientific community has long been aware of the time and energy distribution of these strikes, so "bigger than thought" is dishonest and it really should have been "bigger than appreciated by the general public".
Well, the point of DRM wasting bandwidth is largely valid, but given the absence of actual data, it should not merit more than one sentence. I think Bennett Haselton would get a lot more goodwill from this community if he were to, you know, START HIS OWN PRIVATE BLOG and submit his stories to /. through the normal channels. If his ramblings are worth reading, they get upvoted and make the front page; if not, he saves himself the pain of getting flamed to hell. And even if the editors were to post his stories despite being downvoted, at least it won't be as big an insult if they're links to a 3rd party blog than if they're presented as "slashdot editorials". Useless stories slipping through the editorial process are an almost-daily occurrence so most would write it down to inattention, whereas willfully posting mediocre blog posts as "editorials" is a slap in the face of the community.
Essentially what I was driving at would be like the Victorians seeing how much coal/iron/whatever they knew about, and trying to extrapolate future economic/industrial growth. Given what they had at their disposal, growth would be limited -- and it would be a much, much lower level than we're at even today.
This is too speculative to be a good argument. In reality, I think this was a "known unknown" for the real-world Victorians, i.e. they knew they hadn't prospected enough of the surface of the earth to make a good extrapolation of the total reserves of coal/iron/whatever, and they weren't really worried about running out. That is different now: all new discoveries and technological advances (e.g. fracking) notwithstanding, only so much juice can be squeezed out of the lemon, and we know our oil production is going to become a problem sooner rather than later (and that's not even considering the greenhouse effect).
The clumsy argument doesn't imply your whole point is invalid, though. Fission, renewable energy, and ultimately fusion are still on the table, and I can easily see us moving away from fossil fuel for everything but sea and air transport and polymer synthesis in the short term. I just don't like how the fossil fuel industry and its political arm is standing on the progress brakes.
Then again, energy is by far not the only condition for economic growth. There are many more factors, and judging by trends in things such as stock prices, interest rates and ecological footprints, it does seem to me that we're starting to feel the limits (or at the very least a serious speed bump) approaching and that policymakers should factor that in. Until the next huge breakthrough - maybe fusion?