If you're going to invent 20,000ft windmills, then you might as well invent a magical creature who defecates some super-fuel, like Lord Nibbler.
Really you only get a fraction out of the theoretical power stated in the paper. You're looking at about 1/3 to 1/5 of what they state for output, realistically. And how would you have a wind farm near an airport? To me, I read this as the absurd stunts that wind would have to pull off to be viable. The fact that it ignores the practical application means this is nothing than fiction, and should be treated as such, because no one except Charlie Sheen gets to live in a fictitious world. So there you have it wind adherents: you're all Charlie Sheens!
Meanwhile, Sharp has a solar panel that is 43% efficient. Lets contrast that with the theoretical maximum of 59% for wind mills. there's a 16 percent advantage... but unlike solar cells, windmills can never be more efficient than 59%. Also, windmills need regular service being a mechanical apparatus. Solar cells, even the ones that move, don't have the same ear and tear as a a windmill.
In the end, wind doesn't work, even when you have subsidies.
Starting with the Pentium (because 586 was no longer trademarkable) Intel has gone off in the weeds. They had the pro, and every CPU after were just minor tweaks on that platform. They were called the Pentium 2, 3, 4 and 5. The "Core 2" is the only true successor.
Now you have something called a Core I7. Well, there aren't 7 cores. But we know there is at least one core. I don't know the clock speed (because clock speeds stopped growing) I don't know the cores. AMD at least had reasonable model numbers based on relative Intel performance X2 3400 was a dual core preforming like an Intel at 3400MHZ.
It wasn't enough that the position I was interviewing for was for someone who got promoted out of it. And I knew him (but not that I was interviewing for his job, until I got there) we of course hit it off, but his boss was the one that needed convincing. I get showed around, described the job, I take some tests, where I ace them, save for the questions that were either asked poorly or the answers wrong (2 out of 20) and we all agreed I was an exact match, and even slightly over-qualified. We got this feeling early on, but they continued to grill me through the full battery of people and tests. After 6 hours (We get a1/2hr for lunch)
We finish up, call the recruiter it looks good... They elect not to make an offer because I would be too good for the job. never mind the pay was better, the location was better, the industry was better and it was a topic I was very interested in.
GNOME vs KDE. They were needed at one point (were they really?) Xfce? Nevermind you can install all of them and run all the apps from each. Then the toolkits were crazy. Tk, Qt, GTK, and other.
The competing platforms Windows, and maybe OSX (but only recently) all had defacto standards for development. For windows it was the Win32 API, MFC (wrapping the API), then.NET. Developers want to know their stuff will run on everything. Adding to this, they aren't in control of the libraries and there is no central authority. So if they make a GTK app, then someone changes the library, they are potentially on a course for disaster. There's no guarantee they'll get the outcome they need. They either need to patch the library or patch the application. MS would provide a central authority, but there is none for linux and it's many libraries.
Consider this: Adobe has Qt apps, but has not ported Photoshop to Linux. So Linux got GIMP, which is jarring for people who know photoshop. Linux has enough "me too" apps but they all are inferior copies. Which is its own chicken and egg.
That said, we should set speed limits in combination with the vehicle class/age. A class 5 would get +5mph, class 10, +10mph over the speed limit allowance.
What happens when we have computerized driving when reaction times are instant, the math perfect and never an accident? Will we need speed limits at all?
In addition to equipment improvement there is also design aesthetic. For many years, the american design was to have a soft suspension so you wuld "float" over the road. The problem with that is you sacrifice handling. The primary means for this is what is called the caster angle. Zero means the suspension travels perpendicular to the road. Positive caster means the suspension travels back towards the driver when it is compressed, and negative is the other way. A slight positive caster 2-4 degrees is all it takes to improve handling significantly. Zero is ok, but you won't get a good handling review, and negative, well it takes forever to recover from suspension travel.
Now most vehicle chassis are designed for EU and US use, which means we get a suspension that is better tuned for handling. As long as you're not an old person with a bad back, this is a good deal.
I drive a pretty nice 2000 300+HP car. I also drive a 1980 180HP truck. There is no way I'd drive my truck like I do my sports car. It doesn't have crash impact standards, no air bags, no ABS, rear drums, steering gear. I'm happy a 65mph in that thing.
Now get in my 300HP car with traction control, airbags, a super suspension, 4 disc brakes, rack & pinion steering. I am happy at 80mph. Newer versions of my car are happy at 100mph. I was positively horrified when I got stuck doing just the speed limit the other day. It was _so_slow. 5mph difference at 40mph is a huge percentage (12.5%) whereas at 80, it's 6% of the speed limit
Over the years, we get better at making things safer. Better rubber, suspensions, steering, aerodynamics. It should be true that we can drive faster on the same roads given overall equipment improvement.
There's quite a few actually. 1. Cloud cover 2. Solar output (lagged of course, driving El Nino) variation 3. Ocean oscillations (related to solar output)
The real indicator is the graph I posted. The red line does not deviate much at all from green line, when it is about the blue line (freezing point) As the graph is measuring atmospheric temperature, one can only conclude that the record low is not air temperature driven, which is the crux of the anthropogenic global warming argument.
Ok, before I get modded Troll, I'd like to appeal to your critical thinking logical side.
First, while I personally find this a bit saddening, lets ask a couple questions and make some observations. 1. Why is the ice cap cited as such a barometer of global warming? 2. Is the warming necessarily anthropogenic? Wouldn't it melt even if the warming was entirely natural? 3. What does an ice cap (which floats on water, which is an order of magnitude better conductor of heat than air) 3a. Where does this water get it's heat from? Hint: 75% of our surface is water. Does air affect ocean temps or something else? 3b. What is the heating role of CO2 in water. (ignore acidification) 4. If I showed you a temperature graph which showed temperatures are average while ice area is down, what would you infer?
( temperature graph ) 4a. Could the ice pack be affected by say a storm that broke up the ice which facilitated melting?
So while the news is bad, we can't necessarily draw the conclusion that we've been told to draw. Low sea ice has nothing to with CO2. Global warming maybe, but not CO2.
I really hate to defend the TSA but there is a legitimate infiltration vector that this does address - that employees beyond the checkpoint can being in substances and transfer them to passengers.
Now, I do not defend their approach - that the passengers are the ones that get interfered with. The TSA should be working behind the scenes so that dangerous materials never get brought in by employees. Someone could slip some C4 onto a palette which gets passed along to the cashier then to the traveler. Then at another store picks up the detonator, then assembles it all on the plane.
I have no idea what security there is on getting stuff into airports, I figure it's got to be nearly impossible to adequately screen everything. .
And another thing is that you wouldn't put C4 into coffee, you'd put it on the bottom of the cup in that little area created by the seam. Of course, a coffee cup is the last place. You could just cram it in a hollowed out book. You'd fit way more.
So the other give away here is that they are after a liquid threat, and we already know there are no liquid threats capable of being produced in mid-air, or on the ground without raising a lot of suspicion. It'd have to be pre-packaged.
Someone somewhere must have gotten some intel about this vector.
Actually, I did bait and switch on you, I couldn't find the paper I wanted, so I found a similar paper. Which is still a problem for you. It's a problem because evolution created the same thing as intelligent design did, which proves that evolution, witht he same process as biological (genes are just information), is capable of optimizing and creating complexity from randomness. That's all I needed to show to prove my point. This would also create a problem for you in that if evolution can create the structure, how intelligent does "intelligent" design have to be? It certainly lowers the bar a bit doesn't it?
You're assuming they were given. It's much better to assume that if 12M were there, and they've sold voer 100M iOS devices world wide, that they were collected.
Which raises a better question. How were they collected?
I'm still trying to decode the file, and my iphone is in my desk at home, off. So I'll have to look later. But it makes no sense for the FBI to have UK UUIDs. FBI only operates in a domestic capacity. The CIA would be the ones to have UK UUIDs.
Until you factor in punctuated equilibrium. The traits aren't manifesting in a vacuum. The population, if the mutation is bebeficial with thrive and displace the other diversity that does not thrive as well. This is well-documented. For example, at one particular geologic period all trilobites had 12 eyes. Then a mutation developed making a 13th eye. This happened in what would become New York. That mutant bred and it's offspring displaced the geographic area, and spread out. Later in the fossil record, they are found in Texas, and eventually all over the world. The number of trilobites never increased, because of resource constraints. But the 12-eyed population fell because the 13s had a higher rate of survival. That's not exponential that's incremental. This best of breed ensures only working genes are selected for. It's not rolling 1000 dice, it's rolling dice over an entire population at once for random mutations, selecting, combining, and rolling the dice again. What does not work falls away, and what works is kept and spreads throughout the population.
If you don't believe in evolution, then just look at how a fetus evolves in the womb. Why would we get a tail then lose it during development. If we were intelligently designed, we'd forgo the tail in the womb. Some people are still born having tails because the genes to undo it were not active during development.
I think (I have no actual numbers) most of those are compromised boxes running distributed attack scripts. It makes sense to run the C&C, and let your zombies to the work that way it doesn't get tracked back to you.
That was the case I saw twice on two boxes I had - one fell to a BIND exploit, and rather than reboot, I investigated why DNS stopped working. I uncovered a IRC C&C (with over 60 clients) and went about informing people (by the IPs of the irc clients) about what had happened. Most rebooted and never noticed a thing. All were happy to hear I was letting them know what happened.
Based on that you're more likely to report innocent people whose only crime is being unpatched.
Exactly. The filter is the "selection" part of "natural selection" that makes evolution work towards meaningful ends. Invariably, those ends are: escaping predation, breeding, and feeding. All traits and behaviors are for one of those three purposes. Any trait that develops that is not in one or mroe of those areas won't be selected for, but will carry on as mutation.
I figured you'd ask, so I started looking for it, but got flooded with articles using genetic algorithms in the past 10 years. The one I speak of is older than that. I'll keep looking though.
So now you'll claim the product of evolution is not evolution because the process was chosen by the creator was intelligently designed? You just backed up one step too far. That would be to imply that God invented evolution, which does not disprove evolution. Rather it disproves God, because non evolution would not create anything new, whereas evolution does. Therefore, by the anthropic principal, evolution is true.
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant is ~70 miles from BWI. That's between 8 and 15 minutes. That's sufficiently close in plane time.
Rather irrelevant though, they are designed to survive impact from a 747. The terrorist angle was covered during planning.
If you're going to invent 20,000ft windmills, then you might as well invent a magical creature who defecates some super-fuel, like Lord Nibbler.
Really you only get a fraction out of the theoretical power stated in the paper. You're looking at about 1/3 to 1/5 of what they state for output, realistically. And how would you have a wind farm near an airport? To me, I read this as the absurd stunts that wind would have to pull off to be viable. The fact that it ignores the practical application means this is nothing than fiction, and should be treated as such, because no one except Charlie Sheen gets to live in a fictitious world. So there you have it wind adherents: you're all Charlie Sheens!
Meanwhile, Sharp has a solar panel that is 43% efficient. Lets contrast that with the theoretical maximum of 59% for wind mills. there's a 16 percent advantage... but unlike solar cells, windmills can never be more efficient than 59%. Also, windmills need regular service being a mechanical apparatus. Solar cells, even the ones that move, don't have the same ear and tear as a a windmill.
In the end, wind doesn't work, even when you have subsidies.
Starting with the Pentium (because 586 was no longer trademarkable) Intel has gone off in the weeds. They had the pro, and every CPU after were just minor tweaks on that platform. They were called the Pentium 2, 3, 4 and 5. The "Core 2" is the only true successor.
Now you have something called a Core I7. Well, there aren't 7 cores. But we know there is at least one core. I don't know the clock speed (because clock speeds stopped growing) I don't know the cores. AMD at least had reasonable model numbers based on relative Intel performance X2 3400 was a dual core preforming like an Intel at 3400MHZ.
It wasn't enough that the position I was interviewing for was for someone who got promoted out of it. And I knew him (but not that I was interviewing for his job, until I got there) we of course hit it off, but his boss was the one that needed convincing. I get showed around, described the job, I take some tests, where I ace them, save for the questions that were either asked poorly or the answers wrong (2 out of 20) and we all agreed I was an exact match, and even slightly over-qualified. We got this feeling early on, but they continued to grill me through the full battery of people and tests. After 6 hours (We get a1/2hr for lunch)
We finish up, call the recruiter it looks good... They elect not to make an offer because I would be too good for the job. never mind the pay was better, the location was better, the industry was better and it was a topic I was very interested in.
GNOME vs KDE. They were needed at one point (were they really?) Xfce? Nevermind you can install all of them and run all the apps from each.
Then the toolkits were crazy. Tk, Qt, GTK, and other.
The competing platforms Windows, and maybe OSX (but only recently) all had defacto standards for development. For windows it was the Win32 API, MFC (wrapping the API), then .NET. Developers want to know their stuff will run on everything. Adding to this, they aren't in control of the libraries and there is no central authority. So if they make a GTK app, then someone changes the library, they are potentially on a course for disaster. There's no guarantee they'll get the outcome they need. They either need to patch the library or patch the application. MS would provide a central authority, but there is none for linux and it's many libraries.
Consider this: Adobe has Qt apps, but has not ported Photoshop to Linux. So Linux got GIMP, which is jarring for people who know photoshop. Linux has enough "me too" apps but they all are inferior copies. Which is its own chicken and egg.
That said, we should set speed limits in combination with the vehicle class/age.
A class 5 would get +5mph, class 10, +10mph over the speed limit allowance.
What happens when we have computerized driving when reaction times are instant, the math perfect and never an accident? Will we need speed limits at all?
In addition to equipment improvement there is also design aesthetic. For many years, the american design was to have a soft suspension so you wuld "float" over the road. The problem with that is you sacrifice handling. The primary means for this is what is called the caster angle. Zero means the suspension travels perpendicular to the road. Positive caster means the suspension travels back towards the driver when it is compressed, and negative is the other way. A slight positive caster 2-4 degrees is all it takes to improve handling significantly. Zero is ok, but you won't get a good handling review, and negative, well it takes forever to recover from suspension travel.
Now most vehicle chassis are designed for EU and US use, which means we get a suspension that is better tuned for handling. As long as you're not an old person with a bad back, this is a good deal.
I drive a pretty nice 2000 300+HP car. I also drive a 1980 180HP truck. There is no way I'd drive my truck like I do my sports car. It doesn't have crash impact standards, no air bags, no ABS, rear drums, steering gear. I'm happy a 65mph in that thing.
Now get in my 300HP car with traction control, airbags, a super suspension, 4 disc brakes, rack & pinion steering. I am happy at 80mph. Newer versions of my car are happy at 100mph. I was positively horrified when I got stuck doing just the speed limit the other day. It was _so_slow. 5mph difference at 40mph is a huge percentage (12.5%) whereas at 80, it's 6% of the speed limit
Over the years, we get better at making things safer. Better rubber, suspensions, steering, aerodynamics. It should be true that we can drive faster on the same roads given overall equipment improvement.
There's quite a few actually.
1. Cloud cover
2. Solar output (lagged of course, driving El Nino) variation
3. Ocean oscillations (related to solar output)
The real indicator is the graph I posted. The red line does not deviate much at all from green line, when it is about the blue line (freezing point) As the graph is measuring atmospheric temperature, one can only conclude that the record low is not air temperature driven, which is the crux of the anthropogenic global warming argument.
Ok, before I get modded Troll, I'd like to appeal to your critical thinking logical side.
First, while I personally find this a bit saddening, lets ask a couple questions and make some observations.
1. Why is the ice cap cited as such a barometer of global warming?
2. Is the warming necessarily anthropogenic? Wouldn't it melt even if the warming was entirely natural?
3. What does an ice cap (which floats on water, which is an order of magnitude better conductor of heat than air)
3a. Where does this water get it's heat from? Hint: 75% of our surface is water. Does air affect ocean temps or something else?
3b. What is the heating role of CO2 in water. (ignore acidification)
4. If I showed you a temperature graph which showed temperatures are average while ice area is down, what would you infer?
( temperature graph )
4a. Could the ice pack be affected by say a storm that broke up the ice which facilitated melting?
So while the news is bad, we can't necessarily draw the conclusion that we've been told to draw. Low sea ice has nothing to with CO2. Global warming maybe, but not CO2.
I really hate to defend the TSA but there is a legitimate infiltration vector that this does address - that employees beyond the checkpoint can being in substances and transfer them to passengers.
Now, I do not defend their approach - that the passengers are the ones that get interfered with. The TSA should be working behind the scenes so that dangerous materials never get brought in by employees. Someone could slip some C4 onto a palette which gets passed along to the cashier then to the traveler. Then at another store picks up the detonator, then assembles it all on the plane.
I have no idea what security there is on getting stuff into airports, I figure it's got to be nearly impossible to adequately screen everything. .
And another thing is that you wouldn't put C4 into coffee, you'd put it on the bottom of the cup in that little area created by the seam. Of course, a coffee cup is the last place. You could just cram it in a hollowed out book. You'd fit way more.
So the other give away here is that they are after a liquid threat, and we already know there are no liquid threats capable of being produced in mid-air, or on the ground without raising a lot of suspicion. It'd have to be pre-packaged.
Someone somewhere must have gotten some intel about this vector.
Because the other TSA agents presumably WOULD know.
Now comes Crass and Curious, and effort to collect device UUIDs.
Does anyone believe any department under Eric Holder?
Actually, I did bait and switch on you, I couldn't find the paper I wanted, so I found a similar paper. Which is still a problem for you. It's a problem because evolution created the same thing as intelligent design did, which proves that evolution, witht he same process as biological (genes are just information), is capable of optimizing and creating complexity from randomness. That's all I needed to show to prove my point. This would also create a problem for you in that if evolution can create the structure, how intelligent does "intelligent" design have to be? It certainly lowers the bar a bit doesn't it?
The sorting paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.52.7331&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Trilobites: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Punctuated_equilibria (see references)
You're assuming they were given. It's much better to assume that if 12M were there, and they've sold voer 100M iOS devices world wide, that they were collected.
Which raises a better question. How were they collected?
I'm still trying to decode the file, and my iphone is in my desk at home, off. So I'll have to look later.
But it makes no sense for the FBI to have UK UUIDs. FBI only operates in a domestic capacity. The CIA would be the ones to have UK UUIDs.
It looks base64 but not quite. But I did only try a portion of the file.
Help?
Until you factor in punctuated equilibrium. The traits aren't manifesting in a vacuum. The population, if the mutation is bebeficial with thrive and displace the other diversity that does not thrive as well. This is well-documented. For example, at one particular geologic period all trilobites had 12 eyes. Then a mutation developed making a 13th eye. This happened in what would become New York. That mutant bred and it's offspring displaced the geographic area, and spread out. Later in the fossil record, they are found in Texas, and eventually all over the world. The number of trilobites never increased, because of resource constraints. But the 12-eyed population fell because the 13s had a higher rate of survival. That's not exponential that's incremental. This best of breed ensures only working genes are selected for. It's not rolling 1000 dice, it's rolling dice over an entire population at once for random mutations, selecting, combining, and rolling the dice again. What does not work falls away, and what works is kept and spreads throughout the population.
If you don't believe in evolution, then just look at how a fetus evolves in the womb. Why would we get a tail then lose it during development. If we were intelligently designed, we'd forgo the tail in the womb. Some people are still born having tails because the genes to undo it were not active during development.
I think (I have no actual numbers) most of those are compromised boxes running distributed attack scripts. It makes sense to run the C&C, and let your zombies to the work that way it doesn't get tracked back to you.
That was the case I saw twice on two boxes I had - one fell to a BIND exploit, and rather than reboot, I investigated why DNS stopped working. I uncovered a IRC C&C (with over 60 clients) and went about informing people (by the IPs of the irc clients) about what had happened. Most rebooted and never noticed a thing. All were happy to hear I was letting them know what happened.
Based on that you're more likely to report innocent people whose only crime is being unpatched.
Forgot to mention - the selection pressure may be internal - ability to process food more efficiently - or external - your predator is getting faster.
Exactly. The filter is the "selection" part of "natural selection" that makes evolution work towards meaningful ends. Invariably, those ends are: escaping predation, breeding, and feeding. All traits and behaviors are for one of those three purposes. Any trait that develops that is not in one or mroe of those areas won't be selected for, but will carry on as mutation.
I figured you'd ask, so I started looking for it, but got flooded with articles using genetic algorithms in the past 10 years. The one I speak of is older than that.
I'll keep looking though.
So now you'll claim the product of evolution is not evolution because the process was chosen by the creator was intelligently designed? You just backed up one step too far. That would be to imply that God invented evolution, which does not disprove evolution. Rather it disproves God, because non evolution would not create anything new, whereas evolution does. Therefore, by the anthropic principal, evolution is true.
Does no one remember the plot of the movie Space Cowboys?
It doesn't have to be the actual ISS, but something in a similar orbit.