So, based on your accusations that NeutronCowboy is an unqualified wannabe, would you care to share your own credentials? Oh, that's right, you're posting anonymously...
As I said in my post, there's also the temperature difference caused by the land/sea split. Combine it with the equator/pole split and throw in some coriolis force for good measure, and it's easy to see how the majority of our wind patterns are the way they are, and how a higher quantity of greenhouse gasses would make them stronger.
Not when taken in context. Claiming that scientists have figured out a way to incorporate all data to fit their model is not bad science, it is good science. All it means is that their model is more accurate. That's how science works.
You assume that more greenhouse gasses makes a more uniform temperature. That might be true if our world wasn't split between 30% land, 70% ocean. That 30% on the land has a lower thermal capacity than water, so the temperatures rise a lot more, which makes the infra-red being emitted more. If you now add greenhouse gasses in a nice even spread, it is easy to see: the land gets high temperatures --> CO2 etc absorb infra-red, becoming hotter --> rising air --> low pressures. Add more CO2 to the equation and it makes it even stronger. This difference between land and sea temps is what actually drives the entire global wind (and thus sea current) circulation process.
Taken with a few other things, such as the arctic staying frozen for longer and glaciers growing, yes, I would take it as evidence against global warming. I'd be very happy if it wasn't a problem. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of conditions which point in the "yes there is global warming" direction, so I think we should get our heads out of the sand while we still have a chance of doing something about it.
Explaining things in terms of physics is not denying evidence. You obviously didn't understand the basic concept of global warming beyond the name. Increased temperatures, on average, doesn't mean everywhere increases uniformly. It means there is more thermal energy in the atmosphere, making stronger hurricanes, stronger heat waves, stronger storms.
It's a bit like taking a pool and having more people swim in it. Sure, the pool will be slightly fuller, on average, due to the displacement, but it will also have more waves and more of the water will then splash over the sides. Of course, sometimes, at certain locations, the water will be lower due to troughs in between the wave peaks. If you're trying to live your life on the edge of the pool, having exactly the right number of people in the pool will make sure you get exactly the right amount of splashing for watering your crops, but not so much as to have your house washed away. However, if your way of life involves breeding new people to throw into the pool and swim, it's not that hard to realise that eventually your way of life will have to change. In this analogy, the name to the phenomenon would be called "Pool Filling", and that the people we are throwing into the pool to swim are just going to sit there or get out is the assumption you are making. Global warming denialists are saying "But at my edge of the pool, right now the water is *lower* than it was, so it must be false", and you are believing them.
Once we have a perfectly reliable, free and easy form of contraception, and rape doesn't happen, then, maybe, I'll agree with you, but only in cases where there aren't medical complications.
And what's worse: having an abortion or having a child which grows up in poverty and is neglected, abused and has more kids who won't be taken care of?
The paper lists the North Sea as having between 2 and 16 ng/L. Mediterranean was below 5, Hawaii below 10. Guanabara Bay (Rio) was between 137 and 147. Halifax, Pictou, and Cocagne watersheds (Canada) was between 0 and 1400. Jamaica Bay, NY ranged from 0 - 5000 ng/L. So this is actually pretty low compared to what has been measured in other places, but obviously higher than than plain, untouched seawater.
You don't need negative feedback for there to be GBP. GBP is pretty much just another way of measuring slew rate given a fixed amplitude.
But still, the DARPA press release says "first solid state receiver to demonstrate gain at 0.85 terahertz", so each the entire circuit may just have a gain of 1.0001 for all we know... They might have just been aiming for 0.9THz but got a gain of 0.8, so they lowered the frequency until the transistor slew rate was able to keep up with the signal. And a 10-stage LNA means that any tiny bit of capacitance/inductance will completely move the phase to where the signal makes no sense at all.
What they actually should have said was a Gain Bandwidth Product of 0.85THz, but I'm guessing somewhere along the line a journo said something like "Hey my EE friend, what does GBP mean? I've never heard of it, is there anything simpler?" To which the EE friend replies, "It's basically just the gain."
Incorrect. Gain is unitless (Vout/Vin), and decreases pretty much proportionally to the inverse of the frequency on amplifiers, so chip makes use something called the Gain Bandwidth Product (GBP) instead of the 'pure' gain, because it is a much more useful number for specifying actual transistor/amplifier performance in real live working conditions. And the unit of the GBP, is, you guessed it! Hz. Thus, a transistor with a GBP of 0.85THz will have a gain of 1 at 0.85THz, a gain of 2 at 0.425THz etc. When I see a gain with units in Hz I subconsciously think 'GBP' and don't even miss a beat... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain%E2%80%93bandwidth_product if my explanation doesn't make sense.
Yup, even AdBlock is crippled in Chrome. In FF it actually blocks the browser from fetching the ad, in Chrome it just stops it from being displayed, so if somebody decides to stick in a 100000x1000000.tiff Chrome will still go and download the entire thing, while FF won't even try. This makes it harder for the site to tell if you are blocking their ads, but easier to track you.
Exactly. And where were the Apple fanbois then, wanting their higher resolution? Oh, what was that? They didn't want it because Apple didn't have it yet? Interesting...
What it does it lower the barrier to entry for your typical teenage gamer geek, who will be your well-earning-geek in a few years time. If they can just fire up a torrent, stick it on a thumb drive and boot straight into Linux where they install Steam and download their already-paid-for games, it gives Linux a big boost in credibility. Not only that, the teenage geek typically acts as tech support for the rest of the family, so suddenly every family that has a teenage gamer geek will have a much higher chance of switching to Linux.
You obviously didn't look very hard, I've seen hi-res Thinkpads, Dells and Sonys. Of course, it isn't in the general consumer stuff, but rather in the high end. IMHO 1920x1080 on a 15" screen is dense enough dpi beyond which it doesn't make a difference... and beyond that the graphics power needed to push around all of those extra pixels gets unreasonable for the marginal benefit gained.
Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence... Google does go by the model of 'eventual consistency' with search, so perhaps some of that ethos spilled over into the G+ data handling.
Slashdot Mirror
So, based on your accusations that NeutronCowboy is an unqualified wannabe, would you care to share your own credentials? Oh, that's right, you're posting anonymously...
As I said in my post, there's also the temperature difference caused by the land/sea split. Combine it with the equator/pole split and throw in some coriolis force for good measure, and it's easy to see how the majority of our wind patterns are the way they are, and how a higher quantity of greenhouse gasses would make them stronger.
Unnecessary intelligence insult.
Not when taken in context. Claiming that scientists have figured out a way to incorporate all data to fit their model is not bad science, it is good science. All it means is that their model is more accurate. That's how science works.
You assume that more greenhouse gasses makes a more uniform temperature. That might be true if our world wasn't split between 30% land, 70% ocean. That 30% on the land has a lower thermal capacity than water, so the temperatures rise a lot more, which makes the infra-red being emitted more. If you now add greenhouse gasses in a nice even spread, it is easy to see: the land gets high temperatures --> CO2 etc absorb infra-red, becoming hotter --> rising air --> low pressures. Add more CO2 to the equation and it makes it even stronger. This difference between land and sea temps is what actually drives the entire global wind (and thus sea current) circulation process.
BTW this was my highschool geography...
Taken with a few other things, such as the arctic staying frozen for longer and glaciers growing, yes, I would take it as evidence against global warming. I'd be very happy if it wasn't a problem. Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of conditions which point in the "yes there is global warming" direction, so I think we should get our heads out of the sand while we still have a chance of doing something about it.
Explaining things in terms of physics is not denying evidence. You obviously didn't understand the basic concept of global warming beyond the name. Increased temperatures, on average, doesn't mean everywhere increases uniformly. It means there is more thermal energy in the atmosphere, making stronger hurricanes, stronger heat waves, stronger storms.
It's a bit like taking a pool and having more people swim in it. Sure, the pool will be slightly fuller, on average, due to the displacement, but it will also have more waves and more of the water will then splash over the sides. Of course, sometimes, at certain locations, the water will be lower due to troughs in between the wave peaks. If you're trying to live your life on the edge of the pool, having exactly the right number of people in the pool will make sure you get exactly the right amount of splashing for watering your crops, but not so much as to have your house washed away. However, if your way of life involves breeding new people to throw into the pool and swim, it's not that hard to realise that eventually your way of life will have to change. In this analogy, the name to the phenomenon would be called "Pool Filling", and that the people we are throwing into the pool to swim are just going to sit there or get out is the assumption you are making. Global warming denialists are saying "But at my edge of the pool, right now the water is *lower* than it was, so it must be false", and you are believing them.
Once we have a perfectly reliable, free and easy form of contraception, and rape doesn't happen, then, maybe, I'll agree with you, but only in cases where there aren't medical complications.
And what's worse: having an abortion or having a child which grows up in poverty and is neglected, abused and has more kids who won't be taken care of?
Sorry, there were 2 North Sea references from the same research group, that was the earlier one, here is the later one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969702000645
Hey, I'm just quoting the paper. These amounts are referenced from other papers, which may have been using different techniques for measuring the concentrations.
Here's the North Sea one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967301005295
Here's the Mediterranean: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es020125z
Here's Hawaii: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X10001839
The paper lists the North Sea as having between 2 and 16 ng/L. Mediterranean was below 5, Hawaii below 10. Guanabara Bay (Rio) was between 137 and 147. Halifax, Pictou, and Cocagne watersheds (Canada) was between 0 and 1400. Jamaica Bay, NY ranged from 0 - 5000 ng/L. So this is actually pretty low compared to what has been measured in other places, but obviously higher than than plain, untouched seawater.
A bit of googling found this:
http://atomfullerene.wordpress.com/dispatches-from-the-red-planet/
You don't need negative feedback for there to be GBP. GBP is pretty much just another way of measuring slew rate given a fixed amplitude.
But still, the DARPA press release says "first solid state receiver to demonstrate gain at 0.85 terahertz", so each the entire circuit may just have a gain of 1.0001 for all we know... They might have just been aiming for 0.9THz but got a gain of 0.8, so they lowered the frequency until the transistor slew rate was able to keep up with the signal. And a 10-stage LNA means that any tiny bit of capacitance/inductance will completely move the phase to where the signal makes no sense at all.
If he put enough ads on the page he might just be coining it... especially if the ads are for i[Phone|Pad|Pod] accessories.
Then have optional 2-factor auth. It's not that hard...
Yup. THz. What he said.
What they actually should have said was a Gain Bandwidth Product of 0.85THz, but I'm guessing somewhere along the line a journo said something like "Hey my EE friend, what does GBP mean? I've never heard of it, is there anything simpler?" To which the EE friend replies, "It's basically just the gain."
Incorrect. Gain is unitless (Vout/Vin), and decreases pretty much proportionally to the inverse of the frequency on amplifiers, so chip makes use something called the Gain Bandwidth Product (GBP) instead of the 'pure' gain, because it is a much more useful number for specifying actual transistor/amplifier performance in real live working conditions. And the unit of the GBP, is, you guessed it! Hz. Thus, a transistor with a GBP of 0.85THz will have a gain of 1 at 0.85THz, a gain of 2 at 0.425THz etc. When I see a gain with units in Hz I subconsciously think 'GBP' and don't even miss a beat...
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain%E2%80%93bandwidth_product if my explanation doesn't make sense.
Yup, even AdBlock is crippled in Chrome. In FF it actually blocks the browser from fetching the ad, in Chrome it just stops it from being displayed, so if somebody decides to stick in a 100000x1000000.tiff Chrome will still go and download the entire thing, while FF won't even try. This makes it harder for the site to tell if you are blocking their ads, but easier to track you.
Exactly. And where were the Apple fanbois then, wanting their higher resolution? Oh, what was that? They didn't want it because Apple didn't have it yet? Interesting...
What it does it lower the barrier to entry for your typical teenage gamer geek, who will be your well-earning-geek in a few years time. If they can just fire up a torrent, stick it on a thumb drive and boot straight into Linux where they install Steam and download their already-paid-for games, it gives Linux a big boost in credibility. Not only that, the teenage geek typically acts as tech support for the rest of the family, so suddenly every family that has a teenage gamer geek will have a much higher chance of switching to Linux.
Especially if the OS is free.
If you are just doing FFT, a single FPGA is even better than many GPUs.
Which works great until you try to get it to balance like that...
You obviously didn't look very hard, I've seen hi-res Thinkpads, Dells and Sonys. Of course, it isn't in the general consumer stuff, but rather in the high end. IMHO 1920x1080 on a 15" screen is dense enough dpi beyond which it doesn't make a difference... and beyond that the graphics power needed to push around all of those extra pixels gets unreasonable for the marginal benefit gained.
Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence... Google does go by the model of 'eventual consistency' with search, so perhaps some of that ethos spilled over into the G+ data handling.
Yes. It's called being honest. Unless you are on the Samsung defence team, you're also guessing.