Since the blog post has been withdrawn and I can't read it, I'll comment on the part you quoted.
One interesting qualifier I see is that it is 1000 lines of shipped code. None of the other numbers are qualified in that manner. Just wondering if that could be a major part of the difference.
[I have removed the rest of this post of my own volition, without any external pressure whatsoever. What started as an opinion on the challenges of managing large software projects has turned out to be a rallying point for detractors, which isn't interesting or productive. - Ed.]
Just looked. It does look like there's a little space there, but its definitely less than a 1 mm (0.1 mm?). It also explains why the spin so easily, because i would really expect the friction to keep them from spinning as easily as they seem to.
I agree. I just have an old, old iMac DV running iTunes and a big hard drive. Ripped all my CDs using a lossless codec. Hookded the iMac to the stereo, plugged in a remote control, and I'm set. My entrie collection ready to go with the added ability to burn mix CDs to take in the car.
Its just too cheap and easy to do with a Mac or PC and and the old computer sitting in the corner.
Mind you, they don't do a thing after the AAC or MP3 is cut,
And IIRC, they don't do anything before that either. I seem to remember Apple saying they were the ones who digitized (if necessary) and encoded the music in order to ensure quality and consistency. The record companies simply gave them access to the originally recorded materials.
Excuse me? If I disprove a proposition P, I have proven NonP.
But scientific theories are not binary in that sense. Yes, in the sense that they're right or wrong, but not in the sense that if one hypothesis is wrong, that makes a given alternative hypthesis correct.
One factor that amazed me but makes perfect sense -those vast changes in arctic glaciers aren't due to melting, its due to large chunks of ice breaking off or sliding into the ocean. An unrelated phenomenon.
This is true with the word "simple," which you used, but is not true once you factor in that bright scientists are more than capable of doing complicated experiments that give real insight.
True, but you left off a few caveats.
First, the complicated experiment is based on previous results of simpler experiments.
Second, the experiment is complicated in order to isolate and simplify the property being tested.
Third, even then, simplifying assumptions are made in the experimental design and analysis.
Most scientists are keenly aware of the limitations and weaknesses of their methodologies. Unfortunately, the part of the discussion where the scientist outlines these is typically left out of press reports and political debate.
The levels of CO2 and the global temperature are strongly corrrelated.
The climatologist in the article says,
There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.
To me, it doesn't sound like,
The facts point the the extreme liklihood that human beings are responsible for the current warming trend, and the facts suggest that CO2 is the likliest cause.
You may be familiar with the name James Hansen? AKA the scientist the Bush administration is accused of trying to silence? He's one of the most strident global warming supporters,.
He gave an interview a while back where he criticised armchair climatologists (my words, not his) who tried to blame every little thing on global warming (that's weather, geology... not climate). The science doesn't support that, and doesn't need that kind of "junk" (again, my word, not his) to be believed. Worse, when things like the 10 year cycle in hurricane number/strength goes into its waning years (coming soon), the anti-global warming crowd will point at that as evidence that global warming is no longer a problem!
IOW if you build your arguments on the non-science, it will come back to bite you.
Kind of depends on how depth measurements are being made.
Reminded me of a news story I saw a while back about a group of islands slowly disappearing under the water. Of course the culprit is global warming melting arctic ice resulting in higher water levels.
Then again, nobody seemed to even consider that erosion may be lowering the land level instead.
Which brings back the question of how are the measurements being made? From TFA it appears to be a very complex process. I simply don't have the expertise and information to assess how reliable it is, so I'll "take it on faith" for now that the measurments are correct.
The way the green "title" line, the gray "by" line and the text are aligned vs. indented makes the distinction between message, parent and GP blend and disappear. If they made the text of the message body align not with the text of the gray and green "boxes" but with the left edge of the gray/green area itself, it would make everything clearer IMO.
The way it is now, when viewing two messages at the same "level" of indent, you get the illusion that the bottom message is one level higher, almost.... because your eye tracks back a little.
And add to that they've just started watching for these, so impacts of this size are not all that uncommon. And I'm with you in assuming there are probably many more, smaller impacts that occur. Just a couple quotes to indicate frequency:
During a telescope test last November 7th, Suggs and Swift recorded an explosion on their very first night of observing. A piece of debris from Comet Encke struck the plains of Mare Imbrium, making a crater about 3 meters wide."
Now that regular monitoring has begun, Cooke's group has already found a second impact, the May 2nd event, in only 20 hours of watching.
And that's for the small portion of the surface they're actually monitoring.
Yes, I had my coffee, and yes, I felt stupid. Maybe I was expecting NASA to put in some Hollywood Special Effects, like spaceships "swooshing" through space.
Most of them are extremely casual about all this "Oh, yes, I got a virus/spyware/malware a few months back...
What scares me is that some people seem to see this as a badge of honor, to the point of bragging about how "infected" their system is and everyone should praise their ability to slog through the mire and still get their work done.
Its like a geek bragging about having genital warts because it proves he's had sex with someone -yeah, someone with a communicable disease.
Didn't anyone RTFA? Apparently not the person who wrote the editorial.
From TFA:
Windows, Linux, and Unix servers experienced 3 to 5 failures per server per year in 2005, generating 10 to 19.5 hours of annual downtime for each server.
Any math to be done should start there for a reference.
If not being able to guess the code or not wanting to survive level 12 to get to the cool monster on level 13 are seriously detracting from enjoying the game, then cheat -we're talking personal entertainment here, not real-world finance.
OTOH sometimes figuring these things out is part of the fun, then avoid spoilers and cheats.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the blog post has been withdrawn and I can't read it, I'll comment on the part you quoted.
One interesting qualifier I see is that it is 1000 lines of shipped code. None of the other numbers are qualified in that manner. Just wondering if that could be a major part of the difference.
I don't get that, I get:
[I have removed the rest of this post of my own volition, without any external pressure whatsoever. What started as an opinion on the challenges of managing large software projects has turned out to be a rallying point for detractors, which isn't interesting or productive. - Ed.]
So, does anyone have the article?
Just looked. It does look like there's a little space there, but its definitely less than a 1 mm (0.1 mm?). It also explains why the spin so easily, because i would really expect the friction to keep them from spinning as easily as they seem to.
On the other hand, the older i get the more i think worrying about lossiness in audio is moot. :(
I hear that!
I agree. I just have an old, old iMac DV running iTunes and a big hard drive. Ripped all my CDs using a lossless codec. Hookded the iMac to the stereo, plugged in a remote control, and I'm set. My entrie collection ready to go with the added ability to burn mix CDs to take in the car.
Its just too cheap and easy to do with a Mac or PC and and the old computer sitting in the corner.
Mind you, they don't do a thing after the AAC or MP3 is cut,
And IIRC, they don't do anything before that either. I seem to remember Apple saying they were the ones who digitized (if necessary) and encoded the music in order to ensure quality and consistency. The record companies simply gave them access to the originally recorded materials.
I thought he was just warning us to be careful in the line to the restroom.
Excuse me? If I disprove a proposition P, I have proven NonP.
But scientific theories are not binary in that sense. Yes, in the sense that they're right or wrong, but not in the sense that if one hypothesis is wrong, that makes a given alternative hypthesis correct.
Or maybe you've now confused me beyond hope.
My theory: If you spend any time looking at /. moderation, your theory will be proven false.
Next theory : A significant number of idiotic statements will be moderated "Insightful".
Would that prove moderators don't always know the difference between "insightful" and "idiotic"?
I think I could similarly show moderators don't always know the difference between "Funny" and "Flamebait". OTOH, sometimes they're one and the same.
One factor that amazed me but makes perfect sense -those vast changes in arctic glaciers aren't due to melting, its due to large chunks of ice breaking off or sliding into the ocean. An unrelated phenomenon.
This is true with the word "simple," which you used, but is not true once you factor in that bright scientists are more than capable of doing complicated experiments that give real insight.
True, but you left off a few caveats.
First, the complicated experiment is based on previous results of simpler experiments.
Second, the experiment is complicated in order to isolate and simplify the property being tested.
Third, even then, simplifying assumptions are made in the experimental design and analysis.
Most scientists are keenly aware of the limitations and weaknesses of their methodologies. Unfortunately, the part of the discussion where the scientist outlines these is typically left out of press reports and political debate.
You say,
The levels of CO2 and the global temperature are strongly corrrelated.
The climatologist in the article says,
There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.
To me, it doesn't sound like,
The facts point the the extreme liklihood that human beings are responsible for the current warming trend, and the facts suggest that CO2 is the likliest cause.
Likelihood, maybe. Extreme likelihood???
Let's wait and see what the Moderators think!
Like what oddities?
You may be familiar with the name James Hansen? AKA the scientist the Bush administration is accused of trying to silence?
He's one of the most strident global warming supporters,.
He gave an interview a while back where he criticised armchair climatologists (my words, not his) who tried to blame every little thing on global warming (that's weather, geology... not climate). The science doesn't support that, and doesn't need that kind of "junk" (again, my word, not his) to be believed. Worse, when things like the 10 year cycle in hurricane number/strength goes into its waning years (coming soon), the anti-global warming crowd will point at that as evidence that global warming is no longer a problem!
IOW if you build your arguments on the non-science, it will come back to bite you.
Kind of depends on how depth measurements are being made.
Reminded me of a news story I saw a while back about a group of islands slowly disappearing under the water. Of course the culprit is global warming melting arctic ice resulting in higher water levels.
Then again, nobody seemed to even consider that erosion may be lowering the land level instead.
Which brings back the question of how are the measurements being made? From TFA it appears to be a very complex process. I simply don't have the expertise and information to assess how reliable it is, so I'll "take it on faith" for now that the measurments are correct.
No, more water vapor = more clouds = more light reflectd -> cooling
*raises hand
The way the green "title" line, the gray "by" line and the text are aligned vs. indented makes the distinction between message, parent and GP blend and disappear. If they made the text of the message body align not with the text of the gray and green "boxes" but with the left edge of the gray/green area itself, it would make everything clearer IMO.
The way it is now, when viewing two messages at the same "level" of indent, you get the illusion that the bottom message is one level higher, almost.... because your eye tracks back a little.
Don't know if that makes any sense or not.
And add to that they've just started watching for these, so impacts of this size are not all that uncommon. And I'm with you in assuming there are probably many more, smaller impacts that occur. Just a couple quotes to indicate frequency:
During a telescope test last November 7th, Suggs and Swift recorded an explosion on their very first night of observing. A piece of debris from Comet Encke struck the plains of Mare Imbrium, making a crater about 3 meters wide."
Now that regular monitoring has begun, Cooke's group has already found a second impact, the May 2nd event, in only 20 hours of watching.
And that's for the small portion of the surface they're actually monitoring.
No, the real question is : how big is the bullet?
Old habits...
I put the headphones on to watch it.
Yes, I had my coffee, and yes, I felt stupid. Maybe I was expecting NASA to put in some Hollywood Special Effects, like spaceships "swooshing" through space.
IOW humans pretty much do what every other species tries to do -sometimes to its own detriment.
Most of them are extremely casual about all this "Oh, yes, I got a virus/spyware/malware a few months back...
What scares me is that some people seem to see this as a badge of honor, to the point of bragging about how "infected" their system is and everyone should praise their ability to slog through the mire and still get their work done.
Its like a geek bragging about having genital warts because it proves he's had sex with someone -yeah, someone with a communicable disease.
From TFA:
Any math to be done should start there for a reference.
BTW, where is the actual study??
Enter... online walkthroughs and game cheats.
If not being able to guess the code or not wanting to survive level 12 to get to the cool monster on level 13 are seriously detracting from enjoying the game, then cheat -we're talking personal entertainment here, not real-world finance.
OTOH sometimes figuring these things out is part of the fun, then avoid spoilers and cheats.
Its that simple.
No, its that Allchin's story is about 5 years old, its just the first time that particular reporter ever heard him tell it.
And even when if was first told, people were wondering where the MS executives had been for the last 5 years.