Lithium in mineable concentration is pretty rare as it is and highly priced because of Lithium-Ion batteries - that's why everyone is searching for another battery type in the first place.
Yes it is. And it is also a war crime to - not use recognizable uniforms for troops - employ irregular troops - specifically target civilians - kill enemy regulars that have surrendered - hide weapons in civilian buildings, cars, facilities - use civilians as humans shields - hide fighters within a civilian population - employ weapons that produce a high collateral damage - employ and bury landmines or other hidden explosive devices - take hostages - kill hostages - employ medical personnel without a Red [Cross;Crescent;Magen David;Crystal;etc.] - imprison marked medical personnel of either side - specifically target medical personnel - specifically target important religious, medical, civilian, cultural infrastructure - and often overlooked: employ unnecessary violent or humiliating means of combat (nuclear, biological, chemical agents, laser lights, shooting parachutists, fragmenting bullets)
The West will probably have to admit some tick marks on this list on their way from Dresden to My Lai and Abu Ghraib.
But there is one faction that has fought in most conflicts, wars, skirmishes or singular firefights under different names but a similar goal and ideology over the last 30 years that has managed to breach pretty much every single article of the Geneva Convention and all similar treaties and continues to do so on a weekly basis. The same faction that always protests when its enemies didn't or couldn't follow the Geneva Convention, for example when weapons were delivered in "medical vehicles", stashed in "religious sanctuaries" or ordnance was launched from within an orphanage or equivalent rabble rouser.
Given that, I don't think our spies are the problem here. We could build ten instances of Abu Ghraib and operate them for a year until we come close to the record level of Geneva breaching racked up by our oh so reputable adversaries of Book and Sword.
The main difference between Google and Facebook is that on one platform, you knowingly signed up and put data about yourself up for grabs. Google on the other hand is actively mining data from wherever it can, meaning it may connect some dots you rather not have liked to be publicly viewable.
Nobody is perfect and well-mannered all the time and some have hobbies and private ummm interests that they would share with like-minded individuals but not in Hell with the general public.
There's a ton of semi-personal information pieces that I can imagine their owners would never like to have it searchable, aggregated and accessible for Anon and everyone. Imagine the following tidbits (not from me or necessary and single individual, just as an example)
- being a member of a right wing party - being a member of a left wing party - being a member of a local chapter of the Ex-Muslims - being a member of the local chapter of the Sunni or Shiite or Alevite Muslims - being an author of Mohammed cartoons - having voiced an opinion pro or contra abortions - being gay, lesbian, transgendered - not living a gay lifestyle but not minding the occasional meet with a man - having recently won the lottery - living with a serious disease - having a married affair - running for public office
All these personal habits, beliefs or lifestyles are perfectly legal and should raise no issues in a state of democracy and rule of law. But some people choose not accept that and will surely pester them with threats. violence or even assassination attempts.
That is what privacy is for: ensure that all law-abiding people are safe even IF someone chooses to ignore basic human rights by pressing their own way of life by violence and threats. Without privacy, democracy cannot live because it is squashed by silent but effective mob rule against 'dissidents' or some who don't conform to a certain ideal.
Face it: YOU (and that means everyone who can read this) regularly do SOMETHING that SOMEONE hates like hell and thinks it should be punished by violence or death. No matter if it is porn, pork, alcohol, tobacco, adultery, active religious life or whatever - Without anonymity, people would be a whole less free because they'd have to fear repercussions from everything they do - or did, thirty years ago while drunk in college, because Google never forgets anything.
Here in Europe, they are allowed to marry when one partner is over 18 and the other is at least 16, when the parents of the underage partner consent.
After that, they're married and can have or adopt children as they like. And even if they have a divorce before the underage partner reached 18, it's no criminal matter unless one beat or raped the other. This marriage is therefore treated equal to all other marriages.
As much as I wanted to have a vote in probably one of the most important elections, we Europeans do not yet get to decide. We will whine about everything you do, though. Bush did everything wrong and Obama did not enough here, and too much there and all that.
But anyway, Obama brought the US of A back in line with the rest of the Western world: a world full of do-gooders, white guilt, non-existant backbone, high taxation, never-ending transfer of wealth to the lazy, insane and ever growing national debts, a politically-correct press, encroaching law, moral and thought enforcement and last but not least man-made climate religion.
What we needed is a breath of fresh air. The Swiss brought something of that and I can only hope they got some kind of avalanche rolling.
This will only advance for as long as people are willing to put up with this or too frightened to stand up against it. I'm sorry, but The State has tasted real power and will not stop until citizens start throwing Tea in Harbors again.
If the US jurisdiction would actually, really prosecute - a married man - for having consensual, penetrative sex - with his legally, lawfully wedded woman - to conceive a child they both want then it's time for another Tea Party.
If an 18 year old boy/man/teenager is legally allowed to marry an 17-year old girl/woman/teenager, but can be sent to jail for actually founding a family, then something is seriously wrong. Wrong enough to skip Ballot, Soap, Jury and go straight for the Ammo box. Nuclear ammo. Several Strategic Missile Wings of them.
The state interfering with something what not even the most absolute redneck, bible-thumping, backwards fundamentalists would consider to be wrong - ridiculous. Any person, institution or agency that dares to interfere with the consensual happenings inside a married couple's bedroom is seriously deranged, criminal, amoral and dangerous.
The founding of a family after marriage is universally regarded as the most sacred and non-disputable private act a person can do. Nothing can ever be more private, more important, more morally absolute and more worthy of protection than that.
If the state really, successfully, intentionally interfered with *that* core of all human rights, they could not make matters any worse, not even by converting the entire country to a forced labor camp complete with industrial-sized gas chambers. That would only add a fitting touch of honesty.
Please tell me that this is a sick joke. I would never consider myself to be conservative or even religious, but this would be stuff to not only start hoarding guns or even digging them out, but to actually use them and not on innocent deer either. Well-regulated or not.
Do what you like, but the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are completely arbitrary. They are very convenient and I would absolutely detest weather reports or anything for day-to-day life listed in Kelvins.
But Celsius is not an absolute scale and therefore prohibits a real comparison between temperatures. 40 degrees Celsius is not double the warmth of 20 degrees Celsius and never was.
Using the Celsius scale for anything scientific is bound to produce artifacts, errors and misconceptions. Kelvin scale is required even for high school-level science, when i.e. caluclating the mixing temperature of hot and cold water, which is also relevant for discussions around Global Warming.
Therefore, when doing anything scientific, use the Kelvin scale. Using Celsius is probably appealing to the masses, but misleading.
When two measurements conflict, you carefully analyze for possible errors in basic assumptions and surroundings.
Or you drop the least reliable measurement completely.
You don't cherry pick values from 1880 to 1960 from source and values from 1960 to 2000 from source B when both sources show heavy conflicts in overlapping periods. Because you get to decide which measurement to trust, you also decide which measurement you LIKE better.
That is the statistical equivalent to dowsing around with a diving rod, because you replace all sensors with your gut feelings. And gut feelings are not sciencey.
You're right, I hide things that are confusing to the user.
Except scientists should not hide their data and should never ever paint over statistically calculated trends with trends they assume must be there.
If the hockey stick curve faced downwards the last few years, then so be it.
But I will never trust scientists that make changes to their data because they think the results are not right.
Real scientists either re-create the data points if possible, exclude them if they are not critically important or carefully analyze their methodology if the suprising trend persists.
But real scientists will not mask a surprising trend. Only liars and hypocrites do.
That would make for an increase of around 35 percent, ignoring for a while that this is still parts per million, - do you know how to tell an increase in released CO2 (ie. through gas-guzzlers) from from a decrease in absorbed CO2 (ie. through deforestation)?
I would argue that we cannot know if a given amount of CO2 is released or just not absorbed.
The first chart is nice, but it tells only a litte, because we don't have an absolute scale. It shows an increase, but I'd rather like to see it unnormalized - on the *Kelvin* scale, I might add.
Fact: Celsius and Fahrenheit are convenience units only, because they cannot show any ratio at all. A room temperature of 20 degrees Celsius is NOT the double of 10 degrees Celsius. Boiling water (1 liter at 100 C) does not contain 5 times the energy of the same amount of water at room temperature (1 l at 20C) - this is often overlooked when using Celsius or Fahrenheit based units.
Since the graph shown is normalized but conspicously omits its average or center. Now I assume the world average temperature is somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 degrees Celsius, but the exact value doesn't really matter as we will see right now.
We have a delta-t = 1 Kelvin with a base average of t-0 = [258; 268] K over a solid 100 years. If the world temperature average was 258 Kelvin in 1880, it is 259 Kelvin in 2000.
Fact: That means we have, on average, a temperature increase of 1K per 100 years, or an increase of 0,39 percent over ONE HUNDRED years.
Fact: Every year, the temperature rose on average 0.01K or 0.0039 percent.
Fact: Temperature differences of less than 0.01 K require very sensitive equipment to be measured correctly.
Question: did we had such sensitive equipment deployed worldwide back in 1880 or in 1960?.
Fact: For the age 1880 to 1960, all temperature gauges had to be read optically and written down manually.
Error range estimate: assuming we had 200 worldwide temperature stations with each of them submitting 365 daily averages to be computed into one year's average. (for a limited temperature station coverage in 1880-1960, before mass production of electronics made that point moot) - so we get 73'000 temperature values to calculate the yearly average temperature.
Let's imagine that out of 73000 temperature readings only 3 values were only 1 degree Celsius off. The person reading the temperature scale made an error and incorrectly reported 21 degrees when the true daily average was 20 degrees.
If we have 3 erroneous readings out of 73000, the error is 50% higher than the assumed increase in global temperature.
73000 readings throughout one year, distributed around the globe, done by lab assistants, students using whatever equipment they have. I would be highly suprised if more than 70000 of them are within a 1 degree range of errors.
So we have another Fact: for all years up until around 1960, the margin of error is at least 50% higher than the presumed signal.
Only one single reading being off only one single degree could account for half the yearly's supposed temperature increase. With the signal being equal to an of 2 degree error in 73000 readings, all statistical and scientific results are to take with a very large grain of salt.
A temperature increase of 0.01K is probably less than the radiated body heat of a small bird resting somewhere near the sensor.
My dictionary returns several possibilites for speak and neither of it is pinyinized "an".
But anyway, according to my dictionary, the characters in Tiananmen would literally translate to tian God/Heaven/Day-peaceful an peaceful/silent/healthy men entrance/gate/door
This term signifies the very gate where the emperor went through on certain festivities, and for people to watch this gate they built this huge public square. This is surreal enough for me, thank you:)
That is not how science normally works, but climate scienctists defend with nails and teeth.
Some Shamans claim to see patterns and hints for the future in observations they will not share with the general public unfiltered and raw because they claim only climate scientists can read them.
Some climate scientists claim to see patterns and hints for the future in observations they will not share with the general public unfiltered and raw because they claim only climate scientists can read them.
Scientists don't read bones, but data and their conclusions are not only peer-reviewed by other scientists but can be reviewed by a large audience general or anyone rich enough to pay for a Springerlink or similar account.
But climate scientists critical of Global Warming cannot peer-review scientists defending Global Warming, because both sides hate each other with a true passion. Now the general public has only watered down results and the slight hint of intellectual, well, call it "family pollination" within AGW supporters.
They have a link to Chillingeffects or at least had one a while back.
Of course it is because of government censorship, but only the rose-colored, doubleplusgood flavor of it - for the fight against Nazism.
Because everything Nazis did was evil and perverted, a general consensus has emerged in Germany that everything done AGAINST Nazis must therefore be fine and dandy.
So we got our censorship back. High-profile Neo Nazi sites like Stormfront.org and a couple of Holocaust deniers are censored through Google. Every once in a while the general unwashed public remembers a demand to block known Nazi IPs at the router level, but after beating around a little bit they accept that they probably cannot succeed in doing that because the evil Nazis could present different IPs, use darknets or just move on to another forum.
When the activists that drive each wave finally realize that every censorship infrastructure comprehensive enough to crush their evil Nazi foes will always be capable of crushing their pirated music downloads, they suddenly lose focus.
Another poster brought a similar result, so I think it has either something to do with clear keyword censorship OR that the correct term is simply overcrowded with harmless results to bury the naughty results deep down in Search Nirvana.
Is this a common romanization error or a code word to work around censorship?
Tien is not recognized by my IME and doesn't return any searches except for a common romanization mistake for a family name that is also pinyined as Tian.
I recognize Tieban, but only because it has something to do with food:)
Japan, South Korea and of course also Taiwan (aka "The Republic Of China") actually suppress some misdeeds in their history and anyone caring to bring unpleasant things from the past to light is ridiculed and bullied by the public. This is not totalitarism but probably just the dominant Far Eastern culture and mindset: ancients are sacred, and publicly(!) criticizing one's family or group or city or country nothing but treason.
Anyway, I don't see Taiwan, Japan or S.Korea on the fast track to tyranny. But I would be surprised if you can get away with publicly criticizing Chiang Kai-shek or any detail of his leadership and operations.
Yup, you're right on correcting me, I incorrectly wrote "tradition Chinese". This experiment was done using Chinese Simplified, because that's the prominent script on the Chinese mainland and the primary objective. I don't know if Traditional script is unreadable to the majority of mainland Chinese, but they sure will search in their regular script first.
I can only read the most common simplified characters - anyone here qualified to verify on Simplified vs. Traditional characters for tiananmen?
The search results really indicate a totally different audience writing simplified (Mainland) and traditional (Taiwan) Chinese. Maybe its speakers have totally different opinions and interests and Google doesn't skew the results but only reflect the language users.
If that is true, Mao Zedong would have a late triumph for the simplification of Chinese, when critical search results simply don't turn up in search engines because of a different UTF8 code. That is classic Orwellian stuff.
Results again wildly different. Both searches now return Chinese content, but the DE domain prominently features a YouTube link to our good old friend Tank Man, while the CN domain prominently features a city map and Baidu links, which are guaranteed to not contain something about Tank Man, I can assure you.
This get's more pronounced if we search for Tiananmen in Chinese AND the year number 1989, which simply must return some content about the protests if the search engine itself is any good.
Same result: both searches return pages entirely in Chinese, but the DE domain return a Chinese photo of the protests first and the CN domain returning only photos of The Party Leaders and happy soldiers.
Let's see your basic assumptions in the limelight:
- my post is stupid shit - my post is full of irrationality and ignorance - my post is delusionally retarded - my post comes from the United States - the United States are a microcosm of insanity - the United States are dominated by theocratic thuggery and radical free market fundamentalism - radical free market fundamentalism is far more dangerous and less intelligent than Islam
While every single point you assumed is so absurdly false that a 5-year-old can tear it apart, it's still a nice list of insults you brought there. I kind of hoped for the tried-and-true "your momma"-line of arguments, but was a bit disappointed.
The technology we're researching on government ie tax payer money is not out of market reasons, but out of political reasons. That alone means it is probably not the best allocation there is, very mildly speaking.
The technology we're researching doesn't actually cover surviving in a warmer world, but trying to keep the CO2 levels down. If CO2 wasn't the culprit, then we have a whole lot of nails and no hammer.
Slashdot Mirror
Lithium in mineable concentration is pretty rare as it is and highly priced because of Lithium-Ion batteries - that's why everyone is searching for another battery type in the first place.
And steel rusts like a bitch in training.
We could use stainless steel, but that would be more expensive than pure copper, I think.
Yes it is. And it is also a war crime to
- not use recognizable uniforms for troops
- employ irregular troops
- specifically target civilians
- kill enemy regulars that have surrendered
- hide weapons in civilian buildings, cars, facilities
- use civilians as humans shields
- hide fighters within a civilian population
- employ weapons that produce a high collateral damage
- employ and bury landmines or other hidden explosive devices
- take hostages
- kill hostages
- employ medical personnel without a Red [Cross;Crescent;Magen David;Crystal;etc.]
- imprison marked medical personnel of either side
- specifically target medical personnel
- specifically target important religious, medical, civilian, cultural infrastructure
- and often overlooked: employ unnecessary violent or humiliating means of combat (nuclear, biological, chemical agents, laser lights, shooting parachutists, fragmenting bullets)
The West will probably have to admit some tick marks on this list on their way from Dresden to My Lai and Abu Ghraib.
But there is one faction that has fought in most conflicts, wars, skirmishes or singular firefights under different names but a similar goal and ideology over the last 30 years that has managed to breach pretty much every single article of the Geneva Convention and all similar treaties and continues to do so on a weekly basis. The same faction that always protests when its enemies didn't or couldn't follow the Geneva Convention, for example when weapons were delivered in "medical vehicles", stashed in "religious sanctuaries" or ordnance was launched from within an orphanage or equivalent rabble rouser.
Given that, I don't think our spies are the problem here. We could build ten instances of Abu Ghraib and operate them for a year until we come close to the record level of Geneva breaching racked up by our oh so reputable adversaries of Book and Sword.
The main difference between Google and Facebook is that on one platform, you knowingly signed up and put data about yourself up for grabs. Google on the other hand is actively mining data from wherever it can, meaning it may connect some dots you rather not have liked to be publicly viewable.
Nobody is perfect and well-mannered all the time and some have hobbies and private ummm interests that they would share with like-minded individuals but not in Hell with the general public.
There's a ton of semi-personal information pieces that I can imagine their owners would never like to have it searchable, aggregated and accessible for Anon and everyone. Imagine the following tidbits (not from me or necessary and single individual, just as an example)
- being a member of a right wing party
- being a member of a left wing party
- being a member of a local chapter of the Ex-Muslims
- being a member of the local chapter of the Sunni or Shiite or Alevite Muslims
- being an author of Mohammed cartoons
- having voiced an opinion pro or contra abortions
- being gay, lesbian, transgendered
- not living a gay lifestyle but not minding the occasional meet with a man
- having recently won the lottery
- living with a serious disease
- having a married affair
- running for public office
All these personal habits, beliefs or lifestyles are perfectly legal and should raise no issues in a state of democracy and rule of law. But some people choose not accept that and will surely pester them with threats. violence or even assassination attempts.
That is what privacy is for: ensure that all law-abiding people are safe even IF someone chooses to ignore basic human rights by pressing their own way of life by violence and threats. Without privacy, democracy cannot live because it is squashed by silent but effective mob rule against 'dissidents' or some who don't conform to a certain ideal.
Face it: YOU (and that means everyone who can read this) regularly do SOMETHING that SOMEONE hates like hell and thinks it should be punished by violence or death. No matter if it is porn, pork, alcohol, tobacco, adultery, active religious life or whatever - Without anonymity, people would be a whole less free because they'd have to fear repercussions from everything they do - or did, thirty years ago while drunk in college, because Google never forgets anything.
Here in Europe, they are allowed to marry when one partner is over 18 and the other is at least 16, when the parents of the underage partner consent.
After that, they're married and can have or adopt children as they like. And even if they have a divorce before the underage partner reached 18, it's no criminal matter unless one beat or raped the other. This marriage is therefore treated equal to all other marriages.
As much as I wanted to have a vote in probably one of the most important elections, we Europeans do not yet get to decide. We will whine about everything you do, though. Bush did everything wrong and Obama did not enough here, and too much there and all that.
But anyway, Obama brought the US of A back in line with the rest of the Western world: a world full of do-gooders, white guilt, non-existant backbone, high taxation, never-ending transfer of wealth to the lazy, insane and ever growing national debts, a politically-correct press, encroaching law, moral and thought enforcement and last but not least man-made climate religion.
What we needed is a breath of fresh air. The Swiss brought something of that and I can only hope they got some kind of avalanche rolling.
This will only advance for as long as people are willing to put up with this or too frightened to stand up against it. I'm sorry, but The State has tasted real power and will not stop until citizens start throwing Tea in Harbors again.
The quote actually was "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever".
If these trends persists for another 30 years, "1984" will look like an episode of the Care Bears by then.
But over here in Western Europe, this won't matter a thing. We'll be too busy reading the Koran and learning Arabic.
If the US jurisdiction would actually, really prosecute
- a married man
- for having consensual, penetrative sex
- with his legally, lawfully wedded woman
- to conceive a child they both want
then it's time for another Tea Party.
If an 18 year old boy/man/teenager is legally allowed to marry an 17-year old girl/woman/teenager, but can be sent to jail for actually founding a family, then something is seriously wrong. Wrong enough to skip Ballot, Soap, Jury and go straight for the Ammo box. Nuclear ammo. Several Strategic Missile Wings of them.
The state interfering with something what not even the most absolute redneck, bible-thumping, backwards fundamentalists would consider to be wrong - ridiculous. Any person, institution or agency that dares to interfere with the consensual happenings inside a married couple's bedroom is seriously deranged, criminal, amoral and dangerous.
The founding of a family after marriage is universally regarded as the most sacred and non-disputable private act a person can do. Nothing can ever be more private, more important, more morally absolute and more worthy of protection than that.
If the state really, successfully, intentionally interfered with *that* core of all human rights, they could not make matters any worse, not even by converting the entire country to a forced labor camp complete with industrial-sized gas chambers. That would only add a fitting touch of honesty.
Please tell me that this is a sick joke. I would never consider myself to be conservative or even religious, but this would be stuff to not only start hoarding guns or even digging them out, but to actually use them and not on innocent deer either. Well-regulated or not.
Do what you like, but the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are completely arbitrary. They are very convenient and I would absolutely detest weather reports or anything for day-to-day life listed in Kelvins.
But Celsius is not an absolute scale and therefore prohibits a real comparison between temperatures. 40 degrees Celsius is not double the warmth of 20 degrees Celsius and never was.
Using the Celsius scale for anything scientific is bound to produce artifacts, errors and misconceptions. Kelvin scale is required even for high school-level science, when i.e. caluclating the mixing temperature of hot and cold water, which is also relevant for discussions around Global Warming.
Therefore, when doing anything scientific, use the Kelvin scale. Using Celsius is probably appealing to the masses, but misleading.
You mean, if the "doctor" got their degree by watching Youtube videos?
When two measurements conflict, you carefully analyze for possible errors in basic assumptions and surroundings.
Or you drop the least reliable measurement completely.
You don't cherry pick values from 1880 to 1960 from source and values from 1960 to 2000 from source B when both sources show heavy conflicts in overlapping periods. Because you get to decide which measurement to trust, you also decide which measurement you LIKE better.
That is the statistical equivalent to dowsing around with a diving rod, because you replace all sensors with your gut feelings. And gut feelings are not sciencey.
You're right, I hide things that are confusing to the user.
Except scientists should not hide their data and should never ever paint over statistically calculated trends with trends they assume must be there.
If the hockey stick curve faced downwards the last few years, then so be it.
But I will never trust scientists that make changes to their data because they think the results are not right.
Real scientists either re-create the data points if possible, exclude them if they are not critically important or carefully analyze their methodology if the suprising trend persists.
But real scientists will not mask a surprising trend. Only liars and hypocrites do.
That would make for an increase of around 35 percent, ignoring for a while that this is still parts per million, - do you know how to tell an increase in released CO2 (ie. through gas-guzzlers) from from a decrease in absorbed CO2 (ie. through deforestation)?
I would argue that we cannot know if a given amount of CO2 is released or just not absorbed.
The first chart is nice, but it tells only a litte, because we don't have an absolute scale. It shows an increase, but I'd rather like to see it unnormalized - on the *Kelvin* scale, I might add.
Fact: Celsius and Fahrenheit are convenience units only, because they cannot show any ratio at all. A room temperature of 20 degrees Celsius is NOT the double of 10 degrees Celsius. Boiling water (1 liter at 100 C) does not contain 5 times the energy of the same amount of water at room temperature (1 l at 20C) - this is often overlooked when using Celsius or Fahrenheit based units.
Since the graph shown is normalized but conspicously omits its average or center. Now I assume the world average temperature is somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 degrees Celsius, but the exact value doesn't really matter as we will see right now.
We have a delta-t = 1 Kelvin with a base average of t-0 = [258; 268] K over a solid 100 years. If the world temperature average was 258 Kelvin in 1880, it is 259 Kelvin in 2000.
Fact: That means we have, on average, a temperature increase of 1K per 100 years, or an increase of 0,39 percent over ONE HUNDRED years.
Fact: Every year, the temperature rose on average 0.01K or 0.0039 percent.
Fact: Temperature differences of less than 0.01 K require very sensitive equipment to be measured correctly.
Question: did we had such sensitive equipment deployed worldwide back in 1880 or in 1960?.
Fact: For the age 1880 to 1960, all temperature gauges had to be read optically and written down manually.
Error range estimate: assuming we had 200 worldwide temperature stations with each of them submitting 365 daily averages to be computed into one year's average. (for a limited temperature station coverage in 1880-1960, before mass production of electronics made that point moot) - so we get 73'000 temperature values to calculate the yearly average temperature.
Let's imagine that out of 73000 temperature readings only 3 values were only 1 degree Celsius off. The person reading the temperature scale made an error and incorrectly reported 21 degrees when the true daily average was 20 degrees.
If we have 3 erroneous readings out of 73000, the error is 50% higher than the assumed increase in global temperature.
73000 readings throughout one year, distributed around the globe, done by lab assistants, students using whatever equipment they have. I would be highly suprised if more than 70000 of them are within a 1 degree range of errors.
So we have another
Fact: for all years up until around 1960, the margin of error is at least 50% higher than the presumed signal.
Only one single reading being off only one single degree could account for half the yearly's supposed temperature increase. With the signal being equal to an of 2 degree error in 73000 readings, all statistical and scientific results are to take with a very large grain of salt.
A temperature increase of 0.01K is probably less than the radiated body heat of a small bird resting somewhere near the sensor.
My dictionary returns several possibilites for speak and neither of it is pinyinized "an".
But anyway, according to my dictionary, the characters in Tiananmen would literally translate to
tian God/Heaven/Day-peaceful
an peaceful/silent/healthy
men entrance/gate/door
This term signifies the very gate where the emperor went through on certain festivities, and for people to watch this gate they built this huge public square. This is surreal enough for me, thank you :)
That is not how science normally works, but climate scienctists defend with nails and teeth.
Some Shamans claim to see patterns and hints for the future in observations they will not share with the general public unfiltered and raw because they claim only climate scientists can read them.
Some climate scientists claim to see patterns and hints for the future in observations they will not share with the general public unfiltered and raw because they claim only climate scientists can read them.
Scientists don't read bones, but data and their conclusions are not only peer-reviewed by other scientists but can be reviewed by a large audience general or anyone rich enough to pay for a Springerlink or similar account.
But climate scientists critical of Global Warming cannot peer-review scientists defending Global Warming, because both sides hate each other with a true passion. Now the general public has only watered down results and the slight hint of intellectual, well, call it "family pollination" within AGW supporters.
They have a link to Chillingeffects or at least had one a while back.
Of course it is because of government censorship, but only the rose-colored, doubleplusgood flavor of it - for the fight against Nazism.
Because everything Nazis did was evil and perverted, a general consensus has emerged in Germany that everything done AGAINST Nazis must therefore be fine and dandy.
So we got our censorship back. High-profile Neo Nazi sites like Stormfront.org and a couple of Holocaust deniers are censored through Google. Every once in a while the general unwashed public remembers a demand to block known Nazi IPs at the router level, but after beating around a little bit they accept that they probably cannot succeed in doing that because the evil Nazis could present different IPs, use darknets or just move on to another forum.
When the activists that drive each wave finally realize that every censorship infrastructure comprehensive enough to crush their evil Nazi foes will always be capable of crushing their pirated music downloads, they suddenly lose focus.
Another poster brought a similar result, so I think it has either something to do with clear keyword censorship OR that the correct term is simply overcrowded with harmless results to bury the naughty results deep down in Search Nirvana.
Is this a common romanization error or a code word to work around censorship?
Tien is not recognized by my IME and doesn't return any searches except for a common romanization mistake for a family name that is also pinyined as Tian.
I recognize Tieban, but only because it has something to do with food:)
Japan, South Korea and of course also Taiwan (aka "The Republic Of China") actually suppress some misdeeds in their history and anyone caring to bring unpleasant things from the past to light is ridiculed and bullied by the public. This is not totalitarism but probably just the dominant Far Eastern culture and mindset: ancients are sacred, and publicly(!) criticizing one's family or group or city or country nothing but treason.
Anyway, I don't see Taiwan, Japan or S.Korea on the fast track to tyranny. But I would be surprised if you can get away with publicly criticizing Chiang Kai-shek or any detail of his leadership and operations.
Yup, you're right on correcting me, I incorrectly wrote "tradition Chinese". This experiment was done using Chinese Simplified, because that's the prominent script on the Chinese mainland and the primary objective. I don't know if Traditional script is unreadable to the majority of mainland Chinese, but they sure will search in their regular script first.
I can only read the most common simplified characters - anyone here qualified to verify on Simplified vs. Traditional characters for tiananmen?
The search results really indicate a totally different audience writing simplified (Mainland) and traditional (Taiwan) Chinese. Maybe its speakers have totally different opinions and interests and Google doesn't skew the results but only reflect the language users.
If that is true, Mao Zedong would have a late triumph for the simplification of Chinese, when critical search results simply don't turn up in search engines because of a different UTF8 code. That is classic Orwellian stuff.
Assuming we have an Internet surfer searching for information about Tiananmen square.
Inputs can be "Tiananmen" or tian1an2men2 in simplified Chinese (which will not render on /. due to missing UTF8 support)
Compare the Google returns for searches
http://www.google.de/search?hl=cn&safe=off&q=tiananmen&btnG=Search
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=cn&safe=off&q=tiananmen&btnG=Search
http://images.google.de/images?hl=cn&safe=off&q=tiananmen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=cn&safe=off&q=tiananmen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
(note the difference in the TLD, safe search is off in all cases)
Wildly different results, the CN domain returning no image of Tank Man and the DE domain returns nothing BUT him.
Trying that again in traditional Chinese:
http://images.google.de/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&start=0
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&start=0
Results almost identical, with only a slight variation in their order.
http://www.google.de/search?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&start=0
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&start=0
Results again wildly different. Both searches now return Chinese content, but the DE domain prominently features a YouTube link to our good old friend Tank Man, while the CN domain prominently features a city map and Baidu links, which are guaranteed to not contain something about Tank Man, I can assure you.
This get's more pronounced if we search for Tiananmen in Chinese AND the year number 1989, which simply must return some content about the protests if the search engine itself is any good.
http://images.google.de/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%201989&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%201989&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Same result: both searches return pages entirely in Chinese, but the DE domain return a Chinese photo of the protests first and the CN domain returning only photos of The Party Leaders and happy soldiers.
Let's compare the results with other TLDs
Russia:
Let's see your basic assumptions in the limelight:
- my post is stupid shit
- my post is full of irrationality and ignorance
- my post is delusionally retarded
- my post comes from the United States
- the United States are a microcosm of insanity
- the United States are dominated by theocratic thuggery and radical free market fundamentalism
- radical free market fundamentalism is far more dangerous and less intelligent than Islam
While every single point you assumed is so absurdly false that a 5-year-old can tear it apart, it's still a nice list of insults you brought there. I kind of hoped for the tried-and-true "your momma"-line of arguments, but was a bit disappointed.
You need to troll more.
The technology we're researching on government ie tax payer money is not out of market reasons, but out of political reasons. That alone means it is probably not the best allocation there is, very mildly speaking.
The technology we're researching doesn't actually cover surviving in a warmer world, but trying to keep the CO2 levels down. If CO2 wasn't the culprit, then we have a whole lot of nails and no hammer.