Actually, it's quite possible to create a set of equations that are Earth-centric, and fully compatible with Relativity. They'd be a real pain in the ass to work out, even compared to the Einsteinian equations, but they'd be completely compatible.
IIUC, the first thing you do is rescale your metric so that all spacial variations are restated as temporal variations. I'm not sure what the next step is, as that first one was enough of a pain.
But Geocentric coordinate systems can be just as accurate as Heliocentric. They're just a huge much more pain to calculate with.
There are no complete climate models, and, in addition, there cannot be. Weather is chaotic, and therefore climate is also chaotic. You cannot collect sufficient data to have a complete model.
What you can have is models that work fairly well. Normally what they do is create an ensemble of models that work well on past data and project the places where they agree. Unfortunately, for, among other reasons, political reason, the ICCC eliminated from consideration models that made extreme forecasts. This caused them to underestimate the amount of warming to expect. They felt they had to do that to avoid being seen as alarmist if the projections were wrong.
OTOH, since controls of CO2 haven't been applied even as strongly as has been agreed upon, things are looking rather... unpleasant. Expect continued slowing of the jet stream and for hurricanes, heat waves and cold spells to continue to become more extreme (due to lingering in one place for longer).
Please note that the prediction includes more extreme cold spells as the result of global warming. This is why they called it climate change rather than global warming, because people have a hard time understanding that a local cold snap can be due to warming elsewhere. Most of the warming, however, has been in the Arctic and Antarctic areas, as was expected. This has resulted in slower jet streams. It's not yet clear how ocean currents will be affected. It's possible that the Greenland melt will shut down the northern branch of the gulf stream, which could lead to extreme freezing on the US East Coast and in Europe. So far it's weakened, but has maintained it's direction, if not speed. OTOH, if it slows sufficiently, then the sea level rise along the US East coast should be diluted by being spread elsewhere. I don't know how this would affect Europe.
Real conservatives are, indeed, pro science. That any can call themselves Republican in the face of the current Republican party I doubt. They either qualify what the mean by Republican to explicitly refer to some previous edition of the Republican party, or they are fake conservatives. (I count people who just close their eyes and go la-la-la as fake conservatives.)
You've been corrupted by movies. There's lots of AI being successfully used all over the place. It's not *very* intelligent, but it's still intelligent. Superhuman AI is still a bit off, but that doesn't mean that a drill-bot that positions the work properly before drilling isn't intelligent.
China has had a significant AI program for a decade or more. Not always a large one, and I don't know it's current status (though I could guess), but even a decade ago they were recruiting researchers.
Now as to whether it's approaching success...I have no idea. I've got suspicions that they've diverted a lot of the work into their "social credit" scheme, but that's pure guesswork.
I wish the evidence didn't contradict you. OTOH, I do think he only makes loud, blustery noises about things he thinks his supporter will notice and approve of. Some of them he cares about, and others he doesn't.
Unfortunately, bad as the actions of the FCC are, they are minor in comparison to the actions of other government agencies. They may affect me more directly, but other improper actions have resulted in people dying. So attention is rightfully paid to other actions.
It may not be libel even if it isn't true, if it's stated as an opinion. E.g., were I to claim that "I feel the would would be improved if Flight-Sim went bankrupt.", then even if I were to not actually feel that way, it still wouldn't be libel. OTOH, were I to state "The world would be improved if Flight-Sim went bankrupt." I might need to prove that it was a true statement to avoid libel. Or at least I might be libel for libel if they could prove it was a false statement.
OTOH, IANAL, so take these comments with the appropriate amount of salt. But that's the way I understand the law.
If Reddit profits from visits, then they might well profit over defending against a malicious and frivolous lawsuit by an company unpopular with their audience.
Actually, given that "major version numbers don't mean anything special" there's a lot to be said in favor of a date based numbering schema. Preferably one that's yy.mm.dd during development changing to yy.mm or yy.mm(f) on release, were the (f), if present, denotes "Whoops, this is the fix number to the release version.".
Yes. And this is worrying. I currently trust the FSF, but changes happen. It's worried me from the start. But I also see the reasons, and the lack of good alternatives.
The only thing that occurs to me is that people should be making checkpoint dumps say, once a year. So no more than a year's worth of coding is lost. But actually I think this happens. Red Hat and Debian, at least, have backups more frequently than that, and probably also Gentoo, and Slackware and most of the other major distributions.
Since I already refuse to use Microsoft for anything, I'd only hope that it contributes to Oracle going bankrupt. (I can't imagine the MS would sell itself for a fair price.)
It's true that we wouldn't have believed how much the world would change, but...
1. When Java became available under GPL, MS didn't get any real advantage in holding onto their version. And if you mean NET (do you?) it's terms are not better, and it's portability is abysmal. 2. Microsoft was never an internet company. IE was a money pit. 3. There's a word for the MS "Linux compatibility layer"..."embrace". 4. Office is their main cash cow. If they can get it more widely used, they make more money. 5. The contributions I've heard of are generally to allow them to better host Linux. Perhaps you are aware of others. 6. They couldn't sell their servers based on MSWindows, so they sold servers based on Linux. The only surprise is that they didn't use BSD, but there's probably some reason. 7. "Innovative"? Innovation is not an intrinsic good. It depends on what it does. I don't use MSWind, so I can't authoritatively comment, but the comments I've heard have not been flattering. 8. I don't believe you.
To me those are not a set of arguments in favor of Microsoft. Some of them are rather strong arguments against it.
I *don't* use Microsoft products, do not agree to their EULAs, do not accept their cookies, etc.
No, I don't trust Microsoft. They've damaged me personally as well as in multiple ways that make news. If they acquire GitHub, I will proactively move away from it because I do not trust them to not damage me if they get a chance. But I'm quite angry with them for forcing me into this situation. It's true, they are not the only parties to this deal, or to the others that damaged me, but they are the common thread.
You could claim, I suppose, that I should trust their promises that "This time we'll be honorable and keep our commitments.", but I've been caught by that one before.
Actually, a handle is tied to a posting history, so any handle *is* more trustworthy than "Anonymous Coward". "Anonymous Coward" is a mix is unidentified posters. A single handle represents one small (usually singular) collection of entities. The amount you should trust this is, indeed, limited, but it does have some weight. And it's also true that the amount you should trust anyone, including yourself, is limited...though to a lesser extent.
A company is not a single entity, but it does have a consistent culture and a conditioned way of responding. Anyone who expects Microsoft to have changed without very good evidence doesn't understand the way organizations work. Anyone who does, and still defends Microsoft is reasonably suspected of having a hidden agenda.
Microsoft has consistently acted to abuse any trust given since the 1980's. I can't think of any proven exceptions, though of course it would be hard to prove that they hadn't abused a particular example of trust, so you shouldn't take that extreme position seriously. I do, but it's just based on the assumption that they act consistently, which is not a uniform truth. So say that perhaps they only abuse the trust 3/4 of the time. Certainly it doesn't need to be demonstrably profitable for then to do so, though perhaps there was always the expectation on someone's part that the abuse would be profitable. Perhaps. Or maybe the habit is just too strong.
It's been a very long time since I've understood any company wanting to do business with or to tie itself to Microsoft. Stacker's trust of them was reasonable, as they had not at that point really been shown to be as untrustworthy a partner as later events revealed. After that, though, I would have expected companies to become more circumspect...but this didn't appear to happen, as repeated events showed.
Actually, I generally refuse to buy from Amazon at all, but I NEVER buy third party from Amazon. The first time I ordered a used book from Amazon, the money disappeared, but the book never showed up, and Amazon disavowed all responsibility. Since then I never buy third party goods from Amazon. If it's a new book, and the local book store can't order it for me, I order directly from the publisher. There have been 2 or 3 exceptions over the last decade. And the last thing I bought from Amazon that wasn't a book was a box of Penguin mints...nearly a decade ago now. Even then I was tending to avoid Amazon.
This can't possibly work, because of a Supreme Court decision back around the 1970's. Up until then local social support had been able to be limited to residents of the area, but the Supreme Court decided that this was forbidden. This instituted a race to the bottom, because any locale that decided to be generous to it's unfortunate residents had to be generous to the entire country.
So this, likewise, can't work. And for the same reason. You don't need to go into details of the plan, if it's more than averagely generous, and it gets in the news, the plan will be swamped.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's quite possible to create a set of equations that are Earth-centric, and fully compatible with Relativity. They'd be a real pain in the ass to work out, even compared to the Einsteinian equations, but they'd be completely compatible.
IIUC, the first thing you do is rescale your metric so that all spacial variations are restated as temporal variations. I'm not sure what the next step is, as that first one was enough of a pain.
But Geocentric coordinate systems can be just as accurate as Heliocentric. They're just a huge much more pain to calculate with.
There are no complete climate models, and, in addition, there cannot be. Weather is chaotic, and therefore climate is also chaotic. You cannot collect sufficient data to have a complete model.
What you can have is models that work fairly well. Normally what they do is create an ensemble of models that work well on past data and project the places where they agree. Unfortunately, for, among other reasons, political reason, the ICCC eliminated from consideration models that made extreme forecasts. This caused them to underestimate the amount of warming to expect. They felt they had to do that to avoid being seen as alarmist if the projections were wrong.
OTOH, since controls of CO2 haven't been applied even as strongly as has been agreed upon, things are looking rather ... unpleasant. Expect continued slowing of the jet stream and for hurricanes, heat waves and cold spells to continue to become more extreme (due to lingering in one place for longer).
Please note that the prediction includes more extreme cold spells as the result of global warming. This is why they called it climate change rather than global warming, because people have a hard time understanding that a local cold snap can be due to warming elsewhere. Most of the warming, however, has been in the Arctic and Antarctic areas, as was expected. This has resulted in slower jet streams. It's not yet clear how ocean currents will be affected. It's possible that the Greenland melt will shut down the northern branch of the gulf stream, which could lead to extreme freezing on the US East Coast and in Europe. So far it's weakened, but has maintained it's direction, if not speed. OTOH, if it slows sufficiently, then the sea level rise along the US East coast should be diluted by being spread elsewhere. I don't know how this would affect Europe.
Real conservatives are, indeed, pro science. That any can call themselves Republican in the face of the current Republican party I doubt. They either qualify what the mean by Republican to explicitly refer to some previous edition of the Republican party, or they are fake conservatives. (I count people who just close their eyes and go la-la-la as fake conservatives.)
You've been corrupted by movies. There's lots of AI being successfully used all over the place. It's not *very* intelligent, but it's still intelligent. Superhuman AI is still a bit off, but that doesn't mean that a drill-bot that positions the work properly before drilling isn't intelligent.
China has had a significant AI program for a decade or more. Not always a large one, and I don't know it's current status (though I could guess), but even a decade ago they were recruiting researchers.
Now as to whether it's approaching success...I have no idea. I've got suspicions that they've diverted a lot of the work into their "social credit" scheme, but that's pure guesswork.
I wish the evidence didn't contradict you.
OTOH, I do think he only makes loud, blustery noises about things he thinks his supporter will notice and approve of. Some of them he cares about, and others he doesn't.
Unfortunately, bad as the actions of the FCC are, they are minor in comparison to the actions of other government agencies. They may affect me more directly, but other improper actions have resulted in people dying. So attention is rightfully paid to other actions.
So you're saying you remember the company committed interstate felony, but we should forgive them, because we weren't the target?
I don't really follow your reasoning. And if your statements are true I don't understand why the company isn't in federal court as a defendant.
It may not be libel even if it isn't true, if it's stated as an opinion. E.g., were I to claim that "I feel the would would be improved if Flight-Sim went bankrupt.", then even if I were to not actually feel that way, it still wouldn't be libel. OTOH, were I to state "The world would be improved if Flight-Sim went bankrupt." I might need to prove that it was a true statement to avoid libel. Or at least I might be libel for libel if they could prove it was a false statement.
OTOH, IANAL, so take these comments with the appropriate amount of salt. But that's the way I understand the law.
If Reddit profits from visits, then they might well profit over defending against a malicious and frivolous lawsuit by an company unpopular with their audience.
Actually, given that "major version numbers don't mean anything special" there's a lot to be said in favor of a date based numbering schema. Preferably one that's yy.mm.dd during development changing to yy.mm or yy.mm(f) on release, were the (f), if present, denotes "Whoops, this is the fix number to the release version.".
Yes. And this is worrying. I currently trust the FSF, but changes happen. It's worried me from the start. But I also see the reasons, and the lack of good alternatives.
The only thing that occurs to me is that people should be making checkpoint dumps say, once a year. So no more than a year's worth of coding is lost. But actually I think this happens. Red Hat and Debian, at least, have backups more frequently than that, and probably also Gentoo, and Slackware and most of the other major distributions.
Since I already refuse to use Microsoft for anything, I'd only hope that it contributes to Oracle going bankrupt. (I can't imagine the MS would sell itself for a fair price.)
The indicated result is, indeed, a good thing. The cause is closer to a disaster than to a good thing.
It's true that we wouldn't have believed how much the world would change, but...
1. When Java became available under GPL, MS didn't get any real advantage in holding onto their version. And if you mean NET (do you?) it's terms are not better, and it's portability is abysmal.
2. Microsoft was never an internet company. IE was a money pit.
3. There's a word for the MS "Linux compatibility layer"..."embrace".
4. Office is their main cash cow. If they can get it more widely used, they make more money.
5. The contributions I've heard of are generally to allow them to better host Linux. Perhaps you are aware of others.
6. They couldn't sell their servers based on MSWindows, so they sold servers based on Linux. The only surprise is that they didn't use BSD, but there's probably some reason.
7. "Innovative"? Innovation is not an intrinsic good. It depends on what it does. I don't use MSWind, so I can't authoritatively comment, but the comments I've heard have not been flattering.
8. I don't believe you.
To me those are not a set of arguments in favor of Microsoft. Some of them are rather strong arguments against it.
Perhaps it's the question of which is the lesser evil.
Seriously, I don't want to use SourceForge, but if the choice were between using SourceForge or trusting Microsoft....well, SourceForge wins easily.
Fortunately, that's a false dichotomy.
I *don't* use Microsoft products, do not agree to their EULAs, do not accept their cookies, etc.
No, I don't trust Microsoft. They've damaged me personally as well as in multiple ways that make news. If they acquire GitHub, I will proactively move away from it because I do not trust them to not damage me if they get a chance. But I'm quite angry with them for forcing me into this situation. It's true, they are not the only parties to this deal, or to the others that damaged me, but they are the common thread.
You could claim, I suppose, that I should trust their promises that "This time we'll be honorable and keep our commitments.", but I've been caught by that one before.
If Microsoft had been honorable for the last 10 years, I would be trusting them somewhat right now. They've actually, however, been the opposite.
Actually, a handle is tied to a posting history, so any handle *is* more trustworthy than "Anonymous Coward". "Anonymous Coward" is a mix is unidentified posters. A single handle represents one small (usually singular) collection of entities. The amount you should trust this is, indeed, limited, but it does have some weight. And it's also true that the amount you should trust anyone, including yourself, is limited...though to a lesser extent.
A company is not a single entity, but it does have a consistent culture and a conditioned way of responding. Anyone who expects Microsoft to have changed without very good evidence doesn't understand the way organizations work. Anyone who does, and still defends Microsoft is reasonably suspected of having a hidden agenda.
Microsoft has consistently acted to abuse any trust given since the 1980's. I can't think of any proven exceptions, though of course it would be hard to prove that they hadn't abused a particular example of trust, so you shouldn't take that extreme position seriously. I do, but it's just based on the assumption that they act consistently, which is not a uniform truth. So say that perhaps they only abuse the trust 3/4 of the time. Certainly it doesn't need to be demonstrably profitable for then to do so, though perhaps there was always the expectation on someone's part that the abuse would be profitable. Perhaps. Or maybe the habit is just too strong.
It's been a very long time since I've understood any company wanting to do business with or to tie itself to Microsoft. Stacker's trust of them was reasonable, as they had not at that point really been shown to be as untrustworthy a partner as later events revealed. After that, though, I would have expected companies to become more circumspect...but this didn't appear to happen, as repeated events showed.
Not just half it's capacity. It also loses half it's maximum discharge rate.
For most uses I think you'd need to pair this with a capacitor bank to store the charge from when you weren't drawing power for when you are.
Is that the British or the US "Table". In procedural actions I'm told they have opposite meaning.
After that first experience, new books are the only thing I've considered buying from them. So for me, Amazon only sells books.
Actually, I generally refuse to buy from Amazon at all, but I NEVER buy third party from Amazon. The first time I ordered a used book from Amazon, the money disappeared, but the book never showed up, and Amazon disavowed all responsibility. Since then I never buy third party goods from Amazon. If it's a new book, and the local book store can't order it for me, I order directly from the publisher. There have been 2 or 3 exceptions over the last decade. And the last thing I bought from Amazon that wasn't a book was a box of Penguin mints...nearly a decade ago now. Even then I was tending to avoid Amazon.
This can't possibly work, because of a Supreme Court decision back around the 1970's. Up until then local social support had been able to be limited to residents of the area, but the Supreme Court decided that this was forbidden. This instituted a race to the bottom, because any locale that decided to be generous to it's unfortunate residents had to be generous to the entire country.
So this, likewise, can't work. And for the same reason. You don't need to go into details of the plan, if it's more than averagely generous, and it gets in the news, the plan will be swamped.