will shock most Americans when their purchasing power falls by 60% or more when everybody else leaves Bretton Woods
Bretton Woods was abandoned 40 years ago.
As for a reduction in the exchange value of the USD, 60% could only come from a panic, not an accurate readjustment. A panic won't be allowed to happen. If nothing else other countries have too much to lose from it.
OTOH a smaller reduction in the exchange value of the USD would be very good for us. It's idiotic that we've spent so much time and effort post-WWII to prop up the dollar, when it only gives us bigger trade deficits and destroys our industry. There have been a few exceptions, like the Plaza Accord, but that's been long undone, thanks in large part to the corrupt influence of the finance industry.
it's not even 'just' a law that Congress can theoretically repeal - this is International Treaty, which effectively becomes permanent law under the US Constitution
It's not a treaty, it's a "congressional-executive agreement". It requires simple majorities (like an ordinary bill) instead of 2/3 of the senate. It's a constitutional gray area, and it sounds like BS to me when applied to long term agreements like trade "agreements" (treaties in all but name), but they've been upheld. On the bright side they're easier to repeal.
I would personally say it is because the USA has bet the farm on being the monopoly holder on intellectual properties.
That's a bad bet - something more affected by corruption and propaganda (the wonders of our "post-industrial" economy!) than by any rational policy choice. The excessive and corrupt influence of the "intellectual property" and financial parts of our economy hurts the rest of the economy. There are limits to the potential value of "intellectual property". It's not as big a part of our economy as is often hyped, other countries can easily produce large parts of it (e.g. movie and music production don't have major barriers to entry), and does anyone really expect other countries to rigorously enforce IP laws that mostly benefit the US, regardless of what trade agreements say?
That's a very polite euphemism for corruption. The excessive influence of industries concerned about "intellectual property", was bought and paid for. In addition to locking up people, or fining them into penury, for sharing a few songs, it means the foreign and domestic economic policies of the US are distorted in favor of this handful of over-hyped industries, and to the detriment of the rest of the economy.
Our boomers usually operate in open water, where they have a greater range to move around in. The Russian boomers usually operate off their northern coast, and often under the arctic ice. The Sea of Okhotsk is a lousy place for subs - too shallow.
Something new from cold fjord - a story/concern that most Slashdotters agree with. Cold (if I may presume to use your first name), I think this demonstrates that most Slashdotters are not naive fools who think we live in a completely friendly world. Rather, if I may speak for most others, we think many of the tactics used in fighting terrorism are overly intrusive (and sometimes downright un-Constitutional), dangerous to our freedom, and either marginally or completely ineffective. For example, 9/11 could have been prevented with old-fashioned police work. For example, FBI headquarters listening to a report from a field office, which in turn they were given by an astute flight instructor, of some gentlemen who wanted to learn to fly but didn't care about takeoffs and landings (at least not of the preferred variety).
This is pretty much a non-issue for ballistic missiles, since they rely on inertial nav. If nothing else the ionization during re-entry prevents reception of radio signals. GPS may also not have sufficient dynamic capability (there's a tradeoff between how rapid GPS position updates are and how accurate they are). Maybe GPS would have some value in allowing ballistic missile subs to re-cal their inertial nav at sea, but that's about it.
Using GPS/GLONASS for more conventional weapons (e.g. cruise missiles, PGM's, planes, etc.) is another story. Many rely on GPS/GLONASS. The US DoD reserves the ability to screw up GPS accuracy in certain parts of the world to foil enemy use of GPS, so they don't like the idea of anyone else implementing a system as good as GPS.
why don't they invest in some thermometers and stick them where they need to fill in the data gaps going forward?
Sounds like a great idea, but sticking thermometers in the Arctic and keeping them there will cost a few bucks. Do you think the anti-science crowd in congress will approve funding for that?
At some point it's going to be obvious to even US Republican Senators that climate change is going to economically effect their tiny little world and they might try to do something about it.
It's already obvious to the Pentagon, but everybody knows that place is full of pinko, tree-hugging, industry hating, enviro-whackos.
Something doesn't make sense to you off the top of your head, so of course it's wrong. Or you could, ya know, actually cite recent extinction rates, or information about how no one species ever boomed during a mass extinction event. Better yet, you could admit that "their hockey stick chart looks surprisingly similar to the population chart" isn't exactly a profound observation. No, no, I'll admit I'm wrong, one random Internet poster has clearly managed to debunk climate science. Brilliant!
Now, for looking at the global warming/changing hysteria, their hockey stick chart looks surprisingly similar to the population chart covering the same years. Somehow they believe that an increase in a trace gas is leading to a mass extinction, while it is tracking with the opposite.
Obviously the increased population of one species means that there couldn't possibly be large scale extinction of other species (which is what "mass extinction" means). Similarly, the increased population of jellyfish must mean the oceans are in fine shape.
That's the spirit! A shoot-from-the-hip comment, not backed by any calculation, measurement or modelling, but hey. someone (with and actual doctorate!) claims something doesn't make sense to her. Case closed, you found one Ph.D. who off the top of her head makes a critical comment (BTW, that's never happened to a peer reviewed paper before) and it proves that the whole thing is nonsense!
Cowtan and Way circumvent both problems by using an established geostatistical interpolation method called kriging – but they do not apply it to the temperature data itself (which would be similar to what GISS does), but to the difference between satellite and ground data. So they produce a hybrid temperature field. This consists of the surface data where they exist. But in the data gaps, it consists of satellite data that have been converted to near-surface temperatures, where the difference between the two is determined by a kriging interpolation from the edges. As this is redone for each new month, a possible drift of the satellite data is no longer an issue.
Prerequisite for success is, of course, that this difference is sufficiently smooth, i.e. has no strong small-scale structure. This can be tested on artificially generated data gaps, in places where one knows the actual surface temperature values but holds them back in the calculation. Cowtan and Way perform extensive validation tests, which demonstrate that their hybrid method provides significantly better results than a normal interpolation on the surface data as done by GISS.
They don't really understand what's going on, at least with any degree of precision. That's why responsible climatologists give overall projections a wide error band. However, pretty much all the predictions based on honest science (as opposed to throwing spaghetti against the wall) point in the same direction.
Slashdot Mirror
will shock most Americans when their purchasing power falls by 60% or more when everybody else leaves Bretton Woods
Bretton Woods was abandoned 40 years ago.
As for a reduction in the exchange value of the USD, 60% could only come from a panic, not an accurate readjustment. A panic won't be allowed to happen. If nothing else other countries have too much to lose from it.
OTOH a smaller reduction in the exchange value of the USD would be very good for us. It's idiotic that we've spent so much time and effort post-WWII to prop up the dollar, when it only gives us bigger trade deficits and destroys our industry. There have been a few exceptions, like the Plaza Accord, but that's been long undone, thanks in large part to the corrupt influence of the finance industry.
it's not even 'just' a law that Congress can theoretically repeal - this is International Treaty, which effectively becomes permanent law under the US Constitution
It's not a treaty, it's a "congressional-executive agreement". It requires simple majorities (like an ordinary bill) instead of 2/3 of the senate. It's a constitutional gray area, and it sounds like BS to me when applied to long term agreements like trade "agreements" (treaties in all but name), but they've been upheld. On the bright side they're easier to repeal.
Mod parent up, and ask him if he can also write haiku.
what was Perl doing there, it was just a single line script with regex
Perl = Pathologically Eclectic 'R' Lister.
I would personally say it is because the USA has bet the farm on being the monopoly holder on intellectual properties.
That's a bad bet - something more affected by corruption and propaganda (the wonders of our "post-industrial" economy!) than by any rational policy choice. The excessive and corrupt influence of the "intellectual property" and financial parts of our economy hurts the rest of the economy. There are limits to the potential value of "intellectual property". It's not as big a part of our economy as is often hyped, other countries can easily produce large parts of it (e.g. movie and music production don't have major barriers to entry), and does anyone really expect other countries to rigorously enforce IP laws that mostly benefit the US, regardless of what trade agreements say?
brainwashing/groupthink
That's a very polite euphemism for corruption. The excessive influence of industries concerned about "intellectual property", was bought and paid for. In addition to locking up people, or fining them into penury, for sharing a few songs, it means the foreign and domestic economic policies of the US are distorted in favor of this handful of over-hyped industries, and to the detriment of the rest of the economy.
that's a nice search engine you have there. it would be a shame if something happened to it.
That's unfair - the Mafia has some sense of honor.
our Trident subs lurking under the polar icecap
Our boomers usually operate in open water, where they have a greater range to move around in. The Russian boomers usually operate off their northern coast, and often under the arctic ice. The Sea of Okhotsk is a lousy place for subs - too shallow.
Ok, then clarify.
Something new from cold fjord - a story/concern that most Slashdotters agree with. Cold (if I may presume to use your first name), I think this demonstrates that most Slashdotters are not naive fools who think we live in a completely friendly world. Rather, if I may speak for most others, we think many of the tactics used in fighting terrorism are overly intrusive (and sometimes downright un-Constitutional), dangerous to our freedom, and either marginally or completely ineffective. For example, 9/11 could have been prevented with old-fashioned police work. For example, FBI headquarters listening to a report from a field office, which in turn they were given by an astute flight instructor, of some gentlemen who wanted to learn to fly but didn't care about takeoffs and landings (at least not of the preferred variety).
it raises an interesting question about US outposts abroad to admit to that, doesn't it?
No. The US can put GPS stations anywhere in the world where the host country is amenable. So can Russia.
"aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?
This is pretty much a non-issue for ballistic missiles, since they rely on inertial nav. If nothing else the ionization during re-entry prevents reception of radio signals. GPS may also not have sufficient dynamic capability (there's a tradeoff between how rapid GPS position updates are and how accurate they are). Maybe GPS would have some value in allowing ballistic missile subs to re-cal their inertial nav at sea, but that's about it.
Using GPS/GLONASS for more conventional weapons (e.g. cruise missiles, PGM's, planes, etc.) is another story. Many rely on GPS/GLONASS. The US DoD reserves the ability to screw up GPS accuracy in certain parts of the world to foil enemy use of GPS, so they don't like the idea of anyone else implementing a system as good as GPS.
Maybe they need something further north. Try Canada - let's see what their NORAD people think.
Not well. Catholic persecution was bad enough in England.
new 5 year plan
How ironic that you'd describe a government research project that way on the Internet.
why don't they invest in some thermometers and stick them where they need to fill in the data gaps going forward?
Sounds like a great idea, but sticking thermometers in the Arctic and keeping them there will cost a few bucks. Do you think the anti-science crowd in congress will approve funding for that?
At some point it's going to be obvious to even US Republican Senators that climate change is going to economically effect their tiny little world and they might try to do something about it.
It's already obvious to the Pentagon, but everybody knows that place is full of pinko, tree-hugging, industry hating, enviro-whackos.
If you don't get rated up to +5 funny (and insightful), then there is no justice.
Something doesn't make sense to you off the top of your head, so of course it's wrong. Or you could, ya know, actually cite recent extinction rates, or information about how no one species ever boomed during a mass extinction event. Better yet, you could admit that "their hockey stick chart looks surprisingly similar to the population chart" isn't exactly a profound observation. No, no, I'll admit I'm wrong, one random Internet poster has clearly managed to debunk climate science. Brilliant!
Climate Scientists are not Statisticians
But petroleum engineers are?
Now, for looking at the global warming/changing hysteria, their hockey stick chart looks surprisingly similar to the population chart covering the same years. Somehow they believe that an increase in a trace gas is leading to a mass extinction, while it is tracking with the opposite.
Obviously the increased population of one species means that there couldn't possibly be large scale extinction of other species (which is what "mass extinction" means). Similarly, the increased population of jellyfish must mean the oceans are in fine shape.
That's the spirit! A shoot-from-the-hip comment, not backed by any calculation, measurement or modelling, but hey. someone (with and actual doctorate!) claims something doesn't make sense to her. Case closed, you found one Ph.D. who off the top of her head makes a critical comment (BTW, that's never happened to a peer reviewed paper before) and it proves that the whole thing is nonsense!
It means that there are no surface weather stations on 15% of the planet.
Fail.
Cowtan and Way circumvent both problems by using an established geostatistical interpolation method called kriging – but they do not apply it to the temperature data itself (which would be similar to what GISS does), but to the difference between satellite and ground data. So they produce a hybrid temperature field. This consists of the surface data where they exist. But in the data gaps, it consists of satellite data that have been converted to near-surface temperatures, where the difference between the two is determined by a kriging interpolation from the edges. As this is redone for each new month, a possible drift of the satellite data is no longer an issue.
Prerequisite for success is, of course, that this difference is sufficiently smooth, i.e. has no strong small-scale structure. This can be tested on artificially generated data gaps, in places where one knows the actual surface temperature values but holds them back in the calculation. Cowtan and Way perform extensive validation tests, which demonstrate that their hybrid method provides significantly better results than a normal interpolation on the surface data as done by GISS.
They don't really understand what's going on, at least with any degree of precision. That's why responsible climatologists give overall projections a wide error band. However, pretty much all the predictions based on honest science (as opposed to throwing spaghetti against the wall) point in the same direction.
Let me help you more: the AC post directly above yours "cites" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/curry-on-the-cowtan-way-pausebuster-is-there-anything-useful-in-it/ Please translate into your own words.