Considering that the Nebula's are determine by voting by the SFWA membership (ie profession authors) and the membership majority is male, what's a poor frightened MRA to do?
A quick googling tells me that the SFWA membership has very close to an even male:female ratio. Slightly more males-- but the data I have is a few years old.
http://www.antipope.org/feorag...
How about, "This year, the best sci-fi was written by women"? Is that outside your realm of possibilities, you rancid little gerbilfucker?
You know, it would be nice if people would just avoid trying to outdo themselves with insults. I know, the idea is that nice guys finish last so you are working to be more obnoxious and crude than the other person, but, you know, you really aren't putting forward the idea that you have something useful to add to the discussion.
Or, to put this in kind of terminology that you apparently understand: quit acting like a fucking asshole, you fucking asshole.
This is slightly more informative view than just comparing two random years, 1921 and 2013. As you can see, a lot of noise in the data (when you average the entire globe, the noise tends to average out. A single location, though, has a lot of variation.) But the trend is up. Looking at the red (ten year average) curve, about 1 degree C of warming from 1921 to 2013.
Nevertheless, do keep this in mind: Los Angeles is not the world.
The difficulty is that the deniers call all the data "manipulated to further a political point." If you routinely discard all the data except data that supports your pre-determined conclusions, this is not science, but an ideology with no possible way for it to be challenged.
For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was founded specifically to do an independent analysis of the temperature record, to address the purported flaws in the data analysis by all the previous scientific groups. http://berkeleyearth.org/
This is the analysis of which Anthony Watts said (before any results were released): "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell.... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
I know, right? Three years without an ice cap, not a single Seychelles island left, constant category seven hurricanes. The AGW have been making nothing but accurate predictions for decades.
Nobody has made any of those predictions as things that would happen by 2016.
If you want to see what was actually predicted, it's not hard-- the IPCC reports are all available on the web. Here's the 1990 predictions-- twenty six years ago-- for example:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
We must start listening to their calls for global economic destruction!
It would be useful if the people who are saying that addressing the problem would result in "global economic destruction" would, rather than attacking the science, instead propose approaches to the question "what are the range of possible options available to us that would not result in global economic destruction?"
The flux from the sun is continuously measured by satellites.
One thing that we know quite well is that changes in solar output is not the cause of present-day warming.
It could be a factor in past climate variations-- we can't measure solar output very well millions of years ago, or even for that matter hundreds of years ago. But it is measured now, and it's not the cause of warming.
Which parts of the word "global" were you unable to understand?
In any case, the article says that the March temperature is 2 degrees (F) higher than the 20th century average for March. You posted some graphs in which the smallest division is 5 degrees F. You couldn't even see a 2 degree change on those graphs.
The US Constitution doesn't define rights of citizens, it defines powers of government. Does Congress have the power to ban drones? No. Therefore, Congress and the FAA can't ban drones.
If they interfere with interstate commerce (by bashing into airliners, say), Congress can regulate them. Article 1, Section 8.
I'm guessing that the delay at the Mars Crossing launch site is because SpaceX has its hands full on rocket upgrades and doing satellite launches to start realizing some money from their backlog, and the new launch site just isn't their highest priority as long as they are having no problems with launching from the Cape and Vandenberg.
In the long run, having their own site will give them independence from scheduling issues at the Cape and probably allow a faster launch cadence. In the short term, though, the Cape seems to be serving their needs.
I'd like to see the analysis showing that. What the record mostly shows is that if a vehicle has failed before, it's likely to fail again.
The other thing the record showed was that (up until then) every single private space company building new launch vehicles went bankrupt. Every one.
In any case, though, it's irrelevant. Even if you say that investors shouldn't have been scared, nevertheless, investors were not about to invest major dollars in a company with a record of three failures and one success, and almost no customers. Investors are funny that way.
In retrospect, it would have been a good thing to buy a share of. But lots of things look good in the rear-view mirror.
From TFA: "The next president, or some in Congress, may begin asking why NASA is spending billions to develop its own heavy-lift rocket when SpaceX already has one."
Because SpaceX doesn't "already have one."
Falcon 9's payload is 13 tons to LEO. That's not a heavy-lift rocket.
SLS's payload is 130 tons to LEO. SpaceX has announced plans to build a heavy lift rocket, but they don't "already have it".
I'm a musk fan like most here, and certainly no one sane will doubt that without NASA SpaceX wouldn't exist, but I wonder if SpaceX just went public if they could have avoided "financial ruin".
No. You have an overly idealistic idea of the benefits of going public.
At the time Space-X won the NASA contract, they had blown up three launches in a row, and succeeded in launching exacly once. In the space industry, pretty much nobody would launch a satellite on a booster with that bad a record. (Not quite nobody: Uzbekistan took the risk. Yeah: that was it. Uzbekistan.)
You can't go public with a company that has only one product, and that a product that almost nobody will buy. They were out of money; they couldn't keep launching to get a better launch record because they didn't have the cash. Yes, in this case, NASA really did their bacon.
The fact that the demographic transition exists is a measured fact.
The speculation that it's temporary is a theory: this has not been observed.
In the long term, all populations reach equilibrium. So if the demographic transition is temporary, the temporaryness of the transition is also temporary.
Wow, that's a weird set of non-sequiturs. Kind of "I am passionate about these political issues, I'll bring them up regardless of what the discussion is about."
Here's a general principle: the higher the standard of living, the fewer children people have. (This is well known among demographers: it's called the "demographic transition.")
In the long run, our best option is to raise the standard of living of everyone, resulting in a planet without exponential population growth, but with higher quality of living.
Energy? That's a technical problem. It has technological solutions, if we choose to implement them.
I'm not calling this story out for half-truths, but I'm not sure about this article. Renewables to me suggest nuclear, wind, solar, thermal, and tidal power. I'm pretty sure they're not big nuclear fans in Scotland and I don't think solar would work well (since they're so far north). So is 57% of electricity production really coming from wind, therma and tidal power?
Actually, thermodynamics tells that ALL the energy is not renewable... entropy and stuff...
To the contrary. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that all energy is conserved. You don't have to ever worry about energy conservation: the laws of physics guarantee it will happen.
No, as it turns out, most of those renewables are wind.
Here are some earlier articles that give a bit more information:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/wind-power-providing-almost-half-of-scotland-s-energy-supply-1-4023886
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35160271
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c4ef7ed8-a8c8-11e5-843e-626928909745.html
HUMINT is classified at the source as TOP SECRET//HCS, so no, the emails were not classified after the fact. I gave links to the information about the HUMINT emails found in her private email stash,
You did. You linked to a bunch of blogs and sites spinning out speculations with no factual information in evidence. The one link in the list you gave that was reputable stated clearly and distinctly that the material in question was classified after the fact, and that they had a separate e-mail system for classified material, which did not go onto the private e-mail server in question.
I quoted that link. Let me quote it again: "To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."
Basically, a bunch of people are making shit up and assuring each other it's real, and concluding that if the FBI doesn't agree with the shit they made up, this indicates a conspiracy.
Here's a quote: "Powell, who served as secretary from 2001 to 2005, said he used a personal email account because State's email system was slow and cumbersome. Powell is credited with modernizing State's computer infrastructure, which did not at the time allow each employee to have the internet at their desks. "State's system at the time was inadequate," he said."
...The practice was illegal at the time that Hillary started as SofS.
Wrong again.
Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported:
"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.
and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information.
No, HUMINT is classified as TOP SECRET//HCS from the source, and is at no time permitted to be UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.
Sorry. The emails in question were classified later. In fact, the.gov address wouldn't have been secure, either.
Here's probably the best discussion: http://www.politifact.com/trut... "To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information.
Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels.
Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."
Wow, pages of links to blogs and unreliable sources that contain speculation but no real information. Scrolling down to the first one I found that even comes close t
There's no particular evidence that she's a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator" other than the intensive media campaign saying so being put forth by the Republican machine.
You mean the Republican machine running the FBI that is investigating actual classified information found in the emails?
The FBI has at no time concluded that Hillary is a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator". So far, what they seem to have concluded is the she used a private e-mail server, a practice also done by previous secretaries of state (including ones working for Bush), a practice that was not illegal at the time; and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information. but was, as it turns out, probably safer on her server than it was on the government's server (which was hacked into in the "biggest government hack ever".)
It is hard to screw up worse than that in the government, and if I did half the shit that is coming out, I would already have been through the court system and locked up for life, but I am not as connected as her.
Since there's no allegation that she actually released classified information to anybody who was not authorized to access it, at worst, she is accused of having had classified information stored in an unsecure location (although that's only an accusation so far; there was no evidence that her server wasn't secure.). The usual punishment for that is that the person who did it has to attend mandatory training.
The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing
Actually, no. The worst thing that can be said about her is that she is a corrupt, serially lying manipulator...
Actually, no. The worst you can say about her is that she is a reptilian from Zeta Andromedae who routinely dismembers, kills and eats small children and kittens, and who has explicitly stated an agenda of exterminating the human race, all except for the few kept to be eaten alive for food, of course. Oh, and that she secretly worships Satan. Wait, did I say secretly? Openly, I meant openly. Oh, and kicks puppies.
This is, of course, absurd, but it's little more absurd than anything else said about her. There's no particular evidence that she's a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator" other than the intensive media campaign saying so being put forth by the Republican machine.
It ways he's a "former Bush official", but doesn't say in what capacity. For reference, wikipedia says he is the former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Powell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pity it's only people who are part of administrations long out of power say things like this.
Oops, I stand corrected!
The news reports on the HALE-D in the few days after the crash landing show pictures of it in the treetops, deflated and definitely un-burned... but apparently two days after it crashed, it was burned by "a fire of unknown origin."
http://www.ohio.com/news/top-stories/lockheed-martin-s-prototype-airship-burns-1.227688 According to the dates in the article it was two days after the crash, not the day after, and it's not clear that it had anything to do with the solar panels (although I'd say that an electrical short circuit would be a good guess)
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the Nebula's are determine by voting by the SFWA membership (ie profession authors) and the membership majority is male, what's a poor frightened MRA to do?
A quick googling tells me that the SFWA membership has very close to an even male:female ratio. Slightly more males-- but the data I have is a few years old. http://www.antipope.org/feorag...
How about, "This year, the best sci-fi was written by women"? Is that outside your realm of possibilities, you rancid little gerbilfucker?
You know, it would be nice if people would just avoid trying to outdo themselves with insults. I know, the idea is that nice guys finish last so you are working to be more obnoxious and crude than the other person, but, you know, you really aren't putting forward the idea that you have something useful to add to the discussion.
Or, to put this in kind of terminology that you apparently understand: quit acting like a fucking asshole, you fucking asshole.
Here's the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature record for Los Angeles: berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/34.56N-118.70W
This is slightly more informative view than just comparing two random years, 1921 and 2013. As you can see, a lot of noise in the data (when you average the entire globe, the noise tends to average out. A single location, though, has a lot of variation.) But the trend is up. Looking at the red (ten year average) curve, about 1 degree C of warming from 1921 to 2013.
Nevertheless, do keep this in mind: Los Angeles is not the world.
The difficulty is that the deniers call all the data "manipulated to further a political point." If you routinely discard all the data except data that supports your pre-determined conclusions, this is not science, but an ideology with no possible way for it to be challenged.
For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was founded specifically to do an independent analysis of the temperature record, to address the purported flaws in the data analysis by all the previous scientific groups. http://berkeleyearth.org/
This is the analysis of which Anthony Watts said (before any results were released): "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
OK. They are also concluding that 2015 is the hottest year on record.
I know, right? Three years without an ice cap, not a single Seychelles island left, constant category seven hurricanes. The AGW have been making nothing but accurate predictions for decades.
Nobody has made any of those predictions as things that would happen by 2016.
If you want to see what was actually predicted, it's not hard-- the IPCC reports are all available on the web. Here's the 1990 predictions-- twenty six years ago-- for example: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
We must start listening to their calls for global economic destruction!
It would be useful if the people who are saying that addressing the problem would result in "global economic destruction" would, rather than attacking the science, instead propose approaches to the question "what are the range of possible options available to us that would not result in global economic destruction?"
The flux from the sun is continuously measured by satellites.
One thing that we know quite well is that changes in solar output is not the cause of present-day warming.
It could be a factor in past climate variations-- we can't measure solar output very well millions of years ago, or even for that matter hundreds of years ago. But it is measured now, and it's not the cause of warming.
In any case, the article says that the March temperature is 2 degrees (F) higher than the 20th century average for March. You posted some graphs in which the smallest division is 5 degrees F. You couldn't even see a 2 degree change on those graphs.
That's not data-- that's noise.
The US Constitution doesn't define rights of citizens, it defines powers of government. Does Congress have the power to ban drones? No. Therefore, Congress and the FAA can't ban drones.
If they interfere with interstate commerce (by bashing into airliners, say), Congress can regulate them. Article 1, Section 8.
On solaris * resolves to something or nothing, so /*.* resolves to /.
Wait, you said that the command eliminates slashdot?
I'm trying to decide if that's good, or bad...
I'm guessing that the delay at the Mars Crossing launch site is because SpaceX has its hands full on rocket upgrades and doing satellite launches to start realizing some money from their backlog, and the new launch site just isn't their highest priority as long as they are having no problems with launching from the Cape and Vandenberg.
In the long run, having their own site will give them independence from scheduling issues at the Cape and probably allow a faster launch cadence. In the short term, though, the Cape seems to be serving their needs.
I'd like to see the analysis showing that. What the record mostly shows is that if a vehicle has failed before, it's likely to fail again.
The other thing the record showed was that (up until then) every single private space company building new launch vehicles went bankrupt. Every one.
In any case, though, it's irrelevant. Even if you say that investors shouldn't have been scared, nevertheless, investors were not about to invest major dollars in a company with a record of three failures and one success, and almost no customers. Investors are funny that way.
In retrospect, it would have been a good thing to buy a share of. But lots of things look good in the rear-view mirror.
From TFA: "The next president, or some in Congress, may begin asking why NASA is spending billions to develop its own heavy-lift rocket when SpaceX already has one."
Because SpaceX doesn't "already have one."
Falcon 9's payload is 13 tons to LEO. That's not a heavy-lift rocket.
SLS's payload is 130 tons to LEO. SpaceX has announced plans to build a heavy lift rocket, but they don't "already have it".
I'm a musk fan like most here, and certainly no one sane will doubt that without NASA SpaceX wouldn't exist, but I wonder if SpaceX just went public if they could have avoided "financial ruin".
No. You have an overly idealistic idea of the benefits of going public.
At the time Space-X won the NASA contract, they had blown up three launches in a row, and succeeded in launching exacly once. In the space industry, pretty much nobody would launch a satellite on a booster with that bad a record. (Not quite nobody: Uzbekistan took the risk. Yeah: that was it. Uzbekistan.)
You can't go public with a company that has only one product, and that a product that almost nobody will buy. They were out of money; they couldn't keep launching to get a better launch record because they didn't have the cash. Yes, in this case, NASA really did their bacon.
The speculation that it's temporary is a theory: this has not been observed.
In the long term, all populations reach equilibrium. So if the demographic transition is temporary, the temporaryness of the transition is also temporary.
Wow, that's a weird set of non-sequiturs. Kind of "I am passionate about these political issues, I'll bring them up regardless of what the discussion is about."
Here's a general principle: the higher the standard of living, the fewer children people have. (This is well known among demographers: it's called the "demographic transition.")
In the long run, our best option is to raise the standard of living of everyone, resulting in a planet without exponential population growth, but with higher quality of living.
Energy? That's a technical problem. It has technological solutions, if we choose to implement them.
I'm not calling this story out for half-truths, but I'm not sure about this article. Renewables to me suggest nuclear, wind, solar, thermal, and tidal power. I'm pretty sure they're not big nuclear fans in Scotland and I don't think solar would work well (since they're so far north). So is 57% of electricity production really coming from wind, therma and tidal power?
Yes: wind.
That would be a HUGE story,
Well, it made a slashdot headline.
but I don't think that's realistically possible.
Scotland turns out to be windy.
Actually, thermodynamics tells that ALL the energy is not renewable... entropy and stuff...
To the contrary. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that all energy is conserved. You don't have to ever worry about energy conservation: the laws of physics guarantee it will happen.
Usable energy... now, that's a different case.
And most of those renewables is hydro....
No, as it turns out, most of those renewables are wind.
Here are some earlier articles that give a bit more information:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/wind-power-providing-almost-half-of-scotland-s-energy-supply-1-4023886
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35160271
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c4ef7ed8-a8c8-11e5-843e-626928909745.html
Many cities have banned driving in the city center. It's quite nice, actually.
HUMINT is classified at the source as TOP SECRET//HCS, so no, the emails were not classified after the fact. I gave links to the information about the HUMINT emails found in her private email stash,
You did. You linked to a bunch of blogs and sites spinning out speculations with no factual information in evidence. The one link in the list you gave that was reputable stated clearly and distinctly that the material in question was classified after the fact, and that they had a separate e-mail system for classified material, which did not go onto the private e-mail server in question.
I quoted that link. Let me quote it again:
"To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."
Basically, a bunch of people are making shit up and assuring each other it's real, and concluding that if the FBI doesn't agree with the shit they made up, this indicates a conspiracy.
a practice also done by previous secretaries of state (including ones working for Bush)
No, no previous secretary of state has ever run their own email server.
UPI: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice got classified email on private accounts
Guardian: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails
NBC: Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails
Here's a quote: "Powell, who served as secretary from 2001 to 2005, said he used a personal email account because State's email system was slow and cumbersome. Powell is credited with modernizing State's computer infrastructure, which did not at the time allow each employee to have the internet at their desks. "State's system at the time was inadequate," he said."
...The practice was illegal at the time that Hillary started as SofS.
Wrong again.
Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported: "A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history." The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.
and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information.
No, HUMINT is classified as TOP SECRET//HCS from the source, and is at no time permitted to be UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.
Sorry. The emails in question were classified later. In fact, the .gov address wouldn't have been secure, either.
Here's probably the best discussion: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
"To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."
Incidentially, that is what happened with Rice's aide's and Powell's email accounts: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
https://www.google.com/search?... (pick whatever source you don't disbelieve..)
Wow, pages of links to blogs and unreliable sources that contain speculation but no real information. Scrolling down to the first one I found that even comes close t
All joking aside, I have to respond to this:
There's no particular evidence that she's a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator" other than the intensive media campaign saying so being put forth by the Republican machine.
You mean the Republican machine running the FBI that is investigating actual classified information found in the emails?
The FBI has at no time concluded that Hillary is a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator". So far, what they seem to have concluded is the she used a private e-mail server, a practice also done by previous secretaries of state (including ones working for Bush), a practice that was not illegal at the time; and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information. but was, as it turns out, probably safer on her server than it was on the government's server (which was hacked into in the "biggest government hack ever".)
It is hard to screw up worse than that in the government, and if I did half the shit that is coming out, I would already have been through the court system and locked up for life, but I am not as connected as her.
Since there's no allegation that she actually released classified information to anybody who was not authorized to access it, at worst, she is accused of having had classified information stored in an unsecure location (although that's only an accusation so far; there was no evidence that her server wasn't secure.). The usual punishment for that is that the person who did it has to attend mandatory training.
The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing
Actually, no. The worst thing that can be said about her is that she is a corrupt, serially lying manipulator...
Actually, no. The worst you can say about her is that she is a reptilian from Zeta Andromedae who routinely dismembers, kills and eats small children and kittens, and who has explicitly stated an agenda of exterminating the human race, all except for the few kept to be eaten alive for food, of course. Oh, and that she secretly worships Satan. Wait, did I say secretly? Openly, I meant openly. Oh, and kicks puppies.
This is, of course, absurd, but it's little more absurd than anything else said about her. There's no particular evidence that she's a "corrupt, serially lying manipulator" other than the intensive media campaign saying so being put forth by the Republican machine.
Pity it's only people who are part of administrations long out of power say things like this.
Oops, I stand corrected! The news reports on the HALE-D in the few days after the crash landing show pictures of it in the treetops, deflated and definitely un-burned... but apparently two days after it crashed, it was burned by "a fire of unknown origin."
http://www.ohio.com/news/top-stories/lockheed-martin-s-prototype-airship-burns-1.227688
According to the dates in the article it was two days after the crash, not the day after, and it's not clear that it had anything to do with the solar panels (although I'd say that an electrical short circuit would be a good guess)