MRIs just let it boil off instead of recycling it. Considering MRIs use between a quarter and a third of all helium produced, and balloons a tiny percentage, I'd say professor Welton is a giant hypocrite.
I don't even know why you bother. The problem with people like wolvesofthenight is that they can never admit they're wrong and will argue the most obvious lie just so that they can hold their ground and buttress their fragile ego. Just look at his comment history. This affliction, sadly, has become all too common on slashdot.
While I'm an atheist, even I have no qualms pointing out that your mention of self-contradictions in religion area moot point. There is no proof (nor can there be) that the universe is describable by a self-consistent rational model. Even if you presuppose that reality can be mathematically modeled with no pehnomenological aspect remaining outside the model, no strong argument has ever been put forth saying the laws of physics are guaranteed to turn out Godel-decideable. It's quite possible, due to lack of any counterindication, that any final TOE will end up being either unknowable or a combination of models which are mutually inconsistent. And unless you claim that the universe cannot be fully encompassed in a set of formal models (such claim being an appeal to the supernatural), then you cannot, for the semantics pertaining to this discussion, distinguish the universe from the models, and thus if the set of models can be self-inconsistent, so can the universe.
And what happens when the particles that get "glued to the front" are released upon return to sub-light speed? There won't be any ship left, that's for sure, or anything in the vicinity either.
Yes, it does. Someone will observe you traveling faster than light, going from point A to point B faster than light would travel the same distance. If nobody sees you traveling faster than light, then how can you say you did so at all?
And the whole point of relativity is that the laws of physics have to hold everywhere. That observer, depending on their own velocity in space-time, potentially see you arrive at your destination before you left, violating causality according to them.
Given a few such warp ships, you could even arrange it so that that person would receive a message they had written and sent with you before they had actually written it. And then causality is broken for everyone.
> Currencies must of necessity be scarce or they become worthless
It's a little different with fiat currencies, where the primary impetus for using the currency is that one can only pay taxes in that very currency (this is an important topic in Modern Monetary Theory).
I daresay Alexander Fleming has saved the most. We'd still be frequently dying in hospitals from common bacterial infections if it wasn't for his discovery of antibiotics.
Only in Ontario (and maybe Quebec?). The rest of Canada uses the same gallon jugs as in the US (I'm BC, for example, and most people here who have not traveled to Ontario before have not even heard of the bag thing).
Let's ignore things such as that different blogs were offered radically different versions of the survey to post (and the primary determinant of the differences seems to be whether the survey was being offered to a blog supporting AGW or denying it), though that by itself probably invalidates the results.
The main concern remains that out of a survey, of 1100 people only 3 skeptics strongly accepted, the conspiracies, and of these two were highly suspect (it's worth reading through the discussion). If this was just a paper in a journal, nobody would care. But again we see science by press relase, and pre-press release (Corner Guardian article). Do you really think it justified the heading of the paper, and the Telegraph newspaper headline? This is what drew attention to the paper, and this is what annoyed people.
Given the low number of skeptical respondents overall, these two possibly scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses, this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite.
The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.
I daresay Lewandowsky must have cheated on his exams on experimental design and statistics as a student.
PS Lewandowsky's choice of a title is, and should be, far more damaging to his reputation as a scientist than the other flaws in his paper. The title of the paper smacks of political activism and sensationalism, not professionalism.
> "More than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussions of climate science completed a questionnaire"
Only three of those were skeptics, and the discussion on his blog contains evidence two of those were scams.
Given the low number of "skeptical" respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation.
Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses, this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite.
The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.
That's not true. For example, PowerShell is notably different from *nix scripting not because of syntax, but because it's based on an object-oriented rather than a procedural paradigm. In fact, missing this critical difference is an aspect of most people who diss PowerShell (usually the same that diss C++ because they're C programmers).
That's what a C programmer who doesn't have the mind for OO programming says about C++. The analogy couldn't be more apt.
Short version: you're an idiot. Powershell is OO scripting and it makes no sense to compare it to procedural *nix scripting.
Florescent: from "flora", and means "A condition, time, or period of flowering".
Fluorescent: from "fluorite/fluorspar", a mineral which showcased an early example of observed fluorescence.
I know that word simplification is trending in modern English, but someone should tell the article submitter and the editor that posted it that you can't do it to the point where you turn a word into a different one with incompatible semantics; the result is embarrassment at best (as in this case) and misunderstanding at worst.
They only have the keys to the non-business service. Corporate users deploying Blackberry Enterprise Server create their own key pairs when registering each handset with the company's BES server, and so control the encryption end-to-end. There are no third parties with access to these keys, making this far more secure than SSL, for example. The article is FUD.
The article is misleading. The corporate service using Blackberry Enterprise Server has not been compromised because the encryption keys are controlled by the company deploying BES end-to-end. The company's IT generates the encryption key pairs when adding new handsets to the server. What's discussed only affects specific messaging over the non-business Blackberry service BIS.
Slashdot Mirror
MRIs just let it boil off instead of recycling it. Considering MRIs use between a quarter and a third of all helium produced, and balloons a tiny percentage, I'd say professor Welton is a giant hypocrite.
I don't even know why you bother. The problem with people like wolvesofthenight is that they can never admit they're wrong and will argue the most obvious lie just so that they can hold their ground and buttress their fragile ego. Just look at his comment history. This affliction, sadly, has become all too common on slashdot.
While I'm an atheist, even I have no qualms pointing out that your mention of self-contradictions in religion area moot point. There is no proof (nor can there be) that the universe is describable by a self-consistent rational model. Even if you presuppose that reality can be mathematically modeled with no pehnomenological aspect remaining outside the model, no strong argument has ever been put forth saying the laws of physics are guaranteed to turn out Godel-decideable. It's quite possible, due to lack of any counterindication, that any final TOE will end up being either unknowable or a combination of models which are mutually inconsistent. And unless you claim that the universe cannot be fully encompassed in a set of formal models (such claim being an appeal to the supernatural), then you cannot, for the semantics pertaining to this discussion, distinguish the universe from the models, and thus if the set of models can be self-inconsistent, so can the universe.
Nuclear has the lowest deaths per terawatt-hours produced than any other significant energy production method, by a couple orders of magnitude: http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-sources (and yes, the figure includes all nuclear power accidents). Note that even hydro is far, far worse. Here's another, more striking, visualization: http://transitionvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/death-rate-per-watts-Seth-Godin.jpg
Shame on you for posting a "paper" that is published by a politically driven organization (IEER) and not any recognized academic journal.
And what happens when the particles that get "glued to the front" are released upon return to sub-light speed? There won't be any ship left, that's for sure, or anything in the vicinity either.
Yes, it does. Someone will observe you traveling faster than light, going from point A to point B faster than light would travel the same distance. If nobody sees you traveling faster than light, then how can you say you did so at all? And the whole point of relativity is that the laws of physics have to hold everywhere. That observer, depending on their own velocity in space-time, potentially see you arrive at your destination before you left, violating causality according to them. Given a few such warp ships, you could even arrange it so that that person would receive a message they had written and sent with you before they had actually written it. And then causality is broken for everyone.
What an incredibly callous comment!
> Currencies must of necessity be scarce or they become worthless
It's a little different with fiat currencies, where the primary impetus for using the currency is that one can only pay taxes in that very currency (this is an important topic in Modern Monetary Theory).
I daresay Alexander Fleming has saved the most. We'd still be frequently dying in hospitals from common bacterial infections if it wasn't for his discovery of antibiotics.
Only in Ontario (and maybe Quebec?). The rest of Canada uses the same gallon jugs as in the US (I'm BC, for example, and most people here who have not traveled to Ontario before have not even heard of the bag thing).
Let's ignore things such as that different blogs were offered radically different versions of the survey to post (and the primary determinant of the differences seems to be whether the survey was being offered to a blog supporting AGW or denying it), though that by itself probably invalidates the results.
The main concern remains that out of a survey, of 1100 people only 3 skeptics strongly accepted, the conspiracies, and of these two were highly suspect (it's worth reading through the discussion). If this was just a paper in a journal, nobody would care. But again we see science by press relase, and pre-press release (Corner Guardian article). Do you really think it justified the heading of the paper, and the Telegraph newspaper headline? This is what drew attention to the paper, and this is what annoyed people.
Given the low number of skeptical respondents overall, these two possibly scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses, this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite.
The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.
I daresay Lewandowsky must have cheated on his exams on experimental design and statistics as a student.
PS Lewandowsky's choice of a title is, and should be, far more damaging to his reputation as a scientist than the other flaws in his paper. The title of the paper smacks of political activism and sensationalism, not professionalism.
> "More than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussions of climate science completed a questionnaire"
Only three of those were skeptics, and the discussion on his blog contains evidence two of those were scams.
Given the low number of "skeptical" respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation.
Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses, this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite.
The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.
That's not true. For example, PowerShell is notably different from *nix scripting not because of syntax, but because it's based on an object-oriented rather than a procedural paradigm. In fact, missing this critical difference is an aspect of most people who diss PowerShell (usually the same that diss C++ because they're C programmers).
That's what a C programmer who doesn't have the mind for OO programming says about C++. The analogy couldn't be more apt.
Short version: you're an idiot. Powershell is OO scripting and it makes no sense to compare it to procedural *nix scripting.
> No mention of Powershell?
Are you fucking blind? From GP's post:
> 8. Ask something about Powershell
How could that have been made any more obvious? Are you sure you're qualified to be posting here?
The irony is that I ripped off this link from someone else's post...
The summary cites a study showing 5% pregnancy rate from rape. But were those rapes "legitimate"?
It's not strange; it's evolutionary biology. The issue is discussed here http://www.amazon.com/O-The-Intimate-History-Orgasm/dp/0802142168/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_3
Heart defects suggest genetic origin. I hope you didn't breed.
Perhaps you mean "still extant"? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extant
Check out this section of a video where Kirk Sorensen, a nuclear and NASA scientist, criticizes TWRs (the class of designs TerraPower is planning to build): http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=P9M__yYbsZ4#t=01h00m25s
Florescent: from "flora", and means "A condition, time, or period of flowering".
Fluorescent: from "fluorite/fluorspar", a mineral which showcased an early example of observed fluorescence. I know that word simplification is trending in modern English, but someone should tell the article submitter and the editor that posted it that you can't do it to the point where you turn a word into a different one with incompatible semantics; the result is embarrassment at best (as in this case) and misunderstanding at worst.
They only have the keys to the non-business service. Corporate users deploying Blackberry Enterprise Server create their own key pairs when registering each handset with the company's BES server, and so control the encryption end-to-end. There are no third parties with access to these keys, making this far more secure than SSL, for example. The article is FUD.
The article is misleading. The corporate service using Blackberry Enterprise Server has not been compromised because the encryption keys are controlled by the company deploying BES end-to-end. The company's IT generates the encryption key pairs when adding new handsets to the server. What's discussed only affects specific messaging over the non-business Blackberry service BIS.