Oops, I didnt address everything. Also, there is data of the ozone density of it steeply decreasing from about 1950 to 1990, at which point it stabilized out, in reaction to decrease in the use of CFCs (actually, I think they measure something else that's proportional to the ozone density - I don't remember). That coupled with the chemical fact is pretty good evidence, although greenpeace would probably say incontrovertible:).
People (e.g. chemists) know that chlorine reacting with ozone will break ozone apart, and people know that CFCs can make it to the arctic, at which point they decompose (based on their decay rates). I hope that answers your question, but let me know if it doesn't (post or email).
Environmental science is over 100 years old, but it didn't start to thrive until after WWII.
The ozone hole and CFC sitatuion is one of the most well understood things in science however. It's due to the following:
Companies used to produce CFCs - a combination of Chlorine, Fluorine, and stuff that is extremely resilient. Most importantly, it's resilient to radiation, so it can survive long distances. Note that some people try to compare this to the chlorine dumped by Mt. St. Helens - but free chlorine is easily busted apart by radiation, while CFCs can survive the trip ahead of it.
The Equatorial Winds are a series of currents that blow from the equator to the poles (with a slight lean towards the north(?) ) - these blow chemicals form the equator (where humans mainly live) to the poles. Chlorine molecules are destroyed in the upper atmosphere by radiation, but CFC's survive the trip.
Finally, at the poles, the CFCs (which take a while to decay) break up in appreciable amounts at the poles, where the free chlorine reacts with the ozone, and breaking it apart. The fact that there are free fluorine atoms in the poles, which is only possible by man-made actions, is the smoking gun.
Based on the equatorial cycle, one would expect to be free of CFC effects after about 100 years - I guess it's been about 25? So I guess this is about when one would start to notice the effects.
Although there are the occasional puppets who still denounce ozone problems, the industries and governments were immediately convinced by the evidence, which is why humans have probably fought off this problem.
Finally, the CO2 issue is a global warming thing, which isn't really related to the ozone hole problem. That's a polar icecap melting problem, and the data is still not totally convincing---the problem is that some predictions say that it's too late to prevent a 1m rise in sea level.
I've always heard that he doesn't use assistants - at least, that's what he says in interviews. The stock story is that he had one once, but it didn't work out at all, so he never went back to working with them. I know that he does a lot of conceptual art for games, etc. these days, so maybe he uses assistants for that work? Still, most of the stock stuff that people know about is individually done, right?
Also, do people really use manga to refer to the animated stuff? I've never heard that before, but would be interested to know the context.
Yeah, I love Shirow's stuff (my favorite is still Dominion Tank Police:) ), but I agree that it's much lighter. Because of that, I don't know if it'll "stand the test of time". Well, possibly Ghost in the Shell, if only because of the movie, and it's pretty serious (although, like you said, lighter than the movie). Appleseed is probably a better story though. Also, he might get historical bonus point for doing it all without assistants:).
I've never seen the Battle Angel manga - I'll try to check it out. If only I wasn't so poor these days...
Tezuka's is really a comic artist, but he's so beloved in Japan that I think he'll survive the test of time. The majority of his works were of a sci-fi/fantasy genre. He even gave birth to the entire manga phenomenon in Japan, which produces somes of the best fantasy work ever (and some of the worst too:) ).
Me either, with 50+ people on the plane and the hijackers without even have guns. Maybe the hijackers said that if they shut up then they'll land safely. People probably won't believe that for a few years though.
Some senator or other random person on CNN made the comment that airports are losing their employees to the fast food industry. Maybe he was just venting, but that could explain some of the problem if it's true.
I don't know if anyone is interested in this, but maybe. When my dad died about a year ago, one of the mementos I got was this army knife that my Grandpa used in World War 2 (It's a Kabar knife - I think they're still standard issue in the armed forces). These things are pretty big, maybe 2/3 my arm length, and if you look at them you can see that they're designed to kill someone.
So, when I flew home, I threw this in my bag and didn't really remember that I shouldn't bring this on the plane. But it went right through all the security checks, and none of the security people noticed it in my bag. I was kind of surprised that I got it through so easy.
Anyway, I thought I'd mention it since people are saying that the hijackers used knifes to take over the plane. It can't have been too hard to get them on.
This reminds me of something my friend and I were talking about. It feels like experimental physics is almsot entirely electronic these days. Almost every single property in the lab is inevitably measured electronically, then that voltage/current/whatever is converted into whatever it was that you wanted. I guess it's only natural that they'd try to take away the last non-electronic measurement.
The article mentioned 13 different intelligence agencies in the US, which I didn't know about. I looked some more and found this. Hmm.. maybe this is off topic:)
I agree that we shouldn't really be training a bunch of Einsteins. But I disagree that discoveries are made by gems. I think real discovery is made by the "million monkey" approach where tons of people are trying everything, and one or two get lucky (and usually unfairly famous). Not that there aren't geniuses, which there are, but I think most scientific discovery is too gradual to notice. And to do that sort of gradual thing, a decent understanding of lots of subjects is important.
The problem is worse than the pay. My friend got a bachelor's in physics and taught high school. He tried to teach well, and a lot of the students appreciated it, but the parents complained about low scores because of colleges, and the administration just panders them, going over the teacher's head to change grades. The pressure of college and scholarship and the lack of highly motivated teachers is part of the problem, and I think higher pay would really solve it. Just to mention, my friend quit after a year to get his PhD, just to avoid the high school system
This may have already been said, sorry if it has. But Europe has gotten pretty comfortable with it's DNA dragnets, and they admit that if you refuse the test then that makes you a suspect. I guess it's a bit different since you're dealing with murder cases, and the DNA is a near sure-fire way of knowing if you're there, but this post reminded me of that.
Checking for typing rates just seems a little too movie-esque to be realistic. It's like checking for heat residue on the keyboard or something equally ridiculous.
Also, every SSH program I've used in windows takes in the whole password before sending it along. (In UNIX I use ssh and have no idea, but it seems like it does the same thing). How could they get info out of that?
Re:2,000 years enough? *whisper, whisper*
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
I think the original storyline had this part of the movie happen 100,000 years in the future, which i think would have been more believable and interesting. But then again, it's not my movie, and sometimes the belivability is not that important:). Also, I think ice ages can occur extremely rapidly, like on the order of decades or centuries. So I think in that respect the 2000 year gap is not that bad.
Re:Where were the robots from?
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
I think you're right about the "creator" thing. I think that's just one of those things I made up in my mind because it made sense in my interpretation. But again I've always been fascinated with the idea of robots replacing humans in the ultra-far future, but through a sort of peaceful and very gradual transition, and the robots admiring their human ancestors.
Defintiely! I initially thought they aliens too, I have to admit. I thought "Oh no, they were supposed to be robots, not aliens!" (see an earlier response) - but then I gradually accepted that they were robots because of the strange translucent circuitry. I do think that Spielberg definitely should have made this a little more obvious, another little flaw I suppose:). Even the initial conversation sort of suggests they are alien archaeologists or something to that effect. But maybe my doubt makes the movie more interesting - the robots looked like "aliens" because they were alien to us, including any concept we may have of "robot" right now. Jesus.. I am on a real "half-full not half-empty" kick today!
Re:Not aliens, but robots
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
I remember reading an article about the movie when it was in works.. I guess I don't know for sure, I'm just sort of going on that.
Re:Yup this sure is slashdot.
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
How can you jibe at rendering when you eagerly await Final Fantasy, which I doubt will have much of a plot or any substance, assuming it's of the same quality as the games:).
Not aliens, but robots
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 5
I really loved the movie. I know that others will disagree and will nitpick at the flaws (which there were), but I think the great scenes made it worth it.
But the reason I posted - those weren't aliens at the end, they were robots! And the narrator was referring to his fasincation with his human creators. Didn't you guys love the symmetry of the robot's "human" desire to understand humanity? That he already had what he was looing for but didn't even know it? Well, it was probably just me:).
The phase velocity (the velocity of a single point on the wave) is greater than c, but that doesn't represent a single electric field. To use the water analogy, you're hopping from water particle to water particle, since the water particles are actually moving in circles. You can obviously "surpass" the speed of light if you just hop faster.
But the group velocity, which is the speed that the actual waveform is moving, is still less than c. And energy is transmitted through a waveform is at the group velocity. This is why you usually say that "information" cannot exceed the speed of light.
I don't know much about that particular experiment, but whenever people say that they've observed faster than light travel, they're usually observing a phase velocity. Phase velocities rarely correspond to one aprticualr thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks - I'm dead-ignorant when it comes to CO2/sub effects :).
Oops, I didnt address everything. Also, there is data of the ozone density of it steeply decreasing from about 1950 to 1990, at which point it stabilized out, in reaction to decrease in the use of CFCs (actually, I think they measure something else that's proportional to the ozone density - I don't remember). That coupled with the chemical fact is pretty good evidence, although greenpeace would probably say incontrovertible :).
People (e.g. chemists) know that chlorine reacting with ozone will break ozone apart, and people know that CFCs can make it to the arctic, at which point they decompose (based on their decay rates). I hope that answers your question, but let me know if it doesn't (post or email).
The ozone hole and CFC sitatuion is one of the most well understood things in science however. It's due to the following:
Based on the equatorial cycle, one would expect to be free of CFC effects after about 100 years - I guess it's been about 25? So I guess this is about when one would start to notice the effects.
Although there are the occasional puppets who still denounce ozone problems, the industries and governments were immediately convinced by the evidence, which is why humans have probably fought off this problem.
Finally, the CO2 issue is a global warming thing, which isn't really related to the ozone hole problem. That's a polar icecap melting problem, and the data is still not totally convincing---the problem is that some predictions say that it's too late to prevent a 1m rise in sea level.
Wow, who'd have thought! Thanks for the info :).
I've always heard that he doesn't use assistants - at least, that's what he says in interviews. The stock story is that he had one once, but it didn't work out at all, so he never went back to working with them. I know that he does a lot of conceptual art for games, etc. these days, so maybe he uses assistants for that work? Still, most of the stock stuff that people know about is individually done, right?
Also, do people really use manga to refer to the animated stuff? I've never heard that before, but would be interested to know the context.
Didn't he also do one based on Beethoven as a child? Maybe I imagined that... anyway, perhaps he is too broad to be classified as sci-fi or fantasy!
Yeah, I love Shirow's stuff (my favorite is still Dominion Tank Police :) ), but I agree that it's much lighter. Because of that, I don't know if it'll "stand the test of time". Well, possibly Ghost in the Shell, if only because of the movie, and it's pretty serious (although, like you said, lighter than the movie). Appleseed is probably a better story though. Also, he might get historical bonus point for doing it all without assistants :).
I've never seen the Battle Angel manga - I'll try to check it out. If only I wasn't so poor these days...
Tezuka's is really a comic artist, but he's so beloved in Japan that I think he'll survive the test of time. The majority of his works were of a sci-fi/fantasy genre. He even gave birth to the entire manga phenomenon in Japan, which produces somes of the best fantasy work ever (and some of the worst too :) ).
Me either, with 50+ people on the plane and the hijackers without even have guns. Maybe the hijackers said that if they shut up then they'll land safely. People probably won't believe that for a few years though.
Some senator or other random person on CNN made the comment that airports are losing their employees to the fast food industry. Maybe he was just venting, but that could explain some of the problem if it's true.
I don't know if anyone is interested in this, but maybe. When my dad died about a year ago, one of the mementos I got was this army knife that my Grandpa used in World War 2 (It's a Kabar knife - I think they're still standard issue in the armed forces). These things are pretty big, maybe 2/3 my arm length, and if you look at them you can see that they're designed to kill someone.
So, when I flew home, I threw this in my bag and didn't really remember that I shouldn't bring this on the plane. But it went right through all the security checks, and none of the security people noticed it in my bag. I was kind of surprised that I got it through so easy.
Anyway, I thought I'd mention it since people are saying that the hijackers used knifes to take over the plane. It can't have been too hard to get them on.
This reminds me of something my friend and I were talking about. It feels like experimental physics is almsot entirely electronic these days. Almost every single property in the lab is inevitably measured electronically, then that voltage/current/whatever is converted into whatever it was that you wanted. I guess it's only natural that they'd try to take away the last non-electronic measurement.
The article mentioned 13 different intelligence agencies in the US, which I didn't know about. I looked some more and found this. Hmm.. maybe this is off topic :)
I agree that we shouldn't really be training a bunch of Einsteins. But I disagree that discoveries are made by gems. I think real discovery is made by the "million monkey" approach where tons of people are trying everything, and one or two get lucky (and usually unfairly famous). Not that there aren't geniuses, which there are, but I think most scientific discovery is too gradual to notice. And to do that sort of gradual thing, a decent understanding of lots of subjects is important.
The problem is worse than the pay. My friend got a bachelor's in physics and taught high school. He tried to teach well, and a lot of the students appreciated it, but the parents complained about low scores because of colleges, and the administration just panders them, going over the teacher's head to change grades. The pressure of college and scholarship and the lack of highly motivated teachers is part of the problem, and I think higher pay would really solve it. Just to mention, my friend quit after a year to get his PhD, just to avoid the high school system
This may have already been said, sorry if it has. But Europe has gotten pretty comfortable with it's DNA dragnets, and they admit that if you refuse the test then that makes you a suspect. I guess it's a bit different since you're dealing with murder cases, and the DNA is a near sure-fire way of knowing if you're there, but this post reminded me of that.
Checking for typing rates just seems a little too movie-esque to be realistic. It's like checking for heat residue on the keyboard or something equally ridiculous.
Also, every SSH program I've used in windows takes in the whole password before sending it along. (In UNIX I use ssh and have no idea, but it seems like it does the same thing). How could they get info out of that?
I think the original storyline had this part of the movie happen 100,000 years in the future, which i think would have been more believable and interesting. But then again, it's not my movie, and sometimes the belivability is not that important :). Also, I think ice ages can occur extremely rapidly, like on the order of decades or centuries. So I think in that respect the 2000 year gap is not that bad.
I think you're right about the "creator" thing. I think that's just one of those things I made up in my mind because it made sense in my interpretation. But again I've always been fascinated with the idea of robots replacing humans in the ultra-far future, but through a sort of peaceful and very gradual transition, and the robots admiring their human ancestors.
Defintiely! I initially thought they aliens too, I have to admit. I thought "Oh no, they were supposed to be robots, not aliens!" (see an earlier response) - but then I gradually accepted that they were robots because of the strange translucent circuitry. I do think that Spielberg definitely should have made this a little more obvious, another little flaw I suppose :). Even the initial conversation sort of suggests they are alien archaeologists or something to that effect. But maybe my doubt makes the movie more interesting - the robots looked like "aliens" because they were alien to us, including any concept we may have of "robot" right now. Jesus.. I am on a real "half-full not half-empty" kick today!
I remember reading an article about the movie when it was in works.. I guess I don't know for sure, I'm just sort of going on that.
How can you jibe at rendering when you eagerly await Final Fantasy, which I doubt will have much of a plot or any substance, assuming it's of the same quality as the games :).
I really loved the movie. I know that others will disagree and will nitpick at the flaws (which there were), but I think the great scenes made it worth it.
But the reason I posted - those weren't aliens at the end, they were robots! And the narrator was referring to his fasincation with his human creators. Didn't you guys love the symmetry of the robot's "human" desire to understand humanity? That he already had what he was looing for but didn't even know it? Well, it was probably just me :).
The phase velocity (the velocity of a single point on the wave) is greater than c, but that doesn't represent a single electric field. To use the water analogy, you're hopping from water particle to water particle, since the water particles are actually moving in circles. You can obviously "surpass" the speed of light if you just hop faster. But the group velocity, which is the speed that the actual waveform is moving, is still less than c. And energy is transmitted through a waveform is at the group velocity. This is why you usually say that "information" cannot exceed the speed of light. I don't know much about that particular experiment, but whenever people say that they've observed faster than light travel, they're usually observing a phase velocity. Phase velocities rarely correspond to one aprticualr thing.