Does an airgap really require such an extreme distance (5 miles)? Either there is a really lonely PC sitting out in the middle of nowhere doing Olsoc-know's-what, or else that's your cabin in the woods, playing Civilization VI.
No, it doesn't have to be that far - It's on a fairly remote mountaintop, and for me, as long as its unconnected to the internet, it is protected from Microsoft.
Now do you have sooner smoking gun no other experts have been able to produce that shows telemetry info being sent?
No, because as you mentioned, it's encrypted. We can't see what data is being sent, so no one can find a smoking gun.
Maybe it's just "Machine ID 324698018 ran NOTEPAD.EXE" which, while still unacceptable to me, isn't too terrible. On the other hand, maybe it's more like "User ID poor_bastard@live.com ran NOTEPAD.EXE to open file \\COKESERV\\TRADESECRETS\CocaColaRecipe.txt whose contents are..." in which case it's incredibly bad. But we don't and can't know, because the communications with the mother ship are encrypted.
And if it was the first case, send in in cleartext. If I have an application crash, I can review the crash log to see what is sent - and have the option to decline if I so wish. As far as I know - that is sent cleartext and there is nothing sneaky going on. And just wait until they go to their subscription model.
A day with wire shark does that the OS talks to MS servers. Nothing more because it's encrypted. Now do you have sooner smoking gun no other experts have been able to produce that shows telemetry info being sent?
Oh - I just found out. All that telemetry is just suggestions for baby names and puppy videos.
Seriously? you are making the argument that because it is encrypted that it doesn't exist or doesn't matter? I add the doesn't exist because your argument seems rather ludicrous
There is obviously a certain amount of telemetry that all Operating systems use. That's how they know about updates and legit OS software. No problem. As well, if I have a program crash, I can voluntarily send the crash log to them. I'm all for that sort of thing.
But when an OS collects non-appropriate information even after you tell them not to, and resets your data collection settings to "express" after updates, which means you allow everything - I do not need to know exactly what is in the data that my system sent to them to know that they are operating in defiance of my wishes. Nope, nope, nope.
Already read it and it doesn't apply here. Microsoft has enough cash that they could buy BOTH Ford and GM at the same time in cash with money left over if the mood moved them.
Gaze upon their stacks of money and despair, for they are Microsoft.
For Microsoft has managed to make financial perpetual motion, and 50 thousand years form now, Microsoft wil still be exactly where they are now, perhaps even bigger?
Right. and I have some Enron and Bethlehem Steel stock to sell you. People for one reason or another tend to think that the present situation will continue forever, no matter what happens. We see it in business where success allows those in that business to assume that since they caught lightning in a bottle once, that every decision they make in perpetuity will continue to catch lightning in a perpetual supply of bottles.
So anyone who criticises the safety of modern nuclear by pointing to nuclear incidents is really saying, "See you're modern car is not safe to drive", while pointing to a 1960s era Ford Galaxie after it's occupant was ejected from the driver seat, through the windscreen and flung into the woods because the car had no seatbelt.
When a modern reactor gets built, only then can we start using modern reactor designs to talk about nuclear safety. In the meantime the technological state of nuclear power is completely decoupled from the installed reality.... often because reactor upgrades get blocked by NIMBYs.
just remember though, that the public was assured that the previous generations of power generating reactors were safe. And that's the problem. I can be convinced that a reactor design is good, but the industry as a whole has a bit of a credibility gap. And some of it's proponents are exceptionally condescending, and have zero tolerance for any other view. You should see some of the arguments I get in and the names I'm called when I have the nerve to note that the present day paradigm calls for as big a reactor as possible, generating as much power as possible, versus my idea of scaling back a bit to avoid stressing the materials, and having more reactors overall. That's not the only advantage either, as it is a strategic one as well. If I was at war with another country, my biggest hope would be that they had as centralized a Power generating infrastructure as possible, with as few, and as large power generating plants as they could possibly build.
they have a Scrooge McDuck pile of cash and a near impenetrable fortress in business PCs. I don't think they are going anywhere any time soon and certainly not about to keel over and die. I'm strongly in the camp that dislikes Microsoft but I'm under no illusion that they are in any real danger of dying.
You need to read Ozymandias:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Just because you think you've disabled it does not mean you've actually disabled it. Microsoft has the sole discretion to completely ignore you, sneak its spyware in through other vectors, or automatically re-enable its spyware at any time it damn well pleases.
I had several delayed updates on Windows 10 that re-enabled auto updates and re-enabled every one of their spyware settings. And broken things like webcams, audio devices, and ethernet devices. Computer works one day, then the next its pooched. I even got an infinite reboot feature one time.
And a day with Wireshark will show us that W10 appears to ignore the telemetry settings.
I have this weird requirement for my computers. Whatever else they do, they are required to work reliably. Windows 10 fails miserably in that regard. Windows 8 is administrative whack-a-mole. Windows 7? It works.
I have one Windows 10 setup that works. It is a network that isn't connected to the internet - airgapped by maybe 5 miles. No updates.
So what predictions have they made that have actually come true that can be directly link to AGW? All the ones from years ago said either we'd all be under water or it would be so hot outside no one would be able to go outside.
Okay, I'm calling you out here. Who exacty said that?
Citations please, or else just be another denialist liar.
That we'd not be able to grow farming crops, that we'd have no water to drink.
Cites or you are another denialist liar
Seriously, you actuallly posted not as an AC? Because your lies make you look really foolish.
So anyhow, show us the citations of the utter bullshit you say were "all of the ones."
Both projects were started within a year from each other, the difference is one system had 10 years of good life in it, the other had 10 years of paperwork before being turned on.
The red tape is just incredible.
Best of all he was working at a research reactor. Like the worst case scenario on loss of cooling and no shutdown was maybe setting off a radiation detector at the facility's fence if the all the water drained from the vessel. Such is the level of prescription in the industry.
If the Federal Government is the evil incarnate in nuclear power, the one thing that is stopping nuclear generated industry from leading us into a new age of inexpensive and safe electricity, then why does it still need indemnification against liability?
I'm talking about the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. of course.
The nuclear industry has some big problems to overcome. One is that they have always promoted that version of power generation as safe, but there have been some pretty exciting counter-examples to those declarations.
The second is that the typical reaction to criticism regarding sfety is to declare the person offering the criticism is an idiot.
How's that working out for y'all?
The problem such as it is, is that while we can declare a type of reactor as really safe - yeah - it might be.
But humans are involved, and some of them have other missions than safety/
Let us take the Fukushima reactor complex for example. Ordinarily, it would still be running today, providing clean power. But there wer several fatal flaws in the siting and facilities. We all know about the ftal flaw of the emergency generators being emplaced in an area that would flood if the seawalls were breached.
But some how or another, there was no problem foreseen with seawalls that were a dead lock to be breached, unless plate tectonics suddenly ceased. My simple research showed that not only in the historical record that there was tsunami higher than the seawalls, but that there was geological record as well. The walls were simply not up to the job.
People. Managers, Accountants, Investors. All people who have other interests than safety. Schedules, budgets, paybacks, and sometimes backscratching can conspire to let that genie out of the bottle.
So given the nuc industry's track record, when the government has to let you off the hook, you can bet they might have something to say about your project.
And when nuc people are pronouncing the technology as safe, while people watch reactor buildings blow, you gotta do better than "Yeah - but!"
Just sayin'. I'm not against nuc power generation. But I see some of it's proponents as the industry's worst enemies.
doesn't it make sense that if the Federal Government is protecting the Nuclear industry against liability that they would have some input?
As well, if these new designs are safe, then there is absolutely no need whatsoever to indemnify the producers of Nuc Electrical power because there will simply be no accidents that will result in any liability.
Seems like with the new and safe designs, the industry should be 100 percent insistent upon insuring themselves, amiright?
Also, another thing that I'm unable to understand. Even if it Climate Change wasn't true, the technologies that we're implementing are very good.
Yes, this is the "what if climate change is a trick and we built a better world for nothing" argument, and I am right there with you. Worst-case, we realize improvements in efficiency and extend our natural resources. Gee, that would be terrible! Wait. Not terrible. Wonderful. That would be wonderful.
Again with the liberal claptrap. Oil and coal will last forever, so there is no need for any other energy source at all.
What is it about settled physics that you don't like?
it's not science, it computers making thousands of calculations on noisy and incomplete data to develop a snapshot of what might happen in 30 minutes on grids 100Km square and 30 layers high and introducing round off error with each calculation, then repeating that 1,753,152 times to get a guess of what might happen in a century and pretending the results are not spirally off into chaos.
So you are saying that there is no relation to the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere by virtue of the composition of that atmosphere?
While I don't disagree, physics? What does that have to do with anything? I guess at a certain level one could argue that everything is physics, but climatology isn't something I would first associate with the term.
Seriously? A whole bunce of physics going on. Energy through insolation, heating effects on a globular body from a star that is slowly supplying more of that energy, and how the energy is stored in that object via the chemical composition. Interesting weather effects as the rotation of the object and the tilt of the globe is changing over the orbital period, and even the rotational period which itself is lengthening.
There is some fascinating and complicated stuff going on here. It is the politicians and the people they work for who are making a political issue out of physics.
No one (except the really silly) deny climate change. They are skeptical of the MAN MADE portion of that.
That's because they're stupid. We emit orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism and nobody questions whether volcanism influences the climate.
Dammit Drinkypoo! That's special non-working greenhouse gases, that have absolutely no effect at all. You and your liberal scaremongers are trying to destroy the world somehow with all that perfectly parsimonious poppycock.
What really has been heating up the world is wind turbines - yeah, you heard it here. Them wind turbines are so inefficient that they are heating up the air, plus they steal all of that wind. and anyone with a lick of the common sense that Jeebuz gave them will tell you, when the wind dies down, you get all warm and sweaty.
If you want "talk about uncertainties", look at the actual science, where uncertainties are laid out in detail, not at the popular media (and certainly not at the blogger commentary.)
After a while, this entire denialist thing starts to sound like creationism, where they demand that we teach the "controversy".
When in fact, there is no controversy about the basic tenets of Evolution, or creationism. Evolution declares that over time, heritable differences will change animals - and makes no declarations about their origin. Creationism declares that animals were created by the Abrahamic God in October 4004 years B.C.E. The controversies among scientists might be about whether a meteor hit killed off the dinosaurs, or the Deccan traps event or if they just died off anyhow, and we are left with just the birds as representative of the dinosaurs. Or whether or not they had feathers. No scientist I've heard of things that they were the "jesus puppies" who lived with humans, or the fossils were put in the earth by God to tempt human's faith.
Same with the effects of greenhouse gases on the energy retention characteristics. Controversies might be found with specific items like the future of the Gulf Stream, or the likely level of sea rise, or future weather patterns, but when you do find the rare scientist that denies AGW, following the money often leads to interesting conclusions. No scientist I know has any doubt that Greenhouse gases have energy retention effects that are related to their relative amounts in an atmosphere, and that the physics does not fail.
And this is the problem. Trying to explain the controversies to people who don't believe in the energy retention physics in the first place because of political or financial reasons. How do you talk about the possible Gulf stream effects to someone who thinks you are lying about everything?
It's amazing how many self-proclaimed "nerds" are willing to discard evidence and disregard science when the conclusions challenge their worldview or their bank accounts. The whole lot of them are selfish, self-deluding children. These aren't the nerds I grew up with.
The world isn't here to cater to you.
I'm nothing short of amazed that you haven't been modded to -1 troll, and are sitting at +5.
Just goes to show that some folks are paying attention. We don't get to declare that the greenhouse effect somehow fails at global levels, that it only works to the point of keeping average temps what they were a long time ago, that the energy retention will just stay in the atmosphere.
We've thrived by reshaping it and now have to deal with some unintended consequences.
And some of the unintended consequences are interesting indeed. While most people just think of warmer winters, there may very well be strategic issues such as once verdant crop producing areas entering long term droughts, with marked production falloff and the resulting social and political problems. AGW will not in itself cause the biggest issues we will have soon, but the wars resulting from it will. We are already become anti science, and willing to get our physics education from politicians and the corporations they work for, and consider all of science suspect at the very best.
Only a fool fails to change course when they are approaching a cliff.
HIstory is littered with fools who have driven off their cliffs. I give about a 75 percent chance that we will drive off one, and quite happily.
I believe that if you are ready to die for Christ, especially in the -"entertaining"- way(s) those early Christians did, then you do it without much "drama" - so, for a good "Colosseum show" you need people that do NOT have a belief in love and forgiveness...
Love and forgiveness? We're talking about Christians you know.
Usability between phones? Is that really a thing? Is it really that hard to understand the basic operation of a smartphone to someone who has learned how to effectively use at least one?
Depends on who you are. My wife is pissed off about the new double tap home button in iOs.
Another guy has a rotary dial app on his smartphone and swears it is how a phone should be accessed.
I think that a person who just figures out how to use a device without getting all pissy about it, is somehow the freak in a sea of normal people.
It was all fine with 2010-2015 phones, stairs or concrete drops would just leave some small marks but nothing special. Now I've seen with the new S6/S67s so many cracked displays AND/or backs (glass back, really?!) that I had to think better and go back to using a case.
I've seen a lot of cracked phones for years, both Apple and Android. The marketing pressure creates delicate little snowflake phones, and a bezel-less phone is about as delicate as you can get. It's the "er" problem. Thinner lighter, bigger screen for the form factor.
And that defeats the whole purpose.
I think your purpose and the phone manufacturer's purpose and the marketing department's purpose are not the same. This march to fragility is what gives us bendy iPhones, and exploding Samsungs.
Unless a person is living a remarkably sedentary lifestyle and is remarkably careful, even an old school smartphone will get cracked. A bezel-less frame? They might arrive cracked. But yeah, if I were to buy one of these phones, I'd buy a case so the damn thing would have a protective bezel.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what a "Wireshark" is, nor does he know how to use Goog...err..Bing to find out. Microsoft shills tend to be technical laymen.
That's probably why they are so sure of themselves, and make incorrect statements with great authority.
I'm a little surprised that Microsoft hasn't tried to make Wireshark illegal. Nothing worse than ground truth.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only when you buy one and need to use it in the real world,
Real world. My iMac has a 4 port and a 7 port external USB hub on it. Real world, My Dell Optiplex has the same.
Real world. As a pro using a lot of devices, not even the desktops have enough ports.
Don't worry, It's just natural on the Dell, and completely understandable a good thing really.
But on a Mac? Fucking unforgiveable.
Does an airgap really require such an extreme distance (5 miles)? Either there is a really lonely PC sitting out in the middle of nowhere doing Olsoc-know's-what, or else that's your cabin in the woods, playing Civilization VI.
No, it doesn't have to be that far - It's on a fairly remote mountaintop, and for me, as long as its unconnected to the internet, it is protected from Microsoft.
Now do you have sooner smoking gun no other experts have been able to produce that shows telemetry info being sent?
No, because as you mentioned, it's encrypted. We can't see what data is being sent, so no one can find a smoking gun.
Maybe it's just "Machine ID 324698018 ran NOTEPAD.EXE" which, while still unacceptable to me, isn't too terrible. On the other hand, maybe it's more like "User ID poor_bastard@live.com ran NOTEPAD.EXE to open file \\COKESERV\\TRADESECRETS\CocaColaRecipe.txt whose contents are..." in which case it's incredibly bad. But we don't and can't know, because the communications with the mother ship are encrypted.
And if it was the first case, send in in cleartext. If I have an application crash, I can review the crash log to see what is sent - and have the option to decline if I so wish. As far as I know - that is sent cleartext and there is nothing sneaky going on. And just wait until they go to their subscription model.
A day with wire shark does that the OS talks to MS servers. Nothing more because it's encrypted. Now do you have sooner smoking gun no other experts have been able to produce that shows telemetry info being sent?
Oh - I just found out. All that telemetry is just suggestions for baby names and puppy videos.
Seriously? you are making the argument that because it is encrypted that it doesn't exist or doesn't matter? I add the doesn't exist because your argument seems rather ludicrous
There is obviously a certain amount of telemetry that all Operating systems use. That's how they know about updates and legit OS software. No problem. As well, if I have a program crash, I can voluntarily send the crash log to them. I'm all for that sort of thing.
But when an OS collects non-appropriate information even after you tell them not to, and resets your data collection settings to "express" after updates, which means you allow everything - I do not need to know exactly what is in the data that my system sent to them to know that they are operating in defiance of my wishes. Nope, nope, nope.
You need to read Ozymandias:
Already read it and it doesn't apply here. Microsoft has enough cash that they could buy BOTH Ford and GM at the same time in cash with money left over if the mood moved them.
Gaze upon their stacks of money and despair, for they are Microsoft.
For Microsoft has managed to make financial perpetual motion, and 50 thousand years form now, Microsoft wil still be exactly where they are now, perhaps even bigger?
Right. and I have some Enron and Bethlehem Steel stock to sell you. People for one reason or another tend to think that the present situation will continue forever, no matter what happens. We see it in business where success allows those in that business to assume that since they caught lightning in a bottle once, that every decision they make in perpetuity will continue to catch lightning in a perpetual supply of bottles.
Nope, you didn't get it.
So anyone who criticises the safety of modern nuclear by pointing to nuclear incidents is really saying, "See you're modern car is not safe to drive", while pointing to a 1960s era Ford Galaxie after it's occupant was ejected from the driver seat, through the windscreen and flung into the woods because the car had no seatbelt.
When a modern reactor gets built, only then can we start using modern reactor designs to talk about nuclear safety. In the meantime the technological state of nuclear power is completely decoupled from the installed reality.... often because reactor upgrades get blocked by NIMBYs.
just remember though, that the public was assured that the previous generations of power generating reactors were safe. And that's the problem. I can be convinced that a reactor design is good, but the industry as a whole has a bit of a credibility gap. And some of it's proponents are exceptionally condescending, and have zero tolerance for any other view. You should see some of the arguments I get in and the names I'm called when I have the nerve to note that the present day paradigm calls for as big a reactor as possible, generating as much power as possible, versus my idea of scaling back a bit to avoid stressing the materials, and having more reactors overall. That's not the only advantage either, as it is a strategic one as well. If I was at war with another country, my biggest hope would be that they had as centralized a Power generating infrastructure as possible, with as few, and as large power generating plants as they could possibly build.
they have a Scrooge McDuck pile of cash and a near impenetrable fortress in business PCs. I don't think they are going anywhere any time soon and certainly not about to keel over and die. I'm strongly in the camp that dislikes Microsoft but I'm under no illusion that they are in any real danger of dying.
You need to read Ozymandias:
I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
but Microsoft protects your privacy
And the coffee meets the keyboard, dammit. If you are going for comedy you should let us know.
Just because you think you've disabled it does not mean you've actually disabled it. Microsoft has the sole discretion to completely ignore you, sneak its spyware in through other vectors, or automatically re-enable its spyware at any time it damn well pleases.
I had several delayed updates on Windows 10 that re-enabled auto updates and re-enabled every one of their spyware settings. And broken things like webcams, audio devices, and ethernet devices. Computer works one day, then the next its pooched. I even got an infinite reboot feature one time.
And a day with Wireshark will show us that W10 appears to ignore the telemetry settings.
I have this weird requirement for my computers. Whatever else they do, they are required to work reliably. Windows 10 fails miserably in that regard. Windows 8 is administrative whack-a-mole. Windows 7? It works.
I have one Windows 10 setup that works. It is a network that isn't connected to the internet - airgapped by maybe 5 miles. No updates.
So what predictions have they made that have actually come true that can be directly link to AGW? All the ones from years ago said either we'd all be under water or it would be so hot outside no one would be able to go outside.
Okay, I'm calling you out here. Who exacty said that?
Citations please, or else just be another denialist liar.
That we'd not be able to grow farming crops, that we'd have no water to drink.
Cites or you are another denialist liar
Seriously, you actuallly posted not as an AC? Because your lies make you look really foolish.
So anyhow, show us the citations of the utter bullshit you say were "all of the ones."
I arguing that Government solutions very often do not produce the expected results. In fact they sometimes product OPPOSITE results.
I wonder where you could find evidence of that.....
That indemnification act is a good example. The guvmint might not be quite as interested if they weren't shielding the industry.
Which is weird, because as safe as nuclear power generation is, why would they then need indemnification, or maybe even insurance at all?
So yes, the nuclear power generating industry wanted indemnification, but they didn't want oversight.
Both projects were started within a year from each other, the difference is one system had 10 years of good life in it, the other had 10 years of paperwork before being turned on.
The red tape is just incredible.
Best of all he was working at a research reactor. Like the worst case scenario on loss of cooling and no shutdown was maybe setting off a radiation detector at the facility's fence if the all the water drained from the vessel. Such is the level of prescription in the industry.
If the Federal Government is the evil incarnate in nuclear power, the one thing that is stopping nuclear generated industry from leading us into a new age of inexpensive and safe electricity, then why does it still need indemnification against liability?
I'm talking about the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. of course.
The nuclear industry has some big problems to overcome. One is that they have always promoted that version of power generation as safe, but there have been some pretty exciting counter-examples to those declarations.
The second is that the typical reaction to criticism regarding sfety is to declare the person offering the criticism is an idiot.
How's that working out for y'all?
The problem such as it is, is that while we can declare a type of reactor as really safe - yeah - it might be.
But humans are involved, and some of them have other missions than safety/
Let us take the Fukushima reactor complex for example. Ordinarily, it would still be running today, providing clean power. But there wer several fatal flaws in the siting and facilities. We all know about the ftal flaw of the emergency generators being emplaced in an area that would flood if the seawalls were breached.
But some how or another, there was no problem foreseen with seawalls that were a dead lock to be breached, unless plate tectonics suddenly ceased. My simple research showed that not only in the historical record that there was tsunami higher than the seawalls, but that there was geological record as well. The walls were simply not up to the job.
People. Managers, Accountants, Investors. All people who have other interests than safety. Schedules, budgets, paybacks, and sometimes backscratching can conspire to let that genie out of the bottle.
So given the nuc industry's track record, when the government has to let you off the hook, you can bet they might have something to say about your project.
And when nuc people are pronouncing the technology as safe, while people watch reactor buildings blow, you gotta do better than "Yeah - but!"
Just sayin'. I'm not against nuc power generation. But I see some of it's proponents as the industry's worst enemies.
I know someone who is working on a new reactor design.
The HARDEST part is getting past all the government red tape.....
Government could make innovation in Nuclear power much much easier.....
As far as that goes we should DEMAND that they make it easier to do.
Then perhaps you should DEMAND that the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Imdemnity Act be repealed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
doesn't it make sense that if the Federal Government is protecting the Nuclear industry against liability that they would have some input?
As well, if these new designs are safe, then there is absolutely no need whatsoever to indemnify the producers of Nuc Electrical power because there will simply be no accidents that will result in any liability.
Seems like with the new and safe designs, the industry should be 100 percent insistent upon insuring themselves, amiright?
Also, another thing that I'm unable to understand. Even if it Climate Change wasn't true, the technologies that we're implementing are very good.
Yes, this is the "what if climate change is a trick and we built a better world for nothing" argument, and I am right there with you. Worst-case, we realize improvements in efficiency and extend our natural resources. Gee, that would be terrible! Wait. Not terrible. Wonderful. That would be wonderful.
Again with the liberal claptrap. Oil and coal will last forever, so there is no need for any other energy source at all.
Unless of course, we aren't raptured.
I guess I meant for very small values of forever.
What is it about settled physics that you don't like?
it's not science, it computers making thousands of calculations on noisy and incomplete data to develop a snapshot of what might happen in 30 minutes on grids 100Km square and 30 layers high and introducing round off error with each calculation, then repeating that 1,753,152 times to get a guess of what might happen in a century and pretending the results are not spirally off into chaos.
So you are saying that there is no relation to the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere by virtue of the composition of that atmosphere?
A yes or no answer is sufficient.
While I don't disagree, physics? What does that have to do with anything? I guess at a certain level one could argue that everything is physics, but climatology isn't something I would first associate with the term.
Seriously? A whole bunce of physics going on. Energy through insolation, heating effects on a globular body from a star that is slowly supplying more of that energy, and how the energy is stored in that object via the chemical composition. Interesting weather effects as the rotation of the object and the tilt of the globe is changing over the orbital period, and even the rotational period which itself is lengthening.
There is some fascinating and complicated stuff going on here. It is the politicians and the people they work for who are making a political issue out of physics.
Wow, I'm brain--dead this morning. When I said "lack of flying cars" I meant to type "lack of time travel."
I do that same typo all the time - so don't feel bad. 8^)
In your case you say society is being "robbed of its liberty." Who is robbing us? To what end?
If I buy a Tesla, and charge it from solar panels, I'm being robbed of the liberty to give my money to a petrochemical company.
No one (except the really silly) deny climate change. They are skeptical of the MAN MADE portion of that.
That's because they're stupid. We emit orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism and nobody questions whether volcanism influences the climate.
Dammit Drinkypoo! That's special non-working greenhouse gases, that have absolutely no effect at all. You and your liberal scaremongers are trying to destroy the world somehow with all that perfectly parsimonious poppycock.
What really has been heating up the world is wind turbines - yeah, you heard it here. Them wind turbines are so inefficient that they are heating up the air, plus they steal all of that wind. and anyone with a lick of the common sense that Jeebuz gave them will tell you, when the wind dies down, you get all warm and sweaty.
If you want "talk about uncertainties", look at the actual science, where uncertainties are laid out in detail, not at the popular media (and certainly not at the blogger commentary.)
After a while, this entire denialist thing starts to sound like creationism, where they demand that we teach the "controversy".
When in fact, there is no controversy about the basic tenets of Evolution, or creationism. Evolution declares that over time, heritable differences will change animals - and makes no declarations about their origin. Creationism declares that animals were created by the Abrahamic God in October 4004 years B.C.E. The controversies among scientists might be about whether a meteor hit killed off the dinosaurs, or the Deccan traps event or if they just died off anyhow, and we are left with just the birds as representative of the dinosaurs. Or whether or not they had feathers. No scientist I've heard of things that they were the "jesus puppies" who lived with humans, or the fossils were put in the earth by God to tempt human's faith.
Same with the effects of greenhouse gases on the energy retention characteristics. Controversies might be found with specific items like the future of the Gulf Stream, or the likely level of sea rise, or future weather patterns, but when you do find the rare scientist that denies AGW, following the money often leads to interesting conclusions. No scientist I know has any doubt that Greenhouse gases have energy retention effects that are related to their relative amounts in an atmosphere, and that the physics does not fail.
And this is the problem. Trying to explain the controversies to people who don't believe in the energy retention physics in the first place because of political or financial reasons. How do you talk about the possible Gulf stream effects to someone who thinks you are lying about everything?
It's amazing how many self-proclaimed "nerds" are willing to discard evidence and disregard science when the conclusions challenge their worldview or their bank accounts. The whole lot of them are selfish, self-deluding children. These aren't the nerds I grew up with.
The world isn't here to cater to you.
I'm nothing short of amazed that you haven't been modded to -1 troll, and are sitting at +5.
Just goes to show that some folks are paying attention. We don't get to declare that the greenhouse effect somehow fails at global levels, that it only works to the point of keeping average temps what they were a long time ago, that the energy retention will just stay in the atmosphere.
We've thrived by reshaping it and now have to deal with some unintended consequences.
And some of the unintended consequences are interesting indeed. While most people just think of warmer winters, there may very well be strategic issues such as once verdant crop producing areas entering long term droughts, with marked production falloff and the resulting social and political problems. AGW will not in itself cause the biggest issues we will have soon, but the wars resulting from it will. We are already become anti science, and willing to get our physics education from politicians and the corporations they work for, and consider all of science suspect at the very best.
Only a fool fails to change course when they are approaching a cliff.
HIstory is littered with fools who have driven off their cliffs. I give about a 75 percent chance that we will drive off one, and quite happily.
I believe that if you are ready to die for Christ, especially in the -"entertaining"- way(s) those early Christians did, then you do it without much "drama" - so, for a good "Colosseum show" you need people that do NOT have a belief in love and forgiveness...
Love and forgiveness? We're talking about Christians you know.
Usability between phones? Is that really a thing? Is it really that hard to understand the basic operation of a smartphone to someone who has learned how to effectively use at least one?
Depends on who you are. My wife is pissed off about the new double tap home button in iOs.
Another guy has a rotary dial app on his smartphone and swears it is how a phone should be accessed.
I think that a person who just figures out how to use a device without getting all pissy about it, is somehow the freak in a sea of normal people.
It was all fine with 2010-2015 phones, stairs or concrete drops would just leave some small marks but nothing special. Now I've seen with the new S6/S67s so many cracked displays AND/or backs (glass back, really?!) that I had to think better and go back to using a case.
I've seen a lot of cracked phones for years, both Apple and Android. The marketing pressure creates delicate little snowflake phones, and a bezel-less phone is about as delicate as you can get. It's the "er" problem. Thinner lighter, bigger screen for the form factor.
And that defeats the whole purpose.
I think your purpose and the phone manufacturer's purpose and the marketing department's purpose are not the same. This march to fragility is what gives us bendy iPhones, and exploding Samsungs.
Unless a person is living a remarkably sedentary lifestyle and is remarkably careful, even an old school smartphone will get cracked. A bezel-less frame? They might arrive cracked. But yeah, if I were to buy one of these phones, I'd buy a case so the damn thing would have a protective bezel.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what a "Wireshark" is, nor does he know how to use Goog...err..Bing to find out. Microsoft shills tend to be technical laymen.
That's probably why they are so sure of themselves, and make incorrect statements with great authority.
I'm a little surprised that Microsoft hasn't tried to make Wireshark illegal. Nothing worse than ground truth.