In terms of spending on defense investing on this and related types of robustness looks like one of the better options. I'm always surprised how vulnerable we've made ourselves to power outages. We used to be able to still pick up the phone. With most people not anymore. Building for robustness to better handle severe conflicts, or just major financial crises where maintenance is reduced to nothing, looks worthwile. And we should at least do the exercise. Some of the design choices will be cheap but now robustness is completely disregarded.
It's a funny site, but mostly the criticism on the use of "chemicals" and "radiation" is inspired by a backward interpretation of how words should be used. Most of the time "chemicals" and "radiation" can be used in a clear and unambiguous way, and people understand that their intended use is "harmful chemicals" and "harmful radiation". In those cases there's no need to insist on the long naming. And choose not to use the words when they are confusing. The rule should be whether the communication is clear, not whether the definitions are precise. Richard Feynman once elaborated on the distinction between precision and clarity. We have a cultural preference for precision at the expense of clarity. I mean we and here and now. We think words should have precise definitions. So then we get back at the DHMO site and it's deliberately use the wrong communication. In short, Deborah Blum is the victim of a few language myths.
So next time your nature loving vegetarian green friend refuses to use the microwave oven because it radiates the food, the problem is not so much language but ignorance.
My clothes and various bodily appendages have Like buttons attached to them and when you push them it adds to the counter on the related page of my facebook account.
China is a threat alright, but the real threat is that they're gaining influence everywhere and in every sense, the military part being the least important one, and the US is convinced it has to counter that and the only thing that the US sees to counter them is the military, which is unmatched and will be unmatched for a long time. And they're using it. China has a lot more reason to call the US a threat. The US is surrounding China militarily, not the other way round, and the US is throwing its weight around. There is a new cold war starting alright, and it's started by the US because China is becoming too important. Whether this is a smart approach from the US is doubtful but it's the only way of thinking they understand.
Maybe in the cited case, but even then you encounter too many people who claim they're just filling in the gaps in their own very real powers, or just priming their special gift with some data they look up because they find "it works better then". Even in the clear ripoff cases the ripoff artists can have some very weird descriptions of what they're doing.
This isn't a situation where the smart people with a good understanding of what makes a scientific hypothesis, are fooling those who don't have this understanding.
There's a point there, but not in the way you think. the whole idea of building large reactors to be used for 50 years is unsound. The way to get a safe design is to have a fast rotation of reactors.Cars can evolve quickly because they get replaced every 10-15 years or so. And because they're a mass product. Reactors aren't really a mass product but if the path of economies of scales had not been taken, they could have had been built for a short lifespan and modest yield, say 200MW max. This way the reactors would have been able to evolve quickly. The Fukushima reactors are old and were already considered unreliable when they were built.
Now a common theory is that with the economies of scale nuclear energy was already too expensive if you calculated in all the costs. That could be. My point here is that following the economies of scale approach was self defeating too.
Actually he was a secret agent of the pentecostal church trying to trigger the apocalypse by creating a mini black hole that would end up engulfing the planet.
There is another aspect. The current implementation of the missile defense may be insignificant, but it's a way of pulling in the countries around Russia. Later on you can increase the weaponry. Doing things one small step at the time is how you cook the frog in the pan of water.
Agnosticism is just weak atheism, I agree. It has a bit of a scientific flavor but it's rubbish.
There's another distinction that needs to be made though Most atheists are antitheists and usually against religion. They are believers in not-God. Atheism is also typically a reaction to christianity. Just read the piece "Roman Catholic Atheist" about how weird it is that Freeman Dyson goes to church. Contrast this with how acceptable the idea is of an atheist Jew in a synagogue.
An atheist in the more literal sense would have a more neutral attitude. Mainly, less involved, like someone who just got introduced to the concept. I don't mind anthropomorphising too much and I could believe in a God if properly defined, so that it becomes a valuable concept.
"potential problems" can mean different things. Who needs permanent identity verification? This could be a niche product, so scenarios where you get locked out each time you start gaming could be irrelevant. In that case dramatic mouse changes requiring retraining wouldn't happen frequently either.
Slashdot Mirror
Bunch of big kids. You turn your back for 5 minutes and they build a nuclear reactor.
In terms of spending on defense investing on this and related types of robustness looks like one of the better options. I'm always surprised how vulnerable we've made ourselves to power outages. We used to be able to still pick up the phone. With most people not anymore. Building for robustness to better handle severe conflicts, or just major financial crises where maintenance is reduced to nothing, looks worthwile. And we should at least do the exercise. Some of the design choices will be cheap but now robustness is completely disregarded.
And long attention span , and the ability to grasp complex subjects, and so on. If people aren't able to read books anymore, that really sucks.
or motivated enough to get back by themselves.
Hard to think of how it could have been worse. Well it could have been raining.
(Marty Feldman).
You'd think the main problem nowadays is the budget, not the knowhow. The cold war provided the budget.
It's a funny site, but mostly the criticism on the use of "chemicals" and "radiation" is inspired by a backward interpretation of how words should be used. Most of the time "chemicals" and "radiation" can be used in a clear and unambiguous way, and people understand that their intended use is "harmful chemicals" and "harmful radiation". In those cases there's no need to insist on the long naming. And choose not to use the words when they are confusing.
The rule should be whether the communication is clear, not whether the definitions are precise. Richard Feynman once elaborated on the distinction between precision and clarity. We have a cultural preference for precision at the expense of clarity. I mean we and here and now. We think words should have precise definitions. So then we get back at the DHMO site and it's deliberately use the wrong communication. In short, Deborah Blum is the victim of a few language myths.
So next time your nature loving vegetarian green friend refuses to use the microwave oven because it radiates the food, the problem is not so much language but ignorance.
Even if it's guaranteed to be higher, say a factor 10 (i mean 1.00000001) , then the big IF is if this is usable.
One small dip is when the planet is covering the sun.A larger dip is when the sun is covering the planet.
S+P vs S vs S +P - coveredfractionofsun*S.
When the planet is colder the first dip is larger and the second dip is less. With a hot planet I think both dips may well be measurable.
Kidding. Just that his favorite astronomical entity is the Pleiades. And the Scooby is, well, associated to a different kind of person.
I shudder to think of the future additions to the "famous last words" listings.
Damn. Randall Munroe drives a Scooby?
You could hear dinosaur herds from miles away. And the combination with lightning caused them to go extinct.
And the hugging is just the foreplay.
Lighting dino farts. Now that's an idea that will appeal to the inner teenager in us.
On this side of the ocean 911 operators drive porsches.
You need to get out more. Modern cops have a "GrammerNazi" app installed on their iPad.
My clothes and various bodily appendages have Like buttons attached to them and when you push them it adds to the counter on the related page of my facebook account.
China is a threat alright, but the real threat is that they're gaining influence everywhere and in every sense, the military part being the least important one, and the US is convinced it has to counter that and the only thing that the US sees to counter them is the military, which is unmatched and will be unmatched for a long time. And they're using it. China has a lot more reason to call the US a threat. The US is surrounding China militarily, not the other way round, and the US is throwing its weight around. There is a new cold war starting alright, and it's started by the US because China is becoming too important. Whether this is a smart approach from the US is doubtful but it's the only way of thinking they understand.
Maybe in the cited case, but even then you encounter too many people who claim they're just filling in the gaps in their own very real powers, or just priming their special gift with some data they look up because they find "it works better then". Even in the clear ripoff cases the ripoff artists can have some very weird descriptions of what they're doing.
This isn't a situation where the smart people with a good understanding of what makes a scientific hypothesis, are fooling those who don't have this understanding.
There's a point there, but not in the way you think. the whole idea of building large reactors to be used for 50 years is unsound. The way to get a safe design is to have a fast rotation of reactors.Cars can evolve quickly because they get replaced every 10-15 years or so. And because they're a mass product. Reactors aren't really a mass product but if the path of economies of scales had not been taken, they could have had been built for a short lifespan and modest yield, say 200MW max. This way the reactors would have been able to evolve quickly. The Fukushima reactors are old and were already considered unreliable when they were built.
Now a common theory is that with the economies of scale nuclear energy was already too expensive if you calculated in all the costs. That could be. My point here is that following the economies of scale approach was self defeating too.
Actually he was a secret agent of the pentecostal church trying to trigger the apocalypse by creating a mini black hole that would end up engulfing the planet.
There is another aspect. The current implementation of the missile defense may be insignificant, but it's a way of pulling in the countries around Russia. Later on you can increase the weaponry. Doing things one small step at the time is how you cook the frog in the pan of water.
Agnosticism is just weak atheism,
I agree. It has a bit of a scientific flavor but it's rubbish.
There's another distinction that needs to be made though Most atheists are antitheists and usually against religion. They are believers in not-God. Atheism is also typically a reaction to christianity. Just read the piece "Roman Catholic Atheist" about how weird it is that Freeman Dyson goes to church. Contrast this with how acceptable the idea is of an atheist Jew in a synagogue.
An atheist in the more literal sense would have a more neutral attitude. Mainly, less involved, like someone who just got introduced to the concept. I don't mind anthropomorphising too much and I could believe in a God if properly defined, so that it becomes a valuable concept.
"potential problems" can mean different things. Who needs permanent identity verification? This could be a niche product, so scenarios where you get locked out each time you start gaming could be irrelevant. In that case dramatic mouse changes requiring retraining wouldn't happen frequently either.