IMHO, battles in space between necessarily huge craft would be very boring to watch, missiles, energy weapons, rail guns etc, at HUGE distances!
It will all boil down to who gets off the first crippling hit and of course who has the most massive armor.
Space battle; Enemy detected, fire control computer launches attack, bright flash, battle over.
Even simpler:
Space battle: launch lots of moderately smart projectiles at some goodly fraction of C at immobile (planetary, asteroid, space station, whatever) targets.
Are the ships at rest compared to stars nearby when they finished their jump? At rest compared to the stars nearby when they started their jump? Neither?
A ship that has just finished a FTL jump has an observational jump regardless.
"Oh, there the Colonials are three light minutes away, I can see where they are, but they won't see me for three minutes?"'
They won't see you for three minutes. It will take you three hours to get to them.
Unless you not only have FTL jump capability but also an ability to accelerate to close to light speed in a few seconds or attack them with lasers 'they' still have an opportunity to observe you before you reach them.
Can you cite any elections wrongly decided because of voter fraud?
Can you cite any elections wrongly decided because of election fraud?
Which (election or voter fraud) do you think is more likely to cause a wrongly decided election? What basis are you using to come to that conclusion?
Which measures could be taken to ameliorate the chance of a wrongly decided election WITHOUT discouraging significant (in number, not in your personal regard) legitimate voters?
That voter ID laws do not violate the constitution so long as there is an ID card available for free that complies with the law
A regulation that rules out a use of your real estate is also free - after all, it's only an opportunity cost. If it costs you half a day's work plus transportation to get the "free" ID card is it still free?
If it was a regulation that cost a business, well, anything, republicans would figure the cost as the opportunity cost plus the cost of the time and effort spent meeting the regulation, not the fee paid to the government.
Wouldn't it be worthwhile to determine if a voting regulation is "appropriate" by attempting to figure out if the measure would result in discouraging more legitimate voters than illegitimate voters before enacting it?
Odd how republicans campaign on slashing and eliminating unnecessary regulations while simultaneously adding burdensome regulations without bothering to demonstrate that they solve an actual problem.
If these were health, safety, or environmental regulations republicans would be screaming that the cost of implementing the regulations is a waste of tax dollars, that citizens have to be reimbursed for the "takings" (lost income, expenses) these regulations forced them to incur, and overall would blather about the rules being another example of intrusive big government. They would go on to say that any effect of improper voting is speculative and demand to see evidence of actual harm (thrown elections) before allowing any such regulations.
Amazing how republicans' math skills invert if you switch from talking about arsenic in drinking water to improper voting.
The problem with glass is that it requires more energy to make than a can
Not sure about that. Aluminium is very energy intensive to produce, and of course the cost of the glass bottle is amortized over tens (or hundreds) of uses.
The last time I was on a brewery tour they said the average bottle was unusable after being recycled twice, but that's just beer bottles. Recycling glass takes about 50% of the energy of making new glass.
Most of the energy used in making an aluminum can is the f*ckton of electricity required to reduce bauxite ore to aluminum. Recycling a can takes 5% of the energy necessary to make a new can.
In mice the effects of caloric restriction are particular to the strain of mouse used: in many strains there's no effect. In primates it appears that caloric restriction works when the control group eats enough to get fat. There's little difference between macaques fed enough of a healthy diet to keep them at a normal weight for 20 years and macaques fed CR levels of the same diet (other than being very skinny and less active).
Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together.
The chance of a herbicide OR a GM protein having the exact same effect seems incredibly unlikely to me, especially when both follow a threshold instead of varying with dose. It really looks more like a systematic error in the experiment to me.
And there's also the issue of the lack of information on whether there were differences between the various groups of mice in how much they ate and their growth rates, and the fact that they only had 10 rats per group.
At a minimum, the study needs to be replicated in a different stain of rats, with much more then 10 rats per control group.
In this, the best of all possible chemical-industrial complexes, we should really be expecting that as each generation of antibiotic, herbicide, or pesticide is kneecapped by the evolution of resistant organisms (and simultaneously goes off patent) a new generation of molecules should come in to fill the gap. Unfortunately the chemical end of the operation doesn't seem to be up to speed these days...
The article states that "Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely" showing "2-3 times more large tumors than the control group"
FT (other) A:
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.
"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment.
"The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
So, who's up for making a browser addon that automatically cross-references online political ads to various fact checking sites?
Then maybe overlays a nice helpful graph or color to tell you how much BS you're being fed...Or just get adblock+ and opt out of it all.
Nice idea, but Republicans would probably ban it to prevent "voter fraud" or something.
RedState.com has banned citing fact checkers - unless you do it ironically.
Blind doesn't really work when the question is "do these two samples match?" anyone who can run the analysis can work out why you are asking.
That's why eyewitnesses are asked to identify a suspect from a lineup (or ideally, several sets of 6 or more photos) instead of just asking them "is this guy the one?". Run the analysis on the new sample. Compare it to a batch of different samples/analyses, one of which is the one of interest. Give different parts of the job to different people if necessary to keep the process blind.
There is lots of science and studies behind investigating fires. Perhaps you are confused between something you saw on a movie and something you heard in real life.
Probably he was confused between real life and real life in Texas, which probably executed an innocent man (Cameron Willingham) in 2004 based on old standards for point of origin and use of accelerants evidence.
The problem is that the legal system doesn't use scientific standards, it uses legal standards.
The Daubert standard might have fixed that somewhat - until it was watered down.
Wiki:
original Daubert standard:
Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
The known or potential error rate.
The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
Now it's:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
How often are tests run blind? For example, say you have fingerprint evidence and want to see if it matches a particular suspect. Is standard practice to 1: compare the evidence to the suspect's fingerprint directly; or 2: put the suspect's fingerprint in a database, run the evidence against the database, evaluate the hits to find the best match, and only after the final determination was made actually unblind the evidence and find out who belongs to the fingerprint?
Same goes for DNA, though for that I'd think the problems would be with evidence collection/contamination rather than the analysis itself.
You can pretty much choose what level of false positives you're willing to tolerate when matching the DNA in two (undegraded, uncontaminated) biological samples - just pick the appropriate technique. "Choosing" the samples is another thing...
its meant to be fast and unobtrusive. 1 click and you are through.
If it is going to be 1 click then the fast and unobtrusive question will also have to be an efficient captcha, otherwise the system will be overrun by bots and faked accounts tasked to run up the bill.
Why - you already have the votes recount them until you get consistency.
The people who previously voted for the 3rd place candidate or lower would probably end up giving one of the top two a definitive lead. Instant Runoff and Second Choice voting allow the runoff to happen without having to actually hold a second election.
How many of the 'bot accounts created to generate likes and ad views would pay $1 per month? If paying up would garner the account a shiny "verified real live human" badge to show to advertisers, maybe quite a few...
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, battles in space between necessarily huge craft would be very boring to watch, missiles, energy weapons, rail guns etc, at HUGE distances! It will all boil down to who gets off the first crippling hit and of course who has the most massive armor.
Space battle; Enemy detected, fire control computer launches attack, bright flash, battle over.
Even simpler: Space battle: launch lots of moderately smart projectiles at some goodly fraction of C at immobile (planetary, asteroid, space station, whatever) targets.
Done.
Well, whatever range you happen to put on it, RADAR will make it well easier to others detecting you than for you detecting them.
Depends on where you put the emitter.
Seriously.
Are the ships at rest compared to stars nearby when they finished their jump? At rest compared to the stars nearby when they started their jump? Neither?
A ship that has just finished a FTL jump has an observational jump regardless.
They won't see you for three minutes. It will take you three hours to get to them.
Unless you not only have FTL jump capability but also an ability to accelerate to close to light speed in a few seconds or attack them with lasers 'they' still have an opportunity to observe you before you reach them.
Can you cite any elections wrongly decided because of voter fraud? Can you cite any elections wrongly decided because of election fraud? Which (election or voter fraud) do you think is more likely to cause a wrongly decided election? What basis are you using to come to that conclusion? Which measures could be taken to ameliorate the chance of a wrongly decided election WITHOUT discouraging significant (in number, not in your personal regard) legitimate voters?
That voter ID laws do not violate the constitution so long as there is an ID card available for free that complies with the law
A regulation that rules out a use of your real estate is also free - after all, it's only an opportunity cost. If it costs you half a day's work plus transportation to get the "free" ID card is it still free?
If it was a regulation that cost a business, well, anything, republicans would figure the cost as the opportunity cost plus the cost of the time and effort spent meeting the regulation, not the fee paid to the government.
Wouldn't it be worthwhile to determine if a voting regulation is "appropriate" by attempting to figure out if the measure would result in discouraging more legitimate voters than illegitimate voters before enacting it?
If these were health, safety, or environmental regulations republicans would be screaming that the cost of implementing the regulations is a waste of tax dollars, that citizens have to be reimbursed for the "takings" (lost income, expenses) these regulations forced them to incur, and overall would blather about the rules being another example of intrusive big government. They would go on to say that any effect of improper voting is speculative and demand to see evidence of actual harm (thrown elections) before allowing any such regulations.
Amazing how republicans' math skills invert if you switch from talking about arsenic in drinking water to improper voting.
Illegal immigrants already have no right to vote in our country.
The problem with glass is that it requires more energy to make than a can
Not sure about that. Aluminium is very energy intensive to produce, and of course the cost of the glass bottle is amortized over tens (or hundreds) of uses.
The last time I was on a brewery tour they said the average bottle was unusable after being recycled twice, but that's just beer bottles. Recycling glass takes about 50% of the energy of making new glass. Most of the energy used in making an aluminum can is the f*ckton of electricity required to reduce bauxite ore to aluminum. Recycling a can takes 5% of the energy necessary to make a new can.
Recycling consumer glass bottles takes way more total resources than just throwing them away and making new glass bottles from sand.
Cite? The figure I keep seeing is that it takes 50% less energy to recycle glass than to produce new glass.
In mice the effects of caloric restriction are particular to the strain of mouse used: in many strains there's no effect. In primates it appears that caloric restriction works when the control group eats enough to get fat. There's little difference between macaques fed enough of a healthy diet to keep them at a normal weight for 20 years and macaques fed CR levels of the same diet (other than being very skinny and less active).
Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together.
The chance of a herbicide OR a GM protein having the exact same effect seems incredibly unlikely to me, especially when both follow a threshold instead of varying with dose. It really looks more like a systematic error in the experiment to me.
And there's also the issue of the lack of information on whether there were differences between the various groups of mice in how much they ate and their growth rates, and the fact that they only had 10 rats per group.
At a minimum, the study needs to be replicated in a different stain of rats, with much more then 10 rats per control group.
If the control group is made of up of the same strain of rats, then the findings are significant. Very significant.
Not necessarily. If the effect depends on an abnormality in the rats that does not present in humans then it is only significant to rats.
In this, the best of all possible chemical-industrial complexes, we should really be expecting that as each generation of antibiotic, herbicide, or pesticide is kneecapped by the evolution of resistant organisms (and simultaneously goes off patent) a new generation of molecules should come in to fill the gap. Unfortunately the chemical end of the operation doesn't seem to be up to speed these days ...
The article states that "Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely" showing "2-3 times more large tumors than the control group"
FT (other) A:
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment. "The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
that Google can shutdown access to the anti-Islam film in countries where that film has sparked riots,
should read "that Google can shutdown access to Youtube's streaming of the anti-Islam film in countries where that film has sparked riots,"
Youtube is one host for videos; Google is one search engine.
So, who's up for making a browser addon that automatically cross-references online political ads to various fact checking sites? Then maybe overlays a nice helpful graph or color to tell you how much BS you're being fed. ..Or just get adblock+ and opt out of it all.
Nice idea, but Republicans would probably ban it to prevent "voter fraud" or something.
RedState.com has banned citing fact checkers - unless you do it ironically.
Blind doesn't really work when the question is "do these two samples match?" anyone who can run the analysis can work out why you are asking.
That's why eyewitnesses are asked to identify a suspect from a lineup (or ideally, several sets of 6 or more photos) instead of just asking them "is this guy the one?". Run the analysis on the new sample. Compare it to a batch of different samples/analyses, one of which is the one of interest. Give different parts of the job to different people if necessary to keep the process blind.
There is lots of science and studies behind investigating fires. Perhaps you are confused between something you saw on a movie and something you heard in real life.
Probably he was confused between real life and real life in Texas, which probably executed an innocent man (Cameron Willingham) in 2004 based on old standards for point of origin and use of accelerants evidence.
The problem is that the legal system doesn't use scientific standards, it uses legal standards.
The Daubert standard might have fixed that somewhat - until it was watered down.
Wiki:
original Daubert standard:
Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable. Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication. The known or potential error rate. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation. The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
Now it's:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Same goes for DNA, though for that I'd think the problems would be with evidence collection/contamination rather than the analysis itself.
You can pretty much choose what level of false positives you're willing to tolerate when matching the DNA in two (undegraded, uncontaminated) biological samples - just pick the appropriate technique. "Choosing" the samples is another thing ...
its meant to be fast and unobtrusive. 1 click and you are through.
If it is going to be 1 click then the fast and unobtrusive question will also have to be an efficient captcha, otherwise the system will be overrun by bots and faked accounts tasked to run up the bill.
Why - you already have the votes recount them until you get consistency.
The people who previously voted for the 3rd place candidate or lower would probably end up giving one of the top two a definitive lead. Instant Runoff and Second Choice voting allow the runoff to happen without having to actually hold a second election.
How many of the 'bot accounts created to generate likes and ad views would pay $1 per month? If paying up would garner the account a shiny "verified real live human" badge to show to advertisers, maybe quite a few ...