That's the whole point. A lot of our more bright-eyed views of the future are based on ideas about economic (i.e. population), scientific, and resource growth that simply do not scale onto long times.
Actually strictly speaking your dissociation constants have units that depend upon the reaction, given that they're a special case of the equilibrium constant. (It seems it's typical to eliminate units by some means or another.) While I understand that the measurements are tricky and noisy (I was never much good at labs) there is no intrinsic physical limit on their precision, and it would be more informative to point out that you can have no greater precision in your final results than you have in your input data.
(To quote 9.32 for one species and 10.47 for another would be to suppose that you can measure the latter ten times more precisely than the former, which is not the case.)
It's a bit rich to go on about "the other top nations" refusing to join in when the US flatly refuses to join the climate change accords that the rest of the developed (and much of the developing) world have established.
Currently we use tens of terawatts. The power output of the best continuous-fire lasers or maser (and I use that term loosely) is on the hundreds of kilowatts. Pulsed lasers peak in the mega- to terawatt range but average power output is a lot less.
Right, the whole point is that it's a riductio ad absurdum: the conclusions of the model on a long time scale make it obvious that the model can't be sustained.
Augh! Talk about teaching a good idea for the wrong reasons. If you can measure your original data to n significant figures, and your conversion factors and constants and so on go to the same number of significant figures, then there's no reason why you can't quote the final value with the same precision. (I'm glossing things over here; addition and subtraction work differently to multiplication and division.)
There's nothing magical about "two decimal places", especially given that the number of decimal places, as opposed to significant figures is entirely dependent upon the units used. 0.123l, and 1.23 dl, and 12.3cl should not be counted as having different precision.
"Smart" as in "having its own self-contained computer" (as in smart watch, smart lighting, smart meter etc.), in this case with the epithet transferred from city infrastructure to the city itself.
1) You need to run the backlight to see the image on the LCD 2) IGZO has lower leakage so it could be run in passive matrix mode, but their idea of passive mode is leaving the pixels alone between frame refreshes (1/60 or 1/120 of a second) rather than driving them continuously, and even that is currently hypothetical.
The excellent "Do The Math" blog estimates that we have 400 years until we're consuming as much energy as the planet is receiving from the sun. That's a good rule of thumb I think. Anything beyond that and by definition we can't have our current combination of albedo and surface temperature.
Interestingly that estimate also states we have about 1500 years until we're using as much power as the sun produces in total, and we'll need to use the entire galaxy's power output in about 2500 years.
Yes, because nothing I'm Star Trek was an egregious affront to scientific credibility or reason.
They spend every episode sending small teams of high ranking officers down to deadly planets. They have replicators yet they carry almost everything they use but food as cargo. They have a computer that can take natural language queries and translate arbitrary languages but they do archaeology as a profession. They have FTL communications but delegate civilisation-deciding acts to ship captains.
If you think the plot devices in the Star Trek movie are the series' worst affronts to reason, and not rationalisations of your own distaste, you have quite a case to make.
In the US you have to pay the same amount for service whether you're subsidising a handset purchase or not, right? That doesn't seem like a great incentive to buy outright.
Meanwhile in Europe, where we have oversight of our telecoms industry, almost every carrier offers unlocking even during the contract for about £25 and you can get super-cheap service-only tarrifs everywhere. I'm on uncapped data and a decent amount of calls and texts for £15, using a nearly three year old iPhone.
Actually it refers to rooting or jailbreaks for the sole purpose of performing a carrier unlock. Carrier unlocking itself is not covered by the DMCA and if there's a non-DMCA-breaching way to do it (Apple has a well-assembled system for unlocking iPhones), you have every right to do so.
Actually this is the result of the removal of a law. They added an unlocking exemption to the DMCA and have chosen not to renew it. The DMCA's so broad-reaching that they had to enumerate lists of things you were allowed to do because otherwise many entirely ordinary activities would've become illegal.
Yeah, because it works if you make the front half "They should being capable of writing proper English" or the back half "before be hired by said newspapers".
The convention varies. In some dialects of English it's conventional to refer to collectives like organisations in the plural while in others it's conventional to refer to them in the singular.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, right. "Over 2000km" would be tres wrong. "Over 1000km"?
That's the whole point. A lot of our more bright-eyed views of the future are based on ideas about economic (i.e. population), scientific, and resource growth that simply do not scale onto long times.
Perhaps if the US had been a participant in the previous efforts they would've been:
1) Worth a damn scientifically
2) Politically effective
You can't decry other nations for failing to participate in the process, yet justify your own absence by saying the process is pointless.
Actually strictly speaking your dissociation constants have units that depend upon the reaction, given that they're a special case of the equilibrium constant. (It seems it's typical to eliminate units by some means or another.) While I understand that the measurements are tricky and noisy (I was never much good at labs) there is no intrinsic physical limit on their precision, and it would be more informative to point out that you can have no greater precision in your final results than you have in your input data.
(To quote 9.32 for one species and 10.47 for another would be to suppose that you can measure the latter ten times more precisely than the former, which is not the case.)
It's a bit rich to go on about "the other top nations" refusing to join in when the US flatly refuses to join the climate change accords that the rest of the developed (and much of the developing) world have established.
So your argument is that even though it's scientifically sound, you're sceptical because you find it politically distasteful?
You've still got too many significant figures in your output. There's only one in the input, so 2000km.
Currently we use tens of terawatts. The power output of the best continuous-fire lasers or maser (and I use that term loosely) is on the hundreds of kilowatts. Pulsed lasers peak in the mega- to terawatt range but average power output is a lot less.
Right, the whole point is that it's a riductio ad absurdum: the conclusions of the model on a long time scale make it obvious that the model can't be sustained.
You're talking about local weather versus global climate. It's perfectly natural that an effect might appear at one scale and not the other.
Augh! Talk about teaching a good idea for the wrong reasons. If you can measure your original data to n significant figures, and your conversion factors and constants and so on go to the same number of significant figures, then there's no reason why you can't quote the final value with the same precision. (I'm glossing things over here; addition and subtraction work differently to multiplication and division.)
There's nothing magical about "two decimal places", especially given that the number of decimal places, as opposed to significant figures is entirely dependent upon the units used. 0.123l, and 1.23 dl, and 12.3cl should not be counted as having different precision.
Didn't the Berkley study explicitly evaluate the urban heat island effect and find it had no bearing on the models?
That's a rhetorical quesiton.
You must really hate evolution, forensic science, archaeology, history, your own memories...
"Smart" as in "having its own self-contained computer" (as in smart watch, smart lighting, smart meter etc.), in this case with the epithet transferred from city infrastructure to the city itself.
1) You need to run the backlight to see the image on the LCD
2) IGZO has lower leakage so it could be run in passive matrix mode, but their idea of passive mode is leaving the pixels alone between frame refreshes (1/60 or 1/120 of a second) rather than driving them continuously, and even that is currently hypothetical.
The excellent "Do The Math" blog estimates that we have 400 years until we're consuming as much energy as the planet is receiving from the sun. That's a good rule of thumb I think. Anything beyond that and by definition we can't have our current combination of albedo and surface temperature.
Interestingly that estimate also states we have about 1500 years until we're using as much power as the sun produces in total, and we'll need to use the entire galaxy's power output in about 2500 years.
Yes, because nothing I'm Star Trek was an egregious affront to scientific credibility or reason.
They spend every episode sending small teams of high ranking officers down to deadly planets. They have replicators yet they carry almost everything they use but food as cargo. They have a computer that can take natural language queries and translate arbitrary languages but they do archaeology as a profession. They have FTL communications but delegate civilisation-deciding acts to ship captains.
If you think the plot devices in the Star Trek movie are the series' worst affronts to reason, and not rationalisations of your own distaste, you have quite a case to make.
You're absolutely right. I hadn't even realised there was a seperate exemption for each.
It's not like RIM is doing a sterling job with the Blackberry brand anyway. Their new OS has been coming along for how long now?
In the US you have to pay the same amount for service whether you're subsidising a handset purchase or not, right? That doesn't seem like a great incentive to buy outright.
Meanwhile in Europe, where we have oversight of our telecoms industry, almost every carrier offers unlocking even during the contract for about £25 and you can get super-cheap service-only tarrifs everywhere. I'm on uncapped data and a decent amount of calls and texts for £15, using a nearly three year old iPhone.
Actually it refers to rooting or jailbreaks for the sole purpose of performing a carrier unlock. Carrier unlocking itself is not covered by the DMCA and if there's a non-DMCA-breaching way to do it (Apple has a well-assembled system for unlocking iPhones), you have every right to do so.
Well, you hope he's dead. I'd rather not believe that he's still up in his own head, able to observe events but no longer able to participate.
Actually this is the result of the removal of a law. They added an unlocking exemption to the DMCA and have chosen not to renew it. The DMCA's so broad-reaching that they had to enumerate lists of things you were allowed to do because otherwise many entirely ordinary activities would've become illegal.
Yeah, because it works if you make the front half "They should being capable of writing proper English" or the back half "before be hired by said newspapers".
The convention varies. In some dialects of English it's conventional to refer to collectives like organisations in the plural while in others it's conventional to refer to them in the singular.