But explain how an experiment could distinguish between a lack of a negative-enegery electron (in a quantum see of them, not just a semiconductor) and a positron
You wouldn't have one in a quantum sea of them. The hole is basically a missing electron in an otherwise full valence band. You have to be talking about semiconductors or similar chemical contexts for the concept to make any sense.
A positron, on the other hand, is a particle that could exist on its own in a vacuum.
The Mississippi Delta country this time of year runs overnight lows in the 85F range or higher and dew points nearly as high, so evaporation is not going to get leaves down to 70F or anywhere near it.
And yet, the plants flourish. Notably, kudzu flourishes and grows so fast that you can almost see it happen -- which means it's not waiting for cooler weather.
Something isn't adding up for me here.
Well, right off the top of my head, evaporation isn't the only cooling method available, but perhaps more importantly, the article is about trees, and I'm pretty sure kudzu isn't is a type of tree.
I've made that mistake before. I'd rather spend $1200 on a computer that's worth $1200 than spend $500 on a computer that ain't worth shit. I take grief people who tell me "you coulda got the same system for half that", but experience has shown me that the grief I take from people like that is minor compared to the grief I take from the system itself on those few times when I've been foolish enough to follow that advice.
I've been using FF3 for a while as my main browser, BUT hasn't the "awesome bar" basically been a feature of Safari since... like forever? I've been using Safari on a daily basis for at least a year. The answer to your question is no.
You're making a straw-man argument, and if you think their hatred is entirely blind, you are also engaging in self-delusion. You're attempting to bolster a false position by arguing that the opposite opinion is false. In fact, both positions are false, the truth lies in the middle. It is neither true that their hatred is entirely rational nor that it is entirely blind. And the course of action you recommend is a great way to fuel your enemies, but a lousy way to fight them. You play directly into their hands. You don't defeat the hydra by simply cutting off more heads. If simply killing them off was a successful strategy, they wouldn't dare use suicide bombers. The fact that they do points out the utter futility of trying to kill them off, and the utter stupidity of thinking you've scored a victory when you manage to put a few bullets into a few of them. It's not that there's no solution to the problem, but it's certainly true that there's no military solution.
This ("they hate us because of what we did to them") was true a decade ago. But now, it has completely mutated.
Now, they don't give a fuck until they have achieved their goal of imposition of their brand of thought all over the world. They can not be reasoned with.
And what continues to fuel their "jihad" is what "we" continue to do in the part of the world that "they" live in.
Hehe. Without having quoted anyone, it's almost impossible to determine which side is "we" and which side is "they" in the above post. The part about imposing their brand of thought all over the world makes it sound like "they" is the Americans, but the part about "jihad" makes it sound like "they" is the Islamic fundamentalists. Oh well, it's a pretty accurate description no matter which way you flip it.
Of course he doesn't have any evidence. The whole Malthusian thing was an interesting theory, but it didn't pan out. In fact, as time went on, the preponderance of evidence wound up being against it. It was therefore rejected by rational thinkers. It continues on today only because it's attained the level of pseudoscience. People now simply believe it regardless of the evidence.
The fact of the matter is, population control today is at its height in nations with no restrictions on reproductive freedom at all. We have less warfare than we've ever had. We grow more food than we ever have (enough to feed 14 billion people -- we throw away half of it every year -- and we could easily grow twice what we actually do). We have less disease. Every single prediction about the effects of an increasing population has proven to be wrong, the exact opposite has happened. And yet, people continue to blindly parrot a failed theory long after it became obvious it was false.
I've said it before that nearly all socio-economic and geo-political problems can be either solved or greatly reduced by a drastic reduction of Earth's population. 1b or less humans would be ideal.
Pulling random numbers out of your ass doesn't make it any less bullshit. Most of the planet is barely settled. We have precisely zero actual population problems. We do have some serious population density problems, where way too many people crowd into way too small an area, but no arbitrary number of people on Earth as a whole can fix that. We could eliminate every "population problem" we have while still having 20 billion people on Earth.
Unfortunately that's impossible to accomplish without genocide or some massive abridgment of human rights, neither of which I would like to see. People aren't going to slow their reproductive habits voluntarily.
This flies right into the face of evidence, which suggests that the easier to you make it for people to control their reproductive systems, the less children they have. In societies where women are free and birth control is cheap, population growth is actually starting to go negative.
Instead of sustainable low numbers that we can support comfortably the human population will expand until disease, famine, and war provide us with an equilibrium...along with plenty of--unnecessary--suffering.
We have seen all of these problems since the total world population was in the low millions. In fact, they were worse back when there were barely any of us on the planet.
I'm sorry, but what idiots have been modding the above post "insightful"? It's the biggest load of bullshit since Thomas Malthus, with the exception being that Malthus didn't have the data we do today -- he was simply speculating with a lack of good data, rather than asserting things that fly directly in the face of it.
Can you not see how this is an impossible self-contained system? You can't convert water to its component gasses and back, and expect to make an energy profit.
Everyone can see that. Can you not see that the person you're replying to insisted that this isn't a closed system?
It's a poorly explained system. It's probably something like this. In any case, a system like this is perfectly workable and does not violate any physical laws. The process to create the hydrogen uses less electricity than the process of burning it. That's not magic, that's chemistry. Eventually, you pay for it when you recycle the aluminum in the linked case. Not sure how it works in the Genepax system, but doubtless it's something similar.
Yes, we all know the laws of physics apply to air conditioning. What GP was pointing out is that geeks like to "debunk" claims by claiming something violates the laws of physics when it fact it does not, they simply don't understand what's occuring.
There's not enough information in the Reuters article to validate or debunk the operation of this car. Therefore, a large number of geeks have made a large number of assumptions about what hasn't been said, then "proven" it impossible by showing it doesn't work under the set of assumptions they made. In short, they've proven nothing.
Um, no. You know how if you drop a thimble of 200 degree water into a 5 gallon bucket of 70 degree water, it fails to raise the temperature to even 71 degrees, despite the much higher temperature it had? High temperature doesn't heat things much if there isn't a lot of material that has it.
If you were to walk into a room full of solar corona gas, you wouldn't be incinerated. You wouldn't even be heated. The instant evaporation of the water on your skin would cool you several orders of magnitude more than the million degree gas would heat you. Overall, your temperature would drop. And then you'd die of being exposed to a near vacuum. But the point is, the instant effect would not be the room's gas vaporizing you, it'd be you cooling the room's gas to approximately body temperature, just as the water in the thimble is almost instantly cooled to the temperature of the water in the bucket.
How does a probe operating 7 million km from the surface of the sun use a planet orbiting 108 million km from the sun as a heat shield?
And since when are wildly silly guesses from someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about called "insightful"? (I know, I know, "You must be new here."):p
The other problem is how to cool the probe. No matter how well you insulate the probe it will very quickly over heat because there is no way to dump the heat the probe it's self generates.
I suggest a refresher course in physics. There are at least two obvious ways to dump heat while in a vacuum. One involves emitting radiation, the other involves emitting matter. Practical considerations may limit how much you can realistically do, but the latter in particular can, in theory, radiate heat away as quickly as needed, at least until you run out of coolant. Thus, it won't work indefinitely, but it doesn't need to last beyond the lifespan of the mission.
There's no such thing as a "false negative" for the kind of tests they're doing. They're not conducting the kinds of experiments that would falsify a theory. The only results possible from the tests they're doing are "confirmed" or "failed to confirm" (and nothing much can be concluded from the latter in any case).
No. But that's not the issue here. What we're talking about here is getting less data than we'd like (because of what was excluded from the sample). Data is not "flawed" for being a smaller quantity, it's just, less. Some data is better than no data at all.
I don't think so. What would they be testing for that would be invalidated by this? If they find presence of life, or evidence of past life, the fact that they screened something out doesn't invalidate what they found in what was left. If they fail to find anything like that, there's no valid conclusion that could be drawn in any case (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), so a conclusion of "there's no life and never was" would be invalid regardless of whether parts of the sample were screened out or not.
In short, if it's a partial sample, it reduces the odds of success, but does not invalidate any result.
Um... you appear to be claiming you can get a 40% increase in fuel economy by stripping off 5% of the weight of a vehicle. Could you explain the math? I'm confused...
Besides, and I don't understand how people do this, you assume that while oil is going to run out, the streets are not. Streets are made of asphalt, which is... oil...
XD
Silly argument of the week award goes to the guy who thinks that whatever we currently use to build something is the only viable option.
Obama wants to slow the space program down to spend it on welfare.
Someone has already pointed out that the proposal was to fund education, not welfare, so I'll skip the blatant lie and instead comment on the gross distortion: he doesn't want to slow "the space program" -- he wants to delay the Constellation program, arguably the biggest and most pointless waste of money in the space program. He's all for continuing to fund and advance the actually useful parts of the space program.
Hmm. A gross distortion, an outright lie, and then a made up statistic about how long the money would last in its other function. How does something like that get modded "Informative"?
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't have one in a quantum sea of them. The hole is basically a missing electron in an otherwise full valence band. You have to be talking about semiconductors or similar chemical contexts for the concept to make any sense.
A positron, on the other hand, is a particle that could exist on its own in a vacuum.
And yet, the plants flourish. Notably, kudzu flourishes and grows so fast that you can almost see it happen -- which means it's not waiting for cooler weather.
Something isn't adding up for me here.
Well, right off the top of my head, evaporation isn't the only cooling method available, but perhaps more importantly, the article is about trees, and I'm pretty sure kudzu isn't is a type of tree.Could I get your policy number? I know an insurance investigator that wants to talk to you... ;)
I've made that mistake before. I'd rather spend $1200 on a computer that's worth $1200 than spend $500 on a computer that ain't worth shit. I take grief people who tell me "you coulda got the same system for half that", but experience has shown me that the grief I take from people like that is minor compared to the grief I take from the system itself on those few times when I've been foolish enough to follow that advice.
say yoho
Tried that, got RC3 (which I can just rename, but still)...
You mean like Foxmarks?
... In fact, I'd daresay that you can download it at any time you want!Apparently not. I want to download it right now, but I can't. :p
In fact, history shows everything you just said is false.
You're making a straw-man argument, and if you think their hatred is entirely blind, you are also engaging in self-delusion. You're attempting to bolster a false position by arguing that the opposite opinion is false. In fact, both positions are false, the truth lies in the middle. It is neither true that their hatred is entirely rational nor that it is entirely blind. And the course of action you recommend is a great way to fuel your enemies, but a lousy way to fight them. You play directly into their hands. You don't defeat the hydra by simply cutting off more heads. If simply killing them off was a successful strategy, they wouldn't dare use suicide bombers. The fact that they do points out the utter futility of trying to kill them off, and the utter stupidity of thinking you've scored a victory when you manage to put a few bullets into a few of them. It's not that there's no solution to the problem, but it's certainly true that there's no military solution.
Hehe. Without having quoted anyone, it's almost impossible to determine which side is "we" and which side is "they" in the above post. The part about imposing their brand of thought all over the world makes it sound like "they" is the Americans, but the part about "jihad" makes it sound like "they" is the Islamic fundamentalists. Oh well, it's a pretty accurate description no matter which way you flip it.
Of course he doesn't have any evidence. The whole Malthusian thing was an interesting theory, but it didn't pan out. In fact, as time went on, the preponderance of evidence wound up being against it. It was therefore rejected by rational thinkers. It continues on today only because it's attained the level of pseudoscience. People now simply believe it regardless of the evidence.
The fact of the matter is, population control today is at its height in nations with no restrictions on reproductive freedom at all. We have less warfare than we've ever had. We grow more food than we ever have (enough to feed 14 billion people -- we throw away half of it every year -- and we could easily grow twice what we actually do). We have less disease. Every single prediction about the effects of an increasing population has proven to be wrong, the exact opposite has happened. And yet, people continue to blindly parrot a failed theory long after it became obvious it was false.
Pulling random numbers out of your ass doesn't make it any less bullshit. Most of the planet is barely settled. We have precisely zero actual population problems. We do have some serious population density problems, where way too many people crowd into way too small an area, but no arbitrary number of people on Earth as a whole can fix that. We could eliminate every "population problem" we have while still having 20 billion people on Earth.
Unfortunately that's impossible to accomplish without genocide or some massive abridgment of human rights, neither of which I would like to see. People aren't going to slow their reproductive habits voluntarily.This flies right into the face of evidence, which suggests that the easier to you make it for people to control their reproductive systems, the less children they have. In societies where women are free and birth control is cheap, population growth is actually starting to go negative.
Instead of sustainable low numbers that we can support comfortably the human population will expand until disease, famine, and war provide us with an equilibrium...along with plenty of--unnecessary--suffering.We have seen all of these problems since the total world population was in the low millions. In fact, they were worse back when there were barely any of us on the planet.
I'm sorry, but what idiots have been modding the above post "insightful"? It's the biggest load of bullshit since Thomas Malthus, with the exception being that Malthus didn't have the data we do today -- he was simply speculating with a lack of good data, rather than asserting things that fly directly in the face of it.
Everyone can see that. Can you not see that the person you're replying to insisted that this isn't a closed system?
It's a poorly explained system. It's probably something like this. In any case, a system like this is perfectly workable and does not violate any physical laws. The process to create the hydrogen uses less electricity than the process of burning it. That's not magic, that's chemistry. Eventually, you pay for it when you recycle the aluminum in the linked case. Not sure how it works in the Genepax system, but doubtless it's something similar.
Yes, we all know the laws of physics apply to air conditioning. What GP was pointing out is that geeks like to "debunk" claims by claiming something violates the laws of physics when it fact it does not, they simply don't understand what's occuring.
There's not enough information in the Reuters article to validate or debunk the operation of this car. Therefore, a large number of geeks have made a large number of assumptions about what hasn't been said, then "proven" it impossible by showing it doesn't work under the set of assumptions they made. In short, they've proven nothing.
Um, no. You know how if you drop a thimble of 200 degree water into a 5 gallon bucket of 70 degree water, it fails to raise the temperature to even 71 degrees, despite the much higher temperature it had? High temperature doesn't heat things much if there isn't a lot of material that has it.
If you were to walk into a room full of solar corona gas, you wouldn't be incinerated. You wouldn't even be heated. The instant evaporation of the water on your skin would cool you several orders of magnitude more than the million degree gas would heat you. Overall, your temperature would drop. And then you'd die of being exposed to a near vacuum. But the point is, the instant effect would not be the room's gas vaporizing you, it'd be you cooling the room's gas to approximately body temperature, just as the water in the thimble is almost instantly cooled to the temperature of the water in the bucket.
How does a probe operating 7 million km from the surface of the sun use a planet orbiting 108 million km from the sun as a heat shield?
And since when are wildly silly guesses from someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about called "insightful"? (I know, I know, "You must be new here.") :p
I suggest a refresher course in physics. There are at least two obvious ways to dump heat while in a vacuum. One involves emitting radiation, the other involves emitting matter. Practical considerations may limit how much you can realistically do, but the latter in particular can, in theory, radiate heat away as quickly as needed, at least until you run out of coolant. Thus, it won't work indefinitely, but it doesn't need to last beyond the lifespan of the mission.
There's no such thing as a "false negative" for the kind of tests they're doing. They're not conducting the kinds of experiments that would falsify a theory. The only results possible from the tests they're doing are "confirmed" or "failed to confirm" (and nothing much can be concluded from the latter in any case).
No. But that's not the issue here. What we're talking about here is getting less data than we'd like (because of what was excluded from the sample). Data is not "flawed" for being a smaller quantity, it's just, less. Some data is better than no data at all.
I don't think so. What would they be testing for that would be invalidated by this? If they find presence of life, or evidence of past life, the fact that they screened something out doesn't invalidate what they found in what was left. If they fail to find anything like that, there's no valid conclusion that could be drawn in any case (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), so a conclusion of "there's no life and never was" would be invalid regardless of whether parts of the sample were screened out or not.
In short, if it's a partial sample, it reduces the odds of success, but does not invalidate any result.
Um... you appear to be claiming you can get a 40% increase in fuel economy by stripping off 5% of the weight of a vehicle. Could you explain the math? I'm confused...
XD
Silly argument of the week award goes to the guy who thinks that whatever we currently use to build something is the only viable option.
Someone has already pointed out that the proposal was to fund education, not welfare, so I'll skip the blatant lie and instead comment on the gross distortion: he doesn't want to slow "the space program" -- he wants to delay the Constellation program, arguably the biggest and most pointless waste of money in the space program. He's all for continuing to fund and advance the actually useful parts of the space program.
Hmm. A gross distortion, an outright lie, and then a made up statistic about how long the money would last in its other function. How does something like that get modded "Informative"?