Funny, and my thought was that the problem is that you can be arrested or detained based on information gathered from a social network.
That has also happened in non-digital social networks, no?
There's nothing wrong in that people can be arrested or detained based on information received from other people. Internet is not some detached thing we shouldn't take seriously - it's a part of Real Life(tm) and must be dealt with an approppriate level of seriousness.
Actually it just means that once again the new prediction for sea level rise falls outside of the 95% confidence interval reported in the IPCC reports.
Actually the latest IPCC report contains a very conservative estimate for the melting of Greenland ice sheet. This is because that melting is (and was) not known well enough to make good estimates. Likewise for Antarctica. More specifically, the 2007 report contains numbers for melting between 1993 and 2003.
The linked article talks about 230 GT of ice annually from Greenland and 132 GT from west Antarctica. This rate is supposedly from the last two years (2008-2010 presumably), and adds to 3 mm / year sea level rise. Halving that means 1.5 mm / year from these two sources. The IPCC report contains the number of 0.42 mm from these sources combined.
The IPCC prediction is a bit on the low side (only 30-50 cm per century) because of this. They're underestimating, and they know it and say so. Of course there are newer bigger numbers for melting for both Greenland and Antarctica, but as these numbers vary this much between studies, IPCC shouldn't (and doesn't) include them in their great scenarios.
Just a reminder - sea level rise does not need ice sheet melting. A good sea level rise can come from thermal expansion alone. The IPCC report for policymakers says that less than 10% of observed sea level rise is thought to result from Greenland melting.
Also windows are not the enemy. In fact they can be used to make a house more green. Properly place windows can mean that lights need not be used during the day. Roof overhangs can prevent sun from entering in the hottest time, while allowing the sun to warm the house in cooler months. Deciduous Trees can also be shard in the summer, while allowing sun in the winter. In addition, in the winter elements in the house can be allowed to heat during the day and radiate at night.
That's what I thought. Heck, build large triple windows and use curtains on hot summer days?
Another thing of wonder was heating by gas. Why not use a heat pump to turn their own solar electricity into hot water to circulate under their floors? Burning a fossil fuel for heat is not green (although I guess it could be bio-gas, but that stuff has so many other uses that it's better to save it).
Clothes dryers make no sense. Clothes dry very well on their own when hanged on a string. Also most of the time vacuum cleaners don't make sense, a good broom does the same job just as easily (with some exceptions).
Watch Avatar. Now try to focus on something that's out-of-focus in the background.
"WTF", your eyes say, "I know I'm *supposed* to be able to bring that tree into focus, but I can't!" That's because it's *not* 3D. At best, its a fragile optical illusion.
Exactly. That's what I found most disappointing about 3D. Normally I've been looking at the scenery too, but I think this wonderland movie was much more mushy than stuff in 2d movies ever is.
Not reading the grandparents, seems to me you're misunderstanding him. The Feynman quote is great, and this "leaning over backwards" is exactly what scientists need to do to each other. And they do, even in climate science.
What your quote says implies at the fact scientists don't go leaning over backwards in front of the general public, either ignorant or dishonest with vested interests, ready and willing to knock the poor scientist over with anything that looks like useful to them.
There really is no possible benefit to discuss the uncertainties of tree ring growth factors with laymen, a scientist can only get beaten in the process. Indeed, if you don't understand something (and generally you don't understand bleeding edge science unless you're part of it yourself), then please educate yourself before drawing conclusions yourself. In any case, please acknowledge the fact that a degree and publications in some field of research does mean somebody knows a lot more and you're very unlikely to spot an easy error they made.
while he is responsible for the pressure that eventually trickled down the management chain resulting in the cost-cutting measures leading to the spill, he bears no personal responsibility
This, here, is the problem with capitalism.
Being a leader of something means that you're supposed to know and to control what is happening below you. I agree that a leader shouldn't be held responsible if someone disobeys him/company values/given instructions, but a leader pretty well is responsible for values and instructions. That's why they're paid so much.
Anti-radiation nuts will always be spewing out shit, but reading the article, I feel this specific piece has nothing to do with nuts. It seems to talk about one single experiment and doesn't seem to extrapolate any further than that.
Actually, I think I have a very nice explanation for the effect. The shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves and more total leaf area.. Also, The leaves in the shielded group produced striking fall colors, while the two exposed groups stayed light green or yellow and were affected by areas of dead leaf tissue.
All of these symptoms suggest to me that radio waves fool the trees into thinking they have more incoming solar radiation than they actually do. The tree only needs enough growth, leaves and leaf size, determined by incoming sunlight. Trees and plants in general are very good at growing exactly the way they need to, in order to maximize the sunlight they can catch and the amount of photosynthesis they can do. Also it makes sense that when the fall comes, lack of sunlight makes trees store the useful substances remaining in leaves (thus turning them red) and then dropping them in due time - false impression of still having enough sunlight could slow or partly block this process.
I'm not saying radiation is inherently harmful, but presenting the idea that maybe aspen measure incoming sunlight in a way that also counts radio waves. They're both EM, and I see no reason why plants would have evolved to be very wavelength-specific about it. Indeed, measuring sunlight by a biological process is probably bound to be somewhat hazy, and it's possible that through sheer bad luck (or some chemical reason), this process somehow exaggerates the radio wavelengths.
If this is true, it might be aspen-specific, apply to all plants, or be something in between. Different plants might have different "frequency responses". And in any case, aspen / plants would evolve within some period to cope with present levels in radio waves. Fun to think, maybe evolved aspen will die in hordes if we someday abruptly stop transmitting radio waves;-).
As a background I'll mention that I did the math once - assuming blackbody radiation, the sun's output is completely insignificant compared to human transmission at wavelengths we use for communication. There would actually be no comparable natural radiation at these wavelengths, which explains why we got such a good signal-to-noise ratio;).
Ok, wait. Say I pay 20 000 euros for a new car. After five years, an electric car is worth 2000 euros on the market, while some gas-powered car is worth 5000. During that time running the gas-powered car comes to around 3000 euros per year (gas, insurance, taxes, fixing etc). Add to this interest for the possible loan et cetera, and you'll find that the cost of using a car is not the cost of the car but rather much more.
3000 euros in 5 years makes 50 euros a month. That's such a minor amount of money compared to the big picture that I'd simply not care. Also, it's very well possible that one could save 50 euros a month because electricity is cheaper than gas..
Okay, so this isn't immediately clear to anyone, not even me. But reading the article, it seems this information comes from one man, Eli Kintisch. Googling around, it looks to me like he's not a practicing scientist, and while he seems to understand science, it seems his main occupation is selling books.
I think that the science community (if you mean scientists) has remained very silent about the total effect of aerosols because those are not known well enough to make announcements. Meanwhile, everybody else is doing all they can to get media attention, and media jumps at the chance.
It's unfortunate. Besides, scientists are not interested in explaining stuff to the public (who won't understand their favorite intricacies anyway), and they have better things to spend their time with than arguing with laymen. Many times it even happens that scientists actually publish something, and then media reports it widely out of context. What to do, then?
Well, actually scientists already have something like a PR consultant. It's the IPCC. Through IPCC, climate scientists make well thought-out packages of information that are based on old findings and reject the newest and the uncertain. New information can be found in scientific literature, but that's not even readable for laymen.
And if you don't know what is scientific literature, then you've probably never seen it;-).
Destroying ozone is bad? Right? Or scientists would say otherwise? May be that's the major reason why scientists didn't recommend to trigger volcano eruption to negate greenhouse effect back in 90s? Now there're scientists told me aerosols are good? I'm not sure whom to trust anymore.
You are confused because you try to reduce reality to one-dimensional values ranging from good to bad.
Destroying ozone means there will be more skin cancer, some animals will die more and people need to start avoiding sunlight. However, destroying ozone in some specific way can very well also mean less climate change, and thus less abandoned cities and hunger and healthier ecosystems.
There's no contradiction. Further, it's not in the realm of science to even debate whether some result is good or bad. I think originally scientists said that destroying ozone will logically lead to all kinds of things, and then politicians decided those things are bad and should be avoided.
Not necessarily. If they did animal tests before, with a large number of sheep, then testing sixteen meth-sheep might well be enough to see if meth changes the consequences in sheep.
The whole utopia of legalized drugs that people imagine, doesn't exist
Ever heard of Portugal? I assure you it exists and it has yet to fall into a nightmare of addiction and ruined lives yet. Just reduced addiction, reduced crime, and reduced drug related health problems.
Based on what I've read, Portugal has not made it legal to grow, manufacture, transport, sell, own or use any drugs. From Cato institute:
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards, cut and paste, and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C.
When I wrote assembly code for that motorola dsp chip, there was no "startup code" or library. Same thing for intel assembly, although then I was mostly playing around on a 386. Then there's a flavor of risc assembly and PIC chips - four different assembly codes I've written stuff with. In all of these I'd write code, and that code would directly go to wherever execution would start.
Okay, so I knew about ELF headers, but not about _start(), and thought that C probably does something similar to assemblers. Why not? Okay, that's probably a long story. Also, that story would not matter at all in practice, unless I finally decided to write a 4kb demo, something I've wanted to do for over ten years.
I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning. The thing is, if you don't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program. The problem is, for those of us who know what we're doing, people like you who THINK you have a clue, but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us.
I think it's acceptable because there's just too much to know in computers, for any one person to ever grasp everything at every level. I made my choices and focused on electric engineering - I can build logical ports from electric components, I can design a simple processor, I can optimize a scientific Fortran code for a supercomputer. These skills are useful and adequate for many tasks, although certainly not all!
Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I'm trying to read xml from a file...
Hey, I have no problem reading an API, and I can figure out stuff by thinking and trying things;).
If treatment to correct color blindness is immoral, then so is Lasik surgery to correct nearsightedness / astigmatism. Bring that further... making glasses for people with nearsightedness would be immoral on that same basis 'normalizing' the experience indeed.
Indeed. Nearsightedness is another quality that is a nice benefit at some tasks. I'm quite sure it's an evolutionary benefit that a part of the population is very good at seeing lice and other parasites and cleaning skin. My girlfriend has this near-microscopic vision, I'm sometimes a bit jealous..
Adjusting vision to some other focus range is not immoral however, if not done against someone's will. If people want their color-blindedness cured, there's no moral problem.
Grandparents are right though, that eliminating variations in color vision, sight focus range, or any other trait, comes with a cost attached. A more homogenous population is less optimal, overcoming different hardships make us stronger, variety of experiences, abilities and personalities make us more likely to find the best viewpoint in new problems.
The principal doesn't know enough about electronics to to be sure whether it is a safe device, or is indeed a bomb. Additionally, the principal doesn't trust the student since if it is a bomb the student probably wouldn't admit to it.
I thought it's pretty common knowledge that to make a bomb, one needs some explosive material, and that explosive materials are mostly homogenous solids or liquids. Further, to make a bomb of any significance, there needs to be a significant amount of said material. Such could be easily distinguished from electronics, which is wires between batteries, circuit boards, components and buttons, each of which is too small to have a significant amount of explosive in it.
Actually I thought everybody knew that, but maybe I was wrong..
And how exactly would you do actual research about whether LED bulbs actually last for 11 years of typical usage (250,000 h, 6 hours a day), in anything less than 20 years?;).
Just that something is "assumed" doesn't mean there's no reason to make that assumption and believe it. They made a guess, right, but an educated one.
I'm firmly in the dead-animals-only camp, not just for reasons of taste but of personal ethics. If people stop eating delicious animals then these animals will soon be endangered or even extinct. Protect biodiversity, insist on corpse-flesh.
Fine! Then only stop eating cows, pigs, chicken and sheep. Or cut eating these to under 1/1000th of your current consumption. Because there are insane amounts of these animals and humankind is to blame, the current numbers could never exist naturally (there are more tame chicken than humans on this planet, and even cows are catching up).
Millions of pounds in research money is a pretty motivating factor to anyone, including scientists, politicians and whoever has a stake in carbon credit companies.
Please tell me how I could get millions of pounds of money! This far they're paying mere thousands, and much less than I could get in a technological career.
No. Precipitation cannot be larger than evaporation. Evaporation is heat driven, and cosmic rays do not input enough heat energy to significantly contribute to evaporation.
Well, clouds are good at trapping heat near Earth's surface.
Also, locally, precipitation is very often larger than evaporation. Maybe more clouds over land doesn't have much to do with evaporation at sea.
There's also this feedback effect that slightly more heat means more water vapor, which is a strong greenhouse gas and thus means more heat.
"I mean the raw data is going to be in many different forms, and from many different instruments, gathered by many different people, and full of different kinds of errors."
And that's a reason for it not to be recorded for meta-analysis... why?
That's more like a reason for not giving it away for free, as the very act of doing so becomes expensive, to someone who could only mispresent it, further increasing confusion about the matter with no benefit at all.
Statisticians? No, I didn't mean that. I mean the raw data is going to be in many different forms, and from many different instruments, gathered by many different people, and full of different kinds of errors. You or I would not know how to weed them out. If you're actually interested, please read the scientific articles many different people have written about different data sets like HadSST2.
I don't know about you, but every climatological conference I've been in has seemed to have a consensus about the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, and my thought was that the problem is that you can be arrested or detained based on information gathered from a social network.
That has also happened in non-digital social networks, no?
There's nothing wrong in that people can be arrested or detained based on information received from other people. Internet is not some detached thing we shouldn't take seriously - it's a part of Real Life(tm) and must be dealt with an approppriate level of seriousness.
You only have to contribute back if you use someone's code, modify it, and distribute it.
Right, but if you don't modify it, just use and distribute? Isn't that what ubuntu is doing? So what's the criticism about in the original article?
Actually it just means that once again the new prediction for sea level rise falls outside of the 95% confidence interval reported in the IPCC reports.
Actually the latest IPCC report contains a very conservative estimate for the melting of Greenland ice sheet. This is because that melting is (and was) not known well enough to make good estimates. Likewise for Antarctica. More specifically, the 2007 report contains numbers for melting between 1993 and 2003.
The linked article talks about 230 GT of ice annually from Greenland and 132 GT from west Antarctica. This rate is supposedly from the last two years (2008-2010 presumably), and adds to 3 mm / year sea level rise. Halving that means 1.5 mm / year from these two sources. The IPCC report contains the number of 0.42 mm from these sources combined.
The IPCC prediction is a bit on the low side (only 30-50 cm per century) because of this. They're underestimating, and they know it and say so. Of course there are newer bigger numbers for melting for both Greenland and Antarctica, but as these numbers vary this much between studies, IPCC shouldn't (and doesn't) include them in their great scenarios.
Just a reminder - sea level rise does not need ice sheet melting. A good sea level rise can come from thermal expansion alone. The IPCC report for policymakers says that less than 10% of observed sea level rise is thought to result from Greenland melting.
Also windows are not the enemy. In fact they can be used to make a house more green. Properly place windows can mean that lights need not be used during the day. Roof overhangs can prevent sun from entering in the hottest time, while allowing the sun to warm the house in cooler months. Deciduous Trees can also be shard in the summer, while allowing sun in the winter. In addition, in the winter elements in the house can be allowed to heat during the day and radiate at night.
That's what I thought. Heck, build large triple windows and use curtains on hot summer days?
Another thing of wonder was heating by gas. Why not use a heat pump to turn their own solar electricity into hot water to circulate under their floors? Burning a fossil fuel for heat is not green (although I guess it could be bio-gas, but that stuff has so many other uses that it's better to save it).
Clothes dryers make no sense. Clothes dry very well on their own when hanged on a string. Also most of the time vacuum cleaners don't make sense, a good broom does the same job just as easily (with some exceptions).
Watch Avatar. Now try to focus on something that's out-of-focus in the background.
"WTF", your eyes say, "I know I'm *supposed* to be able to bring that tree into focus, but I can't!" That's because it's *not* 3D. At best, its a fragile optical illusion.
Exactly. That's what I found most disappointing about 3D. Normally I've been looking at the scenery too, but I think this wonderland movie was much more mushy than stuff in 2d movies ever is.
Not reading the grandparents, seems to me you're misunderstanding him. The Feynman quote is great, and this "leaning over backwards" is exactly what scientists need to do to each other. And they do, even in climate science.
What your quote says implies at the fact scientists don't go leaning over backwards in front of the general public, either ignorant or dishonest with vested interests, ready and willing to knock the poor scientist over with anything that looks like useful to them.
There really is no possible benefit to discuss the uncertainties of tree ring growth factors with laymen, a scientist can only get beaten in the process. Indeed, if you don't understand something (and generally you don't understand bleeding edge science unless you're part of it yourself), then please educate yourself before drawing conclusions yourself. In any case, please acknowledge the fact that a degree and publications in some field of research does mean somebody knows a lot more and you're very unlikely to spot an easy error they made.
while he is responsible for the pressure that eventually trickled down the management chain resulting in the cost-cutting measures leading to the spill, he bears no personal responsibility
This, here, is the problem with capitalism.
Being a leader of something means that you're supposed to know and to control what is happening below you. I agree that a leader shouldn't be held responsible if someone disobeys him/company values/given instructions, but a leader pretty well is responsible for values and instructions. That's why they're paid so much.
Anti-radiation nuts will always be spewing out shit, but reading the article, I feel this specific piece has nothing to do with nuts. It seems to talk about one single experiment and doesn't seem to extrapolate any further than that.
Actually, I think I have a very nice explanation for the effect. The shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves and more total leaf area.. Also, The leaves in the shielded group produced striking fall colors, while the two exposed groups stayed light green or yellow and were affected by areas of dead leaf tissue.
All of these symptoms suggest to me that radio waves fool the trees into thinking they have more incoming solar radiation than they actually do. The tree only needs enough growth, leaves and leaf size, determined by incoming sunlight. Trees and plants in general are very good at growing exactly the way they need to, in order to maximize the sunlight they can catch and the amount of photosynthesis they can do. Also it makes sense that when the fall comes, lack of sunlight makes trees store the useful substances remaining in leaves (thus turning them red) and then dropping them in due time - false impression of still having enough sunlight could slow or partly block this process.
I'm not saying radiation is inherently harmful, but presenting the idea that maybe aspen measure incoming sunlight in a way that also counts radio waves. They're both EM, and I see no reason why plants would have evolved to be very wavelength-specific about it. Indeed, measuring sunlight by a biological process is probably bound to be somewhat hazy, and it's possible that through sheer bad luck (or some chemical reason), this process somehow exaggerates the radio wavelengths.
If this is true, it might be aspen-specific, apply to all plants, or be something in between. Different plants might have different "frequency responses". And in any case, aspen / plants would evolve within some period to cope with present levels in radio waves. Fun to think, maybe evolved aspen will die in hordes if we someday abruptly stop transmitting radio waves ;-).
As a background I'll mention that I did the math once - assuming blackbody radiation, the sun's output is completely insignificant compared to human transmission at wavelengths we use for communication. There would actually be no comparable natural radiation at these wavelengths, which explains why we got such a good signal-to-noise ratio ;).
Ok, wait. Say I pay 20 000 euros for a new car. After five years, an electric car is worth 2000 euros on the market, while some gas-powered car is worth 5000. During that time running the gas-powered car comes to around 3000 euros per year (gas, insurance, taxes, fixing etc). Add to this interest for the possible loan et cetera, and you'll find that the cost of using a car is not the cost of the car but rather much more.
3000 euros in 5 years makes 50 euros a month. That's such a minor amount of money compared to the big picture that I'd simply not care. Also, it's very well possible that one could save 50 euros a month because electricity is cheaper than gas..
Dear Science Community,
Okay, so this isn't immediately clear to anyone, not even me. But reading the article, it seems this information comes from one man, Eli Kintisch. Googling around, it looks to me like he's not a practicing scientist, and while he seems to understand science, it seems his main occupation is selling books.
I think that the science community (if you mean scientists) has remained very silent about the total effect of aerosols because those are not known well enough to make announcements. Meanwhile, everybody else is doing all they can to get media attention, and media jumps at the chance.
It's unfortunate. Besides, scientists are not interested in explaining stuff to the public (who won't understand their favorite intricacies anyway), and they have better things to spend their time with than arguing with laymen. Many times it even happens that scientists actually publish something, and then media reports it widely out of context. What to do, then?
Well, actually scientists already have something like a PR consultant. It's the IPCC. Through IPCC, climate scientists make well thought-out packages of information that are based on old findings and reject the newest and the uncertain. New information can be found in scientific literature, but that's not even readable for laymen.
And if you don't know what is scientific literature, then you've probably never seen it ;-).
Destroying ozone is bad? Right? Or scientists would say otherwise? May be that's the major reason why scientists didn't recommend to trigger volcano eruption to negate greenhouse effect back in 90s? Now there're scientists told me aerosols are good? I'm not sure whom to trust anymore.
You are confused because you try to reduce reality to one-dimensional values ranging from good to bad.
Destroying ozone means there will be more skin cancer, some animals will die more and people need to start avoiding sunlight. However, destroying ozone in some specific way can very well also mean less climate change, and thus less abandoned cities and hunger and healthier ecosystems.
There's no contradiction. Further, it's not in the realm of science to even debate whether some result is good or bad. I think originally scientists said that destroying ozone will logically lead to all kinds of things, and then politicians decided those things are bad and should be avoided.
Sixteen sheep? This is a terrible study.
Not necessarily. If they did animal tests before, with a large number of sheep, then testing sixteen meth-sheep might well be enough to see if meth changes the consequences in sheep.
The whole utopia of legalized drugs that people imagine, doesn't exist
Ever heard of Portugal? I assure you it exists and it has yet to fall into a nightmare of addiction and ruined lives yet. Just reduced addiction, reduced crime, and reduced drug related health problems.
Based on what I've read, Portugal has not made it legal to grow, manufacture, transport, sell, own or use any drugs. From Cato institute:
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
My guess is that you think using visual studio wizards, cut and paste, and some primitive ability to cobble something together that compiles and runs makes you believe you know C.
When I wrote assembly code for that motorola dsp chip, there was no "startup code" or library. Same thing for intel assembly, although then I was mostly playing around on a 386. Then there's a flavor of risc assembly and PIC chips - four different assembly codes I've written stuff with. In all of these I'd write code, and that code would directly go to wherever execution would start.
Okay, so I knew about ELF headers, but not about _start(), and thought that C probably does something similar to assemblers. Why not? Okay, that's probably a long story. Also, that story would not matter at all in practice, unless I finally decided to write a 4kb demo, something I've wanted to do for over ten years.
I realize that not knowing much about being a programmer you think that its acceptable to not know something like this because you are learning. The thing is, if you don't know this you really have not put any effort into understanding whats going on when you compile a program. The problem is, for those of us who know what we're doing, people like you who THINK you have a clue, but really have no understanding what so ever of whats going on are EXTREMELY frustrating to us.
I think it's acceptable because there's just too much to know in computers, for any one person to ever grasp everything at every level. I made my choices and focused on electric engineering - I can build logical ports from electric components, I can design a simple processor, I can optimize a scientific Fortran code for a supercomputer. These skills are useful and adequate for many tasks, although certainly not all!
Your the kind of people that post on the dev mailing lists for something like libxml asking for example code for your specific situation by stating something like 'I'm trying to read xml from a file...
Hey, I have no problem reading an API, and I can figure out stuff by thinking and trying things ;).
If treatment to correct color blindness is immoral, then so is Lasik surgery to correct nearsightedness / astigmatism. Bring that further... making glasses for people with nearsightedness would be immoral on that same basis 'normalizing' the experience indeed.
Indeed. Nearsightedness is another quality that is a nice benefit at some tasks. I'm quite sure it's an evolutionary benefit that a part of the population is very good at seeing lice and other parasites and cleaning skin. My girlfriend has this near-microscopic vision, I'm sometimes a bit jealous..
Adjusting vision to some other focus range is not immoral however, if not done against someone's will. If people want their color-blindedness cured, there's no moral problem.
Grandparents are right though, that eliminating variations in color vision, sight focus range, or any other trait, comes with a cost attached. A more homogenous population is less optimal, overcoming different hardships make us stronger, variety of experiences, abilities and personalities make us more likely to find the best viewpoint in new problems.
She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it.
This is basic knowledge that ANYONE using c should know - that the startup library is linked to so it can find main.
Okay, and where am I supposed to learn it from? That was new to me, after using gcc for a very long time.
I'm actually very happy that someone out there told me something that you think I should just know.
So it wasn't new to you? Don't read it.
The principal doesn't know enough about electronics to to be sure whether it is a safe device, or is indeed a bomb. Additionally, the principal doesn't trust the student since if it is a bomb the student probably wouldn't admit to it.
I thought it's pretty common knowledge that to make a bomb, one needs some explosive material, and that explosive materials are mostly homogenous solids or liquids. Further, to make a bomb of any significance, there needs to be a significant amount of said material. Such could be easily distinguished from electronics, which is wires between batteries, circuit boards, components and buttons, each of which is too small to have a significant amount of explosive in it.
Actually I thought everybody knew that, but maybe I was wrong..
No. 2K10 reads two thousand and ten, and means just that.
And how exactly would you do actual research about whether LED bulbs actually last for 11 years of typical usage (250,000 h, 6 hours a day), in anything less than 20 years? ;).
Just that something is "assumed" doesn't mean there's no reason to make that assumption and believe it. They made a guess, right, but an educated one.
I'm firmly in the dead-animals-only camp, not just for reasons of taste but of personal ethics. If people stop eating delicious animals then these animals will soon be endangered or even extinct. Protect biodiversity, insist on corpse-flesh.
Fine! Then only stop eating cows, pigs, chicken and sheep. Or cut eating these to under 1/1000th of your current consumption. Because there are insane amounts of these animals and humankind is to blame, the current numbers could never exist naturally (there are more tame chicken than humans on this planet, and even cows are catching up).
Millions of pounds in research money is a pretty motivating factor to anyone, including scientists, politicians and whoever has a stake in carbon credit companies.
Please tell me how I could get millions of pounds of money! This far they're paying mere thousands, and much less than I could get in a technological career.
No. Precipitation cannot be larger than evaporation. Evaporation is heat driven, and cosmic rays do not input enough heat energy to significantly contribute to evaporation.
Well, clouds are good at trapping heat near Earth's surface.
Also, locally, precipitation is very often larger than evaporation. Maybe more clouds over land doesn't have much to do with evaporation at sea.
There's also this feedback effect that slightly more heat means more water vapor, which is a strong greenhouse gas and thus means more heat.
"I mean the raw data is going to be in many different forms, and from many different instruments, gathered by many different people, and full of different kinds of errors."
And that's a reason for it not to be recorded for meta-analysis... why?
That's more like a reason for not giving it away for free, as the very act of doing so becomes expensive, to someone who could only mispresent it, further increasing confusion about the matter with no benefit at all.
You'd rather have a faulty set of data than the corrected one? Allright, I suppose the 150 years old notebooks must still be somewhere.
If you want to stand on the shoulders of giants, you need to trust the giants.
Statisticians? No, I didn't mean that. I mean the raw data is going to be in many different forms, and from many different instruments, gathered by many different people, and full of different kinds of errors. You or I would not know how to weed them out. If you're actually interested, please read the scientific articles many different people have written about different data sets like HadSST2.
I don't know about you, but every climatological conference I've been in has seemed to have a consensus about the matter.