Again, this is just a consequence of Dr. Mann receiving federal funding and in effect acting as a agent of the US government (in particular in furthering certain environmental policies). I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty when it comes to government activities.
That means it's completely inappropriate to say that it was shoddy work covered up by a corrupt president similarly to how he protected a child rapist.
Even though it's true? Mann and Sandusky received the same whitewash treatment from the same people.
As to your first assertion, peer review generally means the paper has been looked over by 2-4 people knowledgeable in the field, depending on the journal and circumstances. That's not the entire scientific community, even if you then add in Mann and his coauthors.
I hope Mann crucifies these despicable liars and science-deniers.
"Science-deniers". It's interesting how irrational and unscientific the supposedly pro-science side is in this debate.
It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant!
Dr. Mann and his university accept public funds from the federal government and that subjects him to FOIA requests. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis. If he doesn't like it, then he can always refuse federal funding for his research projects.
No offense, but we understand the psychological effect of isolation pretty well. I think the real value to something like this is just getting an idea of what one needs to live and perform tasks in a peculiar, unfamiliar, perhaps very cramped environment with the property that if you need something, it probably can be delivered to you inside of a few months or years.
It shouldn't be revenue. Rather, it should be a portion of their profit.
There are a number of profitable businesses that never make a profit. Someone already mentioned movies. Every so often you see people burned by movie contracts that pay a percentage of the profits rather than a percentage of the revenue.
I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.
That's what we call observation bias. If the people you know had gotten caught with drugs and jailed, then you probably wouldn't know them.
There's a lot of people, a significant percentage of the US, who get lost in the drug war. I gather it's something like 300-400k in jail solely for drug related offenses (something like half of all federal prisoners plus about 20% of state level prisoners). In addition there's a lot of people on parole for such offenses.
In addition to prison time, there are other fines (assets used in commission of drug related offenses are routinely seized and sold off by police departments and governments) and punishments (such as being unable to vote, if you commit a felony).
It's worth noting that certain ethic groups, particularly, African Americans make up an inordinately large portion of this population.
I don't think it's fair to them that they should suffer from the various heavy criminal or social penalties for getting caught when so many others do not. It's a sort of bizarre anti-lottery where those caught lose out on many opportunities in life for the sole reason that they were the ones who got caught and couldn't get out of it.
I guess we would use a little more electricity with global warming. I'm not seeing the grouping otherwise.
government ethics and corruption are inextricably tied to abuse of civil liberties (corrupt governments oppress),
It doesn't even make sense to speak of government ethics, if such abuses are allowed to fester.
the war on drugs is probably part of national security (I mean, given the whole "open warfare between cartels in mexico" and "central america")
More as blowback which the US public and government seems to have successfully ignored for some time.
There does seem a reasonable connection, but I imagine it's a case of compartmentalization. We're concerned about what we think about and don't connect that to related affairs. I imagine there are a few people who think government ethics and civil liberty abuses are different things, for example.
NASA is looking into a number of related, but not necessarily complementary activities. Repositioning can be done with almost any satellite today, unless it happens to be tumbling in a way that the repositioning satellite can't cope with and "grab" the target satellite. Refueling requires in addition some sort of structure on the target satellite to accept propellant. The two vehicles have to be compatible. I imagine you can count on one hand the satellites that can currently be refueled in space.
My view is that NASA has packed too many features into one vehicle. A repositioning satellite, for example, is probably the simplest design they could make. They need a good propellant system, a grabber, and some control systems. There wouldn't be much to it really. Same with refueling, repair, etc.
These all use overlapping technologies, but I must admit to being pretty dubious about putting them all on the same vehicle, which I gather from what I'm reading is what they're trying.
but isn't this the domain solely of structural engineers (a subset of civil engineering)?
There aren't sharp distinctions where one does one thing and never the other.
Seismologists would bring knowledge of where and how earthquakes happen. They would know how soil and rock types are affected by earthquakes. They monitor earthquakes via seismometers and other instruments. And when a significant earthquake actually happens, they're generally the ones on site gathering data on building damage, peoples' perceptions of the shaking, and geological manifestations of the earthquake (such as scarps and cracks).
Structural engineers would be concerned more with designing buildings so that they are more resistant to earthquakes and fail in a more survivable and perhaps less costly manner. As to public policy, I gather they take the knowledge gained by seismologists and turn that into building code changes.
Transisters were a big step in the transition from unreliable and bulky vacuum tubes to integrated circuits. I would say that Moore's law was already in gear by the time of their development.
As I see it, the dynamic of Moore's Law was threefold. First, it provided a simple model of how fast one should be developing integrated circuit technology. Second, there were plenty of zeros to run out Moore's Law for decades because as Feynman noted, "there's a lot of room at the bottom." And third, Moore's law superficially described an R&D cycle that used previously developed technologies to develop the next level of technologies. This repetitive technology bootstrapping process is unique in our history, though we may see future such bootstrap cycles from other approaches.
Stupid people don't know who's right or wrong on the 'Libya issue' because they have no idea what's being discussed.
I imagine part of the problem is simply that people don't like listening to stupid shit on the TV. Such an ambassador dying because nobody aside from a handful of people was bothering to protect him. They might not understand why it turned out such a mess, but they know who to blame.
They don't know the pitfalls of a laissez-faire system because they don't know what that is.
They don't know the benefits of a laissez-faire system either, but I don't hear you complaining about that. I bet it's just fine when the public wants to meddle in ways you agree with.
They think 'socialism' is evil because that has something to do with the Soviets or the Chinese or some other county they watch their favorite action hero beat up on.
Reality doesn't help either. These were evil socialist regimes. With failures this vast, it takes a few generations for any related ideologies to recover their former gloss. br.
This sounds a bit like the usual complaint that people must be dumb because they don't agree with me.
I was thinking more like the following. Apparently, the block IIIA GPS satellites to launch this decade will as launch mass about 3.5 metric tons. A third of that mass apparently will be hydrazine as single propellant.
A refueling satellite would probably have a very large fraction (perhaps well over half) of its mass as propellant either for itself or its intended client. For example, it might have some sort of solar-electric propulsion to get to the spacecraft and a payload of hydrazine propellant (if it were serving the above GPS block IIIA satellite).
The dry mass would be devoted solely to the job of refueling satellites (tankage, efficient propulsion and power systems, capture/fueling system, etc).
Yeah, because reducing the flow rate of the Amazon by two thirds couldn't possibly screw anything else up.
If it were taken where the Amazon empties into the ocean, yes, it probably wouldn't screw anything else up. We can do things like large scale desalinization and redirecting water from other locations.
But a year? Years? When they finally open that door, there won't be anything left but meat.
From actual prisoner of war stories, it's survivable. For example, US Senator McCain spent something like two years in solitary as a prisoner of war of North Vietnam and was imprisoned in total about five and a half years under hellish conditions. Nor was his ordeal unusual. Similar stories come out of most long wars.
Maybe also in reposition if a big change is involved (but why would you need to move it anyway?).
I'll answer this one since there are some relatively straightforward answers to that.
There are two big reasons. First, satellites don't always end up where you want them. For example, the recent SpaceX launch put its payload in an incorrect orbit that'll require some burns by the satellite to get into the desired orbit. The more onboard propellant you use, the shorter the lifespan of the satellite.
Second, there's the closely related problem of tight launch windows which is especially a problem when filling in a constellation of satellites with only a few gaps in its geometry or trying to hit a launch window for an orbit with a high inclination (angle of the orbit with respect to the plane of the Earth's equator). A repositioning system might give one a means to put a satellite into the desired orbit (though the repositioning satellite might have to boost itself back into its old orbit.
Now, at least in Italy, you can expect any expert of any hard (or impossible) to predict field to start spouting worst case scenarios for every question just to avoid liability.
Not at all. Instead what you'll get is experts who won't say anything for fear of incriminating themselves in some way.
But if all they ever answer is "I don't know", won't them put them out of a job?
Their real strength has been in predicting the effects of earthquakes. A lot of peoples' lives have been saved because seismologists and civil engineers figured out what sort of buildings and infrastructure were particularly dangerous. For example, the recent Japanese quake killed a lot less people than it would have otherwise, because of improvements in buildings and far better understanding of these sorts of disasters and their effects.
Sure, it is. I think the simplistic commodification of health care policy is a terrible thing. It's treated like a bag of fries or a barrel of oil. Either you have it or you have a lack of it.
What we should be focusing on is health care outcome. The actual benefit not the pretense of health care. To observe as the original troll did, that people die from lack of health care is to ignore that people also die even in the presence of health care.
My view is that privately, you should be able to do whatever you want with your money and your life. But publicly, if the medical activity doesn't have obvious large benefits to society, such as immunizations, prenatal care, or treatable illnesses that can result in decades of good life quality at a modest cost, then it's not health care but health theater and I want no part of it.
According to Jeff Fulgham, the CEO of Banyan Water and the ex-lead of General Electric's ecomagination division, the global replenishment rate is about 4,200 km3 while 2010 use was at least 4,300 km3. This is only possible by drawing down surface reserves like lakes and aquafirs.
It's worth noting that this is two thirds the flow rate of the Amazon river. If you're not finding fresh water to replenish what you're using, then you're not trying.
You just don't get it: there is no real difference between a refueling satellite and a regular satellite. That is what OP meant.
I doubt it. I believe the OP just was trolling. As to your assertion, the purposes are different and that in turn leads to functional differences (such as larger propellent storage in the refueling satellite) and developments of appropriate technologies.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that human activity triggered this earthquake. As the authors of the research note, this is an earthquake prone area. So one would sooner or later expect an earthquake in the area where it occurred.
Well, we could launch more propellant from Earth. Launch it, the robot tanks up, and keeps going. One could even do major orbit change burns at this time using excess propellant.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, this is just a consequence of Dr. Mann receiving federal funding and in effect acting as a agent of the US government (in particular in furthering certain environmental policies). I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty when it comes to government activities.
Emails, even those of federal agents, can only subpoenaed if there is a criminal investigation going on.
By my understanding, information relevant to a criminal investigation is one of the categories that is explicitly excluded by the FOIA.
That means it's completely inappropriate to say that it was shoddy work covered up by a corrupt president similarly to how he protected a child rapist.
Even though it's true? Mann and Sandusky received the same whitewash treatment from the same people.
As to your first assertion, peer review generally means the paper has been looked over by 2-4 people knowledgeable in the field, depending on the journal and circumstances. That's not the entire scientific community, even if you then add in Mann and his coauthors.
I hope Mann crucifies these despicable liars and science-deniers.
"Science-deniers". It's interesting how irrational and unscientific the supposedly pro-science side is in this debate.
It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant!
Dr. Mann and his university accept public funds from the federal government and that subjects him to FOIA requests. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis. If he doesn't like it, then he can always refuse federal funding for his research projects.
No offense, but we understand the psychological effect of isolation pretty well. I think the real value to something like this is just getting an idea of what one needs to live and perform tasks in a peculiar, unfamiliar, perhaps very cramped environment with the property that if you need something, it probably can be delivered to you inside of a few months or years.
That's one of the advantages of markets. It is financially rewarding to be among the minority running counter to an erroneous consensus.
It shouldn't be revenue. Rather, it should be a portion of their profit.
There are a number of profitable businesses that never make a profit. Someone already mentioned movies. Every so often you see people burned by movie contracts that pay a percentage of the profits rather than a percentage of the revenue.
I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.
That's what we call observation bias. If the people you know had gotten caught with drugs and jailed, then you probably wouldn't know them.
There's a lot of people, a significant percentage of the US, who get lost in the drug war. I gather it's something like 300-400k in jail solely for drug related offenses (something like half of all federal prisoners plus about 20% of state level prisoners). In addition there's a lot of people on parole for such offenses.
In addition to prison time, there are other fines (assets used in commission of drug related offenses are routinely seized and sold off by police departments and governments) and punishments (such as being unable to vote, if you commit a felony).
It's worth noting that certain ethic groups, particularly, African Americans make up an inordinately large portion of this population.
I don't think it's fair to them that they should suffer from the various heavy criminal or social penalties for getting caught when so many others do not. It's a sort of bizarre anti-lottery where those caught lose out on many opportunities in life for the sole reason that they were the ones who got caught and couldn't get out of it.
Climate change is part of energy policy
I guess we would use a little more electricity with global warming. I'm not seeing the grouping otherwise.
government ethics and corruption are inextricably tied to abuse of civil liberties (corrupt governments oppress),
It doesn't even make sense to speak of government ethics, if such abuses are allowed to fester.
the war on drugs is probably part of national security (I mean, given the whole "open warfare between cartels in mexico" and "central america")
More as blowback which the US public and government seems to have successfully ignored for some time.
There does seem a reasonable connection, but I imagine it's a case of compartmentalization. We're concerned about what we think about and don't connect that to related affairs. I imagine there are a few people who think government ethics and civil liberty abuses are different things, for example.
NASA is looking into a number of related, but not necessarily complementary activities. Repositioning can be done with almost any satellite today, unless it happens to be tumbling in a way that the repositioning satellite can't cope with and "grab" the target satellite. Refueling requires in addition some sort of structure on the target satellite to accept propellant. The two vehicles have to be compatible. I imagine you can count on one hand the satellites that can currently be refueled in space.
My view is that NASA has packed too many features into one vehicle. A repositioning satellite, for example, is probably the simplest design they could make. They need a good propellant system, a grabber, and some control systems. There wouldn't be much to it really. Same with refueling, repair, etc.
These all use overlapping technologies, but I must admit to being pretty dubious about putting them all on the same vehicle, which I gather from what I'm reading is what they're trying.
but isn't this the domain solely of structural engineers (a subset of civil engineering)?
There aren't sharp distinctions where one does one thing and never the other.
Seismologists would bring knowledge of where and how earthquakes happen. They would know how soil and rock types are affected by earthquakes. They monitor earthquakes via seismometers and other instruments. And when a significant earthquake actually happens, they're generally the ones on site gathering data on building damage, peoples' perceptions of the shaking, and geological manifestations of the earthquake (such as scarps and cracks).
Structural engineers would be concerned more with designing buildings so that they are more resistant to earthquakes and fail in a more survivable and perhaps less costly manner. As to public policy, I gather they take the knowledge gained by seismologists and turn that into building code changes.
Transisters were a big step in the transition from unreliable and bulky vacuum tubes to integrated circuits. I would say that Moore's law was already in gear by the time of their development.
As I see it, the dynamic of Moore's Law was threefold. First, it provided a simple model of how fast one should be developing integrated circuit technology. Second, there were plenty of zeros to run out Moore's Law for decades because as Feynman noted, "there's a lot of room at the bottom." And third, Moore's law superficially described an R&D cycle that used previously developed technologies to develop the next level of technologies. This repetitive technology bootstrapping process is unique in our history, though we may see future such bootstrap cycles from other approaches.
Stupid people don't know who's right or wrong on the 'Libya issue' because they have no idea what's being discussed.
I imagine part of the problem is simply that people don't like listening to stupid shit on the TV. Such an ambassador dying because nobody aside from a handful of people was bothering to protect him. They might not understand why it turned out such a mess, but they know who to blame.
They don't know the pitfalls of a laissez-faire system because they don't know what that is.
They don't know the benefits of a laissez-faire system either, but I don't hear you complaining about that. I bet it's just fine when the public wants to meddle in ways you agree with.
They think 'socialism' is evil because that has something to do with the Soviets or the Chinese or some other county they watch their favorite action hero beat up on.
Reality doesn't help either. These were evil socialist regimes. With failures this vast, it takes a few generations for any related ideologies to recover their former gloss.
br. This sounds a bit like the usual complaint that people must be dumb because they don't agree with me.
I was thinking more like the following. Apparently, the block IIIA GPS satellites to launch this decade will as launch mass about 3.5 metric tons. A third of that mass apparently will be hydrazine as single propellant.
A refueling satellite would probably have a very large fraction (perhaps well over half) of its mass as propellant either for itself or its intended client. For example, it might have some sort of solar-electric propulsion to get to the spacecraft and a payload of hydrazine propellant (if it were serving the above GPS block IIIA satellite).
The dry mass would be devoted solely to the job of refueling satellites (tankage, efficient propulsion and power systems, capture/fueling system, etc).
Yeah, because reducing the flow rate of the Amazon by two thirds couldn't possibly screw anything else up.
If it were taken where the Amazon empties into the ocean, yes, it probably wouldn't screw anything else up. We can do things like large scale desalinization and redirecting water from other locations.
But a year? Years? When they finally open that door, there won't be anything left but meat.
From actual prisoner of war stories, it's survivable. For example, US Senator McCain spent something like two years in solitary as a prisoner of war of North Vietnam and was imprisoned in total about five and a half years under hellish conditions. Nor was his ordeal unusual. Similar stories come out of most long wars.
Maybe also in reposition if a big change is involved (but why would you need to move it anyway?).
I'll answer this one since there are some relatively straightforward answers to that.
There are two big reasons. First, satellites don't always end up where you want them. For example, the recent SpaceX launch put its payload in an incorrect orbit that'll require some burns by the satellite to get into the desired orbit. The more onboard propellant you use, the shorter the lifespan of the satellite.
Second, there's the closely related problem of tight launch windows which is especially a problem when filling in a constellation of satellites with only a few gaps in its geometry or trying to hit a launch window for an orbit with a high inclination (angle of the orbit with respect to the plane of the Earth's equator). A repositioning system might give one a means to put a satellite into the desired orbit (though the repositioning satellite might have to boost itself back into its old orbit.
Now, at least in Italy, you can expect any expert of any hard (or impossible) to predict field to start spouting worst case scenarios for every question just to avoid liability.
Not at all. Instead what you'll get is experts who won't say anything for fear of incriminating themselves in some way.
But if all they ever answer is "I don't know", won't them put them out of a job?
Their real strength has been in predicting the effects of earthquakes. A lot of peoples' lives have been saved because seismologists and civil engineers figured out what sort of buildings and infrastructure were particularly dangerous. For example, the recent Japanese quake killed a lot less people than it would have otherwise, because of improvements in buildings and far better understanding of these sorts of disasters and their effects.
Sure, it is. I think the simplistic commodification of health care policy is a terrible thing. It's treated like a bag of fries or a barrel of oil. Either you have it or you have a lack of it.
What we should be focusing on is health care outcome. The actual benefit not the pretense of health care. To observe as the original troll did, that people die from lack of health care is to ignore that people also die even in the presence of health care.
My view is that privately, you should be able to do whatever you want with your money and your life. But publicly, if the medical activity doesn't have obvious large benefits to society, such as immunizations, prenatal care, or treatable illnesses that can result in decades of good life quality at a modest cost, then it's not health care but health theater and I want no part of it.
According to Jeff Fulgham, the CEO of Banyan Water and the ex-lead of General Electric's ecomagination division, the global replenishment rate is about 4,200 km3 while 2010 use was at least 4,300 km3. This is only possible by drawing down surface reserves like lakes and aquafirs.
It's worth noting that this is two thirds the flow rate of the Amazon river. If you're not finding fresh water to replenish what you're using, then you're not trying.
With all these subtleties, why are you so hot to conflate copying and stealing? They are manifestly not at all the same.
If it was so obvious, then there wouldn't be arguments over this, would there?
I'm not particularly hot to do so. But when I see a large number of people come to the same erroneous conclusions, I speak up.
You just don't get it: there is no real difference between a refueling satellite and a regular satellite. That is what OP meant.
I doubt it. I believe the OP just was trolling. As to your assertion, the purposes are different and that in turn leads to functional differences (such as larger propellent storage in the refueling satellite) and developments of appropriate technologies.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that human activity triggered this earthquake. As the authors of the research note, this is an earthquake prone area. So one would sooner or later expect an earthquake in the area where it occurred.
Well, we could launch more propellant from Earth. Launch it, the robot tanks up, and keeps going. One could even do major orbit change burns at this time using excess propellant.