you'd probably end of feeling like your efforts are futile and lose interest.
Maybe YOU might feel worthless without people patting you on the back. I find great satisfaction in doing things for my own sake. I've never quit any of my copious hobbies (painting, music, and coding included) because of what other people think. Finishing or accomplishing something is usually more than enough reward. Maybe you should find a new hobby?
Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.
True, that's why the fundamental reason for legalizing marijuana should be: "Its safe for society at large and the people want it so"
Whats your point?/. jerks are justified in being overly jerky because some guy you know thinks STEM is full of jerks? Surely your prof doesn't teach every literature class...
And whoever downmodded the GP pretty much proved his point by essentially saying "Your benign suggestion to open our minds is BULLSHIT because when we're trying to be objective theres no time to sugar coat it, theres only enough time to be a dick!"
The beer downstairs is definitely colder, probably a little colder than it should be. I've since increased the thermostat but still have the problem. The overflow is directly out of the bottle a few seconds after I pop it so its not related to the pour. Another post suggested the smaller fridge may vibrate more which may be worth investigating.
As for home brewing, I tried to get my wife into it (a guy can dream right?) but the starter kit has yet to be opened. Unfortunately I have far to many other hobbies (such as beer enjoyment) to pick up another one at this point.
Beer overflow seems to occur more frequently in the smaller refrigerator I have in the basement. When I open a beer bottle or can (usually a craft beer) it will often overflow, something that almost never happens in the upstairs kitchen. It runs a little cooler than our main refrigerator and the bottles are often horizontal. Are these two factors contributing to the overflow? Is the downstairs beer more excited to get in my belly? Whats the science behind it?
LA (and California as a whole) are places where businesses are fleeing from... this is why Austin, Seattle, and other cities are overrun with CA transplants. nailing everyone living in the city with such a financial burden will only make things worse and accelerate LA's decay.
Sounds like the free-market solution to reducing major earthquake damage costs is already in effect!
And if I get another response from you then maybe you're a spam bot designed by my company's competitors to generate endless Steven Hawking related conspiracy theories for me to debunk instead of doing my job. Note: Not responding does not disprove my conspiracy theory!
You know what else is with him 24 hours a day? A staff of doctors, nurses and assistants who know him personally and are with him to help as he painstakingly composes a few sentences over the course of hours or days. The public might only see a shriveled body and a machine but he is indeed a person that interacts with other people that would know if something was up.
Hmm...maybe its really the staff pulling the strings? Or someone sent back from the future after they realized this was the best way to prevent judgment day?
Why does a whole earth of life need to form near the black hole? The star doesn't need to bring a planet full of spores with it, just an infusion of elements that may be rare in another galaxy. The alien star might then get captured and live out its life in a benign galaxy eventually becoming a nebula full of heavy elements that will become the next star/planet system. Essentially it's bringing planetary system embryos with it*.
This thread seems caught up on the idea life being transported. Providing building blocks to a location that has none is just as good for seeding life when you have billions of years to spare*.
Take it back a step. Say one galaxy is super dense and has lots of supernovas. It's stars would be full of heavier elements essential for life. If one of these stars gets flung into a diffuse galaxy and gets captured it would be providing the elements that are unlikely to form on their own in that area. Eventually it would burn up and provide the basis for a new solar system so no need to BYOPlanets! It would seem the odds are small but the universe is a big place...
50 years ago? The diode was invented in 1906, bro. Binary logic was well established by the 60's and Li-Ion batteries weren't far behind in the 70's. Most everything we're using today was floating around in some form in the 60's, just a hell of a lot bigger. Even the discovery of the Higgs was a minor disappointment to physicists because it turned out to behave almost exactly as predicted.
I agree there is a long long way to go but to say we're still pre-infantile is shitting on all the great achievements humanity has accomplished. They're close to confirming exomoons orbiting on exoplanets! We're at least toddlers standing up in our high chair, throwing spaghetti around, and reaching for the cookie jar. We can see a lot of whats around us but haven't put all the details together yet.
Thats how I approach movies/tv. I'll allow one giant off the wall liberty (i.e. zombies, warp drive, super powers, senator all of a sudden turns evil and becomes a murderer because he wasn't given majority leader, etc) but everything else has to follow along somewhat logically. Moderate wiggle room is sometimes allowed if I remain entertained cause thats the whole point of course. But if too many plot devices are required to keep the story going I'll give up on it pretty quick.
What's really startling (not really) is the fact gerrymandering is worse in blue states than red ones,
Is it? Did you run a similar model on the other 49 states and find that mathematical districting favors republicans 51% of the time? If you could provide your method and data it would certainly illuminate the conversation.
Or are we just taking one line blanket statements at face value now (as the +5 indicates)? AKA the campaign commercial debate style.
Its certainly interesting how historical events can be tied to volcanic eruptions. But most in recent (geological) history seem to have only affected the climate for a few years. It goes back to normal because volcanic activity is part of a balanced system. And given that we're not great (AFAIK) at predicting (and believing predictions of...and arresting Italian scientists if they are wrong) specific eruptions more than a week or so in advance and the effects last only a few years, is it even worth trying to add them or is just throwing in the historical averages good enough?
No, the real news here as far as/. is concerned is that pretty much every knowledgeable user is gone.
These stories used to take off and have comments that genuinely added to the article by actual scientists and sometimes even people working on the project. Now they struggle to get 50 comments where half are trolls, 1/4 are weak jokes, 1/8 are armchair physicists quoting junk science, 1/16 were trying for first post in a different article and the remainder is divided up into legitimate questions and responses. The numbers probably aren't all that different but apparently the informed user base has dropped below a critical mass. Its too bad because as the LHC shows, when we learn new things these days its on the grandest scale. If anyone has suggestions on where to go for such insight please let me know./. can shine on as a repository for political circle jerking, shills, and (in far greater numbers) accusers of shills.
Oh, and to answer your question*, the metaphorical brick wall is actually "21.6 tons of graphite, aluminum and copper known as “beam dumps." - source: the article
*Note: In my rant I didn't bash the/. tradition of not RTFA. Thats the glue that holds us together.
Well, in the last two thousand years, we've had the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. So we've had some genuinely large variation.
ummm...if we're picking, perhaps the median of all that? Like I said?
To clarify, when I said "what the global mean has been for the last few thousand years" I didn't mean "a singular worst case extreme". What we are essentially choosing is much worse than any of those worst case scenarios.
Thanks for educating me on the medieval warm period by the way. Now I feel even worse about our current situation. That anomaly was 0.2C above the 2000 year average and now we're 0.5C above and rising at an exponentially faster rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). The roman warm period had climates similar to that of the year 2000....locally, not globally. Please tell me why we should just "let it ride".
I'm sure you pedantic scamps have plenty of anecdotes to "disprove" any reasonable take on what average temperatures are ideal for creatures currently living on earth. Yours in particular (which I'd group under outliers) would be less of a concern today because we are not limited to technology of the 1600's.
All I'm trying to say is it would be least disruptive to life on earth if we didn't suddenly create (among other things) a situation in which costal areas (where something like 90% of earth's human population lives) became unstable to the point where it was preferable for those 6 billion people to want to move somewhere else instead of trying to make the new situation work where they are at.
In simpler terms, the most amicable situation for the vast majority of everything as it is now, is for temperature/climate to remain as it is now or change very very gradually. I'm ready more anecdotes to refute that, maybe attack grammar and spelling while you're at it/openingpandora'sbox.
The optimum temperature would be one in which extreme droughts, storms, etc are at most regional events limited to a few years and don't have long lasting global effects (with minimal outliers). Kinda like what the global mean has been for the last few thousand years and that we will be exiting in the next few decades or century if the status quo continues (one could argue a global temperature shift would be much less jarring to human society if it happens over many thousands of years, as it normally does).
So this is a problem that can be fixed by widely applying best practices.
Great! Surely every well owner will do just that because free market! If you have a realistic way to implement this in the real world that can actually be applied to the type of human beings that live on earth I'd like to hear it.
Also, the half life may be 7 years but the effect is 100x that of CO2. We could do without a quick extreme burst of greenhouse effect when we are already at a tipping point.
Your perfect solution sounds perfect. Are there any working models in use?
I'm all for nuclear but what you're describing (no maintenance?!) doesn't exist. Please prove me and the rest of the world wrong. Right now it looks like the most promising candidate for your mini reactor is Lockheed's new fusion design. If they really get it up and running in 10 years we might have a chance of sustaining the environment our society has evolved to thrive in (assuming we also do CO2 sequestration because we're already at the tipping point). Otherwise we're in for a couple centuries of painful adjustment to a brand new climate.
You think you're refuting the GP's argument but you're actually bolstering it. GP says you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about any one group. You show that's exactly the case because there is plenty of disagreement/contradiction within those generalized groups with your (somewhat dubious IMO) edge cases.
Did you know batteries are improving as well? I've seen a few reports that show energy density is increasing by about 6%/year. That should make them viable around the same time solar is cheaper than coal. And if google's little box challange gets anywhere close to it's goal the third and final leg of your argument collapses as well.
Slashdot Mirror
you'd probably end of feeling like your efforts are futile and lose interest.
Maybe YOU might feel worthless without people patting you on the back. I find great satisfaction in doing things for my own sake. I've never quit any of my copious hobbies (painting, music, and coding included) because of what other people think. Finishing or accomplishing something is usually more than enough reward. Maybe you should find a new hobby?
Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.
True, that's why the fundamental reason for legalizing marijuana should be: "Its safe for society at large and the people want it so"
Taxes are just a happy side effect.
Whats your point? /. jerks are justified in being overly jerky because some guy you know thinks STEM is full of jerks? Surely your prof doesn't teach every literature class...
And whoever downmodded the GP pretty much proved his point by essentially saying "Your benign suggestion to open our minds is BULLSHIT because when we're trying to be objective theres no time to sugar coat it, theres only enough time to be a dick!"
Nail on the head. But she can't change me! I'm my own man!! I'll just drink whatever is left in the bottle.
The beer downstairs is definitely colder, probably a little colder than it should be. I've since increased the thermostat but still have the problem. The overflow is directly out of the bottle a few seconds after I pop it so its not related to the pour. Another post suggested the smaller fridge may vibrate more which may be worth investigating.
As for home brewing, I tried to get my wife into it (a guy can dream right?) but the starter kit has yet to be opened. Unfortunately I have far to many other hobbies (such as beer enjoyment) to pick up another one at this point.
Beer overflow seems to occur more frequently in the smaller refrigerator I have in the basement. When I open a beer bottle or can (usually a craft beer) it will often overflow, something that almost never happens in the upstairs kitchen. It runs a little cooler than our main refrigerator and the bottles are often horizontal. Are these two factors contributing to the overflow? Is the downstairs beer more excited to get in my belly? Whats the science behind it?
LA (and California as a whole) are places where businesses are fleeing from... this is why Austin, Seattle, and other cities are overrun with CA transplants. nailing everyone living in the city with such a financial burden will only make things worse and accelerate LA's decay.
Sounds like the free-market solution to reducing major earthquake damage costs is already in effect!
Sensors can monitor only weather. They can monitor neither climate nor change.
That's why they aren't planning to turn them on for only one day and call it quits. The system is designed to collect data for decades.
And if I get another response from you then maybe you're a spam bot designed by my company's competitors to generate endless Steven Hawking related conspiracy theories for me to debunk instead of doing my job. Note: Not responding does not disprove my conspiracy theory!
You know what else is with him 24 hours a day? A staff of doctors, nurses and assistants who know him personally and are with him to help as he painstakingly composes a few sentences over the course of hours or days. The public might only see a shriveled body and a machine but he is indeed a person that interacts with other people that would know if something was up.
Hmm...maybe its really the staff pulling the strings? Or someone sent back from the future after they realized this was the best way to prevent judgment day?
Why does a whole earth of life need to form near the black hole? The star doesn't need to bring a planet full of spores with it, just an infusion of elements that may be rare in another galaxy. The alien star might then get captured and live out its life in a benign galaxy eventually becoming a nebula full of heavy elements that will become the next star/planet system. Essentially it's bringing planetary system embryos with it*.
This thread seems caught up on the idea life being transported. Providing building blocks to a location that has none is just as good for seeding life when you have billions of years to spare*.
*Maybe. Just an uninformed hypothesis
Just a guess here...
Take it back a step. Say one galaxy is super dense and has lots of supernovas. It's stars would be full of heavier elements essential for life. If one of these stars gets flung into a diffuse galaxy and gets captured it would be providing the elements that are unlikely to form on their own in that area. Eventually it would burn up and provide the basis for a new solar system so no need to BYOPlanets! It would seem the odds are small but the universe is a big place...
50 years ago? The diode was invented in 1906, bro. Binary logic was well established by the 60's and Li-Ion batteries weren't far behind in the 70's. Most everything we're using today was floating around in some form in the 60's, just a hell of a lot bigger. Even the discovery of the Higgs was a minor disappointment to physicists because it turned out to behave almost exactly as predicted.
I agree there is a long long way to go but to say we're still pre-infantile is shitting on all the great achievements humanity has accomplished. They're close to confirming exomoons orbiting on exoplanets! We're at least toddlers standing up in our high chair, throwing spaghetti around, and reaching for the cookie jar. We can see a lot of whats around us but haven't put all the details together yet.
Thats how I approach movies/tv. I'll allow one giant off the wall liberty (i.e. zombies, warp drive, super powers, senator all of a sudden turns evil and becomes a murderer because he wasn't given majority leader, etc) but everything else has to follow along somewhat logically. Moderate wiggle room is sometimes allowed if I remain entertained cause thats the whole point of course. But if too many plot devices are required to keep the story going I'll give up on it pretty quick.
What's really startling (not really) is the fact gerrymandering is worse in blue states than red ones,
Is it? Did you run a similar model on the other 49 states and find that mathematical districting favors republicans 51% of the time? If you could provide your method and data it would certainly illuminate the conversation.
Or are we just taking one line blanket statements at face value now (as the +5 indicates)? AKA the campaign commercial debate style.
an eruption of troll commentary.
I see what you did there.
Its certainly interesting how historical events can be tied to volcanic eruptions. But most in recent (geological) history seem to have only affected the climate for a few years. It goes back to normal because volcanic activity is part of a balanced system. And given that we're not great (AFAIK) at predicting (and believing predictions of...and arresting Italian scientists if they are wrong) specific eruptions more than a week or so in advance and the effects last only a few years, is it even worth trying to add them or is just throwing in the historical averages good enough?
No, the real news here as far as /. is concerned is that pretty much every knowledgeable user is gone.
These stories used to take off and have comments that genuinely added to the article by actual scientists and sometimes even people working on the project. Now they struggle to get 50 comments where half are trolls, 1/4 are weak jokes, 1/8 are armchair physicists quoting junk science, 1/16 were trying for first post in a different article and the remainder is divided up into legitimate questions and responses. The numbers probably aren't all that different but apparently the informed user base has dropped below a critical mass. Its too bad because as the LHC shows, when we learn new things these days its on the grandest scale. If anyone has suggestions on where to go for such insight please let me know. /. can shine on as a repository for political circle jerking, shills, and (in far greater numbers) accusers of shills.
Oh, and to answer your question*, the metaphorical brick wall is actually "21.6 tons of graphite, aluminum and copper known as “beam dumps." - source: the article
*Note: In my rant I didn't bash the /. tradition of not RTFA. Thats the glue that holds us together.
Even China has a far more reliable power supply than the USA. Virtually no outages due to normal storms or lightning or so;
Maybe because half of their housing developments are completely vacant! BaBam!
Well, in the last two thousand years, we've had the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. So we've had some genuinely large variation.
ummm...if we're picking, perhaps the median of all that? Like I said?
To clarify, when I said "what the global mean has been for the last few thousand years" I didn't mean "a singular worst case extreme". What we are essentially choosing is much worse than any of those worst case scenarios.
Thanks for educating me on the medieval warm period by the way. Now I feel even worse about our current situation. That anomaly was 0.2C above the 2000 year average and now we're 0.5C above and rising at an exponentially faster rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). The roman warm period had climates similar to that of the year 2000....locally, not globally. Please tell me why we should just "let it ride".
I'm sure you pedantic scamps have plenty of anecdotes to "disprove" any reasonable take on what average temperatures are ideal for creatures currently living on earth. Yours in particular (which I'd group under outliers) would be less of a concern today because we are not limited to technology of the 1600's.
All I'm trying to say is it would be least disruptive to life on earth if we didn't suddenly create (among other things) a situation in which costal areas (where something like 90% of earth's human population lives) became unstable to the point where it was preferable for those 6 billion people to want to move somewhere else instead of trying to make the new situation work where they are at.
In simpler terms, the most amicable situation for the vast majority of everything as it is now, is for temperature/climate to remain as it is now or change very very gradually. I'm ready more anecdotes to refute that, maybe attack grammar and spelling while you're at it /openingpandora'sbox.
The optimum temperature would be one in which extreme droughts, storms, etc are at most regional events limited to a few years and don't have long lasting global effects (with minimal outliers). Kinda like what the global mean has been for the last few thousand years and that we will be exiting in the next few decades or century if the status quo continues (one could argue a global temperature shift would be much less jarring to human society if it happens over many thousands of years, as it normally does).
So this is a problem that can be fixed by widely applying best practices.
Great! Surely every well owner will do just that because free market! If you have a realistic way to implement this in the real world that can actually be applied to the type of human beings that live on earth I'd like to hear it.
Also, the half life may be 7 years but the effect is 100x that of CO2. We could do without a quick extreme burst of greenhouse effect when we are already at a tipping point.
Your perfect solution sounds perfect. Are there any working models in use?
I'm all for nuclear but what you're describing (no maintenance?!) doesn't exist. Please prove me and the rest of the world wrong. Right now it looks like the most promising candidate for your mini reactor is Lockheed's new fusion design. If they really get it up and running in 10 years we might have a chance of sustaining the environment our society has evolved to thrive in (assuming we also do CO2 sequestration because we're already at the tipping point). Otherwise we're in for a couple centuries of painful adjustment to a brand new climate.
You think you're refuting the GP's argument but you're actually bolstering it. GP says you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about any one group. You show that's exactly the case because there is plenty of disagreement/contradiction within those generalized groups with your (somewhat dubious IMO) edge cases.
Did you know batteries are improving as well? I've seen a few reports that show energy density is increasing by about 6%/year. That should make them viable around the same time solar is cheaper than coal. And if google's little box challange gets anywhere close to it's goal the third and final leg of your argument collapses as well.