The closest thing to such a conclusion is the statement "the President’s tweets offered no documentation or evidence for the charges he was leveling at his predecessor in the White House." Saying that "the president didn't offer documentation or evidence" is not the same as saying it's false.
FISA warrant gotten on Carter Page Oct 21. Allows wiretapping of Page, his contacts, and their contacts, which includes all of Trump campaign. I know the day, who it was on, who signed off on it, and the judge that approved it. Snopes couldn't seem to figure that out, but they are great fact checkers?
So, you're complaining that they didn't include information released in the Nunes memo that wasn't released until eleven months after they wrote the article? Really, they can't. This was about as fair as it could be: they rated it neither true nor false, but pointed out that there wasn't any documentation, which was true at the time
Snopes is completely wrong on one of the most political articles with completely proven facts to back up how it is false.
It didn't rate the statement either true or false. It was, in fact, excruciatingly accurate as to what was available at the time,
I just picked that one because I assumed they would be incorrect, and was not surprised. I haven't seen an accurate truthful Snopes in about 5 years now.
You haven't yet cited an untruthful one. Let's do the experiment; I'm curious. Try picking one at random: https://www.snopes.com/random/ and tell me whether it's true or false.
While it's true not everything is black and white, the problem with sites like politifact is, after reviewing the facts, the final judgment of their meter is still subjective.
I don't care about the "final judgement of their meter". I care about the fact that they cite sources that I can check myself.
I've seen evidence of bias in their final judgments before, but the coffin nail for their objective credibility was, for me, when they rated Michele Obama's statement "slaves built the White House", as a very positive "Mostly True". Their own research concluded that slaves were used to quarry the raw stone that was used to form the bricks of the building, which were further cut, refined, and placed by skilled masons. Slaves also did much of the white washing at the end. However, the rest of the labor were freemen, white and black, as well as European contractors: Architects designed the building. Masons carved and fitted the bricks (probably the bulk of the building aspect). Carpenters built much of the structure as well. Glass, marble, and tile workers did their thing. Skilled labor collectively did most of the building, yet her statement excludes them in totality.
OK. And, how do you happen to know that? Oh: you know it because you read the article! (which says exactly what you just said-- you are quoting them.)
So, you're really telling me you yourself personally use politifact as an unbiased source of facts. That's ironic. You don't want other people to use it, but you use it yourself.
Equating the quarrying of stone to "building the white house" is like claiming that Home Depot built your house, because that's where you got your building supplies from. Or claiming the people who painted your house built it. Her declaration was also slightly misleading in that the White House did not force anyone to directly work for free, the gov't paid for everything - the question is whether slave owners who got paid bothered to share it with the slaves or not. From what I can gather, some did, though I doubt their slaves had any say in whether they wanted to do the job or not!
and your source for this is.... Politifact.
In any case, the picture comes across as the country forcing slaves to build the White House, and without compensation, much like how we used to believe the pyramids were built. This is simply inaccurate and should have rated a Mostly False or maybe a Partly True at best. So my judgment is, no, they do not do a good enough job when it comes to the bottom line, they let their bias affect their final score.
Sites like Snopes and Politifact do an admirable job of identifying false information
Bullshit. They politicize the hell out of it. Something is either true or false. They are both filled with "True, but" conditionals.
Snopes.com and Politifact both have categories of "mixed" (snopes) or "half true" (politifact), yes. And they explain what parts are true and what parts are false. You know what? Sometimes politicians (or other people) say things that are part true and partly not true. That's not "politicizing it"-- that is recognizing the real world
Many things are not simply true or false. Many times they are misleading. Both of these sites do a good job in identifying misleading information and label them as such.
Exactly. And, more important, they cite sources so you can go look at the information and decide for yourself. That's what I really want: links to data. And that's what the fake news is always missing.
Buy nuts. You'll be able to eat that shit after nuclear winter.
I put all my savings into bottles of "two buck chuck" wine from TJ's. You can use that as currency (for some things anyway), and as a bonus, it actually goes up in trading value after the nuclear apocalypse.
My basic calculation is, hey, at two dollars for a bottle, it can't go down, can it?
And, before the sarcastic comments on the statement that Julia Jones "first identified4 marbled crayfish in Madagascar in 20074" start-- that's slashdot stripping out formatting. The "4" should be a superscript, which refers to reference 4:
[4] Jones, J P. G. et al. Biol. Invasions 11, 1475–1482 (2009).
"Julia Jones, a conservation scientist at Bangor University, UK, who first identified4 marbled crayfish in Madagascar in 20074, says that the species’ spread is due largely to their popularity as a food source. In 2009, she met a man on a bus carrying a plastic bag full of them that he planned to dump into his rice fields in the hope of creating a sustainable stock, she says.
"Stopping their spread in Madagascar will be “almost impossible”, says Lyko. Collaborators there have begun campaigns urging people not to transport them or release them into rice fields. The message is a hard sell in a country where poverty levels are high and marbled crayfish are a cheap and popular source of protein. Lyko’s colleague brought a few dozen that she had caught to a family barbecue. “This went down quite well,” he says."
With that many engines to steer, I wonder if there is some way to use the extra degrees of freedom to shape the plume to get a bit more thrust?
I don't have a source for this off-hand, but given my understanding my guess is going to be no. Almost all the things that happen to alter the thrust profile occur in the engine itself or immediately outside the engine. Anything you would do that could have any chance at this would end up having to have multiple outer engines pointing somewhat inwards which would mean you'd have some thrust canceling out from the outer engines. Anything you could gain by somehow altering the profile of the inner engines wouldn't be remotely worth losing thrust that way. If more containment would give more thrust in some range, you'd just build your engine with a longer nozzle.
The way you adjust the plume is to have a higher expansion on the engines operating in vacuum. On the normal pressure engines, you expand the plume to atmosperic pressure, but on a vacuum engine, that's not a limit.
For an engine that operates in atmosphere, and then continues to operate in vacuum, you can somewhat compromise-- overexpand some, but not enough to lose performance at lift-off. That's what the original Atlas boosters did: all three engines fire on take-off, but the two outboard engines were dropped and the center engine continues to orbit. The center engine had a higher expansion, so it would perform better in vacuum, at the cost of some performance loss at take-off.
Why not to design the satellite as some sort of long cilindre and to use a militar converted jet to carry it "near" the atmosphere limit
You've just re-invented the Pegasus. Not to mention Virgin Orbital. And Stratolaunch.
You do need something that carries a heavier payload than a fighter, though--
and just to send it the remaining distance as a missile?
It's not the distance-- it's the velocity. Orbital velocity is about Mach 25; you only get a tiny fraction of that from a jet. But, it does help, some, mostly because getting above much of the atmosphere does help.
The workaround, for photographers, has to be that if the pictures are sensitive they need to download their pictures to their laptop (or other device) which is encrypted as soon as they leave the photography site.
... then take a lot of pictures of the floor, to overwrite the images on the camera's storage...
Oops, small correction. The sentence "it is difficult to definitively conclude that these negative results clearly indicate that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic" referred to the results of previous studies, not this study. That was the justification for doing this study-- the fact that previous studies were not conclusive.
...the fact that the RF irradiated rodents survived significantly longer than the control non-irradiated rodents-- and that this was true for both rats and mice-- might have been emphasized more. (https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/nih-study-links-cell-phone-radiation-to-cancer-in-male-rats/)
"based on the designs of the existing studies, it is difficult to definitively conclude that these negative results clearly indicate that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic."
Yow, It is very hard to interpret things when they're phrased as a triple negative. What this seems to say is "the results were negative (that is, not showing RF to be carcinogenic), but not showing that it is carcinogenic does not allow us to conclude that it is not carcinogenic.
These RF intensities are so high, however, that it sounds pretty conclusive to me.
To make multiple telescopes work together "working as one large one", you have to control the positions of their mirrors relative to each other to a small fraction of a wavelength. That's what this is about.
I'm not sure what they need picometer accuracy for, though. That seems more than the requirement.
Maybe they presume that you live in the 21st century, and in the unlikely case that you actually care about exactly where that is, you have tools available at your fingertips.
Since I live in the 21st century, I looked it up on google. First hit for "Mission" is: "Also called rescue mission. a shelter operated by a church or other organization offering food, lodging, and other assistance to needy persons. 17. missions, organized missionary work or activities in any country or region."
Next question, what does this mean? "stopped at a green light in between crosswalks of Valencia Street and 16th Street"...
The car should not be stopped between crosswalks. It should stop before the crosswalk.
But, actually, I can't even figure out what they mean by "between crosswalks." Here it is on google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/pl... How can you be "between" the crosswalks, unless the car is actually in the intersection itself?
not sure if clickbait or fear-mongering.Go eat a banana then get tested for radiation. Bananas are an excellent natural source for Potassium, which is naturally radioactive. Radiation Dose Chart According to that chart, a banana is about the same dose as living within 50 miles of a normal reactor for a year.
You are aware that the idea of a "banana equivalent dose" has been thouroughly debunked, right? The net increase of radioactivity exposure from eating a banana is: zero
"The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body's level of Potassium-40 doesn't increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero."
I would like to see the next Mars rover mission equipped tools to "see" deep below the surface. For example, a moveable geophone system or ground-penetrating radar, or land stationary seismic detectors around the planet to monitor long-term like we do on Earth.
Your wish is granted: the next NASA mission, Insight, has a five-meter drill, and also a seismometer. https://insight.jpl.nasa.gov/h... Launches May 2018.
Mars missions so far have only scratched the surface (literally) and taken photos.
Two of the Mars orbiters had ground-penetrating radar: SHARAD on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and MARSIS on Mars Express.
Slashdot Mirror
Snopes about was Trump or his campaign wiretapped before the election. They pretty much list it as false.
they do not. If you actuallty read the article you're citing, you'd note that it discusses the claim and the evidence for it, but does not rate it either true nor false.
https://www.snopes.com/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-of-tapping-phones/
The closest thing to such a conclusion is the statement "the President’s tweets offered no documentation or evidence for the charges he was leveling at his predecessor in the White House." Saying that "the president didn't offer documentation or evidence" is not the same as saying it's false.
FISA warrant gotten on Carter Page Oct 21. Allows wiretapping of Page, his contacts, and their contacts, which includes all of Trump campaign. I know the day, who it was on, who signed off on it, and the judge that approved it. Snopes couldn't seem to figure that out, but they are great fact checkers?
So, you're complaining that they didn't include information released in the Nunes memo that wasn't released until eleven months after they wrote the article? Really, they can't. This was about as fair as it could be: they rated it neither true nor false, but pointed out that there wasn't any documentation, which was true at the time
Snopes is completely wrong on one of the most political articles with completely proven facts to back up how it is false.
It didn't rate the statement either true or false. It was, in fact, excruciatingly accurate as to what was available at the time,
I just picked that one because I assumed they would be incorrect, and was not surprised. I haven't seen an accurate truthful Snopes in about 5 years now.
You haven't yet cited an untruthful one.
Let's do the experiment; I'm curious. Try picking one at random: https://www.snopes.com/random/ and tell me whether it's true or false.
While it's true not everything is black and white, the problem with sites like politifact is, after reviewing the facts, the final judgment of their meter is still subjective.
I don't care about the "final judgement of their meter". I care about the fact that they cite sources that I can check myself.
I've seen evidence of bias in their final judgments before, but the coffin nail for their objective credibility was, for me, when they rated Michele Obama's statement "slaves built the White House", as a very positive "Mostly True". Their own research concluded that slaves were used to quarry the raw stone that was used to form the bricks of the building, which were further cut, refined, and placed by skilled masons. Slaves also did much of the white washing at the end. However, the rest of the labor were freemen, white and black, as well as European contractors: Architects designed the building. Masons carved and fitted the bricks (probably the bulk of the building aspect). Carpenters built much of the structure as well. Glass, marble, and tile workers did their thing. Skilled labor collectively did most of the building, yet her statement excludes them in totality.
OK. And, how do you happen to know that? Oh: you know it because you read the article! (which says exactly what you just said-- you are quoting them.)
So, you're really telling me you yourself personally use politifact as an unbiased source of facts. That's ironic. You don't want other people to use it, but you use it yourself.
Equating the quarrying of stone to "building the white house" is like claiming that Home Depot built your house, because that's where you got your building supplies from. Or claiming the people who painted your house built it. Her declaration was also slightly misleading in that the White House did not force anyone to directly work for free, the gov't paid for everything - the question is whether slave owners who got paid bothered to share it with the slaves or not. From what I can gather, some did, though I doubt their slaves had any say in whether they wanted to do the job or not!
and your source for this is.... Politifact.
In any case, the picture comes across as the country forcing slaves to build the White House, and without compensation, much like how we used to believe the pyramids were built. This is simply inaccurate and should have rated a Mostly False or maybe a Partly True at best.
So my judgment is, no, they do not do a good enough job when it comes to the bottom line, they let their bias affect their final score.
Interestingly, they have an article discussing the objections to their rating of "true" for that story.
Sites like Snopes and Politifact do an admirable job of identifying false information
Bullshit. They politicize the hell out of it. Something is either true or false. They are both filled with "True, but" conditionals.
Snopes.com and Politifact both have categories of "mixed" (snopes) or "half true" (politifact), yes. And they explain what parts are true and what parts are false. You know what? Sometimes politicians (or other people) say things that are part true and partly not true. That's not "politicizing it"-- that is recognizing the real world
Many things are not simply true or false. Many times they are misleading. Both of these sites do a good job in identifying misleading information and label them as such.
Exactly. And, more important, they cite sources so you can go look at the information and decide for yourself. That's what I really want: links to data. And that's what the fake news is always missing.
Buy nuts. You'll be able to eat that shit after nuclear winter.
I put all my savings into bottles of "two buck chuck" wine from TJ's. You can use that as currency (for some things anyway), and as a bonus, it actually goes up in trading value after the nuclear apocalypse.
My basic calculation is, hey, at two dollars for a bottle, it can't go down, can it?
Undoubtedly the coolest technology test in history. Epic.
Well, coolest technology test since the first launch of a Saturn-V, anyway.
I didn't see two parts of a Saturn V come in under rocket power for a simultaneous landing.
And I didn't see Space-X launching fifty years ago. The Saturn-V launch was epic for 1967.
And, before the sarcastic comments on the statement that Julia Jones "first identified4 marbled crayfish in Madagascar in 20074" start-- that's slashdot stripping out formatting. The "4" should be a superscript, which refers to reference 4:
[4] Jones, J P. G. et al. Biol. Invasions 11, 1475–1482 (2009).
Apparently they're tasty. From the article in Nature:
"Julia Jones, a conservation scientist at Bangor University, UK, who first identified4 marbled crayfish in Madagascar in 20074, says that the species’ spread is due largely to their popularity as a food source. In 2009, she met a man on a bus carrying a plastic bag full of them that he planned to dump into his rice fields in the hope of creating a sustainable stock, she says.
"Stopping their spread in Madagascar will be “almost impossible”, says Lyko. Collaborators there have begun campaigns urging people not to transport them or release them into rice fields. The message is a hard sell in a country where poverty levels are high and marbled crayfish are a cheap and popular source of protein. Lyko’s colleague brought a few dozen that she had caught to a family barbecue. “This went down quite well,” he says."
With that many engines to steer, I wonder if there is some way to use the extra degrees of freedom to shape the plume to get a bit more thrust?
I don't have a source for this off-hand, but given my understanding my guess is going to be no. Almost all the things that happen to alter the thrust profile occur in the engine itself or immediately outside the engine. Anything you would do that could have any chance at this would end up having to have multiple outer engines pointing somewhat inwards which would mean you'd have some thrust canceling out from the outer engines. Anything you could gain by somehow altering the profile of the inner engines wouldn't be remotely worth losing thrust that way. If more containment would give more thrust in some range, you'd just build your engine with a longer nozzle.
The way you adjust the plume is to have a higher expansion on the engines operating in vacuum. On the normal pressure engines, you expand the plume to atmosperic pressure, but on a vacuum engine, that's not a limit.
For an engine that operates in atmosphere, and then continues to operate in vacuum, you can somewhat compromise-- overexpand some, but not enough to lose performance at lift-off. That's what the original Atlas boosters did: all three engines fire on take-off, but the two outboard engines were dropped and the center engine continues to orbit. The center engine had a higher expansion, so it would perform better in vacuum, at the cost of some performance loss at take-off.
Alternately, you can have an extendable nozzle.
Undoubtedly the coolest technology test in history. Epic.
Well, coolest technology test since the first launch of a Saturn-V, anyway.
Well done SpaceX! You've just inspired kids again like NASA did in the 60's.
Agreed.
Cheaper: sit on a beach with a pair of binoculars and look for ships to come over the horizon. Binoculars: $50, sunscreen: $5.
Could be refraction, if the air has an inversion layer of warm air near the surface.
Why not to design the satellite as some sort of long cilindre and to use a militar converted jet to carry it "near" the atmosphere limit
You've just re-invented the Pegasus. Not to mention Virgin Orbital. And Stratolaunch.
You do need something that carries a heavier payload than a fighter, though--
and just to send it the remaining distance as a missile?
It's not the distance-- it's the velocity. Orbital velocity is about Mach 25; you only get a tiny fraction of that from a jet. But, it does help, some, mostly because getting above much of the atmosphere does help.
Interesting.
The workaround, for photographers, has to be that if the pictures are sensitive they need to download their pictures to their laptop (or other device) which is encrypted as soon as they leave the photography site.
... then take a lot of pictures of the floor, to overwrite the images on the camera's storage...
Oops, small correction. The sentence "it is difficult to definitively conclude that these negative results clearly indicate that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic" referred to the results of previous studies, not this study. That was the justification for doing this study-- the fact that previous studies were not conclusive.
...the fact that the RF irradiated rodents survived significantly longer than the control non-irradiated rodents-- and that this was true for both rats and mice-- might have been emphasized more. (https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/nih-study-links-cell-phone-radiation-to-cancer-in-male-rats/)
But this level of exposure was huge.
"based on the designs of the existing studies, it is difficult to definitively conclude that these negative results clearly indicate that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic."
Yow, It is very hard to interpret things when they're phrased as a triple negative. What this seems to say is "the results were negative (that is, not showing RF to be carcinogenic), but not showing that it is carcinogenic does not allow us to conclude that it is not carcinogenic.
These RF intensities are so high, however, that it sounds pretty conclusive to me.
To make multiple telescopes work together "working as one large one", you have to control the positions of their mirrors relative to each other to a small fraction of a wavelength. That's what this is about.
I'm not sure what they need picometer accuracy for, though. That seems more than the requirement.
Horray for Apple!
I detest the continuous introduction of useless and stupid bells and whistles and new "features" being pushed on me.
Instead, they want to fix problems and make the machine run better? I'm all for it.
Maybe they presume that you live in the 21st century, and in the unlikely case that you actually care about exactly where that is, you have tools available at your fingertips.
Since I live in the 21st century, I looked it up on google. First hit for "Mission" is: "Also called rescue mission. a shelter operated by a church or other organization offering food, lodging, and other assistance to needy persons. 17. missions, organized missionary work or activities in any country or region."
Context is everything.
San Francisco
Next question, what does this mean? "stopped at a green light in between crosswalks of Valencia Street and 16th Street"...
The car should not be stopped between crosswalks. It should stop before the crosswalk.
But, actually, I can't even figure out what they mean by "between crosswalks." Here it is on google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
How can you be "between" the crosswalks, unless the car is actually in the intersection itself?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
The fact that you can't tell that this is satire shows how much of a filter-bubble you live in.
No, Poe's law actually works both ways.
Thanks for the correction.
not sure if clickbait or fear-mongering.Go eat a banana then get tested for radiation. Bananas are an excellent natural source for Potassium, which is naturally radioactive. Radiation Dose Chart According to that chart, a banana is about the same dose as living within 50 miles of a normal reactor for a year.
You are aware that the idea of a "banana equivalent dose" has been thouroughly debunked, right? The net increase of radioactivity exposure from eating a banana is: zero
"The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body's level of Potassium-40 doesn't increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero."
(source: https://boingboing.net/2010/08... )
So has anyone ever posted a legitimate "violation" of net neutrality.
The new rules haven't started yet, so, no.
In other countries, however: yes,
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/country-net-neutrality/
http://bigthink.com/design-for-good/heres-what-a-country-without-net-neutrality-looks-like
I would like to see the next Mars rover mission equipped tools to "see" deep below the surface. For example, a moveable geophone system or ground-penetrating radar, or land stationary seismic detectors around the planet to monitor long-term like we do on Earth.
Your wish is granted: the next NASA mission, Insight, has a five-meter drill, and also a seismometer.
https://insight.jpl.nasa.gov/h...
Launches May 2018.
Mars missions so far have only scratched the surface (literally) and taken photos.
Two of the Mars orbiters had ground-penetrating radar: SHARAD on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and MARSIS on Mars Express.
SHARAD: https://mars.nasa.gov/MRO/mission/instruments/sharad/
MARSIS: http://sci.esa.int/mars-express/34826-design/?fbodylongid=1601