The Panda's thumb is by Stephen J Gould who IMHO is an excellent authour, it is not what I was thinking off. Not sure now of the title but it had something to do with Panda's and was basically the same old creationist nonesense.
...and since the heat source is deep inside the moon it's not unlikely that the ice that escapes has made it way to the surface as steam, ie: the journey to the surface might act as a natural distillery as the water in the fissures repeatedly boils and freezes.
A link to the electric universe nonesense posted by slashdot's #1 EU fanboy is about as informative as "The DaVinci Code", "State of Fear" or "The Panda's thumb".
Talk to some IPCC contributors, or at least start your mythbusting here. Not convinced...look in the appendix of the IPCC reports and check out the reseach by all the contributors, that by design represent the considered scientific opinion of most of the national scientific bodies on the planet.
Sure we have spent billions in the last decade confirming the science but why does the US still find itself isolated at Bali? We now know (in gigatons/yr roughly what has to be done by when), the first time I heard the target of 450ppm was from Lord Oxbourough when he was chairman of Shell. The negotiators have squezeed enougn for "national intrest" already, time to face reality and accept the need for targets that the rest of the world have already basically agreed on.
I applaude your appeal to skeptisim, this is exactly why the IPCC was formed and with 20/20 hindsight the IPCC "alarmists" look decidedly conservative (re: Artic ice in particular). There has been sufficient eveidence to be concerned since at least the start of the Kyoto negotiations. The papers talk about wet feet and rarely mention crop failures, collapsed fisheries or the refugee crisis that would occur should the Hymalaian[sic] glaciers shrink signifigantly.
I urge you to use skepticisim to figure out how one could hope to profit ( poltically or financially ) from actively spreading specific bits of disinformation, there are enough "mythbuster" sites out there to get to know the main shills and anti-science fiction writers ( eg: Fred Singer, Michael Crichton ).
PS: I'm not from the US and couldn't give a rat's arse about AG's politics, the message in his film is the IPCC's message (ie: not his), he has done an excellent job in delivering that message to the layman at an international level and was duly recognised for it. He delivered his political message in person in Bali, just the other day. From where I stand (Australia) it looks to me that it's up to the audience to confuse his two different roles.
My biggest concern is that the general public often don't know how to sort the shit from the clay in scientific matters, you have obviously done your research.
"Now imagine the archaeologists sifting through an ancient Roman village and finding an obviously non-naturally-occurring object made out of an advanced alloy in a layer suggesting that it is thousands of years old."
Just because we can't replicate what our ancestors have done doesn't mean our ancestors had help from aliens.
Damasucus steel - "Unfortunately, the technique of producing wootz Damascus steel blades is a lost art. The date of the last blades produced with the highest-quality damascene patterns is uncertain, but is probably around 1750; it is unlikely that blades displaying low-quality damascene patterns were produced later than the early 19th century. Debate has persisted in the metallurgy community over the past 200 years as to how these blades were made and why the surface pattern appeared. Research efforts over the years have claimed the discovery of methods to reproduce wootz Damascus steel blades, but all of these methods suffer from the same problem--modern bladesmiths have been unable to use the methods to reproduce the blades. The successful reproduction of wootz Damascus blades requires that blades be produced that match the chemical composition, possess the characteristic damascene surface pattern, and possess the same internal microstructure that causes the surface pattern."
...Hamas (the democratically elected terriorists/government/aid agency/prisoners/scapegoats) today ordered the streets and roof tops of the west bank paved with with shards of broken mirrors.
There are signs at Tullamarine airport in Melbourne Australia that indicate a $5K fine for 'joke' comments about bombs or terrorists. I imagine in the US they just shoot you on the spot but over here the gaurds don't have guns and their beagles are sniffing for apples.
The inconsistency is in your strawman - Where did I say that Albert's work was not peer-reviewed? I did state his paper was not referenced, he assumed anyone who had a hope of understanding it would be a physicist/mathematician and would be able to follow the argument. ( Hint: I belive it is common for mathematicians to submit unreferenced proofs )
As for Pauling, every now and then there will be a book or document that triggers a revolution in thinking (Origin of species, Selfish Gene, Principa Mathematica, Bible, ect ) but the vast majority of such books end up being drivel when put to the test. Albert himself ended up ranting against quantum mechanics. Newton wrote over a million words on the significance of the number 666 and stuck needles in his own eyeball.
None of this means I'm anti-intellectual, but I have been around long enough to 'know' that smart people have a lot of crazy ideas and adherence to the philosophy of science is the best way to sort the shit from the clay. You may 'know' that Pauling was a genius and that his vitamin C book was discredited, but that's only because you researched it yourself at one point.
In short, the fact that Pauling wrote a book is good reason to read it but a poor reason to cite it unless it's claims are backed up by peer-reviewed research, in which case referencing the book is no different to referencing an encyclopedia.
Indeed, the quote in the summary has the collary - "and they are in his shared folder". My idea of fair use would be cutting a CD for your mum not distribution to the entire planet. BTW: This doesn't mean I agree with their "king canute" tactics but until the laws and treaties catch up with the technological change, they do have a point.
Your right of course in that capitalisim is a tool and greed is a human trait, but what the MAFIAA are doing IS capitalisim - just not by the rules you like.
Actually, you did mention peer-review but then implied it didn't matter because of who he was - this is most definitely a "red pen" mistake by any standard of academic research.
I was objecting to your convoluted appeal to authority that failed to mention if Pauling's vitamin C ramblings were peer-reviewed or not.
The reason you should reject WP as an academic reference is because it's an encyclopedia (ie: a second hand source). The same is true for Britannica, it has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of media or the number of Nobel's on the mantlepiece.
If it's your job to teach people how to reseach then IMHO you should try to be a little more succinct in your explainations as to why encyclopedias are unacceptable as an acedemic reference.
Yes, however in my day none of the lecturer's ever told me that they "hate brittanica with a passion", encyclopedias were never cited because (right or wrong) they are never the primary source.
So, what is it about WP that gives rise to such strong emotions in academics who have never bothered to try and use the site as one would use an encyclopedia?
"Your prof would probably red-pen it and say "this has been discredited", but that's a big difference from red-penning and saying "this is not a credible reference"."
Appealing to authority is the anti-thesis of the scientific method and will lead to paridoxical statements like the one quoted above where "discredited" end up meaning "credible but wrong". Einstien's 1905 paper was three pages long and had zero references (although he should have given Newton a nod), to Albert's surprise it was instantly recognised as credible by figures of authority in the physics world.
It would be nice to see proffessors pull their collective heads out of their acedemic arses and judge a site by it's utility. There is no single oracle that can answer all (or even most) of your questions, but there are plenety of places to find information and cross-check.
Naturally if you are writting a paper or thesis then all citations should go to the original peer-reviewed source, but other than in those specific circumastances I fail to see why a reference to the correct answer should be dismissed on the basis of superficial and subjective criteria such as the percieved authority of the authour.
There have been a lot of improvements in efficency and noise reduction over the last decade, and the capital costs of installation has been dropping at a rate of ~15% each time the installed base doubles in size. I don't propose that wind alone is a practical solution but with what is available now it will be a big part of it. If your into tinfoil hat stuff, it's politically interesting to note that GE is a big player in weapons, windmills and nuclear reators.
Not so fast, it is possible that the temporal stability of train tracks took precedence over fuel efficency in the final design of the transportation device.
"How much environmental damage are we willing to do in the name of wind power providing base load?"
Wind power is the least environmentally damaging of all and takes up the least amount of space, but depending on your idea of beauty they could fuck up your view somewhat.
"Wait, aren't the waves and tides always moving somewhere? What about geothermal?"
AFAIK wave, tidal and geothermal are nowhere near as efficient as wind but I could be wrong. And if I am wrong then there is even more reason to belive the "only FF, Hydro, or nuclear can provide base load" meme is a red herring.
"How many [extra] turbines would we have to construct to take advantage of all the 'somewheres' around?"
IIRC about 10% more than what is used to generate the required amount of power, since the complete absence of wind across even half a continent is an extremely rare occurance (ie: has never been recorded) there is no need to transport it that far.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, that is exactly what I was thinking of.
Hmmm, yes I seem to have screwed the name up.
The Panda's thumb is by Stephen J Gould who IMHO is an excellent authour, it is not what I was thinking off. Not sure now of the title but it had something to do with Panda's and was basically the same old creationist nonesense.
...and since the heat source is deep inside the moon it's not unlikely that the ice that escapes has made it way to the surface as steam, ie: the journey to the surface might act as a natural distillery as the water in the fissures repeatedly boils and freezes.
A link to the electric universe nonesense posted by slashdot's #1 EU fanboy is about as informative as "The DaVinci Code", "State of Fear" or "The Panda's thumb".
No, Telstra is stuck in 1993. The rest of us don't know what day it is and don't care.
Talk to some IPCC contributors, or at least start your mythbusting here. Not convinced...look in the appendix of the IPCC reports and check out the reseach by all the contributors, that by design represent the considered scientific opinion of most of the national scientific bodies on the planet.
Sure we have spent billions in the last decade confirming the science but why does the US still find itself isolated at Bali? We now know (in gigatons/yr roughly what has to be done by when), the first time I heard the target of 450ppm was from Lord Oxbourough when he was chairman of Shell. The negotiators have squezeed enougn for "national intrest" already, time to face reality and accept the need for targets that the rest of the world have already basically agreed on.
I applaude your appeal to skeptisim, this is exactly why the IPCC was formed and with 20/20 hindsight the IPCC "alarmists" look decidedly conservative (re: Artic ice in particular). There has been sufficient eveidence to be concerned since at least the start of the Kyoto negotiations. The papers talk about wet feet and rarely mention crop failures, collapsed fisheries or the refugee crisis that would occur should the Hymalaian[sic] glaciers shrink signifigantly.
I urge you to use skepticisim to figure out how one could hope to profit ( poltically or financially ) from actively spreading specific bits of disinformation, there are enough "mythbuster" sites out there to get to know the main shills and anti-science fiction writers ( eg: Fred Singer, Michael Crichton ).
PS: I'm not from the US and couldn't give a rat's arse about AG's politics, the message in his film is the IPCC's message (ie: not his), he has done an excellent job in delivering that message to the layman at an international level and was duly recognised for it. He delivered his political message in person in Bali, just the other day. From where I stand (Australia) it looks to me that it's up to the audience to confuse his two different roles.
My biggest concern is that the general public often don't know how to sort the shit from the clay in scientific matters, you have obviously done your research.
"Well, of course no "proven" theory has later been found to wrong either has it?"
Strike two, equate science and proof again and your outta here!
Climate change: Did you fall for the "science has nothing to do with consenus" meme?
Cold fusion: Rejected as a worthwhile inquiry since after a lot of attempts nobody has been able to confirm the original finding.
"we really don't have much of a definition of "intelligence." All we really have is general notion of "like us""
Precisely! The most common message recieved from our closest evolutionary cousins is delivered by flying turd.
"Now imagine the archaeologists sifting through an ancient Roman village and finding an obviously non-naturally-occurring object made out of an advanced alloy in a layer suggesting that it is thousands of years old."
Just because we can't replicate what our ancestors have done doesn't mean our ancestors had help from aliens.
Damasucus steel - "Unfortunately, the technique of producing wootz Damascus steel blades is a lost art. The date of the last blades produced with the highest-quality damascene patterns is uncertain, but is probably around 1750; it is unlikely that blades displaying low-quality damascene patterns were produced later than the early 19th century. Debate has persisted in the metallurgy community over the past 200 years as to how these blades were made and why the surface pattern appeared. Research efforts over the years have claimed the discovery of methods to reproduce wootz Damascus steel blades, but all of these methods suffer from the same problem--modern bladesmiths have been unable to use the methods to reproduce the blades. The successful reproduction of wootz Damascus blades requires that blades be produced that match the chemical composition, possess the characteristic damascene surface pattern, and possess the same internal microstructure that causes the surface pattern."
...Hamas (the democratically elected terriorists/government/aid agency/prisoners/scapegoats) today ordered the streets and roof tops of the west bank paved with with shards of broken mirrors.
There are signs at Tullamarine airport in Melbourne Australia that indicate a $5K fine for 'joke' comments about bombs or terrorists. I imagine in the US they just shoot you on the spot but over here the gaurds don't have guns and their beagles are sniffing for apples.
The inconsistency is in your strawman - Where did I say that Albert's work was not peer-reviewed? I did state his paper was not referenced, he assumed anyone who had a hope of understanding it would be a physicist/mathematician and would be able to follow the argument. ( Hint: I belive it is common for mathematicians to submit unreferenced proofs )
As for Pauling, every now and then there will be a book or document that triggers a revolution in thinking (Origin of species, Selfish Gene, Principa Mathematica, Bible, ect ) but the vast majority of such books end up being drivel when put to the test. Albert himself ended up ranting against quantum mechanics. Newton wrote over a million words on the significance of the number 666 and stuck needles in his own eyeball.
None of this means I'm anti-intellectual, but I have been around long enough to 'know' that smart people have a lot of crazy ideas and adherence to the philosophy of science is the best way to sort the shit from the clay. You may 'know' that Pauling was a genius and that his vitamin C book was discredited, but that's only because you researched it yourself at one point.
In short, the fact that Pauling wrote a book is good reason to read it but a poor reason to cite it unless it's claims are backed up by peer-reviewed research, in which case referencing the book is no different to referencing an encyclopedia.
Indeed, the quote in the summary has the collary - "and they are in his shared folder". My idea of fair use would be cutting a CD for your mum not distribution to the entire planet. BTW: This doesn't mean I agree with their "king canute" tactics but until the laws and treaties catch up with the technological change, they do have a point.
Your right of course in that capitalisim is a tool and greed is a human trait, but what the MAFIAA are doing IS capitalisim - just not by the rules you like.
Actually, you did mention peer-review but then implied it didn't matter because of who he was - this is most definitely a "red pen" mistake by any standard of academic research.
I was objecting to your convoluted appeal to authority that failed to mention if Pauling's vitamin C ramblings were peer-reviewed or not.
The reason you should reject WP as an academic reference is because it's an encyclopedia (ie: a second hand source). The same is true for Britannica, it has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of media or the number of Nobel's on the mantlepiece.
If it's your job to teach people how to reseach then IMHO you should try to be a little more succinct in your explainations as to why encyclopedias are unacceptable as an acedemic reference.
Yes, however in my day none of the lecturer's ever told me that they "hate brittanica with a passion", encyclopedias were never cited because (right or wrong) they are never the primary source.
So, what is it about WP that gives rise to such strong emotions in academics who have never bothered to try and use the site as one would use an encyclopedia?
"Your prof would probably red-pen it and say "this has been discredited", but that's a big difference from red-penning and saying "this is not a credible reference"."
Appealing to authority is the anti-thesis of the scientific method and will lead to paridoxical statements like the one quoted above where "discredited" end up meaning "credible but wrong". Einstien's 1905 paper was three pages long and had zero references (although he should have given Newton a nod), to Albert's surprise it was instantly recognised as credible by figures of authority in the physics world.
It would be nice to see proffessors pull their collective heads out of their acedemic arses and judge a site by it's utility. There is no single oracle that can answer all (or even most) of your questions, but there are plenety of places to find information and cross-check.
Naturally if you are writting a paper or thesis then all citations should go to the original peer-reviewed source, but other than in those specific circumastances I fail to see why a reference to the correct answer should be dismissed on the basis of superficial and subjective criteria such as the percieved authority of the authour.
This GP is obviously speaking from many years of experience, and not just in IT.
There have been a lot of improvements in efficency and noise reduction over the last decade, and the capital costs of installation has been dropping at a rate of ~15% each time the installed base doubles in size. I don't propose that wind alone is a practical solution but with what is available now it will be a big part of it. If your into tinfoil hat stuff, it's politically interesting to note that GE is a big player in weapons, windmills and nuclear reators.
Not so fast, it is possible that the temporal stability of train tracks took precedence over fuel efficency in the final design of the transportation device.
"How much environmental damage are we willing to do in the name of wind power providing base load?"
Wind power is the least environmentally damaging of all and takes up the least amount of space, but depending on your idea of beauty they could fuck up your view somewhat.
"Wait, aren't the waves and tides always moving somewhere? What about geothermal?"
AFAIK wave, tidal and geothermal are nowhere near as efficient as wind but I could be wrong. And if I am wrong then there is even more reason to belive the "only FF, Hydro, or nuclear can provide base load" meme is a red herring.
"How many [extra] turbines would we have to construct to take advantage of all the 'somewheres' around?"
IIRC about 10% more than what is used to generate the required amount of power, since the complete absence of wind across even half a continent is an extremely rare occurance (ie: has never been recorded) there is no need to transport it that far.
Not without doing the research myself. ;)