GeomanNL

That parrot is a DEAD parrot.

Now this is an interesting article about stellar variability: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2245 You can download the PDF, it's free. It compares the sun with other sun-like stars to get a statistical constraint on the long-term variation that is possible for our sun. They show how different long-term variations of the sun between 0% to 0.5% would compare to the brightness of other stars. </

There's this german term: DELLE: durch einfach liegen lassen erledigt. Translation: by simply letting it lie, solved. It works like a charm.

Sorry to intrude again! I ran the equation a few times. The equation is written in short: Energy = 390 + 3 * (5.35 * Math.Log(Concentration / 100) - 5.9) W / m2 390 = reference heat, required for a temperature of 288 K. 3 = climate feedback (water vapor and insulation from clouds) 5.9 = so that the contribution becomes 0 at 300 ppm (you reach reference heat). The atmosphere has a mass of

Good. They should not give up, because if they fail, such a thing will probably spill over to Europe and I wouldn't like that to happen.

"Because the commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order." In other words: the commission should've established that the [..] rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations. In other words, their rules were too narrow, they imposed only those companies that can be categorized as

I think the solar systems are too small, there are only a few fields between planets. I also think there are too many asteroids. Perhaps you can make only a few of those "real" and the rest "small" and just for show.

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="6" id="3433654"]They are all strange and surprising things![/quote] Yep. Please post some more, stories like that about the honeybees make me laugh :) This one is also strange, it's not funny but I think it is also pretty amazing. http://www.livescience.com/23564-phytoplankton-predators.html It's about an algae that swims away f

I've found this strange and suprising page: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171660-1-megawatt-cold-fusion-power-plant-now-available-yours-for-just-1-5-million I thought cold fusion was long dead, but apparently it is not and someone actually tries to sell a cold-fusion power plant. Good luck to him finding any buyers. <p

Mkay. I don't like being a troll anyway. I'll try to change back to John Doe, my original alias [drinking a potion - gulp]. There you go I'm now John Doe. I'm cured! I'm no troll no more! Trolololola. I'm a happy camper now. And I'll try to refrain from entering serious subjects like these ever again. They give me the creeps.

Ok so I'm a troll... so what, is there something wrong with being a troll? Is it my greenish teint or something? That's because of the radiation you know, I was born with it.

Ok I found this article which seems reliable. And it's just a few days old. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-to-worry-about-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster It says that things are bad only in the vicinity of the nuclear reactors. When you strip away all the hype, not much is left.

Maybe the Discworld series... there's this Rinsewind wizard who wins the day, but is always very miserable in the end. I like the books about him, he is a nice anti-hero. In Dune book 4, the line between good and bad is somewhat blurred. Is Leto the God-Emperor a good worm-guy, or is he evil? I cannot tell, this book might also fall in this category.

Ok fine, sorry. I just got a weak moment. I'm tired of all this hype. Fukushima, global warming. The media and the internet make no sense anymore, they only seem to be happy if they can exaggerate everything. When I was 15, Chernobyl happened. That was a close call for the Netherlands; I also know what a nuclear disaster means. I also know what exaggeration means. What happened at Chernobyl was a lot worse than Fukushima. [quote who="Jafo" reply="8

Well, it's hard to find good information on the internet. There's just so much bullshit. I had a good education. My common sense tells me that there's no imminent global disaster. Not will there be. A tonne of waste water? It gets diluted by trillions of tonnes of ocean water, so what difference does it make. A second meltdown? There already was a triple meltdown in Fukushima and the fuel is either underg

Ok... this article seems more sensible: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ If you get rid of all the hype, what's really left... a burning blob of material in the ground. There is the potential for a fuel leak when the fuel is being removed... but that will be limited to some gas, from 1 fuel rod, so that should be li

My brother had a computer which started up in about 6 seconds and he didn't even have an SSD ... just an overclocked AMD quadcore running at 4 GHz ... until he changed some hardware and then it took a lot longer, he was pretty frustrated about it. I don't remember the details, but I agree with starkers here: it is possible, with the right hardware and a bit of luck. My windows computer at work also has a good hardware set-up, it also takes little time

Gosh this is gloomy... 40 years and 600 billion to clean the mess up ??!! http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/us-japan-fukushima-idUSBRE92417Y20130308 They are in a hurry. <a href="http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18208-nuclear-crisis-at-fukushima-could-spew-out-more-than-15-000-times-as-much-radiation-as-hiroshima

Now that's gloomy. Is that for real?

My windows experiences so far are that after any fresh install windows starts up quickly. This goes for windows XP, windows VISTA, and windows 7 which I currently use. After a year it's a lot slower. I bought an SSD to get rid of the 1 minute startup time. (which in the beginning was like 10 seconds, with a HDD). Once windows 7 is running, there's no problem of course, the system is fine. Is windows 8.1 any different from its predecessors in t

Scientists measure it. The journalist makes an interpretation. Levels in the US rise 30% because a bit of water vapor rises from a reactor in Fukushima 10,000 km away? Even in Tokyo, a few hundred km away, that story would be hard to sell. It would've to be an extremely toxic cloud and would've fried everyone in the vicinity of the reactor in order to be noticeable so far away. A solar flare is so much easier

I've read about this and the journalists probably haven't. http://www.livescience.com/42407-sun-unleashes-major-solar-flare-video.html

Seems hyped to me, those radiation levels are only 30% above average. Could that perhaps be due to a solar flare? There was a big one recently.

Perhaps the future will be safer if nuclear plants are everywhere. That means that policymakers, regulators and inspectors and their families also live close to nuclear plants. It will make them more careful.

Yes, burning CO2 up until there's nothing left sounds like a marvellous idea. But perhaps it's better to burn C in the first place, to prevent CO2 even from forming ! I'll stop posting now for a while :)