The point is that the whole shameful article is a cesspit of incorrect arguments, and that the author either has no knowledge in the field at all, or is biased - most probably both.
- Photovolatic: the most important component of photovoltaic panels is silicon. It's one of the more abundant elements on earth. One can cover all landmass on earth with photovoltaics and still not run out. There are dopants in there that are less abundant, but only small quantities of them are required. Also, organic (as in carbon-based) photovoltaics are on the rise, which don't need said dopants. Also, at the end of the lifetime of a silicon-based panel, the silicon and dopants get recycled - they are way to valuable to throw away.
- Thermal solar energy and geothermal power: (cooling) water requirement is equivalent to current thermal technologies (nuclear, coal, gas,...). Also, in the case of geothermal, one could make a closed-cycle plant; this would work especially well in colder climates.
- Wind power: all electrical generators (except photovoltaic) contain magnets, so the argument goes agaist conventional energy as well. Also, the term "rare earths" is historical - we now know they are not really rare in the earth's crust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust
For instance, Neodynium is more abundant than for instance lead and tin. The problem with it is that it's hard to purify from natural deposits, so the annual supply is limited. Luckily, permanent magnets can be made from all kind of other materials, including abundantly available ones. The resulting generators will be somewhat heavier and less efficient, so it's currently cost-effective to use Neodynium, but if the price goes up, the industry will just switch to something else. Finally, these magnets are not consumed, they can be (and are) recycled or even reused in their original form.
- Biomass: this is not my personal favorite, but even so, the article is overly gloomy about it. The surface used for biomass is not lost forever - it can readily be re-purposed for agriculture once it's needed (or better energy-producing technologies become available). Also, a lot of agricultural land is being used for growing animal fodder, which is quite a wasteful business; if we would just stop eating those excessive amounts of meat that are a contributing factor to the current heart disease epidemic and eat a bit more vegetable protein sources, we could easily feed ourselves from half as much farmland (and still get more than enough meat to eat for a healthy and enjoyable diet). Also, at some point, technology might become available to grow excellent animal-free meat in bioreactors, which would make meat production way more efficient.
- Hydropower: just like silicon, the supply of concrete and steel is nearly inexhaustible. Yes, CO2 is emitted during the production thereof, but it's a tiny fraction of the CO2 that would be emitted when matching the lifetime energy production of the dam using fossil fuels. Also, building nuclear power plants also requires large quantities of concrete and steel (and given the current safety debate, they're still not using enough).
I'm sure there's more fallacies to be found in the article, but again, the point is that the author is either a nitwit or terribly biased (presumably both).
The research paper, titled “Liar, Liar, Hard Drive on Fire: How Media Context Affects Lying Behavior,” looked at 110 same-sex pairs of college students who engaged in 15 minute conversations
Sorry, but I would call anyone who is more tempted to lie in electronic communication than IRL an idiot. All it takes is someone who compulsively saves their e-mails and chat logs for the lie to fly right in your face and potentially be exposed to people you'd rather not want to know about it. If the average American college student is more tempted to lie in electronic communication than in face-to-face talking, then we're dooomed.
Not necessarily. Bottled water in moderate quantities, yes (but that goes for other drinks such as fruit juices as well). In very high quantities (or when sweating a lot, eg. during heavy exercise), it will lower the body's sodium concentration, which will result in a dangerous condition that is sometimes considered a form of dehydration. It is much more difficult to trigger this condition with fruit juices because they contain proper amount of electrolytes to replenish what is lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2535080&cid=38113408
Also I don't understand how people in some countries are so obsessed by dehydration. Maybe because of the silly statements on the water bottles? Anyway, feeling thirsty is not a sign that you're dehydrated already, it is merely a warning sign that you should drink in order not to get dehydrated. Also, a conscious physically and mentally healthy person with access to appropriate re-hydrating drinks will never get dehydrated, because... wait for it... they will feel thirsty and drink!
In short, while the claim on the bottled water is not necessarily always false, it is somewhat misleading, and I applaud the EU for not allowing vendors to put that kind of bullshit on their products. I personally prefer to live in a pragmatic no-nonsense democracy than in one that follows its lofty principles so dogmatically that common sense goes out of the window.
I give you Switzerland. Nearly all rivers there are impeccably clean, even the one going through their largest city, in which they organize a yearly swimming event (weather and flow rate permitting). See also http://www.zurika.com/2007/08/floating-through-city.html (random hit on Google).
Nice Godwin. You have a better way to do it? It will never happen the way I said it, but higher taxes on the rich won't work in this day and age. They will take all their money to Europe, Japan, China, etc.
Funny how you quote a set of places that tax the rich way higher than the US. Oh wait... there just are few developed nations that tax their rich as low as the US.
As for "a better way", the key is ironically in your sig. Put into place a set of laws that severely limit campaign financing. Put stringent restraints on televised campaign ads. Perhaps something like the current disclaimers for medical ads, but more like: "the largest financial contributors to this advertisement are (in order of importance):..." You could actually even do that for all advertisements - companies advertising actual products would be exempt providing that their logo is prominently shown (which they're doing already regardless). Or ban political ads altogether like in some European countries. Redefine corruption as anyone associated with someone holding public office accepting money from a private entity, and put into place very strict anti-corruption laws - have a McCarthy-style anti-corruption witch hunt if you must. You might even go as far as to put into place a non-partisan committee to enforce journalistic standards. All I say is: purge special interests from the political system! Special interests influencing politics and media are the only thing that keeps the US from having a sensible healthcare policy, decreased dependence on foreign oil, an end to subsidies or tax breaks for non-competitive industries, sensible taxes for the super-rich, effective enforcement of antitrust legislation encouraging real competition beween ISPs, cell phone providers,... Get rid of the special interests an all the rest will slowly but surely fall into place.
Now that I had a closer look at it, this is actually a bit of an insidious April's fool - based on true facts, only greatly exaggerated (and somewhat twisted). I'm not even sure it's not an inadvertent slip-up in typical "sloppy journalism" style. In which case I would recommend the journalists involved to try to save their face by pretending it was an April's fool.
You're absolutely right, but although light collection (and the quantum physical fact that light interacts with matter in the form of discrete photons, which puts a hard limit on the sensor's sensitivity/noisiness) is the most important reason why 8MP is ridiculous, it's not the [i]only[/i] reason. If it were, someone might argue that it still will be possible to make pixel-sharp low-noise images on a sunny summer day. No such luck, because of diffraction. The size of the optics required to focus light on a spot as small as the pixels on an 8MP sensor will be larger than anything that will ever fit in an iPhone package. In fact, a significant percentage of compact cameras currently on the market don't have large enough optics for a typical 8MP sensor. I'm really hoping that this time, they'll turn out to have driven the megapixel myth too far, with iPhone users complaining about grainy and blurry pictures, and the idiocy of the megapixel madness getting exposed to the general public. I know, I know, but a man can dream...
http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32
First sentence says it all: "It's Theo Theofanous's job to worry about worst-case scenarios." The rest of the article is a description of a worst-case scenarios that is not entirely 100% impossible, but quite implausible. The cautious language also reflects this.
At this point, it seems the bigger risk is a steady stream of isotopes from the fuel pools which are still not full and still steaming hot, and possibly some more from cracks in the reactor containment. It's going to be challenging to isolate it all from the air, given the contamination levels above and around these fuel pools.
Except that it is not true. SABAM is just a gigantic copyright troll. Throwing around baseless allegations, asking you to prove that they're not true, threatening to sue you if you don't, threatening a bit more if you refuse to bulge, threatening threatening... But get this: if you just keep on insisting that the burden of proof is on them, at some point they suddenly give up and go search for a more gullible victim. It takes some balls to call their bluff, but friends of mine pulled it off. Bear in mind that starting a case and losing it is financially more painful in Belgium than in the USA (thus discouraging frivolous lawsuits); SABAM's not not actually going to sue if they're not absolutely sure your infringing.
You're obviously trolling, but I'm out of mod points, and in a thread titled "dumbing up", I thought it fun to introduce you to the concept of becoming wise. Ghandi indeed made such statements in his late 30s, most probably in line with his upbringing. Should he have died around that time, he would have been merely a footnote in history (and not necessarily a positive one). But after the memories of his time in jail alongside African prisoners, of the brutality of the Zulu war,... slowly sunk in, combined with the disillusionment after the first world war and the rise of another wave of nationalism and discrimination in the decade that led up to the second world war, his views gradually changed. By 1932, more than 20 years later, he fought for equal voting rights for the lower caste, and it is the Ghandi of that time and later who went down in history as a great wise leader. A man can change in 20 years. Think of it - what were your viewpoints and interests 20 years ago? 20 years from now, will you have abandoned your rancid antisemitism for a more noble viewpoint? Until then, you are in no position to call Ghandi disgusting!
Them. Their political party received 0.68% of the votes in 2005 and 0.40% in 2010, which is slightly less than the pirate party and also less than the 4% threshold to get a seat in the parliament. The woman who left because she and her children allegedly received death threats and were harassed by the media was the one who forced out the other one for not being Gay. I have the impression that they're significantly less popular in Sweden than, say, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the US. Your argument is similar to saying that any high-profile homosexual should avoid traveling to the US because that's where Fred Phelps lives.
There are good reasons Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden, but I don't think the feminist movement is one of them.
Where'd the plus/minus signs for rating stories go? They're still described in the FAQ but I don't see them. Or is something wrong with my browser? http://slashdot.org/faq/firehose.shtml
Wake me up when they have on-access scanning working. And preferably fast enough not to bring the system to a grinding halt when starting up a moderately large binary (admittedly, a lot of commercial vendors would fail that test too).
Dude, that's rough! A semester is barely long enough. I've been at it for 5 months now and there still are a couple of annoyances (that didn't exist in Hardy) I've not yet managed to iron out.
Translation: "we at Intel anticipate Windows 8 to be a huge resource hog, so we start promoting it already, hoping that customers will have to buy our new ultra-fast processors."
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that the whole shameful article is a cesspit of incorrect arguments, and that the author either has no knowledge in the field at all, or is biased - most probably both.
- Photovolatic: the most important component of photovoltaic panels is silicon. It's one of the more abundant elements on earth. One can cover all landmass on earth with photovoltaics and still not run out. There are dopants in there that are less abundant, but only small quantities of them are required. Also, organic (as in carbon-based) photovoltaics are on the rise, which don't need said dopants. Also, at the end of the lifetime of a silicon-based panel, the silicon and dopants get recycled - they are way to valuable to throw away.
- Thermal solar energy and geothermal power: (cooling) water requirement is equivalent to current thermal technologies (nuclear, coal, gas,...). Also, in the case of geothermal, one could make a closed-cycle plant; this would work especially well in colder climates.
- Wind power: all electrical generators (except photovoltaic) contain magnets, so the argument goes agaist conventional energy as well. Also, the term "rare earths" is historical - we now know they are not really rare in the earth's crust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust
For instance, Neodynium is more abundant than for instance lead and tin. The problem with it is that it's hard to purify from natural deposits, so the annual supply is limited. Luckily, permanent magnets can be made from all kind of other materials, including abundantly available ones. The resulting generators will be somewhat heavier and less efficient, so it's currently cost-effective to use Neodynium, but if the price goes up, the industry will just switch to something else. Finally, these magnets are not consumed, they can be (and are) recycled or even reused in their original form.
- Biomass: this is not my personal favorite, but even so, the article is overly gloomy about it. The surface used for biomass is not lost forever - it can readily be re-purposed for agriculture once it's needed (or better energy-producing technologies become available). Also, a lot of agricultural land is being used for growing animal fodder, which is quite a wasteful business; if we would just stop eating those excessive amounts of meat that are a contributing factor to the current heart disease epidemic and eat a bit more vegetable protein sources, we could easily feed ourselves from half as much farmland (and still get more than enough meat to eat for a healthy and enjoyable diet). Also, at some point, technology might become available to grow excellent animal-free meat in bioreactors, which would make meat production way more efficient.
- Hydropower: just like silicon, the supply of concrete and steel is nearly inexhaustible. Yes, CO2 is emitted during the production thereof, but it's a tiny fraction of the CO2 that would be emitted when matching the lifetime energy production of the dam using fossil fuels. Also, building nuclear power plants also requires large quantities of concrete and steel (and given the current safety debate, they're still not using enough).
I'm sure there's more fallacies to be found in the article, but again, the point is that the author is either a nitwit or terribly biased (presumably both).
Easy: Marc Ewing is the predator, you're the prey.
What? I should have typed "Ian Murdock"? No no no, Debian doesn't have dependency issues.
This is not the link you're looking for.
(really)
The research paper, titled “Liar, Liar, Hard Drive on Fire: How Media Context Affects Lying Behavior,” looked at 110 same-sex pairs of college students who engaged in 15 minute conversations
Sorry, but I would call anyone who is more tempted to lie in electronic communication than IRL an idiot. All it takes is someone who compulsively saves their e-mails and chat logs for the lie to fly right in your face and potentially be exposed to people you'd rather not want to know about it. If the average American college student is more tempted to lie in electronic communication than in face-to-face talking, then we're dooomed.
Not necessarily. Bottled water in moderate quantities, yes (but that goes for other drinks such as fruit juices as well). In very high quantities (or when sweating a lot, eg. during heavy exercise), it will lower the body's sodium concentration, which will result in a dangerous condition that is sometimes considered a form of dehydration. It is much more difficult to trigger this condition with fruit juices because they contain proper amount of electrolytes to replenish what is lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2535080&cid=38113408
Also I don't understand how people in some countries are so obsessed by dehydration. Maybe because of the silly statements on the water bottles? Anyway, feeling thirsty is not a sign that you're dehydrated already, it is merely a warning sign that you should drink in order not to get dehydrated. Also, a conscious physically and mentally healthy person with access to appropriate re-hydrating drinks will never get dehydrated, because... wait for it... they will feel thirsty and drink!
In short, while the claim on the bottled water is not necessarily always false, it is somewhat misleading, and I applaud the EU for not allowing vendors to put that kind of bullshit on their products. I personally prefer to live in a pragmatic no-nonsense democracy than in one that follows its lofty principles so dogmatically that common sense goes out of the window.
Oops sorry I somehow developed "sentence dyslexia" and read the grandparent as "MW is a unit of energy, not of power."
Nuh-huh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
In Soviet Russia, culture created entertainment.
I give you Switzerland. Nearly all rivers there are impeccably clean, even the one going through their largest city, in which they organize a yearly swimming event (weather and flow rate permitting). See also http://www.zurika.com/2007/08/floating-through-city.html (random hit on Google).
Nice Godwin. You have a better way to do it? It will never happen the way I said it, but higher taxes on the rich won't work in this day and age. They will take all their money to Europe, Japan, China, etc.
Funny how you quote a set of places that tax the rich way higher than the US. Oh wait... there just are few developed nations that tax their rich as low as the US.
As for "a better way", the key is ironically in your sig. Put into place a set of laws that severely limit campaign financing. Put stringent restraints on televised campaign ads. Perhaps something like the current disclaimers for medical ads, but more like: "the largest financial contributors to this advertisement are (in order of importance):..." You could actually even do that for all advertisements - companies advertising actual products would be exempt providing that their logo is prominently shown (which they're doing already regardless). Or ban political ads altogether like in some European countries. Redefine corruption as anyone associated with someone holding public office accepting money from a private entity, and put into place very strict anti-corruption laws - have a McCarthy-style anti-corruption witch hunt if you must. You might even go as far as to put into place a non-partisan committee to enforce journalistic standards. All I say is: purge special interests from the political system! Special interests influencing politics and media are the only thing that keeps the US from having a sensible healthcare policy, decreased dependence on foreign oil, an end to subsidies or tax breaks for non-competitive industries, sensible taxes for the super-rich, effective enforcement of antitrust legislation encouraging real competition beween ISPs, cell phone providers,... Get rid of the special interests an all the rest will slowly but surely fall into place.
Now that I had a closer look at it, this is actually a bit of an insidious April's fool - based on true facts, only greatly exaggerated (and somewhat twisted). I'm not even sure it's not an inadvertent slip-up in typical "sloppy journalism" style. In which case I would recommend the journalists involved to try to save their face by pretending it was an April's fool.
http://motherboard.tv/2011/4/1/california-library-plan-get-rid-of-books-replace-librarians-with-videophones
...they want their flashbangs back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade
You're absolutely right, but although light collection (and the quantum physical fact that light interacts with matter in the form of discrete photons, which puts a hard limit on the sensor's sensitivity/noisiness) is the most important reason why 8MP is ridiculous, it's not the [i]only[/i] reason. If it were, someone might argue that it still will be possible to make pixel-sharp low-noise images on a sunny summer day. No such luck, because of diffraction. The size of the optics required to focus light on a spot as small as the pixels on an 8MP sensor will be larger than anything that will ever fit in an iPhone package. In fact, a significant percentage of compact cameras currently on the market don't have large enough optics for a typical 8MP sensor. I'm really hoping that this time, they'll turn out to have driven the megapixel myth too far, with iPhone users complaining about grainy and blurry pictures, and the idiocy of the megapixel madness getting exposed to the general public. I know, I know, but a man can dream... http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32
First sentence says it all: "It's Theo Theofanous's job to worry about worst-case scenarios." The rest of the article is a description of a worst-case scenarios that is not entirely 100% impossible, but quite implausible. The cautious language also reflects this.
At this point, it seems the bigger risk is a steady stream of isotopes from the fuel pools which are still not full and still steaming hot, and possibly some more from cracks in the reactor containment. It's going to be challenging to isolate it all from the air, given the contamination levels above and around these fuel pools.
I've always viewed tablets as a huge fad, but now that Microsoft is saying so, perhaps I should reconsider...
Except that it is not true. SABAM is just a gigantic copyright troll. Throwing around baseless allegations, asking you to prove that they're not true, threatening to sue you if you don't, threatening a bit more if you refuse to bulge, threatening threatening... But get this: if you just keep on insisting that the burden of proof is on them, at some point they suddenly give up and go search for a more gullible victim. It takes some balls to call their bluff, but friends of mine pulled it off. Bear in mind that starting a case and losing it is financially more painful in Belgium than in the USA (thus discouraging frivolous lawsuits); SABAM's not not actually going to sue if they're not absolutely sure your infringing.
Whooosh!
Since you didn't take the effort to carefully read my post, I won't take the effort to carefully rebut the fallacies in yours. Sing along, here are the lyrics
http://www.metrolyrics.com/cool-to-hate-lyrics-offspring.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRJzErnRmY
You're obviously trolling, but I'm out of mod points, and in a thread titled "dumbing up", I thought it fun to introduce you to the concept of becoming wise. Ghandi indeed made such statements in his late 30s, most probably in line with his upbringing. Should he have died around that time, he would have been merely a footnote in history (and not necessarily a positive one). But after the memories of his time in jail alongside African prisoners, of the brutality of the Zulu war,... slowly sunk in, combined with the disillusionment after the first world war and the rise of another wave of nationalism and discrimination in the decade that led up to the second world war, his views gradually changed. By 1932, more than 20 years later, he fought for equal voting rights for the lower caste, and it is the Ghandi of that time and later who went down in history as a great wise leader. A man can change in 20 years. Think of it - what were your viewpoints and interests 20 years ago? 20 years from now, will you have abandoned your rancid antisemitism for a more noble viewpoint? Until then, you are in no position to call Ghandi disgusting!
Them. Their political party received 0.68% of the votes in 2005 and 0.40% in 2010, which is slightly less than the pirate party and also less than the 4% threshold to get a seat in the parliament. The woman who left because she and her children allegedly received death threats and were harassed by the media was the one who forced out the other one for not being Gay. I have the impression that they're significantly less popular in Sweden than, say, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the US. Your argument is similar to saying that any high-profile homosexual should avoid traveling to the US because that's where Fred Phelps lives.
There are good reasons Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden, but I don't think the feminist movement is one of them.
Where'd the plus/minus signs for rating stories go? They're still described in the FAQ but I don't see them. Or is something wrong with my browser?
http://slashdot.org/faq/firehose.shtml
Wake me up when they have on-access scanning working. And preferably fast enough not to bring the system to a grinding halt when starting up a moderately large binary (admittedly, a lot of commercial vendors would fail that test too).
Dude, that's rough! A semester is barely long enough. I've been at it for 5 months now and there still are a couple of annoyances (that didn't exist in Hardy) I've not yet managed to iron out.
Translation: "we at Intel anticipate Windows 8 to be a huge resource hog, so we start promoting it already, hoping that customers will have to buy our new ultra-fast processors."