What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
104 Comments
- devzor, on 11/03/2008, -8/+64Physics is my religion :)
- thelastcivilian, on 11/03/2008, -4/+31This is what happens when science is outlawed from the White House for 8 years: "Al Qaeda understands the limitations of the dirty bomb much better than we do."
- MacBookForMe, on 11/03/2008, -1/+25It was also my nightmare before exams...:)
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -4/+20Gee, I wonder which of the two candidates would have a better grasps of these concepts...
- iDiggDug, on 11/03/2008, -2/+16A must read in order to put national security threats into perspective.
The public should read it as well, we'd stop magnifying threats. - JigoroKano, on 11/03/2008, -1/+11Ron Paul doesn't even believe in evolution.
- alexacastro, on 11/03/2008, -2/+12Well, if you haven't ***** NOTICED, China is reaching for 2 billion citizens very soon. And yes, this many animals with NO NATURAL PREDATORS producing this much un-recyclable (by plants) CO2 and consuming the Earth's fresh water at such a fast rate is doing much worse than good.
Do some god damn research before calling it "liberal garbage" because if you haven't noticed, scientists come from all walks of life.
And yes it tends to be a tad more liberal than conservative, but keep in mind, the bible first served as an explanation for the role that modern science now fills. - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9God, you sound like a ***** retard when you call it a hoax. If you have no respect for the scientific process, you don't get a say. Simple as that. You can argue that the science is wrong, that they're mistaken, that they missed something, but when you sit there and flat out state that any scientific research which supports global warming has to be made up, how the ***** do you expect me to take you seriously?
And if we're going to sink to that level, I can turn around and say that any research which refutes global warming is made up. See how that works? How the ***** are we supposed to reach any conclusions whatsoever if you're just going to dismiss any research which disagrees with your personal feelings? And how are we supposed to determine which research is legitimate and which isn't? - AndrewMoyer, on 11/03/2008, -1/+10Boy, am I glad you cleared that up!
- billyvnilly, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9I am part of the United Physics Coalition. Your physics is the wrong physics.
- dissolutionman, on 11/03/2008, -1/+9A link to the webcast of his class lectures at Berkeley, formerly known as Physics for Future Presidents. Fascinating stuff, if you've got the time to listen or watch.
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP.html
I first found his podcast about 2 years ago and I greatly enjoyed it. - Jazu, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7I don't have a problem with that. The only pollution a reactor puts into the water is heat.
- inajeep, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7I'd hope that the next thing they should know is math too. Someone needs to know that you can't keep spending money that you don't have.
- Isidore, on 11/03/2008, -1/+7A lot of smart-ass pseudo scientific Diggers and US voters would also benefit from this knowledge
FTA: "Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse."
NASA intro to climate science
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ - phanatical, on 11/03/2008, -2/+8very interesting
- theOster, on 11/03/2008, -1/+7BURN HIM!!!
- theOster, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5the problem of being reactionary is much more a media one. the media is fueled by advertising dollars. and what gets people to watch a program? getting worked up over it. the media is the true problem.
- Isidore, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5Still warming according to the climate scientists at NASA http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
You are quoting from false data, fuller explanation here http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/global-w ... - norman619, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5And if YOU haven't noticed we have ZERO say in what they do in China. They are a sovereign nation and are free to do as they like. Yes I know you would like to play wet nurse to the world but fortunately you can't. You also know that India and other DEVELOPING nation are adding to this right? Are you advocating keeping these nations from attaining the quality of life we in the west have been enjoying for a long time now? Becoming a 1st world nation means raising your energy usage as well as your pollution production. It's unavoidable so arguments like your are laughable and border on being elitist.
- js281, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4macweirdo, he's an enlightened guy, stop getting at him. See how he refers to people as sheeple in that smug and superior tone? And puts the word scientists in "quotes"? He doesn't need to quote his sources or back up anything he says because he knows all the answers from his own personal experience!
- unsigneddigger, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4You're right, a lot of people are paying researchers money to back-up their point of view, only it's the oil companies that are paying all the money and they're paying it to researcher so they they will deny mankind has had any affect on Global Warming.
- sirlancelot88, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5This guy really hit home with the issues of climate change and robotic space exploration. The next president must know that:
1) Both the evidence and the experts point to anthropogenic factors driving climate change, and
2) Manned space missions are a waste of money, and only appeal to technofetishists. Robots can do things for a fraction of the cost and risk. - OverthrowTheNWO, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4I would put the benefits of Hydrogen Electrolysis Water Conversion, Geothermal and Solar Technologies on the list.
The next president needs to STOP taliking about nu-kley-ar energy and fossil fuels and start focusing on green renewable energy!! - WoollyMittens, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5It's okay if you choose to live in denial. Just don't call other people names for trying to make a difference.
- dissolutionman, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Sorry about that, that's his main page. This is the webcast page.
http://tinyurl.com/62oqbo - AndrewMoyer, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3George W. Bush.
Need I say more? - arobicha, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4Neither I hope... The idea is to have a leader in chief that listens to experts, not makes up his own damn opinion based on his limited knowledge.
- alexacastro, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3no they don't, actually. There's too many people who feel physics is unnecessary, and I attended Catholic school with them (and was taught under them.)
See: "Idiocracy". It might make you cry :( - norman619, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3LOL!!! This is what they have science advisers for. They have very qualified people who can and do break these things down for them in terms they can understand. Not sure why we are seeing this argument so much now given this fact.
- apophenic, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4Have you ever read an interview with an author before? They almost always come off as advertisements for the book.
- Jektal, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3What's wrong with Nuclear?
We haven't built a new plant since the 70s. A modern plant would be far safer and cleaner than anything we have now, which are still incredibly clean and safe. - MrGreenGenes, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3"The *storage technology* is not safe for the planet. Period."
Proof? Proof for your claim of it being impossible? I don't buy that for a goddamn second.
"And how many Chernobyls can we "afford?" One every fifty years? Every hundred? How great an increase in the rate of cancer is "acceptable?" There is no way to "clean this up" when we make a mistake."
Well I honsetly cannot believe you went here. We did not make that mistake, that was primitive, poorly run Soviet technology. Not a single reactor in the United States has went through a complete meltdown. And the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island was completely contained. No dangerous radioactivity has been leaked into the atmosphere any more than what comes from the ground itself. This is total *****. You're spouting ***** without any proof at all. - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4One is a Harvard educated scholar. The other was almost bottom of his class at a military college and his running mate believes the earth is 6,000 years old.
- cquinnd, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Jazu makes a good point, you should have said
"Anybody who says go nuclear should volunteer for the *waste storage facility* to be built on their water source"
But even that is inaccurate, we would not be building storage facilities near known (and viable) water sources for just that reason.
That still leaves the debate of how we deal with storage and treatment of nuclear waste. Too bad we can't dump it into a fusion reactor of some sort. - JigoroKano, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3I disagree with your definition of "very easy" in the acquiring of nuclear materials. Using a dirty bomb is like shooting people with golden bullets. If a terrorist organization would waste so much resources and effort to attack us in such an impractical manner then we should count ourselves lucky.
As Muller said, there are much, much easier ways to do much, much more damage. How do you model the fear response of people to a small explosion with a modicum of fallout to giant explosions with no fallout but which level buildings? Or what about if the terrorists detonate some explosives and merely claim that it was a dirty bomb. That would also cause mass hysteria.
Ok, you are a physicist and you got the physics right. On that both you and Muller agree. But the remaining points Muller raises aren't in the realm of physics. - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Protip: If poprocksandsoda says it, you're pretty much guaranteed that it's full of *****.
- MrGreenGenes, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3"Anybody who says go nuclear should volunteer for the plant to be built on their water source."
Why would they build them on water sources? Even if they did, you do realize that the reactors are very safe right? Also why are you so negative about the nuclear waste issue? You seem to think that it's impossible to safely store the waste. We are Humans, we can do whatever we put our minds to. Storing nuclear waste in a safe situation is not above our talents. Of course we have to make sure it's safe and that's what's being worked on. As it is, they're forced to leave the waste on site at the plants that neighbor residential areas. Why not put it all into a remote safe, secured location? - AndrewMoyer, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3Johnny-boy's been around to see most of our modern physics theories be developed and put to use... and he's got the scars to prove it! Did he mention that he's a P.O.W.?
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2What delivery complications could there possibly be with a gas bomb? All you have to do is rent an apartment and leave the gas on.
Anyway, I don't know about the dirty bomb thing. If I were a terrorist, I'd be wary of any plans that involved smuggling materials into the country. Yeah, you could argue that they could easily smuggle things in, but it's another variable that could affect the plan. - SpykerSpeed, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Economics the next president needs to know: government interference in the economy creates inefficiencies.
- multimed, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Repeated ad nauseam. Let's just kill everyone arguing about it and we'll reduce CO2 emissions.
Why can't everyone just be more pragmatic about it. Human caused or now, who cares. It is a bad idea to dump crap into our land, sea and air. Period. Global warming? Just do the best to cut pollution overall and we'll be better off. - warsongs7, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@GarrettGrimsley
Physics is applied mathematics. Chemistry is applied physics. Biology is applied chemistry. Ecology is applied biology etc... - Darkaged, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2The Church Of The Children Of Atom?
Too much Fallout 3... - fx666, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3: "Well, the key issue with a dirty bomb is that it is extremely difficult to make a dirty bomb that will leave any bodies. . . The main effect is cancer not radiation illness. "
I was a member of a group of scientists (I am a physicist) developing recommendations of how to prevent terrorist attacks (our work was sponsored by LA Times). We came to unanimous conclusion that it is easy to assemble dirty bombs and use them in big cities, which contradicts the assessment by the author of the aforementioned book. One thing he got right -- very few people will die as the result of a dirty bomb attack. The purpose of using this weapon is not to kill a large number of individuals but to do psychological damage to the population and promote the Al Qaeda cause. Apparently, the authors knows nothing about psychological implications of a of dirty bomb attack. It is also very easy to acquire nuclear materials because the security at Russian nuclear weapon sites is practically non-existent. Gas bombs that he described are totally impractical because of delivery complications, it is more practical to blow large trucks carrying deadly chemicals, as our recommendations show. There are some other terrorism methods that he does not know about, so the portion of his book related to terrorism is of little value. He is right about the global warming, though. - tekproxy, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2The Physics for Future Presidents webcast lectures are AMAZING. If you have social gatherings with super nerds then you are king with all the stuff you learn from them. Like if you have a dirty bomb radioactive enough to significantly affect a large city, it would be so radioactive it would probably kill you while handling it. Or the real purpose behind Area 51. Or all kinds of gems you learn every so often in physics class but one after the other, every lecture.
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3Oh, but the author has a solution for that, norman! He wants the US to pay for China's reduction of carbon emissions! He wants us to send $100 million to China! As well as sending money to many other emerging countries! "Hello, we're the US government, we just print money! How much do you need?"
And then we are to lead by example! Because China is always saying, "Those Americans are soooo cool with their reduced carbon emissions! I want to be just like them when I grow up!"
Here's the scenario I see playing out: We give $100 million to China to reduce their carbon emissions. They say, "Thanks!" and increase their military budget by $100 million.
Or the "lead by example" example -- the rest of the world wants to push us into signing Kyoto; the problem is that Kyoto sets such a high threshold that most third world countries and emerging economies are automatically exempt from observing Kyoto's high standards. The US (and the US economy) gets body-slammed by Kyoto. - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -2/+4You know, you're right, we need someone with personal experience with that law of physics, someone like John McCain, who spectacularly demonstrated it with five different planes.
- Jeffler, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Hail Physics!
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Well, so much for that, I guess. *sigh* Whatever happened to JimmySpazza? Seriously, dude was the greatest troll of our time, and I haven't seen him around in ages. Oh well.
- Jektal, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1How is a gas bomb totally impractical?
Take the example that was given as a counter-point to using a dirty bomb: Rent several apartments with gas ovens, let them all fill up with natural gas, and ignite.
Or just fill up a large tank at a gas station, park it where you want, and ignite. Or pour it out, and then ignite. -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is