The Apple Developer Terms and Conditions DOES prohibit the release of Trade Secrets regarding "Pre-Release Materials", so yes, it is a de facto NDA, which iFixit clearly violated.
Congratulations-- this is the 23rd post in the thread responding to the comment "What NDA?"...but the first one which has actually provided a link to answer the question, instead of just repeating the assertion.
They very publicly break the NDA for personal profit and expect no action? They're lucky the actions by Apple weren't more sever honestly.
But was the NDA valid?
Ah, that's slashdot for you.
One poster speculates that they signed a NDA (phrasing it as a statement, not a speculation) and that they violated the hypothetical terms of the hypothetical NDA that they hypothetically agreed to. Another poster speculates on whether the hypothetical NDA, whose hypothetical terms we don't actually know, was valid.
To quote Twain, "There is something fascinating about slashdot. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
One anecdote that is related indirectly to the topic is the ignorance of the nature of stars. Someone in my family didn't know that stars are like our sun but much further away. There was no malice or contradiction of beliefs and they took it as a VERY awesome fact, but that sort of gap in knowledge combined with religious fervor can, and does, lead to the outright denial of even the possibility of life elsewhere.
Indeed.
The first person to clearly state the hypothesis that stars are other suns like ours, but much farther away, was Giordano Bruno-- who also said that since they're like the sun, they undoubtedly also have planets with life. A pretty far-thinking hypothesis, considering that Copernicus' work saying that the Earth circled the sun (instead of vice versa) was still newly published when he asserted it.
So what's the endgame of all this spying? Is it to turn America into a totalitarian police state?
The endgame of this particular spying seems to be that they decided not to, for reasons that seem quite good to me.
"Any proposed solution almost certainly would quickly become a focal point for attacks. Rather than sparking more discussion, government-proposed technical approaches would almost certainly be perceived as proposals to introduce 'backdoors' or vulnerabilities in technology products and services and increase tensions rather [than] build cooperation."
So you do confirm that tiny solar panels on a tiny rover can generate about 140 watts for up to four hours per Martian day. That gives us the data (known solar panel type, surface area, power generated) to know how many and how big the solar panels would need to be for a Mars base.
The Mars Exploration Rovers were powered by 1.3 m^2 of solar cells. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n... If you want more power, make larger solar arrays.
Solar power works on Mars. That really should not be controversial; we've been doing it since Pathfinder. If you want an alternative power source, use a nuclear reactor.
We don't even have the practical technology to make our own deserts places people can live,
Well... Las Vegas
let alone the airless lifeless desert which is Mars. Talk to me about a cloud city on Venus though... that is a hot idea.
Thanks!
Re:Worse than the space station? No.
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 4, Informative
And once there, water and soil could be extracted.
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.
Gotta love the passive voice Nazis; if they don't have anything else to say, that's always a good cheap shot. No content whatsoever, but whatever.
We could extract water from the soil, because it is present in subsurface ice, as well as in the form of water of hydration.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted?
Shovels.
And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
Solar or nuclear, take your pick. Each has advantages.
Incident sunlight is about 500 W/m^2, about half that at Earth's surface, although it depends on season and dust loading in the atmosphere. You don't seem to be aware of it, but we have been operating a solar-powered rover on Mars for well over ten years. We know solar energy works on Mars: we have done it, we are doing it.
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
He was likely referring to what's needed by the wind generators.
Perhaps that is what he might have been referring to, if he knew what he was talking about, but it is not what he did say. Or he might have seen a blog post about indium or gallium, which aren't a rare-earth elements and aren't used in silicon panels, but are often brought up in the same discussions in which people talk about rare earths.
Either way, though, I'd advise not paying much attention to anything he posts until you have verified it against a reputable source.
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades.
Except that their criteria for a 2-3 C increase hasn't passed yet. The IPCC apparently thinks the "first doubling of atmospheric CO2" will happen by about 2050. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies thinks that global temps. have so far risen by 0.8 C since 1880. This means that the Exxon researcher's warning that "a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius" could still come to pass. Several of the projections in the IPCC's figures suggest a 2C rise by ~2050 is possible, so they could still be proven right.
"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.
I can't find that purported prediction for "5 to 10 years" in either of the reports referenced. To the contrary, the reports very explicitly made no predictions for 5-10 years; it said that in that time period it would not be possible to distinguish the global warming signal from the statistical fluctuations. The only explicit numerical prediction in the 1978 Exxon report is on page 34 (the very last page, labeled "summary"). This stated "Doubling CO_2 could increase average global temperature by 1C to 3C by 2050 A.D. (10C predicted at poles)."
So I don't know what you mean about "moving the goalposts" on predictions. The goalpost in the 1978 prediction was "by 2050". This has not changed. The prediction in 1978 (based on the 1977 presentation) overlaps the IPCC's current prediction of 2C by 2050-- neither the prediction nor the "goalposts" have changed.
(The 1982 Exxon report had a slightly different timespan for doubling, stating that "We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook". This report, however, is by a different author and dated 3 years later, so it's not unexpected that it would have a slightly different fossil fuel use model.)
The only reference to "five to ten years" in 1978 report is the statement on page 2 "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical".
I'm a great fan of back-of-the-envelope calculations... but these aren't calculations; they are merely assertions. And worse, not merely assertions, but assertions that seem to be based on random pseudo-facts not really understood.
Europe has the longest history of solar panel installation, and has good data for energy payback time. Energy payback time for silicon panels is between 0.5 and 1.4 years. Depending on location, it can be as high as 3 years in northern Europe.
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless..
I agree with you there. I'm a technological optimist; if we can identify problems, we can solve them. However, ignoring and belittling the existence of problems isn't going to help, and dismissing possible solutions with slogans and sound-bites is counterproductive.
So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.
The point of this article was that Exxon was a major funder of the campaigns to discredit the science of global warming in the '90s and early 2000s, even though a decade earlier their own scientists were telling them that this was significant. They spent about $30 million dollars funding climate denial.
On the other hand, they did stop most of their funding to the climate-change deniers in 2007, so it does seem to me to be mostly an article about a company that isn't really the problem any more.
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?
I'm not sure what prediction you're saying is wrong. The Exxon 1982 report) being discussed said:
"If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."
Since they said the signal doesn't exceed the noise until 1995, they didn't even make a prediction for 1988.
The report did have a statement that the greenhouse effect would produce 1C warming "above present levels" by "the second to third quarter of the next century" (page 2 of the pdf.)
Fitting a line through that data starting with "present levels" of 1980, I see a rise of about 0.8 between 1980 and 2014. So looks like their prediction was very close to the data.
If anytjhing, their prediction was slightly low, but since in the same report they list an uncertainty of over 50% on model predictions, their prediction matches the measured data to well within their quoted error bars.
They did state that there is no unambiguous evidence yet (as of 1982), but the 1982 report said: "If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."
Nonetheless, the results indicate that either humanity really is the only intelligent species in this part of the universe, or
Incorrect conclusion.
The analysis was about civilizations that use energy on a galactic scale. It makes no conclusions about intelligent civilizations that use energy on the scale of human civilization. There could be trillions of human-scale civilizations out there; this analysis would not notice them.
advanced civilizations are far more efficient in their use of energy than is reasonable to assume.
Again, bad conclusion. We have not way to estimate what is "reasonable" to assume for a galactic-scale civilization. Kardashev defined a type-III civlilzation as one that used energy on the scale of galactic energy production, but gave no reasoning as to what a civilization would do that requires this much energy.
Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
The 303 gigaton number was for Greenland ice. Greenland ice is on land.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
They do. Read the linked articles. These are satellite measurements of sea level.
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.
In any case, regulating and banning are virtually interchangeable when it comes to guns.
They are not. They are different words and mean different things.
I explicitly and clearly said "regulate but not ban". Repeatedly. The Supreme Court even stated, clearly and explicitly, that a regulation that has the effect of banning guns is unconstitutional. But with any mention of the word "regulate," you immediately go to "you're trying to ban our guns!" This is a straw man; I'm not talking about banning guns.
Let me repeat a little louder, maybe you will notice. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS.
Mike Resnick is a good editor, a fine writer, a witty conversationalist, a font of wisdom and knowledge in the field, a person who is interested in helping others, and in pretty much every way I can think of, a genuinely nice guy.
If all of the nominations by the sad and the rabid puppies had been people as well-regarded in the field as Mike (and Toni), there would have been far less controversy.
I'll take it that you are an expert on the topic and also somewhat passionate about it, so I'll ask you. How does the single transferrable vote thing work?
It's also known as "Australian ballot." You rank your choices numerically. The number one votes (and only the number one votes-- that's the "single" in the name of the voting system) arecounted. If any candidate has a majority, they win. If there is no candidate ranked number one by a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Everybody who voted for that candidate has their number two vote moved up to number one, and the votes are tallied again. The process is repeated until a candidate has a majority.
Someone below stated that if you only chose one work, your second choice defaults to "No Award".
No.
In the Hugo balloting, "No award" is an actual choice on the ballot, not a default for abstain.
Therefore an evenly divided electorate that had a majority of voters failing to select a second choice would give results exactly as you have listed. Is that how it works?
But that's not how it actually works. You have to positively vote for no award; it's not a default. (In any case, though, "no award" won on the first ballot-- there was no transfer.)
Slashdot Mirror
The Apple Developer Terms and Conditions DOES prohibit the release of Trade Secrets regarding "Pre-Release Materials", so yes, it is a de facto NDA, which iFixit clearly violated.
Congratulations-- this is the 23rd post in the thread responding to the comment "What NDA?" ...but the first one which has actually provided a link to answer the question, instead of just repeating the assertion.
Did you read the article? iFixit admits this:
Just where exactly in the quoted text does the phrase "NDA" occur?
Oh-- it doesn't.
iFixit knew that Apple would not be happy with them disassembling it but did it anyway.
"not happy" is not a synonym for "signed a NDA."
Reasonable speculation. Plausible. Fits the known facts. Very likely it's even correct.
Still: this is a speculation.
While this is scant information, I would assume ...
Exactly.
assume
verb
verb: assume; 3rd person present: assumes; past tense: assumed; past participle: assumed; gerund or present participle: assuming
1. suppose to be the case, without proof.
Nice speculation. You get such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
They very publicly break the NDA for personal profit and expect no action? They're lucky the actions by Apple weren't more sever honestly.
But was the NDA valid?
Ah, that's slashdot for you.
One poster speculates that they signed a NDA (phrasing it as a statement, not a speculation) and that they violated the hypothetical terms of the hypothetical NDA that they hypothetically agreed to. Another poster speculates on whether the hypothetical NDA, whose hypothetical terms we don't actually know, was valid.
To quote Twain, "There is something fascinating about slashdot. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
One anecdote that is related indirectly to the topic is the ignorance of the nature of stars. Someone in my family didn't know that stars are like our sun but much further away. There was no malice or contradiction of beliefs and they took it as a VERY awesome fact, but that sort of gap in knowledge combined with religious fervor can, and does, lead to the outright denial of even the possibility of life elsewhere.
Indeed.
The first person to clearly state the hypothesis that stars are other suns like ours, but much farther away, was Giordano Bruno-- who also said that since they're like the sun, they undoubtedly also have planets with life. A pretty far-thinking hypothesis, considering that Copernicus' work saying that the Earth circled the sun (instead of vice versa) was still newly published when he asserted it.
Of course, he was burned at the stake for it.
So what's the endgame of all this spying? Is it to turn America into a totalitarian police state?
The endgame of this particular spying seems to be that they decided not to, for reasons that seem quite good to me.
"Any proposed solution almost certainly would quickly become a focal point for attacks. Rather than sparking more discussion, government-proposed technical approaches would almost certainly be perceived as proposals to introduce 'backdoors' or vulnerabilities in technology products and services and increase tensions rather [than] build cooperation."
So you do confirm that tiny solar panels on a tiny rover can generate about 140 watts for up to four hours per Martian day. That gives us the data (known solar panel type, surface area, power generated) to know how many and how big the solar panels would need to be for a Mars base.
The Mars Exploration Rovers were powered by 1.3 m^2 of solar cells.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
If you want more power, make larger solar arrays.
Solar power works on Mars. That really should not be controversial; we've been doing it since Pathfinder. If you want an alternative power source, use a nuclear reactor.
Or use both; your choice.
We don't even have the practical technology to make our own deserts places people can live,
Well... Las Vegas
let alone the airless lifeless desert which is Mars. Talk to me about a cloud city on Venus though... that is a hot idea.
Thanks!
And once there, water and soil could be extracted.
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.
Gotta love the passive voice Nazis; if they don't have anything else to say, that's always a good cheap shot. No content whatsoever, but whatever.
We could extract water from the soil, because it is present in subsurface ice, as well as in the form of water of hydration.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted?
Shovels.
And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
Solar or nuclear, take your pick. Each has advantages.
Incident sunlight is about 500 W/m^2, about half that at Earth's surface, although it depends on season and dust loading in the atmosphere. You don't seem to be aware of it, but we have been operating a solar-powered rover on Mars for well over ten years. We know solar energy works on Mars: we have done it, we are doing it.
citation needed.
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
He was likely referring to what's needed by the wind generators.
Perhaps that is what he might have been referring to, if he knew what he was talking about, but it is not what he did say. Or he might have seen a blog post about indium or gallium, which aren't a rare-earth elements and aren't used in silicon panels, but are often brought up in the same discussions in which people talk about rare earths.
Either way, though, I'd advise not paying much attention to anything he posts until you have verified it against a reputable source.
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades.
Except that their criteria for a 2-3 C increase hasn't passed yet. The IPCC apparently thinks the "first doubling of atmospheric CO2" will happen by about 2050. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies thinks that global temps. have so far risen by 0.8 C since 1880. This means that the Exxon researcher's warning that "a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius" could still come to pass. Several of the projections in the IPCC's figures suggest a 2C rise by ~2050 is possible, so they could still be proven right.
"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.
I can't find that purported prediction for "5 to 10 years" in either of the reports referenced. To the contrary, the reports very explicitly made no predictions for 5-10 years; it said that in that time period it would not be possible to distinguish the global warming signal from the statistical fluctuations. The only explicit numerical prediction in the 1978 Exxon report is on page 34 (the very last page, labeled "summary"). This stated "Doubling CO_2 could increase average global temperature by 1C to 3C by 2050 A.D. (10C predicted at poles)."
So I don't know what you mean about "moving the goalposts" on predictions. The goalpost in the 1978 prediction was "by 2050". This has not changed. The prediction in 1978 (based on the 1977 presentation) overlaps the IPCC's current prediction of 2C by 2050-- neither the prediction nor the "goalposts" have changed.
(The 1982 Exxon report had a slightly different timespan for doubling, stating that "We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook". This report, however, is by a different author and dated 3 years later, so it's not unexpected that it would have a slightly different fossil fuel use model.)
The only reference to "five to ten years" in 1978 report is the statement on page 2 "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical".
Go look it up.
OK.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
I'm a great fan of back-of-the-envelope calculations... but these aren't calculations; they are merely assertions. And worse, not merely assertions, but assertions that seem to be based on random pseudo-facts not really understood.
Europe has the longest history of solar panel installation, and has good data for energy payback time. Energy payback time for silicon panels is between 0.5 and 1.4 years. Depending on location, it can be as high as 3 years in northern Europe.
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless..
I agree with you there. I'm a technological optimist; if we can identify problems, we can solve them. However, ignoring and belittling the existence of problems isn't going to help, and dismissing possible solutions with slogans and sound-bites is counterproductive.
So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.
The point of this article was that Exxon was a major funder of the campaigns to discredit the science of global warming in the '90s and early 2000s, even though a decade earlier their own scientists were telling them that this was significant. They spent about $30 million dollars funding climate denial.
On the other hand, they did stop most of their funding to the climate-change deniers in 2007, so it does seem to me to be mostly an article about a company that isn't really the problem any more.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/17...
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?
I'm not sure what prediction you're saying is wrong. The Exxon 1982 report) being discussed said:
"If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."
Since they said the signal doesn't exceed the noise until 1995, they didn't even make a prediction for 1988.
The report did have a statement that the greenhouse effect would produce 1C warming "above present levels" by "the second to third quarter of the next century" (page 2 of the pdf.)
Here's the graph of actual measured data:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif
Fitting a line through that data starting with "present levels" of 1980, I see a rise of about 0.8 between 1980 and 2014. So looks like their prediction was very close to the data.
If anytjhing, their prediction was slightly low, but since in the same report they list an uncertainty of over 50% on model predictions, their prediction matches the measured data to well within their quoted error bars.
Inside the article are links to the scans of the actual reports done by Exxon.
* 1977 report, from James Black: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
* 1982 report from M. B. Glaser: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
They did state that there is no unambiguous evidence yet (as of 1982), but the 1982 report said: "If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."
Nonetheless, the results indicate that either humanity really is the only intelligent species in this part of the universe, or
Incorrect conclusion.
The analysis was about civilizations that use energy on a galactic scale. It makes no conclusions about intelligent civilizations that use energy on the scale of human civilization. There could be trillions of human-scale civilizations out there; this analysis would not notice them.
advanced civilizations are far more efficient in their use of energy than is reasonable to assume.
Again, bad conclusion. We have not way to estimate what is "reasonable" to assume for a galactic-scale civilization. Kardashev defined a type-III civlilzation as one that used energy on the scale of galactic energy production, but gave no reasoning as to what a civilization would do that requires this much energy.
Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones
About 13% of global carbon emission is from transportation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
--although transportation accounts for twice that in the US, 28% of the US emissions:
http://climate.dot.gov/about/t...
about a third of which is cars.
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
The 303 gigaton number was for Greenland ice. Greenland ice is on land.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
They do. Read the linked articles. These are satellite measurements of sea level.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n...
http://www.nasa.gov/risingseas...
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.
That turns out to be harder than you would think.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
In any case, regulating and banning are virtually interchangeable when it comes to guns.
They are not. They are different words and mean different things.
I explicitly and clearly said "regulate but not ban". Repeatedly. The Supreme Court even stated, clearly and explicitly, that a regulation that has the effect of banning guns is unconstitutional. But with any mention of the word "regulate," you immediately go to "you're trying to ban our guns!" This is a straw man; I'm not talking about banning guns.
Let me repeat a little louder, maybe you will notice.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS.
Mike Resnick is a good editor, a fine writer, a witty conversationalist, a font of wisdom and knowledge in the field, a person who is interested in helping others, and in pretty much every way I can think of, a genuinely nice guy.
If all of the nominations by the sad and the rabid puppies had been people as well-regarded in the field as Mike (and Toni), there would have been far less controversy.
I'll take it that you are an expert on the topic and also somewhat passionate about it, so I'll ask you. How does the single transferrable vote thing work?
It's also known as "Australian ballot." You rank your choices numerically. The number one votes (and only the number one votes-- that's the "single" in the name of the voting system) arecounted. If any candidate has a majority, they win. If there is no candidate ranked number one by a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Everybody who voted for that candidate has their number two vote moved up to number one, and the votes are tallied again. The process is repeated until a candidate has a majority.
Someone below stated that if you only chose one work, your second choice defaults to "No Award".
No.
In the Hugo balloting, "No award" is an actual choice on the ballot, not a default for abstain.
Therefore an evenly divided electorate that had a majority of voters failing to select a second choice would give results exactly as you have listed. Is that how it works?
But that's not how it actually works. You have to positively vote for no award; it's not a default. (In any case, though, "no award" won on the first ballot-- there was no transfer.)
Human rights are being trumpled
"Trumpled"???
That's the best typo I've seen this week.