Yeah, again. Seems every five years or so there's a book, article, or study saying that IQ is not a single thing.
Yawn.
The professor in my "introduction to psychology and brain science" course said "IQ is defined as what is measured by IQ tests." So it's not that it doesn't exist. The question is, what is it, and does it matter?
But here's the thing. The survey specifically focused on projects that exceeded their expected budgets....
Exactly.
The headline significantly mis-states the conclusions that can be drawn from the text. The headline says "Most Kickstarter Projects...", while the actual study only looked at "the top 50 most-funded Kickstarter projects".
Not my subject, so I won't venture an opinion on whether this is a real problem, or scare.
and that there's no fear of a catastrophic meltdown.
Seems to be what people are saying. Again, not my subject, although I'd add the caveat is that nothing is ever quite foolproof, since fools are so ingenious.
No, they mean violating US law by purchasing export-restricted devices within the US for the sole purpose of taking them outside the US to resell. Certain cryptography software is legally blocked from export, and as a result any software that includes those crypto features is also restricted. PuTTY is a great example.
And the reality is that the law is obsolete - cryptography isn't best just because it's built in the US.
You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.
What this proves is that Apple is jacking up the price and availability more on some markets than other.
It proves nothing of the sort. It possibly demonstrates that the US export law is overly broad; it possibly demonstrates that the police have little interest in the rights of people that they're "protecting"-- but it it not related in any way to Apple's price.
To give this more background, the conflict of interest investigation panel's report is here: http://www.utexas.edu/news/PDF/Review-of-report.pdf My quick summary is that the white papers produced by the study were not criticized, but mostly said "this hasn't been well studied, and we can't draw conclusions", but the summary presentation by Groat, who did not actually participate in the study, modified this to "there's no evidence of a link between health effects and fracking"
In general there is little point in debating anonymous cowards, but once your post starts going off about putative predictions of invasions of space aliens, it's pretty clear that there's no content left in the discussion.
Scientists has not been "keeping changing your story"
Did you actually read the summary we're commenting under?
Yes. Did you read the actual article being summarized? Here is a direct quote:
"The field of climate research has advanced since the IPCC's last assessment report, released in 2007, as computers have grown faster and models more complex. In fact, these developments make what insiders say the IPCC's message will be all the more astonishing: The new forecasts, they say, will be more or less the same as the old ones, just more precise."
The only reason people like you think climate change is politically driven myth is because you weren't paying attention *before* it became a political issue.
Nope. The political angle has been apparent for quite some time - I figured it was an attempt to stop the developing world from advancing. Say to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage.
So, to be clear: you believe that Manabe and Wetherald's landmark 1967 paper (which built on Manabe and Strickler 1964) that calculated the amount of warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, was work that was actually done "to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage"? Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Can you find some 1964 references saying that politicians were seriously worried about "China and India becoming the dominant players on the world stage," much less were instructing scientists to make up data to prevent it?
... I recall in the 1970's when we were all headed to the next ice age - the computer models all kept falling into something called "white earth" and never warmed up again.
...One of the reasons people are skeptical or even deniers is all this bullshit that they can't get the models and prediction straight. If you keep changing your story, people won't believe you. It's that simple.
Sorry, but this is the way science happens: the overall physics is understood, and then the details are slowly filled and the error bars are refined and the calculations get better.
Let me remind you that the overall physics of the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been remarkably constant. Today's best estimate of the warming effect is still within the error bars of Manabe and Wetherald's original 1967 calculation, and if you plot their predictions against the actual measured temperatures, using the measured values of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the data fits perfectly.
We have pretty good confidence that we know the physics of the greenhouse effect. Scientists has not been "keeping changing your story"-- it's been physics that's been well understood for over a hundred years, and the same overall calculation with the same net result, to within the error bars, for close to fifty years.
This article doesn't seem to address what I have been told was the actual greatest danger of global warming, a Northern Hemisphere Ice age.
That's because this has been pretty much shown to be an unlikely scenario.
The media loves it, of course, because "New York buried under a hundred meters of ice!" is a lot more exciting than "the world warms up slightly over the course of a century," and the media thrives on excitement. But it's hard to find a climate scientist these days who thinks that this is a very realistic possibility.
What is the exact reason you think that you need all of your people actually nose to muzzle on a day to day basis?? If its the real time "Face to Face" thing then for all that matters you could have everybody meet on your corporate sim on the SL grid
Short answer is, because despite the antisocial tendencies of the computer community that reads/., human interactions --meaning "real time face to face" interaction, as you put it (what used to be called "talking to people" in the old days)--are valuable, and that doesn't mean text and document exchange, nor even skype. And "corporate sim" is not actually face to face.
It's thermal recall force from heat generated by components on Pioneer.
Right. and the headline is a little misleading, it's a "new" explanation only if you weren't following; since it was announced in late 2010. The "anomaly" is solved.
Is that what you call "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming?
No, "catastrophic" would mean that more good than bad happened from anthropogenic global warming. This has been speculated, but not shown.
Ah, OK. That's not science; "good" and "bad" are values, not measurements. At the very most, it's economics.
I suppose that there could be falsifiable hypotheses there-- but that will tell you more, I'd say, on what you chose to define as "good" and "bad" than what the climate does.
I have no fixed opinion on that. I would like people to stop attacking the science when they actually want to influence policy, but, as for economics and values-- as long as you stay away from attacking the science-- go at it.
So you don't even know what it is you're being skeptical about.
I'm skeptical that there exists any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to cite the one you believe in.
I don't know what the word "catastrophic" means here. I assert that the global climate models, which suggest that human-induced greenhouse warming has raised global temperatures by approximately 0.5 C and will continue to raise global average temperatures by an amount that is calculatable to within (currently) an error band of about 50%, is supported by the best data we have. Is that what you call "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming? I would call it "paying attention to the science." If this is what your talking about, the model is falsifiable, and has, so far, passed the tests given to it.
The first good numerical integration with definite, reliable results was done in 1967. That's 45 years ago, which is a long enough run for random variations to be averaged out. What's the slope of the linear least-squares surface temperature data from then to now? Is it upward, or downward? Well, yes, turns out it's upward, as predicted. And, to well within the error bands, the model is quite accurate about the slope.
I'd like to invite you to dig up the paper, do the calculation, and verify this yourself.
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
Correct; don't expect meters of sea-level rise in twenty years. Sea levels are rising, but not by half a meter per decade!
A meter in 100 years is within the band of uncertainty, but not necessarily something to bet on-- a hundred-year prediction depends too much on your expectation of the rate of emissions in the future. This paper http://ssi.ucsd.edu/scc/images/Schaeffer%20SLR%20at%20+1.5%20+2%20NatCC%2012.pdf suggests a mean of about 2 feet in a century, but I think their emissions scenario may be conservative.
This isn't news. They made the same argument in 1979, with the "Susan B. Anthony" which nobody used; and in 2000 with the "Sacagawea dollar", which nobody used.
LTE doesn't really mean anything for an antenna designer. It's all about modulation type, rate and protocol. What matters for antenna design is center frequency and to some extent bandwidth.
So "THE WORLD IS ENDING" is not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?
The world is not ending. I don't know who's saying that, but it is not correct.
OK, I will accept that there are three sides here:
Denier wackos: The greenhouse effect doesn't exist, or if it exists we're not causing it, or maybe we are causing some of it but not most of it, but in any case don't believe it, and anybody who gives it any credence whatsoever is part of a conspiracy.
Scientists: The greenhouse effects exist, it has been understood for a long time, human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to it in a calculatable way, and extensive measurements from the ground, ships, balloons and satellites verifies the basic premises of the models and predictions. There may be uncertainty in the details, but the overall model is understood and well validated.
Alarmist wackos: the world is ending!
OK. Well, it turns out that in this case the correct answer is indeed the middle one: The greenhouse effects exist, it is well understood and modelled, and multiple measurements made by different methods by independent research verify the models and predictions.
The fact is, we just don't know for sure.
No, but we have very good models and multiple sources of extremely good data that verifies the models. The greenhouse effect is relatively simple physics, and "it doesn't exist' is not a theory that fits the physics we know.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody can build a satellite.
The hard question is, how are you going to get it launched?
Yeah, again. Seems every five years or so there's a book, article, or study saying that IQ is not a single thing.
Yawn.
The professor in my "introduction to psychology and brain science" course said "IQ is defined as what is measured by IQ tests." So it's not that it doesn't exist. The question is, what is it, and does it matter?
But here's the thing. The survey specifically focused on projects that exceeded their expected budgets....
Exactly.
The headline significantly mis-states the conclusions that can be drawn from the text. The headline says "Most Kickstarter Projects...", while the actual study only looked at "the top 50 most-funded Kickstarter projects".
That demonstrates nothing about most projects.
I was under the impression that there's virtually no nuclear weapon risk from a thorium reactor
That was the original thinking, but there was a very recent analysis that suggested that a "minor tweak" in the process could be used to produce materials for bombs.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-wonder-fuel.html
Not my subject, so I won't venture an opinion on whether this is a real problem, or scare.
and that there's no fear of a catastrophic meltdown.
Seems to be what people are saying. Again, not my subject, although I'd add the caveat is that nothing is ever quite foolproof, since fools are so ingenious.
Yep. But yah know, if you listen to the wind you hear the same nonsense every year, often multiple times a year....
Yep!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
Infographics get syndicated when they provide a useful visualization of something of something meaningful, where one did not exist before.
Or when they feature cute kittens. One or the other.
No, they mean violating US law by purchasing export-restricted devices within the US for the sole purpose of taking them outside the US to resell. Certain cryptography software is legally blocked from export, and as a result any software that includes those crypto features is also restricted. PuTTY is a great example.
And the reality is that the law is obsolete - cryptography isn't best just because it's built in the US.
You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.
What this proves is that Apple is jacking up the price and availability more on some markets than other.
It proves nothing of the sort. It possibly demonstrates that the US export law is overly broad; it possibly demonstrates that the police have little interest in the rights of people that they're "protecting"-- but it it not related in any way to Apple's price.
To give this more background, the conflict of interest investigation panel's report is here:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/PDF/Review-of-report.pdf
My quick summary is that the white papers produced by the study were not criticized, but mostly said "this hasn't been well studied, and we can't draw conclusions", but the summary presentation by Groat, who did not actually participate in the study, modified this to "there's no evidence of a link between health effects and fracking"
The (almost content free) press release from UT is here: http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/12/06/university-accepts-shale-gas-development-report/
It's discussed on the NYTimes blog here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/damning-review-of-gas-study-prompts-a-shakeup-at-the-university-of-texas/
In general there is little point in debating anonymous cowards, but once your post starts going off about putative predictions of invasions of space aliens, it's pretty clear that there's no content left in the discussion.
Did you actually read the summary we're commenting under?
Yes. Did you read the actual article being summarized? Here is a direct quote:
"The field of climate research has advanced since the IPCC's last assessment report, released in 2007, as computers have grown faster and models more complex. In fact, these developments make what insiders say the IPCC's message will be all the more astonishing: The new forecasts, they say, will be more or less the same as the old ones, just more precise."
I'm amazed that it took almost ten minutes for somebody to say "it's a sham." Doesn't anybody jump on the obvious anymore?
And here's the IBM press release
http://researcher.ibm.com/researcher/view_project.php?id=2757
which has a sidebar that has "links to additional information" with a lot more details.
The article is remarkably lacking in technical details.
This article from two years ago is a little more detailed: http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4211151/IBM-debuts-CMOS-silicon-nanophotonics
or this press release: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/33115.wss
Nope. The political angle has been apparent for quite some time - I figured it was an attempt to stop the developing world from advancing. Say to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage.
So, to be clear: you believe that Manabe and Wetherald's landmark 1967 paper (which built on Manabe and Strickler 1964) that calculated the amount of warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, was work that was actually done "to prevent China and India from becoming the dominant players on the world stage"? Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Can you find some 1964 references saying that politicians were seriously worried about "China and India becoming the dominant players on the world stage," much less were instructing scientists to make up data to prevent it?
... I recall in the 1970's when we were all headed to the next ice age - the computer models all kept falling into something called "white earth" and never warmed up again.
That's been debunked ages ago. The "next ice age" played well in the media-- it made Time and Newsweek--but it was never a scientific consensus. Check out "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus" in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 , or the discussion and links here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/18/now-out-in-bams-the-myth-of-th/
...One of the reasons people are skeptical or even deniers is all this bullshit that they can't get the models and prediction straight. If you keep changing your story, people won't believe you. It's that simple.
Sorry, but this is the way science happens: the overall physics is understood, and then the details are slowly filled and the error bars are refined and the calculations get better.
Let me remind you that the overall physics of the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been remarkably constant. Today's best estimate of the warming effect is still within the error bars of Manabe and Wetherald's original 1967 calculation, and if you plot their predictions against the actual measured temperatures, using the measured values of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the data fits perfectly.
We have pretty good confidence that we know the physics of the greenhouse effect. Scientists has not been "keeping changing your story"-- it's been physics that's been well understood for over a hundred years, and the same overall calculation with the same net result, to within the error bars, for close to fifty years.
This article doesn't seem to address what I have been told was the actual greatest danger of global warming, a Northern Hemisphere Ice age.
That's because this has been pretty much shown to be an unlikely scenario.
The media loves it, of course, because "New York buried under a hundred meters of ice!" is a lot more exciting than "the world warms up slightly over the course of a century," and the media thrives on excitement. But it's hard to find a climate scientist these days who thinks that this is a very realistic possibility.
What is the exact reason you think that you need all of your people actually nose to muzzle on a day to day basis?? If its the real time "Face to Face" thing then for all that matters you could have everybody meet on your corporate sim on the SL grid
Short answer is, because despite the antisocial tendencies of the computer community that reads /., human interactions --meaning "real time face to face" interaction, as you put it (what used to be called "talking to people" in the old days)--are valuable, and that doesn't mean text and document exchange, nor even skype. And "corporate sim" is not actually face to face.
It's thermal recall force from heat generated by components on Pioneer.
Right. and the headline is a little misleading, it's a "new" explanation only if you weren't following; since it was announced in late 2010. The "anomaly" is solved.
Popular Science article about Toth and Turyshev's work here: http://www.popsci.com/pioneeranomaly
More detailed calculations supporting the explanation:
Phys Rev Letters paper by Toth and Turyshev here: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101
ArXIV paper confirming the work with more details: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222v1
JPL press release: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-209&cid=release_2012-209&msource=12209
Centauri Dreams article: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=23720
Still, it's a nice article to read about how the work is done.
http://www.space.com/15310-nasa-budget-future-space-exploration.html
http://thechrissanchez.com/journal/2012/3/11/the-reality-of-american-space-exploration-why-we-should-imme.htm
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense
No, "catastrophic" would mean that more good than bad happened from anthropogenic global warming. This has been speculated, but not shown.
Ah, OK. That's not science; "good" and "bad" are values, not measurements. At the very most, it's economics.
I suppose that there could be falsifiable hypotheses there-- but that will tell you more, I'd say, on what you chose to define as "good" and "bad" than what the climate does.
I have no fixed opinion on that. I would like people to stop attacking the science when they actually want to influence policy, but, as for economics and values-- as long as you stay away from attacking the science-- go at it.
I'm skeptical that there exists any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to cite the one you believe in.
I don't know what the word "catastrophic" means here. I assert that the global climate models, which suggest that human-induced greenhouse warming has raised global temperatures by approximately 0.5 C and will continue to raise global average temperatures by an amount that is calculatable to within (currently) an error band of about 50%, is supported by the best data we have. Is that what you call "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming? I would call it "paying attention to the science." If this is what your talking about, the model is falsifiable, and has, so far, passed the tests given to it.
The first good numerical integration with definite, reliable results was done in 1967. That's 45 years ago, which is a long enough run for random variations to be averaged out. What's the slope of the linear least-squares surface temperature data from then to now? Is it upward, or downward? Well, yes, turns out it's upward, as predicted. And, to well within the error bands, the model is quite accurate about the slope.
I'd like to invite you to dig up the paper, do the calculation, and verify this yourself.
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
Correct; don't expect meters of sea-level rise in twenty years. Sea levels are rising, but not by half a meter per decade!
A meter in 100 years is within the band of uncertainty, but not necessarily something to bet on-- a hundred-year prediction depends too much on your expectation of the rate of emissions in the future. This paper http://ssi.ucsd.edu/scc/images/Schaeffer%20SLR%20at%20+1.5%20+2%20NatCC%2012.pdf suggests a mean of about 2 feet in a century, but I think their emissions scenario may be conservative.
I use them. Way easier to keep a bunch in the ash tray to pay tolls with.
What, they don't have easypass in your state? Tell them to join the 21st century.
People would use them if they stopped printing dollar bills.
But why should the government want to make their money heavy, bulky, and more inconvenient? To encourage people to switch over to Mastercard and Visa?
Not yet, because nobody wants them.
This isn't news. They made the same argument in 1979, with the "Susan B. Anthony" which nobody used; and in 2000 with the "Sacagawea dollar", which nobody used.
http://consumerist.com/2012/11/30/if-no-one-likes-the-dollar-coin-why-is-the-u-s-government-trying-to-push-it-so-hard/
LTE doesn't really mean anything for an antenna designer. It's all about modulation type, rate and protocol. What matters for antenna design is center frequency and to some extent bandwidth.
and polarization.
So "THE WORLD IS ENDING" is not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?
The world is not ending. I don't know who's saying that, but it is not correct.
OK, I will accept that there are three sides here:
Denier wackos: The greenhouse effect doesn't exist, or if it exists we're not causing it, or maybe we are causing some of it but not most of it, but in any case don't believe it, and anybody who gives it any credence whatsoever is part of a conspiracy.
Scientists: The greenhouse effects exist, it has been understood for a long time, human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to it in a calculatable way, and extensive measurements from the ground, ships, balloons and satellites verifies the basic premises of the models and predictions. There may be uncertainty in the details, but the overall model is understood and well validated.
Alarmist wackos: the world is ending!
OK. Well, it turns out that in this case the correct answer is indeed the middle one: The greenhouse effects exist, it is well understood and modelled, and multiple measurements made by different methods by independent research verify the models and predictions.
The fact is, we just don't know for sure.
No, but we have very good models and multiple sources of extremely good data that verifies the models. The greenhouse effect is relatively simple physics, and "it doesn't exist' is not a theory that fits the physics we know.