Live is complete rubbish. I was forced to use it to download extra content for Fallout 3 (PC game I bought on Steam). Compared to Steam, Live is a big pile of steaming ****.
I most certainly would blame the tool if the handle snapped or the blunt end kept falling off. If Perl fits your natural style and way of thinking, then perhaps that says more about the structure of your brain than it does about the utility of the language.
Mono can never be compatible because Microsoft made it far too convenient to call unsafe / unmanaged code.
If they hadn't done that, nobody would be using it for real world projects. In Linux fairy land, you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. If something doesn't work, you fork and fix it, resulting in a profusion of different levels of compatibility. Being able to use ActiveX or invoke and use Win32/OLE objects in.NET allows us to bridge the gap between those technologies without investing many man years completely re-writing what we know already works. I can write WPF or Windows Forms front ends to OLE servers we've been using for ten years.
Microsoft did it to WINE and now they're doing it to Mono
Seriously, Microsoft have got other things to do than worry about a tin-pot emulation project..NET advances are good in themselves for the developers who use those technologies. Microsoft don't have to stop advancing the technology just because Mono needs to catch up. If they cared about Linux support, they'd release.NET for Linux, but the don't and neither do the vast majority of Windows developers.
1. Pretty much everyone agrees that the term global warming is bad, since what is happening is global climate change, which is very real and a very big problem.
2. The amount of CO2 is not fixed as you claim, CO2 is a by product of chemical reactions. There are also reactions going the other way, but unfortunately we are producing way more CO2 than is being consumed, this is a problem.
3. While you are correct that the world will probably survive just fine as a whole, some of us are rather concerned about the amount of climate refuges we are going to see and in time the wars that will most likely follow.
Honestly, pretty much anyone who knows about the subject and does not have an interest in the political implications is uncommitted on the Science. The more distant people are from the funding cycle, the more sceptical they are.
On point 2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been shrinking over geological time to what was an all-time low. It used to be thousands of parts per million. CO2 is an essential plant fertiliser and there is evidence the biosphere is becomming MORE green because of the recent upswing. Does that "concern" you in any way? I should hope not.
On your third point, wars because it's 1 degree warmer? Are you SERIOUS?
Please, for the love of (insert favourite supernatural entity), give me some mod points for this fine fellow and his entirely reasonable, intelligent, articulate and insightful comment.
Are you running it on very old hardware? You must be, because my 3 year old kit runs Windows 7 beta and now the RC sweetly. It's FASTER than XP; at least that's where it is on my personal index of usability and responsiveness. I think it's a great OS and I've used them all.
Peer review seems a little light at PE. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but calls for caution.
It seems a pity that more people don't recognise this when other kinds of paper are published elsewhere (for example, concerning the `Science' of Climate Change).
Please mod me troll;).
I wrote a paper on this many years ago, concluding that the KT event caused extinctions in species already in decline. For example, the Ammonoidea were becoming less numerous for ten million years before the impact. But previous posters are quite correct, the Dinosaurs are survived by Birds!
I hacked Minix a new memory manager in a System Programming at University class back in 1996. I'm quite literally apathetic with incredulity that the EU are funding further development. Why not get undergrads to do it for free?
ext thing you know, couple of judges will open a private juvenile detention facility, rule the government detention facility to be inadequate, harshly punish all juveniles appearing before them to long detentions, send them to their own private detention facility
I don't know about this. I thought artistically and aesthetically Bioshock was a great game. Sure it's not ground-breaking, but the scenes in the theatre (for example) where you're attacked by splicers with the Blue Danube playing in the background I thought showed genuinely good production values.
When you look at games like Half-Life 2 and the way they've moved the story on through Episode 1 and 2, with only a few gameplay innovations, you can see how it's possible to provide a fun gaming experience that continues to engage the player. But I suppose it's hard to bring the Bioshock story on when the first game saw the death of the main protagonists and our "hero" live happily ever after.
*fact* that not only is Arctic ice extent far less than it has been at any point in recorded history
That history is around 30 years of data. Really, 30 years. Let me say it again so you understand, "30 years". It's not outside of the bounds of natural climate variation, given that 80% of the Earth's history has gone by with no ice-caps whatsoever. I appreciate that in your strange value system having ice-caps is considered "good", but I would suggest you do some further reading at least to attempt to fight this intellectual virus you seem to have caught.
With respect to "peer reviewed papers", please read yourself the Wegman report. Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. At most, in Climate Science, it means you have lots of friends in the area and are towing the party line. Moreover, a source none othe than RealClimate, has explicitly made it clear that Antarctic sea ice extent would be expect to increase according to the AGW theory. Later, when data showed it was warming (Steig et al, which now turn out to have been more statistical shenanigans), RealClimate said that of course warming was expect in Antarctica according to the AGW theory. Do you not register the contradiction? Does the data not now falsify the theory? Anyone with a brain would have to say so.
I'm not sure what you mean by "uses quantum calculations". It almost certainly does have a quantum state, which is a slightly different thing I suppose. With respect to the story, others are quite correct. This does not explain anything in and of itself, but may be a better way to model certain aspects of Human behaviour to that has some predictive power.
[quote]
The hockey stick has been updated with better data, finding that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years.
[/quote]
You've got to be kidding me. This paper has also been discredited, particularly by Steve McIntrye (someone who works tirelessly to expose the statistical nonsense that is Hansen, Mann, et. al.). What we have here is policy based evidence manufacture. And very profitable it can be too.
So: it's not related to warming. In fact it's caused by a natural cooling unrelated to global warming.
So you think that all cooling events are natural, but all warming events are man-made? This is precisely the alarmist position as far as I can see. Before the negative PDO, there was a positive one, peaking in 1998. Is this a "natural" event or not?
2) "Under global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when."
Indeed, simply a statement of what is expected from warming scenarios. The actual reality is different. That is the point of the article.
"I don't believe Al Gore has claimed Katrina was caused by global warming
There is nothing wrong with my English language comprehension. You contradict yourself. I have corrected you by showing you how he has attempted to link AGW with Katrina.
I've found that he's claimed that "the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming", which is correct
Actually, the reverse is true. Recent scientific papers show that hurricane activity has decreased during the recent warming, not increased:
Using a well-accepted metric called the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index or ACE for short (Bell and Chelliah 2006), which has been used by Klotzbach (2006) and Emanuel (2005) (PDI is analogous to ACE), and most recently by myself in Maue (2009), simple analysis shows that 24-month running sums of global ACE or hurricane energy have plummeted to levels not seen in 30 years.
You are sadly mistaken in your attempt to exhonerate Gore from alarmism. Here is his speech to the Sierra Summit in 2005:
This quote, from that speech (which was about Katrina), can be found about 2/3rds of the way down:
Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.
While telling me to check my facts you have made the error of not checking your own.
Wouldn't that depend on location? A mild warming of the average temperature would probably feel great for most rich nations (why are wealthy nations mainly rather cold?), but what about the extremes?
What isn't recorded are the annual deaths of people due to cold (perhaps poorer old folk who can't afford to heat their residence properly). These deaths happen usually in winter and are not related to any specific cooling event. I'm afraid the figure dwarfs the rather minor 52k (I can't find the figures right now, but will do so and post them later). Actually I'm rather surprised you're talking about extreme weather events, unless you're going to claim the 1998 El Nino was caused by man-made greenhouse gasses? Or like Gore, that Hurricane Katrina was an example? You might as well do as people like Fallwell did and blame it on Homosexuality - the amount of evidence either way is the same.
According to the RealClimate website, increasing ice is expected in the Antarctic according to the models, so all of these cretinous articles about "warming" causing the ice to melt are not in agreement with the alarmists. Or rather I should say the alarmists aren't in agreement with themselves.
Given that those who don't present papers supporting the orthodoxy are unlikely to get research grants or publication (at least it's very difficult to do so), I'm almost certain you haven't heard both sides of the argument with the required vigour in order to make any significant judgement either way. At the very least, we know one thing is true: more people die in cold weather than in hot weather. This, I submit, is incontestable.
I would also point out that sea level is rising and has been since the end of the last ice-age. The current rise has not accelerated beyond the background mean. In other words, despite 10 years of no warming whatsoever (even though CO2 has increased), sea level is no higher than it would be in any case.
My final point is one that's always missed. We have no idea at all whether or not these events are "natural" and if so at what frequency they happen. It seems to me that this is being pushed as "evidence of global warming", when in fact it's evidence of media gullibility in the face of environmentalist spin.
Slashdot Mirror
And my post above is flagged Troll for what reason exactly?
Live is complete rubbish. I was forced to use it to download extra content for Fallout 3 (PC game I bought on Steam). Compared to Steam, Live is a big pile of steaming ****.
I most certainly would blame the tool if the handle snapped or the blunt end kept falling off. If Perl fits your natural style and way of thinking, then perhaps that says more about the structure of your brain than it does about the utility of the language.
If they hadn't done that, nobody would be using it for real world projects. In Linux fairy land, you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. If something doesn't work, you fork and fix it, resulting in a profusion of different levels of compatibility. Being able to use ActiveX or invoke and use Win32/OLE objects in .NET allows us to bridge the gap between those technologies without investing many man years completely re-writing what we know already works. I can write WPF or Windows Forms front ends to OLE servers we've been using for ten years.
Seriously, Microsoft have got other things to do than worry about a tin-pot emulation project. .NET advances are good in themselves for the developers who use those technologies. Microsoft don't have to stop advancing the technology just because Mono needs to catch up. If they cared about Linux support, they'd release .NET for Linux, but the don't and neither do the vast majority of Windows developers.
I don't see what the big deal is. I can generate alpha and beta waves with a WM_TIMER message.
Honestly, pretty much anyone who knows about the subject and does not have an interest in the political implications is uncommitted on the Science. The more distant people are from the funding cycle, the more sceptical they are.
On point 2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been shrinking over geological time to what was an all-time low. It used to be thousands of parts per million. CO2 is an essential plant fertiliser and there is evidence the biosphere is becomming MORE green because of the recent upswing. Does that "concern" you in any way? I should hope not.
On your third point, wars because it's 1 degree warmer? Are you SERIOUS?
Please, for the love of (insert favourite supernatural entity), give me some mod points for this fine fellow and his entirely reasonable, intelligent, articulate and insightful comment.
Are you running it on very old hardware? You must be, because my 3 year old kit runs Windows 7 beta and now the RC sweetly. It's FASTER than XP; at least that's where it is on my personal index of usability and responsiveness. I think it's a great OS and I've used them all.
You're talking about stepwise regressions, yes. These were taken into account.
It seems a pity that more people don't recognise this when other kinds of paper are published elsewhere (for example, concerning the `Science' of Climate Change). Please mod me troll ;).
I wrote a paper on this many years ago, concluding that the KT event caused extinctions in species already in decline. For example, the Ammonoidea were becoming less numerous for ten million years before the impact. But previous posters are quite correct, the Dinosaurs are survived by Birds!
I hacked Minix a new memory manager in a System Programming at University class back in 1996. I'm quite literally apathetic with incredulity that the EU are funding further development. Why not get undergrads to do it for free?
It's called Scout Camp.
I don't know about this. I thought artistically and aesthetically Bioshock was a great game. Sure it's not ground-breaking, but the scenes in the theatre (for example) where you're attacked by splicers with the Blue Danube playing in the background I thought showed genuinely good production values.
When you look at games like Half-Life 2 and the way they've moved the story on through Episode 1 and 2, with only a few gameplay innovations, you can see how it's possible to provide a fun gaming experience that continues to engage the player. But I suppose it's hard to bring the Bioshock story on when the first game saw the death of the main protagonists and our "hero" live happily ever after.
Not quite, with Hawking radiation, one of the virtual particles falls back into the hole and one escapes, or something like that.
That history is around 30 years of data. Really, 30 years. Let me say it again so you understand, "30 years". It's not outside of the bounds of natural climate variation, given that 80% of the Earth's history has gone by with no ice-caps whatsoever. I appreciate that in your strange value system having ice-caps is considered "good", but I would suggest you do some further reading at least to attempt to fight this intellectual virus you seem to have caught.
With respect to "peer reviewed papers", please read yourself the Wegman report. Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. At most, in Climate Science, it means you have lots of friends in the area and are towing the party line. Moreover, a source none othe than RealClimate, has explicitly made it clear that Antarctic sea ice extent would be expect to increase according to the AGW theory. Later, when data showed it was warming (Steig et al, which now turn out to have been more statistical shenanigans), RealClimate said that of course warming was expect in Antarctica according to the AGW theory. Do you not register the contradiction? Does the data not now falsify the theory? Anyone with a brain would have to say so.
Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant and for that reason I declare this entire line of argument idiotic.
I'm not sure what you mean by "uses quantum calculations". It almost certainly does have a quantum state, which is a slightly different thing I suppose. With respect to the story, others are quite correct. This does not explain anything in and of itself, but may be a better way to model certain aspects of Human behaviour to that has some predictive power.
[quote] The hockey stick has been updated with better data, finding that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years. [/quote] You've got to be kidding me. This paper has also been discredited, particularly by Steve McIntrye (someone who works tirelessly to expose the statistical nonsense that is Hansen, Mann, et. al.). What we have here is policy based evidence manufacture. And very profitable it can be too.
So you think that all cooling events are natural, but all warming events are man-made? This is precisely the alarmist position as far as I can see. Before the negative PDO, there was a positive one, peaking in 1998. Is this a "natural" event or not?
Indeed, simply a statement of what is expected from warming scenarios. The actual reality is different. That is the point of the article.
There is nothing wrong with my English language comprehension. You contradict yourself. I have corrected you by showing you how he has attempted to link AGW with Katrina.
Actually, the reverse is true. Recent scientific papers show that hurricane activity has decreased during the recent warming, not increased:
You are sadly mistaken in your attempt to exhonerate Gore from alarmism. Here is his speech to the Sierra Summit in 2005:
Al Gore Speech 9/9/05
This quote, from that speech (which was about Katrina), can be found about 2/3rds of the way down:
While telling me to check my facts you have made the error of not checking your own.
What isn't recorded are the annual deaths of people due to cold (perhaps poorer old folk who can't afford to heat their residence properly). These deaths happen usually in winter and are not related to any specific cooling event. I'm afraid the figure dwarfs the rather minor 52k (I can't find the figures right now, but will do so and post them later). Actually I'm rather surprised you're talking about extreme weather events, unless you're going to claim the 1998 El Nino was caused by man-made greenhouse gasses? Or like Gore, that Hurricane Katrina was an example? You might as well do as people like Fallwell did and blame it on Homosexuality - the amount of evidence either way is the same.
According to the RealClimate website, increasing ice is expected in the Antarctic according to the models, so all of these cretinous articles about "warming" causing the ice to melt are not in agreement with the alarmists. Or rather I should say the alarmists aren't in agreement with themselves.
Given that those who don't present papers supporting the orthodoxy are unlikely to get research grants or publication (at least it's very difficult to do so), I'm almost certain you haven't heard both sides of the argument with the required vigour in order to make any significant judgement either way. At the very least, we know one thing is true: more people die in cold weather than in hot weather. This, I submit, is incontestable.
I would also point out that sea level is rising and has been since the end of the last ice-age. The current rise has not accelerated beyond the background mean. In other words, despite 10 years of no warming whatsoever (even though CO2 has increased), sea level is no higher than it would be in any case.
My final point is one that's always missed. We have no idea at all whether or not these events are "natural" and if so at what frequency they happen. It seems to me that this is being pushed as "evidence of global warming", when in fact it's evidence of media gullibility in the face of environmentalist spin.