Also, jingoistic nationalism, while ultimately destructive, also helps give people a sense of purpose, such that they see their "privation" as part of their noble duty to the motherland.
Exactly.
The economy is no better in any real terms, but now people have a reason for the privation.
Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects? Double check.
How do you think Hitler got Germany back onto its feet after World War I? FDR had managed to stabilize things a bit, but the US only got out of the Great Depression thanks to the birth of the military-industrial complex.
That's a myth that keeps getting repeated. No. Wars do not bring a society out of depression. If you look at the actual standard of living, the second world war depressed it further by almost every measure, and most essential goods were actually rationed. What the war does, instead, is give people a good reason for their privation. They're not scrimping and getting by with less because the economy is bad: they're scrimping and getting by with less to support the war effort-- in Germany , as well as in America (not to mention England and the Soviet Union)..
What pulled he economy out of the Great Depression was the end of the war.
It's not just the "unlimited" portion of the data that is slow though -- stuff that is subject to your monthly cap is also being throttled. Grow up and try reading TFA for a change, or at least TFS.
I did read TFA.
Look at the bar graph. Streaming a video, downloading a video file to the SD card, and downloading a video file with the headers changed to say it was not a video file were all throttled, and all got speed of 1.5Mbps. Downloading a large non-video file for comparison had a speed of 4.2 Mbps.
That 4.2 is slightly lower than the 5.5 achieved without "binge on" feature enabled... but if you look at the error bars, the difference doesn't indicate throttling; it's just normal variance (i.e., within margin of error).
That variance is interesting. Binge on has almost no variance in download speed, but "normal" has 50% (or for one test, even more) variation in speed (look at the error bars-- very tight with binge on; very large with "normal").
Actually, sand blasting is much worse for mirrors than for flat-plate photovoltaic panels. Sandblasting the surface of a photovoltaic panel had very little effect-- it roughens the surface, but roughened glass still lets light through. Roughened mirrors, however, while they still reflect light, reflect it diffusely, which is useless for concentrating sunlight.
Dust is a more of a problem, because it sticks, but there again, it's worse for concentrating systems than for flat plate panels, since much of the scattering by dust particles is forward scattering.
Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use.
How in the world could you consider this fair use?
The three top items on "opposing fair use" are *Commercial activity *Profiting from the use *Entertainment
Can you name any other type of thing that happens ONCE and only ONCE?
Science is about things you can observe. Whether there is just one of them, or many of them, isn't really an issue. The issue is whether you can observe it.
You can observe the universe, so making observations about the universe is science, even though there is only one universe. (At least, only one we can observe).
I think it would be outside science, since results need to be repeatable!
You can repeat measurements of the universe.
Hence you have this oddity, "the big bang" creating this *one* universe and all of space time and it only happens once, for some magic reason....
Ah, the "magic" reason is the tricky word here. If we can come up with hypotheses to explain why that can be tested by observations we can make, it's not magic any more. Often the hypothesis come first, and the tests later. When atoms were first proposed, for example, it was pointed out that they could not possibly ever be observed; they were just hypothetical objects that allowed us to make models about what could be observed.. But we measure and observe them now.
defying everything else we know.
But the whole point is to come up with hypotheses that don't defy everything we now know. And that's harder and harder as we know more and more.
And likewise Inflation, one magic thing happens, then gone, never to appear again. Again a fixup singleton.
Does the hypothesis have consequences that can be observed and measured? If it does, it's not relevant whether it happened once, or many times, as long as we can make those measurements. Can we measure it with observational astronomy? Can we create inflationary conditions with particle accelerators recreating conditions similar to the big bang? Can the inflationary fields themselves be measured in some other way we haven't thought of? Until we measure something, it's a hypothesis.
Very cool, but got me wondering... So how come the gravitational force didn't collapse it into a black hole?
Another very tricky question. The answer is not very satisfying: the Schwartzschild solution ("black hole") is a spherical gravitational field embedded in flat ("Minkowski") space, but the universe itself isn't embedded in flat space; it is space (and it's also not flat).
In simplified form, a black hole has to have an "outside" to be defined in relationship to. The black hole is defined by the event horizon, a surface beyond which light can't escape... but you can't have such a surface unless there exists a "beyond".
You can, if you like, say that the entire universe is a black hole, in that-- by definition-- light can't escape from it.
you're no better or more accurate than religious beliefs.
They definitely are.
They are better or more accurate than religious beliefs if, and only if, their work can make predictions about things that can be measured.
Conventional big-bang cosmology definitely did make testable predictions: the cosmic microwave background; the isotope ratio of elements formed by nucleosynthesis in the high density plasma of the early part of the big bang.
Whether inflationary cosmology--or the even more speculative landscape cosmologies-- will make similar predictions is still somewhat open. Right now inflationary cosmology does have one success; it predicts the isotropy of cosmic background radiation even from regions causally disconnected in the early universe. It's hard to find another hypothesis that also makes this prediction, so inflation is getting to be pretty well accepted as a baseline, at least until some better model comes along that also fits the data. But there are many people looking for that better model.
Woot? How are over 40 billion light years observable when the universe is not even 14 billion years old?
That's a very tricky question. The answer is, the "observable" universe size as usually discussed in popular press means how far away is the most distant feature we could possibly see now. Definitions of "now" and "distance" depend on defining a frame of reference. For this, we pick the Earth as a frame of reference, but notice that for most of its existence, the photon was very distant from Earth.
Thus, the most distant feature we could possible see is, right now, 40 billion light year away. It wasn't 40 billion light years away when the light was emitted. The space from us to it stretched in the time it took the photons to get to us, and it stretched both behind the photon and in front of the photon.
I oversaw the word "dismissed", did not guess it was so important for you. His work was not "dismissed" but it nevertheless not accepted immediately, it was quite controversial.
Except it was. Einstein's work was understood and accepted remarkably quickly, and within a year had other scientists commenting on it, building on it, and working on making experimental measurements to verify it. This is an example of how scientific consensus is built.
The break though for him was in fact that he worked on top of Lorenz' work an people like Planck built up on his work.
Right. That's how science works.
At least that is what I learned in school. But that is 30 years ago, so perhaps I'm wrong;D
What your school was teaching you is more the myth of science than the reality.
The myth of a lone scientist whose work is not understood and is dismissed by mainstream science is exactly that: a myth.
No it isn't. Einstein was such a guy. It took years that his theories got accepted.
It did not. Where the heck does that myth come from? Einstein's work was published, understood, and not merely accepted but extended by mainstream scientists remarkably quickly. Kaufman was already giving lectures calculating relativistic mass increase of electrons using (and crediting) Einstein's formulas the same year that Einstein's Annalen der Physik paper appeared. Max Planck's "Das Prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der Mechanik" came out a year after. By 1907, when Minkowski got into the act, pretty much everybody was using Einstein's work.
Einstein's work was emphatically not "dismissed by mainstream science;" it was central to mainstream science. To the contrary, it was Einstein's critics whose work never gained consensus, and was eventually dismissed as crankery.
I am not mixing anything. When something has benefits and drawbacks, its important to weight them against each other. Making decisions without considering the impacts is irresponsible.
But the discussion wasn't about "benefits and drawbacks," nor even about making decisions. It was a single, very specific point: anonymous coward asked for a citation for a statement that "the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology", and I provided some citations-- five of them, in fact.
If you don't like the citations, that's your prerogative. Feel free to research the point and find your own set of references that either support or contradict the thesis.
The final step: "critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment" In other words: convince other scientists.
So I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that web page as a definitive authority.
That was an example in reply to your statement "If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people"" That was a site on which the British Science Council "attempted to formalize the scientific method", and it did include the final step.
I'm sorry you don't understand that sharing your work-- and have other people critique it, and possibly even reject it-- actually is part of the scientific method, but nevertheless it is. Science is, to some extant, a series of protocols for checking your work against the real world, and having others look at your work is an essential part of it.
Yes, in fact, science is a human endeavor, done by humans.
What allot forget is that our modern society exists because of cheap energy.
Nobody is forgetting that. But it is irrelevant to the point. The point being made was that the anti-science strategy used to cast doubt on climate science uses the techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and before that by the creationists to cast doubt on science.
So yes, it will take quite a bit of convincing for most people that oil is a bad thing.
nevertheless the strategies used to cast doubt on climate science are the same techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and creationists.
If you don't like those references, there are plenty more. The techniques used are the same, and in some cases, the actual people are the same as well.
By what mechanism do they expect stresses in rocks to produce electric fields?
There is a well known mechanism called the piezoelectric effect by which stress in a crystal produces an electrical field. Quartz, for example, is a well-known piezoelectric material...and also a component of igneous rock.
What in the world are you talking about? Newton was the most famous scientist of his time; lionized for his work throughout Europe. He most certainly did publish his work, which "was received with the greatest admiration, not only by the foremost mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, but also by philosophers like Voltaire and Locke and by members of the educated public." (http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/newtonreception6.pdf ) And Einstein, likewise, published his theories, which were analyzed and accepted by the leading scientists of his day, starting with Max Planck.
The idea that either of these scientist failed to get scientific consensus is nonsense. There were (and still are) a number of scientists who criticized their works-- but it was the critics, not Einstein nor Newton, whose work failed to gain consensus.
The myth of a lone scientist whose work is not understood and is dismissed by mainstream science is exactly that: a myth.
From the summary: " For the full year 2015, Ericsson predicts its intellectual property rights revenue will amount to between 13 billion and 14 billion Swedish krona ($1.64 billion). In comparison, it reported IPR revenue of 10.6 billion krona for the full year 2014,..."
Well... honestly, no, that's not science. If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people",
If you look more carefully, yes, you do see that step. It is sometimes phrased differently, but it's always there.
For example, here's the UK science council listing of the scientific method http://www.sciencecouncil.org/... . The final step: "critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment" In other words: convince other scientists.
Science is not a body of canonized knowledge. It's not "the collection of all ideas that you can convince scientists of." Science is a process that aims to develop certainty based on empirical evidence, regardless of whether you can convince a single other person.
Correct right up to the final clause. That's a mythologized vision of science. In real-world science, convincing other scientists of the validity of what you did absolutely is a critical part of the scientific method.
If you can't explain it to others, and explain why it's valid and what the evidence is in a way to convince somebody other than yourself, no, it is not science.
Yes, there are plenty of crazies who think otherwise, but real science relies on work being vetted and understood by more than one set of eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever wins, we all lose.
Which one is the predator and which one the alien?
Also, jingoistic nationalism, while ultimately destructive, also helps give people a sense of purpose, such that they see their "privation" as part of their noble duty to the motherland.
Exactly.
The economy is no better in any real terms, but now people have a reason for the privation.
Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects? Double check.
How do you think Hitler got Germany back onto its feet after World War I? FDR had managed to stabilize things a bit, but the US only got out of the Great Depression thanks to the birth of the military-industrial complex.
That's a myth that keeps getting repeated. No. Wars do not bring a society out of depression. If you look at the actual standard of living, the second world war depressed it further by almost every measure, and most essential goods were actually rationed. What the war does, instead, is give people a good reason for their privation. They're not scrimping and getting by with less because the economy is bad: they're scrimping and getting by with less to support the war effort-- in Germany , as well as in America (not to mention England and the Soviet Union)..
What pulled he economy out of the Great Depression was the end of the war.
Indeed,
CP is center of pressure, and CM is center of mass, so CP/M is clearly the center of pressure divided by mass.
It's not just the "unlimited" portion of the data that is slow though -- stuff that is subject to your monthly cap is also being throttled. Grow up and try reading TFA for a change, or at least TFS.
I did read TFA.
Look at the bar graph. Streaming a video, downloading a video file to the SD card, and downloading a video file with the headers changed to say it was not a video file were all throttled, and all got speed of 1.5Mbps. Downloading a large non-video file for comparison had a speed of 4.2 Mbps.
That 4.2 is slightly lower than the 5.5 achieved without "binge on" feature enabled... but if you look at the error bars, the difference doesn't indicate throttling; it's just normal variance (i.e., within margin of error).
That variance is interesting. Binge on has almost no variance in download speed, but "normal" has 50% (or for one test, even more) variation in speed (look at the error bars-- very tight with binge on; very large with "normal").
Solar panels don't like sand storms.
Sandblasting mirrors is bad too.
Actually, sand blasting is much worse for mirrors than for flat-plate photovoltaic panels. Sandblasting the surface of a photovoltaic panel had very little effect-- it roughens the surface, but roughened glass still lets light through. Roughened mirrors, however, while they still reflect light, reflect it diffusely, which is useless for concentrating sunlight.
Dust is a more of a problem, because it sticks, but there again, it's worse for concentrating systems than for flat plate panels, since much of the scattering by dust particles is forward scattering.
I've been told how simple, easy, and cheap "in situ resource utilization" will be on Mars, so clearly it should be super simple to do it right here?
I guess we're just lacking the political will to do it, though.
Typical ISRU proposals for Mars are designed for an operating lifetime of 2.2 years, which is the amount of time between Mars launch windows.
I'll also point out that, "The Martian" notwithstanding, there aren't destructive sand storms on Mars.
That defense works if they're making something like Galaxy Quest.
If they are calling the film Star Trek, though, they've already shot down the defense that it's not Star Trek.
Why is this presented as an issue of copyright instead of trademark? It seems, to me, that the amount of copyright infringement falls well within fair use.
How in the world could you consider this fair use?
The three top items on "opposing fair use" are
*Commercial activity
*Profiting from the use
*Entertainment
https://copyright.columbia.edu...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov...
I read the headline the same way-- a walking skyrocket went to the emergency room while distracted.
I couldn't figure out what the heck this was about, but I figured it was a reprint from News of the Weird.
I read the headline the same way-- a walking skyrocket went to the emergency room while distracted.
I couldn't figure out what the heck this was about, but I figured it was a reprint from News of the Weird.
Can you name any other type of thing that happens ONCE and only ONCE?
Science is about things you can observe. Whether there is just one of them, or many of them, isn't really an issue. The issue is whether you can observe it.
You can observe the universe, so making observations about the universe is science, even though there is only one universe. (At least, only one we can observe).
I think it would be outside science, since results need to be repeatable!
You can repeat measurements of the universe.
Hence you have this oddity, "the big bang" creating this *one* universe and all of space time and it only happens once, for some magic reason....
Ah, the "magic" reason is the tricky word here. If we can come up with hypotheses to explain why that can be tested by observations we can make, it's not magic any more. Often the hypothesis come first, and the tests later. When atoms were first proposed, for example, it was pointed out that they could not possibly ever be observed; they were just hypothetical objects that allowed us to make models about what could be observed.. But we measure and observe them now.
defying everything else we know.
But the whole point is to come up with hypotheses that don't defy everything we now know. And that's harder and harder as we know more and more.
And likewise Inflation, one magic thing happens, then gone, never to appear again. Again a fixup singleton.
Does the hypothesis have consequences that can be observed and measured? If it does, it's not relevant whether it happened once, or many times, as long as we can make those measurements. Can we measure it with observational astronomy? Can we create inflationary conditions with particle accelerators recreating conditions similar to the big bang? Can the inflationary fields themselves be measured in some other way we haven't thought of? Until we measure something, it's a hypothesis.
Very cool, but got me wondering... So how come the gravitational force didn't collapse it into a black hole?
Another very tricky question. The answer is not very satisfying: the Schwartzschild solution ("black hole") is a spherical gravitational field embedded in flat ("Minkowski") space, but the universe itself isn't embedded in flat space; it is space (and it's also not flat).
In simplified form, a black hole has to have an "outside" to be defined in relationship to. The black hole is defined by the event horizon, a surface beyond which light can't escape... but you can't have such a surface unless there exists a "beyond".
You can, if you like, say that the entire universe is a black hole, in that-- by definition-- light can't escape from it.
you're no better or more accurate than religious beliefs.
They definitely are.
They are better or more accurate than religious beliefs if, and only if, their work can make predictions about things that can be measured.
Conventional big-bang cosmology definitely did make testable predictions: the cosmic microwave background; the isotope ratio of elements formed by nucleosynthesis in the high density plasma of the early part of the big bang.
Whether inflationary cosmology--or the even more speculative landscape cosmologies-- will make similar predictions is still somewhat open. Right now inflationary cosmology does have one success; it predicts the isotropy of cosmic background radiation even from regions causally disconnected in the early universe. It's hard to find another hypothesis that also makes this prediction, so inflation is getting to be pretty well accepted as a baseline, at least until some better model comes along that also fits the data. But there are many people looking for that better model.
Woot? How are over 40 billion light years observable when the universe is not even 14 billion years old?
That's a very tricky question. The answer is, the "observable" universe size as usually discussed in popular press means how far away is the most distant feature we could possibly see now. Definitions of "now" and "distance" depend on defining a frame of reference. For this, we pick the Earth as a frame of reference, but notice that for most of its existence, the photon was very distant from Earth.
Thus, the most distant feature we could possible see is, right now, 40 billion light year away. It wasn't 40 billion light years away when the light was emitted. The space from us to it stretched in the time it took the photons to get to us, and it stretched both behind the photon and in front of the photon.
Size of a football for us that aren't North American.
Same.
An association football ("soccer") ball is 22-23 cm in diameter
An American football ball is 28 cm from tip to tip on the long axis, and 18 cm in diameter.
This article is about order of magnitude, and these two numbers are identical to well within order of magnitude.
http://www.football-bible.com/...
http://www.livestrong.com/arti...
I oversaw the word "dismissed", did not guess it was so important for you. His work was not "dismissed" but it nevertheless not accepted immediately, it was quite controversial.
Except it was. Einstein's work was understood and accepted remarkably quickly, and within a year had other scientists commenting on it, building on it, and working on making experimental measurements to verify it. This is an example of how scientific consensus is built.
The break though for him was in fact that he worked on top of Lorenz' work an people like Planck built up on his work.
Right. That's how science works.
At least that is what I learned in school. But that is 30 years ago, so perhaps I'm wrong ;D
What your school was teaching you is more the myth of science than the reality.
The myth of a lone scientist whose work is not understood and is dismissed by mainstream science is exactly that: a myth.
No it isn't. Einstein was such a guy. It took years that his theories got accepted.
It did not. Where the heck does that myth come from? Einstein's work was published, understood, and not merely accepted but extended by mainstream scientists remarkably quickly. Kaufman was already giving lectures calculating relativistic mass increase of electrons using (and crediting) Einstein's formulas the same year that Einstein's Annalen der Physik paper appeared. Max Planck's "Das Prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der Mechanik" came out a year after. By 1907, when Minkowski got into the act, pretty much everybody was using Einstein's work.
Einstein's work was emphatically not "dismissed by mainstream science;" it was central to mainstream science. To the contrary, it was Einstein's critics whose work never gained consensus, and was eventually dismissed as crankery.
This is exactly how scientific consensus works.
I am not mixing anything. When something has benefits and drawbacks, its important to weight them against each other. Making decisions without considering the impacts is irresponsible.
But the discussion wasn't about "benefits and drawbacks," nor even about making decisions. It was a single, very specific point: anonymous coward asked for a citation for a statement that "the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology", and I provided some citations-- five of them, in fact.
If you don't like the citations, that's your prerogative. Feel free to research the point and find your own set of references that either support or contradict the thesis.
The final step: "critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment" In other words: convince other scientists.
So I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that web page as a definitive authority.
That was an example in reply to your statement "If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people"" That was a site on which the British Science Council "attempted to formalize the scientific method", and it did include the final step.
I'm sorry you don't understand that sharing your work-- and have other people critique it, and possibly even reject it-- actually is part of the scientific method, but nevertheless it is. Science is, to some extant, a series of protocols for checking your work against the real world, and having others look at your work is an essential part of it.
Yes, in fact, science is a human endeavor, done by humans.
You're mixing two different arguments here.
What allot forget is that our modern society exists because of cheap energy.
Nobody is forgetting that. But it is irrelevant to the point. The point being made was that the anti-science strategy used to cast doubt on climate science uses the techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and before that by the creationists to cast doubt on science.
So yes, it will take quite a bit of convincing for most people that oil is a bad thing.
nevertheless the strategies used to cast doubt on climate science are the same techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and creationists.
If you don't like those references, there are plenty more. The techniques used are the same, and in some cases, the actual people are the same as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.psmag.com/nature-an...
http://www.earthmagazine.org/a...
No.
By what mechanism do they expect stresses in rocks to produce electric fields?
There is a well known mechanism called the piezoelectric effect by which stress in a crystal produces an electrical field. Quartz, for example, is a well-known piezoelectric material...and also a component of igneous rock.
So, it's not completely implausible.
hint: Newton, Einstein ...
What in the world are you talking about? Newton was the most famous scientist of his time; lionized for his work throughout Europe. He most certainly did publish his work, which "was received with the greatest admiration, not only by the foremost mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, but also by philosophers like Voltaire and Locke and by members of the educated public." (http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/newtonreception6.pdf ) And Einstein, likewise, published his theories, which were analyzed and accepted by the leading scientists of his day, starting with Max Planck.
The idea that either of these scientist failed to get scientific consensus is nonsense. There were (and still are) a number of scientists who criticized their works-- but it was the critics, not Einstein nor Newton, whose work failed to gain consensus.
The myth of a lone scientist whose work is not understood and is dismissed by mainstream science is exactly that: a myth.
I don't know what "IPR Revenue" is
"Intellectual Property Rights" revenue.
From the summary: " For the full year 2015, Ericsson predicts its intellectual property rights revenue will amount to between 13 billion and 14 billion Swedish krona ($1.64 billion). In comparison, it reported IPR revenue of 10.6 billion krona for the full year 2014,..."
Well... honestly, no, that's not science. If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people",
If you look more carefully, yes, you do see that step. It is sometimes phrased differently, but it's always there.
For example, here's the UK science council listing of the scientific method http://www.sciencecouncil.org/... . The final step: "critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment"
In other words: convince other scientists.
Science is not a body of canonized knowledge. It's not "the collection of all ideas that you can convince scientists of." Science is a process that aims to develop certainty based on empirical evidence, regardless of whether you can convince a single other person.
Correct right up to the final clause. That's a mythologized vision of science. In real-world science, convincing other scientists of the validity of what you did absolutely is a critical part of the scientific method.
If you can't explain it to others, and explain why it's valid and what the evidence is in a way to convince somebody other than yourself, no, it is not science.
Yes, there are plenty of crazies who think otherwise, but real science relies on work being vetted and understood by more than one set of eyes.