Again, if there are any problems with my English: I have no idea if CO2 cools or warms the Earth. I object to the AGW histeria because it's histerical, and in the areas where I have some knowledge the AGW activists are mistaken. I am only saying this: IPCC will suddenly discover that CO2 cools the Earth as soon as the Earth will start cooling and not a second after or sooner
Even in the wikipedia graph, which is about how much energy in in the solar radiation, there are dips where the H2O and CO2 are "absorbed" in the atmosphere... so, if the CO2 can send those "infrared" photons back to Earth, the same applies to the infrared photons send to the Earth by the sun. Which is greater ? I'll let the IPCC decide that when the time comes:)
Greenhouse effect is when you isolate a volume of gas near a source of heat instead of letting it convect naturaly and bring colder gas close to the source of heat. Greenhouses get cold during the night and the air in the greenhouse cools faster than the soil.
only in less than 50% of the times, because from up there the Earth is a smaller target than the open sky... so it should be cooling the Earth... but I am not saying it is so, even if it kind of make sense, but that IPCC will _discover_ this fundamental truth about AGW when the climate will start cooling:)
well, CO2 does absorb infrared light, but in very,very short time it emits another IR photon:) in some random direction... very little energy is kept, and even what is kept is radiated away, that's why the nights are very cold where there is no water to store the heat and release it to the air.
not sure why I bother... talking to a warmista is like trying to reason with a Jehovah's Witness...
in fact IPCC has been consistently wrong, even with their more conservative predictions, but eh... we'll see in a couple of years, when they'll discover suddenly that CO2 is in fact shielding Earth from heat from the Sun (by scattering infrared radiation back to the space), and the cooling climate will be blamed on CO2, too.
you know that name calling does not increase your credibility, do you ?
Some researchers recently published experimental results which, in spite of their best efforts to check and rerun the tests, still contradicts Einstein's theory.
Tim, care to post a link about this ? there is a lot of noise in my google results about this..
so, how was that achieved ? you seem so informed, enlighten me ? did they put a scaffold around a chromosome and slapped the genes responsible for producing delta endotoxin on it ? did they use a miracle bacteria to attach the relevant sequence at exactly the right spot so not only would the gene be expressed, but also passed on to the offspring in a reliable way ?
I repeat, ScyFy should be forbidden, soon we'll get to scientists being lynched because they "don't want to make us live 1000 years"/"hide the cure for pimples". Oh, and Kim Stanley Robinson should be banned too... everything happens so fucking easily in his books, like it's a piece of cake and only lazy morons don't want to do it every day.
No, it's not "engineering". Engineering is when you can achieve a predictable result first time you try, because you have the method tried, tested and streamlined, and when you fail you know why and whom or what to blame. What is happening in the biotech labs is more like messing with it until you get a usable result, and by messing I mean trying again and again so many times you need a computer and a software programmer only to keep track of the tests.
Yes, with bacteria you can dice and splice genome because _bacteria already do it in the wild_... with multicellular organisms it is a lot more difficult.
bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria, not the pesticide.
Most EU states are no longer democracies, but are ran via pressure groups.
I remember the 1999-2000 campaign against GMO: one guy in UK sais his rats got sick on a diet of GM then suddenly all over France "farmers" were burning GM crops on camera, and the camera was fixed, not panning, and showing a couple of guys trampling a patch of corn with radiation warnings signs stuck on some barrels.
they're just doing in open spaces what Monsanto did in a lab: cut a maize plant in very small pieces, plant the pieces in jars with agar-agar and nutrients, blast it with radiation or some other mutagen, let the clones develop, test with Roundup, find the most promising batch, let it grow a bit but not too long, cut the small plant into very small pieces etc. until they got a sample that worked, and then went on to find the best hybrid...
lots of perspiration, and lots of inspiration too, because it's difficult to keep the lab sterile, persuade the tiny pieces of plant not to die and to grow faster etc.
the anti-GM crowd think it's done by magic by evil wizards in black coats while laughing lugubriously over dinners made of human flesh...
funny thing you say that, a few years ago DW (DeutscheWelle) had a show exactly about that, how the smart people at BASF do it in with random mutations, helped a bit by extra genetic material added into the mix, and lots and lots of selection, and even more fucking hoping it will work this time at last.
next time you'll tell me that that sheep, Dolly, was really a clone, not the result of a female gamete being raped by inserting into it the genetic materiel extracted from nucleus of another cell, and that Dolly was the perfect copy of the donor of the cell from which the nucleus was harvested, as if the mitochondria don't have any genetic information to pass on. Don't believe anything you're told... or if you do, come to me I have some sure-thing shares to sell you in a biotech company;) that will make you rich and cure cancer in mice.
ScyFy should be forbidden, people think it is all real. There is not genetic _engineering_ yet. We're still tinkering with it.
so, blast dna from a bacterium randomly... so this does not happen in nature, right ?
you mean the GM-ers blast it randomly but it gets exactly right where they want it, no need for thousands of iterations and 99999 out of 100000 failures ?
of course they don't do what the neolithic farmers did, they just speed up the process and use plant clones and agar-agar in sterile environment to get it cheaper and faster
if you're eating, you're already eating GMO... if you think GMO is freak-food you watched too much Ninja Turtles when you should have studied for the Biology/Science class... there is no "Genetic Engineering" yet, only genetic tinkering and selecting (with a lot of praying involved) the best outcome, much like mother nature does. Humans have been growing GMO for milenia, and even have GM themselves... if you're an adult and can metabolize milk, you're it.
Right now the perverse incentive is that your success at reproduction has almost nothing to do with your long-term health outlook
maybe the long term health outlook is not important, then ? there were a few hundred million years of multicellular life and I think evolution might have settled it's priorities right:)
oh, and evolution does not work with individuals, but with populations, and genetic diversity is as important, if not more important, than fitness, no matter how you define it. We need both the jocks and the geeks, the lazies and the hyperactives, the exasperatingly meticulous and the hurried and superficial...
read a few years ago an article about an experiment done on birds, testing their response to stress and scarcity: when subjected to the same amount of predation and same amount of stress, during scarcity the bold birds had a better chance of survival, during plenty the the timid birds had a better chance. In humans, the obese are found most among populations that used to live in colder climates, which is a form of adaptation to cold (larger volume for smaller surface, and stores of fat for long periods of low food availability).
If you don't let anybody whose grandparents didn't live to the age of 80 reproduce
That would select only for well fed people that lived in secure locations and did not work much under the open sky. Why not select for people who ate cake ?
coding is a vocation not a profession: most people can learn to code, but most of those that can learn to code will hate sitting 8 or more hours a day in a chair looking at lines of text in an editor or debating the advantages of various caching algorithms
if CodeAcademy will help identify even 1% of the people that have the calling but got lost and hate their life doing some other work, it will be a positive result
software developers are needed in all lines of work, from humanities to education to accounting... the only reason there are no job titles like "archivist-programmer" is bureaucratic inertia; domain knowledge is more important than advanced algorithms and a developer that understands the business is more valuable than a developer who knows the Knuth and "gang of four" books by heart but has no understanding of the domain for which he is writing code
Printed book design went to hell lately: A4 pages without columns so a line of text can have 200 characters, no spacing between paragraphs, sans serif fonts in printed pages... book design is dirt poor on paper too, not only ebooks. At least in an ebook (well, not if it's pdf) I can arrange the page size, the font and the spacings so it's comfortable to read. One hundred years ago even the pulp books were designed better.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, if there are any problems with my English: I have no idea if CO2 cools or warms the Earth. I object to the AGW histeria because it's histerical, and in the areas where I have some knowledge the AGW activists are mistaken. I am only saying this: IPCC will suddenly discover that CO2 cools the Earth as soon as the Earth will start cooling and not a second after or sooner
These good people disagree that most of the photons come above the infrared band http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/1/7
Even in the wikipedia graph, which is about how much energy in in the solar radiation, there are dips where the H2O and CO2 are "absorbed" in the atmosphere ... so, if the CO2 can send those "infrared" photons back to Earth, the same applies to the infrared photons send to the Earth by the sun. Which is greater ? I'll let the IPCC decide that when the time comes :)
Greenhouse effect is when you isolate a volume of gas near a source of heat instead of letting it convect naturaly and bring colder gas close to the source of heat. Greenhouses get cold during the night and the air in the greenhouse cools faster than the soil.
well, the same happens with the photons arriving from the sun ... in the CO2 absorbtion band, of course
what's so hard to get about this ?
only in less than 50% of the times, because from up there the Earth is a smaller target than the open sky ... so it should be cooling the Earth ... but I am not saying it is so, even if it kind of make sense, but that IPCC will _discover_ this fundamental truth about AGW when the climate will start cooling :)
well, CO2 does absorb infrared light, but in very,very short time it emits another IR photon :) in some random direction ... very little energy is kept, and even what is kept is radiated away, that's why the nights are very cold where there is no water to store the heat and release it to the air.
not sure why I bother ... talking to a warmista is like trying to reason with a Jehovah's Witness ...
in fact IPCC has been consistently wrong, even with their more conservative predictions, but eh ... we'll see in a couple of years, when they'll discover suddenly that CO2 is in fact shielding Earth from heat from the Sun (by scattering infrared radiation back to the space), and the cooling climate will be blamed on CO2, too.
you know that name calling does not increase your credibility, do you ?
Some researchers recently published experimental results which, in spite of their best efforts to check and rerun the tests, still contradicts Einstein's theory.
Tim, care to post a link about this ? there is a lot of noise in my google results about this ..
so, how was that achieved ? you seem so informed, enlighten me ? did they put a scaffold around a chromosome and slapped the genes responsible for producing delta endotoxin on it ? did they use a miracle bacteria to attach the relevant sequence at exactly the right spot so not only would the gene be expressed, but also passed on to the offspring in a reliable way ?
I repeat, ScyFy should be forbidden, soon we'll get to scientists being lynched because they "don't want to make us live 1000 years"/"hide the cure for pimples". Oh, and Kim Stanley Robinson should be banned too ... everything happens so fucking easily in his books, like it's a piece of cake and only lazy morons don't want to do it every day.
No, it's not "engineering". Engineering is when you can achieve a predictable result first time you try, because you have the method tried, tested and streamlined, and when you fail you know why and whom or what to blame. What is happening in the biotech labs is more like messing with it until you get a usable result, and by messing I mean trying again and again so many times you need a computer and a software programmer only to keep track of the tests.
Yes, with bacteria you can dice and splice genome because _bacteria already do it in the wild_ ... with multicellular organisms it is a lot more difficult.
bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria, not the pesticide.
Most EU states are no longer democracies, but are ran via pressure groups.
I remember the 1999-2000 campaign against GMO: one guy in UK sais his rats got sick on a diet of GM then suddenly all over France "farmers" were burning GM crops on camera, and the camera was fixed, not panning, and showing a couple of guys trampling a patch of corn with radiation warnings signs stuck on some barrels.
oh, it was me that was playing the red herring game ... I missed that
everybody and everything is "Genetically Modified" ...
they're just doing in open spaces what Monsanto did in a lab: cut a maize plant in very small pieces, plant the pieces in jars with agar-agar and nutrients, blast it with radiation or some other mutagen, let the clones develop, test with Roundup, find the most promising batch, let it grow a bit but not too long, cut the small plant into very small pieces etc. until they got a sample that worked, and then went on to find the best hybrid ...
lots of perspiration, and lots of inspiration too, because it's difficult to keep the lab sterile, persuade the tiny pieces of plant not to die and to grow faster etc.
the anti-GM crowd think it's done by magic by evil wizards in black coats while laughing lugubriously over dinners made of human flesh ...
funny thing you say that, a few years ago DW (DeutscheWelle) had a show exactly about that, how the smart people at BASF do it in with random mutations, helped a bit by extra genetic material added into the mix, and lots and lots of selection, and even more fucking hoping it will work this time at last.
next time you'll tell me that that sheep, Dolly, was really a clone, not the result of a female gamete being raped by inserting into it the genetic materiel extracted from nucleus of another cell, and that Dolly was the perfect copy of the donor of the cell from which the nucleus was harvested, as if the mitochondria don't have any genetic information to pass on. Don't believe anything you're told ... or if you do, come to me I have some sure-thing shares to sell you in a biotech company ;) that will make you rich and cure cancer in mice.
ScyFy should be forbidden, people think it is all real. There is not genetic _engineering_ yet. We're still tinkering with it.
so, blast dna from a bacterium randomly ... so this does not happen in nature, right ?
you mean the GM-ers blast it randomly but it gets exactly right where they want it, no need for thousands of iterations and 99999 out of 100000 failures ?
of course they don't do what the neolithic farmers did, they just speed up the process and use plant clones and agar-agar in sterile environment to get it cheaper and faster
"playing mix-n-match genomes hands-on via gene-splicing."
do you really think BASF and Monsanto and the others do "playing mix-n-match genomes hands-on via gene-splicing." ?
they wish they would, but what they do is just induce mutations (radiations is the most popular method) and select the outcome ...
if you're eating, you're already eating GMO ... if you think GMO is freak-food you watched too much Ninja Turtles when you should have studied for the Biology/Science class ... there is no "Genetic Engineering" yet, only genetic tinkering and selecting (with a lot of praying involved) the best outcome, much like mother nature does. Humans have been growing GMO for milenia, and even have GM themselves ... if you're an adult and can metabolize milk, you're it.
Right now the perverse incentive is that your success at reproduction has almost nothing to do with your long-term health outlook
maybe the long term health outlook is not important, then ? there were a few hundred million years of multicellular life and I think evolution might have settled it's priorities right :)
oh, and evolution does not work with individuals, but with populations, and genetic diversity is as important, if not more important, than fitness, no matter how you define it. We need both the jocks and the geeks, the lazies and the hyperactives, the exasperatingly meticulous and the hurried and superficial ...
read a few years ago an article about an experiment done on birds, testing their response to stress and scarcity: when subjected to the same amount of predation and same amount of stress, during scarcity the bold birds had a better chance of survival, during plenty the the timid birds had a better chance. In humans, the obese are found most among populations that used to live in colder climates, which is a form of adaptation to cold (larger volume for smaller surface, and stores of fat for long periods of low food availability).
If you don't let anybody whose grandparents didn't live to the age of 80 reproduce
That would select only for well fed people that lived in secure locations and did not work much under the open sky. Why not select for people who ate cake ?
Eugenics was not fixing what is wrong with the DNA etc., eugenics was about selecting the "fit", for some apriori definition of "fit".
coding is a vocation not a profession: most people can learn to code, but most of those that can learn to code will hate sitting 8 or more hours a day in a chair looking at lines of text in an editor or debating the advantages of various caching algorithms
if CodeAcademy will help identify even 1% of the people that have the calling but got lost and hate their life doing some other work, it will be a positive result
software developers are needed in all lines of work, from humanities to education to accounting ... the only reason there are no job titles like "archivist-programmer" is bureaucratic inertia; domain knowledge is more important than advanced algorithms and a developer that understands the business is more valuable than a developer who knows the Knuth and "gang of four" books by heart but has no understanding of the domain for which he is writing code
what Heinlein covered was Eugenics, which was still kind of polite to talk about in the '40s ...
you missed an " ' " and misplaced a space
here you go http://forum.xda-developers.com/wiki/ASUS_Eee_Pad_Transformer/How_to_install_Ubuntu
already can run python, perl and a few others ... not sure about python because I did not try it, but in Perl you can write android GUI-s, too
http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/
not yet ready to write apps you can put in the Android market, but it's getting there
Printed book design went to hell lately: A4 pages without columns so a line of text can have 200 characters, no spacing between paragraphs, sans serif fonts in printed pages ... book design is dirt poor on paper too, not only ebooks. At least in an ebook (well, not if it's pdf) I can arrange the page size, the font and the spacings so it's comfortable to read. One hundred years ago even the pulp books were designed better.
uh, that's expensive, for 15€ I get 9GB at full speed then unlimited at 128Kbps, no extra charge just slower speed ...