Slashdot Mirror

* Instead of browsers generating errors about missing tags, they silently accept it. *facepalm*

* Who was the idiot that thought case insensitivity for tags name was a good idea??

A) Browsers now have to accept twice as many tags.
e.g. &amp; and &AMP; both generate ampersands. You can start with <BLOCKQUOTE> and end with </blockquote>, etc.

B) We dumb grave accent tags, like &Agrave; for À and &agrave; for à which prevents browsers from converting all tags to either uppercase (or lowercase) and generating a hash from _that_ that for fast lookup.

* Instead of using unique characters for begin tag: < >, and end tag: such as { }, browsers instead have to waste time looking ahead if the next character is a '/' when they find a '<' char.
  i.e.
    <a name='foo'>...</a>

compared to the simpler to parse:
  <a name='foo'>...{a}

* Some of the HTML abbreviations make zero sense. These are the arrow glyphs:

&larr;
&rarr;
&uarr;
&darr;

/Sarcasm Argh, matey! What, &left; &right; &up; &down; weren't available?!

At least it isn't a badly designed and bloated as XML.

Go visit a forest some time. Lots of stuff growing without people maintaining the soil, without people keeping pests away. There is only a harvesting step.

You need to compare on the basis of cost, not simplicity. You can have a complex process which is cheap, or a simple process which is expensive. If the cost to harvest (and refine if necessary) is less than the cost to build regular PV panels or these new type of solar cells, then the energy biol-fuels produce will be cheaper than solar (putting aside environmental cost for now). Cost to maintain soil and keep pests away become a factor only when you're trying to optimize the process, which isn't always necessary or possible (e.g. cod fishing, truffles).

This is why oil is cheaper than solar. All those plants millions of years ago grew without any human involvement, turned into oil without human intervention, so we're able to tap into that energy for just the cost of harvesting the oil. The dream is to be able to convert generic plant matter (cellulose) into biofuel. Since we already "harvest" a ton of waste plant matter anyway (waste product from growing food crops, green waste from landscaping, food plants which spoil and get thrown out), this would essentially be free fuel whose only cost is processing to convert it to biofuel.

As for these new solar cells vs PV cells, it boils to conversion efficiency and effectiveness as a storage medium. These new cells store solar energy chemically. PV cells store the solar energy electrically. Currently chemical energy storage completely kicks electrical storage's ass. Cheaper, lighter, easier to transport (and thus easier and quicker to power up your car). In fact, charging a battery with electricity is a chemical process - they can only sometimes beat out chemical storage in efficiency because converting chemical energy to electricity bypasses the Carnot efficiency limit that constrains chemical to mechanical energy conversion. (Which is also why when the desired product is heat, chemical heating like a gas stove is cheaper than electrical heating. Converting chemical energy to heat locally is 100% efficient.)

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

According to this paper, bilinguals have an advantage when it comes to task switching. Also, according to this article, true bilinguals, aka "people who learned both languages in childhood, know them well and use them frequently throughout life", are the best at task switching.

The other languages were compiled, completely procedural, and at least Fortran didn’t even support recursion until the 90’s.

I'm not sure what you mean by "were". Fortran is widely used in scientific computing. It has supported recursion since the 1970's, although it only was standardized in 1990. Fortran 200x is object oriented, supports operator overloading, and has excellent support for array and parallel computing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it." Just because some compiler vendors may have supported non-standard extensions that allowed recursion does not mean you can claim the language supported it in general. GP is right: Fortran, as a standard, did not support recursion until 1990. Granted, it was possible to "hack" recursion with F77 constructions but that's more of a conceptual exercise than a viable practice. When it's that hard to do something in a language, you need to use a different one.

For better or for worse (mostly the latter) Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms throughout its history. That has condemned it to a niche existence in scientific computing. Its main virtue (not to be taken lightly) is that it has excellent compiler support for efficient numerical computing.

There are several ways to store excess electrical generation

How about using electrochemical cells that require Electricity, CO2, and Water as input, and yield Hydrocarbon fuels such as Oil or Gasoline as output?

Then when you require electricity later, just burn the fuel.....

Here's the tech:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/Ge...

Here's the math:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

and people having loud animated conversations on their cell phones in crowded public spaces are rude.

I never got this. If two people are sat on the bus/train whatever and having a chat, no one gives a shit, remove one of the people and half the conversation and people are suddenly put out by it.

And yet, it is a tested and documented phenomenon. Google will find many reports of this, see for example this paper (PDF) or this webpage, this webpage, or this webpage.

In parts of the northern hemisphere perhaps, but elsewhere (and globally averaged), it was significantly cooler. Citation (see Fig 2 particularly).

2008: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2010: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...

Look what some moron said about the same subject back in 2011:
http://www.developers.slashdot...

2012: https://www.intego.com/mac-sec...

2012: http://www.zdnet.com/article/c...

2012: http://www.infosecisland.com/b...

etc., etc.

The German companies do it a bit different than American companies, they pool resources for the common R&D good. It's why they had stuff like CAN bus while Ford and GM were all developing their own unique busses.

BMW, VW and Benz all have a lot of research into this. I sat in on a grad seminar given by VW engineers back in 2010 on lane change obstacle avoidance. They certainly have the IP already, even if they aren't announcing it state side. They even have ISO standards for how to test obstacle avoidance: ISO 3888-2:2011 defines the dimensions of the test track for a closed-loop, severe lane-change manoeuvre test for subjectively determining the obstacle avoidance performance of a vehicle, one specific part of vehicle dynamics and road-holding ability. It is applicable to passenger cars as defined in ISO 3833 and light commercial vehicles up to a gross vehicle mass of 3,5 t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I had a BMW and Benz rental in 2012 that had the auto stop feature that is just now starting to show up in American cars. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

If there is any group of car companies that is going to give you autonomous driving with manual over ride it's going to be the German ones. German drivers also have a different mentality towards driving. Driving falls into two categories, either you have to do it and you can automate it or you want to do it and you don't want to automate it. I would say of my driving there's a good 80/20 split. 80% of the time I'd like the car to just get me somewhere but 20% of the time I do want an autobahn experience.

Just because you don't think BMW hasn't done any research into self driving cars doesn't mean they haven't. It is an incredibly long process and Germans have had an ISO standard for testing it since 2011 as well. The TÜV doesn't mess around when it comes to safety or testing and I trust anything they verify much more than the DOT.

There have been a few once-off transmissions of cancer in humans; but no (known) ones under 'natural' conditions.

Indeed, with roughly 7 Billion humans and what you could consider 'intensive' monitoring of much of them, one should expect to see reports of just about everything, rarely.

A number of people have brought up the Tasmanian Devil - looking it up, it seems that Europeans are about twice as diverse as the Tasmanian devil. Polar Bears, Pandas, Gorillas all have much more diversity.

So it might be a possibility, like with the HeLa cancer cell line - which contaminated and took over quite a few other human cell lines.

But yeah, between the way we behave, modern hygene, and extra diversity, a transmissible cancer should be quickly controlled.

This article explores the pros and cons of the three sites (Antarcita, Moon and L2) in some depth

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

And if that were the case, there would be documented accidents.

Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes: There are. Thousands of them. Educate yourself.

* That's the most charitable explanation I can muster for your (1) playing dumb that speeding cars hurting/killing pedestrians are a significant problem, and (2) presenting a generic Wikipedia cite as "peer-reviewed literature." But on the other hand, after reading one of your other comments in this thread -- "I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding." -- the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.

The South pole of the Moon is quite a good site. There are mountains permanently lit (for power) and crater bottoms in permanent shadow a few hundred meters away (for the telescopes). Having a large mass (like the moon) to anchor you against vibration from your own systems, light pressure, etc. and serve as a heat sink has considerable advantages.

See http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

Actually cow burping does more than farting.

http://news.psu.edu/story/1417...

The summary links to a lousy article that says essentially nothing about the actual research. Here is an account that describes the material under study.

Getting closer all the time: Smallest Possible Diamonds Form Ultra-thin Nanothreads

Then there's the powering the climber problem that has yet to be solved. If this research was receiving similar funding to current chemical rocket research, we might be a lot closer.

The link could have gone straight to the Penn State news article Forbes was reporting on: http://news.psu.edu/story/3178...

Surprisingly and counter to intuition, it doesn't seem like artificial markets need to use real money to work. Play money produces comparable results in many cases.

It might be that all that is needed is some kind of limited resource so that people who make consistently bad predictions have their impact weighted down until they no longer affect the combined prediction, and that the wisdom of (thus suitably selected) crowds does the rest.

Sorry, what you are saying is not only wrong, its just down right paternalistic. Maybe people do know whats best for them and they don't need you and your ilk trying to push something on them.

I live in a mid-sized metropolitan area. I work a technical job that forces me to remote in sometimes.I play some PC based video games. I have the lowest internet speed offered and I would go lower if they would offer a good price break. Some of us care where our money goes and can make the choice between getting the game update in minutes or having to wait an hour before we get to waste our time on the game.

Remote Desktop - 1mbps should be plenty, you can get away with less
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/ar...

WoW - .5mbps should be plenty
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?

The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

Still looking for the pure reconstructed figures for 1900 onwards...

matched 2-3 times naturally

Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

matched 2-3 times naturally

Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

matched 2-3 times naturally

Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.

It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Think of it this way...

citations needed.

According to the latest proxy reconstructions by Michael Mann, the hockey stick author that alarmists love, the current 'record' warmth of the last couple decades was matched 2-3 times naturally over the last 2 thousand years. The links there are to his supplementary information page for his actual paper, and the last is to the raw data of his reconstruction right up to the year 2007. Check for yourself that his data finds that around 1000AD, 850AD and 550AD temperatures met or exceeded those since the year 2000AD.

If you want to contradict that record, please give me more than the waving of your hands that "dozens of different methods" show. The only different methods that paint a different picture is if you plot instrumental temperature against the reconstructed temperatures of something like Mann and others work. The part you would miss(and Mann has done this routinely) is noticing that not only is the instrumental record from say 1990-2010 higher than anything in the last 200 years. The instrumental temperatures from 1990-2010 are EQUALLY higher than the proxy record temperatures from 1990-2010!

It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Think of it this way...

citations needed.

According to the latest proxy reconstructions by Michael Mann, the hockey stick author that alarmists love, the current 'record' warmth of the last couple decades was matched 2-3 times naturally over the last 2 thousand years. The links there are to his supplementary information page for his actual paper, and the last is to the raw data of his reconstruction right up to the year 2007. Check for yourself that his data finds that around 1000AD, 850AD and 550AD temperatures met or exceeded those since the year 2000AD.

If you want to contradict that record, please give me more than the waving of your hands that "dozens of different methods" show. The only different methods that paint a different picture is if you plot instrumental temperature against the reconstructed temperatures of something like Mann and others work. The part you would miss(and Mann has done this routinely) is noticing that not only is the instrumental record from say 1990-2010 higher than anything in the last 200 years. The instrumental temperatures from 1990-2010 are EQUALLY higher than the proxy record temperatures from 1990-2010!

You're whining about one "summary" graph? If it bothers you so much, why not graph the raw data yourself in separate graphs to show us this alleged "disparity"?

I referenced a heck of a lot more than that, but yes the summary graph is manipulative and not helpful to understanding or learning the actual proxy results. Look at the summary graph, the first impression it gives anyone and everyone looking at it is that the proxy data confirms that temperatures since 1900 are unprecedented. If you graph the actual data as you reference, it actually shows that the period 960-1000 was warmer than the last 40 years. The same higher temps are seen from 872-882, and again from 585-604.

That ties directly into the other point I made particularly with Mann and not RealClimate in general. When statisticians like McShane and Wyner pointed out that their take on the data and analysis shows VASTLY less confidence in the signal than Mann, Mann strikes back from his blog more than the actual academic record. The grossest example is McShane and Wyner's criticism of Manns absence of and frequent misapplication of error bars on his reconstructed data. Mann ignores this critique entirely, preferring to go on the offensive in critiquing their understanding of proxy data sources...

So yeah, I kinda stand behind my statements and opinion of Michael Mann.

You're whining about one "summary" graph? If it bothers you so much, why not graph the raw data yourself in separate graphs to show us this alleged "disparity"?

Anyone who genuinely wants to debunk global warming should start here, trust me, climate scientists will respond with collective sigh of releif should anyone succeed.

RealClimate.org maybe wouldn't be the best place to start. There's a lot of very aggressively close minded chaps dominating the forums. I know, who'd have thought that could happen on an internet forum?

Real climate is also co-founded by Michael Mann, whom I really take some issue with. Tell me I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but his paleo reconstructions of temperature have really bothered me in the past. Nothing to do with the results, not as much to do even with his methodology now that his later work is addressing and correcting problems. The presentation and usage of the 'hide the decline' trick in graphs is just disgusting. When your paleo reconstruction ends around 1900, just end the graph there. If your paleo reconstruction doesn't show the same temperature rise since 1900 as instrumental, then show that too. What you DO NOT DO, is paste in the instrumental record with a thick enough line to hide the paleo reconstruction since 1900. Even further, don't point to the overlapped instrumental part of the graph as startling and clear evidence of an abrupt trend in the data starting at 1900.

If your wanting to have an open and honest discussion about the evidence, that's a difficult environment. Even scientists with a decent publishing record within the field like Lindzen are put under a microscope for criticism for not conforming to the 'consensus'. Even researchers widely embraced and accepted like Mauritsen have their results heavily disputed and interpreted there. When statisticians like McShane and Wyner take issue with the statistical methods in Mann and others work, Mann takes to his blog for the 'final' word while leaving out any response to their real and legitimate questions and arguments. I'm not anticipating that it's going to be a particularly receptive audience as you seem to believe.

Yes, there are some now. I was at the cusp which is why I'm where I am today. I am a mathematician - I modeled traffic 'on a computer.' Which, to be fair, meant dealing with TB sized data sets in the late 90s. It's still a fairly young industry. I'd expected to remain in academia but was offered a no-bid contract for the State of Massachusetts via way of my advisor while still doing my thesis - well, preparing to defend it. Needless to say, it was *very* lucrative and expansion started almost as soon as I accepted the contract.

I literally had business before I'd even really gotten started on collecting real world data. Eventually, I was offered a sizable chunk of money and sold my business. The new parent company does nothing, pretty much, but fill government contracts in a variety of areas such as logistics, security, information technology, and even food stuffs. That might narrow them down a little. They're almost a household name. Me? I won the lottery, so to speak. No great skills, I guess, just a person at the right place, at the right time, and able to take the risks associated.

I mention that because I've seen some of your other posts. It may be something you can get into - it's not easy but it is lucrative.

Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This might be a little below you but maybe not - it's a good grounding:
http://ashley-transport-modell...
Note: I may be biased, a little, by the author of the above - they do good work. They also excel in being able to describe things without being overly verbose.

Disclosure: I had personal involvement in this project. This is not an answer. This is a good descriptor which you can use to find other answers or, if you want, to learn which questions need asking:
http://web.mit.edu/professiona...

Working our way up a little, this is an easy to read and information-filled paper, I know the authors by reputation and may be tangentially cited IIRC but I'm too lazy to double check:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

I'm not sure how much I can disclose, I'm pretty much forever covered by an NDA and a non-compete. Let's just say that I'm intimately familiar with this program:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/pla...
That is not an answer or anything but might give you an idea of some of what we did beyond just vehicular traffic models.

We also did pedestrian traffic (think malls, grocery stores, a museum or two, hazard plans for large in-planning-stage buildings, and even outdoor events where traffic might be constricted or at stadiums). That's a whole other bowl of wax. As I was entering, it was just starting to maybe reach a bit of maturity - it still hasn't. It has only really been an idea since the 50s, I guess. It has been done, to some extent, since the 70s. However, I jumped in in the late 1980s and early 90s. The times were changing and compute power, specifically storage and compute cycles as well as RAM, were getting to be more accessible.

My email address works and is real. Once you've digested those, feel free to ping me. If you've a penchant then you may only need cross-training to work as a Traffic Engineer. Traffic Engineers are not the same as modelers but they may also do modeling. In the end, I employed about 200 people in three offices and two skeleton offices. Many of which were considered traffic engineers but were also programmers or the likes. We split into two teams with lots of cross-over. I'm not sure why companies don't train so often today. It's actually a good idea and we had an absurdly low turn-over rate. (Low enough to where I'd expect you to call me a liar if I told

I could've sworn a local train that navigates a mountain pass had regenerative braking. I appear to be mistaken.

Dynamic Braking (wikipedia link if you prefer) dissipates all of the electricity generated as heat. These trains are clearly referenced as engaging the dynamic braking system during a braking scare in the 90s, and not a regenerative braking system. A 2004 paper obtained dynamic braking data for this train line.

For further evidence, I ran some informal youtube and google searches. There are no videos for "train regenerative braking", but a lot for "train dynamic braking". Google searches only turn up papers for "train regenerative braking", but "train dynamic braking" returns plenty of magazine articles and press releases .

Computer science isn't about computers, in the same way that physics isn't about telescopes. I'll illustrate this by linking a couple of computer science papers:

* The Derivative of a Regular Type is its Type of One-Hole Contexts: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
* This paper give a name and applications to something maths only calls "strong lax monoidal functors": http://staff.city.ac.uk/~ross/...

Or how about watching an introductory computer science lecture from Stanford. Bob Harper introduces type theory and how to use the doctrine of computational trinitarianism to check whether you've made a significant discovery in computer science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There's more to computing than transistors. There's more to software than mathematicians study (the second paper's a good example).

http://www.globalaginvesting.c...
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

Yep, no application for swarm behaviors in SAR or Agriculture. You're so right.

I'm glad you're not MY senior system engineer / architect - you lack vision, and are more interested in writing a pithy punchline than you are in accuracy, which speaks volumes about your integrity and ability to see wider applications of new technology.

Please, stay in your server closet for the rest of your career.

Is she hot?

Certainly not. If qualified as "hot for her age", perhaps, but I think no, not in a general sense. Of course, as you said, we are talking about perception here and I'm sure that's going to vary with the grey beards among us.

I am in the professional content industry, and the last thing we want to do is to use a new codec. But for feature-quality 2160p24, HEVC is a must to keep bit rates from peaking above 100 Mbps (VBR). Also there are HEVC software decoders available, or else no one would be able to watch the Netflix "4K" content in HEVC. I've even seen HEVC software decoders running on an iPhone.

Here is one analysis of HEVC HM versus H.264 x264 quality, and finds: For video compression, the performance of VP8 were competitive with x264, while, interestingly, the new HEVC technology under definition usually showed the best performance.

CiteSeerX reports 148,696 articles published in 2008 when the index was popular. Are you ready for 400 slashdot stories per day?

Well actually, an entire peer reviewed research paper was written on what possible methods contamination from fracking wells can get into drinking water. It includes historical records of chemicals found in the water table dating back to the 60's and also methods of determining which contaminates came from which well. It also notes that 2-Butoxyethanol is found in cosmetics etc. and you can read it here: http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/n...

Its also the first link in the summary.

I am awed and stupefied, how the idea of sex-segregation — hitherto denounced as "detrimental to equality" — comes back around as a good one.

What's next? Whites-only school of basketball?

I wish, I was trolling...

She's a Geography professor.

So why would I care about her opinion on global warming, either way?

OK, I was a little off according to this study - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... - 1.1 to 1.2 seconds is the average there, but there are other studies that had higher times, and other sources quote much longer, eg http://copradar.com/redlight/f.... Presumably it takes most people significant time to realise what's happening, not panic, then move your right foot from the accelerator to the brake and the left onto the clutch and press down hard.

The words are just symbols. The emotions you attach to them are your own. The problem is projection:

Back when I was in school, we had a rash of bomb threats. All fake.

But every time, they evacuated the school. Instead of being in a nice warm building we shivered outside in the cold.

Eventually, they caught the kid responsible for doing this.

Was his free speech violated because he was arrested for making those threats?

Fast forward to modern times.....

Now here are some cases below, where threats were made, and some students were arrested

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/n...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Were their free speech rights violated?

If someone calls you and tells you there is a bomb planted in your house are you going to ignore it? Was the person just exercising their free speech to get you all freaked out and leave the place?

People get so confused about free speech. It's always good to remember the old adage - The rights of your fist end abruptly at my face. Purposeful disruption by threats of violence are never appropriate.

You've never heard of Willy Soon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

The "deal with science" bit is (among others) "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth", Eos, Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003.

following up to myself- I was thinking of 180 degree or 90 degree fixed rotations (summary talked about being upside down), but it looks like these types of systems use varying rotations which makes sense. eg: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...