By "high percentage", I assume you mean that if you multiply that out by the known stars in just our galaxy, you get an impressively large number. However, that percentage is no doubt quite low compared to its actual value. Currently, we have to be very lucky to detect a habitable planet. The James Webb Space Telescope will make it much easier. In 10-20 years (those are not nuclear fusion or AI "years", but are real years), I expect that percentage will be much larger (as will the total numbers).
As much fun as many people have bashing Roland, you should note that the link is to the Hook (a weekly magazine here in Charlottesville) and not to his site.
You think they won't be able to read your mind through the tinfoil? Do you really think a spear will slow them down? Do you think that's air your breathing?
When a bit is created, all the eavesdropper knows is that one person chose high-resistance and the other person chose low-resistance. Alice and Bob know this, too. However, since they know which setting they chose (or, more accurately, their computer does), it's a simple matter of deducing what setting the other person chose. For the eavesdropper to deduce what Alice chose, he has to know what Bob chose - but to deduce what Bob chose he has to know what Alice chose.
fortunately science consists of more than theories
Sure, it consists of laws (i.e., observations), hypotheses, theories, as well as methods that allow us to test theories against observations. The theory of evolution invokes the law of natural selection, and has withstood the scientific method quite well. Is there something else you have in mind for what science consists of?
Please, please, be sure to understand that laws are not "above" theories. If anything, they are beneath theories in that they are only descriptive, whereas theories are also explanatory.
Assume, for sake of argument, that Iglesias was fired for exactly those reasons. What evidence would you expect to find? I'm not arguing that one can be criminally prosecuted for circumstantial evidence (IANAL), but one can sure as hell be fired for it - especially when it's as damning as the evidence encountered so far against Alberto Gonzales.
No, you're right. In that case, they are even bigger idiots. Again, if it had been him doing the goofing off, 40 days would still be drastic overkill. This is even worse, however.
You obviously haven't watched the video. It shows him insulting the teacher in class by waving his hand at her as if she smells, holding up fingers behind her head, doing a lewd dance behind her - all in a row. It's a self-incriminating video, giving the school the evidence it needs to suspend him. That said, a 40-day suspension is obviously over the top.
While one can debate whether this database is good or bad in theory, the one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the implementation will surely be poorly executed. The no-fly list is a perfect example of why the no-work list shouldn't even be considered. (OTOH, I doubt anyone would have complained if they accidentally got on the no-call list.)
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off somewhat condescending. Yes, I'm an American, and I'm proud of it. Yes, I realize that 100 years is not a very long time in the grand scheme of things. However, I'm not aware of any scientific articles that project beyond 100 years (which could very well be due to my own ignorance). Perhaps there are some, but most of the global warming discussion centers around the next 100 years. Don't blame me for choosing that time frame, it's the longest one that I'm aware of in the public discourse.
it's not all that crap about Americans liking their great big thirsty cars
For the record, my wife and I only own one car between us, and it's a Honda Civic Hybrid. When I drive it, I regularly get 48 mpg - with passengers. Of course, I usually walk into work, so it's rare that I drive it at all.
100 years isn't a very long time. Certainly not when considering the issues we have to deal with here. We're talking about either completely restructuring our economy either to run on totally different fuels or to run on much less energy or both, or we're talking about massive relocations of population as arable territory shifts and lands get flooded, and enormous engineering projects as the world suddenly reaches for textbooks in Dutch about how to build really huge earthworks.
If you had reason to believe that 200 years from now, all land under ten metres from sea level would be in the drink, you'd better start thinking about how to deal with it right now.
Absolutely. However, my impression from the movie is that he was talking about events that would happen in the next 100 years, so that's why I felt it was inaccurate not to be specific about the actual time frame in question. Is it 200 years? My impression was that it was well beyond that, even.
That said, I absolutely recognize that our country and our culture are not doing their fair share with respect to combating global warming. Insulting us, however, is unlikely to be an effective way of persuading us to change. Challenge us, engage us, and give us time - we are changing, the signs are all around.
At a fixed partial pressure, the oceans are definitely losing their ability to sink CO2. However, as we dump more CO2 into the atmosphere, we increase the partial pressure. I'm basing this entirely off of basic chemistry/physics (i.e., I could easily be wrong) and off the fact that CO2 concentrations in the oceans are, in fact, going up. I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. I don't know how much you know about physics, but sometimes the problem seems to change depending on whether you look at it in momentum space or in position space (for example). Of course, the underlying reality hasn't changed at all, just one's definitions of certain terms. OTOH, it's possible that after a certain point (assuming a certain human output of CO2), the temperature change will be great enough that it overshadows the increased partial pressure. If that human output is constant, then I suspect we would eventually reach a new quasi-equilibrium in terms of both CO2 concentrations in the oceans and atmosphere and average temperature.
The main point, is that I'm pulling this out of my, er, the air, and so I have no references to give you. Take it with a grain of salt as it could surely be wrong. However, I'd like references myself before I'm willing to abandon my personal intuition.:)
I did not mean to imply that your statement was inaccurate. Mainly, I was just trying to emphasize why the models are conservative, and that it was a "known unknown".:)
I'll agree that it'd be better (and provide a stronger message) if provided a telepresence instead of using his jet. However, he does not profit from these talks.
In 500-1000 years we should see more natural CO2 in the atmosphere due to the current warming (which in turn is currently due mostly to manmade CO2).
Assuming we haven't fixed the problem by then, I believe you would expect to see less natural CO2 in the atmosphere. Our introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere increases its partial pressure. That in turn overcompensates for the oceans' natural inability to hold CO2 as its temperature increases. For a constant partial pressure, the oceans would hold less CO2. However, in this case (with significantly rising partial pressure) they will hold more, and they will therefore absorb natural CO2 (as well as man-made CO2) rather than emit it.
My bad. When you were made that comment about him doing it to sell books, etc., I assumed you'd appreciate the information.
Is he a hypocrite? Yes. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid point. Don't get angry at him because you don't have good bus routes. Find out who's fault that is and lobby for change.
If Al Gore [or any other liberal hippie] were really a hero, he'd come to Ottawa, and get bus routes to the major tech centres [like Kanata North]. Fight for the little guy [re: me] like a good guy (tm) is supposed to.
If the little guy would fight for himself, a lot more could get accomplished. There are far more "little guys" than big ones. Talk to the mayor of Ottawa, or the city council. Make noise. Don't blame Al Gore (or hippies) for it, however. That's silly.:)
Not only is CO2 not outgassing from the oceans this time around, the oceans are actually acting as a carbon sink (i.e., the opposite of outgassing). Although this helps mitigate somewhat the greenhouse gas phenomenon, it results in the acidification of our oceans, as CO2+H20=CH203, AKA carbonic acid. (This effect is also already factored into climate models.)
since the observed rate of ice melting is greater than any models predict
Should read "since the observed rate of ice melting is greater than any models [that fail to take into account imprecise knowledge of how ice rivers act] predict". They knew they were underestimating when they made these predictions, but since they didn't know how to accurately factor in the ice rivers, they chose to go conservative. I know you already know this, but I thought I'd emphasize it, nonetheless. Even so, I don't think anyone's predicting the whole thing will go in the next 100 years, which is why Al Gore's comments were definitely misleading (by error of omission). (If I'm wrong, please provide some evidence - and I freely admit I could be wrong.)
Just because someone else is doing it (even if they're doing it worse), it doesn't make it OK for us to do. What's most puzzling is this comment:
It is the justification for the conquests presented in Yasukuni (and I was only able to see the English versions of them, native versions are, likely, even more extremist), that we should be objecting to...
Slashdot Mirror
By "high percentage", I assume you mean that if you multiply that out by the known stars in just our galaxy, you get an impressively large number. However, that percentage is no doubt quite low compared to its actual value. Currently, we have to be very lucky to detect a habitable planet. The James Webb Space Telescope will make it much easier. In 10-20 years (those are not nuclear fusion or AI "years", but are real years), I expect that percentage will be much larger (as will the total numbers).
Actually, so far, 241 extrasolar planets have been discovered.
As much fun as many people have bashing Roland, you should note that the link is to the Hook (a weekly magazine here in Charlottesville) and not to his site.
When a bit is created, all the eavesdropper knows is that one person chose high-resistance and the other person chose low-resistance. Alice and Bob know this, too. However, since they know which setting they chose (or, more accurately, their computer does), it's a simple matter of deducing what setting the other person chose. For the eavesdropper to deduce what Alice chose, he has to know what Bob chose - but to deduce what Bob chose he has to know what Alice chose.
Creationism also rejects modern geological knowledge. How many geologists do you think use "creation science" to predict where to strike oil?
Sure, it consists of laws (i.e., observations), hypotheses, theories, as well as methods that allow us to test theories against observations. The theory of evolution invokes the law of natural selection, and has withstood the scientific method quite well. Is there something else you have in mind for what science consists of?
Please, please, be sure to understand that laws are not "above" theories. If anything, they are beneath theories in that they are only descriptive, whereas theories are also explanatory.
Then, she might have liked it. The great unwashed masses just might buy it - not that I'm commenting on your wife's personal hygiene. :)
Assume, for sake of argument, that Iglesias was fired for exactly those reasons. What evidence would you expect to find? I'm not arguing that one can be criminally prosecuted for circumstantial evidence (IANAL), but one can sure as hell be fired for it - especially when it's as damning as the evidence encountered so far against Alberto Gonzales.
We're not allowed to RTFA. ;)
No, you're right. In that case, they are even bigger idiots. Again, if it had been him doing the goofing off, 40 days would still be drastic overkill. This is even worse, however.
This is for both. BD-RE = Blu-Ray rewritable, and HD DVD-RE = HD rewritable.
I'm not sure if you were being funny (à la the Canada comment above), or if you actually think Thailand is an island. :(
(I do think you were going for humor, but I'm just not sure!)
You obviously haven't watched the video. It shows him insulting the teacher in class by waving his hand at her as if she smells, holding up fingers behind her head, doing a lewd dance behind her - all in a row. It's a self-incriminating video, giving the school the evidence it needs to suspend him. That said, a 40-day suspension is obviously over the top.
While one can debate whether this database is good or bad in theory, the one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the implementation will surely be poorly executed. The no-fly list is a perfect example of why the no-work list shouldn't even be considered. (OTOH, I doubt anyone would have complained if they accidentally got on the no-call list.)
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off somewhat condescending. Yes, I'm an American, and I'm proud of it. Yes, I realize that 100 years is not a very long time in the grand scheme of things. However, I'm not aware of any scientific articles that project beyond 100 years (which could very well be due to my own ignorance). Perhaps there are some, but most of the global warming discussion centers around the next 100 years. Don't blame me for choosing that time frame, it's the longest one that I'm aware of in the public discourse.
For the record, my wife and I only own one car between us, and it's a Honda Civic Hybrid. When I drive it, I regularly get 48 mpg - with passengers. Of course, I usually walk into work, so it's rare that I drive it at all.
Absolutely. However, my impression from the movie is that he was talking about events that would happen in the next 100 years, so that's why I felt it was inaccurate not to be specific about the actual time frame in question. Is it 200 years? My impression was that it was well beyond that, even.
That said, I absolutely recognize that our country and our culture are not doing their fair share with respect to combating global warming. Insulting us, however, is unlikely to be an effective way of persuading us to change. Challenge us, engage us, and give us time - we are changing, the signs are all around.
At a fixed partial pressure, the oceans are definitely losing their ability to sink CO2. However, as we dump more CO2 into the atmosphere, we increase the partial pressure. I'm basing this entirely off of basic chemistry/physics (i.e., I could easily be wrong) and off the fact that CO2 concentrations in the oceans are, in fact, going up. I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. I don't know how much you know about physics, but sometimes the problem seems to change depending on whether you look at it in momentum space or in position space (for example). Of course, the underlying reality hasn't changed at all, just one's definitions of certain terms. OTOH, it's possible that after a certain point (assuming a certain human output of CO2), the temperature change will be great enough that it overshadows the increased partial pressure. If that human output is constant, then I suspect we would eventually reach a new quasi-equilibrium in terms of both CO2 concentrations in the oceans and atmosphere and average temperature.
The main point, is that I'm pulling this out of my, er, the air, and so I have no references to give you. Take it with a grain of salt as it could surely be wrong. However, I'd like references myself before I'm willing to abandon my personal intuition. :)
I did not mean to imply that your statement was inaccurate. Mainly, I was just trying to emphasize why the models are conservative, and that it was a "known unknown". :)
He does not receive any revenue from sales of his DVD. One reason he hypes it is because proceeds go to help the cause.
I'll agree that it'd be better (and provide a stronger message) if provided a telepresence instead of using his jet. However, he does not profit from these talks.
Assuming we haven't fixed the problem by then, I believe you would expect to see less natural CO2 in the atmosphere. Our introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere increases its partial pressure. That in turn overcompensates for the oceans' natural inability to hold CO2 as its temperature increases. For a constant partial pressure, the oceans would hold less CO2. However, in this case (with significantly rising partial pressure) they will hold more, and they will therefore absorb natural CO2 (as well as man-made CO2) rather than emit it.
My bad. When you were made that comment about him doing it to sell books, etc., I assumed you'd appreciate the information.
Is he a hypocrite? Yes. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid point. Don't get angry at him because you don't have good bus routes. Find out who's fault that is and lobby for change.
If the little guy would fight for himself, a lot more could get accomplished. There are far more "little guys" than big ones. Talk to the mayor of Ottawa, or the city council. Make noise. Don't blame Al Gore (or hippies) for it, however. That's silly. :)
Not only is CO2 not outgassing from the oceans this time around, the oceans are actually acting as a carbon sink (i.e., the opposite of outgassing). Although this helps mitigate somewhat the greenhouse gas phenomenon, it results in the acidification of our oceans, as CO2+H20=CH203, AKA carbonic acid. (This effect is also already factored into climate models.)