People viewing the way SONY wanted to neuter DNS and the visibility of awful collusion in the movie industry towards attacking Google and free speech hasn't gone entirely unnoticed. Serves them right is stronger now than it ever would have been.
and then there was the Sony Root Kit install flap a while back...
should have stuck with hardware.
Alternately, nobody I know had even heard of the movie before the hacks, so I'm wondering if the ENTIRE THING is just a sony PR stunt (not the hacks themselves, but their reaction to them)
it's been advertised extensively on TV. Probably aimed at a particular audience segment (in which I do not fit, although i do watch their sophomoric entertainment)
One guy gets shot in one theater, in a matter totally unrelated to the North Korean connection, and there would be a lawsuit that would swallow the entire projected profits of the movie. "To be clear, you had prior warning that attacks would ensue and you went ahead anyway?!!??" "Yes, but" "Witness will restrict himself to answering the question directly!!"
Exactly. A decent bicycle is faster (Segways top out at 12mph), much cheaper, not hard to fix, and if I need to go up some stairs or over other terrain, it's not hard to just pick it up and carry it. How much do Segways weigh?
Of course, it's pretty universally accepted that the baseline "greenhouse effect" of the preindustrial 280 ppm of CO2 raises the earth's average temp 30 degrees C above what it would be just from black body theory and its albedo at any time. So questions of how can there be an ice age with lots of CO2 in the atmosphere are sort of deliberately and stubbornly and wilfully dumb.
The california drought for example is a well known weather pattern. We get that drought every couple decades and always have.
Last time was in the 1970s. It is difficult to link because natural forces are actually the cause of that drought.
As to other droughts, I really couldn't speak to every single one on earth. Just the ones I am personally aware of... and without exception, they're all normal natural processes that have been recorded in those regions for as long as we've kept records.
Attributing any known and consistent weather pattern to global warming is dishonest or ignorant. Pick one.
It is like blaming summer on global warming or winter on global cooling. Neither one is valid unless we consider changes in the earth's orbit to be global warming/cooling.
We are probably going to go into an ice age in the next few thousand years. At least, that is what the climate records show... we're due an ice age. When that comes, I hope we have the foresight to pump something into our atmosphere to limit it. Ice ages are a thousand times worse then any of the silly predictions about Global Warming. A Global Ice Age would make much of the world uninhabitable.
The Pacific Coast is (according to my non-exhaustive reading of the literature) one of the parts of the world which is least affected by AGW, in that el Nino and la Nina are such big determinants of the weather there. That would include California droughts of course.
What the effect of AGW might be on the Ninnys is beyond my current understanding of the field.
at its root its simply a basic probability concept, but many people have seemingly forgotten it.
if you have a perfect coin you expect 50/50 heads/tails over time.
if you then modify your perfect coin to be slightly heavier on the heads side, you may expect over time to see an increase in the number of heads over time. say 51/49.
but you cant state than any given toss that came up heads was due to your modification; that without the modification outcome would have been different.
thats a very difficult thing to prove, and its true about coin tosses, and its true about climate.
we can see the influence over time quite easily with the change in trend over a sufficient sample size, but the linking of specific events will always be difficult.
To a certain degree, however, you can "amortize" it; i.e. if your coin ends up being 51/49 heads, then you can say that the best estimate of the cause of an individual occurrence of heads was 2% due to the bias, since in the aggregate 2% of the total number of heads are due to bias and there is nothing to really distinguish one toss from any other.
The climate has always been a highly fluctuating system where extreme temperatures oscillate over seasons and location by, say typically +/-20K (Kelvin), around a mean value around 287K, slowly growing. In some countries the fluctuations are larger, in some others smaller. All the discussion about the human-induced warming is about the effect of changing this mean value by a couple of K (now +0.5K, in the next century by +2-4K). So even in the most pessimistic scenarios the warming remains in amplitude a small fraction of the typical annual fluctuations. No wonder that it will be difficult to prove that any extreme fluctuations will result from the warming.
Not necessarily. You put more energy into a system, the local and temporary variations from average become more pronounced. Think of a pot of water on the stove when you turn up the burner.
The climate system is too chaotic for us to predict conditions in 1-5 years time accurately, you scientific illiterate. Yes, of course we know what it will look like in 100 years time, why wouldn't we? Don't you understand the science???
Predicting conditions in 1-5 years time is weather prediction. Predicting that the 30 year running mean temperature of the Earth will be 1 degree C warmer than it is now is a climate prediction. Chaos in weather and chaos in climate are two different things.
Weather is me saying the high temp in NYC tomorrow will be 27 degrees. Climate is me saying the average high in NYC in Dec is 43 degrees, and that that is lower than the average high in NYC in July.
The problem with your theory is that there never was any unanimity about the effect on major storms and hurricanes among those warning about AGW, from the beginning. So, even if being wrong about storm frequency implies they were wrong about AGW, that still leaves half the AGW folks standing.
Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are.
That the dice are loaded was a given in the above example. Even if we know the dice are loaded we cannot with any certainty say that any single occurrence of snakes-eyes is the result of loading. That's the point.
Of course, it's physically impossible for a die to be 100% completely unbiased. Yet, we carry on as if it was.
>California added an diagnostic requirement that says your "Check Engine" light has to come on if it's likely you aren't meeting the emissions regulations. How many people drive around with that thing on?
So now, the natural response to a check engine light is to get out and tighten the petrol tank cap, since 99.99999653% of all check engine light lightings are caused by the evaporative emissions is buggered warning.
No! Wrong! The natural response is to put black electrical tape over the light and not even look at the cap. I don't know why it has to be black electrical tape, though.
Calling them "dirtier" is wrong then. Less-clean-than-expected would be accurate. They didn't get dirtier, they simply sold less vehicles to make the air cleaner than it has been without them.
Older cars and older engines get to the point where seals, gaskets, etc. start to decay enough that they allow oil into the engine. This causes the exhaust to become "dirtier". It's cheaper for most people to burn oil than it is to get the engine seals replaced. So, yes, the cars do get dirtier over time. For example, my 2003 Nissan Murano was going through a quart of oil a month from years 8 through 10 (older Nissan engines are known to do this). About 18 months ago I traded it in for a new Jeep that doesn't burn any oil and gets better gas mileage.
Slashdot Mirror
Really bad movie has nothing to do with "makes tons of money", though.
People viewing the way SONY wanted to neuter DNS and the visibility of awful collusion in the movie industry towards attacking Google and free speech hasn't gone entirely unnoticed. Serves them right is stronger now than it ever would have been.
and then there was the Sony Root Kit install flap a while back... should have stuck with hardware.
Alternately, nobody I know had even heard of the movie before the hacks, so I'm wondering if the ENTIRE THING is just a sony PR stunt (not the hacks themselves, but their reaction to them)
it's been advertised extensively on TV. Probably aimed at a particular audience segment (in which I do not fit, although i do watch their sophomoric entertainment)
One guy gets shot in one theater, in a matter totally unrelated to the North Korean connection, and there would be a lawsuit that would swallow the entire projected profits of the movie. "To be clear, you had prior warning that attacks would ensue and you went ahead anyway?!!??" "Yes, but" "Witness will restrict himself to answering the question directly!!"
I remember spending 2 grand for a full size AT expansion board which was filled with a giant 256k of ram.
My first computer was an Apple 0. It didn't have 1s, just 0s.
Exactly. A decent bicycle is faster (Segways top out at 12mph), much cheaper, not hard to fix, and if I need to go up some stairs or over other terrain, it's not hard to just pick it up and carry it. How much do Segways weigh?
if a segway could weigh whey?
Of course, it's pretty universally accepted that the baseline "greenhouse effect" of the preindustrial 280 ppm of CO2 raises the earth's average temp 30 degrees C above what it would be just from black body theory and its albedo at any time. So questions of how can there be an ice age with lots of CO2 in the atmosphere are sort of deliberately and stubbornly and wilfully dumb.
The california drought for example is a well known weather pattern. We get that drought every couple decades and always have.
Last time was in the 1970s. It is difficult to link because natural forces are actually the cause of that drought.
As to other droughts, I really couldn't speak to every single one on earth. Just the ones I am personally aware of... and without exception, they're all normal natural processes that have been recorded in those regions for as long as we've kept records.
Attributing any known and consistent weather pattern to global warming is dishonest or ignorant. Pick one.
It is like blaming summer on global warming or winter on global cooling. Neither one is valid unless we consider changes in the earth's orbit to be global warming/cooling.
We are probably going to go into an ice age in the next few thousand years. At least, that is what the climate records show... we're due an ice age. When that comes, I hope we have the foresight to pump something into our atmosphere to limit it. Ice ages are a thousand times worse then any of the silly predictions about Global Warming. A Global Ice Age would make much of the world uninhabitable.
The Pacific Coast is (according to my non-exhaustive reading of the literature) one of the parts of the world which is least affected by AGW, in that el Nino and la Nina are such big determinants of the weather there. That would include California droughts of course. What the effect of AGW might be on the Ninnys is beyond my current understanding of the field.
at its root its simply a basic probability concept, but many people have seemingly forgotten it.
if you have a perfect coin you expect 50/50 heads/tails over time. if you then modify your perfect coin to be slightly heavier on the heads side, you may expect over time to see an increase in the number of heads over time. say 51/49. but you cant state than any given toss that came up heads was due to your modification; that without the modification outcome would have been different. thats a very difficult thing to prove, and its true about coin tosses, and its true about climate.
we can see the influence over time quite easily with the change in trend over a sufficient sample size, but the linking of specific events will always be difficult.
To a certain degree, however, you can "amortize" it; i.e. if your coin ends up being 51/49 heads, then you can say that the best estimate of the cause of an individual occurrence of heads was 2% due to the bias, since in the aggregate 2% of the total number of heads are due to bias and there is nothing to really distinguish one toss from any other.
The climate has always been a highly fluctuating system where extreme temperatures oscillate over seasons and location by, say typically +/-20K (Kelvin), around a mean value around 287K, slowly growing. In some countries the fluctuations are larger, in some others smaller. All the discussion about the human-induced warming is about the effect of changing this mean value by a couple of K (now +0.5K, in the next century by +2-4K). So even in the most pessimistic scenarios the warming remains in amplitude a small fraction of the typical annual fluctuations. No wonder that it will be difficult to prove that any extreme fluctuations will result from the warming.
Not necessarily. You put more energy into a system, the local and temporary variations from average become more pronounced. Think of a pot of water on the stove when you turn up the burner.
The climate system is too chaotic for us to predict conditions in 1-5 years time accurately, you scientific illiterate. Yes, of course we know what it will look like in 100 years time, why wouldn't we? Don't you understand the science???
Predicting conditions in 1-5 years time is weather prediction. Predicting that the 30 year running mean temperature of the Earth will be 1 degree C warmer than it is now is a climate prediction. Chaos in weather and chaos in climate are two different things.
Weather is me saying the high temp in NYC tomorrow will be 27 degrees. Climate is me saying the average high in NYC in Dec is 43 degrees, and that that is lower than the average high in NYC in July.
" but that didn't prevent climate researchers from claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency"
I think you are confusing advocates with researchers.
I think advocate does not mean what you think it does.
The problem with your theory is that there never was any unanimity about the effect on major storms and hurricanes among those warning about AGW, from the beginning. So, even if being wrong about storm frequency implies they were wrong about AGW, that still leaves half the AGW folks standing.
Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are.
That the dice are loaded was a given in the above example. Even if we know the dice are loaded we cannot with any certainty say that any single occurrence of snakes-eyes is the result of loading. That's the point.
Of course, it's physically impossible for a die to be 100% completely unbiased. Yet, we carry on as if it was.
It's hard to determine whether the grizzly bear mauled you just from spite, or because you kicked it.
"Feliz' Navy dad". presumably his ship got home for Xmas.
It's a deuce coupe. As in a hotrodded 1930s Ford or something similar, it's a car, which is something people rev up.
As in "She's my little Two Scoops". Now I'm really dating myself.
Huh. I independently came up with "We're in for Mexican Lucky" myself.
"Walkin' in our Winter Underwear"
>California added an diagnostic requirement that says your "Check Engine" light has to come on if it's likely you aren't meeting the emissions regulations. How many people drive around with that thing on?
So now, the natural response to a check engine light is to get out and tighten the petrol tank cap, since 99.99999653% of all check engine light lightings are caused by the evaporative emissions is buggered warning.
No! Wrong! The natural response is to put black electrical tape over the light and not even look at the cap. I don't know why it has to be black electrical tape, though.
Calling them "dirtier" is wrong then. Less-clean-than-expected would be accurate. They didn't get dirtier, they simply sold less vehicles to make the air cleaner than it has been without them.
Older cars and older engines get to the point where seals, gaskets, etc. start to decay enough that they allow oil into the engine. This causes the exhaust to become "dirtier". It's cheaper for most people to burn oil than it is to get the engine seals replaced. So, yes, the cars do get dirtier over time. For example, my 2003 Nissan Murano was going through a quart of oil a month from years 8 through 10 (older Nissan engines are known to do this). About 18 months ago I traded it in for a new Jeep that doesn't burn any oil and gets better gas mileage.
Shouldn't the catalytic converter handle that?
I think if you compost the used Keurig cups and use the compost to grow coffee, when it fruits the coffee comes out prepackaged in K cups.
And the fossil fuel needed to get that Juan Valdez and his damn donkey to the kitchen so he can give me the damn coffee beans.
And to think I was impressed when our IT guy hooked the shredder up to the Ethernet during the up swing of his manic-depressive cycle.