No it doesn't because we haven't been measuring it long enough or accurately enough to know what the natural variation is. I honestly don't know what the hell is wrong with you people. Why can't you see these totally obvious points.
This is absurd. Generic programming, for example, is far better in C# than Java. Most of the stuff included with Java 5.0 was already present in C# 1.0.
That's the wrong side of the equation. What you should say is that it won out because a bunch of suits who make purchasing decisions got behind it. Don't blame the salesman.
It was just coming into favour when I left. When I was around it was Modula-2 and Eiffel (for OOP) at University. I have always found Java to be absolutely horrific in practice, being pretty much the worst of all worlds. Today C# is far superior, whatever you think about Microsoft, and it's a real shame that.NET was mishandled at birth in the way that it was.
People don't like to admit it but the existence of Nuclear weapons has prevented a major conflagration between the `big powers', at least since the Korean War (MacArthur wanted to use them there, his boss didn't).
I suppose it could be argued under existing anti-terrorism legislation, but then accidentally driving in a bus lane could be interpreted in that way too under these illiberal laws.
The point is though, that anyone who wanted to share or view this footage should be sectioned and locked away in a psychiatric hospital regardless.
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.
I think that's just to do with the fact that in the past men worked themselves into an early grave and had to retire later. I think I read somewhere recently that the difference between male and female life expectancy, in the West at least, is slowly converging to approximately the same value.
I've not made that claim, no. The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, that 97% of scientists disagree with me but that's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.
That last bit should concentrate your rather limited mind.
For example, Andrew Montford. Someone with scientific training. Certainly not a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic.
Also what the fuck is wrong with your brain? No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory. If you don't understand science and how it works, why do you even have an opinion on this?
that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different
But that isn't what sceptics are saying, is it. Nice try with the good old straw man argument, which never fails a climate alarmist in need of a bullshit sentence on a website.
A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud
Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions. I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.
The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge. I can think of a few sceptics who get published, such as Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, but they are a few out of thousands of researchers on the AGW gravy train, whose careers, tenure and professorships are directly linked to their ability to suck research funds out of government for their institutions.
What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.
Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it? Can you not spot a very small (i.e. the size of Jupiter) hole in the process, right there? Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.
Actually I wasn't referring to scientists and their private incomes, although they have mortgages like everybody else. I'm mostly referring to the main method of career progression in academia which involves attracting government money to your institution. The better you are at doing this, the more likely you are to get tenure or a professorship. If you work in academia you have to play this game.
We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory
Do "denialists" have a theory? Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published? I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.
I apologise but as a flabby Western liberal I find it almost impossible to believe Human beings can be both evil and stupid, and actually survive to reach adulthood, especially in an AIDS and Malaria-ridden dump like Africa.
Anonymous Coward is making the ridiculous claim that because I have doubt about the assertions of a couple of anthropologists, people in Libera are equally justified in having doubt about what and how the Ebola virus is transmitted.
Sorry, I don't believe it just because a couple of researchers, presumably with an agenda or a desire for further funding of their anthropological tintinnabulations, have written about it. Indeed, like the biologists who were studying the extinction of certain frogs subsequently discovering that the fungus that killed them was mainly transmitted by... biologists studying rare frogs, I'm highly sceptical of such claims.
I don't believe that story at all. But even if it's true, what we're dealing with here is an ignorant, uneducated population most of whom don't have access to information, don't watch the daily news, don't (can't) read newspapers, haven't ever heard of the germ theory of disease, and with a government the members of which are enriching themselves in the traditional African way through corruption, coercion and violence.
Thankfully the situation in Africa is slowly improving, though I think the current generation in this locality is probably doomed to plod on in ignorance regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't because we haven't been measuring it long enough or accurately enough to know what the natural variation is. I honestly don't know what the hell is wrong with you people. Why can't you see these totally obvious points.
This is absurd. Generic programming, for example, is far better in C# than Java. Most of the stuff included with Java 5.0 was already present in C# 1.0.
That's the wrong side of the equation. What you should say is that it won out because a bunch of suits who make purchasing decisions got behind it. Don't blame the salesman.
It was just coming into favour when I left. When I was around it was Modula-2 and Eiffel (for OOP) at University. I have always found Java to be absolutely horrific in practice, being pretty much the worst of all worlds. Today C# is far superior, whatever you think about Microsoft, and it's a real shame that .NET was mishandled at birth in the way that it was.
People don't like to admit it but the existence of Nuclear weapons has prevented a major conflagration between the `big powers', at least since the Korean War (MacArthur wanted to use them there, his boss didn't).
I suppose it could be argued under existing anti-terrorism legislation, but then accidentally driving in a bus lane could be interpreted in that way too under these illiberal laws.
The point is though, that anyone who wanted to share or view this footage should be sectioned and locked away in a psychiatric hospital regardless.
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.
This should certainly be modded up. As usual the press release has been somewhat distorted away from any actual claims made in the paper.
I think that's just to do with the fact that in the past men worked themselves into an early grave and had to retire later. I think I read somewhere recently that the difference between male and female life expectancy, in the West at least, is slowly converging to approximately the same value.
If you don't know what your error is, you haven't made a measurement. There's really not much more to be said.
I've not made that claim, no. The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, that 97% of scientists disagree with me but that's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.
That last bit should concentrate your rather limited mind.
For example, Andrew Montford. Someone with scientific training. Certainly not a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic.
Also what the fuck is wrong with your brain? No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory. If you don't understand science and how it works, why do you even have an opinion on this?
Totally bizarre.
But that isn't what sceptics are saying, is it. Nice try with the good old straw man argument, which never fails a climate alarmist in need of a bullshit sentence on a website.
Yes, science progresses one funeral at a time. 40 years seems about right to me.
Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions. I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.
The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge. I can think of a few sceptics who get published, such as Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, but they are a few out of thousands of researchers on the AGW gravy train, whose careers, tenure and professorships are directly linked to their ability to suck research funds out of government for their institutions.
Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it? Can you not spot a very small (i.e. the size of Jupiter) hole in the process, right there? Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.
Actually I wasn't referring to scientists and their private incomes, although they have mortgages like everybody else. I'm mostly referring to the main method of career progression in academia which involves attracting government money to your institution. The better you are at doing this, the more likely you are to get tenure or a professorship. If you work in academia you have to play this game.
95% confidence? Are you having a laugh?
Do "denialists" have a theory? Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published? I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.
Having a "framework" allows them to control the process. Controlling the process allows them to funnel government cash to their friends in academia.
I apologise but as a flabby Western liberal I find it almost impossible to believe Human beings can be both evil and stupid, and actually survive to reach adulthood, especially in an AIDS and Malaria-ridden dump like Africa.
When they say "open and transparent" what they mean is that anyone who's even vaguely sceptical will be hounded out at the first opportunity.
Anonymous Coward is making the ridiculous claim that because I have doubt about the assertions of a couple of anthropologists, people in Libera are equally justified in having doubt about what and how the Ebola virus is transmitted.
Sorry, I don't believe it just because a couple of researchers, presumably with an agenda or a desire for further funding of their anthropological tintinnabulations, have written about it. Indeed, like the biologists who were studying the extinction of certain frogs subsequently discovering that the fungus that killed them was mainly transmitted by ... biologists studying rare frogs, I'm highly sceptical of such claims.
Oh I see, it's the fault of us white males isn't it.
I don't believe that story at all. But even if it's true, what we're dealing with here is an ignorant, uneducated population most of whom don't have access to information, don't watch the daily news, don't (can't) read newspapers, haven't ever heard of the germ theory of disease, and with a government the members of which are enriching themselves in the traditional African way through corruption, coercion and violence.
Thankfully the situation in Africa is slowly improving, though I think the current generation in this locality is probably doomed to plod on in ignorance regardless.