Computer modeling is only useful if the model can be tested for correctness. If it can't all it is a hypothesis in software form.
Core sampling is not a test of climate theory, its a way to gather data upon which to create a theory.
Average global temperature analysis and prediction very closely resembles finical price movement analysis and prediction. In both field there is lots of historical data and there are attempts to create models that will predict what will happen in the future based on what has happened in the past. There is a ton of money to made from a model that can consistently and accurately predict were prices will go and as a result there has been a huge investment in attempts to create such models, but has anyone yet managed to create one that is consistently and accurately predict were prices will go? Not that I'm aware of; I see no reason why a field (climatology) that is significantly less well funded would produce a more accurate and consistent model.
There is a third possiblity: groupthink
Just because group of people believe something that isn't actually correct and true doesn't mean they are consciously doing so and conscious choice is require for a conspiracy.
The problem with so-called climate science is that it isn't science at all, as it isn't possible to get any further through the scientific method then forming a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis, it is necessary to repeatedly do controlled experiments and compare the results for consistency. The problem with so called climate science is that we can't do any controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, so there is no way to prove any of the hypothesis regrading the climate to be correct. If the scientific method can not be fully utilized in a field of study, then it isn't science at all.
Smog is not caused by CO2. If there was no CO2 in the air there would be no plants. I'd guess your not even aware that you are exhaling CO2, as is every other animal on this planet, but rather you've just repeating the CO2 is bad mantra without having the slightest understanding of the role CO2 plays in the ecosystem.
Not really. The article stated "exactly correct answer of 70%", but 70% is only accurate to one significant digit, and one significant digit can't not be reasonably be called exact in most contexts including this one.
Voice isn't always a feasible interface, such as when one is in a meeting or when one is using the computer while watching TV that others are also watching.
Because it adds additional cost, volume, and weight. Same goes for speakers. My plasma TV has neither speakers nor a tuner. The Tivo has a tuner in it so why do I need tuner in the TV? Before Tivo I had digital cable and had a box for that so again the TV didn't need a tuner.
Re:I'm not dead yet
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
On occasion I do sit on the couch with a laptop, but I currently don't have any reason to hookup a computer to the TV, since my electric, adjustable height desk with two high resolution monitors is only 2 feet away from the couch (I can see my TV from my desk as well as the couch). At some point I may rip all of my DVDs onto a RAID array and then I'd have a reason to hook up a computer to my TV, but other then that, why would I want a computer attached to such a low resolution display?
It's not just about the screen looks from the vantage point of one person. My recliner is a lot more suited to TV watching them my office chair is and when we have more then two people watching the sectional couch allows 5 people to comfortably view the TV. My Roku just lets me watch whatever I've got in my Netflix online queue.
Re:Welcome to the Brave New World
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
Game consoles and computers (i.e. desktops and laptops) seem unlikely to merge, except by hacking the game console so it can be used as a computer. Game console manufactures are willing take a loss on the hardware because of the control it gives them, and game publishers prefer to publish for consoles because they are closed devices that make pirating their software more difficult and because they are fixed hardware target (although this doesn't necessary mean development is easier; it would be hard to argue that developing PS3 game is easier then developing a PC game). Computers can already run games just fine, but they don't provide control to the manufactures or the publishers. The same thing is true with phones as well. They are locked down to give the operators control.
The guy running a hotdog stand only has to know the sales tax codes applicable that single location and submit receipts to the government entities with jurisdiction over that location. On the other hand a company doing national business over the internet would need to be familiar with thousands of sales tax codes, since many localities have additional codes beyond state sales tax codes, and make submissions to every single jurisdiction they've had a customer in.
From http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba597/ : "Only 60 percent of federal gas taxes goes to the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges."
Not to mention I don't see why taxes from other sources, such as income, can't be used to fund highways in bridges considering the highway system contributes to national defense by providing for the speedy movement of military vehicles and military supplies carried by private commercial vehicles. The highway system also plays a significant role in the national economy.
One could argue that the federal government shouldn't be involved in roads at all (leaving them to the state a local governments), but since it is involved in roads, I don't see why the funds it provides for roads should only come from the federal gas tax.
Probably because the court system is so slow and expensive that it no longer serves those who have to work to live. Does a right really exist if it can not be enforced/defended in practice?
Regarding #2, IBM is not a privately held company, it is a publicly traded corporation, and as such it has access to investment sources, such as state pension funds, that privately held entities do not. Additionally, even if it weren't publicly traded, its still a corporation and as such it provides the privilege of limited liability to its shareholders. If those same shareholders don't like the strings attached to that privilege, they can sell their stake and enter into a full liability venture.
Maybe that's the way you think, but its not the way I think. I usually think "It's time for some tunes" (not even caring which one just start playing randomly from all of my music), "What's new on ", "I need to find ", "It's time write some code for project ". The applications are just the means to those ends.
Personally I don't want document centric, application centric, or window centric. I want task and result centric. By result centric I mean I get the result of music being played, as that doesn't fall into a the category of at task for me, since I'm not the one playing the music. It is just something I want the computer to start doing (and stop again later when I don't want it any more). To bad for me though, as that's now any of the OSes do it at present.
Windows never had an "application switcher". It was always a window switcher. It just seemed like an application switcher when the processes all consistently only put up one top level window.
And you clearly don't understand it. What your talking about here is not enforcement, it is investigation. The only enforcement they are required to cooperate with by the DMCA are take down notices.
"Any suggetion that the ISP can afford not to cooperate is going to go out the window pretty soon, should this actually work out." this sounds like something the RIAA wants folks to believe.
"content is music or a movie it is pretty much a given that you don't have a license" - that's sounds exactly like what the RIAA wants folks to think. Copyright isn't criminal law its civil. There is no question of guilt or innocence, just of whether a party damaged another or not.
As I remember it those safe harbor provisions don't great a general duty to assist in copyright enforcement, but the a very specific one if the form of honoring take down notices.
Ah, but offering to license it to someone who could actually make use of it isn't just sitting on it. Sitting on a patent is generally taken to mean that no offers or demands for licenses are made until the patent thing is wide use, and only then going after the users for royalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer modeling is only useful if the model can be tested for correctness. If it can't all it is a hypothesis in software form. Core sampling is not a test of climate theory, its a way to gather data upon which to create a theory. Average global temperature analysis and prediction very closely resembles finical price movement analysis and prediction. In both field there is lots of historical data and there are attempts to create models that will predict what will happen in the future based on what has happened in the past. There is a ton of money to made from a model that can consistently and accurately predict were prices will go and as a result there has been a huge investment in attempts to create such models, but has anyone yet managed to create one that is consistently and accurately predict were prices will go? Not that I'm aware of; I see no reason why a field (climatology) that is significantly less well funded would produce a more accurate and consistent model.
There is a third possiblity: groupthink Just because group of people believe something that isn't actually correct and true doesn't mean they are consciously doing so and conscious choice is require for a conspiracy. The problem with so-called climate science is that it isn't science at all, as it isn't possible to get any further through the scientific method then forming a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis, it is necessary to repeatedly do controlled experiments and compare the results for consistency. The problem with so called climate science is that we can't do any controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, so there is no way to prove any of the hypothesis regrading the climate to be correct. If the scientific method can not be fully utilized in a field of study, then it isn't science at all.
Also up for debate is that an increase in average global temperature is problem in need of solution.
Smog is not caused by CO2. If there was no CO2 in the air there would be no plants. I'd guess your not even aware that you are exhaling CO2, as is every other animal on this planet, but rather you've just repeating the CO2 is bad mantra without having the slightest understanding of the role CO2 plays in the ecosystem.
Slavery existed long, long before guns did.
Not really. The article stated "exactly correct answer of 70%", but 70% is only accurate to one significant digit, and one significant digit can't not be reasonably be called exact in most contexts including this one.
DVDs don't have commercial breaks or sidebar advertising...
Voice isn't always a feasible interface, such as when one is in a meeting or when one is using the computer while watching TV that others are also watching.
Because it adds additional cost, volume, and weight. Same goes for speakers. My plasma TV has neither speakers nor a tuner. The Tivo has a tuner in it so why do I need tuner in the TV? Before Tivo I had digital cable and had a box for that so again the TV didn't need a tuner.
On occasion I do sit on the couch with a laptop, but I currently don't have any reason to hookup a computer to the TV, since my electric, adjustable height desk with two high resolution monitors is only 2 feet away from the couch (I can see my TV from my desk as well as the couch). At some point I may rip all of my DVDs onto a RAID array and then I'd have a reason to hook up a computer to my TV, but other then that, why would I want a computer attached to such a low resolution display?
If that happens I'll get rid of the Tivo and just wait for it to come out on DVD.
It's not just about the screen looks from the vantage point of one person. My recliner is a lot more suited to TV watching them my office chair is and when we have more then two people watching the sectional couch allows 5 people to comfortably view the TV. My Roku just lets me watch whatever I've got in my Netflix online queue.
Game consoles and computers (i.e. desktops and laptops) seem unlikely to merge, except by hacking the game console so it can be used as a computer. Game console manufactures are willing take a loss on the hardware because of the control it gives them, and game publishers prefer to publish for consoles because they are closed devices that make pirating their software more difficult and because they are fixed hardware target (although this doesn't necessary mean development is easier; it would be hard to argue that developing PS3 game is easier then developing a PC game). Computers can already run games just fine, but they don't provide control to the manufactures or the publishers. The same thing is true with phones as well. They are locked down to give the operators control.
The same is true for H1-Bs. Don't want to work all kinds of overtime? Fine, don't get wet on the way back to your country.
The guy running a hotdog stand only has to know the sales tax codes applicable that single location and submit receipts to the government entities with jurisdiction over that location. On the other hand a company doing national business over the internet would need to be familiar with thousands of sales tax codes, since many localities have additional codes beyond state sales tax codes, and make submissions to every single jurisdiction they've had a customer in.
From http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba597/ : "Only 60 percent of federal gas taxes goes to the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges." Not to mention I don't see why taxes from other sources, such as income, can't be used to fund highways in bridges considering the highway system contributes to national defense by providing for the speedy movement of military vehicles and military supplies carried by private commercial vehicles. The highway system also plays a significant role in the national economy. One could argue that the federal government shouldn't be involved in roads at all (leaving them to the state a local governments), but since it is involved in roads, I don't see why the funds it provides for roads should only come from the federal gas tax.
Except you won't be exchanging gas taxes for tolls. You'll just get to pay both.
Probably because the court system is so slow and expensive that it no longer serves those who have to work to live. Does a right really exist if it can not be enforced/defended in practice?
Regarding #2, IBM is not a privately held company, it is a publicly traded corporation, and as such it has access to investment sources, such as state pension funds, that privately held entities do not. Additionally, even if it weren't publicly traded, its still a corporation and as such it provides the privilege of limited liability to its shareholders. If those same shareholders don't like the strings attached to that privilege, they can sell their stake and enter into a full liability venture.
Maybe that's the way you think, but its not the way I think. I usually think "It's time for some tunes" (not even caring which one just start playing randomly from all of my music), "What's new on ", "I need to find ", "It's time write some code for project ". The applications are just the means to those ends. Personally I don't want document centric, application centric, or window centric. I want task and result centric. By result centric I mean I get the result of music being played, as that doesn't fall into a the category of at task for me, since I'm not the one playing the music. It is just something I want the computer to start doing (and stop again later when I don't want it any more). To bad for me though, as that's now any of the OSes do it at present.
Windows never had an "application switcher". It was always a window switcher. It just seemed like an application switcher when the processes all consistently only put up one top level window.
And you clearly don't understand it. What your talking about here is not enforcement, it is investigation. The only enforcement they are required to cooperate with by the DMCA are take down notices. "Any suggetion that the ISP can afford not to cooperate is going to go out the window pretty soon, should this actually work out." this sounds like something the RIAA wants folks to believe.
"content is music or a movie it is pretty much a given that you don't have a license" - that's sounds exactly like what the RIAA wants folks to think. Copyright isn't criminal law its civil. There is no question of guilt or innocence, just of whether a party damaged another or not.
As I remember it those safe harbor provisions don't great a general duty to assist in copyright enforcement, but the a very specific one if the form of honoring take down notices.
Ah, but offering to license it to someone who could actually make use of it isn't just sitting on it. Sitting on a patent is generally taken to mean that no offers or demands for licenses are made until the patent thing is wide use, and only then going after the users for royalties.