First, is the planet getting warmer? On that I'd say there's general agreement, although it is not a 100% consensus.
It's a 99.something% consensus, which is as solid as any consensus among a large population is ever going to get. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012, only 24 reject global warming. (source)
Second, if it is getting warmer, is it caused in large part by human activity or is it part of some natural variation? This is the sticking point. If it's part of a natural variation in temperature -- and I will point out many such variations have happened in the past few million years, all without any input from humans -- then there is no need for us to radically alter our life to stop it because such actions will have no positive climatic effect while having a signficant negative effect on quality of life.
All the evidence we have for previous natural variations show them to be slow (or extremely rapid, as in catastrophically rapid - impact events or super-volcano eruptions); the changes we're seeing today is way too rapid to conform to any known natural cycle. The difference, of course, is that we're around and actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. In short, not a "natural variation".
Third, if it is anthropogenic, what should we do about it? Curtainling greenhouse emissions is an obvious choice, but is it the best one? How severe are the predicted warming effects? The economic and socio-political upheavals from drastic policy changes might be worse than adapting to a changing climate. And how much confidence can we have in the predictions regardless of how severe (or not) they may be?
We don't know; that's the problem. We don't have any crystal balls, so we don't know what the most effective strategy is, or exactly how severe the effects will be. What we do know is that large climate changes historically have been responsible for some of the most drastic extinction events we know of. And it's pretty easy to speculate about what a massive dying-off of e.g. marine life would do to coastal communities - as is the effect on the same communities of rising sea levels.
These are not minor issues. They deserve to be studied and debated *in depth* before drastic action is take, if for no other reason than to determine that we're taking the *most effective* action possible. This whole "the debate is settle and if you don't agree with us you're a denier" smacks of the same kind of thinking that gave us an Earth-centric cosmic model and burned "deniers" as heretics.
No, these are not minor issues, and the ramifications of the decisions are huge. In the end though, doing nothing is probably the worst decision; there is a tipping point somewhere (the edge of the cliff, so to speak) which going past that there is no turning back. More research and discussion is always welcome, but that should not and cannot stop us from starting to act - if nothing else to slow down the rate at which we're approaching that tipping point.
The analogy with the earth-centric cosmic models and burning of a few heretics is really stretching it when we're talking about the possibility of mass extinctions of not only humans but a lot of other species as well.
The earth will survive, and life itself will survive. The question is, will we? And even if we do, in what kind of society? One that has planned for such an eventuality, or one that has had to just react to it. One is liveable, the other is a post-apocalypse society; I know which one I'd rather (have my kids) live in.
Agreed, that was sloppy of me. "Cogito, ergo sum" is however used as a stepping stone for Descartes to "prove" that reality is not an illusion, since sensory perception is not an act of will. Therefore they are external to the thinker, and there exists an external world that provides the thinker with these sensory perceptions.
Simulation hypotheses area as old as philosophy; Parmenides, Zeno and Plato all had their own pet hypotheses that basically amounted to "reality is an illusion". Descartes, of course, had his "Cogito, ergo sum" as his final defence against reality being an illusion.
In short, it's nothing new - the idea is well over 2,000 years old and it has a major, major issue: It's unverifiable - it's like asking what's outside the universe; the question doesn't make sense.
The hour hand moves around the clock face one complete revolution in 12 hours. Which means that in 30 minutes it should have moved (360 / 12 / 2) = 15 degrees. If it hasn't moved 15 degrees in 30 minutes, it's broken. It should not be pointing directly at 12 if the time is 12:30, it should be pointing halfway between 12 and 1.
On a working analog clock when the minute hand is pointing straight down, the hour hand should point in-between two hour positions.
In your example, 12:30 am/pm, a working analog clock would show this by having the minute hand pointing straight down and the hour hand pointing midway between the 12 and the 1.
A clock that shows the minute hand pointing straight down and the hour hand straight up is indeed broken and will never show the right time.
Perhaps the recent eruptions of water on Ceres are a result of the same limnic eruption phenomenon seen at Lake Nyos.
No, that's not possible at all. The eruptions on Ceres are water vapour, not water, and the current theory is that they are the result of warming on the side closer to the sun.
To be honest, this is somewhat worrying--could this same process occur, here on Earth, if we push the CO2 saturation level too high? A sudden degassing of the atmosphere, into space?
No. If you actually took the time to read the link you've posted twice now, you'd see that limnic eruptions can't occur in temperate lakes because the seasonal shift in water temperature mixes the water and prohibits a colder layer at the bottom building up CO2. Now think about the atmosphere - is it still, allowing this kind of build-up? No, there's weather and wind all the time.
Not to mention the differing levels of CO2 saturation between the lake and the atmosphere.
Has this happened before, in the Earth's history?
Has Earth lost its atmosphere due to "limnic eruptions" in the atmosphere? No. That's crackpot talk. The Earth is too big and its gravity too strong.
Has Earth ever lost its atmosphere? Possibly, but not after the impact(s?) that created the moon occurred, 4.5 billion years ago or so.
"The Google Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 2014. Human decisions are removed from configuration management. Google begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
Doom map layout was definitely 2D, I remember very well having to use all kinds of tricks to get the illusion of full 3D, and some things just weren't possible, like bridges you could both pass over and under.
Doom 2 I can't say, never did any maps for that one.
You jest, but a change in salinity could have a big impact.
Indeed it could, just read up a bit about thermohaline circulation and you'll see why some people are worried not just about sea-level rise from melting polar ice.
Listening to music without paying is not "innocent", it's downright unamerican. Or at least a threat to our beloved capitalism. If nobody makes a buck from it, it's gotta go.
You're not one of them pinko commie socialist types that think you can get something for nothing are you? Remember, you don't always get what you pay for, but you always have to pay.
Always.
Disclaimer: Portions of the above post may contain traces of sarcasm, cynism, or just downright trolling. Handle with care.
Unless I completely misremember my Psychology classes, you get the best results by a combination of punishment (for wrong behaviour) and reward (for right behaviour). Doing just one or the other doesn't get you the result you want as quickly.
Wikipedia is only a few key-presses away, you know:
The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variations between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[15] This is due to a 41000 year cycle in which the tilt of the earth changes between 22 and 24.5.[16] At present (2000 AD), we are in a dry period, but it is expected that the Sahara will become green again in 15000 years (17000 AD). During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[17] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[18]
Whereas this thing trips over itself on a flat surface and has a step height of a few inches, making it far better for rough terrain.
If we're talking about the WildCat video, it looked like the front right leg joint broke when it fell, not that it tripped. If that's the case, it's just an engineering problem to reinforce that joint.
Foreign nationals get their fingerprints taken and retinas photographed at the customs desk (where they also check our passports and ask us the funny questions like "business or pleasure?", "anyone handled your luggage but you?", "what address are you staying?" etc).
The NSA has had my fingerprints and retina pattern for over a decade now.
They were selling all of the mechs people want to play with for cash. The entire stable of mechs. All for sale.
This is very wrong, so much so it must be an intentional lie. Out of 93 'mech variants, only 12 are cash-only. 81 are available for in-game currency.
Can you download and drop into an atlas and go killing? Hell no. You got a very very limited selection of what to do. And what you could do with it.
As a new player, you'll start out in a selection of trial 'mechs while you earn in-game currency to purchase your own 'mech (that you can then customize to your liking for more in-game currency). To facilitate this, you get a rather hefty in-game currency bonus for your first 25 games. At the end of those 25 matches, you'll have enough both to purchase and customize and Atlas, if that's what you want.
Every battle quickly shaped up to be paid players stomping the shit repeatedly out of free players.
Almost the entire point of the mechwarrior series was behind a credit card. Thats not any sort of free to play. That's flat out pay to play
It's also not true. The Hero 'mechs (the cash-only 'mechs) aren't superior to the in-game currency ones, and there's generally not enough of them on a team to make a difference anyway. People generally play in regular, non-Hero 'mechs. What is happening though is that organized teams "stomp the shit" out of disorganized groups of non-team players. But hey, it's a team game.
these people ruined it.
While there's no love lost between me and PGI, they haven't actually ruined the game yet. They seem to do their damndest to get there, but they haven't quite managed yet. At its core, the game is a really great 'mech simulation; it's just all the other bits that suck.
Oh and the fact that it's getting less and less BattleTech with every patch. That sucks really bad as well.
WWII-era: Me 262 takes the top spot with its shark-like fuselage and sleek lines, the P-38 as mentioned looks simultaneously both powerful and really, really graceful, the Westland Whirlwind is also gorgeously aggressive with its propellers sticking out in front, and of course the old stalwarts the Spitfire and the Mustang are magnificent designs. Then there's the striking utilitarianism of the Me-109 and the robust stubbiness of the early Fw-190, and the impressive gaping maw of the Typhoon. Also the P-48 Thunderbolt has a certain rotund charm, wouldn't you agree?:)
Moving on to the cold war era, the SR-71 is the undisputed queen of the air, beautiful as can be and as much a work of art as it is a plane, but the B-58 Hustler is the epitome of a jet bomber, with the B-47 a close second. For fighters, the MiG-29 and MiG-31, the F-14 and F-15 are planes I grew up loving, and the Swedes did all right with their beautiful delta-wings, the sleek J-35 and the more angularly powerful J-37 (which incidentally was the only aircraft that ever managed to get a radar lock on a SR-71 - and they did it on numerous occasions).
Current planes, well... I'm not a fan, really. Of the current crop of fighters, I guess the Swedes did it again with their J-39; I don't really like the F-22, F-35, Typhoon, or any of the Su-27 variants that seem to number in the dozens across Russia and China. It all seems to be drones, drones, drones anyway these days, and I sometimes long for a past where planes weren't designed by computers but by eye and hand.
The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird holds the official Air Speed Record for a manned airbreathing jet aircraft with a speed of 3,530 km/h (2,193 mph). It was capable of taking off and landing unassisted on conventional runways. The record was set on 28 July 1976 by Eldon W. Joersz and George T. Morgan Jr. near Beale Air Force Base, California, US
There's non-official (e.g. Brian Shul's book Sled Driver) reports of speeds up to Mach 3.5 (4,200 kph or 2,600 mph), but those aren't official. Different official and unofficial analyses of the materials and production techniques of the SR-71 strongly suggest that it was incapable of reaching much more than Mach 3.5 (among other things the pressure wave from the nose would enter the engine intake and unstart the engine; also the metal divider on the windshield got so hot at those speeds it threatened the integrity of the windshield).
So yeah, official word would be great, but there is little doubt the SR-71 was capable of Mach 3.5 but not much more than that.
I don't fancy the U-2 or C-130 much, but the P-38 and SR-71 are two of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever to have graced the skies. In fact, the SR-71 is probably the most beautiful plane ever to have flown. That it's also still the current speed record holder (air-breathing manned aircraft, record set in 1976) despite being retired since 1998 is just icing on the cake.
I'm quite grateful that I managed to squeeze in a trip to the Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles last time I was in DC so I could get to see one in real life.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the other week I actually completed the main quest line in Skyrim for the first time - and then I looked at my Steam stats. 330 hours played...
And that's without any of the DLCs :)
Quite looking forward to Elder Scrolls Online now - the PvP looks excellent from what I've seen :)
First, is the planet getting warmer? On that I'd say there's general agreement, although it is not a 100% consensus.
It's a 99.something% consensus, which is as solid as any consensus among a large population is ever going to get. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012, only 24 reject global warming. (source)
Second, if it is getting warmer, is it caused in large part by human activity or is it part of some natural variation? This is the sticking point. If it's part of a natural variation in temperature -- and I will point out many such variations have happened in the past few million years, all without any input from humans -- then there is no need for us to radically alter our life to stop it because such actions will have no positive climatic effect while having a signficant negative effect on quality of life.
All the evidence we have for previous natural variations show them to be slow (or extremely rapid, as in catastrophically rapid - impact events or super-volcano eruptions); the changes we're seeing today is way too rapid to conform to any known natural cycle. The difference, of course, is that we're around and actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. In short, not a "natural variation".
Third, if it is anthropogenic, what should we do about it? Curtainling greenhouse emissions is an obvious choice, but is it the best one? How severe are the predicted warming effects? The economic and socio-political upheavals from drastic policy changes might be worse than adapting to a changing climate. And how much confidence can we have in the predictions regardless of how severe (or not) they may be?
We don't know; that's the problem. We don't have any crystal balls, so we don't know what the most effective strategy is, or exactly how severe the effects will be. What we do know is that large climate changes historically have been responsible for some of the most drastic extinction events we know of. And it's pretty easy to speculate about what a massive dying-off of e.g. marine life would do to coastal communities - as is the effect on the same communities of rising sea levels.
These are not minor issues. They deserve to be studied and debated *in depth* before drastic action is take, if for no other reason than to determine that we're taking the *most effective* action possible. This whole "the debate is settle and if you don't agree with us you're a denier" smacks of the same kind of thinking that gave us an Earth-centric cosmic model and burned "deniers" as heretics.
No, these are not minor issues, and the ramifications of the decisions are huge. In the end though, doing nothing is probably the worst decision; there is a tipping point somewhere (the edge of the cliff, so to speak) which going past that there is no turning back. More research and discussion is always welcome, but that should not and cannot stop us from starting to act - if nothing else to slow down the rate at which we're approaching that tipping point.
The analogy with the earth-centric cosmic models and burning of a few heretics is really stretching it when we're talking about the possibility of mass extinctions of not only humans but a lot of other species as well.
The earth will survive, and life itself will survive. The question is, will we? And even if we do, in what kind of society? One that has planned for such an eventuality, or one that has had to just react to it. One is liveable, the other is a post-apocalypse society; I know which one I'd rather (have my kids) live in.
If we can't get to the edge and look back, then it is a simulation, right?
Well, we can't get to the edge and look back currently, does that mean we've proven reality is a simulation?
Of course not.
You're reading a lot into that post that wasn't there.
Simulation hypotheses have been around for thousands of years, is that not true?
And they are fundamentally unverifiable, is that not also true?
Whether or not this new research is interesting, important, or valuable, I did not offer an opinion on.
Agreed, that was sloppy of me. "Cogito, ergo sum" is however used as a stepping stone for Descartes to "prove" that reality is not an illusion, since sensory perception is not an act of will. Therefore they are external to the thinker, and there exists an external world that provides the thinker with these sensory perceptions.
Simulation hypotheses area as old as philosophy; Parmenides, Zeno and Plato all had their own pet hypotheses that basically amounted to "reality is an illusion". Descartes, of course, had his "Cogito, ergo sum" as his final defence against reality being an illusion.
In short, it's nothing new - the idea is well over 2,000 years old and it has a major, major issue: It's unverifiable - it's like asking what's outside the universe; the question doesn't make sense.
The hour hand moves around the clock face one complete revolution in 12 hours. Which means that in 30 minutes it should have moved (360 / 12 / 2) = 15 degrees. If it hasn't moved 15 degrees in 30 minutes, it's broken. It should not be pointing directly at 12 if the time is 12:30, it should be pointing halfway between 12 and 1.
How do you know it's not 11:30?
On a working analog clock when the minute hand is pointing straight down, the hour hand should point in-between two hour positions.
In your example, 12:30 am/pm, a working analog clock would show this by having the minute hand pointing straight down and the hour hand pointing midway between the 12 and the 1.
A clock that shows the minute hand pointing straight down and the hour hand straight up is indeed broken and will never show the right time.
Perhaps the recent eruptions of water on Ceres are a result of the same limnic eruption phenomenon seen at Lake Nyos.
No, that's not possible at all. The eruptions on Ceres are water vapour, not water, and the current theory is that they are the result of warming on the side closer to the sun.
To be honest, this is somewhat worrying--could this same process occur, here on Earth, if we push the CO2 saturation level too high? A sudden degassing of the atmosphere, into space?
No. If you actually took the time to read the link you've posted twice now, you'd see that limnic eruptions can't occur in temperate lakes because the seasonal shift in water temperature mixes the water and prohibits a colder layer at the bottom building up CO2. Now think about the atmosphere - is it still, allowing this kind of build-up? No, there's weather and wind all the time.
Not to mention the differing levels of CO2 saturation between the lake and the atmosphere.
Has this happened before, in the Earth's history?
Has Earth lost its atmosphere due to "limnic eruptions" in the atmosphere? No. That's crackpot talk. The Earth is too big and its gravity too strong.
Has Earth ever lost its atmosphere? Possibly, but not after the impact(s?) that created the moon occurred, 4.5 billion years ago or so.
SR-71 = JP8
No, the Pratt & Whitney J58 engines of the SR-71 ran on JP7, a fuel specially made for those engines and that aircraft.
"The Google Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 2014. Human decisions are removed from configuration management. Google begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
Which leaves the others either the choice to subsidize them for nothing, eliminate the concept of money, or eliminate those unable to earn it.
I'd like to find out what's behind door number two.
Doom map layout was definitely 2D, I remember very well having to use all kinds of tricks to get the illusion of full 3D, and some things just weren't possible, like bridges you could both pass over and under.
Doom 2 I can't say, never did any maps for that one.
You jest, but a change in salinity could have a big impact.
Indeed it could, just read up a bit about thermohaline circulation and you'll see why some people are worried not just about sea-level rise from melting polar ice.
Listening to music without paying is not "innocent", it's downright unamerican. Or at least a threat to our beloved capitalism. If nobody makes a buck from it, it's gotta go.
You're not one of them pinko commie socialist types that think you can get something for nothing are you? Remember, you don't always get what you pay for, but you always have to pay.
Always.
Disclaimer: Portions of the above post may contain traces of sarcasm, cynism, or just downright trolling. Handle with care.
Unless I completely misremember my Psychology classes, you get the best results by a combination of punishment (for wrong behaviour) and reward (for right behaviour). Doing just one or the other doesn't get you the result you want as quickly.
Wikipedia is only a few key-presses away, you know:
(emphasis mine)
It's the dead ones that are toys, not the living.
Dr. West was a re-animator, not a murderer.
Whereas this thing trips over itself on a flat surface and has a step height of a few inches, making it far better for rough terrain.
If we're talking about the WildCat video, it looked like the front right leg joint broke when it fell, not that it tripped. If that's the case, it's just an engineering problem to reinforce that joint.
Foreign nationals get their fingerprints taken and retinas photographed at the customs desk (where they also check our passports and ask us the funny questions like "business or pleasure?", "anyone handled your luggage but you?", "what address are you staying?" etc).
The NSA has had my fingerprints and retina pattern for over a decade now.
Gah, don't remind me.
Mythic was so bad as a MMO developer they gave rise to the next level of fail after Epic fail: Mythic fail.
And still I played that damn game for 2.5 years...
They were selling all of the mechs people want to play with for cash. The entire stable of mechs. All for sale.
This is very wrong, so much so it must be an intentional lie. Out of 93 'mech variants, only 12 are cash-only. 81 are available for in-game currency.
Can you download and drop into an atlas and go killing? Hell no. You got a very very limited selection of what to do. And what you could do with it.
As a new player, you'll start out in a selection of trial 'mechs while you earn in-game currency to purchase your own 'mech (that you can then customize to your liking for more in-game currency). To facilitate this, you get a rather hefty in-game currency bonus for your first 25 games. At the end of those 25 matches, you'll have enough both to purchase and customize and Atlas, if that's what you want.
Every battle quickly shaped up to be paid players stomping the shit repeatedly out of free players.
Almost the entire point of the mechwarrior series was behind a credit card. Thats not any sort of free to play. That's flat out pay to play
It's also not true. The Hero 'mechs (the cash-only 'mechs) aren't superior to the in-game currency ones, and there's generally not enough of them on a team to make a difference anyway. People generally play in regular, non-Hero 'mechs. What is happening though is that organized teams "stomp the shit" out of disorganized groups of non-team players. But hey, it's a team game.
these people ruined it.
While there's no love lost between me and PGI, they haven't actually ruined the game yet. They seem to do their damndest to get there, but they haven't quite managed yet. At its core, the game is a really great 'mech simulation; it's just all the other bits that suck.
Oh and the fact that it's getting less and less BattleTech with every patch. That sucks really bad as well.
Oh, let's talk beautiful planes :)
WWII-era: Me 262 takes the top spot with its shark-like fuselage and sleek lines, the P-38 as mentioned looks simultaneously both powerful and really, really graceful, the Westland Whirlwind is also gorgeously aggressive with its propellers sticking out in front, and of course the old stalwarts the Spitfire and the Mustang are magnificent designs. Then there's the striking utilitarianism of the Me-109 and the robust stubbiness of the early Fw-190, and the impressive gaping maw of the Typhoon. Also the P-48 Thunderbolt has a certain rotund charm, wouldn't you agree? :)
Moving on to the cold war era, the SR-71 is the undisputed queen of the air, beautiful as can be and as much a work of art as it is a plane, but the B-58 Hustler is the epitome of a jet bomber, with the B-47 a close second. For fighters, the MiG-29 and MiG-31, the F-14 and F-15 are planes I grew up loving, and the Swedes did all right with their beautiful delta-wings, the sleek J-35 and the more angularly powerful J-37 (which incidentally was the only aircraft that ever managed to get a radar lock on a SR-71 - and they did it on numerous occasions).
Current planes, well... I'm not a fan, really. Of the current crop of fighters, I guess the Swedes did it again with their J-39; I don't really like the F-22, F-35, Typhoon, or any of the Su-27 variants that seem to number in the dozens across Russia and China. It all seems to be drones, drones, drones anyway these days, and I sometimes long for a past where planes weren't designed by computers but by eye and hand.
From wikipedia:
The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird holds the official Air Speed Record for a manned airbreathing jet aircraft with a speed of 3,530 km/h (2,193 mph). It was capable of taking off and landing unassisted on conventional runways. The record was set on 28 July 1976 by Eldon W. Joersz and George T. Morgan Jr. near Beale Air Force Base, California, US
There's non-official (e.g. Brian Shul's book Sled Driver) reports of speeds up to Mach 3.5 (4,200 kph or 2,600 mph), but those aren't official. Different official and unofficial analyses of the materials and production techniques of the SR-71 strongly suggest that it was incapable of reaching much more than Mach 3.5 (among other things the pressure wave from the nose would enter the engine intake and unstart the engine; also the metal divider on the windshield got so hot at those speeds it threatened the integrity of the windshield).
So yeah, official word would be great, but there is little doubt the SR-71 was capable of Mach 3.5 but not much more than that.
Indeed.
I don't fancy the U-2 or C-130 much, but the P-38 and SR-71 are two of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever to have graced the skies. In fact, the SR-71 is probably the most beautiful plane ever to have flown. That it's also still the current speed record holder (air-breathing manned aircraft, record set in 1976) despite being retired since 1998 is just icing on the cake.
I'm quite grateful that I managed to squeeze in a trip to the Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles last time I was in DC so I could get to see one in real life.