Google are in big trouble. First Damore and now this.
190 posts • joined 17 Jun 2008
My respect for The Donald is further embiggened.
Install ad-blockers on the bots.
All thugs use collectivism to rule. They start by taking away your individual right to think and apply logic. They have done this in the West via our schools, colleges and media. The left which believes in heavy government control are dominating in all of our societies mega phones. Nazis did exactly that they used national Socialism, which is left wing, also not to be confused with nationalism alone, Ghandi and Mandela were nationalist and so were the anticolonialists. Socialism is a form of collectivism and the agenda for the group can be anything the leaders use and want to keep control and stay in power, Hitler used racism against Jews and violence. The Democrats in the US are doing the same, but in addition they are using immigration etc. The Labour Party in the UK are using Islam, immigration as things that are untouchable regardless if you comment you are an enemy of the collective group and are subjected to ruin with no limits... etc etc...What ordinary people need to do is step back from the hype and listen to each other you will find you have more common ground than you think, we on the ground stand to loose in chaos for some they continue and will continue to live lavishly if we allow it, whilst we fight each other over lies. Even if the rally was far right it was 500 people really not a huge white supremacist movement. The police outnumbered protesters etc 2 to 1,the Police were ordered to step down or vanish just as th e left wing thugs started the violence. Why?
An order by a democrat, a democratic controlled area. Trump is right, he condemned all violence, you may not like his style but he is not the problem the Democrats are, they set this up . Same way people used Tommy's passion and twisted it to mean aggression to tarnish him. The only way to understand the real Trump is to listen to him directly not via the BBC or CNN.
Re: Only one comment
Not if they spend 30 billion fulfilling the orders. Musk is a conman. SpaceX is cool though.
Re: £875 per household per year!
The Antarctic ice-mass is increasing. It is at near record highs.
Polar bear numbers are increasing.
I thought the North Pole was supposed to be ice-free in 2015? What happened?
Please look into it some more. You will be aghast when you see how science has been abused by the climate change religion.
Dilbert gets it spot on.
Re: Global temps have been static for nearly 20 years.
You will find the xkcd fiction debunked AND corrected here. Not that I expect you to accept this new correct visualisation gracefully. Meh
Re: £875 per household per year!
Typical aggressive response from an Alarmist who doesn't know the observed data.
Satellite and radiosonde data sets (The most accurate we have) show no warming for this period.
Snide comments show the weakness of your position.
Re: £875 per household per year!
The climate scam is busted because it is absurd to restrict the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere. It is absurd because:
1) It has little to no effect on climate. The change in temps in the early 20th century is almost identical to the change in temps at the end of that century. This cannot be so if CO2 is the control-knob. Man-made CO2 is not involved in early 20th C temps. This is the attribution problem that CO2 fans cannot resolve.
2) Warm is good for civilisation, cold is disastrous.
3) Restricting CO2 will mean we are purposefully and expensively trying to reduce crop-yields. Most people don't like starving.
4) Cheap energy == modern civilisation != Expensive windmills
Where's the evidence this was due to man-made CO2?
"You are uninformed and ignorant."
You lose the argument right there.
Re: After Manchester
Best we do something about the ill-informed seekers of truth straight away don't you think.
Re: Global temps have been static for nearly 20 years.
The Green fanbois don't like the data it seems.
Can someone explain to me, based on the data given by PG, what year we can expect climate disaster?
Re: I hope they succeed ... but! Economics!
It is indeed a stunt. It's a con to allow you to think if we just had more windmills and more subsidies to support them then we could be entirely coal free. This is false. Intermittent, low energy-density sources such as wind and solar cannot feasibly meet the baseload requirements of a modern industrial society.
The irony is that we have plenty of wind-free days and that is never reported. We have solar-free periods every night! That is never reported either.
Drax was converted from burning coal to subsidised wood-pellets at great expense. These are shipped from the US at great expense. The CO2 emissions for this are ignored because of the false belief that new forests reclaim the carbon. In Germany there is outrage that old forests are being slaughtered to fuel power stations that are supposedly Green.
We need to exploit all the shale-gas we can and build more super-critical coal fired power stations.
Cheap energy allows our modern civilisation. Renewable (really replaceable) energy cannot ever be cheap, it will downgrade everyone's living standards to the point of disaster.
£875 per household per year!
Scrap the Climate Change Act. CO2 is not a pollutant.
15% of the world's record food production last year can be directly attributed to increased CO2 allowing plants to thrive. This is a good thing.
Global temps have been static for nearly 20 years.
The climate change scam is busted.
Just make the emission regulations reasonable and not ever tightened to satisfy the current liberal eco-loons.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Recognising this would have avoided this whole saga.
"When working inside dangerous machinery, it's normal for the staff inside to take the keys to turn the device with them, to avoid it being inadvertently turned on with them inside. The SafeTech keys are built to do this without needing to have multiple locks and keys hanging off a worker's belt."
Like you'd get inside dangerous machinery prevented from being turned on by a bluetooth key!
Re: The Solomon Islands
Big John hands out a pwning again! Well done Sir.
Re: It will be yet another war soon
Well said Big John.
Re: Anybody able to do the math for me?
IslandPlaya agrees. It doesn't work. Bunch of crackpots.
The gravy train is nearing the buffers!
Re: I'd save some money back...
Visit the Callanish Stones next year in the Outer Hebrides. Dark skies like you wouldn't believe. Golden beaches. Stunning scenery. Wildlife...
and then have some VR fun to enhance all that!
Please checkout vrcreations.biz ;-)
Re: Creates more problems than it solves?
McCulloch is a crackpot.
Scotty died you insensitive clod.
It's a scam.
If this is the actual paper that is supposed to come out in December I can see why it wasn't published in a physics journal. There are a plethora of things wrong with it. So let's start.
In part B they claim a TM212 mode but I'm not exactly sure how they know how to deduce that and how they know how to tune to that mode. Even in their section about tuning they describe how they think the are in resonance but this doesn't mean they know if they are in some particular mode. I'm not an expert in cavities but it seems to be they should have consulted someone who is. They then claim that there are no analytical solutions for a truncated cone, which is not true at all, see here. So right off the bat their understanding of cavities is called into question. They also don't say if their frustum inside is a vacuum, which I think is important if you're going to set up an electric field inside.
They say they put the RF amp on the torsion arm itself. This doesn't seem like a wise choice if they want to reduce all possible systematics.
In their vacuum campaign section they discuss simulated thermal effects but don't say what they used for this simulation. What model did they use, what assumptions were there, etc. If there is a standard piece of software they don't say this either.
In their force measurement procedure section they have a very convoluted and confusing way of measuring force which I don't think matches with their earlier model. One simple way they could have done it is take data with their optical setup then fit it with their earlier thermal model. If they got something significantly above their background model then they might be able to say more. But what they seem to do is record some time series data, what look like pulses, and fit parts of it to linear models to find different parts of some pulse they are looking for. That is a very undergraduate way to do this. They are - from my reading of this confusing method - simply fitting different parts of a pulse to determine what part of the pulse describes a calibration versus other pulses from something else, like a purported thrust. There exists technology that was developed in the 1980s that allows you do do these measurements much easier than they are doing, with much cleaner and clearer results, called NIM, but for some reason they are using this dubious method which likely won't give clear discrimination between signals.
Then they describe different configurations and their effects. The only thing I have to say about this is that it's not clear to me they couldn't have moved electronics outside of the testing area. I've worked with high voltage electronics in a very precise and sensitive test setup before an all of our data acquisition and power supply electronics were easily placed outside the test area, using the technology I mentioned before.
After that they describe force measurement uncertainty, which is great because they didn't have that before. They describe the uncertainties on their measurement and calibration devices. That is fine but these constitute random errors, not systematic errors. The only systematics they talk about are the seismic contributions, for which they quote a number without saying how they arrived at it. They say this is controlled by not doing tests on windy days but that doesn't account for everything since seismic activity, especially from the ocean, can occur without the wind. So it's unclear where they get this number from and if it's at all accurate. This is very dubious. They also cannot control for all low frequency vibration with one method either. Different frequency ranges are usually damped out with different methods. They then say their thermal baseline model contributes some uncertainty, which is true, but then they go and give a "conservative value", which strongly implies they pulled this out of a hat and didn't actually analyze anything to arrive at that number. So I call into question that value. Table 1 tabulates measurement (random) errors then adds them. It looks they quadratically add them, which is correct, but if you worked it out then they did some necessary rounding and didn't keep with the rules for significant figures. They classify seismic and thermal errors as measurement errors, but they are not. If seismic and thermal errors give a continuous shift in your measurements then they should be counted as systematic errors. The authors seem to not understand this.
Their force measurements in table 2 don't seem consistent with what you'd expect to see with increasing power. This says to me there are systematics which they did not account for. In this table they assign an uncertainty to the measured valued which is the one previously discussed. If they has taken data properly and did a proper analysis, the result from that analysis (which should including fitting to their earlier described model) would give different uncertainties for each result. This is standard practice and this is why error analyses are usually done at the end of studies, not in the beginning or middle.
After, they attempt to make some null thrust tests in which they attempt to show that if the z-axis (think in cylindrical coordinates) if parallel to the torsion beam it should show no "thrust". The beam clearly is displaced but since they claim it is not "impulsive" that it is not a true "thrust" signal. This is incredibly disingenuous since it is clear from their plot that something happens with the RF is turned on. The whole idea of impulsive signals doesn't seem correct either since it says to me that they turned they RF on, saw what they wanted to see them turned it off right away. For example in figure 13, would that upward going slow continue to infinity? Probably not. But it's not clear from these plots what the real behavior is.
They then to go on to describe sources of error. At first glance this is great, but upon further reading it looks like an error analysis I would have received from one of my undergraduate students. They are all good sources of error but not a single one was quantified or studied in any detail. At best they simply state in a few sentences why this or that is not important but don't actually back it up with any numbers, which would be proper procedure. This is a huge mark against them and this alone should call into doubt all of their results. But...
They did absolutely no controls. A null test and calibration pulses are not controls. A control lacks the factor being tested (NdT's Cosmos explains this very nicely, episode 5 I think). For that to have been done they would have needed to test several different cavity types: no cavity, rectangular cavity, and most importantly they should have tested a regular cylindrical cavity since this is closest to a frustum. Only then should they have done their frustum measurements. Based on this, their poor treatment of systematics, and their lack of a good method to analyze data (there are no statistical tests mentioned throughout), none of their results should be trusted or given much weight.
They finally go into and start talking about quantum mechanics and how different interpretations could apply (QM doesn't apply here). They also talk about debunked crackpot ideas like Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), and the Quantum Vacuum Plasma which is complete and utter crankery to anyone who has sat in a half semester of quantum field theory.
tl;dr: It's no wonder why they couldn't get this published in a physics journal. Their experimental and data analysis method are at best at the level of an advanced undergraduate, and they have absolutely zero knowledge of any advanced concepts in physics, which they demonstrate in their discussion section at the end.
This paper should absolutely not be taken as evidence of a working emdrive. And so it remains pathological science.
Just make AIs that are too intelligent to be reverse engineered like the guy says.
Wowzers! New and smaller icons.
For my wife!
Re: Their loss someone else's gain
I can see that donate a penny button being blocked quickly as well.
You would soon get sick of the scrounging wee thing on every site you visited. Wouldn't be long before you got huge pop up, under, over, sideways, flashing and beeping versions to 'encourage' you to click it and donate 1p.
Pesky things. I hate the idea already
Re: Why is it...
Obviously terrorism could be funded thru off-shore accounts.
Why haven't GCHQ and the NSA been all over this for years?
The obvious answer is that they have but are saying nothing. Why and how?
If this data is a complete surprise to the intelligence community then I would still ask why and how.
"Atmospheric CO2 is the blanket that keeps our planet warm and any further emissions will mean more global warming. Observations in recent years show that warming is accelerating, that polar ice and glaciers are all melting, that sea level is rising … it all looks rather bleak."
That's the problem right there in the first paragraph.
It is completely false and to keep on asserting such nonsense is verging on criminal.
That is all.
Re: Monofilamanent mesh
Why don't they just acquire a humble garden spider then accidentally expose it to a massive dose of funky gamma rays?
When it grows to about 20 foot let it spin a web over the prison. It gets to keep the drugs. Job done!
What could possibly go wrong?
"However the extreme heatwaves predicted for the Gulf, where temperatures will regularly hit 50℃ or even 60℃"
The global circulation models from the warmists "project" this does it? The same models that have failed to predict the total and utter lack of warming for over 18 years whilst CO2 levels have steadily climbed?
This article (and CAGW) is embarrassing to behold.
Re: Companies don't pay tax
Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
I think it is great that all these researchers fix all these flaws before we go flying down The Mancunian Way in our blinged-up Teslas
I like moistness.
For the healthy chunk of skunk on the tray ;)
The day the Earth caught fire... Seriously!
Re: Treat them like vehicles?
As I said previously...
Why didn't you want your picture on the billboard Sir?
Take him down!!!
He should retire and spend more time with his delightful wife Fanny...
Then you will never know anything my friend.
Open your mind and you will be free!
Re: notoriously addictive?
Here's a thing...
Report back here in xxx months.
(Cue discussion about use of the apostrophe.)
You have a 'truck'
Say no more....
Re: Time for a change?
I had to help an old guy the other day to convert .pdf files to 'Word'
It turned out this guy needed to renew his certificates to be a captain of a large ship.
There were many docs and certificates... Seriously, a lot....
This guy has probably captained more tonnage than the Moon.
And they wouldn't accept pdf!
Anyhow... Jap nuke thing wasn't worth evacuating a squirrel for...