The assumption of GR is that space/time can be described as a smooth manifold - a manifold being intuitively something like a beach ball, donut or similar. Smooth means that when you look at a piece of the manifold at a sufficiently small scale, it looks more and more flat; it really is that simple, what makes it hard is when you introduce the technical tools you need to make precise calculations. So, since we don't actually know the size of the universe, perhaps what we can measure is that we are looking at a much smaller scale than we imagined.

But, some will say, how about the speed of light? The age of the universe is known, so if it started out in the big bang as a single point, it can only be a limited number of lightyears across, right? There are several things to say, that might rock that particular boat a little. Firstly, we don't know that the universe was just a single point in size - in fact, the way QM is interpreted, it seems reasonable to think it wasn't. Secondly, if inflation happened, the universe went through a phase when it expanded a lot faster than the speed of light. And thirdly, of course, the speed of light is only known to be the limit within what we know as vacuum in the space-time we observe now, it only limits how much of the universe we can see now; we have every reason to assume that there is a lot more of it than that.

95% is the number they always 'quote', for some reason - presumably because they know it sounds daft to say 'I don't know how much, but I'm sure it's a lot'. Nice, round numbers like 95 don't often turn up as the result of a genuine investigation; real, statistical results are much more awkward, of course - for probabilitic reasons, actually: if you could potentially get any number between 0 and 100 as a result, with 2 decimals (which is quite common), then there are about 10000 possible outcomes, and any number would, on the outset, have a probability of just 10E-4 (this is where those who actually understand probability will come and correct me, no doubt).

Apart from that, he is actually right, although he underestimates the number: it should be 100%. All climate models are wrong, we know that. This is because we are dealing with science, where we make observations, construct a model to explain them, make predictions, find that we are not quite right, change the model, and so on. You can even make a joke about this: Scientists know their theories are not The Truth, and what do you call people that tell something that they know isn't true? Yes! All scientists are liars!! (OK, I didn't say it was a GOOD joke)

Meaning, they are too expensive and are able to look through the incompetence of managers. I suppose it is quite daunting for a mediocre manager to try to dominate a mature engineer, who doesn't fall for his bluster and can't be scared into submission.

Someone who wants sample the air in that location, perhaps? To get a statistically useful dataset, you have to sample from as many, diverse locations as possible, including some where you would expect the readings to be higher than in other places. Otherwise you would get biased data; they were looking for the true average value across the globe, not the least scary number. I'm sure there will be samples that were taken from locations poor in CO2 as well.

Absolutely; which reminds me of a piece of C code I saw years back, and which I haven't been able to find again - perhaps somebody here would happen to know it. If I remember, it was an algorithm to find the best approximation to a straight line in a bitmap, given the two end points. What I remember is that it featured a rather eye-watering construction of two overlapping switch statements (?) which was syntactically legal, but perhaps shouldn't have been. Anyway, if it rings a bell, please let me know :-)

Well, of course - it only counts how many occurences of a certain string you can find. An alternative interpretation could be that since people would have to know what beautiful code looks like in order to decide what ugly code looks like, there must be far more C programmers who know how to write good code. Which makes sense, I think; C is a language that allows the coder to make horrible mistakes, so in order to survive, you have to develop a coding style with strong discipline, which is what makes beautiful code.

That's because there isn't any; it is just yet another example of a string of idiots accumulating nonsense as they pass their lack of understanding on to each other. As far as I have been able to tell, the actual thing that is called an 'EM drive' is not some silly contraption cooked up by a spaced out hobbyist, but the product of scientific, if somewhat speculative, reasoning. There is something called the Casimir effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The speculation is that something like the Casimir effect could be achieved, that would produce a thrust - see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

It doesn't seem completely implausible, but it is too early to tell. However, we are clearly not talking about 'reactionless propulsion' or 'warp drive', if it works, then it is a system that uses virtual particles as reaction mass, if you will. Virtual here doesn't mean 'unreal', BTW - these are real particles in the sense that they explain observable phenomena.

As far as I can see, Roger Shawyer is not a wild-eyed madman, but a serious engineer, who argues his case soberly. That is not to say that his claims are correct, but simply means that he actually offers something that is worth scientific scrutiny and which can be discussed and tested. On the other hand, since this is not all over the new channels, it is not something that has been demonstrated unambiguously enough yet; if this was definitely proven, then we would hear about it even in the general press.

There are two wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...

- that seem relatively trustworthy. To me it looks like a slightly speculative concept, but one that could well have some theoretical support; I am not an expert in QM, but to my eyes it looks somewhat plausible. He doesn't claim to violate fundamental laws of physics - if he is right, and this drive works, then it uses the same phenomenon that lies behind the Casimir effect (well, read the articles, really). It doesn't generate energy from nothing, energy is expended in the process; and it doesn't work like a rocket, it seems, but like a paddle steamer, in that it sort of crawls along in the soup of quantum fluctuations (yes, I don't know what actually means either, but it sounds cool, and apparently it is an observed phenomenon, ie. real).

Or indeed anything with a bit of meat on, if you're hungry.

It is obvious that you find it all too easy to sneer, but the big point he is making, as far as I can see, is that a serious lot can be achieved with relatively simply means, if you have the necessary insight and a bit of creativity. Nowadays too many people are blikered into thinking that we can only ever do anything at all with high technology; one of my favourite examples of the idiocy of this sort of viewpoint comes from the simple act of shaving. Not long ago people would use a straight razor - basically a knife with a core of high-carbon steel that could keep a sharp edge. You would probably only ever buy one in your life, and you could pass it down to your son for generations. Now, however, people are sold the idea that you need a contraption with 5 very thin platinum coated blades, which you can use only a few times, and which costs something like, what, $25 for a packet of 5? Something ridiculouos, any way. And the amazing thing is - the result is not actually better, you are just being taken for a ride.

So, back to this issue: this is not about your local hospital saving money, although thigh maight well benefit as well; this is about helping poor nations achieve a better standard of health without having hundreds of billions to splurge out on luxury equipment. And who knows, it might end up saving you money on the tax or insurance bill, if your health service gets a lot cheaper. Isn't that worth doing?

Is that what being 'a maker' means? Who would have thought it. So it is all about spending a load on high-tech equipment and the pushing a button?

I may just be a sad, old hippie, but I think relying on heavily computerized equipment, where you can download a blueprint, push a button and out comes a finished product, that doesn't mean you're a 'maker' in my book. Yes, I know I exaggerate, but still. Or is 'maker' what you call yourself when you don't want to learn how to actually do things, you just want the finished result?

Whatever - rant's over - but I think there is a lot of real benefit to learn how to do it the primitive way, even if you later just use a machine; it gives you an insight, just like being able to write a program well in C or assembler gives you a good ballast, even if you later only write Python programs. It is sometimes quite surprising how little difference there is between using an electric tool and a manual one, if you are competent with the techniques. Just take the process of cutting a piece of plywood: it seems enticingly easy to just take an electric jigsaw and the result is guaranteed to be good, right? Except that it amazingly easy to produce a poor result. Then try the same with a handsaw - it is somewhat slower and it may be physically harder work, but it is not actually that much harder or slower, and it is in fact quite easy to do it well, if you don't try to rush it.

What I'm getting at is, don't just fall for the fallacy thinking that the only way is to set up a high-tech production facility. A very large part of the advantage of machinery is that you can produce high volumes of the same thing, but it also introduces a limitation in flexibility and will hamper your creativity. And it easily insulates you from the basic insight into what you are doing - it makes you feel helpless without your machinery.

Eh? It took me all of a few days to read through one of the many reasonable books about jQuery, and I found it makes it a whole lot easier to make sense of the DOM. In a browser, what else is there to JavaScript, other than messing around with the DOM? Of course, I only use JavaScript on the client side, for the server side I use J2EE and GlassFish. jQuery is perfect for my use and very, very easy to learn.

Look, it isn't just me saying this - it has been measured over the last 4 decades. Follow the link I provided and read about it - this guy isn't a wild-eyed prophet, but a down to earth guy who has done the foot-work. He's not asking anybody to accept it on faith, there is good data to back it up. We can all read it and make up own minds.

A quick guess: Not very. But the point here, I think, is that we are now taking it seriously enough to start doing it at any scale at all. Technology is almost always crude and inefficient in the beginning - just look at computers - but it becomes better over time - just look at computers. Of course there are many problems to overcome, but they are only problems.

America's problem is not immigration, but the myth of trickle-down economics, which has been implemented blindly in the West. Read:

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

This is not about 'bleeding-heart socialism', but about why it is a good idea to maintain a balanced society, where the gap between the richest and the poorest is not too big. People only leave their home country with the culture and climate they grew up to love, when the situation becomes bad enough to make the alternatives look significantly better; modern America is the result of such migrations, so American's are well placed to understand how this works, and the America you are now mourning the loss of, was the result of these migrations.

I think you are losing the true spirit of America, because you have allowed the rich upper class to persuade you that trickle down economics will make everybody richer, and have lulled you into thinking that what they call 'democracy' is actually democracy. The solution to this problem? Well, I'm not an expert, but to me it looks like the term 'redistribution of wealth' is relevant in some form. The rich have to get less wealthy, and the poor have to get somewhat richer.