But... but... why doesn't Lomborg risk his credibility for attacking the environmentalists so shrilly? Could it be that there's one rule of debate if you're saying things that appeal to the people who own the media which decide who has "credibility" and one rule if you're saying things they don't like?
You certainly can't tell me that Lomborg is unfailingly polite in his attacks on environmentalists because he's not.
I can't think of any instance in the entire book where he deviated from the fundamental rule of civilized debate: you may attack the argument, but never the individual. That's more than you can say for virtually all of his critics, who have not hesitated to impugn Lomborg's credentials, honesty, and motives.
Given these choices, in the absence of information, isn't it more logical to bet on the second? Isn't it safer to assume the worst case scenario? I.e. let's stop doing the things that people suggest may be harming the environment, because if they actually do, we'll be screwed in 50 years? And if they're not harming the environment, we did no harm anyway?
One of the things that people suggest might be harming the environment is breathing (CO2, you know). Do you want to be the first to hold your breath. This is not entirely facetious. There are costs associated with actions, and a finite amount of money. Money that is spent reducing CO2 is money that is not available for other worthy causes, like providing more clean water. So how many people do you think that it is reasonable to allow to die from water-born disease for the sake of having more money to spend on reducing CO2? Unfortunately, it simply is not possible to escape these cost benefit questions. Ultimately, "assuming the worst" boils down to harming some people now in return for (just possibly) protecting other people in the future.
Bullshit. SA *was* defending science because the book attacks scientific results through extremely shoddy tactics. It is no different than defending science by pointing out the blatant lies and factual errors trotted out as science by so-called "creation scientists".
As a scientist, I have to take issue with this. Lomborg presents a logical, rational discussion, acknowledging opposing views, and I think that any genuine scientist, whether agreeing or disagreeing with him, will accept his work as within the legitimate realm of scientific discourse. I have seen no review anywhere that identifies even a single "blatant lie" in the book. And the most the SA reviewers could come up with were a few rather trivial mistakes and mistranslations. And every verifiable mistake that I have seen cited is acknowledged and corrected on Lomborg's web site.
By the way, peer review does not mean "giving experts the opportunity to explain why he's full of it." Peer review is normally a private communication between a writer, a publisher, and the referees the publisher has chosen. Their critiques are not normally made public. Cambridge University Press is a respected academic publisher, and I don't doubt that they engage in some form of peer review. The fact that Lomborg's opponents have been able to identify so few factual errors in a work of this length suggests that the peer review was pretty good.
While there are aspects of Lomborg's book that I don't agree with, I thought that it was the most balanced discussion that I've seen by anybody on any side of the environmenal debate. Even where he takes a particular position, he at least acknowledges the basis for opposing views. There is more discussion of uncertainties an inadquacies of the data than one normally encounters from writers in this field. And the book is refreshing free of ad hominem attacks or demonizing those who hold opposing views (which is more than one can say for a number of the reviews of the book that I've seen).
There are several groups working on different global predicitions based on certain assumptions and Lomborg only really cares about the 'best-case scenario' group
Huh? Did we read the same book? Lomborg discusses the range of global predictions and the assumptions they are based in some detail, as well as many of the statistical uncertainties. He even presents some graphs showing the divergent predictions of different models.
I thought that the Scientific American attacks only increased the books credibility. It was bad enough that the reviewers (or an editor) chose to entitle the reviews "Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist ", thereby effectively characterizing Lomborg (a person with academic credentials who has written a carefully referenced book published by a respected scientific publishing house) as a nonscientist.
The "reviews" themselves maintain this hysterical tone. Some criticize Lomborg's citations, while failing to provide any themselves. In many cases, it appeared to the reviewers either had not bothered to actually read the book, or perhaps were intentionally trying to mislead readers who had not read the book, in hopes of preventing them from doing so. Repeatedly, Lomborg is criticized for not considering issues that he in fact addresses explicitly. And the few actual errors that the reviewer's were able to document were essentially inconsequential. I was left with the impression that the book must be even stronger than I thought, if this was the best hatchet job that could be done by the people who were most motivated to trash the book (many of the "reviewers" were people whose views are directly criticized by Lomborg).
it seems from the report that the data are based on actual sleeping habits. this is to say that the time spent sleeping is, if anything, a symptom, not a cause.
No, that's also incorrect. Basically, this kind of correlational data supports multiple hypotheses: A causes B, B causes A, or some other factor causes A & B. So it could be that sleeping a lot is bad for you, or that an early symptom of conditions that ultimately lead to an early demise is sleeping a lot, or that some factor (such as inheritance) that is linked to long life is also linked to sleeping less, but there is no true causal relationship between sleep time and life span.
Correlational data at best suggests causal hypotheses, and then you have to do experiments to determine which, if any, are correct.
One of the reasons why evolution appears to have slowed down in our species is that we've used technology to isolate ourselves from most of the evolutionary "drivers".
You're missing the point, which was that human beings as a species seem to have reached a point of stability well before we had the technology you speak of. And we are hardly alone in this respect. Rather, long periods of stasis are fairly common in the evolutionary record. The notion that species are "driven" to evolve continuously is pretty much obsolete, and it is likely that species tend in general to stay much the same unless some drastic event triggers evolutionary change.
Humans are still evolving. Since people who are less intelligent are more likely to breed and are more likely to have a large number of children, the human race is getting less intelligent every day. We are also getting taller and better looking, since these are qualities often looked for in a mate.
More likely, these factors reached a steady state a long time ago, with the survival advantages of higher intelligence balanced by the (evolutionary) disadvantage that people of very high intelligence are more likely to waste their time (evolutionarily speaking) in activities that don't contribute to reproduction. Similarly, the advantage of physical attractiveness is probably balanced by other traits that improve survival and reproductive success.
Actually, its unlikely humans will evolve much more. Why? Because few people die and the genetically inferior ones still pass their genes to the next generation. This is as good as it gets
Actually, there is little evidence of any major evolutionary change in human beings since the stone age. The notion of evolution as continuing progress has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Most species probably spend most of their time in a sort of stable equilibrium in which there is little net change. That is to say that we are as a population probably pretty well optimized already to a "local maximum" of fitness. Barring some major disruption that changes selection pressures, or reproductive isolation of a small population (which is far less likely now than in the past when our world was less "connected"), we may not change much in the future. Of course, there is probably evolution going on at a "small" level, as our immune systems co-evolve with various pathogens.
At best, you can only convert part of the heat into "more organized" energy--never enough to produce a net decrease in entropy. This doesn't change that; rather, it is about reducing the net increase in entropy.
No, the device+otto doesn't beat carnot. Normality restored, no laws violated.
In another report, the author stated that the same approach did not improve energy efficiency of carnot--he apparently calculated it for the carnot cycle as well as a check, because if it had appeared to work for the carnot cycle, then there would have to be some kind of error.
Re:Why waste all the time developing "gyros"...
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
...when you could just add a third wheel to this rehashed Razor Scooter out in front and improve balance *without* $3000 of worthless technology?
No, you couldn't. Look at the footprint of the thing. Even with a 3rd wheel, it would be dangerously unstable. The center of gravity of a standing, or even sitting, person is simply too high. Of course, you could make it stable by giving it a wider wheelbase, but then you would be abandoning giving up what was probably one of the prime design criteria--it doesn't actually demand any more "walk" space than a walking person.
The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.
I'd say a better analogy would be if you bought a VCR for $99.95, and the following day the store called you and said that the item was mispriced, and was only supposed to be a videotape player, and their video recorders start at $200, so would you please either send them another $100, or refrain from using it to make any recordings. Most people would replay "I paid the marked price, and if it does more than you thought, that's your problem, not mine." And the law would back them up.
Now software is a *bit* different, because you have to agree to a license to use the software. So if Apple had the foresight to require the buyer to agree to use the disk only to upgrade a legitimate copy of OSX, then Apple would be on pretty strong grounds. If Apple forgot to do this, on the other hand, they are just out of luck. In that case, the buyer who uses it to install a full copy of OSX is perfectly within his rights, and so is anybody who advises him on how to carry out this legal activity.
Oh, that's trivial. The essence of the UK's pernicious RIP Act is that it's illegally encrypted if the government - or any of the myriad official agencies that the responsible minister can choose to designate as and when he feels like it - cannot decrypt it and you cannot or will not decrypt it for them on demand
That would do very little to deter use of secure cryptography, because the government is not going to have the manpower to challenge the legality of every encrypted document, or even a significant fraction of them. To be enforceable, there would have to be a simple test that could be applied to any encrypted document to verify the legality of the encryption.
The idea is seriously being canvassed in the UK, of making it a criminal offence to send strongly encrypted material by email, or to put it up on a web page. Could such a law be enforced ?
This raises an interesting question of how one would go about enforcing such a measure. After all, an encrypted message will still look like a sequence of random bits, whether or not the keys or escrowed or the encryption system includes a back door. Presumably, there would have to be some method of identifying a legally encrypted message from an illegally encrypted one. The only way I can think of doing this is that government-authorized encryption software would add a digital "seal" to the message -- a type of digital signature. Needless to say, this would have to be absolutely secure or it would simply be counterfeited. So we have the irony that outlawing strong cryptography can only be done by employing secure cryptography.
The Justice Dept. was obviously hoping that the courts would let them off the hook, and enable them to avoid displaying obvious favoritism toward a big supporter of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the courts upheld the most serious counts of Clinton Justice Dept.'s antitrust suit. Facing the dismaying prospect of a victory, the Bush Justice Dept had no choice but to back down on the most serious charges.
To avoid the appearance of a complete capitulation, Microsoft is once again being ordered not to engage in the sort of behavior that Microsoft previously agreed not to engage in--an agreement whose violation triggered the most recent antitrust action.
"All right, young man, I'm serious this time! I'll warn you just *one* more time to stop cutting off your little sister's fingers...."
Re:Therein lies the dilemna
on
Mac Rants
·
· Score: 1
The rant lays out a good question, then. What do you use to gauge value if not Photoshop benchmarks and CPU MHz?
That's the problem with the rant--it doesn't even propose an alternative, other than the utterly stupid implication that one should just compare processor and bus clock speeds, ignoring an enormous difference in architecture. At least the original article provides some evidence that Macs are competitive in speed for the type of work that is most commonly associated with the Mac platform.
I was particularly amused by the rant's dismissal of Mac's lower risk from viruses. Yes, Macs can't run x86 code, and if the Mac had a bigger market share, it would probably have a bigger virus share--but is that relevant to a buying decision? If computer X is comparable to computer Y for all of the applications that you use, but computer Y has an enormously greater exposure to viruses, which is a better choice?
It seems to me amazing how many people find this a difficult point. Yes, everybody knows that pi is not a random number. The question, "Are the digits of pi random?" is merely a short-hand way of asking, "Is there any way of distinguishing a sequence of digits from the expansion of pi from a random sequence of digits other than by comparing it to the digits of pi?"
While I understand that these systems may help to educate the citizens of Third World Countries, does anyone else feel that perhaps there are more important things to focus on before addressing the "digital divide?"
I wince every time I hear this "more important problems" objection. It's purely a cheap shot, since it can be raised against almost any worthwhile endeavor. After all, presumably in any situation, there is only one "most important problem." Does that mean that nobody should work on anything else? Does anybody serioiusly believe that this sort of rigid one-thing-at-a-time approach to problem-solving is beneficial? Drop everything else, and focus all resources on the "most important problem"? After all, one of the advantages of having a large, diverse population is that it is possible to tackle multiple problems in parallel. Do you really think that a person with expertise in programming or information technology is likely to make as worthwhile a contribution to the other problems you mention?
or... take 4ft. surgical tubing, a hose clamp and a pen barrel. Tie a simple overhand knot at one end of the tubing, place the open end over a fairly high pressure faucet and fill the tubing with water. Clamp the hose and insert the pen barrel. Slide the full hose up your sleeve and you have the perfect high pressure, stealth water weapon. With the right tubing it'll go half a city block. Ah..the memories
Yeah...I remember this as the ultimate portable water weapon. We called it a "sausage." I didn't use the pen barrel, just pinched the end when I needed greater range. That way, at close range, you could open it up full, putting out a stream of water a good half inch in diameter. If you really want to get somebody wet, this is the next best thing to a garden hose.
Of course, sometimes the tubing would burst...
The most remarkable thing about LOR...
on
Lord of the Geeks
·
· Score: 1
...and what sets it apart from most heroic and fantasy fiction and legend, is that it is told with its focus not upon the many heroic characters, or upon the rulers of Tolkien's world, but rather from the perspective of a hobbit--essentially, a peasant. Despite the heroic scope of the novel and its mythic qualities, this single factor makes it a very modern work of fiction.
And as influential as Tolkien has been, this particular characteristic is the least frequently emulated/imitated.
Tolkien single-handedly invented fantasy fiction?
on
Lord of the Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Huh? What about Spenser? Mallory? For that matter, what about Tolkien's contemporary, C.S. Lewis? And lets not forget E.H. Howard. Whatevery you may think of his strong-thewed barbarians, they owe very little to Tolkien, and remain a major thread in the weave of the fantasy fiction genre.
Ok I might be stupid but here's my question anyway. Does this have an effect on those of us who have had radiation treatments from cancer? Any doctors in the house
It's not a stupid question. The short answer is probably not--the authors speculate that the unexpectedly high risk was due to ingestion of radioactive materials. For the most part, radiotherapy from cancer is from an external source--you aren't taking a radioactive chemical into your body.
The long answer is that radiation treatment increases your risk of cancer to some extent (as do many chemotherapeutic drugs, by the way). But that's not really a major concern when you already have cancer. The risk of a cancer cell surviving and causing a relapse is much greater.
Low levels of radiation can lead to mutations -- so what??? Low levels of any number of things can lead to mutations, but chance is involved, and probabilities.
Yes, but the point here seems to be that the probability is greater than expected based upon the Hiroshima experience, perhaps because more of the exposure is from ingestion of radioactivity.
Slashdot Mirror
Given these choices, in the absence of information, isn't it more logical to bet on the second? Isn't it safer to assume the worst case scenario? I.e. let's stop doing the things that people suggest may be harming the environment, because if they actually do, we'll be screwed in 50 years? And if they're not harming the environment, we did no harm anyway? One of the things that people suggest might be harming the environment is breathing (CO2, you know). Do you want to be the first to hold your breath. This is not entirely facetious. There are costs associated with actions, and a finite amount of money. Money that is spent reducing CO2 is money that is not available for other worthy causes, like providing more clean water. So how many people do you think that it is reasonable to allow to die from water-born disease for the sake of having more money to spend on reducing CO2? Unfortunately, it simply is not possible to escape these cost benefit questions. Ultimately, "assuming the worst" boils down to harming some people now in return for (just possibly) protecting other people in the future.
As a scientist, I have to take issue with this. Lomborg presents a logical, rational discussion, acknowledging opposing views, and I think that any genuine scientist, whether agreeing or disagreeing with him, will accept his work as within the legitimate realm of scientific discourse. I have seen no review anywhere that identifies even a single "blatant lie" in the book. And the most the SA reviewers could come up with were a few rather trivial mistakes and mistranslations. And every verifiable mistake that I have seen cited is acknowledged and corrected on Lomborg's web site.
By the way, peer review does not mean "giving experts the opportunity to explain why he's full of it." Peer review is normally a private communication between a writer, a publisher, and the referees the publisher has chosen. Their critiques are not normally made public. Cambridge University Press is a respected academic publisher, and I don't doubt that they engage in some form of peer review. The fact that Lomborg's opponents have been able to identify so few factual errors in a work of this length suggests that the peer review was pretty good.
While there are aspects of Lomborg's book that I don't agree with, I thought that it was the most balanced discussion that I've seen by anybody on any side of the environmenal debate. Even where he takes a particular position, he at least acknowledges the basis for opposing views. There is more discussion of uncertainties an inadquacies of the data than one normally encounters from writers in this field. And the book is refreshing free of ad hominem attacks or demonizing those who hold opposing views (which is more than one can say for a number of the reviews of the book that I've seen).
Huh? Did we read the same book? Lomborg discusses the range of global predictions and the assumptions they are based in some detail, as well as many of the statistical uncertainties. He even presents some graphs showing the divergent predictions of different models.
The "reviews" themselves maintain this hysterical tone. Some criticize Lomborg's citations, while failing to provide any themselves. In many cases, it appeared to the reviewers either had not bothered to actually read the book, or perhaps were intentionally trying to mislead readers who had not read the book, in hopes of preventing them from doing so. Repeatedly, Lomborg is criticized for not considering issues that he in fact addresses explicitly. And the few actual errors that the reviewer's were able to document were essentially inconsequential. I was left with the impression that the book must be even stronger than I thought, if this was the best hatchet job that could be done by the people who were most motivated to trash the book (many of the "reviewers" were people whose views are directly criticized by Lomborg).
No, that's also incorrect. Basically, this kind of correlational data supports multiple hypotheses: A causes B, B causes A, or some other factor causes A & B. So it could be that sleeping a lot is bad for you, or that an early symptom of conditions that ultimately lead to an early demise is sleeping a lot, or that some factor (such as inheritance) that is linked to long life is also linked to sleeping less, but there is no true causal relationship between sleep time and life span. Correlational data at best suggests causal hypotheses, and then you have to do experiments to determine which, if any, are correct.
At best, you can only convert part of the heat into "more organized" energy--never enough to produce a net decrease in entropy. This doesn't change that; rather, it is about reducing the net increase in entropy.
The Justice Dept. was obviously hoping that the courts would let them off the hook, and enable them to avoid displaying obvious favoritism toward a big supporter of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the courts upheld the most serious counts of Clinton Justice Dept.'s antitrust suit. Facing the dismaying prospect of a victory, the Bush Justice Dept had no choice but to back down on the most serious charges.
To avoid the appearance of a complete capitulation, Microsoft is once again being ordered not to engage in the sort of behavior that Microsoft previously agreed not to engage in--an agreement whose violation triggered the most recent antitrust action.
"All right, young man, I'm serious this time! I'll warn you just *one* more time to stop cutting off your little sister's fingers...."
I was particularly amused by the rant's dismissal of Mac's lower risk from viruses. Yes, Macs can't run x86 code, and if the Mac had a bigger market share, it would probably have a bigger virus share--but is that relevant to a buying decision? If computer X is comparable to computer Y for all of the applications that you use, but computer Y has an enormously greater exposure to viruses, which is a better choice?
It seems to me amazing how many people find this a difficult point. Yes, everybody knows that pi is not a random number. The question, "Are the digits of pi random?" is merely a short-hand way of asking, "Is there any way of distinguishing a sequence of digits from the expansion of pi from a random sequence of digits other than by comparing it to the digits of pi?"
...and what sets it apart from most heroic and fantasy fiction and legend, is that it is told with its focus not upon the many heroic characters, or upon the rulers of Tolkien's world, but rather from the perspective of a hobbit--essentially, a peasant. Despite the heroic scope of the novel and its mythic qualities, this single factor makes it a very modern work of fiction.
And as influential as Tolkien has been, this particular characteristic is the least frequently emulated/imitated.
Huh? What about Spenser? Mallory? For that matter, what about Tolkien's contemporary, C.S. Lewis? And lets not forget E.H. Howard. Whatevery you may think of his strong-thewed barbarians, they owe very little to Tolkien, and remain a major thread in the weave of the fantasy fiction genre.
The long answer is that radiation treatment increases your risk of cancer to some extent (as do many chemotherapeutic drugs, by the way). But that's not really a major concern when you already have cancer. The risk of a cancer cell surviving and causing a relapse is much greater.