Not picking on you personally but most suggestions here just show that the authors have not taken the time to understand how hand counted paper operates. It's number one priority is trust. What "problem" are we fixing by using a counting machine?
I still don't get what you are trying to say, yes you can come up with physical concepts using other models besides math, people don't stop using levers because they don't know the math. However regardless if the maths comes first or last, it has the ability to map all those other models. Your mind is a calculation, 42 is the traditional answer.
See visualization, ie: what are you trying to say about visual thinking? I'm not saying we consiously think in equations to catch a ball. Yes, sevants can multiply hundred digit numbers by visualising colours and rattle off a thousand year calendar, so what? - Where do those visuals, inspirations, signs, (I call them symbols), come from from? Where in spacetime do they exist?
Maybe the cake is a lie, we have no way to tell. Science makes a leap of faith and says most of us saw Brian eating the cake, and he's still got the crumbs on his cardigain.
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. The universe seems mathematical if you use mathematics."
Sure there are "other tools", some are entertaining such as when I suspend disbelief and get into a movie, or crank "Ode to Joy" up to 11, great for the soul. We all have those uncommon perceptions, FWIW my advise is to learn to enjoy them. However fantasy just isn't as useful as critical thinking when contemplating what legendary philosphers Pink Floyd called "magnets and miracles". If you belive there is a better way to make sense of the universe then let's hear about it before we start shouting past each other.
"If you wear blue glasses, the sun itself is blue."
Maths describes our common perceptions in a common language, wearing blue glasses is one of those common perceptions, you're allowed to enjoy both levels.
"Except that neural computation is inherently non symbolic..."
And yet I close my eyes and I see symbols, emerging from those computations, right???
"this is your fallacy"
So where's the falsification, individual ants don't "know" the optimum search method but nevertheless the ant's nest performs that feat.
"you have no understanding of neurology."
I never claimed to have an "understanding of neurology" but zero is a little harsh. If you're not just shooting your mouth off and do know something then show me the falsification...
I will revise that part of my theory before the next cut&paste, something like..."Xenophon caved early, perhaps smelling a rat, he withdrew his support for the bill."
Conway had a "mathematical recreations" column in SciAm for years, brilliant stuff. The game of life was in an old copy I read in the mid 80's, it drove me nuts with pen and paper so I went and bought a secondhand AppleII for $80, hooked it up to a casette recorder and through the VCR's RF converter to the telly. Drove the wife nuts but I've been hooked on programing ever since...
Mathematics is said to have an "uncanny" ability to model the universe. My pet theory is what we call our mind is a self referencing MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the universe that emerges from the cellular colonies we refer to as ourselves.
Speaking of Adams, a quote from TFA: "Conway is set on explaining to the University community and the public over six weeks the tenets of their 'Free Will Theorem'." 6 x 7days = 42, spooky huh?
All I'm asking for is a direct quote, do you have one?
I personally don't give a rat's arse wether Conroy is or isn't in favor. However I am interested to see if someone can poke holes in my idea because I can't. I've been posting this simple mythbusting task since June last year, so far nobdy has busted my Humphrey theory....not even a link to a false alarm.
To paraphrase from the monkeysphere (IMHO, one of the best short essays on the net); We all snicker when the preacher gets caught snorting coke of a hooker's arse. Now you could argue the preacher deserves to be exposed (so to speak) but the hooker didn't agree to having her photo blasted around the planet for the standard hourly rate, the hooker doesn't matter because we're busy amusing ourselves screwing a characticure outside our monkeysphere.
The guy with the photo's (or some other guy?) has been claiming the same thing for years, he has made some ripples on the net in the past. Coincidently he makes a splash in the tabloids when Hanson starts talking about her "comeback".....again.... This guy may have had all sorts of medications but the pills haven't hampered his legal abilities, from what I saw of his statements he has maintained "I could be wrong, it may not be her" but insists "her name was Pauline". And yeah, it would be nice to think Pauline is laughing, but I doubt it. Hanson gets another 15 minutes of fame which she spends telling the interviewer "You don't understand. They ARE out to get me!", then storms off because nobody takes her seriously.
Spin masters no longer need to think up the story, there are ready made "scandals" on the web for any concivable purpose all they need do is pick out some favorites for people on their shit list and get them 'printed' at the right time.
"it'll be easier for countries that didn't emit much in the past to keep their emissions down than to get the USA to stop emitting"
China is no pushover - you can barter with, but can't ignore the history that got us here and still keep the newbie coal burners at the table.
"Start the carbon auctions at a minimal cost at first - maybe not even an auction, just $1 per X tons of CO2. Then take the amount sold, drop by 1-10% a year. Credits are only good for a year."
That's the basic idea, best estimates are the Earth can cope with 3Gt/yr, we currently emit 10Gt/yr. The negotiations are now about which governments get how many permits and why, the Brazilian proposal is only one formulation where each nation has the same number of permits issued on a per capita basis when looked at from 1960-2060, in 2060 the permits are permanently set at 3Gt/yr + transferable credits for blocks of carbon extracted from the system. (IIRC 1958 was when NAS first warned policy makers about CO2 emmisions).
"It's more complicated than that, but could indeed be part of any 'trading' program."
Complicated means corruptable, I like rain-forest as much as the next guy but they don't belong in this market because of the complexity of measuring the cost/benifit in term of tons of carbon.
"It's kind of typical of politicians to say things in a way that sound like they're saying something else. You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?"
I agree, speaking of "saying things" I still haven't heard Conroy say he is in favor of a blacklist...here let me clean up then cut&paste my theory from the last story...
Labor is playing the same game with Fielding as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.
Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's also need a coalition to sucessfully block but only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.
Xenophon[sic] and Fielding (the two independents) both wanted a mandatory filter, (Xenophon has an anti-gambling platform). Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon to his credit has seen the glaring human rights error in his plan to ban offshore gambling sites, Fielding has nowhere to go because he is now in the position of voting for a blacklist that bans his supporters (anti-abortionists), an independent's vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, the Lib's, Labor and Greens are happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, Rudd is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard,....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.
Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.
It took 50yrs to plan and build all the existing coal plants, I don't see why we can't replace them with something cleaner over the next 50yrs as they reach their end of life, but it will only happen if the market has an incentive to do so. If they don't get that incentive we will still be talking about it in 2060, by that time the flat-earth army will have their "proof".
My personal preference is cap and trade as espoused by the Brazilian proposal since it addresses the inequities of GH gasses released since 1960. If you want a credit then I think you should be able to point to a one ton block of carbon that you have taken out of the system long term (eg: biochar). This would put coal on an equal footing with renewables and nukes, ie: you buy credits/permits to burn coal but you get reimbursed with credits for whatever you capture in the chimney. And yeah, a dutch auction is a good way to maximise the return to state coffers and they can then use that cash to offset the cost to consumers with tax breaks....well...I can dream can't I?
If I'm not mistaken all US federal and state web sites are in the domain.gov, here in Australia they are in.gov.au which is further broken into state domains such as vic.gov.au. This makes a global search easy using google's "site:" search modifier, eg: pork site:gov gets around 248K hits - that's a lot of pork!
I think building more nukes and developing commercial pebble-bed reactors is a no-brainer but they won't help with existing coal plants that have still got decades of use left in them. I also don't think carbon capture will work as advertised, IIRC there is one pilot plant somewhere in the EU that is not looking promising. All I'm saying is some people in the industry (with $$$) think carbon capture is a good long shot right now and are placing their bets. However like I said in my OP what they really want is some certainty in the form of an international carbon market, if the price of carbon is $0 as it is now then any single company is put at a financial disadvantage for capturing it. Their wind farms are in the same boat now, if someone else down the road can burn coal without paying to dispose of their waste properly then in effect they are getting a subsidy from the commons to compete against the wind farm.
In other words I think Shell are being financially realistic in that they don't expect governments to get their shit together anytime soon, I hope they are wrong about that and right about carbon capture.
Slashdot Mirror
Not picking on you personally but most suggestions here just show that the authors have not taken the time to understand how hand counted paper operates. It's number one priority is trust. What "problem" are we fixing by using a counting machine?
I still don't get what you are trying to say, yes you can come up with physical concepts using other models besides math, people don't stop using levers because they don't know the math. However regardless if the maths comes first or last, it has the ability to map all those other models. Your mind is a calculation, 42 is the traditional answer.
"see: Visual thinking"
See visualization, ie: what are you trying to say about visual thinking? I'm not saying we consiously think in equations to catch a ball. Yes, sevants can multiply hundred digit numbers by visualising colours and rattle off a thousand year calendar, so what? - Where do those visuals, inspirations, signs, (I call them symbols), come from from? Where in spacetime do they exist?
Maybe the cake is a lie, we have no way to tell. Science makes a leap of faith and says most of us saw Brian eating the cake, and he's still got the crumbs on his cardigain.
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. The universe seems mathematical if you use mathematics."
Sure there are "other tools", some are entertaining such as when I suspend disbelief and get into a movie, or crank "Ode to Joy" up to 11, great for the soul. We all have those uncommon perceptions, FWIW my advise is to learn to enjoy them. However fantasy just isn't as useful as critical thinking when contemplating what legendary philosphers Pink Floyd called "magnets and miracles". If you belive there is a better way to make sense of the universe then let's hear about it before we start shouting past each other.
"If you wear blue glasses, the sun itself is blue."
Maths describes our common perceptions in a common language, wearing blue glasses is one of those common perceptions, you're allowed to enjoy both levels.
I stand corrected, it was Martin Gardner writing about Conway. Here's something odd.
Nah, it's already been done - just waiting for the tortises to catch on. ;)
"Except that neural computation is inherently non symbolic..."
And yet I close my eyes and I see symbols, emerging from those computations, right???
"this is your fallacy"
So where's the falsification, individual ants don't "know" the optimum search method but nevertheless the ant's nest performs that feat.
"you have no understanding of neurology."
I never claimed to have an "understanding of neurology" but zero is a little harsh. If you're not just shooting your mouth off and do know something then show me the falsification...
....especially so if you measure the universe in decks of cards.
I will revise that part of my theory before the next cut&paste, something like..."Xenophon caved early, perhaps smelling a rat, he withdrew his support for the bill."
Sure you can get it retail but you need a counting machine to handle wholesale.
Maybe, I haven't paid as much attention to him because he gave up early.
Conway had a "mathematical recreations" column in SciAm for years, brilliant stuff. The game of life was in an old copy I read in the mid 80's, it drove me nuts with pen and paper so I went and bought a secondhand AppleII for $80, hooked it up to a casette recorder and through the VCR's RF converter to the telly. Drove the wife nuts but I've been hooked on programing ever since...
Mathematics is said to have an "uncanny" ability to model the universe. My pet theory is what we call our mind is a self referencing MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the universe that emerges from the cellular colonies we refer to as ourselves.
Speaking of Adams, a quote from TFA: "Conway is set on explaining to the University community and the public over six weeks the tenets of their 'Free Will Theorem'." 6 x 7days = 42, spooky huh?
All I'm asking for is a direct quote, do you have one?
I personally don't give a rat's arse wether Conroy is or isn't in favor. However I am interested to see if someone can poke holes in my idea because I can't. I've been posting this simple mythbusting task since June last year, so far nobdy has busted my Humphrey theory....not even a link to a false alarm.
To paraphrase from the monkeysphere (IMHO, one of the best short essays on the net); We all snicker when the preacher gets caught snorting coke of a hooker's arse. Now you could argue the preacher deserves to be exposed (so to speak) but the hooker didn't agree to having her photo blasted around the planet for the standard hourly rate, the hooker doesn't matter because we're busy amusing ourselves screwing a characticure outside our monkeysphere.
The guy with the photo's (or some other guy?) has been claiming the same thing for years, he has made some ripples on the net in the past. Coincidently he makes a splash in the tabloids when Hanson starts talking about her "comeback".....again.... This guy may have had all sorts of medications but the pills haven't hampered his legal abilities, from what I saw of his statements he has maintained "I could be wrong, it may not be her" but insists "her name was Pauline". And yeah, it would be nice to think Pauline is laughing, but I doubt it. Hanson gets another 15 minutes of fame which she spends telling the interviewer "You don't understand. They ARE out to get me!", then storms off because nobody takes her seriously.
Spin masters no longer need to think up the story, there are ready made "scandals" on the web for any concivable purpose all they need do is pick out some favorites for people on their shit list and get them 'printed' at the right time.
state.ar.us
Reminds me of toysRus, sure it's not a shop front forooooh...never mind.
ok,ok, I took it too far and fucked up....I withdraw the comment.
"it'll be easier for countries that didn't emit much in the past to keep their emissions down than to get the USA to stop emitting"
China is no pushover - you can barter with, but can't ignore the history that got us here and still keep the newbie coal burners at the table.
"Start the carbon auctions at a minimal cost at first - maybe not even an auction, just $1 per X tons of CO2. Then take the amount sold, drop by 1-10% a year. Credits are only good for a year."
That's the basic idea, best estimates are the Earth can cope with 3Gt/yr, we currently emit 10Gt/yr. The negotiations are now about which governments get how many permits and why, the Brazilian proposal is only one formulation where each nation has the same number of permits issued on a per capita basis when looked at from 1960-2060, in 2060 the permits are permanently set at 3Gt/yr + transferable credits for blocks of carbon extracted from the system. (IIRC 1958 was when NAS first warned policy makers about CO2 emmisions).
"It's more complicated than that, but could indeed be part of any 'trading' program."
Complicated means corruptable, I like rain-forest as much as the next guy but they don't belong in this market because of the complexity of measuring the cost/benifit in term of tons of carbon.
"It's kind of typical of politicians to say things in a way that sound like they're saying something else. You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?"
I agree, speaking of "saying things" I still haven't heard Conroy say he is in favor of a blacklist...here let me clean up then cut&paste my theory from the last story...
Labor is playing the same game with Fielding as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.
Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's also need a coalition to sucessfully block but only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.
Xenophon[sic] and Fielding (the two independents) both wanted a mandatory filter, (Xenophon has an anti-gambling platform). Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon to his credit has seen the glaring human rights error in his plan to ban offshore gambling sites, Fielding has nowhere to go because he is now in the position of voting for a blacklist that bans his supporters (anti-abortionists), an independent's vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, the Lib's, Labor and Greens are happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, Rudd is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard,....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.
Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.
Love the profound wit in your .sig.
It took 50yrs to plan and build all the existing coal plants, I don't see why we can't replace them with something cleaner over the next 50yrs as they reach their end of life, but it will only happen if the market has an incentive to do so. If they don't get that incentive we will still be talking about it in 2060, by that time the flat-earth army will have their "proof".
My personal preference is cap and trade as espoused by the Brazilian proposal since it addresses the inequities of GH gasses released since 1960. If you want a credit then I think you should be able to point to a one ton block of carbon that you have taken out of the system long term (eg: biochar). This would put coal on an equal footing with renewables and nukes, ie: you buy credits/permits to burn coal but you get reimbursed with credits for whatever you capture in the chimney. And yeah, a dutch auction is a good way to maximise the return to state coffers and they can then use that cash to offset the cost to consumers with tax breaks....well...I can dream can't I?
If I'm not mistaken all US federal and state web sites are in the domain .gov, here in Australia they are in .gov.au which is further broken into state domains such as vic.gov.au. This makes a global search easy using google's "site:" search modifier, eg: pork site:gov gets around 248K hits - that's a lot of pork!
I think building more nukes and developing commercial pebble-bed reactors is a no-brainer but they won't help with existing coal plants that have still got decades of use left in them. I also don't think carbon capture will work as advertised, IIRC there is one pilot plant somewhere in the EU that is not looking promising. All I'm saying is some people in the industry (with $$$) think carbon capture is a good long shot right now and are placing their bets. However like I said in my OP what they really want is some certainty in the form of an international carbon market, if the price of carbon is $0 as it is now then any single company is put at a financial disadvantage for capturing it. Their wind farms are in the same boat now, if someone else down the road can burn coal without paying to dispose of their waste properly then in effect they are getting a subsidy from the commons to compete against the wind farm.
In other words I think Shell are being financially realistic in that they don't expect governments to get their shit together anytime soon, I hope they are wrong about that and right about carbon capture.
Personally I'm skeptical of carbon capture but I think the question "is it practical" needs to be investigated to death because:
1. If it's impractical quackary then we can shut up about it and move on.
2. If it is practical it will be a "game changer".
Nothing they could find in wind or solar would be as valuable as practical capture technology.