Don't forget we feed the world. Agriculture and Intellectual Property are still a good chunk of the economy. Even with silicon valley and hollywood, agriculture is the biggest part of our economy here in California. Not manufacturing, perhaps, but also not service.
"Long Island is an island in the U.S. state of New York. Stretching northeast from New York Harbor into the Atlantic Ocean, the island comprises four counties, including two (Kings and Queens) that form the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, and two (Nassau and Suffolk) that are farther out on the island and mainly suburban. Although all four counties are part of the greater New York metropolitan area,[2] the name "Long Island" is often reserved in popular usage for only Nassau and Suffolk counties, as distinct from those lying within New York City proper. North of the island is Long Island Sound, across which are the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island." -Wikipedia
How can anyone think this is insightful?
Monster Storm! Better safe than sorry!
Oh, well then we should do the same for a totally different scenario not involving as much risk.
Insightful?
The severity of the storm is related to the heating of the ocean, which is due to global warming.
It is a monster, but the monster stumbled and didn't go quite where they thought.
Seemed as though you were saying that modern editors made up for the difficulties, so it was OK for languages to suck. In what way does that reflect "the right tool for the job"? Seems like its more in the lines of "if you want to use a double-bladed axe as a hammer, wear gloves".
That is about the break point between windows 2.0 and windows 3.0, with only the later doing "windows" as is commonly meant today. Windows 2 could only tile.
Number Theory has application today, oh yes. Hellman (two 'l's, not one) had a BS, MS, and PhD in Electrical Engineering. Diffie had a bachelor's degree in Mathematics. My question is this: after Number Theory was shown to have applications how many Mathematicians lost interest due solely to the fact that it was no longer "pure" math? I knew a topologist who grew embarrassed and closed his office door before discussing relativity. It just wouldn't do to be interested in applications. Perhaps I should have drawn the distinction less about abstract vs concrete, and more about pure vs applied.
I agree in regard to logic. Critical thinking needs to be taught as early as the human mind can comprehend it. This is essential, and it isn't being done. I disagree that number theory is appropriate. Some of the applications of number theory are useful, certainly, but I couldn't apply number theory theory to either my CS or my Physics degree. I think Information Theory would be more useful, or Operations Research, even, for that matter.
Finally. When I was in High School, calculators where not allowed. In HS Chem and Physics we could at least use slide rules. In Math, it was just pencil and paper. Most people need to learn to calculate in order to solve specific problems. Math as its known and taught today isn't the way to teach the general population to do either. I'd suggest that buying HS students a laptop and a copy of Mathematica, and then teaching them to use it, would pay for itself in terms of how swiftly both the general concepts as well as actual calculating ability would be instilled. Many, many more people would be capable of using advanced maths if only they could leverage these rather inexpensive tools. Is it more important to memorize multiplication tables, or to understand intuitively what Div, Grad, and Curl are, and how to use them? Why not let even people with 400 Math SAT scores understand and be able to apply the concepts of Calc and DiffEq (and Probability and Statistics) without having to work so hard at it?
Math classes (my minor) and Software Engineering (my profession) have little of the same flavor at all. Math classes feel closer, perhaps, to Physics (my other degree), but even still, it isn't the same. Applied math is incredibly useful. Abstract math isn't useful, and those involved are unabashed proud of the fact. Very sad for Mathematics. The idea of teaching applied math (science and engineering based,) is a great idea that won't fly, due to the culture of mathematical academics. If you want to really learn Vector Calculus (which I've had) you'd do better to take the Physics E&M courses. Likewise, there is a lot more application to be found in Statistical Thermodynamics than Probability or Statistics classes. As a tutor I saw that Math majors could prove theorems, but Business majors could talk to someone about what the applications mean, which the Math majors thought was not relevant (in part, because they didn't know, and didn't need to know.)
Really would have been nice to have women in the Physics programs. We are talking almost no women at all in undergrad classes, and literally none in graduate classes. The fact that there are more women getting degrees isn't really relevant to the skew in some disciplines.
You are looking at the total amount of energy in the system as the theoretical limit. Obviously if all the energy were removed at once there would be a problem. How much is not a danger? Not 100%, for sure.
Or Prius... You realize that electric cars have been going zero to 60 MPH in less than 5 seconds for a very long time now, right? That F150 doesn't have to lack in torque.
I agree that the current situation resulted not from lack of technical ability but rather due to social forces. I would suggest that one would do better to follow the money to determine the sources of propaganda than to merely make note of protests in the streets.
France and Japan are there, and England is building 38 plants to reduce reliance on Russia's pipeline. By "we", I actually meant the species. Some subjects transcend nationality.
I'm sorry, but after reading several articles at that website, I don't accept it as
authoritative. During the time frame you speak of, we didn't track economic indicators
(such as gross domestic product and unemployment) as we do today. However, there are
estimates of the impacts of the latter of the many recessions. The Cleveland Trust Company
index (1834 to 1929), measured business activity. and, beginning in 1882, an index of
trade and industrial activity was available, which can be used to compare
recessions.
1802–1804 recession: Commodity prices fell dramatically. Trade was disrupted by
pirates.
Depression of 1807
1812 recession
1815–21 depression: United States entered a period of financial panic as bank notes
rapidly depreciated because of inflation following the war. The 1815 panic was followed by
several years of mild depression, and then a major financial crisis – the Panic of 1819,
which featured widespread foreclosures, bank failures, unemployment, a collapse in real
estate prices, and a slump in agriculture and manufacturing.
1822–1823 recession: After only a mild recovery following the lengthy 1815–21
depression, commodity prices hit a peak in March 1822 and began to fall. Many businesses
failed, unemployment rose and an increase in imports worsened the trade balance.
1825–1826 recession:The Panic of 1825, a stock crash following a bubble of speculative
investments in Latin America led to a decline in business activity in the United States
and England.
1828–1829 recession
1833–34 recession: The United States' economy declined moderately in 1833–34. News
accounts of the time confirm the slowdown. The subsequent expansion was driven by land
speculation. Where did this land come from? Is it bad we aren't stealing land from other
peoples today?
I didn't mean that as flamebait. I honestly feel that externalized costs are a determent to the functioning of our market system. Signals get lost. In order to eliminate externalized costs, one way would be to hit not just the corporation but also the owners of the corporation. Otherwise the system is rigged to reward and thus induce externalized costs. This would be direct, effective, and in keeping with capitalist virtues of free-markets as I learned them in MBA school at least.
In order to try to meet a significant level of the earth's current energy usage, airborne turbines are necessary.
"Airborne turbines that convert steadier and faster high-altitude winds into energy could generate even more power than ground- and ocean-based units. The study examined the limits of the amount of power that could be harvested from winds, as well as the effects high-altitude wind power could have on the climate as a whole.
Turbines create drag, or resistance, which removes momentum from the winds and tends to slow them. As the number of wind turbines increases, the amount of energy that is generated increases. But at some point, the winds would be slowed so much that adding more turbines will not generate more electricity.
The group found that wind turbines placed on Earth's surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 terawatts, while high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1800 terawatts. Current total global power demand is about 18 terawatts.
Current models, as I understand it, are conflicting in terms of the level of effect of feedback loops. Pulling energy out slows the wind. Slower wind means less energy to pull out, but also localized heating, which likewise makes the location less functional. We are talking orders of magnitudes (yes, plural) regarding disagreement in overall interactive effect, especially between "theoretically possible" and "actually plausible", and "plausible and also non-catastrophic". Without doubt, though, there is a geophysical limit. Also without doubt, somewhere way below the geophysical limit of maximum sustainable drain, there is a region of maximum acceptable ecologic impact. That region is the only region that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Opportunity costs.
Don't forget we feed the world. Agriculture and Intellectual Property are still a good chunk of the economy. Even with silicon valley and hollywood, agriculture is the biggest part of our economy here in California. Not manufacturing, perhaps, but also not service.
I'd suggest it all started going downhill when the courts reclassified News as Infotainment, and stated that it didn't have to be true.
"Long Island is an island in the U.S. state of New York. Stretching northeast from New York Harbor into the Atlantic Ocean, the island comprises four counties, including two (Kings and Queens) that form the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, and two (Nassau and Suffolk) that are farther out on the island and mainly suburban. Although all four counties are part of the greater New York metropolitan area,[2] the name "Long Island" is often reserved in popular usage for only Nassau and Suffolk counties, as distinct from those lying within New York City proper. North of the island is Long Island Sound, across which are the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island." -Wikipedia
How can anyone think this is insightful? Monster Storm! Better safe than sorry! Oh, well then we should do the same for a totally different scenario not involving as much risk. Insightful?
Right. But the monster storm is. The point being there is a monster storm.
The severity of the storm is related to the heating of the ocean, which is due to global warming. It is a monster, but the monster stumbled and didn't go quite where they thought.
Seemed as though you were saying that modern editors made up for the difficulties, so it was OK for languages to suck. In what way does that reflect "the right tool for the job"? Seems like its more in the lines of "if you want to use a double-bladed axe as a hammer, wear gloves".
I think you mean it is easier to type?
So rather than teach your kid to not defecate on the floor, you'd buy them nice mops?
That is about the break point between windows 2.0 and windows 3.0, with only the later doing "windows" as is commonly meant today. Windows 2 could only tile.
Number Theory has application today, oh yes. Hellman (two 'l's, not one) had a BS, MS, and PhD in Electrical Engineering. Diffie had a bachelor's degree in Mathematics. My question is this: after Number Theory was shown to have applications how many Mathematicians lost interest due solely to the fact that it was no longer "pure" math? I knew a topologist who grew embarrassed and closed his office door before discussing relativity. It just wouldn't do to be interested in applications. Perhaps I should have drawn the distinction less about abstract vs concrete, and more about pure vs applied.
I agree in regard to logic. Critical thinking needs to be taught as early as the human mind can comprehend it. This is essential, and it isn't being done. I disagree that number theory is appropriate. Some of the applications of number theory are useful, certainly, but I couldn't apply number theory theory to either my CS or my Physics degree. I think Information Theory would be more useful, or Operations Research, even, for that matter.
Finally. When I was in High School, calculators where not allowed. In HS Chem and Physics we could at least use slide rules. In Math, it was just pencil and paper. Most people need to learn to calculate in order to solve specific problems. Math as its known and taught today isn't the way to teach the general population to do either. I'd suggest that buying HS students a laptop and a copy of Mathematica, and then teaching them to use it, would pay for itself in terms of how swiftly both the general concepts as well as actual calculating ability would be instilled. Many, many more people would be capable of using advanced maths if only they could leverage these rather inexpensive tools. Is it more important to memorize multiplication tables, or to understand intuitively what Div, Grad, and Curl are, and how to use them? Why not let even people with 400 Math SAT scores understand and be able to apply the concepts of Calc and DiffEq (and Probability and Statistics) without having to work so hard at it?
Agreed. But I'd say that in relation to not just any, but indeed to all branches of Science, Statistics are very nearly priceless.
Math classes (my minor) and Software Engineering (my profession) have little of the same flavor at all. Math classes feel closer, perhaps, to Physics (my other degree), but even still, it isn't the same. Applied math is incredibly useful. Abstract math isn't useful, and those involved are unabashed proud of the fact. Very sad for Mathematics. The idea of teaching applied math (science and engineering based,) is a great idea that won't fly, due to the culture of mathematical academics. If you want to really learn Vector Calculus (which I've had) you'd do better to take the Physics E&M courses. Likewise, there is a lot more application to be found in Statistical Thermodynamics than Probability or Statistics classes. As a tutor I saw that Math majors could prove theorems, but Business majors could talk to someone about what the applications mean, which the Math majors thought was not relevant (in part, because they didn't know, and didn't need to know.)
Really would have been nice to have women in the Physics programs. We are talking almost no women at all in undergrad classes, and literally none in graduate classes. The fact that there are more women getting degrees isn't really relevant to the skew in some disciplines.
You are looking at the total amount of energy in the system as the theoretical limit. Obviously if all the energy were removed at once there would be a problem. How much is not a danger? Not 100%, for sure.
Or Prius... You realize that electric cars have been going zero to 60 MPH in less than 5 seconds for a very long time now, right? That F150 doesn't have to lack in torque.
I agree that the current situation resulted not from lack of technical ability but rather due to social forces. I would suggest that one would do better to follow the money to determine the sources of propaganda than to merely make note of protests in the streets.
France and Japan are there, and England is building 38 plants to reduce reliance on Russia's pipeline. By "we", I actually meant the species. Some subjects transcend nationality.
I didn't mean that as flamebait. I honestly feel that externalized costs are a determent to the functioning of our market system. Signals get lost. In order to eliminate externalized costs, one way would be to hit not just the corporation but also the owners of the corporation. Otherwise the system is rigged to reward and thus induce externalized costs. This would be direct, effective, and in keeping with capitalist virtues of free-markets as I learned them in MBA school at least.
In order to try to meet a significant level of the earth's current energy usage, airborne turbines are necessary.
"Airborne turbines that convert steadier and faster high-altitude winds into energy could generate even more power than ground- and ocean-based units. The study examined the limits of the amount of power that could be harvested from winds, as well as the effects high-altitude wind power could have on the climate as a whole.
Turbines create drag, or resistance, which removes momentum from the winds and tends to slow them. As the number of wind turbines increases, the amount of energy that is generated increases. But at some point, the winds would be slowed so much that adding more turbines will not generate more electricity.
The group found that wind turbines placed on Earth's surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 terawatts, while high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1800 terawatts. Current total global power demand is about 18 terawatts.
At maximum levels of power generation, there would be substantial climate effects from wind harvesting."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143414.htm
Current models, as I understand it, are conflicting in terms of the level of effect of feedback loops. Pulling energy out slows the wind. Slower wind means less energy to pull out, but also localized heating, which likewise makes the location less functional. We are talking orders of magnitudes (yes, plural) regarding disagreement in overall interactive effect, especially between "theoretically possible" and "actually plausible", and "plausible and also non-catastrophic". Without doubt, though, there is a geophysical limit. Also without doubt, somewhere way below the geophysical limit of maximum sustainable drain, there is a region of maximum acceptable ecologic impact. That region is the only region that matters.