Like all proper planets (ie, Pluto and the ilk excluded), Jupiter consists of a ball of rock and some atmosphere. It just happens that Jupiter's atmosphere is extreme, consisting of 86-96% of the planet's mass. Yet, being gas, you can't tell where it starts and ends.
Saying that these stars touch each other is like saying Jupiter's diameter is comes at some random point within its atmosphere. Both include a large amount of very sparse gas, with boundaries being fuzzy.
Too bad they don't also have a concrete plan to match the decrease in coal-generated power with something more environmentally friendly.
From the article:
If at the same time the US accelerates expansion of renewable energy sources and transmission facilities, this could be accomplished with no interruption to electricity supplies, adding only about a penny or two to each kilowatt-hour on electricity bills.
It's be more useful to spend 50 billion developing and installing cost-effective renewable energy sources that are cheaper than coal. Then coal would go away on its own via capitalistic drivers.
The french have a tradition of making themselves the official arbiters of things they don't actually do anything. See also FAI - Federation Aeronautique Internationale, the guys who required the Neil Armstrong to get an FAI Sporting License in order for them to recognize that the Moon Landings took place "officially"
The IAU doesn't agree with that. They renamed many of the craters originally named on Apollo, for no other reason is that they are the IAU and couldn't stand that someone else was actually doing something, rather than talking about it.
What does it mean that he didn't have "a good way to backup that much data, so he never took one"?
The concepts behind backing up data have not changed. You need to manage the size of your data to redundantly fit into the storage of your system. So either pony up the cash and time to properly store your files, stop collecting TBs of crap, or stop complaining about losing it when your system crashes.
It's frustrating to see people continuously complaining about how they have too much data to back up cheaply and conveniently. It's even more frustrating to see them complaining about losing all of their data because they didn't back it up properly.
I think that the main issue is that most people do not realistically or conservatively plan their actual storage capability. For example, it seems like 90% computer users believe that having 4 TB of hard drive space means that they can safely store 4 TB of data.
After a conversation about scratch space, redundant drives, and timestamped backups, they then will grudgingly agree to allocate 25% of their available storage to RAID/Backup space, which obviously does not get the job done! Very few are willing to accept using 66% of their available hard drive space for RAID and Backups, which is really the minimum metric for any sort of storage longevity.
20 TB is an awkward amount of data for a non-corporate individual to be storing. It's more data than most people actually need for their media and it is getting into a very expensive price range to backup for basic music/movie content. (By expensive, I mean that it would be cheaper to just re-purchase the media rather than back it up.)
Tell that the the families of passengers on Flight MH370.
Why, would that somehow bring them back to life?
Why do you think that they are dead?
Didn't you watch Lost?
I can see how a constant stream of telemetry might be cost-prohibitive, but what about a squirt of data consisting of -
- Flight Number
- Lat / Long
- Compass heeding
They already have something like this. It's called a transponder. But when it stops transmitting or is turned off, you are back to the current problem.
Before you mod me down, read my post (and the article)!
What really surprised me was that the article text actually states that women's math scores were below that of men in every country tested:
Although the female test-takers lagged behind males on the math portion of the test, the size of the gap closely tracked the degree of gender inequality in their countries, shrinking to nearly zero in emancipated countries like Sweden and Norway. That suggests that cultural biases rather than biology may be the better explanation for the math gender gap.
So apparently, it is entirely objective to state that the test results indicate that women are worse at basic math than men. Except in Iceland.
Woman apparently are also always better at reading comprehension than men. (See the article.)
The authors argue this results from misogynistic prejudice. However, if you look at the actual article, the correlation is not exact. Norway and Sweden are more emancipated than Iceland, yet have lower female math scores relative to the males. Portugal, France and Poland also introduce a deviation from the trend. Thus, 5 of the 10 countries evaluated do not correlate well with the authors' suggested trend, indicating that the emancipation index is probably not the right metric to be comparing to.
If you're interested in the current state of the art, read this article from the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (April 2013). It describes the hardware and software used by the Pan-STARRS team to detect asteroids automatically in data taken with their 1.8-meter telescope on Hawaii and its 1.4-gigapixel CCD camera.
Actually, you do learn math by rote memorization. Those of us who were interested in math from the beginning were training it all the time by playing around with numbers or geometrical objects, which is just rote memorization with spices on top. And you get really good at math by doing math chores all the time.
That's not really true at all. Rote memorization just teaches you the sets of numbers that you have memorized. Actual understanding of the addition process allows one to add any set of numbers, even if they have never seen them before. In fact, with proper teaching, you should be able to add properly, at first attempt, with no memorization required.
Teaching the method rather than memorization is much more efficient given that there are, by definition, an infinite set of numbers.
Sadly, the US teaching methodology forces everyone to memorize basic concepts first. Most teachers then muddle through the theory so poorly that only students with good aptitude and home lives are able to extract the general methodology in a decent amount of time. The rest fall back on memorization for a few years until they forget entirely. Then they spend the rest of their lives terrified of math.
Gallons-to-tons as the metric? What happened to meters and kilograms?
Let's look at the energy content for some different meat and vegetable products:
Lean steak: 1.86 cal/g
Lard: 8.85 cal/g
Broccoli: 0.34 cal/g
Beets: 0.31 cal/g
Meat products appear to contain between 5 and 29 times more energy per unit gram than the vegetables while requiring 47-77 times more water using the author's unchecked (but I assume biased!) stated water usage values).
So the ratio of energy/water usage ratio for meat versus vegetables is about 3.5:1. That isn't as egregious as the OP makes it sound.
Also, many meateaters will not replace their meat diets with legumes, nuts and tubers. Just like many vegetarians will not replace their legumes, nuts and tubers diets with meat.
What is it with the constant disbelieving of Snowden?
One of the things Snowden exposed was systematic disinformation campaigns by the spooks to achieve various political goals, including the discrediting of their own critics.
Perhaps these comments are examples of such a program in action?
At present we have two parties that are both owned, for the most part, by the same people, and kept in power by gerrymandering and the systemic weakness of first-past-the-post elections.
Further, the people in control of the major parties themselves cheat when someone not of their faction tries to go the primary/caucus root. They change rules in midstream, miscount, break meeting rules, physically attack supporters of opponents, pass out bogus delegate slates, and a host of other dirty tricks.
For a list of the things the Republican have done to just one challenger in the last two cycles, check out the archives of any of the several sites where Ron Paul supporters congregate. (For example, The Daily Paul.)
The Democrats do this as well. (The riots in Chicago in 1968 were largely a public reaction to the party machine repelling a primary effort by Gene McCarthy, popular with the antiwar movement, in favor of Hubert Humphrey. The Paul/Romney nomination battle was eeriely similar.)
I think that governments are perfectly capable of becoming corrupted even without Bill's influence.