Let me fix that for you: "anyone who disagrees with me is not sensible."
.
There, much better.:)
I prefer: "everyone who disagrees with scientific evidence is not sensible". Believing in human made global warning is a right, saying it is probable, given its actual scientific evidence, is a lie.:p
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The fact that temperature increased on average in the last decades doesn't tell us anything about future temperatures, from a system theory stand-point. The model must adhere to the observed system for a long period of time (and climate periods last millennia) otherwise it is practically certain that in the long run they diverge enough to render the model useless. And nowadays, the divergence between climate models and climate is very large after just a decade or two.
I don't know what you're trying to say. As far as I know Englert and Higgs won the Nobel after their theories were proved, not before. Unless you, in your basement, proved human made global warming last night, we are still in the unproven phase for the latter.
They have not shown them to be wrong. They have shown them to be inaccurate. Nobody can predict a system as complex as weather and temperature with 100% accuracy.
And here I thought that climate != weather. It seems it only works the other way around.
Besides that, an inaccurate scientific prediction is wrong by definition, i.e. it cannot be used to prove anything.
The problem is that practically all the climate models used so far are wrong. From a scientific viewpoint it is just an unproven theory, because its predictions are either not proven (because we're waiting the results) or proven wrong.
There's a fine line between:
Climate change: this is a well known phenomenon, from ice ages to the end of dinosaurs is nothing new
Global warming: this is less known, the period between ice ages lasts millennia, our sampling of global warming a few decades
Human-made global warming: every sensible man should consider this a wild speculation at the moment
From what I've read, The Alfalfa crops are about 1B gallons of water being moved to China.
The fact is that California harvest alfalfa up to 12 times a year, it sucks up a lot of water not because it is a particularly thirsty crop (it is not), but because farmers want very high yield. Cutting alfalfa would mean less returns for farmers, guaranteed.
google needs to be reigned in and bought to heel on issues where it's power is too complete
i'm glad someone is doing it. i don't really care if microsoft is along for the ride or not, and it doesn't really matter
The big flaw of your idea is the same that tricked the US to act in Iraq the second time: thinking that fighting something evil is good per se. It is not. You're basically hoping not just that the evil of Google is diminished, but also that the far worse evil of Microsoft is strengthened. Microsoft is not fighting Google just because, their aim is a stronger Microsoft and I don't think there's a need for that. If the end result would be a less evil Google, an equally evil Microsoft and a third party rising from obscurity, you'd be right, but that's absolutely not what it is shaping up here.
So M$ or Google, meh, both just as fucking evil as each other. I just preferred the kernel under Android;).
This is an example of what in Italian is called "qualunquismo": considering every party the same, so that you don't have to make your choices (because in all-equal world is pointless to choice). The point is that MS and Google are not evil as each other, their respective track records are much different in that regard, and even if they're as evil and it's just that Google is able enough to hide it, there's a huge difference in corporate culture (like there's difference between the corporate culture of Apple and Microsoft) and the corporate culture of Microsoft is one of the most irritating: they're like a naughty, bossy boy, that thinks he can get away with every mischief he does, and when he is caught guilty, he tries only to get revenge (and does nothing to hide it).
Likewise a coal plant has not a CF of 63%, but a range from perhaps 60% for a load following plant, and something like 85% - 95% for a base load plant.
I personally don't see a difference between a dispatachable coal plant that idles at less then 10% of its load over night, just to keep it warm, and peaks to 90% of its max over daytime versus a solar plant that idles during darkness at 0% and ramps up following daylight to 100% around local noon (or what ever daytime the plant owner decided to have its maximum.
I see a big difference instead. If a coal plant has a CF lower than 85-90% that is because you want it so, that is you don't need that power, while with a solar plant, you may need that power, but it's cloudy or it's winter and you're in the northern hemisphere etc.
And that's just half of the story, because electric companies deliver electric power, not energy.
I generally hate any game products from Japanese countries, since they're such nationalistic/xenophobic and conformist society (Japan always gets all the releases first, every game is on-rails with the same lame anime style, and so on).
I think there's irony somewhere in there. Or sarcasm. Or worse.
I can't comprehend this inferiority complex towards Linux that plagues FreeBSD users. The first public releases of the Slackware and Debian distributions predate the first public release of the BSD flavour known as FreeBSD. That's it. Clinging to software version numbering, in the Open Source world, where software version numbering means basically nothing is laughable at best and a troll attempt at worst. I suppose that none used OpenSSL before 2010 or that 6.8% of the world sites in April 2011 were running on nothing, since nginx was still at version 0.9.7. Yes, it's that laughable.
Lol, no. You're comparing the version of a kernel (Linux) with a distribution or flavour (FreeBSD). Slackware Linux 1.0 was released July 17th, 1993. Yggdrasil Linux was released in 1992.
Really? So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
It's free as in beer. You have it for free when you buy an Apple product, while OEMs actually buy Windows licences, that's the point. Microsoft cannot say that it's free, since they get money from the OEMs, Apple can. It's not hard to understand.
I'm with you on this, however you must be aware that a lot of different species can actually interbreed. It's just that biology is 10% science and 90% fluff.
Sweden is a bit bigger than California, almost 20 times the size of New Jersey. It's also sparsely populated, which should increase cost of infrastructure deployment.
That proves little to nothing. The reason why chimps (and gorillas) are thought to be unable to swim is their buoyancy: a young captive orangutan in a swimming pool is really an extreme case. Factors like water temperature, density and viscosity, not to mention size, depth and shape of the pool (which usually reduce turbulence and waves) compared to a real life river, alongside the fact that captive animals have typically a higher body fat percentage than wild animals (that is they're much less dense) can determine the success or failure of such a test. They should have taken a dozen chimps, thrown them in a muddy river and then see how may survived.
It tends to support more some fringe theories than the mainstream theory and it's written in a slightly misleading way. As an example, the Korean and Japanese languages are generally _not_ included in the Altaic family, while they're overwhelmingly considered isolated languages, but the article fails to emphasize that their inclusion is frowned upon by the experts of both languages. Another fact that is almost overlooked by the article is that many proponents of this language family think that it is a useful classification, but are agnostic about its origin: apart a small hardcore group, most linguists think that the similarities between Turkic, Mongol and Tungusic dialects are adequately explained by their historical proximity and are very dubious about the possibility to even demonstrate their genealogical relations. Here comes the pet theory: the hardcore proponents of the Macro-Altaic language family need the inclusion of some other language to demonstrate that genealogical link, some language that is both old and distant, so to hint at an ancient relation and to discard the idea of a more recent mutual influence; if you can demonstrate that Mongol/Tungusic are related to Japanese and Korean you can say that their relations, not only between those two groups, but even between Mongol, Turkic and Tungusic are probably due to an ancient genesis and not to documented centuries of common life in the steppe. The problem is that none, so far, has given an accepted demonstration of that link, while many have given reasons to believe it's not valid (the more you go back in Japanese and Korean, the more those languages diverge). All these difficulties are overlooked in the article, so to lean toward a Macro-Altaic point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
You can use wrong prediction as well, to further develop. That doesn't mean they are less wrong.
Let me fix that for you: "anyone who disagrees with me is not sensible."
. There, much better. :)
I prefer: "everyone who disagrees with scientific evidence is not sensible". Believing in human made global warning is a right, saying it is probable, given its actual scientific evidence, is a lie. :p
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The fact that temperature increased on average in the last decades doesn't tell us anything about future temperatures, from a system theory stand-point. The model must adhere to the observed system for a long period of time (and climate periods last millennia) otherwise it is practically certain that in the long run they diverge enough to render the model useless. And nowadays, the divergence between climate models and climate is very large after just a decade or two.
I don't know what you're trying to say. As far as I know Englert and Higgs won the Nobel after their theories were proved, not before. Unless you, in your basement, proved human made global warming last night, we are still in the unproven phase for the latter.
They have not shown them to be wrong. They have shown them to be inaccurate. Nobody can predict a system as complex as weather and temperature with 100% accuracy.
And here I thought that climate != weather. It seems it only works the other way around.
Besides that, an inaccurate scientific prediction is wrong by definition, i.e. it cannot be used to prove anything.
There's a fine line between:
From what I've read, The Alfalfa crops are about 1B gallons of water being moved to China.
The fact is that California harvest alfalfa up to 12 times a year, it sucks up a lot of water not because it is a particularly thirsty crop (it is not), but because farmers want very high yield. Cutting alfalfa would mean less returns for farmers, guaranteed.
Yes, "whateverism" is a good translation: that's as close as you can get, I guess.
Yeah, this is a bad move by Wikileaks. It hurts their credibility more than anything.
google needs to be reigned in and bought to heel on issues where it's power is too complete
i'm glad someone is doing it. i don't really care if microsoft is along for the ride or not, and it doesn't really matter
The big flaw of your idea is the same that tricked the US to act in Iraq the second time: thinking that fighting something evil is good per se. It is not.
You're basically hoping not just that the evil of Google is diminished, but also that the far worse evil of Microsoft is strengthened. Microsoft is not fighting Google just because, their aim is a stronger Microsoft and I don't think there's a need for that.
If the end result would be a less evil Google, an equally evil Microsoft and a third party rising from obscurity, you'd be right, but that's absolutely not what it is shaping up here.
So M$ or Google, meh, both just as fucking evil as each other. I just preferred the kernel under Android ;).
This is an example of what in Italian is called "qualunquismo": considering every party the same, so that you don't have to make your choices (because in all-equal world is pointless to choice). The point is that MS and Google are not evil as each other, their respective track records are much different in that regard, and even if they're as evil and it's just that Google is able enough to hide it, there's a huge difference in corporate culture (like there's difference between the corporate culture of Apple and Microsoft) and the corporate culture of Microsoft is one of the most irritating: they're like a naughty, bossy boy, that thinks he can get away with every mischief he does, and when he is caught guilty, he tries only to get revenge (and does nothing to hide it).
Likewise a coal plant has not a CF of 63%, but a range from perhaps 60% for a load following plant, and something like 85% - 95% for a base load plant.
I personally don't see a difference between a dispatachable coal plant that idles at less then 10% of its load over night, just to keep it warm, and peaks to 90% of its max over daytime versus a solar plant that idles during darkness at 0% and ramps up following daylight to 100% around local noon (or what ever daytime the plant owner decided to have its maximum.
I see a big difference instead. If a coal plant has a CF lower than 85-90% that is because you want it so, that is you don't need that power, while with a solar plant, you may need that power, but it's cloudy or it's winter and you're in the northern hemisphere etc. And that's just half of the story, because electric companies deliver electric power, not energy.
Troll planets would be nice.
Windows 7 and Office 2010 according to the Register.
I generally hate any game products from Japanese countries, since they're such nationalistic/xenophobic and conformist society (Japan always gets all the releases first, every game is on-rails with the same lame anime style, and so on).
I think there's irony somewhere in there. Or sarcasm. Or worse.
Perhaps because the Hokkaido Shinkansen will open in 2016.
I can't comprehend this inferiority complex towards Linux that plagues FreeBSD users. The first public releases of the Slackware and Debian distributions predate the first public release of the BSD flavour known as FreeBSD. That's it. Clinging to software version numbering, in the Open Source world, where software version numbering means basically nothing is laughable at best and a troll attempt at worst. I suppose that none used OpenSSL before 2010 or that 6.8% of the world sites in April 2011 were running on nothing, since nginx was still at version 0.9.7. Yes, it's that laughable.
FreeBSD was there first.
Lol, no. You're comparing the version of a kernel (Linux) with a distribution or flavour (FreeBSD). Slackware Linux 1.0 was released July 17th, 1993. Yggdrasil Linux was released in 1992.
Really? So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
It's free as in beer. You have it for free when you buy an Apple product, while OEMs actually buy Windows licences, that's the point. Microsoft cannot say that it's free, since they get money from the OEMs, Apple can. It's not hard to understand.
I'm with you on this, however you must be aware that a lot of different species can actually interbreed. It's just that biology is 10% science and 90% fluff.
Sweden is a bit bigger than California, almost 20 times the size of New Jersey. It's also sparsely populated, which should increase cost of infrastructure deployment.
Because the "dictator" was democratically elected, I suppose.
That proves little to nothing. The reason why chimps (and gorillas) are thought to be unable to swim is their buoyancy: a young captive orangutan in a swimming pool is really an extreme case. Factors like water temperature, density and viscosity, not to mention size, depth and shape of the pool (which usually reduce turbulence and waves) compared to a real life river, alongside the fact that captive animals have typically a higher body fat percentage than wild animals (that is they're much less dense) can determine the success or failure of such a test. They should have taken a dozen chimps, thrown them in a muddy river and then see how may survived.
It tends to support more some fringe theories than the mainstream theory and it's written in a slightly misleading way. As an example, the Korean and Japanese languages are generally _not_ included in the Altaic family, while they're overwhelmingly considered isolated languages, but the article fails to emphasize that their inclusion is frowned upon by the experts of both languages. Another fact that is almost overlooked by the article is that many proponents of this language family think that it is a useful classification, but are agnostic about its origin: apart a small hardcore group, most linguists think that the similarities between Turkic, Mongol and Tungusic dialects are adequately explained by their historical proximity and are very dubious about the possibility to even demonstrate their genealogical relations. Here comes the pet theory: the hardcore proponents of the Macro-Altaic language family need the inclusion of some other language to demonstrate that genealogical link, some language that is both old and distant, so to hint at an ancient relation and to discard the idea of a more recent mutual influence; if you can demonstrate that Mongol/Tungusic are related to Japanese and Korean you can say that their relations, not only between those two groups, but even between Mongol, Turkic and Tungusic are probably due to an ancient genesis and not to documented centuries of common life in the steppe. The problem is that none, so far, has given an accepted demonstration of that link, while many have given reasons to believe it's not valid (the more you go back in Japanese and Korean, the more those languages diverge). All these difficulties are overlooked in the article, so to lean toward a Macro-Altaic point of view.
I did a bit of work on the Altaic language page of wikipedia in the past and I can say it's utter garbage, thanks to the pet theory of one user.