we were routinely warned about the coming ice age, killer bees, overpopulation, famine, plague, high voltage power lines, cell phones...I am not going to leap to stark, raving fear with each new news report.
I'm not suggesting reacting with fear to, or even believing, every news report you hear. Most of them are quoting scaremongers or people with an agenda. There is no significant belief in the scientific community that cell phones or high volatage lines are dangerous. The other things you list were probably expressed as a concern by scientists and then blown out of proportion by the media. It happens.
Global warming, however, is talked about in strong language by the scientists themselves, and with a strong consensus in the community. I have listened to several experts in the field give colloquia; they say that, although there was uncertainty in the past, there is now a firm consensus that global warming is anthropogenic (it was never in question that it is real - the data are firm on that). I can't claim to have examined all of the evidence myself, but what I have seen looks good. Nobody not in the field can have the same level of expertise, and when there is a strong agreement among experts like we have here, is it reasonable to assume that you have found a flaw in their reasoning that escaped them?
What's this about ad hominem attacks and straw men? Aside from the (as you admit) reasonable misinterpretation of your conclusions, everything I said was focused on the science of climate researh today. Then there's something about government and media lies and groupthink. Now this sounds more like an ad hominem attack.
Finally, when exactly has a terrorist had a chance of occupying the US in order to enslave me? Or for that matter, when is the last time there was even a real terrorist attack on US soil? I'm confident that my fears are focused on the right people on this one.
Well, you are correct that there were predictions of global cooling (although I think "ice age" might be a bit beyond what the scientific community really said). This was based on real data - the Earth really did cool down for about three decades. But around the 1970's, it started to warm up again. Climate scientists now realize that the cooling effect was the result of aerosols (fine particles suspended in the atmosphere, not the CFC spay cans). I think the mechanism was that aerosols increased cloud formation, which reflected more sunlight into space, hence cooling the planet. This was despite an increase in greenhouse gases, especially CO2. Now, however, the greenhouse effect, in combination with declining aerosol levels, has caused temperatures to rise again.
Although you're right about the reversal in predictions, your conclusion (they were wrong before, so they're always wrong!) is flippant and ignores the real science being done in the field.
Not that I'm a fan of the current patent system, but patents can and should cover things other than just "things that no one else can figure out." Non-obvious doesn't mean that you can't figure it out, but that you wouldn't think of doing it. For example, I've used a set of Allen wrenches that had specially beveled ends. The way they were shaped allowed you to turn the screw even with the wrench at a significant angle, like 20 degrees or so. Now, it's not at all difficult to figure out how they work, but the idea is brilliant and extremely useful, especially on an optics table.
Patents can work for the public good by encouraging innovation through financial incentives, i.e. limited-time monopoly protection. The trick is that if patents are being used as cudgels against competitors, especially if this is because the patents are too broad, then they're no longer serving the public good. Sadly, that's the state that we're in today.
I'm not disagreeing with you, and I strongly disaprove of discrimination, but I just want to play Devil's Advocate for a second. My grandmother, who is in her late 80's, is a perfect example of who the company was trying to protect. Several years ago she was called by one of those evil "psychic hotline" scams, and, not realizing the scam, happily talked on the phone to them for hours. When the bill came in, it was for something like a thousand dollars, and she had no idea what it was for.
Now, I admit she is showing the symptoms of early Alzheimer's disease, but that isn't very uncommon at that age! I think something like a third of people in their 80's get it, and there's no way to tell until it's progressed a way. If it is in fact a common occurence for the elderly to suffer mental decline, is it appropriate to try to protect them from underhanded business practices that prey on them?
Re:Blog First, Then Scientific Journals.
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I can't speak for the others, but Mark Trodden and Sean Carroll are theoretical cosmologists. I majored in astrophysics as an undergrad and read some of their papers. Also, Sean Carroll is quoted in the press release on NASA's web site.
So these aren't just random guys talking, but professionals in the field. Also, as Sean states in his post, the result was embargoed, which means it was being kept under wraps before publication in a journal. This article and the one I mentioned above are just talking about the results that are published elsewhere. If you really want to read the journal article, it's available here.
I also don't trust my government, at least at the federal level, but I have noticed that the political insanity gets much less severe at lower levels of government. After all, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," so extrapolating backwards a smaller amount of power corrupts less. This is why (I think) you see things like city governments trying to offer free Wi-Fi to their citizens but being blocked by laws passed by the lobbyists of large telecoms. The local government has found a way to help its constituents, but the higher-ups have been paid off or otherwise used.
I would put nothing past the federal government, especially under the current administration, when it comes to restricting our freedom. However, I do think that governments can do good things, especially at the local level. This looks to me like an attempt to do just that.
If you're talking about global warming, then you're absolutely correct. Wether the source of energy is one hydrocarbon or another, you're still releasing some amount of carbon dioxide into the environment.
If, on the other hand, you care about global politics, then oil is a very serious problem. Several strongly anti-western regimes in the Middle East are funded by oil, and they in turn are known to fund, if not terrorists directly, then at least educational programs that promote radical fundamentalism. Also, a certain global power sees oil imports from that region as critical to its security, and so is willing to engage in otherwise rather stupid foreign policies to protect those imports. For the record, I think most of those policies are stupid anyway.
Either way, though, practical electric cars (or cars powered by certain other alternative fuels) are an improvement. Clearly they help the political problem by reducing said oil dependency. You alluded to the environmental benefits in your posting, but I care about this a lot so I'm going to expand on that a bit. By centralizing the creation of energy, even if it is produced with hydrocarbons, you make it easier to regulate and reduce emissions. Also, you open the possibility of switching the generation to non-carbon-releasing power generating methods, such as nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. Once the cars don't care directly where the energy comes from, you can get it from anywhere, which goves us many more options for producing energy in an environmentally sustainable way. Woohoo progress!
Sorry, but you don't actually have a unique rarity on your hands. 5x5x5 Rubik's Cube's can be bought for about $30 in any good toy store. If you like ordering online, they're available direct from the manufacturer along with all the other versions. Also, that simulator you requested has already been written. There is a general Rubik's cube simulator available here which can simulate a cube of any size.
As to being too difficult to solve, the world record for solving one of these is 1:47.22 (that's less than two minutes). You can check out lots of records on this speedcubing site. The 4x4x4 is really pretty similar to the 3x3x3, except with extra algorithms needed for the new peices that are present. If you can solve a 3x3x3, you're most of the way to the 4x4x4. The 5x5x5 is a similar extension of the 4x4x4.
For the record, I can solve the 4x4x4, but my times are pretty awful. I don't have good algorithms for solving those extra peices, and I don't do it often enough. On the 3x3x3, though, I can consistently do it in 1:30, and that's just with home-grown algorithms some friends and I came up with.
Even if you add the NSA's surveilance, that was not warranted by the judiciary. It still is not.
I assume here that you mean the NSA's wiretaps, which were not subject to proper judicial review, do not represent a loss of essential liberty. I have to flatly disagree with you here. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution sates:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems pretty apparent to me that a wiretap which has not been judicially authorized constitutes an "unreasonable search". Since the Bill of Rights is a statement of basic, essential liberties, these wiretaps do take away essential liberties. Also, your contention that these wiretaps are directed at individuals legitimately suspected of a crime is unfounded. If there was sufficient suspicion of a crime, there would be no need to circumvent the judiciary, as a warrent would be easy to obtain.
You are trying to convince me, all wiretapping is useless. Sorry, that's just laughable.
I am making no such argument. Most (legal) wiretaps are used against normal criminals who have no particular reason to suspect their communications are being monitored, as they do not know their activities have been discovered. If, however, they began assuming their exchanges would be tracked, they would likely be able to find at least temporary alternative channels. Since terrorists at this point certainly have a reasonable suspicion that conventional means of communication would be insecure, they have a very strong motivation to use unconventional means. These will, inherently, not have been previously monitored. Eventually, the government will catch on, and there will be an escalating arms race. At every stage more innocent people will be affected and, under the current warrentless regime, have their rights violated and essential liberties curtailed. Despite the widening circle of consequences, there will be little increased effectiveness for law enforcement officials, as the "bad guys" have been an active part of the race and are keeping pace.
So I am not claiming that all wiretaps are useless, simply that the subset of wiretaps (and other monitoring activity) which are carried out through non-judicial channels cannot possibly justify the massive collateral damage they cause to the idea of a nation ruled by laws and in which people have essential, inalienable liberties.
That's what hospitals, banks, advertisers, and doubleclick.com have taken long ago. The democratic governments' record on this is not too bad, actually.
An invasion of privacy by any body is bad, whether private or governmental. A governmental invasion of privacy, however, is much more serious because of the government's police powers. When coupled with a lack of proper checks and balances, the problem becomes more serious. Take, for example, the case of an innocent Canadian citizen who was detained by the US and sent to Syria to be held and tortured for over a year.
"Illegal"? The article is talking about legal wiretapping... "Patriot Act"? The article says "especially in Europe".
But anyway, which "other means of communication and planning" will the enemy use? Their own telephone network? Their own Internet? If they have to attach an encryption expert to every terrorist cell in the field, their efficiency will be crippled. But even that will not work -- often times, the content of the communication is less important, than the very fact of it, or a sudden change in its volume.
First of all, the quote in your original post was by Ben Franklin, and thus clearly applies to the US, and also is not directly referring to the article in any way. I am responding to your post, which although spawned by discussion about the article is unrelated to it.
Next, you seem to think that all possible means of communication or circumvention of monitoring have been considered and taken care of by the government. No person or group of people can think of every possibility, and some channels have undoubtedly been left open. Given sufficient motivation, they will be found and exploited. And anyway, the "problems" you raise can be addressed relatively easily. There is no need to attach an encryption expert to a terrorist cell. There is nearly uncrackable (with current technology) encryption technology available commercially, or even for free. This is designed for businesses and individuals to be able to use, and does not require any particular expertise. Furthermore, if the volume of encrypted traffic is being monitored as an indicator, it would be relatively simple to create a large volume of "nonsense" encrypted traffic to mask any change in the amount of meaningful communication.
Your persecution complex is rivaled only by that of superiority.
Ad hominem attacks never help to advance a rational argument.
It is claimed that we are gaining protection from "the terrorists". I claim that, assuming we have actually gained said security, it is a temporary security nonetheless. If the current illegal wiretapping scheme or any of the privacy invasions of the Patriot Act actually interfere with terrorists, they will find another means of communication and planning. It might be harder, but it seems to me that the only way to really stop determined terrorists is to create a police state, which throws away the liberties we are supposed to be protecting in the first place (but seems to be happening anyway).
Of course, that is even assuming that the schemes work. There has been no evidence offered by the administration that any terrorist attacks have been prevented by the president's warrantless wiretapping. They haven't even said that a single arrest has been made. So, far from temporary security, we probably have gained absolutely nothing.
Actually, I've probably 'gained' an FBI dossier by posting this, if I don't already have one for being a card-carrying ACLU member and registered Democrat.
Where in the post you keep quoting does it say "being liberal makes you smarter" or "watching Bill O'Reilly takes points off of your IQ score" or any other implication of causation? The post which you so visciously attacked was merely a listing of (unattributed) statistical correlations.
The specific attempt to refute the correlation between number of degrees held and liberal ideology seems to suggest that you have a chip on your shoulder. If you don't think that the statistic is valid, show some evidence. Find a statistic that disagrees and post a link. Or at least find some support that you can credit for your speculative explanations. Attacking data with speculation is a tactic of someone who is rationalizing an indefensible position.
No no no! It wasn't deleted at all! It's my fault, actually. You see, I just had to press this shiny red button that I found. My mother always told me not to push buttons I didn't know anything about, but did I listen? Sigh...
First off, we can't send up another Hubble for cheap - it has to be designed, built, and launched, all of which is expensive. To maintain the current telescope, all we have to do is launch, and as a fraction of what NASA is already planning to spend on launches, it's pretty cheap.
Secondly, Hubble is not "obsolete". Every single time it has been serviced, its capabilities have been upgraded with new instrumentation, vastly increasing its sensitivity and usefulness. Hubble has quite modern CCDs with exquisite sensitivity, and a servicing mission will install even better equipment. Here are the first images that were taken with the ACS camera installed in 2002. Compare those with this early WFPC2 image (an earlier camera). The servicing missions have increased Hubble's sensitivity by literally orders of magnitude, resulting in many incredible new discoveries.
I also waited for Firefox to alert me that an update was available, both to be kind to the servers and to see how the update process worked. Yeasterday it alerted me to the update via a new icon next to the activity icon in the upper right of the window.
Interestingly, when I went through the update process, it downloaded and installed the full 1.01 package. Does anyone know if this is how updates will be done in the future, or if Mozilla will migrate to a patch system?
I think the RIAA posted this story to Slashdot to kill the site and thereby take the offending material off the Internet. I say we as Slashdotters should work against the RIAA's evil scheme and not read the articles.
I'm not even out of college yet, a lot of my firends had computers years earlier than I did, and I can still remember when my computer had 2 megs of RAM.
The computer I'm typing this on has a 32 meg video card in it. I got it eons ago when I came to college, back in 2001. Am I now qualified to say [geezer voice] "When I was your age..." ? [/geezer voice]
Wired Magazine seems to be getting their terms confused
Actually, Wired has their terms correct. By using models of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and measurements of primordial elemental abundances, it is possible to calculate how much baryonic matter there can be in the universe. Combined with results from WMAP and other studies, one can calculate the fraction of the universe that is baryonic matter, non-baryonic matter, and dark energy. The 4 percent figure the article quotes is the best estimate from these calculations. There is still ~23 percent of the mass of the universe of dark matter to account for, and baryons cannot be the answer for this.
Slashdot Mirror
"These are not the Richards you are looking for"
we were routinely warned about the coming ice age, killer bees, overpopulation, famine, plague, high voltage power lines, cell phones...I am not going to leap to stark, raving fear with each new news report.
I'm not suggesting reacting with fear to, or even believing, every news report you hear. Most of them are quoting scaremongers or people with an agenda. There is no significant belief in the scientific community that cell phones or high volatage lines are dangerous. The other things you list were probably expressed as a concern by scientists and then blown out of proportion by the media. It happens.
Global warming, however, is talked about in strong language by the scientists themselves, and with a strong consensus in the community. I have listened to several experts in the field give colloquia; they say that, although there was uncertainty in the past, there is now a firm consensus that global warming is anthropogenic (it was never in question that it is real - the data are firm on that). I can't claim to have examined all of the evidence myself, but what I have seen looks good. Nobody not in the field can have the same level of expertise, and when there is a strong agreement among experts like we have here, is it reasonable to assume that you have found a flaw in their reasoning that escaped them?
What's this about ad hominem attacks and straw men? Aside from the (as you admit) reasonable misinterpretation of your conclusions, everything I said was focused on the science of climate researh today. Then there's something about government and media lies and groupthink. Now this sounds more like an ad hominem attack.
Finally, when exactly has a terrorist had a chance of occupying the US in order to enslave me? Or for that matter, when is the last time there was even a real terrorist attack on US soil? I'm confident that my fears are focused on the right people on this one.
Well, you are correct that there were predictions of global cooling (although I think "ice age" might be a bit beyond what the scientific community really said). This was based on real data - the Earth really did cool down for about three decades. But around the 1970's, it started to warm up again. Climate scientists now realize that the cooling effect was the result of aerosols (fine particles suspended in the atmosphere, not the CFC spay cans). I think the mechanism was that aerosols increased cloud formation, which reflected more sunlight into space, hence cooling the planet. This was despite an increase in greenhouse gases, especially CO2. Now, however, the greenhouse effect, in combination with declining aerosol levels, has caused temperatures to rise again.
Although you're right about the reversal in predictions, your conclusion (they were wrong before, so they're always wrong!) is flippant and ignores the real science being done in the field.
Larry Summers, is that you?
Not that I'm a fan of the current patent system, but patents can and should cover things other than just "things that no one else can figure out." Non-obvious doesn't mean that you can't figure it out, but that you wouldn't think of doing it. For example, I've used a set of Allen wrenches that had specially beveled ends. The way they were shaped allowed you to turn the screw even with the wrench at a significant angle, like 20 degrees or so. Now, it's not at all difficult to figure out how they work, but the idea is brilliant and extremely useful, especially on an optics table.
Patents can work for the public good by encouraging innovation through financial incentives, i.e. limited-time monopoly protection. The trick is that if patents are being used as cudgels against competitors, especially if this is because the patents are too broad, then they're no longer serving the public good. Sadly, that's the state that we're in today.
I'm not disagreeing with you, and I strongly disaprove of discrimination, but I just want to play Devil's Advocate for a second. My grandmother, who is in her late 80's, is a perfect example of who the company was trying to protect. Several years ago she was called by one of those evil "psychic hotline" scams, and, not realizing the scam, happily talked on the phone to them for hours. When the bill came in, it was for something like a thousand dollars, and she had no idea what it was for.
Now, I admit she is showing the symptoms of early Alzheimer's disease, but that isn't very uncommon at that age! I think something like a third of people in their 80's get it, and there's no way to tell until it's progressed a way. If it is in fact a common occurence for the elderly to suffer mental decline, is it appropriate to try to protect them from underhanded business practices that prey on them?
I can't speak for the others, but Mark Trodden and Sean Carroll are theoretical cosmologists. I majored in astrophysics as an undergrad and read some of their papers. Also, Sean Carroll is quoted in the press release on NASA's web site.
So these aren't just random guys talking, but professionals in the field. Also, as Sean states in his post, the result was embargoed, which means it was being kept under wraps before publication in a journal. This article and the one I mentioned above are just talking about the results that are published elsewhere. If you really want to read the journal article, it's available here.
I also don't trust my government, at least at the federal level, but I have noticed that the political insanity gets much less severe at lower levels of government. After all, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," so extrapolating backwards a smaller amount of power corrupts less. This is why (I think) you see things like city governments trying to offer free Wi-Fi to their citizens but being blocked by laws passed by the lobbyists of large telecoms. The local government has found a way to help its constituents, but the higher-ups have been paid off or otherwise used.
I would put nothing past the federal government, especially under the current administration, when it comes to restricting our freedom. However, I do think that governments can do good things, especially at the local level. This looks to me like an attempt to do just that.
Oil isn't the problem, ENERGY is.
If you're talking about global warming, then you're absolutely correct. Wether the source of energy is one hydrocarbon or another, you're still releasing some amount of carbon dioxide into the environment.
If, on the other hand, you care about global politics, then oil is a very serious problem. Several strongly anti-western regimes in the Middle East are funded by oil, and they in turn are known to fund, if not terrorists directly, then at least educational programs that promote radical fundamentalism. Also, a certain global power sees oil imports from that region as critical to its security, and so is willing to engage in otherwise rather stupid foreign policies to protect those imports. For the record, I think most of those policies are stupid anyway.
Either way, though, practical electric cars (or cars powered by certain other alternative fuels) are an improvement. Clearly they help the political problem by reducing said oil dependency. You alluded to the environmental benefits in your posting, but I care about this a lot so I'm going to expand on that a bit. By centralizing the creation of energy, even if it is produced with hydrocarbons, you make it easier to regulate and reduce emissions. Also, you open the possibility of switching the generation to non-carbon-releasing power generating methods, such as nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. Once the cars don't care directly where the energy comes from, you can get it from anywhere, which goves us many more options for producing energy in an environmentally sustainable way. Woohoo progress!
It's just a flesh wound!
Get back here, I'll bite your legs off!!
Sorry, but you don't actually have a unique rarity on your hands. 5x5x5 Rubik's Cube's can be bought for about $30 in any good toy store. If you like ordering online, they're available direct from the manufacturer along with all the other versions. Also, that simulator you requested has already been written. There is a general Rubik's cube simulator available here which can simulate a cube of any size.
As to being too difficult to solve, the world record for solving one of these is 1:47.22 (that's less than two minutes). You can check out lots of records on this speedcubing site. The 4x4x4 is really pretty similar to the 3x3x3, except with extra algorithms needed for the new peices that are present. If you can solve a 3x3x3, you're most of the way to the 4x4x4. The 5x5x5 is a similar extension of the 4x4x4.
For the record, I can solve the 4x4x4, but my times are pretty awful. I don't have good algorithms for solving those extra peices, and I don't do it often enough. On the 3x3x3, though, I can consistently do it in 1:30, and that's just with home-grown algorithms some friends and I came up with.
Imagine the marketing possibilities... "The only intuitive interface is the Nipple(tm)."
"There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
I assume here that you mean the NSA's wiretaps, which were not subject to proper judicial review, do not represent a loss of essential liberty. I have to flatly disagree with you here. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution sates:
It seems pretty apparent to me that a wiretap which has not been judicially authorized constitutes an "unreasonable search". Since the Bill of Rights is a statement of basic, essential liberties, these wiretaps do take away essential liberties. Also, your contention that these wiretaps are directed at individuals legitimately suspected of a crime is unfounded. If there was sufficient suspicion of a crime, there would be no need to circumvent the judiciary, as a warrent would be easy to obtain.You are trying to convince me, all wiretapping is useless. Sorry, that's just laughable.
I am making no such argument. Most (legal) wiretaps are used against normal criminals who have no particular reason to suspect their communications are being monitored, as they do not know their activities have been discovered. If, however, they began assuming their exchanges would be tracked, they would likely be able to find at least temporary alternative channels. Since terrorists at this point certainly have a reasonable suspicion that conventional means of communication would be insecure, they have a very strong motivation to use unconventional means. These will, inherently, not have been previously monitored. Eventually, the government will catch on, and there will be an escalating arms race. At every stage more innocent people will be affected and, under the current warrentless regime, have their rights violated and essential liberties curtailed. Despite the widening circle of consequences, there will be little increased effectiveness for law enforcement officials, as the "bad guys" have been an active part of the race and are keeping pace.
So I am not claiming that all wiretaps are useless, simply that the subset of wiretaps (and other monitoring activity) which are carried out through non-judicial channels cannot possibly justify the massive collateral damage they cause to the idea of a nation ruled by laws and in which people have essential, inalienable liberties.
An invasion of privacy by any body is bad, whether private or governmental. A governmental invasion of privacy, however, is much more serious because of the government's police powers. When coupled with a lack of proper checks and balances, the problem becomes more serious. Take, for example, the case of an innocent Canadian citizen who was detained by the US and sent to Syria to be held and tortured for over a year.
"Illegal"? The article is talking about legal wiretapping... "Patriot Act"? The article says "especially in Europe".
But anyway, which "other means of communication and planning" will the enemy use? Their own telephone network? Their own Internet? If they have to attach an encryption expert to every terrorist cell in the field, their efficiency will be crippled. But even that will not work -- often times, the content of the communication is less important, than the very fact of it, or a sudden change in its volume.
First of all, the quote in your original post was by Ben Franklin, and thus clearly applies to the US, and also is not directly referring to the article in any way. I am responding to your post, which although spawned by discussion about the article is unrelated to it.
Next, you seem to think that all possible means of communication or circumvention of monitoring have been considered and taken care of by the government. No person or group of people can think of every possibility, and some channels have undoubtedly been left open. Given sufficient motivation, they will be found and exploited. And anyway, the "problems" you raise can be addressed relatively easily. There is no need to attach an encryption expert to a terrorist cell. There is nearly uncrackable (with current technology) encryption technology available commercially, or even for free. This is designed for businesses and individuals to be able to use, and does not require any particular expertise. Furthermore, if the volume of encrypted traffic is being monitored as an indicator, it would be relatively simple to create a large volume of "nonsense" encrypted traffic to mask any change in the amount of meaningful communication.
Your persecution complex is rivaled only by that of superiority.
Ad hominem attacks never help to advance a rational argument.
Security gained: trickier.
It is claimed that we are gaining protection from "the terrorists". I claim that, assuming we have actually gained said security, it is a temporary security nonetheless. If the current illegal wiretapping scheme or any of the privacy invasions of the Patriot Act actually interfere with terrorists, they will find another means of communication and planning. It might be harder, but it seems to me that the only way to really stop determined terrorists is to create a police state, which throws away the liberties we are supposed to be protecting in the first place (but seems to be happening anyway).
Of course, that is even assuming that the schemes work. There has been no evidence offered by the administration that any terrorist attacks have been prevented by the president's warrantless wiretapping. They haven't even said that a single arrest has been made. So, far from temporary security, we probably have gained absolutely nothing.
Actually, I've probably 'gained' an FBI dossier by posting this, if I don't already have one for being a card-carrying ACLU member and registered Democrat.
Where in the post you keep quoting does it say "being liberal makes you smarter" or "watching Bill O'Reilly takes points off of your IQ score" or any other implication of causation? The post which you so visciously attacked was merely a listing of (unattributed) statistical correlations.
The specific attempt to refute the correlation between number of degrees held and liberal ideology seems to suggest that you have a chip on your shoulder. If you don't think that the statistic is valid, show some evidence. Find a statistic that disagrees and post a link. Or at least find some support that you can credit for your speculative explanations. Attacking data with speculation is a tactic of someone who is rationalizing an indefensible position.
No no no! It wasn't deleted at all! It's my fault, actually. You see, I just had to press this shiny red button that I found. My mother always told me not to push buttons I didn't know anything about, but did I listen? Sigh...
Who's the fellow Williams student lurking on Slashdot?
First off, we can't send up another Hubble for cheap - it has to be designed, built, and launched, all of which is expensive. To maintain the current telescope, all we have to do is launch, and as a fraction of what NASA is already planning to spend on launches, it's pretty cheap.
Secondly, Hubble is not "obsolete". Every single time it has been serviced, its capabilities have been upgraded with new instrumentation, vastly increasing its sensitivity and usefulness. Hubble has quite modern CCDs with exquisite sensitivity, and a servicing mission will install even better equipment. Here are the first images that were taken with the ACS camera installed in 2002. Compare those with this early WFPC2 image (an earlier camera). The servicing missions have increased Hubble's sensitivity by literally orders of magnitude, resulting in many incredible new discoveries.
We should absolutely fix this telescope.
I also waited for Firefox to alert me that an update was available, both to be kind to the servers and to see how the update process worked. Yeasterday it alerted me to the update via a new icon next to the activity icon in the upper right of the window.
Interestingly, when I went through the update process, it downloaded and installed the full 1.01 package. Does anyone know if this is how updates will be done in the future, or if Mozilla will migrate to a patch system?
Take of the 'h' and you're probably right: "the government will restore those pesky civil liberties you used to have once the War on Terra is won"
Oh wait...
The computer I'm typing this on has a 32 meg video card in it. I got it eons ago when I came to college, back in 2001. Am I now qualified to say [geezer voice] "When I was your age..." ? [/geezer voice]
Actually, Wired has their terms correct. By using models of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and measurements of primordial elemental abundances, it is possible to calculate how much baryonic matter there can be in the universe. Combined with results from WMAP and other studies, one can calculate the fraction of the universe that is baryonic matter, non-baryonic matter, and dark energy. The 4 percent figure the article quotes is the best estimate from these calculations. There is still ~23 percent of the mass of the universe of dark matter to account for, and baryons cannot be the answer for this.