Debunked in the sense that they don't hold up to scrutiny. However, you are correct that before satellites, we have to rely on proxies (sunspot records, isotopes in trees, etc), our best extrapolation for this is that solar output has changed little especially when compared with the forcing we know comes from greenhouse gasses (see above).
In summary this theory imagines that low cloud formation is promoted by increased cosmic rays that form cloud condensation nuclei. Changes in solar output cause changes in the amount of cosmic rays that reach earth to do this. Low clouds increases the planet's albedo which reduces forcing. However, the theory suffers from a number of problems including not being able to reconcile the size of nuclei produced and the size of the nuclei needed to form clouds (there is an order of magnitude difference); not explaining preference of nuclei formed in this manner versus other nuclei in even greater abundance such as salt particles; not providing observations on actual additional low cloud formation and the effect; and finally this theory must suppose a long term trend in cosmic particles to account for the long term in global temperature change, and there is none.
These are really really rehashes of thoroughly debunked arguments. We already know that solar output effects the energy that the Earth absorbs, we observe the output of the Sun directly, we know exactly how different solar output changes from year to year. We know the variability between solar output during solar output peak and trough -- it's 0.1% The total solar forcing can be calculated directly it's 237 Watts/M^2. So from sunspot peak to trough the forcing changes by.24 watts/M^2. We know the effect of greenhouse gas change (in particular CO2) since pre-industrial times on forcing. It's 2.43 watts/M^2 see for example The 2001 IPCC Report.
It is true that solar output is high especially high for the past 80 years see solar variation but even the change between now and the Maunder Minimum (.2%) does not compare to forcing from greenhouse gasses.
Every 100 years there is an event of exploration that sets the tone for the century. Lewis and Clark in 1803-1805 explored the West and set the tone for westward expansion during the 1800's. In 1903 Horatio Nelson made the first transcontinental trip by automobile and set the tone of travel by automobile during the 1900's. An now in 2004 with the fulfillment of the X prize, the tone is set for expansion into space. So don't lose heart! for placing impediments in front of such a swell is like trying to control a tsunami with a fishing net.
Before tonight your words might have had some sway. But the debate has revealed your and your reactionry overlords accusations as the phantasms they are. Get thee gone, demonet and don't return until you have brewed up something fresh.
Re:ESO's big telescope already in operation...
on
Antarctic Telescope?
·
· Score: 1
The original slashdot Dome C thread (mentioned earlier) link to the article http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/nature/ that discusses the Antarctic project advantages in fact does state that better seeing due to greatly reduced turbulence is the main point. They do mention that the infrared night sky in Antartica is much darker in addition, however. They also dispute adaptive optics:
Can't adaptive optics improve the images from a mid-latitude observatory?
To some extent yes, but you will always win by starting with better natural seeing. Adaptive optics is a technique for cancelling out atmospheric turbulence by using deformable mirrors (i.e., mirrors that can change shape hundreds of times per second to compensate for the atmosphere). Adaptive optics allows you to extract the maximum performance from a given observing site. However, the technique has a number of problems: it only sharpens the image in the immediate vicinity of reference star(s) or laser beam(s), it is largely limited to infrared wavelengths, it leads to errors in measuring the brightness of stars, and it is very expensive. There are no realistic prospects for achieving significant adaptive optics correction at visible wavelengths at mid-latitude observatories.
However, ESO has in operation an optical AO telescope that improves seeing by a factor of 10 while the VLT is in fact an optical wavelength interferometer. Also they have plans for OWL with a resolution of.001 arcsecond (hubble is.05).
ESO's big telescope already in operation...
on
Antarctic Telescope?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The VLT and in particular VLTI http://www.eso.org/ (I for interferometry) have been up and running for a while. In fact here's a quote about adaptive optics from 2001
Normally, the achievable image sharpness of a ground-based telescope is limited by the effect of atmospheric turbulence. However, with the Adaptive Optics (AO) technique, this drawback can be overcome and the telescope produces images that are at the theoretical limit, i.e., as sharp as if it were in space.
The site at Paranal have 4 8.5 meter telescopes and interferometry can can equate their imaging to the distance they stand apart.
Neither are really happy with the situation, I think, because neither are entirely right nor entirely wrong. Additionally, it's a complicated enough problem that it's hard to make people understand during a speech or for that matter a debate. Here's a page with a link to Alan Greenspan's Testimony on the budget and Economic Outlook. It's 2 hours long, but illuminating. For those of you with comission-ADD, I'll try to summarize.
1) The retirement of Baby Boomers will begin by 2008 and will be a real concern by 2012.
2) At this point it's NOT a good idea to pay for SS with borrowed money.
3) Generally speaking, tax cuts are not a good way to bring about economic turnaround in the short term.
4) In this case, it turned out that these tax cuts did help bring about economic turnaround.
5) It is never true that the improved economic situation brought about by tax cuts will fully pay for the loss of tax revenue by improving the tax base; it is, however, always true that it will pay for some. Additionally, no one knows just how much.
6) It is true that more jobs have been lost during this presidential term than any other, it is also true that productivity is it's highest ever. Moreover, it appears that the 2nd is in part causing the first.
7) The government does not sequester SS funds, it spends them.
8) We are indeed on tract towards complete instability. We are nowhere near this however, and have plenty of time to remedy things. But, things must change. As one would expect, the longer we wait, the harder the problem becomes. The ultimate situation of instability has never happened in the United States and it is unlikely it will this time, we can however revisit stagflation of the 1980's if we are not careful.
9) PAYGO is a good idea.
10) The tax code of 1986 is a good idea.
11) It would be best to cut taxes AND cut spending.
12) Ask another economist and he might say something different.
Now, both the Democrats and the Republicans embrace different aspects and reject others of the above points. Democrats don't like the fact that Bush's Tax cuts actually brought about change for the good. Republican's don't like that it's nevertheless not sound and not all rosey. Rebuplicans don't like PAYGO, Democrats don't like (I guess) the 1986 code as it was drafted under the previous Bush administration. Dems don't like 6) because of the productivity increase makes things look good for Republicans, Republicans don't like 6) because job losses make them look bad.
As for my opinion, I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one. There's no reason to not reinstitute PAYGO and to obstruct it is unwise.
I recall an interview of somone that had been polled 6 times and said he had intentionally misled the pollsters so as to throw off those changing their politics based on those polls. With this in mind, I can think of a few things that would make such a device a better predictor. First, it's voluntary. Second, if one is playing with their own money, there's a real incentive to contribute honestly. Third, as there must surely be a continum of reasoning behind one's vote, a poll could tend to oversimplify responses subject to the poll maker's presuppositions. Forth, the lure of making money could tend to increase participation.
Now that said, at least one disadvantage is this does not measure the tendency for someone to vote a certain way, but rather how he thinks everyone will vote and is thus a measure of our ability taken in the aggregate as analysts.
The amygdala has also been linked to preceptions of "cosmic-connectedness," for want of a better word, or better yet the deep belief of existance of God Nova: 'Secrets of the Mind' and so therefore one would expect the more religious to be Democrats not Republicans.
Say rather than the RIAA is within their rights, not justified.
Claiming they are justified because there's a law that allows them to do so it merely an appeal to authority and specious.
I wont mince words; although, like others, I welcome an acceptable middle ground, I reject the notion that the RIAA has an absolute right to resort to any tactic to prevent themselves being put out of business.
Having a chip or download that plugs in to the book, but the concept of pages is retained.
Having the possibility of archiving the e-book contents wirelessly, so a book shelf becomes a fileserver.
Animation.
Touchscreen-like interaction.
But until the book feel can be achieved, I will be hesitant to purchase them. If I could argue for continuing with e-books anyway, I'd say keep developing the other features -- it really is a whole new medium and wait for the arrival of E-Ink for profitability.
...This could have really helped our image alot...
Could have? Can you mean. What's so hard about becoming accreditted, raising the money, and sending a "delegation" there anyway?
I'd bet the Free software foundation, and/or some combination of apache/gnome/kernel coodinators or some high profile collage or higher education group would be accepted.
As far as raising enough money to send some guys to Geneva for a week. How much is that anyway? $20000? That's only $20 from 1000 people.
It might be that unnamed members of the military-industrial complex are conspiring aginst us, but we're still rich -- all of us -- by world standards. Twenty dollars, that's nothing,
Yet another time in which we're sending a flurry of email at the last minute with dubious effect. It would have been much better to begin sending in comments sometime between now and back in 1999 when they started deliberations on this. Is there no web site/group that actually keeps tabs on these things? We need to start the discussion at the beginning, or at least as soon as possible rather than 12 hours before time is up.
Yes, the program brought up this point as well; it's true that the pollen Bt-corn releases is heavy and does not move very far away from the corn field (5-20 ft??). One resercher pointed out, however, that most of the milkweed was located in the corn field, not alongside. As for the potential for creating Bt-resistant strains, there's no doubt at all.
Now w.r.t. the potential salmon problem and upon rewiew of the website video; firstly, the point was that Aqua Bounty appeared to be more interested in solving the problem of making fast-growing salmon than solving the problem of making eco-friendly-fast-growing salmon. Secondly, I think what I said at first is misleading, perhaps instead of "would die from lack of food" I should have said "would tend to die from lack of food." The model predicts that they do not all die at once, but within 38 generations. Lastly, not all of the fish are guaranteed to be sterile, though 100% are guaranteed to female and though not being an expert on salmon and thus I don't know how precise salmon are when finding a place to spawn, nor when that location is imprinted, I would imagine they are not always 100% accurate. How else would salmon tend to spread?
So, the possibility is probably very remote, but the consequence is dire:
If a super-salmon escapes into the wild and if that salmon is fertile and if that salmon manages to spawn and if the model predicts correctly, then Atlantic salmon become extinct.
As mentioned earlier, NOVA and Frontline did a great program back in April on GM Foods. The page is here . As I remember, the main points were:
1) Bt-Corn affects in particular all species in the order Lepidoptera (moths,butterflys), not just ones that attack corn, hense the effect on the Monarch butterfly whose chief food source, milkweed, is found mostly in and around corn fields. And as alluded to earlier, when pollenating, the poison is released 24x7 making it both very effective but at the same time more likely to give rise to super-tolerant strains.
2) Other new crops in-test, planned, or already here include vitamin-A-containing (Golden) rice, aluminum-fixating corn, virus resistant sweet potatos, and hepititus-vaccine-carrying bannanas.
3) Although the US could opt not to use GM-foods, though at this point it would be problematic, and pay for food at an increased price, this is not viable for the 3rd world.
4) It appears that people are not concerned enough about the consequences if they mess up. In particular, there is this one company this wants to make a super-salmon. Their projections indicate that in the coming years, aquaculture will need to be 7 times more productive. They have modified salmon to not stop growing in the winter as normal salmon do. The result is salmon that are ready 4 times faster. But normal salmon don't grow in the winter because if they did, they would die from lack of food in the wild. Now take into account observation shows that salmon 25% larger are 400% more likely to mate. One mathematical model predicts that if enough of these super-salmon escape into the wild (many 1000's do every year), the potential is that all salmon could be wiped out. Sobering
Some scenarios I can think of:
1) 8.6% is actually correct and our perspective is biased given that we have greater brain capacity. This site for instance is 100% linux, the company I work for has about 50%, and the guys upstairs maybe 10%, but the guys upstairs are IT-idiots, they really, really are. I mean, the term idiot is by no means inaccurate here; their IT-IQ 60; they're friggin dumbasses, hoo-boy! You can bet they don't read slash-dot, and there are probably (conjecture) a whole bunch more like 'em.
2) Linux based OS does not require the most powerful computer. As mentioned above, older computers are easily fast enough for the tasks for which linux is a desireable OS. So a strategy is buy a new computer, put Win on it, convert old computer that used to run Win to linux. This is mentioned in the linked-to rebuttal, but is this good or bad? Doesn't sound too good for Redhat. How much of the 24% vs 8.6% disparity does this account for? What for instance is the % of new computers that were bought to replace an old computer that wasn't quite fast enough? Given that linux is more efficient, replacing a linux based host would tend not to happen as often as an MS based host. Maybe everyone purchased their linux-oriented host in Q2, didn't need to replace it in Q3. Could a linux host double up on tasks? If the CPU tends to be under utilized due to better OS effencicy, why not?
3) MS apps by nature require multiple hosts. Now this is big-time conjecture I am by no means a Win sys-admin. Is it typical that a windows host is dedicated to one task or can it easily do many? I only mention it because it sure seems to be the case at the company I work at. Printer server host, domain administration host, back-up host, source-code-repository host, etc. Or is it a trait of windows sys-admins?
4) Economics led to purchasing slowdown. Q3 seems kinda far away from Q1 2001, but maybe things were already starting to fall apart then. Redhat's stock dropped, companys grew hesitant and/or all those.com early adopters of linux were running out of money and/or companys made due with the hardware they could and only invested in new machines when absolutely necessary given 2 and 3, this would be a preponderance of MS-based hosts.
With so much left up to conjecture one asks what is the merit of presenting a number of 8.6% to the world. I can only imagine it's PR aimed aginst Redhat. I think I need to go buy a copy. Up till now, I've been fine with the free downloads, but really, after installing it on every single computer I own (except the mac) I think I owe them something.
-Jeff
From a cursory reading, this approach does not seem to fix what it's aiming to fix.
I noted the claim that AVES non-subscribers need not change anything. But DNS A records (which these AVES non-subscibers will be using) only supply the IP address. And so they must be referred to some helper IP (I imagine that what these waypoints are).
Any traffic ment for (H,P), instead goes to (W,P) where H = hidden host, W = waypoint proxy for H, and P = port. If true, this doesn't help much because the waypoint can't be the proxy for 2 different hidden hosts at the same time same port which is the typical case, actually. In the worst case, every hidden host will be contacted at the same time, which will require as many waypoints as there are hidden hosts, requiring as many routable IP addresses as there are non-routable ones, which doesn't avoid the problem at all.
But perhaps, the idea is that the worst case doesn't happen and/or connection requests can be postponed until a waypoint is free. I have 3 problems with this. 1) This will only work for transfers like HTTP where the connection time is very small as compared to very long lived connections like ftp-data (minutes to hours) or even telnet (days and days). 2) It is not at all obvious that the waypoints can be coordinated with the AVES DNS server to avoid a TINY-gram fest/administrative nightmare. 3) Thumbs it's nose at DNS cacheing.
We need a war to distract us and our elected officials from even considering such frivolousness.
How can anyone equate the innocous though irksome act of sending unrequested email with a criminal act requiring a one year sentence? If receiving a little email we don't want or having to install an email filter is the only price we must pay to preserve the 1st Admendment untainted, then we must certainly count ourselves most lucky.
I find it ironic that the same page presents censorship to conform to local laws in essentially a bad light while unnecessary censorship is presented as laudable.
As for me, I like getting spam! Keeps my middle finger fit from typing 'd' repeatedly. And who knows? Maybe some day ill want to 'Find anything out about anyone' or purchase some of Dr. Nygun Van Hump's Miracle HGH tonic.
What was that quote from Lawrence of Arabia?...Young men fight wars and old men make the peace. The virtues of war are the virtues of young men: passion and hope for the future while the vices of peace are the vices of old men: fear and mistrust. It must be so...
> Just like it's no longer considered 'free speech' to draw up a 'hit list' of people to target You mean like this? - Homer's Revenge List: - Bill of Rights - Grandpa - fat free lard - gravity - Emmys - Darwin - H2WHOA! - Billy Crystal - God - Soloflex - the boy - Stern Lecture Plumbing - Econo Save
Circumvention itself is not illegal until next year. Currently, only offering circumvention devices to the public is deemed illegal by the DMCA.
Also you're right that the legality of DeCSS has not yet been decided; the court date is not until December. Importantly, there is a preliminary injunction barring only a small number from posting it (maybe just 2600.com now), not any old site.
Slashdot Mirror
Debunked in the sense that they don't hold up to scrutiny. However, you are correct that before satellites, we have to rely on proxies (sunspot records, isotopes in trees, etc), our best extrapolation for this is that solar output has changed little especially when compared with the forcing we know comes from greenhouse gasses (see above).
You're referring to Svensmark ? There are problems with this theory. Take a look at this this this and in particular this
In summary this theory imagines that low cloud formation is promoted by increased cosmic rays that form cloud condensation nuclei. Changes in solar output cause changes in the amount of cosmic rays that reach earth to do this. Low clouds increases the planet's albedo which reduces forcing. However, the theory suffers from a number of problems including not being able to reconcile the size of nuclei produced and the size of the nuclei needed to form clouds (there is an order of magnitude difference); not explaining preference of nuclei formed in this manner versus other nuclei in even greater abundance such as salt particles; not providing observations on actual additional low cloud formation and the effect; and finally this theory must suppose a long term trend in cosmic particles to account for the long term in global temperature change, and there is none.
These are really really rehashes of thoroughly debunked arguments. We already know that solar output effects the energy that the Earth absorbs, we observe the output of the Sun directly, we know exactly how different solar output changes from year to year. We know the variability between solar output during solar output peak and trough -- it's 0.1% The total solar forcing can be calculated directly it's 237 Watts/M^2. So from sunspot peak to trough the forcing changes by .24 watts/M^2. We know the effect of greenhouse gas change (in particular CO2) since pre-industrial times on forcing. It's 2.43 watts/M^2 see for example The 2001 IPCC Report.
It is true that solar output is high especially high for the past 80 years see solar variation but even the change between now and the Maunder Minimum (.2%) does not compare to forcing from greenhouse gasses.
Every 100 years there is an event of exploration that sets the tone for the century. Lewis and Clark in 1803-1805 explored the West and set the tone for westward expansion during the 1800's. In 1903 Horatio Nelson made the first transcontinental trip by automobile and set the tone of travel by automobile during the 1900's. An now in 2004 with the fulfillment of the X prize, the tone is set for expansion into space. So don't lose heart! for placing impediments in front of such a swell is like trying to control a tsunami with a fishing net.
Before tonight your words might have had some sway. But the debate has revealed your and your reactionry overlords accusations as the phantasms they are. Get thee gone, demonet and don't return until you have brewed up something fresh.
However, ESO has in operation an optical AO telescope that improves seeing by a factor of 10 while the VLT is in fact an optical wavelength interferometer. Also they have plans for OWL with a resolution of
The site at Paranal have 4 8.5 meter telescopes and interferometry can can equate their imaging to the distance they stand apart.
I wonder who is running on the "I hate the Bush and the US" ticket.
Neither are really happy with the situation, I think, because neither are entirely right nor entirely wrong. Additionally, it's a complicated enough problem that it's hard to make people understand during a speech or for that matter a debate. Here's a page with a link to Alan Greenspan's Testimony on the budget and Economic Outlook. It's 2 hours long, but illuminating. For those of you with comission-ADD, I'll try to summarize.
1) The retirement of Baby Boomers will begin by 2008 and will be a real concern by 2012.
2) At this point it's NOT a good idea to pay for SS with borrowed money.
3) Generally speaking, tax cuts are not a good way to bring about economic turnaround in the short term.
4) In this case, it turned out that these tax cuts did help bring about economic turnaround.
5) It is never true that the improved economic situation brought about by tax cuts will fully pay for the loss of tax revenue by improving the tax base; it is, however, always true that it will pay for some. Additionally, no one knows just how much.
6) It is true that more jobs have been lost during this presidential term than any other, it is also true that productivity is it's highest ever. Moreover, it appears that the 2nd is in part causing the first.
7) The government does not sequester SS funds, it spends them.
8) We are indeed on tract towards complete instability. We are nowhere near this however, and have plenty of time to remedy things. But, things must change. As one would expect, the longer we wait, the harder the problem becomes. The ultimate situation of instability has never happened in the United States and it is unlikely it will this time, we can however revisit stagflation of the 1980's if we are not careful.
9) PAYGO is a good idea.
10) The tax code of 1986 is a good idea.
11) It would be best to cut taxes AND cut spending.
12) Ask another economist and he might say something different.
Now, both the Democrats and the Republicans embrace different aspects and reject others of the above points. Democrats don't like the fact that Bush's Tax cuts actually brought about change for the good. Republican's don't like that it's nevertheless not sound and not all rosey. Rebuplicans don't like PAYGO, Democrats don't like (I guess) the 1986 code as it was drafted under the previous Bush administration. Dems don't like 6) because of the productivity increase makes things look good for Republicans, Republicans don't like 6) because job losses make them look bad.
As for my opinion, I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one. There's no reason to not reinstitute PAYGO and to obstruct it is unwise.
Come to your senses, sir.
I recall an interview of somone that had been polled 6 times and said he had intentionally misled the pollsters so as to throw off those changing their politics based on those polls. With this in mind, I can think of a few things that would make such a device a better predictor. First, it's voluntary. Second, if one is playing with their own money, there's a real incentive to contribute honestly. Third, as there must surely be a continum of reasoning behind one's vote, a poll could tend to oversimplify responses subject to the poll maker's presuppositions. Forth, the lure of making money could tend to increase participation.
Now that said, at least one disadvantage is this does not measure the tendency for someone to vote a certain way, but rather how he thinks everyone will vote and is thus a measure of our ability taken in the aggregate as analysts.
The amygdala has also been linked to preceptions of "cosmic-connectedness," for want of a better word, or better yet the deep belief of existance of God Nova: 'Secrets of the Mind' and so therefore one would expect the more religious to be Democrats not Republicans.
Say rather than the RIAA is within their rights, not justified.
Claiming they are justified because there's a law that allows them to do so it merely an appeal to authority and specious.
I wont mince words; although, like others, I welcome an acceptable middle ground, I reject the notion that the RIAA has an absolute right to resort to any tactic to prevent themselves being put out of business.
Here are some things that would appeal to me about an e-book once they solve the E-Paper problem as reported in slashdot here:
Electronic Paper Advances
E-Paper Moves Closer
Electronic Ink
Having a chip or download that plugs in to the book, but the concept of pages is retained.
Having the possibility of archiving the e-book contents wirelessly, so a book shelf becomes a fileserver.
Animation.
Touchscreen-like interaction.
But until the book feel can be achieved, I will be hesitant to purchase them. If I could argue for continuing with e-books anyway, I'd say keep developing the other features -- it really is a whole new medium and wait for the arrival of E-Ink for profitability.
...This could have really helped our image alot...
Could have? Can you mean. What's so hard about becoming accreditted, raising the money, and sending a "delegation" there anyway?
I'd bet the Free software foundation, and/or some combination of apache/gnome/kernel coodinators or some high profile collage or higher education group would be accepted.
As far as raising enough money to send some guys to Geneva for a week. How much is that anyway? $20000? That's only $20 from 1000 people.
It might be that unnamed members of the military-industrial complex are conspiring aginst us, but we're still rich -- all of us -- by world standards. Twenty dollars, that's nothing,
> Revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night
That's not how that goes, you knucklehead! It's
"Blinded by the light, racked up like a dozen, a mutha has no time to fight."
Yet another time in which we're sending a flurry of email at the last minute with dubious effect. It would have been much better to begin sending in comments sometime between now and back in 1999 when they started deliberations on this. Is there no web site/group that actually keeps tabs on these things? We need to start the discussion at the beginning, or at least as soon as possible rather than 12 hours before time is up.
Now w.r.t. the potential salmon problem and upon rewiew of the website video; firstly, the point was that Aqua Bounty appeared to be more interested in solving the problem of making fast-growing salmon than solving the problem of making eco-friendly-fast-growing salmon. Secondly, I think what I said at first is misleading, perhaps instead of "would die from lack of food" I should have said "would tend to die from lack of food." The model predicts that they do not all die at once, but within 38 generations. Lastly, not all of the fish are guaranteed to be sterile, though 100% are guaranteed to female and though not being an expert on salmon and thus I don't know how precise salmon are when finding a place to spawn, nor when that location is imprinted, I would imagine they are not always 100% accurate. How else would salmon tend to spread?
So, the possibility is probably very remote, but the consequence is dire:
If a super-salmon escapes into the wild and if that salmon is fertile and if that salmon manages to spawn and if the model predicts correctly, then Atlantic salmon become extinct.
That at least should be reson for inquiry.
1) Bt-Corn affects in particular all species in the order Lepidoptera (moths,butterflys), not just ones that attack corn, hense the effect on the Monarch butterfly whose chief food source, milkweed, is found mostly in and around corn fields. And as alluded to earlier, when pollenating, the poison is released 24x7 making it both very effective but at the same time more likely to give rise to super-tolerant strains.
2) Other new crops in-test, planned, or already here include vitamin-A-containing (Golden) rice, aluminum-fixating corn, virus resistant sweet potatos, and hepititus-vaccine-carrying bannanas.
3) Although the US could opt not to use GM-foods, though at this point it would be problematic, and pay for food at an increased price, this is not viable for the 3rd world.
4) It appears that people are not concerned enough about the consequences if they mess up. In particular, there is this one company this wants to make a super-salmon. Their projections indicate that in the coming years, aquaculture will need to be 7 times more productive. They have modified salmon to not stop growing in the winter as normal salmon do. The result is salmon that are ready 4 times faster. But normal salmon don't grow in the winter because if they did, they would die from lack of food in the wild. Now take into account observation shows that salmon 25% larger are 400% more likely to mate. One mathematical model predicts that if enough of these super-salmon escape into the wild (many 1000's do every year), the potential is that all salmon could be wiped out. Sobering
Some scenarios I can think of: 1) 8.6% is actually correct and our perspective is biased given that we have greater brain capacity. This site for instance is 100% linux, the company I work for has about 50%, and the guys upstairs maybe 10%, but the guys upstairs are IT-idiots, they really, really are. I mean, the term idiot is by no means inaccurate here; their IT-IQ 60; they're friggin dumbasses, hoo-boy! You can bet they don't read slash-dot, and there are probably (conjecture) a whole bunch more like 'em. 2) Linux based OS does not require the most powerful computer. As mentioned above, older computers are easily fast enough for the tasks for which linux is a desireable OS. So a strategy is buy a new computer, put Win on it, convert old computer that used to run Win to linux. This is mentioned in the linked-to rebuttal, but is this good or bad? Doesn't sound too good for Redhat. How much of the 24% vs 8.6% disparity does this account for? What for instance is the % of new computers that were bought to replace an old computer that wasn't quite fast enough? Given that linux is more efficient, replacing a linux based host would tend not to happen as often as an MS based host. Maybe everyone purchased their linux-oriented host in Q2, didn't need to replace it in Q3. Could a linux host double up on tasks? If the CPU tends to be under utilized due to better OS effencicy, why not? 3) MS apps by nature require multiple hosts. Now this is big-time conjecture I am by no means a Win sys-admin. Is it typical that a windows host is dedicated to one task or can it easily do many? I only mention it because it sure seems to be the case at the company I work at. Printer server host, domain administration host, back-up host, source-code-repository host, etc. Or is it a trait of windows sys-admins? 4) Economics led to purchasing slowdown. Q3 seems kinda far away from Q1 2001, but maybe things were already starting to fall apart then. Redhat's stock dropped, companys grew hesitant and/or all those .com early adopters of linux were running out of money and/or companys made due with the hardware they could and only invested in new machines when absolutely necessary given 2 and 3, this would be a preponderance of MS-based hosts.
With so much left up to conjecture one asks what is the merit of presenting a number of 8.6% to the world. I can only imagine it's PR aimed aginst Redhat. I think I need to go buy a copy. Up till now, I've been fine with the free downloads, but really, after installing it on every single computer I own (except the mac) I think I owe them something.
-Jeff
From a cursory reading, this approach does not seem to fix what it's aiming to fix.
I noted the claim that AVES non-subscribers need not change anything. But DNS A records (which these AVES non-subscibers will be using) only supply the IP address. And so they must be referred to some helper IP (I imagine that what these waypoints are).
Any traffic ment for (H,P), instead goes to (W,P) where H = hidden host, W = waypoint proxy for H, and P = port. If true, this doesn't help much because the waypoint can't be the proxy for 2 different hidden hosts at the same time same port which is the typical case, actually. In the worst case, every hidden host will be contacted at the same time, which will require as many waypoints as there are hidden hosts, requiring as many routable IP addresses as there are non-routable ones, which doesn't avoid the problem at all.
But perhaps, the idea is that the worst case doesn't happen and/or connection requests can be postponed until a waypoint is free. I have 3 problems with this. 1) This will only work for transfers like HTTP where the connection time is very small as compared to very long lived connections like ftp-data (minutes to hours) or even telnet (days and days). 2) It is not at all obvious that the waypoints can be coordinated with the AVES DNS server to avoid a TINY-gram fest/administrative nightmare. 3) Thumbs it's nose at DNS cacheing.
Play la cucaracha when you honk the horn?
We need a war to distract us and our elected officials from even considering such frivolousness. How can anyone equate the innocous though irksome act of sending unrequested email with a criminal act requiring a one year sentence? If receiving a little email we don't want or having to install an email filter is the only price we must pay to preserve the 1st Admendment untainted, then we must certainly count ourselves most lucky. I find it ironic that the same page presents censorship to conform to local laws in essentially a bad light while unnecessary censorship is presented as laudable. As for me, I like getting spam! Keeps my middle finger fit from typing 'd' repeatedly. And who knows? Maybe some day ill want to 'Find anything out about anyone' or purchase some of Dr. Nygun Van Hump's Miracle HGH tonic. What was that quote from Lawrence of Arabia? ...Young men fight wars and old men make the peace. The virtues of war are the virtues of young men: passion and hope for the future while the vices of peace are the vices of old men: fear and mistrust. It must be so...
> Just like it's no longer considered 'free speech' to draw up a 'hit list' of people to target You mean like this? - Homer's Revenge List: - Bill of Rights - Grandpa - fat free lard - gravity - Emmys - Darwin - H2WHOA! - Billy Crystal - God - Soloflex - the boy - Stern Lecture Plumbing - Econo Save
Circumvention itself is not illegal until next year. Currently, only offering circumvention
devices to the public is deemed illegal by the
DMCA.
Also you're right that the legality of DeCSS
has not yet been decided; the court date is not
until December. Importantly, there is
a preliminary injunction barring only a small
number from posting it (maybe just 2600.com now),
not any old site.
http://cryptome.org/
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/
are good sites to keep up on this case