There's loads of known and exploitable REE deposits elsewhere. They were the main source prior to the 1980's/909's when China brought theirs onto the open market at a fraction of the market price. Everyone else put their mines on hold, and used the China supply instead. This China lockdown has been on the cards for a while, and as such companies have been spinning up their old mines in preparation. The Chinese deposits are certainly large and rich, but they are by no means the only ones.
Since when was shale gas low carbon? It has exactly the same carbon footprint as other fossil fuels - i.e. you're bringing new carbon into the carboncycle from deep geological storage.
Reading the entire transcript rather than critiquing soundbites pulled out of context. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047245&c=1
Please don't promote this kind of shit press-release regurgitation nonsense. The guy has a track record of 'imaginitive' interpretations based on a complete lack of evidence, and this is no different. he has not a shred of evidence. As Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this has none. I would go off on a rant, but it's already been done for me:
As already pointed out - opinions with no evidence. This isn't science - it's politics.
There's no doubt that there is tendency for research bodies to assign funding to key areas such as global warming, and it's not ideal. Let's not blow this out of proportion quite as spectacularly as this article appears to be attmpting however.
OK, untie the union jack from around your shoulders, remove the gas mask and stop wielding that Daily Mail quite so rabidly. Sodium in water is still done in schools, along with lithium and potassium, and lets not forget good old thermite.
Why on earth has this review focussed almost entirely on the video aspects of this camera? It comes across as if the reviewer has deliberately avoided mentioning it, despite the fact that for wildlife photographers this has amazing potential - crop sensor, properly weather sealed, numerous improvements over the 50D in terms of ISO, high speed shooting, and AF control... For any photographer not specifically intent on going full frame, this is a very serious contender to the 5DII
The video capability is really a sideshow. As already said, if you want to do video, spend 2k on a decent video camera, not on a 7D and the single lens you could afford for that cash.
It's a fair point but partially it's to do with chemistry - life is a series of chmical reactions and the physics required for biological reactions favours certain elements more than others. That's not to say other possibilities aren't out there though.
The big problem with the 'there's loads of stars so there must be loads of Earths' theory is taht it ignores several low-probability things that have effected how the Earth develop. Firstly, we were hit by a mars-sized object in our early history which ahs provided us with a truly massive moon for our size. Due to its size the moon has been able to stabilise a lot of the orbital eccentricities that effect other planets. These eccentricities would have lead to extreme climate variation which would in turn have made it very difficult for life to get a foothold.
We also exist in a fairly narrow band of space where water is neither frozen all year or boiled off into the atmosphere.
On top of that, we have a liquid iron outer core and solid inner core. The geomagnetism produced by this gives us a protective shield which reduces the ability of the solar wind to a) irradiate us all and b) strip away our atmosphere.
There's a whole host of other peculiarities. The other thing people forget is that there is an observer bias here. It may seem odd that there are no other planets like ours, but if very special conditions are required to get life then life can only evolve to observe those conditions. As a result you then take those conditions for granted and assume they must be common.
Register
18 posts • joined Monday 28th January 2008 12:56 GMT
Plenty of REE's
There's loads of known and exploitable REE deposits elsewhere. They were the main source prior to the 1980's/909's when China brought theirs onto the open market at a fraction of the market price. Everyone else put their mines on hold, and used the China supply instead. This China lockdown has been on the cards for a while, and as such companies have been spinning up their old mines in preparation. The Chinese deposits are certainly large and rich, but they are by no means the only ones.
Low carbon?
Since when was shale gas low carbon? It has exactly the same carbon footprint as other fossil fuels - i.e. you're bringing new carbon into the carboncycle from deep geological storage.
Hang on what?
"Having passed its 75 million birthday, Canadian Ammolite is the oldest stone in the world. "
Not even close. Come on Reg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
may I suggest
Reading the entire transcript rather than critiquing soundbites pulled out of context. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047245&c=1
Not quite that simple as the sediments they're in are very fine grained, and inferred to be deepwater
Really?
Please don't promote this kind of shit press-release regurgitation nonsense. The guy has a track record of 'imaginitive' interpretations based on a complete lack of evidence, and this is no different. he has not a shred of evidence. As Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this has none. I would go off on a rant, but it's already been done for me:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/the-giant-prehistoric-squid-that-ate-common-sense/
"several hundreds of miles, or kilometers, wide". This interchangeability surely raises important questions about imprecision in the milliwales?
No ROTM tag?
It's through casual inattentiveness like this that they'll catch us out.
Not sure what point is being attmepted
er - what's the problem with carbon management?
As already pointed out - opinions with no evidence. This isn't science - it's politics.
There's no doubt that there is tendency for research bodies to assign funding to key areas such as global warming, and it's not ideal. Let's not blow this out of proportion quite as spectacularly as this article appears to be attmpting however.
r.e. anon coward
OK, untie the union jack from around your shoulders, remove the gas mask and stop wielding that Daily Mail quite so rabidly. Sodium in water is still done in schools, along with lithium and potassium, and lets not forget good old thermite.
Eh?
Why on earth has this review focussed almost entirely on the video aspects of this camera? It comes across as if the reviewer has deliberately avoided mentioning it, despite the fact that for wildlife photographers this has amazing potential - crop sensor, properly weather sealed, numerous improvements over the 50D in terms of ISO, high speed shooting, and AF control... For any photographer not specifically intent on going full frame, this is a very serious contender to the 5DII
The video capability is really a sideshow. As already said, if you want to do video, spend 2k on a decent video camera, not on a 7D and the single lens you could afford for that cash.
If innapropriate pictures of simpsons characters count as child porn...
Then surely everyone who has an Olympics 2012 logo somewhere in their posession is guilty?
Heheh
IT angle? It was the camera angle I was more concerned about.
r.e. dumb question
It's a fair point but partially it's to do with chemistry - life is a series of chmical reactions and the physics required for biological reactions favours certain elements more than others. That's not to say other possibilities aren't out there though.
The big problem with the 'there's loads of stars so there must be loads of Earths' theory is taht it ignores several low-probability things that have effected how the Earth develop. Firstly, we were hit by a mars-sized object in our early history which ahs provided us with a truly massive moon for our size. Due to its size the moon has been able to stabilise a lot of the orbital eccentricities that effect other planets. These eccentricities would have lead to extreme climate variation which would in turn have made it very difficult for life to get a foothold.
We also exist in a fairly narrow band of space where water is neither frozen all year or boiled off into the atmosphere.
On top of that, we have a liquid iron outer core and solid inner core. The geomagnetism produced by this gives us a protective shield which reduces the ability of the solar wind to a) irradiate us all and b) strip away our atmosphere.
There's a whole host of other peculiarities. The other thing people forget is that there is an observer bias here. It may seem odd that there are no other planets like ours, but if very special conditions are required to get life then life can only evolve to observe those conditions. As a result you then take those conditions for granted and assume they must be common.
hardly impressive
I've got a 2 litre skoda estate that pushes 68mpg on an open road. Honda should get a refund on their magic beans.
some non-members had been maliciously added to the list?
Glad to see even the BNP see themselves as a negative thing to be associated with.
my brain hurts...
Surely Monty Pythons Gumby would be a fine addition to the icon list?
Paris because I missed her earlier.
I can't help thinking...
that the theme tune for Quantum Solace is going to struggle, what with the only rhyme I can think of being 'Wallace'.
Perhaps some kind of Bond / claymation crossover?