Stevens is one of the half dozen or so Republican senators in danger of losing his seat in the 2008 election. Nothing would be more satisfying than to see him get thrown out of the senate and straight into prison. There's also an added bonus: If he loses his seat, then there's no political reason for the Republicans to try and help with his defence.
My point is that I'm not holding them to scientific rigour. I expect only basic common sense and the ability to do a little research before writing about a subject. That's all.
Since discussion without debate is boring, and I think the vast majority of us agree that 'Dark Knight' was a great movie, I'll throw this out there:
It's good, but it's not even close to this good. Feel free to respond with a fist to the face.
so many scientists poopoo science journalism as if it is supposed to get the facts right and be as involved as if it were a rigorous journal, and as if it is supposed to instill a sense of wonder or reverence for the subject matter. no. its a bit of fluff, a blurb.
Yeah, who am I to suggest that journalists should get facts right or write about subjects that are important, instead of fluff?
I'm not asking for a peer reviewed article here, only that they do a basic amount of research before deciding to write about a subject. You know, the kind that any decent journalist would do when writing about any subject. I can, and do, hold the same standards toward regular journalists, which is why I find crap like this to be just as offensive. Part of reporting is knowing what is and isn't news, and since they couldn't take the required three seconds to find out that cooling magnets down to 1.9K isn't news, I'm going to call them out on it. Sorry if my 'ridiculous standards' bother you so much. Since they make you so angry, maybe you shouldn't read them anymore.
Here's some more 'high-quality' scientific journalism instead.
I agree, the scale is something impressive. And certainly the scaling issues could make for an interesting and informative article. Or maybe not. Maybe it's one of the easiest of the many challenges they faced when building this thing (This is the cue for any slashdotters working on the project to chime in and educate us). The article certainly has little to say about the engineering challenges. But look at the headline and lede of the article:
Cern lab goes 'colder than space'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News
A vast physics experiment built in a tunnel below the French-Swiss border is fast becoming one of the coolest places in the Universe.
Now tell me, what do you think a reader without any scientific knowledge will take away from this article, that the scale of the cooling is what makes it challenging, or the temperature itself? That 1.9 K is an exotically low temperature for physics experiments, or that it's mundane? This is what bothers me about most science journalism. The misleading statements and lack of information.
Come to think of it, that's the problem with most non-science journalism too.
A friend of mine in high energy theory showed me this article earlier today. As anyone who has any knowledge of MRI knows, almost all strong magnets in use today use superconducting liquid helium to get large field strengths. There is absolutely nothing special about 1.9 Kelvin temperatures. These are easily achievable anywhere.
Hell, compare this with the temperatures needed to make BECs. That's seven orders of magnitude lower than what we're talking about here. Or look at the record lowest temperatures. I believe they are down to 100 picokelvins now.
Honestly, it's embarrassing to see such ridiculous articles put on the front page of the BBC science section. And this is the BBC, one of the most respected names in world news. Next time, save these 'journalists' the trip to Switzerland and send them to the nearest London hospital. They can go see the magnet used for MRIs and marvel at how it's been "cooled to a temperature as cold as deep space"
Obama voted for an amendment which would remove the telecom immunity provision of the bill, but it didn't pass. So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
This is an uninformed and naive opinion. What 'tools' would be taken away if this didn't pass? The right to spy on people without a warrant? That's not a 'tool in our war on terror', it's a criminal act masquerading as a necessary tactic. Hell you could make the same argument about torture. Isn't that a 'tool' in the war on terror? It certainly produces confessions! Even if immunity was not in the bill, it should have been shot down.
This bill gives telecoms civil amnesty, given the proper government is voted in the executives at the telecoms may very well be brought up on criminal charges and be put in prison.
No, that will never happen. Bush has the ability to pardon the telecoms before he leaves office. Since failing to pardon them could result in criminal charges being brought against him, do you really think Bush would just stand back and let the telecoms be dragged into court? And after a pardon, it doesn't matter who the next president is, nothing can be done in criminal court. This is why the debate over civil amnesty is so important; it is the only way to hold the telecoms accountable and let the public know exactly who they spied on and how they went about it.
Except that if we apply your argument to political parties, what you're saying is that there will be a shift in the major parties' positions to come more in line with what the third party is proposing (at least, that is what will happen if the major parties don't want to lose votes). And that alone is a good enough reason to start a new party that offers an alternative to Democratic and Republican policies. If their ideas are absorbed into the mainstream, then who cares if the third party doesn't survive?
There were only a few states where both senators voted against the bill: MI, NJ, NY, VT, WA and MA if you count the fact that Ted Kennedy opposed the last incarnation of this bill but could not vote this time for health reasons. If you come from any of the other 44 states, then get busy: at least one of your sitting senators needs to be taught a lesson.
And a note about McCain's abstention: he's a strong supporter of Bush on this matter. The only reason his vote is registered as 'abstain' is because he's in Ohio raising money and support for his bid for President instead of actually performing his job as a senator.
Or change you can pocket, if we're looking for more truthful interpretations. I wonder how much telecoms donated to his campaign? Any karma whores out there who care to help?
Actually, I was trying to draw attention only to Clinton, McCain and Obama. Byrd has also been hospitalized recently (June 2nd), and may have missed the vote for medical reasons. Although I will note that Byrd was in the senate for a vote on June 12th. The others, though, have no excuse. They are out raising cash for their campaigns (or to pay off debts in Clinton's case) instead of doing their jobs.
The only reason we have this delay is because the cloture vote occurred on the eve of a week long holiday. When cloture is invoked, there is a limited amount of time you can delay in the senate before a full vote must be held. When the senate returns it will be forced to vote on this wiretap bill, and unless 51 senators vote against the bill, it will pass. I'd like to believe this is possible, but it really isn't. Telecom immunity is all but guaranteed.
So the GP was right, it sounds like 8 of 9 justices need to be cleaned out. The GP wanted to clean house if there were 4 justices who constantly voted against constitutional rights. At least, that's how she phrased it: "I haven't done a comparison, but I wonder if they are the same 5 and 4? If so, maybe we should clean out the court and start again."
Look at how many other important decisions lately have been 5-4! Like the decision about Habeus Corpus.
I haven't done a comparison, but I wonder if they are the same 5 and 4? If so, maybe we should clean out the court and start again. You're kidding, right? It's almost the exact opposite of the Habeus Corpus decision. The only justice to join with the majority in both cases is Kennedy. The other justices vote along strict idealogical lines when it comes to these kinds of decisions.
The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact. Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Fair enough. Although I'm curious why you don't think wind power is an option (it may not be a global, long term solution, but it can help offset some of the load now carried by fossil fuels). I'm willing to accept nuclear as part of the solution, although I don't think it is wise to convert all our energy production to nuclear when we have other, probably less costly (in the long term), options available.
Sure, but solar & wind have their own problems. How well does solar work in Seattle? How well does coal work in seattle? With any technology you'll have preferred areas where you do you do the actual conversion from raw material to electricity. As long as there are enough areas spread across the country, you can easily transmit the electricity from one city to the next. Hell, a significant portion of the northeast gets its electricity from Canada.
As for wind, aren't most environmentalists against wind because windmills are ugly and kill birds? The only 'environmentalist' I know of who opposes wind power for such frivolous reasons is Ted Kennedy (and only when it obstructs his view). Maybe if you provide some links which show that enough people feel it is a real problem (and why they feel that way) we can discuss the issue more.
My point is that you can't simply write off solar and wind the way the GP does. There are reasonable arguments for all three: nuclear,wind and solar. Throw in hydro too for that matter: it's already in use and has no greenhouse gas emissions either.
You can not think global warming is both human caused and a genuine threat and not be for nuclear power. It's perfectly reasonable to be for an alternative like solar or wind (or some combination) over nuclear. They produce exactly as much carbon emission (zero, ignoring emission from construction) and don't have any of the nuclear waste storage problems (even 100 year half live waste products from breeders still require us to spend money on waste storage). You can believe that there isn't any reasonable alternative to nuclear, but don't expect other people to agree, and don't accuse anyone who doesn't share your opinions of being part of some nefarious plot.
I don't know how significant a problem it would be if you're talking about ocean tides. If you're asking if humans will feel the tidal force, it depends strongly on the radius of the planet, but we probably wouldn't feel anything. The relevant number is the ratio of tidal force to the planet's gravitational force, which goes like (r/R)^3 * M/m, where r and m are the planet's mass and radius, M is the star's mass and R is the distance from the star to the planet. Taking M/m to be roughly the sun to earth ratio (10^6) and r to be about the earth's radius, we get a 0.1% effect at R=1000 r_earth, about 10 times closer to the sun than mercury. This corresponds to about a 3 day period for a planet orbiting a solar mass star. So I don't think it would be a big effect unless this planet is abnormally large. There doesn't seem to be a strong relationship between mass and radius of a planet, so a 4.6 earth mass planet shouldn't have a radius as large as 4.6 times that of the earth. Mars, for example, has a radius about half that of the earth, but only has 1/10th of the mass.
One interesting thing to note is that there does not have to be tidal locking (Mercury is not tidally locked, for instance, because of its eccentric orbit). Of course, even if you had tidal locking, since white dwarfs essentially cool without end, you can always adjust the age of the star to fit the necessary temperature conditions (up to a point: there's an upper limit on the age of any star). The message to take home is that the 1 AU earth-like planet is not the only type of planet that is hospitable to us.
As others have mentioned it is a selection bias. Part of this has to do with the detection method. What they do is look at spectral lines from the star to determine how fast it is moving as it 'orbits 'around the center of mass of the star-planet system (this is very close to the center of the star since the star is so massive, so it is more of a wobble than a straight orbit). The closer the planet is to the star, the larger the gravitational force, so the larger the velocity/ doppler shift. So it is easier to find planets with shorter periods.
But even if we developed a new technique today that didn't depend on doppler shifts, we would still only find short period planets for the first few years. Why? Because you need to take measurements for at least a full period before you can determine with any accuracy that you're seeing a planet. So planets with 5yr or 10yr periods will not be confirmed right using any new technique, anyways.
And to add to another point made below, it is possible to have a planet with an orbital period measured in days which we could comfortably live on. A white dwarf star would be cold enough to allow for normal temperatures, even at distances closer than Mercury.
Distinction without a difference. What's your point, My point is that your statement 'But of course the 4 dissenting "Justices" in this case also installed George Bush as president.' is incorrect. Even if it doesn't impact the argument, I prefer to make sure the facts are understood before we proceed.
My argument is that your claim of a secret conspiracy to destroy America based on this and the Bush v Gore ruling is weak and I gave Kennedy as an example of a Justice who, despite siding with Bush in 2000, votes based more on the Constitution than his own personal ideology.
'recently' is NOT the last 40 years. As I said in my original post, George HW Bush was the one who appointed Souter and Ford appointed Stevens. Both are most certainly not pro-Bush Justices which you could tell by just looking at their dissents over the last few years.
And lastly, stop be so damned hostile in your responses. When you make an extraordinary claim like "These [justices] are part of a blatantly, flagrantly anti-American conspiracy among themselves to destroy America and everything it stands for.", you should expect to be challenged.
This opinion creates a situation that is quite silly. Anywhere the U.S. has a military base, the right to trial and evidence applies to anyone we accuse of being 'bad'. Therefore, if a bunch of 'bad' guys attack a military base in Afganistan, we must arrest the bad guys and put them on trial. WTF!
Thats right, this ruling can extend to ANYWHERE the U.S. has a military base, not just Gitmo, and the implications are completely insane. The courts now "claim" the ability to dictate how the military operates on foreign soil. Idiocy. That is complete crap coming from someone who hasn't even looked at the ruling. They clearly state that this ruling does not apply in an active theatre of war (page 41) so your Afghanistan example is 100 percent inapplicable.
The ruling is narrow and applies to cases where the government tries to move inmates to a US controlled prison camp off of US soil. The only reason these people were sent to Guantanamo was so the government could claim that they didn't have to grant inmates their rights:
It is true that before today the Court has never held
that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory
over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty
have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases
before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve
individuals detained by executive order for the duration of
a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to
the present, is already among the longest wars in American
history. See Oxford Companion to American Military
History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a
territory that, while technically not part of the United
States, is under the complete and total control of our
Government.
There shouldn't have been any question that Habeas Corpus must apply to everyone in US custody. But of course the 4 dissenting "Justices" in this case also installed George Bush as president. Actually, only 2 of the dissenting justices (Scalia and Thomas) decided for Bush in the 5-4 decision of Bush v. Gore. The other two, Alito and Roberts, were appointed during the last eight years by Bush. Of the remaining 3 out of the 5 who decided for Bush in 2000, one is dead (Rehnquist), one is retired (O'Conner) and the last one, Kennedy, was the deciding vote for the majority in the habeas corpus case.
There is little evidence of a conspiracy, since Kennedy and O'Conner were swing voters. The 2000 ruling was based more on the minute details of law than anything else. However, justices like these are rare. The other 8 justices are split evenly along idealogical lines, which they rarely cross. Interestingly, though, two of the liberal wing justices were appointed by Republicans: Souter (appointed by Bush 41) and Stevens (appointed by Ford). It is only recently that we see Presidents appointing justices who are this ideologically rigid.
Slashdot Mirror
Stevens is one of the half dozen or so Republican senators in danger of losing his seat in the 2008 election. Nothing would be more satisfying than to see him get thrown out of the senate and straight into prison. There's also an added bonus: If he loses his seat, then there's no political reason for the Republicans to try and help with his defence.
It's a dupe of a 2007 article.. No wait, it's a dupe of a 2007 dupe . Someone call the Guinness Book of World Records.
My point is that I'm not holding them to scientific rigour. I expect only basic common sense and the ability to do a little research before writing about a subject. That's all.
Since discussion without debate is boring, and I think the vast majority of us agree that 'Dark Knight' was a great movie, I'll throw this out there:
It's good, but it's not even close to this good. Feel free to respond with a fist to the face.
so many scientists poopoo science journalism as if it is supposed to get the facts right and be as involved as if it were a rigorous journal, and as if it is supposed to instill a sense of wonder or reverence for the subject matter. no. its a bit of fluff, a blurb.
Yeah, who am I to suggest that journalists should get facts right or write about subjects that are important, instead of fluff?
I'm not asking for a peer reviewed article here, only that they do a basic amount of research before deciding to write about a subject. You know, the kind that any decent journalist would do when writing about any subject. I can, and do, hold the same standards toward regular journalists, which is why I find crap like this to be just as offensive. Part of reporting is knowing what is and isn't news, and since they couldn't take the required three seconds to find out that cooling magnets down to 1.9K isn't news, I'm going to call them out on it. Sorry if my 'ridiculous standards' bother you so much. Since they make you so angry, maybe you shouldn't read them anymore. Here's some more 'high-quality' scientific journalism instead.
Cern lab goes 'colder than space'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News
A vast physics experiment built in a tunnel below the French-Swiss border is fast becoming one of the coolest places in the Universe.
Now tell me, what do you think a reader without any scientific knowledge will take away from this article, that the scale of the cooling is what makes it challenging, or the temperature itself? That 1.9 K is an exotically low temperature for physics experiments, or that it's mundane? This is what bothers me about most science journalism. The misleading statements and lack of information.
Come to think of it, that's the problem with most non-science journalism too.
A friend of mine in high energy theory showed me this article earlier today. As anyone who has any knowledge of MRI knows, almost all strong magnets in use today use superconducting liquid helium to get large field strengths. There is absolutely nothing special about 1.9 Kelvin temperatures. These are easily achievable anywhere.
Hell, compare this with the temperatures needed to make BECs. That's seven orders of magnitude lower than what we're talking about here. Or look at the record lowest temperatures. I believe they are down to 100 picokelvins now.
Honestly, it's embarrassing to see such ridiculous articles put on the front page of the BBC science section. And this is the BBC, one of the most respected names in world news. Next time, save these 'journalists' the trip to Switzerland and send them to the nearest London hospital. They can go see the magnet used for MRIs and marvel at how it's been "cooled to a temperature as cold as deep space"
Obama voted for an amendment which would remove the telecom immunity provision of the bill, but it didn't pass. So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
This is an uninformed and naive opinion. What 'tools' would be taken away if this didn't pass? The right to spy on people without a warrant? That's not a 'tool in our war on terror', it's a criminal act masquerading as a necessary tactic. Hell you could make the same argument about torture. Isn't that a 'tool' in the war on terror? It certainly produces confessions! Even if immunity was not in the bill, it should have been shot down.
This bill gives telecoms civil amnesty, given the proper government is voted in the executives at the telecoms may very well be brought up on criminal charges and be put in prison.
No, that will never happen. Bush has the ability to pardon the telecoms before he leaves office. Since failing to pardon them could result in criminal charges being brought against him, do you really think Bush would just stand back and let the telecoms be dragged into court? And after a pardon, it doesn't matter who the next president is, nothing can be done in criminal court. This is why the debate over civil amnesty is so important; it is the only way to hold the telecoms accountable and let the public know exactly who they spied on and how they went about it.
Except that if we apply your argument to political parties, what you're saying is that there will be a shift in the major parties' positions to come more in line with what the third party is proposing (at least, that is what will happen if the major parties don't want to lose votes). And that alone is a good enough reason to start a new party that offers an alternative to Democratic and Republican policies. If their ideas are absorbed into the mainstream, then who cares if the third party doesn't survive?
There were only a few states where both senators voted against the bill: MI, NJ, NY, VT, WA and MA if you count the fact that Ted Kennedy opposed the last incarnation of this bill but could not vote this time for health reasons. If you come from any of the other 44 states, then get busy: at least one of your sitting senators needs to be taught a lesson.
And a note about McCain's abstention: he's a strong supporter of Bush on this matter. The only reason his vote is registered as 'abstain' is because he's in Ohio raising money and support for his bid for President instead of actually performing his job as a senator.
Or change you can pocket, if we're looking for more truthful interpretations. I wonder how much telecoms donated to his campaign? Any karma whores out there who care to help?
Actually, I was trying to draw attention only to Clinton, McCain and Obama. Byrd has also been hospitalized recently (June 2nd), and may have missed the vote for medical reasons. Although I will note that Byrd was in the senate for a vote on June 12th. The others, though, have no excuse. They are out raising cash for their campaigns (or to pay off debts in Clinton's case) instead of doing their jobs.
The only reason we have this delay is because the cloture vote occurred on the eve of a week long holiday. When cloture is invoked, there is a limited amount of time you can delay in the senate before a full vote must be held. When the senate returns it will be forced to vote on this wiretap bill, and unless 51 senators vote against the bill, it will pass. I'd like to believe this is possible, but it really isn't. Telecom immunity is all but guaranteed.
One additional piece of information: the results of the cloture vote. Look very carefully at the names under "not voting".
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Fair enough. Although I'm curious why you don't think wind power is an option (it may not be a global, long term solution, but it can help offset some of the load now carried by fossil fuels). I'm willing to accept nuclear as part of the solution, although I don't think it is wise to convert all our energy production to nuclear when we have other, probably less costly (in the long term), options available.
My point is that you can't simply write off solar and wind the way the GP does. There are reasonable arguments for all three: nuclear,wind and solar. Throw in hydro too for that matter: it's already in use and has no greenhouse gas emissions either.
I don't know how significant a problem it would be if you're talking about ocean tides. If you're asking if humans will feel the tidal force, it depends strongly on the radius of the planet, but we probably wouldn't feel anything. The relevant number is the ratio of tidal force to the planet's gravitational force, which goes like (r/R)^3 * M/m, where r and m are the planet's mass and radius, M is the star's mass and R is the distance from the star to the planet. Taking M/m to be roughly the sun to earth ratio (10^6) and r to be about the earth's radius, we get a 0.1% effect at R=1000 r_earth, about 10 times closer to the sun than mercury. This corresponds to about a 3 day period for a planet orbiting a solar mass star. So I don't think it would be a big effect unless this planet is abnormally large. There doesn't seem to be a strong relationship between mass and radius of a planet, so a 4.6 earth mass planet shouldn't have a radius as large as 4.6 times that of the earth. Mars, for example, has a radius about half that of the earth, but only has 1/10th of the mass.
One interesting thing to note is that there does not have to be tidal locking (Mercury is not tidally locked, for instance, because of its eccentric orbit). Of course, even if you had tidal locking, since white dwarfs essentially cool without end, you can always adjust the age of the star to fit the necessary temperature conditions (up to a point: there's an upper limit on the age of any star). The message to take home is that the 1 AU earth-like planet is not the only type of planet that is hospitable to us.
As others have mentioned it is a selection bias. Part of this has to do with the detection method. What they do is look at spectral lines from the star to determine how fast it is moving as it 'orbits 'around the center of mass of the star-planet system (this is very close to the center of the star since the star is so massive, so it is more of a wobble than a straight orbit). The closer the planet is to the star, the larger the gravitational force, so the larger the velocity/ doppler shift. So it is easier to find planets with shorter periods. But even if we developed a new technique today that didn't depend on doppler shifts, we would still only find short period planets for the first few years. Why? Because you need to take measurements for at least a full period before you can determine with any accuracy that you're seeing a planet. So planets with 5yr or 10yr periods will not be confirmed right using any new technique, anyways.
And to add to another point made below, it is possible to have a planet with an orbital period measured in days which we could comfortably live on. A white dwarf star would be cold enough to allow for normal temperatures, even at distances closer than Mercury.
My argument is that your claim of a secret conspiracy to destroy America based on this and the Bush v Gore ruling is weak and I gave Kennedy as an example of a Justice who, despite siding with Bush in 2000, votes based more on the Constitution than his own personal ideology.
'recently' is NOT the last 40 years. As I said in my original post, George HW Bush was the one who appointed Souter and Ford appointed Stevens. Both are most certainly not pro-Bush Justices which you could tell by just looking at their dissents over the last few years.
And lastly, stop be so damned hostile in your responses. When you make an extraordinary claim like "These [justices] are part of a blatantly, flagrantly anti-American conspiracy among themselves to destroy America and everything it stands for.", you should expect to be challenged.
The ruling is narrow and applies to cases where the government tries to move inmates to a US controlled prison camp off of US soil. The only reason these people were sent to Guantanamo was so the government could claim that they didn't have to grant inmates their rights: It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government.
There is little evidence of a conspiracy, since Kennedy and O'Conner were swing voters. The 2000 ruling was based more on the minute details of law than anything else. However, justices like these are rare. The other 8 justices are split evenly along idealogical lines, which they rarely cross. Interestingly, though, two of the liberal wing justices were appointed by Republicans: Souter (appointed by Bush 41) and Stevens (appointed by Ford). It is only recently that we see Presidents appointing justices who are this ideologically rigid.