I believe they purchased Sun because they used Java for interacting with their Database, and the last thing they wanted was someone buying Sun and hitting them as they hit their customers. Once they had it they tried to do exactly what they thought others would have done had they got the asset. Had Sun been healthy I don't see Oracle being interested in it at all.
The Graph is the before, and the worse than we thought panic is from the error in the 2018 study. It didn't provide anything substantively new other than another method of calculating the same results as before, and the mag knows this. The Error made it look worse, and gave the study traction. But it was an error and has since had corrections issued.
To also quote the person who found and documented the error
However, after correction, the Resplandy et al. results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought.
I can't help but think back to November. It may not have been the 5th, but this story seems an awful lot like the error-riddled study back in November. Heck, I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that this article cites the very study: L. Resplandy et al., Nature 563, 105 (2018). Maybe November was too close to the print deadline, and they hopped it would go unseen. Judging by the comments it seems like most believers truly have blind faith.
As much as Science has tried to divorce itself from Philosophy, it is still a subset of it as Natural Philosophy. It is a mistake for Science to ignore it as the mistakes it keeps making are very well covered by it. Climate Change is plagued with people utilizing Appeals to Authority, "its right because this expert said so," Ad Populum (consensus), and Ad Hom with Name calling dissenting opinions. All of it well-covered ground by Greek Philosophy. The desire by Scientists for Science to become greater has only lead to them having to relearn the same mistakes, and they are slow at it because of their Hubris.
Consensus is an ad populum argument. It's not science, but rather a poor form of debate that works on mobs too well. It will be interesting when you get the Divergence Problem, which is a whole section of the report, if you get that far. Likely, you're going to respond to that section much the same way you are now. You'll justify your cherry picking around the problem, and suffer a fit of cognitive dissonance rather than accept the actual data. After all, those tree rings must be lying even after keeping pace with temperature for hundreds of years before the problem. Because there's no way a change in instruments that was over adjusted could be the actual cause of the NA divergence problem. That would mean your emotional investment was for not, and we just can't have that, can we?
The data analysis has nothing to do with YouTube or Wikipedia. You can continue with that Strawman if you want to. If you think about it, maybe I'm using you as a foil to convince the more reasonable people to look at the data and actual arguments. You haven't done yourself any favors by attempting to miss represent what's been said, and your lack of knowledge on the subject is glaring. A reasonable person would conclude you're a troll or a very poor defender of your cause. It's sad you won't rise to a better argument.
I've linked to two datasets from NOAA, and you've admitted to being too incompetent to read them or talk about the data. This particular subject is even in the IPCC reports that have come out under Divergences. Also known as justifications for cherry picking the evidence. A more capable person would have focused the argument. Instead, you've focused on a straw man ad hominem argument calling Michael Mann a conspiracy theorist because he did an interview posted on youtube and became committed to historical denialism over one of the more epic droughts in US history because it's easy to point to Wikipedia. If this were a formal debate that would be frowned upon, but your behavior would have cost you the debate long before that. Hard to imagine anyone seeing your argument not damaging everything about your side. Unfortunate, I can't imagine you arguing better.
You're commenting an awful lot and calling a video that represents your side a "conspiracy" is admittedly strange. I've pointed you at the data to discuss intelligently in spite of you doing more harm to your side with your behavior. Imagine someone thinking your routine isn't doing actual damage to your argument. You're funny, but your self-destructive attitude does you no favors.
The video is an interview of Michael Mann, and is his defense of the subject we're talking about. You have your free speech to use an Ad Hominem argument, but that doesn't make it right. The interview serves as a way of Mann speaking for himself, and me not putting words in his mouth. Of course, Mann isn't on that study, because the criticism is why are they cherry picking that data out of their conclusions. You can go after credentials and commit expert seeking fallacies rather than actually debate. It wont change the fact that, as the study cites
No current tree ring (TR) based reconstruction of extratropical Northern
Hemisphere (ENH) temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the
full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental
record. Over recent decades, a divergence between cooler reconstructed
and warmer instrumental large-scale temperatures is observed.
This isn't one study. Rather it is a large collection of studies. All pointing to a contradiction between the Temperature they calculated for North America, and Tree Ring reconstructions. Their Hypothesis is to try to justify dismissing the contradiction entirely. My Theory is that the Tree reconstruction is mostly correct barring drought conditions, and that they processed the Temperature incorrectly. I can process the temperature more or less correctly, and get good agreement with the data. I can even process the rain data and explain a few minor divergences using droughts. Namely this one: Texas Drought
I'm telling the truth. The study in question is titled, "Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Tree Ring Temperature Reconstruction." You can listen to Mann's roundabout way to justify the cherry picking here: In His Own Words. You can download the tree ring data from NOAA here: Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Tree Ring Temperature Reconstruction. It even comes with the divergent temperature calculated for you. I can even show you how to process the temperature data from the GHCN Daily here: GHCN. It's really rather easy, and if you bothered to figure out the temperature for the US yourself you'd be just as confused as to why Mann's red line is so far off. You can stick your head in the sand, and call me a lier, but it won't change the facts.
Bitcoin will never get there. I could go into why increasing the cost of a financial transaction that much is impractical, or why Bitcoin can't handle that kind of transaction load. But it will fall on deaf ears to those who "believe." I can give someone a detailed response of why you shouldn't invest your retirement into Bitcoin when it's in a parabolic bubble, but "true believers" won't hear it.
Global Warming is much the same. I can process the US Weather station dataset, and show how it's in agreement with the Tree Ring proxy dataset for NA. But because the North America Temperature, they assume is correct, contradicts the Tree Ring data, they cherry pick it out, and claim that after 1960 something else is impacting the tree ring data for North America. If you're a "true believer" the "Red Line" Mann presents as NA temperature cannot be contradicted, and any evidence that does is mute.
It will crash before that Parabola goes to Infinity. And the "missed opportunity" logic you present if why the Greater Fool Theory is governing it. Are 4 Surges enough to cause it like a rat plague? If so then it'll happen soo. But if not it'll happen as it approaches Infinite for obvious reasons.
3 to 6 months maximum. The higher it gets before the crash the more painful it will be. I just hope it's not big enough to hurt outside of its ecosystem.
My usual experience with Perl goes like this: We can't process data this year can you help us? Oh, this is a 20-year-old Perl script. Let the biopsy begin.
You must have a separate phone that has none of the contacts from the other. Including yourself. You can never check the email from the other system. Having any part of your Phone, or PC touch the other life will create the link and you're back to square one. I don't have a facebook account because they asked me to join and said these people know you "Join US". They already knew too much about me without me even using their system so they can go fly a kite. Your lives must never touch. You cant have friends who know both identities who can contact either identity. If they do facebook creates the link and infer the people of your secret identity might know your other identity. It's more dangerous because you can't trust someone to know that you've gone missing or not. Best advice, don't use facebook.
But only this one. The increase in rain is real starting around 2005. I don't buy the Global Warming Claim that it's CO2 caused because both the Pan Evaporation Rate and the Precipitation measurements by weather stations agree that it started only after 2005. The issue is a bit more concerning when you're no longer blind to the Global Warming Hype Train. I'd love to publish the facts on it too but Eleven Hundred Dollars to publish seven pages and some graphs is a bit outside of my price range.
Until it's used to actually report the riot before the authorities I'm skeptical. It's easy to look back and see that there were clues that a riot was going on, but it's another thing to look at the present and say a riot IS going on. You also could get plenty of false posities. Not to mention the moment you use it to predict ONE riot the Trolls will figure out how to trip your detector.
Perhaps, but I just restore from the tape backup, and nuke and pave the infected machines that aren't. Lost work? Let this be a lesson why you don't save to your desktop. No need to contact the FBI, and no money trail to lead back to me. Still is destruction of evidence and failure to report a crime. Who cares.
Ransom laws get sticky so why should I report when paying them may or may not be illegal. If I report and it happens that paying the ransom is illegal then the ransom can't be paid and the FBI is slowing down recovery. If I pay the ransom to fix the problem but then report it I might get in trouble so why bother? On the other hand, If I just restore the backups I've also destroyed the evidence so Why would I report the problem?
Martian, Martian, Martian. You do yourself and your "side" no favors by pretending that an Anon mocking Lord Trump was somehow a Trumpian alt-righter. Really, can you get any more delusional my arch nemesis? Log off and go home for a bit. A night's rest will do you a bit of good so that your villainy won't come off as so deranged.
You're right, but there is a good form of deflation. Monetary deflation as you've described is always bad. Constricting the money supply will always cause a cascading debt default. Good deflation is caused by increases in efficiency. For example, I could make the same RAM today for less than I could 6 months ago. That kind of deflation improves the likelihood of paying back debt and increases the customer base by allowing prices drops.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they purchased Sun because they used Java for interacting with their Database, and the last thing they wanted was someone buying Sun and hitting them as they hit their customers. Once they had it they tried to do exactly what they thought others would have done had they got the asset. Had Sun been healthy I don't see Oracle being interested in it at all.
Are their accountants doing their job? Clearly their lawyers need more practice, or is that the Bag Men who've dropped the ball?
To also quote the person who found and documented the error
However, after correction, the Resplandy et al. results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/1...
I can't help but think back to November. It may not have been the 5th, but this story seems an awful lot like the error-riddled study back in November. Heck, I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that this article cites the very study: L. Resplandy et al., Nature 563, 105 (2018). Maybe November was too close to the print deadline, and they hopped it would go unseen. Judging by the comments it seems like most believers truly have blind faith.
It's just high.
As much as Science has tried to divorce itself from Philosophy, it is still a subset of it as Natural Philosophy. It is a mistake for Science to ignore it as the mistakes it keeps making are very well covered by it. Climate Change is plagued with people utilizing Appeals to Authority, "its right because this expert said so," Ad Populum (consensus), and Ad Hom with Name calling dissenting opinions. All of it well-covered ground by Greek Philosophy. The desire by Scientists for Science to become greater has only lead to them having to relearn the same mistakes, and they are slow at it because of their Hubris.
Consensus is an ad populum argument. It's not science, but rather a poor form of debate that works on mobs too well. It will be interesting when you get the Divergence Problem, which is a whole section of the report, if you get that far. Likely, you're going to respond to that section much the same way you are now. You'll justify your cherry picking around the problem, and suffer a fit of cognitive dissonance rather than accept the actual data. After all, those tree rings must be lying even after keeping pace with temperature for hundreds of years before the problem. Because there's no way a change in instruments that was over adjusted could be the actual cause of the NA divergence problem. That would mean your emotional investment was for not, and we just can't have that, can we?
The data analysis has nothing to do with YouTube or Wikipedia. You can continue with that Strawman if you want to. If you think about it, maybe I'm using you as a foil to convince the more reasonable people to look at the data and actual arguments. You haven't done yourself any favors by attempting to miss represent what's been said, and your lack of knowledge on the subject is glaring. A reasonable person would conclude you're a troll or a very poor defender of your cause. It's sad you won't rise to a better argument.
I've linked to two datasets from NOAA, and you've admitted to being too incompetent to read them or talk about the data. This particular subject is even in the IPCC reports that have come out under Divergences. Also known as justifications for cherry picking the evidence. A more capable person would have focused the argument. Instead, you've focused on a straw man ad hominem argument calling Michael Mann a conspiracy theorist because he did an interview posted on youtube and became committed to historical denialism over one of the more epic droughts in US history because it's easy to point to Wikipedia. If this were a formal debate that would be frowned upon, but your behavior would have cost you the debate long before that. Hard to imagine anyone seeing your argument not damaging everything about your side. Unfortunate, I can't imagine you arguing better.
You're commenting an awful lot and calling a video that represents your side a "conspiracy" is admittedly strange. I've pointed you at the data to discuss intelligently in spite of you doing more harm to your side with your behavior. Imagine someone thinking your routine isn't doing actual damage to your argument. You're funny, but your self-destructive attitude does you no favors.
No current tree ring (TR) based reconstruction of extratropical Northern Hemisphere (ENH) temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental record. Over recent decades, a divergence between cooler reconstructed and warmer instrumental large-scale temperatures is observed.
This isn't one study. Rather it is a large collection of studies. All pointing to a contradiction between the Temperature they calculated for North America, and Tree Ring reconstructions. Their Hypothesis is to try to justify dismissing the contradiction entirely. My Theory is that the Tree reconstruction is mostly correct barring drought conditions, and that they processed the Temperature incorrectly. I can process the temperature more or less correctly, and get good agreement with the data. I can even process the rain data and explain a few minor divergences using droughts. Namely this one: Texas Drought
I'm telling the truth. The study in question is titled, "Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Tree Ring Temperature Reconstruction." You can listen to Mann's roundabout way to justify the cherry picking here: In His Own Words. You can download the tree ring data from NOAA here: Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Tree Ring Temperature Reconstruction. It even comes with the divergent temperature calculated for you. I can even show you how to process the temperature data from the GHCN Daily here: GHCN. It's really rather easy, and if you bothered to figure out the temperature for the US yourself you'd be just as confused as to why Mann's red line is so far off. You can stick your head in the sand, and call me a lier, but it won't change the facts.
Bitcoin will never get there. I could go into why increasing the cost of a financial transaction that much is impractical, or why Bitcoin can't handle that kind of transaction load. But it will fall on deaf ears to those who "believe." I can give someone a detailed response of why you shouldn't invest your retirement into Bitcoin when it's in a parabolic bubble, but "true believers" won't hear it.
Global Warming is much the same. I can process the US Weather station dataset, and show how it's in agreement with the Tree Ring proxy dataset for NA. But because the North America Temperature, they assume is correct, contradicts the Tree Ring data, they cherry pick it out, and claim that after 1960 something else is impacting the tree ring data for North America. If you're a "true believer" the "Red Line" Mann presents as NA temperature cannot be contradicted, and any evidence that does is mute.
It will crash before that Parabola goes to Infinity. And the "missed opportunity" logic you present if why the Greater Fool Theory is governing it. Are 4 Surges enough to cause it like a rat plague? If so then it'll happen soo. But if not it'll happen as it approaches Infinite for obvious reasons.
3 to 6 months maximum. The higher it gets before the crash the more painful it will be. I just hope it's not big enough to hurt outside of its ecosystem.
My usual experience with Perl goes like this: We can't process data this year can you help us? Oh, this is a 20-year-old Perl script. Let the biopsy begin.
You must have a separate phone that has none of the contacts from the other. Including yourself. You can never check the email from the other system. Having any part of your Phone, or PC touch the other life will create the link and you're back to square one. I don't have a facebook account because they asked me to join and said these people know you "Join US". They already knew too much about me without me even using their system so they can go fly a kite. Your lives must never touch. You cant have friends who know both identities who can contact either identity. If they do facebook creates the link and infer the people of your secret identity might know your other identity. It's more dangerous because you can't trust someone to know that you've gone missing or not. Best advice, don't use facebook.
I know it's AI Doom and Gloom, but Winter is Coming
But only this one. The increase in rain is real starting around 2005. I don't buy the Global Warming Claim that it's CO2 caused because both the Pan Evaporation Rate and the Precipitation measurements by weather stations agree that it started only after 2005. The issue is a bit more concerning when you're no longer blind to the Global Warming Hype Train. I'd love to publish the facts on it too but Eleven Hundred Dollars to publish seven pages and some graphs is a bit outside of my price range.
Until it's used to actually report the riot before the authorities I'm skeptical. It's easy to look back and see that there were clues that a riot was going on, but it's another thing to look at the present and say a riot IS going on. You also could get plenty of false posities. Not to mention the moment you use it to predict ONE riot the Trolls will figure out how to trip your detector.
Perhaps, but I just restore from the tape backup, and nuke and pave the infected machines that aren't. Lost work? Let this be a lesson why you don't save to your desktop. No need to contact the FBI, and no money trail to lead back to me. Still is destruction of evidence and failure to report a crime. Who cares.
Ransom laws get sticky so why should I report when paying them may or may not be illegal. If I report and it happens that paying the ransom is illegal then the ransom can't be paid and the FBI is slowing down recovery. If I pay the ransom to fix the problem but then report it I might get in trouble so why bother? On the other hand, If I just restore the backups I've also destroyed the evidence so Why would I report the problem?
Martian, Martian, Martian. You do yourself and your "side" no favors by pretending that an Anon mocking Lord Trump was somehow a Trumpian alt-righter. Really, can you get any more delusional my arch nemesis? Log off and go home for a bit. A night's rest will do you a bit of good so that your villainy won't come off as so deranged.
Still Deflation. Deflation from increased efficiency and lower costs of production.
You're right, but there is a good form of deflation. Monetary deflation as you've described is always bad. Constricting the money supply will always cause a cascading debt default. Good deflation is caused by increases in efficiency. For example, I could make the same RAM today for less than I could 6 months ago. That kind of deflation improves the likelihood of paying back debt and increases the customer base by allowing prices drops.