I do like how they pulled a paper from the CATO institute to support their claim that the ice age was an invented scientific myth by the likes of Paul Erlich.
They forgot to mention that the paper as a whole did a very good job of equating the 1970s myth with today's. Thanks for pointing me indirectly to that paper, very informative.
Don't forget, we were all supposed to not only have frozen by now, but also to have died by mass starvation in an atmosphere of chaos. I don't have anything against a theory of global warming in itself, but I am extremely skeptical of Erlich and others who use panic-driven publicity to devise another method of gaining power.
Heh, nobody's disputing that the earth has warming and cooling cycles. They're disputing the idiotic conclusion that because it does, that's the only possible explanation for global warming.
And I'm disputing the idea that us puny humans can, through 100 years of neglect, ruin such a massive ecosystem that's survived numerous catastrophes over billions of years. I'm not that egotistical.
I know pollution is bad, and that should be self-evident. However, valid or not, at least this chicken-little science has one use in that it may get less conscientious people to do something out of a sense of self-preservation.
I know all of that. What I want is something to show a causal versus casual relationship, and for someone to take into account the accuracy of measurements prior to the last 100 years.
Young-Earth creationists also use inaccurate historical measurements (in this case, the speed of light) to bolster their argument.
I would also like someone to explain to me why all the pre-1970 data used to show a cooling trend, and now it's a warming trend.
Basically, there has been too much chicken-little science throughout the ages for me to hitch onto a catastrophism theory this young.
And in the 1970s it said we were all going to freeze.
Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean that it isn't true
And the reverse too. Of course they want global warming to be true, as they've based their whole being on that hypothesis. Disproving global warming to a green would be like disproving God to a Christian; both would result in a crushing blow to the psyche and massive denial.
Panic sells, and simply saying that the Earth has warming and cooling cycles doesn't. A lot of people have a lot to loose if it turns out the latest catastrophe fad is as valid as its predecessors.
Earth weighs about 6 x 10^24 kg. We take about 4.5 x 10^12 liters of oil from a distance of 6,376,660, from the center of the Earth to about 6,378,160m from the center of the Earth (average oil well depth is roughly 1500m), that's.02% of the radius.
Somebody please do the math of how that would affect angular momentum.
It appears the link between warming and rotation is pretty good. What is not good is the link between man's action and what appears to be part of the Earth's normal warming and cooling cycles.
Besides, I thought we were to all have died from Global Cooling by now, at least that was what they were saying in the 1970s. How did cooling switch to warming so fast?
Move someplace near the city so you can get DSL, which is relatively cheap here. If you're too far out like me you'll get stuck with ISDN or 56K at a metered rate (don't even consider using Kazaa).
Also if you live near a city you can get a combo PDA/phone from a company called O2 (cheaper than Telekom), with decent GPRS rates. You can even get mobile calls at land-line prices if you're within a certain area you specify.
Once the information is collected, there will be an abuse of that information. This doesn't necessarily have to be on the order of the great Big Brother conspiracy theory, but simply someone in a government agency saying "You know, if we cross-indexed this with this, we could find out this." Then that database gets linked with another one, etc., and eventually you have a huge database of personal information being misused, visible by people who have no business seeing that information.
It's kind of like in the movie Cube, it's wasn't built for a horrid purpose, it was just built.
I know this tendency because I work in government. When doing an IT project, most people forget to ask "Is this legal?"
And, please, cite the source for those thousands of detained U.S. citizens. The few cases I know of have been highly publicized.
I was talking about the redundancy of the power, cooling and controllers. Plus there is cache battery backup so you'll lose nothing in case of a power loss.
I know self-built can be very cheap in price/TB, but you won't get everything this package has. it just has to do with your individual requirements I guess.
My point was that an expensive dual-processor Mac can be beaten on its home turf by a standard single-processor desktop with the same memory these days. Sticking two processors in it to make up for the low frequency didn't even help (I know speed of PPC*2PPC@2xMHz).
As someone said in an earlier comparison like this, "Megahertz may not matter, but gigahertz certainly do."
Look at how much speed limits went up when the federal government removed mandatory 55 limits. Most states started setting limits at least somewhat near the 85% rule.
On a Mac, you can scan, capture prints, print to multiple printers, view your work on multiple displays, work on images in multiple applications, and still maintain perfect color calibration all along, because the computer itself has had color calibration built in for years and years.
That the PC can't do this used to be true. Not anymore.
Batch processing is the LEAST important Photoshop benchmark BY FAR.
Digital photographers do a lot of batch processing. They also do a lot of RAW conversion and transfer from memory cards, both of which are areas where the Mac lost severely.
Read his comments in the following thread.
He is a long-time Mac user in the area of photography.
He had to recently use an XP machine for some heavy work and found that it worked better than his Macs -- even the plug-and-play, etc.
It didn't start out as a Mac vs. PC speed test until he realized the PCs were way faster.
He loves his Macs and hopes they get faster to keep up with PCs in digital photography
The fact is that the tools used by pro photographers may not be optimized for the Mac, making it way slower in real life application today. They don't care about the potential speed if manufacturers were to optimize their software, they care about speed now.
Anyway, the Mac came close or on top in only a couple of the many Photoshop tests, otherwise, it was in general soundly beaten.
The sad thing is that this is a fight on the Mac's home turf, and it's losing. 2.5 GHz worth of PowerPC was coming in far behind 3 GHz of PC.
I've heard some bad things. The unsprung weight at the wheels is very important to the handling of a car, and if this thing integrates electric motors into the wheels, it's going to handle like a pig.
Since they are planning to make the entire line of cars off of a couple base skateboard platforms, they'll get a HUGE economy of scale.
I know many cars today are built on the same platform, but it's with many modifications to the base. This technology will allow them to produce thousands of exactly the same chassis to cover several lines of cars.
Why? Just because it has been this way for 100 years doesn't mean it is correct.
You're right in meaning, but not in fact. I got a tour of a WWI Model T recently. The girl who could drive it said it really was an acquired talent. The pedal layout and functionality (including pedal gear selection) is absolutely nothing like what we have in cars today.
You could even go from forward to reverse or back with one press of the pedal, explaining all those 1920s cars backing up and going forward so quickly.
From talking to the Photoshop folks, I get that Photoshop is basically equally optimized for both platforms, and they take fine-tuning their platform optimizations very seriously. It was one of the first apps taking advantage of the Altivec engine, and Adobe was releasing interim optimization plug-ins every time Intel made improvemments to their MMX technology.
No, what I really meant to say was that some printers don't do well with replacement inks. The Roland in particular had a problem since the inks had to have a very long drying time and certain viscous and chemical qualities. Those qualities weren't available in third-party inks. The ink dried between printing passes, ruining the quality; it dried in the heads causing their replacement; and the chemical composition cracked the long tubes running to the print heads.
Only Roland made an ink that worked properly with their printers.
Slashdot Mirror
I do like how they pulled a paper from the CATO institute to support their claim that the ice age was an invented scientific myth by the likes of Paul Erlich.
They forgot to mention that the paper as a whole did a very good job of equating the 1970s myth with today's. Thanks for pointing me indirectly to that paper, very informative.
Don't forget, we were all supposed to not only have frozen by now, but also to have died by mass starvation in an atmosphere of chaos. I don't have anything against a theory of global warming in itself, but I am extremely skeptical of Erlich and others who use panic-driven publicity to devise another method of gaining power.
Heh, nobody's disputing that the earth has warming and cooling cycles. They're disputing the idiotic conclusion that because it does, that's the only possible explanation for global warming.
And I'm disputing the idea that us puny humans can, through 100 years of neglect, ruin such a massive ecosystem that's survived numerous catastrophes over billions of years. I'm not that egotistical.
I know pollution is bad, and that should be self-evident. However, valid or not, at least this chicken-little science has one use in that it may get less conscientious people to do something out of a sense of self-preservation.
I know all of that. What I want is something to show a causal versus casual relationship, and for someone to take into account the accuracy of measurements prior to the last 100 years.
Young-Earth creationists also use inaccurate historical measurements (in this case, the speed of light) to bolster their argument.
I would also like someone to explain to me why all the pre-1970 data used to show a cooling trend, and now it's a warming trend.
Basically, there has been too much chicken-little science throughout the ages for me to hitch onto a catastrophism theory this young.
Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean that it isn't true
And the reverse too. Of course they want global warming to be true, as they've based their whole being on that hypothesis. Disproving global warming to a green would be like disproving God to a Christian; both would result in a crushing blow to the psyche and massive denial.
Panic sells, and simply saying that the Earth has warming and cooling cycles doesn't. A lot of people have a lot to loose if it turns out the latest catastrophe fad is as valid as its predecessors.
Earth weighs about 6 x 10^24 kg. We take about 4.5 x 10^12 liters of oil from a distance of 6,376,660, from the center of the Earth to about 6,378,160m from the center of the Earth (average oil well depth is roughly 1500m), that's .02% of the radius.
Somebody please do the math of how that would affect angular momentum.
It appears the link between warming and rotation is pretty good. What is not good is the link between man's action and what appears to be part of the Earth's normal warming and cooling cycles.
Besides, I thought we were to all have died from Global Cooling by now, at least that was what they were saying in the 1970s. How did cooling switch to warming so fast?
Yet another thing the greens can attach to (supposedly man-made) global warming.
American living in Germany.
Move someplace near the city so you can get DSL, which is relatively cheap here. If you're too far out like me you'll get stuck with ISDN or 56K at a metered rate (don't even consider using Kazaa).
Also if you live near a city you can get a combo PDA/phone from a company called O2 (cheaper than Telekom), with decent GPRS rates. You can even get mobile calls at land-line prices if you're within a certain area you specify.
They've basically patented the Adobe Web Workgroup Server companion software to GoLive 6, which has been out for a while.
Once the information is collected, there will be an abuse of that information. This doesn't necessarily have to be on the order of the great Big Brother conspiracy theory, but simply someone in a government agency saying "You know, if we cross-indexed this with this, we could find out this." Then that database gets linked with another one, etc., and eventually you have a huge database of personal information being misused, visible by people who have no business seeing that information.
It's kind of like in the movie Cube, it's wasn't built for a horrid purpose, it was just built.
I know this tendency because I work in government. When doing an IT project, most people forget to ask "Is this legal?"
And, please, cite the source for those thousands of detained U.S. citizens. The few cases I know of have been highly publicized.
How do you "come within two digits" of cracking a code?
I was talking about the redundancy of the power, cooling and controllers. Plus there is cache battery backup so you'll lose nothing in case of a power loss.
I know self-built can be very cheap in price/TB, but you won't get everything this package has. it just has to do with your individual requirements I guess.
Redundancy (power, cooling, controller), small form factor, management software, speed, etc.
Lost the <. "PPC*2<PPC@2xMHz"
My point was that an expensive dual-processor Mac can be beaten on its home turf by a standard single-processor desktop with the same memory these days. Sticking two processors in it to make up for the low frequency didn't even help (I know speed of PPC*2PPC@2xMHz).
As someone said in an earlier comparison like this, "Megahertz may not matter, but gigahertz certainly do."
Look at how much speed limits went up when the federal government removed mandatory 55 limits. Most states started setting limits at least somewhat near the 85% rule.
That the PC can't do this used to be true. Not anymore.
Batch processing is the LEAST important Photoshop benchmark BY FAR.
Digital photographers do a lot of batch processing. They also do a lot of RAW conversion and transfer from memory cards, both of which are areas where the Mac lost severely.
Read his comments in the following thread.
The fact is that the tools used by pro photographers may not be optimized for the Mac, making it way slower in real life application today. They don't care about the potential speed if manufacturers were to optimize their software, they care about speed now.
Anyway, the Mac came close or on top in only a couple of the many Photoshop tests, otherwise, it was in general soundly beaten.
The sad thing is that this is a fight on the Mac's home turf, and it's losing. 2.5 GHz worth of PowerPC was coming in far behind 3 GHz of PC.
I've heard some bad things. The unsprung weight at the wheels is very important to the handling of a car, and if this thing integrates electric motors into the wheels, it's going to handle like a pig.
Since they are planning to make the entire line of cars off of a couple base skateboard platforms, they'll get a HUGE economy of scale.
I know many cars today are built on the same platform, but it's with many modifications to the base. This technology will allow them to produce thousands of exactly the same chassis to cover several lines of cars.
Actually, most U.S. speed limits are set for political or revenue-gathering reasons, not for safety (excluding school zones, etc.).
Why? Just because it has been this way for 100 years doesn't mean it is correct.
You're right in meaning, but not in fact. I got a tour of a WWI Model T recently. The girl who could drive it said it really was an acquired talent. The pedal layout and functionality (including pedal gear selection) is absolutely nothing like what we have in cars today.
You could even go from forward to reverse or back with one press of the pedal, explaining all those 1920s cars backing up and going forward so quickly.
It is radical. Honda just put hybrid engines in standard car chassis. GM's car is a complete departure from standard thinking on how a car is built.
From talking to the Photoshop folks, I get that Photoshop is basically equally optimized for both platforms, and they take fine-tuning their platform optimizations very seriously. It was one of the first apps taking advantage of the Altivec engine, and Adobe was releasing interim optimization plug-ins every time Intel made improvemments to their MMX technology.
No, what I really meant to say was that some printers don't do well with replacement inks. The Roland in particular had a problem since the inks had to have a very long drying time and certain viscous and chemical qualities. Those qualities weren't available in third-party inks. The ink dried between printing passes, ruining the quality; it dried in the heads causing their replacement; and the chemical composition cracked the long tubes running to the print heads.
Only Roland made an ink that worked properly with their printers.