The discoverers of the greenhouse effect predicted that temperature would rise as carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Carbon dioxide concentrations rose and temperatures have indeed risen. The prediction has held up well.
Computer modelling has added nothing to this. No computer model had produced better results than simply drawing a straight line through the graph.
The fact that temperatures are rising is not not news. We have known this for a while.
The fact that yet another untested model has made a quantitative prediction is not news. It is not even informative.
That's not correct, it's deliberately obfuscated. I know this as a gnupod user. On my 3rd gen iPod my music is sensibly layed out, indexed correctly and works just fine.
The big problem with iTunes is its obnoxious habit of wiping iPod tracks it doesn't have in its own database.
Information is not a democracy, so then, what is it? An ogliarchy? I don't think that statement has much meaning. The majority view does not determines truth, but neither does it determine content found on Wikipedia. In general, contributors seem to respect well sourced contributions, and do not simply replace them with their own unfounded views. I've found Wikipedia discussion pages to be very polite and reasoned places despite some most contentious subjects, see UKIP for example.
As for the ignorant rednecks who do not wish to have their children taught things they themselves do not believe in, well then that seems fair enough. Do you expect them to say, "We don't believe in Darwin round these parts but, gee, we'll make sure that our children do if that's what smart professors think is best"? You scorn them for passing their beliefs onto their children instead of deferring to their betters.
Comments like this always amaze me. What an assumption! There do exist historians who heave read and written huge amounts on the period, and come to the conclusion that large corporations supported anti-trust, precisley to use the power of government over their competitors. Murray Rothbard springs to mind.
I listen to my music on a cd3o gadget and initially I ripped at 192 CBR and it was somehow much less satisying that the Marantz CD player I'd been using. However, when I went to 192 VBR it just felt great - there was no compromise required. VBR is massively superior to constant.
Specifically, would it not be possible to use an satellite array to track the weather? By combining data from multiple, widely-spaced receivers, isn't it possible to identify the source of different signals?
Of course, the additional satellites and computing power required to do this would be hugely expensive but then again, so too is the cost of policing all this spectrum.
Is this practical? I'm thinking along the lines of a phased-array radar, or the techniques for constructing 3-D models from a set of 2-D images.
There was a fairly well received theory that Neanderthals were
ordinary humans suffering from iodine defficiency. Okay, so it likely isn't true, but the theory was quite well worked out and shows how something as simple as a nutritional defficiency can radically affect an entire group of people the same way. Perhaps a gentic defect could produce the same effect in an entire population bred from a single individual? I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of the the parent post's suggestion. It's early days yet, and the idea of a brand new human species is quite radical itself.
This isn't actually an RFID question, but I'm wondering what other uses EM powered circuits may be put to. Could a remote control for TVs be produced that worked this way? The TV would send out periodic EM pulses, and the remote could use backscatter to then signal back its state.
Also, a longstanding dream of mine is the wireless light switch. It could signal back its state to to an EM transponder in each room. Light switches would then be affixed to walls with blu-tack or whatever. This sounds kind of geeky, but perhaps it would be cheaper than re-wiring a wall? Would this work?
Since when did the state own its citizens? Bobby Fischer is esentially being hunted for refusing to co-operate with U.S. propaganda. If Fischer helped the government of Serbia commit a crime then he's a criminal. Otherwise, a game of chess is just a game if chess.
For a 400 s specific impulse, getting to mach 3 requires a 1.276 takeoff to payload ration. On the other, making Mach 25 requires 7.66 takeoff to payload ration. That's why Spaceship One is self contained, whilst the Shuttle requires vast external fuel tanks and external boosters. It's hardly trivially easy.
Now if we could efficiently generate electricity, we might have an efficient total system. I don't see that happening soon.
I am not a physicist (IANAP?), so maybe I will be shot down, but as I understand things, this may not be possible. Electrical and Mechanical energy are very low in entropy, whereas heat is energy in it's most entropic form. To convert high entropy energy, such as heat, to low entropy energy, such as electricity, you must dispose of entropy at the source, by dumping some heat at some lower temperature. Most electricty is generated by heat engines, so distributing heat energy in this way requires that you dump heat at the source instead of at the end-point, where it's needed. Combined heat and power is handy as it makes use of this heat that must be dumped.
Re:WAY simplistic
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You don't even need a book, a simple two line graph will suffice. One graph shows world wide demand-that is going UP. Another graph line shows production-that will be going down as fields leave their "peak" where it's the cheapest to extract in terms of BTU's --> in to get BTU's -- out. Those lines will cross, then go in opposite directions, and the result is quite literally madmax, the movie, in spades.
For fifty years, demand has not exceeded supply. Why is that? It's because demand is not a constant. Demand for a product dependends upon the price. Were oil completely free, like air, I daresay we would fly around in supersonic rocket-ships. If suppliers find their stocks are getting low, they will raise their prices to preserve availability.
I'm not one of these nutty extropian types who think that all will be well somehow. I find the peak oil scenario to be extrememly worrying. I do hope we can appply sound economics to the problem. The point is, dropping production, in a free-market economy, will not produce a general gasoline shortage, it will cause a rise in price. Now, if you personally can't afford the gas, you will experience a shortage. But that's not 'quite literally madmax' and it won't be all that sudden. I'd guess the first victims will be in aerospace. Travel is so much less essential than food production and distribution, and consumes a lot of fuel so when the price of both begin to rise, air travel will be first to be cut out.
I agree that this is not going to be fun. I'd also agree that many good free-market economists are incredibly complacent about peak-oil in arguing 'the market will provide'. Personally, I respect both the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of supply and demand.
Slashdot Mirror
The discoverers of the greenhouse effect predicted that temperature would rise as carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Carbon dioxide concentrations rose and temperatures have indeed risen. The prediction has held up well.
Computer modelling has added nothing to this. No computer model had produced better results than simply drawing a straight line through the graph.
The fact that temperatures are rising is not not news. We have known this for a while.
The fact that yet another untested model has made a quantitative prediction is not news. It is not even informative.
Could you add a link to the 1970s prediction please?
'Climate models predict disaster' is not news. Climate model always predict disaster.
'1999 climate model validated by 10 years of actual data'. *That* would be news.
They'rrrrrrrrre *Great*!
The big problem with iTunes is its obnoxious habit of wiping iPod tracks it doesn't have in its own database.
As for the ignorant rednecks who do not wish to have their children taught things they themselves do not believe in, well then that seems fair enough. Do you expect them to say, "We don't believe in Darwin round these parts but, gee, we'll make sure that our children do if that's what smart professors think is best"? You scorn them for passing their beliefs onto their children instead of deferring to their betters.
Real mean do pkgadd from acetates.
One is direct coercion, the other is coercion via government. I think it is hilarious.
Comments like this always amaze me. What an assumption! There do exist historians who heave read and written huge amounts on the period, and come to the conclusion that large corporations supported anti-trust, precisley to use the power of government over their competitors. Murray Rothbard springs to mind.
I always use TrackPad tapping for the left button, and use my thumb to work the right. That works pretty well.
This is safer: uuencode /dev/random /dev/stdout
Is it necessary to call the parent stupid just because you disagree?
I listen to my music on a cd3o gadget and initially I ripped at 192 CBR and it was somehow much less satisying that the Marantz CD player I'd been using. However, when I went to 192 VBR it just felt great - there was no compromise required. VBR is massively superior to constant.
Pah, what piffle. Can't say more right now - I've got 13 RSS feeds still to read, and I was meant to join a New Year's party one hour ago.
Poland. Saving Europe's ass since 1683.
Of course, the additional satellites and computing power required to do this would be hugely expensive but then again, so too is the cost of policing all this spectrum.
Is this practical? I'm thinking along the lines of a phased-array radar, or the techniques for constructing 3-D models from a set of 2-D images.
Sorry, got confused. Was thinking of Magnox. Pretty improbable I suppose.
Liquid magnesium?
There was a fairly well received theory that Neanderthals were ordinary humans suffering from iodine defficiency. Okay, so it likely isn't true, but the theory was quite well worked out and shows how something as simple as a nutritional defficiency can radically affect an entire group of people the same way. Perhaps a gentic defect could produce the same effect in an entire population bred from a single individual? I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of the the parent post's suggestion. It's early days yet, and the idea of a brand new human species is quite radical itself.
Also, a longstanding dream of mine is the wireless light switch. It could signal back its state to to an EM transponder in each room. Light switches would then be affixed to walls with blu-tack or whatever. This sounds kind of geeky, but perhaps it would be cheaper than re-wiring a wall? Would this work?
Since when did the state own its citizens? Bobby Fischer is esentially being hunted for refusing to co-operate with U.S. propaganda. If Fischer helped the government of Serbia commit a crime then he's a criminal. Otherwise, a game of chess is just a game if chess.
Never listened to them, but Rush recordings were picked out as an example of badly recorded music by this guy
-
Rocket Equation Calculator
-
Specific Impulse
For a 400 s specific impulse, getting to mach 3 requires a 1.276 takeoff to payload ration. On the other, making Mach 25 requires 7.66 takeoff to payload ration. That's why Spaceship One is self contained, whilst the Shuttle requires vast external fuel tanks and external boosters. It's hardly trivially easy.