Slashdot Mirror
Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels (metoffice.gov.uk)
Layzej writes: Based on data from January to September, the HadCRUT dataset shows 2015 global mean temperature at 1.02 degrees C (±0.11 degrees C) above pre-industrial levels for the first time. The Copenhagen Accord recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius (PDF)." Physicist Ken Rice points out that the next degree Celsius may be closer than we think. "It's taken us about 160 years to warm by about 1 degree C. This is associated with emissions of about 550GtC (550 billion tonnes of carbon, or ~2000 billion tonnes of CO2). Current emissions are around 10GtC/year. If we continue emitting as we are, we will double our cumulative emissions in about 50 years. If we continue to increase our emissions, it will be even sooner.
Is it possible that 160 years ago that we were in the midst of a cyclical cool down and now we're on a cyclical warm up?
This is because of all you gas-guzzler driving pukes out there with your fucking lifted trucks and humvees and generators powering your cabins in the woods.
You know who climate changes hurts most? The marginalized, women and minorities.
*YOU DON'T NEED A CAR!* Get that through your thick skulls.
Have gnu, will travel.
The increase should be below 2 degrees Celsius -- so that's a good thing since it was only 1 degree Celsius?
WTF is this trying to say? Be glad it was only 1 degree C and not 3 degrees C.
Am I the only one not understanding just be reading this blurb on slashdot?
Annoying.
How accurate were the thermometers they used in pre-indistrial times? Even now most temperature sensors are +/- 1 Degree C or worse. For a few quid you can get something that is accurate to +/- 0.2 degrees, provided you have it installed properly and it's only guaranteed that accuracy for the first few years after it's made (Sensirion sht75 for example)
& who indeed measured broadly enough to be statistically good measurement?
& who determined that it was not one of many long term cyclical changes that have occurred for millions of years.
& who will pay the cost of all the government activity? Every reader of Slashdot along with everyone else.
& what if their efforts do not work?
All these stories seem to be part of the pattern to blame industrialized society, when in fact industrialized society is what has allowed worldwide societies to thrive in the last 150 years.
Also known as one degree warmer than the Little Ice Age.
So is this milestone due to an increase in current temperatures, or a decrease in temperatures in pre-industrial times?
Oh lordy. First, there were weeks of similar posts baiting republicans/conservatives, now you guys have flipped over to baiting democrats/liberals. Anyone who takes any of these posts seriously in an idiot. Thanks for the laugh, though.
Why the fuck do they think that turning to a massively higher temperature speeds up the heating?
It's going to reach the two degrees higher that you want at the same time, regardless of whether you bump it two degrees or 50 degrees! And, NO, ceiling fans don't cool the place while you are away. That's not how any of it works FFS.
You know, because scientists from more than about 10 years ago simply didn't know how to accurately take temperatures?
So what?
1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.
2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)
And
3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.
Global warming pause Is now such a widely understood concept that even the IPCC talks about it.
If you want to really understand things, you have to stop being a closed minded denier of data.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After we start investigating every single motor vehicle manufacturer out there and find out how many of them (all of them?) have been cheating emissions testing to meet mandates, how much CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses' humans are actually responsible for.
Oh, and all you climate change-deniers out there? Get yourself a CPAP mask, hook it up to the tailpipe of your car, and see how healthy it is for you to breathe that. Regardless of 'global warming' being a thing or not, isn't it time we started moving away from internal combustion engines? And burning coal? Even natural gas isn't that great in the long run. Time to grow up, everyone, and stop using these baby technologies that are poisoning us regardless. Redesign fission power plants so they're safer, operate them safer, build lots of them. Continue to develop fusion technology until it's practical. Better electric storage technologies so plug-in electric vehicles are more practical. Keep researching and developing high temperature superconductor technology, to eventually improve the efficiency of electric vehicles (and everything else that uses lots of power). Solar and wind to fill in the gaps while we're working on all the above (and by the way how would high temp superconductors improve solar?). Don't know about you but I'd welcome a motorcycle with a 500 mile-on-a-charge range and a superconducting powertrain, that would out-perform the best superbikes currently available.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Here's a comparison of the HADCRU data mentioned in the article to the satellite data (UAH) and to another surface station data set (GISS). They all show warming of about the same magnitude over the last few decades: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Until their brains melt out of their heads, "that party" will block any nation-wide solution. Wait, their brains already melted.
You do realize all of that climate gate conspiracy bullshit has been discredited and that you're linking to something from 2009, right? ALL of that drivel which claimed to show manipulation was pretty much bullshit.
So either you like to trot this out because you haven't kept up to date, or you know damned well you're posting links to stale information which has been discredited.
Because, really, a Telegraph article from 2009 about how the Russians have confirmed that climate data was manipulated? That's about the least quality source of information you could pick.
In which case I assume you know you're full of shit. If you don't, well, you should fix that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
A greenhouse works by letting heat in (light) and not letting it out (glass traps convection). The atmosphere does so to some extent by letting energetic visible and shorter wavelengths through while trapping re-radiating longer (cooler) infra-red wavelengths. Fine.
Carbon dioxide traps infra-red only on three wavelenghts (wavenumbers) corresponding to its' vibratory modes. This absorbance is proportional to incidence, not linear -- see the Beer-Lambert Law.. (Linear approximation works only at very low absorances).
If you double the amount, you halve the transmittance. But even at 100 ppmv CO2, transmittance is only 10^-10 (what else would you expect from 1mm as solid?). The atmosphere is already opaque on CO2 wavelengths. The glass is already on this greenhouse -- another layer will do nothing measureable.
If we continue emitting as we are, we will double our cumulative emissions in about 50 years. If we continue to increase our emissions, it will be even sooner.
We all know the oil reserves will be severely depleted by 50 years from now if we just keep the current consumption rate. I doubt we can just keep the pace at which we are emitting greenhouse gases for 50 years. Before we reach the 50 years milestone, the oil price will skyrocket and consumption will collapse.
Achille Talon
Hop!
I want my Canadian waterfront to be like Los Angeles
Preventing a 2 degrees F increase would be much harder.
So warmer than the early 1800s which were colder than the early-to-mid 1400s?
The only reason for claiming that the early 1800s are the correct zero-point is to support a (false) claim that the only reason for the change can possibly be industrialization.
There was a slow cooling for about 6000 years, followed by an abrupt change in trajectory over the last century. The warming over the last century has been attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
Everything that doesn't bait Republicans and Conservatives does, by default, bait liberals, Democrats, and all others.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
...but what a load of hogwash. Today, we are one entire degree warmer than "pre-industrial temperatures", which they define as around 1850. Coincidental, I'm sure, that the "Little Ice Age" ended around 1850, meaning that they could hardly have picked a colder point in time. I should certainly hope that we are warmer than that! The Little Ice Age saw the largest glacier extents for thousands of years, devastating many communities as they were inexorably covered with ice.
Note, also, the temperature graph in that article - a lot more than one degree drop from temperatures a couple of centuries before, which brings us to the next point. They label today's temperature range as "uncharted territory", despite the fact that the planet was almost certainly warmer than this during the Medieval Warm Period, and before that during the Roman Climate Optimum.
The rest of the TFA is all about beating the panic-drum.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Just saying it's discredited doesn't make it discredited, however much you want to pretend like your faith is science.
Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look. I don't think it will. You know, that or any of the other idiotic claims you people have made over the years (ice-free north pole, or a series of hurricane swarms somewhere/everywhere).
First off, this is coming from a thermal engineer with solar panels. I have the solar panels because it made sense financially and it is an efficient use of the sun trying to bake my roof to powder.
These enviro nuts have zero perspective. Why we put up with them is purely due to all of the brainwashing that goes on in college campuses that carries forward to young adults. See the following graph for what we KNOW the earth has done in the past, before any industrialization:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
but we still tolerate these idiots running around with wildly inaccurate obscenely complex computer models proclaiming that we are causing our own doom... even after they were wrong about global cooling in the 70s and global warming for the last 30 years (go back and look at their models, we were supposed to be 10C hotter by now, and the news today is we might be 1C+/-.11 warmer.) So yeah, that is what is known as WRONG...
Oh and by the way, the climate models have underestimated land based plants ability to soak CO2 by 16% and they acknowledge that as levels rise, plants thrive, making the relationship non-linear (more CO2 = more and bigger plants and trees to soak it up). Thus, it may be much larger than 16% and actually more like CO2 soaked = CO2 concentration X plant factor^exponential power. Remember all that carbon that we are burning used to be plants at one time, but was trapped below the surface. This also ignores the tremendous amounts of ocean Algae and plant life that can litterally grow 100x a day under the right conditions (and one of those conditions is enough CO2).
If global warming destroys us, it will be because we listen to these morons and destroy our society. Once we are living in mud huts and the next ice age hits, we will be unable to cope and be wiped out. That is how it will actually happen, and you would know this if you are a student of history and reality, rather than a brainwashed, educated fool unable to think independently.
I don't take the specifics of the post seriously, but the idea that this fear-mongering in the press about global warming is really a power grab by statists at the national and international levels isn't new. By and large, who is paying for the studies that indicate mankind is largely responsible for changes in climate? Who stands to gain from the public policy changes (i.e. increased regulations, carbon taxes, etc) implied to be necessary to stem the tide of these changes? The answer to both questions is government. It increases their power over both commerce, and over ordinary people's lives. The more influence they have, the more influence they have to peddle. Corporations also pay for their own studies, and I should say their results should be looked at just as critically. My point in focusing on government in this case is because I too often see cognitive dissonance regarding "following the money," with people only doing so when private firms/individuals are involved, but never governments.
We need to look back over the past 100 years and see who is responsible for creating the factories and products that generated all of this increase in carbon emissions. They are the perpetrators of this disaster. Who is going after them?
What's a "Global" temperature?
So, up until now I understood this primarily as a problem that would really hit future generations, long after I die of old age. Now you are telling me that I might suffer from the consequences during my retirement???
I am officially angry, and will start demanding legislation to force other people to pay up to fix this.
I agree that moving away from IC engines would be good for the enviironment, and I agree that motor vehicles are a significant contributor to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses, but lets get this into persspective:
The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima...
About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for 4.37% of all MMGG), which means that all the millions of family cars on the road are actually only responsible for 14.6%.
Clearly we need to target electricity generation (31%) and industry (21%) long before just beating up on car drivers more.
You do realize your own link has long been discredited, by the very presence of scores of high-level scientists who oppose your ill-informed alarmism?
I'm quite sure Freeman Dyson knows more about this than you do, or any of the others in your cult.
That's the last I'll say on the matter since you can only come up with a single pathetic link to make what you think is a point, but only shows how unreasonable and out of touch your cult has become.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ROFLMAO the sad thing is his vote counts
recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius
There is no such scientific view. I admit there is a consensus that humans have caused some degree of warming and I even agree with that. But to blandly claim without a bit of supporting evidence that there is a consensus on what temperature range is best for us is ridiculous.
What makes it worse is the lack of support for a temperature increase that small. There are a lot of countries that simply aren't on board with curbing human activities enough to avoid the cutbacks that are claimed to be necessary for holding warming to below 2 C. Time for a plan B that isn't stupid.
As far as I can tell, all the "investigations" of the ClimateGate situation were whitewashes. "The University investigated its own global warming researchers and concluded that they are doing a great job!"
And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, and all the old data got pushed down and all the new data got pushed up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
Can you find me anyone prominent in the global warming community who spoke out in 2004 against the prediction that sea level rise would start drowning island countries by 2010? It's hard for me to take this stuff seriously when the most outrageous claims are never challenged, and skeptical people are hounded the way the Inquisition hounded heretics, and the computer models are all outside their 95% confidence intervals and yet everyone is doubling down on the conclusions from the models.
If you want me to take global warming seriously, start having all the global warming conferences by teleconference over the Internet to save on CO2 emissions (instead of having everyone fly to Tahiti or wherever) and start having the top guys all endorse nuclear power.
how much CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses' humans are actually responsible for.
Don't forget China, between lying about car emissions and China lying about coal emissions, a HUGE volume of CO2 has been put into the atmosphere.
Which proves that CO2 does not cause warming, because warming has been DECREASING over the decades CO2 has been pouring into the atmosphere.
This proves simply that CO2 is not a direct driver of warming as is required for any of the warming models to be accurate in a rise of even 2C. What we are left with then is natural climactic warming, unrelated to atmospheric CO2 - which is what we'd have supposed all along if the global record of CO2 and temperature had been paid attention to to start with.
You want to get rid of pollution? So do I. But CO2 is NOT POLLUTION and by focusing on that and ignoring actual pollution you are fucking over the environment on a scale unimaginable. For that environmental crime I will never forgive nor forget the harm you warming alarmists have caused to the Earth, never again will you and your doom cult be trusted.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look.
That's the attitude that keeps any meaningful change from happening. Let the mass disasters start to happen, then we'll try to figure out a solution, because it definitely won't be too late by then and fuck all of the people living near sea level anyway. Once the refugees are knocking on your door, maybe you'll give a shit then, right? Why bother to improve the energy economy of the entire planet unless there is a specific need to do it immediately, right? God forbid the fossil fuel companies wouldn't be able to post record profits for another year, when there is no more coal or oil in the ground then we can start talking about deploying things like solar and wind power. Let's use up everything we possibly can, and then start figuring out what to do next. No fucking need to try and plan for the future here, because we're all a bunch of fucking idiots just out to consume everything we possibly can.
If an asteroid was going to hit the planet in 10 years I bet you would wait until you could see it in the sky before you start thinking about if we should do anything.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Although scientists don't have a great track record of predicting the end of "peak oil" ... it does seem to me that we're on track to phase out the burning of fossil fuels as a primary means of energy production.
Without any legislative interference, we're going to find "supply and demand" will dictate a change of course in coming decades, if localized pollution issues don't dictate it in some cases first.
What we DO know is that the major oil companies have been investing larger and larger amounts of money to drill ever further off-shore. That's not something that makes ANY financial sense at all, given the risks + cost, except for the fact they're not finding much "low hanging fruit" anymore with easier to drill locations. The new thing of extracting oil from shale deposits gave them a new supply source too -- but how long is that really going to last, especially as we move towards safer, more reliable versions of nuclear power plants?
What kind of reasoning is this?
Who taught you to throw in buzzwords like "discredited", "pathetic", and "cult"? Obviously someone good at manipulative rhetoric and terrible with actual argumentation.
Dyson questions the climate projections, which everyone should be doing.
Yes.
You have taken that small factoid and spun an entire delusional fantasy around it.
You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?
Another alarmist like you used the asteroid analogy. I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there. Does that modify your claim that we will be hit? If so, you are a scientist, if not, then you are a religion. Guess what climate alarmists do every time one of their predictions fail?
And I bet you'd complain if he asked to see the calculations proving said asteroid was going to hit earth.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
While it is pithy and simple to set a target temperature goal, like 2C, i think it misses the overall implications of a changing climate. As the Nature article today on slashdot points out, even a mild temperature change could possibly do something like turn the entire Middle East extremely humid making it basically uninhabitable. Something this trivial, like a local increase in moisture over a relative small region, could provoke war, even nuclear war.
There could be a change in ocean currents, or moisture content/cloud cover of other regions, or any number of other effects from relatively small changes in temperature that in themselves aren't dangerous but human reactions to them could actually be a 'doomsday' level.
You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?
And people who believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise are the alarmists. Right.
Citigroup released a report not long ago which showed that investing in renewable energy was the more profitable way forward. In other words, that it is actually more expensive to keep using fossil fuels. Also consider this: if much of the civilized world stops using fossil fuels to generate power, will you expect the price of fuel oil to go up or down?
And, how about this: if solar power becomes a cheap reality, what is that going to do for the quality of life of those 50 million Africans?
Here's another question for you: can we continue to use fossil fuels indefinitely? If not, what is the appropriate time to begin moving to alternatives? That time obviously isn't now, according to you, so what metrics do we need to hit before it would be a good idea to start heading in the direction of renewable energy?
I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there.
So your "come back" to the hypothetical that an asteroid would hit us is to state that hey, new data shows it's not going to hit us. OK. Fantastic come back.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Are you seriously posting with a link to desmogblog.com ? A propaganda site founded by a PR firm and expert from Canada, who is on the board of directors of the Suzuki foundation?
An article writen by Kenvin Grandia and green activist and political expert manipulator in that area.
Really?
You need to vet your "debunking" much more carefully before you go spreading it all over the place.
Their religion won't help much either. We need to follow a God that had enough forethought to list "don't burn the oil from the ground all at once" as a commandment.
Of course he knows its discredited.
When clowns like that post those FUD articles they know that your local libertarian will eat it up.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
You do realize your link has been discredited by the very link to Wikipedia? Where anyone can say anything.
Fake data isn't even an actual concern - the error bars in the Chinese emissions data are bigger than the amount of emissions necessary to trigger warming or not trigger of warming according to the current AGM models. The models suck, the data sucks - as usual the same advice applies: don't panic.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power.
And start using electric cars.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How does this nonsense get modded up to 5.
A sketchy .jpg stating data from the 2 propaganda in chiefs scientists?
The hockey stick fool?
There is no reasoning with ideologists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Now, are you willing to listen?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's pretty obvious that this is "scare-mongering" from the Met Office, in preparation for the upcoming climate talks in Paris, where a lot of pressure will be applied to the attending nations to share their wealth with the 3rd world, to foster develop (and pollution) of the 3rd world. Ostensibly to "save humanity" from various fiery or watery disasters. But the real purpose is just plain old socialist extortion.
Yes, 'global warming is real'. No denials here. It has been slowly warming since the last Ice Last and about 1C since 1880. But the 'global warming scare is a fraud'. Nothing to get excited about, even with "scary" predictions of doom that we won't be able to verify until 2100. (Then it will be "Oh, I guess we were wrong about all that climate nonsense. Anyway thanks for the fish and money").
As a matter of fact, though, all of the predictions for high temps by now, using previous climate "models" have failed. And lately warming has inexplicably 'paused' even while CO2 continually rises (not supposed to happen according to the "models" Even the Antarctic Ice is getting more massive and the Arctic ice is on a slow rebound.
So, again, "global warming is real", but these "global warming scares are fraud".
My ex got the beach house, I hope it floods.
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
In the past It's been both much warmer and much cooler than it is today. You could just as easily have headlined the article "Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Under Pre-Industrial Levels".
I was born in the second coldest capital city in the world. Now fallen too fifth coldest. Not due to global warming but the breakup of the Soviet Union causing more new capital cities. Warming a few degrees is a good thing.
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Yet admits using admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way...
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
I don't take the specifics of the post seriously, but the idea that this fear-mongering in the press about global warming is really a power grab by statists at the national and international levels isn't new.
It isn't new, but "this is a conspiracy by statists to grab more power" is a conspiracy theory that doesn't make a lick of sense.
Saying "be afraid of terrorists! We need to put policemen armed with tanks and bazookas in every schoolroom, and strip search everybody who ever gets on an airplane"-- now that's a power grab. Saying "we need to make changes in the regulatory system that will, over the course of decades, change the distribution of new power systems and will encourage more efficient use of energy" really is not-- that's pretty much the most incompetent "power grab" ever.
The belief that there are "statists" out there who are trying to increase the power of government not for any particular reason, but just to increase the government, is really quite silly. There are many many people out there who want to use the power of government to accomplish specific goals-- both left and right-- and those can be frightening. But the idea that there are statists out there who simply want governments to have more power for no reason at all other than power: no, that's a boogeyman. Not real.
...My point in focusing on government in this case is because I too often see cognitive dissonance regarding "following the money," with people only doing so when private firms/individuals are involved, but never governments.
Because the "follow the money" trail is very clear when looking at climate change deniers: they are massively funded by fossil-fuel corporations or by lobbying organizations which are funded by fossil fuel corporations, and the fossil fuel industry is literally a multi-trillion dollar industry. It's easy to follow the money: you can see who's paying, you can see who they are paying, and you can see what they are asking for and why they want it. It's so not-secret an agenda that you can find the actual memos written by the American Petroleum Institute laying out their strategy.
But the "follow the money" trail just peters out when looking at climate scientists. They're funded by a range of government agencies, true, ranging from NASA to NOAA to the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie to the Japanese Meteorological agency, but now you're telling me that they all have the same secret agenda... to do what, exactly? Really, the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie does not have a secret desire to increase the amount of regulations in the world. Even if the German government somehow did have this goal... how do they it tell the Max-Planck Institut? Memos saying "make sure that the scientists you fund are instructed to only give results saying climate change is real?" Do you really think that dozens of scientific agencies in as many countries are all going to be getting this memo (why? From who?) and not a single person is going to leak it?
You can try to follow the money... but when you do, there just isn't anywhere it goes. And then, how exactly do the thousands of scientist get their instructions?
There are indeed a lot of people who want to influence government-- plenty of them. But they all do so to anticipate actual, tangible benefits.
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Yet admits using admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you - simple... apk
Coren22 they talking about your head again http://slashdot.org/comments.p... due to your assburgers diet? Please reply minus using your blowhole http://slashdot.org/comments.p... hahahahaha
it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs.
it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Apk please stop. You're going to get Coren22 to activate his ass(burger) shaped head's blowhole http://slashdot.org/comments.p... shitting up the screen hahahahaha
As far as I can tell, all the "investigations" of the ClimateGate situation were whitewashes.
Since your definition for "whitewash" is "detailed investigation found nothing wrong".
"The University investigated its own global warming researchers and concluded that they are doing a great job!"
There were eight independent investigations of the so-called "climategate", not including the investigation by the university itself. These ranged from the British House of Commons all the way across the ocean to the National Science Foundation. None of them found any wrongdoing other than failures to adequately explain their results.
There's nothing found, because there really was nothing there to be found. But eight investigations weren't enough, apparently.
And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, and all the old data got pushed down and all the new data got pushed up.
Getting progressively better models and more accurate data sets is what science does. That's how science works. You would worry if they didn't get better data set.
In this case, however, the updated NOAA data made minor changes in the shape of the curve but in no way changed the actual result: the average temperature was increasing in the old data, and it's still increasing in the revised data.
Can you find me anyone prominent in the global warming community who spoke out in 2004 against the prediction that sea level rise would start drowning island countries by 2010?
No one spoke out against this because it didn't exist. There was no prediction by scientists that island countries would drown by 2010. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change made a prediction in 2007 that conservative estimates suggest that global sea level will reach increase "8 to 16 inches above 1990 levels" by 2090, is that what you're thinking of? Some of the news reports (such as the New York Times quoted that as "by the end of the century" which sometimes gets written as "by 2100". That kind of looks like "by 2010", if you squint at it.
It's hard for me to take this stuff seriously when the most outrageous claims are never challenged
Outrageous claims should be challenged... but far too many of these "outrageous" claims don't actually exist, except in the minds of self-proclaimed skeptics who never try to actually track them down to original sources.
it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs.
it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.
Nuclear is the only proven technology. With nuclear power you have France having demonstrated for many decades that nuclear can provide nearly all the electrical power for a large modern country. Hydro is a proven technology, but it has already been largely tapped out in much of the world and hydro can disrupt river ecosystems. Solar and Wind just don't cut it without either some other large scale supplies of energy... which hydro can't provide... or a massive overbuilding of Solar and Wind to account for the variability. Solar and Wind just can't cut it alone by a long shot, so its either Natural Gas, then coal or Nuclear.
If you can't offer a realistic solution then you are part of the problem.
The British Met Office has no stake in your stupid childish US politics. You go and vote for Ben Carson if you like. It's still going to get hotter.
There is no reasoning with ideologists
Said with no sense of irony or self awareness XD
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Yet admits using admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you - simple... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Yet admits using admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you, troll... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
Actually, we are probably at about 8C above temperatures 20000 years ago, and good thing too: if it was still that cold, most of the northern hemisphere would be covered in ice sheets. We're probably still 1-2C below the Eemian maximum temperature of about 130000 years ago.
We're still about 10C below the Eocene maximum.
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Yet admits using admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you troll - simple... apk
The reason nuclear power plants aren't successful or competitive is massive NIMBYism and a suppression of efficient and clean nuclear power technologies because they might be used to generate weapons-grade material. Neither of those can be solved with more subsidies.
Of course, that's still better than "renewables", which simply aren't cost effective at all.
As of this writing, only 10 of 272 responses rate a 4 or 5. Come on, Slashdot editors, can't you see that topics like this aren't productive?
Not complicated at all:
Just a touch of nuclear winter could fix it right up.
Right as rain they say.
No. The Marcott reconstruction has proxies that extend to 1940. The surface station data are shown along side the reconstruction (and so is the Mann reconstuction), but this is for reference. They are not used in the reconstruction. The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Give it a fucking break you mindless jerk, I'm sick of your nonsense post. You never won any arguments with anybody, except in your own tiny little mind.
APK resident fuckwad of Slashdot, you know everyone thinks your a joke with your pathetic trolling don't you?
For fucks sake you pthetic wanker give it a rest. No one cares about your malware. You never won an argument, and we all just scroll thru your drivel.
It's gettin' hot in here so hot, so take off all your clothes!
Send us back to the pre-Industrial age please! No planes, trains, cars, trucks, computers, light-bulbs, and most importantly...porn.
Now have a look at a longer time period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Notice how it's 8C warmer now than it was 20000 years ago? Notice how we're better off because of it?
Notice how it is still 10C colder than it was 50 million years ago? A time when every landmass was covered in lush forests and land animals thrived?
And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, ...
Nothing stealth about it. You just have to read the original papers about it. They're not that hard to find. For example "THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA, VERSION 2" which gives an overview of adjustments that were made. You can find references at the end if you want to dig deeper.
During the Pliocene three million years ago, the climate was 2 to 3C warmer and the seas were 25–35 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1994; Rahmstorf, 2007). I'm sure the critters of the time loved it, but our coastal cities would not. The last 10,000 years is of interest because that represents the birth of our civilization. It is the climate that we have adapted our infrastructure to.
I don't see anybody alleging a "conspiracy"; "conspiracy" requires secrecy and deception. I'm sure scientists and politicians promoting action on AGW truly believe what they are saying, and they aren't secret about it. But that doesn't make them right.
Where did all the scientists and politicians who promoted scientific racism, eugenics, and segregation get their instructions from? Nowhere. These aren't "conspiracies", they are social and political malfunctions. Scientists and politicians want power and money. A simple way of getting power and money is to identify a crisis and offer a solution to it. Many potential crises don't make it, but some take off due to simple, self-organizing, positive feedback: the more scientists and politicians believe in some crises or problem, the more people get rewarded for adopting the same beliefs.
Well, I'm glad that you accept that the critters loved it, because that removes the major scare scenario of global warming.
As for sea level rise, don't worry about it. Sea level rise is currently about 1ft/century. Think about what your coastal city was like a century ago. Compared to the massive changes and the massive rebuilding that has happened in most cities, adapting to 1ft/century is completely negligible.
What was the temperature 12 kya? 50 mya?
Lol. Look it up and prepare to laugh.
How was human civilisation going 20000 years ago? Could current numbers of humans have been supported?
How fast was the change in temperature between then and now? Slow enough for (most) systems to adapt?
Would humans have thrived 50 million years ago?
In other news, life is thriving near volcanic vents at the bottom of several oceans on this planet. Based on this, should I therefore conclude that everything would be just dandy if the planet was covered by super-heated water rich in volcanic goodness? Life, in the bigger picture, is tough: it will evolve to survive most things in one form or another. Humans, and many of our co-dependent species, are not so rugged...
It's gettin' hot in here so hot, so take off all your clothes!
..and amazingly, that was one of the more 'articulate' (c)rap songs. Now that's a culture worth celebrating, no really it is!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
..and YOU, sir, are a disgusting lying hypocrite. Please, die slowly in a fire and do us the courtesy of filming your death that I may rejoice in your suffering from the comfort of my own home.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS"
No, loser, the salt is in YOUR wounds, because you're the pathetic simian who cannot let a comment about your malware go unchallenged.
Nobody cares, nobody wants to care, but don't let that stop you, keep thrashing that hate-monkey of yours, he's sure to grind out some intelligent rebuttal eventually, right?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Translation: boo-hoo, APK's anus is red and sore, now it's EVERYBODY's problem because APK needs our help, poor little baby!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
Whee! Who's a disgusting liar, APK?
Certainly not the eleventy-one sockpuppet accounts that are all about to down-mod me to protect your good name, noooo!
That would be - as we all know - someone else.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
APK: boo-hoo, my anus hurts and it's all swollen and smells ugly. Whomever shall I blame for this tragedy?
The World: *ignores APK, says something unrelated*
APK: That's it! That's the 'in' I've been looking for, everyone can see that the WHOLE WORLD just took responsibility for my anus. Now I can squeal like a five-year-old girl with rattlesnake-in-the-vagina issues! Whee! I'm SO ENTITLED!! My rage is so righteous!
APK: It's all YOUR fault that my anus is so swollen, so smelly and disgorging so much pus! It must therefore be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make my anus feel better! Fail to do so and be prepared to be branded the ENEMY DU JOUR!
BWAHAHAHAH! APK, like progressivism, ALWAYS WINS!!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Liar, liar, APK's pants are on fire!
APK doesn't understand what 'hypocrisy' means, or he'd moderate his posts.
APK doesn't understand what 'integrity' means, or he'd moderate his posts.
APK doesn't know what citations are, or he'd include them with the ludicrous suppositions he makes in his posts.
APK doesn't know what humility is, or he'd leave off trumpeting his 'successes' in his posts. Hint: Linus doesn't big-mouth. What makes you so much better than him that YOU get to big-mouth yourself when Linus Torvalds doesn't?
APK is a one-trick-pony with only hosts-file manipulation to his name, a technique that was rightfully deposed in the 90's.
APK is butt-hurt that the world moved on and that his one-trick-pony show has waned into irrelevance.
APK learned that bluster can make up for an awful lot of substance, hence posts such as the above.
Despite the above, APK is happy to take the time to explain how positive and helpful he is as a contributor to SlashDot. The rest of us are simpletons; mere fools - just ask him!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
APK the butt-hurt baby strikes again; the more childish whinings, the more likely everyone is to agree with you, right baby? Whiny baby? What's that, cat's got your tongue? Poor baby!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Aww, poor baby's all bent out of shape because someone pointed out that his wailings were the work of a madman. Take it as a sign of CONCERN for your MENTAL HEALTH, apk, you poor sick son of a bitch you.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Ooh, poor baby seems to have pooped its pants. Whaddyagonnado now, APK? Mommy's nowhere to be seen and you're left sitting in a pile of your own shite - guess it must be someone else's fault, right APK? You set the world to right now, you go girl!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Boo-hoo, APK doesn't understand DNS, but that's OUR fault you see, because we're all HORRIBLE and INSENSITIVE to APK's unique NEEDS.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Whoops - you hear that sound, APK? That's the sound of NOBODY GIVING A SHIT ABOUT YOU. That's mostly because you're worthless and your opinion amounts to that which we scrape off our shoes having walked through the dogs-off-leash park.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
> Nuclear is the only proven technology.
Where do you put the radioactive waste? The site must be absolutely safe vs natural and manmade havaria for 10k, possibly 100k years. That is such a desperate problem that many very old NP reactors are now permitted to operate an extra 20 years further, simply to delay the issue of their disassembly and waste disposal. And then some disaster happens, like Fukushima and the very old reactors just can't stand it and the disaster turns into a mega-disaster.
Nobody cares about your 'findings', APK, because you have no integrity here on SlashDot. We've very quickly learned you are nothing but bile and spite and as such your 'programs' are viewed with well-justified suspicion and mistrust. Perhaps if you weren't such a fucking cunt of a Human being you might get a better response, but I'm not holding my breath as you seem perpetually stuck in the mindset of 'everyone else is a cunt but me' so I don't have much hope you'll ever mature or grow up in any way, especially since you're well into your fifties and still content to behave like a sixteen-year-old child.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I can't believe someone wrote that for people to see, expecting to make some sort of a point apart from "I am terrible at this whole science thing, but I don't like what scientists are saying, so I'll fart all over my keyboard and hope some sort of argument falls out".
Your argument isn't even internally consistent. Your descendants will laugh at you, and condemn your selfish, intentionally-uninformed laziness.
All you said is "I don't understand any of this". Thanks for playing.
Hint: If you are attempting to refute an entire field of science, at least try to cite a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with you. Otherwise you are indistinguishable from a scientific illiterate tilting at windmills.
Thanks Pollyanna. Of course the people who actually have to plan for this do not share your optimism: http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
You should probably read about what increases in sea level mean to storm surges. You'd probably not spout something so ridiculous if you did. It's like you're desperate to not learn.
I have read about it. What point are you trying to get at?
nope, not flamebait
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Pollyanna describes you: someone who reads disaster porn and scifi in Rolling Stone Magazine and thinks it's science. From the article you link to:
So, Rolling Stone assumes a ten-fold faster sea level rise than is actually occurring and then spins a fairy tale around that.
More importantly, Miami had a population of 300 in 1896. That is, a little over a century, it hardly existed at all. So, it would hardly be a big problem if, in another century, it has moved inland a few miles.
In any case, even without any sea level rise, it was unwise to build such a metropolis in such a location to begin with, and it can only exist there because of massive subsidies for things like flood insurance and civil engineering. To demand that Americans elsewhere pay even more money to preserve Miami in such a place is ludicrous. It's crony capitalism at its worst. Stop subsidizing flood insurance and public civil engineering projects, and you'd be amazed how motivated people become to move out of Miami to a safer location.
'solar and wind cant cut it alone'
Again.
That statement is purely false.
We know that more solar energy lands on the Earth in one hour than all of humanity consumes in an entire year ( it actually only takes ~40 minutes ). We need only harness a small fraction of that. and you also conveniently ignore any and all potential storage solutions, or advancing grid technology.
We also already know that, using current mainstream solar technology (therefore excluding advanced panels under development that are even more efficient), it only takes ~25k square miles to power the entire planet with solar. If located in a single location, that's a square ~158 miles on a side, which isn't terribly large given the size of the planet. Some real world engineering proposals based off that call for multiple arrays located in the planets barren locations, distributed around the world. combined with emerging smart grid electrical systems, distribution between generation, storage, and consumer, while being one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed, becomes simple, and raises the standard of living across the entire world.
but, even that, a centralized and interlinked system, isn't required.
distributed generation, with every structure independent is also possible, if somewhat less efficient.
or a combination of the two, combining independent generation at individual structures, with a smart grid for distribution, which is actually the most realistic way forward.
analyses have already shown that if every residential structure in the United States alone were equipped with panels, we would generate roughly 140% of the entire worlds' electricity needs. Which translates into meeting America's needs, and thus energy independence, with only a small fraction of that. Similarly most any other country could also achieve total energy independence in similar fashion. This also excludes commercial (nonresidential structures), which while less numerous, tend to be larger, and even better suited to panel installation.
Therefore, I see little reason to proceed with nuclear, given all its drawbacks, when we already have the world's (nay, solar systems) greatest nuclear reactor shining on us every day. If we didn't have the sun, if we were further out, say at Mars' distance or further, yes, nuclear would be the way to go. But we aren't.
So again, I reiterate: while I get that you want to cheerlead for nuclear, what you said is patently false.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
None of what you are saying is doable. You can't rest the fate of hundreds of millions of people on a bunch of theoretical wishful thinking. Pick a city of 50,000 people and actually disconnect from the grid and go with 100% solar and wind. You need to disconnect from the non-renewable grid to demonstrate a viable proof of concept because once you force solar and wind to provide base load capacity you explode your costs because you need large scale storage. The cities that are going to "100%" are really just buying the equivalent power from renewable sources which gets dumped into the grid. Which is fine until the fossil fuel power plants start going offline and you can't actually get that electricity all the way from your solar power stations reliably.
With the smart grid where you plan to just somehow have enough solar and wind scattered around the planet to shift electricity around when regions don't have solar or wind.... How long is it going to take you to boot strap using fossil fuels? Probably a couple hundred years.... which is too late for carbon reduction.
Like I've said before: Just prove me wrong. And prove me wrong without wrecking the environment with more pollution than nuclear would. And prove me wrong now not 30 years from now when it is probably too late to stop another few degrees of warming.
*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
& admits using admin priv himself
+
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
& admits using admin priv himself
+
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you troll... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
& admits using admin priv himself
+
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you, troll... apk
I don't see anybody alleging a "conspiracy"; "conspiracy" requires secrecy and deception.
The original poster-- "Speck'sbacon"-- was alleging a conspiracy. He was saying that we need to "follow the money", which will reveal that thousands of scientists, working for twenty different agencies in different countries on different continents, are all presenting corrupt results for money.
I was merely pointing out that not only is there no evidence for this, and not only does follow the money reveal no such thing, but that this is absurd
I'm sure scientists and politicians promoting action on AGW truly believe what they are saying, and they aren't secret about it. But that doesn't make them right.
Whether they are right is a different thread. The thread I was commenting on was pointing out the absurdities in the proposal by speck'sbacon.
Now, to the best of our knowledge, they in fact are right. But this is because they use the tools of science-- observation, calculation, and comparing competing hypotheses by measurements and use of the scientific method. And if better measurements show something different, the state of "the best of our knowledge" can change. So far, however, they haven't.
Your idea that there is a " simple, self-organizing, positive feedback" cycle supporting wrong science is a different statement, but it is also wrong. Scientists gain their reputation partly by being smart, but the way they show that they are smart is by being right. Add evidence that the existing models are right, or find evidence that competing models are right, either one works, but you do not get ahead in science by being wrong. If it looked like existing climate models were wrong, believe me, climate scientists would all be rushing to be the first to show it.
The only real surprise is how the global green-communist-jewish-scientist-lizard man conspiracy allows people to post so many climate change denial posts without kidnapping them in black helicopters or zapping them with mind control rays.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The reason nuclear power plants aren't successful or competitive is massive NIMBYism and a suppression of efficient and clean nuclear power technologies because they might be used to generate weapons-grade material. Neither of those can be solved with more subsidies.
Of course, that's still better than "renewables", which simply aren't cost effective at all.
The subsidies are needed because of the cost of delays caused by regulation and lawsuits and to make it competitive with coal and natural gas. Basically most of the private sector capital investment is going into natural gas power generation and natural gas pipelines now because there is a natural gas glut in the market and it doesn't face as much opposition because it isn't as much of a polluter as coal.
Natural gas is better than coal, but it won't get us to the carbon neutrality needed to mitigate Global Climate Change.
You build a nuclear powered railgun, and shoot the waste into the sun.
The error there is yours in assuming that making money from a fad requires a conspiracy. There are plenty of fads, from selfie stick and pet rocks to iPhones, that are self-reinforcing with no central coordination or planning. Entire startups are built on such so-called "network effects", and entire countries have gone fascist or communist not because of some carefully prepared master plan, but because a political fad took off.
The science isn't the issue here, it's the politics. Science doesn't say we need to create large statist institutions to reduce carbon emissions; that's a political choice. In fact, if anything, science tells us the exact opposite. First, if we don't act on climate change, the costs won't be any worse (and likely be lower) than if we do act; despite all the scary language, that's what the science and economics of the IPCC report amounts to. But even that assumes that governmental action on climate change would actually be effective, and the social sciences tell us that that is actually unlikely to be the case.
(As for the science itself, although I generally believe the climate models are fairly reasonable as far as climate modeling goes, whether they are "right" on predictions for 2100 can only be determined in 2100, not today.)
Subsidies aren't an effective remedy to bad regulation. In fact, if you subsidize in response to bad regulation, you economically reward bad regulation and will encourage more of it.
In different words "impose a billion dollars of additional regulations on us and then subsidize us by a billion dollars" is a good deal for a regulated industry.
Well, I disagree with the premise that carbon neutrality is even a desirable goal.
Try using a scale that humans are capable of relating to like Fahrenheit. What is 1C in Fahrenheit?
Apk backs what he said quoting his opponents destroying them. They do it to themselves. He ruins them with their own words.
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... a
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitte
See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitte
See subject: You care & yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
See subject: You do, & yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
* LMAO...
(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)
APK
P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk
... and *5* Degrees COOLER than Mezolithic Levels"
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
And that is right in line with the doubling of CO2 having around a 1.5-1.6 degree C warming so we have nothing to worry about because even the IPCC says that less than 2 degrees C won't cause any serious problems.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
You mean 100% of the Africans who survived the famine caused by the loss of fossil fuel enabled fertilizers?
Wait, now there's no fertilizer either? Why does that need to happen? Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? You're saying it's not possible to get rid of most of the coal and heavy oil CO2-producing power plants without also getting rid of fertilizer? What about cars? If half the vehicles on the road switch from gas to electric does that also mean that the fertilizer industry goes belly up? Why are you claiming that two things that are seemingly unrelated (power generation and fertilizer manufacture) are necessarily so intertwined that reduction in one of them necessarily leads to the elimination of the other? You're saying it's not at all possible to switch to a more renewable energy generation system without also completely destroying the fertilizer industry?
your grandparents who starved to death when AGW "remediation" efforts bankrupted all western countries to the point they could no longer pay pensions and thus allowed all the elderly to die.
And, again, you think I'M the alarmist. That is a fucking ridiculous scenario. Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them. Get a grip on your fever dreams and come back to reality. See the Citigroup report for reasons why they will not bankrupt any country at all.
When was the right time to stop using charcoal to smelt steel? Or to use whale oil to light lamps? When the market dictates we change.
Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks because they fucked up and everyone else had to pay for it rather than let them go bankrupt and let other companies who didn't make the same mistakes buy up their assets and continue forward. That free market? I've got news for you: the free market does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a sentient being, it is made of fallible and stupid people. It is composed of the kind of people who see their industry fading into oblivion and decide to spend millions or billions of dollars on politicians to artificially prop up their failing and fading empire. That's the free market you want to put so much faith in. I don't share your faith, I want to see action, not hoping that everything works out. Hope is not a strategy.
I know economics and peak theory about 1000x better than you do, and will crush you if you try.
Ooooh, you're going to "crush" me, are you? How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products, and then they did an about-face and put out a massive amount of marketing and PR (using those helpful fellows from the tobacco industry, no less) to spread the disinformation that their products are actually OK and not responsible for any bad things that might happen to your little planet? How about the assertion that we have so much oil currently in storage and in reserve here in the US that if we burned it all we would seriously damage the environment? You don't give a shit about that, because you believe in the "free economy (sponsored by ExxonMobile(tm))", and you think that we can go along pumping 35+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere year over year and it will have zero effect on anything worldwide just because you can write out a chemistry equation. Tell you what: if you can get 10% of published science papers to agree with your "theory", then maybe it deserves something other than a dismissive wave. Otherwise, at present, virtually every published and peer-reviewed paper disagrees with you. So you'll excuse me if I think you're full of shit and if I question your motives.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The scientists aren't necessarily right, but that's the way to bet, and they're a whole lot likelier to be correct than you are. They've studied the issue a great deal.
The idea of creating a crisis to profit by it is political, not scientific. The idea of wanting power is political, not scientific. It isn't true in politics, but the more scientists believe in some phenomenon, the greater the reputation reward will be for disproving it.
If you want to know what's really going on, pay little attention to the politicians and try to avoid relying on the media. Look for what the real scientists are saying.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
-Yes, it's warmer than it was during the last ice age.
-Yes, life existed during periods even warmer. But not current life, which evolved under climactic conditions that took millions of years to change....not a mere 200 years. It's not the presence of life, but the conditions it evolved under, and the rate at which it is capable of adapting to changing conditions, conditions that under natural cycles take millions of years to change.
(how many times are you going to repeat the same easily dismissed bits of moronic stupidity?)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So then you read about how Sandy caused ~40% more damage, both physical and economic, due to the increased storm surge, than it would have without said sea level rise, and similar effects on other storms on coastal areas?
No apparently, you didn't, because if you had you wouldn't need to have pointed out the precise reason WHY sea level rise biggest risk factor isn't the static avg sea level, but its effect on storm surges.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Except for a little thing called dust. Accumulation of dust severely attenuates the efficiency of solar panels. How do you plan to wash 25 thousand square miles of solar panels? Hint - rain isn't going to do it, notice how your car doesn't get cleaner after a rain shower
I'm not even going to bother with your comment about more solar energy striking the earth in one hour than the entire planet uses in a year - you clearly don't understand photoelectrics, and I don'the feel like explaining the concept of band gaps.
So what?
1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.
Total speculation, solely based on computer models that are wrong from the ground up. Ignoring the laws of physics is always foolish, but none as much as what the warmist brigade is doing.
2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)
And
3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.
Carbon Neutrality is not based on science. It's based on the fertile imagination of a few, which a whole horde of lemmings following after, of which very few have actually taken the trouble to verify that the premise that underlies all the projections is valid. It turns out CO2 is a coolant, the greenhouse effect does not apply to an open system like a planet's atmosphere and there is no relationship with the amount of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperature, except that eventually an increase in temperature is followed by 'n rise in CO2 level. The former is definitely not caused by an increase of the latter.
So in the end all this uproar about pre-industrial levels bla bla and climate bla bla and warming bla bla bla, is just a lot of hot air.
Is it cheerleading to promote a technology that has been proven to be able to run 24-7 without major hickups?
Clearly, the nuclear we are using today is 1950's tech, and needs to be replaced. We need to become CO2/Methane neutral, and nuclear offers that in spades.
However, I would propose that we instead switch to LFTR 4+ generation reactors and thorium fuel cycle to make it safer, cleaner, and also clean up the mess that the uranium cycle has left us with in the form of spent fuel rods.
Absolutely solar and wind can definitely be part of the solution, no question about that. But it would be far easier to use nuclear as the main source (along with hydro) of main power. Then, we can phase out nuclear fission once the LFTR's have processes all the spent fuel rods, and convert over to fusion (which is only a few decades away).
By that time, we'll have the smart systems in place that are needed for solar to work (we don't have them now, and it's going to take a decade or two to completely convert over).
What I would have said is that 'Solar and Wind can't cut it alone today, and we need solutions today'
Either way, going with nuclear is a good hedge with multiple benefits. It is also less polluting of the atmosphere which we do know causes lung health issues. It takes up less land area (less arable and livable land area) than pretty much all the other energy sources. It is reliable... you load up with a relatively small amount of uranium fuel rods and you can run a plant for years. And fossil fuels will eventually become harder (and therefore more taxing on the economy) to extract after some number of decades. Yes, with current technology you do start running low on usable uranium fuel after a certain number of decades or centuries, but with new generations of reactors you could stretch out that fuel for millennia. You don't need Global Warming to justify nuclear becoming a larger part of the energy supply, but if you are trying to mitigate Global Climate Change or doing so just in case, then nuclear power becomes essential.
so................ if it says so in a "model" then it will definitely happen, no if's and's or but's. scare tactics in full force. or somebody stands to make a bunch of money. (there was a coming ice age in the seventies btw). always a crisis. everybody is gonna DIE!!!! bla bla bla.
You need a carbon neutral electricity generation infrastructure before electric cars would make a difference to global climate change, although there would be his benefits to air quality in cities before that.
So what?
1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.
2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)
And
3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.
All of this won't bother me, I will be dead by then. It may however, bother my descendants. I don't pollute, so this global warning is for my grandchildren to handle.
I suppose that we will be building houses underground and living underground,
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
The science isn't the issue here, it's the politics.
You seem to be arguing some point that is different from the point I was addressing.
The issue I was talking about was the science. Not the politics.
Science doesn't say we need to create large statist institutions to reduce carbon emissions; that's a political choice.
That's correct.
In fact, if anything, science tells us the exact opposite.
Nope, you were right the first time: science doesn't address this, that's a political choice. The science can tell us how much the world will warm as a function of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and (just as important) tell us why we know it, and with what error bars. How much it will cost to correct it is an economic calculation. And how we chose to correct it-- or even whether we chose to correct it-- is a political decision.
First, if we don't act on climate change, the costs won't be any worse (and likely be lower) than if we do act;
The science tells us nothing of the sort. The science does tell us what the physical and biological effect of warming will be (although predicting the detailed effects is much harder than, and hence is quite a bit less precise than, the simple prediction of how much the warming will be.) A review of what we currently know is covered in the IPCC Working Group II report, for what it's worth: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... ("Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability").
The science does not tell us the societal or economic costs, and in no way does it tell us the cost of acting-- that's economics and politics, not science. Among other things, that first would require examining alternative plans to addressing the problem, and there really isn't any political consensus on that.
I will blame the deniers for that, by the way. By shouting "NO! IT'S A HOAX!" every time the issue of how to address the problem comes up, they have totally drowned out any substantive discussion of how, or even whether, we should deal with it; and completely derailed any discussions of the cost benefit ratio of various potential methods to deal with it. If you are arguing that all the proposed solutions are "statist"-- well, that's because the people who might have other ideas are too busy shouting "IT'S A HOAX."
...(As for the science itself, although I generally believe the climate models are fairly reasonable as far as climate modeling goes, whether they are "right" on predictions for 2100 can only be determined in 2100, not today.)
Well, that's true, but it's true because it's a tautology. The only way to tell whether any prediction for the future is right is to wait to see whether it happens.
We know it's still you, APK. Putting on a silly voice and hiding behind the curtains doesn't make it any less obvious. Now run along, the adults have things to talk about.
APK doesn't read these posts. Everything you see by him is just his bots, scraping the site for the usernames of people he currently has his paranoid vendettas against - have you noticed that his text is always the same following a post by one of his victims.
Do you mean like why the Shuttle might be launched despite protests from the technical people? Real power is having people carry out your wishes without having to order them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dyson himself has said that he doesn't know much about the technical details (he's a physicist, not a climatologist), only that he feels that the climate is very complicated, and that there's too much expert reliance on the models. That's fine as an opinion, but proves nothing.
Of your linked list, just looking through the names shows mostly qualifications in physics, geophysics, paleogeophysics, chemistry, botany, ecology, geology, biogeography - and the ex-Greenpeace guy. Compare that to the hundreds of actual, practicing climatologists who contributed their data to the IPCC reports, and the thousands more who have published studies explicitly or implicitly confirming climate change.
There's no alarmism there, only reams of scientific evidence showing that the earth IS warming, and will in all likelihood continue warming at even faster rates (as it has been doing for 150 years). There are also numerous studies demonstrating that, unchecked, this will be very expensive for us to adapt to (those that can).
What we DO about that is an entirely separate question. "Alarmism" could certainly apply to some proposed responses (mostly to the wilder, straw-man suggestions like "destroy the economy"), but there are also plenty of sane, well-reasoned proposals that will have a long-term net benefit to the economy, even without considering the avoided costs of climate change adaption. I leave it to the political debate as to which to choose - but that is entirely orthogonal to the science.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Coren what we know is that apk shut you up point by point finally here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and you ran.
To the degree that economics makes falsifiable predictions about the future, economics is a science.
Economics and political science certainly tell us that large, statist institutions are inefficient or even ineffective.
The IPCC has evaluated the cost/benefit ratios, and it comes to the conclusion that the cost of action and inaction about balance out under its assumptions, but that is assuming that action is actually successful. Since there is a high probability that action is unsuccessful yet costly, that alone means that we shouldn't take action.
Well, apparently you don't understand that fact, since you attempted to justify climate predictions for 2100 with the statement that "Scientists gain their reputation partly by being smart, but the way they show that they are smart is by being right." Generally, we don't know whether scientists are right until decades after they formulated their theories. And we won't know whether climate scientists are right for another half century.
Your problem is simply that you aren't listening to the simplest and most effective solution: do nothing. Fossil fuels are already expensive and provide a strong built-in incentive to economize on their usage. The market will therefore take care of this by itself.
I am stipulating that the scientists are right on the science: the degree of sea level rise and temperature increase. They also furnish economic estimates of costs. And based on their estimates there is no justification for government action on climate change.
That is exactly what I'm doing, which is why I concluded that the media and politicians are fabricating a crisis for which there is no scientific basis.
Does it matter? You idiots harass and stalk him by ac posts or otherwise and he wipes you out easily. It's hilarious. Coren22's in a world of hurt and so is Sardaukar86. Apk cut them to shreds with their own words and mistakes.
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
Actually, the Eocene is precisely when mammals and primates got their start. It is the ice age we have been in for the last couple of million years that is the anomaly for mammals and primate.
In addition, the conditions during the warmer periods of the Eocene were not just when mammals started their spectacular rise and diversification, they are objectively nice conditions, with lush vegetation from the poles to the equator.
How much time is it going to take for you to stop wallowing in your ignorance and actually read up on paleontology?
You realize they dug the uranium out of the ground to begin with? Just put it back. Yucca Mountain should have been allowed to open.
And they have been storing waste onsite for decades, because there is so relatively little waste. Radioactive waste is a red herring, a distraction.
Where do you put all the toxic waste from manufacturing all those solar panels?
Your statement is attempting to relate the damage from Hurricane Sandy to sea level rise. But even people who postulate a connection between climate change and Hurricane Sandy aren't basing their arguments on sea level rise, they are basing their arguments on air and water temperatures. So, I'm sorry, your argument doesn't work.
The only reasonable argument about sea level rise and storm surges is the (correct) observation that the probability that a surge goes over a fixed sea wall or dike increases exponentially with sea level. But that problem disappears when you increase the fortifications by the amount of sea level rise. According to climate change predictions, that's about 1ft by the year 2100, something that can trivially be done as part of regular, necessary maintenance of those fortifications.
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
& admits using admin priv himself
+
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you, immature "signature boy" troll... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
" Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? " Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?
"Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them"
Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.
"Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks"
That wasn't the free market you god damn moron. That was George "We Had To Put a Bullet In The Brain Of The Free Market To Save It" "I'm A Communist Fascist Faggot Who Sucks Every Dick In The Universe" Bush. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market, and it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE. Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT. When you intervene with guns and force, it is no longer a market, but a command economy. Stop being fucking stupid, if you can. If not, kill yourself.
"How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products"
Bad science then as now. CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas. H2O is a major contaminate in CO2 cylinders. Dry CO2 wasn't available when the groundwork was being laid for the CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory. AGW has become so politicized that even repeated failures of climate "scientists" predictions have failed to produce ANY change in their theory, or re-examination of their premises. It's shameful.
But in any event, I don't really care. You morons can all go kill yourselves. I'm going to upload the second the tech becomes available, and pray to fucking science that I never have to see another one of you god damned apes again for the rest of fucking eternity.
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
You need to learn to read. Coren22's a wanker! Our /. peers and security experts say quite differently (not malware) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
>Well, I'm glad that you accept that the critters loved it, because that removes the major scare scenario of global warming.
Different critters for the most part, major climate change = mass extinction.
We evolved for a world with THESE critters in them, we have absolutely basis to assume we could survive one without them and instead populated by others.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Really? What "different critters" would that be? And how would those differences affect humans? IYou don't know. You're just throwing shit up hoping something sticks
In reality, the Eocene is when modern mammals and primates got their start. It is exactly the environment we evolved in, with the last couple of million years being an unusual cold spell.
AGW alarmists are worse than Young Earth Creationists.
Nope... even if you got 100% of your electricity from dirty, dirty coal, the efficiency of the electric car is still so much higher than that of a standard gasoline ICE that you'll still end up putting less CO2 in the atmosphere for the same distance driven. A big coal-fired generator is a lot more efficient than a lot of small car motors.
Procrastination Man strikes again!
If the beat is good, we're gonna jam.
GCC may be more disruptive than you think, sooner than you think - and not because of temperature rises.
Rapidly increasing oceanic CO2 levels are likely to kick off a global Anoxic Oeanic Event. This would wipe out a large chunk of the planet's megafauna (including us) if past ones are anything to go by.
There are indications it may have already started.
UK:
Hinkeley Point power station is currently guaranteed to sell its electrricty at double the current rate (it was the only way the investors could be persuaded to build and under normal circumstances it would double by the time it was built anyway)
Thanks to subsidies, Renewables generators are selling into the grid at 6 to 12 times the going rate _NOW_ and thanks to much higher than advertised maintenance costs(*) they're only barely making money.
(*) Windmills keep eating gearboxes (or having them catch fire). This is expensive. Solar PV installations are not putting out anywhere near as much electricity as claimed (the absolute peak power output has been sold as "the output", whilst long-term real world figures were claimed to be about 30% of this - they're actually 15-20% of average, less still if nights are taken into account.
Even if they could replace all the CO2 generating sources (they can't, see below), having electricity prices climb that much is not feasible.
Why can't windmills replace coal plants?
1: Density: Even if safety regulations were ignored, carpeting the UK in windmills would only produce enough power on average to replace 3-5 power stations. The UK has in excess of 60 conventional stations.
Carpeting the country in windmills won't happen, because:
2: Safety regulations. Windmills need a 2 _mile_ safety clearance between them and any inhabited buildings or areas. This is due to the slightly pesky fact that the blades have been observed to go almost that far when they break - and they've been breaking more frequently than planned, thanks to gearbox fires weakening them.
Solar PV has a similar density problem. Tidal simply doesn't work economically - all the schemes which have been started up worldwide have quietly closed down.
Solar Thermal is also of dubious economics and density plays into the picture.
Importing power from elsewhere is hard. Underwater interconnectors are extremely expensive and the UK only has 3GW connectiivty to the rest of Europe. That's already peaking out at times.
Generating power in the Sahara and importing it to Europe would require the largest engineering projects ever undertaken, merely to transport the electricity. The fact that African Generated electricty being sent out of the continent when there is more than enough demand south of the Sahara to absorb every bit of that power would be seen as yet more exploitative colonial theft should also be taken into account.
Which brings up the other factor: Reduction of 1st world electricity demands won't mean much when developing world demands would completely swamp that reduction simply to bring people up to a reasonably low standard of living.
If you want to produce that much electricity, that soon, the only way forward is nuclear and lots of it. Conventional technology now and MSRs when they're ready. Fusion won't be ready for another century.
"Nuclear waste" is a solved problem. The amount produced by a conventional station over 60 years will sit in an olympic-sized pool and be safe to approach unshielded after 300 years - NOT 300,000 as the extremists claim.
That "waste" is unlikely to sit in a pool for 300 years though - it's highly likely to be useful fuel for kickstarting MSRs - which produce 1% of the waste level of conventional nukes - less still when you realise they can take the "useless" U238 depleted uranium from enrichment processes that current makes up 60-65% of mined uranium (yup, less than 40% of uranium taken out of the ground and fed into the refining process comes out the other end as useful) and "just so happens" to be highly useful as H-bomb enhancers - in other words getting rid of that "non-radioactive" waste is a really good idea.
Even if no use for kickstarting a MSR, the MSR can quickly break down conventional "nuclear waste" to much safer elements.
Why? It's only waste in the sense that it can't be used in the heath-robinson (rube-goldberg) contraption that comprises a current civil nuclear plant.
Nuclear plants currently boil water to make steam to turn turbines.
They don't run very hot, because the fuel rods are poor heat conductors and melt if it gets too warm. This means they're thermally inefficient. More than 2/3 of their heat is vented to atmosphere.
That water is also a problem because water dissolves everything eventually, even faster when it's under high pressure and at high temperature and slightly acidic to start with. You really _don't_ want it near your radioactives because some amount always ends up in solution and if there's a leak you now have large quantities of radioactive steam to dispose of, or radioactive water entering the biosphere, or (if the cooling fails entirely and the rods melt), hydrogen/oxygen being cracked out by the heat, carrying various radioactive gases along too.
Short term we have to keep using conventional water reactors.
Long term, Molten salt systems are intrinsically safe and a no-brainer to move on to - no pressurisation, no boiling, freeze sold at 400C (so they don't go far if they leak) and gassing is relatively easy to handle as extracting gases is part of the design and that extraction means they can throttle up/down quickly to follow loads, which reduces the need for nasty peaking plants. They've already been tested but not at civil nuke scale.
Using molten sodium coolant is a pretty dumb idea, as several operators have discovered. Molten lead is better but you still have fuel rods to deal with and if the lead freezes they're hard to extract. With a Molten salt system the fuel is in the liquid and that also means you can SCRAM the thing very quickly (the test system was shut down every friday night and restarted every monday morning - because noone wanted to watch over it during weekends. Try that with a "normal" nuclear reactor and see how short a period it takes to break it.)
Actually the more efficient nuclear methods are much harder to make weapons-grade materials from.
In particular, the plutonium from LFTRs is so badly polluted with the fiercely hot isotopes that it would be cheaper to build a windscale-style reactor (the one that caught fire) to make bomb-suitable stuff than to try and refine what you can get from the LFTR. Likewise, the U233 is so badly mixed up with other fiercely hot uranium isotopes that it's hard to extract for bombs.
Current uranium enrichment processes produce around 2 pounds of "useless" U238 for every pound of reactor fuel they output. Except it's not useless - it makes a great H-bomb casing (enhances yield) and there are all those bullets you can make from it - bear in mind that environmental uranium is a worse chemical pollutant than lead, so you don't really want people making bullets out of the stuff.
That existing enrichment system can also produce highly enriched uranium for weapons and the reprocessing systems for fuel rods can pull out the plutonium (uranium reactors generally produce bomb-grade isotopes) for weapons making. It's so energy intensive that the actual costs of operating such facilities for civil reactors are regarded by the USA as a military state secret.
And of course, conventional nuclear plants can burn (hydrogen gas), leak radioactive steam, explode (steam) or leak radioactive water. Molten Salt plants won't do any of these and if they leak any radioactives won't go more than a couple of feet before the salt freezes and can be dropped back into the pool. Addtionally, MSRs run so hot that you don't need to cool your output with river/sea water (air cooling is sufficient), so you don't have siting constraints and you don't have to turn them down during heatwaves, plus there's the small matter of massively reduced waste output, most of which can be kept onsite for a dozen years and then onsold as useful gasses such as helium/xenon
The comparison which could be drawn is that conventional water-based plants (and all other plants using encapsulated fuel) are like a Neucomen Steam engine and Molten salt systems are Mr Watt's improved version.
Economics and political science certainly tell us that large, statist institutions are inefficient or even ineffective.
I know way too many economists. I don't believe that I have ever heard an economist use the word "statist". That's basically a word libertarians invented to mean "anybody who supports anything a government does that I don't like."
As a general thing, economists point out that some things are well accomplished by market solutions, and some things require government actions. One of the conditions where free markets are not efficient is when there are externalities to production: that is, when a company's actions affect others in a way that they do not have to pay for. Pollution is a classic example of this. If it is more expensive to produce goods with no pollution, then companies that pollute will drive companies that don't pollute out of business.
What economists usually point out as the solution to this problem is to do the free market solution: make the companies pay for their externalities. This, in layman's terms, means: tax them for polluting. The result is that the ones who really do achieve efficiencies by polluting will pay to do so, and the ones who don't will adapt by avoiding polluting. (I should point out that this is different from the usual liberal solution, which would be to simply make it illegal to pollute.)
So, most of the economists I know favor a carbon tax. It's actually sort of a no-brainer for them; if emitting carbon dioxide has costs, the people who emit it should pay the costs, and thus they will adjust their actions to find alternate production means that emit less carbon dioxide. This is a form of "substitution of resources"-- a classic (and well understood) economic effect.
However, politicians hate the word "tax", and so this will never happen. The "cap and trade" concept was invented to try to achieve the same effect as a tax, but without using that poison word.
The rest of your post puts forth a false dichotomy, in which there are only two possibilities, to not make any changes whatsoever to attempt to address climate, or to do radical changes according to some unspecified plan, in order to (I would guess) completely stop carbon emissions. In fact, you are simplifying a complicated problem, and there is a complete continuum of possible actions between "nothing" and "completely stop carbon emission," and there are a great number of possible solutions in all the shades in between. The obvious right answer is to do those things that make sense, and not do the ones that don't.
You're also wrong and misreading the IPCC reports, by the way. There is no one solution, with one well defined cost, that can be compared to one effects model, with again a well defined cost.
Your problem is simply that you aren't listening to the simplest and most effective solution: do nothing. Fossil fuels are already expensive and provide a strong built-in incentive to economize on their usage. The market will therefore take care of this by itself.
First, I'm not sure why you think I'm not considering the option of doing nothing, since I've mentioned it in pretty much every single post I've made in this thread. That is one of the things that should be in the cost/benefit analysis.
Second, if the cost of fossil fuels doesn't include the cost of all the effects of burning it and putting the waste into the atmosphere, it's not paying its way-- the people who do have to pay for the effects are subsidizing the price. And so the market won't "take care" of this, because the externalities are not part of the market price-- the price is artificially low, meaning that too much coal will be burned.
The problem with France is that they regularly need to import energy both in the winter (electric heating uses too much electricity) and in the summer (too hot to cool the reactors). Not exactly a working prototype for a (nearly) pure nuclear country.
I can see your foaming at the mouth spittle flying from here! Meds Sardillo. Meds.
"your 'programs' are viewed with well-justified suspicion and mistrust" - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:24AM (#50899343)
Per the quote of your raving loon rants: Security Pros & /.'ers disagree:
---
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit = Safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
So is it's installer per VirScan-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
* :)
You WISH you were me, but you're just too damn STUPID to be in my league... lmao!
(I sincerely hope all New Zealanders aren't like you - big mouthed morons who constantly have to "eat their words"... tell us, won't you, HOW DO THEY TASTE now that you've stuck your foot in your mouth YET AGAIN vs. me (lol), & rammed them down your throat, washing them down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?)
APK
P.S.=> This dietary issue of yours is by NO means a 1st for you vs. myself either (244++:1 in MY favor vs. your big mouth-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ) - so do yourself a favor & CHANGE YOUR DIET: Eating our words != GOOD NUTRITION... lol!
... apk
At least apk has something to trumpet about. A dehydrated whimp of a "ne'er-do-well" due to malnutrition eating your words never will.
"APK is a one-trick-pony with only hosts-file manipulation to his name" - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:15AM (#50899307)
Per a quote from your loon rant: Have you done better, earlier, & more of these things Sardaukar86 in computing?
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com...
It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge... or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker...
Which ended up fixing a "bug" for them later, here -> http://sourceforge.net/p/ultra... via its implementation (partially, NOT fully implemented yet as I outline it & use in my applications such as this one -> http://www.start64.com/index.p...
---
* You WISH you were me, but you're just a "ne'er-do-well" bigmouth... lmao!
(QUESTION: HOW DOES IT TASTE "eating your words" now that you've stuck your foot in your mouth YET AGAIN vs. me (lol), & rammed them down your throat, washing them down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?)
APK
P.S.=> You're going to DIE OF MALNUTRITION if you keep this up (lol) - > 244++:1 in MY favor vs. your big mouth-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ) & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - so do yourself a favor & CHANGE YOUR DIET: Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION... lol!
... apk
See subject: Eating his words vs. me providing yet more evidence of it:
"you're the pathetic simian who cannot let a comment about your malware go unchallenged - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @03:57AM (#50899263)
Your POOR DIET (eating your words) decreased what little brain function you had - Security pros & /.'ers disagree w/ that raving loon rant of yours:
---
b>APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit = Safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
So is it's installer per VirScan-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
+
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
---
"APK is a one-trick-pony with only hosts-file manipulation to his name, a technique that was rightfully deposed in the 90's" - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @03:57AM (#50899263)
Noted security pros disagree & on "1 trick pony" your big mouth has allowed me to RAM that right back down your throat in my p.s. below:
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
---
* Sardaukar86 - thank you: YOU ARE GOOD @ FAILING vs. myself!
(QUESTION: HOW DOES IT TASTE "eating your words" now that you've stuck your foot in your mouth YET AGAIN vs. me (lol), & rammed them down your throat, washing them down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?)
APK
P.S.=> You're DYING OF MALNUTRITION (lol)- > 244++:1 in MY favor-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ) & on "1 trick pony" in things you'll NEVER do I have too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - Do yourself a favor & CHANGE YOUR DIET: Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!
... apk
We know it's you, APK. Are you really that stupid to think we'd fall for it? Please get some help. It must be hell in your head if you think this is in any way a good way to act.
"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)
A small sampling of /.'ers say my work is good who use my hosts file engine quoted:
---
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
---
* So, what's that you said I have quoted above Dave420? LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!
APK
P.S.=> See subject: You REALLY ought to consider changing your diet Dave420 - EATING YOUR WORDS != Good nutrition (but, hopefully, you'll DIE of malnutrition & we'll be free of you)... apk
"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)
A small sampling of /.'ers say my work is good who use my hosts file engine quoted:
---
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
---
* So, what's that you said I have quoted above Dave420? LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!
APK
P.S.=> Jokes on YOU fool - you're the joke & the one that makes it possible (see subject): You give *EVERYONE ON THIS SITE A HARD TIME*, & thank goodness your rather DULL BRAIN makes it easy to do it back to you troll... apk
Oh, personally, I don't believe the weaponization argument is rational; I think it's politically and economically motivated. But it's the argument that has actually been used to justify banning efficient fission reactors in the past.
None of that has anything to do with the findings. It's one massive ad hominem applied to the results.
It doesn't matter if the NWO published a PDF outlining their power grab through climate change - it doesn't change the science one iota.
The amount of money available for anyone who can poke holes in this thing is amazingly massive - the fact no-one has been able to do so yet speaks volumes.
And your conclusions are patently false, which is fine.
Because you said so, in a roundabout way ("If you are arguing that all the proposed solutions are 'statist'").
We seem to have a vocabulary problem here. Doing nothing is not a "solution." Doing nothing is choosing to not solve the problem. This is indeed an option which should be considered, but you can't call it is a "solution"-- saying "we don't have to solve this problem" is not a solution.
In fact, there is one solution that is not, namely doing nothing. It's been on the table for a long time, but people with vested political and economic interests keep denouncing its proponents as "deniers".
"Deniers" are people who deny that the greenhouse effect exists, or at least deny that human-generated greenhouse gasses cause warming.
As far as I know, there isn't a word for people who agree that human-generated gasses cause warming, but propose that the optimum way to address the issue is to do nothing. I don't think I've ever met proponents of that previously-- in fact, I'd be interested if you have a citation to somebody else holding that view.
That's irrelevant to the point I was making,
No, it's not. You claimed that market forces would solve the problem. They won't, because the cost of warming is not incorporated into the market price.
namely that if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions quickly and efficiently, market mechanisms without government interference are likely to be the quickest way of accomplishing that goal,
That's an assertion. You have given no evidence to support it.
since markets already have a strong incentive to reduce fossil fuel use because it's expensive.
No, it's not. Fossil fuels are cheap. They are cheap, in part, because the cost of the externalities are not included in the price, which means that the price is subsidized The fact that the price is subsidized means that the market is not accurately accounting for it.
That point has nothing to do with externalities.
Exactly. Since you're not accounting for externalities, the equilibrium price point doesn't include them. Since the equilibrium doesn't include this cost, the solution isn't optimized to trade the cost of not reducing emission against the cost of reducing emissions.
Accounting for externalities is a good thing in principle. But the problem with that idea is the notion that governments can do this. In fact, the various carbon taxes that exist or are proposed do not account for externalities correctly, and they certainly don't go to the people who actually bear the cost from carbon emissions.
That's a reasonable point to argue. However, don't attribute it to "economists", because most economists won't agree. Dealing with externailties is hard, but most economists accept that, one way or another, governments have to be involved.
"Statism" is a term from political science referring to the concentration of economic and political power in the state;
*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?
Don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well that ammonia feedstock produced from natural gas does not require the presence of a natural gas power plant. You're trying to imply that the fertilizer industry requires power plants that burn fossil fuels, and that's not true. Using fossil fuels in the manufacture of fertilizer and using them for power generation are completely different and, like I said, eliminating fossil fuels as the major fuel source for power generation does not require changes to the fertilizer industry. Hell, there is currently plenty of infrastructure in place right now to extract natural gas and send it to fertilizer plants for decades and decades (assuming that the fertilizer industry somehow stagnates completely and no new methods for manufacturing fertilizer or ammonia are conceived).
Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.
Nice strawman. Yeah, just attack me instead. There is no evidence that investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and in the process using them to replace or obsolete fossil fuel power generation, will result in any widespread economic harm. If existing energy companies don't want to go the way of the buggy whip then they should be the ones leading that push to make sure that they will remain viable companies. Otherwise, they're going to be passed by and nary a soul will shed a tear for the oil company executives who aren't making tens of millions of dollars a year any more. Other people will be making that money instead. The economy will still be there, it's just going to be investing in a different product.
That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market
Holy fuck, an accurate thought. I'm proud of you. Yes, what we have here in the US is the exact opposite of a free market. When business leaders pour hundreds of millions of dollars into our politicians in order to pass laws that benefit their companies, what you are seeing is not the invisible hand of the market. You're seeing artificial manipulation. You're seeing that with fossil fuel companies right now. You're seeing that with the Koch brothers and people like them. The free market isn't running shit in this country, enormously wealthy corporations and individuals are the people pulling the strings. And, yes, bankers are still doing it also because no meaningful reforms have been enacted to dissuade them. Goldman Sachs is making hundreds of millions of dollars by manipulating the price of aluminum, that's the exact opposite of a free market. The same can (and does!) happen with any other commodity, especially the fossil fuels that you want the free market to control.
it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE.
Again, I'm the alarmist.
Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT.
Haha! No, that's not it. You left out the myriad of regulations imposed by politicians paid for by the corporations that benefit. THAT is the market.
CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas.
OK, I guess you're probably right about that. We have examples too, we can just look at Venus for example with its water vapor atmosphere. Wait, no, the atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2, which supports the balmy 900 degree temperatures on the surface. But CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
When you're make a coherent, rational, fact-based argument, I'll be happy to listen.
Right now, you're just babbling.
But you aren't getting it. There is nothing magic about "accounting for externalities" when talking about supply, demand, and taxes. The more you tax, the less demand there is.
Exactly. There's nothing "magic" about simple economics. The more expensive something is, the less is used. It's little more than common sense, but using numbers.
So: You just clearly and succinctly stated that this approach would work to reduce carbon emissions. We agree.
Now, a different question is whether this is the best approach, and a different yet question is whether this is even a problem that we need to solve at all.
However, you seem to be violently agreeing with me on the basic economics, so I'll stop here.
"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)
Some /.'ers made you "eat your words": They use my hosts file engine saying it's good vs. your bullshit:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
(LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!)
* What's that you said I have quoted from you above Dave420?
APK
P.S.=> Thanks for making me look good: You always say something I can put away with undeniable facts that prove you wrong... lol!
... apk
You may want to look up Pollyanna. You seem to be confused as to the meaning. While you're at it, you may want to look up the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone. If you're going to have a strong opinion on this topic it may as well be an informed one.
I'm way ahead of you: (1) basically, even the IPCC says that the costs and benefits about balance out if we do nothing, and (2) the IPCC (as well as you) are actually overestimating the costs of inaction and underestimating the costs of action.
As for "Pollyannaism", it's people who propose action on AGW who are unreasonably optimistic: they believe that government action is effective, that its costs are lower than they are, and that we can somehow "stabilize" the climate and coastal areas. You people have all the naivite of a young earth creationist and a socialist rolled into one.
Nope. The only study that showed net benefits up to 1C warming had errors. Here's how it looks corrected: https://andthentheresphysics.w... . Say, why not answer the question? what is the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone?
I didn't claim that there was a "net benefit" to warming. I made a statement about the IPCC. However, I didn't say what I wanted to say.
What the IPCC actually says is that the cost of mitigation about balance the benefits from mitigation. That is, according to the IPCC, we always incur a net cost from climate change, but the cost is the same whether we successfully mitigate or not.
The cost is close to zero, since essentially nothing that is in Miami today will have any economic value in the year 2100. That fact is independent of what happens to Miami in the year 2100, whether it gets flooded, destroyed by a nuclear blast, or erased in an alien invasion.
Another way of looking at it is that about a hundred years ago, Miami was a tiny hamlet with a few hundred people, so at worst, it will simply go back to that; that is, over the span of 200 years, nothing will have been lost even if Miami becomes almost completely uninhabitable.