It's "different", in the same way that a bottle of gin is different from a can of cider. But they're both drinks, i.e. both organisations are making money on the back of what was (initially at least) the unpaid labour of others.
It isn't a straw man because the parent said "his objection is to doing work for free", as if somehow they were being coerced into doing it. Well, they aren't. So apart from demonstrating yourself to be a patronising, sanctimonious arse who doesn't know what a straw-man argument is, your comment here has achieved absolutely nothing.
This can happen to anyone. We had a piece of software translated into simplified Chinese and the Y axis on one of the graphs in a report screen was labelled "Pine Trees" instead of `temperature'. This would probably have caused some confusion in the control room of the customer.
You are making yourself a very comfortable false dichotomy. Steam is very useful indeed. It makes it easy for me to buy, install, patch, organise and run video games. As a gamer, I think it's an excellent service.
Does Red Hat make a profit, by the way? It seems to me this article is of the form, "evil capitalists pay less than minimum wage for language translation!".
That slashdot, which touts "free" as in "beer" software and Linux at every opportunity, has posted an incredulous article about Valve crowd-sourcing work for nothing.
That is the most cretinous argument I think I've so far read. Notwithstanding the fact that recent papers showed the hole in the ozone layer is caused primarily by cosmic rays (I don't expect you to have read it), the total amount of CFC emitted by the world's asthmatics is so tiny compared to the size of the ozone layer that its effect can only be but a tiny pin prick.
This kind of over-regulation based on the flimsy evidence of politically motivated activists is destroying not only our economies, but public trust in science and the scientific method.
I don't understand this (and never have!). How is the local c changed? If it's not bumping into stuff but simply changing direction, isn't it still c, just that it's taken a longer path to reach the other side?
I've never really understood why it's such a problem for an observer to see the receive before the send. We already have the totally weird non-locality of QM (assuming it is really non-local), so why would violating our ordinary experience of causality be so objectionable? Like QM, it's just not something we're ever likely to witness directly. IANAP!
Come now. That's a ridiculous assertion to make. The ice caps are far colder than -6F! Moreover, the extra heat will increase water vapour, which will increase cloud cover, which will reduce incoming solar radiation. The IPCC assume clouds are a +ve feedback, but now we've had 3 papers in a row showing that they aren't (Lindzen & Choi, Spencer and now Allan). Moreover, the cooling effect of clouds is something like 17 times the magnitude of the warming affect of the back-radiation assumed to contribute to warming. This is new science (published only the other day). It's completely ignored by the models. It's completely ignored by scientists like Trenberth. It's completely ignored by the catastrophists and I have no doubt it will be completely ignored by you as well.
But, as this argument continues, scientists are doing some excellent work. At CERN (the CLOUD experiment) particularly. Showing how cosmic rays increase the frequency of CCN. More work to do, but if this can account for even a 1% change in cloud cover, it can account for much of the Earth's internal variability over the medium term.
So no, the jury is still out. The science isn't "in". The consensus is wrong and it will slowly fall apart as people peel off to start getting back to what they were doing before; not producing propaganda for the Environmental movement and their various financial interests (including Goldman and Enron, with their trading desks), but proper science motivated by a desire to answer questions and enrich Humanity with knowledge.
Fascinating. Look at the Vostok core too. I linked to it elsewhere. The common factor is not absolute temperature, it's the natural variability in the system that's important. I'm aware that ANY evidence showing this kind of variability is generally considered suspect by catastrophists. Whenever you get real world data that contradicts your hypothesis, it's the data that's wrong, not the hypothesis.
The scientific method has not, because in Climate Science the Scientific Method is not in use. The Scientific Method requires a falsifiable hypothesis (for starters). The scientific method requires real-world experiments (not really possible in this field).
Models are conceptual representations of reality. They are not reality itself. A model is a useful tool for playing with scenarios, but that is all. These days the model is everything. If the real-world doesn't match the model, the real world is assumed to be `wrong'. Many papers are published on the results of model runs, that are then picked up in the press (via. helpful press releases) as actual fact. In the end this will all come tumbling down of course, and leave the scientific method (which both you and I care about) somewhat lacking in public trust.
Yes. It is solid science. As solid science it says that doubling CO2 will increase the temperature by between 0.6K and 1K. I'm not sure if that is significant. Well actually I'm pretty sure it isn't.
When you say you "refine the model", in reality this involves a curve-fitting exercise, so that your model matches past data, and there follows more future predictions that are no more likely to be correct than the last prediction you made that caused you to fiddle with your model parameters in the first place. In short: folly.
I'm actually quite shocked that you put the words natural climate change into quotes. There are decadal, multi-decadal, centennial, multi-centennial, millennial and longer cycles in climate, as the following graph of ice-core data from Greenland demonstrates:
Thermometer readings are not subject to interpretation
Oh yes they most definitely are. Smoothing method. Calibration. Placement issues. Micro-climate. Accuracy of record keeping (change management). etc. etc. etc. Confirmation bias comes into it as well, especially when Mr James Hansen is selecting which stations to drop from his NA analysis.
VB.NET is running on the same underlying framework (1), it's using the same CLR (2), it has the same libraries (3), it has the same designers (4), it has the same project properties (mostly) (5) as C#. The only difference is language syntax. For Visual Basic 6, none of the above are true.
Don't accuse me of one fallacy (straw man), whilst setting up another of your own (false dichotomy). Point of fact: C and C++ aren't the same at all. There are no classes in C. There's no inheritance. There's no polymorphism. There's no generics. VB.NET has all of those, as does C#. Visual Basic 6 doesn't (ok, it has a vague class concept). VB.NET is not some stripped down version of the CLR. It has access to exactly the same features are C# does.
As a UI designer/programmer, I immediately see the benefits with respect to applications I've been maintaining for years. It's so much easier to model/view the layout, and to present functionality to the user with a ribbon than it is with menu/toolbar. I appreciate that some people are used to and want to stick with the current way of doing things of course, but you know, people who use IT should take it as read that every so often they have to change their method of working. To be honest I had the same experience as you moving from SourceSafe to SVN:p. I find the latter annoying as **** compared to my previous way of working, but the nerds who manage the builds, branching and releases see it as a Godsend. I suppose you can't please everyone!
How does this square with the idea that gas giants have materials like metallic hydrogen at their cores? I can see how accretion can occur without the necessity for a rocky core, and I can see how it would occur with one. Either way, isn't this hypothesis kind-of trivial in its conclusion? Matter accreted more matter. Equilibrium is reached. Constituent parts - gas, solid, ice are determined based on many variables. There is a centre of gravity. That's all.
(Disclaimer: I might have misunderstood the point!).
Slashdot Mirror
It's "different", in the same way that a bottle of gin is different from a can of cider. But they're both drinks, i.e. both organisations are making money on the back of what was (initially at least) the unpaid labour of others.
It isn't a straw man because the parent said "his objection is to doing work for free", as if somehow they were being coerced into doing it. Well, they aren't. So apart from demonstrating yourself to be a patronising, sanctimonious arse who doesn't know what a straw-man argument is, your comment here has achieved absolutely nothing.
Nobody is forcing them to do it for fucks sake!
This can happen to anyone. We had a piece of software translated into simplified Chinese and the Y axis on one of the graphs in a report screen was labelled "Pine Trees" instead of `temperature'. This would probably have caused some confusion in the control room of the customer.
Ok, your objection here is Valve charging for games. You're obviously from that part of the world I often see labelled as "utopia" on the map.
You are making yourself a very comfortable false dichotomy. Steam is very useful indeed. It makes it easy for me to buy, install, patch, organise and run video games. As a gamer, I think it's an excellent service.
Does Red Hat make a profit, by the way? It seems to me this article is of the form, "evil capitalists pay less than minimum wage for language translation!".
You get lots of benefit if you're a Korean who wants to use Steam.
That slashdot, which touts "free" as in "beer" software and Linux at every opportunity, has posted an incredulous article about Valve crowd-sourcing work for nothing.
That is the most cretinous argument I think I've so far read. Notwithstanding the fact that recent papers showed the hole in the ozone layer is caused primarily by cosmic rays (I don't expect you to have read it), the total amount of CFC emitted by the world's asthmatics is so tiny compared to the size of the ozone layer that its effect can only be but a tiny pin prick.
This kind of over-regulation based on the flimsy evidence of politically motivated activists is destroying not only our economies, but public trust in science and the scientific method.
I would prefer the real-world measurements to the theory, no-matter how elegant it is. Otherwise, you aren't really doing science.
I don't understand this (and never have!). How is the local c changed? If it's not bumping into stuff but simply changing direction, isn't it still c, just that it's taken a longer path to reach the other side?
I've never really understood why it's such a problem for an observer to see the receive before the send. We already have the totally weird non-locality of QM (assuming it is really non-local), so why would violating our ordinary experience of causality be so objectionable? Like QM, it's just not something we're ever likely to witness directly. IANAP!
The best way of storing hydrogen at room temperature is to combine it with carbon.
Come now. That's a ridiculous assertion to make. The ice caps are far colder than -6F! Moreover, the extra heat will increase water vapour, which will increase cloud cover, which will reduce incoming solar radiation. The IPCC assume clouds are a +ve feedback, but now we've had 3 papers in a row showing that they aren't (Lindzen & Choi, Spencer and now Allan). Moreover, the cooling effect of clouds is something like 17 times the magnitude of the warming affect of the back-radiation assumed to contribute to warming. This is new science (published only the other day). It's completely ignored by the models. It's completely ignored by scientists like Trenberth. It's completely ignored by the catastrophists and I have no doubt it will be completely ignored by you as well.
But, as this argument continues, scientists are doing some excellent work. At CERN (the CLOUD experiment) particularly. Showing how cosmic rays increase the frequency of CCN. More work to do, but if this can account for even a 1% change in cloud cover, it can account for much of the Earth's internal variability over the medium term.
So no, the jury is still out. The science isn't "in". The consensus is wrong and it will slowly fall apart as people peel off to start getting back to what they were doing before; not producing propaganda for the Environmental movement and their various financial interests (including Goldman and Enron, with their trading desks), but proper science motivated by a desire to answer questions and enrich Humanity with knowledge.
Fascinating. Look at the Vostok core too. I linked to it elsewhere. The common factor is not absolute temperature, it's the natural variability in the system that's important. I'm aware that ANY evidence showing this kind of variability is generally considered suspect by catastrophists. Whenever you get real world data that contradicts your hypothesis, it's the data that's wrong, not the hypothesis.
The scientific method has not, because in Climate Science the Scientific Method is not in use. The Scientific Method requires a falsifiable hypothesis (for starters). The scientific method requires real-world experiments (not really possible in this field).
Models are conceptual representations of reality. They are not reality itself. A model is a useful tool for playing with scenarios, but that is all. These days the model is everything. If the real-world doesn't match the model, the real world is assumed to be `wrong'. Many papers are published on the results of model runs, that are then picked up in the press (via. helpful press releases) as actual fact. In the end this will all come tumbling down of course, and leave the scientific method (which both you and I care about) somewhat lacking in public trust.
Yes. It is solid science. As solid science it says that doubling CO2 will increase the temperature by between 0.6K and 1K. I'm not sure if that is significant. Well actually I'm pretty sure it isn't.
When you say you "refine the model", in reality this involves a curve-fitting exercise, so that your model matches past data, and there follows more future predictions that are no more likely to be correct than the last prediction you made that caused you to fiddle with your model parameters in the first place. In short: folly.
But the entire comment is rendered moot if you look back far enough in time:
GISP2.
I'm actually quite shocked that you put the words natural climate change into quotes. There are decadal, multi-decadal, centennial, multi-centennial, millennial and longer cycles in climate, as the following graph of ice-core data from Greenland demonstrates:
Greenland GISP2.
Here's the Vostok core:
Vostok.
Oh yes they most definitely are. Smoothing method. Calibration. Placement issues. Micro-climate. Accuracy of record keeping (change management). etc. etc. etc. Confirmation bias comes into it as well, especially when Mr James Hansen is selecting which stations to drop from his NA analysis.
VB.NET is running on the same underlying framework (1), it's using the same CLR (2), it has the same libraries (3), it has the same designers (4), it has the same project properties (mostly) (5) as C#. The only difference is language syntax. For Visual Basic 6, none of the above are true.
Don't accuse me of one fallacy (straw man), whilst setting up another of your own (false dichotomy). Point of fact: C and C++ aren't the same at all. There are no classes in C. There's no inheritance. There's no polymorphism. There's no generics. VB.NET has all of those, as does C#. Visual Basic 6 doesn't (ok, it has a vague class concept). VB.NET is not some stripped down version of the CLR. It has access to exactly the same features are C# does.
As a UI designer/programmer, I immediately see the benefits with respect to applications I've been maintaining for years. It's so much easier to model/view the layout, and to present functionality to the user with a ribbon than it is with menu/toolbar. I appreciate that some people are used to and want to stick with the current way of doing things of course, but you know, people who use IT should take it as read that every so often they have to change their method of working. To be honest I had the same experience as you moving from SourceSafe to SVN :p. I find the latter annoying as **** compared to my previous way of working, but the nerds who manage the builds, branching and releases see it as a Godsend. I suppose you can't please everyone!
How does this square with the idea that gas giants have materials like metallic hydrogen at their cores? I can see how accretion can occur without the necessity for a rocky core, and I can see how it would occur with one. Either way, isn't this hypothesis kind-of trivial in its conclusion? Matter accreted more matter. Equilibrium is reached. Constituent parts - gas, solid, ice are determined based on many variables. There is a centre of gravity. That's all.
(Disclaimer: I might have misunderstood the point!).