(P.S. I concur. Laurie would be an awesome idea. And it gives you the option of casting Stephen Fry as the Master, if you want to take it several million parsecs into funnytown.)
Don't kid yourself. All that stuff in the background? Canada. All the production values? Canadian technology and skill and artistry. All the directorial and producing decisions that ordinarily are affected by cost and environment? Made or not made by being in Canada.
The color of the sky and the sunlight is usually enough to make a film Canadian enough to be different.
Then let just one accent slip; one bit-part actor say "aboot" instead of "about," and it's like putting wristwatches on the Orcs in LotR.
"The effect derives its name from the theoretical example of a hurricane's formation being contingent on whether or not a distant butterfly had flapped its wings several weeks before."
Which is precisely what I knew the Butterfly Effect to mean when I wrote that post.
I'm pretty sure that the ChemE's who figure this stuff out already know that their only other solution is to drill a bazillion wells, and that such a system is simply more energy than they can retrieve.
Whereas fracking is quick, dirty, cheap, and profitable, and the law and human nature are such that they can get away with it well enough to pay it off, even if a bunch of rednecks blow 'emselves up real good just watering the lawn.
It may never be reasonable to retrieve some energy trapped in the Earth's crust without killing folks.
So the reasonable thing to do, at least from my perspective, is to leave it there. Others of course will think otherwise, but their reasoning somehow decides that human life isn't worth as much as cheap BBQ.
Except that the atmosphere doesn't work that way. It ignores small disturbances, dissipating them rather than concentrating them. In order for a tornado to form that causes damage to a 5-10 square mile footprint along its path, the atmosphere has to coalesce the rotational energy from a mesocyclone tens or hundreds of miles across, and to form that required days worth of planning by the sun and the jet stream. There's no supercritical point where the atmosphere can be kicked between tornado and not-tornado by any input that's much smaller than the tornado itself. Getting a hurricane to happen is an even bigger proposition. The difference caused by a 1-degree change in the surface temperature of the Atlantic Ocean (and how much energy is that?) is only enough to maybe change the hurricane from one category to another. A butterfly at full gallop is certainly not going to be the difference between a hurricane and a breezy day.
The linking of butterflies to even hypothetical weather changes is fanciful ignorance.
And that your relativism between fracking-causes-earthquake and nothing-specified-causes-entire-planet-to-stop-rotating-or-entire-star-to-stop-shining is somewhat more irrational than whatever relativistic failing you're attempting to accuse me of.
You might also read my post. I didn't say fracking definitely caused this earthquake. I said that a seismologist who said fracking couldn't cause an earthquake is suspect.
Er, no, the Butterfly Effect is a particular form of infinite response to finite input, described as a butterfly causing an unstable weather system to develop into a hurricane instead of a cool breeze.
It's a cute illustration, but utter bollocks, so it's inept.
There are other ways you can use a butterfly as a minor event with a knock-on amplification, like, a butterfly flies into the mouth of a drunk driver, causing a 40-car pileup that kills the Pakistani ambassador to the USA, who's carrying information that will prevent a nuclear war with India. But that doesn't make the public's eyes glaze over with "ooh, pretty sciiii-ence" the way the original butterfly effect story does.
And you don't really need chaos theory to justify a description of instability. Classical mechanics and the concept of BIBO stability does just fine.
I don't have a problem understanding or believing in the concept that small things can large, unintended consequences; I mean, that's what fracking-causes-earthquake is. But I do have a big problem with the particular example of the Butterfly Effect, which is why I called it out for being wrong, even though I needed to use it to introduce the concept.
The process is becoming more necessary to get at less-accessible sources of fuel, since we've bled the easy ones dry. And there are just plain more people so it's happening near an inhabited space more often.
Neither of those processes will be reversing itself, so the decision is to let the people die from flames shooting out of their showerheads, or stop trying to get at this fuel because it's just not worth it.
Like all forms of energy extraction there are economic trade-offs that must happen.
And the general form of this is: "ignore the problem until after we're filthy rich from selling energy to the consumers, then walk away and let the government (i.e., the consumers) pay to clean it up."
If the people causing the problems had to pay to fix them, most energy extraction wouldn't be done.
Which would be the correct choice, unless you're the greedhead who stands to become a rich greedhead in the process.
The Butterfly Effect is described in terms of weather systems, where it's total bullshit.
But here, not so much. The ground under us is full of cracks that have stopped moving because they're caught on something. Break that something, and you unleash a quake. If the reason the crack can't produce enough force is because there's another, smaller thing they're caught on, too, then all you have to do is break that smaller thing to allow the bigger thing to feel enough stress to be broken.
And so on.
As I said, this is bullshit in the atmosphere, where violence is the result of concentration of energy from the movement of thousands or millions of cubic kilometers of atmosphere into a vortex in their midst, something a butterfly can have no bearing on. But underground these chains of critical stability are all over the place. Just look at the NEIC's map and see them letting go daily. And each time one lets go, it changes the criticality of another, or of another part of itself.
Fracking certainly could be the causative factor in the initiation of a chain of releases that result in a larger release. The fact that there are smaller quakes means that of course they could be releasing the crack to bear on a major sticking point with more force than before, and certainly could lead to a larger quake.
Any seismologist who discounts this possibility is suspect.
That's because it's a whole different system that's been tested frequently for 50 years.
This one is designed to be triggered from a single location, not a number of regional offices, and to ensure that all channels of communication get involved, using minimalist additional infrastructure, as modern budgets don't look like cold-war "do it all the way or we're speaking rooskie in a week" budgets.
I've never heard Paparazzi and thought it was Take My Breath Away. Some people are hateful about Lady Gaga, and I don't get why. Yeah, she's not a good singer, she's a lousy dancer, and her songs aren't all great. She's a pop star; that's the schtick. She brings the circus to it in a way nobody else has, though, which dare I say it actually makes it art.
All you're telling me is that you have yet to decrypt the summary, which is cleverly encrypted to look like a real summary, but contains clues that it's not realistically a real summary.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no.
You're looking for the remake of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. That's down the hall.
Isn't that basically what Eccleston was?
the known rules of the Dr Who universe
Have you ever even watched the show?
It mirrors Physics precisely in that its rules are made to be broken.
Tough. You'll get Tom Cruise, and you'll like it.
(P.S. I concur. Laurie would be an awesome idea. And it gives you the option of casting Stephen Fry as the Master, if you want to take it several million parsecs into funnytown.)
Don't kid yourself. All that stuff in the background? Canada. All the production values? Canadian technology and skill and artistry. All the directorial and producing decisions that ordinarily are affected by cost and environment? Made or not made by being in Canada.
The color of the sky and the sunlight is usually enough to make a film Canadian enough to be different.
Then let just one accent slip; one bit-part actor say "aboot" instead of "about," and it's like putting wristwatches on the Orcs in LotR.
Um, FWIW, IMO, the thing with the Dr. and Rose worked, even if it didn't work out for them.
How does it feel to be pwned without anyone trying?
Correct. It's an inherent property of the math, but not of the example, which is why the name is bollocks.
From the Wikipedia article you failed to Google:
"The effect derives its name from the theoretical example of a hurricane's formation being contingent on whether or not a distant butterfly had flapped its wings several weeks before."
Which is precisely what I knew the Butterfly Effect to mean when I wrote that post.
Feel free to eat it.
I'm pretty sure that the ChemE's who figure this stuff out already know that their only other solution is to drill a bazillion wells, and that such a system is simply more energy than they can retrieve.
Whereas fracking is quick, dirty, cheap, and profitable, and the law and human nature are such that they can get away with it well enough to pay it off, even if a bunch of rednecks blow 'emselves up real good just watering the lawn.
It may never be reasonable to retrieve some energy trapped in the Earth's crust without killing folks.
So the reasonable thing to do, at least from my perspective, is to leave it there. Others of course will think otherwise, but their reasoning somehow decides that human life isn't worth as much as cheap BBQ.
Except that the atmosphere doesn't work that way. It ignores small disturbances, dissipating them rather than concentrating them. In order for a tornado to form that causes damage to a 5-10 square mile footprint along its path, the atmosphere has to coalesce the rotational energy from a mesocyclone tens or hundreds of miles across, and to form that required days worth of planning by the sun and the jet stream. There's no supercritical point where the atmosphere can be kicked between tornado and not-tornado by any input that's much smaller than the tornado itself. Getting a hurricane to happen is an even bigger proposition. The difference caused by a 1-degree change in the surface temperature of the Atlantic Ocean (and how much energy is that?) is only enough to maybe change the hurricane from one category to another. A butterfly at full gallop is certainly not going to be the difference between a hurricane and a breezy day.
The linking of butterflies to even hypothetical weather changes is fanciful ignorance.
You do know how the sun works, right?
And that your relativism between fracking-causes-earthquake and nothing-specified-causes-entire-planet-to-stop-rotating-or-entire-star-to-stop-shining is somewhat more irrational than whatever relativistic failing you're attempting to accuse me of.
You might also read my post. I didn't say fracking definitely caused this earthquake. I said that a seismologist who said fracking couldn't cause an earthquake is suspect.
Er, no, the Butterfly Effect is a particular form of infinite response to finite input, described as a butterfly causing an unstable weather system to develop into a hurricane instead of a cool breeze.
It's a cute illustration, but utter bollocks, so it's inept.
There are other ways you can use a butterfly as a minor event with a knock-on amplification, like, a butterfly flies into the mouth of a drunk driver, causing a 40-car pileup that kills the Pakistani ambassador to the USA, who's carrying information that will prevent a nuclear war with India. But that doesn't make the public's eyes glaze over with "ooh, pretty sciiii-ence" the way the original butterfly effect story does.
And you don't really need chaos theory to justify a description of instability. Classical mechanics and the concept of BIBO stability does just fine.
I don't have a problem understanding or believing in the concept that small things can large, unintended consequences; I mean, that's what fracking-causes-earthquake is. But I do have a big problem with the particular example of the Butterfly Effect, which is why I called it out for being wrong, even though I needed to use it to introduce the concept.
Wait until you find out what felgercarbing does to your home's value.
The process is becoming more necessary to get at less-accessible sources of fuel, since we've bled the easy ones dry. And there are just plain more people so it's happening near an inhabited space more often.
Neither of those processes will be reversing itself, so the decision is to let the people die from flames shooting out of their showerheads, or stop trying to get at this fuel because it's just not worth it.
Like all forms of energy extraction there are economic trade-offs that must happen.
And the general form of this is: "ignore the problem until after we're filthy rich from selling energy to the consumers, then walk away and let the government (i.e., the consumers) pay to clean it up."
If the people causing the problems had to pay to fix them, most energy extraction wouldn't be done.
Which would be the correct choice, unless you're the greedhead who stands to become a rich greedhead in the process.
The Butterfly Effect is described in terms of weather systems, where it's total bullshit.
But here, not so much. The ground under us is full of cracks that have stopped moving because they're caught on something. Break that something, and you unleash a quake. If the reason the crack can't produce enough force is because there's another, smaller thing they're caught on, too, then all you have to do is break that smaller thing to allow the bigger thing to feel enough stress to be broken.
And so on.
As I said, this is bullshit in the atmosphere, where violence is the result of concentration of energy from the movement of thousands or millions of cubic kilometers of atmosphere into a vortex in their midst, something a butterfly can have no bearing on. But underground these chains of critical stability are all over the place. Just look at the NEIC's map and see them letting go daily. And each time one lets go, it changes the criticality of another, or of another part of itself.
Fracking certainly could be the causative factor in the initiation of a chain of releases that result in a larger release. The fact that there are smaller quakes means that of course they could be releasing the crack to bear on a major sticking point with more force than before, and certainly could lead to a larger quake.
Any seismologist who discounts this possibility is suspect.
I have Google Sky on my phone.
Perhaps not enough of a database to point the Keck, but it sure impresses the ladies on a clear, chilly night.
But we came from here (see above re chimps being our brethren, 'n stuff).
Fermi's question has to do with why this one particle is not part of a larger population of particles with more-similar properties.
It amuses me that you two had to be anonymous to discuss this...
Seriously?
You imagine the largest single seller of "english muffins" on the planet isn't McDonald's?
Really?
That's because it's a whole different system that's been tested frequently for 50 years.
This one is designed to be triggered from a single location, not a number of regional offices, and to ensure that all channels of communication get involved, using minimalist additional infrastructure, as modern budgets don't look like cold-war "do it all the way or we're speaking rooskie in a week" budgets.
I've never heard Paparazzi and thought it was Take My Breath Away. Some people are hateful about Lady Gaga, and I don't get why. Yeah, she's not a good singer, she's a lousy dancer, and her songs aren't all great. She's a pop star; that's the schtick. She brings the circus to it in a way nobody else has, though, which dare I say it actually makes it art.
You should have replaced cat 2 with a cat 6, if you have one.
All you're telling me is that you have yet to decrypt the summary, which is cleverly encrypted to look like a real summary, but contains clues that it's not realistically a real summary.