As to whether the world is warmer because we have an atmosphere... sure.
As to guesses, I'd like you to do some research so you're at least a little big informed as to why the issue is controversial.
You keep saying things like "well know CO2 is a green house gas right" not grasping that that isn't really the issue. Then you bust out with some scientists that produced work no one finds controversial.
You are presuming to engage in an argument that you do not understand. And it makes it very hard to talk to you about it because you've already taken sides despite not knowing what the argument is about.
I can't help you unless you either demonstrate that you know ACTUALLY what the fight is about or unless you make a good faith effort to inform yourself. The scientist that inspired Al Gore is obtainable with a single search engine search. Shouldn't take you more then ten seconds. If you don't do that... then you're willfully indifferent and that's too bad because that means we can't have a discussion if you don't want to have one.
As to the models being tested... I said they had to be tested under falsifiable conditions. There's no evidence that they've done that. Your citation makes no reference to that.
As to the former vice president not being a political agent... do you really believe that or are you just saying these things?
What you're saying is untrue. There are two reasons for someone saying something untrue. Tell me if you actually think he isn't a political agent or if you are just saying that? Your answer tells me where the misstatement comes from.
As to the Japanese and others... Well... what this establishes is that you don't have the consensus that you've relied upon to shield yourself from ridicule.
You can't just say "lots of scientists think I'm right"... lots of scientists think you're wrong too. They're also ones speciously outside the political control of the first group.
The peer review system has been compromised. Everyone knows it. It is being used to pump out garbage in a few different fields. The method is very simply... a peer review circle jerk. You have a tight knot of people that all peer review each other's papers and peer review everything in their field.
Peer review especially under those circumstances doesn't mean something is valid. It just means certain people approved of it. That is all.
Lets get back to the science. You wanted to do that right? I've already shown you things you didn't know were there. And you're apparently unaware of how this issue became controversial.
As to where the cables feed into some sort of switch or router, then have the cables on that portion of the system owned by the house or by the city and identified as belonging to the house. Then you can have multiple providers all in the same larger gray box etc. And then switching from one provider to another would mean going to the gray box and unplugging a wire from provider "A" and plugging it into the box for provider "B".
this is not insurmountable. You're trying to prove me wrong instead of trying to understand the issue. It isn't helpful.
You're asking for a solution that logically cannot exist.
Your CA system is flawed and compromised routinely because it is flawed. It can't be secured because you're assuming the CA certs are only issued to trusted entities and they're not trustworthy. They don't take their position in the system seriously and even if they did you're still basing the security of the whole system on your trust in them. If you can't see how hopeless that is then I can't help you.
I appreciate the value of defense and law and order. The problem is that most of the budget and focus of the government goes to anything but these things.
There is a modern attempt to justify government using welfare for example rather then defense and law and order.
I don't feel comfortable with that. I'd like them to do their jobs rather then come up with new ones.
The actual expense of the government if we just focus on law and order and defense is relatively tiny. Especially law and order. That constitutes almost nothing.
And in places like Los Angeles where I live, you're running into a situation where the government is cutting court services and shutting down court houses despite higher demand for courts. Why? Lack of money. But they have lots of money. They're just spending it on other things.
Look, the issue with government is that you do need some of it to maintain a civil society. However, the amount you need is radically less then what we have today. Raising taxes to pay for yet more stuff that we do not need is to the common ill.
Empires have collapsed for not heeding this warning.
For example, I'd be happy to lease the polls out to a third party. Say a local business or construction firm that was willing to maintain them etc.
You could put the contracts up for bid every so often. The poles and conduits would be owned by the city but I don't see why we'd need actual city workers to do it. Just lease the space out to the lowest bidder in a public bid and then put clauses in the lease that say they pay a fine and lose the contract if they don't do a good job.
My primary issue here is that the city workers are often a problem in construction projects. I'd prefer a more flexible and controllable situation where people could be fired for being bad a their jobs. City workers are in practical terms impossible to fire. They're also a lot more expensive.
The problem with most claims of racism is that they're non-falsifiable. You're not saying anything that can be argued against or proven wrong. It isn't an argument that can be logically challenged.
There are no more racists in this country then any other. The issue is very over blown. Again, not saying no racists... just nothing special. We in fact have a quite a few less then most.
whoever told you hyperbole was a cunning rhetorical tool sold you a bill of goods.
The middle class is contracting... so are the rich.
What is happening is that they're getting filtered. The real middle class will survive it as middle class just as the real rich will survive it.
The middle class existed even in soviet Russia. It survives in Cuba. It survives doubtless in North Korea. You can't kill it without killing society itself.
No. Cable between the street and the house might have be redone. But the cabling otherwise shouldn't need to be changed much.
What is more, the cabling between the house and the street might be owned by the home owner.
We could set up a junction box at the street that links into the home's network. All the ISP at the street would have to do is link into it. The key to it might be provided by the home owner.
As to my examples of secret information... cite something you prefer. The point was to pass on the concept and not literally design the system here and now.
As to small purchases, use your bank or any system you prefer as a trusted third party. You establish trust with that entity using entirely private crypto. Then that trusted third party can establish a link with another trusted third party and then their trusted third party can verify the transaction.
In this way every crypto stream is private and not shared. My personal encryption to my bank. Private encryption from Bank 1 to Bank 2 which they have established between each other and then their bank communicates with the merchant using that merchant's private crypto.
At no point should any non-trusted entity know the key.
That's fine. Keep a static view of the system. I can't pump the koolaid out of your stomach.
If a given part of the forest is getting nutrients taken from at a rate of 70 percent it doesn't really matter to that part of the forest if all its neutralists are going to a totally different part of the forest. It is still suffering a net loss of resources.
Change the tax system so that you have to pay every entity you take the taxes the money you just took from them and your point would make some sense.
But that isn't how it works.
The government is obviously a net drain on resources as it doesn't make anything. That drain has to be factored into your calculations.
They're not 50 percent more then a century ago. At least not in the case of the droughts we're talking about in this thread. The california droughts are normal.
Again, you're exaggerating the disruption and it isn't helping your argument.
There is plenty of room for fiber to be run on the poles. And in any area where more people want to run fiber then there is space on the poles, then upgrade to a conduit system.
Until that happens, you can just bid the space on the poll out the same way you bid anything else out. How does the sandwich shop guy get commercial space in the mall? He contacts the land lord and inquires as to the price of a lease.
Do the same thing with the polls and the conduits. Lease the space out.
When the polls have hit maximum occupancy... then you say "sorry, that poll can't handle anyone else."
But at the same time, your city is now getting extra money because of all those poll lease fees it is getting. And that money can be put to digging a conduit system under the streets with greater capacity.
None of this is rocket science. We'd still be in the trees or whatever if we gave up as easily as you suggest we give up.
Why is it that I'm the only person that knows how to use google?
Like... seriously. I typed this into google: obama says race
And I got this: âoeThereâ(TM)s no doubt that thereâ(TM)s some folks who just really dislike me because they donâ(TM)t like the idea of a black President,â Obama said.
The implication from the article is that obama's poll numbers are falling because he's black. Which is weird because the demographics of the country didn't shift that much during his administration. Which means somehow when white people vote for Obama it just people voting their conscience. But when they vote against him the only explanation is racism.
I can also cite Eric Holder making the same claim... and of course endless numbers of leftwing pundits which have been trying to sell this narrative for years.
In regards to CO2 being opaque to given spectrums of electro magnetic radiation... I don't think anyone disputes that. Even the most hardcore denialist couldn't really do that I would expect.
Everything... literally everything is opaque to certain spectrums of electro magnetic radiation.
Pointing out that CO2 is just like everything else in the universe... isn't really blowing my socks off here.
As to the scientist that inspired Gore, we're talking about the scientist that actually started the modern obsession with AGW. The previous scientists obviously didn't spark the fire. He's more significant to this discussion then the previous people. Especially since the claims you're making from the previous scientists are not in contention.
As to the IPCC, a significant amount of their research was traced back to WWF power point presentations. I believe one of the funnier examples was a claim about the Himalayas that came from a climbing magazine. You're not fooling anyone with this nonsense.
As to the politicization, hmmm... Al Gore. Is he a right wing or left wing politician? Okay... so lets not play the "you did it first" game because you already lost that one.
Again, if you step outside the echo chamber you'll find things change rather radically.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Indians are skeptical or dismissive.
What you have left is a network of cross linked peer reviewed papers that all go through two choke points. One in the US and one in the UK. Everything is filtering through a very small selection of scientists.
We have gotten revolts throughout US meteorology programs mostly because climate scientists don't know how weather patterns work and they keep saying things that meteorologists know to be wrong.
And we've gotten revolts through the mathematics departments because the way data is handled is unsupportable.
Do you want me to throw lists of prominent meteorologists at you that have said the climate models are horseshit?
Would you like me to throw some mathematicians at you that say "this is not how you use statistics."
Because I can.
As to the output of models being good. There is no possible way they could be good since they've failed to predict anything with any accuracy under any falsifiable circumstances. It is literally impossible for them to be doing anything well scientifically until they are subjected to falsifiable tests. I thought you were done defending these models anyway? You said that in your first paragraph and then went on to try and defend the models using anything but science.
Look, think of any other field of science that has models and think about how easy it would be to prove to me that the models in that field are valid. Super easy. Why? Because they're valid and there is evidence of that.
In climate science you don't have any evidence of successful prediction or accurate modeling under falsifiable conditions. None.
That is death. That is your argument clutching its chest, its face racked in pain, and hitting the flour while people call the paramedics.
Will your argument survive? Will the paramedics get here in time? We shall see. Frankly, I think your case is a goner.
Verification of identity is self evident if only the source and destination can decode a message. A man in the middle attack gets garbage if they don't have the key.
The only way a man in the middle attack works in this system is if you're passing keys back and forth and the man in the middle intercepts the key.
There are a variety of means of avoiding that besides using a trusted third party. After all, how do you know that the trusted third party isn't compromised?
They are themselves verified by having some key or other but whatever that is tends to be pretty easy to find out if you're determined. Which means it isn't a credible defense against a serious attacker. Against a casual attacker... sure.
How then does one avoid man in the middle attacks? Do not transmit handshake keys.
For example, let us say I am logging into my bank. My bank might ask me to type in some combination of account number, birth date, street address, phone number, into a box that generates a key. The bank knows what key will be generated because the algorithm is not secret. But the information the bank asked you to input as the key is something a man in the middle system shouldn't know. By typing that in or possibly using some sort of complicated captcha, you can generate a handshake key that an automated system without access to the bank's database won't be able to generate.
That key can then be used to exchange stronger encryption keys.
Beyond this, we should think more deeply about saving/storing BIG complicated encryption keys on devices used to do certain things. Say your tablet or pc or whatever. Why not store a 2 megabyte key? Beats the hell out of a 512 bit key. Possibly overkill, but a key of that size is going to be proportionally harder to crack because it won't repeat as often. The bigger the key the harder to crack.
And a key that equals the number of bits transmitted is literally impossible to crack... by anything... ever.
... unless we segrigate the genders again which I think might be reasonable from grade school to highschool.
The hormones and learning patterns are different enough that it is problematic to have a one size fits all education program for both.
The boys operate under different rules especially at that age. Separate them out and it could improve all sorts of things. I think most of the experiments with sexually segregated education have shown dramatically improved educational performance. So... no reason not to do it really.
All they're going to be able to do is attack US DNS servers. But I can point my router at any DNS server in the world.
What is more, the entire DNS system can be bypassed with sufficiently detailed host files.
It sounds absurd but consider how cheap storage is these days? I could maintain a pretty comprehensive private DNS list on my own systems without burning that much HD space. What are we talking about here? Maybe a couple gigabytes? Map that into a fast database and you could literally point your computer to look up DNS entries locally.
Or if you prefer you could just have it look up blocked sites locally. Either way, the DNS pitch is counter productive. They're just going to encourage pirates to learn how to play with DNS.
Slashdot Mirror
As to whether the world is warmer because we have an atmosphere... sure.
As to guesses, I'd like you to do some research so you're at least a little big informed as to why the issue is controversial.
You keep saying things like "well know CO2 is a green house gas right" not grasping that that isn't really the issue. Then you bust out with some scientists that produced work no one finds controversial.
You are presuming to engage in an argument that you do not understand. And it makes it very hard to talk to you about it because you've already taken sides despite not knowing what the argument is about.
I can't help you unless you either demonstrate that you know ACTUALLY what the fight is about or unless you make a good faith effort to inform yourself. The scientist that inspired Al Gore is obtainable with a single search engine search. Shouldn't take you more then ten seconds. If you don't do that... then you're willfully indifferent and that's too bad because that means we can't have a discussion if you don't want to have one.
As to the models being tested... I said they had to be tested under falsifiable conditions. There's no evidence that they've done that. Your citation makes no reference to that.
As to the former vice president not being a political agent... do you really believe that or are you just saying these things?
What you're saying is untrue. There are two reasons for someone saying something untrue. Tell me if you actually think he isn't a political agent or if you are just saying that? Your answer tells me where the misstatement comes from.
As to the Japanese and others... Well... what this establishes is that you don't have the consensus that you've relied upon to shield yourself from ridicule.
You can't just say "lots of scientists think I'm right"... lots of scientists think you're wrong too. They're also ones speciously outside the political control of the first group.
The peer review system has been compromised. Everyone knows it. It is being used to pump out garbage in a few different fields. The method is very simply... a peer review circle jerk. You have a tight knot of people that all peer review each other's papers and peer review everything in their field.
Peer review especially under those circumstances doesn't mean something is valid. It just means certain people approved of it. That is all.
Lets get back to the science. You wanted to do that right? I've already shown you things you didn't know were there. And you're apparently unaware of how this issue became controversial.
I can show you.
Sure, and if anyone disagrees with you, it must be because of some character flaw on their part? Fucking stupid hypocritical fuckards.
Bro, I backed up my position. You backed your end up with "I'm an expert"...
Do better.
As to where the cables feed into some sort of switch or router, then have the cables on that portion of the system owned by the house or by the city and identified as belonging to the house. Then you can have multiple providers all in the same larger gray box etc. And then switching from one provider to another would mean going to the gray box and unplugging a wire from provider "A" and plugging it into the box for provider "B".
this is not insurmountable. You're trying to prove me wrong instead of trying to understand the issue. It isn't helpful.
You're asking for a solution that logically cannot exist.
Your CA system is flawed and compromised routinely because it is flawed. It can't be secured because you're assuming the CA certs are only issued to trusted entities and they're not trustworthy. They don't take their position in the system seriously and even if they did you're still basing the security of the whole system on your trust in them. If you can't see how hopeless that is then I can't help you.
I appreciate the value of defense and law and order. The problem is that most of the budget and focus of the government goes to anything but these things.
There is a modern attempt to justify government using welfare for example rather then defense and law and order.
I don't feel comfortable with that. I'd like them to do their jobs rather then come up with new ones.
The actual expense of the government if we just focus on law and order and defense is relatively tiny. Especially law and order. That constitutes almost nothing.
And in places like Los Angeles where I live, you're running into a situation where the government is cutting court services and shutting down court houses despite higher demand for courts. Why? Lack of money. But they have lots of money. They're just spending it on other things.
Look, the issue with government is that you do need some of it to maintain a civil society. However, the amount you need is radically less then what we have today. Raising taxes to pay for yet more stuff that we do not need is to the common ill.
Empires have collapsed for not heeding this warning.
Okay, to what extent and for what purpose?
For example, I'd be happy to lease the polls out to a third party. Say a local business or construction firm that was willing to maintain them etc.
You could put the contracts up for bid every so often. The poles and conduits would be owned by the city but I don't see why we'd need actual city workers to do it. Just lease the space out to the lowest bidder in a public bid and then put clauses in the lease that say they pay a fine and lose the contract if they don't do a good job.
My primary issue here is that the city workers are often a problem in construction projects. I'd prefer a more flexible and controllable situation where people could be fired for being bad a their jobs. City workers are in practical terms impossible to fire. They're also a lot more expensive.
The problem with most claims of racism is that they're non-falsifiable. You're not saying anything that can be argued against or proven wrong. It isn't an argument that can be logically challenged.
There are no more racists in this country then any other. The issue is very over blown. Again, not saying no racists... just nothing special. We in fact have a quite a few less then most.
whoever told you hyperbole was a cunning rhetorical tool sold you a bill of goods.
The middle class is contracting... so are the rich.
What is happening is that they're getting filtered. The real middle class will survive it as middle class just as the real rich will survive it.
The middle class existed even in soviet Russia. It survives in Cuba. It survives doubtless in North Korea. You can't kill it without killing society itself.
Your experience has clearly made myopic and unable to think creatively about the issue.
In any area with high density, there are already conduits. They exist in NYC and London already. How do you not know this mr expert?
As to places that aren't cities and have poles... as you just acknowledged... my point holds.
I am so tired of people making dumb arguments and then claiming to be experts.
No. Cable between the street and the house might have be redone. But the cabling otherwise shouldn't need to be changed much.
What is more, the cabling between the house and the street might be owned by the home owner.
We could set up a junction box at the street that links into the home's network. All the ISP at the street would have to do is link into it. The key to it might be provided by the home owner.
Why do we need to regulate anything beyond the poles/conduits?
As to my examples of secret information... cite something you prefer. The point was to pass on the concept and not literally design the system here and now.
As to small purchases, use your bank or any system you prefer as a trusted third party. You establish trust with that entity using entirely private crypto. Then that trusted third party can establish a link with another trusted third party and then their trusted third party can verify the transaction.
In this way every crypto stream is private and not shared. My personal encryption to my bank. Private encryption from Bank 1 to Bank 2 which they have established between each other and then their bank communicates with the merchant using that merchant's private crypto.
At no point should any non-trusted entity know the key.
It really isn't that hard.
That's fine. Keep a static view of the system. I can't pump the koolaid out of your stomach.
If a given part of the forest is getting nutrients taken from at a rate of 70 percent it doesn't really matter to that part of the forest if all its neutralists are going to a totally different part of the forest. It is still suffering a net loss of resources.
Change the tax system so that you have to pay every entity you take the taxes the money you just took from them and your point would make some sense.
But that isn't how it works.
The government is obviously a net drain on resources as it doesn't make anything. That drain has to be factored into your calculations.
They're not 50 percent more then a century ago. At least not in the case of the droughts we're talking about in this thread. The california droughts are normal.
Case closed. Court dismissed. Next issue.
That's what I do.
and third time's the charm...
"There's no doubt that there are some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black President," Obama said.
Again, you're exaggerating the disruption and it isn't helping your argument.
There is plenty of room for fiber to be run on the poles. And in any area where more people want to run fiber then there is space on the poles, then upgrade to a conduit system.
Until that happens, you can just bid the space on the poll out the same way you bid anything else out. How does the sandwich shop guy get commercial space in the mall? He contacts the land lord and inquires as to the price of a lease.
Do the same thing with the polls and the conduits. Lease the space out.
When the polls have hit maximum occupancy... then you say "sorry, that poll can't handle anyone else."
But at the same time, your city is now getting extra money because of all those poll lease fees it is getting. And that money can be put to digging a conduit system under the streets with greater capacity.
None of this is rocket science. We'd still be in the trees or whatever if we gave up as easily as you suggest we give up.
Sorry if that quote from the new yorker is a bit garbled. they were using some odd characters.
This should be sanitized:
âoeThereâ(TM)s no doubt that thereâ(TM)s some folks who just really dislike me because they donâ(TM)t like the idea of a black President,â Obama said.
Why is it that I'm the only person that knows how to use google?
Like... seriously. I typed this into google:
obama says race
And I got this:
âoeThereâ(TM)s no doubt that thereâ(TM)s some folks who just really dislike me because they donâ(TM)t like the idea of a black President,â Obama said.
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
The implication from the article is that obama's poll numbers are falling because he's black. Which is weird because the demographics of the country didn't shift that much during his administration. Which means somehow when white people vote for Obama it just people voting their conscience. But when they vote against him the only explanation is racism.
I can also cite Eric Holder making the same claim... and of course endless numbers of leftwing pundits which have been trying to sell this narrative for years.
In regards to CO2 being opaque to given spectrums of electro magnetic radiation... I don't think anyone disputes that. Even the most hardcore denialist couldn't really do that I would expect.
Everything... literally everything is opaque to certain spectrums of electro magnetic radiation.
Pointing out that CO2 is just like everything else in the universe... isn't really blowing my socks off here.
As to the scientist that inspired Gore, we're talking about the scientist that actually started the modern obsession with AGW. The previous scientists obviously didn't spark the fire. He's more significant to this discussion then the previous people. Especially since the claims you're making from the previous scientists are not in contention.
As to the IPCC, a significant amount of their research was traced back to WWF power point presentations. I believe one of the funnier examples was a claim about the Himalayas that came from a climbing magazine. You're not fooling anyone with this nonsense.
As to the politicization, hmmm... Al Gore. Is he a right wing or left wing politician? Okay... so lets not play the "you did it first" game because you already lost that one.
As to the japanese, here is one of the links:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Again, if you step outside the echo chamber you'll find things change rather radically.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Indians are skeptical or dismissive.
What you have left is a network of cross linked peer reviewed papers that all go through two choke points. One in the US and one in the UK. Everything is filtering through a very small selection of scientists.
We have gotten revolts throughout US meteorology programs mostly because climate scientists don't know how weather patterns work and they keep saying things that meteorologists know to be wrong.
And we've gotten revolts through the mathematics departments because the way data is handled is unsupportable.
Do you want me to throw lists of prominent meteorologists at you that have said the climate models are horseshit?
Would you like me to throw some mathematicians at you that say "this is not how you use statistics."
Because I can.
As to the output of models being good. There is no possible way they could be good since they've failed to predict anything with any accuracy under any falsifiable circumstances. It is literally impossible for them to be doing anything well scientifically until they are subjected to falsifiable tests. I thought you were done defending these models anyway? You said that in your first paragraph and then went on to try and defend the models using anything but science.
Look, think of any other field of science that has models and think about how easy it would be to prove to me that the models in that field are valid. Super easy. Why? Because they're valid and there is evidence of that.
In climate science you don't have any evidence of successful prediction or accurate modeling under falsifiable conditions. None.
That is death. That is your argument clutching its chest, its face racked in pain, and hitting the flour while people call the paramedics.
Will your argument survive? Will the paramedics get here in time? We shall see. Frankly, I think your case is a goner.
horses are not humans.
Verification of identity is self evident if only the source and destination can decode a message. A man in the middle attack gets garbage if they don't have the key.
The only way a man in the middle attack works in this system is if you're passing keys back and forth and the man in the middle intercepts the key.
There are a variety of means of avoiding that besides using a trusted third party. After all, how do you know that the trusted third party isn't compromised?
They are themselves verified by having some key or other but whatever that is tends to be pretty easy to find out if you're determined. Which means it isn't a credible defense against a serious attacker. Against a casual attacker... sure.
How then does one avoid man in the middle attacks? Do not transmit handshake keys.
For example, let us say I am logging into my bank. My bank might ask me to type in some combination of account number, birth date, street address, phone number, into a box that generates a key. The bank knows what key will be generated because the algorithm is not secret. But the information the bank asked you to input as the key is something a man in the middle system shouldn't know. By typing that in or possibly using some sort of complicated captcha, you can generate a handshake key that an automated system without access to the bank's database won't be able to generate.
That key can then be used to exchange stronger encryption keys.
Beyond this, we should think more deeply about saving/storing BIG complicated encryption keys on devices used to do certain things. Say your tablet or pc or whatever. Why not store a 2 megabyte key? Beats the hell out of a 512 bit key. Possibly overkill, but a key of that size is going to be proportionally harder to crack because it won't repeat as often. The bigger the key the harder to crack.
And a key that equals the number of bits transmitted is literally impossible to crack... by anything... ever.
... unless we segrigate the genders again which I think might be reasonable from grade school to highschool.
The hormones and learning patterns are different enough that it is problematic to have a one size fits all education program for both.
The boys operate under different rules especially at that age. Separate them out and it could improve all sorts of things. I think most of the experiments with sexually segregated education have shown dramatically improved educational performance. So... no reason not to do it really.
All they're going to be able to do is attack US DNS servers. But I can point my router at any DNS server in the world.
What is more, the entire DNS system can be bypassed with sufficiently detailed host files.
It sounds absurd but consider how cheap storage is these days? I could maintain a pretty comprehensive private DNS list on my own systems without burning that much HD space. What are we talking about here? Maybe a couple gigabytes? Map that into a fast database and you could literally point your computer to look up DNS entries locally.
Or if you prefer you could just have it look up blocked sites locally. Either way, the DNS pitch is counter productive. They're just going to encourage pirates to learn how to play with DNS.