The schedule with ye olde pipewrench (or any other method of torture) has been known to be a very stump weapon in real investigations since about 350 year (Friedrich Spee's Cautio criminalis has the details. It's just an intimidation tool. But if you really want to get information, torture is generally worthless. All it can do is enforce what you already know or believe to know.
Torture is used to get a confession, not information, and 24 Hours is a TV series, not a descriptive teaching of proven investigative methods.
It's quite more complicated. If you look at the CIA's World Fact Book, you will see, that most countries of the world including most Third World nations now have reproduction rates of about 1.8 to 2.2. Higher reproduction rates exists only in countries with really long wars, unrest or civil wars, e.g. Afghanistan or the Democratic Republic of Kongo.
And you vastly underestimate the access to health care and education in the "shithole countries". The world view of the West often is stuck in the 1970ies and 1980ies and has not gotten much update since then. 80% of the world population now has better health care coverage than Western countries in the 1960ies, when the baby boom came to an end, and the average time a girl somewhere in the world of today visits school is eight years. And thus, the baby boom for 80% of the world has actually ended.
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth. They do help, but are less important than you think.
Actually, all German made diesels tested for Euronorm 4 proved to have faked their emission during tests, e.g. switched to a "low emission" mode specially crafted to the test cycle (but with lower power output and lower torque). No single allegedly Euronorm 4 compliant Diesel comes close to the emission limits set by the standard during normal operation, thus Euronorm 4 was shelved, and the certifications are basically worthless.
So the problem is not new standards, it's cheating on the old standards. Thank the industry trying to game the system!
It all comes down to temperatures. The steel of the rails is fine until about 500 F, above that it loses its structural integrity. That's why the firebox of an oven is made from cast iron, not from steel. Cast iron is sturdy until it melts (around 2700 F), while steel is malleable at lower temperatures, depending on the type of steel starting around 500 F (That's the main reason we use steel anyway: The possibility to form it at temperatures way below the melting point!). And even jet fuel would be o.k. to unfrozen switches, as the heat goes up into the air, and the temperature of the rails never gets to 500 F. That's quite different from a closed building where the heat is trapped at the ceiling, heating the ceiling easily up to 1000 F or 1500 F.
You can easily see the effect of normal fuel from the gas station if you look at the wrecks of burned out cars: In most cases, the frame of the car has sunken in under its own weight. Imagine the same steel frame with the weight of dozens of floors on top of it!
Of course it happens sometimes. Still, you vastly overestimate the number of cases and the severity, while you totally underestimate the risk associated for instance with rubella. When I was a child, I had several friends in kindergarten or in elementary school that had valvular heart disease because their mothers got infected with rubella when they were pregnant. In one case, it was, because the elder sibling caught rubella in kindergarten and infected his mother while she was carrying her younger son. Later, I was in a sports club for canoe slalom, and one of young men there never trained with us, but was there very often. He had polio, when he was younger, and while he luckily wasn't bound to a wheelchair all the time (he could walk alright), he couldn't sit in a canoe.
With those examples out of sight, many parents can't even imagine the problems associated with not vaccinating, all they see are reports how vaccines have been recalled, or when talking with other parents, how their child was feeling sick for three days after a shot.
We have a typical case of "only the dangers I see are important".
As measles and polio and rubella and all the other illnesses we vax again are (thanks to the vaccination) no longer in plain sight, people tend to underestimate their risk. As we easily can imagine the piercing hurting the child, the wound becoming infected, the child misreacting on the vaccines and so on, we tend to overestimate their risk. Thus we want to protect the child against the perceived danger and not against the real danger.
No. I just say that the idea that you just have to behave, and no harm will come to you is simply wrong. This is the idea behind victim blaming: If you had behaved right, you would not be a victim. That is the argument that tries to vindicate rapists.
The grand parent poster tried to justify unfair attacks with victim blaming: "If the media was always right, no one would attack them".
And you are playing the same game: Unfair attacks are fair in reality, because the media is guilty. No. Unfair attacks are unfair, independently of the guilt of the victim. Who does evil, is evil, whoever the victim is.
This is just an opinion piece trying to look like a collection of facts. Basically, you are doing what you accuse "the media" of.
And writing opinion pieces is not "activism", it's simply journalism. Even journalists have a right to speak their mind. In a journal. And no, you are not required to agree. That doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right. And even when you are right: journalists even have the right to be wrong about something. And they are still no "activists", but remain journalists.
This line of attack would still work. Spreading false claims works even against people who always tell the truth. It's not that your claims have to be true. It's enough if they sow doubt. There are people out there who sell their ability to destroy other people's credibility to the highest bidder. There are false flag operations, there are fake documents and false statements about things other people said.
Apparently, the problem is often the X- and Y-chromosome. With female mammals, you have an XX combination, where you can hope that at least one of them is working in the new genetic make-up, thus you often have fertile female hybrids. With XY, you have less luck.
But if you interbred an XX hybrid (e.g. a female hybrid) with one of the parent species, chances are 50:50, that you get both chromosomes from a single species, and then you can have fertile offspring.
So your relatives live somewhere between Duesseldorf and Mettmann in Germany (at least that's where the Neanderthal is). There is even a train station Neanderthal.
The Neanderthal was named for the famous German church hymn writer Joachim Neander (Neumann), who translated his family name (Neumann, literally new man) into Greek: Neandros or Neander.
Quite interesting, the name of the place, where the Homo neanderthalensis was found, is "valley of the New Man".
Actually, they stop at the F1 generation, as either all crossbred offspring is infertile, or at least follows Haldane's rule, meaning that with mammals, the male offspring is infertile.
So while you can get crossbreds, you can't further bred the crossbreds to have generations of hybrids.
Then we have the case of lion and tiger. Here, it gets really complicated. A crossbred of a male tiger and a lioness is usually called a liger. While male ligers are infertile, female ligers are fertile. If you cross a female liger with a male lion, you get something called a li-liger (Panthera leo x (leo x tigris)). And li-liger are fertile, both males and females, and can interbreed. Are tiger and lion the same species, as you can create hybrids that are fertile?
Actually, he didn't give a definition for a species. He only insisted that "interbreeding with fertile offspring" is not a good criterion It would for instance not cover geographical species, which would be able to interbreed, but can't because the two populations don't mix due to geographical conditions.
And it would not cover quite common species like the ordinary dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), which has a surprisingly complex way to create offspring. There are three different genetic make-ups of dandelion: diploid, triploid and tetraploid, which can't easily crossbreed. From the outside, they all look identical, just the number of chromosomes they have in their nuclei changes. Two diploid parents create tetraploid offspring. A diploid and a tetraploid dandelion create triploid offspring. Triploid dandelions are infertile, but can create clones of themselves. Tetraploid dandelion can't fertilize another tetraploid dandelion, only diploids. So the normal way is that diploids create tetraploids, and then the diploids and the tetraploids create triploids, which are infertile, but create clones. And how does the circle close? The cloning is not perfect, and often, after cloning, one chromosome is missing, so with time, the triploid chromosome set becomes more and more diploid. With a chromosome set mainly but not necessarily completely diploid, dandelion starts to behave like a perfect diploid, crossfertilizing other diploid and tetraploid dandelion again.
If you look at the "fertile offspring" definition of species, common dandelion wouldn't be a single species, but rather each individual plant would be a species of its own, as it is either infertile (triploids), can't create any offspring with individuals of the same genetic make-up (tetraploids), can't create fertile offspring (diploid x tetraploid) or can't create offspring of similar genetic make-up (diploid x diploid).
Actually, water vapor has about two to three times the Greenhouse effect of Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. And that already includes the higher content of water vapor (2500 ppm vs. 410 ppm). But differently than Carbon dioxide, the water vapor in the atmosphere don't change that much given the same temperature conditions (You can't have more than 100% humidity;) ). If the average temperature of the atmosphere rises, then the absolute numbers for water vapor rises too (about 7 percent per Kelvin), making it a feedback loop.
Maybe you confuse water vapor with methane? This is actually much more potent than Carbon dioxide. Luckily, it has also vastly less concentration in the atmosphere (1.8 ppm compared with 410 ppm for Carbon dioxide). Thus it's absolute Greenhouse effect is thus only about a quarter of that of Carbon dioxide. And it gets destroyed very fast by sun rays. If we stop producing methane, the methane content of the atmosphere will drop immediately (within days!). But as I already wrote: About 70 percent of the whole Carbon dioxide we produced within the last 120 years) is still in the atmosphere.
There have been numerous examples of very smart people holding completely bogus views on topics they don't have intimate knowledge of.
And the "models" are a straw man argument. There are much more elementary arguments for Global Warming that don't need complicate models. For instance, we can measure the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide, and it's even possible to calculate it down to ten digits, and in accordance to the actual measurements. We have the Venus and the Mars (both have about 95% Carbon dioxide in their atmospheres, and we can measure the Greenhouse effect there. Actually, all celestial bodies with an atmosphere have a Greenhouse effect, even the Saturn moon Titan.
We know the development of the Carbon dioxide contents of the atmosphere during the last 120 years. In 1900, it was about 270 ppm, in the 1950ies, it was 300 ppm, in the 1980ies 330 ppm, and it's 410 ppm now. We can easily find out how much additional Carbon dioxide we need to add that much to the atmosphere (about 700 billion metric tons). We also know how much coal and oil we have mined (270 billion metric tons) and burned since the year of 1900, and how much Carbon dioxide it has generated (1000 billion metric tons). So about 70% of all that Carbon dioxide is still in the atmosphere, and 30% has disappeared (e.g. has acidified the ocean waters, increased the plant mass on Earth or formed compounds with minerals in the Earth's crust).
See? No complicated models. Just pure numbers and basic Arithmetics. The models serve a totally other purpose. They try to predict which effects the increased Greenhouse effect has: How much warming will actually happen? How strong will the melting of the glaciers be? How will weather patterns change? What will be the new layout of the climate zones? And when will we experience how much of what effect? And yes, here we have lots of uncertainity, and partly, we have large error bars. But the general statement stays the same: Global temperatures are rising, the ocean levels are rising, coastal areas will experience more flooding and will be lost, conditions for crops will change, and all that will lead to a large amount of resettlements of people, e.g. much more migration than today.
Edge computing means that the signal from the sensors will be processed at the point where they are generated and not sent raw to a central processing server. It has nothing to do with "cutting edge", but with the place in the network where the computing happens (at the edge).
Newspapers aren't Science. Newspapers are newspapers. And they don't report Science is it is, they report about Science or whatever the journalist (who is no specialist in the topic) understood.
So yes, there are sensationalist headlines. That doesn't invalidate the Science the newspapers are writing about. It might invalidate the way it was reported by people who weren't involved in the original research. If you are interested, most newspapers are referring to the publications they got their information from. And even if those publications in turn weren't the original research, they will be referring to it.
The news in 2018 was: "We can explain the weird orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects if we assume a planet ten times the size of the Earth."
And the news now is: "We can explain the weird orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects if we assume that all the Kuiper Belt objects taken together have ten times the mass of the Earth."
Nowhere was the news of any existance or non-existance of a Planet X.
And maybe the news in 2024 will be: "We found a mathematical model of the dynamics of the Kuiper Belt that explains the weird orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects without assuming more mass or more large objects than our current observations suggest."
On the other hand, the gravitons would be Spring green. Don't believe it? Just go out there in the Kuiper Belt, sit on a 10 km icy rock, and take a picture of the emitted gravitons: Spring galore!
Not exactly. The whole mass of the Kuiper Belt (containing millions of objects) has to be about 10 mass of the Earth in this model to explain the special orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects. But no single object has to be exceptionally large. A million objects each 10 km in diameter would have the same mass than one planet of 1000 km diameter of the same density.
Slashdot Mirror
Torture is used to get a confession, not information, and 24 Hours is a TV series, not a descriptive teaching of proven investigative methods.
And you vastly underestimate the access to health care and education in the "shithole countries". The world view of the West often is stuck in the 1970ies and 1980ies and has not gotten much update since then. 80% of the world population now has better health care coverage than Western countries in the 1960ies, when the baby boom came to an end, and the average time a girl somewhere in the world of today visits school is eight years. And thus, the baby boom for 80% of the world has actually ended.
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth. They do help, but are less important than you think.
So the problem is not new standards, it's cheating on the old standards. Thank the industry trying to game the system!
You can easily see the effect of normal fuel from the gas station if you look at the wrecks of burned out cars: In most cases, the frame of the car has sunken in under its own weight. Imagine the same steel frame with the weight of dozens of floors on top of it!
With those examples out of sight, many parents can't even imagine the problems associated with not vaccinating, all they see are reports how vaccines have been recalled, or when talking with other parents, how their child was feeling sick for three days after a shot.
As measles and polio and rubella and all the other illnesses we vax again are (thanks to the vaccination) no longer in plain sight, people tend to underestimate their risk. As we easily can imagine the piercing hurting the child, the wound becoming infected, the child misreacting on the vaccines and so on, we tend to overestimate their risk. Thus we want to protect the child against the perceived danger and not against the real danger.
Because your freedom ends when it endangers my life.
The grand parent poster tried to justify unfair attacks with victim blaming: "If the media was always right, no one would attack them".
And you are playing the same game: Unfair attacks are fair in reality, because the media is guilty. No. Unfair attacks are unfair, independently of the guilt of the victim. Who does evil, is evil, whoever the victim is.
And writing opinion pieces is not "activism", it's simply journalism. Even journalists have a right to speak their mind. In a journal. And no, you are not required to agree. That doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right. And even when you are right: journalists even have the right to be wrong about something. And they are still no "activists", but remain journalists.
This line of attack would still work. Spreading false claims works even against people who always tell the truth. It's not that your claims have to be true. It's enough if they sow doubt. There are people out there who sell their ability to destroy other people's credibility to the highest bidder. There are false flag operations, there are fake documents and false statements about things other people said.
Don't know where you got this wisdom from, but the most ardent collectors I know are women.
Apparently, the problem is often the X- and Y-chromosome. With female mammals, you have an XX combination, where you can hope that at least one of them is working in the new genetic make-up, thus you often have fertile female hybrids. With XY, you have less luck. But if you interbred an XX hybrid (e.g. a female hybrid) with one of the parent species, chances are 50:50, that you get both chromosomes from a single species, and then you can have fertile offspring.
The Neanderthal was named for the famous German church hymn writer Joachim Neander (Neumann), who translated his family name (Neumann, literally new man) into Greek: Neandros or Neander.
Quite interesting, the name of the place, where the Homo neanderthalensis was found, is "valley of the New Man".
So while you can get crossbreds, you can't further bred the crossbreds to have generations of hybrids.
Then we have the case of lion and tiger. Here, it gets really complicated. A crossbred of a male tiger and a lioness is usually called a liger. While male ligers are infertile, female ligers are fertile. If you cross a female liger with a male lion, you get something called a li-liger (Panthera leo x (leo x tigris)). And li-liger are fertile, both males and females, and can interbreed. Are tiger and lion the same species, as you can create hybrids that are fertile?
And it would not cover quite common species like the ordinary dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), which has a surprisingly complex way to create offspring. There are three different genetic make-ups of dandelion: diploid, triploid and tetraploid, which can't easily crossbreed. From the outside, they all look identical, just the number of chromosomes they have in their nuclei changes. Two diploid parents create tetraploid offspring. A diploid and a tetraploid dandelion create triploid offspring. Triploid dandelions are infertile, but can create clones of themselves. Tetraploid dandelion can't fertilize another tetraploid dandelion, only diploids. So the normal way is that diploids create tetraploids, and then the diploids and the tetraploids create triploids, which are infertile, but create clones. And how does the circle close? The cloning is not perfect, and often, after cloning, one chromosome is missing, so with time, the triploid chromosome set becomes more and more diploid. With a chromosome set mainly but not necessarily completely diploid, dandelion starts to behave like a perfect diploid, crossfertilizing other diploid and tetraploid dandelion again.
If you look at the "fertile offspring" definition of species, common dandelion wouldn't be a single species, but rather each individual plant would be a species of its own, as it is either infertile (triploids), can't create any offspring with individuals of the same genetic make-up (tetraploids), can't create fertile offspring (diploid x tetraploid) or can't create offspring of similar genetic make-up (diploid x diploid).
Maybe you confuse water vapor with methane? This is actually much more potent than Carbon dioxide. Luckily, it has also vastly less concentration in the atmosphere (1.8 ppm compared with 410 ppm for Carbon dioxide). Thus it's absolute Greenhouse effect is thus only about a quarter of that of Carbon dioxide. And it gets destroyed very fast by sun rays. If we stop producing methane, the methane content of the atmosphere will drop immediately (within days!). But as I already wrote: About 70 percent of the whole Carbon dioxide we produced within the last 120 years) is still in the atmosphere.
And the "models" are a straw man argument. There are much more elementary arguments for Global Warming that don't need complicate models. For instance, we can measure the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide, and it's even possible to calculate it down to ten digits, and in accordance to the actual measurements. We have the Venus and the Mars (both have about 95% Carbon dioxide in their atmospheres, and we can measure the Greenhouse effect there. Actually, all celestial bodies with an atmosphere have a Greenhouse effect, even the Saturn moon Titan.
We know the development of the Carbon dioxide contents of the atmosphere during the last 120 years. In 1900, it was about 270 ppm, in the 1950ies, it was 300 ppm, in the 1980ies 330 ppm, and it's 410 ppm now. We can easily find out how much additional Carbon dioxide we need to add that much to the atmosphere (about 700 billion metric tons). We also know how much coal and oil we have mined (270 billion metric tons) and burned since the year of 1900, and how much Carbon dioxide it has generated (1000 billion metric tons). So about 70% of all that Carbon dioxide is still in the atmosphere, and 30% has disappeared (e.g. has acidified the ocean waters, increased the plant mass on Earth or formed compounds with minerals in the Earth's crust).
See? No complicated models. Just pure numbers and basic Arithmetics. The models serve a totally other purpose. They try to predict which effects the increased Greenhouse effect has: How much warming will actually happen? How strong will the melting of the glaciers be? How will weather patterns change? What will be the new layout of the climate zones? And when will we experience how much of what effect? And yes, here we have lots of uncertainity, and partly, we have large error bars. But the general statement stays the same: Global temperatures are rising, the ocean levels are rising, coastal areas will experience more flooding and will be lost, conditions for crops will change, and all that will lead to a large amount of resettlements of people, e.g. much more migration than today.
Edge computing means that the signal from the sensors will be processed at the point where they are generated and not sent raw to a central processing server. It has nothing to do with "cutting edge", but with the place in the network where the computing happens (at the edge).
So yes, there are sensationalist headlines. That doesn't invalidate the Science the newspapers are writing about. It might invalidate the way it was reported by people who weren't involved in the original research. If you are interested, most newspapers are referring to the publications they got their information from. And even if those publications in turn weren't the original research, they will be referring to it.
"there probably is no 9th planet at all"
That's exactly the result we are talking about. Apparently, we don't need to assume a 9th planet to explain what we know right now.
And until new discoveries and measurements pop up, that will be what we know so far.
And the news now is: "We can explain the weird orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects if we assume that all the Kuiper Belt objects taken together have ten times the mass of the Earth."
Nowhere was the news of any existance or non-existance of a Planet X.
And maybe the news in 2024 will be: "We found a mathematical model of the dynamics of the Kuiper Belt that explains the weird orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects without assuming more mass or more large objects than our current observations suggest."
That always happens if Spring in the Kuiper belt is over, and after Summer, there comes Autumn.
On the other hand, the gravitons would be Spring green. Don't believe it? Just go out there in the Kuiper Belt, sit on a 10 km icy rock, and take a picture of the emitted gravitons: Spring galore!
Not exactly. The whole mass of the Kuiper Belt (containing millions of objects) has to be about 10 mass of the Earth in this model to explain the special orbits of some known Kuiper Belt objects. But no single object has to be exceptionally large. A million objects each 10 km in diameter would have the same mass than one planet of 1000 km diameter of the same density.