I think by definition deniers are wrong. They are people who wilfully deny the evidence. That is one of the reasons they don't like being called deniers, because the word assumes they are wrong.
Indeed. There is great weight to the labels we apply to people and positions. Hence the whole "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice" battle. Are people in favour of legalized abortion really 'anti-life'? Are people opposed to legalized abortion really 'anti-choice'? Not necessarily, but that's the viewpoint that is expressed when using such weighted terminology. Are AGW advocates to be called 'acceptors' then? Accepting of what, everything? That's got to be a telemarketers' wet dream...
And by the way, 'deniers' in the climate/warming sense generally refute the conclusions drawn from the data, not the data itself, unless it was manipulated or cherry picked in some fashion. Generating a computer model, entering in select parameters and observing the result is not 'evidence', it is a predictive tool. If the results match up closely to actual observed conditions over an extended period of time, it can tentatively be classified as a plausible predictive tool.
Even such well-understood areas such as modeling stresses placed on mechanical components must make many assumptions regarding the elements in the model (composition of the steel, lack of smelting flaws, proper tempering, etc.) to be able to produce usable results at all. To be confident of their accuracy one must first verify that the assumptions being made are indeed true (scan the real world component for hidden flaws, test the composition of the metals, etc.) as well as measure the actual stresses produced on the real world device and compare them to the predicted stresses. If the input assumptions are verified, and the output is vetted against several real-world examples, then stress modeling becomes an invaluable tool for predicting how metals will behave or hold up in the real world. It doesn't mean that car manufacturers design everything on their computers, then just plug it in and launch production. True, creating and testing a prototype of 'the climate' is not really possible, which is why we must focus on the vetting of climate models against the only prototype we have: the actual climate.
I'm not up on my reading on the topic, but last I checked there were extremely few 'global warming' models that actually matched up to real world data even as short a time out as 2 to 3 years down the road without major tinkering and application of 'hindsight' fudge factors. If you know of some models that have performed better, please kindly provide a link, thanks.
As I think we all can agree, weather != climate. So should we consider that model results != evidence.
Other than my point above, I'll also add that very few of the deniers actually currently do research related to the field. I've seen some very prominent MDs and electrical engineers argue that climate scientists are clueless, but within the field there is very little variance. The vast majority of papers I've seen on the subject say, "Oh, I agree with your methodology and conclusions, but you got this little piece slightly off. You need to reconsider this little piece of your model and make an adjustment of 0.003 here." If anything, the field itself is far less divided than many others.
Oh my, I like that bit of reasoning. So, you're saying that the group of people whose livelihoods depend on research grants for studying the science of global warming (climate change, whatever you want to call it) generally concur that it's a big deal, and we need to spend more time studying it? Whereas other scientifically-minded people, who don't depend on such grants for a living, introduce the most doubt after examining the evidence?
I'm not saying that all or even most climate scientists are in it for the buck, but if the evidence you are examining could support several different hypothesis, isn't it natural for people to be biased towards the interpretation that will benefit them the most?
I know I'll be flamed for expressing this viewpoint, but so be it...{shrugs}
The burden of proof is on those who believe that that's not going to have a noticeable impact to make their case, and if their conclusions are at all in doubt, the path of prudence is to not rock the boat, and do what we can to cut back on CO2 emissions.
Hmmm...where have I heard this type of logic before?
I find it very interesting that many of the arguments to support the theory that people are the primary drivers of global climate change (despite only being around for, oh, about 200,000 years, give or take) are very similar in structure to those proposed to support belief in God. Essentially: "We should proceed as if it were true, just in case it is true."
Trouble is, many of the proposed plans of action hurt people far more than help them, and often hurt people who can least afford it. Attempts to block construction of large-scale power plants that would help raise the standard of living for millions of lives, simply because they're coal powered and will emit the fearful CO2? C'mon. Droping billions of dollars during a recession on subsidizing renewable power 'solutions', which then require the addition of even more conventional (but smaller and less efficient than they otherwise could have been) carbon-emitting power stations to provide the reliability that is unachievable through current 'renewable' technology (barring hydro, of course)? Double c'mon.
If we really want to save the planet from our little corner of it, why don't we focus on something that's right under our noses: junk mail. Junk mail is the ultimate example of wasting precious resources merely for the chance to turn a buck. We complain about it, many of us fight against receiving it, yet there still seems to be more and more each year. This shameful waste just winds up in the landfill, or even in the best case scenario, more energy is needed to 'recycle' it into something useful.
Think of how many mega tonnes of the dreaded CO2 would be scrubbed from the atmosphere if all the trees used to produce flyers and leaflets and credit-card applications were allowed to continue growing instead? (remember, to a tree, CO2 is a delicious snack) Even if those trees were still cut down and processed into something else, imagine if the energy wasted on producing and distributing (and ultimately dealing with the garbage produced by) these useless items were turned to something productive instead? I like that picture.
While I agree with the basic need to cut down consumerism and the effects thereof, I don't agree with demonizing a natural and necessary component of our atmosphere to justify it. If something produces CO2, well and good, as long as the process is efficient and it is providing a useful or needed service. If a process is producing actual toxins and other harmful agents, then the focus should be on reducing or eliminating these elements, not fussing over the CO2 content.
...there are situations where caps lock is useful - when writing in caps along with numbers and punctuation.
The only time I need to do that is for CD keys...
Actually, the text on most technical drawings is all in capitals, along with numbers and other punctuation. As far as I know it's to promote clarity and even out character spacing.
Of course, one could simply use a font that produces capital letters regardless of the typed case for these special cases...
You seek certainty. That only exists in theory. In practice, we know the laws of physics are universal, for all practical purposes, for the reasons I mentioned. If that isn't good enough for you, stick with divinity school. Science is not for you.
Sounds like science is not your strong point, either, if you feel you must bolster your arguments by making snide personal comments in order to 'justify' your point. Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll come across well in your published works.
It is entirely possible that we are in some region of space where the laws of physics are warped, just like we learned late in the game that gravity warps space and light actually doesn't travel in a straight line all the time.
...It takes effort to refrain from saying "we know" and instead say "we think" or "evidence suggests"...
Thank you, that is precisely what I was trying to point out, but expressed much better than I could manage!
It is possible (albeit not very likely) that our entire basis for physics is built on assumptions (aka "truths) that may not hold true elsewhere. Our frame of reference simply isn't wide enough for us to be asserting "it is so here, thus is it so everywhere".
We are struggling to broaden our understanding of far off places, but of necessity our interpretations of what we see are coloured by what we assume, and we must be open to the possibility that some of our assumptions may be wrong.
It's like trying to understand the rich culture and customs of India by observing the light patterns generated by major cities...we may observe the lights and fireworks of Diwali and know that they happen every year at the same time, but we don't know the reason for them (celebration, fear, joy, or even sorrow) without more direct information from the source.
ArcherB made the claim "The laws of chemistry and physics work the exact same everywhere in the universe". I was merely trying to point out the fact that this is not an incontrovertible fact, merely what we accept as true based on the evidence we have been able to gather and interpret so far.
Put the shoe on the other foot here. Would you be so very adamant in defending the "knowledge" that there is no life in the entire universe other than that observed on our planet, simply because we have not (yet) found evidence to the contrary?
May I remind you that science is a process, one which relies on skepticism every bit as much as it relies on the experimental method. We all must make certain assumptions and proceed as if these were true in order to interact at all with the world around us, but when we allow those assumptions to calcify in our minds, they start to resemble the traditional "beliefs" of the religious mind, and when that happens we are in danger of rejecting or ignoring any evidence that contradicts these 'truths'.
The question of whether or not we can ever truly 'know' something absolutely is indeed a difficult one, as you pointed out, and one that philosophers and scientists have been struggling with for millennium (cogito ergo sum). Somehow I don't think we're going to solve it with a few pithy riposte's here;)
We use a scryng lens, more commonly called a telescope. It allows us to examine in detail radiation from distant parts of the universe. Analyzing this radiation, we find that the processes that produced it conform to physical laws as we know them from our part of space.
Indeed. That seems like saying that I can determine the precise type, winding configuration and driver of the generator providing power to my house by slapping a clamp-on ammeter onto my residential service.
If I have sensitive enough equipment, I can perhaps postulate some characteristics of the generator by the observed characteristics of the provided current and voltage, but other sources of interference between me and the power company could produce that same pattern, or obscure meaningful data that could help me figure out how that generator operates. Unless I can get close enough to either directly measure current/voltage at the source, or better yet, directly observe the generator itself, there are things I will not know about that energy source (other than it apparently doesn't like to work on Wednesdays...)
It's true that radiation provides a much broader, er, spectrum from which to glean information, however we are still studying the river, as it were, and trying to understand the mountaintop from which it flows.
The laws of chemistry and physics work the exact same everywhere in the universe.
citation needed.
Seriously, how can we verify that this is true, until we have a chance to test the theory somewhere other than this little mudball we call a planet, or even this little group of sparkles we call a galaxy? We can stipulate that it is true, and proceed assuming the hypothesis is correct (we really have no other choice if we want to make any progress in astronomy and astrophysics), but it ain't necessarily so.
Mirrors and fibre-optic are exactly what I was thinking of. And of course, the sun is always shining somewhere (although I grant that making use of that fact would involve a significant initial expenditure of energy).
Okay, so which would you prefer,
a) a network of unbroken 3,500 mile long fibre optic cables along the surface (1/8 of the circumference of the earth, assuming you'll only need light for half of your nighttime hours and can get it from the east or the west...and you'd need one cable from each direction for morning and evening light, of course), or
b) the (slightly shorter, but much more difficult to manage and maintain) 3,030 mi 'direct' route, by boring directly through the crust, along the 45 degree chord to reach 1/8 of the circumference away from the location of the light (in both directions)?
If you're a night owl, look at doubling those numbers (at least) for each and every location that needs light.
You could run some sort of 'trunk' line with splitters and local distribution, I suppose, but the amount of lumens available after running through cables that long would be pretty much negligible after line losses, and if you need repeaters to 'boost' the light, then there goes the 'all natural' argument...if the masses of fibre optic cables haven't already done that.
"As a democracy, our nation has always believed the American people should have access to as much information as possible.
But we have also long recognized that -- to keep our country safe -- some information must be kept secret," he said.
"This is a balancing act that the American people themselves ultimately control through our democratically-elected representatives and our institutions.
...so, which of the "American people" are allowed to access enough information to determine this control?
In actuality, it's bureaucratic asshats who make the decisions on which scandals should be released "for the good of the people" (a.k.a., "for the good of my career").
North of the 49th, all observations and notes made by a public servant, even personal ones, about co-workers or clients are deemed non-personal information and subject to information requests. I don't know as much about goings on south of the border, but I would imagine there are some parallels...
... the company alerted all of its stations "in the event that it got way late and went to another station by accident."
The rods are incased in a metal container......your skin would suddenly slop off....... must always be transported in a way that ensures that the general public cannot get access to it.
Okay, who did the frigging editing on this article?
It's not "way late", it's "waylaid"...which can, in some cases, make things 'way late', but that's not the point... Things cannot be "incased", only "encased"... Since when does radiation cause skin to "slop" off? Slough off, perhaps...
With all this, it's a minor miracle that they actually used the right spelling for "ensures"...
Seriously, doesn't anybody proof-read articles before sending them out any more? I'm not usually a spelling/grammar nazi, but sloppiness like this just chaps my ass...
Not to mention that current storage technology doesn't need a life support system, which will of course add weight to the overall system...yeah.
I just thought it was decent at a first glance, but if you compare the bacteria (storage) weight to the actual weight of contemporary drive platters alone, it's not so impressive...and as others have mentioned, data management pains would seem to negate most observed advantages, other than possibly the strength of the data encryption.
For data density, that's not too shabby. 1TB of data fits into approximately 12 grams of storage.
Of course, it depends on the size/weight of the read/write equipment, but could this be comparable to mechanical disks for data density?
Just have to remember to feed and water your computer every so often...and wonder if the data cops would be able to use torture to force-retrieve your data? Poor little bugs...
...would a computer be able to understand the request, learn the new system, and give your boss the report (and of course, not the report he asked for, but the report he actually wanted)?
True...but neither could I without relying on a whole whack of 'pre-programming', starting with basic language skills and proceeding right through to my current level of technical knowledge and social interaction skills;) Not to mention applying the additional 'programming' provided by others while RTFM
The uniqueness of the sentient mind is not its ability to perform even very complex tasks using logical processes (and even to know what my boss 'really wanted', I would have to rely on weighing past experience with him/her against the actual request to come to that conclusion). This behaviour can be replicated by computers, which can do specific tasks much more efficiently than we ever could. As processing power climbs, the ability of computers to mimic human abilities climbs proportionately.
The uniqueness of the sentient mind is more in the ability to apply illogic and imagination. I don't think we'll ever be able to program a computer to be able to spontaneously generate the concept "I wonder what happens if I do this...", yet that concept is at the heart of most of human evolution (and many, many Darwin awards). That isn't just a human trait, but I would argue that we have it in stronger measure than any other species on the planet, and that's why we're having this discussion today, in this manner and on this medium.
So if the definition of intelligence is "the ability to acquire knowledge and skills", well, a computer can do that if we provide it with the 'skills' (programming) to allow it to do so. Our 'maker' just provided us with a more flexible BIOS to start out with, one that has hard coded the ability to acquire skills. In light of that, I prefer to add "and apply them in innovative ways" to that definition of intelligence.
Perhaps if the dog had tried sitting on the string to provide a continuous supply of treats, that would indicate intelligence. I also know some dogs who are absolute geniuses when it comes to finding new ways to escape their yard, and that certainly applies!
So while this particular test signified nothing other than the dog was hungry and the cat was not, I am not saying that our furry friends don't have intelligence to go along with their charm and good looks, just that we really have no reliable way of measuring it.
Now apply this discussion to the ability to measure human intelligence...
Ability or desire to follow orders <> intelligence
As ably demonstrated by the Military.
I wasn't going to go there...but yeah, that is an extremely apt comparison.
Of course, it takes a lot more than just the ability and willingness to follow orders to make a fine soldier, but that is a specific trait that the military mind does seem to select for and reinforce.
According to the dictionary I just looked up, intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
Okay, that sounds like a fair assessment of intelligence, I'll grant. However, this 'research' doesn't measure up to that standard, because it is not measuring the "ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills", it is evaluating the ability and inclination to follow specific instructions, very like a computer.
Is typing "when A do B" very different than demonstrating to a dog that "when you do A, B happens", then crediting the dog for doing A to produce B? It is a different method of input, but it's still 'programming' (or 'conditioning' if you like). It's true that computers don't do it out of a desire for a reward or fear of punishment (I wonder how that would look!), but the principle is the same.
For one of ours, it's crumpled paper. We can get all the best, furriest, most-guaranteed-fascinating cat toys on the market, but as soon as she hears paper being crumpled into a ball, she comes a-running. She'll play 'fetch' with them, too...sometimes...if she feels like it...
What's that saying about young kids preferring to play with the box and wrapping paper instead of the toys at Christmas?;)
Slashdot Mirror
The sight has a boatload of requests going all over the place... the video is hosted on "brightcove"
Thanks!
Man, I am having problems with my /quote tags today. Sorry!
Frig. I should really learn how to use /quote...or at least the preview! Sorry about that.
So the deniers are always wrong? ...
I think by definition deniers are wrong. They are people who wilfully deny the evidence. That is one of the reasons they don't like being called deniers, because the word assumes they are wrong.
Indeed. There is great weight to the labels we apply to people and positions. Hence the whole "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice" battle. Are people in favour of legalized abortion really 'anti-life'? Are people opposed to legalized abortion really 'anti-choice'? Not necessarily, but that's the viewpoint that is expressed when using such weighted terminology. Are AGW advocates to be called 'acceptors' then? Accepting of what, everything? That's got to be a telemarketers' wet dream...
And by the way, 'deniers' in the climate/warming sense generally refute the conclusions drawn from the data, not the data itself, unless it was manipulated or cherry picked in some fashion. Generating a computer model, entering in select parameters and observing the result is not 'evidence', it is a predictive tool. If the results match up closely to actual observed conditions over an extended period of time, it can tentatively be classified as a plausible predictive tool.
Even such well-understood areas such as modeling stresses placed on mechanical components must make many assumptions regarding the elements in the model (composition of the steel, lack of smelting flaws, proper tempering, etc.) to be able to produce usable results at all. To be confident of their accuracy one must first verify that the assumptions being made are indeed true (scan the real world component for hidden flaws, test the composition of the metals, etc.) as well as measure the actual stresses produced on the real world device and compare them to the predicted stresses. If the input assumptions are verified, and the output is vetted against several real-world examples, then stress modeling becomes an invaluable tool for predicting how metals will behave or hold up in the real world. It doesn't mean that car manufacturers design everything on their computers, then just plug it in and launch production. True, creating and testing a prototype of 'the climate' is not really possible, which is why we must focus on the vetting of climate models against the only prototype we have: the actual climate.
I'm not up on my reading on the topic, but last I checked there were extremely few 'global warming' models that actually matched up to real world data even as short a time out as 2 to 3 years down the road without major tinkering and application of 'hindsight' fudge factors. If you know of some models that have performed better, please kindly provide a link, thanks.
As I think we all can agree, weather != climate. So should we consider that model results != evidence.
Excellent, well thought out post.
Other than my point above, I'll also add that very few of the deniers actually currently do research related to the field. I've seen some very prominent MDs and electrical engineers argue that climate scientists are clueless, but within the field there is very little variance. The vast majority of papers I've seen on the subject say, "Oh, I agree with your methodology and conclusions, but you got this little piece slightly off. You need to reconsider this little piece of your model and make an adjustment of 0.003 here." If anything, the field itself is far less divided than many others.
Oh my, I like that bit of reasoning. So, you're saying that the group of people whose livelihoods depend on research grants for studying the science of global warming (climate change, whatever you want to call it) generally concur that it's a big deal, and we need to spend more time studying it? Whereas other scientifically-minded people, who don't depend on such grants for a living, introduce the most doubt after examining the evidence?
I'm not saying that all or even most climate scientists are in it for the buck, but if the evidence you are examining could support several different hypothesis, isn't it natural for people to be biased towards the interpretation that will benefit them the most?
I know I'll be flamed for expressing this viewpoint, but so be it...{shrugs}
The burden of proof is on those who believe that that's not going to have a noticeable impact to make their case, and if their conclusions are at all in doubt, the path of prudence is to not rock the boat, and do what we can to cut back on CO2 emissions.
Hmmm...where have I heard this type of logic before?
Oh that's right, it's a form of Pascal's Wager.
I find it very interesting that many of the arguments to support the theory that people are the primary drivers of global climate change (despite only being around for, oh, about 200,000 years, give or take) are very similar in structure to those proposed to support belief in God. Essentially: "We should proceed as if it were true, just in case it is true."
Trouble is, many of the proposed plans of action hurt people far more than help them, and often hurt people who can least afford it. Attempts to block construction of large-scale power plants that would help raise the standard of living for millions of lives, simply because they're coal powered and will emit the fearful CO2? C'mon. Droping billions of dollars during a recession on subsidizing renewable power 'solutions', which then require the addition of even more conventional (but smaller and less efficient than they otherwise could have been) carbon-emitting power stations to provide the reliability that is unachievable through current 'renewable' technology (barring hydro, of course)? Double c'mon.
If we really want to save the planet from our little corner of it, why don't we focus on something that's right under our noses: junk mail. Junk mail is the ultimate example of wasting precious resources merely for the chance to turn a buck. We complain about it, many of us fight against receiving it, yet there still seems to be more and more each year. This shameful waste just winds up in the landfill, or even in the best case scenario, more energy is needed to 'recycle' it into something useful.
Think of how many mega tonnes of the dreaded CO2 would be scrubbed from the atmosphere if all the trees used to produce flyers and leaflets and credit-card applications were allowed to continue growing instead? (remember, to a tree, CO2 is a delicious snack) Even if those trees were still cut down and processed into something else, imagine if the energy wasted on producing and distributing (and ultimately dealing with the garbage produced by) these useless items were turned to something productive instead? I like that picture.
While I agree with the basic need to cut down consumerism and the effects thereof, I don't agree with demonizing a natural and necessary component of our atmosphere to justify it. If something produces CO2, well and good, as long as the process is efficient and it is providing a useful or needed service. If a process is producing actual toxins and other harmful agents, then the focus should be on reducing or eliminating these elements, not fussing over the CO2 content.
The only time I need to do that is for CD keys...
Actually, the text on most technical drawings is all in capitals, along with numbers and other punctuation. As far as I know it's to promote clarity and even out character spacing.
Of course, one could simply use a font that produces capital letters regardless of the typed case for these special cases...
You seek certainty. That only exists in theory. In practice, we know the laws of physics are universal, for all practical purposes, for the reasons I mentioned. If that isn't good enough for you, stick with divinity school. Science is not for you.
Sounds like science is not your strong point, either, if you feel you must bolster your arguments by making snide personal comments in order to 'justify' your point. Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll come across well in your published works.
It is entirely possible that we are in some region of space where the laws of physics are warped, just like we learned late in the game that gravity warps space and light actually doesn't travel in a straight line all the time.
Thank you, that is precisely what I was trying to point out, but expressed much better than I could manage!
It is possible (albeit not very likely) that our entire basis for physics is built on assumptions (aka "truths) that may not hold true elsewhere. Our frame of reference simply isn't wide enough for us to be asserting "it is so here, thus is it so everywhere".
We are struggling to broaden our understanding of far off places, but of necessity our interpretations of what we see are coloured by what we assume, and we must be open to the possibility that some of our assumptions may be wrong.
It's like trying to understand the rich culture and customs of India by observing the light patterns generated by major cities...we may observe the lights and fireworks of Diwali and know that they happen every year at the same time, but we don't know the reason for them (celebration, fear, joy, or even sorrow) without more direct information from the source.
Okay, whoa, hold up here.
Let's get back to the base of this discussion:
ArcherB made the claim "The laws of chemistry and physics work the exact same everywhere in the universe".
I was merely trying to point out the fact that this is not an incontrovertible fact, merely what we accept as true based on the evidence we have been able to gather and interpret so far.
Put the shoe on the other foot here. Would you be so very adamant in defending the "knowledge" that there is no life in the entire universe other than that observed on our planet, simply because we have not (yet) found evidence to the contrary?
May I remind you that science is a process, one which relies on skepticism every bit as much as it relies on the experimental method. We all must make certain assumptions and proceed as if these were true in order to interact at all with the world around us, but when we allow those assumptions to calcify in our minds, they start to resemble the traditional "beliefs" of the religious mind, and when that happens we are in danger of rejecting or ignoring any evidence that contradicts these 'truths'.
The question of whether or not we can ever truly 'know' something absolutely is indeed a difficult one, as you pointed out, and one that philosophers and scientists have been struggling with for millennium (cogito ergo sum). Somehow I don't think we're going to solve it with a few pithy riposte's here ;)
We use a scryng lens, more commonly called a telescope. It allows us to examine in detail radiation from distant parts of the universe. Analyzing this radiation, we find that the processes that produced it conform to physical laws as we know them from our part of space.
Indeed. That seems like saying that I can determine the precise type, winding configuration and driver of the generator providing power to my house by slapping a clamp-on ammeter onto my residential service.
If I have sensitive enough equipment, I can perhaps postulate some characteristics of the generator by the observed characteristics of the provided current and voltage, but other sources of interference between me and the power company could produce that same pattern, or obscure meaningful data that could help me figure out how that generator operates. Unless I can get close enough to either directly measure current/voltage at the source, or better yet, directly observe the generator itself, there are things I will not know about that energy source (other than it apparently doesn't like to work on Wednesdays...)
It's true that radiation provides a much broader, er, spectrum from which to glean information, however we are still studying the river, as it were, and trying to understand the mountaintop from which it flows.
The laws of chemistry and physics work the exact same everywhere in the universe.
citation needed.
Seriously, how can we verify that this is true, until we have a chance to test the theory somewhere other than this little mudball we call a planet, or even this little group of sparkles we call a galaxy? We can stipulate that it is true, and proceed assuming the hypothesis is correct (we really have no other choice if we want to make any progress in astronomy and astrophysics), but it ain't necessarily so.
Mirrors and fibre-optic are exactly what I was thinking of. And of course, the sun is always shining somewhere (although I grant that making use of that fact would involve a significant initial expenditure of energy).
Okay, so which would you prefer,
a) a network of unbroken 3,500 mile long fibre optic cables along the surface (1/8 of the circumference of the earth, assuming you'll only need light for half of your nighttime hours and can get it from the east or the west...and you'd need one cable from each direction for morning and evening light, of course), or
b) the (slightly shorter, but much more difficult to manage and maintain) 3,030 mi 'direct' route, by boring directly through the crust, along the 45 degree chord to reach 1/8 of the circumference away from the location of the light (in both directions)?
If you're a night owl, look at doubling those numbers (at least) for each and every location that needs light.
You could run some sort of 'trunk' line with splitters and local distribution, I suppose, but the amount of lumens available after running through cables that long would be pretty much negligible after line losses, and if you need repeaters to 'boost' the light, then there goes the 'all natural' argument...if the masses of fibre optic cables haven't already done that.
So, you would hold and release light without conversion how, exactly?
Who said anything about hold and release?
So...you're advocating lights that only work while the sun is shining, is that it?
I think they call that a 'mirror'.
From (one of) TFA:
"As a democracy, our nation has always believed the American people should have access to as much information as possible.
But we have also long recognized that -- to keep our country safe -- some information must be kept secret," he said.
"This is a balancing act that the American people themselves ultimately control through our democratically-elected representatives and our institutions.
...so, which of the "American people" are allowed to access enough information to determine this control?
In actuality, it's bureaucratic asshats who make the decisions on which scandals should be released "for the good of the people" (a.k.a., "for the good of my career").
North of the 49th, all observations and notes made by a public servant, even personal ones, about co-workers or clients are deemed non-personal information and subject to information requests. I don't know as much about goings on south of the border, but I would imagine there are some parallels...
... the company alerted all of its stations "in the event that it got way late and went to another station by accident."
The rods are incased in a metal container ... ...your skin would suddenly slop off. ... ... must always be transported in a way that ensures that the general public cannot get access to it.
Okay, who did the frigging editing on this article?
It's not "way late", it's "waylaid"...which can, in some cases, make things 'way late', but that's not the point...
Things cannot be "incased", only "encased"...
Since when does radiation cause skin to "slop" off? Slough off, perhaps...
With all this, it's a minor miracle that they actually used the right spelling for "ensures"...
Seriously, doesn't anybody proof-read articles before sending them out any more? I'm not usually a spelling/grammar nazi, but sloppiness like this just chaps my ass...
Not to mention that current storage technology doesn't need a life support system, which will of course add weight to the overall system...yeah.
I just thought it was decent at a first glance, but if you compare the bacteria (storage) weight to the actual weight of contemporary drive platters alone, it's not so impressive...and as others have mentioned, data management pains would seem to negate most observed advantages, other than possibly the strength of the data encryption.
For data density, that's not too shabby. 1TB of data fits into approximately 12 grams of storage.
Of course, it depends on the size/weight of the read/write equipment, but could this be comparable to mechanical disks for data density?
Just have to remember to feed and water your computer every so often...and wonder if the data cops would be able to use torture to force-retrieve your data? Poor little bugs...
...would a computer be able to understand the request, learn the new system, and give your boss the report (and of course, not the report he asked for, but the report he actually wanted)?
True...but neither could I without relying on a whole whack of 'pre-programming', starting with basic language skills and proceeding right through to my current level of technical knowledge and social interaction skills ;) Not to mention applying the additional 'programming' provided by others while RTFM
The uniqueness of the sentient mind is not its ability to perform even very complex tasks using logical processes (and even to know what my boss 'really wanted', I would have to rely on weighing past experience with him/her against the actual request to come to that conclusion). This behaviour can be replicated by computers, which can do specific tasks much more efficiently than we ever could. As processing power climbs, the ability of computers to mimic human abilities climbs proportionately.
The uniqueness of the sentient mind is more in the ability to apply illogic and imagination. I don't think we'll ever be able to program a computer to be able to spontaneously generate the concept "I wonder what happens if I do this...", yet that concept is at the heart of most of human evolution (and many, many Darwin awards). That isn't just a human trait, but I would argue that we have it in stronger measure than any other species on the planet, and that's why we're having this discussion today, in this manner and on this medium.
So if the definition of intelligence is "the ability to acquire knowledge and skills", well, a computer can do that if we provide it with the 'skills' (programming) to allow it to do so. Our 'maker' just provided us with a more flexible BIOS to start out with, one that has hard coded the ability to acquire skills. In light of that, I prefer to add "and apply them in innovative ways" to that definition of intelligence.
Perhaps if the dog had tried sitting on the string to provide a continuous supply of treats, that would indicate intelligence. I also know some dogs who are absolute geniuses when it comes to finding new ways to escape their yard, and that certainly applies!
So while this particular test signified nothing other than the dog was hungry and the cat was not, I am not saying that our furry friends don't have intelligence to go along with their charm and good looks, just that we really have no reliable way of measuring it.
Now apply this discussion to the ability to measure human intelligence...
...that this article has drawn nearly double the comments of any other topic so far today.
Say what you like about the economy or environment, but don't go dissing our OS's or furry friends!
<head shake>
>> I weep...but keep polishing my shotgun.
Is that what the kids call it these days?
dunno. I call it 'thumper' ;)
</tasteless>
Ability or desire to follow orders <> intelligence
As ably demonstrated by the Military.
I wasn't going to go there...but yeah, that is an extremely apt comparison.
Of course, it takes a lot more than just the ability and willingness to follow orders to make a fine soldier, but that is a specific trait that the military mind does seem to select for and reinforce.
According to the dictionary I just looked up, intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
Okay, that sounds like a fair assessment of intelligence, I'll grant. However, this 'research' doesn't measure up to that standard, because it is not measuring the "ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills", it is evaluating the ability and inclination to follow specific instructions, very like a computer.
Is typing "when A do B" very different than demonstrating to a dog that "when you do A, B happens", then crediting the dog for doing A to produce B? It is a different method of input, but it's still 'programming' (or 'conditioning' if you like). It's true that computers don't do it out of a desire for a reward or fear of punishment (I wonder how that would look!), but the principle is the same.
For one of ours, it's crumpled paper. We can get all the best, furriest, most-guaranteed-fascinating cat toys on the market, but as soon as she hears paper being crumpled into a ball, she comes a-running. She'll play 'fetch' with them, too...sometimes...if she feels like it...
What's that saying about young kids preferring to play with the box and wrapping paper instead of the toys at Christmas? ;)