I would enjoy Stephenson more if he listened to his editor. There was a five page section in Cryptonomicon where he talks about eating a bowl of Captain Crunch. Five damn pages! Then he spent another four pages on a wisdom tooth extraction... He does spin a good story though.
Look at it this way, Universal Studios makes the Transformers series. Any serious filmgoer won't even watch them on the plane, but the studio rakes in enough cash to make movies like No Country for Old Men, Watchmen, Up In the Air, Interstellar, and a bunch of other movies you may or may not want to see.
As long as they keep making enough good movies to justify the crap, I don't mind.
I'm not saying that. Recruiters prefer to hire people that are already employed as it's perceived as lower risk...the thinking is if someone is good but not employed, is there a personality risk?
Many people that have a job already are seeking another one. Those are the ones you hire; not those that are unemployed. However, there are fresh recruits coming out of school that often have more than one offer...it's like that for the very good talent in the SF Bay Area. I know this for certain because my wife works in recruiting in a Valley company...everyone is competing with Google.
All anyone of sufficient talent will need to do is either go back to their company, or if searching for other jobs get another offer, and reply simply, 'Company X is offering me this amount. If you can't match it, I go there."
If they don't have another offer, are they sure they want that person?
There's the mechanism for recruiting inferior talent.
One thing that wasn't clear. ES said that if my gmail account was moved overseas on an international server, then the NSA could have a copy of my account even if there were no international sources/targets. Is that true or false?
Also, that look on Oliver's face when Snowden told him 'you're already on the list' as an associate was priceless.
I care more about avoiding a crash and a lawsuit that may cripple me financially.
Or cripple you physically, forever.
My view is if you've chosen to have a car with a computer, and that computer somehow affects the momentum vector that is your vehicle, then you, and everyone else you may encounter on the road, has the right to software that has passed rigorous software QA. If you have a hot rod that has no computer, do what you want with it. If you're driving on the same road our taxes pay for, your vehicle needs to be safe.
As for preventing the Germanwings crash, how would technology such as a streaming videocamera prevent that? The pilot clearly trusted the copilot enough to leave the cockpit so all you have that that point is a video of what is going on but no way to prevent it. The type of technology that might have prevented it, an electronic medical record with automatic notification of employers when a doctor prescribes something that may indicate a lack of fitness for duty or deems a patient unfit for duty might have worked; but that would add its own set of problems nit the least of which is people would stop seeking treatment for conditions that they think could cost them their job.
Do what is mandated in America, when the pilot leaves, have a trained flight attendant enter the cockpit before the door is closed. It's not perfect, but much better than nothing to combat the rogue pilot scenario.
Or maybe it was akathisia, and a man who was clinically depressed took medications that made him suicidal/homicidal. These drugs are prescribed without sufficient monitoring, and sometimes the outlier does something horrible.
If well operated, the capacity factors are about 90% or higher, and current designs are expected to last up to 60 years, so there is long term payback. Uranium enrichment and fuel costs are generally stable, but can vary given various external factors but it is still fairly competitive.
The issue is that so much capital investment is required up front over several years, many companies are hesitant to invest what would be their market capitalization in a single asset. State-owned utilities have greater capacity to take on that risk, so it's a smart move (long-term) on their part.
How can electrolyte diffusion apply to carbon dioxide through almost pure ice anyway? That doesn't seem to make any sense which is why you look very much like someone just throwing some cut and pasted words in there to sow seeds of doubt. Are you that, did you just guess and not apply anything from your background or have I missed something?
Hrm, I'm guessing you're not familiar with corrosion either, as the corrosion reaction is only one of the steps, the oxygen has to diffuse through the oxide film before it reacts with the base metal. The oxide film grows, increasing the length of the diffusion pathway, which slows the transport of oxygen (hence the desire for passivation of some surfaces). Check out problem 18B.13 of the 3rd edition of 'Transport Phenomena' by Bird Stewart and Lightfoot.
I'm sorry to break this to you man, but you are out of your league on this discussion. They may have done an analysis, and it may have been good (which is why I asked), but I'm more than certain that it could be done with greater rigor, and that is what the scientific method is all about.
I looked up what you meant by FUD, and I'm guessing it's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I'll gladly accept that I'm questioning Uncertainty, but Fear and Doubt I leave to the media.
I would note that I asked the parent poster of this thread what he knew about this topic as he has apparently looked at the plant data and associated uncertainties as well as the ice-core samples; and I asked if an error analysis has been done on the ice samples, and how rigorous it would be. You jumped in with comments about helium balloons and 'fucking deniers.'
Of course I'll respect the effort to acquire the data, and I'll give it the appropriate scrutiny as suggested by the scientific method. I work in metal oxides also, and corrosion reactions to turn metal plus oxygen (oxygen being much larger than metals) into dirt are on the orders of years, not hundreds of thousands of years. So while some of your points about temperature and structure may (or may not) have merit, they are not proven and I asked someone who may know. What you're regarding as FUD, I'm regarding as business as usual.
We could fund it the same way we fund class action lawsuits: By giving the lawyers a big slice of the penalty if they win, and nothing if they lose. That way Google would end up funding their own prosecution, and no tax dollars would be needed.
I'm not sure paying the lawyers more will help anything, tort law is already the cause of more problems than it solves.
I did my doctorate in electrolyte diffusion in liquid phases, so my questions will be a little more subtle, and I haven't seen them answered in IPCC publications; they are always too general in their descriptions. And yes, the temperature is very low, but it's not absolute zero so there will be movement. Other questions such as local warming periods over a year that could result in CO2 release from the surface, and many other things that can disrupt a datapoint over 300,000 years, especially when we know there have been large, long term weather heating and cooling periods and all of a sudden the mismatched data suggest we are at peak levels...there is room for questioning the data.
A scientist wouldn't just say "Oh, the concentration at depth X is here, therefore everything is true." Enough of the name calling please.
My guess is that you're not familiar with electrolyte diffusion. It's not the simple A diffusing through B using Fickian diffusion, you have to include the electric potential and charge balance...it's not trivial by any means. Plus this has varying boundary conditions over the sample length. I've not seen it in the IPCC records, could you point me to the appropriate reference?
The pH of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.2, which is alkaline. This means that almost all of the CO2 is rendered in bicarbonate form that remains in solution. What the articles don't mention is that the pH is determined by rainfall (dilution), temperature and the distribution of mostly sodium, chloride, calcium, potassium, and magnesium, with all other electrolytes having about 0.6 percent of the electrolyte balance. http://oceanplasma.org/documen...
In short, CO2 does nothing to the chemistry of the ocean, it's the other way around, the ocean controls the CO2 in the air.
Slashdot Mirror
I would enjoy Stephenson more if he listened to his editor. There was a five page section in Cryptonomicon where he talks about eating a bowl of Captain Crunch. Five damn pages! Then he spent another four pages on a wisdom tooth extraction... He does spin a good story though.
I mean Paramount, not Universal (oh how I wish we could edit after posting some times...)
Look at it this way, Universal Studios makes the Transformers series. Any serious filmgoer won't even watch them on the plane, but the studio rakes in enough cash to make movies like No Country for Old Men, Watchmen, Up In the Air, Interstellar, and a bunch of other movies you may or may not want to see.
As long as they keep making enough good movies to justify the crap, I don't mind.
Press your space bar, it scrolls down for you.
more detail. http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebo...
This article supports your statement. http://www.scientificamerican....
I'm not saying that. Recruiters prefer to hire people that are already employed as it's perceived as lower risk...the thinking is if someone is good but not employed, is there a personality risk?
Many people that have a job already are seeking another one. Those are the ones you hire; not those that are unemployed. However, there are fresh recruits coming out of school that often have more than one offer...it's like that for the very good talent in the SF Bay Area. I know this for certain because my wife works in recruiting in a Valley company...everyone is competing with Google.
All anyone of sufficient talent will need to do is either go back to their company, or if searching for other jobs get another offer, and reply simply, 'Company X is offering me this amount. If you can't match it, I go there."
If they don't have another offer, are they sure they want that person?
There's the mechanism for recruiting inferior talent.
One thing that wasn't clear. ES said that if my gmail account was moved overseas on an international server, then the NSA could have a copy of my account even if there were no international sources/targets. Is that true or false?
Also, that look on Oliver's face when Snowden told him 'you're already on the list' as an associate was priceless.
I care more about avoiding a crash and a lawsuit that may cripple me financially.
Or cripple you physically, forever.
My view is if you've chosen to have a car with a computer, and that computer somehow affects the momentum vector that is your vehicle, then you, and everyone else you may encounter on the road, has the right to software that has passed rigorous software QA. If you have a hot rod that has no computer, do what you want with it. If you're driving on the same road our taxes pay for, your vehicle needs to be safe.
As for preventing the Germanwings crash, how would technology such as a streaming videocamera prevent that? The pilot clearly trusted the copilot enough to leave the cockpit so all you have that that point is a video of what is going on but no way to prevent it. The type of technology that might have prevented it, an electronic medical record with automatic notification of employers when a doctor prescribes something that may indicate a lack of fitness for duty or deems a patient unfit for duty might have worked; but that would add its own set of problems nit the least of which is people would stop seeking treatment for conditions that they think could cost them their job.
Do what is mandated in America, when the pilot leaves, have a trained flight attendant enter the cockpit before the door is closed. It's not perfect, but much better than nothing to combat the rogue pilot scenario.
Or maybe it was akathisia, and a man who was clinically depressed took medications that made him suicidal/homicidal. These drugs are prescribed without sufficient monitoring, and sometimes the outlier does something horrible.
Not sure where you got the 50% number, capacity factors are 90% these days,
Also, this link is a good quick summary using US metrics.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...
Very nice back of the envelope estimates.
If well operated, the capacity factors are about 90% or higher, and current designs are expected to last up to 60 years, so there is long term payback. Uranium enrichment and fuel costs are generally stable, but can vary given various external factors but it is still fairly competitive.
The issue is that so much capital investment is required up front over several years, many companies are hesitant to invest what would be their market capitalization in a single asset. State-owned utilities have greater capacity to take on that risk, so it's a smart move (long-term) on their part.
How can electrolyte diffusion apply to carbon dioxide through almost pure ice anyway? That doesn't seem to make any sense which is why you look very much like someone just throwing some cut and pasted words in there to sow seeds of doubt. Are you that, did you just guess and not apply anything from your background or have I missed something?
Hrm, I'm guessing you're not familiar with corrosion either, as the corrosion reaction is only one of the steps, the oxygen has to diffuse through the oxide film before it reacts with the base metal. The oxide film grows, increasing the length of the diffusion pathway, which slows the transport of oxygen (hence the desire for passivation of some surfaces). Check out problem 18B.13 of the 3rd edition of 'Transport Phenomena' by Bird Stewart and Lightfoot.
I'm sorry to break this to you man, but you are out of your league on this discussion. They may have done an analysis, and it may have been good (which is why I asked), but I'm more than certain that it could be done with greater rigor, and that is what the scientific method is all about.
I looked up what you meant by FUD, and I'm guessing it's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I'll gladly accept that I'm questioning Uncertainty, but Fear and Doubt I leave to the media.
I would note that I asked the parent poster of this thread what he knew about this topic as he has apparently looked at the plant data and associated uncertainties as well as the ice-core samples; and I asked if an error analysis has been done on the ice samples, and how rigorous it would be. You jumped in with comments about helium balloons and 'fucking deniers.'
Of course I'll respect the effort to acquire the data, and I'll give it the appropriate scrutiny as suggested by the scientific method. I work in metal oxides also, and corrosion reactions to turn metal plus oxygen (oxygen being much larger than metals) into dirt are on the orders of years, not hundreds of thousands of years. So while some of your points about temperature and structure may (or may not) have merit, they are not proven and I asked someone who may know. What you're regarding as FUD, I'm regarding as business as usual.
We could fund it the same way we fund class action lawsuits: By giving the lawyers a big slice of the penalty if they win, and nothing if they lose. That way Google would end up funding their own prosecution, and no tax dollars would be needed.
I'm not sure paying the lawyers more will help anything, tort law is already the cause of more problems than it solves.
I did my doctorate in electrolyte diffusion in liquid phases, so my questions will be a little more subtle, and I haven't seen them answered in IPCC publications; they are always too general in their descriptions. And yes, the temperature is very low, but it's not absolute zero so there will be movement. Other questions such as local warming periods over a year that could result in CO2 release from the surface, and many other things that can disrupt a datapoint over 300,000 years, especially when we know there have been large, long term weather heating and cooling periods and all of a sudden the mismatched data suggest we are at peak levels...there is room for questioning the data.
A scientist wouldn't just say "Oh, the concentration at depth X is here, therefore everything is true." Enough of the name calling please.
My guess is that you're not familiar with electrolyte diffusion. It's not the simple A diffusing through B using Fickian diffusion, you have to include the electric potential and charge balance...it's not trivial by any means. Plus this has varying boundary conditions over the sample length. I've not seen it in the IPCC records, could you point me to the appropriate reference?
Has anyone done an analysis of diffusion of CO2 in the ice core samples? Solid state diffusion is slow, but they were there a long time...
The pH of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.2, which is alkaline. This means that almost all of the CO2 is rendered in bicarbonate form that remains in solution. What the articles don't mention is that the pH is determined by rainfall (dilution), temperature and the distribution of mostly sodium, chloride, calcium, potassium, and magnesium, with all other electrolytes having about 0.6 percent of the electrolyte balance. http://oceanplasma.org/documen...
In short, CO2 does nothing to the chemistry of the ocean, it's the other way around, the ocean controls the CO2 in the air.
Okay, I'll bite. Who writes science fiction that you like?
She wrote 'Beggars and Choosers'. It's good enough to get, it's on Amazon as a used book.