Which of course begs the question of why if its not getting warmer all the world's glaciers are simultaneously receding a a record pace not previously observed in human history. This is the question no climate denier will touch and will always ignore.
What the deniers are claiming is that somehow the bulbs really aren't of equal intensity, which in this experiment is easily shown false since one can place a second pair of thermometers on the top of the vessels at equal distances from their respective lamps and readily demonstrate that for these two thermometers the temperature outside the vessels are the same. Not surprisingly the deniers ignore the findings of the scientific article, which demonstrates that at least for the last 1000 years (of which the last 100 has seen the most warming) solar output has been relatively stable by comparison, with very little variation outside of the usual solar cycles that amounts to less than 0.01% difference in output from maximum to minimum.
Look at it this way. The variance in solar radiation over a thousand year period is less than 0.01% of the variability seen in global temperature increase during the same period. In other words, the variability in solar radiative output (insolation) is far too small to explain the wide range of variance in global warming since the onset of the industrial revolution. In contrast, increase in carbon dioxide, as expected from the physics of its absorbtion spectrum explains cha.nge in temperature quite well (in fact it explains it rather well over the past 500 million years if isotope data is evalatuated).
It should be noted that there is no 18 years pause in global warming of sea temperature records. In fact, if one uses the arbitrary 18 year intervals to assess global atmospheric climate change, the record still shows global warming. Its just that within the last 18 years it has not been increasing as fast as the average over the last 100. Consequently, no one should be surprised that November 2013 proved to be the warmest November in recorded human history.
With ALEC providing the opportunity for corporations, which are now people to vote, why should robots remain disenfranchised. This is just the thing the 1% need to better control the process before things get out of hand and the rable of the 99% start getting too upity. I'm glad to see the ALEC and the GOP finally have combined their efforts into making this a reality. Disenfranchising robts simply isn't fair, especially when robots never complain about harsh treatment in the workplace.
The problem for Ted Cruz in 2016 is that on his present course he looks as if he will be so successful in dismantling the US government that its unclear if there will even be a presidency in 2016. However, I'm sure in that case, he will probably just appoint himself as the rest of the country just stand back helplessly in horror.
The idea of having affordable health care as opposed to being told sorry but you must just go die someplace as quietly as possible does tend to make it more than likely it will succeed. In year's time this will be old news and the GOPTP will be whining about something else, looking for another hostage to take to get their agenda passed.
Another Tea Party dream and Fossil Fuel industry hope. The more solar technology advances and begins to encroach on fossil fuel profits, the more of these "no we can't" nay-sayers come popping out of the wordwork. If solar cells go the way of IC's, the industry will replace fossil fuels entirely in 50 years. The future will be owned by those who invest in solar now. Its inevitable.
Dealerships aren't entirely parasitic. That is an overstatement of reality. There is a benefit to having a local dealership to go to when things go wrong as they always do. Murphy makes sure of that.
I really don't see the route to complaining to the DMV is going to do dealerships much good as the effort only serves to widen awareness of the economic issues involved and these are trending toward Tesla's favor. If dealers are really concerned about Tesla, they would do better to insist that the car manufacturers they buy from have a better electric car than does Tesla. Once battery swap stations become more widely available for Tesla's new 400 mile per charge battery, they better have some other alternatives or they are going to quickly start to loose business quickly. Dealerships that branch out to provide battery swaps may well be those that survive, because the 2-4000 dollars per year you can save if you don't have to buy gas is a big incentive over the life of a car becomes increasingly attractive to those with slimmer wallets, especially if lower overall maintenance costs go with it.
Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head. Dealerships make most their money in repairs, not in selling cars. Over the life of a car, the 5-20% profit they make on the sale is a small fraction of what they can make on repairs and maintenance.
If Telsa has the audacity to create a product that requires significantly less repairs, it puts dealerships at a competitive disadvantage, which is exactly where they should be in a truly free and open market.
Many in the fossil fuels business like to downplay the savings gained from small fuel costs for battery technology, but they don't want to address the larger costs associated with maintenance issues inherent in internal combustion technology because they know it makes electric car technology even more attractive financially.
"Sites not ripping off this system seem like they conscientiously want a reason to slam the door on public conversation."
My sense is that far too little of what gets posted on science or technology sites, such as/. can be seriously taken as "conversation". More like one graffiti artist spray painting over what someone else scribbled. Claim that its a violation of freedom, creativity etc., if you like, but such arguments rarely enhance the quality and understanding of the science within most threads, merely generate many useless sub-threads that are a waste of time mining for that one gem of wisdom.
The only reason to visit slashdot anymore is that it is one of the few sites that provides a rather broad array of news concerning recent technological developments in a timely fashion. If I could find a better one, not plastered with ads, I would use it. One would think that/. readers would be better trained in science, but my experience is that most know far less science than they think they know and consequently, its hardly worth the time to try to enter a discussion. Obviously, I do recognize that there are educated readers who from time to time prove me wrong, but I think in general we need to do a much better job in trying to elevate the value of the better and more well formed comments.
I couldn't agree more. My time is valuable and its too precious to waste on wading through troll droppings.
There really are many with an ideological bent, who are actively seeking to disrupt sites discussing science for purposes that have nothing to do with science, but rather to influence discussion that may come from the consequences of scientific findings.
The reality is that modern science has become so specialized that few commenters are really capable of adding anything to a meaningful discussion anyway. For example, what kind of meaningful input might one expect of the average commenter provide say on the discussion of the importance of Uryshon's Lemma or Gershgorin's Circle Theorem to modern bioinformatics or aerodynamics? It is a shame that the electronic equivalent of graffiti artists have vandalized so many useful commenting sites to suit their own personal and ideological fantasies, Particularly, since it denies so many a peek into the intrinsic beauty inherent in such discussions.
You're right, however, and without some form of moderation or peer review the entire effort takes on the character defined by the lowest IQ posting. Many may complain that scientist are retreating to their ivory towers, but the sad fact is that the vandal's sacking every website they can overrun make such towers the only safe haven to continue to do science. If they want into the ivory towers, they will first have to develop the credibility to enter.
Its far better to submit "letters" to the editor, with comments and let them make the best judgement as to which most advance the topic under discussion. This can be done by a few moderators on most sites. I would be quite happy not to see my own posts or questions, if I knew I was instead reading better or more informative ones.
This now seems absolutely critical to the national defense, since the GOPTP has decided to ally itself with Al Qieda in a combined effort to bring down the US government and economy.
Exactly, if the machines can work for free, why not the rest of the workforce. Anyone who doesn't like working conditions can simply be replaced by a machine.
This would create even more money for investment by making venture capital maximally profitable.
" Politicians have been yelling themselves hoarse over the jobs issue in this country for the past few years, and the current situation isn't anywhere near as bad. At what point will we start seeing legislation forbidding the automation of certain industries?""
Given how efficient Congress is now and how many holidays the new GOP management is taking to handle the workload, I predict that Congress will be the last industry to be replaced by AI. Besides, it boggles the mind to imagine constructing a machine that dysfunctional.
I fail to see what is favorable about having your house burn down because global warming is drying out much of the vegetation in the American southwest.
Actually, Wikipedia does include a lot of references to primary peer reviewed literature. Keep in mind that while any jackass can edit things, that hardly means they stay inaccurate for very long.
The problem for trying to tie global warming or cooling to the sun's radiant energy, insolation, is that the variation is too small to account for the dramatic changes in the Earth's climate in the past 200 years. Maximum to minimum variation in solar activity is only about 0.1-0.01%, which is far to small to explain the nearly 2 degree C change in average global temperature change in the past 200 years.
With no useful evidence sufficient solar variability, global warming deniers often turn to the Milankovitch cycle of perturbations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit caused by Saturn and Jupiter. Unfortunately, for the denies this theory predicts the Earth should be cooling when in fact its warming.
A tell tale sign that global warming deniers have no clue is their steadfast inability to explain why nearly every single glacier on the planet is now receding. They ignore answering this question like the plague. When in discussion of climate change notice that no global warming denier will ever attempt to explain how this could be happening if the world is not getting warmer.
"For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?"
The first place to start is by voting out all republicans and tea party types, as otherwise you are never going to pass laws that permit the internet to be run as a government run utility. The modern republican party simply doesn't believe in the concept of government. They would prefer to live in a state of nihilism that reverts to a feudal system, in which the 1% rule and everyone else is a serf. In their minds the only people that count are corporate people.
As far a government utilities go, Jefferson County, WA recently took over the production of electricity, which resulted in a significant reduction in my bill. Presently, I pay Comcast about $75/month for internet, pay CableOne $50/month for my other residence in Mississippi. If both were run as public utilities, I suspect I would probably pay about half that amount for the roughly the same service, since the top management in a public utility doesn't need to pay 7 figure salaries to the CEO and other corporate officers nor to they need to waste money advertising, which would save me having to watch at least a few commercials on TV.
None, of course paleo-dating from fossils in marine muds and radioactive dating of the series of banded sediments on the seafloor as a result of seafloor spreading in a very regular, almost linear mapping away from spreading zones that just happen to agree with each other almost perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
Which of course begs the question of why if its not getting warmer all the world's glaciers are simultaneously receding a a record pace not previously observed in human history. This is the question no climate denier will touch and will always ignore.
There's a great video by Bill Nye performing this very experiment.
Check it out at result of carbon dioxide in atmosphere
What the deniers are claiming is that somehow the bulbs really aren't of equal intensity, which in this experiment is easily shown false since one can place a second pair of thermometers on the top of the vessels at equal distances from their respective lamps and readily demonstrate that for these two thermometers the temperature outside the vessels are the same. Not surprisingly the deniers ignore the findings of the scientific article, which demonstrates that at least for the last 1000 years (of which the last 100 has seen the most warming) solar output has been relatively stable by comparison, with very little variation outside of the usual solar cycles that amounts to less than 0.01% difference in output from maximum to minimum.
Look at it this way. The variance in solar radiation over a thousand year period is less than 0.01% of the variability seen in global temperature increase during the same period. In other words, the variability in solar radiative output (insolation) is far too small to explain the wide range of variance in global warming since the onset of the industrial revolution. In contrast, increase in carbon dioxide, as expected from the physics of its absorbtion spectrum explains cha.nge in temperature quite well (in fact it explains it rather well over the past 500 million years if isotope data is evalatuated).
It should be noted that there is no 18 years pause in global warming of sea temperature records. In fact, if one uses the arbitrary 18 year intervals to assess global atmospheric climate change, the record still shows global warming. Its just that within the last 18 years it has not been increasing as fast as the average over the last 100. Consequently, no one should be surprised that November 2013 proved to be the warmest November in recorded human history.
An odd argument, that if consistently applied would still make slavery legal.
With ALEC providing the opportunity for corporations, which are now people to vote, why should robots remain disenfranchised. This is just the thing the 1% need to better control the process before things get out of hand and the rable of the 99% start getting too upity. I'm glad to see the ALEC and the GOP finally have combined their efforts into making this a reality. Disenfranchising robts simply isn't fair, especially when robots never complain about harsh treatment in the workplace.
Somehow it hasn't stopped people from driving. I suspect that the few glitches that do show up will get fixed and people will get health care.
The problem for Ted Cruz in 2016 is that on his present course he looks as if he will be so successful in dismantling the US government that its unclear if there will even be a presidency in 2016. However, I'm sure in that case, he will probably just appoint himself as the rest of the country just stand back helplessly in horror.
The idea of having affordable health care as opposed to being told sorry but you must just go die someplace as quietly as possible does tend to make it more than likely it will succeed. In year's time this will be old news and the GOPTP will be whining about something else, looking for another hostage to take to get their agenda passed.
Another Tea Party dream and Fossil Fuel industry hope. The more solar technology advances and begins to encroach on fossil fuel profits, the more of these "no we can't" nay-sayers come popping out of the wordwork. If solar cells go the way of IC's, the industry will replace fossil fuels entirely in 50 years. The future will be owned by those who invest in solar now. Its inevitable.
They used to say the same thing about desktop computers too.
Not if the equation is degenerate and b=c.
Dealerships aren't entirely parasitic. That is an overstatement of reality. There is a benefit to having a local dealership to go to when things go wrong as they always do. Murphy makes sure of that.
I really don't see the route to complaining to the DMV is going to do dealerships much good as the effort only serves to widen awareness of the economic issues involved and these are trending toward Tesla's favor. If dealers are really concerned about Tesla, they would do better to insist that the car manufacturers they buy from have a better electric car than does Tesla. Once battery swap stations become more widely available for Tesla's new 400 mile per charge battery, they better have some other alternatives or they are going to quickly start to loose business quickly. Dealerships that branch out to provide battery swaps may well be those that survive, because the 2-4000 dollars per year you can save if you don't have to buy gas is a big incentive over the life of a car becomes increasingly attractive to those with slimmer wallets, especially if lower overall maintenance costs go with it.
Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head. Dealerships make most their money in repairs, not in selling cars. Over the life of a car, the 5-20% profit they make on the sale is a small fraction of what they can make on repairs and maintenance.
If Telsa has the audacity to create a product that requires significantly less repairs, it puts dealerships at a competitive disadvantage, which is exactly where they should be in a truly free and open market.
Many in the fossil fuels business like to downplay the savings gained from small fuel costs for battery technology, but they don't want to address the larger costs associated with maintenance issues inherent in internal combustion technology because they know it makes electric car technology even more attractive financially.
"Sites not ripping off this system seem like they conscientiously want a reason to slam the door on public conversation."
My sense is that far too little of what gets posted on science or technology sites, such as /. can be seriously taken as "conversation". More like one graffiti artist spray painting over what someone else scribbled. Claim that its a violation of freedom, creativity etc., if you like, but such arguments rarely enhance the quality and understanding of the science within most threads, merely generate many useless sub-threads that are a waste of time mining for that one gem of wisdom.
The only reason to visit slashdot anymore is that it is one of the few sites that provides a rather broad array of news concerning recent technological developments in a timely fashion. If I could find a better one, not plastered with ads, I would use it. One would think that /. readers would be better trained in science, but my experience is that most know far less science than they think they know and consequently, its hardly worth the time to try to enter a discussion. Obviously, I do recognize that there are educated readers who from time to time prove me wrong, but I think in general we need to do a much better job in trying to elevate the value of the better and more well formed comments.
I couldn't agree more. My time is valuable and its too precious to waste on wading through troll droppings.
There really are many with an ideological bent, who are actively seeking to disrupt sites discussing science for purposes that have nothing to do with science, but rather to influence discussion that may come from the consequences of scientific findings.
The reality is that modern science has become so specialized that few commenters are really capable of adding anything to a meaningful discussion anyway. For example, what kind of meaningful input might one expect of the average commenter provide say on the discussion of the importance of Uryshon's Lemma or Gershgorin's Circle Theorem to modern bioinformatics or aerodynamics? It is a shame that the electronic equivalent of graffiti artists have vandalized so many useful commenting sites to suit their own personal and ideological fantasies, Particularly, since it denies so many a peek into the intrinsic beauty inherent in such discussions.
You're right, however, and without some form of moderation or peer review the entire effort takes on the character defined by the lowest IQ posting. Many may complain that scientist are retreating to their ivory towers, but the sad fact is that the vandal's sacking every website they can overrun make such towers the only safe haven to continue to do science. If they want into the ivory towers, they will first have to develop the credibility to enter.
Its far better to submit "letters" to the editor, with comments and let them make the best judgement as to which most advance the topic under discussion. This can be done by a few moderators on most sites. I would be quite happy not to see my own posts or questions, if I knew I was instead reading better or more informative ones.
This now seems absolutely critical to the national defense, since the GOPTP has decided to ally itself with Al Qieda in a combined effort to bring down the US government and economy.
Exactly, if the machines can work for free, why not the rest of the workforce. Anyone who doesn't like working conditions can simply be replaced by a machine.
This would create even more money for investment by making venture capital maximally profitable.
" Politicians have been yelling themselves hoarse over the jobs issue in this country for the past few years, and the current situation isn't anywhere near as bad. At what point will we start seeing legislation forbidding the automation of certain industries?""
Given how efficient Congress is now and how many holidays the new GOP management is taking to handle the workload, I predict that Congress will be the last industry to be replaced by AI. Besides, it boggles the mind to imagine constructing a machine that dysfunctional.
I fail to see what is favorable about having your house burn down because global warming is drying out much of the vegetation in the American southwest.
Perhaps you could explain.
Actually, Wikipedia does include a lot of references to primary peer reviewed literature. Keep in mind that while any jackass can edit things, that hardly means they stay inaccurate for very long.
The problem for trying to tie global warming or cooling to the sun's radiant energy, insolation, is that the variation is too small to account for the dramatic changes in the Earth's climate in the past 200 years. Maximum to minimum variation in solar activity is only about 0.1-0.01%, which is far to small to explain the nearly 2 degree C change in average global temperature change in the past 200 years.
With no useful evidence sufficient solar variability, global warming deniers often turn to the Milankovitch cycle of perturbations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit caused by Saturn and Jupiter. Unfortunately, for the denies this theory predicts the Earth should be cooling when in fact its warming.
A tell tale sign that global warming deniers have no clue is their steadfast inability to explain why nearly every single glacier on the planet is now receding. They ignore answering this question like the plague. When in discussion of climate change notice that no global warming denier will ever attempt to explain how this could be happening if the world is not getting warmer.
"For those who favor the idea of Internet service as a government-run utility, what do you see as the best-case scenario for such a system?"
The first place to start is by voting out all republicans and tea party types, as otherwise you are never going to pass laws that permit the internet to be run as a government run utility. The modern republican party simply doesn't believe in the concept of government. They would prefer to live in a state of nihilism that reverts to a feudal system, in which the 1% rule and everyone else is a serf. In their minds the only people that count are corporate people.
As far a government utilities go, Jefferson County, WA recently took over the production of electricity, which resulted in a significant reduction in my bill. Presently, I pay Comcast about $75/month for internet, pay CableOne $50/month for my other residence in Mississippi. If both were run as public utilities, I suspect I would probably pay about half that amount for the roughly the same service, since the top management in a public utility doesn't need to pay 7 figure salaries to the CEO and other corporate officers nor to they need to waste money advertising, which would save me having to watch at least a few commercials on TV.
That's what they have always fought about, with or without nuclear weapons.
This guy needs to step up and substitute asteroids for nukes, adding in effects for trajectory, etc.
Google maps already has this. Check the paleo-reconstructions box.
None, of course paleo-dating from fossils in marine muds and radioactive dating of the series of banded sediments on the seafloor as a result of seafloor spreading in a very regular, almost linear mapping away from spreading zones that just happen to agree with each other almost perfectly.