The man who has never been right about anything doesn’t like Mark Steyn’s new book.
[Via Ed Driscoll]
The man who has never been right about anything doesn’t like Mark Steyn’s new book.
[Via Ed Driscoll]
An interesting article on both the physical and philosophical difficulties involved.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Related, and sad: A young neuroscientist’s bet on cryonics.
Yet…
Stephen Fleming gave a talk on that subject at Dragoncon this weekend (I should go some time). I haven’t looked at them yet, but his slides are on line, and I suspect there’s some good input to the Kickstarter there.
[Update a few minutes later]
Still haven’t been through slides, but I’m amused to see that he stole my graphical book-cover them in the very first one.
[Reading through]
I’d note that in his slides on the “Martian Defense Grid,” someone on the Mars panel at the AIAA meeting last week called Mars our “Jamestown.” High casualties to initial pioneers.
[Update a few more minutes later]
I wish we could show those charts of the unknown shape of the health/gravity curves to Congress. It makes a powerful case for a gravity lab, but only to people who actually give a damn about Mars. Actually, someone should show them to Elon.
The problems encountered publishing the valid criticisms of Dr. Mann’s hockey stick are a serious indictment of the current peer review system, especially the systems at Nature and at the IPCC. Professor Hans Van Storch (University of Hamburg) went so far as to say “Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process.” Reform is needed and some suggestions by Professor Ross McKitrick are made here. The current peer review process can and has been used to suppress valid and important papers. This is why I applaud the internet and scientific blogs, they prevent self-serving and arrogant scientists from blocking the truth. One thing we have seen since the time of Copernicus and Galileo, no deception of this magnitude lasts forever.
Contrary to the myth that 97% of climate scientists believe we are headed toward a man-made climate doom, the truth is that a very small group of second rate climate scientists have captured the attention of some prominent political and media figures. They have also isolated themselves from the rest of the scientific community and suffer because of it.
Not enough to suit me.
This is what I’ve been tweeting this morning.
There's never a good time to call for gun control because it's always a bad idea. https://t.co/qJitSn3J95
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
FYI Legal gun ownership is up in Detroit, with the blessing of the new police chief. Murder/burglary rate is down. http://t.co/gSIgcs7OeL
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
@TheEconomist The numbers are so small that any "trend" is statistically meaningless. https://t.co/fbG4f3sZxY
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
@TheEconomist According to your stats, Americans had a one in a million chance of being involved in a mass shooting last year. What crisis?
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
[Afternoon update]
As usual, the White House lies about “gun violence.”
I’m having to periodically (as in approximately daily) reboot, and repair root with e2fsck. Is this a sign of a memory issue, or something else?
In which it validates Bishop Hill’s predictive model.
Heh.
Is it a fake?
I missed this on Monday, but Jeff Foust has a report on last week’s announcement. A lot of comments there, including the usual ignorance from Marcel Williams.
This looks interesting, but I’d like to see some numbers. Like, how much does it cost, and what kind of reductions are they seeing? I often see studies that amuse me, as though a barely-statisrically-significant 10% risk reduction for some expensive drug with unpleasant side effects is actually worth it.
And is it a permanent solution, or does it require periodic retreatment? Also, are there side effects (like insufficient blood flow to the brain on suddenly standing up)?