What the catholic church did to Galileo was, if you keep your head down we leave you alone and you can think what you want. And he didn't want to keep his head down so they had to assert their authority. Mob rules.
If you want to combat Isis you need to give voices to assholes who are muslim. This teaches non-muslims that if a muslim says something you don't like it does not instantly turn him into a terrorist. And it teaches muslims that they're not just represented by peace-loving hippies who certainly don't want to upset anyone and love everyone so much.
Concrete an rough tarmac can be very predictable. Dirt, water, it just always grips. Smooth tarmac can easily get slippery even when dry.
The thing is drivers are more and more reduced to slow video game drivers. They just point the steering wheel. The net result is less accidents but the decrease in skill is dramatic. So is the decrease in attention i think. So the improvement in safety is partially cancelled because 'all other things being equal' does not apply.
Size matters with diamonds and I find nothing about size. There is a large industrial market for tiny diamonds and these can be made in more than one way. This is probably about making the tiny ones cheap.
There are detonation diamonds, created in the high pressure of contained explosions. Iran has gotten a lot of attention for their work on that in Parchin because if they do contained explosions that can only be because they want to make nukes.
There's some truth to that, but more important is that a lot of heavy industry is now in China, More than half the world's cement and steel are made there. Almost all nuclear plants being built are there, I read once that half the building cranes are there. So yeah it's easy to have clean air here if you put the factories in China.
There are cooling climate effects of aerosols(so pollution can have a cooling effect), but the main point worth making here is that there is an important distinction between pollution from coal and climate warming that people constantly overlook. China uses a lot of coal this produces a lot of carbon dioxide as well as a lot of pollution. They can fix the pollution (or alleviate it a lot) while still keeping using coal.
China has invested a huge amount in coal based power plants in the last 15 years, and they're going to keep using those new plants. By concentrating the use of coal into modern powerplants and eliminating it everywhere else they may well succeed in having much cleaner air. Coal powerplants can be made much cleaner, though at significant cost, with big installations that wash the pollution out of the air and into the river. The aim is to get the pollution in the air down to tolerable levels.
The challenge will be even higher for India as their economy grows because the quality of their coal is much much worse.
Well, I'd prefer the argument to be about what is legitimate science and general budgetting than about specifics. Beckmann, really? Ok then, it does drive the point home. But I would not go as far as saying science should have to invest in what they consider stupid choices. More that those who want to invest in what others consider stupid choices are not doing bad science. And the other thing is spreading the effort amongst choices that are not considered stupid/
Well, I'm not confident enough to state it that way but your metaphor gets a valid point across. I recall Freeman Dyson , who's always been wary of mega projects, pointing out that if you look at nobel prizes in physics, then one third went to the high energy things, another third to more precise measurement and another third to I forgot what. So he suggested we don't put all our money in the high energy tools but spread it around more. He wasn't saying the high energy experiments were too big too fail I think - though he has refered to it that as a common attribute of mega-projects.
However, science doesn't indulge sentimental favorites.
Oh really. These people had an unlikely hypothesis and a low cost way to test it. That sounds perfectly alright to me. Or is science supposed to only test low risk hypothesis that are bound to be confirmed? If you look at science as an investment game you sure can have good investors and bad investors, but you can have people sensibly investing in high chance/low gain tests as well as in low chance/high gain tests.
Of course most people think science should be an old style banking scheme that is highly risk averse and only willing to invest in things that are sure wins. I disagree.
That does sound implausible indeed.But moons forming in an accretion disk and gobbling up whatever was not absorbed into the center, that does sound acceptable. The earth also wasn't created out of a collision with the sun. Maybe they think the moon is too large for having formed the way other moons are formed.
How do they know the earth was first fully formed and only then collided with something large causing the moon to form? I can imagine it was a bit of a jumble at the time but this claim seems a bit arbitrary. Why the need for a collision with something large? Was it something larger than the moon?
I wonder. There's so many statements that I would consider utterly inane that are commonly accepted. Also some people have this attitude of 'whatever sticks to the wall'. Anyone been accusing Snowden of climate warming yet? Anyone been claiming Snowden is battling climate change deniers?
It's mixed indeed. Now if anonymous screens a bit and removes the twitter accounts that are the least interesting, while leaving alone the ones that are too talkative, then maybe there's a value. Not much though. It's more a feelgood operation.
As for bombing them to 600 AD, yeah right. I read somewhere that there are 10 million people living under ISIS rule. Guess who will suffer most. I'm not saying don't do it, but it's nothing to go bragging about.
Well, it could be interesting. Look at it this way, maybe they've tested thousands of algorithms before where the results were disappointing blobs and now they managed an averaging algorithm that does what we intuitively want it to do.
There's this plausible view of the future where everything you say and write will be monitored and processed, and will be followed up with actions. Those who perform the actions will have no responsibility for it. If their actions are unsuitable it's not their problem. You should have controlled your words better to avoid triggering action. It doesn't matter how good or bad their filters are, you just have to adapt.
It could be different. Imagine a future terrorism watchlist where you're able to sue for damages just for being listed there. Those maintaining the watchlist better watch out. They can't afford many false positives. Also, you can send out a lot of ambiguous messages. It's their responsibility not to be misled, not yours. If they're wrong, they pay through the nose. If you take a plane they can x-ray your belongings - if they're willing to pay the price. If they're wrong, it costs them. You can even say you're carrying lots big bombs, they still pay. You're not responsible for them not seeing a joke, even a bad one.
That should illustrate how responsibility is currently being divided between those being monitored and those doing the monitoring. This division of responsibility doesn't seem problematic when you have a small commercial company offering its services on a free market. It becomes ugly whenever the organisation doing the monitoring has power over you. It doesn't even have to use it.
Apparently whether correlation is very high or just statistically significant , it will always be reported as a correlation. Furthermore, while autism started out with some cliche cases gradually more and more cases occurred where people said 'we can't really call this autism so we'll call it autism spectrum then'. So you have this standardized test that checks for 'autism traits'. You know what it means? It measures how bad you are in human interaction and how good you are in understanding things and patterns. So yeah, I would expect scientists to score higher there.
What I would like to know is, what is the value of this research and why is it being funded?
It's a huge plus to be able to store the energy as heat and generate electricity when you actually need it as opposed to when the sun shines. for one thing it means you get a lot more money per kwh. Also there are indications that for really large scale and long term solutions the thermal solar power plants are the way to go http://phoenixprojectfoundatio... .
But my comment is not about treated seeds. It's about general practice. I'm not saying general practice will make a large difference in this case. What I am saying is that if you have bees next to cropland then still use strict rules for the road shoulders.
I think that one lesson of this research is that since bees get their honey not just from the targeted crops it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better. That means taking in account wind, drop size, delivery method. In fact it could mean that the pesticides on the targeted crops are the least of your concerns. Which is interesting.
The meteorology survey course I took back then pretty much blamed water for everything - including the greenhouse effect - and was far more interested in soot and dirt seeding clouds than anything else with carbon in it.
That's still true isn't it? But water increases the earth surface temperature with about 30 degrees C and the first decent one dimensional model (Manabe) gave an additional 2 degrees when CO2 is doubled. That means we have a significant impact. One can argue that the modern climate models don't offer much extra predictive power over the original model, but the original model offers a stark warning.
Slashdot Mirror
With Schmidt you know he's all for surveillance and will remain so. Trump can change his mind anytime.
What the catholic church did to Galileo was, if you keep your head down we leave you alone and you can think what you want. And he didn't want to keep his head down so they had to assert their authority. Mob rules.
If you want to combat Isis you need to give voices to assholes who are muslim. This teaches non-muslims that if a muslim says something you don't like it does not instantly turn him into a terrorist. And it teaches muslims that they're not just represented by peace-loving hippies who certainly don't want to upset anyone and love everyone so much.
Concrete an rough tarmac can be very predictable. Dirt, water, it just always grips. Smooth tarmac can easily get slippery even when dry.
The thing is drivers are more and more reduced to slow video game drivers. They just point the steering wheel. The net result is less accidents but the decrease in skill is dramatic. So is the decrease in attention i think. So the improvement in safety is partially cancelled because 'all other things being equal' does not apply.
Size matters with diamonds and I find nothing about size.
There is a large industrial market for tiny diamonds and these can be made in more than one way. This is probably about making the tiny ones cheap.
There are detonation diamonds, created in the high pressure of contained explosions. Iran has gotten a lot of attention for their work on that in Parchin because if they do contained explosions that can only be because they want to make nukes.
Alright, suppose there's a dialog coming up: systems have detected an accident and will call for help in 15 seconds. Press CANCEL to abort the call.
There's some truth to that, but more important is that a lot of heavy industry is now in China, More than half the world's cement and steel are made there. Almost all nuclear plants being built are there, I read once that half the building cranes are there. So yeah it's easy to have clean air here if you put the factories in China.
There are cooling climate effects of aerosols(so pollution can have a cooling effect), but the main point worth making here is that there is an important distinction between pollution from coal and climate warming that people constantly overlook. China uses a lot of coal this produces a lot of carbon dioxide as well as a lot of pollution. They can fix the pollution (or alleviate it a lot) while still keeping using coal.
China has invested a huge amount in coal based power plants in the last 15 years, and they're going to keep using those new plants. By concentrating the use of coal into modern powerplants and eliminating it everywhere else they may well succeed in having much cleaner air. Coal powerplants can be made much cleaner, though at significant cost, with big installations that wash the pollution out of the air and into the river. The aim is to get the pollution in the air down to tolerable levels.
The challenge will be even higher for India as their economy grows because the quality of their coal is much much worse.
A flat track with the same predictable surface everywhere too so you don't have to read it all the time.
Well, I'd prefer the argument to be about what is legitimate science and general budgetting than about specifics. Beckmann, really? Ok then, it does drive the point home. But I would not go as far as saying science should have to invest in what they consider stupid choices. More that those who want to invest in what others consider stupid choices are not doing bad science. And the other thing is spreading the effort amongst choices that are not considered stupid/
Well, I'm not confident enough to state it that way but your metaphor gets a valid point across. I recall Freeman Dyson , who's always been wary of mega projects, pointing out that if you look at nobel prizes in physics, then one third went to the high energy things, another third to more precise measurement and another third to I forgot what. So he suggested we don't put all our money in the high energy tools but spread it around more. He wasn't saying the high energy experiments were too big too fail I think - though he has refered to it that as a common attribute of mega-projects.
Oh really. These people had an unlikely hypothesis and a low cost way to test it. That sounds perfectly alright to me. Or is science supposed to only test low risk hypothesis that are bound to be confirmed? If you look at science as an investment game you sure can have good investors and bad investors, but you can have people sensibly investing in high chance/low gain tests as well as in low chance/high gain tests.
Of course most people think science should be an old style banking scheme that is highly risk averse and only willing to invest in things that are sure wins. I disagree.
Sheesh, the article is right. Rick Astley does drown out intelligence.
That does sound implausible indeed.But moons forming in an accretion disk and gobbling up whatever was not absorbed into the center, that does sound acceptable. The earth also wasn't created out of a collision with the sun. Maybe they think the moon is too large for having formed the way other moons are formed.
How do they know the earth was first fully formed and only then collided with something large causing the moon to form? I can imagine it was a bit of a jumble at the time but this claim seems a bit arbitrary. Why the need for a collision with something large? Was it something larger than the moon?
I wonder. There's so many statements that I would consider utterly inane that are commonly accepted. Also some people have this attitude of 'whatever sticks to the wall'. Anyone been accusing Snowden of climate warming yet? Anyone been claiming Snowden is battling climate change deniers?
It's mixed indeed. Now if anonymous screens a bit and removes the twitter accounts that are the least interesting, while leaving alone the ones that are too talkative, then maybe there's a value. Not much though. It's more a feelgood operation.
As for bombing them to 600 AD, yeah right. I read somewhere that there are 10 million people living under ISIS rule. Guess who will suffer most. I'm not saying don't do it, but it's nothing to go bragging about.
So not Ceres either then? The nice part of Ceres is that it's so easy to leave from there.
Well, it could be interesting. Look at it this way, maybe they've tested thousands of algorithms before where the results were disappointing blobs and now they managed an averaging algorithm that does what we intuitively want it to do.
There's this plausible view of the future where everything you say and write will be monitored and processed, and will be followed up with actions. Those who perform the actions will have no responsibility for it. If their actions are unsuitable it's not their problem. You should have controlled your words better to avoid triggering action. It doesn't matter how good or bad their filters are, you just have to adapt.
It could be different. Imagine a future terrorism watchlist where you're able to sue for damages just for being listed there. Those maintaining the watchlist better watch out. They can't afford many false positives. Also, you can send out a lot of ambiguous messages. It's their responsibility not to be misled, not yours. If they're wrong, they pay through the nose. If you take a plane they can x-ray your belongings - if they're willing to pay the price. If they're wrong, it costs them. You can even say you're carrying lots big bombs, they still pay. You're not responsible for them not seeing a joke, even a bad one.
That should illustrate how responsibility is currently being divided between those being monitored and those doing the monitoring. This division of responsibility doesn't seem problematic when you have a small commercial company offering its services on a free market. It becomes ugly whenever the organisation doing the monitoring has power over you. It doesn't even have to use it.
Apparently whether correlation is very high or just statistically significant , it will always be reported as a correlation. Furthermore, while autism started out with some cliche cases gradually more and more cases occurred where people said 'we can't really call this autism so we'll call it autism spectrum then'. So you have this standardized test that checks for 'autism traits'. You know what it means? It measures how bad you are in human interaction and how good you are in understanding things and patterns. So yeah, I would expect scientists to score higher there.
What I would like to know is, what is the value of this research and why is it being funded?
It's a huge plus to be able to store the energy as heat and generate electricity when you actually need it as opposed to when the sun shines.
for one thing it means you get a lot more money per kwh. Also there are indications that for really large scale and long term solutions the thermal solar power plants are the way to go http://phoenixprojectfoundatio... .
But my comment is not about treated seeds. It's about general practice. I'm not saying general practice will make a large difference in this case. What I am saying is that if you have bees next to cropland then still use strict rules for the road shoulders.
I think that one lesson of this research is that since bees get their honey not just from the targeted crops it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better. That means taking in account wind, drop size, delivery method. In fact it could mean that the pesticides on the targeted crops are the least of your concerns. Which is interesting.
That's still true isn't it? But water increases the earth surface temperature with about 30 degrees C and the first decent one dimensional model (Manabe) gave an additional 2 degrees when CO2 is doubled. That means we have a significant impact. One can argue that the modern climate models don't offer much extra predictive power over the original model, but the original model offers a stark warning.