We know how to replace most of it with electric vehicles, and the more intractible problems (Notably trucks) can be mitigated with tighter emission standards and hybridized designs.
Thats the thing, we dont need to completely convert to zero carbon emissions, we just need to get it to a point where we have brought us a century or two to find a *complete* solution.
Vacuum tubes don't necessarily sound more accurate , but unless you run a recording studio you don't necessarily want accurate , which is why studio monitors don't necessarily make for good listening speakers. Valves however sound good and that's a result of their behaviour at high current. Transistor amplification hard clips at max power creating flat peaks that sound absolutely terrible, whereas Valves produce rounded clips with a degree of compression at the peaks. This has the psychoacoustic effect of sounding "warm". This isn't a myth , you can see precisely this effect on a CRO. To put it slightly clumsily , transistors distort when ran out of spec whilst valves saturate
It gets worse. Any species smart enough to cross interstellar distance is a species that can propel an object to very close to C. At that speed you don't need a weapon , you just point your rocket at earth and let insane amounts of kinetic energy turn it into a molten hellworld.
Its not so much that they are paying journalists off, the rots further up the corporate chain with editors and bureau chiefs. And you'll rarely see the direct hand of the oil industry but rather the think tanks they hire.. These guys will wine and dine the editors, and invite them out on yachts and the like , while whispering conspiracy theories about scientists being in cohorts with the reds or whatever nonsense suits the agenda of the minute. Tesla and Elon Musks companies in general represents an existential threat to the hydrocarbons industry. Not only are thesae cars gas free, he's working on the electricity itself being solar. Theres just no role in this world, outside of general chemistry, for the oil industry to lurk. So the whispers start up. "Elon will kill the auto dealerships" "Tesla cars are unsafe". "Tesla cars cant be repaired at joes garage". etc etc etc. And soon the editors are whispering down the line "If that commie journo Bill turns in another fluff piece about solar, deep six it to the center pages where nobody will read it, and throw in some opposing views from the heratige foundation". And oldBill who actually votes republican but is committed to accurate journalism gets labeled a commie and has his work devalued , whilst some punk fresh out of journo school who writes raving partisan nonsense cripped straight out of the herativge foundation press releases gets the promotion.
Gawkers dead already, got killed off by the Hulk Hogan lawsuit. Which is actually bit of a shame, occasionally it got some pretty important scoops, and regardless of how you look at it, independent media voices being slain by the rich and powerful is never a good thing.
Buzzfeed is waaaaaay to chickenshit to try that sort of thing while its making fat cash from cat pictures.
and I'm not sure why linkedin is on your list, being that its basically a resume/job site.
My previous comment was acidently posted before I finished for some reason. Lets try again.
There is no evidence of a mass extinction occurring. The Earth is not getting warmer, though the temperature record is being doctored by those with financial interests. The unadjusted data proves this. In fact, the sun is dimming, which will likely result in global cooling, just like scientists predicted before those with financial interests in the matter started buying off the researchers. It's like the religious nutjobs claiming the world is ending; when they're wrong, they just push their prediction a few years into the future and people eat that shit up. Scientists have been crying wolf for three decades and they just keep pushing their dire predictions farther into the future.
Yeah damn those scientists and their pesky "facts". Anyway lets look at all the ways you are wrong
1) Is Mass Extinction happening? Yes. ( Barnosky, Matzki , et al. Nature, 2011) 2) Is the temperature warming? Yes. (IPCC authors, synthesis report, 2014)..unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories, in which case you've already made your mind up and "facts" wont convince you. I suggest thorazine. HOWEVER! Lets go there. 3) People with financial interests buying off scientists? This IS a strange claim. I've spent a big of time working around climate scientists as a coder. Heres the reality of it;- Its bad for your career to actually follow science because governments are stacked with anti-science people who are absolutely insistent that theres something wrong with science any time science points out that Co2's infra red absorbsion properties is causing climate change, that evolution is real, or that vaccinations actually do save lives. I've seen a number of collegues over at the CSIRO lose their jobs because the current conservative government has decided it doesnt want to fund climate or oceanographic reseach anymoer. Meanwhile there ARE scientists getting paid off by groups like the Heratige foundation and the Kosh brothers, and we know that because we've looked at the paperwork. As one workmate put it, if she REALLY wanted to get rich of climate change, she'd deny everything the data tells her, and pretend its not happening and make a mint on the right wing talk circuit. Double so if she throws in creationism and get to visit churches too. Unfortunately , she's a scientist, albeit one in a field where she gets death threats from anti-science stalkers, funding threats from conservative policy makers, and a world of disrespect from a media industry that thinks "balance" means matching every truth with a lie.
And just for the records, scientists have not been "crying wolf" for three decades, they've been pointing out the physics of the greenhouse effect for well over a century. And the predictions are not being pushed "farther in the future", they are being observed *right now* in the floods, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels that happening right before our eyes.
There is no evidence of a mass extinction occurring. The Earth is not getting warmer, though the temperature record is being doctored by those with financial interests. The unadjusted data proves this. In fact, the sun is dimming, which will likely result in global cooling, just like scientists predicted before those with financial interests in the matter started buying off the researchers. It's like the religious nutjobs claiming the world is ending; when they're wrong, they just push their prediction a few years into the future and people eat that shit up. Scientists have been crying wolf for three decades and they just keep pushing their dire predictions farther into the future.
Yeah damn those scientists and their pesky "facts". Anyway lets look at all the ways your wrong!
Unless you mean "falsified" instead of "verified."
You don't know what that means. I mean "falsified". Google: "Scientific method".
Even the IPCC now admits that the Hockey Stick was bogus.
No. Categorically no. They have not. The most recent research on the hockey stick of any notability is Marcott et al in 2013, using an even broader data set and again, just like every other time, the hockey stick is still there.
The only people who still believe in the Hockey Stick are, well, uninformed.
Well I'll be sure to tell my collegues at work they can bin their PhDs because random internet guy just owned them! I'm sure when they stop laughing they'll be sure to revise a century and a half of physics because internet.
Yes the noble nuclear industry has no interest in pushing climate change to make us switch to a mix of renewables: wind! hydro! biofuels! oh and er... (whispers)... nuclear.
Well thats a new one. At least this conspiracy theory doesnt involve space reptiles, so.... uh... congrats?
Now I just gotta ask the guys at work where to get those sweet sweet nuclear industry cheques and I'm set.
How do you explain the fact that Michael Mann's methodology generates a hockey stick even when applied to completely random data? It sure seems like those results are highly misleading, at best. Or will you trot out some lame excuses to try to justify these blatant problems and insult me like you do to everyone else?
Except that the hockeystick has been verified time and time again by actual scientists (Not conservative blog barkers like watts/etc, but actual scientists) using multiple datasets. You guys seem to leave that detail out that its not just the bogey-mann and his one paper but countless studies across the world using ice core data, satelite data, geological data, tree ring data (to a point) , ground stations and so on. All point to precisely the same dataset.
I mean seriously, can we stop pretending these industry talking points are actually science when the evidence is so vastly against them. We *know* temperatures are rising, and we *know* they are being forced by human activities. This isn't scientiific conjecture anymore. We've understood the science behind it since the 1800s when scientists first started connecting rising temperatures with the coal fumes being churned out en masse by the industrial revolution, and now those scientific principles have been falsified by a century of broadly repeeted and verified checks? What more could you possibly ask out of physics than that it follows the scientific method. And yet here on Slashdot people still drag out the long discredited clap-trap about "The hockey stick is wrong!". No it isn't, and if you disagree, its only because you are wrong.
Oh good work slashdot. strip out the tags and make the text unreadable.
Actually, its strangely apt.
What I MEANT to say (but this time with square instead of angle tags
Whats the difference? One uses the [a] tag and one uses the [img] tag. Do we really want to be mandating in law which html elements are allowed and which are not?
What if someone uses some javascript to turn an [a] into an [img]. Or even parses the text for un linked web addresses and converts them into links and images? Would we be obliged to never mention other pages at all?
I don't think so. Linking is different from embedding. The web part comes from the linking, not the embedding.
Whats the difference? One uses the tag and one uses the tag. Do we really want to be mandating in law which html elements are allowed and which are not?
What if someone uses some javascript to turn an into an . Or even parses the text for un linked web addresses and converts them into links and images? Would we be obliged to never mention other pages at all?
Consumption doesn't mean anything, production is what matters. Your public sector spending logic is equivalent to you giving someone 100 dollars so that they can then buy a product from you for 50 dollars (the other 50 is consumed by the bureaucracy redistributing other people's money). Net result is that you just lost a product and 50 dollars. It would usually be far more efficient to invest the 100 dollars into your business, i.e. increase production.
Weird little economy your fantasizing about there where people make things then, uh, put them in a hole or something (because consumption means nothing). Meanwhile that bureacracy is spending $50 at someone elses store while you lay off staff.
Nationalism is never a particularly rational argument.
However there is a much more reasonable argument. Part of the reason we pay taxes is because they are good for the economy, as they keep money flowing in the economy and increases employment in the public sector thus increasing consumption by the working class (which in turn feeds businesses). But if that work goes offshore, then that tax is going offshore and stops being useful to the taxpayer from an economic perspective.
As a supporter of UBI, I find it to be very compatible with free market ideals.
I dont think he's saying it isn't. The difference between a liberal and a socialist, is that liberals believe the free market can address social inequality as long as some safeguards and a few tweaks to the formula are added. Socialists argue that there are contradictions in the capitalist system that make this impossible. At least this is the traditional meanings of the terms, americans seem to use liberal and socialist interchangeably, and europeans often do the same without it being derogative of either.
Where I'm getting at with this, is that this is a strictly liberal policy, in that its designed to prevent capitalism collapsing (and thus opening up the doors for either fascists from the right, or communists from the left, to fill the void replacing it with something thats isnt freemarket, be that conservative or liberal)
Ah yes those pesky scientists and their vast left wing conspiracy. Thankfully we have a random slash dot person to expose those cunning monger era of facts.
I actually worked doing government auditing in a department I shall decline to name. And as much as I railed and wrote STERN LETTERS and what not, nothing would shake the bureacrats love of their bloody spreadsheets.
The fact that the *only* asset list in the whole damn department of 10K+ employees around the country was kept on a single excel file that was collated from other excel files by a vbscript written by a secretary was not seen as a problem by anyone except me and the IT dept (who where also systematically ignored) meant that pretty much all my recomendations where systematically ignored. And now I work in the private sector again....
Because despite what you might think, Turkey has a modern liberal legal system and just because the government might want to block its evidence from review theres absolutely no reason why the judge must comply.
I know people will disagree with me on here, but that's because they're neckbeard rape sympathizers. Go fuck yourselves.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless/pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
Thankfully these people are in a minority, but good god do they like to make a noise.
Excuse me, but REAL science is based on Skepticism
Yes but this isn't skepticism, no more than being "skeptical" of evolution or being "skeptical" of gravity is actually skepticism. The correct term is denialism, refusing to believe an overwhelming preponderance of evidence because it doesnt fit in with ones ideological views.
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
The problem is we've got a pretty damn good idea how much CO2 is in the air, and the mathematics behind calculating the thermal capture of that CO2 has been well understood since the 1800s, when scientists first started warning about the greenhouse effect.
These hetrodox "Its over stated" people never seem to be ble to explain where that energy goes. Its either being used as heat (warming), or its being converted into kinetic energy (Tornadoes, floods and the like), or some combination of both.
The energy has to go *somewhere*
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
And no reputable client scientist makes that claim.
Arguably if the census servers where nullrouting traffic from uoff-site, that might well explain why nothing showed up on those maps.
Regardless, a DDOS seemed like it was innevitable. The stupid and anti privacy decision to store identifying info (Names, etc) with this census despite widespread condemnation from academics, activists and security researchers (at least 9 senators from across the political spectrum are refusing to fill it in citing the leaked papers from the bureau stating they want names and addresses to create "saleable products", ie selling peoples personal info.
Of course Anonymous or someone of their ilk was going to take umbrage and attempt to sabotage the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
*Eyes start to spiral* We can TRUMP climate change folks, we just need negotions, also LOOK OVER THERE, ITS HILARY DOING A THING
We know how to replace most of it with electric vehicles, and the more intractible problems (Notably trucks) can be mitigated with tighter emission standards and hybridized designs.
Thats the thing, we dont need to completely convert to zero carbon emissions, we just need to get it to a point where we have brought us a century or two to find a *complete* solution.
Vacuum tubes don't necessarily sound more accurate , but unless you run a recording studio you don't necessarily want accurate , which is why studio monitors don't necessarily make for good listening speakers. Valves however sound good and that's a result of their behaviour at high current. Transistor amplification hard clips at max power creating flat peaks that sound absolutely terrible, whereas Valves produce rounded clips with a degree of compression at the peaks. This has the psychoacoustic effect of sounding "warm". This isn't a myth , you can see precisely this effect on a CRO. To put it slightly clumsily , transistors distort when ran out of spec whilst valves saturate
It gets worse. Any species smart enough to cross interstellar distance is a species that can propel an object to very close to C. At that speed you don't need a weapon , you just point your rocket at earth and let insane amounts of kinetic energy turn it into a molten hellworld.
Its not so much that they are paying journalists off, the rots further up the corporate chain with editors and bureau chiefs. And you'll rarely see the direct hand of the oil industry but rather the think tanks they hire.. These guys will wine and dine the editors, and invite them out on yachts and the like , while whispering conspiracy theories about scientists being in cohorts with the reds or whatever nonsense suits the agenda of the minute. Tesla and Elon Musks companies in general represents an existential threat to the hydrocarbons industry. Not only are thesae cars gas free, he's working on the electricity itself being solar. Theres just no role in this world, outside of general chemistry, for the oil industry to lurk. So the whispers start up. "Elon will kill the auto dealerships" "Tesla cars are unsafe". "Tesla cars cant be repaired at joes garage". etc etc etc. And soon the editors are whispering down the line "If that commie journo Bill turns in another fluff piece about solar, deep six it to the center pages where nobody will read it, and throw in some opposing views from the heratige foundation". And oldBill who actually votes republican but is committed to accurate journalism gets labeled a commie and has his work devalued , whilst some punk fresh out of journo school who writes raving partisan nonsense cripped straight out of the herativge foundation press releases gets the promotion.
Gawkers dead already, got killed off by the Hulk Hogan lawsuit. Which is actually bit of a shame, occasionally it got some pretty important scoops, and regardless of how you look at it, independent media voices being slain by the rich and powerful is never a good thing.
Buzzfeed is waaaaaay to chickenshit to try that sort of thing while its making fat cash from cat pictures.
and I'm not sure why linkedin is on your list, being that its basically a resume/job site.
My previous comment was acidently posted before I finished for some reason. Lets try again.
Yeah damn those scientists and their pesky "facts".
Anyway lets look at all the ways you are wrong
1) Is Mass Extinction happening? Yes. ( Barnosky, Matzki , et al. Nature, 2011) ..unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories, in which case you've already made your mind up and "facts" wont convince you. I suggest thorazine. HOWEVER! Lets go there.
2) Is the temperature warming? Yes. (IPCC authors, synthesis report, 2014)
3) People with financial interests buying off scientists? This IS a strange claim. I've spent a big of time working around climate scientists as a coder. Heres the reality of it;- Its bad for your career to actually follow science because governments are stacked with anti-science people who are absolutely insistent that theres something wrong with science any time science points out that Co2's infra red absorbsion properties is causing climate change, that evolution is real, or that vaccinations actually do save lives.
I've seen a number of collegues over at the CSIRO lose their jobs because the current conservative government has decided it doesnt want to fund climate or oceanographic reseach anymoer. Meanwhile there ARE scientists getting paid off by groups like the Heratige foundation and the Kosh brothers, and we know that because we've looked at the paperwork. As one workmate put it, if she REALLY wanted to get rich of climate change, she'd deny everything the data tells her, and pretend its not happening and make a mint on the right wing talk circuit. Double so if she throws in creationism and get to visit churches too. Unfortunately , she's a scientist, albeit one in a field where she gets death threats from anti-science stalkers, funding threats from conservative policy makers, and a world of disrespect from a media industry that thinks "balance" means matching every truth with a lie.
And just for the records, scientists have not been "crying wolf" for three decades, they've been pointing out the physics of the greenhouse effect for well over a century. And the predictions are not being pushed "farther in the future", they are being observed *right now* in the floods, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels that happening right before our eyes.
Yeah damn those scientists and their pesky "facts".
Anyway lets look at all the ways your wrong!
Unless you mean "falsified" instead of "verified."
You don't know what that means. I mean "falsified". Google: "Scientific method".
Even the IPCC now admits that the Hockey Stick was bogus.
No. Categorically no. They have not. The most recent research on the hockey stick of any notability is Marcott et al in 2013, using an even broader data set and again, just like every other time, the hockey stick is still there.
Well I'll be sure to tell my collegues at work they can bin their PhDs because random internet guy just owned them! I'm sure when they stop laughing they'll be sure to revise a century and a half of physics because internet.
Well thats a new one. At least this conspiracy theory doesnt involve space reptiles, so.... uh... congrats?
Now I just gotta ask the guys at work where to get those sweet sweet nuclear industry cheques and I'm set.
Except that the hockeystick has been verified time and time again by actual scientists (Not conservative blog barkers like watts/etc, but actual scientists) using multiple datasets. You guys seem to leave that detail out that its not just the bogey-mann and his one paper but countless studies across the world using ice core data, satelite data, geological data, tree ring data (to a point) , ground stations and so on. All point to precisely the same dataset.
I mean seriously, can we stop pretending these industry talking points are actually science when the evidence is so vastly against them. We *know* temperatures are rising, and we *know* they are being forced by human activities. This isn't scientiific conjecture anymore. We've understood the science behind it since the 1800s when scientists first started connecting rising temperatures with the coal fumes being churned out en masse by the industrial revolution, and now those scientific principles have been falsified by a century of broadly repeeted and verified checks? What more could you possibly ask out of physics than that it follows the scientific method. And yet here on Slashdot people still drag out the long discredited clap-trap about "The hockey stick is wrong!". No it isn't, and if you disagree, its only because you are wrong.
Oh good work slashdot. strip out the tags and make the text unreadable.
Actually, its strangely apt.
What I MEANT to say (but this time with square instead of angle tags
Whats the difference? One uses the [a] tag and one uses the [img] tag. Do we really want to be mandating in law which html elements are allowed and which are not?
What if someone uses some javascript to turn an [a] into an [img]. Or even parses the text for un linked web addresses and converts them into links and images? Would we be obliged to never mention other pages at all?
Whats the difference? One uses the tag and one uses the tag. Do we really want to be mandating in law which html elements are allowed and which are not?
What if someone uses some javascript to turn an into an . Or even parses the text for un linked web addresses and converts them into links and images? Would we be obliged to never mention other pages at all?
Weird little economy your fantasizing about there where people make things then, uh, put them in a hole or something (because consumption means nothing). Meanwhile that bureacracy is spending $50 at someone elses store while you lay off staff.
Nationalism is never a particularly rational argument.
However there is a much more reasonable argument. Part of the reason we pay taxes is because they are good for the economy, as they keep money flowing in the economy and increases employment in the public sector thus increasing consumption by the working class (which in turn feeds businesses). But if that work goes offshore, then that tax is going offshore and stops being useful to the taxpayer from an economic perspective.
I dont think he's saying it isn't. The difference between a liberal and a socialist, is that liberals believe the free market can address social inequality as long as some safeguards and a few tweaks to the formula are added. Socialists argue that there are contradictions in the capitalist system that make this impossible. At least this is the traditional meanings of the terms, americans seem to use liberal and socialist interchangeably, and europeans often do the same without it being derogative of either.
Where I'm getting at with this, is that this is a strictly liberal policy, in that its designed to prevent capitalism collapsing (and thus opening up the doors for either fascists from the right, or communists from the left, to fill the void replacing it with something thats isnt freemarket, be that conservative or liberal)
Turning on a sat phone in Syria is probably the fastest way to get a predator drone dropping in for a party
Ah yes those pesky scientists and their vast left wing conspiracy. Thankfully we have a random slash dot person to expose those cunning monger era of facts.
Sooo you don't actually know what a DSP is? Or by the sounds of it an FPGA either. But hey, by all means have an opinion on it! How embarassing.
I actually worked doing government auditing in a department I shall decline to name. And as much as I railed and wrote STERN LETTERS and what not, nothing would shake the bureacrats love of their bloody spreadsheets.
The fact that the *only* asset list in the whole damn department of 10K+ employees around the country was kept on a single excel file that was collated from other excel files by a vbscript written by a secretary was not seen as a problem by anyone except me and the IT dept (who where also systematically ignored) meant that pretty much all my recomendations where systematically ignored. And now I work in the private sector again....
Because despite what you might think, Turkey has a modern liberal legal system and just because the government might want to block its evidence from review theres absolutely no reason why the judge must comply.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless /pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
Thankfully these people are in a minority, but good god do they like to make a noise.
Yes but this isn't skepticism, no more than being "skeptical" of evolution or being "skeptical" of gravity is actually skepticism. The correct term is denialism, refusing to believe an overwhelming preponderance of evidence because it doesnt fit in with ones ideological views.
The problem is we've got a pretty damn good idea how much CO2 is in the air, and the mathematics behind calculating the thermal capture of that CO2 has been well understood since the 1800s, when scientists first started warning about the greenhouse effect.
These hetrodox "Its over stated" people never seem to be ble to explain where that energy goes. Its either being used as heat (warming), or its being converted
into kinetic energy (Tornadoes, floods and the like), or some combination of both.
The energy has to go *somewhere*
And no reputable client scientist makes that claim.
Arguably if the census servers where nullrouting traffic from uoff-site, that might well explain why nothing showed up on those maps.
Regardless, a DDOS seemed like it was innevitable. The stupid and anti privacy decision to store identifying info (Names, etc) with this census despite widespread condemnation from academics, activists and security researchers (at least 9 senators from across the political spectrum are refusing to fill it in citing the leaked papers from the bureau stating they want names and addresses to create "saleable products", ie selling peoples personal info.
Of course Anonymous or someone of their ilk was going to take umbrage and attempt to sabotage the whole thing.