Scientists who study climate are in agreement. Some non-experts who study unrelated fields disagree. I'll stand with the people who know what they're talking about, and whose arguments I find sensible.
Feel free to review the evidence yourself, and come to your own conclusions.
I have to say, I've heard some of the most ridiculously bad physics in arguments from the climate-change deniers. Now, not all of the climate change deniers argue physics, but the ones who do have pretty much made me lose respect for the position. My overall opinion is that if they can't bother to understand physics, I'm not interested.
You don't have to test it on election day. You can test it any time.
Here's the point. If the source code is not available, then to show that somebody's is commiting fraud you have to reverse engineer the code the machine is running, see what it does, and show that it's fraudulent.
If the source code is available, and certified as the code that the machine is running, you don't need to reverse engineer the code that the machine is running. Merely showing that this is not the code that was certified is sufficient. This is much easier.
In essence, it breaks the very hard problem down into two much easier problems.
Yes, actually, it is possible to verify whether compiling a particular source code gives you a particular binary file. (That is, assuming that the compiler itself is specified.) You compile it, and compare.
Correct. In games theory terms, where all the voters are rationally trying to maximize their expectation of winning, range voting and approval voting are the same.
However, it turns out that not all voters in fact vote according to games theory, and a lot of people like the idea of having a range to vote, not just "yes" or "no".
Q: Will the source code be available to the public?
A: No. The EAC will make all information available to the public consistent with Federal law. The EAC is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) from making the source code information available to the public. However, the test labs will examine the source code to ensure compliance with the voluntary voting system guidelines. Test plans, test reports, and other information about the test labs and the voting system manufacturers are available on the EAC Web site (www.eac.gov).
That sucks.
The trade secrets act may mean that they aren't allowed to release source code unilaterally, but there's nothing in the law that says they can't make it part of the certification process that a machine cannot get certified unless the manufacturer releases the source code (and certifies that the souce code released is the code run on the machine.)
The article is about people using this technology to produce effects, so the word "deliberate deception" no longer seems to apply. In this case it's an instrument, like synthesizer or even a lute.
Scene: 9,000 BC:
Hey, that guy has some gut strings on a hollow log that he makes vibrate, and they're tuned in harmony! He plucks them as he sings, so he can sing in tune all the time! That's deliberate deception!
But the real problem with voting is the One Vote, Plurality wins counting system, which drives out third parties and means that in a multi-contestant election, the winner almost never gets a majority. This is known to be a bad system. It may indeed be true that all voting systems may have problems, but one vote, plurality wins has very bad problems.
There are much better counting systems-- approval voting is simple and easy, for example, and much much better. Range voting also has a lot to say for it-- mathematically it's similar to approval, but hey, if you can rate your local restaurant on a scale of 1 to 5, you can learn to rate politicians the same way.
Right. Updaters are fine, I love them, but I want to be in control, and I want to be able to turn them off if I want to. I should be able to run them when I want to run them, not on their schedule.
(I also would like to choose which applications get the auto-update).
...
They also claim that Physical Review Letters, is considered the world's premier physics journal. By whom?
By physicists.
It was 12th in the ranking in 2007....
by whom?
I actually agree with most of what your comments above-- there's more hype than reality in that press release-- but Phys Rev Letters really is the gold standard in peer-reviewed physics publication. If somebody ranks PRL as "12th", this is an indication that this ranking system is broken.
I like your checklist. Lots of really good points there.
I'm just not quite sure that I agree with this one, however:
( ) Sending email should be free
First, philosophically, I'm not sure I agree with any statement that anything "should" be free. What does "should" mean here? I can list ten thousand things that "should" be free, and if I had my choice, food, shelter, medical care, and beer (free, as in beer) all "should" be free. I'd call all of these higher priority than listing which internet services "should" be free.
Second, why should sending email be free? Sending email has a cost. Why "should" the cost be paid by somebody else?
The reply rate to spam, if I remember recent numbers recently, is something like one reply in ten million messages sent. To have even a marginal effect on the spam, you'd have to reach at least a million users. So, that means they're proposing that the government send out ten billion spam messages.
Dumb.
Much better is to follow the money trail-- the spammers have to have a way to make money. Follow that trail.
If you click the link, and then click the link on that link to the actual source, it's a bill introduced by Rep Peter T. King [NY-3] introduced 1/9/2009 with no cosponsors; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Most bills submitted to committees never get out of committee, espercially the ones with no co-sponsors, buried under the press of other stuff that congress can do which they think will actually get them votes. By introducing the bill he can tell the constituants that were lobbying for this "I introduced a bill in Congress to solve that very" and make it sound like he actually did something.
I have no verifiable source for this, but some friends who are into Japanese culture say that several years ago, voyeuristic pics became such a problem that the Japanese government required all camera phones to have a hard coded audible click. And that totally put an end to the problem(?)
Eccentric orbit's are destabalized during the process of circularization which then either ejects them OR crashes the orbit.
I can't make any sense out of this statement. "Circularization" is by definition decreasing the eccentricity of an orbit. Decreasing the eccentricity of an orbit will not "eject" or "crash" the orbit; you have to increase the orbital eccentricity to do that. You can't "destabilize" an orbit by "circularizing" it; the two things are opposites.
But it is also true the eccentric orbits tend to be a bit more stable than true circular ones...but only a little.
I have not the slightest notion what you mean here. Circular orbits are not unstable! About the most you can stay is that circular orbits are "destabilized" into elliptical ones, but I can't see how that makes them "less stable" that orbits that start out elliptical in the first place.
I never said the sol system had a hot jupiter. But it had been cited in the grandparent therefore I was adressing the issue. Hot Jupiters happen in specific conditions where the gas that formed the original system was thick enough to not get blown away quickly. Therefore the jupiter sized planet, with it greater porportional size and gravitational field effect due to lower density, are disporportinaly slowed through friction.
I don't know what model you're assuming, and I don't know what you mean by "disproportionately" or what sort of scaling law you're assuming. About the best I can say here is that it is extremely model dependent.
As they slow they eat or eject all inner planets until they get close enough so that the solar wind HAS cleared everything out. The sol system did not have these conditions therefore no hot Jupiter. With the higher density but smaller size of rocky planets they are not as likley to experience the slowing effect before they clear the neighboring space
about all I can say is that this is extremely model dependent. If the small rocky planets are clearing their region, as you note, the amount by which they move in reaction is going to be inversely proportional to the planet's mass, and hence smaller planets will move more, not less. Have you actually calculated a scaling law? It will depend on what you assume to be the dominant effect, but it's not at all clear that the mechanism vanishes with small planets.
therefore any moving will probably be due to colision or near collision with other large bodies and will be entierly random.
Random, yes.
The reason Venus, Earth and Mars probably haven't moved is because the planets chemistries match theory fairly closely. Planetary genesis theories suggest that there will be subtly chemical differences at varius altitudes from the star. Mercury has unexpected chemistry which could come from collision (there is evidence for such an event) or being moved
There is not enough chemical knowledge of the composition of the inner planets to definitively base this statement on experimental data. (Venus in particular is very poorly characterized). The chemistry seen on the surface is highly affected by the planetary differentiation (that is, what got segregated to the core), and we currently know little about the cores of Mars, Venus, or Mercury.
Anything that moves a super-sized planet will eject smaller planets from the system.
Experimental evidence strongly suggests that there are no hot Jupiters in the solar system. Therefore, motion of hot Jupiters did not in fact scatter inner planets out of the solar system because our solar system does not have any hot Jupiters.
However, the process by which hot Jupiters are repositioned also can reposition smaller planets. There's nothing special about Jovians that allows them to move but forbids smaller planets to move. The observation of hot Jupiters is a evidence of a mechanism that moves planets, and suggests that in general, planets are not necessarily located in the position in which they had formed.
The hot-jupiter orbits start circular and are slowly spiralled in.
Yes, that's one possibility. There are several models that differ in details.
Actually, most eccentric orbits will be maintained. Only specific conditions will circularize an orbit and most eccentric orbits that get circularized become unstable in the process.
baloney. In Star Trek, circular orbits become unstable and fall into the sun. In real astrophysics, not so much.
It is very unlikely that the inner planets moved much with the possible exception of mercury.
Very true but the 4 inner planets have almost circular orbits.
Any planet that get flung around will have a very eliptical orbit.
Orbits get circularized by a number of effects over time, both orbital and viscoelastic coupling. Hot-Jupiter orbits somehow get circularized, after all, and they're much harder to circularize than smaller planet orbits.
The Hot Jupiters are a different thing. They are caused by the system having enough material to cause drag and slow them down enough to collapse the orbit.
Any process that can move Jupiter and super-Jupiter size planets will easily reposition smaller planets.
Hmm-- the new model doesn't seem to account for the fact that planets don't stay in the place where they're formed; gravitational interactions can slingshot them around the early solar system. There's really no other way to account for "hot jupiters," gas giants that are very close to the star.
Can't you expect to do a few IP lookups a year and roll that into the costs of the ISP? Look at how many you did last year and figure that as your best guess.
How about a thousand lookups a year? And do them under this constraint: if you do them wrong and don't disclose enough, or too slowly, you get cited for obstructing justice; and on the other hand if you disclose too much or too quickly, you get a civil lawsuit for privacy breach
And, if any of the disclosures do make it to court, you have to spend a week testifying. (being deposed, going to court to file documents, dealing with barristers and solicitors, being called in to testify but the trial is postponed that day, then being called in to testify another day but the trial is postponed, then being called in to testify yet another day to find out that the case was settled and charges were dropped.)
Yeah, that was my take on it-- that "inauguration" headline has nothing to do with the actual story, and the data breach has nothing whatsoever to do with the inauguration.
The inauguration is just there because, hey, all the news stories today have to mention it. It's, like, a rule or something.
I don't think it's a rule that slashdot article summaries have to mention the inauguration even if it's not relevant to the story, though. Can't somebody here look at who wrote the summary and moderate them -1 irrelevant?
The economic feasibility of solar power varies vastly with location-- notably the latitude and cloudiness, but also the electrical pricing structure. Your milage will vary.
In the U.S., for a grid-connected system, the best locations are places where the electrical peaks are summer air conditioning loads, and in which you can sell the electricity at peak rates during the high-solar-input summer daytimes (or, at least, use the solar electricity when your price is high). This does require that you're getting time-dependent rates and not a flat rate.
From his results in TOA, notice that his electricity use from the grid is almost zero in the summer, but high in the winter. If he gets a price differential between summer (peak) and winter (off peak) rates, that's a significant difference.
India's Chandrayaan-1, has confirmed the presence of iron-bearing minerals on the moon.>/p?
The presence of iron bearing minerals on the moon is not news.
At best, I suppose it might be news that at least one of Chandrayaan-1's instruments is functional, but "we've found iron on the moon" (Iron being, I believe, the third most common element in lunar rock, after silicon) is not even a difficult test of the instruments-- mapping phosphorus, or one of the trace elemental components, would be more interesting.
Yes, the article really underlines that 2008 was a boring year in technology. Flash memory? GPS? Sure, both are technologies that continue to evolve and get new applications, but if the top ten list can't find anything that isn't this old, it really must have been a year not much happened. Better Speedos? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I'd go for Tesla motors shipping their first electric roadster as top ten news, myself, but that may be so old hat for/. readers nobody cares to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists who study climate are in agreement. Some non-experts who study unrelated fields disagree. I'll stand with the people who know what they're talking about, and whose arguments I find sensible. Feel free to review the evidence yourself, and come to your own conclusions.
I have to say, I've heard some of the most ridiculously bad physics in arguments from the climate-change deniers. Now, not all of the climate change deniers argue physics, but the ones who do have pretty much made me lose respect for the position. My overall opinion is that if they can't bother to understand physics, I'm not interested.
You don't have to test it on election day. You can test it any time.
Here's the point. If the source code is not available, then to show that somebody's is commiting fraud you have to reverse engineer the code the machine is running, see what it does, and show that it's fraudulent.
If the source code is available, and certified as the code that the machine is running, you don't need to reverse engineer the code that the machine is running. Merely showing that this is not the code that was certified is sufficient. This is much easier.
In essence, it breaks the very hard problem down into two much easier problems.
Yes, actually, it is possible to verify whether compiling a particular source code gives you a particular binary file. (That is, assuming that the compiler itself is specified.) You compile it, and compare.
Not very hard.
Correct. In games theory terms, where all the voters are rationally trying to maximize their expectation of winning, range voting and approval voting are the same.
However, it turns out that not all voters in fact vote according to games theory, and a lot of people like the idea of having a range to vote, not just "yes" or "no".
That sucks.
The trade secrets act may mean that they aren't allowed to release source code unilaterally, but there's nothing in the law that says they can't make it part of the certification process that a machine cannot get certified unless the manufacturer releases the source code (and certifies that the souce code released is the code run on the machine.)
Don't worry, soon actual artificial singers will have replaced artificial-sounding pop singers.
And I, for one, will welcome our robo-singing popular-music overlords.
The article is about people using this technology to produce effects, so the word "deliberate deception" no longer seems to apply. In this case it's an instrument, like synthesizer or even a lute.
Scene: 9,000 BC:
Hey, that guy has some gut strings on a hollow log that he makes vibrate, and they're tuned in harmony! He plucks them as he sings, so he can sing in tune all the time! That's deliberate deception!
But the real problem with voting is the One Vote, Plurality wins counting system, which drives out third parties and means that in a multi-contestant election, the winner almost never gets a majority. This is known to be a bad system. It may indeed be true that all voting systems may have problems, but one vote, plurality wins has very bad problems.
There are much better counting systems-- approval voting is simple and easy, for example, and much much better. Range voting also has a lot to say for it-- mathematically it's similar to approval, but hey, if you can rate your local restaurant on a scale of 1 to 5, you can learn to rate politicians the same way.
Right. Updaters are fine, I love them, but I want to be in control, and I want to be able to turn them off if I want to. I should be able to run them when I want to run them, not on their schedule.
(I also would like to choose which applications get the auto-update).
... They also claim that Physical Review Letters, is considered the world's premier physics journal. By whom?
By physicists.
It was 12th in the ranking in 2007....
by whom?
I actually agree with most of what your comments above-- there's more hype than reality in that press release-- but Phys Rev Letters really is the gold standard in peer-reviewed physics publication. If somebody ranks PRL as "12th", this is an indication that this ranking system is broken.
THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS AUTHENTIFY!
Good point. It was a typo for authentificationate, I expect.
I like your checklist. Lots of really good points there.
I'm just not quite sure that I agree with this one, however:
( ) Sending email should be free
First, philosophically, I'm not sure I agree with any statement that anything "should" be free. What does "should" mean here? I can list ten thousand things that "should" be free, and if I had my choice, food, shelter, medical care, and beer (free, as in beer) all "should" be free. I'd call all of these higher priority than listing which internet services "should" be free.
Second, why should sending email be free? Sending email has a cost. Why "should" the cost be paid by somebody else?
Ick. What a stupid idea.
The reply rate to spam, if I remember recent numbers recently, is something like one reply in ten million messages sent. To have even a marginal effect on the spam, you'd have to reach at least a million users. So, that means they're proposing that the government send out ten billion spam messages.
Dumb.
Much better is to follow the money trail-- the spammers have to have a way to make money. Follow that trail.
If you click the link, and then click the link on that link to the actual source, it's a bill introduced by Rep Peter T. King [NY-3] introduced 1/9/2009 with no cosponsors; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Most bills submitted to committees never get out of committee, espercially the ones with no co-sponsors, buried under the press of other stuff that congress can do which they think will actually get them votes. By introducing the bill he can tell the constituants that were lobbying for this "I introduced a bill in Congress to solve that very" and make it sound like he actually did something.
I have no verifiable source for this, but some friends who are into Japanese culture say that several years ago, voyeuristic pics became such a problem that the Japanese government required all camera phones to have a hard coded audible click. And that totally put an end to the problem(?)
What, can't they just buy digital cameras?
Eccentric orbit's are destabalized during the process of circularization which then either ejects them OR crashes the orbit.
I can't make any sense out of this statement. "Circularization" is by definition decreasing the eccentricity of an orbit. Decreasing the eccentricity of an orbit will not "eject" or "crash" the orbit; you have to increase the orbital eccentricity to do that. You can't "destabilize" an orbit by "circularizing" it; the two things are opposites.
But it is also true the eccentric orbits tend to be a bit more stable than true circular ones...but only a little.
I have not the slightest notion what you mean here. Circular orbits are not unstable! About the most you can stay is that circular orbits are "destabilized" into elliptical ones, but I can't see how that makes them "less stable" that orbits that start out elliptical in the first place.
I never said the sol system had a hot jupiter. But it had been cited in the grandparent therefore I was adressing the issue. Hot Jupiters happen in specific conditions where the gas that formed the original system was thick enough to not get blown away quickly. Therefore the jupiter sized planet, with it greater porportional size and gravitational field effect due to lower density, are disporportinaly slowed through friction.
I don't know what model you're assuming, and I don't know what you mean by "disproportionately" or what sort of scaling law you're assuming. About the best I can say here is that it is extremely model dependent.
As they slow they eat or eject all inner planets until they get close enough so that the solar wind HAS cleared everything out.
The sol system did not have these conditions therefore no hot Jupiter.
With the higher density but smaller size of rocky planets they are not as likley to experience the slowing effect before they clear the neighboring space
about all I can say is that this is extremely model dependent. If the small rocky planets are clearing their region, as you note, the amount by which they move in reaction is going to be inversely proportional to the planet's mass, and hence smaller planets will move more, not less. Have you actually calculated a scaling law? It will depend on what you assume to be the dominant effect, but it's not at all clear that the mechanism vanishes with small planets.
therefore any moving will probably be due to colision or near collision with other large bodies and will be entierly random.
Random, yes.
The reason Venus, Earth and Mars probably haven't moved is because the planets chemistries match theory fairly closely. Planetary genesis theories suggest that there will be subtly chemical differences at varius altitudes from the star. Mercury has unexpected chemistry which could come from collision (there is evidence for such an event) or being moved
There is not enough chemical knowledge of the composition of the inner planets to definitively base this statement on experimental data. (Venus in particular is very poorly characterized). The chemistry seen on the surface is highly affected by the planetary differentiation (that is, what got segregated to the core), and we currently know little about the cores of Mars, Venus, or Mercury.
Last I checked, the solar wind isn't a stream of electrons.
It's roughly equal numbers of electrons and protons, as I recall, with a very small amount of helium nuclei in the mix.
Some good graphs here
Anything that moves a super-sized planet will eject smaller planets from the system.
Experimental evidence strongly suggests that there are no hot Jupiters in the solar system. Therefore, motion of hot Jupiters did not in fact scatter inner planets out of the solar system because our solar system does not have any hot Jupiters.
However, the process by which hot Jupiters are repositioned also can reposition smaller planets. There's nothing special about Jovians that allows them to move but forbids smaller planets to move. The observation of hot Jupiters is a evidence of a mechanism that moves planets, and suggests that in general, planets are not necessarily located in the position in which they had formed.
The hot-jupiter orbits start circular and are slowly spiralled in.
Yes, that's one possibility. There are several models that differ in details.
Actually, most eccentric orbits will be maintained. Only specific conditions will circularize an orbit and most eccentric orbits that get circularized become unstable in the process.
baloney. In Star Trek, circular orbits become unstable and fall into the sun. In real astrophysics, not so much.
It is very unlikely that the inner planets moved much with the possible exception of mercury.
Yet to be demonstrated.
Very true but the 4 inner planets have almost circular orbits.
Any planet that get flung around will have a very eliptical orbit.
Orbits get circularized by a number of effects over time, both orbital and viscoelastic coupling. Hot-Jupiter orbits somehow get circularized, after all, and they're much harder to circularize than smaller planet orbits.
The Hot Jupiters are a different thing. They are caused by the system having enough material to cause drag and slow them down enough to collapse the orbit.
Any process that can move Jupiter and super-Jupiter size planets will easily reposition smaller planets.
Hmm-- the new model doesn't seem to account for the fact that planets don't stay in the place where they're formed; gravitational interactions can slingshot them around the early solar system. There's really no other way to account for "hot jupiters," gas giants that are very close to the star.
Can't you expect to do a few IP lookups a year and roll that into the costs of the ISP? Look at how many you did last year and figure that as your best guess.
How about a thousand lookups a year? And do them under this constraint: if you do them wrong and don't disclose enough, or too slowly, you get cited for obstructing justice; and on the other hand if you disclose too much or too quickly, you get a civil lawsuit for privacy breach
And, if any of the disclosures do make it to court, you have to spend a week testifying. (being deposed, going to court to file documents, dealing with barristers and solicitors, being called in to testify but the trial is postponed that day, then being called in to testify another day but the trial is postponed, then being called in to testify yet another day to find out that the case was settled and charges were dropped.)
Yeah, that was my take on it-- that "inauguration" headline has nothing to do with the actual story, and the data breach has nothing whatsoever to do with the inauguration. The inauguration is just there because, hey, all the news stories today have to mention it. It's, like, a rule or something.
I don't think it's a rule that slashdot article summaries have to mention the inauguration even if it's not relevant to the story, though. Can't somebody here look at who wrote the summary and moderate them -1 irrelevant?
In the U.S., for a grid-connected system, the best locations are places where the electrical peaks are summer air conditioning loads, and in which you can sell the electricity at peak rates during the high-solar-input summer daytimes (or, at least, use the solar electricity when your price is high). This does require that you're getting time-dependent rates and not a flat rate.
From his results in TOA, notice that his electricity use from the grid is almost zero in the summer, but high in the winter. If he gets a price differential between summer (peak) and winter (off peak) rates, that's a significant difference.
India's Chandrayaan-1, has confirmed the presence of iron-bearing minerals on the moon.>/p?
The presence of iron bearing minerals on the moon is not news.
At best, I suppose it might be news that at least one of Chandrayaan-1's instruments is functional, but "we've found iron on the moon" (Iron being, I believe, the third most common element in lunar rock, after silicon) is not even a difficult test of the instruments-- mapping phosphorus, or one of the trace elemental components, would be more interesting.
I'd go for Tesla motors shipping their first electric roadster as top ten news, myself, but that may be so old hat for/. readers nobody cares to read it.