Like the post I replied to, you've stated a number but provided no reference. although, unlike that post, your figure looks to be in the right ballpark at least.
However, I'm not sure of your point.
Using the data table I linked to in my original response it's easy to see that while generation from hydro remained pretty much unchanged (5.2 -> 5.76), biogas roughly tripled from 2009 to 2017 (9.57 -> 27.21) and the power generated from wind and solar over the same period increased greater than sixfold (9.31 -> 60.15).
In addition, for all your misdirection and 'hand-waving' about statistical lies, these figures are for the UK as a whole (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales).
Seriously, what was your point? Something about drunks, perhaps?
I read your calculated figure and thought "that can't be right".
However, my feeling means nothing, so let's take a look at the 'actual' numbers (Well, I'm going to have to make some simplifying assumptions, because the most recent (2018) data didn't seem to be available):
This page lists the mix of energy generation in the UK, by quarter. I'll use the last entry, Q4 for 2017:
Total (unitless) generated: 90.2. Total (unitless) renewables generated: 18.33.
Using the spreadsheet linked to on this page shows us that, of the solar, onshore and offshore wind, power generated (in 2016, thae last year for which data is available) roughly 44% came from offshore wind. So
Total (unitless) offshore wind power generated: 8.07
Thus percentage of power actually generated (i.e. not installed capacity) from offshore wind is, roughly, 8.9% of the total power generated in the UK.
Hmm. Maybe, well, almost certainly, Germany's mix of generating capacity is different to that of the UK, but to the degree your figure suggests? Nah, bollocks!
I think you're going to need to provide your sources and calculations for that 0.0035% figure, lest we think you've, charitably, made a mistake, or, rather less charitably, are completely full of shit.
Yes. It is something that is majorly stacked in favour of any company with critical mass.... Just look at Paypal's reputation. It is THE WORST! Yet it still ends up being the largest payments provider in the USA.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, there is a plausible alternative explanation for this, partly predicated on the fact of its size / market penetration. It goes like this:
Firstly, most people, not all but most, are pretty lazy. By this I mean for every action they might take there's an 'activation energy' that must first be reached. This activation energy comes to us through need and emotion. If we have no need and no strong feelings about something we simply don't do it, because the activation energy for the action is never reached.
Secondly, reputation can only be based on things we 'hear' about from others. If we have a direct experience that then can translate as reputation to others, if we chose to share that experience.
When we combine these two things we can make a number of 'logical' deductions. Firstly, if you use a service and it met your expectations you're not likely to think anything of it, rave about it, rant about it, or even mention it again. If the service was awful you will want to vent, and may well have enough emotional 'energy' to do so. Since venting only really works if it's to someone else directly or if it's persistent in a public place we are vastly more likely to be exposed to the negative experiences of others than those that simply met their expectations. The larger the company the more negative experiences they will engender - even if the overall percentage goes down, through better systems for example, the actual number goes up.
Larger market share -> more negative experiences -> more negative reviews -> lower reputation.
In other words, it's not so much that reputation in general that drives market share, but that increased market share correlates with a bad reputation.
It's kind of already been done, and Disney were not happy.
There is a shorter account of the incident under the heading The Air Pirates.
Of course technology moves on, so it's probably time for an animated version rather than a couple of comic books but I'm not sure who'd be 'brave' enough to host it...
Well I can’t say I’m particularly surprised by your reaction, after all no-one likes being told they were wrong no matter how ‘politely’ it was phrased, though I might have preferred a “Thanks, I didn’t know that / I hadn’t thought of it like that” rather than your ‘confrontational’ response.
You do raise an interesting question however:
And how long, exactly, does that process take to work? We're mining millions of years worth of trapped Helium in a very short period of time.
To be honest that’s rather a tricky question to answer, and is going to rely on some serious guess work
I’ll start with a few basic ‘facts’, as I currently understand them:
[1] The Inner Core (of Earth) is a solid sphere of nickel iron, and is roughly 1,100 km thick. [2] The Outer Core (of Earth) is about 2,200 km thick, and it’s made mostly of a combination of iron and nickel, along with small amounts of other dense elements like gold, platinum, and uranium. [3] The Mantle (of Earth) is roughly 2,800 km thick, and the thickness of the Crust (the only bit we’ve ever mined – and that only to a ‘trivial’ depth) averages 40 km. [4] If the Primordial and mostly fluid (still forming) Earth contained any significant mass(es) of elements denser that iron and nickel then these would have necessarily sunk into the core by planetary differentiation.
And, to simplify things, I’m going to make a couple of assumptions:
Any uranium in the Crust (i.e. the stuff we can actually get at to mine) arrived after the formation of the Earth, via meteorites or similar, otherwise it wouldn’t be in the Crust it would have sunk further towards the centre of the Earth. Hence when considering how much uranium there is in the Earth we can ignore any estimates of ‘profitable reserves’, as it’s simply not possible to mine anything deeper than a fraction of the way into the Earth’s Crust. All uranium is U(238). This is not an unreasonable assumption as this makes up roughly 99% of all naturally occurring uranium on Earth anyway. I say this to simplify half life calculations. The half life of U(238) is roughly 4.5 billion years, so let’s call it 5 billion years. Coincidentally, the age of the Earth, post cooling to solid, is also roughly 4.5 billion years. Hence half the uranium that was present when the Earth formed has now decayed. However, this isn’t ‘important’ as such for the calculations that follow, just interesting. I’m going to ignore other radioactives, such as thorium. The proportion of uranium in the Outer Core is 0.001%. This is probably a bit too high, but I have a pick a number and I’m not actually sure what to base this on. I’m also ignoring any that exists in the, much larger, Mantle, and further decay products so, for my part, I’ll accept the compromise until someone more knowledgeable provides a more realistic and reasoned estimate. The density of uranium is 20g/cm^3. This is a slight overestimate, but I like round numbers. Finally I’m going to ignore the quantum nature of half life, and just treat this is an ‘absolute’.
So: The volume of the Outer Core is 1,125,287,295,000 km^3 or, roughly, 1 x10^21 m^3. Hence the volume of uranium in it is roughly 1x10^16 m^3 or 1x10^22 cm^3. Hence the mass of uranium in it is roughly 2x10^23 g, which is equivalent to 1x10^47 atoms of uranium. With a half life of 5 billion years this means that 2x10^37 atoms of uranium will decay in a year, providing the same number of atoms of helium. This gives us 3x10^13 moles of helium, or 7x10^11 m^3 are being produced each year. Global ‘consumption’ (though much of this is not actually consumed, but remains in use) was estimated to be (in 2014) 34 million cubic metres, i.e. 3.4x10^7 cubic metres.
After a certain point, severity of punishment is not a deterrent. Especially with the types of crimes we execute for.
The death penalty definitely 'deters' one particular individual from committing further crimes. Of course one might argue that incarceration for life also provides that same deterrent, but, then again, that is only guaranteed if that's life imprisonment in solitary confinement.
One might then question whether this is a more 'moral' option.
I really can't believe people say stuff like this.... Helium NEVER gets replenished.
Maybe 20 years ago I felt just as you do, and got equally incensed. However I was wrong!
Perhaps you've heard of Alpha Particles in the context of radioactivity before and not really thought about what they actually are. I'll give you perhaps the most relevant quote from the linked article:
"Approximately 99% of the helium produced on Earth is the result of the alpha decay of underground deposits of minerals containing uranium or thorium. The helium is brought to the surface as a by-product of natural gas production."
Until all the heavy radioactive elements in the Earth's core have decayed we're not going to 'run out' of Helium, and by that stage we'll either have moved onwards and upwards or have far more pressing issues to worry about.
Your defense of corporate cancerism is not persuasive...
Erm, what? I thought I was giving an explanation of individual psychology, and how it relates to the situation you described. How have you managed to interpret anything I've written as a 'defense of corporate cancerism'? Having written any number of polemics against free market capitalism and corporate lobbying and their undue influence on the political process I am rather bemused by your apparent inference of my opinions...
... historically (and hysterically) vindictive Trump is now focused on consolidating his grip on power and destroying his enemies.
In previous posts I've called him small minded, petty and vindictive. He is not, as far as my limited knowledge and complete lack of personal experience with him goes, a pleasant individual, and looks to be the least presidential president I've ever seen. Even in the post you replied to I did not defend him, I 'defended' (though I'm not sure that this is quite the right word to use) those who feel obliged to defend him. Surely you can see the difference?
I think Trump sincerely believes his best course is to start a "safe" "little" war to force the nation to "unify" behind as a great war leader. That has made him a sucker for the advice of such fools as Bolton, who still hasn't realized how badly we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the nation's weak and divided state, a real war may not only be lost, but may tear the entire country to pieces.
While I don't completely disagree with this analysis I think your own biases are showing a little bit here. You (the US) did not lose the war in Iraq, you lost the peace in the aftermath. Military planning, especially when you have an overwhelming technological advantage, is easy. Governing, with all that entails, especially in the face of a populace containing a significant proportion of hostile individuals, is extremely hard. In my view, assuming that this basic awareness was even there in the first place, not nearly enough thought went into that process before the invasion was launched.
As for your comment on the divided nature of the US, that much is clear. There seems to be significant disagreement as to its 'health' however, partly based on how you measure it, partly based on which historical reference point you choose to compare it against or the current global picture, and partly based on political leaning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the US is doing great. I'm not. I'm also not saying it's gone to hell in a hand-basket. I am not American, I have no dog in this race - but perhaps because of this fact I can take a slightly less emotionally tinged overview, rather than seeing it as all bad.
The US will implement sanctions, Europe won't and Iran gets what they wanted, the US out of the deal and monitoring regime and Europe on board to maintain the deal and keep sanctions off.
While I'm not disagreeing with you I do wonder if it's quite so simple:
"US National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business in Iran will have to stop doing so within six months or face US sanctions."
Is this a credible threat? I don't know.
If it is then, regretfully sure, the EU at least will end up restoring sanctions. If not then this is a massive own goal, as it's likely to harm the US economy far more than it will any economies within the EU. It will certainly be interesting, in the train wreck way, to see how this plays out.
I really can't understand the mindsets of the various lunatic fringes that support Trump.
I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle.
These various 'lunatic fringes', as you refer to them, either feel that any Democratic party politician would institute policies that are harmful to the US or they feel that only Republican politicians support their interests.
Any rationale is a post hoc construction based on these feelings. That successive statements within any argument might contradict previous statements, or not sit well or conform with their professed morality or ideology, is not, at the time of saying them, important, because the statements are only being used as cover for a deep rooted but ultimately almost inexpressible belief.
In the interests of balance I will point out that similar bizarre contradictions take place in the arguments made, and indeed the behaviours evidenced, by people on the other side of the political fence too.
In other words we're all guilty of this to one degree or another!
It is just unfortunate that the self reflection, hence self awareness, needed to realise when we're actively engaging in such confabulations is time consuming, mentally and emotionally taxing, and tricky because it requires a certain open mindedness, a willingness to question our own beliefs and actions. Partly because of this difficulty this awareness rarely arises in the moment of the 'argument'. This, unfortunately, serves to further exacerbate any divide between opinions. How many people, on realising that they contradicted themselves yesterday in an argument, calls the person they were debating to say "I've just realised I contradicted myself yesterday. Perhaps I was mistaken in some of what I was saying. Sorry!"?
Knots are never symmetric. They are either right-handed or left-handed.
Rotational symmetry is still symmetry. This knot, like many, more complicated others, has rotational symmetry.
As another poster has already pointed out the second statement above is also incorrect. This page gives more information regarding symmetry / handedness in knots.
Given the "ups and downs"... over the last 10-15,000 years, how can that conclusion be justified? After all, during the last ice age there was no "Great Barrier Reef" as the sea-level was some 50 meters lower than now.
The Wikipedia article on corals would seem to differ on this point: "The Great Barrier Reef is thought to have been laid down about two million years ago."
More than you, apparently: "In a paper published this week in the journal Science, the scientists used a global dataset of 104 species of one of the most widespread coral variety..."
... that 'coral' is the name of a singular species, right?
At this point the definition of consent is so far down the rabbit hole, that if a man says "Hello" to a woman it can be construed as sexual harassment, because "she felt it was a threat" or "she didn't like how he was looking at her."
I was reading your post, thinking to myself "That's a bit harsh, it's not that bad", then I came to this part...
Coincidentally when I got in last night and flicked on the TV, while I made myself something to eat, there was a debate program on the BBC on this very subject. One young woman in the audience, when questioned by the host as to what constituted sexual harassment, said something along the lines of:
"Well, if a guy walks up to you and says 'you look amazing in that dress' and offers to buy you a drink it depends on whether you find him attractive. If you do, it's a compliment, if you don't then it can be seen as harassment."
I'm slightly ashamed to admit to a minute of ranting and profuse swearing at the TV at that point.
Just in case it's not clear, to anyone who doesn't yet realise this:
If any attention you are receiving is unwarranted you need to tell the person that their attentions are unwelcome. In the case of online (e.g. social media stalking etc.) profiles you can even do this 'in advance' with a simple little note to that effect. Harassment can, pretty much*, only occur after this point. If you don't tell them their attentions are unwelcome then any further attention you receive is almost certainly not harassment. Sexual harassment, being a subset of harassment in general, can likewise only occur after you've categorically refused someone's advances or pointed out the inappropriateness of their behaviour. After all, if someone doesn't know that what they're doing is wrong why would they stop doing it?
There's obviously a couple of caveats to this, but they depend slightly on social 'norms' - what is actually considered appropriate behaviour. For example, while I hug my close female friends on meeting them I would not consider doing the same to a woman I had just been introduced to. Of course social rules do change over time, both on a broad scale and on a more personal one, as relationships evolve, but, like most rules, they sometimes have to be explicitly taught rather than just picked up along the way or inferred.
As an individual, if you're not willing to teach other people the rules by which you want to be treated - which are your rules not anyone else's - don't expect everyone to understand or abide by them. After all, they may not see the world the same way and may have a very different set of personal rules. Only after telling them your rules can you claim harassment if they violate them!
*There are clearly some edge cases that are wrong whatever the situation. I'm not talking about those, just general social interactions where no harm is intended and there's no obvious abuse of a power imbalance in the relationship.
The times when the car is most likely to be in danger of getting into a wreck, a human has to be in control. AP is reluctant to change lanes, cannot turn or exit at all, cannot handle stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Given those limitations, if it didn't cause an order of magnitude fewer deaths, I'd be terrified.
This is a somewhat of a misconception, especially when we are talking about fatalities, not merely accidents.
Most fatalities occur on A-roads and motorways (I think the equivalents are interstates & freeways in the US) because of vehicle velocity, and these are exactly the times that 'autopilot' (as in cruise control / automatic braking and lane assist) is engaged and useful. Crashes on minor roads (barring the occasional car wrapped around a tree on windy, back country, lanes), i.e. those at lower speeds, do not generally result in fatalities these days; just bumps, bruises, repair bills and lawsuits.
Half a trillion USD in speculative "investment" in a historically volatile (and somewhat imaginary) commodity? What could possibly go wrong? By way of comparison, the sum of all Japanese holdings of US Treasury notes is about 1 trillion USD.
While I feel much the same way, you appear to be conflating investment / holdings with trading volume.
Admittedly, the picture when we look at just volumes* is not much prettier:
In other words trading in 'cryptos' now accounts for about 17% of all financial trading activity in Japan. Startling doesn't even begin to describe this statistic!
*figures are pretty rough and rounded, but were taken from the jpx website.
Yes, I got it out on DVD from Blockbusters roughly 10 years ago. It cost me about £2. The fact that the film grossed about $50 million worldwide shows that I was far from the only one... but, depending on the price of your cable subscription, lucky you, you saved yourself a few quid / bucks there.
So Slashdot is now the TV guide? Is that news because of Elon Musk, or do all 'person sponsors film' stories deserve a place on Slashdot?
No, and perhaps partially the former, though I'd say it's not a given. "News for Nerds":
News is, generally, newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events, or, more specifically in this instance, information not previously known to (someone) me. Nerds are, apparently, seen as overly intellectual, obsessive, pedantic and lacking social skills, plus a whole load more fairly 'negative' qualities, which definitely seems to describe me. Being somewhat less harsh on us all, since we long ago reclaimed this term as a badge of honour, it's a slang term for a socially awkward person who excels in science or technology.
I'm pretty sure that a documentary about the dangers of AI is enough to warrant mention on this site alone, what with the technology angle and all that, so the fact that it's since been 'sponsored' by a man who made his money via a computerised payment system and has since gone on to found multiple companies in the manufacturing and technology fields is just the icing on the cake.
Yes, do you have posters of Elon Musk on your bedroom wall?
Ahhh, the reason for the tone of your posts becomes clearer. You know, I don't think his successes (or his failures) are any reason for you to feel less successful in your own life or, dare I say it, inferior. Hopefully you'll come to realise this, as carrying that much bitterness around with you is not good for your health.
Can anyone ever tell me of a documentary you had to pay to see?
An Inconvenient Truth. The name strikes me as strangely apposite, considering the 'tone' of your questions.
How is this news?
This is the first time I have heard of the documentary and the first time I have heard of Musk's offer to pay for anyone who wanted to to watch it, hence it's news.
Advanced weapons don't make a huge difference really.
Yet! At some point they will, but that day is unforeseeably in our 'sci-fi future'.
The US still has enough nukes to maintain MAD. No missile shield is reliably enough to defend against that arsenal, and the same goes for current Russian ICBMs. All this stuff about hypersonic nuclear cruise missiles and torpedo drones is largely posturing, adding nuclear warheads to technologies developed for other kinds of warfare.
The US has roughly 4000 nukes, Russia has maybe a few hundred more, so in a pure numbers sense I'd agree with you, it's definitely MAD.
It's not just about absolute numbers though, as, roughly a decade ago, the US started upgrading the fuses in their W76's (a set of 8 independently targeted 100 kilotonne warheads launched on a trident missile from a submarine) to increase their accuracy. This improvement doesn't violate the terms of the NNPT or START process, as it's not increasing the number of warheads or their size, but it does vastly improve their effectiveness when it comes to destroying hardened sites - sites like ICBM silos for example.
Of course Russia, like the US, and to a far lesser degree China, does rely on the nuclear 'triad' making it practically impossible to find and target mobile ground and submarine launched missiles so being able to hit your target with a great degree of accuracy is only half the story. However I am led to believe that the balance of MAD is currently very much towards 'the West' right now.
Having said that I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it'd still be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and, if done by the UK armed forces, would not be in my name!
The big danger now is from the new cold war. Cyber attacks, interference with democracy and supplying arms that can't be traced. Basically the same as the old cold war, with newer tech.
All true, though you missed out proxy wars which are, for some people right now, the biggest danger of all.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the post I replied to, you've stated a number but provided no reference. although, unlike that post, your figure looks to be in the right ballpark at least.
However, I'm not sure of your point.
Using the data table I linked to in my original response it's easy to see that while generation from hydro remained pretty much unchanged (5.2 -> 5.76), biogas roughly tripled from 2009 to 2017 (9.57 -> 27.21) and the power generated from wind and solar over the same period increased greater than sixfold (9.31 -> 60.15).
In addition, for all your misdirection and 'hand-waving' about statistical lies, these figures are for the UK as a whole (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales).
Seriously, what was your point? Something about drunks, perhaps?
I read your calculated figure and thought "that can't be right".
However, my feeling means nothing, so let's take a look at the 'actual' numbers (Well, I'm going to have to make some simplifying assumptions, because the most recent (2018) data didn't seem to be available):
This page lists the mix of energy generation in the UK, by quarter. I'll use the last entry, Q4 for 2017:
Total (unitless) generated: 90.2.
Total (unitless) renewables generated: 18.33.
Using the spreadsheet linked to on this page shows us that, of the solar, onshore and offshore wind, power generated (in 2016, thae last year for which data is available) roughly 44% came from offshore wind. So
Total (unitless) offshore wind power generated: 8.07
Thus percentage of power actually generated (i.e. not installed capacity) from offshore wind is, roughly, 8.9% of the total power generated in the UK.
Hmm. Maybe, well, almost certainly, Germany's mix of generating capacity is different to that of the UK, but to the degree your figure suggests? Nah, bollocks!
I think you're going to need to provide your sources and calculations for that 0.0035% figure, lest we think you've, charitably, made a mistake, or, rather less charitably, are completely full of shit.
A sad day. My condolences to his family and those who knew him personally.
He was a man who knew what community meant, and built one here.
Long may your memory, and what you've built, live on...
There is something called reputation.
Yes. It is something that is majorly stacked in favour of any company with critical mass. ... Just look at Paypal's reputation. It is THE WORST! Yet it still ends up being the largest payments provider in the USA.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, there is a plausible alternative explanation for this, partly predicated on the fact of its size / market penetration. It goes like this:
Firstly, most people, not all but most, are pretty lazy. By this I mean for every action they might take there's an 'activation energy' that must first be reached. This activation energy comes to us through need and emotion. If we have no need and no strong feelings about something we simply don't do it, because the activation energy for the action is never reached.
Secondly, reputation can only be based on things we 'hear' about from others. If we have a direct experience that then can translate as reputation to others, if we chose to share that experience.
When we combine these two things we can make a number of 'logical' deductions. Firstly, if you use a service and it met your expectations you're not likely to think anything of it, rave about it, rant about it, or even mention it again. If the service was awful you will want to vent, and may well have enough emotional 'energy' to do so. Since venting only really works if it's to someone else directly or if it's persistent in a public place we are vastly more likely to be exposed to the negative experiences of others than those that simply met their expectations. The larger the company the more negative experiences they will engender - even if the overall percentage goes down, through better systems for example, the actual number goes up.
Larger market share -> more negative experiences -> more negative reviews -> lower reputation.
In other words, it's not so much that reputation in general that drives market share, but that increased market share correlates with a bad reputation.
It's kind of already been done, and Disney were not happy.
There is a shorter account of the incident under the heading The Air Pirates.
Of course technology moves on, so it's probably time for an animated version rather than a couple of comic books but I'm not sure who'd be 'brave' enough to host it...
Well I can’t say I’m particularly surprised by your reaction, after all no-one likes being told they were wrong no matter how ‘politely’ it was phrased, though I might have preferred a “Thanks, I didn’t know that / I hadn’t thought of it like that” rather than your ‘confrontational’ response.
You do raise an interesting question however:
And how long, exactly, does that process take to work? We're mining millions of years worth of trapped Helium in a very short period of time.
To be honest that’s rather a tricky question to answer, and is going to rely on some serious guess work
I’ll start with a few basic ‘facts’, as I currently understand them:
[1] The Inner Core (of Earth) is a solid sphere of nickel iron, and is roughly 1,100 km thick.
[2] The Outer Core (of Earth) is about 2,200 km thick, and it’s made mostly of a combination of iron and nickel, along with small amounts of other dense elements like gold, platinum, and uranium.
[3] The Mantle (of Earth) is roughly 2,800 km thick, and the thickness of the Crust (the only bit we’ve ever mined – and that only to a ‘trivial’ depth) averages 40 km.
[4] If the Primordial and mostly fluid (still forming) Earth contained any significant mass(es) of elements denser that iron and nickel then these would have necessarily sunk into the core by planetary differentiation.
And, to simplify things, I’m going to make a couple of assumptions:
Any uranium in the Crust (i.e. the stuff we can actually get at to mine) arrived after the formation of the Earth, via meteorites or similar, otherwise it wouldn’t be in the Crust it would have sunk further towards the centre of the Earth. Hence when considering how much uranium there is in the Earth we can ignore any estimates of ‘profitable reserves’, as it’s simply not possible to mine anything deeper than a fraction of the way into the Earth’s Crust.
All uranium is U(238). This is not an unreasonable assumption as this makes up roughly 99% of all naturally occurring uranium on Earth anyway. I say this to simplify half life calculations. The half life of U(238) is roughly 4.5 billion years, so let’s call it 5 billion years.
Coincidentally, the age of the Earth, post cooling to solid, is also roughly 4.5 billion years. Hence half the uranium that was present when the Earth formed has now decayed. However, this isn’t ‘important’ as such for the calculations that follow, just interesting.
I’m going to ignore other radioactives, such as thorium.
The proportion of uranium in the Outer Core is 0.001%. This is probably a bit too high, but I have a pick a number and I’m not actually sure what to base this on. I’m also ignoring any that exists in the, much larger, Mantle, and further decay products so, for my part, I’ll accept the compromise until someone more knowledgeable provides a more realistic and reasoned estimate.
The density of uranium is 20g/cm^3. This is a slight overestimate, but I like round numbers.
Finally I’m going to ignore the quantum nature of half life, and just treat this is an ‘absolute’.
So: The volume of the Outer Core is 1,125,287,295,000 km^3 or, roughly, 1 x10^21 m^3.
Hence the volume of uranium in it is roughly 1x10^16 m^3 or 1x10^22 cm^3.
Hence the mass of uranium in it is roughly 2x10^23 g, which is equivalent to 1x10^47 atoms of uranium.
With a half life of 5 billion years this means that 2x10^37 atoms of uranium will decay in a year, providing the same number of atoms of helium.
This gives us 3x10^13 moles of helium, or 7x10^11 m^3 are being produced each year.
Global ‘consumption’ (though much of this is not actually consumed, but remains in use) was estimated to be (in 2014) 34 million cubic metres, i.e. 3.4x10^7 cubic metres.
In other words, based on my estimates signi
Good points, but...
Just to be pedantic and not taking either side ...
After a certain point, severity of punishment is not a deterrent. Especially with the types of crimes we execute for.
The death penalty definitely 'deters' one particular individual from committing further crimes. Of course one might argue that incarceration for life also provides that same deterrent, but, then again, that is only guaranteed if that's life imprisonment in solitary confinement.
One might then question whether this is a more 'moral' option.
I really can't believe people say stuff like this. ... Helium NEVER gets replenished.
Maybe 20 years ago I felt just as you do, and got equally incensed. However I was wrong!
Perhaps you've heard of Alpha Particles in the context of radioactivity before and not really thought about what they actually are. I'll give you perhaps the most relevant quote from the linked article:
"Approximately 99% of the helium produced on Earth is the result of the alpha decay of underground deposits of minerals containing uranium or thorium. The helium is brought to the surface as a by-product of natural gas production."
Until all the heavy radioactive elements in the Earth's core have decayed we're not going to 'run out' of Helium, and by that stage we'll either have moved onwards and upwards or have far more pressing issues to worry about.
Your defense of corporate cancerism is not persuasive...
Erm, what? I thought I was giving an explanation of individual psychology, and how it relates to the situation you described. How have you managed to interpret anything I've written as a 'defense of corporate cancerism'? Having written any number of polemics against free market capitalism and corporate lobbying and their undue influence on the political process I am rather bemused by your apparent inference of my opinions...
... historically (and hysterically) vindictive Trump is now focused on consolidating his grip on power and destroying his enemies.
In previous posts I've called him small minded, petty and vindictive. He is not, as far as my limited knowledge and complete lack of personal experience with him goes, a pleasant individual, and looks to be the least presidential president I've ever seen. Even in the post you replied to I did not defend him, I 'defended' (though I'm not sure that this is quite the right word to use) those who feel obliged to defend him. Surely you can see the difference?
I think Trump sincerely believes his best course is to start a "safe" "little" war to force the nation to "unify" behind as a great war leader. That has made him a sucker for the advice of such fools as Bolton, who still hasn't realized how badly we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the nation's weak and divided state, a real war may not only be lost, but may tear the entire country to pieces.
While I don't completely disagree with this analysis I think your own biases are showing a little bit here. You (the US) did not lose the war in Iraq, you lost the peace in the aftermath. Military planning, especially when you have an overwhelming technological advantage, is easy. Governing, with all that entails, especially in the face of a populace containing a significant proportion of hostile individuals, is extremely hard. In my view, assuming that this basic awareness was even there in the first place, not nearly enough thought went into that process before the invasion was launched.
As for your comment on the divided nature of the US, that much is clear. There seems to be significant disagreement as to its 'health' however, partly based on how you measure it, partly based on which historical reference point you choose to compare it against or the current global picture, and partly based on political leaning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the US is doing great. I'm not. I'm also not saying it's gone to hell in a hand-basket. I am not American, I have no dog in this race - but perhaps because of this fact I can take a slightly less emotionally tinged overview, rather than seeing it as all bad.
Bolton believes he can conquer Iran by 2019, and that we will be "greeted as liberators". Just like Iraq.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...
p>I do not recommend trusting his advice on anything regarding international relations.
Agreed!
The US will implement sanctions, Europe won't and Iran gets what they wanted, the US out of the deal and monitoring regime and Europe on board to maintain the deal and keep sanctions off.
While I'm not disagreeing with you I do wonder if it's quite so simple:
"US National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business in Iran will have to stop doing so within six months or face US sanctions."
Is this a credible threat? I don't know.
If it is then, regretfully sure, the EU at least will end up restoring sanctions. If not then this is a massive own goal, as it's likely to harm the US economy far more than it will any economies within the EU. It will certainly be interesting, in the train wreck way, to see how this plays out.
I really can't understand the mindsets of the various lunatic fringes that support Trump.
I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle.
These various 'lunatic fringes', as you refer to them, either feel that any Democratic party politician would institute policies that are harmful to the US or they feel that only Republican politicians support their interests.
Any rationale is a post hoc construction based on these feelings. That successive statements within any argument might contradict previous statements, or not sit well or conform with their professed morality or ideology, is not, at the time of saying them, important, because the statements are only being used as cover for a deep rooted but ultimately almost inexpressible belief.
In the interests of balance I will point out that similar bizarre contradictions take place in the arguments made, and indeed the behaviours evidenced, by people on the other side of the political fence too.
In other words we're all guilty of this to one degree or another!
It is just unfortunate that the self reflection, hence self awareness, needed to realise when we're actively engaging in such confabulations is time consuming, mentally and emotionally taxing, and tricky because it requires a certain open mindedness, a willingness to question our own beliefs and actions. Partly because of this difficulty this awareness rarely arises in the moment of the 'argument'. This, unfortunately, serves to further exacerbate any divide between opinions. How many people, on realising that they contradicted themselves yesterday in an argument, calls the person they were debating to say "I've just realised I contradicted myself yesterday. Perhaps I was mistaken in some of what I was saying. Sorry!"?
Knots are never symmetric. They are either right-handed or left-handed.
Rotational symmetry is still symmetry. This knot, like many, more complicated others, has rotational symmetry.
As another poster has already pointed out the second statement above is also incorrect. This page gives more information regarding symmetry / handedness in knots.
Given the "ups and downs" ... over the last 10-15,000 years, how can that conclusion be justified? After all, during the last ice age there was no "Great Barrier Reef" as the sea-level was some 50 meters lower than now.
The Wikipedia article on corals would seem to differ on this point: "The Great Barrier Reef is thought to have been laid down about two million years ago."
Care to justify your conclusion?
You understand ...
More than you, apparently: "In a paper published this week in the journal Science, the scientists used a global dataset of 104 species of one of the most widespread coral variety..."
... that 'coral' is the name of a singular species, right?
Sorry, you were saying?
150 thousand a year (from a no risk investment of 5 million) is a modest retirement?
Wow! I sometimes wonder if I live on the same planet as some of the posters here. :-/
At this point the definition of consent is so far down the rabbit hole, that if a man says "Hello" to a woman it can be construed as sexual harassment, because "she felt it was a threat" or "she didn't like how he was looking at her."
I was reading your post, thinking to myself "That's a bit harsh, it's not that bad", then I came to this part...
Coincidentally when I got in last night and flicked on the TV, while I made myself something to eat, there was a debate program on the BBC on this very subject. One young woman in the audience, when questioned by the host as to what constituted sexual harassment, said something along the lines of:
"Well, if a guy walks up to you and says 'you look amazing in that dress' and offers to buy you a drink it depends on whether you find him attractive. If you do, it's a compliment, if you don't then it can be seen as harassment."
I'm slightly ashamed to admit to a minute of ranting and profuse swearing at the TV at that point.
Just in case it's not clear, to anyone who doesn't yet realise this:
If any attention you are receiving is unwarranted you need to tell the person that their attentions are unwelcome. In the case of online (e.g. social media stalking etc.) profiles you can even do this 'in advance' with a simple little note to that effect. Harassment can, pretty much*, only occur after this point. If you don't tell them their attentions are unwelcome then any further attention you receive is almost certainly not harassment. Sexual harassment, being a subset of harassment in general, can likewise only occur after you've categorically refused someone's advances or pointed out the inappropriateness of their behaviour. After all, if someone doesn't know that what they're doing is wrong why would they stop doing it?
There's obviously a couple of caveats to this, but they depend slightly on social 'norms' - what is actually considered appropriate behaviour. For example, while I hug my close female friends on meeting them I would not consider doing the same to a woman I had just been introduced to. Of course social rules do change over time, both on a broad scale and on a more personal one, as relationships evolve, but, like most rules, they sometimes have to be explicitly taught rather than just picked up along the way or inferred.
As an individual, if you're not willing to teach other people the rules by which you want to be treated - which are your rules not anyone else's - don't expect everyone to understand or abide by them. After all, they may not see the world the same way and may have a very different set of personal rules. Only after telling them your rules can you claim harassment if they violate them!
*There are clearly some edge cases that are wrong whatever the situation. I'm not talking about those, just general social interactions where no harm is intended and there's no obvious abuse of a power imbalance in the relationship.
The times when the car is most likely to be in danger of getting into a wreck, a human has to be in control. AP is reluctant to change lanes, cannot turn or exit at all, cannot handle stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Given those limitations, if it didn't cause an order of magnitude fewer deaths, I'd be terrified.
This is a somewhat of a misconception, especially when we are talking about fatalities, not merely accidents.
Most fatalities occur on A-roads and motorways (I think the equivalents are interstates & freeways in the US) because of vehicle velocity, and these are exactly the times that 'autopilot' (as in cruise control / automatic braking and lane assist) is engaged and useful. Crashes on minor roads (barring the occasional car wrapped around a tree on windy, back country, lanes), i.e. those at lower speeds, do not generally result in fatalities these days; just bumps, bruises, repair bills and lawsuits.
...but I'm not quite sure how 1.5B is 17% of 25B...
It isn't. My bad. Mental arithmetic failure, resulted in me inverting the two... should be 6%. Thank you.
And I do share your nervousness. Leverage on the scale these figures imply is a financial disaster waiting to happen.
Because a few loud mouths spent all their savings on this fraud and want to get their money back.
The flip side being the people who dabbled (iow 'spent' £10) on them 10 years ago, and cashed out at the end of last year for £200,000.
I suspect they're pretty happy with their choice...
Half a trillion USD in speculative "investment" in a historically volatile (and somewhat imaginary) commodity? What could possibly go wrong? By way of comparison, the sum of all Japanese holdings of US Treasury notes is about 1 trillion USD.
While I feel much the same way, you appear to be conflating investment / holdings with trading volume.
Admittedly, the picture when we look at just volumes* is not much prettier:
Daily 'Crypto' trading volumes (2017) was roughly $1.5 billion / day.
Daily 'Stocks' trading volumes (2017) was roughly $25 billion / day.
In other words trading in 'cryptos' now accounts for about 17% of all financial trading activity in Japan. Startling doesn't even begin to describe this statistic!
*figures are pretty rough and rounded, but were taken from the jpx website.
Did you pay to see it? I didn't.
Yes, I got it out on DVD from Blockbusters roughly 10 years ago. It cost me about £2. The fact that the film grossed about $50 million worldwide shows that I was far from the only one... but, depending on the price of your cable subscription, lucky you, you saved yourself a few quid / bucks there.
So Slashdot is now the TV guide? Is that news because of Elon Musk, or do all 'person sponsors film' stories deserve a place on Slashdot?
No, and perhaps partially the former, though I'd say it's not a given. "News for Nerds":
News is, generally, newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events, or, more specifically in this instance, information not previously known to (someone) me.
Nerds are, apparently, seen as overly intellectual, obsessive, pedantic and lacking social skills, plus a whole load more fairly 'negative' qualities, which definitely seems to describe me. Being somewhat less harsh on us all, since we long ago reclaimed this term as a badge of honour, it's a slang term for a socially awkward person who excels in science or technology.
I'm pretty sure that a documentary about the dangers of AI is enough to warrant mention on this site alone, what with the technology angle and all that, so the fact that it's since been 'sponsored' by a man who made his money via a computerised payment system and has since gone on to found multiple companies in the manufacturing and technology fields is just the icing on the cake.
Yes, do you have posters of Elon Musk on your bedroom wall?
Ahhh, the reason for the tone of your posts becomes clearer. You know, I don't think his successes (or his failures) are any reason for you to feel less successful in your own life or, dare I say it, inferior. Hopefully you'll come to realise this, as carrying that much bitterness around with you is not good for your health.
Oh, and no, I don't.
Can anyone ever tell me of a documentary you had to pay to see?
An Inconvenient Truth. The name strikes me as strangely apposite, considering the 'tone' of your questions.
How is this news?
This is the first time I have heard of the documentary and the first time I have heard of Musk's offer to pay for anyone who wanted to to watch it, hence it's news.
Any other questions?
Advanced weapons don't make a huge difference really.
Yet! At some point they will, but that day is unforeseeably in our 'sci-fi future'.
The US still has enough nukes to maintain MAD. No missile shield is reliably enough to defend against that arsenal, and the same goes for current Russian ICBMs. All this stuff about hypersonic nuclear cruise missiles and torpedo drones is largely posturing, adding nuclear warheads to technologies developed for other kinds of warfare.
The US has roughly 4000 nukes, Russia has maybe a few hundred more, so in a pure numbers sense I'd agree with you, it's definitely MAD.
It's not just about absolute numbers though, as, roughly a decade ago, the US started upgrading the fuses in their W76's (a set of 8 independently targeted 100 kilotonne warheads launched on a trident missile from a submarine) to increase their accuracy. This improvement doesn't violate the terms of the NNPT or START process, as it's not increasing the number of warheads or their size, but it does vastly improve their effectiveness when it comes to destroying hardened sites - sites like ICBM silos for example.
Of course Russia, like the US, and to a far lesser degree China, does rely on the nuclear 'triad' making it practically impossible to find and target mobile ground and submarine launched missiles so being able to hit your target with a great degree of accuracy is only half the story. However I am led to believe that the balance of MAD is currently very much towards 'the West' right now.
Having said that I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it'd still be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and, if done by the UK armed forces, would not be in my name!
The big danger now is from the new cold war. Cyber attacks, interference with democracy and supplying arms that can't be traced. Basically the same as the old cold war, with newer tech.
All true, though you missed out proxy wars which are, for some people right now, the biggest danger of all.
Thanks.