Umm, eletric motors provide instant torque with equals massive acceleration from 0. It takes a combustion engine time move to high rpms.
The winner!
This car isn't faster than a Ferrari or Porsche, it's quicker, and for precisely the reason you mention. It's not hard to convince an electric motor to accelerate something quickly, it's not even newsworthy. Managing to create an electric car with better range and comparable high-end power, while meeting safety requirements and the needs of consumers would be an achievement.
In short, the technical problem with electric cars is one of energy density-- gasoline has extraordinary energy density and is relatively easy to store and transport efficiently. That's the technical hurdle we should be paying attention to, not this acceleration stuff.
No, no, no, no, no. Go take statistics. Seriously.
The biggest thing I want to point out here is that you said, in your own words, "potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement." I will come back to this later, because I think it is important. As far as mischaracterizing the position of the NRC goes, my characterization is that there were a set of data points that did not track with the model, and they said that those data points couldn't be trusted, because they didn't track with the model, so shouldn't be considered.
No-- they do track with the model fairly well, once you account for all other factors. And the difference between them falls within the range of normal variance. That's not saying the data shouldn't be considered at all. You either don't understand or are deliberately mischaracterizing their statements.
Ok, seriously, you can't have it both ways. You can't first explain why the data is erroneous, then turn right around and say "but it proves me right anyway." If your first argument is true, then the data can't prove anything, because it lacks the accuracy to have any validity to the argument. That said, do you mean to say that before 2000, none of the models took aerosols into account? I specifically mentioned satellite data from 2000, and a review of that data by the NRC (who you normally seem to think very highly of), and according to the NRC at the time, the data didn't track with the models. Are you saying that the NRC just forgot to take aerosols into account when they reviewed the data?
No-- the data was never stated to be erroneous. Like I said above-- the uncertainties in measurement introduce a level of uncertainty-- and once you account for everything, they track together within that degree of uncertainty. That's when you fail to reject your null hypothesis. And no-- the models did take aerosols and volcanoes into account-- and what the NRC said wasn't that it didn't track with the models, but that it tracked once you took account of the uncertainty in measurement and the difference between the ex ante assumptions used in the model and the ex post observations of how much ended up being released.
The first is that without an accurate account of the energy put into the system (more on this later) it is very odd to start talking about where it is missing, and where it is accounted for.
They have an accurate account of how much is being radiated outwards (which isn't affected by differences in solar output), which tracks extremely well with the models. If it were primarily driven by variances in solar output, you'd see opposite movements in stratospheric temperatures than what is observed. By observing the amount of energy not radiated versus the temperatures from the troposphere down, you have a good method of internal verification. As it turns out, it was verified.
The second is that you once again are saying that the thrown out data from satellites is once again being used for a proof of your theory.
No, read it more closely... I said that more recent work involving satellite observations has found the missing energy. It's not the same data-- obviously tropospheric observations won't do you a lot of good when measuring ocean temperatures.
Once they had figured out how the data actually proved them right, then it was suddenly accurate again. This is really a prime example of sophistry. The data hadn't changed, the efficacy of the data hadn't changed, and every argument against the accuracy of the data remained, but when it would seem the data called the model into question, those doubts disqualified the data, yet when it would seem the data supports the model, those doubts are inconsequential.
Again, the accuracy of the data was never questioned. All they said was that there's a standard error x, and that you fail to reject at a certain confidence level if you're within a given multiple of x-- and that due to measurement error, x wa
Sorry for the delay, life intruded, and/. threads are the first thing to fall by the wayside. Let's see if I can give you a response that you find pleasing.
As recently as 2000, satellite data has shown that the lower and middle troposphere have had negligible, if any increase in temperature, even though most of the models climatologists have been using claim that we should be seeing rises in the troposphere that correspond to the surface level warming trends. The National Research Council's response to this was to decide that as a matter of policy, satellite data should not be used as an argument against global warming. Now, how is that not an example of cherry picking data? You have a model, you have a prediction, you have instruments capable of checking the validity of the model, and when they show the model to be inaccurate, you throw out the previously respected data, as erroneous.
Well, hang on. I think that's a mischaracterization of the NRC's stance. The models generally suggest a warming trend at the surface level and troposphere, and a cooling trend in the stratosphere. What that set of observations found was that while the other two matched up, on the surface, there were discrepancies with the tropospheric temperatures. NRC pointed out a few things...
The first, of course, was that our surface-level data provide a picture of temperatures across the globe at large number of sites over the past 125 years. This data set shows an unambiguous warming trend. Our sample size for the upper atmosphere relies on a much smaller set of samples, and observations over, at the time, about a sixth as long as the surface data. This wasn't a dismissal of the satellite data, just a note that the satellite data did not show that no warming was occurring, and that potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement.
The second was that the satellite data, when you account for aerosols and Mt. Pinatubo, matches the model data pretty well. So... they really don't show the models to be inaccurate-- the models did a very good job of predicting surface and stratospheric temperatures, and a pretty good job of predicting tropospheric temperatures, ceteris paribus.
The third thing, though, was that they did acknowledge that their understanding wasn't perfect-- that one of two things was wrong: they either had the distribution (though not the total amount) of energy from the troposphere on down wrong, or they had a giant mystery-- the stratospheric cooling suggested that a certain amount of energy was in fact being trapped by greenhouse gases, and that amount checked out with the models perfectly. In short, there was some energy missing, and it wasn't being radiated back into space. It's a good thing that nobody threw out the satellite data, because more recent work involving satellite observations has found the missing energy-- in the form of greater-than-expected oceanic warming. Interestingly, this actually may actually make for nastier implications of global warming.
Another example, is that the climatologist model does not address changes in cosmic radiation and solar winds, even though there are several physicists who maintain that there demonstrable and measurable effects on cloud cover and temperature as a result of cosmic radiation. Climatologists summarily dismiss this theory as having no significant relevance, because their models as they stand now explain everything, without taking those factors into account, so they must be insignificant factors. Climatologists then further try to discredit the theory by applying statistical analysis to the problem, and claiming that the seeming correlation is just a smoothing error by the physicists, resulting from poor statistical analysis. Here is the problem, it is not just a statistical argument. There are underlying physical principals at work that massaging the statistical data does not invalidate. Creating a model of how our planet traps cosmic radiation, while simultaneously ign
I'll get to the rest later, I'm working right now, but this is quick:
You asked:
And exactly which simulation has been accurate at predicting the future in which specific way? [my bold]
And I responded:
Several. One that I found impressive was Hansen's GISS Model II, which accurately predicted the effects on global average temperature of Mount Pinatubo's eruption, as well as the overall trend for the past 15 years. [still my bold]
Then you said:
Are you serious? There have been huge advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics over the past 20 years, and you choose a model from the '80s as your best example of an accurate simulation? There are some quite significant things that had not been worked out yet in CFD back when that model was made. I don't know if you are pulling my leg, testing me, or just plain serious about picking that as what you think is one of the more accurate models?
Consider the question you asked and what I stated. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Did I say it was my "best" example of an accurate simulation? No.
I didn't pick it as one of the more accurate models. I picked it as one rather impressive example of a model that, even twenty years ago, was successful at predicting the temperature record, inclusive of a major climactic event. I couldn't pick a recent model, because by definition, a recent model can't have predicted the future, because the future hasn't happened yet. I picked something that was old enough to have a long track record for comparison and was tested by an anomalous event-- and it proved itself to be quite accurate.
Yes, you're absolutely right. There have been many significant advances in climate research in the past 20 years. The models today are considered to be far more accurate than the GISS II model. Your point being... that they've gone from being able to accurately predict average global temperature... to being able to predict it even more accurately?
Ah, I see. So your position is that there has been a perfect consensus among the entire scientific community for some time, but don't listen to those environmentalists, because they are a bunch of loons, and don't listen to geologists, because they don't really know what they are talking about, and don't listen to environmental chemists, because they aren't studying the problem properly, and don't listen to physicists, because they aren't part of the right club. None the less, there isn't a single scientist who disagrees with these findings, outside of a few kooks.
This from someone who complained that I was misrepresenting his position!
No, I don't consider the claims of environmentalists to be persuasive, unless they happen to be citing scientific evidence. I never disqualified geologists, in fact I cited the American Geophysical Union as one of the major scientific bodies stating that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. I left out the International Union of Geological Sciences, the American Geological Institute (which represents 44 member organizations), and others. I never disqualified physicists, who are also represented by the AGU and AMS, whom I cited previously, though I could add the Royal Astronomical Society and others to the list. Nor have I ever disqualified environmental chemists, and I'd be happy to mention the American Chemical Society and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. All of these organizations, not to mention larger scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and American Association for the Advancement of Science, agree.
Tell me why they're wrong.
You haven't read the body of research, yet you claim it is wrong.
You have yet to put forward a single argument.
What, in your opinion, qualifies as an argument? There is overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. Would you like me to point to particular studies, to particular models, to the various teams that have independently verified the results of various models, to the predictive value of particular models? What would you like? You don't seem to like me pointing to studies, which has the odd effect of disqualifying almost all scientific research... You cannot, through rhetoric, make the science behind climate change, or the results of that scientific study, or the overwhelming consensus about the accuracy of those results, go away. Like I said before, show me where the body of research is wrong, and you'll have something valid to offer. Alternately, ask me why any particular claim is accurate. What do you want me to show you? It's a rather enormous body of evidence... where do you want me to begin?
As far as your ad hominem attacks, I'll give you a response to one:
You even argue the same way. Rather than reading what is on the page as a whole, you pick little snippets out of context, based on how well you can use them to make the person you are arguing with fit your preconceptions of what an unbeliever must be. When you get into trouble, of course, you fall right back to the same appeal to authority, over and over, and over again.
Three requests:
Please show me what I've taken out of context and explain how it should be considered differently.
Please show me where you think I've "gotten into trouble."
Please explain how it is possible to discuss global warming's validity without mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. There's a well-respected theory out there that is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists. Falsify it or fail to falsify it. It's impossible in science to technically "prove" anything-- you can just fail to falsify it. So... it's impossible for me to do anything other than point you to the research and the consensus, and ask you to suggest where it is flawed. You have not offered a single critique of the evidence. I have already pointed you to a significant body of research supporting it, and you haven't mentioned a sin
Incorrect. I'd fanthom to think that the amount of CO2 that we put into the air as a species from mechanical sources is dwarfed by CO2 coming from the planet itself.
Incorrect. I'd fanthom (What the hell does "fanthom" mean? You can't mean "fathom", because to fathom means to comprehend, and one thus doesn't "fathom to think") to think that you need to cite where you got that number from, because it's dead wrong. I can go dig around for the references if you'd like, but if I recall correctly, geological emissions of C02 are on average about 3% of anthropogenic emissions, and geological emissions are also heavy in aerosols, which create a negative climate forcing, meaning that the net effect of volcanic eruptions, etc, is negative.
You make a number of significant errors in your argument. They are as follows...
1. You say:
Any reputable scientist of any discipline will have no problem in telling you that when you are talking about a complex system, that has been in operation for billions of years, a sampling of measurements over the past couple hundred years is nowhere near enough to KNOW how the system behaves to a particular factor over any meaningful span.
And I say:
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
And you respond:
Well, I never said a single thing you attribute to me in that little snippet, nor anything like it.
See... you did say something to provoke that response-- allow me to explain it, since it obviously wasn't clear the first time. Climatology is like geology, evolutionary biology, et cetera, in that it is a science based on observation-- but one that by its very nature precludes direct experimentation. Instead, it relies on statistical methods to determine the relationships between different factors, modeling to predict future trends, and further observation to verify postulated relationships and the accuracy of models. Do check on the accuracy of the GISS model, by the way-- it's quite impressive. It's erroneous to discount any of these disciplines on the basis that we have direct data only from observations over a couple hundred years (and only extrapolated data for time periods beyond that), and it shows a great degree of ignorance as to how this work is performed and why it is valid. Arguing that the scientists cannot directly test the theory, therefore it is invalid, is precisely why I brought up the disciplines of geology and evolutionary biology, and the theory of plate tectonics. Your argument is actually one that Creationists use against the theory of evolution-- it's invalid there as well as here. There are ways to test theories other than creating a controlled experiment.
2. If there is no way to test the theory, then no amount of consensus would make a reputable scientist say "well we can't test it, but we all agree this must be what is happening."
Then you have a bone to pick with the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other major bodies who have explicitly stated that a consensus exists on the subject of anthropogenic climate change. I guess none of them are reputable scientists.
3. The theory of plate tectonics explains why there are earthquakes, but so far their attempts to anticipate earthquakes have been just about as successful as watching dogs to see how they react to earthquakes
You're correct in saying that precise earthquake prediction has been a disaster. Let's explore the metaphor a bit, though. Stating that there will be a 4.7 earthquake on January 14th in La Jolla is akin to stating that on January 14th, it will be sunny and 28F in Detroit. Climatology does not claim to know the temperature on a given date, much as geology makes no claim to predicting earthquakes with such accuracy. However, geologists can tell you quite a bit about the future over the long run, as can climatologists. There's a world of difference between a point prediction and a trend prediction.
4. You are quite fond of quoting studies, yet where in these studies is the science? There is always the statement of "this is how we think it works" then there is the "this is the statistical evidence that supports our belief" then we jump straight to the "so we all agree this must be happening." Whe
Any reputable scientist of any discipline will have no problem in telling you that when you are talking about a complex system, that has been in operation for billions of years, a sampling of measurements over the past couple hundred years is nowhere near enough to KNOW how the system behaves to a particular factor over any meaningful span.
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
I've already listed several statements from the most major scientific organizations in the field, all of which find an overwhelming consensus on the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Yes, you can find a handful of cranks who believe otherwise, just like how you can find a handful of cranks who believe any stupid position imaginable.
Yet, that doesn't stop people from coming right out and saying that all scientists agree, that people are causing a catastrophic climactic change with environmental pollution.
Nice strawman. Let me rephrase it so that it actually represents a reasonable position:
"An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree, anthropogenic climate change exists and could potentially impose some (unknown magnitude of) costs upon humanity."
Something more like that is about right.
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we surely must be killing the very planet in order to live our comfy lives.
Obviously you haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge [ooh, snap]. Go read the scientific literature on the topic, starting with the NAS Study to which I linked in my aforementioned post. Your psychoanalysis is a cute ad hominem [as is this paragraph], but it contributes nothing to the debate.
The simple fact is that there has been a very slight rise in temperatures globally over the past blink of a global eye that we call a century. If anyone knew why, they could probably also reliably tell you if it was going to rain tomorrow, where the next tsunami will hit, and what day the next big earthquake would hit California. They can't tell you any of those things because there are actually some things that are so complex that the human brain can't properly model them, even with the help of all the fancy supercomputers in the world.
Yes, because all those systems are equivalent, and those predictions are all equivalent in nature. Except not. Please explain how several climate models have actually proven quite accurate at predicting global average temperature, if your claim is true. Or, better yet, go think long and hard about why it's possible to predict average values with much higher reliability than one can predict point values.
[The rest of your political crap]
I don't care about you, nor do I care about the politics of the issue. I do care that you're polluting the conversation with your nonsense claims that we don't understand the basics of the issue. I also care about the policies that grow out of the scientific consensus on the issue-- but, at present, I can't say for sure exactly what, if anything, we should do. Perhaps some people do take global warming to be some sort of moral tale, but their existence does not devalue the position taken by those who are compelled by the overwhelming sc
Most of what you say is totally unobjectionable, except for this:
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Well, here I go pulling stuff out of my ass (and by "my ass" I mean "the positions of the most influential bodies in the field") [my bold].
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
...Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions...
...Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents resulting primarily from energy use, agriculture, and land clearing. These radiatively active gases and trace constituents interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming...
...An overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the following facts relating to the global warming issue.
* The theory of how greenhouse gases directly interact with atmospheric radiation is not controversial. If no other factors counter their influence, increases in their concentration will lead to global warming.
* A steady rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases began over 200 years ago and is continuing. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, has increased from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to over 367 ppmv in 2000, an increase of more than 30%; methane has increased from 0.7 to about 1.8 ppmv, an increase of more than 150%; nitrous oxide has increased from 0.27 to over 0.31 ppmv, an increase of 16%. Tropospheric ozone is estimated to have increased by 35% since the industrial revolution...
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
In short... there is no controversy. Yes, there are a handful of very loud people who are attempting to create one, who are assisted by the media's dedication to "balance," which consists of giving equal weight to totally unequal positions. Really, though, in the scientific community, anthropogenic warming is considered to be a fact.
Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean that we should necessarily do anything about it. The existence of a phenomenon is not de facto support for any particular policy position. But let's not screw around-- the "controversy" over whether global warming is at least partially anthropogenic is manufactured and does not reflect the views of the scientific community.
Have whales beached themselves? Yes! Does anyone know why? No! "Hmmm look around...oh yeah! The Navy has money, lets sue them for research dollars!"
If you read the text of the suit[pdf link], the only monetary relief requested is for the cost of the suit. So... if the suit is decided against NRDC, they lose money; if it's decided in favor of NRDC but costs are not granted, they lose money; and if it's decided in favor of NRDC and costs are granted, they break even.
The alternate claim, that they'll get money from donations, which we can presume might increase following the publicity associated with the suit, is more plausible... but we'd have to consider that a defeat could result in negative publicity, which could harm donations, etc, etc.
Is it at all possible that the group has good enough reason to believe that mid-frequency sonar is killing whales that they're willing to submit it to the independent judgment of a court so that they can get a binding ruling or settlement that would alter the Navy's practices?
As far as your personal experience goes, thanks for the contribution to the discussion, but don't extrapolate too far-- just because I know someone who survived a refinery explosion doesn't mean that refinery explosions don't kill people. Are all the important variables the same in your example as in the suit? Do you even know (answer: no, since you clearly haven't read any of the relevant information)? If you take the time to read the information offered as evidence in the suit, it's far more substantial than your portrayal suggests. If the suit is frivolous, it will be dismissed-- so don't you lose any sleep over it.
Precisely what problem do you have with the Navy agreeing to a settlement that binds them to adhering to the practices requested?
1. You really think that the demand for people who program in COBOL is expanding?
2. Do you think that some system other than capitalism (say, socialism) would solve the problems associated with growth and development, like transitioning to more efficient languages?
Actually, come to think of it, they probably would. We'd just still be using COBOL.
A pretty good post over at Peak Oil Optimist makes the obvious point about this nonsense: if it were really an economically feasible alternative source of energy, it wouldn't require subsidies. Saying that it beats other biomass crops in terms of energy input to output ratio isn't saying much-- ethanol production, for example, is typically a net energy loser (but it exists due to heavy subsidies). Maybe we need to stop spending so much money on farm subsidies, and focus on more realistic avenues for alternative energy?
1. You're right, optimization of your riding position matters a lot. It can mean a difference of 30% in your power output.
2. Having a higher cadence doesn't make it anaerobic, it makes it aerobic. It lowers the muscular burden and shifts the burden to your oxygen transport system... pedaling at a lower cadence is anaerobic work, as it is more like lifting weights. Interestingly, the pro cyclist with one of the highest cadences right now also has the highest sustainable power output. And as far as peak power output, those numbers all belong to track cyclists, who ride fixed-gear bicycles and can generate over 2,000W for short periods.
3. As far as what a cyclist can generate... during the final hour of a Tour stage, that cyclist with the highest sustainable power output, Lance Armstrong, will average about 400W. An average cyclist can only generate about 100W.
AOL has been ordered to open the protocol and their servers to either "server-to-server interoperability" or direct retrieval of information by competing clients. I wouldn't say their actions fall within "their rights," then, would you?
This is a part of their merger with Time Warner, and as a matter of fact, AOL has to file a report every 180 days "describing in
technical depth, the actions it has taken to achieve interoperability of its IM offerings and others' IM offerings."
Even more interesting, section 129 of the FCC's order allows for complaints to be filed for non-compliance. These actions are clearly non-compliant, therefore, it would make sense for an interested party to file such a complaint...
Look at a $500 pair of Bose speakers. First off, you'll have a hard time getting a salesman to just show you a single pair of speakers, because what they _want_ to sell you is their special "system," which consists of their Jewel Cube speakers, which are basically nothing more than tweeters, tied to a very average sub (the "acoustimass" unit). However, once you do get to look at the speakers (the "Direct Reflecting" type), take off the grill and look at the cones. On a pair of B&Ws, you'll see gold tweeters and Kevlar woofers from the DM601 on up. On the Bose speakers, you'll see plastic and glue on the woofers, lots of it. In essence, the production quality is questionable, and it compromises sound quality throughout the spectrum, but especially at the lower end. Furthermore, if you go for a full system, the Acoustimass unit cannot produce adequate power around 20Hz for the room-shaking feel one expects from a home theatre sub, and all the bass is coming from a central location, basically destroying the point of a surround system.
In short, no audiophile will ever use Bose for their system due to poor quality, and no respectable home theatre setup would employ something so under-powered. ---sig---
A: Given the amount of energy required to mine and process uranium from the Earth's crust, nuclear fission is actually a less efficient form of power than traditional coal-fired power plants.
B: The energy expended in mining and processing (which is far more intensive for uranium than for any form of traditional fossil fuel) comes in the form of fossil fuels. This resurrects the problem of global warming, which you purported to solve. Furthermore, fission is not a sustainable model (ie. we can't do it indefinitely) due to the large input required in the form of fossil fuels, so neither environmental impact nor sustainability has been addressed.
C: Chernobyl
D: Three Mile Island
E: What were you saying about fission being "one such power source" that has "little environmental impact?"
F: The inventor of the LISP programming language does not qualify as a source. He is a programmer, not a scientist, not any qualified authority on energy or sustainability.
G: If you want to contend that an accident on the scale of or larger than Chernobyl will not occur, you're a moron. The fact of the matter is, it cannot be guaranteed that an accident or deliberate attack or earthquake or unforseen incident will not occur. Worst case scenario with solar or similar sources of power, power goes out. Worst case scenario with fission, power goes out and thousands die of massive radiation leak.
H: Remember that fission reactors are basically controlled A-bombs... even fusion is a better idea, given its far lower likelihood of massive explosions scattering radiation over FEMA's "ingestion area" of 7,500 square miles.
The question, then, is:
In light of the fact that other, cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy exist that lack even the remotest possibility of massive damage to the environment,
Consider a game board of any size, but in the upper-left hand corner, there sit four boxes:
[][]
[][]
If row 1, column 2; row 2 column 1; and row 2, column 2 are all mines, the four boxes look like this:
[]##
####
No data is known about row 1, column 1. Therefore, 2 possible solutions exist.
Extrapolate this, assuming similar situations on a game board consisting of billions of rows and columns, and an astronomical number of possible solutions begin to emerge.
Which, of course, is the whole problem with encryption. There are just too many possible answers (depending on key strength, etc).
In short, yes, maybe minesweeper does have something to do with encryption. However, it won't be offering solutions any time soon.
It is completely within Constitution to restrict access to questionable materials, precedent in this area is well-established. Before complaining about this as a violation of "constitutional rights," please read the body of law regarding the limitations to the right of free speech.
Free speech is about censorship, and censorship implies "prior restraint." In this case, the material is not in any way prevented from being distributed, except a case where it is considered to be in conflict with local community standards (which is a provision applicable more properly to pornography), and even in that case, a legal adult can purchase the material, as can a minor, if accompanied by an adult.
What does this mean? It means that this has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.
Please, save the angry protestations for true cases of prior restraint, where we actually have a real leg to stand on, as in the DeCSS case.
Set up a P.O. Box to which people are instructed to send $1 (to cover expenses), plus the address they wish to have the source code mailed to. The provider then ships a printed copy of the source code embedded in an essay (of social and political merit) about the dangers of viewing source code as anything less than speech.
No violation of previous precedent (even non-binding) exists, and the first amendment argument is suddenly on very well-established ground.
Furthermore, the MPAA legal team gets to jump through the extra hoops of subpoenaing the P.O. Box provider, attempting to identify the parties actually responsible for the distribution of the source (be smart-- create a "collective" box or something-- don't rent it in the name of whomever is responsible for the distribution), etc. The internet makes for easy access to information and communication-- a dream for anyone attempting to shut down (scare into submission) a lot of information sources at once. Let's give them a bit of leg work to do. ---sig---
The User Friendly/Segfault scam was amusing, this year's/. jokes are terrible. I'm officially "complaining about lack of options," just in case there's ever a poll. ---sig---
I've already e-mailed Jamie to hear what he has to say, but FYI, the AFA has landed in Birmingham, MI , my hometown. Apparently a man was spotted by library officials downloading pornography and escorted from the building, and the AFA is using it as a pretense to fight for censorship here. It's an extremely wealthy, Republican, conservative area, so I expect another difficult struggle. I'll try to keep you all updated.
Also, apparently a bill for library filtering has passed the MI state senate, which may very well nullify Jamie's gains if it is not stopped soon. All slashdotters in MI, write Engler and your local Reps. ---sig---
Either something was missed or ignored... As an earlier poster pointed out, North America is a pretty poor place to live, for the most part. You may have noted that humans did not develop as a species in a climate that in any way resembles even the relatively hospitable climate of the West Coast. Ironically, given the fear many people have of this environment, humans come from the jungles of Africa, in which region the societies the original poster is referring to lived.
I'm also wondering which tribal group you're referring to when you say "California Indians." A bit of quick research on my part shows a number of different tribes that inhabited this region, and I'm wondering if this is perhaps not so much a "natural" tribal grouping as one forced upon them when the Europeans came through looking for land. Part of this comes from the fact that none of my data indicates that any of the coastal dwellers relied mainly on acorns, perhaps they had been displaced at least once before? I'm interested to hear about the history of this group, especially because the time period you describe was one during which life became increasingly demanding on the Native Americans, as they were forcibly assimilated into our 'civilized' society.
I understand that a lot of people become annoyed when asked to cite information, so if it's not readily at hand, don't bother, but I'm wondering what your source is when you state that archeologists believe that the CIs had an idyllic lifestyle?
And, personally, I don't mind a trek of 50 to 100 miles. Sounds like about two weeks of light hiking.
...was Alexis, Comte de Toqueville. Not one of the founding fathers, but a thinker that had a great influence during his time period. It was said in his work (he was French, btw) "Democracy in America," published in 1835. He rather disliked the American political system, denouncing it as "La tyrannie de la majorité."
This sentiment was expressed in less succinct/eloquent terms by Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, but it was Toqueville who coined the phrase.
This is merely a historical footnote, and doesn't change anything about your point, but I just wanted to clarify, in case you decide to use it in the future.
As an aside, I'd care to note that our culture* is the only one on record in which a decision made by any portion of a society is held as binding on all members of the society.
This isn't to say that other cultures don't make decisions that are held as binding on their members, merely to say that they offer an alternative. In short, if you don't like it, you can leave. To say this in our culture today is a farce. Even if they'd let you go, there's really no place to go to. In other cultures in the past, simply walking away happened relatively often- if you didn't like the way things were going, you could go do things your way. It was a viable option, and not a punishment or anything of the sort. In contrast, the massive infrastructure and population that our culture encompasses makes it impossible to leave, making the tyranny of the majority (or minority) only so much more real. Had we a place to go, it wouldn't matter.
*Culture is being used here in a very broad, semi-anthropological manner. The "culture" I'm describing happens to occupy the vast majority of the Earth's surface, save a few isolated tribes, etc. ---sig---
After years of experience in graphing-based math courses (from basic algebra through second-year calculus), I'd tell you to stick with a Texas Instruments TI-85 or 86. The main reason for my suggestion is compatibility, most calculators in the wild are TI's, so that's where all the games (useful programs, too!) are. Assembly is known for both calculators, as well, although they do not have compatible instruction sets.
Don't get anything below an 85, the graphics suck, there's not enough memory, and the calculators lack both a useful interface and things like a built-in POLY program (calculates roots for polynomials), which in my opinion are pretty basic and quite important.
Anything above the 86 is illegal for testing, mainly because of the QWERTY keyboards, so when you take your SATs or AP tests or whatever you won't be allowed to use them. The 89 is included in this list because it can do everything the other calculators can, it just lacks a QWERTY keyboard.
The main differences IMO between the 85 and 86 are memory, slightly improved graphics and processor, and a table function for values, which all models but the 85 have for some strange reason. If you don't mind the extra money or the slightly smaller selection of games, the 86 is probably the way to go, but there's much broader support for the pretty-much standard 85.
Slashdot Mirror
The winner!
This car isn't faster than a Ferrari or Porsche, it's quicker, and for precisely the reason you mention. It's not hard to convince an electric motor to accelerate something quickly, it's not even newsworthy. Managing to create an electric car with better range and comparable high-end power, while meeting safety requirements and the needs of consumers would be an achievement.
In short, the technical problem with electric cars is one of energy density-- gasoline has extraordinary energy density and is relatively easy to store and transport efficiently. That's the technical hurdle we should be paying attention to, not this acceleration stuff.
The biggest thing I want to point out here is that you said, in your own words, "potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement." I will come back to this later, because I think it is important. As far as mischaracterizing the position of the NRC goes, my characterization is that there were a set of data points that did not track with the model, and they said that those data points couldn't be trusted, because they didn't track with the model, so shouldn't be considered.
No-- they do track with the model fairly well, once you account for all other factors. And the difference between them falls within the range of normal variance. That's not saying the data shouldn't be considered at all. You either don't understand or are deliberately mischaracterizing their statements.
Ok, seriously, you can't have it both ways. You can't first explain why the data is erroneous, then turn right around and say "but it proves me right anyway." If your first argument is true, then the data can't prove anything, because it lacks the accuracy to have any validity to the argument. That said, do you mean to say that before 2000, none of the models took aerosols into account? I specifically mentioned satellite data from 2000, and a review of that data by the NRC (who you normally seem to think very highly of), and according to the NRC at the time, the data didn't track with the models. Are you saying that the NRC just forgot to take aerosols into account when they reviewed the data?
No-- the data was never stated to be erroneous. Like I said above-- the uncertainties in measurement introduce a level of uncertainty-- and once you account for everything, they track together within that degree of uncertainty. That's when you fail to reject your null hypothesis. And no-- the models did take aerosols and volcanoes into account-- and what the NRC said wasn't that it didn't track with the models, but that it tracked once you took account of the uncertainty in measurement and the difference between the ex ante assumptions used in the model and the ex post observations of how much ended up being released.
The first is that without an accurate account of the energy put into the system (more on this later) it is very odd to start talking about where it is missing, and where it is accounted for.
They have an accurate account of how much is being radiated outwards (which isn't affected by differences in solar output), which tracks extremely well with the models. If it were primarily driven by variances in solar output, you'd see opposite movements in stratospheric temperatures than what is observed. By observing the amount of energy not radiated versus the temperatures from the troposphere down, you have a good method of internal verification. As it turns out, it was verified.
The second is that you once again are saying that the thrown out data from satellites is once again being used for a proof of your theory.
No, read it more closely... I said that more recent work involving satellite observations has found the missing energy. It's not the same data-- obviously tropospheric observations won't do you a lot of good when measuring ocean temperatures.
Once they had figured out how the data actually proved them right, then it was suddenly accurate again. This is really a prime example of sophistry. The data hadn't changed, the efficacy of the data hadn't changed, and every argument against the accuracy of the data remained, but when it would seem the data called the model into question, those doubts disqualified the data, yet when it would seem the data supports the model, those doubts are inconsequential.
Again, the accuracy of the data was never questioned. All they said was that there's a standard error x, and that you fail to reject at a certain confidence level if you're within a given multiple of x-- and that due to measurement error, x wa
As recently as 2000, satellite data has shown that the lower and middle troposphere have had negligible, if any increase in temperature, even though most of the models climatologists have been using claim that we should be seeing rises in the troposphere that correspond to the surface level warming trends. The National Research Council's response to this was to decide that as a matter of policy, satellite data should not be used as an argument against global warming. Now, how is that not an example of cherry picking data? You have a model, you have a prediction, you have instruments capable of checking the validity of the model, and when they show the model to be inaccurate, you throw out the previously respected data, as erroneous.
Well, hang on. I think that's a mischaracterization of the NRC's stance. The models generally suggest a warming trend at the surface level and troposphere, and a cooling trend in the stratosphere. What that set of observations found was that while the other two matched up, on the surface, there were discrepancies with the tropospheric temperatures. NRC pointed out a few things...
The first, of course, was that our surface-level data provide a picture of temperatures across the globe at large number of sites over the past 125 years. This data set shows an unambiguous warming trend. Our sample size for the upper atmosphere relies on a much smaller set of samples, and observations over, at the time, about a sixth as long as the surface data. This wasn't a dismissal of the satellite data, just a note that the satellite data did not show that no warming was occurring, and that potentially some of the difference was due to uncertainties in measurement.
The second was that the satellite data, when you account for aerosols and Mt. Pinatubo, matches the model data pretty well. So... they really don't show the models to be inaccurate-- the models did a very good job of predicting surface and stratospheric temperatures, and a pretty good job of predicting tropospheric temperatures, ceteris paribus.
The third thing, though, was that they did acknowledge that their understanding wasn't perfect-- that one of two things was wrong: they either had the distribution (though not the total amount) of energy from the troposphere on down wrong, or they had a giant mystery-- the stratospheric cooling suggested that a certain amount of energy was in fact being trapped by greenhouse gases, and that amount checked out with the models perfectly. In short, there was some energy missing, and it wasn't being radiated back into space. It's a good thing that nobody threw out the satellite data, because more recent work involving satellite observations has found the missing energy-- in the form of greater-than-expected oceanic warming. Interestingly, this actually may actually make for nastier implications of global warming.
Another example, is that the climatologist model does not address changes in cosmic radiation and solar winds, even though there are several physicists who maintain that there demonstrable and measurable effects on cloud cover and temperature as a result of cosmic radiation. Climatologists summarily dismiss this theory as having no significant relevance, because their models as they stand now explain everything, without taking those factors into account, so they must be insignificant factors. Climatologists then further try to discredit the theory by applying statistical analysis to the problem, and claiming that the seeming correlation is just a smoothing error by the physicists, resulting from poor statistical analysis. Here is the problem, it is not just a statistical argument. There are underlying physical principals at work that massaging the statistical data does not invalidate. Creating a model of how our planet traps cosmic radiation, while simultaneously ign
You asked:
And exactly which simulation has been accurate at predicting the future in which specific way? [my bold]
And I responded:
Several. One that I found impressive was Hansen's GISS Model II, which accurately predicted the effects on global average temperature of Mount Pinatubo's eruption, as well as the overall trend for the past 15 years. [still my bold]
Then you said:
Are you serious? There have been huge advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics over the past 20 years, and you choose a model from the '80s as your best example of an accurate simulation? There are some quite significant things that had not been worked out yet in CFD back when that model was made. I don't know if you are pulling my leg, testing me, or just plain serious about picking that as what you think is one of the more accurate models?
Consider the question you asked and what I stated. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Did I say it was my "best" example of an accurate simulation? No.
I didn't pick it as one of the more accurate models. I picked it as one rather impressive example of a model that, even twenty years ago, was successful at predicting the temperature record, inclusive of a major climactic event. I couldn't pick a recent model, because by definition, a recent model can't have predicted the future, because the future hasn't happened yet. I picked something that was old enough to have a long track record for comparison and was tested by an anomalous event-- and it proved itself to be quite accurate.
Yes, you're absolutely right. There have been many significant advances in climate research in the past 20 years. The models today are considered to be far more accurate than the GISS II model. Your point being... that they've gone from being able to accurately predict average global temperature... to being able to predict it even more accurately?
This from someone who complained that I was misrepresenting his position!
No, I don't consider the claims of environmentalists to be persuasive, unless they happen to be citing scientific evidence. I never disqualified geologists, in fact I cited the American Geophysical Union as one of the major scientific bodies stating that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. I left out the International Union of Geological Sciences, the American Geological Institute (which represents 44 member organizations), and others. I never disqualified physicists, who are also represented by the AGU and AMS, whom I cited previously, though I could add the Royal Astronomical Society and others to the list. Nor have I ever disqualified environmental chemists, and I'd be happy to mention the American Chemical Society and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. All of these organizations, not to mention larger scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and American Association for the Advancement of Science, agree.
Tell me why they're wrong.
You haven't read the body of research, yet you claim it is wrong.
You have yet to put forward a single argument.
What, in your opinion, qualifies as an argument? There is overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. Would you like me to point to particular studies, to particular models, to the various teams that have independently verified the results of various models, to the predictive value of particular models? What would you like? You don't seem to like me pointing to studies, which has the odd effect of disqualifying almost all scientific research... You cannot, through rhetoric, make the science behind climate change, or the results of that scientific study, or the overwhelming consensus about the accuracy of those results, go away. Like I said before, show me where the body of research is wrong, and you'll have something valid to offer. Alternately, ask me why any particular claim is accurate. What do you want me to show you? It's a rather enormous body of evidence... where do you want me to begin?
As far as your ad hominem attacks, I'll give you a response to one:
You even argue the same way. Rather than reading what is on the page as a whole, you pick little snippets out of context, based on how well you can use them to make the person you are arguing with fit your preconceptions of what an unbeliever must be. When you get into trouble, of course, you fall right back to the same appeal to authority, over and over, and over again.
Three requests:
Please show me what I've taken out of context and explain how it should be considered differently.
Please show me where you think I've "gotten into trouble."
Please explain how it is possible to discuss global warming's validity without mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. There's a well-respected theory out there that is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists. Falsify it or fail to falsify it. It's impossible in science to technically "prove" anything-- you can just fail to falsify it. So... it's impossible for me to do anything other than point you to the research and the consensus, and ask you to suggest where it is flawed. You have not offered a single critique of the evidence. I have already pointed you to a significant body of research supporting it, and you haven't mentioned a sin
Incorrect. I'd fanthom (What the hell does "fanthom" mean? You can't mean "fathom", because to fathom means to comprehend, and one thus doesn't "fathom to think") to think that you need to cite where you got that number from, because it's dead wrong. I can go dig around for the references if you'd like, but if I recall correctly, geological emissions of C02 are on average about 3% of anthropogenic emissions, and geological emissions are also heavy in aerosols, which create a negative climate forcing, meaning that the net effect of volcanic eruptions, etc, is negative.
1. You say:
Any reputable scientist of any discipline will have no problem in telling you that when you are talking about a complex system, that has been in operation for billions of years, a sampling of measurements over the past couple hundred years is nowhere near enough to KNOW how the system behaves to a particular factor over any meaningful span.
And I say:
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
And you respond:
Well, I never said a single thing you attribute to me in that little snippet, nor anything like it.
See... you did say something to provoke that response-- allow me to explain it, since it obviously wasn't clear the first time. Climatology is like geology, evolutionary biology, et cetera, in that it is a science based on observation-- but one that by its very nature precludes direct experimentation. Instead, it relies on statistical methods to determine the relationships between different factors, modeling to predict future trends, and further observation to verify postulated relationships and the accuracy of models. Do check on the accuracy of the GISS model, by the way-- it's quite impressive. It's erroneous to discount any of these disciplines on the basis that we have direct data only from observations over a couple hundred years (and only extrapolated data for time periods beyond that), and it shows a great degree of ignorance as to how this work is performed and why it is valid. Arguing that the scientists cannot directly test the theory, therefore it is invalid, is precisely why I brought up the disciplines of geology and evolutionary biology, and the theory of plate tectonics. Your argument is actually one that Creationists use against the theory of evolution-- it's invalid there as well as here. There are ways to test theories other than creating a controlled experiment.
2. If there is no way to test the theory, then no amount of consensus would make a reputable scientist say "well we can't test it, but we all agree this must be what is happening."
Then you have a bone to pick with the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other major bodies who have explicitly stated that a consensus exists on the subject of anthropogenic climate change. I guess none of them are reputable scientists.
3. The theory of plate tectonics explains why there are earthquakes, but so far their attempts to anticipate earthquakes have been just about as successful as watching dogs to see how they react to earthquakes
You're correct in saying that precise earthquake prediction has been a disaster. Let's explore the metaphor a bit, though. Stating that there will be a 4.7 earthquake on January 14th in La Jolla is akin to stating that on January 14th, it will be sunny and 28F in Detroit. Climatology does not claim to know the temperature on a given date, much as geology makes no claim to predicting earthquakes with such accuracy. However, geologists can tell you quite a bit about the future over the long run, as can climatologists. There's a world of difference between a point prediction and a trend prediction.
4. You are quite fond of quoting studies, yet where in these studies is the science? There is always the statement of "this is how we think it works" then there is the "this is the statistical evidence that supports our belief" then we jump straight to the "so we all agree this must be happening." Whe
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
I've already listed several statements from the most major scientific organizations in the field, all of which find an overwhelming consensus on the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Yes, you can find a handful of cranks who believe otherwise, just like how you can find a handful of cranks who believe any stupid position imaginable.
Yet, that doesn't stop people from coming right out and saying that all scientists agree, that people are causing a catastrophic climactic change with environmental pollution.
Nice strawman. Let me rephrase it so that it actually represents a reasonable position:
"An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree, anthropogenic climate change exists and could potentially impose some (unknown magnitude of) costs upon humanity."
Something more like that is about right.
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we surely must be killing the very planet in order to live our comfy lives.
Obviously you haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge [ooh, snap]. Go read the scientific literature on the topic, starting with the NAS Study to which I linked in my aforementioned post. Your psychoanalysis is a cute ad hominem [as is this paragraph], but it contributes nothing to the debate.
The simple fact is that there has been a very slight rise in temperatures globally over the past blink of a global eye that we call a century. If anyone knew why, they could probably also reliably tell you if it was going to rain tomorrow, where the next tsunami will hit, and what day the next big earthquake would hit California. They can't tell you any of those things because there are actually some things that are so complex that the human brain can't properly model them, even with the help of all the fancy supercomputers in the world.
Yes, because all those systems are equivalent, and those predictions are all equivalent in nature. Except not. Please explain how several climate models have actually proven quite accurate at predicting global average temperature, if your claim is true. Or, better yet, go think long and hard about why it's possible to predict average values with much higher reliability than one can predict point values.
[The rest of your political crap]
I don't care about you, nor do I care about the politics of the issue. I do care that you're polluting the conversation with your nonsense claims that we don't understand the basics of the issue. I also care about the policies that grow out of the scientific consensus on the issue-- but, at present, I can't say for sure exactly what, if anything, we should do. Perhaps some people do take global warming to be some sort of moral tale, but their existence does not devalue the position taken by those who are compelled by the overwhelming sc
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Well, here I go pulling stuff out of my ass (and by "my ass" I mean "the positions of the most influential bodies in the field") [my bold].
From the Position Statement of the American Geophysical Union:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
From the Position Statement of the American Meteorological Society:
* The theory of how greenhouse gases directly interact with atmospheric radiation is not controversial. If no other factors counter their influence, increases in their concentration will lead to global warming.
* A steady rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases began over 200 years ago and is continuing. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, has increased from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to over 367 ppmv in 2000, an increase of more than 30%; methane has increased from 0.7 to about 1.8 ppmv, an increase of more than 150%; nitrous oxide has increased from 0.27 to over 0.31 ppmv, an increase of 16%. Tropospheric ozone is estimated to have increased by 35% since the industrial revolution...
The first line of the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report titled "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions", performed at the request of President Bush:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
In short... there is no controversy. Yes, there are a handful of very loud people who are attempting to create one, who are assisted by the media's dedication to "balance," which consists of giving equal weight to totally unequal positions. Really, though, in the scientific community, anthropogenic warming is considered to be a fact.
Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean that we should necessarily do anything about it. The existence of a phenomenon is not de facto support for any particular policy position. But let's not screw around-- the "controversy" over whether global warming is at least partially anthropogenic is manufactured and does not reflect the views of the scientific community.
If you read the text of the suit[pdf link], the only monetary relief requested is for the cost of the suit. So... if the suit is decided against NRDC, they lose money; if it's decided in favor of NRDC but costs are not granted, they lose money; and if it's decided in favor of NRDC and costs are granted, they break even.
The alternate claim, that they'll get money from donations, which we can presume might increase following the publicity associated with the suit, is more plausible... but we'd have to consider that a defeat could result in negative publicity, which could harm donations, etc, etc.
Is it at all possible that the group has good enough reason to believe that mid-frequency sonar is killing whales that they're willing to submit it to the independent judgment of a court so that they can get a binding ruling or settlement that would alter the Navy's practices?
As far as your personal experience goes, thanks for the contribution to the discussion, but don't extrapolate too far-- just because I know someone who survived a refinery explosion doesn't mean that refinery explosions don't kill people. Are all the important variables the same in your example as in the suit? Do you even know (answer: no, since you clearly haven't read any of the relevant information)? If you take the time to read the information offered as evidence in the suit, it's far more substantial than your portrayal suggests. If the suit is frivolous, it will be dismissed-- so don't you lose any sleep over it.
Precisely what problem do you have with the Navy agreeing to a settlement that binds them to adhering to the practices requested?
1. You really think that the demand for people who program in COBOL is expanding?
2. Do you think that some system other than capitalism (say, socialism) would solve the problems associated with growth and development, like transitioning to more efficient languages?
Actually, come to think of it, they probably would. We'd just still be using COBOL.
A pretty good post over at Peak Oil Optimist makes the obvious point about this nonsense: if it were really an economically feasible alternative source of energy, it wouldn't require subsidies. Saying that it beats other biomass crops in terms of energy input to output ratio isn't saying much-- ethanol production, for example, is typically a net energy loser (but it exists due to heavy subsidies). Maybe we need to stop spending so much money on farm subsidies, and focus on more realistic avenues for alternative energy?
A couple things about this:
1. You're right, optimization of your riding position matters a lot. It can mean a difference of 30% in your power output.
2. Having a higher cadence doesn't make it anaerobic, it makes it aerobic. It lowers the muscular burden and shifts the burden to your oxygen transport system... pedaling at a lower cadence is anaerobic work, as it is more like lifting weights. Interestingly, the pro cyclist with one of the highest cadences right now also has the highest sustainable power output. And as far as peak power output, those numbers all belong to track cyclists, who ride fixed-gear bicycles and can generate over 2,000W for short periods.
3. As far as what a cyclist can generate... during the final hour of a Tour stage, that cyclist with the highest sustainable power output, Lance Armstrong, will average about 400W. An average cyclist can only generate about 100W.
Don't let the evil propaganda man get you down.
A. Children are protected by the use of credit cards as verification measures. There is no reason to filter Yahoo!
B. AOL, which the story notes "[has] stayed away from pornographic sales" (maintaining their "family values") owns CNN.
C. This is not news. If pornographic materials have been available, under stringent controls, for over two years, why is it suddenly news today?
---sig---
Actually, you're dead wrong.
AOL has been ordered to open the protocol and their servers to either "server-to-server interoperability" or direct retrieval of information by competing clients. I wouldn't say their actions fall within "their rights," then, would you?
This is a part of their merger with Time Warner, and as a matter of fact, AOL has to file a report every 180 days "describing in technical depth, the actions it has taken to achieve interoperability of its IM offerings and others' IM offerings."
Even more interesting, section 129 of the FCC's order allows for complaints to be filed for non-compliance. These actions are clearly non-compliant, therefore, it would make sense for an interested party to file such a complaint...
---sig---
Look at a $500 pair of Bose speakers. First off, you'll have a hard time getting a salesman to just show you a single pair of speakers, because what they _want_ to sell you is their special "system," which consists of their Jewel Cube speakers, which are basically nothing more than tweeters, tied to a very average sub (the "acoustimass" unit). However, once you do get to look at the speakers (the "Direct Reflecting" type), take off the grill and look at the cones. On a pair of B&Ws, you'll see gold tweeters and Kevlar woofers from the DM601 on up. On the Bose speakers, you'll see plastic and glue on the woofers, lots of it. In essence, the production quality is questionable, and it compromises sound quality throughout the spectrum, but especially at the lower end. Furthermore, if you go for a full system, the Acoustimass unit cannot produce adequate power around 20Hz for the room-shaking feel one expects from a home theatre sub, and all the bass is coming from a central location, basically destroying the point of a surround system.
In short, no audiophile will ever use Bose for their system due to poor quality, and no respectable home theatre setup would employ something so under-powered.
---sig---
A: Given the amount of energy required to mine and process uranium from the Earth's crust, nuclear fission is actually a less efficient form of power than traditional coal-fired power plants.
B: The energy expended in mining and processing (which is far more intensive for uranium than for any form of traditional fossil fuel) comes in the form of fossil fuels. This resurrects the problem of global warming, which you purported to solve. Furthermore, fission is not a sustainable model (ie. we can't do it indefinitely) due to the large input required in the form of fossil fuels, so neither environmental impact nor sustainability has been addressed.
C: Chernobyl
D: Three Mile Island
E: What were you saying about fission being "one such power source" that has "little environmental impact?"
F: The inventor of the LISP programming language does not qualify as a source. He is a programmer, not a scientist, not any qualified authority on energy or sustainability.
G: If you want to contend that an accident on the scale of or larger than Chernobyl will not occur, you're a moron. The fact of the matter is, it cannot be guaranteed that an accident or deliberate attack or earthquake or unforseen incident will not occur. Worst case scenario with solar or similar sources of power, power goes out. Worst case scenario with fission, power goes out and thousands die of massive radiation leak.
H: Remember that fission reactors are basically controlled A-bombs... even fusion is a better idea, given its far lower likelihood of massive explosions scattering radiation over FEMA's "ingestion area" of 7,500 square miles.
The question, then, is:
In light of the fact that other, cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy exist that lack even the remotest possibility of massive damage to the environment,
IS FISSION WORTH THE RISK?
---sig---
This is fundamentally insolvable.
Consider a game board of any size, but in the upper-left hand corner, there sit four boxes:
[][]
[][]
If row 1, column 2; row 2 column 1; and row 2, column 2 are all mines, the four boxes look like this:
[]##
####
No data is known about row 1, column 1. Therefore, 2 possible solutions exist.
Extrapolate this, assuming similar situations on a game board consisting of billions of rows and columns, and an astronomical number of possible solutions begin to emerge.
Which, of course, is the whole problem with encryption. There are just too many possible answers (depending on key strength, etc).
In short, yes, maybe minesweeper does have something to do with encryption. However, it won't be offering solutions any time soon.
--M McCormick, Northwestern University
---sig---
It is completely within Constitution to restrict access to questionable materials, precedent in this area is well-established. Before complaining about this as a violation of "constitutional rights," please read the body of law regarding the limitations to the right of free speech.
Free speech is about censorship, and censorship implies "prior restraint." In this case, the material is not in any way prevented from being distributed, except a case where it is considered to be in conflict with local community standards (which is a provision applicable more properly to pornography), and even in that case, a legal adult can purchase the material, as can a minor, if accompanied by an adult.
What does this mean? It means that this has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.
Please, save the angry protestations for true cases of prior restraint, where we actually have a real leg to stand on, as in the DeCSS case.
---sig---
It's simple:
Set up a P.O. Box to which people are instructed to send $1 (to cover expenses), plus the address they wish to have the source code mailed to. The provider then ships a printed copy of the source code embedded in an essay (of social and political merit) about the dangers of viewing source code as anything less than speech.
No violation of previous precedent (even non-binding) exists, and the first amendment argument is suddenly on very well-established ground.
Furthermore, the MPAA legal team gets to jump through the extra hoops of subpoenaing the P.O. Box provider, attempting to identify the parties actually responsible for the distribution of the source (be smart-- create a "collective" box or something-- don't rent it in the name of whomever is responsible for the distribution), etc. The internet makes for easy access to information and communication-- a dream for anyone attempting to shut down (scare into submission) a lot of information sources at once. Let's give them a bit of leg work to do.
---sig---
The User Friendly/Segfault scam was amusing, this year's /. jokes are terrible. I'm officially "complaining about lack of options," just in case there's ever a poll.
---sig---
I've already e-mailed Jamie to hear what he has to say, but FYI, the AFA has landed in Birmingham, MI , my hometown. Apparently a man was spotted by library officials downloading pornography and escorted from the building, and the AFA is using it as a pretense to fight for censorship here. It's an extremely wealthy, Republican, conservative area, so I expect another difficult struggle. I'll try to keep you all updated.
Also, apparently a bill for library filtering has passed the MI state senate, which may very well nullify Jamie's gains if it is not stopped soon. All slashdotters in MI, write Engler and your local Reps.
---sig---
Either something was missed or ignored... As an earlier poster pointed out, North America is a pretty poor place to live, for the most part. You may have noted that humans did not develop as a species in a climate that in any way resembles even the relatively hospitable climate of the West Coast. Ironically, given the fear many people have of this environment, humans come from the jungles of Africa, in which region the societies the original poster is referring to lived.
I'm also wondering which tribal group you're referring to when you say "California Indians." A bit of quick research on my part shows a number of different tribes that inhabited this region, and I'm wondering if this is perhaps not so much a "natural" tribal grouping as one forced upon them when the Europeans came through looking for land. Part of this comes from the fact that none of my data indicates that any of the coastal dwellers relied mainly on acorns, perhaps they had been displaced at least once before? I'm interested to hear about the history of this group, especially because the time period you describe was one during which life became increasingly demanding on the Native Americans, as they were forcibly assimilated into our 'civilized' society.
I understand that a lot of people become annoyed when asked to cite information, so if it's not readily at hand, don't bother, but I'm wondering what your source is when you state that archeologists believe that the CIs had an idyllic lifestyle?
And, personally, I don't mind a trek of 50 to 100 miles. Sounds like about two weeks of light hiking.
Peace.
---sig---
...was Alexis, Comte de Toqueville. Not one of the founding fathers, but a thinker that had a great influence during his time period. It was said in his work (he was French, btw) "Democracy in America," published in 1835. He rather disliked the American political system, denouncing it as "La tyrannie de la majorité."
This sentiment was expressed in less succinct/eloquent terms by Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, but it was Toqueville who coined the phrase.
This is merely a historical footnote, and doesn't change anything about your point, but I just wanted to clarify, in case you decide to use it in the future.
As an aside, I'd care to note that our culture* is the only one on record in which a decision made by any portion of a society is held as binding on all members of the society.
This isn't to say that other cultures don't make decisions that are held as binding on their members, merely to say that they offer an alternative. In short, if you don't like it, you can leave. To say this in our culture today is a farce. Even if they'd let you go, there's really no place to go to. In other cultures in the past, simply walking away happened relatively often- if you didn't like the way things were going, you could go do things your way. It was a viable option, and not a punishment or anything of the sort. In contrast, the massive infrastructure and population that our culture encompasses makes it impossible to leave, making the tyranny of the majority (or minority) only so much more real. Had we a place to go, it wouldn't matter.
*Culture is being used here in a very broad, semi-anthropological manner. The "culture" I'm describing happens to occupy the vast majority of the Earth's surface, save a few isolated tribes, etc.
---sig---
After years of experience in graphing-based math courses (from basic algebra through second-year calculus), I'd tell you to stick with a Texas Instruments TI-85 or 86. The main reason for my suggestion is compatibility, most calculators in the wild are TI's, so that's where all the games (useful programs, too!) are. Assembly is known for both calculators, as well, although they do not have compatible instruction sets.
Don't get anything below an 85, the graphics suck, there's not enough memory, and the calculators lack both a useful interface and things like a built-in POLY program (calculates roots for polynomials), which in my opinion are pretty basic and quite important.
Anything above the 86 is illegal for testing, mainly because of the QWERTY keyboards, so when you take your SATs or AP tests or whatever you won't be allowed to use them. The 89 is included in this list because it can do everything the other calculators can, it just lacks a QWERTY keyboard.
The main differences IMO between the 85 and 86 are memory, slightly improved graphics and processor, and a table function for values, which all models but the 85 have for some strange reason. If you don't mind the extra money or the slightly smaller selection of games, the 86 is probably the way to go, but there's much broader support for the pretty-much standard 85.
Hope this helps.
---sig---