A permanent magnet creates a static magnetic field, which can exert forces against moving or spinning charges.
> Exerting force requires energy, no?
What do mean by 'exerting'? Generally the answer is 'no'. Magnetic fields will bend the motion of charged particles.
> Where is the energy in a magnet?
A magnetic field has an energy density everywhere in space proportional to the square of the field strength.
Where did it come from in a permanent magnet? It happens that electrons, on their own, naturally make a magnetic field because they are born that way and they can't ever stop doing that. But almost all of the time, electrons are pointing in random directions so their fields cancel and don't add up to very much. Except in a permanent (ferromagnet) where certain unusual properties of the electron clouds in the compounds make it energetically favorable for certain electrons to line up in an organized formation in the same direction, whereas most of the time, it's the other way around, the lower energy state is when the electrons oppose one another so there's no big magnetic field. So in that case any energy in formation comes from the chemical reactions to make the material itself.
> Kids in high school often don't really know what they want to do
For many that's true.
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not. How many professional basketball players weren't really that interested in sports in high school?
I went to university with a now famous mathematician---he was doing research on string theory at age 17 with Ed Witten. Now, he's an outlier among outliers, but the point is true.
There already is law on this, and causing unwanted deaths of unborn in cases when they would be likely to survive outside, is already a felony everywhere.
> I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse.
The problem is that you are believing their words.
Of course, the position is completely nonsensical and hypocritical if one imagines the goal is devotion to needs of health and life of fetuses.
The explanation which is consistent, however, is the recognition that Forced Accidental Parenthood is awful, and that's the entire point of it: because the true goal is to punish, perhaps for a lifetime, poor young women who had sex and further inflict this punishment on their spawn to hurt the mothers even more and use as a fearful example to others.
| Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?
Yes.
Your doctor talking to you is different than a policeman's official actions in *public*. It is similar to you talking with your lawyer. Besides, the defendants in the current issue also fraudulently misrepresented themselves which aids proving ill intent. Regarding policemen, the equivalent would be fraudulently misrepresenting oneself as a psychologist for law-enforcement officers and engaging in private conversations in private, taping them, and then publicizing them to shame policemen and the police department as a collective.
What do school vouchers have to do with anything? There is a Constitutional argument there because there is a long-established constitutional restriction particular to religion.
> After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.
Dissent wasn't the problem. """dissent""" which accused Obama of not being a native-born American despite conclusive evidence was clearly a proxy for bigotry as it is about identity not ideas or policy. Secret Muslim sharia sympathizer (despite droning thousands of terrorists to death and whacking Osama) too is pretty much bigotry and not policy dissent.
No, the UK and Russia/USSR were better at spying and wiretapping for a long time. Russia has as good hackers as US and much better human intelligence, and no (long-lived) defectors.
What happened was not the elimination of middlemen, but the consolidation by network effects & capital into a single middleLord. More akin to feudal times where the Lord taxed all commerce going in and out.
To the contrary, in the technical domain, the 'g' factor in the psychometric literature (you can call it 'general intelligence' or IQ) is well defined and has a quantitative meaning. In particular, it represents the empirically observed phenomenon that across a variety of cognitive/neurological tasks of different natures, there is a statistical tendency among humans for people who are pretty good at many of them have a much higher probability than background distribution of performing well on others. The tasks that don't correlate well don't get put into 'intelligence' tests, say like running and catching a fast moving ball.
The degree is how much this incorporates the aspects of the human word 'intelligence' in social situations.
Using the psychometric definition, it's clear that the machine intelligences can't even be measured because the background assumptions about correlations is false: 99.9999999% performance outlier on Go, brain-death on everything else.
Because machines today have no general intelligence---and it may not matter.
Musk is a firm reality-acceptor when it comes to the technological issues facing his businesses: energy storage, battery manufacturing, car manufacturing, and liquid kerosene fueled rockets. He knows how hard they are and what it takes.
If a software company CEO said oh 'look at the progress in batteries, in 30 years, they will have 50 times the energy density of gasoline', he'd honestly be upset by this wild overselling, and the scientists will describe the energy and chemical constraints of the laws of physics that make that prediction ridiculously wrong.
> The experts in any field tend to be focused on the problems and obstacles, and are often the unduly pessimistic about progress. In hindsight, they often turn out to be the worst predictors. It is hard to see the horizon when you are in the trenches.
All else being equal, the surface temperatures in Kelvin will go as the fourth root of the flux, because emissivity is proportional to T^4 and you presume that outgo = incoming energy in rough equilibrium. So temperatures in Kelvin varying by 2.3, which is still a huge difference but not 30.
| If you want a car analogy for charging your car, try this. Uber "surge" pricing. The more people using Uber, the more normal pricing approaches surge pricing, and the higher "surge" pricing goes.
And the market response on supply from increased prices? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
If utilities start to see more overall electricity demand from vehicles, they will also have more money. Some of the money which used to go to petroleum will go to them. They will have more money to add capacity and storage. Most vehicles will charge at night when costs will stay low for quite a while. At some point, utilities will pay people to plug in their car at 6pm and discharge it for a couple of hours to lower peak demand, and then recharge it back at night.
Argh. The CA utilities have a good reason for this---the gas supply and storage is constrained because of the major leak at Aliso Canyon. They don't have capacity to run the NG peaker plants now, couldn't get it to be installed before the summer of 2017, and would prefer to store up cheaper electricity from the daytime.
It's up to the storage suppliers to bid on the project and choose the technology, and they have all the motivation to choose the most cost-effective one for the project. They know that capacity will degrade with some rate, and probably decided that the likely cost of adding capacity in 10 years would be less than doing something different now. Perhaps there aren't fully proven ready-to-go nickel battery storage units.
The requirement from the utility was to get something installed, successfully, now. No time to waste with a technology that wasn't production ready or had supply problems.
I think the reason for the acquisition is consumer finance.
The business model of companies like Solar City is making money off loans, with the hardware as the hook to get the loans. This will be important with the much more widely sold Telsa 3. Now, the model S is sold to very wealthy people who don't usually need financing or have significant credit risks. In the mass market, that won't be the case any more.
Having experience with loan acquisition and risk pricing is very important to business success or failure. SC presumably has experience in this.
It's not every adjustment, but the ones which make the news.
It's also not surprising that the cleaner and more reliable the dataset, the more the data matches what is understood from laboratory-confirmed laws of physics.
> If we observe a cycle happening dozens of times, but assert that THIS TIME it's somehow being driven a different mechanism, certainly the onus is on us to explain conclusively how & why the previous mechanism stopped and a new mechanism took over.
Sure, that is very true.
And the answer is the following:
The evidence is geological, that when humans mined coal, there were no coal shafts and evidence of previous mining and combustion from 120,000 years ago. Instead, the isotopic and geological analysis shows that the carbon which is being emitted now is from human activities which didn't exist 120,000 years ago.
Something new is definitely happening: human mining & combustion.
In any case, the whole question here is about sea surface temperatures.
Looking further deeper into the oceans (which has a higher heat capacity of course and therefore shows trends better) always showed an unremitting upward trend with no pause.
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
> Because it is an extremely slow effect. You could have two broken legs, a large dog sitting on your back, and have your hands slipping in the mud when you tried to pull yourself along and you could still get away from sea level rise without any concerns of drowning. You can see it coming years, even decades, in advance, and you can step back at any time.
What happens is that a large storm at high tide, which would normally have been an unpleasant day, is now a Katrina-like $100 billion disaster as miles of coastline is flooded and destroyed.
| But by abandoning the gold standard and not coming up with anything concrete to replace gold, we effectively said our currency is no longer tied to anything tangible of any value, so only faith in our leaders managing everything keeps it afloat.
| IMO, that's proven to be a terrible fiscal policy
Monetary policy, not fiscal policy.
| -- as we saw with the Federal Reserve running out of techniques or ideas to control things during the last economic crash.
To the contrary, the Fed employed a large variety of new techniques.
| Interest rates were dropped to near 0% and none of the decreases were having the expected/desired effect on the economy.
To the contrary, they had the expected effect. The european central bank stayed more orthodox and less accomodative, and their recovery has been weaker and later, to the degree that their interest rates and growth is still extremely low and the US Fed is on a path of rising interest rates thanks to an economic recovery, far lower unemployment, higher output, and still moderate inflation.
Ben Bernanke is the best Fed Chairman in the history of the institution.
"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."
The point is that targeting 0% inflation results in much more harm to employment than targeting 2% inflation as is done.
And given that people have the opportunity to invest in all sorts of instruments that take this into account, it is not theft.
Slashdot Mirror
> A magnet exerts force, no?
A permanent magnet creates a static magnetic field, which can exert forces against moving or spinning charges.
> Exerting force requires energy, no?
What do mean by 'exerting'? Generally the answer is 'no'. Magnetic fields will bend the motion of charged particles.
> Where is the energy in a magnet?
A magnetic field has an energy density everywhere in space proportional to the square of the field strength.
Where did it come from in a permanent magnet? It happens that electrons, on their own, naturally make a magnetic field because they are born that way and they can't ever stop doing that. But almost all of the time, electrons are pointing in random directions so their fields cancel and don't add up to very much. Except in a permanent (ferromagnet) where certain unusual properties of the electron clouds in the compounds make it energetically favorable for certain electrons to line up in an organized formation in the same direction, whereas most of the time, it's the other way around, the lower energy state is when the electrons oppose one another so there's no big magnetic field. So in that case any energy in formation comes from the chemical reactions to make the material itself.
> Kids in high school often don't really know what they want to do
For many that's true.
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not. How many professional basketball players weren't really that interested in sports in high school?
I went to university with a now famous mathematician---he was doing research on string theory at age 17 with Ed Witten. Now, he's an outlier among outliers, but the point is true.
So why isn't Make Condomless Sex Illegal a universal required position among American conservative politicians?
Oh yeah, because it isn't really about that is it.
> Men who support abortion aren't really any better than rapists.
Why do most women think so differently about that?
There already is law on this, and causing unwanted deaths of unborn in cases when they would be likely to survive outside, is already a felony everywhere.
In this case, there is a specific California law.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-xavier-becerra-announces-charges-filed-against-david-robert
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Complaint%20Affidavit_SF.PDF?
> I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, followed by the most callous treatment imaginable for the rest of their lives that conservatives espouse.
The problem is that you are believing their words.
Of course, the position is completely nonsensical and hypocritical if one imagines the goal is devotion to needs of health and life of fetuses.
The explanation which is consistent, however, is the recognition that Forced Accidental Parenthood is awful, and that's the entire point of it: because the true goal is to punish, perhaps for a lifetime, poor young women who had sex and further inflict this punishment on their spawn to hurt the mothers even more and use as a fearful example to others.
| Are PP's employees "entirely different" from policemen?
Yes.
Your doctor talking to you is different than a policeman's official actions in *public*. It is similar to you talking with your lawyer. Besides, the defendants in the current issue also fraudulently misrepresented themselves which aids proving ill intent. Regarding policemen, the equivalent would be fraudulently misrepresenting oneself as a psychologist for law-enforcement officers and engaging in private conversations in private, taping them, and then publicizing them to shame policemen and the police department as a collective.
What do school vouchers have to do with anything? There is a Constitutional argument there because there is a long-established constitutional restriction particular to religion.
> After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.
Dissent wasn't the problem. """dissent""" which accused Obama of not being a native-born American despite conclusive evidence was clearly a proxy for bigotry as it is about identity not ideas or policy. Secret Muslim sharia sympathizer (despite droning thousands of terrorists to death and whacking Osama) too is pretty much bigotry and not policy dissent.
No, the UK and Russia/USSR were better at spying and wiretapping for a long time. Russia has as good hackers as US and much better human intelligence, and no (long-lived) defectors.
What happened was not the elimination of middlemen, but the consolidation by network effects & capital into a single middleLord. More akin to feudal times where the Lord taxed all commerce going in and out.
- ethereum blockchain: decentralized turing-complete VM
Aaah, no, no no no no no no! What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Just to give you an idea of what this platforms makes possible:
- Permanently self-mutating, globally replicating, unkillable viruses and parasites
> Currently intelligence is not well defined
To the contrary, in the technical domain, the 'g' factor in the psychometric literature (you can call it 'general intelligence' or IQ) is well defined and has a quantitative meaning. In particular, it represents the empirically observed phenomenon that across a variety of cognitive/neurological tasks of different natures, there is a statistical tendency among humans for people who are pretty good at many of them have a much higher probability than background distribution of performing well on others. The tasks that don't correlate well don't get put into 'intelligence' tests, say like running and catching a fast moving ball.
The degree is how much this incorporates the aspects of the human word 'intelligence' in social situations.
Using the psychometric definition, it's clear that the machine intelligences can't even be measured because the background assumptions about correlations is false: 99.9999999% performance outlier on Go, brain-death on everything else.
Because machines today have no general intelligence---and it may not matter.
Musk is a firm reality-acceptor when it comes to the technological issues facing his businesses: energy storage, battery manufacturing, car manufacturing, and liquid kerosene fueled rockets. He knows how hard they are and what it takes.
If a software company CEO said oh 'look at the progress in batteries, in 30 years, they will have 50 times the energy density of gasoline', he'd honestly be upset by this wild overselling, and the scientists will describe the energy and chemical constraints of the laws of physics that make that prediction ridiculously wrong.
But he's doing the same thing with AI.
> The experts in any field tend to be focused on the problems and obstacles, and are often the unduly pessimistic about progress. In hindsight, they often turn out to be the worst predictors. It is hard to see the horizon when you are in the trenches.
Do you have widespread examples about this?
All else being equal, the surface temperatures in Kelvin will go as the fourth root of the flux, because emissivity is proportional to T^4 and you presume that outgo = incoming energy in rough equilibrium. So temperatures in Kelvin varying by 2.3, which is still a huge difference but not 30.
Yeah, read it, 0.7 Gbps when it's raining.
| If you want a car analogy for charging your car, try this. Uber "surge" pricing. The more people using Uber, the more normal pricing approaches surge pricing, and the higher "surge" pricing goes.
And the market response on supply from increased prices? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
If utilities start to see more overall electricity demand from vehicles, they will also have more money. Some of the money which used to go to petroleum will go to them. They will have more money to add capacity and storage. Most vehicles will charge at night when costs will stay low for quite a while. At some point, utilities will pay people to plug in their car at 6pm and discharge it for a couple of hours to lower peak demand, and then recharge it back at night.
Argh. The CA utilities have a good reason for this---the gas supply and storage is constrained because of the major leak at Aliso Canyon. They don't have capacity to run the NG peaker plants now, couldn't get it to be installed before the summer of 2017, and would prefer to store up cheaper electricity from the daytime.
It's up to the storage suppliers to bid on the project and choose the technology, and they have all the motivation to choose the most cost-effective one for the project. They know that capacity will degrade with some rate, and probably decided that the likely cost of adding capacity in 10 years would be less than doing something different now. Perhaps there aren't fully proven ready-to-go nickel battery storage units.
The requirement from the utility was to get something installed, successfully, now. No time to waste with a technology that wasn't production ready or had supply problems.
I think the reason for the acquisition is consumer finance.
The business model of companies like Solar City is making money off loans, with the hardware as the hook to get the loans. This will be important with the much more widely sold Telsa 3. Now, the model S is sold to very wealthy people who don't usually need financing or have significant credit risks. In the mass market, that won't be the case any more.
Having experience with loan acquisition and risk pricing is very important to business success or failure. SC presumably has experience in this.
It's not every adjustment, but the ones which make the news.
It's also not surprising that the cleaner and more reliable the dataset, the more the data matches what is understood from laboratory-confirmed laws of physics.
> If we observe a cycle happening dozens of times, but assert that THIS TIME it's somehow being driven a different mechanism, certainly the onus is on us to explain conclusively how & why the previous mechanism stopped and a new mechanism took over.
Sure, that is very true.
And the answer is the following:
The evidence is geological, that when humans mined coal, there were no coal shafts and evidence of previous mining and combustion from 120,000 years ago. Instead, the isotopic and geological analysis shows that the carbon which is being emitted now is from human activities which didn't exist 120,000 years ago.
Something new is definitely happening: human mining & combustion.
In any case, the whole question here is about sea surface temperatures.
Looking further deeper into the oceans (which has a higher heat capacity of course and therefore shows trends better) always showed an unremitting upward trend with no pause.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
> Environmentalists were loudly warning us about "global cooling" and an upcoming ice age during the 1960s and 1970s.
No they weren't. And scientists certainly weren't.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
> Because it is an extremely slow effect. You could have two broken legs, a large dog sitting on your back, and have your hands slipping in the mud when you tried to pull yourself along and you could still get away from sea level rise without any concerns of drowning. You can see it coming years, even decades, in advance, and you can step back at any time.
What happens is that a large storm at high tide, which would normally have been an unpleasant day, is now a Katrina-like $100 billion disaster as miles of coastline is flooded and destroyed.
| But by abandoning the gold standard and not coming up with anything concrete to replace gold, we effectively said our currency is no longer tied to anything tangible of any value, so only faith in our leaders managing everything keeps it afloat.
| IMO, that's proven to be a terrible fiscal policy
Monetary policy, not fiscal policy.
| -- as we saw with the Federal Reserve running out of techniques or ideas to control things during the last economic crash.
To the contrary, the Fed employed a large variety of new techniques.
| Interest rates were dropped to near 0% and none of the decreases were having the expected/desired effect on the economy.
To the contrary, they had the expected effect. The european central bank stayed more orthodox and less accomodative, and their recovery has been weaker and later, to the degree that their interest rates and growth is still extremely low and the US Fed is on a path of rising interest rates thanks to an economic recovery, far lower unemployment, higher output, and still moderate inflation.
Ben Bernanke is the best Fed Chairman in the history of the institution.
"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."
The point is that targeting 0% inflation results in much more harm to employment than targeting 2% inflation as is done.
And given that people have the opportunity to invest in all sorts of instruments that take this into account, it is not theft.