There's no evidence that the slowing down of the earth has anything to do with the increase in the winds.
The evidence is only that when the earth slows down the winds appear to be faster. This is not a causal relationship only correlated.
For instance it could be that the earth is slowing down independant of the winds thus causing the winds to increase in speed. Eg. the relationship proferred by these scientists could in fact be the exact reverse.
Or in fact they could have nothing to do with eachother and simply be the observable affects due to a third unlooked at phenomenon.
Not two different accounts, I just happened to be defending the guy.
Note that his statement dealt with the "changes in the period of the earth's rotation" being "unmeasurable" not the earth's rotational period itself. In which case the precision does matter and does point to it being "unmeasurable" eg. beyond the accuracy of our instruments. Although a more correct phrasing would be immeasurable.
These guys seem to have forgotten that scientific data has two requirements. Accuracy and precision. Since they refuse to show the precision of their measurements, any statement as to their accuracy is right out the window.
And did you see even one damn error bar! Their telling me they can distinguish the rotation of the earth to milliseconds(eg. thousands of a second). Especially when some of those measurements use VLB interferometry? Ya o.k. I've got some land in Florida I'ld like to sell these guys too.
And what the hell is the error in the AAM? Nothing there either. Until I see these errors this is nothing but bad science! There's nothing worse than bad science, except maybe popular bad science, or even popular, government funded bad science.
Angular momentum is constant, that's the whole point. So if El-Nino ends, and thus atmospheric angular momentum is reduced than the angular momentum of the solid earth must increase to compensate.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely shocking to me. I was sure it was his theory of Brownian motion because it always struck me as one of the most minor of his theories to give a Noble prize for. I mean hell I could imagine a Noble prize for GR or his work on SR and maybe even the photoelectric affect as that showed that light was indeed quantized but Brownian motion! I mean really, think about it "Hey I have this great but cumbersome statistical theory that explains why that damn seed should move around at random, and all we have to do is assume its a drunken sailor." "Cool, give the man a noble prize". Nope doesn't work for me.
The problem isn't that a "new law of nature" is proposed, it's only a problem if that new law of nature doesn't simultaneously explain the new observation while at the same time giving the same results for old observations.
Quantum mechanics was absolutely a totally different law of nature which was hinted at by experiment but couldn't possibly have been conceived of until De'Broglie & Bohr had enough balls to call a spade a spade. At the same time when the rubber hits the road quantum mechanics gives exactly the same answers as classical mechnaics in the classical limit, which it must
otherwise since we know classical mechanics works in it's range.
As an exercise for the student show that Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 reduces to E=1/2Mv^2 in the limit where v is much less than c(note in these equations M is the rest mass and m = M/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)).
Minor correction.
Einstein received the noble prize for his theory of Brownian motion. Basically showing that "atoms" exist. Which at the time was anything but obvious. Although in hind sight it seems like a trivial thing to have given a noble prize for especially knowing how absolutely amazing his General Theory of Relativity is.
Actually we're all "entitled" to every cent we make after all you earned it not someone else.
On the other hand we're not entitled to everything for free, which is what a free loader wants. This is seperate from whether or not someone wants to pay taxes. If your going to pay for something though I imagine you would want to get the best value for your dollar, and most times that is not through government since the beaucratic overhead combined with outright theft is stifling.
Suffice it to say that if anyone knows the limitations of science and technology I'll take Freeman Dyson's word for it over yours or Bill Joy's, although I'd still listen to Bill Joy because he's at least interesting and thought provoking.
You on the other hand think that the "laws of physics" are made to always be broken and that scientists really have no clue.
Just to let you know, neither of the two situations you site were "unpredicted" by scientists or the science of the time.
In reply to the (grand)parent of this post I would put forward the name of Richard Feynman. Now he didn't exactly say "I don't understand the humanities so I'll take physics", but he repeatedly detailed how he avoided the humanities as much as was possible during his study at Princeton. Generally due to the fact that he couldn't stand them and even refers to himself as having a "limited intellect" which he required most of to concentrate on physics.
At the same time at the age of 44 this same "limited intellect" took up painting/drawing and became quite an accomplished artist. He also added to the humanities through his love for playing the drums.
Furthermore, the discussion isn't just centered on graduate level studies. So "meaningful" don't enter in to it. Nobody worries whether a student taking first year English can make a meaningful contribution any more than a student in first year physics. But you are marked on "correctness" and all us technical people are saying is that "correctness" in the humanities is a much fuzzier word than in the sciences.
In fact I would go further and suggest that at the higher levels of study each subject area is equally hard in their own way but by that time you would expect to have the best and the brightest for those subjects and thus marks in each area should be quite similar, eg. A's & B's.
Whether or not any of this is actually true is left as an excercise for the reader.
You can buy a cassette... and you can make a copy of the songs on that cassette and LEGALLY give a copy to your friend.
In Canada you must "lend" the original to your friend and he must make the copy for this to be legal.
Now, if you make a copy of a CD and put it on another CD, can you LEGALLY give it to your friend?
Again for Canada see the above about tapes.
Now if you make a copy of that CD and put it on your computer and make it available to other people, can you LEGALLY give it to them? No.
There's the line... but it's not clear. What's the difference? The fact that you haven't met these people? The fact that you don't deliver something you can hold in your hand? The fact that the quality is higher?
Actually at least in Canada this is very clear, the relevant section of the copyright act refers to infringement as an act which "distribute(s) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright"(Section 27 Subsection 2) subsubsection b))
I'm absolutely positive that placing an mp3 for access to the world would be an act of distributing which would be "prejudicial" under this act.
In other words the extent to which you distribute is a direct measure of whether you will be found in violation of copyright. If you had 10,000 friends and you gave them all a copy of a CD that would be infringement as well.
Well check for yourself here are the relevant portions of the act,
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770
Note that this section on "fair use" refers only to the person making the copy not the "owner of the medium" or some such language. So I can lend my disk to my friend and they can make a copy for their own private use. The closest objection to this interpretation would be from the "distributing" clause of subsection 2. But this refers to the act of copying for distribution being prohibited not the act of "distributing" the original to a friend who makes a copy.
So, in Canada it is perfectly legal to make a copy of my friend's CD collection and he can make a copy of mine, however, I can't make it for him and than give it to him. Furthermore while it isn't in the legislation, by "reading between the lines" you can surmise that MP3 sharing on the web is not fair use as defined by this legislation.
In Canada we pay a "tax" on all blank tapes and blank CDs which goes to "artists"(cough,cough) for just such "fair use". In other words we pay for making those copies and thus it is legal to share them with your friends, at least as a hardcopy.
Ya gotta love markedroids masquerading as humans
don't ya. The article at Reuters contains this little gem:
"...technology broadly available so that it will be
even more ubiquitously used than today. Poole said"
The definition of "ubiquitous" is to "be everywhere", how the hell can you be "more everywhere". Just once I wish reporters would ask these guys to clarify such an obviously stupid statement.
"So Mr. Poole, what your saying is that while WMP DRM is everywhere, you want it to be 'more everywhere'? Do I have that right?"
Hmm, maybe you don't know this but the border
between Canada and the US is not owned by either
country. It is neutral territory. You might think this should make it safer. Wrong!!!
Since neither country owns it neither countries constitution applies. Therefore, you can be gooned up real good and you have no legal recourse. How's that for a howdy do...
Right.
Which is why Stallman doesn't insist it just be called GNU-OS or something. He recognizes the importance and effort of a single small piece of the puzzle, why can't others deign to recognize the relatively large contribution the FSF has provided?
Furthermore, it's not like the guy is holding a gun to peoples heads. He withholds the one thing that any man/woman truely can say they own and thats their time. Man what a jerk that he doesn't give everyone everything they absolutely must have , and all because of principles too. This world would be a much better place if we could get rid of principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Well actually if I sell you a gun knowing full well that you are going to use it in the commision of a crime, damn straight I'm going to be charged!
Thanks for playing our home game, now please try again.
The evidence is only that when the earth slows down the winds appear to be faster. This is not a causal relationship only correlated.
For instance it could be that the earth is slowing down independant of the winds thus causing the winds to increase in speed. Eg. the relationship proferred by these scientists could in fact be the exact reverse.
Or in fact they could have nothing to do with eachother and simply be the observable affects due to a third unlooked at phenomenon.
This is worse than teh worry that the moon will run in to the earth.
Note that his statement dealt with the "changes in the period of the earth's rotation" being "unmeasurable" not the earth's rotational period itself. In which case the precision does matter and does point to it being "unmeasurable" eg. beyond the accuracy of our instruments. Although a more correct phrasing would be immeasurable.
Give us those error bars guys, than we can talk.
And what the hell is the error in the AAM? Nothing there either. Until I see these errors this is nothing but bad science! There's nothing worse than bad science, except maybe popular bad science, or even popular, government funded bad science.
Angular momentum is constant, that's the whole point. So if El-Nino ends, and thus atmospheric angular momentum is reduced than the angular momentum of the solid earth must increase to compensate.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely shocking to me. I was sure it was his theory of Brownian motion because it always struck me as one of the most minor of his theories to give a Noble prize for. I mean hell I could imagine a Noble prize for GR or his work on SR and maybe even the photoelectric affect as that showed that light was indeed quantized but Brownian motion! I mean really, think about it "Hey I have this great but cumbersome statistical theory that explains why that damn seed should move around at random, and all we have to do is assume its a drunken sailor." "Cool, give the man a noble prize". Nope doesn't work for me.
Now that I know better I'm a happy man.
The problem isn't that a "new law of nature" is proposed, it's only a problem if that new law of nature doesn't simultaneously explain the new observation while at the same time giving the same results for old observations.
Quantum mechanics was absolutely a totally different law of nature which was hinted at by experiment but couldn't possibly have been conceived of until De'Broglie & Bohr had enough balls to call a spade a spade. At the same time when the rubber hits the road quantum mechanics gives exactly the same answers as classical mechnaics in the classical limit, which it must otherwise since we know classical mechanics works in it's range.
As an exercise for the student show that Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 reduces to E=1/2Mv^2 in the limit where v is much less than c(note in these equations M is the rest mass and m = M/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)).
Minor correction. Einstein received the noble prize for his theory of Brownian motion. Basically showing that "atoms" exist. Which at the time was anything but obvious. Although in hind sight it seems like a trivial thing to have given a noble prize for especially knowing how absolutely amazing his General Theory of Relativity is.
Actually we're all "entitled" to every cent we make after all you earned it not someone else.
On the other hand we're not entitled to everything for free, which is what a free loader wants. This is seperate from whether or not someone wants to pay taxes. If your going to pay for something though I imagine you would want to get the best value for your dollar, and most times that is not through government since the beaucratic overhead combined with outright theft is stifling.
You have no idea who Freeman Dyson is do you?
Suffice it to say that if anyone knows the limitations of science and technology I'll take Freeman Dyson's word for it over yours or Bill Joy's, although I'd still listen to Bill Joy because he's at least interesting and thought provoking.
You on the other hand think that the "laws of physics" are made to always be broken and that scientists really have no clue.
Just to let you know, neither of the two situations you site were "unpredicted" by scientists or the science of the time.
At the same time at the age of 44 this same "limited intellect" took up painting/drawing and became quite an accomplished artist. He also added to the humanities through his love for playing the drums.
Furthermore, the discussion isn't just centered on graduate level studies. So "meaningful" don't enter in to it. Nobody worries whether a student taking first year English can make a meaningful contribution any more than a student in first year physics. But you are marked on "correctness" and all us technical people are saying is that "correctness" in the humanities is a much fuzzier word than in the sciences.
In fact I would go further and suggest that at the higher levels of study each subject area is equally hard in their own way but by that time you would expect to have the best and the brightest for those subjects and thus marks in each area should be quite similar, eg. A's & B's.
Whether or not any of this is actually true is left as an excercise for the reader.
In Canada you must "lend" the original to your friend and he must make the copy for this to be legal.
Now, if you make a copy of a CD and put it on another CD, can you LEGALLY give it to your friend?
Again for Canada see the above about tapes.
Now if you make a copy of that CD and put it on your computer and make it available to other people, can you LEGALLY give it to them? No.
There's the line ... but it's not clear. What's the difference? The fact that you haven't met these people? The fact that you don't deliver something you can hold in your hand? The fact that the quality is higher?
Actually at least in Canada this is very clear, the relevant section of the copyright act refers to infringement as an act which "distribute(s) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright"(Section 27 Subsection 2) subsubsection b))
I'm absolutely positive that placing an mp3 for access to the world would be an act of distributing which would be "prejudicial" under this act.
In other words the extent to which you distribute is a direct measure of whether you will be found in violation of copyright. If you had 10,000 friends and you gave them all a copy of a CD that would be infringement as well.
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770
Note that this section on "fair use" refers only to the person making the copy not the "owner of the medium" or some such language. So I can lend my disk to my friend and they can make a copy for their own private use. The closest objection to this interpretation would be from the "distributing" clause of subsection 2. But this refers to the act of copying for distribution being prohibited not the act of "distributing" the original to a friend who makes a copy.
So, in Canada it is perfectly legal to make a copy of my friend's CD collection and he can make a copy of mine, however, I can't make it for him and than give it to him. Furthermore while it isn't in the legislation, by "reading between the lines" you can surmise that MP3 sharing on the web is not fair use as defined by this legislation.
Actually it depends where your from I guess.
In Canada we pay a "tax" on all blank tapes and blank CDs which goes to "artists"(cough,cough) for just such "fair use". In other words we pay for making those copies and thus it is legal to share them with your friends, at least as a hardcopy.
Depending on where you are than YMMV.
"...technology broadly available so that it will be even more ubiquitously used than today. Poole said"
The definition of "ubiquitous" is to "be everywhere", how the hell can you be "more everywhere". Just once I wish reporters would ask these guys to clarify such an obviously stupid statement.
"So Mr. Poole, what your saying is that while WMP DRM is everywhere, you want it to be 'more everywhere'? Do I have that right?"
Hmm, maybe you don't know this but the border between Canada and the US is not owned by either country. It is neutral territory. You might think this should make it safer. Wrong!!! Since neither country owns it neither countries constitution applies. Therefore, you can be gooned up real good and you have no legal recourse. How's that for a howdy do...
Right. Which is why Stallman doesn't insist it just be called GNU-OS or something. He recognizes the importance and effort of a single small piece of the puzzle, why can't others deign to recognize the relatively large contribution the FSF has provided? Furthermore, it's not like the guy is holding a gun to peoples heads. He withholds the one thing that any man/woman truely can say they own and thats their time. Man what a jerk that he doesn't give everyone everything they absolutely must have , and all because of principles too. This world would be a much better place if we could get rid of principles.