I agree with a lot of what you said up there, but I feel I must quibble with your touting Chinese efficiency of coal mining. One of the reasons they move so much rock is because labor is a seemingly disposable resource for them. Last year China had 3,786 coal mining fatalities in 2007 (down 20% link). In the US there were 66 total mining fatalities in the US (34 in Coal mining link). Otherwise, good post.
Probably won't happen to modern tailings anytime soon. The efficiency of most modern concentration and extraction methods is over 80%. That means that for a Cu mine with a mine grade at 0.5%, you're left with less than 0.1% in your tailings. Minable grade is going down, but it's still at about 0.4%, higher if you only have unoxidized ore. The cost of mining tailing is reduced somewhat by the fact that it's already crushed, etc. but I think we're a ways away from mining modern tailings (in the last 25-30 years, or so). Historical tailings, sure, but not modern ones.
I hate to reply to myself, but I did just think of something rather important to this discussion. Most geothermal areas are under extensional stresses; I was thinking of a compressional regime above. I still think that we don't move enough water down there to make an impact. Thinking about it a little more, I do seem to remember some increase in (very) minor earthquakes associated with the start of geothermal energy production. We're talking magnitude 1 events though, as I recall.
That makes me think of something else, too. The term lubricating a fault kind of bugs me. If we did happen. caused any major motion, it would be due to an increase in pore pressure, not a reduction in coefficient of friction, as implied by the term "lubricate".
Speaking as a geologist I will say with certainty that a 1 km slip would not happen. I think we have enough information that we can make good models to predict the worst case scenario.
I'm no expert in that area, but the scales of geological processes (especially tectonic ones) are generally much bigger than you might think. We'd probably need to pump a ridiculous amount of water down deeper than we generally drill to lubricate a fault. Even if we did get water down more than a few km, I think that the chances of our meager contribution to the stress field down there setting off any movement are slim to none.
You, sir, need to figure out how to tell the difference between actions of people and doctrines of religious organizations. The two are not one and the same. It is true that some things the Catholic church has done over the years are horrible. That's one of many (many) reasons there are so many Christian churches out there. It's also true that there are many, many people doing stupid things in the name of god (pick a god, any god). This does not, by itself, refute the idea of god or religion. It does prove, once again, that Douglas Adams was right: People are a problem. (And yes, I know he was an outspoken atheist.)
You should also reread my post you respond to. I said in that other post that Christians should probably NOT spend so much time touting the ten commandments because they are part of the Mosaic law - the law Christ was supposed to have fulfilled. Stoning and most of the stuff people point out as being cruel, etc. in the OT fall into the same category.
Oh, and you may want to look into the murdering pro-adoption doctors thing. I am pretty sure I know what you meant, but that's a pretty awesome type-o.
If you're going to talk about stoning people, you've got the wrong religion. Jesus came to fulfil the law of Moses - the part with all the stoning and barbaric practices that people love to bring up. We Christians probably shouldn't even put as much emphasis on the ten commandments as we do, seeing as they're part of that law and that Christ did a fine job boiling them down to two. Anyway, on the whole, Christianity comprises "the nice parts".
For the record, I'm with you about this guy being an odd/bad choice for a games convention.
You're right, we do hold the New Testament higher. We're Christians. If you're not aware, the New Testament is the part with Jesus in it. We can safely place less emphasis the Mosaic Law found in the Old Testament because part of Jesus's job was to fulfil that law. I know you're just trolling, but I've seen your kind of comment get modded up in these religious flamewars disguised as news stories.
And please, please, stop thinking that all Christians believe in a young Earth. That's just ignorant.
2)If losing your legs and having prostheses put in is such an advantage how come this guy is over a second slower than the standard to even qualify for the Olympics?
Because he isn't a good enough athelete to qualify for the Olympics. If he didn't have the mechanical advantage of artificial legs, he probably would be much more than a second too slow.
I personally think that we should expect more of computer users. These days, with computers a ubiquitous part of our world, there is little excuse for most people to be so ignorant about what's going on under the hood of their computer.
You mention that it's easier to drive than to use a computer. I'll take that and run with it; after all, we all love a good car analogy. If you drive a car, there are certain things you should know before you get behind the wheel apart from which pedal makes you go fast and which stops the car. How to change a flat, jump your battery, and add coolant and oil are a few. You don't need to know these things to drive the car, but you should know what to do in the case of some fairly common mishaps.
Same thing with computers. I think users should know how to fix a few of the basic problems that come up in computer use: how to find and install drivers, how to identify file extensions, how to avoid the majority of spyware, how to purge your system of spyware that slips through, etc. And if your computer breaks down in the middle of nowhere (erase the mbr, hose X, etc.), call a tow truck - paid tech support or your computer savy brother in law.
Thank you for your letter alerting me the coming change in political lexicon. I was unaware of the pending lapse. Owing to the fact that the word "conservative" no longer describes someone of the traditional conservative persuasion, I will desist from using that term. I am saddened, however that you include the term "paleoconservative" or "paleocon". I recognize my god-given right to use these words refering only to the aforemeniontioned political ideology, as long as such ideals exist, in my head, if not in political circles. If you insist on collecting fines for the use of paleoconservative or its derivatives, you will be hearing from my lawyer
That's not actually true. Conservatives are for more and bigger government just as much as Liberals are.
Wrong. Republicans are for bigger govt. A real conservative, not so much. We have very few real conservatives in power these days. That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on who you ask.
On the other hand, someone like John McCain, who is widely (and wrongly) thought to be a "Centrist" supports a torture regime, the elimination of habeas corpus, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, corporate control of media, the elimination of the Department of Education, the repeal of all banking and securities regulation, and many more positions that would normally earn a politician a reputation as a member of the Far Right, if not actually Fascism.
You make it sound like those are positions he's running on! It's not like he's out there on the stump saying in his grating monotone, "You know what this country needs? More torture. Oh yeah, and while we're at it, let's get rid of schools. An educated populace is the last thing we need in this country. I also promise to eliminate privacy in all domestic communications!" - cheers from the crowd -
Your sentiment is much like the right's cries that Democrats don't trust the American people to manage their own lives and are out to steal our money through taxation. From a certain perspective both arguments, yours and "the right's" hold a nugget of truth. But both views are dripping with animosity, which is the last thing we need right now. People (though not necessarily the politicians) on the left and right want what's best for the country, but they all think that their ideas are best way to lead our country forward. Okay, they also think that, left to their own devices, the other party's policies would take us back to the 19th century within a generation.
Whose views are correct? I don't know. I know that I could use a little less of the government in many parts of my life, but I also think that people with power (and many of those with money) need to be held in check, because most of them don't consider others' rights while they pursue their goals (power, money, or both).
I think you misunderstood what the gp was saying. He's not saying that ignorance is bliss. He's not even saying that technology is evil. What he is saying is that there are many things that can (should?) be learned on paper before bringing computers/calculators into the mix. Technology is not a magical solution to educational problems.
The ability to store hundreds of books on these computers, which you pointed out, is a huge advantage, and I think that this is the real strength of the OLPC concept. In this case it isn't that nifty technological tricks are impmroving the learning process, but they are providing the foundation for any learning to take place.
I really hope that the teachers who end up with these computers use them effectively. Give a bunch of new computers to teachers here in the states and students end up spending as much time learning the tricks of working with the computer as they do learning the curriculum. The book "The Flickering Mind" is an interesting read, and one that is relevant to this discussion.
It is used as a stronger division than a comma, to make meaning clear in a sentence where commas are being used for other purposes. A common example of this use is to separate the items of a list when some of the items themselves contain commas.
As for your second critique, I didn't forget that sentences need subjects; I just forgot the subject for that particular sentence. You're right, though, there is no excuse for that one. I fixed it for you here, in case you still haven't figured it out.
I fail to see where I say that I don't believe in climate change.
I was just pointing out that his message would carry more weight and do more good if he practiced what he preaches. I agree that it is his message that is important, but you cannot deny the fact that he would be a more effective messenger if he reduced his own carbon footprint. From other posts here it appears that he has taken steps to reduce his carbon footprint (carbon offsets don't do it for me; that's just sweeping the problem under the rug). Good for him. Now he can be a more effective messenger.
You posted this EXACT mess of a post above. I will post my exact reply from above in case people read this one instead of your other. So here goes. . . again.
Can't. Resist. Feeding. Troll.
The old saying "lead by example" sprang to mind while reading your fine post. No one is saying Al Gore should live in a mud hut with no electricity or running water. They are just saying that he should practice what he preaches. To say that Al Gore is not in a position to be an important world figure and use far less energy at the same time is just stupid. He is in a prime position to show us how important this issue is to him. If he downsized his house; drove fuel efficient cars; adjusted his thermostat a little warmer in summer, colder in winter; flew commercial (first class or coach); etc. he would show us how important the issue really is to him. I'm sure he's doing a lot to reduce his carbon footprint, but the whole point is that he could do a lot more, while maintaining a standard of living orders of magnitude above most of the rest of us.
If anyone is in the position to know that the actions of small numbers of individuals count, it's Al Gore. He had some experience with this in 2000.
P.S. Just because you're posting on the intarweb doesn't mean punctuation and capitalization is optional. Poor detracts from your arguments.
There are other "fuel efficient" cars besides hybrids, which you're obviously talking about. True, gas savings from driving hybrids don't save any money. BUT driving a non-hybrid that gets 30 mpg will, indeed, save money over a car that gets 20. Besides gas savings, fuel efficient non-hybrids are usually smaller and less expensive than less efficient cars.
That being said, I agree that just because something saves you money does not always trump its inconvenience.
The old saying "lead by example" sprang to mind while reading your fine post. No one is saying Al Gore should live in a mud hut with no electricity or running water. They are just saying that he should practice what he preaches. To say that Al Gore is not in a position to be an important world figure and use far less energy at the same time is just stupid. He is in a prime position to show us how important this issue is to him. If he downsized his house; drove fuel efficient cars; adjusted his thermostat a little warmer in summer, colder in winter; flew commercial (first class or coach); etc. he would show us how important the issue really is to him. I'm sure he's doing a lot to reduce his carbon footprint, but the whole point is that he could do a lot more, while maintaining a standard of living orders of magnitude above most of the rest of us.
If anyone is in the position to know that the actions of small numbers of individuals count, it's Al Gore. He had some experience with this in 2000.
P.S. Just because you're posting on the intarweb doesn't mean punctuation and capitalization is optional. Poor detracts from your arguments.
Most companies are started by passionate people. Because of that, companies are almost universally driven by passion in the early stages of most companies. Look at Google (started by a couple of Stanford grad students), or YouTube, or Gateway (a couple of guys building computers in a barn). These companies all started as small projects driven by passion, but we all can agree that at times, their actions are driven by profits and little else.
It is true, and unfortunate, that most companies cease to be driven by passion, and are soon driven by profits when they decide to go public, or are sold to a publically traded company. Then the passion of the founder(s) is passed off to some board whose only passion comes in the form of the huge bonuses they get at the end of the year for exceeding forecasters's predictions.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with a lot of what you said up there, but I feel I must quibble with your touting Chinese efficiency of coal mining. One of the reasons they move so much rock is because labor is a seemingly disposable resource for them. Last year China had 3,786 coal mining fatalities in 2007 (down 20% link). In the US there were 66 total mining fatalities in the US (34 in Coal mining link). Otherwise, good post.
It is starting to happen. This company is figuring out how to make it work. Not Mn nodules, but the hydrothermal deposits you mention. Exciting stuff.
Probably won't happen to modern tailings anytime soon. The efficiency of most modern concentration and extraction methods is over 80%. That means that for a Cu mine with a mine grade at 0.5%, you're left with less than 0.1% in your tailings. Minable grade is going down, but it's still at about 0.4%, higher if you only have unoxidized ore. The cost of mining tailing is reduced somewhat by the fact that it's already crushed, etc. but I think we're a ways away from mining modern tailings (in the last 25-30 years, or so). Historical tailings, sure, but not modern ones.
I hate to reply to myself, but I did just think of something rather important to this discussion. Most geothermal areas are under extensional stresses; I was thinking of a compressional regime above. I still think that we don't move enough water down there to make an impact. Thinking about it a little more, I do seem to remember some increase in (very) minor earthquakes associated with the start of geothermal energy production. We're talking magnitude 1 events though, as I recall.
That makes me think of something else, too. The term lubricating a fault kind of bugs me. If we did happen. caused any major motion, it would be due to an increase in pore pressure, not a reduction in coefficient of friction, as implied by the term "lubricate".
Speaking as a geologist I will say with certainty that a 1 km slip would not happen. I think we have enough information that we can make good models to predict the worst case scenario.
I'm no expert in that area, but the scales of geological processes (especially tectonic ones) are generally much bigger than you might think. We'd probably need to pump a ridiculous amount of water down deeper than we generally drill to lubricate a fault. Even if we did get water down more than a few km, I think that the chances of our meager contribution to the stress field down there setting off any movement are slim to none.
You, sir, need to figure out how to tell the difference between actions of people and doctrines of religious organizations. The two are not one and the same. It is true that some things the Catholic church has done over the years are horrible. That's one of many (many) reasons there are so many Christian churches out there. It's also true that there are many, many people doing stupid things in the name of god (pick a god, any god). This does not, by itself, refute the idea of god or religion. It does prove, once again, that Douglas Adams was right: People are a problem. (And yes, I know he was an outspoken atheist.)
You should also reread my post you respond to. I said in that other post that Christians should probably NOT spend so much time touting the ten commandments because they are part of the Mosaic law - the law Christ was supposed to have fulfilled. Stoning and most of the stuff people point out as being cruel, etc. in the OT fall into the same category.
Oh, and you may want to look into the murdering pro-adoption doctors thing. I am pretty sure I know what you meant, but that's a pretty awesome type-o.
If you're going to talk about stoning people, you've got the wrong religion. Jesus came to fulfil the law of Moses - the part with all the stoning and barbaric practices that people love to bring up. We Christians probably shouldn't even put as much emphasis on the ten commandments as we do, seeing as they're part of that law and that Christ did a fine job boiling them down to two. Anyway, on the whole, Christianity comprises "the nice parts".
For the record, I'm with you about this guy being an odd/bad choice for a games convention.
You're right, we do hold the New Testament higher. We're Christians. If you're not aware, the New Testament is the part with Jesus in it. We can safely place less emphasis the Mosaic Law found in the Old Testament because part of Jesus's job was to fulfil that law. I know you're just trolling, but I've seen your kind of comment get modded up in these religious flamewars disguised as news stories.
And please, please, stop thinking that all Christians believe in a young Earth. That's just ignorant.
Because he isn't a good enough athelete to qualify for the Olympics. If he didn't have the mechanical advantage of artificial legs, he probably would be much more than a second too slow.
Simplify, man! Mine fits on a single punch card.
I personally think that we should expect more of computer users. These days, with computers a ubiquitous part of our world, there is little excuse for most people to be so ignorant about what's going on under the hood of their computer.
You mention that it's easier to drive than to use a computer. I'll take that and run with it; after all, we all love a good car analogy. If you drive a car, there are certain things you should know before you get behind the wheel apart from which pedal makes you go fast and which stops the car. How to change a flat, jump your battery, and add coolant and oil are a few. You don't need to know these things to drive the car, but you should know what to do in the case of some fairly common mishaps.
Same thing with computers. I think users should know how to fix a few of the basic problems that come up in computer use: how to find and install drivers, how to identify file extensions, how to avoid the majority of spyware, how to purge your system of spyware that slips through, etc. And if your computer breaks down in the middle of nowhere (erase the mbr, hose X, etc.), call a tow truck - paid tech support or your computer savy brother in law.
Sir:
Thank you for your letter alerting me the coming change in political lexicon. I was unaware of the pending lapse. Owing to the fact that the word "conservative" no longer describes someone of the traditional conservative persuasion, I will desist from using that term. I am saddened, however that you include the term "paleoconservative" or "paleocon". I recognize my god-given right to use these words refering only to the aforemeniontioned political ideology, as long as such ideals exist, in my head, if not in political circles. If you insist on collecting fines for the use of paleoconservative or its derivatives, you will be hearing from my lawyer
Thank you.
Wrong. Republicans are for bigger govt. A real conservative, not so much. We have very few real conservatives in power these days. That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on who you ask.
You make it sound like those are positions he's running on! It's not like he's out there on the stump saying in his grating monotone, "You know what this country needs? More torture. Oh yeah, and while we're at it, let's get rid of schools. An educated populace is the last thing we need in this country. I also promise to eliminate privacy in all domestic communications!" - cheers from the crowd -
Your sentiment is much like the right's cries that Democrats don't trust the American people to manage their own lives and are out to steal our money through taxation. From a certain perspective both arguments, yours and "the right's" hold a nugget of truth. But both views are dripping with animosity, which is the last thing we need right now. People (though not necessarily the politicians) on the left and right want what's best for the country, but they all think that their ideas are best way to lead our country forward. Okay, they also think that, left to their own devices, the other party's policies would take us back to the 19th century within a generation.
Whose views are correct? I don't know. I know that I could use a little less of the government in many parts of my life, but I also think that people with power (and many of those with money) need to be held in check, because most of them don't consider others' rights while they pursue their goals (power, money, or both).
Well of course you have to have multiple, independent personalities! You wouldn't want eveyone to know that you're really Pee ter Parkr.
I think you misunderstood what the gp was saying. He's not saying that ignorance is bliss. He's not even saying that technology is evil. What he is saying is that there are many things that can (should?) be learned on paper before bringing computers/calculators into the mix. Technology is not a magical solution to educational problems.
The ability to store hundreds of books on these computers, which you pointed out, is a huge advantage, and I think that this is the real strength of the OLPC concept. In this case it isn't that nifty technological tricks are impmroving the learning process, but they are providing the foundation for any learning to take place.
I really hope that the teachers who end up with these computers use them effectively. Give a bunch of new computers to teachers here in the states and students end up spending as much time learning the tricks of working with the computer as they do learning the curriculum. The book "The Flickering Mind" is an interesting read, and one that is relevant to this discussion.
As for my alleged misuse of semicolons, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon for more information. I find this bit particularly relevant:
As for your second critique, I didn't forget that sentences need subjects; I just forgot the subject for that particular sentence. You're right, though, there is no excuse for that one. I fixed it for you here, in case you still haven't figured it out.
So you were half right. Congratulations.
I fail to see where I say that I don't believe in climate change.
I was just pointing out that his message would carry more weight and do more good if he practiced what he preaches. I agree that it is his message that is important, but you cannot deny the fact that he would be a more effective messenger if he reduced his own carbon footprint. From other posts here it appears that he has taken steps to reduce his carbon footprint (carbon offsets don't do it for me; that's just sweeping the problem under the rug). Good for him. Now he can be a more effective messenger.
You posted this EXACT mess of a post above. I will post my exact reply from above in case people read this one instead of your other. So here goes. . . again.
Can't. Resist. Feeding. Troll.
The old saying "lead by example" sprang to mind while reading your fine post. No one is saying Al Gore should live in a mud hut with no electricity or running water. They are just saying that he should practice what he preaches. To say that Al Gore is not in a position to be an important world figure and use far less energy at the same time is just stupid. He is in a prime position to show us how important this issue is to him. If he downsized his house; drove fuel efficient cars; adjusted his thermostat a little warmer in summer, colder in winter; flew commercial (first class or coach); etc. he would show us how important the issue really is to him. I'm sure he's doing a lot to reduce his carbon footprint, but the whole point is that he could do a lot more, while maintaining a standard of living orders of magnitude above most of the rest of us.If anyone is in the position to know that the actions of small numbers of individuals count, it's Al Gore. He had some experience with this in 2000.
P.S. Just because you're posting on the intarweb doesn't mean punctuation and capitalization is optional. Poor detracts from your arguments.
There are other "fuel efficient" cars besides hybrids, which you're obviously talking about. True, gas savings from driving hybrids don't save any money. BUT driving a non-hybrid that gets 30 mpg will, indeed, save money over a car that gets 20. Besides gas savings, fuel efficient non-hybrids are usually smaller and less expensive than less efficient cars.
That being said, I agree that just because something saves you money does not always trump its inconvenience.
Can't. Resist. Feeding. Troll.
The old saying "lead by example" sprang to mind while reading your fine post. No one is saying Al Gore should live in a mud hut with no electricity or running water. They are just saying that he should practice what he preaches. To say that Al Gore is not in a position to be an important world figure and use far less energy at the same time is just stupid. He is in a prime position to show us how important this issue is to him. If he downsized his house; drove fuel efficient cars; adjusted his thermostat a little warmer in summer, colder in winter; flew commercial (first class or coach); etc. he would show us how important the issue really is to him. I'm sure he's doing a lot to reduce his carbon footprint, but the whole point is that he could do a lot more, while maintaining a standard of living orders of magnitude above most of the rest of us.
If anyone is in the position to know that the actions of small numbers of individuals count, it's Al Gore. He had some experience with this in 2000.
P.S. Just because you're posting on the intarweb doesn't mean punctuation and capitalization is optional. Poor detracts from your arguments.
And trying to unstump yourself is the next necessary step. That's the critical part of scientific progress.
Most companies are started by passionate people. Because of that, companies are almost universally driven by passion in the early stages of most companies. Look at Google (started by a couple of Stanford grad students), or YouTube, or Gateway (a couple of guys building computers in a barn). These companies all started as small projects driven by passion, but we all can agree that at times, their actions are driven by profits and little else.
It is true, and unfortunate, that most companies cease to be driven by passion, and are soon driven by profits when they decide to go public, or are sold to a publically traded company. Then the passion of the founder(s) is passed off to some board whose only passion comes in the form of the huge bonuses they get at the end of the year for exceeding forecasters's predictions.
While we're at it, let's switch over to metric time.
I vehemently disagree with your post.
If only I had mod points. . .