The models used today are different to those from a few years ago as more information is gathered. Those less precise models have been proved false and replaced with more correct ones
More correct by what measure that was taken in the few years between "a few years ago" and now?
We see you saying it, but we don't see you showing it.
They don't have to wait for a decade, they can just crop out the last decade of data and ask the model minus 10 years of data to predict it.
That only works if you never ever intend to run the model with different parameters, otherwise you just settle on the parameters that "fit" the existing data.. which continues to not be prediction.
Models that have been in use for more than a decade were actually conservative about the level of warming we've seen so far, but got it pretty much right.
Even though the models didnt agree with each other, they were all pretty much right? Really?
The problem with that is that climate scientists don't even try to predict temperatures on such a short time scale since natural variability can completely override any long term climate signal over less than around 20 years.
So no falsifiable predictions from the climate scientists? Makes you wonder what sort of science they are practicing.
The question "Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?" is not legitimate because yes, it is a group funded by the koch brothers but no, its not that other charged shit about denialists.
The fact that you think its a 'legitimate' question in the form that its in just proves that you have been greenwashed too. You really don't see the problem with it, do you?
Just listened to a 1400b/sec codec2 voice sample and I am quite impressed. Can you give an idea on how much processing overhead is required/performed during compression, as well as decompression?
The issue really is privacy rights vs the 1st amendment, not the 2nd amendment vs the 1st, but very large numbers of people seem to not care what the issue really is because they have an agenda (either banning guns or preventing the banning of guns) that trumps their abilities to discuss or think rationally about what just happened.
Suppose that was a list of Muslims, or Black people, or High school dropouts, or women who have had an abortion, or Smokers, or children on ADD meds, or SSI recipients, or people who have declared bankruptcy,...
Is this really the can of worms we will ignore being opened, all because we want it to be about the 2nd amendment rather than the 1st?
It should be noted that Comcast apparently paid $3B in taxes on $8B in profits in 2011, which is a 37.5% tax rate.
If one single company has been paying about $3B/year in taxes, then a single refund of $7.2B for two entire industries (both broadband AND wireless) that this one company is only a part of, well the $7.2B doesnt look so significant after all.
We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world before the government gives the money back in the various ways that it does so. We can argue about if the money was used for its intended purposes, but don't act like the amount of money ("oooh big figure!") in question is actually substantial. For the broadband and wireless industries, the money simply wasn't very substantial, that these industries pay way more than $7.2 billion in taxes every year.
Thats awesome, now can you provide evidence for the assertion that comcast is showing record profits?
Looking at the 2011 data, looks like comcasts gross income was down 33% over 2010. They had a pretax income (after expenses) of $8.25B, paid $3.05B in taxes out of that, and then also paid $1.00B in minority interest expenses, for a net profit of $4.16B.
Thats on $55.84B in total revenue, so in actual fact their profit margin is apparently only 7.45%. Now they may have set records in the past with such a low profit margin, but they didn't do so in 2011, and that doesnt change the fact that 7.45% is a low profit margin for any business.
I pull down ~211GB/month (190GB in November, 232GB in December). The key here is that I got rid of cable television, so internet-based content is essentially the only media I consume.
Over that 2 month period, 1.15GB is my lowest day, and 15.4GB is my highest day.
Its not all video streaming.. but for sure a very high percentage of it is.
apple's 30 year (and counting) history of un-innovation (unovation?), copying other people's ideas, and claiming them as its own.
Oh come on, the Lisa was very innovative in getting a number of large corporations and state institutions to shell out large amounts of money on extremely sub-par hardware.
Sure, because people that buy $100+ video cards and then have them idle all the time. The time they spend gaming or bitcoining or whatever the hell they needed the card for simply doesnt add up....
We are talking about the 660 being $5 more than the 7870, and you seem to be arguing that the 7870 wont ever use $5 more electricity over the lifetime of the card which by my calculations is about 41kWh (at $0.12/kWh.) If you plan on owning the card for precisely 2 years (a reasonable lifecycle for a gamers video card) then you can only draw that extra 35W for an average of 96 minutes per day before you've exceeded the $5 you saved. Many gamers play way more than 96 minutes per day.
But thanks for just guessing about the numbers, instead of actually knowing the numbers, because guessing is way more important than knowing.
Go with a cheap 7770, or 650 Ti, up to a 7850, 7870, 7870 Le, or 660?
This lineup suggests a lack of understanding.
The 650ti runs 110 watts and $140, ... 660 runs 140 watts and $215, ... 7770 runs at 80 watts and $115, ... 7850 runs 130 watts and $165,
and 7870 is 175 watts and $210.
The only possible choice that isn't simply down to 'wattage requirements' or 'spot price' is between the 660 and the 7870 and my guess is that the 7870 will win most FPS benchmarks but its going to cost you more to operate over the long run (35W adds up over a year or two) and will probably be noticeably louder. In all other cases, the price differential dominates any decision that you think you are facing where you simply get th cheapest one that gives you enough performance.
If your game didnt suck balls - it was already preloaded into RAM, which was loading textures and stuff into VRAM.
You are presuming that all the data for the gaming environment will fit in memory at the same time. These days this is quite often not the case. A game like GTA4 doesnt have any loading screens but its a large world with many gigabytes of texture data.
...but the person you are replying to doesnt make much sense for sure.. these frame latency issues have to do with the memory management of the video card, where the variance of the time per frame for condensing free blocks and garbage collection was quite high. They were trying to be too clever, minimizing wasted memory by using often expensive alloc/free semantics. This is the correct thing to do when being clever means that everything will fit in VRAM so not much alloc/free going on, but becomes a problem when thats not the case (see any managed programming languages garbage collector for other examples of this problem.. they work great until they tank hard)
As soon as I saw the word 'cure' I knew this was hyped up, because in all of mans history we have never once found a cure for any virus, ever.
We do 3 things with regards to viruses:
1) Vaccination - Keep you from getting it to begin with.
2) Elimination - If nobody gets it for a long enough period of time, it (mostly) disappears.
3) Symptom management - we can't cure you of the virus, but we can reduce the symptoms until (if/when) your body figures out how to deal with it itself.
Never have we been able to produce any drug that will cure you of any virus in your system. The chance that AIDS would be the first virus to be cured seems a little far fetched given that it eventually directly attacks the immune system - this is a virus that has evolved to preemptively attack the one and only thing known to be able to eliminate viruses in a biological system.
This is an example of a statement that is both true and pointless, because while it is true that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, it is also true that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can have an effect.
Except his statement was in response to a statement claiming that CO2 was the #1 atmospheric greenhouse component.
It seems to me that you ignored the false statement, and instead felt that you just had to go after the true statement.
The problem here is two fold. First is your motivation, and we can guess what that is in a moment. Second is your pretense to be standing up for some form of higher honesty.
If the second part were true, you would have (at least) also gone after the lie, but you didn't.. you only went after the statements pointing out the lie. This tells us what your motivation really are, and they have nothing to do with truth and honesty.
There is a reason people keep having to explain that CO2 is not the #1 atmospheric greenhouse component, and that isn't just because it is often claimed that it is, its because that claim is done so in such a way that the mere fact that its "number one" is supposed to carry some weight.. ie, its dishonesty combined with marketing tactics.. a big fucking pile of dishonesty.
...but you ride in to the rescue and attack the people pointing out the dishonesty.. what does that make you? Doesnt that make you a defender of liars?
Slashdot Mirror
The models used today are different to those from a few years ago as more information is gathered. Those less precise models have been proved false and replaced with more correct ones
More correct by what measure that was taken in the few years between "a few years ago" and now?
We see you saying it, but we don't see you showing it.
They don't have to wait for a decade, they can just crop out the last decade of data and ask the model minus 10 years of data to predict it.
That only works if you never ever intend to run the model with different parameters, otherwise you just settle on the parameters that "fit" the existing data.. which continues to not be prediction.
Models that have been in use for more than a decade were actually conservative about the level of warming we've seen so far, but got it pretty much right.
Even though the models didnt agree with each other, they were all pretty much right? Really?
What the fuck dude.. try to say accurate things.
So they only need to run the simulation once, then, right?
oh, they run them lots of times? really? Whats that about?
The problem with that is that climate scientists don't even try to predict temperatures on such a short time scale since natural variability can completely override any long term climate signal over less than around 20 years.
So no falsifiable predictions from the climate scientists? Makes you wonder what sort of science they are practicing.
You have no idea what the words "can explain" mean in a scientific context.
I think 'in a scientific context' means that experiment(s) have been performed in an attempt to falsify the prediction(s) of a hypothesis.
is this true? Have climate scientists started doing that?
He asked a question, a legitimate one at that.
The question "Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?" is not legitimate because yes, it is a group funded by the koch brothers but no, its not that other charged shit about denialists.
The fact that you think its a 'legitimate' question in the form that its in just proves that you have been greenwashed too. You really don't see the problem with it, do you?
More to the point, we can translate the headline into:
"Survey suggests that people that show an active interest in media buy more media"
Just listened to a 1400b/sec codec2 voice sample and I am quite impressed. Can you give an idea on how much processing overhead is required/performed during compression, as well as decompression?
Why is this modded down?
...
The issue really is privacy rights vs the 1st amendment, not the 2nd amendment vs the 1st, but very large numbers of people seem to not care what the issue really is because they have an agenda (either banning guns or preventing the banning of guns) that trumps their abilities to discuss or think rationally about what just happened.
Suppose that was a list of Muslims, or Black people, or High school dropouts, or women who have had an abortion, or Smokers, or children on ADD meds, or SSI recipients, or people who have declared bankruptcy,
Is this really the can of worms we will ignore being opened, all because we want it to be about the 2nd amendment rather than the 1st?
..and others would argue that homes not on the list just because that much safer to rob from
..and they decided to start doing that in 2011?
Does not compute.
Many ISPs are also media and cable TV companies as well.
Many ISP's are not media companies.
I can only think of 2, those being Comcast and Time Warner.
If big media actually had a meaningful portion of the ISP share, then your ISP would be playing copyright cop instead of how it currently is.
It should be noted that Comcast apparently paid $3B in taxes on $8B in profits in 2011, which is a 37.5% tax rate.
If one single company has been paying about $3B/year in taxes, then a single refund of $7.2B for two entire industries (both broadband AND wireless) that this one company is only a part of, well the $7.2B doesnt look so significant after all.
We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world before the government gives the money back in the various ways that it does so. We can argue about if the money was used for its intended purposes, but don't act like the amount of money ("oooh big figure!") in question is actually substantial. For the broadband and wireless industries, the money simply wasn't very substantial, that these industries pay way more than $7.2 billion in taxes every year.
Thats awesome, now can you provide evidence for the assertion that comcast is showing record profits?
Looking at the 2011 data, looks like comcasts gross income was down 33% over 2010. They had a pretax income (after expenses) of $8.25B, paid $3.05B in taxes out of that, and then also paid $1.00B in minority interest expenses, for a net profit of $4.16B.
Thats on $55.84B in total revenue, so in actual fact their profit margin is apparently only 7.45%. Now they may have set records in the past with such a low profit margin, but they didn't do so in 2011, and that doesnt change the fact that 7.45% is a low profit margin for any business.
This is based off Comcast Corp (CMCSA) numbers.
I pull down ~211GB/month (190GB in November, 232GB in December). The key here is that I got rid of cable television, so internet-based content is essentially the only media I consume.
Over that 2 month period, 1.15GB is my lowest day, and 15.4GB is my highest day.
Its not all video streaming.. but for sure a very high percentage of it is.
...the bot would at most be able to tap a percentile of the CPU's power.
10 percent of a million CPU's is still equivalent to 100,000 CPU's.
apple's 30 year (and counting) history of un-innovation (unovation?), copying other people's ideas, and claiming them as its own.
Oh come on, the Lisa was very innovative in getting a number of large corporations and state institutions to shell out large amounts of money on extremely sub-par hardware.
In my experience, people that are good at math don't often buy Apple products.
Sure, because people that buy $100+ video cards and then have them idle all the time. The time they spend gaming or bitcoining or whatever the hell they needed the card for simply doesnt add up....
We are talking about the 660 being $5 more than the 7870, and you seem to be arguing that the 7870 wont ever use $5 more electricity over the lifetime of the card which by my calculations is about 41kWh (at $0.12/kWh.) If you plan on owning the card for precisely 2 years (a reasonable lifecycle for a gamers video card) then you can only draw that extra 35W for an average of 96 minutes per day before you've exceeded the $5 you saved. Many gamers play way more than 96 minutes per day.
But thanks for just guessing about the numbers, instead of actually knowing the numbers, because guessing is way more important than knowing.
The issue was the drivers, specifically to do with the CPU cost of memory management of VRAM.
Go with a cheap 7770, or 650 Ti, up to a 7850, 7870, 7870 Le, or 660?
This lineup suggests a lack of understanding.
... 660 runs 140 watts and $215,
... 7770 runs at 80 watts and $115,
... 7850 runs 130 watts and $165,
The 650ti runs 110 watts and $140,
and 7870 is 175 watts and $210.
The only possible choice that isn't simply down to 'wattage requirements' or 'spot price' is between the 660 and the 7870 and my guess is that the 7870 will win most FPS benchmarks but its going to cost you more to operate over the long run (35W adds up over a year or two) and will probably be noticeably louder. In all other cases, the price differential dominates any decision that you think you are facing where you simply get th cheapest one that gives you enough performance.
If your game didnt suck balls - it was already preloaded into RAM, which was loading textures and stuff into VRAM.
You are presuming that all the data for the gaming environment will fit in memory at the same time. These days this is quite often not the case. A game like GTA4 doesnt have any loading screens but its a large world with many gigabytes of texture data.
...but the person you are replying to doesnt make much sense for sure.. these frame latency issues have to do with the memory management of the video card, where the variance of the time per frame for condensing free blocks and garbage collection was quite high. They were trying to be too clever, minimizing wasted memory by using often expensive alloc/free semantics. This is the correct thing to do when being clever means that everything will fit in VRAM so not much alloc/free going on, but becomes a problem when thats not the case (see any managed programming languages garbage collector for other examples of this problem.. they work great until they tank hard)
As soon as I saw the word 'cure' I knew this was hyped up, because in all of mans history we have never once found a cure for any virus, ever.
We do 3 things with regards to viruses:
1) Vaccination - Keep you from getting it to begin with. 2) Elimination - If nobody gets it for a long enough period of time, it (mostly) disappears.
3) Symptom management - we can't cure you of the virus, but we can reduce the symptoms until (if/when) your body figures out how to deal with it itself.
Never have we been able to produce any drug that will cure you of any virus in your system. The chance that AIDS would be the first virus to be cured seems a little far fetched given that it eventually directly attacks the immune system - this is a virus that has evolved to preemptively attack the one and only thing known to be able to eliminate viruses in a biological system.
This is an example of a statement that is both true and pointless, because while it is true that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, it is also true that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can have an effect.
Except his statement was in response to a statement claiming that CO2 was the #1 atmospheric greenhouse component.
...but you ride in to the rescue and attack the people pointing out the dishonesty.. what does that make you? Doesnt that make you a defender of liars?
It seems to me that you ignored the false statement, and instead felt that you just had to go after the true statement.
The problem here is two fold. First is your motivation, and we can guess what that is in a moment. Second is your pretense to be standing up for some form of higher honesty.
If the second part were true, you would have (at least) also gone after the lie, but you didn't.. you only went after the statements pointing out the lie. This tells us what your motivation really are, and they have nothing to do with truth and honesty.
There is a reason people keep having to explain that CO2 is not the #1 atmospheric greenhouse component, and that isn't just because it is often claimed that it is, its because that claim is done so in such a way that the mere fact that its "number one" is supposed to carry some weight.. ie, its dishonesty combined with marketing tactics.. a big fucking pile of dishonesty.