typo in Cameron's quote
He actually said "in extremis", not "in extremism". You'd think the auto-correct feature had never heard of Greek or Latin!
398 posts • joined 8 May 2007
He actually said "in extremis", not "in extremism". You'd think the auto-correct feature had never heard of Greek or Latin!
(until Putin/////independent Russian volunteers on vacation take it over)
Actually, it was the *last* (fourth) stage that was Russian-built. The "Fregat" transfer stage/vehicle is apparently a generic "space tug" with a restartable engine that is intended to carry attached satellites to individual final orbits before releasing them.
Everyone knows that F5 makes better parodies:
[fuel cells] "even provided some fizzy drinking water as a by-product of powering the Apollo landers"
Actually, the landers (LEMs or LMs) themselves were all-battery. The fuel cells in the Apollo Service Module (the big cylindrical engine-bearing stage beneath the conical Command Module) did provide potable water, but this being an American spacecraft, the water was still, without any carbonation added to make it "fizzy".
Again, mythic images wouldn't seem to be evidence. I didn't see any chemicals or burning used by the robots here; in any case, hanging out over a smoky old tire fire is likely to be by far worse for third world child recyclers than the small amounts of not-so-toxic stuff in the electronic components. Do you have any evidence that the electronic components themselves are causing any health problems (as opposed to the tire/dung fires and so forth)?
Is there any actual evidence that "disassemblers" are being exposed to dangerous levels of substances through their activities? Just about all of it should be harmless unless you breath it in as fumes, use it to flavor your happy hour beverage, or ingest it as part of snack time.
(Ace of Spies)
Fergat = Fergie + Fregat?
So, did anyone else have trouble finding an actual story here?
@AC - actually, the laws (and thus the notification requirements) vary from state to state inside the US, and it gets even more complicated when the two parties to the call are physically in different states!
In some cases, no notification is necessary; in some cases, just one party has to consent, and in others, both parties have to consent.
As for the story author's suggestion that one record one's calls, from what I understand in this case, it's the alleged calls between Comcast and PWC about the accountant's job that are at issue, and the lawsuit against Comcast is intended to gain access to recordings of such calls via the discovery process.
Currently, atmospheric CO2 is very close to 400 ppm = 400 parts per million = 0.4 parts per thousand = 0.04 parts per hundred = 0.04 percent.
Yet, you claim CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere. Since you're off by 10x on this easily-checked fact, readers will be unlikely to take your other claims seriously.
As you appear to be poorly informed about ethnic Estonians and the 20th-century history of the Baltics, you may wish to consider some additional sources of information.
"The Singing Revolution" (a movie) is an evocative history from the Estonian perspective of the events leading to the fall of the Soviet empire.
"Controversial History" is a Latvian film telling of WWII-era events in Latvia in the words of three inhabitants of Latvia at the time -- an ethnic Latvian, a Jew, and an ethnic Russian.
"The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence" by Anatol Lieven, the descendent of exiled Baltic Germans who reported from Russia and the Baltics during the last years of the Soviet Union.
I'd also caution against interpreting symbols of the past without asking about them or doing your own research (for example, Baltic "Waffen" SS military units were frontline units fighting the communists, unlike what we in the West think of as the common image of "SS" soldiers).
Finally, I'll note that some of the largest, most secure culture in Europe seem to have many "post-nationalistic" members, especially among the young. Perhaps what you consider "ultra" nationalism is only "ultra" in comparison to the lack of significant nationalism among many today?
Re: President Ilves
I recently had the pleasure of attending a talk by President Ilves -- if you hear him in a more natural smaller group setting (not a press conference!), it quickly becomes clear that he's got an impish personality. That's certainly refreshing when compared with the typical politician (especially those from larger countries). BTW, he was born in Sweden after the war as the child of refugees from Stalin's takeover of Estonia, and later grew up in the US.
Those who hear only the history told by the Soviet colonists and their descendents are sadly likely to have only as good an understanding of Estonia as would visitors to India in the late 1960s listening only to the history told by British colonists and their descendents.
Just checked a Latvian registrar, and they've got .ee at about 50 euros w/VAT, while .lv is going for about 12 euros; other non-.ee domains are similarly low-priced. There does seem to be something going on there; not sure what.
As the article notes, the Estonians are hoping to make the application process available at their diplomatic outposts by the end of 2015.
For those who haven't been paying much attention to Estonia, it's one of the most e-friendly countries in the (pretty much) developed world. From the time of the restoration of its independence in 1991, its development has been surprisingly non-corrupt, competent, forward-thinking and welcoming the outside world. Of course, you must like a flat landscape covered with forests and bogs to live there!
I seem to remember something about "up to the high tide line", so wait until low tide.
Thanks for your (IHMO!) better-reasoned response, Rik. You make some good points.
Perhaps our biggest difference is in the sense of urgency necessary, for example in making the energy-source transition that you mention. I look at the IPCC literature review and see "maybe something bad will happen, maybe it won't, but either way significant bad stuff won't happen until the end of the century or later". I also look at the current state of the health and lifestyle of the world's population (not just the developed world) and see that cutting their access to cheap energy will lead to substantial mortality and morbidity among people *alive today*. That is, switching to more expensive energy today in poorly- to partially-developed countries (including China, India, etc) will lead to more illness and death today.
Given that, I'd rather help the people alive today and invest in more research to (a) figure out how current trends in emissions will affect the world 4 generations from now, within a factor of 2, and to (b) figure out how to provide the developing world with lower-carbon-emitting energy as cheap as gas and coal.
As a relevant side note, my informed guess at "waiting too long" is in the 50-75 year range; presumably yours is closer to 5-10 years?
Also, regarding "climate disruption" currently being underway (presumably you are referring to hurricane counts, droughts, and other damaging conditions), check out the IPCC AR5. IIRC, there's yet no scientific evidence that such are increasing in number or intensity. Certainly, for e.g. waterfront damage the dollar values have been rising over recent decades, but that's due to more and more-expensive things being built close to the water, not to more frequent or intense weather conditions.
Rik, you claim " Even climate skeptics/deniers/whatever admit that the majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is real, human-caused, and a reason to take strong action – and yet they demand absolute certainty from the science before taking any effective action."
However, your premises are flawed. Here's one example: the IPCC AR5 uses climate expert judgment to conclude that "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence),..." The ECS value is roughly the expected increase in global surface temps once we have doubled the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level, likely sometime in the the 22nd century. We are already about 40% of the way to this doubling, and so have already experienced some human-caused warming. The IPCC experts are highly confident that additional warming over the next 100-150 years will be roughly 0.6C (ECS at 1.5C) or 1.8C(ECS at 4.5C), or somewhere in between.
You claim that's a "reason to take strong action". I agree that if the ECS is 4.5C, then having roughly 2C extra warming over the next 100-150 years is reason to take substantial action. However, if the ECS is 1.5C, and we can expect 0.6C of extra warming over the next 100-150 years, we likely won't notice anything amiss. So that's reason *not* to take substantial action.
Thus, the IPCC AR5 itself gives such a broad range of "likely" outcomes, from essentially nothing noticeable to substantial effects, that it's useless for making policy decisions. Skeptics such as myself aren't asking for absolute certainty -- we're asking for the range of substantiated predictions to be narrowed from the current unhelpful "zero to big" range. If climate science had its act together, it would have focused its funding and research effort to narrow down key policy-relevant values such as the ECS. As it is, the likely ECS range doesn't seem to have been narrowed much in the past 30 years(!) and there seems to be a growing divergence between ECS values calculated from real-world observations and those inferred from GCM models.
Your argument that not everyone who uses the 'denier' epithet for their political opponents means to evoke Holocaust denial is true, but it also applies to use of the n-word (which also has a dictionary definition that seems quite innocuous).
My point is simply that educated audiences associate Holocaust denial with the word "denier", as they associate racist insult with the n-word. Those who respect the Holocaust (or abhor racism) will make the small effort to select an alternate epithet rather than using "denier" or the n-word.
Examples abound of climate policy activists using the "denier" term and explicitly acknowledging and welcoming its association with Holocaust denial. If you're interested, I can provide examples. Suggestions for alternate epithets are also available upon request. :)
Using the term "denier" instead of any of a variety of equally pejorative terms just cheapens the Holocaust.
(I realize RC likely had no role in this poor choice of words)
"Shares in Yahoo! are trading at $40.93, well less than half the price of Alibaba"
Which is meaningless without also mentioning the total number of shares of each...
More like a "volunteer vacation" crossing the border into south-eastern Ukraine...
Yes, and quite distant from what is normally considered "Silicon Valley". The 'rents, who live on the Midpeninsula in a single-story wood-framed house, were not awakened by it.
Hopefully, no touring bicyclists in Napa will be inconvenienced; then again, perhaps someone was filming a remake of View to a Kill...
There's a strange sort of stratification in the US where the lower-to-middle end hotel chains supply one or both of free WiFi and free wired ethernet, while their "betters" (the places with room service and bellboys) charge extra for connections, for parking, for in-room safes, and perhaps even for non-drop faucets!
Actually, Mavericks is off Half Moon Bay in Northern (really central) California, about halfway between Palo Alto and San Francisco, but over the hills on the coast: quoth the Wiki "Mavericks is a surfing location in Northern California. It is located approximately 2 miles from shore outside Pillar Point Harbor, just north of the town of Half Moon Bay at the village of Princeton-by-the-Sea."
I recently shared a table at a Palo Alto Starbucks with a pair of young surfer/coders who had hair way too short for dreads and didn't say "man" at all during the half hour I was there. A few "dude!"'s were heard, but they were actually having a very earnest and intelligent conversation about potential fiance relationships as they typed on their Macbooks. Scottish accents would have ruined the mood...
Sounds like a lot of excellent old-style paleontological analysis. But, then there's this:
"Most gene-based studies suggest that arthropods and velvet worms are closely related to each other; however, our results indicate that arthropods are actually closer to water bears, or tardigrades, ..."
Their results use "cladistic analysis", which is basically creating a family tree by counting up matching features, then putting individuals with the most shared features closest together. The problem with this is, of course, that it's the human analyst who decides what's a feature and what's not. One analyst may count all hair on an organism as a single feature, while her compatriot counts scalp hair, facial hair, leg hair, nose hair, and ear hair(!) each as a separate feature. Since there's no objective *amount* of difference between features, the analysis is skewed by the choice of features.
The introduction of DNA analysis for use in creating evolutionary family trees has largely overcome this problem. Not only is DNA the actual genetic material specifying the creature's features, but one can often identify similarities between organisms' DNA that don't show in the physical animal (e.g. mutated genes that no longer can produce a gene product), or see that a feature that seems to be present in two animals is in fact encoded by unrelated genes in each, and thus is not an indicator of evolutionary relatedness (e.g. eyes that came about via completely different evolutionary routes).
Of course, if one compares only a tiny portion of the genomes of two animals (perhaps even just one or two genes), the chances of making an error in the evolutionary ordering are greatly increased. I hope that's the situation the paper's author is referring to here, rather than claiming to have overturned a robust DNA-based evolutionary tree.
Presumably as a result of strict anti-drug laws forbidding references to hallucigenia, the identity of the actual paper in question was censored from the story. Never fear, here it is:
"The big advantage private operators like Musk have is that they can take a more relaxed view of human life."
No, the big advantage private operators have is that they're free to build systems from the ground up with operational efficiency in mind. They have no Congress forcing them to buy from cost-plus military contractors, no legacy multi-thousand-person facilities like the Johnson Space Center, no tradition of gold-plated but cost-inefficient design. IIRC, the Dragon's total control center staff is less than a dozen people. If NASA were running commercial air travel, it would still be available only to billionaires and wouldn't yet have made it across the Atlantic or Pacific.
Probably could have chosen a better word than "whitening"...
People can still claim bits of land for their countries by landing on them? I thought that went out in the 19th century at the latest.
Nice goodbye, Rik! Only in Regland does technical and industry knowledge mix so well with something like ska (me, too, for first hearing it in the 80s).
There's always "other - human" or "to Mars" or "Rapid Amplification of cDNA Ends".
The dirty little secret of simplistic "race"-based diversity goals in tech -- they're an acceptable way to discriminate against Asians. It's pretty obvious such discrimination is widespread in admissions at many universities, limited only somewhat by laws such as California's Proposition 209. It's sad to see that the 20th century's "Jewish quotas" have given rise to 21st century "Asian quotas".
Is this one of those lone-operator-in-the-boonies jobs where you've got to set your own broken bones after you clear the scorpions off the cot in the medical nook?
There hasn't been any real scientific debate over AGW itself for over a decade now. We know from overwhelming observable evidence that it's happening and that it's primarily man made.
Since "AGW" is the acronym for "anthropogenic global warming", meaning "man-made global warming", you don't even need any observable evidence to know that it's man-made.
If you were perhaps thinking instead about what part of GW is AGW, you're not in much luck either. The only evidence for that so far depends on the climate models being complete, but they've already shown themselves unable to predict the recent "hiatus" in rising temps, not to mention clouds and other important features of the climate system. The current argument for GW being mostly AGW is "we can't think of any way to model it without AGW," which ironically was just about what the Intelligent Design folks used as their argument.
I had always thought "khaki" was a tan color, not the dark green color in the photo. That looks like olive drab to me.
There's a link to request a pass for the launch event on June 18th. If you're a developer (as opposed to just an Amazon customer or a media flack), among the questions are:
Describe an innovative way in which you have used gyroscopes, accelerometers, or other device sensors in your app development.
Are you interested in developing apps utilizing a new type of sensor?
Do you have machine learning experience? Please describe.
You're just about right, G. The problem is that he didn't just hand over the documents about the likely illegal spying on US citizens and residents, but he handed over everything, including really sensitive secrets such as info about compromising Huawei's internal network and locations of cable taps around the world. Do the latter is traitorous in effect (and has nothing to do with Constitutional rights), so the bottom line is that he's both a patriot and a traitor, with the latter part solely due to his failure to vet what info he made public.
Then I'm sure you'd be happy to breathe in some botulinum toxin at a 350x lower concentration of 1ppm.
Sure hope Sean Lock crossed the Atlantic by swimming, because if he instead flew on a modern jet, he more than used up years of his carbon quota. :)
Exactly. However, the way I interpret the results is that the American populace, recognizing the lack of any health benefits from reducing CO2 emissions at coal plants, realize that any such regulation is in practice impossible. Thus, it really means "are you OK with no further cuts in coal plant CO2 emissions?"
True, but Burt Rutan is almost as studly a dude as Elon Musk.
Just because all your software modules are in the same IDE doesn't mean module/module interfaces or the calls using them are suddenly perfect, although it does help with certain classes of errors.
Rather than being an Apollo-style moonshot, the 787 was more of a Soviet-style moonshot. The top management at the time (and still today) wanted to hurt the Seattle-area mechanics' (assemblers') union, which had a history of striking (only some of the time because management was trying to screw them over). Thus, they decided to move parts of the 787 work out of the Seattle area, to "partner" companies around the world. As a bonus (management thought), they required the partners to use their own money, not Boeing's, to design their part and build their tooling and factories. What could possibly go wrong with outsourcing big chunks of design and production?
The 787 fiasco was the result. It turns out the partners were nowhere as good as Boeing's in-house Seattle-area staff at design, at assembly quality, and at identifying and solving the early-year assembly teething problems. In fact, IIRC, the Italian partner won't be allowed to work with Boeing again, and wings, the most critical and proprietary part of the design, won't be allowed to be designed by non-Boeing staff ever again.
Vought, a US subcontractor, not only produced delayed structures, but incomplete ones, even after a few years of intensive on-site help from Boeing employees, so in the end Boeing had to buy all the Vought plants and employees doing the Boeing work and bring them in-house to get the work done right.
The 787 was a fiasco because top Boeing management tried to play small ball on a moonshot project. They failed to realize that their scheme reduced shorter-term capital expenditures, but at the cost of vastly increased integration risk -- the risk that the parts wouldn't fit and function properly together once they were put together to form a plane in Seattle. In the end, initial capital savings were overwhelmed by the extra capital, labor, and airline compensation costs of not getting the project done right the first time.
"The "most famous" plaudits probably go to the ISS, Mir, the Shuttle, Eagle Lander, the Millennium Falcon and the Enterprise ..."
Ahh, the Eagle Lander -- at first I thought you meant this:
Then I started reminiscing about the U.F.O. show and its under-appreciated spacecraft -- S.I.D.
"One of mankind's most famous spacecraft" is sure pushing it, but overall this is a very cool story and kudos go to the space hackers and crowdfunders on this. Thanks, Iain.
I had thought it was "at least" 400 years old, but the Register says "about" 400 years old, so I'm falling in line. Fits with the 8000-year-old Earth and all that, you know.
Exactly -- have they not heard of the famous Tang?
Just a note that the preferred term is now "dissident" rather than "denialist", because of the Holocaust/Nazi undertones of the latter.