KVM is fantastic virtualization technology, yet Xen gets all the hype these days.
More or less the exact opposite of the truth.
The kernel guys very nearly killed Xen despite it outperforming KVM (in either paravirtualised or HVM mode).
It's true that many neato research things get done with Xen (lockstep for fault tolerance for example), but that says more about the ease of working with Xen than any "hype" effect.
It's also a mistake to think "conservative" means old fuddy-duddy. Building a nation upon the idea that PEOPLE should rule, not Lords, is anything but conservative. It was so radical an idea that it embroiled America and Europe in revolution for 2 centuries
Which is why the conservatives fought against it every step of the way.
If Al Gore really wanted people to take him seriously about his carbon-offset company, it would have been set up as a non-profit. As is, the fact that he's shilling for an idea that'll make him a lot of money if we buy into it taints the idea, just a little.
Once again, what's your problem with capitalism? Is there something wrong with making money?
No, I mean most of the ones that are described as "bad" by the "climate auditors". When the "skeptics" complained about the quality of some weather stations being used to generate the US average temperatures the scientists thanked them for their work and recalculated the trends without the "badly sited" stations.
The warming trend without the "bad" stations was bigger. Once again that's the "bad" stations chosen by the "skeptics" based on photographs of their installation, not the stations with anomalous records removed by the actual scientists.
Hah, yeah... when you eliminate mostly northern ones.
You would THINK that badly situated instruments would be location agnostic.. normal distribution and all that.....but most of the ones that are decided to be "bad" by the graph makers are the ones with cooler than average records.
Pity that selectively eliminating the northernmost readings for later years tends to increase the warming trend.
Wrong. You obviously don't know what a trend is. Why would one expect cooler stations to show a smaller warming trend than hotter stations?
As an adamant supporter of the Scientific method, I have to wonder why so many in the AGW camp are not concerned that data and methods have been lost.
What data has been lost? What methods have been lost?
Call me old fashioned, but I liked the IPCC report more when it still showed the MWP and RWP. If AGW is correct, why the need to change the temperature records?
For fucks sake, just use the great gazoogle.
The description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports has changed since the first report in 1990 as scientific understanding of the temperature record of the past 1000 years has improved.
Of course not. Papers published in journals are peer reviewed. The IPCC reports are summaries of what is in the papers. Old papers are replaced by new papers. Science marches on.
And that model holds up until the peer reviewed journals start rejecting alternate theories because they disagree with the AGW gospel.
And that would be terrible if it happened.
But it has never happened.
Unless of course you are talking about papers like "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN, Oliver K. Manuel, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009" which claims the sun is made of Iron.
Where I have a huge problem with those promoting "anthroprogenic global warming" is the complete and total denial that any other mechanism might be in play,
Name another mechanism that has been proposed and not disproved. Propose a mechanism for increasing C02 not causing global warming. Win a Nobel prize.
And when he and his 20 SUV entourage drive 200 meters to attend a conference after flying a private jet 2500 miles, he buys carbon credits from the company he has ownership stake in to offset it.
And your problem is what, exactly?
Gore thinks AGW is happening, he sets up a company to try and mitigate the problem. You've got some kind of problem with capitalism?
And now all we need is to get loud-mouth aggressive "scientists" to stop labeling everyone they don't agree with as "nutball propaganda". The scientific method doesn't have "keep shouting the other guy down until he goes away" as part of the process. The scientific method doesn't resort to name calling and insult as a means of proving the hypothesis.
Who are the scientists being "shouted down"? Where are their papers disproving AGW?
Oh, I forgot, Al Gore has got them all locked up at Guantanamo.
(Love your idea of improving the debate by labelling the scientists you disagree with as "scientists").
There is one huge problem with AGW: we cannot measure it. So how can you claim it is a scientific fact? If Earth is warming we certainly should be able to measure it, right? Why cannot we?
Yes we can.
See, last decade "warming" could be, according to statistics, due to just random fluctuations.
You mean:
Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Dr. Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
I.E. if you cherry-pick the data to include only the years 1995 to 2009 you can't be 95% sure that the warming is a trend. Of course if you include the years before 1995 you can be 95% sure.
Which is what I said in the first place. I also explained the problem with that explanation : unfortunately it assumes that there is more terrain in front of you to move into view and more terrain behind you (that has moved out of the view).
Not to hot on that whole "geometry" thing are you.
Hint: On a spherical planet the terrain in front of you is the same as the terrain behind you. You can keep rolling forever.
In a closed universe the same applies. Doesn't matter how far you go, you've still got the same amount of space in front of you as you have behind you.
Slashdot Mirror
And those monarchists were, of course, conservatives.
What the hell do you think the word means?
More or less the exact opposite of the truth.
The kernel guys very nearly killed Xen despite it outperforming KVM (in either paravirtualised or HVM mode).
It's true that many neato research things get done with Xen (lockstep for fault tolerance for example), but that says more about the ease of working with Xen than any "hype" effect.
What state will it be in in a few years with these morons running the educational system?
"you don't need to know no science, this stuff about guns'n'bombs is good enough"
"Capitalism is a dirty word, let's call it Free Enterprise"(*)
(*) See the new state ship, the Herald Of Free Enterprise.
No, it's a straight.
Which is why the conservatives fought against it every step of the way.
And why they continue to fight against it today.
Evolution has no arrow other than time.
"More advanced" or "more primitive" mean nothing. The only consideration is "more alive".
Uh, Britain does have an electoral college. It's called the Commons.
What we have here is a hung electoral college.
"scienticians"? You are a troll. This conversation is finished.
If your wife sleeps while you're doing weird things in bed then you're doing it wrong.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Why do you think we have no temperature records from before 1995?
Huh?
Once again, what's your problem with capitalism? Is there something wrong with making money?
No, I mean most of the ones that are described as "bad" by the "climate auditors". When the "skeptics" complained about the quality of some weather stations being used to generate the US average temperatures the scientists thanked them for their work and recalculated the trends without the "badly sited" stations.
The warming trend without the "bad" stations was bigger. Once again that's the "bad" stations chosen by the "skeptics" based on photographs of their installation, not the stations with anomalous records removed by the actual scientists.
Wrong. You obviously don't know what a trend is. Why would one expect cooler stations to show a smaller warming trend than hotter stations?
Would the carbon be more offset if he bought the offsets from someone else?
I just don't understand your problem.
What data has been lost? What methods have been lost?
For fucks sake, just use the great gazoogle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports
Of course not. Papers published in journals are peer reviewed. The IPCC reports are summaries of what is in the papers. Old papers are replaced by new papers. Science marches on.
And that would be terrible if it happened.
But it has never happened.
Unless of course you are talking about papers like "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN, Oliver K. Manuel, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009" which claims the sun is made of Iron.
What is the budget of the IPCC?
Between 1988 and 2007 the IPCC received 94,910,768 CHF http://earthwatch.unep.net/about/docs/scpIPCC.htm
You're going to buy a lot of propaganda with less than 5 million dollars a year.
Name another mechanism that has been proposed and not disproved. Propose a mechanism for increasing C02 not causing global warming. Win a Nobel prize.
baseline data and manipulation algorithms.
Which the deniers then used to do... what exactly? Line their parrot cages?
The ultimate denier argument - "I don't believe in AGW because it would cost me money".
Yup, that would be dumb.
I know, let's examine all the weather stations to find out which ones are badly sited and remove them from the record.
Pity that that tends to increase the measured warming trend.
So the thermometer was invented in 1950 in your alternate reality then?
And your problem is what, exactly?
Gore thinks AGW is happening, he sets up a company to try and mitigate the problem. You've got some kind of problem with capitalism?
Who are the scientists being "shouted down"? Where are their papers disproving AGW?
Oh, I forgot, Al Gore has got them all locked up at Guantanamo.
(Love your idea of improving the debate by labelling the scientists you disagree with as "scientists").
Yes we can.
You mean:
I.E. if you cherry-pick the data to include only the years 1995 to 2009 you can't be 95% sure that the warming is a trend. Of course if you include the years before 1995 you can be 95% sure.
Not to hot on that whole "geometry" thing are you.
Hint: On a spherical planet the terrain in front of you is the same as the terrain behind you. You can keep rolling forever.
In a closed universe the same applies. Doesn't matter how far you go, you've still got the same amount of space in front of you as you have behind you.
In fallout 3 I got to 270 hours and would have kept going (was trying to break 1mega caps) but the fucking game kept crashing every 5 minutes.
So I gave up.
Fuck.