Ok, so the original design spec was for 574 TeV(× 10^-7) per nucleus. This firing was at 450 GeV(× 10^-10) per particle. So, 1000 orders of magnitude lower than intended, so far. Still holding out for a high level test not going wrong...again
I think the debate here goes right to the central issue about Climate change: How do you make science and politics play well together?
In science, concensus isn't that important. Sure, people will be skeptical if you champion some way out there theory, but entertaining strange possibilities is seen as a good thing.
Climate scientists, however, suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to get into politics with the message they got out of their data. Politics, however, is another beast entirely. You have to deal with absolute truths, otherwise people won't give a damn about what you're saying.
How do you make an informed decision based on science? Since it doesn't offer absolute truths, there has to be some element of risk analysis behind your reasoning. But the problem isn't only that no one scientist is absolutely sure about his answer, it's that people disagree on how sure you can be. How do you perform risk analysis when you don't know the risk?
This is where consensus becomes important in science. You can't have a concensus about what's true and what's false, but maybe you can have a consensus about what the risk is. That is what the IPCC is all about.
Now, people won't just trust a consensus; they want to know what lies behind. That's why public access journals are so important.
That's my thinking on the subject, anyway. I, however, am no expert.
Very cool! Did that shrimp spray a bioluminescent ink to distract the angler fish?
The low point was usage of 'u' as a shortened form of 'you' in the intro. If the next David Attenborough makes documentaries employing lolcat speak, I'll become a grumpy old bastard well before my time.
/edit: Also just noticed that the text says 1000-5000 meters deep, versus the title of 1000-5000 feet. Not sure which is correct, but a quick google search lists the Marianas Trench at about 11000 meters deep, so the figure in meters is at least possible.
Sometimes a cough is just a cough. Whoopi is not reacting to anything because there is nothing here to react to. Sofia jokingly complains that her sons age gives away her age, to which Sherri jokingly says you can say you had him at twelve (implying that she's only 30 not 38). Sofia apparently doesn't like the sound of twelve so changes that to thirteen and then to avoid the implication that she was sexually active at that age jokingly says she was raped. Not particularly funny, just normal conversation. Certainly no "foot was put in it". Damn I wish I could downvote right now
LHC is back online!
O'Reilly Knocks Palin On Lack of Experience
Australian Magazine Features 7ft Tall Model On Cover
Laughing Gas is funny.... very funny
Kids in the Hall - The Day It Happened
2012 disaster movie: President Sarah Palin (SNL)
Ben Taylor Sings The Beatles "I Will"
Tea Party Patriots laugh at Lost Daughter And Grandchild
Between 1000 and 5000 Meters The Ocean Is WEIRD
BMX "Downhill" - Rotterdam
"Oww My Balls!" is now A Real Tv Show -[fall of the empire]
O'Reilly Knocks Palin On Lack of Experience
GOP Introduces Reagan Purity Test - Reagan Fails
Urban myths about climate change
How do you make science and politics play well together?
In science, concensus isn't that important. Sure, people will be skeptical if you champion some way out there theory, but entertaining strange possibilities is seen as a good thing.
Climate scientists, however, suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to get into politics with the message they got out of their data. Politics, however, is another beast entirely. You have to deal with absolute truths, otherwise people won't give a damn about what you're saying.
How do you make an informed decision based on science? Since it doesn't offer absolute truths, there has to be some element of risk analysis behind your reasoning. But the problem isn't only that no one scientist is absolutely sure about his answer, it's that people disagree on how sure you can be. How do you perform risk analysis when you don't know the risk?
This is where consensus becomes important in science. You can't have a concensus about what's true and what's false, but maybe you can have a consensus about what the risk is. That is what the IPCC is all about.
Now, people won't just trust a consensus; they want to know what lies behind. That's why public access journals are so important.
That's my thinking on the subject, anyway. I, however, am no expert.
Between 1000 and 5000 Meters The Ocean Is WEIRD
Between 1000 and 5000 Meters The Ocean Is WEIRD
The low point was usage of 'u' as a shortened form of 'you' in the intro. If the next David Attenborough makes documentaries employing lolcat speak, I'll become a grumpy old bastard well before my time.
/edit:
Also just noticed that the text says 1000-5000 meters deep, versus the title of 1000-5000 feet. Not sure which is correct, but a quick google search lists the Marianas Trench at about 11000 meters deep, so the figure in meters is at least possible.
New Seinfeld Mini-Episode (on Curb Your Enthusiasm Finale)
I've forgiven Kramer for that whole incident because he owned it in this series of Curb. Good form.
As for bringing Seinfeld back - we have, what, nine series? Ten? That's enough for me. I still laugh like it's the first time every repeat.
Microsoft Surface Parody
Put a clown-sized foot in it on a chat, then laugh it off
Dragon Age: Brokeback Elf