Offshore wind really IS that intermittent
1241 posts • joined 28 Jun 2011
Offshore wind really IS that intermittent
its a bit of a self fulfilling thing: after all who wants to go into a profession dominated by the opposite sex?
There's now an app for that
Lotta carbon in green soup
Well off you go. Lots of toolkits available for the OS/2 window manager to build upon
I keep all my data on an old atom based debian thing somewhere else on the network
The only stuff in /home/me is to do with the config fles for various apps.
This is a delight when upgrading.
simply run a windows splurge in a VM and use photoshop there.
e) Blame global warming
f) Blame capitalist greed (that one might even stick).
g) Blame the EU.
h) Blame Nuclear power
i) Blame fracking.
Valiants Victors and Vulcans - the soundtrack to my childhood.
Of course everyone of note is spying on everyone else, of note.
The cardinal sin is getting caught, doing it.
As this is exactly why companies end up supporting open source projects.
Would love to see this claim backed up with some hard data and plenty of details that spell out exactly what they mean by renewable sources.
Some data on German exports and imports to France
Nowhere NEEDS aircon. People lived everywhere before aircon.
Er no, flywheels cannot handle it just fine.
..." uranium, by all sensible definitions, is 'renewable'."....
Try telling Greenpeace that.
According to some other scientists, we are about to enter a new and destructive ice age.
According to some Christian sceintists, God is going to come down next week and sort out the sheep from the goats and then its barbecue time.
According to so Islamic Scientist, he alrday did and they are in charge of the barbecue, thank you very much.
And had Mr. Gates pushed for a humanlike scalable AI years ago, we'd have answers to this problem (and literally millions of others) by now.
How quaint. So the assumption here is that the only thing that stops a new dream technology from appearing is that not enough people are employed to dream it up?
That if we - say - spent a trillion on 'scientists' and 'technologists' to create a perpetual motion machine, we would inevitably discover laws of physics that make it possible? Just by spending money?
And a real pity we don't have the benefit of 20yrs focussed research on cost and solving the storage&network problem, from people who don't have old industries to defend.
Well, we dont. We have something like 150 years of research into energy storage from people who have every incentive to make it work, because its a highly lucrative market and in no way competes with conventional electricity generation.
In fact it complements ANY energy generation...
The reaosn why we dont have any large scale energy storage at a sane cost is simply because there is no way to achieve it with known science, let alone technology technology, and unless you believe that new science comes into being because people wish it to, like magic or pixie dust, then spending billions on con men in laboratories won't make it happen any quicker either.
Not as clean, efficient, safe or from what I understand able to be used to burn up our existing nuclear waste stock piles as people think they are..
Slightly harder to make a safe weapon from than uranium 235, true, but are terrorists worried about getting radiation sickness themselves?
I am not clear as to what exact linkage you think there is between nuclear power and nuclear weaponry.
They dont use the same technology, the same elements or the same enrichment processes.
Scotland can announce what it likes. The fact remains that when the water in the damns is low, the wind ain't blowing and the sun ain't shining 100% of Scotland's energy does NOT come from renewable sources.
Or from Scotland.
it is even more important to keep doing back of envelope calculations on new technologies and new uses for old technologies to demonstrate they cannot ever work at all economically and therefore no not need billions invested in them.
0.4dB/km x 12, 000 km = 4,800 dB of loss not 48,000 dB...
Seems to be one where the technology gets smarter and smarter so that people can get stupider and stupider.
Who remembers hand calculation with tables of logarithms?
So linked in is if you are worried about getting laid off, and facebook if you are worried about getting laid?
So what is twitter?
What icon, exactly, best expresses this sentiment?
Surely the one on this post?
The NSA has, so far, failed to detect a single terrorist attack despite its massive surveillance of citizens.
The history of the Uk's involvement with N Ireland terrorism is littered with incidents that made the papers and MI scuttlebutt about what really happened.
Murders by e.g. the Unionist paramilitaries of (largely unknown) IRA high command.
The mysterious early detonation of bombs and even weapons caches by 'inept terrorists'
The way in which the IRA high command eventually turned coats and joined a peace settlement.
The point about secret intelligence, is that it is secret.
Is a book worth reading that illustrates just how much of the secret intelligence war of WWII was devoted to disguising how much the secret intelligence agencies had actually penetrated the enemy intelligence systems.
And how much even when it was published remained secret. And a lot still is.
The problem with secret agencies is that you have to take them on trust.
There is an apocryphal story about a newly elected Harold Wilson calling in the heads of the security services and saying 'I am the duly elected representative of this country: Can you tell me the sphere of your operations?'
"No: Its a matter of national security"
"And who are you answerable to, if not me?"
"Can't tell you: National security".
It's the only product you buy which comes with a 'known list of bugs' and nobody cares.
Er no, all products now come with a list of 'known bugs' in order to limit legal liability.
This microwave oven is unsuitable for the drying of pets.
Your mileage may vary.
Only those who buy software even remotely expect perfection, and no one in the engineering and manufacturing industry who has the least idea of the modern ideas of Quality Management expects any product to be perfect without continuous effort devoted to improving it - not till its perfect, but until all known and serious flaws have been identified fixed or documented into a 'limitations of use' type tome
plenty of peoiple might if they had set up secure tunnels etc.
Its total cobblers to talk about this or that piece of kit in itself being insecure, when what is required is overall security of whole networks.
I remember asking a security consultant 'what is the weakest link in their Internetwork security' and being answered 'the dial up modems to their windows PCS the staff plug into their DDI numbers in order to be able to work from home'
Because the corporate firewall denied them internet access...
...are to make sure the APs aren't accessible from the Internet, and are isolated from the business network.
That's what vpn's and firewalls are for. To wrap insecure connections in secure ones. To create trusted networks across insecure networks.
..the year when no one installed any new desktops at all, except a few linux ones...
Seriously, its a rapidly diminishing marketplace compared with fondleslabbery et al.
So who is gonna chase it?
Lotta faith there brother, that there is a God, and he has anthropic characteristics, has a morality and wouldn't act like a complete swine and give us insoluble puzzles to solve just out of malice.
Can't say I have that sort of faith.
If there is a creator, I'd tend to regard him her or it as being absolutely orthogonal to human hopes fears or endeavours one way or another. In short his attitude to us is about as concerned and compassionate as ours is to the social status amongst bacterial societies..
However I do applaud the attempt in a universe as universally uncaring and random as ours seems to be, to persuade ourselves that human existence has some meaning beyond sheer accident..
Some philosophers have challenged some aspects of some of Poppers philosophy, but his main tenets have been upheld to be a pretty decent way to look at science all things considered.
Kuhn is less concerned with what science is, than how it develops.
Quine was an empiricist, and had his own axe to grind.
Your pint is made, but not well made.
In the end we can infer from our experience and infinite number of possible 'stories' of what the world is, and how it came to be (assuming we first assume time and causality as general principles).
Nothing is 'provable', except from an assumption (axiom) and formal proofs are just chains of logic that restate an axiom in a more complex way.
All science is inductive logic: All is in the limit unprovable.
Which is why Popper is careful to show that what counts, is not truth content, but utility.
Believing that creation is billions of divine angels obeying god's will, does not lead to CPU chips: Believing that creation is billions of quarks obeying immutable natural laws, does.
And our support for the 'reality'; of such models as a quantum style universe rests on the fact that derivations of it when applied, work.
mutatis mutandis both models in the limit tend to the same thing: replace Angels with Quarks, Gods Will with Immutable Natural Law, and the two statements are essentially transforms one of the other. The difference is primarily that the science is more detailed and more mathematical, and allows near exact calculations of the effect of 'god's will' on his 'angels'...
My point being the fundamental misconception that science gives the right answers and religion does not.
No, science gives us detailed calculable answers that work, and seem to be accurate. Religion gives us fuzzy answers that are of no practical use beyond giving us 'spiritual comfort' and the feeling that the life we find ourselves cast adrift in, has some purpose and meaning beyond a random accident of whatever it is, that is the case.
But the demonstrable truth content of either is, and always must be, unknown.
>The really impressive trick was walking a few thousand light years in the direction of each extra-galactic object and dropping all those photons pointing towards Earth, ready to be observed by future astronomers.
Piece of cake if you are timeless eternal and omnipotent.
>Who are you supposed to believe? Bronze Age goat herders who used their left hand for toilet paper, or some scientists who are probably just making it all up?
The tragedy these days is that it is a tough call. For many many people.
>Or God created them last Thursday, along with the gentleman in question and his memory of learning that the earth was 4000 years old.
No, I created them this instant, out of vague impressions and a definite feeling that I ought to exist, in some sort of existence, neither of which is of course true.
A creationist believes that in this world there is only one thing that can be trusted, and that is the literal evidence of the Bible, that was given by God, to Man, to guide him through the temptations of life and keep him on the One True Path to salvation.
If the Bible says that the world is 6000 years old, then that is indisputable fact, and fossils are just Satanic temptations put there to trap people who have eaten of the Fruit of knowledge away from paradise into the sin of Thinking That They Know Better.
No, its a lot more logical than that.
I had dinner with some creationists once. I listened.
If you compare the scientific story of creation with the creationist's, they are identical. Except that where the scientific story extends the time lines back to an act of Creation knowns as the Big Bang, where all the time lines meet in a singularity, the Creationist time lines are simply truncated 5,000 years ago, when a divine act of creation brought everything into being, fossils and all.
Philosophically there is no way to establish the 'truth' of either...
Ultimately one uses Occam's razor, but the simplicity of one explanation or the other is once again a value judgement that differs acording to personal perspective. I find the idea of a Big Bang simple,. and it has excellent explanatory power. The Creationists found it incomprehensible, whereas the thought of a Divine Being who waved a magic wand and brought a complete world into existence was a lot easier to grasp...
"Computing is still, at best, an inexact science."
what. does. that. mean. ?
Its meaning free statement actually.
Computing isn't a science. Which is probably why computer scientists make such appalling programmers.
I suspect what was really meant was GIGO.
I suspect that volcanoes being deep climate modifiers and emitters of carbon dioxide, was the point..
the best human minds on the subject of climate are unanimous.....
Romeo Oscar Foxtrot Lima Mike Alpha Oscar....
I Lurve a good 'appeal to authority' with my elevenses..
And if it bears no relation to reality at all its an over-simplistic mathematical model extrapolated way beyond valid limits and if it does work, its probably rule-of-thumb engineering.
Why would a field of experts around the world be convinced that CO2 emissions are driving up global temperature if it's so obviously wrong?
How many are convinced? Really?
How expert really, are these experts?
How many would keep their jobs if they refuted Climate Orthodoxy?
Nearly all the scientists and engineers I know are DEEPLY skeptical. But they cannot speak out for fear of their pensions and their jobs.
Because a population-wide survey is the proper way to know whether something is correct, as opposed to doing a scientific study, right? …Right?
Wrong: The point about that is to illustrate the articles main thesis, that what people believe is more a function of social organisation peer pressure and so on, than it is of the truth necessarily.
Without coming down on one or another side of the argument I would like to perhaps add clarification.
Science is ultimately one hopes about ascertaining - if not the Truth - at least a model of things that is not measurably inconsistent with it, whatever it may be.
Politics seeks to arrive at a group consensus of moulded opinion, such that what people believe becomes far far more important than what the truth actually is.
E.g one can see that studies that elicit the conclusions that '97% of people believe...' are in fact market surveys - political marketing, not science.
Whereas a study that claims 'in the last 27/21 years temperature changes did not correlate at all with CO2 increases to a 97% confidence level' is in fact trying to be science, in that it asserts a claim that can be refuted by data and its purpose is at least superficially to elicit truth in the world as opposed to what people believe to be the truth.
Climate science is an unholy mix of political marketing and some basic science: Its important to distinguish in which camp any of the statements made, lie.
I think you need to look at the proportion of people living in large cities vis-à-vis those in towns: MOST car journeys are urban or suburban, and short.
Obviously to tell it to deliver another slice of bread to the microwave for defrosting.
Unless of course it had a defrosted slice already in its JIT cache...
..at least we can spell 'site'..