The word 'catastrophic' is not a scientific one. What science can provide you with is an estimation for temperatures and uncertainties. If the predicted uncertainties are smaller than the deviation from the measured, then the specific model is falsified.
The hypothesis that climate would constant when considering a *specific* animal (e.g. humans) to be *not natural* is easily falsified, if you like to make this hypothesis (although nobody who is knowledged would make such a hypothesis).
Indeed Evolution and Climate change have a few things in common:
a) Both are inconvenient for people who feel a certain kind of entitlement.
b) Both are non-trivial to understand and difficult to predict in practice
c) Both have been grossly exaggerated in the strength and speed of the effects in popular science. (climate change *will not cause a big tidal wave washing away harbour towns*, most likely climate change will *not* be observable definitely within a single human life and evolution will *not* change a species under natural conditions within the lifetime of a single person)
so do these three point make them anyhow weaker theories? Not really.
Lets compare the alternatives: creationism (no falsifiable, therefore no scientific theories) and climate change denial (falsified on every level). so should we teach them in science classes? no, we should not.
What should we teach: be sceptical, especially if somebody tries to scare you with some *seemingly* scientific fact. When people talk about a glacier melting, try to put in the number and *see* if the change in the melting rate is really so bad. But then also estimate for the next hundred years. Be sceptical if explanations are too pleasant (like, don't change you convenient, wasteful lifestyle, you are the image of god).
> I think there are few who have taken the time to do a cursory > investigation of the subject who would have the slightest > objection to the claim that Nature and Science have editorial > biases against studies on the subject, even those individuals > who believe that the work that has been done is complete > nonsense. The claim is simply not a controversial one.
So the reason for speeding up the publication in 2002 by skipping a part of the normal review process was because they had a bias *against* the subject. Very convincing argument......
You really want to tell me that Science and Nature, the most prestigeous journals for physicists, accepting each one seemingly groundbreaking paper paper, the latter one in 2002 *despite* the big embarassment of 89, is an indication of exclusion of the subject from scientific Journals?
I am not wasting my time with material outside my field which has passed a single peer-review.
preprints are not articles. I personally would propose that arxiv removes (respectively marks) everything which was not published as an article at most 3 years after submission there.
95% of all the papers are conference proceedings, presentations, progress reports.
Please tell me which peer-reviewed papers which state what you claim (excess heat at the same time with transmutation).
BTW: infinite-energy is excluded from the list of acceptable journals. I did not find editorial policies on their webpage which explain the peer-review process, should they use one.
It is an obviously very optimistic document on why NASA should fund cold fusion research. And let me - as somebody who was a scientist for 10 years - clearly state that you viewpoint should be an optimistic one, when presenting in terms of "why is that fundamentally interesting". However, you should have a realistic opinion on "what needs to be done to verify the effect" *before* promising fancy devices.
these are the references cited in the presentation above, which are not conference presentations, progress reports, or books, but real peer-reviewed papers:
Li, Xing Z.; Liu, Bin; Tian, Jian; Wei, Qing M.; Zhou, Rui and Yu, Zhi W.: âoeCorrelation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/PD system,â J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36 3095-3097 (2003).
Widom, A., Larsen, L., âoeUltra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)
Kim, Y. E., âoeTheory of Bose-Einstein Condensation for Deuteron-Induced Nuclear reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particlesâ, Naturwissenschaften 96, 803(2009).
Let me say that very clearly: i am not an expert on the field. But if there would be anything which seems close to being implemented to people working in the field, then i know there would be several high-ranking papers.
what makes me *particularly* (i am an experimentalist) doubt about this research, and especially Rossi (who claims incredible rates of conversion of the material) is that it should be extremely easy to detect the helium or other products (in Rossis case) in the output. The order of magnitude of the effects cited would be *massive* and easily detectable by the signature of the reactions in the waste products. Instead of looking at the reactors, i claim it would be better to examine the material input and output.
Show me the peaks in am AMS, (if needed for efficiency, please use an acceleration mass spectrometer) for the fresh fuels and the spent fuel, and i believe in Cold fusion. Show me nice pictures and make a fence several meters around your device and don't publish in peer-reviewed journals and you will trigger my scepticism.
That is one of the biggest misconceptions i heard. Providing completely scalable, secure, transparently controlled, distributed, flexibly archived, fast, and reliable file storage in a *cheap* via the net *is sexy*.
However, i think it will be implemented by others and there will be a lot of competition.
I mean, the books written by literature nobel prize winners i read are usually outstanding in nearly all aspects. Using an excellent, rich, language is a necessary condition for the literature nobel price. Tolkien was imaginative, he was good in gluing pieces together to a complete picture. But the writing quality was average at best. I found it quite monotonous at times.
And if you want some native program, then why not to compile the C on the client side (or use LLVM from the beginning)? In that way at least a new platform had a chance to compete. Compiling something for a specific architecture will automatically put all other architectures in a disadvantage.
Just limit the force feedback to the steering wheel to a power which can be easily overcome by a willing driver. There is a significant difference in force which you can - and will - apply in a stress situation in comparison to falling asleep
I was hit by the Japanese Earthquake in March *before* it was news. In a safe distance (400km), however. The difference of the arrival time between the different frequencies of the shock told me that this *was* going to be bad news.
Unimportant shit gets a trivial password. Nobody should get help in guessing my important passwords.
Work Stuff is changed in the Interval set by the Rules of the Company i work for.
Websites i need to access get a unique password which i store using a password manager on my phone, which supports device level encryption in addition to the pwd manager encryption.
Root/user accounts on private machines and work machines maintained and used solely by me has a password which is pretty constant but not used on machines which i dont control. The password is not written down anywhere (after a small period in which i need to train it).
Excuse me. My palm worked reasonably with 16MHz. Ok that wasnt android, but if you restrict the appication to the things you really need it should be fine.
Yes. Vegetables get Fertilizer and Cows get the protein food. Yes, Vegetables need pesticides, and i hope that we also prevent insects dangerous to the cows from crawling around the cows.
However, if the cow is always close to getting a bacterial infection prevented by antibiotics then you have done something as wrong as if vegetables would rot in to moist ground and your solution to this would not be to regulate the amount of water but to hope to kill the bacteria in some other way.
The point is: modern farming should provide ideal nutrition and environments to plant and animals - e.g. the hygienic greenhouses. If you do that then plants or animals don't get sick. If you practices are so fucked up your plants or animals get sick by default, then you are *not* doing modern agriculture, but something different.
I dont mind if customer service uses polite forms to disguise their unacceptable behaviour or not. I prefer having somebody giving me a definitive impolite answer (which i can happily forward to his Boss and cancel the order) instead of indefinitely being forwarded or - after waiting for a few minutes on hold - being thrown out of the line.
Slashdot Mirror
The word 'catastrophic' is not a scientific one. What science can provide you with is an estimation for temperatures and uncertainties. If the predicted uncertainties are smaller than the deviation from the measured, then the specific model is falsified.
The hypothesis that climate would constant when considering a *specific* animal (e.g. humans) to be *not natural* is easily falsified, if you like to make this hypothesis (although nobody who is knowledged would make such a hypothesis).
Indeed Evolution and Climate change have a few things in common:
a) Both are inconvenient for people who feel a certain kind of entitlement.
b) Both are non-trivial to understand and difficult to predict in practice
c) Both have been grossly exaggerated in the strength and speed of the effects in popular science. (climate change *will not cause a big tidal wave washing away harbour towns*, most likely climate change will *not* be observable definitely within a single human life and evolution will *not* change a species under natural conditions within the lifetime of a single person)
so do these three point make them anyhow weaker theories? Not really.
Lets compare the alternatives: creationism (no falsifiable, therefore no scientific theories) and climate change denial (falsified on every level). so should we teach them in science classes? no, we should not.
What should we teach: be sceptical, especially if somebody tries to scare you with some *seemingly* scientific fact. When people talk about a glacier melting, try to put in the number and *see* if the change in the melting rate is really so bad. But then also estimate for the next hundred years. Be sceptical if explanations are too pleasant (like, don't change you convenient, wasteful lifestyle, you are the image of god).
> I think there are few who have taken the time to do a cursory
> investigation of the subject who would have the slightest
> objection to the claim that Nature and Science have editorial
> biases against studies on the subject, even those individuals
> who believe that the work that has been done is complete
> nonsense. The claim is simply not a controversial one.
So the reason for speeding up the publication in 2002 by skipping a part of the normal review process was because they had a bias *against* the subject. Very convincing argument......
You really want to tell me that Science and Nature, the most prestigeous journals for physicists, accepting each one seemingly groundbreaking paper paper, the latter one in 2002 *despite* the big embarassment of 89, is an indication of exclusion of the subject from scientific Journals?
I am not wasting my time with material outside my field which has passed a single peer-review.
preprints are not articles. I personally would propose that arxiv removes (respectively marks) everything which was not published as an article at most 3 years after submission there.
95% of all the papers are conference proceedings, presentations, progress reports.
Please tell me which peer-reviewed papers which state what you claim (excess heat at the same time with transmutation).
BTW: infinite-energy is excluded from the list of acceptable journals. I did not find editorial policies on their webpage which explain the peer-review process, should they use one.
Please cite what is *all the evidence*.
Definitely.
I agree. The most comprehensive document i found using the search lenr on the NASA webpage on the research there seems to be:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf
It is an obviously very optimistic document on why NASA should fund cold fusion research. And let me - as somebody who was a scientist for 10 years - clearly state that you viewpoint should be an optimistic one, when presenting in terms of "why is that fundamentally interesting". However, you should have a realistic opinion on "what needs to be done to verify the effect" *before* promising fancy devices.
these are the references cited in the presentation above, which are not conference presentations, progress reports, or books, but real peer-reviewed papers:
Li, Xing Z.; Liu, Bin; Tian, Jian; Wei, Qing M.; Zhou, Rui and Yu, Zhi W.: âoeCorrelation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/PD system,â J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36 3095-3097 (2003).
Widom, A., Larsen, L., âoeUltra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)
Kim, Y. E., âoeTheory of Bose-Einstein Condensation for Deuteron-Induced Nuclear reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particlesâ, Naturwissenschaften 96, 803(2009).
Let me say that very clearly: i am not an expert on the field. But if there would be anything which seems close to being implemented to people working in the field, then i know there would be several high-ranking papers.
what makes me *particularly* (i am an experimentalist) doubt about this research, and especially Rossi (who claims incredible rates of conversion of the material) is that it should be extremely easy to detect the helium or other products (in Rossis case) in the output. The order of magnitude of the effects cited would be *massive* and easily detectable by the signature of the reactions in the waste products. Instead of looking at the reactors, i claim it would be better to examine the material input and output.
Show me the peaks in am AMS, (if needed for efficiency, please use an acceleration mass spectrometer) for the fresh fuels and the spent fuel, and i believe in Cold fusion. Show me nice pictures and make a fence several meters around your device and don't publish in peer-reviewed journals and you will trigger my scepticism.
> file storage isn't that sexy.
That is one of the biggest misconceptions i heard. Providing completely scalable, secure, transparently controlled, distributed, flexibly archived, fast, and reliable file storage in a *cheap* via the net *is sexy*.
However, i think it will be implemented by others and there will be a lot of competition.
Good that the rates for people who can clean up the mess are higher.
I mean, the books written by literature nobel prize winners i read are usually outstanding in nearly all aspects. Using an excellent, rich, language is a necessary condition for the literature nobel price. Tolkien was imaginative, he was good in gluing pieces together to a complete picture. But the writing quality was average at best. I found it quite monotonous at times.
i know. i would have preferred it it they did it earlier. Its not an open standard if its bound to a platform once.
And if you want some native program, then why not to compile the C on the client side (or use LLVM from the beginning)? In that way at least a new platform had a chance to compete. Compiling something for a specific architecture will automatically put all other architectures in a disadvantage.
Just limit the force feedback to the steering wheel to a power which can be easily overcome by a willing driver. There is a significant difference in force which you can - and will - apply in a stress situation in comparison to falling asleep
I was hit by the Japanese Earthquake in March *before* it was news. In a safe distance (400km), however. The difference of the arrival time between the different frequencies of the shock told me that this *was* going to be bad news.
Finally, solar panels and LEDs could show how to use DC networks.
I did not exclude that option. I just said: if you are interested in a peaceful region, then please have a plan like the Marshall Plan.
The alternative: he licenses from the original author under different conditions.
Even if the US whould have invested 500Billion in a meaninful way in the Region, the world would be better off.....
Unimportant shit gets a trivial password. Nobody should get help in guessing my important passwords.
Work Stuff is changed in the Interval set by the Rules of the Company i work for.
Websites i need to access get a unique password which i store using a password manager on my phone, which supports device level encryption in addition to the pwd manager encryption.
Root/user accounts on private machines and work machines maintained and used solely by me has a password which is pretty constant but not used on machines which i dont control. The password is not written down anywhere (after a small period in which i need to train it).
Excuse me. My palm worked reasonably with 16MHz. Ok that wasnt android, but if you restrict the appication to the things you really need it should be fine.
Moreover, the likeliness of us ever transmitting a signal long and strong enough to have a nonzero chance to be heard is quite small.
a 1GW 1GHz signal will transmit sth like 10^-4 Photons per second and m^2 in a radius of 100ly
How to know is somebody is an asshat? They will mock on explicitly marked personal statements, even if on-topic to compensate for something.
Yes. Vegetables get Fertilizer and Cows get the protein food. Yes, Vegetables need pesticides, and i hope that we also prevent insects dangerous to the cows from crawling around the cows.
However, if the cow is always close to getting a bacterial infection prevented by antibiotics then you have done something as wrong as if vegetables would rot in to moist ground and your solution to this would not be to regulate the amount of water but to hope to kill the bacteria in some other way.
The point is: modern farming should provide ideal nutrition and environments to plant and animals - e.g. the hygienic greenhouses. If you do that then plants or animals don't get sick. If you practices are so fucked up your plants or animals get sick by default, then you are *not* doing modern agriculture, but something different.
i am not nerd enough to care.
I dont mind if customer service uses polite forms to disguise their unacceptable behaviour or not. I prefer having somebody giving me a definitive impolite answer (which i can happily forward to his Boss and cancel the order) instead of indefinitely being forwarded or - after waiting for a few minutes on hold - being thrown out of the line.