It's cheaper to _not_ get a permit?! So what reporter would?
That's one screwed up Service.
Clearly the same brainiacs that came up with that 'deterrent', are the problem. They can't even manage that right!
Solution: get rid of them, put in someone halfway competent, and the resulting improved performance of the Forest Service will mean that you won't have or need whistleblowers and the attendant bad press.
Bob`s a neighbour with a semi-automatic, double-barrel, under-over, 12 gauge shotgun.
Bob likes to shoot quail, duck, skeet, highway signs, and drones.
I asked Bob, ``How can you shoot someone`s expensive drone?"
He replied, " Easy. You just have to lead 'em a little more."
which would be a pretty good investment by the government, backed by the electrical industry, industry willing to gamble on building the infrastructure for electrical vehicles, and environmental interest groups/industries.
It is easy to come up with possible ways of subsidizing the Tesla to keep its cost low, possibly lower than the $35k proposed. It is a technology a lot of people want to see succeed.
... it takes time to become a good photographer
It's called 'skill', and it takes time to refine to the point that others recognise it.
Some people have 'talent' and blossom quickly, but that is rare now, just as it was then.
Also the point is completely incorrect; getting in to photography isn't easier today! A decent camera was available for $200 way back 20 years ago. And young folks who were interested in photography, paid the price. Just as young folks today spring $200 or more for their phone.
The actual difference between photography now and 20 years ago? The camera (in the phone) is waaayyyy more portable. And that's kind of it. In terms of quality: film resolution beats cell phone (and all but the most expensive cameras) hands down, lense quality of an old SLR beats cellphone camera by orders of magnitude.
1) Learn javascript
2) Learn cobol
3) Use Cobolscript
4) Profit !
We will adapt.
We should adapt because anything else is bad both for us and for the planet.
... before we find out the results were made up? Is there some reproducibility happening here? Just sayin'
Science is full of stories like this.
Someone presents a result that catches the imagination. They achieve "great scientific stature".
Someone else quesions the result. They are pilloried while the "consensus" sides with the person of "great scientific stature".
But if there is persistence, sometimes the person of "great scientific stature", and by extension, the "consensus" is proven wrong.
The lesson: "consensus" is meaningless in science. It is desctructive, politically-driven artifact that inhibits the discovery of truth.
Sad fact: Stories like this have happened over and over and over again in science. And we never learn.
Other sad fact: Almost nobody in this forum will recognize the import of this article.
Yeah, finally biology (the 'butterfly collecting' adventure labeled as a science) has something like a 'first principle' to hang on to.
Nothing shows biology to be more a 'butterfly collecting' venture than the repeated surprise biologists express when they find life in environments where they never expected to. You would think they had learned by now. Regardless, a theory with bona fide first principles clearly lays out that finding life supporting environments is the norm.
There have been recent cries for reproducible results in science.
The scope is too limited.
There should be a cry for reproducible results in any research prior to its publication.
Long and short of it for researchers: if only you can get the results and conclusions, then the results and conclusions are not publishable.
If a hypothesis is proven, reproduceably, there can be no denial. It is a fact.
If a hypothesis is not able to be proven reproduceably, it is an opinion.
People back opinions for self-serving reasons, and a consensus is when a majority of people see the most personal advantage in taking up a particular opinion.
Scientific consensus, is a political consensus. No more, no less. Doubt it? Look at the history of tectonic plates to name but one valid hypothesis that was, at times savagely, repressed by those whose academic careers had been made on another hypothesis (the consensus). Look at the history of neural network theory.
The models were chosen to support their beliefs, and conclusion.
That's a problem because a model can be tuned to a desired outcome.
If the opposite had been true, say that model after model had predicted a rise, and then they went out and found the model to be true, there might be more credibility.
As it was, they had a measurements first, they had a belief/hypothesis first (naturally), and they found a model they could make fit. That's not a proof, not conclusive. They should take the model, and see if it tells them something they didn't know/expect, and then try and see if they can find it in nature. Validate the model beyond the very very narrow conclusion you are trying to justify.
... the side nearer my lips is rising higher faster than the opposite side is lowering.
So my beer lasts longer.
".. extremely general to be at all accurate
You also have to know what assumptions are made in the model to 'generalise' it.
And you have to know just how 'fragile' the mode is, how does it hold up to deviations, perturbations.
And then after you've run the model a hundred times and it matches closely the training data (there has to be some), you really have no idea of how it performs as a predictive model.
No shame in that because that is the nature of scientific exploration. BUT you are the fool if you bet your money or your life on it.
Think about wireless charging: convert energy to RF, transmit, convert RF to energy. Each conversion is not perfect. The transmission loses energy density according to a power law. Just that simple transfer is inefficient. And for what reason? Convenience. Nothing more.
Our impact on the planet is what it is. There are a lot of humans. But we are so staggeringly wasterful it is obscene. We net tens of thousands of fish in one catch, to get the thousand we really want. We run air conditioners and pool circulation pumps 24/7 for months, for literally hours of comfort or pleasure. We leave cars running unoccupied for tens of minutes rather than feel the minutes of discomfort of a too cold (or hot) vehicle. All for convenience.
Fact is, we don't need to geo-engineer our planet (in virtual ignorance of potential side effects). We just have to begin using our resources as efficiently as possible.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
