Slashdot Mirror

Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!

According to the government's own figures, 78% of the United States has been experiencing the coldest year (i.e., 2014 so far) since 1937. About the only exception has been the SW like the LA region right now. Great Lakes have record ice for this time of year. Arctic is at normal sea ice levels and Antarctic levels are above normal. Which wouldn't be worth mentioning if it hadn't been a strong trend for well over a year. But what's really educational is to look at the actual record of past years, rather than just taking other peoples' word for it.

This guy is a very good source of historical comparisons to todays weather AND climate.

When you know a little actual history of our climate, you look at these "warming" scares and go "Pffffft. Baloney."

He posts some really great, actual historical stuff like THIS and THIS and THIS.

Alarmists can say what they want about skeptics, but the historical record is the historical record.

Good luck trying to rebut the actual thermometers in, say, 1940 for example. They said what they said.

Sea level was rising 12,000 years ago when we entered the current inter-glacial, but it had been stable for the last 8000 years

http://ourchangingclimate.word...

- until now. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/...

Hurricanes impacting the US have been on the decline for decades. The warmists wanted to start naming hurricanes after congressional "deniers" in 2013. Only problem was we didn't get any. At least none worth trying to use for political demagoguery.

At the technical level, treat it as if it were "bufferboat", make sure your buffers are configured properly, and use an AQM algorithm like fq_codel. Doubly so if you're Level 3 or any other poor ISP connected to the culprits!

See http://gettys.wordpress.com/20...

Because our government would never allow a bank which financed drug dealers and fomented revolution to do business in the US, right?

Granted, this was a long time ago, but not much has changed, has it?

Actually, that same bank, among others, was recently found guilty of pretty much similar crimes. But other than a slap on the wrist, nothing happened because:

the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. "Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, "HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

And I can't even imagine how harsh would be the punishment for those who get caught laundering money for terrorists. Let's say if a big bank (i.e. HSBC, or Santander) got caught, certainly hundreds of people would go to jail, right?

I feel so safe with all these laws protecting us.

Because our government would never allow a bank which financed drug dealers and fomented revolution to do business in the US, right?

Granted, this was a long time ago, but not much has changed, has it?

This response was supposed to be a general "what should I do" not "what can I do" type of question. I used the browser topic as a sample, but yes they have released the patch. If a vulnerability was published today, you cannot just assume tomorrow they will have a patch ready to ship and hence why the question was asked how to handle a situation of such.

It depends on the size of the shop and the IT staff. As a one man IT shop, I would be the one creating, testing, and implementing. Not saying everyone is bad at that, but I happen to know my scripts and GPO objects. In the workaround, they clearly gave instructions for running the fix at a command line. That part would not be difficult to do and if it were serious enough for a large organization, they would most likely already have a rapid test process in place for a vulnerability like this. You would still have to educate the users on a new browser should you push one out, but at least you can reduce the time needed for IT to go to every computer and manually install the software. You wouldn't have to instantly switch it to default.

As for the GPOs to manage the other browsers, it depends on how they store files. But to prove you wrong on Chrome not having them, here: https://support.google.com/chr...

EMET should have been a 3rd option, but I wouldn't recommend every shop immediately go out there and implement it without understanding it. There are many complicated things that it helps mitigate and improperly implemented could cause more headaches to the help desk. That being said, I have started to research it for other reasons so I won't knock it being a worthwhile investment.

Also, you better hope you are on the latest version of EMET, because 4.1 has been bypassed and it is only a matter of time for newer versions: http://bromiumlabs.files.wordp...

Now go back into your hole since you are too afraid to stand behind anything other than AC for your post name.

Let's examine your citations:

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms.

So you have an industry PR site.

A site by organizations who actually operate 4th gen test reactors. A site that the U.S. Department of Energy links to for more information, http://www.energy.gov/ne/artic....

http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/...

a shitty Wordpress blog written by climate change skeptics

Interesting, google found that page and I went with it since it seemed to say nothing beyond quoting General Atomic's specs on their reactor. If you follow the link they provide to General Atomics they do indeed state that the waste of previous gen reactors is used as fuel and that the waste of the 4th gen reactors is indeed short lived and only needs hundreds of years of storage. Unfortunately they do so with terrible hover over animated graphics, http://www.ga.com/energy-multi..., so I stuck to the summary since it was plain text that could be cut and pasted. BTW, General Atomics are the people who have been building reactors for decades. So these climate deniers clearly got the science correct on this reactor. When the truth happens to be on the side of liars, liars can indeed tell the truth, which seems to be the case here. Again, this page does nothing more than quote General Atomics. Apologies for not offering the General Atomics link directly and going with this summary. I assumed readers could manage clicking on the General Atomics link themselves, did you have some difficulty doing so? Or were you only interesting in the messenger and not the message (the science)?

http://www.thesciencecouncil.c...

a motivational speaker

And the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

The reality is that salesmen have made a lot of bold claims for gen 4 reactors, but so far they are unproven and somewhat dubious.

That's a strange characterization of organizations that the US Department of Energy refers people to for more information on 4th gen reactors, organizations who operate 4th gen test reactors and companies who will actually build 4th gen reactors and have been reactors for decades.

Good points. Let's take a look at South America instead: i had trouble getting a comprehensive number, but there appears to be over 300 million cattle there...almost 200 million in Brazil alone. How much forest has been replaced with graze land(and how many big grazers were there before)? And there are well over a billion cattle worldwide. It's pretty staggering and way out of proportion for the planet.

And almost as staggering are the people who keep modding down any post highlighting the facts of the matter...i thought the guideline on /. was to 'mod up' rather than down?

The word "claimed" was an appeasement to the nuclear deniers, to avoid an edit war erupting on that page.

Or was it an appeasement to nuclear lovers, to avoid an edit war erupting on that page? The whole point is that without reliable, unbiased citations it's all just your opinion.

Let's examine your citations:

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms...
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/...
http://www.thesciencecouncil.c...

So you have an industry PR site, a shitty Wordpress blog written by climate change sceptics and the dubiously named "Science Council" that is run by a motivational speaker.

The reality is that salesmen have made a lot of bold claims for gen 4 reactors, but so far they are unproven and somewhat dubious.

>"the claimed benefits"

Wow, you call that a citation? I'm willing to believe that safe/efficient nuclear tech is possible, but Wikipedia is NOT an authoritative source. Got anything better? Maybe a quote from an unbiased nuclear engineer? Respected NGO? Anything?

The word "claimed" was an appeasement to the nuclear deniers, to avoid an edit war erupting on that page. Don't read too much into it.

The citation above was just the first thing googled and reflects a consensus among qualified scientists and engineers. I did some more googling for you ...

Click on the links for the various reactor types: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms...

"First the EM2 core will be started using 12% enriched uranium and used fuel or depleted uranium (DU). After the initial U235 amount has been consumed in the “starter-part” of the core, enough fissionable material will have been created to switch over to a second part of the core where the nuclear reactions will continue and be fed nuclear waste.."
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/...

"The scientific method requires that we keep an open mind and change our conclusions when new evidence indicates that we should. Climate change is the new evidence affecting the nuclear debate -- we need low-carbon energy. Current (2nd generation) nuclear reactors are not as fail-safe as possible and they burn less than one percent of the energy in uranium ore. Next (3rd) generation reactors are safer, shutting down automatically in case of anomalies, and are ready to go, but they still leave 99 percent of the energy in long-lived waste piles. 4th generation reactors, tested but not commercially available, can extract all of the energy in the nuclear fuel and burn nuclear waste. We urgently need R&D to make the combination of 3rd and 4th generation reactors available with comprehensive international controls.
James E. Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University."
http://www.thesciencecouncil.c...

Careful with your NGOs. Some are nuclear deniers that are as purely political and scientifically unfounded as the climate deniers. The climate deniers and nuclear deniers differ only in their political allegiance, they abuse of and rejection of science are quite similar.

Perhaps you need to think like a psycopath?

Don't get me wrong, management is about all you said but you left out two things: manipulating and using people.

Yep, it is a cynical view but in the real world, you meet your goals as a manager or you get fired. Many times, you have to sweet-talk undesirables to do things for you, knowing very well that you don't mean a thing you say.

As George Burns put it: "Sincerity - if you can fake it, you got it made"

That is why I hate management and prefer coding or doing other technical work.

They're actually more evil than Mr. Burns.

http://tribwtic.files.wordpres...

You would think that, however Article I, Section 8 over rides that via several decisions of the Supreme court.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Webster's American Dictionary (1828) defines commerce as:

an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals ... by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick ... inland commerce ... is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.

"The Commerce Clause is intended to give Congress the power to regulate all commerce and trade at the international level as well as in certain applications at the state level."

Reference:
  * http://billofrightsinstitute.o...
  * http://constitution.laws.com/a...
  * http://publiushuldah.wordpress...

Actually, there IS quite a bit of entirely legitimate controversy about whether global warming is happening. It certainly has NOT happened in the past 14 years, which is quite contrary to all the warmist's climate models. And further, there's incontrovertible proof that far warmer periods happened naturally hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and millions of years before the advent of fracking and SUVs. (Yay, internal combustion and *horsepower*!)

It is curious though, that the more evidence accumulates that the earth is NOT warming, the MORE CERTAIN the IPCC is that global warming must be happening. (see http://wattsupwiththat.files.w... to see how reality drifting from the model bizarrely leads to increased certainty...)

The other stunning form of Lord Shiva is His half-female version . If you could manage this form, you would discombobulate not just Gaussian Face but also fellow humans too.

Extending the theory, painting random noses, lips, eyes and other features on cheeks, foreheads etc would defeat these automatic face recognition systems.

Don't ALL scientists doubt the Big Bang and other models for the universe in the sense that they are all subject to comparison with observations? If a model conflicts with observation, the model either must be dropped or modified.

Science isn't about believing something to be true.

Obligatory

Currently the leaf is 29k, it'll be interesting to see what Tesla actually ends up with, and where Nissan (and others presumably) are by then, but I would expect a 10k price difference still.

Nissan Leaf: sub-100mi range, might get to 150mi in TFA, $29k base. Looks like this.

Tesla Model E: Maybe 200mi range, $35k base. Looks like this.

Tesla is going to always appeal to the luxury market. And that is where the profits are. (Reportedly Lexus alone earns over 2/3rds Toyota's profits.)

Plus the Model E will appeal to people who find $39k cheap, whereas the Leaf will only appeal to people who find $29k expensive. Leaf is not competing with Telsas, it's competing with $16k conventional small cars. (NIssan's own Pulsar, for example, is the same size and style as the Leaf, but costs $10k less than the Leaf. For a base-model Leaf, you can buy a top-of-the-range Pulsar. (Oh, and that also gets you 350km range. And $10k buys 50,000 miles of fuel.))

The Nissan Leaf will really be competing with the Tesla E, not the Tesla S,.

But Nissan being Nissan, there'll inevitably be a "boy racer" body kit.

I guess that explains this picture

>Obviously this varies from region to region, but I was always led to understand that in hot locales, peak was late afternoon, when houses began to cool down, and businesses were still cooling. ...part of the reason why large solar plants are moving to molten salt -- to keep providing power in the early evening when the sun isn't directly overhead.

I have a digital monitor on my solar system, so I can track usage over time. It tilts to face the west, so it collects power through the afternoon.

6PM usually produces about 2/3rd of max production in the summer time.

The supply curve from my system matches the peak of the demand curve pretty well, which looks something like this: http://drmyronevans.files.word...

A lot of people, when criticizing solar, mistakenly use winter demand curves that peak earlier and later in the day.

The 1859 solar flare resulted in anaurora visible at the equator. It damaged telegraph lines and lighning rods. If it happened today it would be expected to fry most power line transformers and cell phone towers. there are only 5% enough spare transformers at most. Plus industrial production could have come to a halt.

This extra radiation appears to have created extra C14 from atmospheric nitrogen) at that time. Scientist have exampled tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments for other such super storms. There is a hint of one in 774 AD . The historical records and istopes have not been studied enough to determine the recurrance of large storms.

Whatever money you have, it stretches a whole lot further if you opt for cooking your own meals rather than relying on convenience food. I realize Britain isn't USA but one pound per day goes a long way to keeping you fed if you know how to cook - and I'm not talking pasta 7 days a week either.

If you join up with other students and buy in bulk, you can probably do better than I did.

Wikipedia is not always correct.

Ardis, Jim - Republican (last modified 2011)

"Funny because Ardis is a Republican Mayor, you would think that he would be concerned about everyone paying so that his city could remain fiscally responsible." (dated 2010)

It wouldnt surprise me if Wikipedia was edited after this story broke to hide his political affiliation in order to support the narrative that only democrats are totalitarians. At any rate, its clearly wrong, and both of the above links predate this event from many years, preventing this event to influence what they say in an attempt to push an agenda or narrative. It may also be that he suddenly changed his affiliation from Republican to Independent in the last race for some reason, but even if thats the case, he was officially designated as a Republican for much longer than he's been Independent.

Which is happening routinely. Many older birds don't require any authentication nor anything - they simply retransmit whatever they hear on one frequency on another one: http://spectregroup.wordpress....

And those are US NAVY (!!!) satellites!

Doing that with Iridium or Inmarsat hardware is a bit more complex, because the protocols are mostly digital, but not impossible neither.

AND a bunch of dead zombies.

What's a dead zombie? Is this some kind of recursion?

No. A dead zombie is a non functional one. Depending of the type its one that is shreeded or simply brainless.

(Getting old has a lot of advantages, but one of the disadvantages is that it's harder to keep track of popular memes. I mean, I never understood the whole "vampire" thing, and now we're on to zombies. What's next?)

What's next? Mermaids. Specifically mermaids that are the 'Illumanti' and also competitive cheerleaders. see http://songoftheassembly.wordp...

. . . the last time I checked, the Economist was not a US publication. Does the BBC World News have a, "US centric perspective," too?

Yes.

(from citigroup memo download below)

http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...

At the beginning of the first memo "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances", the analysts introduce the subject:

Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that:

1) the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.

Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?

Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist- friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.

2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":

4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.

There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average”consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.

The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":

THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES, AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY

Let’s dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!

Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depe

. . . the last time I checked, the Economist was not a US publication. Does the BBC World News have a, "US centric perspective," too?

Yes.

(from citigroup memo download below)

http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...

At the beginning of the first memo "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances", the analysts introduce the subject:

Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that:

1) the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.

Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?

Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist- friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.

2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":

4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.

There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average”consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.

The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":

THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES, AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY

Let’s dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!

Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depe

. . . the last time I checked, the Economist was not a US publication. Does the BBC World News have a, "US centric perspective," too?

Yes.

(from citigroup memo download below)

http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wo...

At the beginning of the first memo "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances", the analysts introduce the subject:

Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that:

1) the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.

Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?

Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist- friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.

2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

Citigroup explains how the "non-rich" consumers become increasingly irrelevant within the "plutonomies":

4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.

There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average”consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.

The analysts of Citigroup then invent a new term - "The New Managerial Aristocracy":

THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES, AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY

Let’s dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie!

Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depe

No climate model of note considers CO2 to be the only variable of note. However variations in solar output are very well understood and no, they are not particularly significant at all. Yes, there is broad consensus on this.

Yet CO2 emissions have continued nonstop for the past 15 years while global temperatures remain essentially unchanged.

Something else is having a larger effect on global temperatures than CO2. Either CO2 is warming less than expected, or something weird is making all that heat vanish, which seems like rather magical thinking to me.

As I said, the current models include proper statistical modelling that lets us have a probability of being correct. They are getting quite accurate and the error bars are steadily going down. As I said, its not sigma-5 type stuff yet, but its certainly accurate enough to start making precautionary policy on.

Can you show me even one model from ten years ago that correctly predicted the temperatures of the past ten years?

I don't care how many models you have that "post-dict" correctly, i.e. if you give them the historical data they produce a curve that matches what was actually recorded for that period of history. I care about models that made predictions that came true.

Because from what I have read, the models from 15 years ago all predicted more warming than actually occurred. I gave you one link about this already; here's another two:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/7360901-robert-wagner/1870791-climate-change-consensus-bubble-burst-by-the-facts-at-near-95-percent-confidence-level

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-paper-falsifies-climate-model.html

This is obsfucation based on the fact that the effects of CO2 are measured in kelvins, not celcius. Within the ranges of temperatures required to maintain human life however, the effect is extremely dramatic.

No, it is you who is obfuscating here. The claim is that CO2 is already doing about as much "greenhouse effect" as it can, that it is already blocking nearly 100% of the wavelengths that it blocks, and that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have progressively smaller effects.

I gave you a link earlier, here's another:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/ed-caryl-modtran-shows-co2-doubling-will-have-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/

Could you please provide a reference documenting the consensus position on how CO2 affects global warming?

We havent had 15 years of non-warming. That is a trope that is constantly repeated by denialists that has no basis in reality. In fact we've had significant warming. Please actually read scientific research on this matter instead of garbage from denialists.

And yet, you provide no link to support your position.

Here's another three links about the "pause" in global warming:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/observed-rate-of-global-warming-half-of.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/

[Global warming] might be [catastrophic]. It might not be. Try and not strawman

Forget Andrew Wakefield. It's a red herring. Anyone can read this and follow the links to the sources (except where unscrupulous people have removed them). It's quite clear.

Vaccination of MMR causes autism

I expect the normal shouting, insults and moronic tantrums, but hey, I suspect there authors probably got their MMR shots... go figure.

An interesting article on why people would work for less than minimum wage (grad students working 16 hr days), in hopes of hitting the big time, just like people selling drugs, hopjng to become the drug lord:

http://alexandreafonso.wordpre...

Which is total nonsense. Under Balmer Microsofts earnings and sales exploded. http://venturebeat.files.wordp... The entire enterprise class software explosion (SQL Server, Dynamics, SharePoint...) happened under Balmer.

As for a "thorium breeder blanket" add-on to the Oak Ridge reactor, huh? The LFTR concept mixes thorium into the molten-salt stream, breeds it up to U-233 and then fissions it within a moderator to slow down the neutron flux. There is no separate blanket, it's all in one stream, salt, kickstarter fuel (U-233 or U-235/Pu-239), thorium and waste products all at 700 deg C and more,

There is no single LFTR concept. When you say there is no separate blanket you seem to be describing a one-fluid design. Weinberg's MSRE was never intended as such, it was a first stage in the development of a two-fluid Thorium breeder where a separate loop of fertile Thorium within the core breeds. The two-fluid design was envisioned by Weinberg as a best-fit solution to the management of long term waste products. I believe this is still true today.

When we scale massive I think a ~300 year waste storage is doable and worth doing.

Is that LFTR operating temperature of 700 C supposed to be a scare-figure? Are we comparing a fluid fuel technology that achieves its negative temperature coefficient of reactivity from its inherent design, where the heat-density variation of the fissile maintains this equilibrium -- with a water reactor model where sudden loss of coolant invites solid fuel temperatures to rise to 2200 C under explosive runaway conditions? Now that's a scare-figure.

The folks maintaining our water reactors have done a professional and stellar job to keep the water flowing all these years. I think it's time they deserve a break.

David LeBlanc gave a great little lecture on LFTR design topics at TEAC3 outlining the one vs. two fluid approach. In it he alludes to what LFTR designers call "the plumbing problem", in which ORNL's two-fluid design with its multiple tubes of fertile and fissile through the core promised to be a daunting challenge of engineering, thermal expansion at the various barriers being a wildcard that may affect the stable temperature coefficient they were striving for.

So LeBlanc has continued Weinberg's work by simplifying -- he envisions a "single tube within a tube" design where the ORNL's short and squat reactor with its many tubes in core becomes taller and thinner with a single barrier between fertile and fissile. If those illustrations leave you wanting more, here is a 2011 whitepaper that covers its advantages.

ORNL all but abandoned work on two fluids after Weinberg's time in what I see as a series of compromises where diminishing budget, increasing proliferation concern and (I'm being a bit brutal) obviously less concern about single fluid long-term waste products. Or (less brutal) perhaps they have an optimistic view that as we push into it we will become far more adept with transuranics.

In addition to a refined two-fluid design, LeBlanc is covering all the bases. He took the stage again in TEAC5 to promote the Denatured Molten Salt Reactor, which he hopes may be a 'best-fit LFTR' for now.

The problem is that so many things that seem to be best fits turn out to be compromises that entrench themselves, as have water reactors. My personal sympathies are with Kirk Sorensen in his quest to realize Weinberg's two-fluid LFTR idea with its LOW ~300 year waste impact -- I believe it may be a best-fit for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.

Until sustainable scalable fusion arrives

And if you don't want the plugin:

http://ffeathers.wordpress.com...

You meant to say "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" didn't you?

Beowolf - I've heard of that. I think that the poem, Beowolf, has an old vernacular. The computing concept, however - with the term, "cluster," appended - there is a Wikipedia page.[1] As far as clustering with RPi, there's the proof of concept work at the U. Southampton[2].

Personally, I would inquire "MPICH or OpenMPI?" There is some proof of concept work towards the latter on RPi[3]. I'm not sure if it would be of a lot of use outside of C programs, but maybe.

Of course, there would be the question, "What for?" I'm sure Open Science Grid might not be in the market for just any odd item of hacking stuff, for instance, they would certainly have all the resources they need for making predictive, if no pessimistic global climate change models. Personally I'm not sure if PVM would be used for much else, in computing. I'll just not comment about the big monolith of a building in DC, at that, LoL. (I'm not sure how Hadoop might factor onto parallel computing, after all)

Maybe an RPi Compute Supercluster could be used for a bit of AI prototyping, with the old Common Lisp language and an Artificial Neural Network model, specifically after Adaptive Resonance Theory?

In the hardware, I wonder, could a few RPi Compute Modules communicate via a serial protocol to a central chatterbox on a single Compute Supercluster board? The chatterbox, then, could communicate with a "master chatterbox" via PCI. Would that be too naive of a design, I wonder?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
[2] http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~...
[3] http://rhinohide.wordpress.com...

Rather than get all aggro, I will state that I have tried to find a concrete answer to this question ("is OpenSSH vulnerable/impacted by this?"), and I still cannot. So before someone say "shut the fuck up when you don't know what you're talking about" to me, I'll provide the data (and references) I do have:

* OpenSSH links to the libcrypto.so shared library which is absolutely OpenSSL on most systems: ldd /usr/sbin/sshd followed by strings /whatever/path/libcrypto.so.X (you'll find OpenSSL references in there). Truth: because OpenSSH links to a cryptographic library that's part of OpenSSL doesn't mean it's necessarily using the code that's bugged (see below poster's sig and note function names are DTLS-related (keep reading)), but it also doesn't mean it isn't. When was the last time you ran truss/strace with all flags (for children, all syscalls, fd I/O, etc.) and looked at it closely?

* SSH, as a protocol, is not SSL (but keep reading): http://www.comforte.com/solutions/tls-vs-ssh/ and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/723152/difference-between-ssh-and-ssl (see replies to primary thumbs-up'd answer)

* However, SSH does rely on at least some part of TLS, the one that's known is X.509 (a form of PKI) (but keep reading): http://www.snailbook.com/faq/ssl.auto.html

* ...but then things like this seem to imply the OpenSSH folks don't use X.509 at all and that you have to run a special OpenSSH build for this to work: http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/30396/how-to-set-up-openssh-to-use-x509-pki-for-authentication

* ...but then you find things like this which are open-ended and seem to imply otherwise (and the link mentioned on that blog, by the way, is also worth skimming/reading to see what's being done): http://trueg.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/use-an-x-509-certificate-for-ssh-login/

* The "heartbleed" bug, which refers to RFC 6520, pertains to TLS: http://www.snailbook.com/faq/ssl.auto.html (yes same link)

* There are repeated/continual news references to "use of X.509" (which could apply to either SSH or SSL from the above references) in every single news announcement. I shouldn't need to link them all.

There is nothing even remotely definitive on either the OpenSSL or OpenSSH mailing list, and that's a bit shocking if you ask me. Therefore, to me, the OP's question is quite valid.

Does the answer to his/her question change the severity of the situation? Yes it does. Yes you should still upgrade OpenSSL, but what some of us senior system administrators are trying to figure out is whether or not we need to inform every employee that they need to generate new SSH keys. I think everyone at this point is aware webservers (ex. nginx, Apache, etc.) doing SSL need to have OpenSSL upgraded + the daemons restarted + keys re-generated + re-signed, but the concern here is whether or not any part of OpenSSH's function calls into the OpenSSL crypto library rely on anything related to RFC 6520.

My opinion: the reason nobody has definitive answer with references (and I hope this Slashdot post induces such) is because there's a serious disconnect between using security-focused software (end-users, SAs, companies using security software, etc.), the writing of cryptographic algorithms (cryptologists), and ac

There is a little confusion here. Dynamic DNS means the domain record is constantly updated to point to the correct IP address. Its completely independent of domain registration. godaddy does not offer a dyndns service. Most dyndns services do not offer domains.
DynDNS is useful if you want to be able to always contact a box on a domain, but it's got a dynamic IP address - i.e. typically for running a server on a home box. I use it to ssh into home when I'm away, I just do ssh mydyndomain.org and don't need to worry about IP addresses.
I have had domains with godaddy in the past, but I've always used dyn.com as well.
It is possible to use a script to update your A record through your registrar's web interface, but this will break every time they update the site.
P.S. I recommend not using godaddy.

The error correction helps compensate for poor image quality

As long as people aren't abusing it to do things like this.

The Riddle of Epicurus

The riddle is why you think Epicurus wrote this when it's rather well known that he didn't.
http://egregores.wordpress.com...

greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses

Well yeah. So why do you seem to think an experiment about how real greenhouses work has anything to do with the physics of CO2 blocking radiative transfer in the infrared spectrum? (Leaving aside the question of how one unpublished, non-peer-reviewed experiment can be considered to have "thoroughly discredited" anything).

You really do have a weird idea of science, don't you?

Sure, not only will they be giving away the OS, but they'll be missing out on all the patent royalties that they extort from manufacturers of Android devices. I guess they are hoping that the benefits from possible future market share will outweigh current profits.

How much Microsoft receives from Android? I keep that for reference myself, just what I printed out as a PDF is now a 404

"In April of 2010 HTC settled with Microsoft and would pay the company a license fee for every Android device it makes. Speculation has it that Microsoft gets about $5 for every Android device HTC makes. But evidence points that Microsoft is aiming at milking HTC for $7.5 - $12.50 per Android device."

Links from the PDF
Microsoft collects license fees on 50% of Android devices, tells Google to “wake up”
http://arstechnica.com/informa...

The Microsoft/Android war: Which patents are at stake?
http://ineedinfonow.wordpress....

The see into the future article: why-microsoft-will-dominate-the-smartphone-space-its-android-os-cash-cow
http://seekingalpha.com/articl...
Pay to read site (second page)

Another relevant article
HTC Is Paying Microsoft $5 For Every Android Phone
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

Yes in the end Microsoft will be a patent troll.

I've actually looked over most of that information and it isn't really auditable. Most of the raw data isn't actually raw for one thing. I've compared specific land site temperature data with their sources and they don't match perfectly. Which means the data has been filtered and modified to some extent. I have no information on how that was done and can't reproduce the filtration system.

Are you saying you've got data from one of those sensors and it doesn't match the data in that source from the same sensor? Or from another sensor in the same area?

Second, the methodology itself isn't fully stated to the extent that I can't take data, input into a system, and get the same output they're showing.

I'd expect the programs wouldn't be user-friendly. Which model did you compile? If you have it running I'll see if I can find out how to make it work.

On a side note, what do you think of this:

http://theendofthemystery.blog...

Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I just want as many eyes on it as possible.

That is a lot of math to go through right now. But if he claims to have disproven something as fundamental as the greenhouse effect (or can even show that it somehow breaks down at large scales, since we can demonstrate it in a desktop experiment), he's either made a mistake or he's a future Nobel prize winner and deliverer of great news (since we could drop all efforts to reduce GHG emissions).

I found an article that claims to address his supposed disproof directly, and I'd say it makes a proof of the greenhouse effect that would require revisions to the laws of thermodynamics to disprove:

https://agwobserver.wordpress....

Where could the energy be going? If it's being teleported or stored somehow - again, Nobel prize material. Maybe cheap solar power if we can tap into this energy.

I ran across some other relevant articles on Venus' atmosphere:

http://m.teachastronomy.com/as...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Before that, people had pocket transistor radios, or carried around a larger cassette player (or a even a boom box). There was apparently an unreleased invention called the Stereobelt which predated the Walkman but was unable to secure funding, and something called the Bone Fone which came out around the same time as the Walkman, but which was not successful. But overall, agreed, the Walkman was a revolutionary product.

"Worldwide average temperatures. According to NASA and NOAA."

No, only according to GISS.

And there is real evidence that GISS "fudged" those figures.

Simplistic boycots, and especially the sensationalist news stories which give rise to them, are just not doing any good. Mozilla's mission is incredibly important, and Firefox is the single best tool we have to further that mission. No matter how important the position of CEO, it's completely overwhelmed by the position of everyone else.

I recommend reading some opinions of people who actually work together with Brendan Eich, or who make up the wider Mozilla community. Though Mozilla always fumbles publicity, the open debate which invariably follows is equally always heartening for the understanding and passion which pours out of the words.

The following list should get you started:

• On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - Christie Koehler
• On Including the Uninclusive - Matthew Riley MacPherson
• Building a Global, Diverse, Inclusive Mozilla Project: Addressing Controversy - Mitchell Baker
• qualifications for leadership - Myk Melez
• Open when it matters: please help Mozilla - Matt Thompson
• Whatâ(TM)s Happening Inside Mozilla - Geoffrey MacDougall
• On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - Eric Shepherd
• Mozilla, an inclusive space - Nate Otto
• Mozilla is messy - Mark Surman
• Caught Between Two Movements - Andrea Wood
• More Context on Brendan Eichâ(TM)s Appointment as CEO - Chris McAvoy
• The most important decisions we make - Patrick Finch
• On Brendan Eich and the Thought Police - Bobby Holley
• Thinking About Mozilla - Erin Kissane

Simplistic boycots, and especially the sensationalist news stories which give rise to them, are just not doing any good. Mozilla's mission is incredibly important, and Firefox is the single best tool we have to further that mission. No matter how important the position of CEO, it's completely overwhelmed by the position of everyone else.

I recommend reading some opinions of people who actually work together with Brendan Eich, or who make up the wider Mozilla community. Though Mozilla always fumbles publicity, the open debate which invariably follows is equally always heartening for the understanding and passion which pours out of the words.

The following list should get you started:

• On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - Christie Koehler
• On Including the Uninclusive - Matthew Riley MacPherson
• Building a Global, Diverse, Inclusive Mozilla Project: Addressing Controversy - Mitchell Baker
• qualifications for leadership - Myk Melez
• Open when it matters: please help Mozilla - Matt Thompson
• Whatâ(TM)s Happening Inside Mozilla - Geoffrey MacDougall
• On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - Eric Shepherd
• Mozilla, an inclusive space - Nate Otto
• Mozilla is messy - Mark Surman
• Caught Between Two Movements - Andrea Wood
• More Context on Brendan Eichâ(TM)s Appointment as CEO - Chris McAvoy
• The most important decisions we make - Patrick Finch
• On Brendan Eich and the Thought Police - Bobby Holley
• Thinking About Mozilla - Erin Kissane

"If I were to write in a paper in medicine and try to get it published in one of the various medical journals that are out there that have a reasonably good reputation, I would be rejected so quickly if I were to try a "Algorithm for using instruments in surgery, nurse hands over knives handle first" journal article."

Well... there are good journals and then there are publish-anything journals. Sadly, I've been in some faculty meetings where the thesis has been, "anything you write can get published somewhere" (which is necessary for tenured academic advancement... fortunately I'm not on that track so I don't face the same pressure).

For example: In 2007 a medical researcher found a breakthrough method for approximating the area under a curve by means of rectangles and trapezoids (i.e., basic integration). This was published in the journal of Diabetes Care, the researcher named it after himself ("Tai's Model"), and the medical community cited the paper 75 times. (Also covered on Slashdot at the time):

http://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/

If 90% of us drop dead, that would actually help quite a bit more than any conservation efforts. Aggressive birth control comes in a strong second for effectiveness in the medium (20-40 year) term.

If you take the historical view of humanity's behavior, you'd come to the conclusion that the 1970s were an anomaly, we should have had WW-III, then we'd be dealing with nuclear winter, potentially an ice age, instead of runaway CO2 production.

Either way, we're facing yet another of nature's challenges, whether we as a species are smart enough to achieve a soft transition remains to be seen. Personally, if we can get over the nationalistic and personal competitiveness and lust to control as much as "humanly" possible, I think there's a chance for a soft landing along these lines:

http://5050by2150.wordpress.co...