Kitinä

It's almost a truism in the tech world that copyright owners reflexively oppose new inventions that do (or might) disrupt existing business models. But how many techies actually know what rightsholders have said and written for the last hundred years on the subject?

So here they are, in their own words—the copyright holders who demanded restrictions on player pianos, photocopiers, VCRs, home taping, DAT, MP3 players, Napster, the DVR, digital radio, and digital TV.

...

Unfortunately, though, as we look over the statements above, the total result of this resistance to new technology is clear: it limits (or attempts to limit) innovation.

Copyright expert William Patry put it strongly at the conclusion of his new book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, writing, "I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."

The great irony of these debates is that most new devices become popular only because buyers really want them, which means they open whole new markets that can then be monetized by rightsholders.

So here is a new such test, courtesy of Rachel Bean of Cornell. She combines a suite of cosmological data, especially measurements of weak gravitational lensing from the Hubble Space Telescope, to see whether GR correctly describes the behavior of large-scale structure in the universe. And the surprising thing is — it doesn’t. At the 98% confidence level, Rachel finds that general relativity is inconsistent with the data.

...
But that doesn’t mean that you ignore anomalies; you just treat them with caution. Given 1:1 odds, that’s certainly where the smart money would bet right now. Happily, it’s an empirical question — more data and more analysis will either reinforce the result, or make it go away. After all, some anomalies turn out to be frighteningly real. This one is worth taking seriously, to say the least.

In a lab in Nanjing, China, two researchers are mucking about with what could be called the world’s first artificial black hole.
The researchers, Qiang Cheng and Tie Jun Cui, haven’t created a doomsday device, but rather a nifty experiment that harnesses the strange properties of metamaterials.
Physicists have already learned how to steer light around an object within a metamaterial to create an invisibility cloak…. Now Qiang and Tie have created a metamaterial that distorts space so severely that light entering it (in this case microwaves) cannot escape [Technology Review]

“I expect that our demonstration of the optical black hole will be available by the end of 2009,”

The baby is born! After seven years of theoretical work and raising money, five months of design, five months of construction and assembly, and a week of testing, LPP now has a functioning dense plasma focus, Focus-Fusion-1. The first shot, using helium as the fill gas, was achieved at 5:29 PM today, Oct.15, and the first pinch was achieved at 6:04 PM on the second shot.

The first shots represent the first in a series of shots that will be taken along the road to demonstrate the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion as a net source of clean, abundant, cheap energy. The machine is still in the initial phase of fine tuning and “conditioning”. In addition, we need to locate a leak in the vacuum system in order to pump down to our goal of a few microtorrs before re-filling with deuterium. Finally, we still need to put in place all our instruments, several of which must also be assembled. We hope to complete all this shortly and be ready to start data collection.

aasi kirjoitti:Pilluriipuksia

Elppis kirjoitti:

aasi kirjoitti:Pilluriipuksia

Noi muuten näyttää vähän samalta, kuin jos kääntäisit etanan ylösalaisin?

NuoriD kirjoitti:

Elppis kirjoitti:

aasi kirjoitti:Pilluriipuksia

Noi muuten näyttää vähän samalta, kuin jos kääntäisit etanan ylösalaisin?

Entä haju?

exPertti kirjoitti:Miltä nyt riippuva silakka haisee?

Dr. Bob Carter kirjoitti:In an Australian variation of this, Greg Combet, assistant to climate Minister Penny Wong, earlier this year asserted with blatant inaccuracy that “we use only peer reviewed science and our opposition doesn’t”. Other IPCC sycophants phrase it slightly differently, such as: “if you climate sceptics had a scientific point of view it would have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals“.

Statements such as these all reflect a fundamental lack of understanding about the way that science works.

If you accept at face value questions and comments like the ones enumerated above, you fall into a carefully laid climate alarmist trap. For the question “why are there no papers in peer-reviewed journals that disprove the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming” is predicated, as is all related IPCC writing, on faulty science logic; specifically, it erects a wrong null hypothesis.

Scientists erect hypotheses to test based upon the fundamental science assumption of parsimony, or simplicity, sometimes grandly referred to as Occam’s Razor. That is to say, in seeking to explain matters of observation or experiment, a primary underlying principle is that the simplest explanation be sought; extraneous or complicating factors of interpretation, such as “extraterrestrials did it”, are only invoked when substantive evidence exists for such a complication.

Concerning the climate change that we observe around us today – which, importantly, is occurring at similar rates and magnitudes to that known to have occurred throughout the historical and geological past – the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”.

In regard to which, first, no such evidence has emerged. And, second, like any null hypothesis, that about modern climate change is there to be tested, as it has been. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with the null hypothesis, which has therefore yet to be falsified (but, of course, one day might be).

To give a clue how hard that task is, note that since 1988 (when the IPCC was created) western nations have spent more than $100 billion, and employed thousands of scientists, in attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record. The search has failed. Though no scientist doubts that humans influence climate at local level – causing both warmings (urban heat island effect) and coolings (land-use changes) – no definitive evidence has yet been discovered that a human influence is measurable, let alone dangerous, at global level. Rather, the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.

...

Jyrki73 kirjoitti:http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkom ... id=1745769
Sukelluspaatti joka pinnalla ollessaan kulkee jopa 80km/h
Milloinkahan näitä löytyy Suomesta?

Page 33 kirjoitti:The argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by science

Page 48 kirjoitti:We see that for models, the uncertainty in radiative fluxes makes it impossible to pin down the precise sensitivity because they are so close to unstable ‘regeneration.’ This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2. From the brief SST record, we see that fluctuations of that magnitude occur all the time.

Page 49 kirjoitti:What we see is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.