You probably could even get the BMW turbo engine street legal with lots of exhaust filtering, but that was not the point I was trying to make. Yes, the BMW engine was consuming immense amounts of gas, it was extremely noisy, and it would a bad idea to build it into a normal street car, as it had a high probability to break within the next 1000 miles.
But in general, getting more sheer power out of a certain engine size or configuration is not so much of an engineering problem (e.g. just add lots of chargers, and don't forget the cooling). It's more of a design decision if you want to have better all day behaviour and more stability under load, or if you want more impressive data sheet numbers. You surely can tune the Bugatti W16 to put out 1300 or 1400 hp and still being street legal, but what's the point? Koenigsegg decided to go a more extreme route, getting more power out of their engine, knowing well that their cars won't be used in the daily commute anyway.
It gets even worse. BMW got 1300 HP out of a 1.5 litre 4cyl in 1986. It was the "qualification" setting on their Formula 1 race engines for the Brabham team built into the Brabham BT55.
Global Warming is a fact. The last year was globally the warmest on record, and the next 10 warmest years on record were all in the last 20 years.
So the Earth surface is indeed getting warmer since the times we started to record it, which goes back in some regions to the 18th century. If the average temperature of the Earth's surface is getting warmer (which it does at least since we started to measure it), and if it is happening globally, there is good reason to call it Global Warming.
That there can be local warming that is even larger, or that there are locations which are colder on average now than they were when we started to record temperatures, is quite possible. The region I live in has gotten 2 K warmer on average since the begin of the records (which were somewhere around 1760, thus encompassing the whole era of Industrialization), much larger than the 0.7 K on average we measure globally. So there surely are regions which warmed less than 0.7 K on average.
This is a fact you can read at NOAA or whatever organisations keep record of local and global temperatures.
Where the theorizing starts is if this trend continues in the future, and what causes the Global Warming. But the single fact that the Earth's surface got warmer globally and on average is no hypothesis, is a fact we have measurements of.
And those facts the jury votes one are (or should be) worth nil, if new evidence pops up that contradicts it. Then people get exonerated for crimes they didn't commit, and the former conviction is vindicated.
No, he claimed that the temperature of the Venus' atmosphere at "earthly" conditions, e.g. at a pressure of about 1 bar (somewhere 100,000 feet above the Venus surface) is, after correcting for the distance to the Sun, the same as on Earth.
Actually, the distribution will be normal, because the IQ is defined to be normally distributed. For each task in the test, the points awarded are carefully tested with many probands, and the weights calculated until the resulting score has a normal distribution.
There is not reason why a distribution in general should be normal, and many of them aren't.
It might be one of the problems with the U.S. discussion about Global Warming. It's impossible in the U.S. to separate the actual global warming (2014 set a new global temperature record) from the politics. Everyone who argues that there is a global increase in temperature (the global warming), is immediately suspected of having an agenda, and the agenda has to be Big Government or Communism or some other scarecrow.
So arguing that there is no global warming, that the global warming has stopped, that it is not man-made or that it is a non-issue, because it will actually benefit us, is seen as some way of defending Freedom[tm], and many libertarian leaning people and a lot of conservative ones feel a mission to cast doubt on solid science, because defending Freedom is always good work, right? And because the science itself is quite solid (we can actually measure the heat trapping properties of different levels of the components in the atmosphere, and we have a good way to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide and methane we release in the atmosphere), the doubt is cast either on the researchers (they are accused to have an agenda, they are called liars, they are suspected to conspire against us all...), or on the immediate conclusions. Models are called misleading, every new discovery how to more correctly assess an effect gets hailed as proof that the evil climate scientists are wrong again etc.pp..
Try to separate the science and the politics! And yes, denying the science on whatever level is at first an attempt to politice the science.
But it's the best we can have. And there are still ways to test theories about historical events. If you can predict future archeological finds from your hypothesis, then there is a possibility that your hypothesis about the historical facts is close to the truth. If you find an ancient document agreeing with the hypothetical account for some event, then it's quite possible that the events happened in the way the hypothesis stated. And if for instance an archeological experiment shows that some object that was thought to be a tool for a certain task proves to be quite inadequate for the task, then there is reason to doubt the hypothesis about that object.
Yes, we can't build a time machine and go back in time to check. But we can make educated guesses about it. We can't also travel to a quasar and check if our theories about the behaviour of quasars are right, but we can make educated guesses about them, and there is no reason to throw out everything we hypothetize about quasars or call research into quasars pseudo-science, just because we can't get there.
The assumption is completely different: We assume that our whole infrastructure is adapted to the climate state about 30-50 years ago. A change in the climate, how favourable it might be in the far future, means at first rebuilding and adapting. We have to clear whole countries like the Maledivas or the coral island states of the Southern Pacific, because they will be under water. We have to resettle the population of Florida and Bangladesh, because most of the land will turn into ocean or swamp. We have to give up all current beach site property, because the beach will be somewhere else. Real estate prices will shift tremendously, power balances will have to be balanced anew. Whole cultures have already crumbled because of subtle climate changes, and today, about 75% of the world populations are living in regions which will be directly affected by climate change. Maybe after some decades, all will be fine, and we might be able to farm in Antarctica, or some deserts have turned into wet lands, but until then, there will be turmoil.
Actually, intuition is the narrative mind at work. We tend to convert every information, every knowledge into narratives, and if information or knowledge are incomplete, we fill in the holes with bits that make a good narrative. This process is called intuition.
An ideology is just a modernist way to have a religion without having too many discussions about the hairstyle of the Supreme Being.
In many ways, Maoism or soviet style Stalinism are religions in about the same way we consider Confucianism or Taoism a religion. They are closed belief systems with a fundamental set of dogmata, they appeared preconceived by their founding fathers and all following discussions were just about how to correctly interpret the holy scriptures.
Or as my mother (artist herself) uses to say: symmetry is the beauty of the poor.
What we see her is that words or terms don't mean anything by itself, even if we try to agree on a meaning. Every word needs a theory, an enclosing concept to mean something. Beauty within the theory of biological fitness means something very different from beauty within the aesthetics of mathematical theorems. Only within the frame of a theory, a term has any meaning at all.
Most fruitless discussions about the true meaning of a term result from the fact that both sides can't agree on the theory within which the term should be valid, and most fruitful discussions about the same result in the foundation of a theory all sides can agree on.
USB was a standard developed by Intel in the first place to be put into the South Bridge. Apple was one of the first adopters though. So yes, even without Apple, USB would have become ubiquitious, part of every Intel chipset.
Almost a decade ago? Wow! When I was a child three decades ago, I read a book from the 1960ies, where this theory already was put forward -- based on evidence from excavations in the 1930ies. What is really interesting is the new evidence which is not based on cultural artefacts.
So you are advocating getting rid of caffeine and sugar, of glutamine and perfume, of acetylsalicylic acid, sodium carbonate and all those little substances that help us to overcome some unpleasant moments. No more tea, no more pepper, no more chili for us, because this is just getting us high!
They exist. That can be proven. Who sent them is up to the FBI to investigate and not yours to speculate. Especially publicly stating that the victims have faked them without any further evidence amounts to libel.
Not so long ago we had a discussion about the Third Industrial Revolution, and how it differs from the other two. And there, exactly the same issue was raised. Both industrial revolutions before were able to increase the productivity of the single worker. The first one, with the mechanic loom and the steam engine, increased the output of the factories and the farms, setting people free to do more sophisticated work that was already present, but not enough skilled people were there to take all the research, engineering and construction jobs, that were open before or opening because the First Industrial Revolution needed them. The Second Industrial Revolution, with trains, motor powered ships, cars and airplanes allowed to increase the amount of goods transferred and lowered the prices for trade, because now transportation after production was cheap too, and we got globalization and international division of labor. Ever larger plants could now produce more products which then could be delivered everywhere, resources could now be shipped from everywhere, still increasing productivity and setting people free who were until then occupied with necessary, but rather unproductive jobs.
But with the information revolution, the Third Industrial Revolution, the productivity increase didn't happen, or where it happened, it was only gradual. You can't mine iron much faster with more information at hand, crop yields don't increase with more information at hand. Travel times aren't reduced since several decades, and where they are indeed reduced, it's far away from what happened in the 19th and early 20th century. From a productivity point of view, the information revolution is a disappointment. Jobs get slashed, but there is no increase in the creation of actual wealth or value.
It does reduce travel. If it takes too long every day to get to work, people will look either for work more close to home, or they will look for a home more close to work, or they will look for a new workplace with affordable housing nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
But in general, getting more sheer power out of a certain engine size or configuration is not so much of an engineering problem (e.g. just add lots of chargers, and don't forget the cooling). It's more of a design decision if you want to have better all day behaviour and more stability under load, or if you want more impressive data sheet numbers. You surely can tune the Bugatti W16 to put out 1300 or 1400 hp and still being street legal, but what's the point? Koenigsegg decided to go a more extreme route, getting more power out of their engine, knowing well that their cars won't be used in the daily commute anyway.
It gets even worse. BMW got 1300 HP out of a 1.5 litre 4cyl in 1986. It was the "qualification" setting on their Formula 1 race engines for the Brabham team built into the Brabham BT55.
That's akin to say that until we have all the results from all supporting structures in a crumbling building, we shouldn't start to evacuate.
So the Earth surface is indeed getting warmer since the times we started to record it, which goes back in some regions to the 18th century. If the average temperature of the Earth's surface is getting warmer (which it does at least since we started to measure it), and if it is happening globally, there is good reason to call it Global Warming.
That there can be local warming that is even larger, or that there are locations which are colder on average now than they were when we started to record temperatures, is quite possible. The region I live in has gotten 2 K warmer on average since the begin of the records (which were somewhere around 1760, thus encompassing the whole era of Industrialization), much larger than the 0.7 K on average we measure globally. So there surely are regions which warmed less than 0.7 K on average.
This is a fact you can read at NOAA or whatever organisations keep record of local and global temperatures.
Where the theorizing starts is if this trend continues in the future, and what causes the Global Warming. But the single fact that the Earth's surface got warmer globally and on average is no hypothesis, is a fact we have measurements of.
And those facts the jury votes one are (or should be) worth nil, if new evidence pops up that contradicts it. Then people get exonerated for crimes they didn't commit, and the former conviction is vindicated.
No, he claimed that the temperature of the Venus' atmosphere at "earthly" conditions, e.g. at a pressure of about 1 bar (somewhere 100,000 feet above the Venus surface) is, after correcting for the distance to the Sun, the same as on Earth.
There is not reason why a distribution in general should be normal, and many of them aren't.
You mean, it tries to start services and also logs the events that happen during the startup? How barbarishly un-UNIX-y!
So arguing that there is no global warming, that the global warming has stopped, that it is not man-made or that it is a non-issue, because it will actually benefit us, is seen as some way of defending Freedom[tm], and many libertarian leaning people and a lot of conservative ones feel a mission to cast doubt on solid science, because defending Freedom is always good work, right? And because the science itself is quite solid (we can actually measure the heat trapping properties of different levels of the components in the atmosphere, and we have a good way to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide and methane we release in the atmosphere), the doubt is cast either on the researchers (they are accused to have an agenda, they are called liars, they are suspected to conspire against us all...), or on the immediate conclusions. Models are called misleading, every new discovery how to more correctly assess an effect gets hailed as proof that the evil climate scientists are wrong again etc.pp..
Try to separate the science and the politics! And yes, denying the science on whatever level is at first an attempt to politice the science.
Yes, we can't build a time machine and go back in time to check. But we can make educated guesses about it. We can't also travel to a quasar and check if our theories about the behaviour of quasars are right, but we can make educated guesses about them, and there is no reason to throw out everything we hypothetize about quasars or call research into quasars pseudo-science, just because we can't get there.
A douchebag is a tool, thus you are redundant.
The assumption is completely different: We assume that our whole infrastructure is adapted to the climate state about 30-50 years ago. A change in the climate, how favourable it might be in the far future, means at first rebuilding and adapting. We have to clear whole countries like the Maledivas or the coral island states of the Southern Pacific, because they will be under water. We have to resettle the population of Florida and Bangladesh, because most of the land will turn into ocean or swamp. We have to give up all current beach site property, because the beach will be somewhere else. Real estate prices will shift tremendously, power balances will have to be balanced anew. Whole cultures have already crumbled because of subtle climate changes, and today, about 75% of the world populations are living in regions which will be directly affected by climate change. Maybe after some decades, all will be fine, and we might be able to farm in Antarctica, or some deserts have turned into wet lands, but until then, there will be turmoil.
Actually, intuition is the narrative mind at work. We tend to convert every information, every knowledge into narratives, and if information or knowledge are incomplete, we fill in the holes with bits that make a good narrative. This process is called intuition.
René Descartes begs to differ.
Everyone except some pantheists is an atheist. Only some of them think that there is one god more which doesn't exist.
In many ways, Maoism or soviet style Stalinism are religions in about the same way we consider Confucianism or Taoism a religion. They are closed belief systems with a fundamental set of dogmata, they appeared preconceived by their founding fathers and all following discussions were just about how to correctly interpret the holy scriptures.
What we see her is that words or terms don't mean anything by itself, even if we try to agree on a meaning. Every word needs a theory, an enclosing concept to mean something. Beauty within the theory of biological fitness means something very different from beauty within the aesthetics of mathematical theorems. Only within the frame of a theory, a term has any meaning at all.
Most fruitless discussions about the true meaning of a term result from the fact that both sides can't agree on the theory within which the term should be valid, and most fruitful discussions about the same result in the foundation of a theory all sides can agree on.
USB was a standard developed by Intel in the first place to be put into the South Bridge. Apple was one of the first adopters though. So yes, even without Apple, USB would have become ubiquitious, part of every Intel chipset.
Almost a decade ago? Wow! When I was a child three decades ago, I read a book from the 1960ies, where this theory already was put forward -- based on evidence from excavations in the 1930ies. What is really interesting is the new evidence which is not based on cultural artefacts.
So you are advocating getting rid of caffeine and sugar, of glutamine and perfume, of acetylsalicylic acid, sodium carbonate and all those little substances that help us to overcome some unpleasant moments. No more tea, no more pepper, no more chili for us, because this is just getting us high!
They exist. That can be proven. Who sent them is up to the FBI to investigate and not yours to speculate. Especially publicly stating that the victims have faked them without any further evidence amounts to libel.
This is not Third Industrial Revolution, this is still First Industrial Revolution: mechanize the production.
But with the information revolution, the Third Industrial Revolution, the productivity increase didn't happen, or where it happened, it was only gradual. You can't mine iron much faster with more information at hand, crop yields don't increase with more information at hand. Travel times aren't reduced since several decades, and where they are indeed reduced, it's far away from what happened in the 19th and early 20th century. From a productivity point of view, the information revolution is a disappointment. Jobs get slashed, but there is no increase in the creation of actual wealth or value.
It does reduce travel. If it takes too long every day to get to work, people will look either for work more close to home, or they will look for a home more close to work, or they will look for a new workplace with affordable housing nearby.