Designed to grow quickly and fix carbon quickly... but need something not found in nature to grow -- thus preventing them from becoming an invasive species.
Another question about your solution, which is not at all a bad solution, is the availability of useable Nitrates.
Trees can pull Carbon out of the atmosphere, but get Nitrogen from the soil. The Nitrogen has to be in bio-available form, and there are limited places to get it on Earth (ie - fertilizer). So much so that about 5% of all the world's energy production goes into making Ammonia, mostly for nitrate fertilizers.
I'm not sure we even *could* plant that many trees and expect them to grow - the amount of Nitrogen needed is enormous, and we can't simply add fertlilzer because it costs us energy to make it. (See: Haber Process.)
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad solution, only that it is incomplete. It should be used in conjunction with as many other scaled-up solutions as we can come up with.
According to this link and taking some round numbers, an Albizzia lebbek can sequester 70 lbs of CO2 per year.
Assuming a 40-year project lifetime, we would then need 637,765,000,000 trees to pull the mentioned amount out of the atmosphere.
For comparison, the Amazon rainforest has an estimated 390 billion trees.
Dividing these two numbers indicates that the world would have to plant and grow [the equivalent of] 1.6 Amazon Rainforests for a 40 year period.
I'm not saying that this is a bad solution, only that it is an incomplete solution. We should probably plant trees in areas where it makes sense and is easy to do, but we'll still need an epic-level solution to the problem.
guess what, trees are made out of carbon so when they die all the carbon they absorbed gets released back in to the environment, unless you cut them all down before they die and make lumber or paper or some other product out of them
Drat! Trees are completely unsuitable for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Damn you "some guy on the internet", for pointing out the obvious flaw in the plan.
What this really shows is that the Republicans and their wealthy donors don't give a shit about the USA.
This is changing.
There's a new group loosely called "populists", which are being elected under the guise of Republicans at the moment. These are the ones who put the welfare of the citizens ahead of everything else.
Looking at the Alabama special election is really interesting right now. In the primaries, Judge Roy Moore was a populist and avid Trump fan who went against the establishment favorite Luthor Strange. Strange outspent Moore by a wide margin... and lost. Now we see the senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, would rather see a democrat win than have Moore elected(*).
That is a truly amazing situation to see from a Republican party, one of those "take a moment and let it sink in" bits of information.
McConnell has been sitting on roughly 400 bills in the Senate, refusing to bring them to a vote, so he's one of the main problems we've been seeing in government. He's losing control and political power, and there's been calls for him to step down.
If Moore wins the election (About 3 weeks) it might signal a tidal wave of populist candidates running on the Republican ticket - against any and all attempts to prevent it.
There's also the double standard thing. McConnell demanded that Moore leave the election, and told Moore that even if he won he would be immediately ousted from the Senate. All based on accusations, many which have been shown to be fraudulent. Then Al Franken was accused with photographic evidence and... crickets from McConnell.
We'll see how it goes, but either way the voters seem to have had enough of establishment bullshit, and are starting to clean house.
Expect a lot of sturm and drang as the corruption is slowly found and ejected.
(*) It boils down to whether an *accusation* of impropriety is enough to knock a candidate out of an election. You can easily see how this might be abused, and indeed in Moore's case it certainly seems like the accusations are specious.
This will end up being nothing more than an insecure vector for people you don't know to run programs on your computer.
1) It claims to be secure by only executing in a sandbox. Have other attempts at sandboxing had security flaws? 2) Assuming the sandboxing works as advertized, is there a way for the sandboxing to break the sandbox in ways the coders hadn't considered? (Such as periodically using a lot/little CPU time or memory as a way to communicate to a different tab?) 3) Can Web Assembly be used to steal CPU cycles, so your computer can be used for BitCoin mining or anything else while visiting a web page? (And no, that they can do this already doesn't invalidate the argument.) 4) Does Web Assembly add a level of obfuscation to the code, making it harder to see what it's doing?
We once had a period where E-mail attachments were automatically opened and run, where Excel macros activate when a spreadsheet is viewed, and where myriad ActiveX libraries were available for use by anyone.
Anyone remember that era?
We've locked down the ability to install and run programs on our computers, but now we've moved the goalposts. Our browser will now download and run programs for us from any random website, any website that contracts out to an agency to supply advertizing, and and website advertizing contractor who doesn't vet his clients.
"Oh, we're so sorry! That malware delivery got through our vetting process. We've terminated that one client, please feel safe downloading the ads from all of our other clients - they're clean. Pinky swear!:-)"
For the next 10 years expect to see a steady stream of exploits and patches. A mini industry will crop up selling antivirus checkers for web pages, and AdBlock extensions for browsers.
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
And there you go, mixing your political position with the scientific conclusion. This is what causes science denial.
Does the science mandate your position? Are there better solutions available?
I strongly suspect that the best solution is to turn our attention to improvements in technology. This is already happening in the US with the onset of electric vehicles - this will reduce fossil fuel consumption considerably, and serve as a model and testing ground for other nations.
We then have to find energy sources to replace our current fossil fuel use.
I strongly suspect that the best solution will be rooftop solar. This is already happening in the US with the cost of rooftop solar dropping precipitously over the last 15 years.
Both of these solutions would dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, and both would benefit from improvements in technology.
Perhaps we should look to science to solve the problem, instead of identity politics?
It's the same as "we're all living in a sim", isn't it?
That's a very good question.
So far as I can tell, there are testable predictions that the sim theory makes. These are predictions that are not required by the theory, but that, if we see them, would be good indications of the sim.
Consider scanning a color document, separating the color channels into R, G, and B, and then doing a histogram of each channel.
If the envelope of the red histogram is smooth and goes to zero at each end (at R=0 and R=255). then we might conclude that the scanner spans the entire range of "red".
If the envelope is smooth but has discontinuous jumps at zero and 255, it means that there are intensities of red smaller than the minimum value the scanner can distinguish, and intensities higher than the highest value. Basically, all the high intensity pixels in the image max out the A/D converter in the scanner, and all the low intensity pixels register as zero even though there is significant variation.
The discontinuities at either end of the measurement imply that there is information outside the measurement range of the scanner.
We can apply that logic to certain astrophysical measurements in the universe in certain cases. If we see measurement distributions which are smooth, but have discontinuous jumps at either end it might indicate that there is information outside the measurable universe, even though we cannot measure it.
...or so it goes. I haven't looked into the theory in detail, but I was under the impression that certain astronomical measurements would imply the existence of a sim, but are not required for us to be in a sim.
1) Does this hypothesis have testable predictions,
2) Does the theory imply observations that we could make that would invalidate the theory?
I'm a fan of "Hey, Martha!" stories, they're entertaining and thought provoking, but I don't know how much serious consideration such a proposal warrants. (Compared to, say, the survivability of "The Martian" or whether aspects of the "Star Trek" universe are physically realizable.)
You know the real agenda isn't to "encourage" companies to hire domestic talent, it just happens to coincide with their mission to Keep the Brown People Out.
There are very good economic models that suggest that importing labor is bad. There's some statistical evidence that immigrants that don't take up the new culture are a safety risk due to increased crime, and that immigrants use more social services than citizens.
Other countries have extreme immigration policies, and several countries don't allow immigration at all (such as China, where you can't immigrate even if you own a Chinese business and are married to a Chinese citizen), and many have strictly controlled borders. Would the US be exceptional if we did the same?
Furthermore, very few people in the US are actually racist. Ignoring the "all whites are racist" bullshit and looking at the actual statistics, it's estimated that there are only about 2000 actual white supremacists in the US. The hair-triggered left reports of a banana peel signifying racism notwithstanding, it's not a real issue. Whites simply don't care what someone's color is. (Behaviour, on the other hand, is an issue.)
Black lives matter is, statistically speaking, completely off the mark. This does not imply that there is no problem and that things couldn't be made better, but it's false and ineffective to address that problem first, before the elephant in the room.
And yet, despite all the statistical evidence to the contrary and lack of contrary evidence, you have insight into the *real* reason we want to limit immigration: it's because secretly, down deep, we want to "Keep The Brown People Out".
(And your insight does not stem from the very good evidence that immigrants vote en-masse for a certain party.)
Despite not consciously being racist, not really caring about the race of whoever we interact with you're here to tell us the real reason we act the way we do?
Because you're somehow smarter or better informed than us?
Depends on the country. People in Denmark are very financially secure - no fears of being trapped in poverty if they get enough sleep.
The USA is a democracy. If Americans wanted enough sleep they could vote to be more like Denmark.
But instead Americans vote to be the opposite of Denmark - for Trump and his fellow Republicans. And then they complain that they're not getting enough sleep.
and constant lack of sleep may make it a long lasting effect
no shit, how much did that grant cost me
The importance of the study is that it characterizes the effect in a way that can be replicated, and then used for further study. For example, the effect drugs have on the subject, or different types of sleep.
It might also help in validating or invalidating specific hypotheses.
For example, there is a hypothesis that neurotransmitters evolved from nutrient sources. The theory goes that when simple organisms ate something there was a wash of nutrients (such as glucose) throughout the system. Evolution then gave the organisms sensors that would associate particular inputs with the wash of nutrients they receive from eating, and trigger the "swallow" action (probably invagination at that level). Then the organism evolved to separate the swallow signal from the sensor signal by using a modified nutrient as the signal, and when the organism fed successfully it would convert some of the nutrient into the signal to "feed" the sensor cells.
Fast forward and we have a complex system of cells that use various neurotransmitters as "food" to represent information. The neurotransmitters are sent cell-to-cell, but also scavenged and reused, and the scavenging process is not 100% efficient so the extra neurotransmitters act as growth factors - a cell can grow more dendrites to scavenge more of the "food" neurotransmitters in the areas where they are most often generated, leading to Hebbian theory and all that.
Back to the study...
It seems reasonable that wakefulness uses one or more neurotransmitters so often that the scavenging process can't keep up, and the sleep phase is needed for the scavenging to catch up. This is by design, because the unscavenged neurotransmitters also act as growth factors to encourage dendrite growth among correlated neurons.
If the study is right, it might be possible to measure the neurotransmitter levels as the patient gets sleepy, correlate it with the distinctive neural patterns, and thus identify the neurotransmitters that get depleted during wakefulness. (The study has identified the distinctive patterns we need to look for.)
And that would have all sorts of applications.
(Also, I don't know how much that grant cost you, but it was probably worth it.)
With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions.
It seems to me that Twitter is a much bigger threat to our election process than Russia.
Shouldn't speech about the election be somehow... I don't know... protected or something?
What an incredible moron you are. You post those links trying to mock the right wing sites that posted it, but THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO SAID IT! It's Michael Moore and your team of Social Justice Ninjas who think the best way to combat speech they don't like is to burn down your local college. Your own deranged brethren are the joke!
Still, super saiyins are pretty tough. If they have even *one* of those it could wreck the entire planet.
Donald Trump is going to prison for treason, and his co-conspirators are already telling the FBI about Trump's treasonous collusion with Russia in order to save their own skin.
The only question is - how much longer will the Republican party continue to support Moscow Donald's treasonous crime spree?
These investigations have had no leaks, which 'kinda implies that there is no substance.
We know that the Democrats can't help but leak juicy tidbits to the media - as an example, this grand jury indictment was *itself* leaked right before the indictment was made public (in violation of the law), but no previous results have come out.
That's not conclusive by any means, but it's certainly suggestive. If *anything* actionable came up in the investigation, the media would be all over it months before it was made public. And I don't mean "unnamed sources hint that there's a connection, and they totally promised us that it's true" sort of crap, but actual identifiable actions that can be traced and verified.
Additionally, public opinion hasn't been with the investigation. The response to the indictment has been "such a shocking double standard!" and "charging him with parking tickets while <this-other-person> gets away with much more".
Wait and see - with no real evidence, there's an even chance that this will backfire on the Democrats in a big way.
is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.
The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".
I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech. It's killing Hollywood, the NFL, CNN, the NYT, the professional lives of many high-profile people, and a whole lot of companies such as Twitter and Kelloggs.
Google could step up and say "It's not our job to regulate speech. If you want to advertize with us, it's all or nothing". It would be simple, easy, and cheap to implement.
As a second choice, they could say "If you want to specify which YouTube videos your ads get served to, give us a list. Otherwise, it's not our job to regulate or even *categorize* speech".
Trying to second-guess what advertizers find objectionable is a foolish goal.
If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their job to police it.
Quick question: Does Facebook make up its own ads to serve to people, or does it use an ad-delivery service where another company aggregates the ads for them?
What I'm asking is: does Facebook somehow curate the javascript and other gunk that is served as advertizing, or does the ad service, or do the advertizers themselves somehow curate those programs?
All the web sites that pop up a message saying "we notice that you are using an ad blocker - please stop" makes me mentally reply "I notice you let anyone serve me malware via ads, no way!".
Is it the same for Facebook? Do they let advertizers run just 'any old javascript on my computer?
(And as a corollary to that: can malicious javascript listen to my mike?)
Is it your opinion that these positions in space, quantum or otherwise, are in isolation from each others frame of reference thereby preventing total matter-antimatter annihilation? There are no pigeon holes in open space unless you are referencing dimensional space.
I do a lot of work with information theory, so I keep coming back to the question of whether the universe is computable.
If it's computable, then the information needed to calculate the outcome of any interaction is finite, which means that everything about that interaction has to be quantized at some level. (Otherwise the amount of information needed is infinite, and that leads to other problems with entropy and energy and such.)
Others have looked into this and have not found a way to make quantized position compatible with relativity, so the prevailing opinion is that space is continuous at all scales.
I'm not ready to agree with this conclusion just yet - I'm still working on it - because a smooth space is incompatible with computability, and that's a *really big* incompatibility.
That being said, just consider our own expanding space with a bit of matter on it. An electron is supposed to be a point particle (in the mathematical sense of "point", having no volume), so suppose an electron is sitting somewhere in space when that section expands: what happens?
If you want to consider frames of reference, you can think of the electron as moving or fixed, and time it such that the world-line puts the electron on that position at the time it expands.
If the electron is moving and the expansion has a component in the direction of motion, it has to lose energy because of the expansion, which we see as red shift from far away galaxies.
But the question stands: what happens to the electron when the universe expands under it?
I think moving the electron to one of the resultant positions randomly makes sense as an answer, and in that case when the universe was very small it might explain the matter inequality we now see.
Based on your thesis it would seem that symmetry has a statistical base separate from literal symmetry. Are we observing statistical symmetry or the lack of literal symmetry?
Here's my thesis:
1) We know that space itself is expanding, and we expect that the expansion is evenly distributed.
2) Visualize position as quantized. It may or may not be quantized, that's just the mental model that I'm using to better show the process.
3) Suppose a bit of matter is sitting on a position right when the universe splits that position. What happens?
My thesis is that the matter ends up randomly in one or the other new positions that came from the original position.
My post derives from that thesis. There could be other results from that thought problem, but the random choice seems reasonable, based on what we know about QM.
Even though you'd expect equal amounts of matter and antimatter to go to both positions, it's statistically unlikely. Referring to the coin analogy, you might get 210,000 matter and 290,000 antimatter on one position, and 290,000 antimatter and 210,000 matter in the other. Both sides have 500,000 "coins", but with slightly different proportions, according to statistical chance.
So in total you'd have 580000 antimatter and 420000 matter. Where does this imbalance come from?
Okay, you got me.
Swap "antimatter" and "matter" in the 2nd half of that sentence to correct my senior moment.
Full sentence should read:
Referring to the coin analogy, you might get 210,000 matter and 290,000 antimatter on one position, and 290,000 matter and 210,000 antimatter in the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Designed to grow quickly and fix carbon quickly ... but need something not found in nature to grow -- thus preventing them from becoming an invasive species.
Another question about your solution, which is not at all a bad solution, is the availability of useable Nitrates.
Trees can pull Carbon out of the atmosphere, but get Nitrogen from the soil. The Nitrogen has to be in bio-available form, and there are limited places to get it on Earth (ie - fertilizer). So much so that about 5% of all the world's energy production goes into making Ammonia, mostly for nitrate fertilizers.
I'm not sure we even *could* plant that many trees and expect them to grow - the amount of Nitrogen needed is enormous, and we can't simply add fertlilzer because it costs us energy to make it. (See: Haber Process.)
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad solution, only that it is incomplete. It should be used in conjunction with as many other scaled-up solutions as we can come up with.
According to this link and taking some round numbers, an Albizzia lebbek can sequester 70 lbs of CO2 per year.
Assuming a 40-year project lifetime, we would then need 637,765,000,000 trees to pull the mentioned amount out of the atmosphere.
For comparison, the Amazon rainforest has an estimated 390 billion trees.
Dividing these two numbers indicates that the world would have to plant and grow [the equivalent of] 1.6 Amazon Rainforests for a 40 year period.
I'm not saying that this is a bad solution, only that it is an incomplete solution. We should probably plant trees in areas where it makes sense and is easy to do, but we'll still need an epic-level solution to the problem.
guess what, trees are made out of carbon so when they die all the carbon they absorbed gets released back in to the environment, unless you cut them all down before they die and make lumber or paper or some other product out of them
Drat! Trees are completely unsuitable for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Damn you "some guy on the internet", for pointing out the obvious flaw in the plan.
Now we have to come up with some other solution.
booger hook on the bang switch, taking off some tootsies
I have no idea what this means, but it's the best thing I've read today.
Booger hook: Finger
Bang switch: Trigger (of a gun)
Taking off tootsies: Shooting oneself in the foot.
Hence the phrase: "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you’re ready to fire."
What this really shows is that the Republicans and their wealthy donors don't give a shit about the USA.
This is changing.
There's a new group loosely called "populists", which are being elected under the guise of Republicans at the moment. These are the ones who put the welfare of the citizens ahead of everything else.
Looking at the Alabama special election is really interesting right now. In the primaries, Judge Roy Moore was a populist and avid Trump fan who went against the establishment favorite Luthor Strange. Strange outspent Moore by a wide margin... and lost. Now we see the senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, would rather see a democrat win than have Moore elected(*).
That is a truly amazing situation to see from a Republican party, one of those "take a moment and let it sink in" bits of information.
McConnell has been sitting on roughly 400 bills in the Senate, refusing to bring them to a vote, so he's one of the main problems we've been seeing in government. He's losing control and political power, and there's been calls for him to step down.
If Moore wins the election (About 3 weeks) it might signal a tidal wave of populist candidates running on the Republican ticket - against any and all attempts to prevent it.
There's also the double standard thing. McConnell demanded that Moore leave the election, and told Moore that even if he won he would be immediately ousted from the Senate. All based on accusations, many which have been shown to be fraudulent. Then Al Franken was accused with photographic evidence and... crickets from McConnell.
We'll see how it goes, but either way the voters seem to have had enough of establishment bullshit, and are starting to clean house.
Expect a lot of sturm and drang as the corruption is slowly found and ejected.
(*) It boils down to whether an *accusation* of impropriety is enough to knock a candidate out of an election. You can easily see how this might be abused, and indeed in Moore's case it certainly seems like the accusations are specious.
Are political calls still exempt from the rules?
My favorite is the one offering between $5000 and $7000 for any women willing to make damaging accusations about Roy Moore
I hate all robocalls, including political ones, and don't see why they should be exempt from the rules.
Also: Don't we hate the FCC because of the net neutrality thing? Has that changed?
I think Web Assembly is a tremendous mistake.
This will end up being nothing more than an insecure vector for people you don't know to run programs on your computer.
1) It claims to be secure by only executing in a sandbox. Have other attempts at sandboxing had security flaws?
2) Assuming the sandboxing works as advertized, is there a way for the sandboxing to break the sandbox in ways the coders hadn't considered? (Such as periodically using a lot/little CPU time or memory as a way to communicate to a different tab?)
3) Can Web Assembly be used to steal CPU cycles, so your computer can be used for BitCoin mining or anything else while visiting a web page? (And no, that they can do this already doesn't invalidate the argument.)
4) Does Web Assembly add a level of obfuscation to the code, making it harder to see what it's doing?
We once had a period where E-mail attachments were automatically opened and run, where Excel macros activate when a spreadsheet is viewed, and where myriad ActiveX libraries were available for use by anyone.
Anyone remember that era?
We've locked down the ability to install and run programs on our computers, but now we've moved the goalposts. Our browser will now download and run programs for us from any random website, any website that contracts out to an agency to supply advertizing, and and website advertizing contractor who doesn't vet his clients.
"Oh, we're so sorry! That malware delivery got through our vetting process. We've terminated that one client, please feel safe downloading the ads from all of our other clients - they're clean. Pinky swear! :-)"
For the next 10 years expect to see a steady stream of exploits and patches. A mini industry will crop up selling antivirus checkers for web pages, and AdBlock extensions for browsers.
It's deja vu all over again.
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
And there you go, mixing your political position with the scientific conclusion. This is what causes science denial.
Does the science mandate your position? Are there better solutions available?
I strongly suspect that the best solution is to turn our attention to improvements in technology. This is already happening in the US with the onset of electric vehicles - this will reduce fossil fuel consumption considerably, and serve as a model and testing ground for other nations.
We then have to find energy sources to replace our current fossil fuel use.
I strongly suspect that the best solution will be rooftop solar. This is already happening in the US with the cost of rooftop solar dropping precipitously over the last 15 years.
Both of these solutions would dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, and both would benefit from improvements in technology.
Perhaps we should look to science to solve the problem, instead of identity politics?
It's the same as "we're all living in a sim", isn't it?
That's a very good question.
So far as I can tell, there are testable predictions that the sim theory makes. These are predictions that are not required by the theory, but that, if we see them, would be good indications of the sim.
Consider scanning a color document, separating the color channels into R, G, and B, and then doing a histogram of each channel.
If the envelope of the red histogram is smooth and goes to zero at each end (at R=0 and R=255). then we might conclude that the scanner spans the entire range of "red".
If the envelope is smooth but has discontinuous jumps at zero and 255, it means that there are intensities of red smaller than the minimum value the scanner can distinguish, and intensities higher than the highest value. Basically, all the high intensity pixels in the image max out the A/D converter in the scanner, and all the low intensity pixels register as zero even though there is significant variation.
The discontinuities at either end of the measurement imply that there is information outside the measurement range of the scanner.
We can apply that logic to certain astrophysical measurements in the universe in certain cases. If we see measurement distributions which are smooth, but have discontinuous jumps at either end it might indicate that there is information outside the measurable universe, even though we cannot measure it.
Some quick questions:
1) Does this hypothesis have testable predictions,
2) Does the theory imply observations that we could make that would invalidate the theory?
I'm a fan of "Hey, Martha!" stories, they're entertaining and thought provoking, but I don't know how much serious consideration such a proposal warrants. (Compared to, say, the survivability of "The Martian" or whether aspects of the "Star Trek" universe are physically realizable.)
, it's estimated that there are only about 2000 actual white supremacists in the US.
nope.
Sorry mate, you got nothing.
Exaggeration.
Furthermore, you're citing a poem as evidence of... what?
You know the real agenda isn't to "encourage" companies to hire domestic talent, it just happens to coincide with their mission to Keep the Brown People Out.
There are very good economic models that suggest that importing labor is bad. There's some statistical evidence that immigrants that don't take up the new culture are a safety risk due to increased crime, and that immigrants use more social services than citizens.
Other countries have extreme immigration policies, and several countries don't allow immigration at all (such as China, where you can't immigrate even if you own a Chinese business and are married to a Chinese citizen), and many have strictly controlled borders. Would the US be exceptional if we did the same?
Furthermore, very few people in the US are actually racist. Ignoring the "all whites are racist" bullshit and looking at the actual statistics, it's estimated that there are only about 2000 actual white supremacists in the US. The hair-triggered left reports of a banana peel signifying racism notwithstanding, it's not a real issue. Whites simply don't care what someone's color is. (Behaviour, on the other hand, is an issue.)
Black lives matter is, statistically speaking, completely off the mark. This does not imply that there is no problem and that things couldn't be made better, but it's false and ineffective to address that problem first, before the elephant in the room.
And yet, despite all the statistical evidence to the contrary and lack of contrary evidence, you have insight into the *real* reason we want to limit immigration: it's because secretly, down deep, we want to "Keep The Brown People Out".
(And your insight does not stem from the very good evidence that immigrants vote en-masse for a certain party.)
Despite not consciously being racist, not really caring about the race of whoever we interact with you're here to tell us the real reason we act the way we do?
Because you're somehow smarter or better informed than us?
Depends on the country. People in Denmark are very financially secure - no fears of being trapped in poverty if they get enough sleep.
The USA is a democracy. If Americans wanted enough sleep they could vote to be more like Denmark.
But instead Americans vote to be the opposite of Denmark - for Trump and his fellow Republicans. And then they complain that they're not getting enough sleep.
Denmark has the least attractive immigration policy for refugees.
So you're saying that voting for Trump was because we wanted to be less like Denmark?
Or are you saying we *should* be more like Denmark, and have highly restricted immigration?
I don't understand your point - can you be more specific about how voting for Trump made you feel bad?
and constant lack of sleep may make it a long lasting effect
no shit, how much did that grant cost me
The importance of the study is that it characterizes the effect in a way that can be replicated, and then used for further study. For example, the effect drugs have on the subject, or different types of sleep.
It might also help in validating or invalidating specific hypotheses.
For example, there is a hypothesis that neurotransmitters evolved from nutrient sources. The theory goes that when simple organisms ate something there was a wash of nutrients (such as glucose) throughout the system. Evolution then gave the organisms sensors that would associate particular inputs with the wash of nutrients they receive from eating, and trigger the "swallow" action (probably invagination at that level). Then the organism evolved to separate the swallow signal from the sensor signal by using a modified nutrient as the signal, and when the organism fed successfully it would convert some of the nutrient into the signal to "feed" the sensor cells.
Fast forward and we have a complex system of cells that use various neurotransmitters as "food" to represent information. The neurotransmitters are sent cell-to-cell, but also scavenged and reused, and the scavenging process is not 100% efficient so the extra neurotransmitters act as growth factors - a cell can grow more dendrites to scavenge more of the "food" neurotransmitters in the areas where they are most often generated, leading to Hebbian theory and all that.
Back to the study...
It seems reasonable that wakefulness uses one or more neurotransmitters so often that the scavenging process can't keep up, and the sleep phase is needed for the scavenging to catch up. This is by design, because the unscavenged neurotransmitters also act as growth factors to encourage dendrite growth among correlated neurons.
If the study is right, it might be possible to measure the neurotransmitter levels as the patient gets sleepy, correlate it with the distinctive neural patterns, and thus identify the neurotransmitters that get depleted during wakefulness. (The study has identified the distinctive patterns we need to look for.)
And that would have all sorts of applications.
(Also, I don't know how much that grant cost you, but it was probably worth it.)
I just can't fathom why anyone would use such a pathetically limited platform.
Hey, 280 characters ought to be enough for anybody.
From Twitter's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (page 11):
With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions.
It seems to me that Twitter is a much bigger threat to our election process than Russia.
Shouldn't speech about the election be somehow... I don't know... protected or something?
Those are testable predictions.
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
What an incredible moron you are. You post those links trying to mock the right wing sites that posted it, but THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO SAID IT! It's Michael Moore and your team of Social Justice Ninjas who think the best way to combat speech they don't like is to burn down your local college. Your own deranged brethren are the joke!
Still, super saiyins are pretty tough. If they have even *one* of those it could wreck the entire planet.
It's worth getting worried about.
Donald Trump is going to prison for treason, and his co-conspirators are already telling the FBI about Trump's treasonous collusion with Russia in order to save their own skin.
The only question is - how much longer will the Republican party continue to support Moscow Donald's treasonous crime spree?
These investigations have had no leaks, which 'kinda implies that there is no substance.
We know that the Democrats can't help but leak juicy tidbits to the media - as an example, this grand jury indictment was *itself* leaked right before the indictment was made public (in violation of the law), but no previous results have come out.
That's not conclusive by any means, but it's certainly suggestive. If *anything* actionable came up in the investigation, the media would be all over it months before it was made public. And I don't mean "unnamed sources hint that there's a connection, and they totally promised us that it's true" sort of crap, but actual identifiable actions that can be traced and verified.
Additionally, public opinion hasn't been with the investigation. The response to the indictment has been "such a shocking double standard!" and "charging him with parking tickets while <this-other-person> gets away with much more".
Wait and see - with no real evidence, there's an even chance that this will backfire on the Democrats in a big way.
is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.
The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".
I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech. It's killing Hollywood, the NFL, CNN, the NYT, the professional lives of many high-profile people, and a whole lot of companies such as Twitter and Kelloggs.
Google could step up and say "It's not our job to regulate speech. If you want to advertize with us, it's all or nothing". It would be simple, easy, and cheap to implement.
As a second choice, they could say "If you want to specify which YouTube videos your ads get served to, give us a list. Otherwise, it's not our job to regulate or even *categorize* speech".
Trying to second-guess what advertizers find objectionable is a foolish goal.
If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their job to police it.
I'll just leave these here:
Item 1.
Item 2.
Just not true.
So it is, then.
Quick question: Does Facebook make up its own ads to serve to people, or does it use an ad-delivery service where another company aggregates the ads for them?
What I'm asking is: does Facebook somehow curate the javascript and other gunk that is served as advertizing, or does the ad service, or do the advertizers themselves somehow curate those programs?
All the web sites that pop up a message saying "we notice that you are using an ad blocker - please stop" makes me mentally reply "I notice you let anyone serve me malware via ads, no way!".
Is it the same for Facebook? Do they let advertizers run just 'any old javascript on my computer?
(And as a corollary to that: can malicious javascript listen to my mike?)
Is it your opinion that these positions in space, quantum or otherwise, are in isolation from each others frame of reference thereby preventing total matter-antimatter annihilation? There are no pigeon holes in open space unless you are referencing dimensional space.
I do a lot of work with information theory, so I keep coming back to the question of whether the universe is computable.
If it's computable, then the information needed to calculate the outcome of any interaction is finite, which means that everything about that interaction has to be quantized at some level. (Otherwise the amount of information needed is infinite, and that leads to other problems with entropy and energy and such.)
Others have looked into this and have not found a way to make quantized position compatible with relativity, so the prevailing opinion is that space is continuous at all scales.
I'm not ready to agree with this conclusion just yet - I'm still working on it - because a smooth space is incompatible with computability, and that's a *really big* incompatibility.
That being said, just consider our own expanding space with a bit of matter on it. An electron is supposed to be a point particle (in the mathematical sense of "point", having no volume), so suppose an electron is sitting somewhere in space when that section expands: what happens?
If you want to consider frames of reference, you can think of the electron as moving or fixed, and time it such that the world-line puts the electron on that position at the time it expands.
If the electron is moving and the expansion has a component in the direction of motion, it has to lose energy because of the expansion, which we see as red shift from far away galaxies.
But the question stands: what happens to the electron when the universe expands under it?
I think moving the electron to one of the resultant positions randomly makes sense as an answer, and in that case when the universe was very small it might explain the matter inequality we now see.
Based on your thesis it would seem that symmetry has a statistical base separate from literal symmetry. Are we observing statistical symmetry or the lack of literal symmetry?
Here's my thesis:
1) We know that space itself is expanding, and we expect that the expansion is evenly distributed.
2) Visualize position as quantized. It may or may not be quantized, that's just the mental model that I'm using to better show the process.
3) Suppose a bit of matter is sitting on a position right when the universe splits that position. What happens?
My thesis is that the matter ends up randomly in one or the other new positions that came from the original position.
My post derives from that thesis. There could be other results from that thought problem, but the random choice seems reasonable, based on what we know about QM.
Even though you'd expect equal amounts of matter and antimatter to go to both positions, it's statistically unlikely. Referring to the coin analogy, you might get 210,000 matter and 290,000 antimatter on one position, and 290,000 antimatter and 210,000 matter in the other. Both sides have 500,000 "coins", but with slightly different proportions, according to statistical chance.
So in total you'd have 580000 antimatter and 420000 matter. Where does this imbalance come from?
Okay, you got me.
Swap "antimatter" and "matter" in the 2nd half of that sentence to correct my senior moment.
Full sentence should read:
Referring to the coin analogy, you might get 210,000 matter and 290,000 antimatter on one position, and 290,000 matter and 210,000 antimatter in the other.