Which "fairly regular" extinction events are these? (HINT : I'm a professional geologist ; something more respect-worthy than Wikipedia or New Scientist AND more recent than the mid-80s would be needed to convince me. Most of the reports and discussions I've seen since the mid-80s (Raup, wasn't it?) have cited differing periods and phases at low significance levels, which are, frankly, unconvincing.)
Yes, I know that you're probably citing something that you saw once on Discovery Channel. That doesn't make it consensus science. q.v. 2012.et al, etc, ad nauseam
$1.5million grant ; "more than 1000 cases" ; therefore an average settlement (less legal fees for the Department, and assuming that the victims don't have any legal fees awarded to them ; both unlikely) of more than $1500 against the Department will leave nothing left to write the report evaluating the success of this technology.
Not having been evaluated, the technology will then be described as "having been deployed in Maasechusetts without any adverse findings reported" (because the report wasn't written, reported or published).
Ka-ching! Another victory for lawyerly double-think over the masses. Can I have my peanut now?
Caveats - have to classify the records, so you can't have pesky workers read and write up the report pro bono publicio. That would destroy the economics of the farce.
You did nothing REMOTELY similar to what we're discussing, because you had savings sufficient to choose to delay returning to the workforce.
I don't know what your state/ county/ jurisdiction/ town/ HOA rules are, but in this country, having more than $SAVINGS$ will disqualify you for unemployment benefit, until you've used those savings up. Full stop ; end of claim's consideration. (How much $SAVINGS$ is varies from year to year, and has various complexities, but last time I had to worry about it, it was comparable to the minimum annual income ceiling for having to pay income tax.) Failure to, or inaccuracy of declaring, can and does lead to criminal fraud charges, convictions and jail on a regular basis.
Why are you going to have to call bullshit on one or the other? Do you mean to say that you can't envisage perfectly credible scenarios where he is gay (truly gay), and knows the other's mother, the fact of her motherhood, and the quality of her oral sex? If you can't... it says more to the limitations of your bringing up (in Victorian times, judging from the 4-digit UID) than it does to the possibilities.
Making a system "tight" to hydrogen is significantly more difficult than making one that is "tight" to liquid hydrocarbons. Or gaseous hydrocarbons, for that matter. (Speaking from experience of maintaining gas detection and analysis systems involving hydrogen flame ionisation detectors for more years than I care to remember.)
That's not saying that it can't be done, just that there will be "learning experiences", particularly amongst experienced maintenance personnel who know that RTFM is for children in school, not oily-handed master tradesmen. Some people will die in those "learning experiences".
I haven't (yet) heard of the first fatality from someone putting a wet finger where it shouldn't go in an electric car, but I don't routinely go around looking for such reports ; I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened already. I see the F1 car monitors talking about hundreds of volts in whatever this month's boost system is called, and I expect to see big sparks one day.
We don't know what the circumstance of the initial simian to human transmission was. It is perfectly possible that it was nothing more suspicious than someone cutting themselves while butchering a monkey for food. Not as much fun as a conspiracy theory, nor speculation about beastiality. But it's perfectly possible.
If there was an "official" ban on gas exports in the 1960s, and I'm not aware of there having been one, then it makes about as much sense as next month's ban on uranium mining in the asteroid belt. For most of the 1960s there wasn't significant gas production to export, nor any significant infrastructure to export it through. At that time the large majority of gas production and consumption in the country was from dry distillation of coal to produce "town gas" locally. I think my home area was converted to natural gas in about 1969, and we were on the North Sea side of the Midlands. So that would imply that only around a third of the country (half by population, approximately) had been connected to a distribution network by then.
Dates for installation of trans-border pipelines? I'm not really sure, but I don't think they really got going until into the 1980s. Certainly when I was starting working in the late '80s there was still a lot of construction of pipeline systems to collect gas from the Northern sector which had previously been flared off. When that lot started coming ashore, then it became feasible to start thinking about exporting gas.
The iridium anomaly is a prediction of a hypothesis under test. The faunal change was an observed datum long before the impact hypothesis came along to explain it.
We all know the difference between theory and practice.
It's not just Word. MS's signed graphics libraries for Vista fucked up our line drawing big style and we've still not recovered from it. Font rendering fucked up and unreliable too. Total mess.
The customers complain, but they're the ones who wanted Vista compatibility in the first place.
Not according to the palynologists that I've worked with. Pretty much anything that is "official" is "officially" defined on bugs, for the good and sufficient reason that any random 10g of sediment will contain a few thousand bugs. "Plink, Plink, fizz ! !" followed by smearing the acid-insoluble sludge on a slide.
PM me for an email address. IIRC they were wanting $30-odd for a one-off purchase. Which isn't going to happen.
I'm away to Africa in a couple of days, but should settle in by the end of the week and get caught up again.
MS Office opens MS Office files with full fidelity?
The same installation of Orifice? On the same drive? On the same computer? Wonders will never cease.
Your ID proponent people lied to you. Flat out lied.
If they're friends, dump them ; if they're family, try to get their thinking straightened out. There are deprogramming camps and things for curing religion.
It would seem that some gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the iridium layer should be expected, but would this be only millimeters, or is 300 centimerters actually a reaonable expectation?
Given that the asteroid debris would only be a small fraction of the excavated impact crater, and it would not be evenly distributed, even so you can get some back-of-the-envelope estimates.
The crater is ~200km in diameter, and in the order of 10km deep. That's [calculates] around 300,000 km^3 of debris. Distribute it evenly across the surface of the Earth and that'd be 0.6m of deposit. However, there are real issues with that envelope's worth. The actual material ejected may be a lot less (I've assumed a simple cylinder of a crater ; build your own model). The distribution will be highly uneven - maybe kilometres thick near the crater but nearly zero on the other side of the globe. How the debris gets distributed into pre- and post- impact sediments (by bioturbation for example ; or in cold climates, frost heave) is a question.
The plain fact of the matter is that the event doesn't seem to have left much sedimentological record beyond the immediate neighbourhood - say a couple of thousand kilometres.
To put that into context - you know the Manicougain Lac astrobleme? One of my professors (Gordon Walkden) identified what he thinks may be an ejecta deposit from this event (strictly, the base-surge, plus some airfall material) near Bristol in England. That deposit is a few centimetres thick (and Gordon's interpretation has been challenged, partly because it's not seen elsewhere in Britain), and the site was only a couple of thousand kilometres away from Ground Zero at the time of the impact (before the Atlantic opened).
Centimetres may be reasonable to "expect", but with major caveats.
Why? He clearly knows what he's talking about (and may even be a geologist - sounds like one to me, and I am a geologist). talking sense about a subject you understand requires down-modding on Slashdot, not up-modding.
The Cretaceous Tertiary boundary is defined on palynological markers, not on the iridium spike (if it's present at a particular location). This is the case for most geological boundaries.
To "disprove" gradual extinction before the impact a number of fossils representing normal population levels and distributions needs to be found.
Which becomes quite a task when your fossils are 45cm long.
However this is precisely what they did to establish the location of the K-T boundary at this site. They collected hundreds, if not thousands, of fossils, plotted the mean populations of fossils per centimetre of section examined, and then plotted the changes in those populations.
Elsewhere in this thread I posted the abstract for the technical paper. (Search for "ckd" normally works.) The word "palynology" in the abstract tells you this. OK, it tells me this, because I work with palynologists at frequent intervals.
A typical palynomorph (the fossils that palynologists look at) is under a tenth of a millimetre long. So you can get thousands per cubic centimetre. But they're not spectacular. Pretty on occasions, but not spectacular.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know that you're probably citing something that you saw once on Discovery Channel. That doesn't make it consensus science. q.v. 2012.et al, etc, ad nauseam
Not having been evaluated, the technology will then be described as "having been deployed in Maasechusetts without any adverse findings reported" (because the report wasn't written, reported or published).
Ka-ching! Another victory for lawyerly double-think over the masses. Can I have my peanut now?
Caveats - have to classify the records, so you can't have pesky workers read and write up the report pro bono publicio. That would destroy the economics of the farce.
I don't know what your state/ county/ jurisdiction/ town/ HOA rules are, but in this country, having more than $SAVINGS$ will disqualify you for unemployment benefit, until you've used those savings up. Full stop ; end of claim's consideration. (How much $SAVINGS$ is varies from year to year, and has various complexities, but last time I had to worry about it, it was comparable to the minimum annual income ceiling for having to pay income tax.) Failure to, or inaccuracy of declaring, can and does lead to criminal fraud charges, convictions and jail on a regular basis.
Why are you going to have to call bullshit on one or the other? Do you mean to say that you can't envisage perfectly credible scenarios where he is gay (truly gay), and knows the other's mother, the fact of her motherhood, and the quality of her oral sex? If you can't ... it says more to the limitations of your bringing up (in Victorian times, judging from the 4-digit UID) than it does to the possibilities.
That's not saying that it can't be done, just that there will be "learning experiences", particularly amongst experienced maintenance personnel who know that RTFM is for children in school, not oily-handed master tradesmen. Some people will die in those "learning experiences". I haven't (yet) heard of the first fatality from someone putting a wet finger where it shouldn't go in an electric car, but I don't routinely go around looking for such reports ; I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened already. I see the F1 car monitors talking about hundreds of volts in whatever this month's boost system is called, and I expect to see big sparks one day.
Trade actually. Largely the slave trade, but that was legal at the time, so that was OK then.
We don't know what the circumstance of the initial simian to human transmission was. It is perfectly possible that it was nothing more suspicious than someone cutting themselves while butchering a monkey for food. Not as much fun as a conspiracy theory, nor speculation about beastiality. But it's perfectly possible.
Dates for installation of trans-border pipelines? I'm not really sure, but I don't think they really got going until into the 1980s. Certainly when I was starting working in the late '80s there was still a lot of construction of pipeline systems to collect gas from the Northern sector which had previously been flared off. When that lot started coming ashore, then it became feasible to start thinking about exporting gas.
Of course, we're an importer again.
We all know the difference between theory and practice.
It's not just Word. MS's signed graphics libraries for Vista fucked up our line drawing big style and we've still not recovered from it. Font rendering fucked up and unreliable too. Total mess. The customers complain, but they're the ones who wanted Vista compatibility in the first place.
Speak for yourself. I've learned a lot about HPHT drilling from working in the North Sea, and I make a niceliving selling that experience overseas.
Check your facts.
Right. So the dozens of gas wells on my CV were all loss-leaders?
Steam it ; don't boil it.
Probably the "pearl barley".
Once you get past the "It's haggis!" moment, it's actually quite fine. But it does vary a lot. McSween's for me too.
(Actually, my Siberian wife thinks Scotland feels colder than Centtral Siberia, despite being 30 degrees warmer in the coldest of winters.)
Not according to the palynologists that I've worked with. Pretty much anything that is "official" is "officially" defined on bugs, for the good and sufficient reason that any random 10g of sediment will contain a few thousand bugs. "Plink, Plink, fizz ! !" followed by smearing the acid-insoluble sludge on a slide.
PM me for an email address. IIRC they were wanting $30-odd for a one-off purchase. Which isn't going to happen. I'm away to Africa in a couple of days, but should settle in by the end of the week and get caught up again.
MS Office opens MS Office files with full fidelity? The same installation of Orifice? On the same drive? On the same computer? Wonders will never cease.
That's about 240 million years further back in time from the case under discussion.
If they're friends, dump them ; if they're family, try to get their thinking straightened out. There are deprogramming camps and things for curing religion.
Given that the asteroid debris would only be a small fraction of the excavated impact crater, and it would not be evenly distributed, even so you can get some back-of-the-envelope estimates.
The crater is ~200km in diameter, and in the order of 10km deep. That's [calculates] around 300,000 km^3 of debris. Distribute it evenly across the surface of the Earth and that'd be 0.6m of deposit. However, there are real issues with that envelope's worth. The actual material ejected may be a lot less (I've assumed a simple cylinder of a crater ; build your own model). The distribution will be highly uneven - maybe kilometres thick near the crater but nearly zero on the other side of the globe. How the debris gets distributed into pre- and post- impact sediments (by bioturbation for example ; or in cold climates, frost heave) is a question.
The plain fact of the matter is that the event doesn't seem to have left much sedimentological record beyond the immediate neighbourhood - say a couple of thousand kilometres.
To put that into context - you know the Manicougain Lac astrobleme? One of my professors (Gordon Walkden) identified what he thinks may be an ejecta deposit from this event (strictly, the base-surge, plus some airfall material) near Bristol in England. That deposit is a few centimetres thick (and Gordon's interpretation has been challenged, partly because it's not seen elsewhere in Britain), and the site was only a couple of thousand kilometres away from Ground Zero at the time of the impact (before the Atlantic opened).
Centimetres may be reasonable to "expect", but with major caveats.
That may correct your misapprehensions as to what the actual claims made are, rather than what has been filtered through journalists.
Why? He clearly knows what he's talking about (and may even be a geologist - sounds like one to me, and I am a geologist). talking sense about a subject you understand requires down-modding on Slashdot, not up-modding.
The Cretaceous Tertiary boundary is defined on palynological markers, not on the iridium spike (if it's present at a particular location). This is the case for most geological boundaries.
Which becomes quite a task when your fossils are 45cm long.
However this is precisely what they did to establish the location of the K-T boundary at this site. They collected hundreds, if not thousands, of fossils, plotted the mean populations of fossils per centimetre of section examined, and then plotted the changes in those populations.
Elsewhere in this thread I posted the abstract for the technical paper. (Search for "ckd" normally works.) The word "palynology" in the abstract tells you this. OK, it tells me this, because I work with palynologists at frequent intervals.
A typical palynomorph (the fossils that palynologists look at) is under a tenth of a millimetre long. So you can get thousands per cubic centimetre. But they're not spectacular. Pretty on occasions, but not spectacular.
Which just makes it better faux Latin.