The first graph shows temperatures rising from 1895 to 1943.
The second graph shows temperatures rising from 1957 to 2005.
Conclusion: Temperatures are rising, no surprise there. The graphs are similar because ever since the industrial revolution, global average temperatures have been rising.
I don't know why you or this "Willis Eschenbach" would think that 1895-1943 is a "Natural" period, unaffected by CO2 emissions. Well I do, actually. You're climate-trolling, of course.
The error was _not_ found by a 'climate scientist'.
He certainly styles himself as such. Nicholas Lewis, an independent Climate Science Researcher, based in the UK. Quoting https://www.nicholaslewis.org/.
Except it's the other way around: They're transitioning the mission-critical stuff first. 97% > 88%.
Which makes sense: The big stuff that's in active development, that's what you move first, because that's where you get the most bang for the buck. If you have one particular program running on thousands of servers that each require an Oracle license, then changing that one program could give you huge licensing savings.
On the other hand, all the rubble, the ad-hoc stuff that only runs on that one server in the Timbuktu office and the source code is lost or unreadable? That one you just leave running for now and start looking for ways to make it redundant.
Using an undefined variable in Python triggers an exception, and you get a traceback. In a larger program you will normally have a system for capturing and storing such tracebacks for analysis, and with the traceback in hand, it's typically a very simple fix.
In C++ you get an incorrect value created by default-initialisation (or maybe undefined behaviour): the program hobbles along as best it can, and you may never find the problem. You just see your program behaving strangely sometimes, and as the program gets larger, those strange behaviours accumulate.
Python is subject to all sorts of really horrendous bugs that would not happen in a compiled, type-checked language.
Horrendous is not the right word. Bugs that come with tracebacks are simple bugs. Zen#10: "Errors should never pass silently" is exactly what you want in large-scale programming.
You were using current production as a proxy for maximum capacity. Well, you can't do that, as they say.
Since you're the one making claims that revolve around there being a maximum production capacity for certain raw materials, the burden of proof is on you.
So what? Nuclear power has an energy return between 40 and 80.
We weren't discussing nuclear. We were discussing whether, from a raw materials point of view, solar and wind energy could plausibly be expanded to cover all our energy needs.
Thanks for the chat, but I don't want to start another discussion with you on another subject, related though it may be. I don't necessarily disagree with you on nuclear.
In other words, the concrete, the rare earths and the steel can all be mined and refined for less than 5% of the energy output of the windmill.
Even if increased demand causes us to use slightly less easily mined materials, increasing the energy use by a few percentage points, so what? It would still be immensely profitable from an energy standpoint.
On the solar side: Concentrators don't require silicon. If silicon consumption really is such a big problem for pv panels, we can build concentrators instead. They're not suited for residential rooftops, but they're fine for large-scale installations.
Why should I have to care how many indents there are?
"Why should I have to care how many braces there are? How many semicolons? How many equals signs?"
Python has a single, unambiguous way of expressing block structure. Just like C. You have to care about it because it's part of the syntax.
What it doesn't have is a redundant second way of expressing block structure.
You can't search for missing whitespace.
Imagine you're staring at an expression where you accidentally deleted the binary operator. Your code goes "a b" and you have forgotten if that was supposed to be "a + b" or "a - b" or "a * b". How do you search for the missing operator?
Well, you can't: Because just like most things in most programming languages, the binary operator is not expressed redundantly. You don't write "a + b (+)" or "a + (add) b". Expressing the notion of binary addition just once is enough.
Same thing with block structure. Expressing it once it enough, provided the one way you pick is the better one.
For example, if a C++ program has a "car" class that include the elements "miles" and "gas" a C++ programmer is likely to create a function
car::calc_mpg() which requires (seemingly) no arguments, rather than the more generic calc_mpg(int miles, int gas)
The problem is, the first is not reusable, and depends heavily on knowledge of the car class.
That's a legitimate complaint... against Java and C#.
Perhaps you have encountered too many C++ programmers who were originally taught using Java?
Back in the real world, the US is the first mover in weapons development. Who developed and deployed drone warfare tech on a massive scale before anyone else even got started.
I expect that the US will develop and deploy killbot tech before anyone else's project gets past the powerpoint presentation stage. My impression is that it is already underway. Why else do you think google is moving into weapons: They believe they have to act now to get a piece of the action.
If you don't have a one-button promote, then you probably don't have a one-button rollback either.
The one-button promote isn't the goal in itself, it's a side-effect of having a tightly managed configuration. You want a well defined process? When you find yourself capable of automating it, then you have it.
Agile methods like Extreme Programming and Scrum have two sides: One side is that you get to be extremely flexible about where you're going. You get to work without a comprehensive up-front specification. Which feature you're implementing next can change at the drop of a hat. The other side is that in order to get away with that, you have to be extremely disciplined about the quality of code you produce. Unit testing, refactoring etc.
It's one thing to be flexible in how you do one side or the other. That's fine. But too often people claiming to do a flexible variation of "Agile" are just ditching major parts of the coding discipline side. But then you're not doing XP or Scrum, you're just cowboy coding.
Expensive. I wonder how much of that billion is spent on mucking about with useless pennies.
But still, to put it in perspective: The US money supply is 10,000 billion, making the cost to produce a dollar about $0.001.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has the wonderful property that unless it costs a healthy fraction of the full purchasing power of a BTC to produce a BTC, then the market will break down. So the cost to produce a dollar's worth of BTC should be somewhere between 0.1 and 1.0 BTC, making it at least 100 times more expensive to produce than dollars.
have you ever tried doing 0.1 * 0.2 in JavaScript, the answer is 0.020000000000000004
You mean just like in Excel?
JS is an excellent match for JS. Floating-point math? Check. Playing fast and loose with strings and numbers? Check.
Massive additional attack surface on something that would often have been better served with simple static data? Check.
I wouldn't worry about that. Nothing will ever actually be upgraded.
Think about it: The firmware that the device is born with is FDA approved, at great expense. If the manufacturer discovers a bug and fixes it, then the fixed version is not FDA approved. Getting a renewed approval for a software modification is expensive, time-consuming and risky. Who's going to pay for that? Customers buy the cheapest thing that is approved anyway, and since the original firmware is approved, the manufacturer's salespeople will happily keep selling it.
Wait, just realised I forgot to turn off tracking protection extensions before inspecting the HTML source. I've gotta run, so no time to redo the check with tracking protections turned off.
A plain link, using the image https://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/f... - fsdn.com seems to be a sourceforge domain. On this one thing/. comes out clean. No facebook tracking.
If it's an ELF binary, it will start with certain bytes arranged a certain way; if it's a LibreOffice document, it will start with different bytes, etc. It's trickier but more reliable
That approach has terrible security. You download a file thinking it's one thing, but the launcher figures out it's something else and launches a completely different application from what you expected.
Years back, that trick was used to attack a Windows image viewing component. All you needed was a compromise in one of the many file formats that Windows supported, and all you had to do to trick people into viewing a virus-bearing file in that format was to rename the file to *.jpg. No extension hiding needed.
I really hope Linux desktop environments haven't taken to replicating that bit of stupidity. We were supposed to have learned not to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
The first graph shows temperatures rising from 1895 to 1943.
The second graph shows temperatures rising from 1957 to 2005.
Conclusion: Temperatures are rising, no surprise there. The graphs are similar because ever since the industrial revolution, global average temperatures have been rising.
I don't know why you or this "Willis Eschenbach" would think that 1895-1943 is a "Natural" period, unaffected by CO2 emissions. Well I do, actually. You're climate-trolling, of course.
He certainly styles himself as such. Nicholas Lewis, an independent Climate Science Researcher, based in the UK. Quoting https://www.nicholaslewis.org/.
Except it's the other way around: They're transitioning the mission-critical stuff first. 97% > 88%.
Which makes sense: The big stuff that's in active development, that's what you move first, because that's where you get the most bang for the buck. If you have one particular program running on thousands of servers that each require an Oracle license, then changing that one program could give you huge licensing savings.
On the other hand, all the rubble, the ad-hoc stuff that only runs on that one server in the Timbuktu office and the source code is lost or unreadable? That one you just leave running for now and start looking for ways to make it redundant.
Using an undefined variable in Python triggers an exception, and you get a traceback. In a larger program you will normally have a system for capturing and storing such tracebacks for analysis, and with the traceback in hand, it's typically a very simple fix.
In C++ you get an incorrect value created by default-initialisation (or maybe undefined behaviour): the program hobbles along as best it can, and you may never find the problem. You just see your program behaving strangely sometimes, and as the program gets larger, those strange behaviours accumulate.
Horrendous is not the right word. Bugs that come with tracebacks are simple bugs. Zen#10: "Errors should never pass silently" is exactly what you want in large-scale programming.
You were using current production as a proxy for maximum capacity. Well, you can't do that, as they say.
Since you're the one making claims that revolve around there being a maximum production capacity for certain raw materials, the burden of proof is on you.
We weren't discussing nuclear. We were discussing whether, from a raw materials point of view, solar and wind energy could plausibly be expanded to cover all our energy needs.
Thanks for the chat, but I don't want to start another discussion with you on another subject, related though it may be. I don't necessarily disagree with you on nuclear.
An evidence review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010, which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines.
In other words, the concrete, the rare earths and the steel can all be mined and refined for less than 5% of the energy output of the windmill. Even if increased demand causes us to use slightly less easily mined materials, increasing the energy use by a few percentage points, so what? It would still be immensely profitable from an energy standpoint.
On the solar side: Concentrators don't require silicon. If silicon consumption really is such a big problem for pv panels, we can build concentrators instead. They're not suited for residential rooftops, but they're fine for large-scale installations.
Sorry, when you said the rare earth thing I stopped taking you seriously.
And you didn't present any math yourself, so why should I?
Production follows demand. As we start building more windmills, more rare earth will be mined. It's not like it's actually rare.
This is where it gets funny. The earth is 7.3% silicon, you know.
Why should I have to care how many indents there are?
"Why should I have to care how many braces there are? How many semicolons? How many equals signs?"
Python has a single, unambiguous way of expressing block structure. Just like C. You have to care about it because it's part of the syntax.
What it doesn't have is a redundant second way of expressing block structure.
You can't search for missing whitespace.
Imagine you're staring at an expression where you accidentally deleted the binary operator. Your code goes "a b" and you have forgotten if that was supposed to be "a + b" or "a - b" or "a * b". How do you search for the missing operator?
Well, you can't: Because just like most things in most programming languages, the binary operator is not expressed redundantly. You don't write "a + b (+)" or "a + (add) b". Expressing the notion of binary addition just once is enough.
Same thing with block structure. Expressing it once it enough, provided the one way you pick is the better one.
That's a legitimate complaint ... against Java and C#.
Perhaps you have encountered too many C++ programmers who were originally taught using Java?
Imagine all the fun we'll have when start combining the two. Autonomous weapons is an application of AI.
Syria? Russia? China?
Back in the real world, the US is the first mover in weapons development. Who developed and deployed drone warfare tech on a massive scale before anyone else even got started.
I expect that the US will develop and deploy killbot tech before anyone else's project gets past the powerpoint presentation stage. My impression is that it is already underway. Why else do you think google is moving into weapons: They believe they have to act now to get a piece of the action.
If you don't have a one-button promote, then you probably don't have a one-button rollback either.
The one-button promote isn't the goal in itself, it's a side-effect of having a tightly managed configuration. You want a well defined process? When you find yourself capable of automating it, then you have it.
Agile methods like Extreme Programming and Scrum have two sides: One side is that you get to be extremely flexible about where you're going. You get to work without a comprehensive up-front specification. Which feature you're implementing next can change at the drop of a hat. The other side is that in order to get away with that, you have to be extremely disciplined about the quality of code you produce. Unit testing, refactoring etc.
It's one thing to be flexible in how you do one side or the other. That's fine. But too often people claiming to do a flexible variation of "Agile" are just ditching major parts of the coding discipline side. But then you're not doing XP or Scrum, you're just cowboy coding.
Expensive. I wonder how much of that billion is spent on mucking about with useless pennies.
But still, to put it in perspective: The US money supply is 10,000 billion, making the cost to produce a dollar about $0.001.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has the wonderful property that unless it costs a healthy fraction of the full purchasing power of a BTC to produce a BTC, then the market will break down. So the cost to produce a dollar's worth of BTC should be somewhere between 0.1 and 1.0 BTC, making it at least 100 times more expensive to produce than dollars.
"JS is an excellent match for Excel" is of course what I meant.
You mean just like in Excel?
JS is an excellent match for JS. Floating-point math? Check. Playing fast and loose with strings and numbers? Check. Massive additional attack surface on something that would often have been better served with simple static data? Check.
Any tracing garbage collector will trivially collect cycles. What's so special about the DOM or JS that it can't be properly garbage-collected?
I wouldn't worry about that. Nothing will ever actually be upgraded.
Think about it: The firmware that the device is born with is FDA approved, at great expense. If the manufacturer discovers a bug and fixes it, then the fixed version is not FDA approved. Getting a renewed approval for a software modification is expensive, time-consuming and risky. Who's going to pay for that? Customers buy the cheapest thing that is approved anyway, and since the original firmware is approved, the manufacturer's salespeople will happily keep selling it.
In other words, they've had plenty of time to fix it, but they've sat on their hands for 75 years.
If you were trying to make a case for regulation, you succeded.
Wait, just realised I forgot to turn off tracking protection extensions before inspecting the HTML source. I've gotta run, so no time to redo the check with tracking protections turned off.
A plain link, using the image https://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/f... - fsdn.com seems to be a sourceforge domain. On this one thing /. comes out clean. No facebook tracking.
Nah, labour is way too expensive in Norway to make production domestic.
That approach has terrible security. You download a file thinking it's one thing, but the launcher figures out it's something else and launches a completely different application from what you expected.
Years back, that trick was used to attack a Windows image viewing component. All you needed was a compromise in one of the many file formats that Windows supported, and all you had to do to trick people into viewing a virus-bearing file in that format was to rename the file to *.jpg. No extension hiding needed.
I really hope Linux desktop environments haven't taken to replicating that bit of stupidity. We were supposed to have learned not to do that.