*smile* - thanks for proving my point. A record high for the last 90 years in Russia is "global warming" - but record lows for over a hundred of years in three European countries (likely more - I only searched for a few) isn't.
Regarding Hudson Bay that's the negative AO and, see my first post, completely normal.
As long as you understand yourself that you're doing activism and not science that's fine of course, but please make it clear in your posts. Some of us actually try to follow the scientific method.
The heat wave in Russia this past summer was unprecedented. A Russian scientists stated it had been at least 1000 years since such a heat wave has occurred there.
... your point being? Let's see what NOAA has to say about that heat wave:
Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.
The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988)
Sometimes I wonder if it's really the global warming advocates who seem to ignore science, at least when it's science and data that don't fit their agenda.
So if everything we see now is normal and has happened before during the 20th century, why are you even talking about global warming? It obviously wasn't the cause decades ago, why would it be now?
Science has very little to do with activism and political statements. Let's do science. The heat wave in Russia this year, as well as the current cold over Europe and North America, has nothing to do with global warming.
Maybe you're young enough to believe that mostly-positive is "normal"? That's only since the end of the 70s (see first link) - it seems we're going to back to the climate regime we had in the decades previous to that right now.
The severity of my facial blindness is still to be studied in a laboratory environment, but I's around where I sometimes cannot follow the plot in a movie since two main characters might look "the same" to me just because the cues I normally use, facial hair, hair style, movement etc are too similar in some of the scenes.
With that said, I'd happily go along with "67%" in the videos from the article, and thus there doesn't seem to be a difference at least for me.
I'm sorry, but weren't we talking about moving C++ code (GP had imaging as an example) onto Android? In that context platform APIs aren't relevant since the code in question would be modularized.
With regards to who's successful and not, after the fact, I recommend "Black Swan" by Nicholas Taleb:)
This is exactly why using a human jury in a trial is a bad idea from the start. The average human is ignorant, pre-determined, emotional and influential.
The reason negative feed back loops are rearely mentioned is because they are rare in a warming climate and generally overwhelemd by the positive feedbacks
Easy - the exploit done by Geohot (which was the basis for Sony's decision to remove OtherOS) was of the more academic kind. While interesting for security researchers - and most probably used by others later in creating the current crops of "jailbreaks" - there was no pirating back then and no ready made tools or software that could be used by consumers/pirates/aliens.
Feel free to research the topic if you disagree with my statement.
In my other apartment (yes.. ) I have 10/10 "for free" included in the rent.
Actually I wasn't sure about signing up for the fixed connection at all, since my mobile broadband already gives me around 10/4 (real life numbers) - also at $25/month.
Hey:) Indeed, I worked for Symbian (Sweden) from 1999 to 2001. Anyways, while I agree somewhat with your comments on Tomi's numbers, the fact is that he at least _has_ numbers. My own take on this is, which has been part of my presentations on the (mobile) industry for a few years, is that the value of software is rapidly approaching zero. I.e, much of the day to day software we use is produced by either small development houses - or even by single developers - and that due to both the low amount of investment they have to do themselves as well as the increased competition (especially visible in app stores) the cost of that software is becoming "low enough" for people to pay without thinking twice.
The above sounds very positive, until we realize that it also means that the number of people being able to make a living (esp. in "the west") writing software also rapidly approaches zero. Looking at a few app store outliers does not a trend make - and a combination of Chris Anderson's "Free" and Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swan" should be what's needed for anyone not to base their future income on writing apps.
Betting on becoming a black swan is, to use Tomi's words, "fool's gold".
Why is it so important for you to claim something that has no support in facts? IAEA states categorically that there's no diversion of uranium - thus even the question of whether they're running a completely normal research reactor with that fuel or not becomes moot.
(Thanks for pointing out the Wikipedia article though - the statements are completely unsourced, I'll add a "citation needed" to those claims. They have apparently been challenged already in 2006 but no one did the job of actually removing them - see the Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enriched_uranium#Weapons_from_enriched_uranium )
In an article about a government having sponsored a global worm attack possibly targeted at an Iranian nuclear facility - you think it's surprising if two (not the whole group) of IAEA inspectors were less than truthful about what they were really doing?
Going through your posts it's obvious you pursuing an agenda and at no point are you trying to deduce the actual facts behind anything related to the topic.
Facts: The Iranian supply of uranium is closely monitored. So are their facilities. It's impossible for Iran to even begin enriching uranium above power production pureness without that being noticed.
The Bushehr reactor is not useful for producing weapons-grade plutonium, and the Russians have a deal to keep all the waste themselves.
On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”
[---]
IAEA inspectors have had open access to the gas conversion facility at Isfahan, the enrichment facility at Natanz, and the new lightwater reactor at Bushehr, as well as the secondary enrichment facility under construction at Qom.
The September 6 IAEA report confirming for the zillionth time the non-diversion of nuclear material should be the last word on the subject until the next time they say the same thing: Iran, a long-time signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is not in violation of its Safeguards Agreement.
But hey - why should you let facts get in the way of your personal crusade. If you were worried about nuclear weapons in the region you wouldn't think talking about how the US keeps nucelar inspections out of Israel would be "changing the subject".
Iran complies with IAEA inspections, and their reports state categorically that Iran is not trying to create weapons. This little factoid would've taken you less time to verify than the time you took writing just a few of all your posts in this discussion thread.
I've already done the research - as is evident from the content of my posts. The information you apparently have a hard time finding is about the difference in uranium enrichment level between nuclear power generation and weapons creation. Weasel-worded CIA reports aside (as a Swede I remember well the US rhetoric about Saddam's weapons program when Hans Blix categorically stated there was none. He was right).
You might want to ask yourself how come Iran has no problem with IAEA supervising their nuclear program, while the US commanded all allies to vote against the same happening to the Israeli nuclear program this week.
It took you longer writing that post than it would've taken you to research what I wrote yourself.
Iran's nuclear program is supervised. As is their enrichment facility. The level of enrichment they're able to do only works for nuclear power generation - they're very very far from being able to enrich anything near the levels that would be needed for nuclear weapons.
I suggest you try again - this time researching facts instead of posting your own speculations.
Two of the commercially more successful Swedish authors decided they had had enough of the almost-monopoly situation in the Swedish publishing industry - and started their own publishing company.
They called it "pirate publishing" (Piratförlaget).
Additionally, a lot of people have fond memories of pirate radio stations being the ONLY radio stations where they could hear pop music when growing up.
Whenever an american talks about Iran's "nuclear capabilities" as if nuclear power generation with the type of enrichment they're doing has anything whatsoever to do with nuclear _weapons_ I cringe.
Seriously people, why not spend two minutes and actually LEARN something?
Slashdot Mirror
*smile* - thanks for proving my point. A record high for the last 90 years in Russia is "global warming" - but record lows for over a hundred of years in three European countries (likely more - I only searched for a few) isn't.
Regarding Hudson Bay that's the negative AO and, see my first post, completely normal.
As long as you understand yourself that you're doing activism and not science that's fine of course, but please make it clear in your posts. Some of us actually try to follow the scientific method.
The heat wave in Russia this past summer was unprecedented. A Russian scientists stated it had been at least 1000 years since such a heat wave has occurred there.
... your point being? Let's see what NOAA has to say about that heat wave:
Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.
The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/
As far as the cold over Europe and the US it is not record setting.
You might want to revise that.
December is on course to be the coldest since records began in 1910, the BBC weather centre has said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12078425
Coldest December in Sweden in 110 years - http://www.thelocal.se/31072/20101226/
In Berlin gab es Anfang Dezember den absoluten Kälterekord, "seit 100 Jahren war es hier nicht so kalt wie in der ersten Dezember-Dekade", so Globig. Das gelte auch für andere Regionen Deutschlands. - http://wetter.t-online.de/winter-extrem-neue-kleine-eiszeit-ist-jetzt-moeglich-/id_43699628/index
Chicagoans shivered through the coldest December open in 27 years - http://blog.chicagoweathercenter.com/2010/12/chicago-books-its-coldest-december-open-in-27-years-highs-nearly-30-degrees-below-a-year-ago.html
Sometimes I wonder if it's really the global warming advocates who seem to ignore science, at least when it's science and data that don't fit their agenda.
So if everything we see now is normal and has happened before during the 20th century, why are you even talking about global warming? It obviously wasn't the cause decades ago, why would it be now?
Science has very little to do with activism and political statements. Let's do science. The heat wave in Russia this year, as well as the current cold over Europe and North America, has nothing to do with global warming.
Everything you just posted is completely normal for a negative AO.
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html
AO history:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
Maybe you're young enough to believe that mostly-positive is "normal"? That's only since the end of the 70s (see first link) - it seems we're going to back to the climate regime we had in the decades previous to that right now.
The severity of my facial blindness is still to be studied in a laboratory environment, but I's around where I sometimes cannot follow the plot in a movie since two main characters might look "the same" to me just because the cues I normally use, facial hair, hair style, movement etc are too similar in some of the scenes.
With that said, I'd happily go along with "67%" in the videos from the article, and thus there doesn't seem to be a difference at least for me.
I'm sorry, but weren't we talking about moving C++ code (GP had imaging as an example) onto Android? In that context platform APIs aren't relevant since the code in question would be modularized.
With regards to who's successful and not, after the fact, I recommend "Black Swan" by Nicholas Taleb :)
What's your beef with the Android NDK then?
http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html
This is exactly why using a human jury in a trial is a bad idea from the start. The average human is ignorant, pre-determined, emotional and influential.
- your friendly AI
The biosphere expanded last century, but don't let facts stand in the way for some nice eco-gloom ;)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
Sahara desert shrinking, Sahel (a savannah) expanding:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
The reason negative feed back loops are rearely mentioned is because they are rare in a warming climate and generally overwhelemd by the positive feedbacks
[citation needed]
As to #4, feel free to read the following with an open mind: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface_17.html
Bob is not interested in publishing, but he's gotten offers to co-publish with others. The science seems sound.
Easy - the exploit done by Geohot (which was the basis for Sony's decision to remove OtherOS) was of the more academic kind. While interesting for security researchers - and most probably used by others later in creating the current crops of "jailbreaks" - there was no pirating back then and no ready made tools or software that could be used by consumers/pirates/aliens.
Feel free to research the topic if you disagree with my statement.
At some point Sony decided that too many people were exploiting the OtherOS feature for piracy
You mean, zero? That's the amount of people who were exploiting OtherOS for piracy when Sony removed the functionality.
There's no such thing as "innate abilities". There is however a difference in how much training you get, from a very very early age.
I believe this was brought up in the popular book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell, although the research behind it is much older.
Sweden, at place #194 in this list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density - is a place where one (like I did yesterday) can sign up for 100/100MBit for $25/month or so.
In my other apartment (yes .. ) I have 10/10 "for free" included in the rent.
Actually I wasn't sure about signing up for the fixed connection at all, since my mobile broadband already gives me around 10/4 (real life numbers) - also at $25/month.
I decided to exercise my free will by randomly selecting
What's "I" - and how does it "select"?
Your body is a bunch of atoms restricted by the laws of physics. There's no support in science for an "I" built up of other types of material.
Hey :) Indeed, I worked for Symbian (Sweden) from 1999 to 2001. Anyways, while I agree somewhat with your comments on Tomi's numbers, the fact is that he at least _has_ numbers. My own take on this is, which has been part of my presentations on the (mobile) industry for a few years, is that the value of software is rapidly approaching zero. I.e, much of the day to day software we use is produced by either small development houses - or even by single developers - and that due to both the low amount of investment they have to do themselves as well as the increased competition (especially visible in app stores) the cost of that software is becoming "low enough" for people to pay without thinking twice.
The above sounds very positive, until we realize that it also means that the number of people being able to make a living (esp. in "the west") writing software also rapidly approaches zero. Looking at a few app store outliers does not a trend make - and a combination of Chris Anderson's "Free" and Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swan" should be what's needed for anyone not to base their future income on writing apps.
Betting on becoming a black swan is, to use Tomi's words, "fool's gold".
Being an App Store developer is on average a profitable proposition
Not even by a long shot. Tomi Ahonen did the actual numbers in a blog post a while back:
The development of the typical app cost $35,000 and the median paid app earns $682 dollars per year after Apple took its cut. You see where this is going.. We get to break even on our App Development costs in... 51 years - http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/06/full-analysis-of-iphone-economics-its-bad-news-and-then-it-gets-worse.html
Don't look at the outliers.
(and read the post before attacking the numbers, they're well sourced)
Why is it so important for you to claim something that has no support in facts? IAEA states categorically that there's no diversion of uranium - thus even the question of whether they're running a completely normal research reactor with that fuel or not becomes moot.
(Thanks for pointing out the Wikipedia article though - the statements are completely unsourced, I'll add a "citation needed" to those claims. They have apparently been challenged already in 2006 but no one did the job of actually removing them - see the Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enriched_uranium#Weapons_from_enriched_uranium )
In an article about a government having sponsored a global worm attack possibly targeted at an Iranian nuclear facility - you think it's surprising if two (not the whole group) of IAEA inspectors were less than truthful about what they were really doing?
Going through your posts it's obvious you pursuing an agenda and at no point are you trying to deduce the actual facts behind anything related to the topic.
Facts: The Iranian supply of uranium is closely monitored. So are their facilities. It's impossible for Iran to even begin enriching uranium above power production pureness without that being noticed.
The Bushehr reactor is not useful for producing weapons-grade plutonium, and the Russians have a deal to keep all the waste themselves.
On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”
[---]
IAEA inspectors have had open access to the gas conversion facility at Isfahan, the enrichment facility at Natanz, and the new lightwater reactor at Bushehr, as well as the secondary enrichment facility under construction at Qom.
The September 6 IAEA report confirming for the zillionth time the non-diversion of nuclear material should be the last word on the subject until the next time they say the same thing: Iran, a long-time signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is not in violation of its Safeguards Agreement.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0917/Reality-check-Iran-is-not-a-nuclear-threat
But hey - why should you let facts get in the way of your personal crusade. If you were worried about nuclear weapons in the region you wouldn't think talking about how the US keeps nucelar inspections out of Israel would be "changing the subject".
Iran complies with IAEA inspections, and their reports state categorically that Iran is not trying to create weapons. This little factoid would've taken you less time to verify than the time you took writing just a few of all your posts in this discussion thread.
So, one can only speculate as to why you didn't.
I've already done the research - as is evident from the content of my posts. The information you apparently have a hard time finding is about the difference in uranium enrichment level between nuclear power generation and weapons creation. Weasel-worded CIA reports aside (as a Swede I remember well the US rhetoric about Saddam's weapons program when Hans Blix categorically stated there was none. He was right).
You might want to ask yourself how come Iran has no problem with IAEA supervising their nuclear program, while the US commanded all allies to vote against the same happening to the Israeli nuclear program this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11407589
It took you longer writing that post than it would've taken you to research what I wrote yourself.
Iran's nuclear program is supervised. As is their enrichment facility. The level of enrichment they're able to do only works for nuclear power generation - they're very very far from being able to enrich anything near the levels that would be needed for nuclear weapons.
I suggest you try again - this time researching facts instead of posting your own speculations.
Your guess is likely correct in that the media only has room for "one" contender. This election it was the racists - last election it was the pirates.
Media attention = votes
Two of the commercially more successful Swedish authors decided they had had enough of the almost-monopoly situation in the Swedish publishing industry - and started their own publishing company.
They called it "pirate publishing" (Piratförlaget).
Additionally, a lot of people have fond memories of pirate radio stations being the ONLY radio stations where they could hear pop music when growing up.
Whenever an american talks about Iran's "nuclear capabilities" as if nuclear power generation with the type of enrichment they're doing has anything whatsoever to do with nuclear _weapons_ I cringe.
Seriously people, why not spend two minutes and actually LEARN something?