I missed a very important "the" in this phrase the first time I read it. o_O
Photoshop anniversary contest suggestion
on
20 Years of Photoshop
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Photoshopping photos over 20 years old to show people using Photoshop. Then claim they are legit. "Photoshop is over 20 years old, you can clearly see here they were using it during the Civil War!"
They don't want to believe that nuclear waste isn't ZOMG SCARY.
Your explanation is long and complicated.
Ergo by claiming that complexity itself is a sign of duplicity, they can dismiss your explanation and continue believing what they want to believe.
Trust and math really have nothing to do with it. They never had any intent of trying to understand what you're saying or verifying your facts or anything else that might suggest a desire to be educated.
It appears to me that the real problem is every time researchers try to present evidence for an answer to your question, you move the goal posts.
No. The problem is that everything they accuse climatologists of -- having an a-priori conclusion they will do anything to support in spite of evidence, fabricating data, neglecting basic logic and the scientific method, deliberately misrepresenting data to skew it in their favor -- are all things the anti-AGW crowd does flagrantly every time the subject comes up.
They have no shame about doing these things themselves, nor do they have any shame about projecting these failings onto climatologists and being outraged about it.
But at the end of the day, the situation is obvious. The group of people who fail at basic scientific rigor are the ones who have no idea what that means and don't want to know.
Where is the harm in covering area with windmills?
Nothing, considering the land is hardly "covered" at all. It's certainly a very different kind of "covered" than what a coal or nuclear plant's footprint entails. Yes there are some things you can't do with the land that is occupied by a wind farm -- like build office buildings -- but you can do a lot of other things -- like farming or ranching.
This kind of bullet-point engineering is counterproductive, especially for the nuclear advocate because nuclear plants have a lot of bullet points against them. But on the actual merits, i.e. considering what each bullet means, nuclear looks quite good.
But not good enough to develop to the exclusion of wind, because wind is good and we can and should build more (and are building more). That's okay, because the real reason why wind isn't good enough to develop to the exclusion of nuclear is that it's simply not going to be able to take care of base load.
We need to be building nuclear plants and wind, and trying to play the two against each other is just a bad idea. Fortunately, between the extant development of wind and this new deal to build nuclear reactors, it looks like we might actually be headed down a sensible path.
This experiment has lots of problems. *nom nom nom* First, microwave ovens don't always precisely match the given frequency. *chomp chomp* Second, and more importantly -- *chew chew swallow* -- identifying the hotspots and measuring the distance between them is difficult and error prone. *nom nom* And that's even when the chocolate is fresh! It's worse after it's already been partially melted. *stuff face* So I had to perform many experiments, using fresh chocolate each time, to get an accurate measurement.
In conclusion, this experiment rules. *nom nom nom nom*
No, they run on propane, which is why they need to be replaced before "cleaning the source" will result in them being equally clean.
Oh yeah I forgot that recycling uses no hazardous chemicals and 100% of the components are
No, you just forgot that batteries are a recycling issue, not a disposal issue. Recycling minimizes the amount of hazardous chemicals that are put into the environment. The battery components you're worried about entering the environment are exactly what recycling recovers.
You are aware that with the exception of aluminum recycling uses more energy and thus fossil fuels than creating a new product right?
I thought we were expanding our consideration beyond simple energy usage and looking at general environmental consequences. Not having to mine more nickel or lithium has benefits beyond the numbers of Joules involved.
I'm just trying to point out that we need to take a closer look at these things. Making something electric or recycled does not *waves hands* magically make it better.
Sure, well, if you want to look at things in a more nuanced manner then fine. You'll find that in most cases when you replace *waves hands* with what actually happens, then it is better. You can't just flip the bit from "recycling doesn't use hazardous chemicals" to "recycling doesn't not use hazardous chemicals" and call that a closer look.
Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power. Which is what they're doing here. After you've switched to using electricity for power, then any environmental improvements to the grid are automatically incorporated into your electric devices.
This is why switching to electric vehicles makes sense even in the context of electricity that currently comes from unclean sources. Not that it does in Vancouver, apparently.;)
Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else. We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.
Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them.
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".) She was eventually rehired after the usual legal squabble, which ended with the state AG ruling that the unamended oath did not obligated the signer to do military service!
Aw. I was hoping the issue was resolved when they balanced the score by hiring someone who amended the oath by inserting "exclusively through violence".
Finding out why we need air to breathe didn't entail the possibility of ripping a hole in the space time continuum, with dire consequences for the solar system, the galaxy, and possibly the local universe
Are you sure? We only know that it didn't happen, not that it wasn't a risk!
I'm just pointing this out so when the LHC fails to destroy the earth, you can say it was a possibility we lucked out on and not just uninformed paranoia.:)
My money is on a certain percentage of Gamma Ray Bursters being the signature of an advancing civilization snuffing out its first really high energy particle accelerator, and its planet
My money is on gamma ray bursts being the signature of an advancing civilization mastering the Intrinsic Field, when billions of Dr. Manhattans all depart their home world simultaneously to go explore the cosmos.
The nice thing about this bet is that if I'm right, we will be here to collect, however money will have ceased to have any meaning.
You have a point with expansion and the size of the universe... But as far as not seeing ones "this late" in the universe... When we look at extremely distant galaxies we're also looking at extremely ancient ones. Hubble's record is galaxies only 600 million years after the Big Bang. No signs of matter/anti-matter galaxy collisions at that time or more recently as of yet.
You know what that means, don't you? The only option left is to go prehistoric, and introduce Stonepunk. Advanced technology, built from nothing but wood and chipped stone lashed together with vines or sinews, and occasionally powered by Fire!
Where's Oog the Open Source Caveman when you need him?
IANAP, but I seem to recall that images that depict gravitational lenses tend to show stars near the lens deforming into arcs; in this movie stars in the background remain points, even though at least some of them would deform into arcs as they passed behind the object.
Also, watching the video on the New Scientist, stars definitely do get distorted and stretched around the black hole, just not into the large arcs you'll often see in pictures of gravitational lensing taken from our vantage point.
I'd wager most of the difference between the simulation and what you're expecting to see comes from where it's located, which is much nearer a source of lensing than we have the good fortune of being close too.
The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days
The crazy thing about eyes and this "oh they're too complex to have been evolved" stuff is that they evolved separately at least twice to my knowledge.
If common features between species are a case of 'designer' copy-and-paste, then why didn't we get squid eyes?
It even sort of implied the Zeroeth Law when the head AI decided that hurting some humans was okay, as long as it was for the greater good. The themes were there, not explored in depth but definitely present. The one I just mentioned was the part of the movie that made me feel most like I was watching something in the spirit of the book.
So yeah, it does have something in common with the book. Nevertheless, it's not a very good movie.
Laugh all you want. That is what the schools should be teaching.
Yeah, and it should be the Tooth Fairy doing the teaching. Sure that's impossible because the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, but that's how it should be damnit!
Pesky reality, always getting in the way of how things should be...
I'm not exactly sure what the rest of that stuff you're talking about is referring to.
It sounds like they're talking about entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and, well, I'll just let my homey MC Hawking explain why he's wrong:
Creationists always try to use the second law, to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw. The second law is quite precise about where it applies, only in a closed system must the entropy count rise. The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun, so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution.
That's true and great (says the Christian), but that just means there's zero reason to have Creationism (or its bullshit offspring, Intelligent Design) taught in science class. So, not what they're trying to do.
Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll let you in on a secret. Most pirates only wear an eye patch for show. When they're at home with their friends, they'll take the eye patch off.
cat puking up noodles or the boobage
I missed a very important "the" in this phrase the first time I read it. o_O
Photoshopping photos over 20 years old to show people using Photoshop. Then claim they are legit. "Photoshop is over 20 years old, you can clearly see here they were using it during the Civil War!"
You don't have to take it on trust.
I don't think you understand how this works.
They don't want to believe that nuclear waste isn't ZOMG SCARY.
Your explanation is long and complicated.
Ergo by claiming that complexity itself is a sign of duplicity, they can dismiss your explanation and continue believing what they want to believe.
Trust and math really have nothing to do with it. They never had any intent of trying to understand what you're saying or verifying your facts or anything else that might suggest a desire to be educated.
It appears to me that the real problem is every time researchers try to present evidence for an answer to your question, you move the goal posts.
No. The problem is that everything they accuse climatologists of -- having an a-priori conclusion they will do anything to support in spite of evidence, fabricating data, neglecting basic logic and the scientific method, deliberately misrepresenting data to skew it in their favor -- are all things the anti-AGW crowd does flagrantly every time the subject comes up.
They have no shame about doing these things themselves, nor do they have any shame about projecting these failings onto climatologists and being outraged about it.
But at the end of the day, the situation is obvious. The group of people who fail at basic scientific rigor are the ones who have no idea what that means and don't want to know.
Where is the harm in covering area with windmills?
Nothing, considering the land is hardly "covered" at all. It's certainly a very different kind of "covered" than what a coal or nuclear plant's footprint entails. Yes there are some things you can't do with the land that is occupied by a wind farm -- like build office buildings -- but you can do a lot of other things -- like farming or ranching.
This kind of bullet-point engineering is counterproductive, especially for the nuclear advocate because nuclear plants have a lot of bullet points against them. But on the actual merits, i.e. considering what each bullet means, nuclear looks quite good.
But not good enough to develop to the exclusion of wind, because wind is good and we can and should build more (and are building more). That's okay, because the real reason why wind isn't good enough to develop to the exclusion of nuclear is that it's simply not going to be able to take care of base load.
We need to be building nuclear plants and wind, and trying to play the two against each other is just a bad idea. Fortunately, between the extant development of wind and this new deal to build nuclear reactors, it looks like we might actually be headed down a sensible path.
I'm shocked, honestly.
The interesting part is that the de-mining process starts with the assumption that all of these mines will still detonate.
Explosives Disposal 101: Always assume an explosive device is functional, armed, and active.
And if that assumption is wrong, the mine will still be destroyed, so no biggie.
This experiment has lots of problems. *nom nom nom* First, microwave ovens don't always precisely match the given frequency. *chomp chomp* Second, and more importantly -- *chew chew swallow* -- identifying the hotspots and measuring the distance between them is difficult and error prone. *nom nom* And that's even when the chocolate is fresh! It's worse after it's already been partially melted. *stuff face* So I had to perform many experiments, using fresh chocolate each time, to get an accurate measurement.
In conclusion, this experiment rules. *nom nom nom nom*
So what do the zambonies run on? Pixie dust?
No, they run on propane, which is why they need to be replaced before "cleaning the source" will result in them being equally clean.
Oh yeah I forgot that recycling uses no hazardous chemicals and 100% of the components are
No, you just forgot that batteries are a recycling issue, not a disposal issue. Recycling minimizes the amount of hazardous chemicals that are put into the environment. The battery components you're worried about entering the environment are exactly what recycling recovers.
You are aware that with the exception of aluminum recycling uses more energy and thus fossil fuels than creating a new product right?
I thought we were expanding our consideration beyond simple energy usage and looking at general environmental consequences. Not having to mine more nickel or lithium has benefits beyond the numbers of Joules involved.
I'm just trying to point out that we need to take a closer look at these things. Making something electric or recycled does not *waves hands* magically make it better.
Sure, well, if you want to look at things in a more nuanced manner then fine. You'll find that in most cases when you replace *waves hands* with what actually happens, then it is better. You can't just flip the bit from "recycling doesn't use hazardous chemicals" to "recycling doesn't not use hazardous chemicals" and call that a closer look.
You also have to replace nothing.
Except all the devices that don't run off of grid power. Which is what they're doing here. After you've switched to using electricity for power, then any environmental improvements to the grid are automatically incorporated into your electric devices.
This is why switching to electric vehicles makes sense even in the context of electricity that currently comes from unclean sources. Not that it does in Vancouver, apparently. ;)
Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?
All manufacturing involves damage to the environment, and if we weren't making batteries it'd be something else. We can work on making manufacturing less damaging, but it's not going away.
Anyway, you should be recycling your batteries, not disposing of them.
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".) She was eventually rehired after the usual legal squabble, which ended with the state AG ruling that the unamended oath did not obligated the signer to do military service!
Aw. I was hoping the issue was resolved when they balanced the score by hiring someone who amended the oath by inserting "exclusively through violence".
Well if it makes you feel better, and you aren't too picky, I forbid you from being subversive.
He's dead man.. Saber-tooth got-em... sad really..
Damn! Where's Wolverine when you need him?!
Finding out why we need air to breathe didn't entail the possibility of ripping a hole in the space time continuum, with dire consequences for the solar system, the galaxy, and possibly the local universe
Are you sure? We only know that it didn't happen, not that it wasn't a risk!
I'm just pointing this out so when the LHC fails to destroy the earth, you can say it was a possibility we lucked out on and not just uninformed paranoia. :)
My money is on a certain percentage of Gamma Ray Bursters being the signature of an advancing civilization snuffing out its first really high energy particle accelerator, and its planet
My money is on gamma ray bursts being the signature of an advancing civilization mastering the Intrinsic Field, when billions of Dr. Manhattans all depart their home world simultaneously to go explore the cosmos.
The nice thing about this bet is that if I'm right, we will be here to collect, however money will have ceased to have any meaning.
You have a point with expansion and the size of the universe... But as far as not seeing ones "this late" in the universe... When we look at extremely distant galaxies we're also looking at extremely ancient ones. Hubble's record is galaxies only 600 million years after the Big Bang. No signs of matter/anti-matter galaxy collisions at that time or more recently as of yet.
You know what that means, don't you? The only option left is to go prehistoric, and introduce Stonepunk. Advanced technology, built from nothing but wood and chipped stone lashed together with vines or sinews, and occasionally powered by Fire!
Where's Oog the Open Source Caveman when you need him?
IANAP, but I seem to recall that images that depict gravitational lenses tend to show stars near the lens deforming into arcs; in this movie stars in the background remain points, even though at least some of them would deform into arcs as they passed behind the object.
Not necessarily, see Einstein's Cross.
Also, watching the video on the New Scientist, stars definitely do get distorted and stretched around the black hole, just not into the large arcs you'll often see in pictures of gravitational lensing taken from our vantage point.
I'd wager most of the difference between the simulation and what you're expecting to see comes from where it's located, which is much nearer a source of lensing than we have the good fortune of being close too.
The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days
The crazy thing about eyes and this "oh they're too complex to have been evolved" stuff is that they evolved separately at least twice to my knowledge.
If common features between species are a case of 'designer' copy-and-paste, then why didn't we get squid eyes?
It even sort of implied the Zeroeth Law when the head AI decided that hurting some humans was okay, as long as it was for the greater good. The themes were there, not explored in depth but definitely present. The one I just mentioned was the part of the movie that made me feel most like I was watching something in the spirit of the book.
So yeah, it does have something in common with the book. Nevertheless, it's not a very good movie.
He is whining about the fact that you can either be a political organization or a tax-exempt nonprofit; but not both.
Ah. So basically, the 1st Amendment getting in the way of the 1st Amendment. Waaaaaah!
Laugh all you want. That is what the schools should be teaching.
Yeah, and it should be the Tooth Fairy doing the teaching. Sure that's impossible because the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, but that's how it should be damnit!
Pesky reality, always getting in the way of how things should be...
I'm not exactly sure what the rest of that stuff you're talking about is referring to.
It sounds like they're talking about entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and, well, I'll just let my homey MC Hawking explain why he's wrong:
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
You didn't just waltz into an unlabeled building saying "I hope they serve coffee here"
I think I have a new hobby!
Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution.
That's true and great (says the Christian), but that just means there's zero reason to have Creationism (or its bullshit offspring, Intelligent Design) taught in science class. So, not what they're trying to do.
Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
Wait, what fucking law are you talking about?
Gentleman, please! Let's not fight. There's room in the awesome military of the future for both laser planes and rail gun frigates!