The only people who bring up Al Gore in a discussion of the science are deniers, not skeptics - deniers, looking for an easy ad hominem retort in order to avoid actually thinking about the science.
Who needs scientific evidence when you can simply scream a one-liner from a cartoon comedy show, as one of the tags on this article attests?
The common misconception that floating ice won't increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration.
nay-sayers will continue to be able to say "we still don't have A.I." Because they are referring to artificial sentience (A.S.) rather than algorithmic task accomplishment. A machine performing an explicitly detailed list of instructions is not an example of intelligence.
Of course, all of that assumes that such a process is even possible, which has certainly not been demonstrated. That is wholly different than declaring it to be impossible, and a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, without even giving it a thought.
The first law of thermodynamics is not violated. Read what I wrote - a catalyzed endothermic chemical reaction. The chemical reaction absorbs the ambient heat of the surrounding volume, i.e. the engine chamber, to provide the necessary energy to break the chemical bonds.
The second law of thermodynamics is a matter of statistics, such that the entropy of a smaller system can decrease as long as the entropy of the subsuming system increases.
The third law of thermodynamics would be the absolute bottom temperature that any such catalyst could function at.
in that case, the car isn't powered by water alone since it also uses other chemicals. We're talking about the MSM, which is notorious for leaving out key bits in order to sell the story.
You're also missing the point of catalyst again. Any chemical that is used up in the process is a reactant, not a catalyst. Any such low-temperature, water-splitting catalyst would be as dangerous as ice-nine though.
I'm sure someone will reply with a "relative" comment regarding money I and others who are less fiscally successful spend on things like MMOG's and flat panels, but on a person-by-person basis that's a very small chunk compared to the giant barrel of money he's giving away here. Here's your "relative" comment.
Sergey Brin's net worth is reported at $18.7 billion dollars. That $30 million ticket is 0.16% of his net worth.
If you have a $200K net worth, e.g. investments, home equity, etc..., that space flight ticket is the equivalent of you buying a PS3.
How is riding along on a flight already taking place expending more energy & emitting more CO2?
Besides, Google has spent more money already on alternative energy research & other environmental friendliness than Brin is spending on this space flight.
As part of that responsibility, Google has committed to being carbon-neutral for 2007 and beyond. To honor our pledge, we're taking a three-step approach. First, we're increasing the energy efficiency of our own operations. Second, we're actively pursuing the use and creation of clean and renewable sources of electricity. Third, for the emissions we can't reduce directly at this time, we're investing in projects that help offset carbon generated.
"Our goal is to build 1 gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal, and we are optimistic that this can be done within years, not decades." - Larry Page
It can be a total advertising gimmick and money-shuffling scam, just like any other activity. However, the concept carbon offsets, and any deceit promulgated in its name, is based on is valid.
Carbon dioxide is a globally well-mixed gas. Hence, removing CO2 from the atmosphere at any point on the planet balances out adding CO2 to the atmosphere at any other point on the planet. How, and even if, that CO2 removal is accomplished is where the duplicity & deceitfulness comes into play.
CO2 physically removed ("captured") from the atmosphere, e.g. GRT's ACCESS system, is wholly different than campaigns to plant a tree (short term organic storage) or invest in solar/wind/etc... R&D (high potential of flaky accounting). There is also the case of outright fraud, where money is taken & no service performed.
Carbon offsets are the stopgap for the fact that change takes time and an acknowledgment that you are creating a mess and paying to clean it up.
The video presentation was hilarious. It's like the cooking shows on TV where they are talking about how good the food smells. Relevant information is lost in the presentation.
Look - a 3D screen! Doesn't it look amazing?
It looks exactly like everything else in the 2D medium that it is being presented in.
You are correct. I inadvertently mod'ed you "redundant", rather than "insightful", so this reply is to knock that off.
Strangely enough, I had to log in using IE to post this comment. While using Seamonkey, it would state "If you continue to post this comment, all moderations done to this discussion will be undone! Are you sure you want to post?" and not me any option to say "Yes."
How is a cop supposed to know that it's just a silly fantasy?
JFK Reloaded is an example of historical fiction, not current viable planning. Even the act of writing down current viable plans isn't illegal, however it could provide probable cause for further official investigation. If the police found illegal armaments while conducting the investigation, that is what the suspect would be arrested for.
The GP's point was that pedophilia is prosecuted as a thoughtcrime. It isn't. The thought isn't legally actionable, but the action of ownership & distribution of contraband (e.g. child pornography) is.
I suggest you write down a detailed story about assassinating the current president and casually mention it to a cop. Be sure to tell the cop about the line-of-sight schematics you drew up for the president's next public appearance.
Slashdot Mirror
The only people who bring up Al Gore in a discussion of the science are deniers, not skeptics - deniers, looking for an easy ad hominem retort in order to avoid actually thinking about the science.
Who needs scientific evidence when you can simply scream a one-liner from a cartoon comedy show, as one of the tags on this article attests?
That is a false analogy, because the glass isn't filled with salt water. The sea level increase isn't substantial, but it is greater than zero.
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html
The common misconception that floating ice won't increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration.
http://home.comcast.net/~pdnoerd/NoerdlingerBrower.pdf (the paper, provided by the author, that is referenced in the physorg article)
If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm.
My brother, who runs his own business & is a recent Ubuntu evangelist, said that Quickbooks doesn't function on Wine.
That is a rather important piece of software. It's on the order, if not exceeding that, of Photoshop.
Good to know that no further research & development is needed in any area of science then.
The first law of thermodynamics is not violated. Read what I wrote - a catalyzed endothermic chemical reaction. The chemical reaction absorbs the ambient heat of the surrounding volume, i.e. the engine chamber, to provide the necessary energy to break the chemical bonds.
The second law of thermodynamics is a matter of statistics, such that the entropy of a smaller system can decrease as long as the entropy of the subsuming system increases.
The third law of thermodynamics would be the absolute bottom temperature that any such catalyst could function at.
You're also missing the point of catalyst again. Any chemical that is used up in the process is a reactant, not a catalyst. Any such low-temperature, water-splitting catalyst would be as dangerous as ice-nine though.
Sergey Brin's net worth is reported at $18.7 billion dollars. That $30 million ticket is 0.16% of his net worth.
If you have a $200K net worth, e.g. investments, home equity, etc..., that space flight ticket is the equivalent of you buying a PS3.
Besides, Google has spent more money already on alternative energy research & other environmental friendliness than Brin is spending on this space flight.
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/reducing.html
It can be a total advertising gimmick and money-shuffling scam, just like any other activity. However, the concept carbon offsets, and any deceit promulgated in its name, is based on is valid.
Carbon dioxide is a globally well-mixed gas. Hence, removing CO2 from the atmosphere at any point on the planet balances out adding CO2 to the atmosphere at any other point on the planet. How, and even if, that CO2 removal is accomplished is where the duplicity & deceitfulness comes into play.
CO2 physically removed ("captured") from the atmosphere, e.g. GRT's ACCESS system, is wholly different than campaigns to plant a tree (short term organic storage) or invest in solar/wind/etc... R&D (high potential of flaky accounting). There is also the case of outright fraud, where money is taken & no service performed.
Carbon offsets are the stopgap for the fact that change takes time and an acknowledgment that you are creating a mess and paying to clean it up.
It looks exactly like everything else in the 2D medium that it is being presented in.
How ironic that the NRA is protecting their 2nd amendment rights with their 1st amendment rights then.
The 1st amendment is the ultimate protection of all the others.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
You are correct. I inadvertently mod'ed you "redundant", rather than "insightful", so this reply is to knock that off.
Strangely enough, I had to log in using IE to post this comment. While using Seamonkey, it would state "If you continue to post this comment, all moderations done to this discussion will be undone! Are you sure you want to post?" and not me any option to say "Yes."
How is a cop supposed to know that it's just a silly fantasy?
JFK Reloaded is an example of historical fiction, not current viable planning. Even the act of writing down current viable plans isn't illegal, however it could provide probable cause for further official investigation. If the police found illegal armaments while conducting the investigation, that is what the suspect would be arrested for.
The GP's point was that pedophilia is prosecuted as a thoughtcrime. It isn't. The thought isn't legally actionable, but the action of ownership & distribution of contraband (e.g. child pornography) is.
I suggest you write down a detailed story about assassinating the current president and casually mention it to a cop. Be sure to tell the cop about the line-of-sight schematics you drew up for the president's next public appearance.
Pedophiles aren't arrested for their internal fantasies. They are arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography.
What about recording me watching a recording of me watching a recording of me watching ...?
That's Goldberg.
http://www.rubegoldberg.com/
I did read the article, and will be suitably impressed when microlensing, or another technique, does find an extrasolar Earth-like planet.
I am impressed, but I'll be much more impressed when techniques are developed that can spot rocky Earth-type planets.
It's still fraud, even when the defense is "pish posh, you can't tell the difference unless you look for it."
You're incorrectly conflating social conditioning, such as body mores, with innate cognitive development.
Children react differently to a tit at different ages because that is how they conditioned by their parents, peers, etc... to react.