Firstly, I don't like when people use the word "fact" in these discussions. It is not a scientific notion, it is a popular one. Like the popular word "theory" (hypothesis) verses the scientific word "Theory" (hypothesis with supporting data which has survived experiment).
I agree that the basic physics of CO2 infra red absorption are being conveniently forgotten here by the warming deniers. It is worth realising that in 1896 Arrhenius, no less, argued based on fundamental physics that if the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere were to double the Earth's temperature would rise by 5C. Most of the GCMs etc since then are trying to find whether this is true considering all the various factors of the Earth that might complicate any temperature change. But basically, the basic physics say global warming is to be expected. It would therefore seem to be that the argument about whether global warming is due to CO2 would be to assume it is correct, and the naysayers have to supply the evidence.
This reminds me of Gregory Benford's SF novel Timescape. In that story a researcher at the end of the 20th century is researching with a material sample and ends up sending a message back in time to 1962. A dialogue ensues, two way communication continues until the communication causes a change in the past that causes a parallel world split. I've seen this same story in different guises twice since. Most reasonable view of time travel. But then again I haven't trusted the whole time travel stuff since I thought hard about it in philosophy 101... later exposure to lots of physics didn't dissuade me from the opinion that the time travel notion is like the meta-physical mumbo jumbo scientists got up to in previous eras... we just think we're too smart / knowledgeable to make the same mistakes. Meh.
Actually I had these same feelings when I first saw the the images of the landing of the NEAR probe on Eros (note the final image). There was silt so fine that it flowed like a liquid and even looked like it had surface tension. This reminded me of when I was a kid I had seen fine silt mud settle out in water with a similar effect. Some very interesting physics must be going on the surface of Mars and the asteroids. Particles the size of colloids interacting like molecules to form a quasi liquid?
Bad bad analogy. There is plenty of light on an overcast day. But still the sea looks grey. Light is being scattered / reflected from the surface not from underneath. Gees. Basic physics guys. At the angle that we see the surface of a sea then we will usually be seeing reflected / scattered light from the sea. In sunlight where the light has a dominant source then the colour we see may reflect the colour of the water itself if we are at an angle to make the transmitted (back scattered) light from the depths greater in intensity than any reflected from the surface. So if you are in a boat the sea on the horizon will look very different to the sea right over the side... especially with direct sun at midday.
As for the topic in question. The tracks in the original image do indeed look like they have gone through a puddle. How it could survive in the near vacuum is interesting... maybe it is very salty.
When I was a kid I could hear the high frequency hum of a TV set turned on. And traced it to the CRT. In fact it was pretty loud. Probably more kids heard it and just thought it was normal. Of course adults tend to lose the high frequencies early... even by late teens without exposure to loud noise. Though you may be an exception.
I was talking to a comms/software engineer at work. He's been in the industry for several decades. He complained that he could feel RF in our R&D room and sure enough found that one of the ETC transmitters was turned on full power. He told me he was sensitive to radio frequency EM and it had helped him through the radio comms part of his career. So don't bet these frequencies, EM or sonic, don't affect the rest of us, just that we are not quite sensitive enough to feel or hear it.
The parent should be rated 5 insightful, not funny.
Items 10 to 6 are true of everyone, just that women seem to know what the stakes are. Us guys take a lot of hits from this stuff, and if we are smart we finally wise up and see what it is doing to our family. That is why older IT people are soooo skeptical of attempts to get them to work longer hours: rewards none, family costs high.
The others: could be true, I must ask some of the women programmers here what they think. BTW, in my office about a quarter of the programmers are female. And I don't drool, well except for...
Sometime ago I came to the realisation that linux shouldn't be ready for the 'average joe'. If it got to that stage it would be so dumbed down it would be a travesty... you know like Gnome (ok sorry couldn't help myself, just joking). The fight isn't to 'take over the world', World Domination was a joke, it is about keeping Linux relevant by maintaining open standards. Average Joe just wants to do some simple things with high level apps (games included), he/she doesn't want to program or network admin or similar stuff that the/. crowd thinks is important, self included. But for the rest of us, Windows is cumbersome and unwieldy, you have to buy stuff to make it workable. Linux comes workable out of the box/tarball for the power user, admin, programmer. Hopefully that is the way it will stay. Note: I don't mean it shouldn't be usable for things like mp3 players and whatever, I'm sure I don't have to spell it out.
This doesn't always work. It depends on the child. Generally I'd say try the non-violent discipline approach for general stuff. An occasional slap for life threatening behaviour is ok. Once you get into the slap-defiance mode it is really hard to get back to a reasonable place. It is just like a war. This doesn't mean I support the 'liberal' approach. It depends on the child, some kids handle physical discipline well. Others can be coaxed into the right behaviour. Some kids are little monsters and can be a threat to themselves and others, they require some desperate measures. But once they are in their teens you only have influence not control. You can give advice and if you have raised them reasonably well they will listen, though not necessarily obey.
My own kids: I worry that they aren't spirited enough. Not rebellious enough. But maybe that just means I am not well balanced myself.
In fact this is why I got a landline. I don't want to pay for TV I don't watch and that will distract my kids, and I don't want wireless because I don't trust it.
I find that I absorb a subject much more readily, even if I think I know a bit about it, by reading an introductory piece on it. Something that simplifies the fundamental concepts so they don't trip you up while you're covering all the detail. Something like this needs to be done on Wikipedia. For example, if you want to read up on say quantum mechanics there should be an introductory article that covers the history and the basic ideas, why was it needed, what was the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and why was it important,......... light on equations but written to describe concepts. With links to describing this stuff in greater detail.
The danger in the current structure is that you could have a set of articles which have an entry barrier of understanding so high that only those who know most of the subject anyway could read it.
Most of the controversy is about extending the term of it to ridiculous lengths... I mean it is possible with a little more extension for the copyright to go out to 200 years.
... from TFA: don't read the points out if they in text on screen because the human brain's short term memory is compromised by doubling up on the same information in the same format.
What I believe in cannot be proved correct scientifically, therefore it cannot be proven wrong scientifically.
Therefore, you are not open minded to the possibility of being wrong, you will accept no argument. You're faith is insecure because you don't trust it to be tested by argument.
Lots of people, including scientists, believe in God. That doesn't mean they aren't willing to listen to ideas that might threaten their beliefs.
Sorry. I'd say more, but listening and talking to fundies is basically a waste of time I have found. They don't have anything to offer and they don't think for themselves. I've got better things to do.
Yeah I wondered about that too. But it shouldn't be too bad. F'rinstance, if both are suns like ours then the habitable zone would be wider and further out (~1.4 AU I guess). The only problem comes then from one sun occluding the other, so if the planet isn't inclined to the ecliptic too much then there will be brief, but nasty, periods when the light level drops to 50% of normal. If the suns are separated by 3 AU then half a 'cycle' (therefore one occlusion) would be about.... OK too long since I've done this stuff. Not sure what the orbital period would be for this double system, once you've got it you could work out the period of time for the dimming. I'm guessing it might be a few weeks. If the Earth abruptly went into arctic conditions for 2 or 3 weeks I'm sure life could survive. Would strongly promote some interesting adaptations. The weather might get very 'interesting' though.
Not sure why the parent is modded funny when it so true. I switch my PC on daily, but I don't care about the amount of time it takes to start up... except if it took 5 minutes like my win2k box at work used to (grrr)... but I digress. So my linux install with too much stuff installed takes 60 seconds to boot, I don't really notice... if I really cared about it I'd just leave it on or stop the startup of so many things... not a biggie.
I have recently been looking at the DVD of Forbidden Planet and each time I watch it I am impressed by how good it is. Some flowery dialog, but overall it is subtle, scientifically reasonable, no evil aliens and about universal issues. And it also has some wonderfully creepy moments: I still think the 'footprints' scene is one of the best in movie sci-fi. The debt of Star Trek etc to it is pretty obvious.
Before Star Wars there was a lot of serious SF, some depressingly so. After that it was space fantasy... ok in small doses bug gees. I think the pendulum has now swung back a bit, for example compare the old and new versions of Battlestar Galactica.
Actually, nowadays with easy access to special effects etc I'm surprised indie developers aren't doing more intelligent SF movies. They don't have to special effects feasts, just use it where needed and no more. I would think there would be a niche for such movies, there's been a lot of good SF short stories and novellas written that would be great to see on the big screen or distributed via the net.
I particularly liked the comment near the bottom of the page that since this body (lengthwise the diameter of Pluto) is in an unstable zone then in about a billion years it will become a comet ploughing into the inner system... gasp! It and its moons will be some sight... make even Bruce Willis crap in his pants.
I have read the article that most people usually refer to when they say "read what he said about global warming". Well, you know the thing is he doesn't actually say anything about global warming. He launches into an attack on the scientists involved. At no time does he discuss the evidence. It was quite an ordeal getting through it because it was so reminiscent when I used to read Creationist books in order to attack them. I once really liked Crichton, not just his fiction but some of his other stuff.... but now the guy has zero credibility with me.
If a large percentage of the population came down with the virus and it was even 10% fatal, instead of the 60% of bird flu, no one would give a shit about youtube... if it was still up it would be closed if it presented a problem.
Don't know why I even bother to reply to an AC, there's a reason they're normally below my threshold.
Firstly, I didn't say it was hard. I was describing my reasons that I find from experience in the industry as a whole that software is often LATE. Learn to read.
You must have gone to some two bit Uni then to get your CS degree. Because even when I got my degree software engineering was treated very seriously, and those were the days when it was just getting off the ground. These days most of the developers I know can rightly be called Software Engineers.
You don't seem to have much experience with the way most software is written these days. Possibly because you have only been in the industry for a short time (3 years CS == a novice). Take a read of "Death March" by Yourdon and see what he has to say of bleeding edge technology.
In 20 years of software development I have worked for companies that had good management and others that have bad. The issue I mentioned about the 24 hour design change... when a client asks something and the general manager tells you to do it or find another job then the requirements etc don't matter. Too many companies function that way. And in fact, while I am on a roll, almost all of them were engineering firms. Engineers, generally, make the worst software developers, picking up code written by engineers, many of whom I regarded as extremely smart, is painful. Bad design, bad coding, poor documentation, unnecessarily complex. Though the documentation problem is universal.
I read somewhere that in science fiction writing this is called "The Tooth Fairy Principle". Don't introduce more than one exotic technology or idea. I immediately realised that it applied even more strongly to software development. New areas represent areas of high risk, adding even a few to a project can change the risk from moderate to very high. I've participated in a few projects who broke this principle... as usual commenting on the risk that this implied only made me sound like a Cassandra when eventually the prediction bore fruit.
However, the major reasons I see for software projects becoming late are: clients repeatedly wanting to change design after the design phase (in one surreal case we had a client change a fundamental design issue 24 hours before going live!), poor resource allocation (a very large subject), management saying yes to unrealistic deadlines, bleeding edge technology (Tooth Fairy Principle - high buzzword compliance).
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, I don't like when people use the word "fact" in these discussions. It is not a scientific notion, it is a popular one. Like the popular word "theory" (hypothesis) verses the scientific word "Theory" (hypothesis with supporting data which has survived experiment).
I agree that the basic physics of CO2 infra red absorption are being conveniently forgotten here by the warming deniers. It is worth realising that in 1896 Arrhenius, no less, argued based on fundamental physics that if the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere were to double the Earth's temperature would rise by 5C. Most of the GCMs etc since then are trying to find whether this is true considering all the various factors of the Earth that might complicate any temperature change. But basically, the basic physics say global warming is to be expected. It would therefore seem to be that the argument about whether global warming is due to CO2 would be to assume it is correct, and the naysayers have to supply the evidence.
This reminds me of Gregory Benford's SF novel Timescape. In that story a researcher at the end of the 20th century is researching with a material sample and ends up sending a message back in time to 1962. A dialogue ensues, two way communication continues until the communication causes a change in the past that causes a parallel world split. I've seen this same story in different guises twice since. Most reasonable view of time travel. But then again I haven't trusted the whole time travel stuff since I thought hard about it in philosophy 101 ... later exposure to lots of physics didn't dissuade me from the opinion that the time travel notion is like the meta-physical mumbo jumbo scientists got up to in previous eras ... we just think we're too smart / knowledgeable to make the same mistakes. Meh.
Actually I had these same feelings when I first saw the the images of the landing of the NEAR probe on Eros (note the final image). There was silt so fine that it flowed like a liquid and even looked like it had surface tension. This reminded me of when I was a kid I had seen fine silt mud settle out in water with a similar effect. Some very interesting physics must be going on the surface of Mars and the asteroids. Particles the size of colloids interacting like molecules to form a quasi liquid?
Bad bad analogy. There is plenty of light on an overcast day. But still the sea looks grey. Light is being scattered / reflected from the surface not from underneath. Gees. Basic physics guys. At the angle that we see the surface of a sea then we will usually be seeing reflected / scattered light from the sea. In sunlight where the light has a dominant source then the colour we see may reflect the colour of the water itself if we are at an angle to make the transmitted (back scattered) light from the depths greater in intensity than any reflected from the surface. So if you are in a boat the sea on the horizon will look very different to the sea right over the side ... especially with direct sun at midday.
As for the topic in question. The tracks in the original image do indeed look like they have gone through a puddle. How it could survive in the near vacuum is interesting ... maybe it is very salty.
When I was a kid I could hear the high frequency hum of a TV set turned on. And traced it to the CRT. In fact it was pretty loud. Probably more kids heard it and just thought it was normal. Of course adults tend to lose the high frequencies early ... even by late teens without exposure to loud noise. Though you may be an exception.
I was talking to a comms/software engineer at work. He's been in the industry for several decades. He complained that he could feel RF in our R&D room and sure enough found that one of the ETC transmitters was turned on full power. He told me he was sensitive to radio frequency EM and it had helped him through the radio comms part of his career. So don't bet these frequencies, EM or sonic, don't affect the rest of us, just that we are not quite sensitive enough to feel or hear it.
The parent should be rated 5 insightful, not funny.
Items 10 to 6 are true of everyone, just that women seem to know what the stakes are. Us guys take a lot of hits from this stuff, and if we are smart we finally wise up and see what it is doing to our family. That is why older IT people are soooo skeptical of attempts to get them to work longer hours: rewards none, family costs high.
The others: could be true, I must ask some of the women programmers here what they think. BTW, in my office about a quarter of the programmers are female. And I don't drool, well except for ...
Agree.
Sometime ago I came to the realisation that linux shouldn't be ready for the 'average joe'. If it got to that stage it would be so dumbed down it would be a travesty ... you know like Gnome (ok sorry couldn't help myself, just joking). The fight isn't to 'take over the world', World Domination was a joke, it is about keeping Linux relevant by maintaining open standards. Average Joe just wants to do some simple things with high level apps (games included), he/she doesn't want to program or network admin or similar stuff that the /. crowd thinks is important, self included. But for the rest of us, Windows is cumbersome and unwieldy, you have to buy stuff to make it workable. Linux comes workable out of the box/tarball for the power user, admin, programmer. Hopefully that is the way it will stay. Note: I don't mean it shouldn't be usable for things like mp3 players and whatever, I'm sure I don't have to spell it out.
My 2 cents. br.
This doesn't always work. It depends on the child. Generally I'd say try the non-violent discipline approach for general stuff. An occasional slap for life threatening behaviour is ok. Once you get into the slap-defiance mode it is really hard to get back to a reasonable place. It is just like a war. This doesn't mean I support the 'liberal' approach. It depends on the child, some kids handle physical discipline well. Others can be coaxed into the right behaviour. Some kids are little monsters and can be a threat to themselves and others, they require some desperate measures. But once they are in their teens you only have influence not control. You can give advice and if you have raised them reasonably well they will listen, though not necessarily obey.
My own kids: I worry that they aren't spirited enough. Not rebellious enough. But maybe that just means I am not well balanced myself.
This is the the high tech equivalent of apes grooming each other. No information content. Translated it means:
You there?
Yeah
OK
Good
It serves an emotional purpose not a communication one.
In fact this is why I got a landline. I don't want to pay for TV I don't watch and that will distract my kids, and I don't want wireless because I don't trust it.
I find that I absorb a subject much more readily, even if I think I know a bit about it, by reading an introductory piece on it. Something that simplifies the fundamental concepts so they don't trip you up while you're covering all the detail. Something like this needs to be done on Wikipedia. For example, if you want to read up on say quantum mechanics there should be an introductory article that covers the history and the basic ideas, why was it needed, what was the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and why was it important, ......... light on equations but written to describe concepts. With links to describing this stuff in greater detail.
The danger in the current structure is that you could have a set of articles which have an entry barrier of understanding so high that only those who know most of the subject anyway could read it.
Who opposes copyright?
Most of the controversy is about extending the term of it to ridiculous lengths ... I mean it is possible with a little more extension for the copyright to go out to 200 years.
... escape velocity
... from TFA: don't read the points out if they in text on screen because the human brain's short term memory is compromised by doubling up on the same information in the same format.
You mean it boots!
I think they made a mistake in the pronunciation, it should be Windows Fester.
What I believe in cannot be proved correct scientifically, therefore it cannot be proven wrong scientifically.
Therefore, you are not open minded to the possibility of being wrong, you will accept no argument. You're faith is insecure because you don't trust it to be tested by argument.
Lots of people, including scientists, believe in God. That doesn't mean they aren't willing to listen to ideas that might threaten their beliefs.
Sorry. I'd say more, but listening and talking to fundies is basically a waste of time I have found. They don't have anything to offer and they don't think for themselves. I've got better things to do.
Yeah I wondered about that too. But it shouldn't be too bad. F'rinstance, if both are suns like ours then the habitable zone would be wider and further out (~1.4 AU I guess). The only problem comes then from one sun occluding the other, so if the planet isn't inclined to the ecliptic too much then there will be brief, but nasty, periods when the light level drops to 50% of normal. If the suns are separated by 3 AU then half a 'cycle' (therefore one occlusion) would be about .... OK too long since I've done this stuff. Not sure what the orbital period would be for this double system, once you've got it you could work out the period of time for the dimming. I'm guessing it might be a few weeks. If the Earth abruptly went into arctic conditions for 2 or 3 weeks I'm sure life could survive. Would strongly promote some interesting adaptations. The weather might get very 'interesting' though.
Maybe someone can supply some realistic numbers.
Hmm. That last line is very nice and catchy indeed.
Not sure why the parent is modded funny when it so true. I switch my PC on daily, but I don't care about the amount of time it takes to start up ... except if it took 5 minutes like my win2k box at work used to (grrr) ... but I digress. So my linux install with too much stuff installed takes 60 seconds to boot, I don't really notice ... if I really cared about it I'd just leave it on or stop the startup of so many things ... not a biggie.
I have recently been looking at the DVD of Forbidden Planet and each time I watch it I am impressed by how good it is. Some flowery dialog, but overall it is subtle, scientifically reasonable, no evil aliens and about universal issues. And it also has some wonderfully creepy moments: I still think the 'footprints' scene is one of the best in movie sci-fi. The debt of Star Trek etc to it is pretty obvious.
Before Star Wars there was a lot of serious SF, some depressingly so. After that it was space fantasy ... ok in small doses bug gees. I think the pendulum has now swung back a bit, for example compare the old and new versions of Battlestar Galactica.
Actually, nowadays with easy access to special effects etc I'm surprised indie developers aren't doing more intelligent SF movies. They don't have to special effects feasts, just use it where needed and no more. I would think there would be a niche for such movies, there's been a lot of good SF short stories and novellas written that would be great to see on the big screen or distributed via the net.
I particularly liked the comment near the bottom of the page that since this body (lengthwise the diameter of Pluto) is in an unstable zone then in about a billion years it will become a comet ploughing into the inner system ... gasp! It and its moons will be some sight ... make even Bruce Willis crap in his pants.
I have read the article that most people usually refer to when they say "read what he said about global warming". Well, you know the thing is he doesn't actually say anything about global warming. He launches into an attack on the scientists involved. At no time does he discuss the evidence. It was quite an ordeal getting through it because it was so reminiscent when I used to read Creationist books in order to attack them. I once really liked Crichton, not just his fiction but some of his other stuff .... but now the guy has zero credibility with me.
First, sensible post I've seen on the topic here.
If a large percentage of the population came down with the virus and it was even 10% fatal, instead of the 60% of bird flu, no one would give a shit about youtube ... if it was still up it would be closed if it presented a problem.
Don't know why I even bother to reply to an AC, there's a reason they're normally below my threshold.
Firstly, I didn't say it was hard. I was describing my reasons that I find from experience in the industry as a whole that software is often LATE. Learn to read.
You must have gone to some two bit Uni then to get your CS degree. Because even when I got my degree software engineering was treated very seriously, and those were the days when it was just getting off the ground. These days most of the developers I know can rightly be called Software Engineers.
You don't seem to have much experience with the way most software is written these days. Possibly because you have only been in the industry for a short time (3 years CS == a novice). Take a read of "Death March" by Yourdon and see what he has to say of bleeding edge technology.
In 20 years of software development I have worked for companies that had good management and others that have bad. The issue I mentioned about the 24 hour design change ... when a client asks something and the general manager tells you to do it or find another job then the requirements etc don't matter. Too many companies function that way. And in fact, while I am on a roll, almost all of them were engineering firms. Engineers, generally, make the worst software developers, picking up code written by engineers, many of whom I regarded as extremely smart, is painful. Bad design, bad coding, poor documentation, unnecessarily complex. Though the documentation problem is universal.
I read somewhere that in science fiction writing this is called "The Tooth Fairy Principle". Don't introduce more than one exotic technology or idea. I immediately realised that it applied even more strongly to software development. New areas represent areas of high risk, adding even a few to a project can change the risk from moderate to very high. I've participated in a few projects who broke this principle ... as usual commenting on the risk that this implied only made me sound like a Cassandra when eventually the prediction bore fruit.
However, the major reasons I see for software projects becoming late are: clients repeatedly wanting to change design after the design phase (in one surreal case we had a client change a fundamental design issue 24 hours before going live!), poor resource allocation (a very large subject), management saying yes to unrealistic deadlines, bleeding edge technology (Tooth Fairy Principle - high buzzword compliance).