Päivän linkki

[Bluntly]

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Shrooms

[Teraslilja_m]

100 years of Big Content fearing technology—in its own words

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.

[Teraslilja_m]

Sovellettu fysiikka on tunnettu siitä, että se haastaa säännöllisesti perustansa, joille se on rakennettu. Tyypillinen esimerkki tästä on Einsteinin yleinen suhteellisuusteoria, joka on yksi tärkeimmistä tieteellisistä teorioista ja siitä huolimatta ehkä kaikista useimmiten tieteellisesti testattu. Mikään tieteellinen teoria ei voi olla niin pyhä (AGW?), etteikö sitä voisi ja saisi haastaa tieteellisesti, right.

Miksi sitten haastaa omat tieteelliset olettamukset? Jos havainnot tukevat vallitsevaa teoriaa - WIN, jos taas havainnot eivät tue vallitsevaa teoriaa, vaan pääset parantamaan tai jopa rakentamaan jotain uutta ja parempaa teoriaa - WIN. Eli WIN-WIN.

Mutta nyt yleinen suhteellisuusteoria ei enää sovikaan havaintoaineistoon...
A New Challenge to Einstein?

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.

[Kai Nalo]

"For one year Kristoffer Clausen will try to survive in the Norwegian wilderness only on what he will hunt, fish or find of edible plants/berries in the nature. One year in the wild is the title of his project. Equipped only with his sleeping bag, hunting rifle/shotgun, fishing gear, and some outdoors equipment he will have to make his own shelters if he want’s roof over his head and he will have to find his own food."

http://www.envillmann.no/

[aasi]

http://existenz.se/out.php?id=17275

Loppu on loistava.

[Chap]

^total reps siinä lopussa. kyllä kannatti odottaa siihen saakka

[Teraslilja_m]

How to Create a Black Hole on a Lab Bench

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,”

[Teraslilja_m]

Live Streaming links for Climate Movie: Not Evil, Just Wrong


WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Fewer than 50 hours from the 8 pm EDT Sunday launch of Not Evil Just Wrong — set to be the world’s largest simultaneous film premiere party in history — the documentary’s co-creators today announced options for people across the globe to watch it FREE over the internet. Live links follow.

In addition to the thousands of individual DVD/theatrical premiere parties being hosted across the nation (map available here), the documentary will also be streamed live over the Internet — accessed for free by anyone who visits the site. Not Evil Just Wrong will also be available on several Internet domains to ensure bandwidth sufficient to handle the expected massive interest in the documentary.

Relevant links and information are included below.

What: World premiere of Not Evil Just Wrong

When: Sunday, 8:00 PM EDT; panel discussion with Andrew Breitbart, John Fund, Prof. Richard Lindzen, and Prof. Don Roberts Emeritus to immediately follow.

Where: One of hundreds of premiere sites across the country (and thousands around the world)

Live Streams:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/not-evil-just-wrong

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com

http://action.afa.net

To Participate:

– Twitter: http://twitter.com/Not_Evil

– Facebook: http://facebook.com/noteviljustwrong/

– YouTube (just send us a message with your attached video):

http://youtube.com/noteviljustwrong

Trailer:

[Teraslilja_m]

Ehkäpä halpa fuusioenergia ei olekkaan enää "jatkuvasti" 50 vuoden päässä ...
LPP’s Newly Assembled DPF Achieves First Shots and Pinch

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]

Pilluriipuksia

[Elppis]

Pilluriipuksia

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

[NuoriD]

Pilluriipuksia

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

Entä haju?

[Elppis]

Pilluriipuksia

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

Entä haju?

Etanat tuoksuu mullalle mun mielestä Vertauksena hämähäkinseitteihin?

[Elppis]

Miltä nyt riippuva silakka haisee?

Sulla on epähygieninen nainen.

[Teraslilja_m]

The full video of the speech is available of Lord Christopher Monckton speaking on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute:


Pitkä esitelmä, kestää 1 tunnin ja 35 minuuttia, ja sen kanssa kannattaa seurata samanaikaisest esitelmän kalvoja (174 sivua), koska esityksen aikana siihen viitataan useasti, mutta ei koskaan näytetä.

[aasi]

Uudenlaisia "optisia hiiriä"

[aasi]

Koiralla suurempi ekologinen jalanjälki kuin katumaasturilla

[Teraslilja_m]

Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
"On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data"
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628, 2009

Tietokonemallit vs todellisuus:

Kuvan lähde: Monckton 2009

[Teraslilja_m]

Science is about simplicity

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]

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

[NuoriD]

Totuus on tarua ihmeellisempää: "kultamuna" termi todella löytyy "virallisesta" maahanmuutoaineistosta.

http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/99_pdf/fi/04_m ... _esite.pdf

Olen luullut, että "kultamuna" on vain J H-a:n keksimä termi.

[Frederik Krueger]

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

Tuo olisi kyllä tosi vänkä Suomessa. Veneillessähän pitää olla pelastusliivit, joten sukeltaessa ainakin matkustajat jäisivät kaiketi pinnalle kuin korkit. Kuski voisi ehkä jatkaa remeleissään matkaa pinnan allakin, ainakin niin kauan kun jaksaa pidätellä hengitystään.

[Kai Nalo]

kitinä jumii

[Kai Nalo]

kitinä jumii

[Teraslilja_m]

Lindzenin pitämän esitelmän powerpoint kalvot:

The Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Video of Dr. Lindzen’s presentation, “Deconstructing Global Warming,” will be available shortly.

Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming

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

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.

What we see is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.