Comments for rhinocrisy.org http://rhinocrisy.org Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Blue Sky on Mars by saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2009/03/blue-sky-on-mars/comment-page-1/#comment-249691 saurabh Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=910#comment-249691 It occurs to me that there's somewhat of a problem with the idea that the atmosphere is (a) so thin that it does not produce significant Rayleigh scattering and (b) still manages to hold enough dust continuously that it can maintain a red sky. Shouldn't a thinner atmosphere be less turbid and therefore less likely to kick up dust and keep it from falling back to the ground? Sigh - if only I had taken statistical mechanics in college! It occurs to me that there’s somewhat of a problem with the idea that the atmosphere is (a) so thin that it does not produce significant Rayleigh scattering and (b) still manages to hold enough dust continuously that it can maintain a red sky. Shouldn’t a thinner atmosphere be less turbid and therefore less likely to kick up dust and keep it from falling back to the ground? Sigh – if only I had taken statistical mechanics in college!

]]> Comment on WikiLegislation by Dan Keshet http://rhinocrisy.org/2012/03/wikilegislation/comment-page-1/#comment-248625 Dan Keshet Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:35:28 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1118#comment-248625 Yeah, I just didn't know if it would be easier to build on top of opencongress or whatever API the government provides. Yeah, I just didn’t know if it would be easier to build on top of opencongress or whatever API the government provides.

]]> Comment on WikiLegislation by saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2012/03/wikilegislation/comment-page-1/#comment-248581 saurabh Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:59 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1118#comment-248581 Hmm, it's a start, although it's not cool enough - it doesn't make it that easy to actually crawl around in the bill text itself; something that, say, lets you see which sections of the code are affected by the bill, what their subjects are, what change they make, etc., and let you attach comments to particular line items. Annotations around the bill are useful, but annotations OF the bill, that help you read and parse the significance of the text itself, would be better. Hmm, it’s a start, although it’s not cool enough – it doesn’t make it that easy to actually crawl around in the bill text itself; something that, say, lets you see which sections of the code are affected by the bill, what their subjects are, what change they make, etc., and let you attach comments to particular line items. Annotations around the bill are useful, but annotations OF the bill, that help you read and parse the significance of the text itself, would be better.

]]> Comment on WikiLegislation by Dan Keshet http://rhinocrisy.org/2012/03/wikilegislation/comment-page-1/#comment-248579 Dan Keshet Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:50:54 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1118#comment-248579 http://www.opencongress.org/ and http://www.opencongress.org/api seem like they've done part of the work. They've written APIs for returning data about bills in XML format, including information on positions taken by organizations. http://www.opencongress.org/ and http://www.opencongress.org/api seem like they’ve done part of the work. They’ve written APIs for returning data about bills in XML format, including information on positions taken by organizations.

]]> Comment on WikiLegislation by saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2012/03/wikilegislation/comment-page-1/#comment-248309 saurabh Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:58:45 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1118#comment-248309 That was a name for the post, rather than a name for the system. I agree a better name is needed. Something like SuperWhizBangYouGovWatcher, maybe? Yeah, I thought about the problem of how bills are written - they're essentially a diff on the US code, and a tool to let you view the bill text that way (as a diff, with the context) would be pretty damn useful, I think, just by itself. That was a name for the post, rather than a name for the system. I agree a better name is needed. Something like SuperWhizBangYouGovWatcher, maybe?

Yeah, I thought about the problem of how bills are written – they’re essentially a diff on the US code, and a tool to let you view the bill text that way (as a diff, with the context) would be pretty damn useful, I think, just by itself.

]]> Comment on WikiLegislation by Dan Keshet http://rhinocrisy.org/2012/03/wikilegislation/comment-page-1/#comment-248121 Dan Keshet Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:26:01 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1118#comment-248121 There are, of course, already people for most or all those organizations (Greenpeace, CEPR, Global Exchange, NRA, etc.) employed to scour new legislation for issues of interest to them. This could be a great jumping-off point for such a tool; start by making it easier and easier for these people to use, both to find legislation, annotate it, and inform others of it, and then gradually as the service gets better, it will be easier for new people to do the same. I'm not sure about the name, though; you're not talking about actually changing legislation so much as displaying it with annotations, right? I think one of the most useful features could be something that shows for a bill that reads something like "strike paragraph 2 of section 14 of Federal code 571.14.2" what that actually does. There are, of course, already people for most or all those organizations (Greenpeace, CEPR, Global Exchange, NRA, etc.) employed to scour new legislation for issues of interest to them. This could be a great jumping-off point for such a tool; start by making it easier and easier for these people to use, both to find legislation, annotate it, and inform others of it, and then gradually as the service gets better, it will be easier for new people to do the same.

I’m not sure about the name, though; you’re not talking about actually changing legislation so much as displaying it with annotations, right?

I think one of the most useful features could be something that shows for a bill that reads something like “strike paragraph 2 of section 14 of Federal code 571.14.2″ what that actually does.

]]> Comment on Oh, a calamity! by saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/11/oh-a-calamity/comment-page-1/#comment-242950 saurabh Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:28:33 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=713#comment-242950 Hmm, revisiting this some time later, I cannot for the life of me imagine why I wrote "Richard Helms" up there, or who I actually meant in his place. Hmm, revisiting this some time later, I cannot for the life of me imagine why I wrote “Richard Helms” up there, or who I actually meant in his place.

]]> Comment on Blue Sky on Mars by Andrew Clark http://rhinocrisy.org/2009/03/blue-sky-on-mars/comment-page-1/#comment-233932 Andrew Clark Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:57:02 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=910#comment-233932 I spent a year researching ancient valley networks on Mars at university and I have wondered about the sky on Mars too. The atmosphere is thin, but not that thin. The surface pressure in reasonably low-lying areas is 1% of the Earth's at sea level (and can be as high as 1.5% at the lowest lying places, such as the floor of Hellas); but the density of the atmosphere is nearer twice that (at 1.2-2.5% of the Earth's at sea level) because of the lower gravity. The atmosphere is also deep (considering the pressure - again due to the lower gravity). So could we say that the Rayleigh scattering would be nearer to, say, 4% as much as on the Earth at sea level? Just three points 1) Some of the more recent images released by the JPL show a blue sky 2) The Hubble photos show, along with plenty of cloud, white haze over large areas; shouldnt that lead a whitish-hazy sky? The opaquity of the atmosphere should be related to water-ice or CO2 ice haze, not just dust. The Martian atmosphere may be thin but it is never far from saturation. 3) The Hubble photos, and also amateur photos of Mars, show a blue colouring near the limb - wouldnt that also indicate a blue sky? I really wonder - I'd be surprised if the Martian sky was the same bright blue as the Earth's (although hazy skies could lead to that effect) but I am not comfortable with the official photos either, as if the surface is under a permanent dust storm (if there was that much smog, how can we see the surface?). The excess pink/ bright orange cant be right (the actual space probes are totally mis-coloured in official photos!), so I am left in doubt. I dont mean to sound daft but why cant they send a cheap digital camera that would take normal photos without needing to "calibrate" the images from multi-million dollar cameras? Does anyone know what the real colour of the sky is? I spent a year researching ancient valley networks on Mars at university and I have wondered about the sky on Mars too. The atmosphere is thin, but not that thin. The surface pressure in reasonably low-lying areas is 1% of the Earth’s at sea level (and can be as high as 1.5% at the lowest lying places, such as the floor of Hellas); but the density of the atmosphere is nearer twice that (at 1.2-2.5% of the Earth’s at sea level) because of the lower gravity. The atmosphere is also deep (considering the pressure – again due to the lower gravity). So could we say that the Rayleigh scattering would be nearer to, say, 4% as much as on the Earth at sea level?

Just three points
1) Some of the more recent images released by the JPL show a blue sky
2) The Hubble photos show, along with plenty of cloud, white haze over large areas; shouldnt that lead a whitish-hazy sky? The opaquity of the atmosphere should be related to water-ice or CO2 ice haze, not just dust. The Martian atmosphere may be thin but it is never far from saturation.
3) The Hubble photos, and also amateur photos of Mars, show a blue colouring near the limb – wouldnt that also indicate a blue sky?

I really wonder – I’d be surprised if the Martian sky was the same bright blue as the Earth’s (although hazy skies could lead to that effect) but I am not comfortable with the official photos either, as if the surface is under a permanent dust storm (if there was that much smog, how can we see the surface?). The excess pink/ bright orange cant be right (the actual space probes are totally mis-coloured in official photos!), so I am left in doubt.
I dont mean to sound daft but why cant they send a cheap digital camera that would take normal photos without needing to “calibrate” the images from multi-million dollar cameras?

Does anyone know what the real colour of the sky is?

]]> Comment on I ☠ trash by saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2011/08/i-hate-trash/comment-page-1/#comment-230095 saurabh Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:52:14 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1077#comment-230095 Err, hmm, you seem to be talking about my William Dembski post of way back in the day, where I complained that Dembski asserted that life conformed to an independently-given pattern, a clear sign of intelligence. The problem is, it does not; life creates innovative solutions to a vast array of circumstances, but it does this with almost endless variety - for example, a DNA gyrase which unwinds the helix is a clever little machine, but there's no "blueprint" for a gyrase. Certain proteins might bear a resemblance to machines that we've constructed, but that's only a superficial resemblance, and it can't be described as conformity. Meanwhile, Shakespeare's text is a pretty specific article - you know when a specific text is Hamlet, because you can just compare it to the vrai chose. In the case of gyrase, if we want to assert that it conforms to a pre-existing pattern: well, what is that pattern? Err, hmm, you seem to be talking about my William Dembski post of way back in the day, where I complained that Dembski asserted that life conformed to an independently-given pattern, a clear sign of intelligence. The problem is, it does not; life creates innovative solutions to a vast array of circumstances, but it does this with almost endless variety – for example, a DNA gyrase which unwinds the helix is a clever little machine, but there’s no “blueprint” for a gyrase. Certain proteins might bear a resemblance to machines that we’ve constructed, but that’s only a superficial resemblance, and it can’t be described as conformity. Meanwhile, Shakespeare’s text is a pretty specific article – you know when a specific text is Hamlet, because you can just compare it to the vrai chose. In the case of gyrase, if we want to assert that it conforms to a pre-existing pattern: well, what is that pattern?

]]> Comment on I ☠ trash by flavio http://rhinocrisy.org/2011/08/i-hate-trash/comment-page-1/#comment-214745 flavio Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:54:27 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=1077#comment-214745 Sorry to bother you with off topic, but whats the difference for a shakesper text and the constants required to life to come about? Waht does an objective pattern mean? Sorry to bother you with off topic, but whats the difference for a shakesper text and the constants required to life to come about?
Waht does an objective pattern mean?

]]>