Slashdot Mirror

I don't think it's climatologists who are the ones dismissing results they don't want. Actually, everyone would love to see that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming, but that's just not what the bulk of the data shows.

Yes, the math doesn't know gender, but the mathematicians who evaluate each other (say for promotion or for prizes) do know. Yes, the situation today is very different from the past, but biases do exist. For a strongly worded view point on this try Izabella Laba.

Simplicity

http://gobbledygeekbtr.files.w...

.

You might want to take some time to actually read the criticisms. Jerry Coyne has a good write-up on his blog that delves deeper. You see, the researchers aren't saying the conclusions in the book are wrong they are saying, as the originators of said research, you cannot draw these conclusions from their work.

But please, don't let the nuanced comments of 140 published researchers dissuade you from shrieking "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" like a poop-flinging howler monkey.

Summer vacation has an effect size of d=.02 on learning, which is not good. .4 = 1 year of growth

http://ibiologystephen.wordpre...

But here is the deal, the longer we stop doing something, the less proficient we are at doing it. Think balancing a chemical equation in chemistry or solving the a Lorentz time dilation problem in physics, or remembering the plot of Snow White (assuming you haven't seen in 10 years).

Sure kids forget, we all do, but it is easy to dive back in and strengthen those memories with review, just like exercising a muscle.

To me the point of education should be this, teach kids to love learning, be curious, and learn how to learn. As a teacher, if you have done this, you have done your job. The goal of teaching is not to turn kids into homework machines that suck the life out of them so they can perform on the standardized test, all the while making them hate school and learning. Anything you learn today is obsolete in less than 4 years anyway and many things forced on kids in schools via state standard wish-lists are useless.

Childhood is a precious time where we learn lots and lots of stuff without sitting quietly in a desk. We build, we play, we explore the world, we ride bikes, dance, sing, play with dad's tools, and make all sorts of discoveries which aren't covered on standardized tests.

So it comes down to this, do we want study machines or children? Ask the children in South Korea.

Scroll down, school is like prison.
http://www.ashesthandust.com/t...

http://tintucphatphap.wordpres...

http://tintucphatphap.wordpres...

No. Fukushima was a study in human stupidity.
Real engineers had warned them the sea walls weren't high enough.
They ignored it.
TEPCO has had a history of stupid decisions like this, and it pretty much ALWAYS comes back to bite them in the ass, Godzilla-style.

As for the molten salt design.

Uhm. You know the molten salt design is essentially a double-hulled containment vessel that's not running under pressure.
In the event of a loss of power to the cooling device (a fan/blower keeping a plug of salt cold and solid, it drains the fuel out of the reactor vessel, in a gravity-fed situation, and into a dump tank, away from the catalyst.

This immediately kills the reaction.

And, if the line to the dump tank is somehow compromised, the fuel merely spills into the outer hull of the reactor vessel.

Also, steel melts around 1300C. If you put in plumbing of sufficiently large gauge, in a dump tank reactor flush, the fuel is already cooling off as it hits the pipe, and doesn't spend long enough in there to heat the plumbing to sufficiently dangerous levels.

So. Exactly how do we have a "radioactive disaster"?

You have two scenarios. Both of which wind up requiring you to pump the fuel back into the reactor vessel after re-plugging it. The messier of the two options requires some cleanup of a reactor vessel interior which was never open to the outside world anyhow.

http://daryanenergyblog.files....

http://tintucphatphap.wordpres...

https://tintucphatphap.wordpre...

http://tintucphatphap.wordpres...

http://tintucphatphap.wordpres...

I think of Abbot as a wannabe Putin. But without the power. Or the looks. Or the ability to kill someone with his bare hands. Or shoot tigers. Or rescue babies and dolphins. But asides from all that, he's just like Putin.

http://tintucphatphap.wordpres...

Or goddamn expensive all the while taking a nice steaming dump on the environment.

REMOVE Metro. (not disable, not hide; DIE.)

While I fully support the sentiment, completely removing components like this can cause Windows Updates to fail to install. For example if your Windows desktop PC or server doesn't have a "Tablet PC" folder in the start menu, some updates won't install. So you potentially need to keep gigabytes of Microsoft's crapware sitting on your PC on the off chance that some update checks for it and won't install if it's not present.

While I think it's great that he pulled the news article link into the summary, it's worth noting that the blog article would make a worthwhile comment on its own. The comparison between speech recognition and driving is spot on. Driving is incredibly simple compared to speech recognition. Even the traveling salesman problem is reasonably solvable in comparison.

See the blog article at http://cartesianproduct.wordpr...

I still think that the summary is missing some citations. It would be nice if someone could link the original paper as well.

They went to the trouble of selecting The Coraline Theme. That shows they have some dedication. The nefarious threat of having the power of a $40 mp3 player built in to vehicles should be reckoned with and you have to applaud them for choosing Wordpress for their method to do so.

Except it is total fiction. Tomi made it up. Nothing like that every happened.

http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...

Except it is total fiction. Tomi made it up. Nothing like that every happened.

http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...

Except it is total fiction. Tomi made it up. Nothing like that every happened.

http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...

Palm had one thing going for it, at least in the early days: excellent battery life. With no wireless, no background serivces, and no traditional backlight, battery life was measured in days—or weeks—or months!

While they don't hold a candle to modern devices in every other respect, I loved being able to tap away at the thing forever without ever worrying about finding a charger. And the EL backlight was pretty darn cool (though it made you really hate dimly lit rooms)...

... the part I was referencing was the part about Venus. ... I knew next to nothing about the subject. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?

... I just did you a favor and looked up something you asked for on Google. His arguments are not my own and I did not even read them carefully. I merely looked them up for you because you seemed to wanted to argue about yet another straw-man that had next to nothing to do with anything I had said. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.

Again, thanks for finally being honest. You’re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. You’ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."

...I was not present... [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, you did respond. Repeatedly. Sure you weren't present?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

Because the Democrats had already managed to royally fuck things up before the Republicans showed up. Hell, the NC Democrats started the process of ruining NC broadband in the first place. Granted, there's an equal number of "R" sponsors listed...but look at who wrote it up in the first place.

Also of interest to readers of this post: a blog the City of Wilson started when they got fed up and took things into their own hands.

a lot more vertical than usual

http://scarina.files.wordpress...

At least "Windows: The Official Magazine" is doing fine. I can easily speed up my sluggish OS, and if that's not enough, I can fix any problem, and as the ace in the sleeve I can find out how to reinstall Windows in just 1 hour. Once again we can see, that if I am in the proprietary software domain, information is easily available, and my workflow is never interrupted.

Dissecting the Fake Intercept Disseminated by SBU (Ukrainian Security Service)

The distance from the point of launch to the point of the fall is 37 kilometres. At the same time, the elevation of the plane was 10-11 kilometres. For the Russian BUK M2 this distance is, in fact, achievable (although with a very important caveat discussed below).

However, Ukraine does not, and cannot, have modern digital high-tech Anti-Aircraft systems in its arsenal. What it does have, at best, is the older version BUK M1. The system itself is not too bad, and could even fit the stated distance. Except for the caveat that was mentioned.

The thing is that most short to medium range Anti-Aircraft systems work extremely poorly in a "pursuit" mode. There are a number of reasons for this, and I do not intend to belabor the point, but you can take it as an axiom that when the launch is made in "pursuit" of the target, the maximum distance of the launch that successfully hits the target is at least half of the advertised maximum distance (in reality, it even worse, but let's leave aside the sad part). Accordingly, the real distance of a "pursuit" launch for BUK M1 is 16 kilometres. What's more, the last 3 kilometres are purely "God willing" and "without guarantees."

And, so, we have the background. Let's see how the picture unfolds:

The launch is alleged to have been made from Chernukhino. The maximum distance of the launch is 16 kilometres. The aircraft fell between Snezhnoye and Torez. That's 37 kilometres, which is 20 kilometres more than the maximum possible point at which the plain could have been hit. You know, even a plane with turned-off engines can't glide like that. But the trouble is that the aircraft was not whole.

According to the pattern of the spread of fuselage fragments and bodies, the plane was ruptured practically with the first shot. Here it must be mentioned that the high-explosive/fragmentation warhead of the rocket has a mass of approximately 50 kilograms (by the way, Ukrainians have an outdated modification, which is only 40 kilograms).

Overall, that's not too little; however, it must be understood that it detonates not when it sticks into an airplane, but when it is still at a certain, and fairly significant distance. Moreover, the main strike factor is not the blast wave, but far more significantly - the stream of fragments. These fragments are previously prepared rods (and in the earlier versions - little cubes, if I recall correctly). And yes, for a jet fighter, that, in itself, is more than sufficient.

However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example - the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.

Nevertheless, this has relation to the next part of our analysis. For now, let's accept as a fact the break-up of the aircraft in the air, at a significant height (which is, in essence, what was observed. Allow me to remind you: "fragments spread over a radius of 15 kilometres." The key here is that this means the following: the aircraft (or, more precisely, the core of the aircraft) fell literally at the point where the rocket impacted it. Clarifying: as soon as the aircraft turned into a host of fragments of different mass, the separation of these fragments began due to air resistance and the difference in inertia. The densest fragment flew a further 3-6 kilometres, falling more and more steeply

The answer is no and this article nails it.

Quote:

And then there's the curiouser and curiouser story of Carlos, the Spanish air traffic controller working at Kiev's tower, who was following MH17 in real time.

"The B777 was escorted by 2 Ukrainian fighter jets minutes before disappearing from radar (5.48pm)"

"If the Kiev authorities want to admit the truth 2 fighter jets were flying very close a few minutes before the incident but did not shoot down the airliner (5.54)"

"As soon as the Malaysia Airlines B777 disappeared the Kiev military authority informed us of the shooting down. How did they know? (6.00)"

"Everything has been recorded on radar. For those that don't believe it, it was taken down by Kiev; we know that here (in traffic control) and the military air traffic control know it too (7.14)"

"The Ministry of the Interior did know that there were fighter aircraft in the area, but the Ministry of Defense didn't. (7.15)"

"The military confirm that it was Ukraine, but it is not known where the order came from. (7.31)"

And quote:

So who profits?

The key question remains, of course, cui bono? Only the terminally brain dead believe shooting a passenger jet benefits the federalists in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the Kremlin.

As for Kiev, they'd have the means, the motive and the window of opportunity to pull it off, especially after Kiev's militias have been effectively routed, and were in retreat, in the Donbass. And this after Kiev remained dead set on attacking and bombing the population of eastern Ukraine even from above. No wonder the federalists had to defend themselves.

And quote:

For evidence supporting the possibility of a false flag: Evidence Continues to Emerge #MH17 Is a False Flag Operation

Looks like another AC NSA/GCHQ shill. This is a geek site, not facebook, you made a claim but where is your proof?

It's really amazing how many people from the US claimed they had slam dunk proof the Russians did it within minutes after the crash, just like 911 they had proof before it even happened. (reported the building 7 collapse with it still standing in the background)

The last "slam dunk proof" all the US main stream media said they had turned out to be a youtube video of a supposedly "leaked" conversation with a timestamp older than the time of the crash, an obvious fake.

You shills are just too obvious, you see, the average American can't even point to Ukraine on the world map so only a shill would be so sure about anything this early with absolutely jack shit to back them up.

Jumping to conclusion and making baseless accusations then quickly got modded up, you look like an agent, but since you're not posting AC I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

Of course you can't understand why, because you've been fed bullshit by your media.

This and this will help you get back to reality.

How is your day at your NSA brainwashing office?

Putin didn't do it and this article nails it.

Quote:

And then there's the curiouser and curiouser story of Carlos, the Spanish air traffic controller working at Kiev's tower, who was following MH17 in real time.

"The B777 was escorted by 2 Ukrainian fighter jets minutes before disappearing from radar (5.48pm)"

"If the Kiev authorities want to admit the truth 2 fighter jets were flying very close a few minutes before the incident but did not shoot down the airliner (5.54)"

"As soon as the Malaysia Airlines B777 disappeared the Kiev military authority informed us of the shooting down. How did they know? (6.00)"

"Everything has been recorded on radar. For those that don't believe it, it was taken down by Kiev; we know that here (in traffic control) and the military air traffic control know it too (7.14)"

"The Ministry of the Interior did know that there were fighter aircraft in the area, but the Ministry of Defense didn't. (7.15)"

"The military confirm that it was Ukraine, but it is not known where the order came from. (7.31)"

And quote:

So who profits?

The key question remains, of course, cui bono? Only the terminally brain dead believe shooting a passenger jet benefits the federalists in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the Kremlin.

As for Kiev, they'd have the means, the motive and the window of opportunity to pull it off Ã" especially after Kiev's militias have been effectively routed, and were in retreat, in the Donbass. And this after Kiev remained dead set on attacking and bombing the population of eastern Ukraine even from above. No wonder the federalists had to defend themselves.

And quote:

For evidence supporting the possibility of a false flag, check here.

The answer is no and this article nails it.

Quote:

And then there's the curiouser and curiouser story of Carlos, the Spanish air traffic controller working at Kiev's tower, who was following MH17 in real time.

"The B777 was escorted by 2 Ukrainian fighter jets minutes before disappearing from radar (5.48pm)"

"If the Kiev authorities want to admit the truth 2 fighter jets were flying very close a few minutes before the incident but did not shoot down the airliner (5.54)"

"As soon as the Malaysia Airlines B777 disappeared the Kiev military authority informed us of the shooting down. How did they know? (6.00)"

"Everything has been recorded on radar. For those that don't believe it, it was taken down by Kiev; we know that here (in traffic control) and the military air traffic control know it too (7.14)"

"The Ministry of the Interior did know that there were fighter aircraft in the area, but the Ministry of Defense didn't. (7.15)"

"The military confirm that it was Ukraine, but it is not known where the order came from. (7.31)"

And quote:

So who profits?

The key question remains, of course, cui bono? Only the terminally brain dead believe shooting a passenger jet benefits the federalists in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the Kremlin.

As for Kiev, they'd have the means, the motive and the window of opportunity to pull it off Ã" especially after Kiev's militias have been effectively routed, and were in retreat, in the Donbass. And this after Kiev remained dead set on attacking and bombing the population of eastern Ukraine even from above. No wonder the federalists had to defend themselves.

And quote:

For evidence supporting the possibility of a false flag, check here.

Yes and no.

No, large (Linux using) companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter have always used some kind of Linux container solution, not virtualization.

Yes, policy is controlled by the cluster manager.

But for example Google uses nested CGroups for implemeting those policies for controlling resources/priorities on their hosts.

Virtualization is very ineffcient and Docker/Linux containers are a perfect example of how peole are starting to see that again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... / https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Suppposedly, CPU utilization on AWS is very low, maybe even only 7%:
http://huanliu.wordpress.com/2...

The reason for that is, is that VMs get allocated resources they never end up using. Because the host kernel/hypervisor doesn't know what the VM (kernel) is going to do/need.

For their own services Google doesn't use VMs, but Google does offer VMs to customers and to control the resources used by VM they run the VM inside a container.

Here are some talks Google did at DockerCon that mentions some of the details of how they work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Otherwise, quite literally, you would die camping in the Antarctic with only clothes and a little tent to keep you warm.

With appropriate equipment, you can camp in Antarctica...

Care to post a link to that vice news video?

Solvyansk was under terrorist's control for months, what would you expect - clean roads, fences nicely painted, lawns cut to the best English standards?

Now, take a look at typical Grozny city post-war picture here, a result of Russia's shelling their own - http://blueonbothsides.files.w...

So did you not look at the graphs I link to, or do you take issue with them?

Of course I did. There are several issues with them. The ones I will mention are:

First, they're from SkepticalScience. Now, I don't normally indulge in arguments that someone might misconstrue as ad-hominem, but SkepticalScience's involvement in the recent, blatant debacles regarding "97% consensus" seriously puts their scientific integrity to question in my mind. I mean, that was a statistical thing that a high-schooler probably could not have unintentionally screwed up quite that badly. All evidence says it was pure statistical garbage being paraded as fact. To have perpetrated that -- I'm just going to call it "blunder" here -- while at the same time criticizing someone else's statistics seems pretty damned hypocritical on their part.

Second, in case you hadn't noticed, they aren't graphs of the same thing at all. Which makes your whole argument a straw-man.

Third, the article continues their habit of pushing the idea of "increasing catastrophic weather events" which most climate scientists today say is not very credible. (IPCC AR 5 report: "low confidence".) Further, not only has that NOT been observed, we have been in a long period of record-low cyclonic energy, world-wide, for decades. If anything, there has been the opposite trend from what the alarmist projections said we would see. The United States hasn't had a anything classed as a major hurricane for a near-record period of time, and Florida has recently set a new all-time record duration with no hurricanes at all.

Why do you think they've done nothing about it?

You tell me. You're the one spouting all this conspiracy stuff, not me.

If you would like some more information about the gross INaccuracy of climate models over the last 1-2 decades, I suggest you read this article: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years, which was published in Nature Climate Change in 2013. According to that paper, the average amount that all 117 models that were studied overestimated warming was 100%. That's... well, not very accurate. A projection of no warming at all would not have been significantly less accurate than what the models actually projected. (Although in the other direction of course.)

This is what the lead author had to say about the paper and its publication:

1. Reviews
Our commentary was reviewed by 4 anonymous peers selected by the journal and underwent 2 major revisions and one minor revision over the course of 6 months. It was also internally reviewed by 3 colleagues in my Centre. It was not solicited by the journal.

2. Originality
To my mind there's a difference between what people think they know through popular discourse (which is perfectly fine), and what they actually know after weighing the evidence provided in original peer review literature (which is better). Some aspects of our commentary were known by some, and other aspects were known by few or none.

3. Uncertainty
Several sources of uncertainty in several contexts are considered in our commentary. These a laid out in detail in the Supplementary Information file that accompanies our commentary. Our specific estimate of the observed GMST trend and uncertainty for the period 1998-2012 is based on monthly-mean data and takes into account serial correlation (as described in my co-authors book titled "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research"). I can't vouch for the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator, but I do note that with it one obtains identical trends and uncertainties regardless of whether monthly-averaged or running-averaged data is used.

4. Cherry-picking
This is not issue with our commentar

I disagree. Aunt May has a mysterious side that is only hinted at in the comics. On a more serious note: Rogue, Moonstone, Songbird (screaming mimi), Emma Frost, Mystique, AoA Blink, She-Hulk, and plenty of other women have compelling stories (and no, She-Hulk isn't just tits on a Hulk). Granted, Ororo, Jean Grey, Sue (Storm) Richards, and Alyson Blaire are all pretty boring,

Storm is an introvert, but not boring. She's the best leader the X-Men ever had, and continued to lead them when she lost her powers. Jean Grey was the central character of the most dramatic Marvel story ever. Though it's possible that post-Claremont writers don't know what to do with them.

Marvel can't create compelling original female characters

I disagree. Aunt May has a mysterious side that is only hinted at in the comics. On a more serious note: Rogue, Moonstone, Songbird (screaming mimi), Emma Frost, Mystique, AoA Blink, She-Hulk, and plenty of other women have compelling stories (and no, She-Hulk isn't just tits on a Hulk). Granted, Ororo, Jean Grey, Sue (Storm) Richards, and Alyson Blaire are all pretty boring, but there are equally boring male super heroes (actually, their respective significant others: T'Challa, Scott Summers, Reed Richards, Longshot).
Actually, now that I think about it, the current time-displaced Jean and Scott from the past are interesting.

that doesn't mean they should slap tits and a vagina onto existing male characters and hope they stick.

I agree with this 100%. They can get away with it when it's not an established character (Spider-Woman [all three of them] isn't Spider-Man. She-Hulk isn't Hulk, Lady Bullseye isn't Bullseye, Namorina isn't the Sub-Mariner), but altering an established character arbitrarily (and badly; Thor just recently went through a long disgraced period and regained his honor. Leave the poor godling alone for a while). Maybe give Lady Octopus a chance to be Peter Parker for a while? That should sit well with the fans.

It will be a while before the digging into the data can begin and folks can confirm the results but based on previous efforts, my guess is that the "record" will be seriously skewed. It used to be that in the world of climate getting accurate measurements and letting the data speak for itself was derigeur. More and more (especially in climatology) the process seeems to be to massage the data to ensure that it conforms to a preconcieved theory. That's confirmation bias, not science. For some history of this sort of manipulation with examples.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/11/nasa-rewrites-the-past.html

http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

For the itellectually uncurious, the links will be ignored, and what's presented there shrugged off as akin to Holocaust denial. And in this way Science becomes a religious crusade instead of a methodology used to understand the natural world. Eisenhower's warnings are still spot on ~50 years later.

Slashdot questions here: Has anyone on slashdot made an effects processor yet?

I've been toying with the idea of making a RPi based Effects processor. I primarily play guitar but am not going to differentiate between it and any other sound application. I've looked around and found 2 projects, one was "Guitar extended" http://guitarextended.wordpres... Which, I'm afraid, is a bit too "We're going to change guitar forever!" for me. I don't want to make yet another crazy sounding thing that no-one wants to listen to, that requires an insane peddle board to control. After I get some decent DSP reverb, gates etc... going, then I'll worry about foot controllers. The fact of the matter is, in most applications I don't need to mess with effects on the fly. I'd even argue that's a bad idea in general.

My main problem with retail effects is the size. Getting a decent processor usually means it's a double rack space unit. But if you open them up they could have easily fit into a half rack space. I'm guessing this is an appeal to the same part of the brain that likes SUVs. I build my own combo amps, so I'd like to throw in a half rack effects module and maybe something else. But all I've found is the Roland Vf1 which isn't that great, isn't in production anymore and sells for $200+ used. Also, hey I built the amp... why not the processor as well?

I've not really dove into it yet, I dont like to start these projects myself. It's way easier to let someone else make all of the mistakes and solve the problems for me :-) Also, it seems the RPi has audio latency issues like just about every non-firewire based computer out there. You can fix it, but it's a nightmare of driver and hardware tweaking. I've got a guide: http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wik... But that sounds like the typical thing you have to do. That level of complexity is terrifying when you're trying to do a live situation. If you haven't ever played in front of people... God hates live performances... anything that can go wrong, will. I've had retail, $1000+ processors fail live and leave me to just pull the damn plug in the end and go raw.

I've seen some Arduino projects that use a DSP chip and the arduino swaps out code from the chip to change effects... but that sounds insanely error prone to me. I could pull it off, but I would never really trust it.

So if anyone has any experience in this area, or links to articles they've found on the topic, I'd love to see them.

Why? It would take only one scientist to falsify AGW. All we need now is the evidence.

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/...
"It’s important to note, Roy Spencer is MOST famous for being wrong – wrong in the the very areas that should be his area of greatest strength and expertise."
http://ourchangingclimate.word...
John Christy, Richard McNider and Roy Spencer trying to overturn mainstream science by rewriting history and re-baselining graphs
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
"So here’s what Roy did. He took two indices of interannual variability: the Southern Oscillation (SOI) index, which is a proxy for El Nino, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index (PDOI). He formed an ad-hoc weighted sum of these indices,and then multiplied by an ad-hoc scaling factor to turn the resulting time series into a time series of radiative forcing in Watts per square meter. Then he used that time series to drive a simple linear globally averaged mixed layer ocean model incorporating a linearized term representing heat loss to space. And voila, look what comes out of the oven!"

Yeah, wow, I didn't realize that form was so relatively recent. I had thought that's what soccer balls were "always" like. (From the Wikipedia page, they actually came out before 1970..)

They probably started as nothing more than an inflated animal bladder, but I do recall seeing one of these http://comeheretome.files.word...

Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

This would be funny if it weren't such utter bullshit. We JUST had an exchange about that, and you admitted that my comments weren't "baseless". But now you make the same accusation again. Which is it? What are you trying to claim? [Jane Q. Public]

Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again. Yet again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. I've been consistently saying that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and that you reasonably should have known that.

I am a person using a pseudonym, just as you are. I am no more a liar than you are. From the evidence, in fact, I'd guess I'm a good bit less of one. ... You haven't been able to demonstrate even one instance of my actually lying. So stuff it up there where the sun doesn't shine, as they say.

Again, you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Unlike most of the misinformation you spew, this point is so simple and non-technical that your Sauron-class Morton's demon isn't an excuse.

The conclusion that Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar raises a disturbing question. I've previously defended contrarians like Jane/Lonny against suggestions that they're knowingly spreading misinformation:

"... You’ve previously asserted that contrarians know more than they let on, but I’ll defend Hanlon’s razor and the information deficit model to the dumb, naive, non-psychologist death. I refuse to believe that anyone who truly groks the Great Dying and the rate limits on adaptation via migration or evolution could keep spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. I suspect that Morton's demon is far stronger than most people realize. For example, even Morton himself was later consumed by this demon in such a depressing way that I won’t link it. ...

... I refuse to believe that some know more than they let on. Considering the stakes involved, that hypothetical informed contrarian (who I don’t believe exists) would have betrayed humanity. Even arsonists usually have a personal escape route, but knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation has no plausible escape route. From my moral and pragmatic perspectives, the information deficit model seems to be correct.

Even as their numbers dwindle, I’ll keep defending the morality of contrarians. There’s no shame in being insufficiently informed about a complex scientific topic, as long as one eventually stops spreading misinformation that threatens the future of our civilization.

There are more enjoyable hobbies. Hobbies that don’t stain one’s legacy. Video games, reading, scuba diving, etc."

Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcom

Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

This would be funny if it weren't such utter bullshit. We JUST had an exchange about that, and you admitted that my comments weren't "baseless". But now you make the same accusation again. Which is it? What are you trying to claim? [Jane Q. Public]

Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again. Yet again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. I've been consistently saying that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and that you reasonably should have known that.

I am a person using a pseudonym, just as you are. I am no more a liar than you are. From the evidence, in fact, I'd guess I'm a good bit less of one. ... You haven't been able to demonstrate even one instance of my actually lying. So stuff it up there where the sun doesn't shine, as they say.

Again, you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Unlike most of the misinformation you spew, this point is so simple and non-technical that your Sauron-class Morton's demon isn't an excuse.

The conclusion that Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar raises a disturbing question. I've previously defended contrarians like Jane/Lonny against suggestions that they're knowingly spreading misinformation:

"... You’ve previously asserted that contrarians know more than they let on, but I’ll defend Hanlon’s razor and the information deficit model to the dumb, naive, non-psychologist death. I refuse to believe that anyone who truly groks the Great Dying and the rate limits on adaptation via migration or evolution could keep spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. I suspect that Morton's demon is far stronger than most people realize. For example, even Morton himself was later consumed by this demon in such a depressing way that I won’t link it. ...

... I refuse to believe that some know more than they let on. Considering the stakes involved, that hypothetical informed contrarian (who I don’t believe exists) would have betrayed humanity. Even arsonists usually have a personal escape route, but knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation has no plausible escape route. From my moral and pragmatic perspectives, the information deficit model seems to be correct.

Even as their numbers dwindle, I’ll keep defending the morality of contrarians. There’s no shame in being insufficiently informed about a complex scientific topic, as long as one eventually stops spreading misinformation that threatens the future of our civilization.

There are more enjoyable hobbies. Hobbies that don’t stain one’s legacy. Video games, reading, scuba diving, etc."

Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcom