HOW, precisely, are you proposing to get carbon dioxide FROM an atmosphere at a small fraction of a bar, THROUGH a soil of moderate permeability, AGAINST a temperature gradient (the surface cools by radiating into space ; the subsurface has a heat flux from the cooling interior), to then condense onto existing CO2 ice.
Well, that sounds like a good start. Freeze CO2 out of the atmosphere in winter. Due to heating from the moderately permeable ground, CO2 vaporizes and refreezes further in the ground. Then in spring, sudden drops in pressure, say from a vaporizing layer of CO2 causes the occasional flash into vapor. Inclined landscapes might not be necessary.
The problem isn't that this is implausible, but to show that it doesn't happen. You have a fair argument, but you don't have evidence to support it.
If one met someone like that IRL, one would generally back away, call them a fucking psycho or, perhaps if one was so-inclined and felt suitably threatened, punch the guy in the face. Usually 1 and or 2 though.
Physical proximity is not the opposite of anonymity. What I think is going on here is consequences. If there are painful consequences for rude behavior, even if nobody knows who you are, then there's disincentive to be rude.
This article is totally off. Of course, the most important reason is the (perceived) anonymity.
It's obvious to anyone that the real reason is that you aren't within arms reach of the rest of the world. It doesn't matter to me whether you know who I am. You're not going to hop in your car and spend a few days tracking me down, just to punch me for my opinions on Das Kapital or because I called you an internet clown. Well, I hope not, you internet clown, you.
They had just taken a big re-structuring loan out right before rates and credit availabity tanked. They did well because that allowd them to be the only American auto maker not needing a bail out.
Given that the financial crash in question was very foreseeable, where's the luck? Sounds to me like the only luck was in the timing of the crash right after the loan than say, two years down the road or before the loan could be completed. And even without the loan, Ford wouldn't have needed a bailout.
It's just common sense not to boast about having a better business than one's competitors in a dysfunctional political situation where nails that stick out get hammered in.
At least the beginning part about capitalism: that it needs constant growth and new markets and will eventually lead to globalization
Well, those assertions are wrong. Capitalism is merely private ownership of capital even by Marx's definition. The claims for need for growth (which due to economic crises described in the book, aren't "constant") are unfounded assumptions. So that's not looking good for your claims that Das Kapital makes sense.
And if you gave just that excerpt to people, they certainly wouldn't guess that they're reading old Charlie Marx.
The pejoratives give him away as does the almost religious assertions. When he drops terms like "commodity fetishism", it's painfully clear that he has no sense of objectivity.
Or the assertion that the value of a good is the labor that goes into its production. Just in the few pages of the book, we already see both a failure of basic premises and the first demonstration of the semantic games he plays throughout the book. Here, "use value" is what we'd normally consider the value of the good. And "value" (note no adjective modifier) is what is usually considered the labor cost of the good. He's clearly implying that the true value of a good is the labor that goes into the good, even though it's not.
If I pick up a hammer, I don't instinctively know how much labor or other costs went into production of that hammer. But I do have an notion of what I can do with that hammer. Marx's notion of "value" as labor cost has no meaning for me, unless I happen to know those details.
... and in the Martian context, when CO2 freezes out of the atmosphere (which it does every Martian year), it forms a frost rather than penetrating into the sub-surface
Based on what evidence? This is where your argument fails. Not only do you make an unverified claim for today, but also for the past billion or so years of that location.
With the public retreat from education, universities have to take their funding from more private sources.
Last I checked, there was no such retreat from education. There's been a remarkable decline in the quality of education and what public funds buy. But it's a dangerous illusion to claim that there has been a retreat from education when the problem is elsewhere.
As an aside, the tax write off for charity is basically a matching fund where you donate at least twice what the federal government chips in. It might not be quite as effective as direct federal funding (a claim which I'd be willing to dispute), but that's a considerable factor higher than the direct funding would be.
With transmission losses and electric engine efficiency, you would be operating an electric car anywhere between 30% to 35% efficiency.
On the electric car side, include battery charging inefficiency and the additional mass of the battery pack. With gas powered engines, you don't have to haul the mass of the fuel you burned and the energy density is better.
On the gasoline power side, include the cost of infrastructure that only exists because one needs to drive a gasoline powered car (electricity infrastructure is multipurpose and exists even in the absence of electric cars.
The government approach is identical except they generally have the gall to claim that society has somehow "agreed" on the use of funds.
And that government has spent 100% Other Peoples' Money. At least, with charitable donations, most of the money comes directly from the person making the gift.
I'd rather have government dictating charity spending than random individuals with odd agendas.
And I'd rather not. I'll just point out that my viewpoint is backed by considerable history showing that there is indeed a problem.
When an individual dictates charity, it is done with their own personal bias of who/ what should receive benefit and this is not necessarily something the rest of society would agree on.
And what's wrong with that? The government approach is identical except they generally have the gall to claim that society has somehow "agreed" on the use of funds.
In the case of churches, I don't think the government (i.e. me as a taxpayer) should subsidize any religion... the whole separation of church and state thing... and a tax exemption for churches means that I am subsidizing everyone's religion.
This shows the advantage of the tax break for charities since government thus isn't sponsoring a religion. With direct funding, a religious charity would be at a great disadvantage compared to a secular charity for precisely this reason.
As has been already noted, there are far cheaper, faster, and more effective means for extracting gold from gold chloride than any organism can accomplish. Even just heating up gold chloride works.
Where did you get the idea that a good reseach faculty means a good teaching faculty?
Note the use of the phrase, "selling point" in my original post. Where does anyone get that impression that research means better teaching and/or better education? From research schools marketing that angle.
Fundamentally, your assertion that "the students don't care about quality teachers" is based on flawed premises. Prospective college students aren't well known for understanding the nuances of a college and an education. So why expect them to "know" that "smaller schools known more for teaching" have better teachers (maybe)?
Even if the student doesn't care about the outcome of their education (which is a peculiar assertion to make, given that the average student puts something like five years of their life into such an education), there's no reason for the college to not care as well.
I'd rather the government collect that money instead and decide what "good causes" to support.
Well, I was just thinking that to be consistent, you'd also have to get government out of the charity business as well since that is yet another way to subsidize odd causes, many of which are of dubious value.
The tax write off for charitable giving has two effects. First, it's a decentralized way for government to support charities. Second, it encourages an environment of giving and increases the status of charities. In contrast, if the only way for a charity or cause to benefit from government is by acquiring funding directly from government, then there are problems.
That creates a number of perversities, such as a struggle over control of wealth (government spending is fundamentally wealth transfers from current or future tax payers) and creation of poorly thought out public goods and subsequent regulation of the resulting tragedies of the commons.
I don't want to subsidize anyone's religious beliefs.
Do you wish to subsidies charity giving? If you do, then you have two beliefs in conflict with each other. BTW, fraternal organizations generally have tax exempt status in the US.
It boggles my mind that this number wasn't asked for by the article's author.
Not me. There's a blatant and obvious movement going on to discredit science in general. No one mentions how much different medical science is from physical science when they talk about this either. Find one bad scientist and they think they've won. Guilt by association.
Here's a case in point. Someone does research on fraud in science and the first thing that you and the parent poster think, "What is the ulterior motive?" That's just another anti-scientific attitude.
Furthermore, the students don't care about quality teachers, or else they'd be going to smaller schools known more for teaching than for research grants.
Why? The respective research school selling point is that the teaching is better because the faculty is top notch.
The problem is that if preliminary information is published, its easier for people to accuse them of bias without judging them based on their findings.
I don't buy that at all. Shouldn't we have an example of this in practice first before we consider it a problem?
Does that mean we should wear protective gear everywhere at all times? Or could we maybe accept that life isn't a completely safe activity?
Here's the problem with your post. If you knowingly engage in a dangerous activity where protective gear could make a significant difference at low cost and inconvenience to you, then why merely "accept" that life isn't a completely safe activity when you could make it a safer activity?
So you're looking to repeatedly put CO2 into the soil then release it abruptly.
One such mechanism is the season cycle. CO2 freezes into the ground in winter and gets released in early spring whenever a drop in pressure occurs. Again, you're thinking about this in terrestrial terms.
Keep in mind that Mars is currently just past fall equinox (September 29 according to the Planetary Society). Curiosity has yet to see any early spring phenomena.
Polls have nowhere near the precision required to predict the outcome of a senate race within a few hundred votes.
And they don't need to. If the polls are too close to call, then that's an indication that fraud can make the difference.
Furthermore, you are positing that dozens of election officials all conspired to commit a fraud against the American people, which is a far cry from a few casino execs getting their customers to spend more money.
That depends on whether one gets caught or not. This particular fraud seems pretty safe to commit.
On top of that, if the Democrats have the means to cheat close elections, why only that one? There are plenty of close elections that they've lost.
That election is not unique in having accusations of fraud. My view is that there are probably low levels of fraud in most elections. In addition, there looks to me to be evidence that both major parties are engaging in recent elections in larger frauds and corruption.
For example, there has been some suspicious small donor behavior among a few Democrat presidential candidates, Howard Dean and Barack Obama, that has resulted in considerable sums of money being raised for the candidates from untraceable sources (an avenue easily gamed by a rich source wanting to donate large, untraceable sums to a presidential candidate).
Similarly, Romney has consistently won a larger fraction of votes at the end of polling for a large number (perhaps even a majority) of Republican primaries and caucuses than at the beginning (most such elections report preliminary vote totals during the vote tally process). It could be that Romney supporters show up late while usually exactly one other candidates supporters (which has been Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum, depending on state and sometimes local election) shows up early.
Or it could be electoral fraud at the vote tabulation machine level where about 5-10% of votes for one other candidate are tabulated as votes for Romney.
When one sees rather large, suspicious issues crop up without any investigation or repercussion, one wonders what else is going on below the radar. The small fraud alleged earlier in this thread is near trivial compared to what could be going on and isn't investigated.
Slashdot Mirror
HOW, precisely, are you proposing to get carbon dioxide FROM an atmosphere at a small fraction of a bar, THROUGH a soil of moderate permeability, AGAINST a temperature gradient (the surface cools by radiating into space ; the subsurface has a heat flux from the cooling interior), to then condense onto existing CO2 ice.
Well, that sounds like a good start. Freeze CO2 out of the atmosphere in winter. Due to heating from the moderately permeable ground, CO2 vaporizes and refreezes further in the ground. Then in spring, sudden drops in pressure, say from a vaporizing layer of CO2 causes the occasional flash into vapor. Inclined landscapes might not be necessary.
The problem isn't that this is implausible, but to show that it doesn't happen. You have a fair argument, but you don't have evidence to support it.
If one met someone like that IRL, one would generally back away, call them a fucking psycho or, perhaps if one was so-inclined and felt suitably threatened, punch the guy in the face. Usually 1 and or 2 though.
Physical proximity is not the opposite of anonymity. What I think is going on here is consequences. If there are painful consequences for rude behavior, even if nobody knows who you are, then there's disincentive to be rude.
This article is totally off. Of course, the most important reason is the (perceived) anonymity.
It's obvious to anyone that the real reason is that you aren't within arms reach of the rest of the world. It doesn't matter to me whether you know who I am. You're not going to hop in your car and spend a few days tracking me down, just to punch me for my opinions on Das Kapital or because I called you an internet clown. Well, I hope not, you internet clown, you.
They had just taken a big re-structuring loan out right before rates and credit availabity tanked. They did well because that allowd them to be the only American auto maker not needing a bail out.
Given that the financial crash in question was very foreseeable, where's the luck? Sounds to me like the only luck was in the timing of the crash right after the loan than say, two years down the road or before the loan could be completed. And even without the loan, Ford wouldn't have needed a bailout.
It's just common sense not to boast about having a better business than one's competitors in a dysfunctional political situation where nails that stick out get hammered in.
At least the beginning part about capitalism: that it needs constant growth and new markets and will eventually lead to globalization
Well, those assertions are wrong. Capitalism is merely private ownership of capital even by Marx's definition. The claims for need for growth (which due to economic crises described in the book, aren't "constant") are unfounded assumptions. So that's not looking good for your claims that Das Kapital makes sense.
And if you gave just that excerpt to people, they certainly wouldn't guess that they're reading old Charlie Marx.
The pejoratives give him away as does the almost religious assertions. When he drops terms like "commodity fetishism", it's painfully clear that he has no sense of objectivity.
Or the assertion that the value of a good is the labor that goes into its production. Just in the few pages of the book, we already see both a failure of basic premises and the first demonstration of the semantic games he plays throughout the book. Here, "use value" is what we'd normally consider the value of the good. And "value" (note no adjective modifier) is what is usually considered the labor cost of the good. He's clearly implying that the true value of a good is the labor that goes into the good, even though it's not.
If I pick up a hammer, I don't instinctively know how much labor or other costs went into production of that hammer. But I do have an notion of what I can do with that hammer. Marx's notion of "value" as labor cost has no meaning for me, unless I happen to know those details.
... and in the Martian context, when CO2 freezes out of the atmosphere (which it does every Martian year), it forms a frost rather than penetrating into the sub-surface
Based on what evidence? This is where your argument fails. Not only do you make an unverified claim for today, but also for the past billion or so years of that location.
With the public retreat from education, universities have to take their funding from more private sources.
Last I checked, there was no such retreat from education. There's been a remarkable decline in the quality of education and what public funds buy. But it's a dangerous illusion to claim that there has been a retreat from education when the problem is elsewhere.
As an aside, the tax write off for charity is basically a matching fund where you donate at least twice what the federal government chips in. It might not be quite as effective as direct federal funding (a claim which I'd be willing to dispute), but that's a considerable factor higher than the direct funding would be.
With transmission losses and electric engine efficiency, you would be operating an electric car anywhere between 30% to 35% efficiency.
On the electric car side, include battery charging inefficiency and the additional mass of the battery pack. With gas powered engines, you don't have to haul the mass of the fuel you burned and the energy density is better.
On the gasoline power side, include the cost of infrastructure that only exists because one needs to drive a gasoline powered car (electricity infrastructure is multipurpose and exists even in the absence of electric cars.
The government approach is identical except they generally have the gall to claim that society has somehow "agreed" on the use of funds.
And that government has spent 100% Other Peoples' Money. At least, with charitable donations, most of the money comes directly from the person making the gift.
I'd rather have government dictating charity spending than random individuals with odd agendas.
And I'd rather not. I'll just point out that my viewpoint is backed by considerable history showing that there is indeed a problem.
When an individual dictates charity, it is done with their own personal bias of who/ what should receive benefit and this is not necessarily something the rest of society would agree on.
And what's wrong with that? The government approach is identical except they generally have the gall to claim that society has somehow "agreed" on the use of funds.
In the case of churches, I don't think the government (i.e. me as a taxpayer) should subsidize any religion... the whole separation of church and state thing... and a tax exemption for churches means that I am subsidizing everyone's religion.
This shows the advantage of the tax break for charities since government thus isn't sponsoring a religion. With direct funding, a religious charity would be at a great disadvantage compared to a secular charity for precisely this reason.
As has been already noted, there are far cheaper, faster, and more effective means for extracting gold from gold chloride than any organism can accomplish. Even just heating up gold chloride works.
Where did you get the idea that a good reseach faculty means a good teaching faculty?
Note the use of the phrase, "selling point" in my original post. Where does anyone get that impression that research means better teaching and/or better education? From research schools marketing that angle.
Fundamentally, your assertion that "the students don't care about quality teachers" is based on flawed premises. Prospective college students aren't well known for understanding the nuances of a college and an education. So why expect them to "know" that "smaller schools known more for teaching" have better teachers (maybe)?
Even if the student doesn't care about the outcome of their education (which is a peculiar assertion to make, given that the average student puts something like five years of their life into such an education), there's no reason for the college to not care as well.
I'd rather the government collect that money instead and decide what "good causes" to support.
Well, I was just thinking that to be consistent, you'd also have to get government out of the charity business as well since that is yet another way to subsidize odd causes, many of which are of dubious value.
The tax write off for charitable giving has two effects. First, it's a decentralized way for government to support charities. Second, it encourages an environment of giving and increases the status of charities. In contrast, if the only way for a charity or cause to benefit from government is by acquiring funding directly from government, then there are problems.
That creates a number of perversities, such as a struggle over control of wealth (government spending is fundamentally wealth transfers from current or future tax payers) and creation of poorly thought out public goods and subsequent regulation of the resulting tragedies of the commons.
DoD spending is subject to FOIA requests as well.
I don't want to subsidize anyone's religious beliefs.
Do you wish to subsidies charity giving? If you do, then you have two beliefs in conflict with each other. BTW, fraternal organizations generally have tax exempt status in the US.
It boggles my mind that this number wasn't asked for by the article's author.
Not me. There's a blatant and obvious movement going on to discredit science in general. No one mentions how much different medical science is from physical science when they talk about this either. Find one bad scientist and they think they've won. Guilt by association.
Here's a case in point. Someone does research on fraud in science and the first thing that you and the parent poster think, "What is the ulterior motive?" That's just another anti-scientific attitude.
Furthermore, the students don't care about quality teachers, or else they'd be going to smaller schools known more for teaching than for research grants.
Why? The respective research school selling point is that the teaching is better because the faculty is top notch.
Just don't ask me to subsidize your giving.
Either charity giving is tax deductable or it isn't. I will oppose any attempt to make the tax consequences based on religious beliefs.
Let's have laws linking the right to privacy of the public and scientists, to the rights to privacy of corporate executives, politicians.
The Bill of Rights already do so in the US. You're about 220 years too late for that.
If you don't want the scrutiny, then don't accept public funding. There's no need to subvert US or UK law when a simple solution already exists.
The problem is that if preliminary information is published, its easier for people to accuse them of bias without judging them based on their findings.
I don't buy that at all. Shouldn't we have an example of this in practice first before we consider it a problem?
Does that mean we should wear protective gear everywhere at all times? Or could we maybe accept that life isn't a completely safe activity?
Here's the problem with your post. If you knowingly engage in a dangerous activity where protective gear could make a significant difference at low cost and inconvenience to you, then why merely "accept" that life isn't a completely safe activity when you could make it a safer activity?
So you're looking to repeatedly put CO2 into the soil then release it abruptly.
One such mechanism is the season cycle. CO2 freezes into the ground in winter and gets released in early spring whenever a drop in pressure occurs. Again, you're thinking about this in terrestrial terms.
Keep in mind that Mars is currently just past fall equinox (September 29 according to the Planetary Society). Curiosity has yet to see any early spring phenomena.
Polls have nowhere near the precision required to predict the outcome of a senate race within a few hundred votes.
And they don't need to. If the polls are too close to call, then that's an indication that fraud can make the difference.
Furthermore, you are positing that dozens of election officials all conspired to commit a fraud against the American people, which is a far cry from a few casino execs getting their customers to spend more money.
That depends on whether one gets caught or not. This particular fraud seems pretty safe to commit.
On top of that, if the Democrats have the means to cheat close elections, why only that one? There are plenty of close elections that they've lost.
That election is not unique in having accusations of fraud. My view is that there are probably low levels of fraud in most elections. In addition, there looks to me to be evidence that both major parties are engaging in recent elections in larger frauds and corruption.
For example, there has been some suspicious small donor behavior among a few Democrat presidential candidates, Howard Dean and Barack Obama, that has resulted in considerable sums of money being raised for the candidates from untraceable sources (an avenue easily gamed by a rich source wanting to donate large, untraceable sums to a presidential candidate).
Similarly, Romney has consistently won a larger fraction of votes at the end of polling for a large number (perhaps even a majority) of Republican primaries and caucuses than at the beginning (most such elections report preliminary vote totals during the vote tally process). It could be that Romney supporters show up late while usually exactly one other candidates supporters (which has been Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum, depending on state and sometimes local election) shows up early.
Or it could be electoral fraud at the vote tabulation machine level where about 5-10% of votes for one other candidate are tabulated as votes for Romney.
When one sees rather large, suspicious issues crop up without any investigation or repercussion, one wonders what else is going on below the radar. The small fraud alleged earlier in this thread is near trivial compared to what could be going on and isn't investigated.