In other news... (humorous news items)

[Djehutynakht]

Police are looking for a thief who managed to carry an 86lb bucket of gold flakes worth $1.6m off a truck in New York.

Surveillance video showed the theft happened in just 20 seconds while the armoured truck was briefly unattended.

The man struggled to carry the gold, taking an hour to lug his loot on a usually 10-minute walk, footage showed.

Authorities believe the man is hiding out in Florida's Orlando or Miami area, but he is still at large.

MmmmMmmMm. Tasty gold flakes...

This reminded me of the scene from Groundhog Day where he spends a bunch of his repeat days planning this exact kind of moment.

[elasto]

An app that claims to recharge phone batteries in 30 seconds has been publicly endorsed by the Fijian government, despite experts saying it defies the laws of thermodynamics.

InstaCharge was launched at a lavish party in Fiji last week, and was lauded by the Fijian prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, who is said to be the only person so far to use the new app.

The mobile app claims to store excess battery power when an Android smartphone is charged overnight. When the battery runs low during the day, a phone can be recharged in 30 seconds by accessing stored power through the app

I'm gonna get one for my car so I can overfill my gas tank and drive for months.

/sigh

[sardia]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/d ... rse-223436

Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall.

[elasto]

Government memo demanding end to Brexit leaks is leaked

[CorruptUser]

An app that claims to recharge phone batteries in 30 seconds has been publicly endorsed by the Fijian government, despite experts saying it defies the laws of thermodynamics.

InstaCharge was launched at a lavish party in Fiji last week, and was lauded by the Fijian prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, who is said to be the only person so far to use the new app.

The mobile app claims to store excess battery power when an Android smartphone is charged overnight. When the battery runs low during the day, a phone can be recharged in 30 seconds by accessing stored power through the app

I'm gonna get one for my car so I can overfill my gas tank and drive for months.

/sigh

You'd be surprised at how little even educated people know about electricity. Myself included, and I nearly had physics as my major. A battery just magically stores electricity, right? Why is there a limit to how much a battery can store, why does it take so long to charge; the juice is right there in the wall! Well, keep a perspective. My iPhone 4s (yes I need a new phone) has a battery that's 18000 joules. How much energy is that? Imagine a sniper with an anti-materiel rifle. We are talking 50 caliber, able to chew through anything short of tank armor. 18000 joules is roughly the same amount of energy as one of those fired bullets. That's a lot of energy in your pocket.

[Sableagle]

There are only so many atomic nucleii that can be distributed unevenly within it, they only represent so much charge each, the more uneven the distribution is the more force it takes to move them further from balance (i.e. insert more charge) and the more heat you generate doing so, the battery's surface only loses heat so fast (at a safe temperature in a room at normal temperature), if it gets too hot it blows up, ...

The easiest way to increase your phone's battery life is to add three more batteries in parallel with the main one ... but that increases bulk and weight and charging time, so maybe someone ought to come up with a system of different standard battery sizes that would allow customers to buy products that all use the same few kinds of batteries and buy lots of rechargeable batteries of those standard sizes. We could make them standard 1.5V cells with different capacities and label them ... oh, A, B, C, D and E, for example, and then electronic products could be labelled "Requires 2 x C cells (included)" or "Requires 4 x D cells (not included)" or whatever and people would know what size batteries / cells to buy and in what numbers.

[CorruptUser]

Why not have easily insertable batteries? You have the battery and a spare, so if the battery is dead you swap for a fresh one then recharge the dry one.

[commodorejohn]

Because then you'd only be able to sell people a replacement battery as opposed to a whole replacement phone when it finally died, obviously.

[Thesh]

Why not have easily insertable batteries? You have the battery and a spare, so if the battery is dead you swap for a fresh one then recharge the dry one.

Most phones used to be like that, until they realized people will buy new phones for the better battery life as theirs dies.

[CorruptUser]

Really, if there ever was proof that the engineering world needs a much stronger standards board or government oversight...

[commodorejohn]

It's not the engineers that make those decisions. It's the suits that run the geegaw manufacturers that employ them.

[CorruptUser]

The suits that run accounting firms will also try to push through a bunch of BS, but FASB does a good job of preventing most of it. Same with the ASOP's and pensions, or the AMA and doctors.

[Chen]

I don't see a good way to legislate against this. Best thing would probably be to publish how long you can expect your product to work at X capacity for. Even that is notoriously hard to quantify though. Apple says something like 500 battery charge cycles and the battery will still retain 80% capacity, though it says nothing about how it further deteriorates after that.

There's always design decisions that can be made and reasons to give for things like not allowing a replaceable battery. Ostensibly consumers should reject the choice if a company doesn't allow it and go with another option instead. Seems they didn't bother with that (or at least not enough did) so the idea remained profitable and thus they continued with that design.

[Grop]

The first mobile phone I owned could work either with its own battery, or with plain old disposable batteries. For some reason they no longer do that.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

So now we know who's responsible for this job posting:

[KittenKaboodle]

You'd be surprised at how little even educated people know..

You ought to read the stuff Randle writes, e.g. https://what-if.xkcd.com/128/ https://xkcd.com/651/

My iPhone 4s (yes I need a new phone) has a battery that's 18000 joules. How much energy is that?

Imagine a 40W incandescent light bulb, 18000 joules would operate it for 7 1/2 minutes, or Imagine the Sun, 18000 Joules would run it for about 1*10^{-(fairly big number)} seconds. (it might not be easy to see, but there is a "-" in the exponent) I didn't bother to actually calculate the time, I can't count that high on my fingers and it probably doesn't matter much anyway

( https://xkcd.com/651/ )

[Sableagle]

( https://xkcd.com/651/ )

(c^c)^(c^c)
Easy to write on a white-board. Hard to work out on your fingers.

[speising]

(c^c)^(c^c)
Easy to write on a white-board. Hard to work out on your fingers.

= 1 (in sensible units)

[jewish_scientist]

Self-driving cars may need to be programmed to be jerks because Bostonians view blinkers as a, "sign of weakness."

[Xenomortis]

18000 joules is roughly the same amount of energy as one of those fired bullets. That's a lot of energy in your pocket.

About 4 grams of TNT (equivalent).
Or about 2-3 g of Nitroglycerin (~2 mL).
Not much, but enough that you'd want to be careful with your hand.

[jewish_scientist]

I don't see a good way to legislate against this.

Pass legislation that requires schools teach the information necessary to make informed decisions as a consumer; problem solved.

[Sableagle]

I don't see a good way to legislate against this.

Pass legislation that requires schools teach the information necessary to make informed decisions as a consumer; problem solved.

Good luck with that.

For a start, you're going to have to made explicit that "Ask yourself: "What would Jesus do?"" isn't the information necessary to make informed decisions as a consumer.

[jewish_scientist]

I don't see a good way to legislate against this.

Pass legislation that requires schools teach the information necessary to make informed decisions as a consumer; problem solved.

Good luck with that.

I never claimed that this solution would be easy; if it was it would have already happened.

[elasto]

Modern Family star Sofia Vergara is being, in effect, sued by two frozen embryos she conceived with the partner she split from, US media report. The embryos, named Emma and Isabella, are listed in Louisiana court documents obtained by the New York Post.

She and Nick Loeb separated in 2014 and he has already tried unsuccessfully to sue for the embryos' custody.

The new lawsuit argues that the embryos are being deprived of their inheritance from a trust by not being born.

The trust is reported to have been created for them in Louisiana, although the embryos are located in California. Louisiana is considered a "pro-life" state and under its law a fertilised egg is seen as a "juridical person".

Humorous news to some; Dark to others...

link

[Angua]

What the actual fuck??

Also, are you allowed to use state's laws like that? Like, if you're 14 and legally married in one state, isn't it illegal if you go to a different one? The article doesn't mention where they [the 'mother' and 'father'] live.

[jewish_scientist]

Like, if you're 14 and legally married in one state, isn't it illegal if you go to a different one

In criminal law, the rule of thumb is that if someone crosses state lines, then the charges are bumped up to the federal level. In civil law, this is one of these really complex area of law because it depend a lot on how the Constitution describes the Union itself.

[morriswalters]

What the actual fuck??

Also, are you allowed to use state's laws like that? Like, if you're 14 and legally married in one state, isn't it illegal if you go to a different one? The article doesn't mention where they [the 'mother' and 'father'] live.

The short answer is maybe. It's called forum shopping. File suit where the law favors you. In the case mentioned the trust was set up in Louisiana. As to the 14 year old the answer is again maybe. Ask gays. It depends on what the old white men in charge decide to do.

[PeteP]

Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking agency officials to identify which employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.

The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years and “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”

[Pruitt, Trump’s EPA pick, has both sides of climate divide girding for a major fight]

Trump and his team have vowed to dismantle specific aspects of Obama’s climate policies, and Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. The questionnaire, which one Energy Department official described as unusually “intrusive” and a matter for departmental lawyers, has raised concern that the Trump transition team is trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/09/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.3f2670406e25 Hmm. I think it is save to say that the next years will do some damage to efforts against climate change at least on the side of the USA.

[sardia]

Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking agency officials to identify which employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.

The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years and “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”

[Pruitt, Trump’s EPA pick, has both sides of climate divide girding for a major fight]

Trump and his team have vowed to dismantle specific aspects of Obama’s climate policies, and Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. The questionnaire, which one Energy Department official described as unusually “intrusive” and a matter for departmental lawyers, has raised concern that the Trump transition team is trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/09/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.3f2670406e25 Hmm. I think it is save to say that the next years will do some damage to efforts against climate change at least on the side of the USA.

This doesn't sound very funny. Do they have to answer truthfully? Why not just lie.

[elasto]

There is no substantive difference between human beings of today and human beings of 100,000 years ago.

So why are we so much more advanced than they were?

Well, the key difference I'd argue is the discovery and application of the scientific method. It has produced more advances in the last 200 years than in all the millennia of human history that came before.

While politicians have always tried to ignore evidenced-based approaches to problem solving - preferring to rely on ideology and gut instinct - I do despair at this new age of 'experts are the last people to be trusted'.

Scientists above all should be left to get on and see where the evidence leads, and it's a damning indictment of the education system that more people don't condemn politicians when they do things like Trump is doing here.

[CorruptUser]

The scientific method didn't exist 500 years ago, yet people will still far more advanced than primitive man.

The difference is the amount of people. A thousand people produce one scientist, but ten million people produce ten thousand scientists. This meant that scientific progress could happen much faster, and more importantly, it could finally happen faster than the human growth rate, allowing for the only time in history to have permanent rises in the standard of living, rather than 10% more grain this decade being followed by 10% more people and everyone is starving again.

[elasto]

The scientific method didn't exist 500 years ago, yet people will still far more advanced than primitive man.

Depends how you measure it I guess. The people of 500 years ago were no more capable of creating a self-driving car or putting a man on the moon than those of 100,000 years ago. If the scientific revolution had never occurred, mostly likely they'd still be no more capable 500 years hence.

Hell, 500 years ago doctors didn't even know that washing your hands before surgery was a good idea...

Scientific progress is exponential, not linear. I expect more scientific progress in the next 50 years than in the last 500 - especially if we crack hard AI.

The difference is the amount of people. A thousand people produce one scientist, but ten million people produce ten thousand scientists.

You have a good point. But the population has gone up tenfold in 500 years - while the number of scientists has gone up far more than tenfold.

And, anyhow, what has permitted the population growing tenfold? It's the scientific revolution (and the industrial revolution to which it gave birth) as applied to agriculture.

Sure, there's a virtuous circle going on, but I maintain that it's scientific advances that are the key driver. Hence my despair at politicians only following the science if it backs up their preconceptions, and trying to suppress it otherwise...

[sardia]

The scientific method didn't exist 500 years ago, yet people will still far more advanced than primitive man.

Depends how you measure it I guess. The people of 500 years ago were no more capable of creating a self-driving car or putting a man on the moon than those of 100,000 years ago. If the scientific revolution had never occurred, mostly likely they'd still be no more capable 500 years hence.

Hell, 500 years ago doctors didn't even know that washing your hands before surgery was a good idea...

Scientific progress is exponential, not linear. I expect more scientific progress in the next 50 years than in the last 500 - especially if we crack hard AI.

The difference is the amount of people. A thousand people produce one scientist, but ten million people produce ten thousand scientists.

You have a good point. But the population has gone up tenfold in 500 years - while the number of scientists has gone up far more than tenfold.

And, anyhow, what has permitted the population growing tenfold? It's the scientific revolution (and the industrial revolution to which it gave birth) as applied to agriculture.

Sure, there's a virtuous circle going on, but I maintain that it's scientific advances that are the key driver. Hence my despair at politicians only following the science if it backs up their preconceptions, and trying to suppress it otherwise...

What makes you think that science will progress linearly? There's no proof of that continuing.

[commodorejohn]

Depends how you measure it I guess. The people of 500 years ago were no more capable of creating a self-driving car or putting a man on the moon than those of 100,000 years ago.

I'm trying not to read too much into this statement, but taken as read it's an absurdly dismissive viewpoint. The advances from 100,000 years ago or even 10,000 years ago to the 16th century were tremendous. Agriculture and metalworking alone made quantum leaps in the last ~5,000 years. Huge amounts of pioneering work in mathematics were done practically from the beginning of civilization. The development of writing (and later mass printing) allowed detailed, precise record-keeping and greatly aided the transmission and dissemination of knowledge - and no matter how wrong many individual theories turned out to be, the sciences made great progress in that time. Hell, even the arts made huge advances in that time. And all of that, in one way or another, laid the foundations for your "scientific revolution." Without all that, we would never have gotten to the point where we could even have a "scientific revolution."

So, please, show some respect.

[DaBigCheez]

I think the quote about "standing on the shoulders of giants" applies. You need to build the tools to build the tools to build the tools to build the tools... in order to have modern technology. The same applies to the knowledge that goes into it, I think. It all builds up over time, and compounds on itself. The humans of 2,000 BC did not have the same starting knowledge base to work with as we have today - they're hardly idiots for not having started mass-production of integrated circuits.

[elasto]

Depends how you measure it I guess. The people of 500 years ago were no more capable of creating a self-driving car or putting a man on the moon than those of 100,000 years ago.

I'm trying not to read too much into this statement, but taken as read it's an absurdly dismissive viewpoint. The advances from 100,000 years ago or even 10,000 years ago to the 16th century were tremendous. Agriculture and metalworking alone made quantum leaps in the last ~5,000 years. Huge amounts of pioneering work in mathematics were done practically from the beginning of civilization. The development of writing (and later mass printing) allowed detailed, precise record-keeping and greatly aided the transmission and dissemination of knowledge - and no matter how wrong many individual theories turned out to be, the sciences made great progress in that time. Hell, even the arts made huge advances in that time. And all of that, in one way or another, laid the foundations for your "scientific revolution." Without all that, we would never have gotten to the point where we could even have a "scientific revolution."

So, please, show some respect.

Wow. Way to misunderstand me. It's not that advances weren't made prior to 1500 - obviously they were. It's that if you look at any exponential curve, almost all the advancements are made in the final part of it.

If you place one grain of sand on the first square of a chessboard, and two on the second, and four or the third etc. you'll place as many grains on the final square as were placed on all 63 squares prior to it.

My point about the scientific method is that advances stack upon each other in a way they don't in a non-scientific environment - eg. a religious one where science is oppressed. In that environment, knowledge can go backwards as easily as forwards (eg. the Dark Ages), and advances are as much through luck as judgment.

they're hardly idiots for not having started mass-production of integrated circuits.

Huh? If you read my opening line, my entire point was that humans 100,000 years ago were exactly as intelligent as humans today.

Anyhow, I seem to have derailed my own point which is that the pride which modern politicians take in being anti-science is extremely depressing - and since I assume all you guys agree with me on that I'll assume I made a very bad analogy with the rest and concede defeat.

[commodorejohn]

Apologies, I guess I misread your post.

[CorruptUser]

Those giants he stood on? They were a giant mountain of people standing on the person below's shoulders.

Oh and Elasto, the "religion holds back society" trope is a bit overused. The Church actually provided a means for intelligent people to dedicate their lives to study, and did preserve a lot of knowledge through the dark ages. Gregory Mendel made his discoveries in a monastery, and Newton was a Jesuit. The bigger problem was that it forced the people studying to be celibate (yes I realize it's a eugenics argument; what of it?).

It's the morals that stall science. But you yourself are guilty of that. Oh sure, you might support stem cell research or animal testing, but do you also support research on the mentally ill? Because that was critical in the late 19th century for understanding disease. And that's not getting into the works of Harlow, an important series of experiments that involved raping monkeys.

[morriswalters]

There is no substantive difference between human beings of today and human beings of 100,000 years ago.

So why are we so much more advanced than they were?

Well, the key difference I'd argue is the discovery and application of the scientific method. It has produced more advances in the last 200 years than in all the millennia of human history that came before.

While politicians have always tried to ignore evidenced-based approaches to problem solving - preferring to rely on ideology and gut instinct - I do despair at this new age of 'experts are the last people to be trusted'.

Scientists above all should be left to get on and see where the evidence leads, and it's a damning indictment of the education system that more people don't condemn politicians when they do things like Trump is doing here.

The more fundamental the problem the more difficult it is to solve. There is no step off point. How do you start with a grass seed and grow wheat? The leap from the germ theory to crispr9, isn't that far.

I like that thought. It's even possible that it isn't fatally flawed as a premise for a story.

And while I'm willing to believe as a tentative theory that you can educate your way out of this, you would need to supply some fair quantity of pixie dust or suitable substitute to get me to do more than nibble. There are too many examples of the type of people who you would expect to have these tools, who throw intellect into the wind and start dancing with their demons. I'm looking at you Astronauts.

Trumps views on science could be a genetic defect. But in the manic moments I just think it's convenient for him.

Was Isaac Newton a Jesuit? Really?

[CorruptUser]

Ok, my mistake. Not a Jesuit, but part of Trinity university. He had some problems becoming a fellow there since he needed to be a priest, and his views were a tad unorthodox so he needed special permission, but he was still devout in a weird way. Also obsessed with alchemy.