Well, you can spend the next 8 years complaining about Trump and his supporters, or spend the next 4 years coming up with something positive for the Dems to be for (not identity politics, that's inherently negative). If all you've got by then is someone who's against Trump, it will be 2004 all over again. See you in 2020.
A fake news program, of the "shouting heads" variety. They were hilarious to watch on election night - very entertaining.
If Trump Derangement Syndrome is this bad when the guy's not even president yet, the public meltdowns when he actually starts doing stuff should keep me entertained for years.
C# on Unity works across all relevant game platforms - PC, console, mobile, VR. I'm not sure how much.NET is in there, though.
Xamarin gives you C# and.NET on mobile platforms, which may be where his gaming company sells.
There is nothing you can do with it today you can't do faster with native code
So, if you're writing a game engine, yeah, not C#. But for most of the actual work of game development, C# is worlds better than LUA, which is the default choice today.
It's the interesting question, politically: should we reduce CO2 emissions, and, if so, by how much. We need far better climate models to even start on such a discussion, but also economists to finish the discussion. You've stumbled on my entire point upthread: when scientists start making such claims, they are speaking as unqualified economists.
Did you know people talk to other people? OK, they may not talk to you, all things considered, but it's a real thing! Google around for it if you need to, but it was commonly known that the world wasn't flat quite early on.
Increased water vapor increases the Earth's albedo - in fact, it's the dominant factor in the Earth's albedo (with reflection from ice and simple refraction also playing a part). It still has a net warming effect, because it traps IR more than it reflects UV.
Did you follow that? Do you see why it's comical to predict more UV as a consequence of global warming?
If we reduce CO2 emission by X, how much does that save us in damages, measured economically, by decade. That's the interesting question, and it's one that climate science could indeed make predictions about, if it were far more mature and predictive than it is now.
"Warming"? A random guess has a 50% chance of predicting "cooling" or "warming" correctly.
Barely predictive as in 2 sigmas, statistically. Given there are hundreds of models, you'd expect several models that predictive if they were all random. Of course, they actually do better than random guessing, but not to the point that any given model would be accepted in most fields - heck, even some social science models do better.
The discussion here is not about "warming", in case you missed the point, but about economics. How much will it cost to reduce CO2 by X, and how much economic benefit will we accrue by doing so. Do you get that?
It would be very impressive for a climate model to be that usefully predictive, but then many fields of science are very impressive.
Mostly because of the church! That's the key to understanding the middle ages: the church restrained the worst excesses of the aristocracy, and the aristocracy restrained the worst excesses of the church. When either became ascendant, things went to shit.
Well, most people just never cared, but it was commonly understood that the world was round. Every sailor knew it, and that's in fact how it came to be known in antiquity.
Poe's law in full effect now, but given your posting history I'm guessing you're not joking.
I'm curious how you believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase UV emissions? If the atmosphere heats up we'll get more water vapor and thus increase the UV albedo of the atmosphere, yes?
Drowning? Are water levels increasing faster than people can walk part of your religion? Falling debris? I'm sure you'll explain how climate change causes earthquakes - I know I've seen that claim in the media a couple of times now.
Then again, the con artist has done the same thing around the country with his golf courses, bragging about being worth X millions but claiming for tax purposes significantly lower values.
Every rational person does this. Have you ever owned a house? You fight every tax assessment that raises the value of your house, because that's non-trivial money out of your pocket. That has nothing to do with the value you try to sell your house at. In fact, a large gap between the market price of the house and the tax-assessed price is a selling point.
So climate scientists are economists now? Sorry, I don't follow your religion. The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis. The idea that you could use them to predict precisely what's going to happen to sea levels and weather patterns around the world 50 years from now, contrasting with and without a change in human activity, is farcical.
Climate science is still in it's infancy. It's useless for problems like "if humans reduce CO2 emissions by X, the economic impact will be $Y" to even one significant digit.
Yup, exactly the same effect. But apparently the evangelical right has such limited influence these days that Trump won the primary - though still enough to matter in the general or Trump wouldn't have picked Pence.
Trump proved that you can be pro-choice and still win the Republican primary. That's a real milestone.
Is CO2 "pollution" to you? If so, CO2 has nothing to do with health, so "not any better". If not, US has massively reduced air pollution since I was young - to the point that the only places that even have a problem are a handful of cities where for some reason there's very poor circulation between the air above the city and the atmosphere in general. So "almost no difference, but maybe a little".
I China or India: it's a big deal. But it's no worse than the US when we were going through the industrial revolution, so it's not like we have any moral high ground here. They'll eventually get on top of the problem, just like we did.
To share images? Just get the FF plug-in for sharing images on S3. It's very cheap (and ad-free) unless you get a lot of traffic.
To share static web pages? You can set up everything to host them on S3 through the console, though you have to be a bit of a geek to figure it all out. There's no coding required, but it's that level of complexity that separates coders from non-coders. (The worst step is AWS's odious permissions stuff). It's easier than running your own hosted server, to be sure.
That's an awesome bit of science trivia - very cool.
BTW, examples like that is why science should never be said to "prove" anything - proof is the stuff of math, not science. Also, per current theory, electrons are waves, full stop, as is everything else, really. The waves are quantized, sure, but using particle as a metaphor will constantly lead one astray, and should really be abandoned.
In this case, though, it's relevant measure. If you can make your own static web page (not exactly the height of coding ability), hosting it on S3 is trivial.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can spend the next 8 years complaining about Trump and his supporters, or spend the next 4 years coming up with something positive for the Dems to be for (not identity politics, that's inherently negative). If all you've got by then is someone who's against Trump, it will be 2004 all over again. See you in 2020.
Everyone knows what fake news is: it's the news that the other side reads. The news my side reads is the unimpeachable truth, of course.
A fake news program, of the "shouting heads" variety. They were hilarious to watch on election night - very entertaining.
If Trump Derangement Syndrome is this bad when the guy's not even president yet, the public meltdowns when he actually starts doing stuff should keep me entertained for years.
C# on Unity works across all relevant game platforms - PC, console, mobile, VR. I'm not sure how much .NET is in there, though.
Xamarin gives you C# and .NET on mobile platforms, which may be where his gaming company sells.
There is nothing you can do with it today you can't do faster with native code
So, if you're writing a game engine, yeah, not C#. But for most of the actual work of game development, C# is worlds better than LUA, which is the default choice today.
Actual scientists also make such claims, you know.
It's the interesting question, politically: should we reduce CO2 emissions, and, if so, by how much. We need far better climate models to even start on such a discussion, but also economists to finish the discussion. You've stumbled on my entire point upthread: when scientists start making such claims, they are speaking as unqualified economists.
Did you know people talk to other people? OK, they may not talk to you, all things considered, but it's a real thing! Google around for it if you need to, but it was commonly known that the world wasn't flat quite early on.
That's was not the question at hand.
Increased water vapor increases the Earth's albedo - in fact, it's the dominant factor in the Earth's albedo (with reflection from ice and simple refraction also playing a part). It still has a net warming effect, because it traps IR more than it reflects UV.
Did you follow that? Do you see why it's comical to predict more UV as a consequence of global warming?
You've avoided the question entirely.
If we reduce CO2 emission by X, how much does that save us in damages, measured economically, by decade. That's the interesting question, and it's one that climate science could indeed make predictions about, if it were far more mature and predictive than it is now.
"Warming"? A random guess has a 50% chance of predicting "cooling" or "warming" correctly.
Barely predictive as in 2 sigmas, statistically. Given there are hundreds of models, you'd expect several models that predictive if they were all random. Of course, they actually do better than random guessing, but not to the point that any given model would be accepted in most fields - heck, even some social science models do better.
The discussion here is not about "warming", in case you missed the point, but about economics. How much will it cost to reduce CO2 by X, and how much economic benefit will we accrue by doing so. Do you get that?
It would be very impressive for a climate model to be that usefully predictive, but then many fields of science are very impressive.
Mostly because of the church! That's the key to understanding the middle ages: the church restrained the worst excesses of the aristocracy, and the aristocracy restrained the worst excesses of the church. When either became ascendant, things went to shit.
OK, even on Slashdot you need to read the post you're replying to!
"A lot of people live in California" is a different thing to claim than "California does well by the average guy". Do you get that?
Seriously, this is the most straight-up slashvertisement I've seen yet. At least make an effort, editors, this is unaltered ad copy.
In the US it varies enormously state-by-state.
Well, most people just never cared, but it was commonly understood that the world was round. Every sailor knew it, and that's in fact how it came to be known in antiquity.
Poe's law in full effect now, but given your posting history I'm guessing you're not joking.
I'm curious how you believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase UV emissions? If the atmosphere heats up we'll get more water vapor and thus increase the UV albedo of the atmosphere, yes?
Drowning? Are water levels increasing faster than people can walk part of your religion? Falling debris? I'm sure you'll explain how climate change causes earthquakes - I know I've seen that claim in the media a couple of times now.
Then again, the con artist has done the same thing around the country with his golf courses, bragging about being worth X millions but claiming for tax purposes significantly lower values.
Every rational person does this. Have you ever owned a house? You fight every tax assessment that raises the value of your house, because that's non-trivial money out of your pocket. That has nothing to do with the value you try to sell your house at. In fact, a large gap between the market price of the house and the tax-assessed price is a selling point.
So climate scientists are economists now? Sorry, I don't follow your religion. The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis. The idea that you could use them to predict precisely what's going to happen to sea levels and weather patterns around the world 50 years from now, contrasting with and without a change in human activity, is farcical.
Climate science is still in it's infancy. It's useless for problems like "if humans reduce CO2 emissions by X, the economic impact will be $Y" to even one significant digit.
Yup, exactly the same effect. But apparently the evangelical right has such limited influence these days that Trump won the primary - though still enough to matter in the general or Trump wouldn't have picked Pence.
Trump proved that you can be pro-choice and still win the Republican primary. That's a real milestone.
In the US:
Is CO2 "pollution" to you? If so, CO2 has nothing to do with health, so "not any better". If not, US has massively reduced air pollution since I was young - to the point that the only places that even have a problem are a handful of cities where for some reason there's very poor circulation between the air above the city and the atmosphere in general. So "almost no difference, but maybe a little".
I China or India: it's a big deal. But it's no worse than the US when we were going through the industrial revolution, so it's not like we have any moral high ground here. They'll eventually get on top of the problem, just like we did.
To share images? Just get the FF plug-in for sharing images on S3. It's very cheap (and ad-free) unless you get a lot of traffic.
To share static web pages? You can set up everything to host them on S3 through the console, though you have to be a bit of a geek to figure it all out. There's no coding required, but it's that level of complexity that separates coders from non-coders. (The worst step is AWS's odious permissions stuff). It's easier than running your own hosted server, to be sure.
That's an awesome bit of science trivia - very cool.
BTW, examples like that is why science should never be said to "prove" anything - proof is the stuff of math, not science. Also, per current theory, electrons are waves, full stop, as is everything else, really. The waves are quantized, sure, but using particle as a metaphor will constantly lead one astray, and should really be abandoned.
Sure. Any news you read that says so is fake news. Any news you read that "debunks" is real news. Your bubble is hermetically sealed.
In this case, though, it's relevant measure. If you can make your own static web page (not exactly the height of coding ability), hosting it on S3 is trivial.
fake news: n., news you read.
real news: n., news I read