You can't buzz in as soon as Alex begins to speak. The buzzers are locked out by a producer until Alex finishes the question. That's how it was when I was on in 1991, and other posts here indicate that's still the case. I haven't watched the show myself recently.
This is true. Most experts in scientific fields won't have the time, desire, or writing skill to correct errors in a free online encyclopedia. Thus one tends to see fringe opinions overrepresented. In this respect it's much like good old fashioned Usenet. Searching the archives of sci.geo.geology, I'm sure the naive reader could come away believing that the
Earth's interior is HOLLOW and POPULATED!.
Except that history shows (in the US at least) that once some Congressperson gets wind of some controversy surrounding a grant, it becomes an opportunity to attack both the grant recipient and the granting agency. "Look what kind of garbage our tax dollars are supporting!" Are the National Endowment for the Humanities or other government bodies going to risk their very existence over something like Wikipedia without demanding strings attached ensuring "accountability for content" to "protect the children"? Not bloody likely!
Well, note that it was a satire. It does seem very British to have some Daleks "camping it up" as they say ("ooo deary, that outfit has *GOT* to go... EXTERMINATE!"). And, Dr. Who does have a quite a reputation in Britain has having a
disproportionately gay fanbase.
There were some
rumors a while back that the Autons were going to return. Hopefully, the Auton rubber octopus that Jon Pertwee fought won't be returning with them:)
Note that the RadarVision website (a different company than the one mentioned in the article, but a similar product) explicitly says that their radar cannot penetrate metal or metal-coated objects. This is no surprise; I'm sure the Camero system has the same limitation. EM waves don't like electrically conductive materials. So that tinfoil hat can be applied to the wall if you don't want them snooping on you (whoever "they" are).
Re:The San Andreas fault is nice and all, but
on
Is This The Big One?
·
· Score: 1
This may be related to the work of Susan Hough and others, who have done much in recent years to improve our understanding of the New Madrid 1811-12 series. Paleoseismic work is intriguing, for sure. Of course, one of my geophysics profs says that 1 data point is a finding, 2 is a trend, and 3 is a mess...;)
Agreed. Not much news here. Plus, there is no particular reason (that I know of anyway) to believe that the next Big Quake will be preceded by increased seismic activity.
Re:The San Andreas fault is nice and all, but
on
Is This The Big One?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nobody really knows if the New Madrid system is "overdue", as it's difficult to discern a pattern from only one datapoint (the 1811-1812 series of earthquakes).
This isn't just a problem in one field; its endemic across the sciences. There are so many papers published these days that it's hard to separate the few important papers from the many papers published just to pad out the publications list on someone's CV. For some researchers, a fart in the lab is worthy of a paper. I think the current system has been overwhelmed in its ability to effectively organize information.
If I recall correctly, SEG will be sending a CD-ROM annually of that year's issues of the journal ("Geophysics", for those interested). Now, it's quite likely that those CD-ROMs quite likely won't be readable in 50 years' time, while I can wander down the hall and pull an old journal off the shelf and read it with no problems. There's an advantage of having a medium that can deterioriate (e.g., get water spots, get torn) and still be readable without special equipment.
For example, a few centuries ago some mathematicians started studying the funny numbers like the diagonal of a unit square, and proved that they weren't the ratio of two integers. The idea that there were such numbers was widely ridiculed. The mathematicians' reaction was to say "We need a name for these new numbers. People are calling us irrational for talking about them. Why don't we just call them `irrational' numbers?" And so it was.
Actually, irrational numbers are so named because they can't be formed from the ratio of two integers. It so happens that in Latin, ratio can mean either "reason" or "computation". Thus the name describes a mathematical property, not any perceived faulty reasoning.
Well, the Bush campaign (according to the biased liberal Wall Street Journal) did fly down Republican staffers to stand outside the room where the Miami-Dade canvassing board was counting votes and scream and shout. Nobody died, but it is a a bit of a brown shirt tactic.
Interestingly, the "obvious reasons" didn't occur to anybody in the U.S. (or anywhere else) until the mid 19th century, when the so-called Australian (i.e., secret) ballot was introduced. Not that secret balloting had never been done anywhere ever, but it apparently had not been used before on a large scale in representative democratic government.
This sort of thing has been tried without much success so far. There have been intriguing electromagnetic signals recorded over the years (e.g. see this table). However, nobody has been able to come up with a method of prediction using EM that has achieved acceptance among earthquake seismologists. It's much easier to find funny signals after a quake than before.
The website of the M. K. Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies has back issues of its newsletters online. Nothing newer than 2002, but perhaps some interesting reading.
Re:if, and that's a big if
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Our ancestors did survive without petroleum. However, there were about 5 billion less of them than there are of us. I guess people in the suburbs can start converting those 3-car garages into stables, though.
Re:Running out of gas
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, it's a question that's been asked forever. However, what was new about Hubbert was that his predictions actually came to pass. U.S. oil production peaked about 1970 and has been on the decline ever since (with minor bumps upward due to Prudhoe Bay and the 1970s oil shocks). Hubbert's thesis, based on empirical studies of oil producing provinces, was that the big, easy fields are found early on. As the province matures, smaller and smaller fields are found for higher finding costs. Eventually, the rate of production exceeds the rate of new reserves coming online.
The big questions to ask today are
Are there new major petroleum provinces to be discovered?
How much can technology buy us in existing provinces?
As to the first, I don't know. Some say India might have some unexploited basins. Certainly, North America and Europe don't have any frontier exploration areas. As to the second, well, that's why I'm in grad school:) But, there are certain physical limitations that mean we will only be able to extract so much oil without spending lots of money and/or energy. That money and energy might be better spend elsewhere.
For more on this subject see...
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes. I read this book shortly after it came out. If I recall, Deffeyes was a colleague of M. King Hubbert. Estimates of when the peak will come vary (10 to 50+ years), but few doubt it will come (except those who buy into Thomas Gold's hypothesis that most hydrocarbons originate from primordial methane dating from the earth's formation rather than the breakdown of organic material). It will be interesting to see if OPEC is able to lower prices by increasing production. Until now, we've relied on Saudi Arabia to open the taps when prices get too high. If they can't, then that's a good sign the peak is near (or already here).
In addition to the 1337 hax0rs, I wonder if the international spooks are using Spam instead of/in addition to the shortwave spy numbers stations? Maybe it's the CIA or MI5 wanting to enlarge your penis and breasts!
Conservatives *are* for free markets. Bush, Cheney and Asscroft aren't conservatives. They're right-wing radicals.. i.e. fascists.
I would have to say that your sentence would be correct if you replace "conservative" with "libertarian". Historically, "conservatives" are those who wish to preserve and maintain established social and economic structures. The Conservative Party in England, for instance, was historically founded on maintaining traditional English institutions (such as the Crown and the House of Lords) against the Whigs, Liberals, Labour, etc. I think in the defense of capitalism against socialism, it has been assumed that conservatism==free market capitalism, which has not always been so.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not have all that stuff, but at least you will be a hoopy frood.
You can't buzz in as soon as Alex begins to speak. The buzzers are locked out by a producer until Alex finishes the question. That's how it was when I was on in 1991, and other posts here indicate that's still the case. I haven't watched the show myself recently.
This is true. Most experts in scientific fields won't have the time, desire, or writing skill to correct errors in a free online encyclopedia. Thus one tends to see fringe opinions overrepresented. In this respect it's much like good old fashioned Usenet. Searching the archives of sci.geo.geology, I'm sure the naive reader could come away believing that the Earth's interior is HOLLOW and POPULATED!.
Except that history shows (in the US at least) that once some Congressperson gets wind of some controversy surrounding a grant, it becomes an opportunity to attack both the grant recipient and the granting agency. "Look what kind of garbage our tax dollars are supporting!" Are the National Endowment for the Humanities or other government bodies going to risk their very existence over something like Wikipedia without demanding strings attached ensuring "accountability for content" to "protect the children"? Not bloody likely!
Well, note that it was a satire. It does seem very British to have some Daleks "camping it up" as they say ("ooo deary, that outfit has *GOT* to go... EXTERMINATE!"). And, Dr. Who does have a quite a reputation in Britain has having a disproportionately gay fanbase.
I believe that we saw Adric's room once... but I don't care to think about any orgasms involving Adric!
There were some rumors a while back that the Autons were going to return. Hopefully, the Auton rubber octopus that Jon Pertwee fought won't be returning with them :)
Note that the RadarVision website (a different company than the one mentioned in the article, but a similar product) explicitly says that their radar cannot penetrate metal or metal-coated objects. This is no surprise; I'm sure the Camero system has the same limitation. EM waves don't like electrically conductive materials. So that tinfoil hat can be applied to the wall if you don't want them snooping on you (whoever "they" are).
This may be related to the work of Susan Hough and others, who have done much in recent years to improve our understanding of the New Madrid 1811-12 series. Paleoseismic work is intriguing, for sure. Of course, one of my geophysics profs says that 1 data point is a finding, 2 is a trend, and 3 is a mess... ;)
Agreed. Not much news here. Plus, there is no particular reason (that I know of anyway) to believe that the next Big Quake will be preceded by increased seismic activity.
Nobody really knows if the New Madrid system is "overdue", as it's difficult to discern a pattern from only one datapoint (the 1811-1812 series of earthquakes).
This isn't just a problem in one field; its endemic across the sciences. There are so many papers published these days that it's hard to separate the few important papers from the many papers published just to pad out the publications list on someone's CV. For some researchers, a fart in the lab is worthy of a paper. I think the current system has been overwhelmed in its ability to effectively organize information.
If I recall correctly, SEG will be sending a CD-ROM annually of that year's issues of the journal ("Geophysics", for those interested). Now, it's quite likely that those CD-ROMs quite likely won't be readable in 50 years' time, while I can wander down the hall and pull an old journal off the shelf and read it with no problems. There's an advantage of having a medium that can deterioriate (e.g., get water spots, get torn) and still be readable without special equipment.
Actually, irrational numbers are so named because they can't be formed from the ratio of two integers. It so happens that in Latin, ratio can mean either "reason" or "computation". Thus the name describes a mathematical property, not any perceived faulty reasoning.
Well, the Bush campaign (according to the biased liberal Wall Street Journal) did fly down Republican staffers to stand outside the room where the Miami-Dade canvassing board was counting votes and scream and shout. Nobody died, but it is a a bit of a brown shirt tactic.
Interestingly, the "obvious reasons" didn't occur to anybody in the U.S. (or anywhere else) until the mid 19th century, when the so-called Australian (i.e., secret) ballot was introduced. Not that secret balloting had never been done anywhere ever, but it apparently had not been used before on a large scale in representative democratic government.
This sort of thing has been tried without much success so far. There have been intriguing electromagnetic signals recorded over the years (e.g. see this table). However, nobody has been able to come up with a method of prediction using EM that has achieved acceptance among earthquake seismologists. It's much easier to find funny signals after a quake than before.
In fact, I was speaking generally of the economy, leaving aside the thorny topic of how those resources are allocated.
The website of the M. K. Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies has back issues of its newsletters online. Nothing newer than 2002, but perhaps some interesting reading.
Our ancestors did survive without petroleum. However, there were about 5 billion less of them than there are of us. I guess people in the suburbs can start converting those 3-car garages into stables, though.
The big questions to ask today are
As to the first, I don't know. Some say India might have some unexploited basins. Certainly, North America and Europe don't have any frontier exploration areas. As to the second, well, that's why I'm in grad school :) But, there are certain physical limitations that mean we will only be able to extract so much oil without spending lots of money and/or energy. That money and energy might be better spend elsewhere.
Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes. I read this book shortly after it came out. If I recall, Deffeyes was a colleague of M. King Hubbert. Estimates of when the peak will come vary (10 to 50+ years), but few doubt it will come (except those who buy into Thomas Gold's hypothesis that most hydrocarbons originate from primordial methane dating from the earth's formation rather than the breakdown of organic material). It will be interesting to see if OPEC is able to lower prices by increasing production. Until now, we've relied on Saudi Arabia to open the taps when prices get too high. If they can't, then that's a good sign the peak is near (or already here).
More precisely, if you disprove a conjunction, you know that at least one of the components is false.
In addition to the 1337 hax0rs, I wonder if the international spooks are using Spam instead of/in addition to the shortwave spy numbers stations? Maybe it's the CIA or MI5 wanting to enlarge your penis and breasts!