There are suggestions that the rivets were not properly heat treated and so were brittle, meaning that panels popped apart easily, leading to multiple compartments being flooded. AFAIK this is based on some evidence from the wreck and the Britannic too, but somewhat speculative. Not that it was the only issue as there were plenty of others. But some have argued if it had it the iceberg head on it might have survived, but if the rivets were too brittle, probably not.
If you took the average left-leaning person from the 1950s and brought them to present-day america, they'd be voting Republican in no time.
The 1950s, when there were a number of unions, some large, in the USA that were avowedly (soft) Marxist and had significant working-class support? The 1950s when the Republican president warned of the military-industrial complex? Those 1950s?
However he got demonized by a large majority on the right on pretty much every issue, which tried to paint his Reaganite ideas as "far left". FWIW Hillary tried the same approach and failed
REally? Seriously?
I was around with Reagan as president....and I don't see a single parallel between him and Obama/Hillary.
They are both FAR left of him from my memory of his days as president.
Obama, compared to the world in general, is centre-right, on a par with, say, David Cameron in the UK. Hilary is somewhat to the right of Hilary Clinton, and Reagan was maybe a tiny smidge to the right of Clinton. Reagan backed some US military interventions, as did Clinton, but was also heavily opposed to nuclear weapons (not public knowledge at the time). Reagan talked of 'Welfare Queens' but did relatively little to welfare compared to Bill Clinton (different Clinton, but pretty much the same policies as Hilary). Reagan did boost the military budget, though, and cut taxes.
Are these really AIs? Or are they just expert systems trained to do a job?
Expert systems are a form of AI, just not a form of machine learning. The AI field contained a lot of research on expert systems 30 years ago, as well as work on logic processing, and the logic processing element could be applicable here, combined with NLP.
Or the AI would determine that the combination of symptoms claimed, at that instant, or over time, are unlikely, but characteristic of someone seeking prescriptions, and alert based on that. It wouldn't necessarily be that dissimilar to AI already used to detect financial fraud.
If there is sufficient groundwater to allow renewable forestry resources to grow,
Trees can grow in wet years and then survive a period of drought, Or the drought might already have killed the trees. So there is no certainty that exploitable ground water exists at the moment of greatest need.
Maybe shop at Safeway or Walmart instead of Metropolitan Market.
And they have to be able to get there, which can cost money they don't have. Hence they tend to shop locally in small amounts which is less cost efficient than driving to a store if you already have a car
In the UK it was the longest, overall hottest summer (although not containing the single hottest day, which was in 2003) I remember since I was a child. Since my childhood memory of 1976 cannot be fully relied on, possibly ever. Luckily there is also an instrumental record that could confirm this.
Not to mention that the actual locations of the weather stations are not evenly distributed around the world. Most of them are in the US and Canada. So, you can't just take an average of all the reporting stations and expect to get a world average. It'll be heavily skewed towards North America, which completely invalidates it since the northern hemisphere has a higher variance than the southern hemisphere.
So if they use the raw data it's bad, but if they adjust the data to remove outliers and adjust for the mix of locations of measurement sites, it's bad too?
The 1940s were cold, relatively speaking. Data back to the 19th century is published. Anomalies have to be published relative to a baseline, and the period picked in the past was essentially the period just passed that everyone remembered so people had an instinctive reference point. However, that baseline has simply become the standard.
The reason is that polar warming and be underestimated. There is satellite data for the poles but few direct measurements. They had made an assumption about the relationship between direct and satellite measurements that was incorrect. It turned out that warming at the poles was greater than they had been indicating. This is what happens in science - errors get corrected.
No, it's not flat 2001-2016. Even eyeballing, it's not flat. If you do regression on the period 1970-2000 and 1970-2016 the trend continues upwards, and doesn't change by very much. There are statistical techniques you can use to determine if there was an inflection point in 2001: there was not. And this is even without the corrections suggested by Cowtan and Way showing that polar warming was underestimated. Add that in and the trend doesn't change, and the rate of change barely even changes.
Slashdot Mirror
There are suggestions that the rivets were not properly heat treated and so were brittle, meaning that panels popped apart easily, leading to multiple compartments being flooded. AFAIK this is based on some evidence from the wreck and the Britannic too, but somewhat speculative. Not that it was the only issue as there were plenty of others. But some have argued if it had it the iceberg head on it might have survived, but if the rivets were too brittle, probably not.
Hilarity?
No. It MUST be located on the equator. It is tethered to a counterweight in orbit.
Like I said, it never seems to stop people from doing stupid stuff.
Ideally located there, but when has the ideal location for something ever stopped anyone?
So if you are an atheist you should never move to a new town to find work?
when homosexuality and abortion were illegal,
And when there were active campaigns to get that changed.
divorce was a dirty word
But divorce was common for the well-off, but due to lack of rights for women, it was hard for many women to cope outside marriage.
"social justice" was a euphimism for the public lynchings of accused criminals.
Or when social justice was a term used by those on the left to promote, well, social justice.
prayer and the pledge of allegience were still a required part of the school curriculum,
Ruled by the Supreme Court not constitutional to require this in 1943.
If you took the average left-leaning person from the 1950s and brought them to present-day america, they'd be voting Republican in no time.
The 1950s, when there were a number of unions, some large, in the USA that were avowedly (soft) Marxist and had significant working-class support? The 1950s when the Republican president warned of the military-industrial complex? Those 1950s?
REally? Seriously?
I was around with Reagan as president....and I don't see a single parallel between him and Obama/Hillary.
They are both FAR left of him from my memory of his days as president.
Obama, compared to the world in general, is centre-right, on a par with, say, David Cameron in the UK. Hilary is somewhat to the right of Hilary Clinton, and Reagan was maybe a tiny smidge to the right of Clinton. Reagan backed some US military interventions, as did Clinton, but was also heavily opposed to nuclear weapons (not public knowledge at the time). Reagan talked of 'Welfare Queens' but did relatively little to welfare compared to Bill Clinton (different Clinton, but pretty much the same policies as Hilary). Reagan did boost the military budget, though, and cut taxes.
Are these really AIs? Or are they just expert systems trained to do a job?
Expert systems are a form of AI, just not a form of machine learning. The AI field contained a lot of research on expert systems 30 years ago, as well as work on logic processing, and the logic processing element could be applicable here, combined with NLP.
Or the AI would determine that the combination of symptoms claimed, at that instant, or over time, are unlikely, but characteristic of someone seeking prescriptions, and alert based on that. It wouldn't necessarily be that dissimilar to AI already used to detect financial fraud.
What if they are Lutherans or Catholics?
If there is sufficient groundwater to allow renewable forestry resources to grow,
Trees can grow in wet years and then survive a period of drought, Or the drought might already have killed the trees. So there is no certainty that exploitable ground water exists at the moment of greatest need.
Maybe they use Erlang instead.
Maybe shop at Safeway or Walmart instead of Metropolitan Market.
And they have to be able to get there, which can cost money they don't have. Hence they tend to shop locally in small amounts which is less cost efficient than driving to a store if you already have a car
.
Tell us again how leftist aren't authoritarian.
Germany has a right of centre government.
In the UK it was the longest, overall hottest summer (although not containing the single hottest day, which was in 2003) I remember since I was a child. Since my childhood memory of 1976 cannot be fully relied on, possibly ever. Luckily there is also an instrumental record that could confirm this.
Not to mention that the actual locations of the weather stations are not evenly distributed around the world. Most of them are in the US and Canada. So, you can't just take an average of all the reporting stations and expect to get a world average. It'll be heavily skewed towards North America, which completely invalidates it since the northern hemisphere has a higher variance than the southern hemisphere.
So if they use the raw data it's bad, but if they adjust the data to remove outliers and adjust for the mix of locations of measurement sites, it's bad too?
A test was done by removing the urban stations from the record. The temperature trend showed greater warming without the urban sites.
You're talking about events 2 years ago. These scientists arent talking about the current temperature recordings
They are figures from 2018, not 2016. They are very much talking about current temperatures, up to and including last month.
Swedish.
The 1940s were cold, relatively speaking. Data back to the 19th century is published. Anomalies have to be published relative to a baseline, and the period picked in the past was essentially the period just passed that everyone remembered so people had an instinctive reference point. However, that baseline has simply become the standard.
The reason is that polar warming and be underestimated. There is satellite data for the poles but few direct measurements. They had made an assumption about the relationship between direct and satellite measurements that was incorrect. It turned out that warming at the poles was greater than they had been indicating. This is what happens in science - errors get corrected.
No, it's not flat 2001-2016. Even eyeballing, it's not flat. If you do regression on the period 1970-2000 and 1970-2016 the trend continues upwards, and doesn't change by very much. There are statistical techniques you can use to determine if there was an inflection point in 2001: there was not. And this is even without the corrections suggested by Cowtan and Way showing that polar warming was underestimated. Add that in and the trend doesn't change, and the rate of change barely even changes.
The Medieval Warm Period was warm relative to the periods adjacent to it, but was very slightly cooler than the 1950-80 average.
And the Chinese a word with Monfgolfier!