Nice to see this. In the past 10 years it has always been 'AMD targets Intel.' AMD must be doing something right if Intel is taking notice of it and that means a little competition which is great for the future of the hardware.
It's always tempting to bash Microsoft and Bill G, with this thread being no exception. Nevertheless, what is notable about Microsoft is how little they have been able to accomplish in the last ten years, despite having a huge workforce of bright, talented people backed up by enormous financial resources. The reason for this, IMHO, is that Microsoft, the corporation, as established by Bill, primarily looks at new technology as an opportunity to collect tolls. They try and be first to spot the stuff that everyone is going to have to use or do and then they set themselves to collect tolls on the technological bridge that everyone is going to have to pass over. In that sense, they are more cunning than creative and that, ultimately, has been their downfall. Bill Gates book is more of a view of where he thought the future toll collecting opportunities were than it is of the potential for technology to improve lives. The best innovative tech entrepreneurs seem to think in terms of 'what is it possible to do with the technology? rather than 'how can we make money from the technology?' even though the latter question always becomes important in the later stages.
This is an improved method of producing hydrogen from water using a biologically-derived process. Interesting, even great, but hardly the breakthrough that the article says. The major technical hurdle to using hydrogen as an energy source for stationary or mobile sources is the difficulty of economically storing hydrogen for later use. An improved method of hydrogen manufacture (hydrogen is currently produced industrially in very large quantities from methane) while useful, would not overcome the storage hurdle.
People question Apple's motives and point out that the Adobe/Apple scrap is all about money and control. Of course it is, but why should we care? Apple may have the wrong reasons for supporting HTML5 but isn't it more important that they are doing the right thing (supporting an open standard) even if it is for the wrong reasons? Moreover, why should we want a peace agreement that will 'save' flash? If flash is not saved, that would leave an opening for open standards to fill the gap that would quickly be filled. Adobe would survive and prosper without flash as the are a very large company with a lot of other businesses. They would likely become one of the biggest supporters of technologies using open standards that would replace flash functionality. So, really, why do we want to save flash?
The iPad intentionally does not support Adobe's flash and now, looks like it will be a runaway best seller. I wouldn't want to be Youtube with millions of people wanting to know why they can't watch those youtube flash videos on the same super video-capable iPad that they are watching tv shows and movies on. The pressure on Youtube to support non-flash video alternatives is building fast and they are probably going to cave soon. That will REALLY put the hurt on Flash.
Nesson claimed that the songs he uploaded and linked to on his blog were irrelevant to the Tennenbaum case that he was the lawyer for. Is it possible that Nesson is right? Suppose that Tennenbaum had been accused of bank robbery and then suppose that Nesson goes out and robs a different bank on his own time. Is that new crime relevant to his client's case? The judge granted the RIAA Motion to Compel and now the same judge has ordered Nesson to pay the RIAA expenses but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
It is very common now for cell sites to be placed in all sorts of unobtrusive uban locations such as the roofs and exterior walls of commercial buildings, or disguised as power poles, trees, or flagpoles. It is also very common for several companies to co-locate at a good location once the first company has built its site. Cell companies tend to rent out space at their location to other companies because those other companies can help them out at other sites. What you need to look at is how many different carriers are set up at the site near the apartment and generally how powerful the transmitters are. Each carrier will install its own antennas, backup power equipment, and power supply cabling which you can often see at least portions of at the site. Some cell sites can have a power output of thousands of watts while others can be much smaller, depending on what sort of area the site is supposed to serve and how good its antenna location is. You can get some approximate idea of how powerful the cell site is by looking at how big the backup power generator is and how large the power supply cabling (i.e. the conduit diameter) to the transmitter is. If there are 3 companies co-located and each has 30+ kw backup generators installed, you can expect that it is a relatively high power site. In general, it seems that people are not happy being located in close proximity to cell transmitters. I have seen cell towers quietly installed on the roofs of office buildings and within a few years, the top floor(s) of the building are devoid of tenants. Office building landlords just factor that into the rent that they charge the cell companies. In your case, you are probably getting a nicer apartment than the same money would get at a cell-free location but when you go to sell the unit, the selling price will reflect the current cell site situation at the time that you sell. If you are serious about buying, try to determine if it is likely that other cell companies will co-locate at the original site, possibly lowering your future value.
1) This will not end botnets 2) Microsoft doesn't care about ending botnets 3) Microsoft will never cede control over their user's machines 4) MS Security patches will always be a finger in a leak 5) A good rootkit is one that still lets my Windows boot 6) MS doesn't really care if the Windows on my 6-yr-old laptop has suddenly become non-genuine but WGA still needs those updates 7) Windows 8 will be about like Windows 7 8) The average Microsoftie is a bing-blastin', zune totin', IE8 browsin', xbox smokin' sort of a guy. 9) There is no hope for a better tommorrow...only a more expensive one
I think you must re-study your physics. CO2 does indeed reemit the infrared radiation, and the energy is (mostly) not related to temperature, but rather to the energy levels of the molecular frequncy in the CO_O bond (especially the frequency where the gap between the two oxygen atoms increase/decreases --- I think this is called "scissoring", but don't quote me on that). The frequency emitted is the frequency absorbed, more or less;
The reemitted electromagnetic radiation is distributed over a wide distribution of wavelengths that are a function of the temperature of the emitting body. This is a fundamental relationship of Physics that we call "Planck's Law." The very narrow wavelength(s) at which the CO2 molecule absorbs energy IS determined by the nature of its C-O bonds which vibrate in several different modes including the 'scissoring' you allude to as well as torsional, axial, and cross-equatorial. Once it has absorbed energy, the CO2 molecule temperature increases whereupon it comes to instant temperature equivalence with its neighboring molecules (mostly O2 and N2). All of the molecules together radiate black body radiation over a wavelength distribution based on their temperature. The frequency of the reemitted radiation is most definitely NOT the frequency absorbed or words such as 'optical pyrometry' would have no meaning and Max Planck would have labored all of those years in vain.
Normally, temperature starts to rise due to e.g. distance to the sun decreasing slightly, which leads to increased CO2 which enhances the effect of the warming, causing further CO2 to be released until a new balance is achieved (essentially that the energy absorbed from the sun equals the earths black-body radiation). CO2 increase with temperature because CO2 is less soluble in warm (sea)-water, and a number of other effects (Tundra melting is often mentioned as a big one, though I don't personally know.). Now, into this system we (the humans) release enough CO2 to increase the concentration by what, 30%? What do *you* think will happen?
You have such a simple-minded view of the planetary climate...that is...unfortunately...wrong. Planetary temperatures are not correlated with (in the order you mention them) 1)short-term earth-solar distance, 2)CO2 increases, 3)solar absorbtion-black body radiation 'balance', 4)warming sea water CO2 solubility decrease (also bad chemistry as carbonate chemistry is far more complex than just 'CO2 solubility') or 5) tundra melting.
That CO2 must warm the earth can also be concluded directly by looking at the absorbtion bands of CO2. You could even calculate the approximate effect (though not the feedback loops) from this, the atmospheric and distribution of CO2 and from the distribution of the electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere.
Apparently you have never actually looked at the absorption bands for CO2. There is already more than sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the IR radiation that is capable of being absorbed by CO2, within the first few hundred meters of the atmosphere above the surface. Once absorbed, the energy is not trapped but is immediately re-emitted. The wavelength of the reemitted thermal radiation is a probability distribution depending ONLY on temperature that can be predicted with Planck's law and it is NOT concentrated within the narrow CO2 absorption band so almost all of that re-emitted raditation is free to radiate out into space untouched any further by your nemesis CO2.
But of course, you knew all this. What pisses me off about all this that while the above is well-known science and has been for a long time, the economic aspects are far from clear to me.
It's precisely all of that 'well-known science' that is giving you so much difficulty.
...was its very weak multiplayer capability. The Xbox 360 player puts on the headphone/mic headset and is instantly talking to his circle of friends over the internet while navigating through a virtual world with them. The Wii does not allow the two-way voice communication with other players. If the Wii players want to gather in the same room and play they will find that there are very few Wii games with split-screen multiplayer capability. Taken together, this means the Wii is by and large, a solitary experience unless the players take turns watching each other play.
When the Wii first came out, it offered very innovative motion sensitive wireless game controllers and built-in Wi-Fi in a very compact, well-designed piece of hardware for a bargain price of $249. For whatever reason, though the game capabilities and selection just never came close to the xBox 360 platform and now the writing is showing up on the wall. The Wii had so much potential (and maybe still does) but it has just never been able to harvest that potential into a killer game experience.
We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us. Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved. Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible. Cleared that right up for ya.
The food that most kids eat often contains flavor enhancers such as aspartame,
sucralose, splenda, and MSG
(aka 'autolyzed plant protein,' 'hydrolyzed plant protein') that have
powerful neurological effects (that's why they are effective in
stimulating the tongue nerve cells). Unfortunately, though, many
of these substances also have toxic effects
on nerve cells due to overstimulation or other means. Other
neurotoxins in widespread use (compared with 1938) include solvents,
lead,
cell
phone radiation,
mercury, drugs,
and high
blood sugar (diabetes and pre-diabetes are much more widespread due
in part to increased sugar consumption). It's likely that the
increased environmental exposure of children to neurotoxins since
1938 has caused much of the increase in mental illness.
Most cetaceans have brain sizes much bigger than ours. For example, a "killer" whale's brain is about 6,000 cc or 400 percent larger than ours and even the lowly bottlenose dolphin has a brain 7 percent larger than ours. Maybe it's time to recognize the superiority of our cetacean masters.
Follow the linked article and you get to the Atta article
on his ideas on urban development in Aleppo. What's interesting
is that he saw Islamic and Christian culture in fundamental and
irreconciliable conflict...and he may have been right. We
live in a largely secular society and it's hard for us to fathom its
religious underpinning but the basis for much of our Western culture
and society are rooted in the simple Christian gospel messages of Jesus
which recognize that all people should be loved, regardless of their
race, sex, money, age, vulnerability, or power. So...if Jesus was truly the divine Son of God, then the inevitable
result of the conflict is failure for the ideology of terror as a means
to perpetuate values which are counter to the Gospels of Jesus. Much of our
technology was developed to accomplish Christian-based objectives (labor-saving, health, nutrition, transportation, communication) and that
would become especially obvious to a student of that technology (such as
an engineer.)
Thoughtful people are slowly, slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet's climate may be less than completely right. Previously, the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively, definitely, absolutely, without doubt, guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of planetary warming. Similarly, there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site. If the Earth's climate continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest. It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming.
Based upon the fundamental physical principle that Arrhenius discovered, a change in CO2 concentration has to have an effect, so the only valid question is: how large?
Sure...and if I take a sledgehammer and strike the pavement in front of my feet, that will have a seismic effect on a nearby building...just not a significant one. The simple fact is that Arrhenius's work does not support the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of global warming. You are trying to make Arrhenius out to be the "century" old 'father of global warming' when in truth he's more like the 'father of absorption studies of atmospheric gases.' (Of much more importance to all of us was his work on the temperature relationship of chemical reaction kinetics.) At the moment, there is nothing (other than political opportunism as demonstrated by TFA of this thread) to support the idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically (as TFA describes) by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropoligical site. If the Earth continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest. For example, rather than apply those global climate change models to the future, apply them to the past and see what they predict about major climate change that is in the geologic record. The result, of course, is that they fail completely.
Modern models agree with Arrhenius that CO2 is a major driver of global climate.
Then they are likely to be equally as flawed as Arrhenius's work was...but for different reasons. The only major driver of global climate is solar input...rather from orbital oscillations, solar cycles, or unusual solar activity. We can twirl the knob on the CO2-concentration-controller but we are no different than the kid driving the shopping cart steering wheel in the supermarket...it will have no effect.
The role of CO2 in warming the earth was first worked out by Arrhenius in the 1900's.
You miss the entire point of Arrhenius's work. He was attempting to show that co2 was as big a contributor to the planetary warming caused by the atmosphere as water vapor was but...he was wrong. The effect of co2 was actually far less than water vapor and was overestimated by Arrhenius because of very poor co2 absoption experimental data available to him. As the linked analysis shows, using modern data with Arrhenius's analysis, the effect of a doubling of co2 concentration would be a temperature increase of only 0.22C which is hardly significant. The more modern AGW theory we are talking about here is based on the idea that the carbondioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing (something Arrhenius was completely unaware of), the increase in co2 concentration is mostly due to fossil fuel combustion by mankind (something which he undoubtedly would have strongly disagreed with), and that the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is causing significant global warming (something which Arrhenius's analysis does not support, as noted above).
The role of CO2 in warming the planet has been known for a century, and is an unavoidable consequence of radiative physics.
No. The role of the earth's atmosphere (primarily water vapor) in warming the planet to the comfortable temperatures we know and expect has been known for many years. The idea that carbon dioxide is causing additional warming of the earth is relatively recent and arose when measurements of carbon dioxide concentration at mauna loa showed that the carbon dioxide concentration was increasing from year to year.
The "greenhouse gas theory" came into being when the Mauna Loa observations began to show the increase in the atmospheric co2 concentration and the climate was generally on a warming cycle. Some minds quickly put those two things together to link cause (co2) with effect (warming) and claimed that co2 was blocking the radiation of heat into space. Then the race was on to "prove" the theory...a race which continues to this day. Core samples of arctic ice were taken to establish temperature records and tiny bubbles of air in the core samples were analyzed to confirm some sort of 'historical' record of carbon dioxide concentration. That alone should give one pause as the the permeability of ice to carbon dioxide would make the concentration of co2 in those ice-entrapped bubbles meaningless after a short amount of time, never mind a thousands-of-years time span. Implicit in this investigation pathway is the assumption that modern atmospheric co2 concentrations are a function of fossil fuel combustion and photosynthesis, completely ignoring the effect of huge bodies of a liquid substance we call 'water' on the planet in which atmospheric carbon dioxide readily dissolves and then precipitates with calcium to form calcium carbonate, a substance present in large quantities around the globe. Calcium carbonate in the ocean is itself in equilibrium with calcium oxide which comprises between 6 and 10 weight percent of the oceanic and continental crust of the earth, moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input. There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking...so the entire global warming theory is a three-legged stool (constant solar input, co2 thermal barrier depends on increasing co2 concentration, planetary temperatures increasing) resting comfortably on two shaky legs. That's why the IPCC is racing to push governments into prompt action...before the decline in global temperatures and solar output begins to shake the confidence of the followers of the global warming religion and cause a loss in their numbers.
As I keep repeating [slashdot.org], 2007 was the steepest drop [uiuc.edu] in ice cover on record. It scared a lot of us when the extent of the drop was shown at the 2007 AGU conference because the climate models weren't predicting such a huge drop. The subsequent increases actually confirm that this decrease was due to weather, not climate, which tends to validate the models.
No, 2007 was not the 'steepest drop' in arctic ice cover, it was the 'smallest minimum extent' recorded. The increase and decrease in arctic ice cover follows the seasonal cycle and the rate of the decrease and increase in the seasonal change is similar from year to year. It is the 'minimum' and 'maximum' extent of the ice cover during the year that are of interest as a monitor of climate warming or cooling. The increase in the 'minimum' extent in 2008 and 2009 indicate a cooling trend that cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases since the concentration of those has increased during that time period. If you want to claim that cooling somehow validates the models (which it obviously does not) you need to explain where a significant amount of planetary heat is being stored since the 'greenhouse gas' theory of planetary warming requires that the amount of heat being radiated from the earth must continuously decrease.
You're neglecting to consider pressure broadening, which forces any realistic climate model to treat each layer of the atmosphere differently. CO2 isn't saturated in the highest layer of the atmosphere, which is what really matters.
Pressure broadening? Atmospheric gas pressures are very low, varying from 1 atm at the earth's surface to near vacuum at the upper atmospheric limits. These low pressures have no significant effect on the carbon dioxide adsorption spectra. The simple fact is that there is more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at this very minute to absorb ALL of the IR radiation radiating from Earth that is in the wavelength where it can be absorbed by carbon dioxide... within the first few hundred meters of the atmosphere. Your reference to carbon dioxide saturation in the 'highest layer' of the atmosphere (whatever that is) suggests that you lack any understanding whatsoever of 'saturation' or phase equilibria.
Yet again, I need to repeat that water vapor is a feedback in the climate, not a forcing. We can't change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because it establishes equilibrium with the oceans in a matter of weeks. However, because we're increasing the temperature of the planet by increasing CO2 concentrations, water vapor will tend to provide positive feedback which will make the problem worse. Also, water vapor isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere, so CO2 is the only greenhouse gas of consequence in that important outer layer.
Water vapor is an atmospheric gas that has a much stronger 'greenhouse' effect than carbon dioxide. Water concentration in the atmosphere varies VERY widely around the globe and over time, but is always many, many times greater than that of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, in contrast, is at a relatively constant concentration around the globe. Water vapor is certainly NOT a 'feedback' in the climate but is the single biggest driver to the climate we experience on earth due to it's contribution to global energy transfer, it's unique ability to condense and form atmospheric optical barriers, it's unique ability to accumulate as a solid over thousands of years, and it's enormous global reservoirs in liquid form. Mixing has nothing to do with water concentration in the upper atmosphere. That is determined solely by pressure and temperature (which also vary widely around the globe). When I read your comments, I'm struck by how little you seem to understand about the basic physics of gases...which is, after all, what we're talking about.
The mountains of research done on this is pretty clear about why it's happening. But I don't expect facts to get in the way of beliefs anytime soon. Be that as it may, why is not the important. The important questions, and the ones the climate scientists spend a lot of time working out, are how it's going to affect us and what we can do to prepare for it.
There are no mountains of research that show why any climate change is happening or even IF climate change is happening. Arctic ice cover has increased every year since 2007, for example, while the AGW models pushed by the NSIDC and IPCC don't allow for any such increase. Carbon dioxide is routinely pushed by politicians as the cause of global warming and yet it is a simple calculation to show that there is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb ALL of the IR radiation radiating from Earth that is in the wavelength where it can be absorbed by carbon dioxide... within the first few hundred meters of the atmosphere. It is even easier to show that gas-phase H2O in the atmosphere (commonly referred to as humidity) is present in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2 and is a far more potent 'greenhouse' gas than CO2...and yet the planet is obviously still able to radiate sufficient heat to space in the non-absorbable IR wavelengths to cool itself. Finally, supposing for argument's sake that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration really was: 1) a problem and 2) correctable, why would it be the 'climate scientist's' job (read IPCC and NSIDC) to tell us how to prepare for it's impact? They seem even less qualified for that job than they are for the investigation of global warming.
The Catholic Church teaches that God created the universe. Therefore, God created all life everywhere and we can expect that life found off of Earth will be similar in appearance to life as we know it. This would also imply that there is a certain predestination in the journey of life...which is what we see in evolution where the same complex functional structure evolves independently at different times in the fossil record. A fish swimming in an ocean on another world is likely to have the same overall structure that a fish on Earth has, although with differences created by the environment in which it developed.
Windows 7 has extremely low compatibility with past Windows software and hardware. Basically, it cannot run any pre-Vista software unless you use the virtualized Windows XP ('XPM') add-on and that has some major limitations: 1) requires a cpu with virtual extensions 2) requires maintenance of the XP add-on as if it was another installation, and 3) even XPM has very limited legacy software support. As for hardware, pre-vista hardware can not be used unless it is supported by a vendor who will release Windows 7 drivers which will likely only be the case for newer hardware that had a high original cost. I wanted to run Windows 7 but it will basically require all new hardware and software which will limit its use for me to browsing the web and running Office until I can find Windows 7 replacements for all of the little apps that it will not run. Hopefully, 3rd party companies will quickly develop software that will allow legacy apps to run until Windows 7 substitutes appear.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel Targets AMD...
Nice to see this. In the past 10 years it has always been 'AMD targets Intel.' AMD must be doing something right if Intel is taking notice of it and that means a little competition which is great for the future of the hardware.
It's always tempting to bash Microsoft and Bill G, with this thread being no exception. Nevertheless, what is notable about Microsoft is how little they have been able to accomplish in the last ten years, despite having a huge workforce of bright, talented people backed up by enormous financial resources. The reason for this, IMHO, is that Microsoft, the corporation, as established by Bill, primarily looks at new technology as an opportunity to collect tolls. They try and be first to spot the stuff that everyone is going to have to use or do and then they set themselves to collect tolls on the technological bridge that everyone is going to have to pass over. In that sense, they are more cunning than creative and that, ultimately, has been their downfall. Bill Gates book is more of a view of where he thought the future toll collecting opportunities were than it is of the potential for technology to improve lives. The best innovative tech entrepreneurs seem to think in terms of 'what is it possible to do with the technology? rather than 'how can we make money from the technology?' even though the latter question always becomes important in the later stages.
This is an improved method of producing hydrogen from water using a biologically-derived process. Interesting, even great, but hardly the breakthrough that the article says. The major technical hurdle to using hydrogen as an energy source for stationary or mobile sources is the difficulty of economically storing hydrogen for later use. An improved method of hydrogen manufacture (hydrogen is currently produced industrially in very large quantities from methane) while useful, would not overcome the storage hurdle.
People question Apple's motives and point out that the Adobe/Apple scrap is all about money and control. Of course it is, but why should we care? Apple may have the wrong reasons for supporting HTML5 but isn't it more important that they are doing the right thing (supporting an open standard) even if it is for the wrong reasons? Moreover, why should we want a peace agreement that will 'save' flash? If flash is not saved, that would leave an opening for open standards to fill the gap that would quickly be filled. Adobe would survive and prosper without flash as the are a very large company with a lot of other businesses. They would likely become one of the biggest supporters of technologies using open standards that would replace flash functionality. So, really, why do we want to save flash?
The iPad intentionally does not support Adobe's flash and now, looks like it will be a runaway best seller. I wouldn't want to be Youtube with millions of people wanting to know why they can't watch those youtube flash videos on the same super video-capable iPad that they are watching tv shows and movies on. The pressure on Youtube to support non-flash video alternatives is building fast and they are probably going to cave soon. That will REALLY put the hurt on Flash.
Nesson claimed that the songs he uploaded and linked to on his blog were irrelevant to the Tennenbaum case that he was the lawyer for. Is it possible that Nesson is right? Suppose that Tennenbaum had been accused of bank robbery and then suppose that Nesson goes out and robs a different bank on his own time. Is that new crime relevant to his client's case? The judge granted the RIAA Motion to Compel and now the same judge has ordered Nesson to pay the RIAA expenses but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
It is very common now for cell sites to be placed in all sorts of unobtrusive uban locations such as the roofs and exterior walls of commercial buildings, or disguised as power poles, trees, or flagpoles. It is also very common for several companies to co-locate at a good location once the first company has built its site. Cell companies tend to rent out space at their location to other companies because those other companies can help them out at other sites. What you need to look at is how many different carriers are set up at the site near the apartment and generally how powerful the transmitters are. Each carrier will install its own antennas, backup power equipment, and power supply cabling which you can often see at least portions of at the site. Some cell sites can have a power output of thousands of watts while others can be much smaller, depending on what sort of area the site is supposed to serve and how good its antenna location is. You can get some approximate idea of how powerful the cell site is by looking at how big the backup power generator is and how large the power supply cabling (i.e. the conduit diameter) to the transmitter is. If there are 3 companies co-located and each has 30+ kw backup generators installed, you can expect that it is a relatively high power site. In general, it seems that people are not happy being located in close proximity to cell transmitters. I have seen cell towers quietly installed on the roofs of office buildings and within a few years, the top floor(s) of the building are devoid of tenants. Office building landlords just factor that into the rent that they charge the cell companies. In your case, you are probably getting a nicer apartment than the same money would get at a cell-free location but when you go to sell the unit, the selling price will reflect the current cell site situation at the time that you sell. If you are serious about buying, try to determine if it is likely that other cell companies will co-locate at the original site, possibly lowering your future value.
1) This will not end botnets
2) Microsoft doesn't care about ending botnets
3) Microsoft will never cede control over their user's machines
4) MS Security patches will always be a finger in a leak
5) A good rootkit is one that still lets my Windows boot
6) MS doesn't really care if the Windows on my 6-yr-old laptop has suddenly become non-genuine but WGA still needs those updates
7) Windows 8 will be about like Windows 7
8) The average Microsoftie is a bing-blastin', zune totin', IE8 browsin', xbox smokin' sort of a guy.
9) There is no hope for a better tommorrow...only a more expensive one
I think you must re-study your physics. CO2 does indeed reemit the infrared radiation, and the energy is (mostly) not related to temperature, but rather to the energy levels of the molecular frequncy in the CO_O bond (especially the frequency where the gap between the two oxygen atoms increase/decreases --- I think this is called "scissoring", but don't quote me on that). The frequency emitted is the frequency absorbed, more or less;
The reemitted electromagnetic radiation is distributed over a wide distribution of wavelengths that are a function of the temperature of the emitting body. This is a fundamental relationship of Physics that we call "Planck's Law." The very narrow wavelength(s) at which the CO2 molecule absorbs energy IS determined by the nature of its C-O bonds which vibrate in several different modes including the 'scissoring' you allude to as well as torsional, axial, and cross-equatorial. Once it has absorbed energy, the CO2 molecule temperature increases whereupon it comes to instant temperature equivalence with its neighboring molecules (mostly O2 and N2). All of the molecules together radiate black body radiation over a wavelength distribution based on their temperature. The frequency of the reemitted radiation is most definitely NOT the frequency absorbed or words such as 'optical pyrometry' would have no meaning and Max Planck would have labored all of those years in vain.
Normally, temperature starts to rise due to e.g. distance to the sun decreasing slightly, which leads to increased CO2 which enhances the effect of the warming, causing further CO2 to be released until a new balance is achieved (essentially that the energy absorbed from the sun equals the earths black-body radiation). CO2 increase with temperature because CO2 is less soluble in warm (sea)-water, and a number of other effects (Tundra melting is often mentioned as a big one, though I don't personally know.). Now, into this system we (the humans) release enough CO2 to increase the concentration by what, 30%? What do *you* think will happen?
You have such a simple-minded view of the planetary climate...that is...unfortunately...wrong. Planetary temperatures are not correlated with (in the order you mention them) 1)short-term earth-solar distance, 2)CO2 increases, 3)solar absorbtion-black body radiation 'balance', 4)warming sea water CO2 solubility decrease (also bad chemistry as carbonate chemistry is far more complex than just 'CO2 solubility') or 5) tundra melting.
That CO2 must warm the earth can also be concluded directly by looking at the absorbtion bands of CO2. You could even calculate the approximate effect (though not the feedback loops) from this, the atmospheric and distribution of CO2 and from the distribution of the electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere.
Apparently you have never actually looked at the absorption bands for CO2. There is already more than sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the IR radiation that is capable of being absorbed by CO2, within the first few hundred meters of the atmosphere above the surface. Once absorbed, the energy is not trapped but is immediately re-emitted. The wavelength of the reemitted thermal radiation is a probability distribution depending ONLY on temperature that can be predicted with Planck's law and it is NOT concentrated within the narrow CO2 absorption band so almost all of that re-emitted raditation is free to radiate out into space untouched any further by your nemesis CO2.
But of course, you knew all this. What pisses me off about all this that while the above is well-known science and has been for a long time, the economic aspects are far from clear to me.
It's precisely all of that 'well-known science' that is giving you so much difficulty.
...was its very weak multiplayer capability. The Xbox 360 player puts on the headphone/mic headset and is instantly talking to his circle of friends over the internet while navigating through a virtual world with them. The Wii does not allow the two-way voice communication with other players. If the Wii players want to gather in the same room and play they will find that there are very few Wii games with split-screen multiplayer capability. Taken together, this means the Wii is by and large, a solitary experience unless the players take turns watching each other play.
When the Wii first came out, it offered very innovative motion sensitive wireless game controllers and built-in Wi-Fi in a very compact, well-designed piece of hardware for a bargain price of $249. For whatever reason, though the game capabilities and selection just never came close to the xBox 360 platform and now the writing is showing up on the wall. The Wii had so much potential (and maybe still does) but it has just never been able to harvest that potential into a killer game experience.
We know that life arose from self-assembling molecules formed in a primitive thick atmosphere that rained into a primordial ocean where membranes wrapped around RNA packages to create unicellular life which eventually clustered and evolved into...us. Mars has not had the atmosphere with methane and ammonia needed for amino acids to form and, if it did indeed have oceans, they were too small, too shallow, and far too short-lived to have allowed life to have evolved. Ergo...life on Mars is...impossible. Cleared that right up for ya.
The food that most kids eat often contains flavor enhancers such as aspartame, sucralose, splenda, and MSG (aka 'autolyzed plant protein,' 'hydrolyzed plant protein') that have powerful neurological effects (that's why they are effective in stimulating the tongue nerve cells). Unfortunately, though, many of these substances also have toxic effects on nerve cells due to overstimulation or other means. Other neurotoxins in widespread use (compared with 1938) include solvents, lead, cell phone radiation, mercury, drugs, and high blood sugar (diabetes and pre-diabetes are much more widespread due in part to increased sugar consumption). It's likely that the increased environmental exposure of children to neurotoxins since 1938 has caused much of the increase in mental illness.
Most cetaceans have brain sizes much bigger than ours. For example, a "killer" whale's brain is about 6,000 cc or 400 percent larger than ours and even the lowly bottlenose dolphin has a brain 7 percent larger than ours. Maybe it's time to recognize the superiority of our cetacean masters.
Follow the linked article and you get to the Atta article on his ideas on urban development in Aleppo. What's interesting is that he saw Islamic and Christian culture in fundamental and irreconciliable conflict...and he may have been right. We live in a largely secular society and it's hard for us to fathom its religious underpinning but the basis for much of our Western culture and society are rooted in the simple Christian gospel messages of Jesus which recognize that all people should be loved, regardless of their race, sex, money, age, vulnerability, or power. So ...if Jesus was truly the divine Son of God, then the inevitable
result of the conflict is failure for the ideology of terror as a means
to perpetuate values which are counter to the Gospels of Jesus. Much of our
technology was developed to accomplish Christian-based objectives (labor-saving, health, nutrition, transportation, communication) and that
would become especially obvious to a student of that technology (such as
an engineer.)
Thoughtful people are slowly, slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet's climate may be less than completely right. Previously, the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively, definitely, absolutely, without doubt, guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of planetary warming. Similarly, there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site. If the Earth's climate continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest. It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming.
Based upon the fundamental physical principle that Arrhenius discovered, a change in CO2 concentration has to have an effect, so the only valid question is: how large?
Sure...and if I take a sledgehammer and strike the pavement in front of my feet, that will have a seismic effect on a nearby building...just not a significant one. The simple fact is that Arrhenius's work does not support the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of global warming. You are trying to make Arrhenius out to be the "century" old 'father of global warming' when in truth he's more like the 'father of absorption studies of atmospheric gases.' (Of much more importance to all of us was his work on the temperature relationship of chemical reaction kinetics.) At the moment, there is nothing (other than political opportunism as demonstrated by TFA of this thread) to support the idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically (as TFA describes) by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropoligical site. If the Earth continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest. For example, rather than apply those global climate change models to the future, apply them to the past and see what they predict about major climate change that is in the geologic record. The result, of course, is that they fail completely.
Modern models agree with Arrhenius that CO2 is a major driver of global climate.
Then they are likely to be equally as flawed as Arrhenius's work was...but for different reasons. The only major driver of global climate is solar input...rather from orbital oscillations, solar cycles, or unusual solar activity. We can twirl the knob on the CO2-concentration-controller but we are no different than the kid driving the shopping cart steering wheel in the supermarket...it will have no effect.
The role of CO2 in warming the earth was first worked out by Arrhenius in the 1900's.
You miss the entire point of Arrhenius's work. He was attempting to show that co2 was as big a contributor to the planetary warming caused by the atmosphere as water vapor was but...he was wrong.
The effect of co2 was actually far less than water vapor and was overestimated by Arrhenius because of very poor co2 absoption experimental data available to him. As the linked analysis shows, using modern data with Arrhenius's analysis, the effect of a doubling of co2 concentration would be a temperature increase of only 0.22C which is hardly significant. The more modern AGW theory we are talking about here is based on the idea that the carbondioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing (something Arrhenius was completely unaware of), the increase in co2 concentration is mostly due to fossil fuel combustion by mankind (something which he undoubtedly would have strongly disagreed with), and that the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is causing significant global warming (something which Arrhenius's analysis does not support, as noted above).
The role of CO2 in warming the planet has been known for a century, and is an unavoidable consequence of radiative physics.
No. The role of the earth's atmosphere (primarily water vapor) in warming the planet to the comfortable temperatures we know and expect has been known for many years. The idea that carbon dioxide is causing additional warming of the earth is relatively recent and arose when measurements of carbon dioxide concentration at mauna loa showed that the carbon dioxide concentration was increasing from year to year.
The "greenhouse gas theory" came into being when the Mauna Loa observations began to show the increase in the atmospheric co2 concentration and the climate was generally on a warming cycle. Some minds quickly put those two things together to link cause (co2) with effect (warming) and claimed that co2 was blocking the radiation of heat into space. Then the race was on to "prove" the theory...a race which continues to this day. Core samples of arctic ice were taken to establish temperature records and tiny bubbles of air in the core samples were analyzed to confirm some sort of 'historical' record of carbon dioxide concentration. That alone should give one pause as the the permeability of ice to carbon dioxide would make the concentration of co2 in those ice-entrapped bubbles meaningless after a short amount of time, never mind a thousands-of-years time span. Implicit in this investigation pathway is the assumption that modern atmospheric co2 concentrations are a function of fossil fuel combustion and photosynthesis, completely ignoring the effect of huge bodies of a liquid substance we call 'water' on the planet in which atmospheric carbon dioxide readily dissolves and then precipitates with calcium to form calcium carbonate, a substance present in large quantities around the globe. Calcium carbonate in the ocean is itself in equilibrium with calcium oxide which comprises between 6 and 10 weight percent of the oceanic and continental crust of the earth, moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input. There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking...so the entire global warming theory is a three-legged stool (constant solar input, co2 thermal barrier depends on increasing co2 concentration, planetary temperatures increasing) resting comfortably on two shaky legs. That's why the IPCC is racing to push governments into prompt action...before the decline in global temperatures and solar output begins to shake the confidence of the followers of the global warming religion and cause a loss in their numbers.
As I keep repeating [slashdot.org], 2007 was the steepest drop [uiuc.edu] in ice cover on record. It scared a lot of us when the extent of the drop was shown at the 2007 AGU conference because the climate models weren't predicting such a huge drop. The subsequent increases actually confirm that this decrease was due to weather, not climate, which tends to validate the models.
No, 2007 was not the 'steepest drop' in arctic ice cover, it was the 'smallest minimum extent' recorded. The increase and decrease in arctic ice cover follows the seasonal cycle and the rate of the decrease and increase in the seasonal change is similar from year to year. It is the 'minimum' and 'maximum' extent of the ice cover during the year that are of interest as a monitor of climate warming or cooling. The increase in the 'minimum' extent in 2008 and 2009 indicate a cooling trend that cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases since the concentration of those has increased during that time period. If you want to claim that cooling somehow validates the models (which it obviously does not) you need to explain where a significant amount of planetary heat is being stored since the 'greenhouse gas' theory of planetary warming requires that the amount of heat being radiated from the earth must continuously decrease.
You're neglecting to consider pressure broadening, which forces any realistic climate model to treat each layer of the atmosphere differently. CO2 isn't saturated in the highest layer of the atmosphere, which is what really matters.
Pressure broadening? Atmospheric gas pressures are very low, varying from 1 atm at the earth's surface to near vacuum at the upper atmospheric limits. These low pressures have no significant effect on the carbon dioxide adsorption spectra. The simple fact is that there is more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at this very minute to absorb ALL of the IR radiation radiating from Earth that is in the wavelength where it can be absorbed by carbon dioxide... within the first few hundred meters of the atmosphere. Your reference to carbon dioxide saturation in the 'highest layer' of the atmosphere (whatever that is) suggests that you lack any understanding whatsoever of 'saturation' or phase equilibria.
Yet again, I need to repeat that water vapor is a feedback in the climate, not a forcing. We can't change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because it establishes equilibrium with the oceans in a matter of weeks. However, because we're increasing the temperature of the planet by increasing CO2 concentrations, water vapor will tend to provide positive feedback which will make the problem worse. Also, water vapor isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere, so CO2 is the only greenhouse gas of consequence in that important outer layer.
Water vapor is an atmospheric gas that has a much stronger 'greenhouse' effect than carbon dioxide. Water concentration in the atmosphere varies VERY widely around the globe and over time, but is always many, many times greater than that of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, in contrast, is at a relatively constant concentration around the globe. Water vapor is certainly NOT a 'feedback' in the climate but is the single biggest driver to the climate we experience on earth due to it's contribution to global energy transfer, it's unique ability to condense and form atmospheric optical barriers, it's unique ability to accumulate as a solid over thousands of years, and it's enormous global reservoirs in liquid form. Mixing has nothing to do with water concentration in the upper atmosphere. That is determined solely by pressure and temperature (which also vary widely around the globe). When I read your comments, I'm struck by how little you seem to understand about the basic physics of gases...which is, after all, what we're talking about.
The mountains of research done on this is pretty clear about why
it's happening. But I don't expect facts to get in the way of beliefs
anytime soon. Be that as it may, why is not the important. The
important questions, and the ones the climate scientists spend a lot of
time working out, are how it's going to affect us and what we can do to
prepare for it.
There are no mountains of research that show why any climate change is
happening or even IF climate change is happening. Arctic ice cover has increased
every year since 2007, for example, while the AGW models pushed by the NSIDC and IPCC
don't allow for any such increase. Carbon dioxide is
routinely pushed by politicians as the cause of global warming and yet
it is a simple calculation to show that there is already more
than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb ALL of the
IR radiation radiating from Earth that is in the wavelength where it
can be absorbed by carbon dioxide... within the first few hundred
meters of the atmosphere. It is even easier to show
that gas-phase H2O in the atmosphere (commonly referred to as humidity)
is present in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2 and
is a far more potent 'greenhouse' gas than CO2...and yet the planet is
obviously still able to radiate sufficient heat to space in the
non-absorbable IR wavelengths to cool itself. Finally,
supposing for argument's sake that atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration really was: 1) a problem and 2) correctable, why
would it be the 'climate scientist's' job (read IPCC and NSIDC) to tell
us how to prepare for it's impact? They seem even less qualified
for that job than they are for the investigation of global
warming.
The Catholic Church teaches that God created the universe. Therefore, God created all life everywhere and we can expect that life found off of Earth will be similar in appearance to life as we know it. This would also imply that there is a certain predestination in the journey of life...which is what we see in evolution where the same complex functional structure evolves independently at different times in the fossil record. A fish swimming in an ocean on another world is likely to have the same overall structure that a fish on Earth has, although with differences created by the environment in which it developed.
Windows 7 has extremely low compatibility with past Windows software and hardware. Basically, it cannot run any pre-Vista software unless you use the virtualized Windows XP ('XPM') add-on and that has some major limitations: 1) requires a cpu with virtual extensions 2) requires maintenance of the XP add-on as if it was another installation, and 3) even XPM has very limited legacy software support. As for hardware, pre-vista hardware can not be used unless it is supported by a vendor who will release Windows 7 drivers which will likely only be the case for newer hardware that had a high original cost. I wanted to run Windows 7 but it will basically require all new hardware and software which will limit its use for me to browsing the web and running Office until I can find Windows 7 replacements for all of the little apps that it will not run. Hopefully, 3rd party companies will quickly develop software that will allow legacy apps to run until Windows 7 substitutes appear.