upper cmmi levels are precisely for the case of a large organization composed of average contributors, who have median levels of motivation. in those cases it is a godsend, because, as is well-established by history, such organizations will fail without either (1) stellar leadership, or (2) rigorous process. and (1) is a crap shoot. now in environments with a small number of highly competent and motivated contributors, rigorous process can only lower the results to a level similar to those achieved in the prior case, but such environments are less common. any controversy between the two is analogous to a dilemma comprise by an arranged marriage with a pre-nup on the one hand, and a romeo & juliet romance (without the suicides) on the other. the latter is much to be preferred, but i wouldn't bate my breath waiting for it.
hubble has a 2.4 m2 reflector. estimate the galaxy at 4x10E37 watts, with 2.5e18 photons per watt, and you get about 1200 photons per second. there are a LOT of stars in a galaxy.
Implement test pads in your code, and automate all the testing. Manual tests are pretty much a joke anyhow, since people make mistakes. A test which isn't automated is 1) a drain on your soul 2) irreproducible and 3) a loss of long-term value.
The major factor preventing the NOAA report from credibly attributing significant warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses is the fact that H20 completely dominates CO2, while CH4 is largely due to bogs and clathrates. That doesn't leave much influence for humans. Omitting the infrared reflectivity of H20 from the equation is the equivalent of a stacked deck. I'm not playing by those house rules -- at least not with real money.
Agrarian = disaster. The human CO2 contribution is dominated by the food production and supply chain, from slash-and-burn agriculture to ammonia fertilizers and trans-oceanic grain shipping. You basically eat oil. Reducing the carbon budget is just another way of saying reducing the food supply.
One could use the volatility of the time series to derive a rigorously principled evaluation of the anthropogenic contribution, on the usual assumptions made in option valuation. Maybe later.
If Siberia becomes a breadbasket, it is likely to have a powerfully beneficial effect on the global food supply. Most methods of abating CO2 emissions are likely to have a severely harmful effect on the food supply. While the Sahel would be toasted even a slight warming trend, other impoverished regions will benefit and the impact of warming Siberia will be felt everywhere.
And what do you think happens to the global food supply when Siberia starts producing enormous amounts of wheat? There will be winners and losers. I don't eat coral. Overfishing is doing serious damage to the food supply, but global warming? Not so much.
Most coastal regions of developed and developing nations are functionally uninhabitable, so pushing them inland is going to inconvenience some real estate owners, and benefit others, but it isn't going to change the global food supply. Now warming Siberia, on the other hand, would be an enormous boon to agriculture.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly then we should just stop the similarly farcical expenditures on weather modelling.
Weather simulations are very useful. Doesn't that doom this effort to producing a very useful result?
upper cmmi levels are precisely for the case of a large organization composed of average contributors, who have median levels of motivation. in those cases it is a godsend, because, as is well-established by history, such organizations will fail without either (1) stellar leadership, or (2) rigorous process. and (1) is a crap shoot. now in environments with a small number of highly competent and motivated contributors, rigorous process can only lower the results to a level similar to those achieved in the prior case, but such environments are less common. any controversy between the two is analogous to a dilemma comprise by an arranged marriage with a pre-nup on the one hand, and a romeo & juliet romance (without the suicides) on the other. the latter is much to be preferred, but i wouldn't bate my breath waiting for it.
hubble has a 2.4 m2 reflector. estimate the galaxy at 4x10E37 watts, with 2.5e18 photons per watt, and you get about 1200 photons per second. there are a LOT of stars in a galaxy.
hey, i didnt't get force-fed estrogen either! thanks, britain!
it leads to people acting on peer pressure. we try to discourage that sort of thing.
Sounds like the simple solution is to make a partition that holds the disk region in question.
The digit precision of the variation is immaterial. The statistical significance of the variation is material.
"Really Old is still going to be Really Old" is pretty much meaningless, if its not tautological.
We have seen other signs of it. For example, the quantization of red shift.
Implement test pads in your code, and automate all the testing. Manual tests are pretty much a joke anyhow, since people make mistakes. A test which isn't automated is 1) a drain on your soul 2) irreproducible and 3) a loss of long-term value.
Every generation deals with the mess of the previous generation. The suffering is much less now because we have Dominican nannies and ipads.
The major factor preventing the NOAA report from credibly attributing significant warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses is the fact that H20 completely dominates CO2, while CH4 is largely due to bogs and clathrates. That doesn't leave much influence for humans. Omitting the infrared reflectivity of H20 from the equation is the equivalent of a stacked deck. I'm not playing by those house rules -- at least not with real money.
Agrarian = disaster. The human CO2 contribution is dominated by the food production and supply chain, from slash-and-burn agriculture to ammonia fertilizers and trans-oceanic grain shipping. You basically eat oil. Reducing the carbon budget is just another way of saying reducing the food supply.
Thing is, water vapor completely dominates greenhouse effects. CO2 is noise.
One could use the volatility of the time series to derive a rigorously principled evaluation of the anthropogenic contribution, on the usual assumptions made in option valuation. Maybe later.
If Siberia becomes a breadbasket, it is likely to have a powerfully beneficial effect on the global food supply. Most methods of abating CO2 emissions are likely to have a severely harmful effect on the food supply. While the Sahel would be toasted even a slight warming trend, other impoverished regions will benefit and the impact of warming Siberia will be felt everywhere.
"Major change" != "cataclysm".
Or we could just move north.
And what do you think happens to the global food supply when Siberia starts producing enormous amounts of wheat? There will be winners and losers. I don't eat coral. Overfishing is doing serious damage to the food supply, but global warming? Not so much.
> in the "market-based economy" that we have, there is NO reason to make your coal plant cleaner
that's because the commons costs of effluent is not paid by the issuer. fix that and the problem is solved.
Most coastal regions of developed and developing nations are functionally uninhabitable, so pushing them inland is going to inconvenience some real estate owners, and benefit others, but it isn't going to change the global food supply. Now warming Siberia, on the other hand, would be an enormous boon to agriculture.
talent for what exactly?
I suggest building a well in Mali is a more suitable use of your energies.
Humans coin words. Get over it.
I think he meant "librarian"