I believe Scientific American had an article about all of the CO2 that was trapped underwater. With all of the hurricane activity lately I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just stirring it up a bit. This is just speculation though.
Interesting idea. Consider your speculation in light of the fact that global warming models predict an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes.
That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research
I am a scientist who is not being paid to do global warming research; I do solid state physics. Global warming is a real threat.
If you know any scientists, you should ask them yourself. Particularly those with PhDs in Chemistry and Physics. A great part of our training is in understanding the dynamics of energy and matter in systems, which is the underlying principle here. Those with PhDs in other fields, like biology, geology, or climatology, will have an equally informed opinion, but from a different and equally valid perspective.
Oh, and talk to more than one scientist. That wouldn't be a stasticially significant sample.:)
3. Energy. If there's one thing Physicists love to talk about it is energy. No one understands what energy is better than physicists. Energy is the end-all idol they worship, if they worship any idol at all. How do we exploit the energy out there? How do we get more and more of it delivered to the masses?
Do you even know any physicists? If scientists (physicists, etc..) worship anything it's truth and knowledge. The only time we talk about delivering anything to the masses is in funding proposals. Funding to fuel the search for knowledge.
Physicists don't drink the kool-aid on global warming.
That's not how any scientists that I know talk about anything. "Drink the kool-aid?" Not much of a scientific argument, is it?
Bush is willing to shovel the money they need into their labs.
The national labs have had declining (several % per year) budgets through this and several previous administrations.
They know that human ingenuity trumps all, that no problem is impossible to solve.
Huh? No. What are you talking about? Have you been drinking Kool-aid again?
Coal is probably more dangerous still. It's just that the millions who have their lives shortened due to coal-burning pollution don't go out in a ball of flame. Less news-sexy.
Okay, its fair to say that all CGI animation in this class is advanced but this doesn't really further the technology much beyond what we have seen before.
Certainly, plenty of render-farm time has been devoted to this character's hair just as Aki Ross's hair was in Final Fantasy.
You're missing the point. He did it at home, as a hobby. The guy had to go out and buy three extra computers to render it in a reasonable time. That's it for his "farm." Could you do this in your living room??
I challenge you, try to explain this topic to a non-technical person. In their terms, not yours. It's really hard.
Try this analogy:
Ever been deer hunting? If someone has no idea how deer behave, do they any chance of bagging one? No. If you know how to deal with their habits and preferences (stand downwind, near water, etc..), then you have a much better chance, don't you?
Well, now imagine that Pepsi Co. wants some of your money. How much will it help their marketing department to have a much more fine-grained understanding of consumer behavior than they have now? They've got a much better chance, don't they?
Now imagine how easy deer hunting would be if they all wore radio collars, so you could track them.
True this is only one aspect of the privacy issue, but you don't want to over-challenge yourself. See how it works.
But seriously, how many people that don't already know about privacy actually care?
This is a step toward wide public attention, when the mainstream press starts to pick up on a new issue. After being reported by BBC (or NY Times, The Atlantic, etc.), smaller media outlets are much more likely to report on the topic. It filters down. The hard work is done - learning and then describing the major points of a complex thing in simple terms. A small paper can't afford to do this. Outlets in other media such as broadcasting will also use this article as a resource. Just watch over the next 6 to 12 months.
Excessive jornal costs are a huge and growing problem for scientists, and they are all due to the greed of the private publishers, worst among which is Elsevier. The problem is so bad that libraries have to cut out some journals, which hurts scientists, because we have to have access to the information.
For those that don't know, here is the process of scientific publication:
Scientist read the journal literature to keep up with what's new. Their libraries pay to subscribe to the journals.
A scientist determines a topic for study, and writes a proposal to get the funding. This is often public money (NIST, NIH, DOE, etc..)
The scientist does the work, writes it up, and submits it to a journal.
The editor of the journal, also a scientist, determines what other scientists are experts in the area, and sends the paper to them for review. The journal does not pay the editor.
The reviewers, usually one to three of them, read the paper, and determine whether or not the paper is good enough for the journal. The journal does not pay the reviewers.
FYI, they ask themselves:
Is the work new?
Is it a reasonable next step from what we know?
Are techniques explained?
Are conclusions supported by the data?
If the paper is accepted, the author pays the journal to offset publication costs.
Libraries pay the journal to subscribe
The journals get all this work, which costs them nothing. They publish print editions, and charge for them. It is reasonable that they're paid to print stuff. But some of them are out of control.
Societies, e.g., American Institute of Physics, charge a few hundred $ a year. Top journals in most fields are society journals. Private publishers charge thousands, as high as ~$20,000, per year for subscriptions. Some are top-tier journals, but most are not. Worse, the private publishers like to bundle the journal subscriptions. So if you want the good ones (at less-astronomical prices), you have to but the crap ones, too.
And, worst of all, all journals are now online, but they have become far more expensive. Online is a good thing: speeds research, no paper cost. But, publishers charge a yearly subscription for online access, so you end up buying the same thing over and over again. Even if you own the thing in hard copy already!!!
Parent should not be +4 insightful.
if the description doesn't fit the checkout assistant won't allow the sale.
The minimum-wage checker, who is being pushed to get people through as fast as possible to keep costs down, will not care in the least if they don't match. He/she doesn't have time to look. Even if the checker were inclined, the time he/she spends resolving such things will likely be looked poorly upon by management, and he/she will learn to just ignore such discrepancies.
"I try to help the company and they are unhappy with me because of it? OK, I won't bother."
if you use an automated checkout, then why bother even changing it? you won't have the correct item on your receipt so no proof of purchase if stopped by security.
Security only has the right to stop you if they suspect you of shoplifting. Of course, the big retailers want you to think otherwise, and have started putting minimum-wage "marker monkeys" at exits. Just tell them, "no."
The article says: To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts,
But since the RIAA pays to get songs on the chart instead of it being based on quality or popularity, this is what you get.
Blame the lawyers this time. They knew what they were doing.
The key word in that quote from the WI Asst AG is how much time the artists spent on the Billboard charts. Should have been album. At least, if what the libraries wanted was current pop, which seemed to be the case.
... the film as truth... despite that Moore has admitted that it is not all true.
Also, when Moore says the film is a documentary and it is not, and when he makes it clear that his intention with this mockumentary
WRONG! Moore has hired top-notch fact checkers and is ready to sue anyone who slanders/libels, for example by claiming that he is lying. See this article. An excerpt:
He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film.
Threatens lawsuits
And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.
"Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
Well, they had to have a list of what it doesn't install in order to distract the reader. To get that they needed some filler, because saying that it doesn't install DRM-ware would be an outright lie (versus the lie of omission they chose).
These blogs are a new form of advertising, kids. This has the same strategy as the "I work at Enron" ad campaign.
The same thing is done to fight back against the currently very efficient way for consumers to communicate, and share opinions and information about products, companies, etc.. As more and more companies catch on, the signal will increasingly be drowned out by the "marketing" noise, use of the same communication methods for advertising purposes. It happens with every new space; you just have to stay ahead of the curve.
Marketing - n. Hijacking trusted forms of communication.
No, he's not in an ivory tower. He's a marketing professor. Please don't throw his type in with us ivory tower types. Maybe you could throw him out with the trash?
From what I understand, he was in the public. Why is there such a big concern for privacy?
Becasue he didn't do it in front of a TV crew. He happened to do it in front of a security camera. The purpose of these is to increase "safety," not to provide fodder for porn video sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Scientific American had an article about all of the CO2 that was trapped underwater. With all of the hurricane activity lately I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just stirring it up a bit. This is just speculation though.
Interesting idea. Consider your speculation in light of the fact that global warming models predict an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes.
To boil it down a little:
That is, making fun of the fact that most scientists who claim that 'global warming' is a threat are being paid by governments to do 'global warming' research
I am a scientist who is not being paid to do global warming research; I do solid state physics. Global warming is a real threat.
If you know any scientists, you should ask them yourself. Particularly those with PhDs in Chemistry and Physics. A great part of our training is in understanding the dynamics of energy and matter in systems, which is the underlying principle here. Those with PhDs in other fields, like biology, geology, or climatology, will have an equally informed opinion, but from a different and equally valid perspective.
Oh, and talk to more than one scientist. That wouldn't be a stasticially significant sample.
Guys like this are trying to systematically hijack the Slashdot mod system. See here.
Looks like the system still works, though...
Note how jgardn starts out by saying, "I am a physicist," but soon lapses and refers to physicists as "they" for most of the rest of his rant.
You sure don't sound like a physicist.
3. Energy. If there's one thing Physicists love to talk about it is energy. No one understands what energy is better than physicists. Energy is the end-all idol they worship, if they worship any idol at all. How do we exploit the energy out there? How do we get more and more of it delivered to the masses?
Do you even know any physicists? If scientists (physicists, etc..) worship anything it's truth and knowledge. The only time we talk about delivering anything to the masses is in funding proposals. Funding to fuel the search for knowledge.
Physicists don't drink the kool-aid on global warming.
That's not how any scientists that I know talk about anything. "Drink the kool-aid?" Not much of a scientific argument, is it?
Bush is willing to shovel the money they need into their labs.
The national labs have had declining (several % per year) budgets through this and several previous administrations.
They know that human ingenuity trumps all, that no problem is impossible to solve.
Huh? No. What are you talking about? Have you been drinking Kool-aid again?
5 bugmenots didn't work. Created a new account. Twice. They still don't let me in. Nuts to them.
Coal is probably more dangerous still. It's just that the millions who have their lives shortened due to coal-burning pollution don't go out in a ball of flame. Less news-sexy.
And we all know that the RIAA would never exploit a loophole, right?
RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement
I challenge you, try to explain this topic to a non-technical person. In their terms, not yours. It's really hard.
Try this analogy:
True this is only one aspect of the privacy issue, but you don't want to over-challenge yourself. See how it works.
But seriously, how many people that don't already know about privacy actually care?
This is a step toward wide public attention, when the mainstream press starts to pick up on a new issue. After being reported by BBC (or NY Times, The Atlantic, etc.), smaller media outlets are much more likely to report on the topic. It filters down. The hard work is done - learning and then describing the major points of a complex thing in simple terms. A small paper can't afford to do this. Outlets in other media such as broadcasting will also use this article as a resource. Just watch over the next 6 to 12 months.
For those that don't know, here is the process of scientific publication:
If the paper is accepted, the author pays the journal to offset publication costs.
Libraries pay the journal to subscribe
The journals get all this work, which costs them nothing. They publish print editions, and charge for them. It is reasonable that they're paid to print stuff. But some of them are out of control.
Societies, e.g., American Institute of Physics, charge a few hundred $ a year. Top journals in most fields are society journals. Private publishers charge thousands, as high as ~$20,000, per year for subscriptions. Some are top-tier journals, but most are not. Worse, the private publishers like to bundle the journal subscriptions. So if you want the good ones (at less-astronomical prices), you have to but the crap ones, too.
And, worst of all, all journals are now online, but they have become far more expensive. Online is a good thing: speeds research, no paper cost. But, publishers charge a yearly subscription for online access, so you end up buying the same thing over and over again. Even if you own the thing in hard copy already!!!
Want more info? Check out this guy's web site. Or google "boycott Elsevier" for tons more.
Parent should not be +4 insightful.
if the description doesn't fit the checkout assistant won't allow the sale.
The minimum-wage checker, who is being pushed to get people through as fast as possible to keep costs down, will not care in the least if they don't match. He/she doesn't have time to look. Even if the checker were inclined, the time he/she spends resolving such things will likely be looked poorly upon by management, and he/she will learn to just ignore such discrepancies.
"I try to help the company and they are unhappy with me because of it? OK, I won't bother."
if you use an automated checkout, then why bother even changing it? you won't have the correct item on your receipt so no proof of purchase if stopped by security.
Security only has the right to stop you if they suspect you of shoplifting. Of course, the big retailers want you to think otherwise, and have started putting minimum-wage "marker monkeys" at exits. Just tell them, "no."
The key word in that quote from the WI Asst AG is how much time the artists spent on the Billboard charts. Should have been album. At least, if what the libraries wanted was current pop, which seemed to be the case.
...but am unable to focus on blue LEDs or lights...
I have perfect vision and I can't focus on blue LEDs, either. Nobody can. That's one reason they are so annoying. (intensity and near-UV are others)
crashnbur claims:
WRONG! Moore has hired top-notch fact checkers and is ready to sue anyone who slanders/libels, for example by claiming that he is lying. See this article. An excerpt:
...vaporware, underwear, etc...,
Well, they had to have a list of what it doesn't install in order to distract the reader. To get that they needed some filler, because saying that it doesn't install DRM-ware would be an outright lie (versus the lie of omission they chose).
These blogs are a new form of advertising, kids. This has the same strategy as the "I work at Enron" ad campaign.
The same thing is done to fight back against the currently very efficient way for consumers to communicate, and share opinions and information about products, companies, etc.. As more and more companies catch on, the signal will increasingly be drowned out by the "marketing" noise, use of the same communication methods for advertising purposes. It happens with every new space; you just have to stay ahead of the curve.
Marketing - n. Hijacking trusted forms of communication.
No, he's not in an ivory tower. He's a marketing professor. Please don't throw his type in with us ivory tower types. Maybe you could throw him out with the trash?
talkin on phones like it's their job, IN the theater, DURING the movie.
I've heard people take calls at FUNERALS. "No, I can't talk right now. I'm at a funeral!"
From what I understand, he was in the public. Why is there such a big concern for privacy?
Becasue he didn't do it in front of a TV crew. He happened to do it in front of a security camera. The purpose of these is to increase "safety," not to provide fodder for porn video sites.
Bullshit. Without DOS we'd be using QDOS, and without Windows we'd probably be using Apple computers or the like.
DOS is QDOS. MS just renamed it, and pretended it stood for "Disk Operating System," and not "Quick and Dirty Operating System," which is what is was.
I really doubt that all third party inks cause problems. Perhaps you only notice the bad ones?
Am I the only one who thinks this would be a neat thing to embed in a clear drumstick and then use at concert?
Public announcement! You now have 1 year if you want US patent protection, and you are out of luck if you wanted international.