Once upon a time, Android was supposed to be an open-source OS anyone could take and work on, and not just "iOS, but designed by Google instead of Apple". These days you can have AOSP and attempt to scrape together an out-of-date OS and thirdparty services, or you can be a signed up licencee of Google's vision for mobile.
One of the axioms of ecosystem change is that it favours opportunistic species over slowly-adapting ones. Most opportunistic species are known as pests because their opportunism is incompatible with our preference for controlled environments (weeds finding niches in gardens, rats finding niches in buildings) but it'd be interesting to speculate about opportunists we actually like.
Interesting, but the "colonies" in question are human-raised bee hives; if incorporation of plastic into the hives was an important factor, it would have become obvious to the farmers, and later to investigators studying the hives for potential pathogens.
You're right, it still doesn't make any damn sense as written. The denominator would have to be something completely un-obvious and incorrect for that number to fall out.
Are we still talking about the UN report that some conservative blog called "only communism can prevent forest fires", but literally read "China's populace are eager for air that they don't have to look at"?
Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?
They actually discuss a full decade of emissions data from 2000-2009, and state that they picked 2006 as an interesting turning point in China's consumption versus production emissions. I'm guessing that 2000-2009 was the most up to date info when somebody started their PhD in 2009, and now they're writing up.
One's the average, one's the maximum day-to-day. It fluctuates. It's not the study that's "full of shit", it's that the New Scientist article is written unclearly. You can find the original PNAS at the bottom of the NS piece, can't tell if it's open-access because I've got a golden ticket:
Those local sources aren't really charging you "what it actually costs to produce", because once upon a time they would've had a much larger niche, could've run a larger - yet still modest - store, and therefore had much lower costs. I dare say people would be willing to pay those costs, and use that medium-sized source, but unfortunately that niche is gone.
"More efficient" in the economic sense only means that it operates at lower cost. Always start from that axiom. While there are some pollution-reduction methods that are also economically efficient (e.g. reusing or selling your waste products rather than dumping them) that is unfortunately those are in the minority. That's why pollution tariffs exist; they add environmental impact to the efficiency problem. In China's case, where their economic efficiency largely comes from cheap power from coal, you've definitely got a conflict.
No, he means that if US-attributable pollution is X% of China's pollution output, then it cannot possibly be more than X% of the pollution at the West coast of the US. Either it's X%, if the stuff originating in China is the only source; or it's less if mix it with other sources. Unless the pollution somehow fractionates according to attribution.
The New Scientist article has smudged a lot of things from the original text. Basically overall, they find that "EEE-related Chinese pollution contributed about 3–10% of the annual mean surface sulfate concentrations, 1–3% of BC, 2–3% of CO, and 0.5–1.5% of ozone over the western contiguous United States (west of 100W)." However the amount reaching the US was highly variable from day to day (is episodic) because the atmosphere is complicated. It can "save up" pollution and dump it en mass, and on those days, it could account for "12-24% of sulfate concentrations, 2–5% of ozone, 4–6% of CO, and up to 11% of BC over the western United States".
Nope, definitely low-level; it's a tropospheric transport model. Apparently it's a standard model (GEOS-Chem) that's pretty reliable, and it seems to incorporate interactions between particulates and the surface, including e.g. exchange of particulates between the troposphere and ocean/land.
Yes, I'm sure that the computational physics that performed the research must have overlooked one of the simplest principles of numerical modelling in performing the research. I'd love to hear your insights into the Rosetta mission. "That's not a comet, that's clearly just a smudge on the lens. They obviously forgot to clean the probe after they made it."
Doesn't take large-scale long-term forecasts seriously. Is worried about Yellowstone caldera and global ice age, hopes we evolve into superbeings.
In all seriousness the physics involved in the forecast in the article are probably simpler than the physics involved in predicting Yellowstone's changes of eruption.
Don't they get money for MP3 player and memory card sales? It strikes me that nothing will make people think piracy is okay, like being billed for the music in advance through a tax on the device they buy.
I would imagine that their most popular social network and a high-profile freedom-enabling tool are part of a high-priority subset of the internet filtering operation's targets. They would be configured by a more trusted group than the rest of the rest of the sites they control. Having them in the same subset would make it all the more likely that a DNS configuration mistake would involve both.
It does seem more likely that it's deliberate, though.
nVidia is only just promoting - not shipping - mobile GPUs which can, in its own words, match those in the 360 and PS3, and by extension the WiiU. Those are parts that will be in this year's $700 smartphones, not $70 Android sticks.
Slashdot Mirror
Once upon a time, Android was supposed to be an open-source OS anyone could take and work on, and not just "iOS, but designed by Google instead of Apple". These days you can have AOSP and attempt to scrape together an out-of-date OS and thirdparty services, or you can be a signed up licencee of Google's vision for mobile.
One of the axioms of ecosystem change is that it favours opportunistic species over slowly-adapting ones. Most opportunistic species are known as pests because their opportunism is incompatible with our preference for controlled environments (weeds finding niches in gardens, rats finding niches in buildings) but it'd be interesting to speculate about opportunists we actually like.
Interesting, but the "colonies" in question are human-raised bee hives; if incorporation of plastic into the hives was an important factor, it would have become obvious to the farmers, and later to investigators studying the hives for potential pathogens.
You're right, it still doesn't make any damn sense as written. The denominator would have to be something completely un-obvious and incorrect for that number to fall out.
Globalisation is not inherently the devil. In this instance, it is the direct source of the problem.
Are we still talking about the UN report that some conservative blog called "only communism can prevent forest fires", but literally read "China's populace are eager for air that they don't have to look at"?
Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?
It's not about wondering where the pollution comes from, it's about putting a number on it, smartass.
They actually discuss a full decade of emissions data from 2000-2009, and state that they picked 2006 as an interesting turning point in China's consumption versus production emissions. I'm guessing that 2000-2009 was the most up to date info when somebody started their PhD in 2009, and now they're writing up.
One's the average, one's the maximum day-to-day. It fluctuates. It's not the study that's "full of shit", it's that the New Scientist article is written unclearly. You can find the original PNAS at the bottom of the NS piece, can't tell if it's open-access because I've got a golden ticket:
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Those local sources aren't really charging you "what it actually costs to produce", because once upon a time they would've had a much larger niche, could've run a larger - yet still modest - store, and therefore had much lower costs. I dare say people would be willing to pay those costs, and use that medium-sized source, but unfortunately that niche is gone.
"More efficient" in the economic sense only means that it operates at lower cost. Always start from that axiom. While there are some pollution-reduction methods that are also economically efficient (e.g. reusing or selling your waste products rather than dumping them) that is unfortunately those are in the minority. That's why pollution tariffs exist; they add environmental impact to the efficiency problem. In China's case, where their economic efficiency largely comes from cheap power from coal, you've definitely got a conflict.
No, he means that if US-attributable pollution is X% of China's pollution output, then it cannot possibly be more than X% of the pollution at the West coast of the US. Either it's X%, if the stuff originating in China is the only source; or it's less if mix it with other sources. Unless the pollution somehow fractionates according to attribution.
The New Scientist article has smudged a lot of things from the original text. Basically overall, they find that "EEE-related Chinese pollution contributed about 3–10% of the annual mean surface sulfate concentrations, 1–3% of BC, 2–3% of CO, and 0.5–1.5% of ozone over the western contiguous United States (west of 100W)." However the amount reaching the US was highly variable from day to day (is episodic) because the atmosphere is complicated. It can "save up" pollution and dump it en mass, and on those days, it could account for "12-24% of sulfate concentrations, 2–5% of ozone, 4–6% of CO, and up to 11% of BC over the western United States".
Nope, definitely low-level; it's a tropospheric transport model. Apparently it's a standard model (GEOS-Chem) that's pretty reliable, and it seems to incorporate interactions between particulates and the surface, including e.g. exchange of particulates between the troposphere and ocean/land.
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Isn't France dropping its nuclear power commitment by half?
Yes, I'm sure that the computational physics that performed the research must have overlooked one of the simplest principles of numerical modelling in performing the research. I'd love to hear your insights into the Rosetta mission. "That's not a comet, that's clearly just a smudge on the lens. They obviously forgot to clean the probe after they made it."
No offense intended, my bad.
Doesn't take large-scale long-term forecasts seriously. Is worried about Yellowstone caldera and global ice age, hopes we evolve into superbeings.
In all seriousness the physics involved in the forecast in the article are probably simpler than the physics involved in predicting Yellowstone's changes of eruption.
I'm just going to give up submitting stories that aren't in peer-reviewed journals at this point. :(
Don't they get money for MP3 player and memory card sales? It strikes me that nothing will make people think piracy is okay, like being billed for the music in advance through a tax on the device they buy.
I would imagine that their most popular social network and a high-profile freedom-enabling tool are part of a high-priority subset of the internet filtering operation's targets. They would be configured by a more trusted group than the rest of the rest of the sites they control. Having them in the same subset would make it all the more likely that a DNS configuration mistake would involve both.
It does seem more likely that it's deliberate, though.
nVidia is only just promoting - not shipping - mobile GPUs which can, in its own words, match those in the 360 and PS3, and by extension the WiiU. Those are parts that will be in this year's $700 smartphones, not $70 Android sticks.
Turns out it's an enormous long con to sell us all herbal viagra?
Ha, "enormous long con".
Ah, I didn't realise that movie piracy was a Federal offense. Which given that it crosses state lines, it kind of has to be.