Yes, I do think it's a relevant argument. The reason is because the huge £200,000,000 supercomputer the Met Office here in the UK uses to predict catastrophe in 2100, is also used to predict that we'll have BBQ summers and a warm, dry winter here in 2010. It is obvious even to the stupidest cretin that the models used make assumptions that are clearly wrong. Not even wrong, actually.
Mod this guy up. He's quite right. In my view consciousness is non-physical. That is to say it is not a measurable physical property. If this is the case, simply replicating the cognitive structure of a conscious organism does not necessarily instantiate a conscious state. Don't forget only 10 years ago photosynthesis was well understood in physical and biological terms, but now we discover that leaves take advantage of quantum effects to increase efficiency. There's a whole lot more going on in the brain than simple classical state change.
Is it an actual attack, or have they just given the entire world a heads-up that they're going to release some sensational information and so have far more traffic than their servers can handle?
Yes, the rate is the issue. I expect some fields would re-fill with oil, given the number of fissures and cracks that are probably around the field itself. The oil would drain into the well from these places, wouldn't it?
I'm just asking the question, because I don't have a great deal of knowledge about this, but could an alternative explanation be that our theory of gravity is wrong?
Again what we've got here is an industry (or part of an industry at least) who have been slow to see that their business model is doomed by new technology and changes in customer behaviour. They're wedded to retail, which has got to be the most expensive way to distribute bits and bytes, compared to the other methods available now. They're pretty irrelevant. I do buy hard-copy sometimes (usually at xmas), as gifts. Otherwise I can't remember the last time I bought a hard-copy game for personal use.
So apart from demos, which are probably not representative (just the first "level" or whatever usually), how is this miracle to be achieved without downloading pirated software? I don't pirate games, period.
Please stop and reflect on your statement. I've worked for a game company and understand the complexity of the kind of software they produce (particularly in terms of assets) and the hours of labour and stress that goes into making them. I would never consider pirating "just to test" (I find it hard to believe you will go and buy a legitimate copy upon discovering the game is not bugged).
There are many games on my Steam account the Googlage of which will turn up thousands of disgruntled "it doesn't work" posts, where the game works absolutely fine for me. I wouldn't crowd-source an opinion like this, because often it's completely irrelevant.
This is the same Vivid that has had to stop production due to one of their performers being diagnosed with HIV? No wonder he's having a hissy fit and throwing all of his toys out of the pram.
If the porn industry wasn't rogering customers with stupidly expensive website fees, piracy wouldn't be a problem for it.
People quickly become remarkably good at spotting the obvious sponsored results from the genuine ones. The basic idea behind this story is that we're all bloody idiots. Well ok, many of us are, but we're also a suspicious lot; so I don't really think this is an issue. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate: an international body (such as the UN), subject to political pressures, controlling search. I would trust a corporation that cares about its share price more than a bunch of faceless bureaucrats dependent on Government for their funding any day.
Well, pretty much all historic temperature and forcing data, paleotemperature and forcing data, and direct observations of feedbacks. Stop pretending to have read the IPCC report and actually read it. With a 0.5 C climate sensitivity, you can't reproduce any past or present climate changes.
There is no such data, unless you are talking about data output from models. But models are conceptual representations of the entities as we currently understand them. They have little predictive power when it comes to climate. The one firm fact we have is that the models are wrong; this should be obvious from their many predictive failures. How can they be right when they don't operate at anywhere near the required resolution and so many of the forcings are just guesses at unknowns? It's an exercise in curve fitting, nothing more. At least Lindzen works with actual data, not models. If more people in Climate Science actually did this what a fucking difference it would make!
As has already been pointed out to you, this result has already been disproven.
No, it hasn't. The paper in question was criticised (at real-climate amongst others), but the revision dealt with all of the criticisms without changing its central finding. It has not been retracted, has it?
I could ask you the same about Lindzen.
His position is more reasonable. He says he's a denier. What's not to like? I note Judith Curry ("high-priestess of global warming") is asking how it's going lately in the warmist community. She's really distancing herself from you alarmists at quite a speed.
Rather, you rely on picking the studies that support your prejudices and ignoring the ones that don't. You are aware that there are estimates other than Lindzen's, right?
I'm a layman. I can have an opinion. I can say, yes, I agree with what you say or no, I think you're talking horse-shit because you underestimate the uncertainties in your work and furthermore, I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you because I've read the ClimateGate emails and the associated books. If this scare was about Human affects on plate tectonics, I'd be all in. The thought of Scotland flying off into the Arctic Ocean, taking our naval bases with it really scares me. But to my (left-brained) mind, the idea that we can control what are probably natural climate cycles is absurd. No, it's ridiculous... and I don’t understand why you don’t question it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for gods-sake, you're already on the next ridiculous Green bandwagon. Aren't you at all embarrassed by these idiotic claims? I would be.
So you don't think Flash is proprietary?
Yes, I do think it's a relevant argument. The reason is because the huge £200,000,000 supercomputer the Met Office here in the UK uses to predict catastrophe in 2100, is also used to predict that we'll have BBQ summers and a warm, dry winter here in 2010. It is obvious even to the stupidest cretin that the models used make assumptions that are clearly wrong. Not even wrong, actually.
That's good to know as I sit freezing in my apartment, the entire country covered in as much snow as we had in 1965.
Mod this guy up. He's quite right. In my view consciousness is non-physical. That is to say it is not a measurable physical property. If this is the case, simply replicating the cognitive structure of a conscious organism does not necessarily instantiate a conscious state. Don't forget only 10 years ago photosynthesis was well understood in physical and biological terms, but now we discover that leaves take advantage of quantum effects to increase efficiency. There's a whole lot more going on in the brain than simple classical state change.
Oh jeez... I just posted that below. Anticipatory plagiarism.....
Nice Beaver!
Is it an actual attack, or have they just given the entire world a heads-up that they're going to release some sensational information and so have far more traffic than their servers can handle?
I totally agree. I feel very uncomfortable about this.,
These earthquakes are caused by global warming. Please mod me troll. Thanks very much.
Yes, the rate is the issue. I expect some fields would re-fill with oil, given the number of fissures and cracks that are probably around the field itself. The oil would drain into the well from these places, wouldn't it?
I'm just asking the question, because I don't have a great deal of knowledge about this, but could an alternative explanation be that our theory of gravity is wrong?
Classic VB was a crime against software development. The OP should consider C# if he wants a job.
Fair play to you. Please accept my unreserved apology for making the accusation.
Again what we've got here is an industry (or part of an industry at least) who have been slow to see that their business model is doomed by new technology and changes in customer behaviour. They're wedded to retail, which has got to be the most expensive way to distribute bits and bytes, compared to the other methods available now. They're pretty irrelevant. I do buy hard-copy sometimes (usually at xmas), as gifts. Otherwise I can't remember the last time I bought a hard-copy game for personal use.
So apart from demos, which are probably not representative (just the first "level" or whatever usually), how is this miracle to be achieved without downloading pirated software? I don't pirate games, period.
Did you download COD from piratebay?
Please stop and reflect on your statement. I've worked for a game company and understand the complexity of the kind of software they produce (particularly in terms of assets) and the hours of labour and stress that goes into making them. I would never consider pirating "just to test" (I find it hard to believe you will go and buy a legitimate copy upon discovering the game is not bugged).
There are many games on my Steam account the Googlage of which will turn up thousands of disgruntled "it doesn't work" posts, where the game works absolutely fine for me. I wouldn't crowd-source an opinion like this, because often it's completely irrelevant.
Oh fair enough. But then quite often it's really buggy on one configuration and perfectly fine on another. I'm talking PC games here of course.
You don't know its buggy until you've bought and played it.
This is the same Vivid that has had to stop production due to one of their performers being diagnosed with HIV? No wonder he's having a hissy fit and throwing all of his toys out of the pram.
If the porn industry wasn't rogering customers with stupidly expensive website fees, piracy wouldn't be a problem for it.
People quickly become remarkably good at spotting the obvious sponsored results from the genuine ones. The basic idea behind this story is that we're all bloody idiots. Well ok, many of us are, but we're also a suspicious lot; so I don't really think this is an issue. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate: an international body (such as the UN), subject to political pressures, controlling search. I would trust a corporation that cares about its share price more than a bunch of faceless bureaucrats dependent on Government for their funding any day.
I haven't killed one yet, despite years of trying.
There is no such data, unless you are talking about data output from models. But models are conceptual representations of the entities as we currently understand them. They have little predictive power when it comes to climate. The one firm fact we have is that the models are wrong; this should be obvious from their many predictive failures. How can they be right when they don't operate at anywhere near the required resolution and so many of the forcings are just guesses at unknowns? It's an exercise in curve fitting, nothing more. At least Lindzen works with actual data, not models. If more people in Climate Science actually did this what a fucking difference it would make!
No, it hasn't. The paper in question was criticised (at real-climate amongst others), but the revision dealt with all of the criticisms without changing its central finding. It has not been retracted, has it?
His position is more reasonable. He says he's a denier. What's not to like? I note Judith Curry ("high-priestess of global warming") is asking how it's going lately in the warmist community. She's really distancing herself from you alarmists at quite a speed.
I'm a layman. I can have an opinion. I can say, yes, I agree with what you say or no, I think you're talking horse-shit because you underestimate the uncertainties in your work and furthermore, I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you because I've read the ClimateGate emails and the associated books. If this scare was about Human affects on plate tectonics, I'd be all in. The thought of Scotland flying off into the Arctic Ocean, taking our naval bases with it really scares me. But to my (left-brained) mind, the idea that we can control what are probably natural climate cycles is absurd. No, it's ridiculous... and I don’t understand why you don’t question it.
P.S. I’m not a neo-con.