When They Tell You The Science Is In, It Never Is

[JSmith]

yada yada yada?

 

OT is open again btw.

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Thanks for the heads up Smithy - why the change d'ya reckon?

[JSmith]

Thanks for the heads up Smithy - why the change d'ya reckon?

 

PM...

 

JSmith 

[POWERZONE]

Did they bring back the beef?

[JSmith]

Did they bring back the beef?

 

:laugh:

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Beef?

[Aloysius]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online...38574a1652

 

NBN achieves ‘lightning fast’ speeds in promising lab trial of XG.FAST technology

 

Heh Heh remember all the arguments about fibre to the node yada yada yada ports:

 

Seems as though the science is never all in :Talking:

[POWERZONE]

Speed is one thing. Reliability is something else altogether.

 

The copper lines will have to be replaced eventually regardless of their performance.

[Aloysius]

If you think about it, today is the beginning of everything to come!

[POWERZONE]

Copper vs Fibre is the latest fad.

Reminds me of Vinyl vs Cd's, AM stereo vs FM stereo, Abbott vs Turnbull....

[Aloysius]

Let's stick to what matters!

 

 

If copper can do the job, and it's already there - what's the issue?

[POWERZONE]

Reliability.

[POWERZONE]

The whole business purpose of the NBN fibre was to roll it out across the country and then privatise it and pay off some government debt... just like last time with Telstra 1/2/3.

 

Underlying the NBN network with bits of fibre and bits of copper seems self defeatist to me.

 

Lighting fast copper sounds great at 8Gbps over 30m or even 5Gbps over 70m but how much does it cost to operate at those speeds over longer lines? The article doesn't say so the argument's inconclusive.

 

Suffice to say fibre has less loss than copper regardless of the originating speed and it's more reliable for me.

 

Personally I don't care how fast my internet is but I do care about its reliability.

 

I've had far more dropouts with copper than with fibre over the years.

[Aloysius]

The whole business purpose of the NBN fibre was to roll it out across the country and then privatise it and pay off some government debt... just like last time with Telstra 1/2/3.

 

Underlying the NBN network with bits of fibre and bits of copper seems self defeatist to me.

 

Lighting fast copper sounds great at 8Gbps over 30m or even 5Gbps over 70m but how much does it cost to operate at those speeds over longer lines? The article doesn't say so the argument's inconclusive.

 

Suffice to say fibre has less loss than copper regardless of the originating speed and it's more reliable for me.

 

Personally I don't care how fast my internet is but I do care about its reliability.

 

I've had far more dropouts with copper than with fibre over the years.

 

 

I guess the use of copper from the node to the customer (a short run) avoids the issue you raise.

 

Big runs in fibre short in copper seems reasonable.

[POWERZONE]

So I guess for this system to work properly it's going to require copper in decent condition in relatively short lengths from the node + a new modulator at every node and finally a new de-modulator (modem) for every customer using it.

 

To me it seems a more expensive, complicated process than simply rolling out fibre directly to the premises.

 

The only way I see fast copper as a benefit for the NBN is in tall buildings where fibre can't be installed.

 

As previously mentioned you're probably better off with a G5 wireless network in any case.

[Aloysius]

Fibre to the home gets an expensive proposition for those fortunate enough not to reside in cities.

 

Maybe the city folks may want to subsidise their country cousins?

[POWERZONE]

No need for subsidies. The NBN rollout is off budget. The entire project is funded by investment. Not by taxpayers.

[Aloysius]

<div>
<div>What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div> 
</div>
</div>
</div>
A NASA study has climate scientists up in arms; here’s what it means.
</div>
</div>
</div>

<div>
<div style="font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:17px;margin:22px 0px 42px;">
<div>By <span style="font-weight:600;"><span>Brian Clark Howard</span>, </span>
<span>National Geographic</span>

 

 

 

Scientists concluded in the <i>Journal of Glaciology</i> that the loss of glacier mass in Antarctica’s western region is being offset by thickening of glaciers on the continent’s eastern interior, which has experienced increased snowfall. The result: A net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year, according to the report<i>.</i>

<p style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That increase in ice translates to about a quarter of a millimeter per year less sea level rise than was previously predicted,  says lead author Jay Zwally, chief cryospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland

<p style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"> 

<div>
<p style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Here’s what you need to know about the new findings:



<p style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Do prominent climate scientists agree with the primary conclusions?



<p style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades.



<p style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">“I think there's a serious issue with the study,” says Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado. “It’s unfortunate that it made it through peer review."


</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Heh Heh see how open minded our "Climate Scientists" are?

 

They all agree the science is in but any contrary finding - also scientific - is denied..

 

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah those climate deniers they're everywhere!!!! :dance:  :dance:

 

Rather than welcoming this good news our hallowed Climate gurus jump into defensive denial mode, Oh dear how "scientific"

 

Methinks they are worried about their salaries!!!

[POWERZONE]

A net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year.

Sea levels rising at around 2mm per year.

This is only possible if there is a net loss of more than 100 billion tons of ice a year from somewhere else

Anyone been to Greenland lately?

[treblid]

They all agree the science is in but any contrary finding - also scientific - is denied..

Science is a tool (as in instrument, not a troll)... I know, coz I once worked in a company that's studying weather and oceans.. As you know I have spent my entire free time telling keyboard warriors what science is all about.

 

People use Science to support their objective findings, lessor people abuse science to support their subjective opinion. You are better than that Aloy.. Don't quote individual research and say that's the last say. It doesn't work that way, Science is more complicated than that.

 

There are reports saying Australia students rank badly in both Science and Maths. If the experts are right about the future world is a world of automation and AI, these are the two skills Australia need in order to be productive again.

 

Granted few are privileged enough to be exposed to some of these things like I did.

 

But if you can appreciate from my perspective, imagine boiling your kettle for your cuppa. Look at the wattage of your kettle (prob 1000W and over). Now look at that amount of energy expended to heat just 1.2 to 1.5 L of water to boiling point. Look at how long it takes to turn water from room temperature to boiling point.

 

Think of that volume of water, the difference in temperature from boiling to room, the energy that is used to heat up the water, and the energy that is wasted. Appreciate just how inefficient water actually is to take on heat.


Transfer that to the huge body of ocean (The ocean is so big and vast people despite everything, still can't even find a missing Malaysia Airlines plane).

 

Now imagine how much 0.1 degree rise in that volume of water actually means in terms of energy. People who understood so far will realise in shock and horror will realise that 0.1 degree rise means in terms of energy. 

 

But wait, it doesn't stop there, is it possible that warmer water actually freezes faster than colder water? Google Mpemba effect.