Regarding prior art: I saw something on TV (probably Discovery Science) where people were trying to do this from a barge they had built and designed. It would pump the water straight up and atomize it as finely as possible.
I believe that the role of CO2 has been overstated.
Oh, absolutely. In the media it has been overstated, at least for the purpose of simplifying things. It's not even the only greenhouse gas. And obviously there are other factors involved in warming. But the geologists and climatologists know this. We are talking about warming in levels of less than one degree Celsius. But that can still have a dramatic effect on the environment.
In terms of political spin in the US, we have had scummy things going on on both sides, like progressives in the 80s trying to pin global warming on smokers in order to get anti-smoking legislation, as well as the politically-charged "junk science / sound science" terminology that has made the Republicans look pretty bad IMO. And a lot of the "scientific debate" among laypeople is really just whether or not people are OK with Kyoto.
Where I see statements about lack of consensus is in places like the WSJ or editorial columns of other newspapers. But the couple of meta-studies that I'm aware of (Oreskes, Schulte) show that most of the studies reaffirm or at least assume AGW. It's possible that there are others I'm unaware of. And naturally there are many respected scientists that don't agree with the consensus (Wikipedia has an enormous list) but again I disagree that points to there not being one.
Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position.
You can read further at that site...only a fraction of those papers actually (a) reject the consensus and (b) advance some sort of scientific argument in the process.
Christopher Landsea...his position is that we are only detecting more powerful hurricanes because we have better detection methods. He has been pretty vocal about it and it's what caused him to leave the IPCC and denounce them as political.
There are at least a few scientists who have published papers attempting to show that hurricanes have at least gotten stronger as temperatures have risen. The IPCC may be political but I don't think it's a clear cut as them ignoring valid science in favor of conjecture. It's certainly still a contentious topic and from what I gather it's harder to study, probably because it involves storm-chasing. Increased sea temperatures have been pretty effectively shown to affect hurricanes, the question is how much.
I have to respect Landsea for his cleverness and for making a principled stand. But note that even he doesn't deny the greenhouse effect...*that* would be political.
Who said the current models are horribly inaccurate? I think you'll find that they hold their own, but that's something that you need to see for yourself. In any case, nothing in science is taken to be absolute truth and predictions are necessarily made with a grain of salt. But don't go thinking that there is some sort of 50/50 debate going on. There is a clear consensus and it only gets stronger as time goes on.
The collective world is in no way ever going to come together and cut CO2 emissions to the levels that scientists claim is necessary.
I completely agree, and with the rest of what you're saying as well. But it doesn't change reality. If we're boned, at least we'll know why.
Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.
But CO2 output continues to rise. You can always look at last year and say "see? It was lower". I don't see how that proves anything. The proof that we have is that models that take human CO2 production into account are much more accurate. That is, they correlate better with recorded data.
but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.
I hope you realize what an extraordinary claim that is. Climatology did not pop up out of thin air when Al Gore did his movie. Many scientists from many countries have spent entire careers studying these trends.
We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia.
The pre-satellite data is considered accurate enough to use because can't be shown to be so wrong as to actually skew the models.
when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen
The models currently in use, though not perfect, have been shown to both predict trends accurately as well as comfortably reconstruct past events. James Hansen modeled a few scenarios in the 80s, all of which are close but one of which was dead-on. That model shows climates continuing to go up. Also, it's important to note that nobody's trying to predict the weather. Climate is a different beast entirely, much more long-term and smoothed out.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But please try to realize that it takes a phenomenal amount of arrogance to, in the absense of alternative hypothesis or evidence, disparage the decades-old scientific consensus. You also risk misleading others.
My understanding is that there has not been a successful model that left out human CO2 emission. It has been said that perhaps 6% of climate change papers reject the consensus position. You should at least look at the arguments in those, and understand why the other 94%, and most of the governments of the world, see a smoking gun in the data.
Scientists have always considered things like solar output, earth's orbit, volcanic activity, cloud cover (which complicates things but essentially they do both: heat by insulation, cool by reflecting sunlight), and yes even cosmic rays. Taking everything into account, the consensus is still that, yes we are causing this, and yes it will continue. The warming itself is not even up for debate.
You can't actually think that decades of climate change research specifically left out winter?
It's called global warming because, unsurprisingly, temperatures are going up. What is suprising is that solar output has not gone up a proportionate amount. But I'll stop there. You're asking questions that could have been answered by Wikipedia, let alone the actual scientifc literature. Do some reading and get back to us.
IE has more access to certain system components (for instance, it can do NTLM out of the box), but it is not as tightly integrated as it used to be, and even back in the old days that was more of a legal defense for MS than a technical reality.
The parent post was correct: in this context, the main difference between Windows Update and Firefox Updater is that Windows Update is not specific to IE and cannot be configured to be that way (without a Windows Server installation + WSUS to babysit it).
Note that Apple Software Update is the same, at least on Macs. It asks you about everything, every time. And why shouldn't it? People *should* be installing all the patches. If they acknowledge the possibility of a zero-day for IE, then why not for other services?
Caveat: MDAC was mentioned, and that's one case where you definitely don't want to just auto-update. If MS is going to bork that one so badly, then they should keep it out of the automatic/critical section. As for WGA, they have sort of a vested interest in that one. I think it's a prereq for WMP now.
People who believe in hell fear death. Those that don't get to focus on improving their lives rather than obsessing over what's going to happen after it ends.
They will never react against a successful death cult. That does not make sense to them.
No religions make sense to atheists. They sure as hell aren't going to threaten someone in to giving up their religion. That's what religious people do.
It'd be like going to a psych ward and telling someone you're going to beat them unless they get their personality disorder under control.
All you can do is be supportive of people, acknowledge their humanity, and hope that they do the same. I'm shocked that you'd try to spin atheists not getting involved in a religious war as a bad thing.
In a Ponzi scheme the company running the scheme is not actually investing your money anywhere, just paying it out to the last guy. This is different than a bubble, where there is still an actual investment, but it's overvalued.
Actually, what happened here is sort of the opposite...the risk associated with these loans was underestimated.
How you can logically connect ACORN and short selling is beyond me. Rather than bang my forehead on a table, I will just wish you luck with pinning a *global* problem on your least favorite political party. My advice is to read more WSJ and less Drudge Report.
Had it been his employer that he had blown the whistle on, he would enjoy protection against retaliation under federal law. But since his employer is the government, his friends and family are being asked about his political affiliations.
In your babysitting of the thread you appear to have chosen to act dense. But I'm sure you know what chilling effects represent: the possibility of suppressing free speech without actually outlawing it.
If you can go to jail for blowing the whistle on the government's lawbreaking, then an important aspect of free speech suddenly becomes dangerous. That much should be obvious to anyone.
In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy, and those who expose it should not have to risk their life or freedom to do so. But I suppose that as long as there are terr'ists about, men like Tamm will be a felons rather than a heroes. And there will always be terrorists, or at least as long as we see fit to fund and arm foreign militias. So "felon" it is. Go team.
I dunno about Sandman, but every comic shop I've been in (which, admittedly, is only a few) has had tons of Vertigo, and if it was in the back that was only because the imprint starts with a "V".
But you're right, there's probably a lot more people reading the traditional superhero stories than Preacher, Transmetropolitan, etc.
(Murray) Your point was if there's a fire, Deep Blue wouldn't run out of the room. (Jian) Exactly! (Mike) Couldn't run out of the room. (Jian) That's exactly my point. If an attractive person walks into the room, a person that would be attractive to Deep Blue, it can't do anything about it. That's my point. Kasparov can approach the person.
You learn as much as you can, from as many places you can.
You never let anyone tell you who you are.
Putting those two things together does not mean limiting your intake of knowledge to the things that only reaffirm existing views. It means you don't fear new ideas and new *sources* of ideas. Because you know yourself well enough that you can be sure nobody's capable of brainwashing you.
The corn went away when you ate it. Even the paint does not last the way that a creative work will. This Burnham doesn't sound to me like anything but a shill, but your analogy still doesn't work.
FFS, will people stop making this out to be about performers and artists?
This is about the publishers. They own the recordings. They hire the lobbyists. (The existence of guys like Paul McCartney, who are by far the exception, does not change reality.) This is not about musicians, it is about publishers.
I thought that if a method isn't expected to return anything then it's a statement, not a function.
In any case, even though the word function is used in procedural programming, once the discussion turns to OOP vs. functional vs. procedural, etc, we have to be extremely careful with the word function, since "functional" has a specific meaning in that context.
Several people have pointed this out already, but it's important to repeat, especially with a lot of IT-types on this site (like myself), who do some scripting but aren't necessarily coders.
Named blocks of code are usually called "functions", even in procedural programming. It seems based on the content of the post, that you are talking about procedures, not functions in the sense of a functional language.
As to the original question: this is why Python is great: you can start with procedural programming, work up to OOP and even do some things that resemble functional languages.
However, it does prevent you from teaching about compiling and linking, etc. But then, Java shields students from a good chunk of that as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding prior art: I saw something on TV (probably Discovery Science) where people were trying to do this from a barge they had built and designed. It would pump the water straight up and atomize it as finely as possible.
Maybe it's the same guy though?
I believe that the role of CO2 has been overstated.
Oh, absolutely. In the media it has been overstated, at least for the purpose of simplifying things. It's not even the only greenhouse gas. And obviously there are other factors involved in warming. But the geologists and climatologists know this. We are talking about warming in levels of less than one degree Celsius. But that can still have a dramatic effect on the environment.
In terms of political spin in the US, we have had scummy things going on on both sides, like progressives in the 80s trying to pin global warming on smokers in order to get anti-smoking legislation, as well as the politically-charged "junk science / sound science" terminology that has made the Republicans look pretty bad IMO. And a lot of the "scientific debate" among laypeople is really just whether or not people are OK with Kyoto.
Where I see statements about lack of consensus is in places like the WSJ or editorial columns of other newspapers. But the couple of meta-studies that I'm aware of (Oreskes, Schulte) show that most of the studies reaffirm or at least assume AGW. It's possible that there are others I'm unaware of. And naturally there are many respected scientists that don't agree with the consensus (Wikipedia has an enormous list) but again I disagree that points to there not being one.
It's closer to 95 percent, and scientists are skeptics by nature.
It's not the media that came up with this figure.
From http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position.
You can read further at that site...only a fraction of those papers actually (a) reject the consensus and (b) advance some sort of scientific argument in the process.
Christopher Landsea...his position is that we are only detecting more powerful hurricanes because we have better detection methods. He has been pretty vocal about it and it's what caused him to leave the IPCC and denounce them as political.
There are at least a few scientists who have published papers attempting to show that hurricanes have at least gotten stronger as temperatures have risen. The IPCC may be political but I don't think it's a clear cut as them ignoring valid science in favor of conjecture. It's certainly still a contentious topic and from what I gather it's harder to study, probably because it involves storm-chasing. Increased sea temperatures have been pretty effectively shown to affect hurricanes, the question is how much.
I have to respect Landsea for his cleverness and for making a principled stand. But note that even he doesn't deny the greenhouse effect...*that* would be political.
They use ice cores.
2005 was the hottest year on record.
something we know to be horridly inaccurate
Who said the current models are horribly inaccurate? I think you'll find that they hold their own, but that's something that you need to see for yourself. In any case, nothing in science is taken to be absolute truth and predictions are necessarily made with a grain of salt. But don't go thinking that there is some sort of 50/50 debate going on. There is a clear consensus and it only gets stronger as time goes on.
The collective world is in no way ever going to come together and cut CO2 emissions to the levels that scientists claim is necessary.
I completely agree, and with the rest of what you're saying as well. But it doesn't change reality. If we're boned, at least we'll know why.
Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.
But CO2 output continues to rise. You can always look at last year and say "see? It was lower". I don't see how that proves anything. The proof that we have is that models that take human CO2 production into account are much more accurate. That is, they correlate better with recorded data.
but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.
I hope you realize what an extraordinary claim that is. Climatology did not pop up out of thin air when Al Gore did his movie. Many scientists from many countries have spent entire careers studying these trends.
We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia.
The pre-satellite data is considered accurate enough to use because can't be shown to be so wrong as to actually skew the models.
when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen
The models currently in use, though not perfect, have been shown to both predict trends accurately as well as comfortably reconstruct past events. James Hansen modeled a few scenarios in the 80s, all of which are close but one of which was dead-on. That model shows climates continuing to go up. Also, it's important to note that nobody's trying to predict the weather. Climate is a different beast entirely, much more long-term and smoothed out.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But please try to realize that it takes a phenomenal amount of arrogance to, in the absense of alternative hypothesis or evidence, disparage the decades-old scientific consensus. You also risk misleading others.
My understanding is that there has not been a successful model that left out human CO2 emission. It has been said that perhaps 6% of climate change papers reject the consensus position. You should at least look at the arguments in those, and understand why the other 94%, and most of the governments of the world, see a smoking gun in the data.
Scientists have always considered things like solar output, earth's orbit, volcanic activity, cloud cover (which complicates things but essentially they do both: heat by insulation, cool by reflecting sunlight), and yes even cosmic rays. Taking everything into account, the consensus is still that, yes we are causing this, and yes it will continue. The warming itself is not even up for debate.
Then you can't be asking the right people.
If you look at this graph, you get the answer: it'd have a be a pretty big pause. Decades, even.
You can't actually think that decades of climate change research specifically left out winter?
It's called global warming because, unsurprisingly, temperatures are going up. What is suprising is that solar output has not gone up a proportionate amount. But I'll stop there. You're asking questions that could have been answered by Wikipedia, let alone the actual scientifc literature. Do some reading and get back to us.
IE has more access to certain system components (for instance, it can do NTLM out of the box), but it is not as tightly integrated as it used to be, and even back in the old days that was more of a legal defense for MS than a technical reality.
The parent post was correct: in this context, the main difference between Windows Update and Firefox Updater is that Windows Update is not specific to IE and cannot be configured to be that way (without a Windows Server installation + WSUS to babysit it).
Note that Apple Software Update is the same, at least on Macs. It asks you about everything, every time. And why shouldn't it? People *should* be installing all the patches. If they acknowledge the possibility of a zero-day for IE, then why not for other services?
Caveat: MDAC was mentioned, and that's one case where you definitely don't want to just auto-update. If MS is going to bork that one so badly, then they should keep it out of the automatic/critical section. As for WGA, they have sort of a vested interest in that one. I think it's a prereq for WMP now.
The iMac may have played music, but it was still a computer :D
And atheists fear death above all else.
People who believe in hell fear death. Those that don't get to focus on improving their lives rather than obsessing over what's going to happen after it ends.
They will never react against a successful death cult. That does not make sense to them.
No religions make sense to atheists. They sure as hell aren't going to threaten someone in to giving up their religion. That's what religious people do.
It'd be like going to a psych ward and telling someone you're going to beat them unless they get their personality disorder under control.
All you can do is be supportive of people, acknowledge their humanity, and hope that they do the same. I'm shocked that you'd try to spin atheists not getting involved in a religious war as a bad thing.
In a Ponzi scheme the company running the scheme is not actually investing your money anywhere, just paying it out to the last guy. This is different than a bubble, where there is still an actual investment, but it's overvalued.
Actually, what happened here is sort of the opposite...the risk associated with these loans was underestimated.
How you can logically connect ACORN and short selling is beyond me. Rather than bang my forehead on a table, I will just wish you luck with pinning a *global* problem on your least favorite political party. My advice is to read more WSJ and less Drudge Report.
Had it been his employer that he had blown the whistle on, he would enjoy protection against retaliation under federal law. But since his employer is the government, his friends and family are being asked about his political affiliations.
In your babysitting of the thread you appear to have chosen to act dense. But I'm sure you know what chilling effects represent: the possibility of suppressing free speech without actually outlawing it.
If you can go to jail for blowing the whistle on the government's lawbreaking, then an important aspect of free speech suddenly becomes dangerous. That much should be obvious to anyone.
In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy, and those who expose it should not have to risk their life or freedom to do so. But I suppose that as long as there are terr'ists about, men like Tamm will be a felons rather than a heroes. And there will always be terrorists, or at least as long as we see fit to fund and arm foreign militias. So "felon" it is. Go team.
I dunno about Sandman, but every comic shop I've been in (which, admittedly, is only a few) has had tons of Vertigo, and if it was in the back that was only because the imprint starts with a "V".
But you're right, there's probably a lot more people reading the traditional superhero stories than Preacher, Transmetropolitan, etc.
(Murray)
Your point was if there's a fire, Deep Blue wouldn't run out of the room.
(Jian)
Exactly!
(Mike)
Couldn't run out of the room.
(Jian)
That's exactly my point. If an attractive person walks into the room, a person that would
be attractive to Deep Blue, it can't do anything about it. That's my point.
Kasparov can approach the person.
He didn't say buildings designed by people are terrifying. He said building designed by programmers are terrifying...
No.
You learn as much as you can, from as many places you can.
You never let anyone tell you who you are.
Putting those two things together does not mean limiting your intake of knowledge to the things that only reaffirm existing views. It means you don't fear new ideas and new *sources* of ideas. Because you know yourself well enough that you can be sure nobody's capable of brainwashing you.
The corn went away when you ate it. Even the paint does not last the way that a creative work will. This Burnham doesn't sound to me like anything but a shill, but your analogy still doesn't work.
FFS, will people stop making this out to be about performers and artists?
This is about the publishers. They own the recordings. They hire the lobbyists. (The existence of guys like Paul McCartney, who are by far the exception, does not change reality.) This is not about musicians, it is about publishers.
Selfishness is its own reward, I suppose.
Still, the context of "appropriate" was most likely the pool of data transfer methods, not social issues.
I thought that if a method isn't expected to return anything then it's a statement, not a function.
In any case, even though the word function is used in procedural programming, once the discussion turns to OOP vs. functional vs. procedural, etc, we have to be extremely careful with the word function, since "functional" has a specific meaning in that context.
Several people have pointed this out already, but it's important to repeat, especially with a lot of IT-types on this site (like myself), who do some scripting but aren't necessarily coders.
Named blocks of code are usually called "functions", even in procedural programming. It seems based on the content of the post, that you are talking about procedures, not functions in the sense of a functional language.
As to the original question: this is why Python is great: you can start with procedural programming, work up to OOP and even do some things that resemble functional languages.
However, it does prevent you from teaching about compiling and linking, etc. But then, Java shields students from a good chunk of that as well.