Scientists have a job because the vast majority of funding for climate science comes from government or NGO organizations that only fund research that is looking to confirm human caused global warming er global climate change.
Which is why most of the criticisms come from older scientists with tenure and no longer trying to maintain a research lab so don't need funding or are simply retired.
I keep hearing that if I don't want to see abusive ads I should simply not go back to those sites...
The problem is that there are (literally) thousands and thousands of them. Can't remember them all.
Perhaps what we need is a way for sites to indicate or for an ad blocking site to rate that they require "no-ad blocking" and then on pages with URL's instead of a blue underline we get a red underline. Then we can vote with our clicks without ever having to actually visit the site first. Don't want to view invasive ads then don't click on the red links.
To quote Will Saletan "But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust."
Windows 10 with Classic Shell is an even better Windows 7 than Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell. Both are a better Windows 7 than Windows 7.
I did give the Windows 10 "start menu" a bit more of a try out than the Windows 8 one. A full ten minutes (nine minutes longer!) Then installed Classic Shell and got back to work.
I've been running Windows 8.1 for the last year with Classic Shell. It ends up being a much better Windows 7 then. My preferred version of Windows in fact.
Did my first Windows 10 yesterday. Poked at the new and "improved" start menu for ten minutes. Installed Classic Shell and got back to work.
It looks like Windows 10 with Classic Shell ends up being a (possibly, maybe, hopefully) better Windows 7 then!
The reality is that people - not especially Americans, don't want to pay the high cost of having somebody else drive the car.
Once you remove the cost of the driver and really are comparing just the cost of the car and operating the car it becomes a much more level playing field.
Driver Tourism. Pick a nice road in the Italian Alps. Run it one way with minimum times between drivers. Charge a small fortune. Options could include having professional drivers who will drive you etc etc.
If you really think driving is fun then look for ways to pursue it safely. Sufficient money will make it happen.
Yes, but a more apt comparison would be to look at the rise in small computer companies (Microsoft, now Apple) at the expense of big computer companies (DEC, Unisys, Honeywell, IBM.)
A formerly popular product replaced by a much lower cost product kills or emasculates some companies but new companies pop up to take advantage of the cash flow available to spend on other things that are needed and now affordable.
Sure they do. A lot of what is currently done with high cost buses will be replaced by smaller automated vehicles. Those might be owned (read financed) by the local transportation company (i.e. who is operating the buses now), the taxi company replacements (e.g. Uber) that are willing to fund them for profit they can make, or by end users for their own use and possibly for leasing out.
If they are cheaper to operate somebody will be happy to buy and operate them to replace costlier options.
1. The UberLike service that is managing your car for you simply valets it for you before returning it to you for your use. 2. The UberLike service also tracks damage by passengers and bills them and / or simply refuses to rent to them in the future. In any respect the service restores your car to usable condition before returning it as part of the terms and conditions you allowed them to use it.
These are not like current taxis and buses. Much more like a cross between Uber and Avis. Uber like app but you are renting the car like Avis and the car delivers itself to you and takes itself back after use. Damage on the outside will mostly be not your problem. Damage on the inside will and they will know who to bill and who to deny service to in the future.
Self driving cars are (not even) where the original iPhone was 10 years ago. Think where another two or three generations of chip evolution will get things to.
This applies to cpu speed to analyze. It also applies to gpu's to analyze video. It also applies to all of the sensors and radar and lidar units required.
Everything will be cheaper and faster with higher resolution.
It is also amusing to listen to some news outlets that will have (in the same broadcast) a segment on the failure of peer reviewed science and then later (in the same broadcast) lamenting that the client deniers don't believe in the consensus (of peer reviewed science.)
It appears that the left brain may not know what the right brain does...
Well since www.realclimate.org is an activist website we could assume that they would disagree with anybody that would criticize Mann's work. The entire purpose of that website is to provide backup arguments to any and all climate change denier deniers.
If you want some middle of the road coverage of Mann try judithcurry.com.
Or in the case of the last 18 years the worse the fit the (according to the climate change denier deniers) the better.
If it fits its good. If it doesn't fit it is still good. Trust us. The models will work. Even though we used to say 15 years with no temperature increase would invalidate them, we now realize we where wrong. It will take more like 50 years to invalidate them. Really. The science is good. Really really good. Because the models tell us that the science is good.
It is also a more efficient use of capital. Trucking companies invest a large amount of money in their fleet. A 20% more efficient fleet means a corresponding reduction in the amount of money you need to invest in your fleet. If there are other cost reductions as well this becomes compelling.
There are numerous different scenarios. Long haul trucking (for example) may end up being totally autonomous, just having a human driver picked up when close to leaving the freeway system.
Local delivery (Fed Ex, UPS etc) will still have an operator (or perhaps two or more) that can jump out with the package while the delivery truck drives around the block (or drops the second operator at a second location.) While going between locations the operators sort packages. When empty the operators may get dropped off for coffee while the truck heads back to the depot and a second full truck heads out to pick them up.
Its all about effectively managing resources and reducing costs. People will continue to have a place just a different one.
To be (slightly) fair the 1.1.1 standard was published in 2012. Presumably the first versions where a year or several before that. So most likely this is circa 2008-2010 protocol standard writing.
Doesn't really excuse them. But it wasn't 2015 and not quite as obvious then.
Government official is NOT an accurate description of Goebbels. By that analogy you could say Hitler was just a democratically elected leader following the wishes of his electorate.
Most of the diaries have been available since I believe the 50's or 60's in English translation. They where rescued after the bulk where left to burn in a ditch. So incomplete at best. And chilling to read what is available.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists have a job because the vast majority of funding for climate science comes from government or NGO organizations that only fund research that is looking to confirm human caused global warming er global climate change.
Which is why most of the criticisms come from older scientists with tenure and no longer trying to maintain a research lab so don't need funding or are simply retired.
Hit golf ball.
Go to where it landed, paint a circle around it. Take picture. It landed in the circle, exactly what you wanted.
I keep hearing that if I don't want to see abusive ads I should simply not go back to those sites...
The problem is that there are (literally) thousands and thousands of them. Can't remember them all.
Perhaps what we need is a way for sites to indicate or for an ad blocking site to rate that they require "no-ad blocking" and then on pages with URL's instead of a blue underline we get a red underline. Then we can vote with our clicks without ever having to actually visit the site first. Don't want to view invasive ads then don't click on the red links.
Slate has an excellent summary on the GMO scare.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
To quote Will Saletan "But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust."
Windows 10 with Classic Shell is an even better Windows 7 than Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell. Both are a better Windows 7 than Windows 7.
I did give the Windows 10 "start menu" a bit more of a try out than the Windows 8 one. A full ten minutes (nine minutes longer!) Then installed Classic Shell and got back to work.
I've been running Windows 8.1 for the last year with Classic Shell. It ends up being a much better Windows 7 then. My preferred version of Windows in fact.
Did my first Windows 10 yesterday. Poked at the new and "improved" start menu for ten minutes. Installed Classic Shell and got back to work.
It looks like Windows 10 with Classic Shell ends up being a (possibly, maybe, hopefully) better Windows 7 then!
The reality is that people - not especially Americans, don't want to pay the high cost of having somebody else drive the car.
Once you remove the cost of the driver and really are comparing just the cost of the car and operating the car it becomes a much more level playing field.
Driver Tourism. Pick a nice road in the Italian Alps. Run it one way with minimum times between drivers. Charge a small fortune. Options could include having professional drivers who will drive you etc etc.
If you really think driving is fun then look for ways to pursue it safely. Sufficient money will make it happen.
Yes, but a more apt comparison would be to look at the rise in small computer companies (Microsoft, now Apple) at the expense of big computer companies (DEC, Unisys, Honeywell, IBM.)
A formerly popular product replaced by a much lower cost product kills or emasculates some companies but new companies pop up to take advantage of the cash flow available to spend on other things that are needed and now affordable.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Sure they do. A lot of what is currently done with high cost buses will be replaced by smaller automated vehicles. Those might be owned (read financed) by the local transportation company (i.e. who is operating the buses now), the taxi company replacements (e.g. Uber) that are willing to fund them for profit they can make, or by end users for their own use and possibly for leasing out.
If they are cheaper to operate somebody will be happy to buy and operate them to replace costlier options.
1. The UberLike service that is managing your car for you simply valets it for you before returning it to you for your use.
2. The UberLike service also tracks damage by passengers and bills them and / or simply refuses to rent to them in the future. In any respect the service restores your car to usable condition before returning it as part of the terms and conditions you allowed them to use it.
These are not like current taxis and buses. Much more like a cross between Uber and Avis. Uber like app but you are renting the car like Avis and the car delivers itself to you and takes itself back after use. Damage on the outside will mostly be not your problem. Damage on the inside will and they will know who to bill and who to deny service to in the future.
Yes, Moores Law won't help at all.
Self driving cars are (not even) where the original iPhone was 10 years ago. Think where another two or three generations of chip evolution will get things to.
This applies to cpu speed to analyze. It also applies to gpu's to analyze video. It also applies to all of the sensors and radar and lidar units required.
Everything will be cheaper and faster with higher resolution.
Spotify and Pandora would immediately accuse Apple of Dumping (buying the market with low prices to drive the competition out.)
If you need 30 years to be significant then you also need to discount the 30 years of warming prior to 1996 as not significant.
It is also amusing to listen to some news outlets that will have (in the same broadcast) a segment on the failure of peer reviewed science and then later (in the same broadcast) lamenting that the client deniers don't believe in the consensus (of peer reviewed science.)
It appears that the left brain may not know what the right brain does ...
Its not that there are NO examples of civilians (even old ones) killing intruders with guns.
Its just that there are MORE examples of civilians (accidentally or otherwise) killing non-intruders with guns.
Well since www.realclimate.org is an activist website we could assume that they would disagree with anybody that would criticize Mann's work. The entire purpose of that website is to provide backup arguments to any and all climate change denier deniers.
If you want some middle of the road coverage of Mann try judithcurry.com.
Hansen, Mann and Gleick have proved themselves to be (very good) political activists first and scientists a (distant) second.
Or in the case of the last 18 years the worse the fit the (according to the climate change denier deniers) the better.
If it fits its good. If it doesn't fit it is still good. Trust us. The models will work. Even though we used to say 15 years with no temperature increase would invalidate them, we now realize we where wrong. It will take more like 50 years to invalidate them. Really. The science is good. Really really good. Because the models tell us that the science is good.
It is also a more efficient use of capital. Trucking companies invest a large amount of money in their fleet. A 20% more efficient fleet means a corresponding reduction in the amount of money you need to invest in your fleet. If there are other cost reductions as well this becomes compelling.
There are numerous different scenarios. Long haul trucking (for example) may end up being totally autonomous, just having a human driver picked up when close to leaving the freeway system.
Local delivery (Fed Ex, UPS etc) will still have an operator (or perhaps two or more) that can jump out with the package while the delivery truck drives around the block (or drops the second operator at a second location.) While going between locations the operators sort packages. When empty the operators may get dropped off for coffee while the truck heads back to the depot and a second full truck heads out to pick them up.
Its all about effectively managing resources and reducing costs. People will continue to have a place just a different one.
Correct, but for people or cars between 311 and 355 feet they will be alive instead of dead.
This is not a binary solution. Just incrementally better than the current (human drivers) solution.
To be (slightly) fair the 1.1.1 standard was published in 2012. Presumably the first versions where a year or several before that. So most likely this is circa 2008-2010 protocol standard writing.
Doesn't really excuse them. But it wasn't 2015 and not quite as obvious then.
Government official is NOT an accurate description of Goebbels. By that analogy you could say Hitler was just a democratically elected leader following the wishes of his electorate.
Most of the diaries have been available since I believe the 50's or 60's in English translation. They where rescued after the bulk where left to burn in a ditch. So incomplete at best. And chilling to read what is available.