Chemistry lesson. pH less than 7 = acidic. pH 7 = neutral. pH > 7 basic.
Chemistry lesson: pH decreasing = becoming more acidic, pH increasing = becoming more basic.
These are the terms as used by everyone. If you'd paid attention at school, you'd remember it.
pH of the oceans is about 8 and they are becoming more acidic. That's why it's referred to as "ocean acidification". Google the term: you'll find real scientists using it.
And you're yet another of those who don't even know the basics of science, yet think they know better than the people who do it for a living.
If AGW isn't true, CO2 is great - plants grow better, more rainfall, deserts getting greener (already happening in Sahel/Sahara).
No, *slow* CO2 increase *might* (it's difficult to tell) have been great, but not at this rate. Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.
Some deserts get greener, others increase in size or new ones form.
And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.
It's not the actual level of CO2 that causes these problems, it's the rate of increase, but the problems remain nonetheless.
According to the IDC Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker from February 2009, the data for all converged devices (i.e., smartphones) shows that Research In Motion (RIM) increased its U.S. market share from 40.4% in Q3 2008 to 47.5% in Q4. Apple, on the other hand, lost market share in the U.S., dropping from 30.1% in Q3 2008 to 22.3% in Q4.
Where do you get them having the "vast majority" of the market?
Well, it's different for food in Cuba, since food is subsidised by the state, but the article is talking about phones and laptops, which presumably are roughly the same price around the world.
Also, there *are* places where people are paid below a living wage. It's not all "bullshit propaganda".
The thing is, there is no need for such a footnote, because that fact is obvious.
No, it's not. You might use different levels of uncertainty in different parts of a report. It's pretty standard to mention at the first use which definition you're using. I think you're reading too much into a standard notice.
My feeling is that they felt a need to mention it especially here because they didn't feel confident of the statement that "most of the warming we have seen has been caused by anthropogenic CO2".
The level of certainty is specified. That's just what we've been talking about.
Their reasoning for making such a strong claim basically is that, the computer models have found no other way to explain the warming other than anthropogenic CO2. But this reasoning relies heavily on the belief that the computer models are accurate, and that we have a complete knowledge of the major warming/cooling mechanisms in the global environment.
No one ever has "complete knowledge" of anything. Why do you suppose the models are wrong? Do you think all their calculations are wrong? No-one has pointed out a better model to use.
Also, CO2 traps heat and therefore *should* cause warming. If you're going to argue that it doesn't, you need to explain why not.
Science goes with the best theory available, and until someone comes up with something better than "it's not CO2, it's something else we don't know about, but I don't know why", I think they'll stick with the CO2 theory.
Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?
Well, I'm not sure how serious I am, but I'd like to see copyright abolished.
No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper),
Well, I think the BSD folks would argue that free software would still exist. Don't most EULAs depend on copyright to enforce their terms too?
no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require),
Not so. An attribution law does not require a copyright law. We could have one without the other, if it was deemed necessary.
and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).
Again, there could be a separate non-copyright law covering this situation, but personally I'd rather we did without.
I'm a keen GPL supporter, but that's because it makes something useful out of the "evil" of copyright. I'd happily sacrifice the minor "good" to remove the major "evil".
If you've read the bible, you'll note that it specifically states that each word in it is infallible
Well, I've read much of the Bible, but I must have missed that bit. Where does it say that?
And, of course, you could still doubt that *that* part was true while accepting other parts of the Bible. After all, if one history book claimed it was infallible, it doesn't mean that all history books must be, or you must reject them all. Your argument remains poor.
You sir, are completely correct. 'Christians' who don't think the bible is infallible are plain stupid. How could you honestly tell which parts are true and which aren't if you don't believe the whole thing to be correct? Basically, these 'Christians' pick and choose which parts they like and then reject the rest because its too weird and doesn't make sense.
You sir, are completely correct. 'Historians' who don't think the history books are infallible are plain stupid. How could you honestly tell which parts are true and which aren't if you don't believe them all to be correct? Basically, these 'Historians' pick and choose which parts they like and then reject the rest because its too weird and doesn't make sense.
So its unreasonable to ask for the original data and the methodology before impoverishing everyone and refactoring the world economy?
Actually, refactoring the world economy to make it more efficient will enrich everyone, not impoverish them. If Americans could reach the same energy efficiency as Europeans (which is a pretty easy target, since they're hardly the best) it would allow a further 100 million people to live at the same level of affluence as Americans, creating another huge market for the world.
Mind you, the fun thing about economics is that it's such a load of crap, you can make any statement sound reasonably plausible. Still, at least I actually have some basis for my statement, as opposed to your effort.
The weasel footnote says this: " Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies." Of course this is a true statement in any scientific endeavor, by why did they feel the need to say it right there and right there only?
I think you're misinterpreting that. That's just a definition. It means that when they say "uncertainty" they mean "as defined previously in the methodology section". They say it "there only" because it specifically says that all remaining considerations (i.e. all other mentions of uncertainty) will be done the same.
> I'm confused -- I thought government was a bunch of hopelessly incompetent > bunglers, capable only of wasting taxpayer money, stifling Free Enterprise, > and making baby Atlas shrug.
Only if you are "right wing". If you are "left wing" government is a bunch of hopelessly incompetent bunglers, capable only of wasting taxpayer money, knuckling under to the vile corporations, and making baby Marx shrug.
I must have a quantum government, because they appear to be both at once! (At least, until I observe them, then they suddenly appear to be hard working, honest folk who're only doing their best to improve their country...)
But if you read the report where it says that, you will find a footnote there that absolves the writer of any commitment to that actual position. This is what is known on Wikipedia as 'weasel words'.
I can't find them. Which page? (or, better, what does it say?)
overblown to people, who consider Capitalism to be the root of all evil and want to end it.
And that's your problem, isn't it? Science is all nasty, scary stuff so lets keep away from it as much as possible.
Yeah, you're such a victim. Poor little you.
It still doesn't excuse your wilful ignorance. You can't be bothered learning something, but you're still arrogant enough to think you can tell people who *have* learnt about it that they're wrong! You really don't see what's wrong with that?
I know enough about the theory,
Really? Explain it then (preferably without the "help, I'm being repressed" crap). And then explain why there *isn't* any warming.
the most influential proponents of the theory, it is not unreasonable to dismiss the entire theory now....The sole source of this statement is the UN report, for which the disgraced CRU were the main source of information.
Hahahaha...you really think that the University of East Anglia is the main source for climate change information! Wow! Seriously, totally dismiss everything the CRU there has ever published. All the evidence *still* points to warming. Why *wouldn't* there be warming? What would stop it?
See, your problem is you don't even know what the theory is, but you're ready to jump in and dismiss it. You're like some newbie programmer jumping onto the LKML and insisting they're right about, say, memory management(!), when they can't even understand the concept! And refuse to learn!
Can you imagine what you'd think of such a person?
We know, the emperor is naked.
Wouldn't it be better to actually RTFM instead of continually insisting that it doesn't exist?
Oh good. So you see how stupid it is to dismiss a theory because you don't like one particular model. You've learned something then!
The concept of Global Warming (in the face of actual Cooling rebranded as "Climate Change") is not.
As in this being the warmest decade on record. That's "Cooling" to you is it?
The burden of proof remains on you...
I would say the burden of proof is on the people who are demonstrably changing my atmosphere. Or are you daft enough to deny *that's* happening?
published by the same mass-media (such as Newsweek),
Yeah, whatever. See, if you bothered actually finding out about the science yourself, you wouldn't have to depend on the mass media to know things.
Yes, yes, the emperor is very well dressed, and only the illiterate could possibly not see it. Is that the best you can do?
No, more like 2+2 = 4 and it doesn't matter how much you whine that "math is hard and complicated! who could possibly understand it!", it *remains* 4. Learn to count and you'll get it.
I see...so I can get you to dismiss any scientific theory, just by creating a bad model for it. You'd actually dismiss the whole concept of the earth orbiting the sun? How incredibly stupid.
The same kind of people were already warnings us about global cooling from their ivory towers
in twenty years they did a complete flip-flop, and we are supposed to believe them without doubts?
No, the devil is in the details, but the general theory is quite simple to understand if you're reasonably literate. You're supposed to be able to understand it yourself. Perhaps that's asking a bit much in some cases.
We also read, how frustrated they became, faced with the actually lowering temperatures, which their computer models failed to predict. Where I'm from, a scientific theory, that fails to predict what's observed in life, is discarded.
If you had a computer model of the solar system, and it failed to predict the earth's orbit accurately, would you try and fix your model? Or would you discard Heliocentric theory?
Anyway, feature I (and I suspect many others) want is in the bug tracker here if you're interested. Sadly, no developers seem too keen on implementing this (that I know of).
Oddly enough, I think they might have a point here. It seems like it would be very awkward to implement.
However, I was thinking - if not outside the box, then in a slightly askew one - that this would be better implemented in Compiz and then redirect the input from your tablet to account for the skew. That way, it could actually work in *any* application rather than just specifically for Gimp. Something like this and you'd need some code in Xorg to handle how the tablet input should be interpreted. It would be pretty cool to just drag a Window around to the view you wanted to work on.
What do you think? You might get a better response from those teams?
If you're not sure why that's a problem, try drawing a line and rotating it some 50 times. See how jagged and blurry it gets? Artists rotate the page so many times to make it easier to draw curves at particular angles, which means they sometimes need to rotate every other stroke.
Well, I tried rotating a line few times using the rotate tool. I didn't get any distortion but it was pretty slow on this machine so I only tried about 15 times or so.
If you want 90, 180, 270 rotates, then there's a different Rotate under Image...Transform which is much faster. I tried that with my line about 100 times and there was no distortion. Assign the clockwise/anti-clockwise rotates shortcut keys under Edit...Keyboard Shortcuts and try it yourself.
the Gimp fails to provide. First, a good parametric brush engine that produces nice, clean, smooth strokes, at any resolution...Second - non-destructive page rotation...Also nice would be stroke smoothing.
But as far as I can tell, you've just named three features that Gimp already has! Though, in your defence, I suppose "good" is rather subjective, it could be that you didn't spot the Canvas rotation and stroke smoothing probably isn't out yet (it's in the latest svn, but I'm not sure if it's made the latest binary release yet).
Well, I was aiming for the shortest.sig rather than the smallest executable, but that might be a fun exercise too. When I get back to my Linux machine I'll have a go at that.
And of course testing is essential; you wouldn't want bug reports from your users...;-)
Too long and easy to read;-) Plus, nasm isn't installed by default on some distros (like Ubuntu). You can get it shorter if you use the GNU assembler:
echo -e '.globl _start\n_start:\nmov $2,%ax\nint $128\njmp _start'|as - -o a;ld a -o l
(I assume you're leaving;./l off the end to be nice to the copy/paste crowd)
This should work . I don't have a machine I can test it on at the moment though.
Actually, if you don't mind an warning message, I think you can get away with:
echo -e 'a:\nmov $2,%ax\nint $128\njmp a'|as - -o a;ld a -o l
Using %ax, rather than %eax, because I think that's all you need and it saves a character and using $128 rather than $0x80, again for the same reason. Using "a" and "l" for the filenames, just so I can end with AOL:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Chemistry lesson: pH decreasing = becoming more acidic, pH increasing = becoming more basic.
These are the terms as used by everyone. If you'd paid attention at school, you'd remember it.
pH of the oceans is about 8 and they are becoming more acidic. That's why it's referred to as "ocean acidification". Google the term: you'll find real scientists using it.
And you're yet another of those who don't even know the basics of science, yet think they know better than the people who do it for a living.
Can you read?
I said not just getting more plants; CO2 levels are increasing so clearly the plants aren't absorbing it all.
The oceans are already more acidic. This is not opinion, it's fact. It's been measured. It's in the article you yourself linked to.
I actually *know* some science. It comes of being able to read. Why don't you try it?
No, *slow* CO2 increase *might* (it's difficult to tell) have been great, but not at this rate. Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.
Some deserts get greener, others increase in size or new ones form.
And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.
It's not the actual level of CO2 that causes these problems, it's the rate of increase, but the problems remain nonetheless.
Really? From: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/19/iphone-sales-slump-q4-blackberry-surges
Where do you get them having the "vast majority" of the market?
Well, it's different for food in Cuba, since food is subsidised by the state, but the article is talking about phones and laptops, which presumably are roughly the same price around the world.
Also, there *are* places where people are paid below a living wage. It's not all "bullshit propaganda".
No, it's not. You might use different levels of uncertainty in different parts of a report. It's pretty standard to mention at the first use which definition you're using. I think you're reading too much into a standard notice.
The level of certainty is specified. That's just what we've been talking about.
No one ever has "complete knowledge" of anything. Why do you suppose the models are wrong? Do you think all their calculations are wrong? No-one has pointed out a better model to use.
Also, CO2 traps heat and therefore *should* cause warming. If you're going to argue that it doesn't, you need to explain why not.
Science goes with the best theory available, and until someone comes up with something better than "it's not CO2, it's something else we don't know about, but I don't know why", I think they'll stick with the CO2 theory.
Well, I'm not sure how serious I am, but I'd like to see copyright abolished.
Well, I think the BSD folks would argue that free software would still exist. Don't most EULAs depend on copyright to enforce their terms too?
Not so. An attribution law does not require a copyright law. We could have one without the other, if it was deemed necessary.
Again, there could be a separate non-copyright law covering this situation, but personally I'd rather we did without.
I'm a keen GPL supporter, but that's because it makes something useful out of the "evil" of copyright. I'd happily sacrifice the minor "good" to remove the major "evil".
Well, I've read much of the Bible, but I must have missed that bit. Where does it say that?
And, of course, you could still doubt that *that* part was true while accepting other parts of the Bible. After all, if one history book claimed it was infallible, it doesn't mean that all history books must be, or you must reject them all. Your argument remains poor.
You sir, are completely correct. 'Historians' who don't think the history books are infallible are plain stupid. How could you honestly tell which parts are true and which aren't if you don't believe them all to be correct? Basically, these 'Historians' pick and choose which parts they like and then reject the rest because its too weird and doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Sorry, my writing was poor. Meaning all further mentions of "uncertainty" will also be as defined in the methodology section.
Actually, refactoring the world economy to make it more efficient will enrich everyone, not impoverish them. If Americans could reach the same energy efficiency as Europeans (which is a pretty easy target, since they're hardly the best) it would allow a further 100 million people to live at the same level of affluence as Americans, creating another huge market for the world.
Mind you, the fun thing about economics is that it's such a load of crap, you can make any statement sound reasonably plausible. Still, at least I actually have some basis for my statement, as opposed to your effort.
I think you're misinterpreting that. That's just a definition. It means that when they say "uncertainty" they mean "as defined previously in the methodology section". They say it "there only" because it specifically says that all remaining considerations (i.e. all other mentions of uncertainty) will be done the same.
I must have a quantum government, because they appear to be both at once!
(At least, until I observe them, then they suddenly appear to be hard working, honest folk who're only doing their best to improve their country...)
I can't find them. Which page? (or, better, what does it say?)
And that's your problem, isn't it? Science is all nasty, scary stuff so lets keep away from it as much as possible.
Yeah, you're such a victim. Poor little you.
It still doesn't excuse your wilful ignorance. You can't be bothered learning something, but you're still arrogant enough to think you can tell people who *have* learnt about it that they're wrong! You really don't see what's wrong with that?
Really? Explain it then (preferably without the "help, I'm being repressed" crap). And then explain why there *isn't* any warming.
Hahahaha...you really think that the University of East Anglia is the main source for climate change information! Wow! Seriously, totally dismiss everything the CRU there has ever published. All the evidence *still* points to warming. Why *wouldn't* there be warming? What would stop it?
See, your problem is you don't even know what the theory is, but you're ready to jump in and dismiss it. You're like some newbie programmer jumping onto the LKML and insisting they're right about, say, memory management(!), when they can't even understand the concept! And refuse to learn!
Can you imagine what you'd think of such a person?
Wouldn't it be better to actually RTFM instead of continually insisting that it doesn't exist?
Oh good. So you see how stupid it is to dismiss a theory because you don't like one particular model. You've learned something then!
As in this being the warmest decade on record. That's "Cooling" to you is it?
I would say the burden of proof is on the people who are demonstrably changing my atmosphere. Or are you daft enough to deny *that's* happening?
Yeah, whatever. See, if you bothered actually finding out about the science yourself, you wouldn't have to depend on the mass media to know things.
No, more like 2+2 = 4 and it doesn't matter how much you whine that "math is hard and complicated! who could possibly understand it!", it *remains* 4. Learn to count and you'll get it.
I see...so I can get you to dismiss any scientific theory, just by creating a bad model for it. You'd actually dismiss the whole concept of the earth orbiting the sun? How incredibly stupid.
No they weren't.
No, the devil is in the details, but the general theory is quite simple to understand if you're reasonably literate. You're supposed to be able to understand it yourself. Perhaps that's asking a bit much in some cases.
If you had a computer model of the solar system, and it failed to predict the earth's orbit accurately, would you try and fix your model? Or would you discard Heliocentric theory?
Not the best choice of sentence structure there.
Oddly enough, I think they might have a point here. It seems like it would be very awkward to implement.
However, I was thinking - if not outside the box, then in a slightly askew one - that this would be better implemented in Compiz and then redirect the input from your tablet to account for the skew. That way, it could actually work in *any* application rather than just specifically for Gimp. Something like this and you'd need some code in Xorg to handle how the tablet input should be interpreted. It would be pretty cool to just drag a Window around to the view you wanted to work on.
What do you think? You might get a better response from those teams?
Well, I tried rotating a line few times using the rotate tool. I didn't get any distortion but it was pretty slow on this machine so I only tried about 15 times or so.
If you want 90, 180, 270 rotates, then there's a different Rotate under Image...Transform which is much faster. I tried that with my line about 100 times and there was no distortion. Assign the clockwise/anti-clockwise rotates shortcut keys under Edit...Keyboard Shortcuts and try it yourself.
But as far as I can tell, you've just named three features that Gimp already has! Though, in your defence, I suppose "good" is rather subjective, it could be that you didn't spot the Canvas rotation and stroke smoothing probably isn't out yet (it's in the latest svn, but I'm not sure if it's made the latest binary release yet).
Well, I was aiming for the shortest .sig rather than the smallest executable, but that might be a fun exercise too. When I get back to my Linux machine I'll have a go at that.
And of course testing is essential; you wouldn't want bug reports from your users... ;-)
Too long and easy to read ;-) Plus, nasm isn't installed by default on some distros (like Ubuntu). You can get it shorter if you use the GNU assembler:
echo -e '.globl _start\n_start:\nmov $2,%ax\nint $128\njmp _start'|as - -o a;ld a -o l
(I assume you're leaving ;./l off the end to be nice to the copy/paste crowd)
This should work . I don't have a machine I can test it on at the moment though.
Actually, if you don't mind an warning message, I think you can get away with:
echo -e 'a:\nmov $2,%ax\nint $128\njmp a'|as - -o a;ld a -o l
Using %ax, rather than %eax, because I think that's all you need and it saves a character and using $128 rather than $0x80, again for the same reason. Using "a" and "l" for the filenames, just so I can end with AOL :-)
What do you think?