爱上海,上海龙凤419,上海419论坛 – Powered by Coral Miller!

Two escape injury after Letterkenny crash

Posted on by

first_imgTwo motorists had a lucky escape when their vehicles collided outside Conwal Graveyard on the outskirts of Letterkenny last night.Damage was caused to the front of both vehicles, a van and a  car.The accident happened just before 8pm. Gardai and the emergency services attended the scene and there was a build-up of traffic in the area for a time.However, it is understood that neither of those involved in the collision were injured. Two escape injury after Letterkenny crash was last modified: September 28th, 2019 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:conwalcrashGardailetterkennylast_img read more

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , .

Big Bang “Breakthrough” May Be False

Posted on by

first_img(Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Criticisms of the BICEP announcement are coming in, and could overturn the highly-publicized announcement that “inflation” has been discovered.It was supposed to be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize, but the shoe may not fit.  Science Magazine and other sites have announced a potential fatal flaw in the March announcement that a signal confirming cosmic inflation (3/17/14) was detected from the Antarctic instrument site.  In “Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests,” Science Now explains that a crucial factor, foreground microwave “noise,” may not have been subtracted out properly.To subtract the galactic foreground, BICEP researchers relied on a particular map of it generated by the European Space Agency’s spacecraft Planck, which mapped the CMB across the entire sky from 2009 until last year. However, the BICEP team apparently interpreted the map as showing only the galactic emissions. In reality, it may also contain the largely unpolarized hazy glow from other galaxies, which has the effect of making the galactic microwaves coming from any particular point of the sky look less thoroughly polarized than they actually are. So using the map to strip out the galactic foreground may actually leave some of that foreground in the data where it could produce a spurious signal, Falkowski explains. “Apparently, there is something that needs to be corrected, so at this point the BICEP result cannot be taken at face value,” he tells Science.BICEP researchers are not ready to concede the point, however. Clement Pryke, a cosmologist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and a co-principal investigator for the BICEP team, acknowledges that the foreground map is an important and thorny issue. Part of the problem is that the Planck team has not made the raw foreground data available, he says. Instead, BICEP researchers had to do the best they could with a PDF file of that map that the Planck team presented at a conference. Moreover, Pryke says, conversations with members of the Planck team leave it uncertain exactly what is in the key plot. “It is unclear what that plot shows,” he says.The upcoming Planck map of foreground “could make the BICEP signal go away,” the article says.  Since the Planck results will not be published till October, nobody will know if the announcement was a blockbuster or a bust.  Meanwhile, the BICEP team stands by their paper.How could a team be so careless as to rely on a PDF file of a map, without knowing what it represents?  Was this a rush to publish for fame?  It happens.  Remember the eagerness in the young cosmologist’s knock on Andrei Linde’s door to see his delight at apparently having his view of inflation confirmed?  Scientists have egos like other people.  The lure of priority or prize money can trump modesty.  Now, all those positivist proclamations could come crashing down.  We’ll have to wait and see.last_img read more

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , .

Hacker Poll: What Do You Think of Oracle’s Decision to Drop Support for Ruby in NetBeans?

Posted on by

first_img7 Types of Video that will Make a Massive Impac… Last week Oracle announced it will discontinue support for Ruby in NetBeans. RedMonk’s Michael Coté doesn’t think it’s a big deal. “NetBeans was a nice tool, but it wasn’t the lynch-pin of success for that community,” he writes. “There’s a wide array of free and commercial tools out there that developers love using.”Coté thinks that Oracle’s withdrawal of support is motivated by a lack of revenue from supporting Ruby. “Arguably, growing the ruby community helps Oracle grow the sales pie for MySQL (which they also now own), but I’m not sure that’d be big enough or a direct enough correlation for the money-minded Oracle decision makers,” he writes.However, as analysts are urging enterprises to look elsewhere for a programming language, it’s not hard to see Oracle’s move as signaling something deeper about Oracle’s relationship to the developer community in general and to the open source community in particular. What do you think?Also, are you a Ruby developer using NetBeans? If so, what IDE are you going to move to? klint finley Related Posts Tags:#hack#Polls center_img How to Write a Welcome Email to New Employees? Why You Love Online Quizzes Growing Phone Scams: 5 Tips To Avoidlast_img read more

Tagged: , , , , , , .

Is the Green Movement Just Spinning Its Wheels?

Posted on by

first_img 7 Steps to an Energy-Efficient House: 7. Renewable EnergyPhotovoltaic (Solar)Green Basics: Wind-Generated PowerResisting the Allure of Small Wind Turbines A clash of cultures?Maybe it is the fact that “first world” inhabitants — those who live in highly developed industrial countries with robust economies — believe their wealth somehow excuses them from certain collective responsibilities.“I think the fundamental problem is this: people in ‘first world’ countries feel that if you are affluent enough to afford occasional or frequent air travel, driving all the time, and meat with every meal, then you are off the hook for minding your carbon footprint because only a communist could expect you to give these things up just to avoid screwing up the planet,” writes Thomas Jefferson. “The only acceptable steps have to look and feel like what people are used to (e.g. choosing a slightly more fuel efficient gas powered vehicle) rather than making any significant changes.”AJ Builder thinks people will adjust. “We are not going to pull back CO2 at the pace that the Gore types are asking for,” AJ writes. “It isn’t happening, period. Taking that reality in, what next? Start wringing our hands? No. What will happen is, most will adjust to whatever is thrown at them. Some won’t. Some will be affected. Some will die. In due time we all will die — no biggie … Climate is ever-changing. Smart tribes deal with it.“… Just saying, gents: … adjust and prosper … When the waves come your way, surf or move to high ground.”You’re thinking like an American, replies Paul Brazelton. “Most of the people in the world do not have the mobility, wealth, and information necessary to adapt to climate change. Look to Bangladesh for an idea of how climate change impacts whole nations; when the storms come, these people aren’t looking to hang ten — they’re figuring out how to keep their children alive on $150 a month.” Or less. Renewable Energy RELATED ARTICLES Our expert’s opinionSome thoughts from GBA technical director Peter Yost:Ecosystems never have caretakers or managers. For a long time, humans have either (often unknowingly) opted OUT of the ecosystem or claimed the title and rights of caretaker or manager without completing understanding or performing the accompanying responsibilities. Trouble is, you can neither really opt out nor manage an ecosystem. It is by definition “self-organizing.”Some environmental degradation is the sort where a concerted effort gives timely and successful results (think ozone depletion and the holes in the ozone layer over the poles), but many, like global warming, operate on a huge global flywheel, and we are simply at the tail end of a grand experiment waiting for the final results.We are the CO2 “Bigfoots” of the world (contributing 20 metric tons of C02 per capita compared to a worldwide average of 4). The ecosystem will adjust to deal with us, and it probably won’t be pretty, ecologically, geopolitically, or both.There is no logic to most of what we do; we each follow (or don’t) a unique mix of rules and personal convictions according to a mix of science, philosophy, and socioeconomic tenets. I do what I do primarily because I feel a responsibility to my children, and one tenet I want them to inherit is: it’s not all about you. Sort of a contradiction in terms.The earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old; life has been on it probably about 3 billion years; modern man about 200,000 years. I will claim, more than likely, about 80 years. Snap your fingers, and each of us has come and gone. You don’t do what you do based on logic or impact, but a sense that as the only fully conscious creatures we know of, we should do better, even if we are not exactly sure what that better is!So what is my answer? Is it personal action or government policy that will make the difference? Definitely, the solution requires both, but I think that if we don’t collectively and purposely lighten the load we place on our Earth — and soon — the global ecosystem is likely to “self-reorganize” around us. And all this from a full-blown ecological “Bigfoot,” GreenBuildingAdvisor or not. Is it already too late to prevent climate change?Brazelton is reminded of an article by George Monbiot called “Small is Useless.” In the article, Monbiot argues that small-scale electrical generation won’t solve climate change and, worse, such generation diverts attention and resources from things that would be more successful, like large-scale off-shore wind generation.“On one hand, I think both Wagner and Monbiot are correct,” Brazelton writes. “Personal-scale action in our current situation is, holistically speaking, worthless. On the other hand, this does not excuse inaction. We are each responsible for our own actions and impacts, regardless of what direction our government goes. Being part of a murderous regime does not absolve us of our own murderous actions.”Even so, from Brazelton’s point of view, the situation will only go from bad to worse. “Martin, it was too late a very long time ago,” he says. “Our economic and social systems are too fragile to handle even one environmental disaster at a time. AJ makes the argument that when humans feel enough pain, they’ll respond. Unfortunately, the ‘pain’ we’re feeling right now is the whine of a mini-gun spinning up. Once the real damage starts, there will be no chance at an effective response.”That may be so, but Jesse Thompson agrees with Brazelton on the need for a sense of personal responsibility. And who knows? “It’s never too late — people always seem to be capable of amazing things once they start actually working towards a goal collectively,” Thompson says. “I like Jason McLennan from Living Building Challenge’s quote, very roughly paraphrased: ‘All we need to do is completely rebuild and transform the entire U.S. economy within a decade. And for all the doubters, we’ve already done it multiple times. Railroads and electrification did it once, the WPA did it again, and the superhighway and suburban build-out completely transformed the country yet again after WWII. Let’s just get on with the next one…’“It would be nice to get started, however.”center_img More pain equals more actionAJ Builder thinks action will become likely when the impact of global warming and climate change become sufficiently painful. “One thing I think we all know,” he says. “If something starts biting us, we work hard to stop it. So when and if CO2 levels really start to cause some real pain then we most likely will work hard to stop it (the pain, at least.)”AJ Builder adds, however, that one thing often missing from the debate over rising carbon emissions is the economic benefit they bring. “Personally, I agree with some who logically state that the benefits of higher CO2 are left out of most discussions. Economy is doing. Rebuilding homes on higher land is [part of the] economy, a job creator. I love playing in surf, but also love driving a nail. My conclusion: Climate change is a job creator. Work is great way to live. And working to lower CO2 is too!”But if we wait until the consequences of global warming are really uncomfortable, Holladay replies, climate scientists believe it will be too late. And, adds Jesse Thompson, the time may already have arrived: “Anyone who thinks climate change is ‘going’ to start causing real pain just hasn’t been reading the news lately,” he says. “The folks in Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Texas [states where floods and wildfires have displaced thousands of residents] might beg to differ right now.” For GBA senior editor Martin Holladay, it all started with a column in The New York Times provocatively titled “Going Green But Getting Nowhere.”The author, Gernot Wagner, contends that individuals can make no meaningful impact on reducing carbon emissions and staving off global climate change.Even if each of the 1 billion Catholics on Earth decreased their emissions to zero overnight, Wagner writes, “the planet would surely notice but pollution would still be rising.”“So why bother recycling or riding your bike to the store? Because we all want to do something, anything,” Wagner adds. “Call it ‘action bias.’ But, sadly, individual action does not work. It distracts us from the need for collective action, and it doesn’t add up to enough. Self-interest, not self-sacrifice, is what induces noticeable change. Only the right economic policies will enable us as individuals to be guided by self-interest and still do the right thing for the planet.”And by that, he means a cap-and-trade approach put into place by government.Holladay (who has lived off the grid for many years) doesn’t agree. “My own opinion differs from Wagner’s,” he writes in a post at GreenBuildingAdvisor. “I’m a firm believer in the importance of personal actions that are consistent with our goals — but I agree that without governmental action, we face a grim future indeed.“I also disagree with the author’s belief that living off the grid is a form of purgatory,” Holladay adds. “Really, Gernot, it’s not so bad.” So what’s it going to be? Personal action or government policy? That’s the subject of this week’s Q&A Spotlight. GREEN PRODUCT GUIDE last_img read more

Tagged: , , , , , , .