I am a subscriber to the Times Literary Supplement. This year, I paid the supplementary 20$ to get Internet access, since I live in Canada and get the TLS with a substantial delay, and also because I was just curious given the scale of Murdoch's experiment, not talking about the scale of his pretensions.
So I am one of the very few who got past the registration page. The other side of this pay-wall allows us a peek on the dystopian nightmare that would have been the Internet if developed by corporations, and it is on a par with the current state of academic journals online. In order to undo what the Internet is meant to do, that is to hyperlink, Murdoch has spent a fortune developing a shiny interface that let us navigate through an exact reproduction of the paper thing. It is DRM by design: there is no way to copy and paste, to store, therefore to link, to annotate or to use in any meaningful sense of the word beyond a reading experience that is, as a result, as uncomfortable as it gets. The technical constraints that all this restraining impose make navigating and reading impractical and painful.
Despite the attractiveness of reading the TLS in a timely manner, I went to the site once and never repeated the experience.
This explains the popularity of right-wingers, ordinary people who would have nothing to gain for voting for right-wing parties, yet who keep doing so.
Your answer:
Hah, you sir are truly delusional. *Every* political party has its share of disinformation and lies. To single out a specific party as being the culprit of misinformation only serves to show just how ignorant and naive you are.
As I write, the grandparent is modded -1 troll and you +4 Insightful. Unfair. The grandparent has a valid point. While it is true that no party can claim to be free of disinformation, right-wing parties can indeed be singled out for practicing it on an industrial scale. Just think of Fox, O'Reilly and Beck: no contest.
To accuse the grandparent of ignorance and naivete smells much more of trolling than the actual actually quite moderate tone of the grandparent.
First off, there is likely no "growing consensus that something of enormous destructive power happens every 26 or 27 million years". It is an old idea, probably originated with the terrible paper by Raup and Sepkoski 1986, which I have criticized on the web several times; (...) [Not to poison the well, but Bambach published lately in Ruse and Sepkoski eds "Paleontology at the High Table." One must take a dim view with the abilities of anyone that choose to cooperate with "philosopher of biology" and known stealth creationist Ruse.]
No, this trick won't work for tax purposes. The IRS isn't that dumb (and when they are dumb it is never in your favor). The reason they are able to get away with it from a tax perspective is they actually do pay taxes on it.
What they are doing is setting up a separate corporation for each movie. (...) The studio still has to pay taxes.
You will note that they still manage to claim an inordinate amount of expenses. If you look at the table provided in TFA: 53 millions to "finance" the production, over 200M for distribution, etc. But you are right: where they completely screw actors, directors and partners, they only manage to partially screw the taxpayer, because the IRS still has some teeth. But that could go away as well: hear those libertarian ideas about getting rid of the last bits of regulations the government still enforce.
As a kid, he tried to observe Lutetia, who was just an asteroid, and dreamed of becoming an astronomer with a big telescope. He then moved to starlets, and he finally ended up as a paparazzi.
Genetically modified foods are just foods. There's nothing "natural" about selectively bred crops. Unless you're going into the woodlands and picking wild berries for breakfast you're eating unnatural food. Welcome to the modern world.
The modern world is not about the simplistic opposition between the natural and the artificial. The 18th century and onwards have demonstrated the value of enlightened public debate. The modern world in this sense is currently having second thoughts about the environmental effects of GM plants, patents on life, and other issues on how Monsanto operates. Welcome to the modern world.
Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.
The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.
This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!
The idea is telepresence. (...) Of course, the problem is lag, which will utterly prevent any immersion anyway. I think it's dumb, too. (...)
You make it sound such an evidence that I almost did not take notice; a bit over a 2 seconds time lag (back and forth) "utterly" prevents any immersion?
Not so sure... Telepresence was also my first thought, and I think this is not dumb at all. Thinking about it, I think this is genius: you get all the advantages of man space exploration without the cost. You get the vital (in terms of funding) wow factor. Furthermore the technology you develop for that might have very useful applications on earth.
The Media already has a monopoly on informing the public, scientific discoveries included.
Scientists strive to be factual and complete. Media strives to be sensational and give people what they expect, or want, to hear.
This is the first comment in this discussion that I find insightful.
The AAAS fails to first inquire into the possible obstacles between scientific communities and public constituencies. As a result, you get committee-type bland advice: "scientists and engineers should communicate with the public at all phases of a project". Well, to begin with that, if you are a scientist working for pharmaceuticals or for Monsanto or actually, for most private entities, you are never going to be able to define a communication plan independently. Hell, you even might be contractually prevented from doing any communication at all.
Then, they mention climate change as an example of a failure to communicate from the part of scientists. From what I have seen, the scientists have done a pretty good job of communication on that one, and often a quite heroic one. If the AAAS had asked this question in a sensible way, inquiring first on the main obstacles that are encountered by scientists in their communication with the public, the conversation would have been much more interesting than the bland advice served here. But is the AAAS ready to ask questions that relate to corporate ethics and to the relationship between science and democracy?
For a moment, I was concerned that by "empathy not being and advanced behavior", you meant that it was overrated say, in comparison to aggression; while you merely, and quite sensibly, mean that it is not exclusive to humans.
Pope and the Catholic church has no problem with evolution
The Catholic Church ostensibly accepts the process of evolution, just to throw doubt on its mechanisms. They consider the challenge of creationism to be a "lively" scientific debate. They take the position that, whatever science finds, the Church will be comfortable with the result saying 'But God willed it' (they have learned their lesson...):
But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. (Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004. Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has endorsed this text coming out of The International Theological Commission which was charged with dealing with this 'non-problem')
No problem? If you are naive, you might be comfortable with that, until they turn this around and tell you that there is no true contingency since God willed it, that therefore the soul does not arise out of a material process without God's intervention, and then come back with Adam and the original sin, as they steadfastly insist, and the created soul, and the limitations of the materialistic scientific outlook. With that, they are satisfied that they have justified their moral mission in this sinful world and finally put science in its damn place.
Evolution has been the Catholic Church's main concern ever since the issue surfaced with the publication of Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', and they are not nearly close to be out of trouble yet. They are in the very same hot tub than the other Adamic religions regarding evolution, despite their ostensible affectation to have no problem with it.
It's frightening just how much modern American government has become like the nightmare Statist government in Ayn Rand's novels, constantly meddling with and attempting to control market forces that it and it's members are incapable of understanding or wanting to understand.
Regardless of what you may think of her personally, she was prescient.
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
I am not bothered by the fact that you exist; I am seriously concerned, however, that there was one person to mod you insightful...
Excellent observation... If we checked sources more systematically, and early in a discussion, I guess we would leave perhaps one or two out of ten stories nearly comment-less. Perhaps this would get the message across to Slashdot editors?
The model of ink jet printers and ink cartridges being like the razor and razor blade model has been established for decades now. The biggest issue with the pricing of the ink is in the advancement of the technology as well as the replacement cycles.
I was also just thinking of the business model of razor blades as a comparative: spend a certain amount of research money in optimizing revenue through clever "management" of the replacement cycle, and then manage to claim the billions you make as a result as research expense. Gillette claimed over one billion dollars that way, one billion to develop a razor! Warren Buffet applauded and with such a success, no wonder others are trying to duplicate the successful innovation. If I were the IRS, I would grant them research expenses in creative accounting for sure...
As for research expense in anger management, I am afraid it is going to get awfully expensive.
So... you're saying the work of studying proteins for years, coming up with the game idea, creating and distributing the software, is all nothing, in comparison to the guy who downloaded a program and clicked some buttons? I think the notion of "discovery" is pretty fuzzy in a lot of cases, but you're crazy if you think the player deserves MORE credit than the software authors here.
Or the people who synthesize the protein, test that it folds the right way, test it in vitro, test it in animals, perform phase 0, 1, 2 and 3 human trials. You know, the actually finding out if it can be used as a drug. Coming up with a drug candidate is the easy and cheap part of making a new drug.
The authors developed the game so they could leverage public contributions in a manner that would not have been affordable otherwise. In this equation, you don't only have to take account of the individual successful contribution. The project initiators actually gave a thought to the question raised here:
Foldit project was initiated with the goal of democratizing science, and we stand behind that. the process of discovery and the eventual results of game play will all be open domain.
Foldit project was initiated with the goal of democratizing science, and we stand behind that. the process of discovery and the eventual results of game play will all be open domain.
It is relevant to note that there is no document in precise legal language, but in the absence of such, the sentence you quote IS legally binding.
What do you expect in a chronicle series titled "Microsoft Tech"? From the article:
Winkler, who considers the attention and outrage paid to the reported attack on Google from inside China last year to be "laughable," says Chinese espionage and cyber espionage is far more pervasive than anyone realizes
Ah yes, I am supposed to take some weird speculations of Sherlockholmesque quality (they serve black duck eggs, THEREFORE this restaurant is a front!) as being of a much more serious nature than the stand Google took in China.
Ahahahahahahahaha! Thank you for the entertainment!
Newton was a dangerous heretic by the standards of the day: he was an anti-trinitarian, meaning he did not believe in the Trinity. He kept it a close secret, so he could keep his University post and his title at... Trinity College, Cambridge.
The lunatics want Newton out of the curriculum, perhaps because he is an emblematic figure: a shy, independent minded guy, inquiring quietly in his corner, and ending up making a great discovery related to the fundamental nature of the world/universe, thereby greatly embarrassing religious authorities by disclosing them as ignorants and/or liars.
They think: better to downgrade science as technological innovation and present it as coming from the military. They want kids to approve change to policies directing more funds to the military and taking it away from the universities.
After wading through a hundred posts I can't help but suspect that if we are honest with ourselves, the vast majority of opinions here are merely expressions of confirmation bias: the majority of people posting or moderating are being skeptical or accepting based entirely on whether or not it agreed with their pre-existing model of the universe.
So you are basically saying that nothing can change anyone's opinion and that the efforts of this panel is wasted.
Let me disagree.
Some scientists in some university have been "outed" by some Russian spies and that is supposed to carry some clout about an important debate?
Here we have a panel of trustworthy people duly mandated to investigate the matter. I reproduce Phantomfive's overview of the authors of the report in case you have not read it above. It is well worth it:
From page 7 of TFA:
APPENDIX A PANEL MEMBERSHIP Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool) Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona. Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London. Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge
* Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS: a geophysicist, strongly worried about climate change. Worked with Shell and has ties to a number of alternate energy companies. * Prof. Huw C. Davies: Works in the Institute of Atmosphere and Climate, is a climate modeler. Couldn't find any industry links for him. * Prof Kerry Emanuel: Professor of Atmospheric Science, is extremely interested in hurricanes and cyclones. Seems to disagree with the IPCC position that hurricanes are increasing because of global warming. * Prof Lisa Graumlich: Director of the school of Natural Resources and the Environment. Doesn't seem particularly an expert on global warming, but if you want to know what effect a changing climate would have on agriculture, ask her. * Prof David Hand: a statistician. He's done statistic work for a lot of companies. Doesn't seem to know much about climatology, but he knows more about statistics than I even dreamed existed. * Prof David Hand: Professor of Theoretical Geophysics. Has publicly criticized the Mann Hockey Stick graph. Also really likes math. * Prof Michael Kelly: spent a lot of time researching semiconductors. Seems to have no relation to climate science at all, but he is the part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, whatever that is.
All opinions are not equal. Opinions on the matter of climate change might be difficult to change, and many dishonest persons might choose to believe anything fed to them by professional manipulators, but honest people seeing how dishonest the whole climategate circus has been, might begin to reconsider their views about the large issue.
The negative associations to anything "maverick" are so overwhelming that I have to question the business sense of who has opted for it. Yes, please give me anything else, including Menstruating Mongoose.
I think Bruce has a point. I also question the marketing ploy behind this. I can't quite see what NASA is getting out of this, and I can more easily see how an industry might benefit in the marketing of the 3D gadgetry. I just wish this gadget would disappear just like its previous incarnation and odorama and I resent seeing science getting along with such gimmicks.
I don't know about that, but you are certainly not insightful.
Your babble is the usual stuff of boring Sci-Fi that was mass produced in the 60-80s. However, to read it as a serious comment, even in the context of the speculative discussion that we are having, is something else entirely.
Can we hide at all? Aren't we ourselves, with our primitive technology, already able to detect the reflected light of planets orbiting relatively (at the moment) distant stars, and analyze this light to identify molecules that are markers for the presence of life?
So, the composition of an atmosphere already allows to look for the presence of life, and its relative composition might even perhaps allow to identify the presence of intelligent, or not so intelligent, life.
I would think that they would have to leave due to something like the end of life of their sun, not the depletion of limited resources. It seems to me that an advanced civilization would have understood the concept of sustainability...
Slashdot Mirror
I am a subscriber to the Times Literary Supplement. This year, I paid the supplementary 20$ to get Internet access, since I live in Canada and get the TLS with a substantial delay, and also because I was just curious given the scale of Murdoch's experiment, not talking about the scale of his pretensions.
So I am one of the very few who got past the registration page. The other side of this pay-wall allows us a peek on the dystopian nightmare that would have been the Internet if developed by corporations, and it is on a par with the current state of academic journals online. In order to undo what the Internet is meant to do, that is to hyperlink, Murdoch has spent a fortune developing a shiny interface that let us navigate through an exact reproduction of the paper thing. It is DRM by design: there is no way to copy and paste, to store, therefore to link, to annotate or to use in any meaningful sense of the word beyond a reading experience that is, as a result, as uncomfortable as it gets. The technical constraints that all this restraining impose make navigating and reading impractical and painful.
Despite the attractiveness of reading the TLS in a timely manner, I went to the site once and never repeated the experience.
I have just run out of mod points...
Grandparent:
This explains the popularity of right-wingers, ordinary people who would have nothing to gain for voting for right-wing parties, yet who keep doing so.
Your answer:
Hah, you sir are truly delusional. *Every* political party has its share of disinformation and lies. To single out a specific party as being the culprit of misinformation only serves to show just how ignorant and naive you are.
As I write, the grandparent is modded -1 troll and you +4 Insightful. Unfair. The grandparent has a valid point. While it is true that no party can claim to be free of disinformation, right-wing parties can indeed be singled out for practicing it on an industrial scale. Just think of Fox, O'Reilly and Beck: no contest.
To accuse the grandparent of ignorance and naivete smells much more of trolling than the actual actually quite moderate tone of the grandparent.
Some more debunking in the second comment:
First off, there is likely no "growing consensus that something of enormous destructive power happens every 26 or 27 million years". It is an old idea, probably originated with the terrible paper by Raup and Sepkoski 1986, which I have criticized on the web several times; (...) [Not to poison the well, but Bambach published lately in Ruse and Sepkoski eds "Paleontology at the High Table." One must take a dim view with the abilities of anyone that choose to cooperate with "philosopher of biology" and known stealth creationist Ruse.]
No, this trick won't work for tax purposes. The IRS isn't that dumb (and when they are dumb it is never in your favor). The reason they are able to get away with it from a tax perspective is they actually do pay taxes on it.
What they are doing is setting up a separate corporation for each movie. (...) The studio still has to pay taxes.
You will note that they still manage to claim an inordinate amount of expenses. If you look at the table provided in TFA: 53 millions to "finance" the production, over 200M for distribution, etc. But you are right: where they completely screw actors, directors and partners, they only manage to partially screw the taxpayer, because the IRS still has some teeth. But that could go away as well: hear those libertarian ideas about getting rid of the last bits of regulations the government still enforce.
As a kid, he tried to observe Lutetia, who was just an asteroid, and dreamed of becoming an astronomer with a big telescope. He then moved to starlets, and he finally ended up as a paparazzi.
Genetically modified foods are just foods. There's nothing "natural" about selectively bred crops. Unless you're going into the woodlands and picking wild berries for breakfast you're eating unnatural food. Welcome to the modern world.
The modern world is not about the simplistic opposition between the natural and the artificial. The 18th century and onwards have demonstrated the value of enlightened public debate. The modern world in this sense is currently having second thoughts about the environmental effects of GM plants, patents on life, and other issues on how Monsanto operates. Welcome to the modern world.
Spot on! This is exactly the way to deal with this. Test it, get arrested, document the whole process and manage to be professional enough about it so you arise the interest of main media journalists, PBS, BBC, etc. Expose, just like they do here, underlying causes, like top security acknowledging of the rights, and private security and local police involved in arbitrary and erratic behavior.
The result: big public embarrassment for those involved, instigating fear of the same for like-minded small-time tyrants doing this everywhere.
This is a job of public education and the two photographers involved here are doing the right, appropriate and efficient thing about it. My hat to them!
The idea is telepresence. (...) Of course, the problem is lag, which will utterly prevent any immersion anyway. I think it's dumb, too. (...)
You make it sound such an evidence that I almost did not take notice; a bit over a 2 seconds time lag (back and forth) "utterly" prevents any immersion?
Not so sure... Telepresence was also my first thought, and I think this is not dumb at all. Thinking about it, I think this is genius: you get all the advantages of man space exploration without the cost. You get the vital (in terms of funding) wow factor. Furthermore the technology you develop for that might have very useful applications on earth.
Not dumb, not dumb at all.
The Media already has a monopoly on informing the public, scientific discoveries included.
Scientists strive to be factual and complete. Media strives to be sensational and give people what they expect, or want, to hear.
This is the first comment in this discussion that I find insightful.
The AAAS fails to first inquire into the possible obstacles between scientific communities and public constituencies. As a result, you get committee-type bland advice: "scientists and engineers should communicate with the public at all phases of a project". Well, to begin with that, if you are a scientist working for pharmaceuticals or for Monsanto or actually, for most private entities, you are never going to be able to define a communication plan independently. Hell, you even might be contractually prevented from doing any communication at all.
Then, they mention climate change as an example of a failure to communicate from the part of scientists. From what I have seen, the scientists have done a pretty good job of communication on that one, and often a quite heroic one. If the AAAS had asked this question in a sensible way, inquiring first on the main obstacles that are encountered by scientists in their communication with the public, the conversation would have been much more interesting than the bland advice served here. But is the AAAS ready to ask questions that relate to corporate ethics and to the relationship between science and democracy?
For a moment, I was concerned that by "empathy not being and advanced behavior", you meant that it was overrated say, in comparison to aggression; while you merely, and quite sensibly, mean that it is not exclusive to humans.
Pope and the Catholic church has no problem with evolution
The Catholic Church ostensibly accepts the process of evolution, just to throw doubt on its mechanisms. They consider the challenge of creationism to be a "lively" scientific debate. They take the position that, whatever science finds, the Church will be comfortable with the result saying 'But God willed it' (they have learned their lesson...):
But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. (Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004. Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has endorsed this text coming out of The International Theological Commission which was charged with dealing with this 'non-problem')
No problem? If you are naive, you might be comfortable with that, until they turn this around and tell you that there is no true contingency since God willed it, that therefore the soul does not arise out of a material process without God's intervention, and then come back with Adam and the original sin, as they steadfastly insist, and the created soul, and the limitations of the materialistic scientific outlook. With that, they are satisfied that they have justified their moral mission in this sinful world and finally put science in its damn place.
Evolution has been the Catholic Church's main concern ever since the issue surfaced with the publication of Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', and they are not nearly close to be out of trouble yet. They are in the very same hot tub than the other Adamic religions regarding evolution, despite their ostensible affectation to have no problem with it.
Here's the link https://www.eff.org/files/https-everywhere-latest.xpi which is missing from TFS.
This is a link to the extension. Here is the link to the article:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/06/encrypt-web-https-everywhere-firefox-extension
It's frightening just how much modern American government has become like the nightmare Statist government in Ayn Rand's novels, constantly meddling with and attempting to control market forces that it and it's members are incapable of understanding or wanting to understand.
Regardless of what you may think of her personally, she was prescient.
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
I am not bothered by the fact that you exist; I am seriously concerned, however, that there was one person to mod you insightful...
Excellent observation... If we checked sources more systematically, and early in a discussion, I guess we would leave perhaps one or two out of ten stories nearly comment-less. Perhaps this would get the message across to Slashdot editors?
Perhaps you need a course in anger management.
The model of ink jet printers and ink cartridges being like the razor and razor blade model has been established for decades now. The biggest issue with the pricing of the ink is in the advancement of the technology as well as the replacement cycles.
I was also just thinking of the business model of razor blades as a comparative: spend a certain amount of research money in optimizing revenue through clever "management" of the replacement cycle, and then manage to claim the billions you make as a result as research expense. Gillette claimed over one billion dollars that way, one billion to develop a razor! Warren Buffet applauded and with such a success, no wonder others are trying to duplicate the successful innovation. If I were the IRS, I would grant them research expenses in creative accounting for sure...
As for research expense in anger management, I am afraid it is going to get awfully expensive.
So... you're saying the work of studying proteins for years, coming up with the game idea, creating and distributing the software, is all nothing, in comparison to the guy who downloaded a program and clicked some buttons? I think the notion of "discovery" is pretty fuzzy in a lot of cases, but you're crazy if you think the player deserves MORE credit than the software authors here.
Or the people who synthesize the protein, test that it folds the right way, test it in vitro, test it in animals, perform phase 0, 1, 2 and 3 human trials. You know, the actually finding out if it can be used as a drug. Coming up with a drug candidate is the easy and cheap part of making a new drug.
The authors developed the game so they could leverage public contributions in a manner that would not have been affordable otherwise. In this equation, you don't only have to take account of the individual successful contribution. The project initiators actually gave a thought to the question raised here:
Foldit project was initiated with the goal of democratizing science, and we stand behind that. the process of discovery and the eventual results of game play will all be open domain.
Foldit project was initiated with the goal of democratizing science, and we stand behind that. the process of discovery and the eventual results of game play will all be open domain.
It is relevant to note that there is no document in precise legal language, but in the absence of such, the sentence you quote IS legally binding.
What do you expect in a chronicle series titled "Microsoft Tech"? From the article:
Winkler, who considers the attention and outrage paid to the reported attack on Google from inside China last year to be "laughable," says Chinese espionage and cyber espionage is far more pervasive than anyone realizes
Ah yes, I am supposed to take some weird speculations of Sherlockholmesque quality (they serve black duck eggs, THEREFORE this restaurant is a front!) as being of a much more serious nature than the stand Google took in China.
Ahahahahahahahaha! Thank you for the entertainment!
Newton was a dangerous heretic by the standards of the day: he was an anti-trinitarian, meaning he did not believe in the Trinity. He kept it a close secret, so he could keep his University post and his title at... Trinity College, Cambridge.
The lunatics want Newton out of the curriculum, perhaps because he is an emblematic figure: a shy, independent minded guy, inquiring quietly in his corner, and ending up making a great discovery related to the fundamental nature of the world/universe, thereby greatly embarrassing religious authorities by disclosing them as ignorants and/or liars.
They think: better to downgrade science as technological innovation and present it as coming from the military. They want kids to approve change to policies directing more funds to the military and taking it away from the universities.
After wading through a hundred posts I can't help but suspect that if we are honest with ourselves, the vast majority of opinions here are merely expressions of confirmation bias: the majority of people posting or moderating are being skeptical or accepting based entirely on whether or not it agreed with their pre-existing model of the universe.
So you are basically saying that nothing can change anyone's opinion and that the efforts of this panel is wasted.
Let me disagree.
Some scientists in some university have been "outed" by some Russian spies and that is supposed to carry some clout about an important debate?
Here we have a panel of trustworthy people duly mandated to investigate the matter. I reproduce Phantomfive's overview of the authors of the report in case you have not read it above. It is well worth it :
From page 7 of TFA:
APPENDIX A
PANEL MEMBERSHIP
Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)
Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge
* Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS: a geophysicist, strongly worried about climate change. Worked with Shell and has ties to a number of alternate energy companies.
* Prof. Huw C. Davies: Works in the Institute of Atmosphere and Climate, is a climate modeler. Couldn't find any industry links for him.
* Prof Kerry Emanuel: Professor of Atmospheric Science, is extremely interested in hurricanes and cyclones. Seems to disagree with the IPCC position that hurricanes are increasing because of global warming.
* Prof Lisa Graumlich: Director of the school of Natural Resources and the Environment. Doesn't seem particularly an expert on global warming, but if you want to know what effect a changing climate would have on agriculture, ask her.
* Prof David Hand: a statistician. He's done statistic work for a lot of companies. Doesn't seem to know much about climatology, but he knows more about statistics than I even dreamed existed.
* Prof David Hand: Professor of Theoretical Geophysics. Has publicly criticized the Mann Hockey Stick graph. Also really likes math.
* Prof Michael Kelly: spent a lot of time researching semiconductors. Seems to have no relation to climate science at all, but he is the part-time Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, whatever that is.
All opinions are not equal. Opinions on the matter of climate change might be difficult to change, and many dishonest persons might choose to believe anything fed to them by professional manipulators, but honest people seeing how dishonest the whole climategate circus has been, might begin to reconsider their views about the large issue.
The negative associations to anything "maverick" are so overwhelming that I have to question the business sense of who has opted for it. Yes, please give me anything else, including Menstruating Mongoose.
I think Bruce has a point. I also question the marketing ploy behind this. I can't quite see what NASA is getting out of this, and I can more easily see how an industry might benefit in the marketing of the 3D gadgetry. I just wish this gadget would disappear just like its previous incarnation and odorama and I resent seeing science getting along with such gimmicks.
You have been rated +5 interesting...
I don't know about that, but you are certainly not insightful.
Your babble is the usual stuff of boring Sci-Fi that was mass produced in the 60-80s. However, to read it as a serious comment, even in the context of the speculative discussion that we are having, is something else entirely.
Can we hide at all? Aren't we ourselves, with our primitive technology, already able to detect the reflected light of planets orbiting relatively (at the moment) distant stars, and analyze this light to identify molecules that are markers for the presence of life?
So, the composition of an atmosphere already allows to look for the presence of life, and its relative composition might even perhaps allow to identify the presence of intelligent, or not so intelligent, life.
I would think that they would have to leave due to something like the end of life of their sun, not the depletion of limited resources. It seems to me that an advanced civilization would have understood the concept of sustainability...