Open up the last mile to competition so that everyone can have multiple choices in ISPs again.
Won't work without extensive regulations to make it happen.
Regulation #1: The last mile provider is not allowed to own any source of content for the web other than a web page for their customers to interact with them.
Regulation #2: The last mile provider must allow any entity that is a source of content for the web access equal to what any other content provider receives.
I think that about covers it but I could be missing something.
And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!
What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.
Warm winters? Global warming!
Cold winters? That's global warming too!
You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.
Absolutely correct. Pence would be far more competent at getting his agenda done than the Traitor-Tot Trump. Not only that but he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US. Better to let Trump bumble along and not be all that effective, especially now that the Democrats control the House.
Temperatures going up 0.56 degrees in two years is also noise. Focus on the long term trend, 20 year trends at least if you want to understand climate. 2016 is the warmest year in the temperature record but that's only meaningful in the context of the long term trend. If the current trend were downward then it would just be an anomaly in that trend. If the "it's the sun" people are right (I'm positive they are not) and the current low level of solar activity means temperatures will drop then it's an anomaly or the peak of the previous trend. Time will tell but I think 2016 is merely another data point in the long term upward trend in temperature.
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Here's an example of a flooded city. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year and by 2045 they expect it to happen 180 days out of the year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
The Earth doesn't care what it "reverts" to. It will be what it will be. But from the point of view of humans we want it to revert to a climate that best supports the civilization we have built. Anything outside of that becomes more costly and if you get far enough from that ideal climate it could mean the collapse of the civilization,and undesirable outcome from most humans point of view.
The only thing that would result in areas getting dryer is if major changes occur in air patterns - or geology. Since most geology will remain about as we know it over the span of a hundred years or so (modulo supervolcanoes) it makes it especially puzzling to claim that areas of Southern Europe will not only bet warmer, but dryer...
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells. The heating of the air at the equator (really the point on the Earth where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the surface) causes air to rise. As it rises it cools and the water vapor precipitates out creating the tropical zones where there is a lot of precipitation. Once the air reaches the tropopause it spreads out horizontally until it reaches about 30 degrees north and south. Then the air drops back to the surface and as it drops back it is adabatically heated and and becomes drier relatively. Where the Hadley cells drop their air back to the surface is where most of the great deserts of the world like the Sahara are located.
Studies have found that global warming increases the strength of the cells slightly leading to perhaps a 2 degree expansion of the northern and southern boundaries of the Hadley cells. The moves those boundaries closer to Southern Europe which means the area along the Mediterranean Sea is likely to get a bit dryer. That's why it's not puzzling that Southern Europe would become dryer in a globally warming world.
The physical reality of global warming doesn't give a damn about your conspiracy theories. It's happening whether you like it or not. Denying that reality is just going to whack you upside the face when it hits you personally.
Two years of cooling in meaningless in the context of climate. The noise produced by natural variability is enough to overwhelm the signal of global warming for as much as about 20 years so looking at periods of less than that is fooling yourself. A drop of 0.56 degrees Celsius in 2 or 3 years is not something that is unexpected, it's just natural variability. If it's still cooling by sometime in the mid 2030s then you're on to something, otherwise you're just letting your bias mislead you.
The target dates come and go but the problem with global warming is that it's a slow moving problem. The target dates may be accurate but the effects of what they mean may not become fully manifest for 20 or 30 years and by then it's way too late to fix it. For instance the last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm the climate was much warmer than it is now and sea levels were about 70 feet higher than they are at the moment. It may be that is already baked in and in 400 or 500 years we will see sea levels that much higher. The great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica don't melt instantaneously relative to the temperature they're exposed to but melt they will until they reach a new equilibrium. So we may see 5 or 6 feet of SLR by the end of this century and maybe 15-20 feet by 2200 but it won't stop there. That NYC will be underwater sooner or later is almost a sure thing now. it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there. But no scientist who studies SLR would have expected it to be underwater by 2015 except for the unlikely possibility of a non-linear collapse of something like the Pine Island Glacier area which if it happened catastrophically could add several feet of SLR in a matter of a decade or two, a very unlikely event but not impossible.
You have it kind of backwards. There is not more radiation hitting the Earth as a result of global warming. What is happening is that the radiation leaving the Earth that balances the incoming radiation is being slowed down by greenhouse gases resulting in warmer surface temperatures.
Climate change may be real but also will take decades or centuries to have substantial impact.
It's already starting to have substantial impacts in places and that will just grow as time goes on. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
Since there is absolutely no theoretical link between higher CO2 levels and global temperatures,...
Where in the world do you get that shit? The link between CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and other global temperatures lies in the absorption spectrum of said gases. They absorb infrared radiation and slow down it's progress out of the atmosphere. It would be astounding if an increase in greenhouse gases did not cause an increase in global temperatures.
The biggest sign of how climate models are inadequate is that *not a single one* has shown to predict the climate or even the trend at any level of accuracy. They are all far off from actual observations.
Here is a comparison of climate model projections to observations. They show good agreement between the two:
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do! So, we need to get over worrying about this whole, "Climate change" thing. It's not as if we are somehow morally culpable to anyone. So... why should we really care?
(Unless, of course, we are morally culpable for our stewardship of the planet. But that would presuppose some higher being to which we are morally culpable - which is not scientific, and so, CANNOT be true. So, let's just get over ourselves a bit and live life!)
The issue isn't about anything moral or bullshit like that. The issue is can our modern worldwide civilization survive the changes that global warming/climate change will cause. If we want to preserve this civilization we need to do something about that. Humans won't go extinct but we might have a massive collapse of population and have civilization fall back to a 19th or even 18th century level just because there won't be enough people to support the kind of civilization we have now.
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
Then why do climate alarmists resort to hysterical name-calling by labeling people who don't buy into their religion heretics, errr, deniers?
If it were about actual science, skepticism wouldn't be met with ridicule.
Skepticism is one thing but when the same old argument has been refuted thousands of times it's no longer skepticism but denial. A true skeptic is willing to listen to the arguments from all sides and consider which is more credible. No matter how skeptical you may be you can't change the physical reality.
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
No you don't remember because it never happened. Nobody with any scientific credibility said NYC would be underwater by 2022. The might have said that they will be washed over by a storm surge like that which Sandy gave them but not that it would remain underwater. Mostly where you get that is some hyperbolic statement by someone trying to whip up fools like you who buy it lock. stock and barrel.
Modern science didn't really get going until maybe the 1600s or 1700s. There was lots of low hanging fruit to discover that could be understood with the relatively crude instrumentation of the time (although good thermometers have been available for about 300 years). Nowadays we're getting more into the details and there are fewer and fewer fundamental things to discover, just things built on those fundamentals. It's like the development of the airplane. Once the Wright brothers got their airplane flying there was rapid advancement in the field for 30 or 40 years but how much has the basic outlines of an airplane changed since then? Once the jet turbine was discovered it's just mostly a lot of refinement on the basic concept.
Note that all of these were FREE, unlike climate change "research" which is a vortex sucking all our research dollars these days.
Considering that global warming/climate change is probably one of the top 2 or 3 threats to our global civilization it's probably worth putting money into it. I know a lot of you don't think it's that big a deal but you can deny the physics behind it and you're going to have to deal with it in the future.
This comment is redundant but who would want to live in Oklahoma. It certainly wouldn't be me. If I wasn't retired and was working remotely I can think of a thousand other places I'd rather live than Oklahoma. I guess if you're just getting started on your career it could be kind of attractive but you usually don't get the privilege of working remotely until you've proven yourself.
Yes, my memory had failed me a bit. Wordmark is the correct term and you are correct that the addressing didn't start at 0. Funny how that happens as you age but I haven't done anything with a 1401 since about 1984. I know bytes is not the correct term but I think it's more relatable to most people here to denote the set of bits that make up a character.
As far as hardware multiply/divide we didn't have that on the one I worked on. As I said it was purchased for the school I attended by an old ex-IBM guy who was teaching on it and he was pretty old school and didn't have a big budget to work with. Our system only had 4K of memory and IIRC you could get up to 16K for the 1401.
The machine was used at the school to teach the students about the basic internal working of a computer and being decimal it was more user friendly to the many students who started from ground zero (I was a bit more advanced than most of them being in my early 30s at the time and having written some FORTRAN and Basic programs earlier in my life).
In a production environment I'm sure you had all sorts of standardized things like a card loader but we didn't have any of that for our classes. As I said below we wrote our programs, put the deck in the reader and pushed start then we were on our own. So the first card in the deck would for example copy the contents of memory addresses 41-80 up to memory addresses 501-540 then do a card read and branch back to address 1 for the next card which would repeat a similar sequence until the program was fully loaded. Once that was done the last cards of the deck then consisted of the data being input to the program.
I never worked in a production environment for a 1401.
Hmm, you stumped me. Neither of those ring a bell but it's been 35 years since I worked on one. Usually the first part of the cards in my deck was to move my program code toward the end of the card into memory starting at address 500 then read the next card and branch to 0 for the next bit of program. Of course the 1401 wasn't binary but decimal.
Slashdot Mirror
Open up the last mile to competition so that everyone can have multiple choices in ISPs again.
Won't work without extensive regulations to make it happen.
Regulation #1: The last mile provider is not allowed to own any source of content for the web other than a web page for their customers to interact with them.
Regulation #2: The last mile provider must allow any entity that is a source of content for the web access equal to what any other content provider receives.
I think that about covers it but I could be missing something.
And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!
What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.
Warm winters? Global warming!
Cold winters? That's global warming too!
You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.
Absolutely correct. Pence would be far more competent at getting his agenda done than the Traitor-Tot Trump. Not only that but he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US. Better to let Trump bumble along and not be all that effective, especially now that the Democrats control the House.
Ok, 9 inches since 1880.
Sea level rise since 1880
And this from the tide gauge near Charleston, SC shows an average rate of 3.25 mm/year +/0 0.19 mm. That's 1.07 feet/100 years:
Relative Sea Level Trend - 8665530 Charleston, South Carolina
Temperatures going up 0.56 degrees in two years is also noise. Focus on the long term trend, 20 year trends at least if you want to understand climate. 2016 is the warmest year in the temperature record but that's only meaningful in the context of the long term trend. If the current trend were downward then it would just be an anomaly in that trend. If the "it's the sun" people are right (I'm positive they are not) and the current low level of solar activity means temperatures will drop then it's an anomaly or the peak of the previous trend. Time will tell but I think 2016 is merely another data point in the long term upward trend in temperature.
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Here's an example of a flooded city. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year and by 2045 they expect it to happen 180 days out of the year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
King tides and sea level rise.
The Earth doesn't care what it "reverts" to. It will be what it will be. But from the point of view of humans we want it to revert to a climate that best supports the civilization we have built. Anything outside of that becomes more costly and if you get far enough from that ideal climate it could mean the collapse of the civilization,and undesirable outcome from most humans point of view.
The only thing that would result in areas getting dryer is if major changes occur in air patterns - or geology. Since most geology will remain about as we know it over the span of a hundred years or so (modulo supervolcanoes) it makes it especially puzzling to claim that areas of Southern Europe will not only bet warmer, but dryer...
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells. The heating of the air at the equator (really the point on the Earth where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the surface) causes air to rise. As it rises it cools and the water vapor precipitates out creating the tropical zones where there is a lot of precipitation. Once the air reaches the tropopause it spreads out horizontally until it reaches about 30 degrees north and south. Then the air drops back to the surface and as it drops back it is adabatically heated and and becomes drier relatively. Where the Hadley cells drop their air back to the surface is where most of the great deserts of the world like the Sahara are located.
Studies have found that global warming increases the strength of the cells slightly leading to perhaps a 2 degree expansion of the northern and southern boundaries of the Hadley cells. The moves those boundaries closer to Southern Europe which means the area along the Mediterranean Sea is likely to get a bit dryer. That's why it's not puzzling that Southern Europe would become dryer in a globally warming world.
The physical reality of global warming doesn't give a damn about your conspiracy theories. It's happening whether you like it or not. Denying that reality is just going to whack you upside the face when it hits you personally.
Two years of cooling in meaningless in the context of climate. The noise produced by natural variability is enough to overwhelm the signal of global warming for as much as about 20 years so looking at periods of less than that is fooling yourself. A drop of 0.56 degrees Celsius in 2 or 3 years is not something that is unexpected, it's just natural variability. If it's still cooling by sometime in the mid 2030s then you're on to something, otherwise you're just letting your bias mislead you.
The target dates come and go but the problem with global warming is that it's a slow moving problem. The target dates may be accurate but the effects of what they mean may not become fully manifest for 20 or 30 years and by then it's way too late to fix it. For instance the last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm the climate was much warmer than it is now and sea levels were about 70 feet higher than they are at the moment. It may be that is already baked in and in 400 or 500 years we will see sea levels that much higher. The great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica don't melt instantaneously relative to the temperature they're exposed to but melt they will until they reach a new equilibrium. So we may see 5 or 6 feet of SLR by the end of this century and maybe 15-20 feet by 2200 but it won't stop there. That NYC will be underwater sooner or later is almost a sure thing now. it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there. But no scientist who studies SLR would have expected it to be underwater by 2015 except for the unlikely possibility of a non-linear collapse of something like the Pine Island Glacier area which if it happened catastrophically could add several feet of SLR in a matter of a decade or two, a very unlikely event but not impossible.
You have it kind of backwards. There is not more radiation hitting the Earth as a result of global warming. What is happening is that the radiation leaving the Earth that balances the incoming radiation is being slowed down by greenhouse gases resulting in warmer surface temperatures.
Climate change may be real but also will take decades or centuries to have substantial impact.
It's already starting to have substantial impacts in places and that will just grow as time goes on. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
King tides and sea level rise
Since there is absolutely no theoretical link between higher CO2 levels and global temperatures, ...
Where in the world do you get that shit? The link between CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and other global temperatures lies in the absorption spectrum of said gases. They absorb infrared radiation and slow down it's progress out of the atmosphere. It would be astounding if an increase in greenhouse gases did not cause an increase in global temperatures.
The biggest sign of how climate models are inadequate is that *not a single one* has shown to predict the climate or even the trend at any level of accuracy. They are all far off from actual observations.
Here is a comparison of climate model projections to observations. They show good agreement between the two:
Climate Model Projections Compared to Observations
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do! So, we need to get over worrying about this whole, "Climate change" thing. It's not as if we are somehow morally culpable to anyone. So... why should we really care?
(Unless, of course, we are morally culpable for our stewardship of the planet. But that would presuppose some higher being to which we are morally culpable - which is not scientific, and so, CANNOT be true. So, let's just get over ourselves a bit and live life!)
The issue isn't about anything moral or bullshit like that. The issue is can our modern worldwide civilization survive the changes that global warming/climate change will cause. If we want to preserve this civilization we need to do something about that. Humans won't go extinct but we might have a massive collapse of population and have civilization fall back to a 19th or even 18th century level just because there won't be enough people to support the kind of civilization we have now.
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
Then why do climate alarmists resort to hysterical name-calling by labeling people who don't buy into their religion heretics, errr, deniers?
If it were about actual science, skepticism wouldn't be met with ridicule.
Skepticism is one thing but when the same old argument has been refuted thousands of times it's no longer skepticism but denial. A true skeptic is willing to listen to the arguments from all sides and consider which is more credible. No matter how skeptical you may be you can't change the physical reality.
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
No you don't remember because it never happened. Nobody with any scientific credibility said NYC would be underwater by 2022. The might have said that they will be washed over by a storm surge like that which Sandy gave them but not that it would remain underwater. Mostly where you get that is some hyperbolic statement by someone trying to whip up fools like you who buy it lock. stock and barrel.
Modern science didn't really get going until maybe the 1600s or 1700s. There was lots of low hanging fruit to discover that could be understood with the relatively crude instrumentation of the time (although good thermometers have been available for about 300 years). Nowadays we're getting more into the details and there are fewer and fewer fundamental things to discover, just things built on those fundamentals. It's like the development of the airplane. Once the Wright brothers got their airplane flying there was rapid advancement in the field for 30 or 40 years but how much has the basic outlines of an airplane changed since then? Once the jet turbine was discovered it's just mostly a lot of refinement on the basic concept.
I meant to say "one of the top 2 or existential threats".
Note that all of these were FREE, unlike climate change "research" which is a vortex sucking all our research dollars these days.
Considering that global warming/climate change is probably one of the top 2 or 3 threats to our global civilization it's probably worth putting money into it. I know a lot of you don't think it's that big a deal but you can deny the physics behind it and you're going to have to deal with it in the future.
This comment is redundant but who would want to live in Oklahoma. It certainly wouldn't be me. If I wasn't retired and was working remotely I can think of a thousand other places I'd rather live than Oklahoma. I guess if you're just getting started on your career it could be kind of attractive but you usually don't get the privilege of working remotely until you've proven yourself.
Yes, my memory had failed me a bit. Wordmark is the correct term and you are correct that the addressing didn't start at 0. Funny how that happens as you age but I haven't done anything with a 1401 since about 1984. I know bytes is not the correct term but I think it's more relatable to most people here to denote the set of bits that make up a character.
As far as hardware multiply/divide we didn't have that on the one I worked on. As I said it was purchased for the school I attended by an old ex-IBM guy who was teaching on it and he was pretty old school and didn't have a big budget to work with. Our system only had 4K of memory and IIRC you could get up to 16K for the 1401.
The machine was used at the school to teach the students about the basic internal working of a computer and being decimal it was more user friendly to the many students who started from ground zero (I was a bit more advanced than most of them being in my early 30s at the time and having written some FORTRAN and Basic programs earlier in my life).
In a production environment I'm sure you had all sorts of standardized things like a card loader but we didn't have any of that for our classes. As I said below we wrote our programs, put the deck in the reader and pushed start then we were on our own. So the first card in the deck would for example copy the contents of memory addresses 41-80 up to memory addresses 501-540 then do a card read and branch back to address 1 for the next card which would repeat a similar sequence until the program was fully loaded. Once that was done the last cards of the deck then consisted of the data being input to the program.
I never worked in a production environment for a 1401.
Hmm, you stumped me. Neither of those ring a bell but it's been 35 years since I worked on one. Usually the first part of the cards in my deck was to move my program code toward the end of the card into memory starting at address 500 then read the next card and branch to 0 for the next bit of program. Of course the 1401 wasn't binary but decimal.