Cap'n Refsmmat

PCIe 3.0 peaks at 16GB/s transfer. Bus width is 32 bits, not 128 bits. Your best bet is some high-speed volatile memory that stores samples in bursts, then transfers to a computer more slowly.

This reference does no such thing. It is available freely online: http://journals.amet...OT%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Its figures indicate that the mixing depth is less than 100 meters. At no point in the article are depths greater than 150m or so considered. This is also available online, as a 63MB PDF: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa...._atlas_1982.pdf Pages 149-150 (figures 95 and 96) shows mixed-layer depths around the world. None exceeds 500m, and most are ≤100m. There is no support for the 800m figure. In fact, the number 800m only appears in chart axes and oxygen-saturation considerations. If the basic assumptions of the model are demonstrably wrong, its conclusions should be in severe doubt. You presented the article as supporting the claim that natural oscillations can account for much of warming. As swansont's link demonstrates, it does not do so unless one uses faulty assumptions. The sources you cited demonstrate that the assumptions are indeed faulty. What matters is if the assumptions coincide reasonably with reality.

How would they do that? Sample at a lower frequency, and then perhaps sample in short bursts when a high resolution is required?

Assuming 24-bit sampling, 100GHz means ~280 gigabytes of data per second. What sort of digital bus are you thinking of? SATA will only get you just under 1 GB/s, and USB even less. And there's no computer that could keep up with that. You can't write to disk that fast, and the fastest current RAM is about 17 GB/s write speed at peak. Even without recording the data, and assuming just a few clock cycles per sample for processing (Fourier transforms, storage, whatever), you'd be several decades past what a modern processor can handle.

Just trying to better understand your point. I'm sure you won't object to that. Your link doesn't define energy density, or talk about it at all; perhaps you could frame it in terms of heat or temperature, or another physical concept with a well-understood definition?

Are you excluding the known edge cases, such as singularities?

And what exactly is "energy concentration"? It's not a term I've heard used in physics or thermodynamics, except perhaps when referring to batteries or fuel sources.

I think you've got your entropies backwards. Unless you mean something other than what I think you mean.

And believe me, we've seen aaaallll of them.

That is weird. In no case should it give you the error while you're typing. I'll investigate.

Which physical laws? The Second Law of thermodynamics certainly doesn't require this. I very clearly quoted the portion of your post I was referring to. It was the part where you didn't identify why you objected, but rather countered that I am wrong.

Yes.

You're misrepresenting me. The "bad" secrets are ones that cover up government wrongdoing, such as violations of international law or corruption. Secrets about things you merely disagree with -- "they should never have given him a contract! He has such a rascally beard!" -- don't count. Better than letting the pawnage increase unchecked. If a right-winger discovers an evil government plot to create a socialist world government, I wouldn't mind that being leaked either. The appropriate reaction to atrocities and stolen money is to demand an end to atrocities and stolen money, rather than demanding an end to the good as well. Perhaps my example was poor. If there were systematic problems in Afghanistan -- routine civilian casualties, rampant corruption from US contracts, etc. -- the right thing would be to leave. If it were found that, say, one US unit had committed a major crime and covered it up, then the correct reaction is to deal with that unit.

Is my eye "aided" if I have to wear glasses?

Precursors of what level? One could state that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are "precursors," or one could state that certain organic compounds already available are precursors. You'll have to provide a law of thermodynamics that requires "molecular order" first. The Second Law certainly doesn't. AzurePhoenix has given examples of order appearing without a "source." A "source" of low entropy? What do you think entropy is, some sort of mystical goo? No, you don't need a "source." The tube cannot be considered in isolation. The net entropy of the system increases. I don't have to find a spot of exceedingly low entropy and introduce it to the system. I just have to make the system increase in entropy one way or another. Perhaps you could explain, rather than merely dismissing arguments you don't like.

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that point #3 here is false. Numerous amino acids were formed in a reducing atmosphere in the experiment. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

It is. But your argument is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. We are interested in outcomes, which means that the number of trials matters.

Why's that? As swansont has explained, if I start with the necessary precursors to what I want, I have significantly improved odds of creating what I want, compared with starting with completely random molecules. Ahem. Entropy increases in a closed system. Earth, or even any lifeform, is not a closed system. Many interactions occur between objects on Earth's surface, and between Earth and other astronomical bodies. (Like sunlight.) Entropy is allowed to increase in a test-tube in my lab if I'm allowed to interfere with the test-tube as much as I want. But the global entropy of the entire system will increase, yes. Interestingly, many models of abiogenesis focus on undersea vents rich in organic compounds. No atmosphere required. And who says the first life forms were dependent on oxygen? Quite a few modern life forms aren't. Or a change in the conditions of the experiment.

The judgment of history doesn't benefit from knowing secret things. Look, a leak about Afghanistan while we're in the war can reveal bad things about it. Suppose it turns out in some of the documents that we have committed terrible atrocities and stolen money from Afghanistan. The public approval of the war would drop. We'd demand withdrawal. In the next election, a president who based his platform on getting out of all our wars would have a better chance of winning. Because the entire idea of a representative government is to not be pawns of the leaders? Wikileaks is not about mundane secret information: From their About page. Assange has already stated that he has a harm-minimization policy to prevent something like, say, the President's travel plans being leaked. In any case, if you want to trumpet the costs, just leak the Secret Service's budget. But this example isn't really relevant; remember my criteria: It clearly does not fit the criteria.

How is history sufficient for informing us about what is happening right now? If the government is doing something wrong and classifying it to hide their tracks, the judgment of history cannot inform the public of what is going on. An Assange-style release may come a few years after the deed, but it is still timely enough to perhaps cause changes in procedures or even prosecutions. This isn't really proving a negative; the CIA doesn't have to prove to me that there are no terrorist plotters. They should demonstrate that their efforts have thwarted some, by showing terrorists captured or killed, plots thwarted through additional security measures, and terrorist cells infiltrated and fed misinformation. Of course, many of those details couldn't be released without compromising the operations. But I'd love to know. The idea is to, er, reduce the pawnage as much as possible.

Also religion rules 1 and 3.

Why? Situations on Earth are different from situations elsewhere. Right. But if I want a 6, and I roll the die a million times, chances are I'll get 6 at least once. My point is that saying something like "the chance is 1/100000000" is meaningless without clarification. Is that a chance that life will occur on one planet over billions of years, or that life will emerge in the universe at all? Or what?

Well, you need context for your odds. Are those odds saying that there is a [imath]\frac{1}{10^{41000}}[/imath] chance of life occurring ever, or do they refer to per planet, or per year, or per planet per year? For example, suppose I calculated the odds per planet per year. The more planets there are, and the more years they exist for, the more likely it is that life will eventually arise. So we have to examine just what our odds are saying.

Right, but the chance of any person in that billion rolling a six is rather higher, since there are one billion independent dice rolls. Likewise, in a large universe with many different possible sites for life, the chance for life occurring is higher than if there were only one possible site. We are talking about chances of life evolving at all, and that requires consideration of all locations as a group. Wait, which laws of thermodynamics are you referring to?

As far as I understand, the latter is what occurred, not the former. I also don't see the functional difference; science requires a model substantiated by evidence, and pays no attention to the mindset of the researcher who created it. Two independent models with independent evidence are considered equal, even if, say, one of the models was created by a Nazi to suit his evil purposes. Why's that? If there's a million isolated independent sites where an event can occur, and the probability of that event occurring is fixed, there are now a million independent chances for that event to occur. The interaction of the sites isn't important.