That's a good point. To counter that, I'd point out that most free floating sea ice is seasonal and reforms and melts throughout the year. There are down years and up years but total ice cover in the northern hemisphere has actually been fairly consistent since the 1970s when we started taking pictures of it from space. You can review the pictures yourself if you like. The difference between 1970 and 2010 isn't remarkable.
It is harping on details but science is about details. If we don't harp on all the little details then it's very hard to make any kind of argument one way or the other.
Science is details. As to an atlas not being a scientific discourse... it is a respected reference work that is cited as evidence and reviewed throughout the world by laypeople and experts. So while it's not a peer review paper it's actually read by more people then a peer review and likely more critically analyzed. Thus if anything it's probably a more authoritative picture of things then any peer review. After all the peer review is often read by as few as 50 to 100 actual experts. An atlas is examined by thousands of experts and possibly hundreds of thousands of laypeople with varying degrees of knowledge. Tell a man that lives in a given place that the lake near his home has a different name and he'll correct you. He might not know anything else or contribute otherwise to the atlas but he will know that and together the collective knowledge of all the laypeople is probably superior to any one expert even if it might take hundreds of lay people to collectively has the same grasp as any one of them.
Exactly. Which is why simply looking at sea level rise is a good check on alarmism. It's freely available information with hundreds of years of records. We also have a very good understanding of the relationship between melting and sea level rise. As a result, whenever we see some article or paper about glaciers disappearing we need only calculate the mass of those glaciers, take the percentage they've cited as melted, and then determine how much that would increase ocean depth.
When we see something nutty like 15 percent of greenland or half of the canadian ice pack... we just need to check "did the oceans rise by several feet in the last few years?"... No? Then the report is wrong. QED.
I can't think of any other empirical and verifiable way to deal with these frequently vague and poorly sourced reports that seem more interested in stirring political action or inspiring donations then actually investigating the science.
Whatever... it isn't half the Canadian ice sheet or 15 percent of Greenland as these alarmist articles keep claiming. That was my point. If you want to say it's 18 cm... that's plausible.
I'm assuming you know how water works... so to answer your question... yes... and a duh.:-)
There are some minor differences due to tide which is mostly the moon but that's happening to the whole world all the time and couldn't mask a global increase of a few feet in sea level rise.
The atlas makers relied on a US data set that they misinterpreted. They inferred that a reduction in 15 percent of the area of the ice was equal to 15 percent of the volume of the ice. A very very stupid mistake... and they're paying for it.
I'll just point out the corresponding lack of sea level rise. I'm going to have to put this in the same category as the atlas maker that said 15 percent of Greenland's ice melted. If that had actually happened the oceans would have gone up by feat. That hasn't happened so 15 percent of greenland's ice didn't melt. Likewise if this ice pack is so significant in canada there must be a corresponding rise in sea level.
Over the last century we've had a rise of about 8 cm in sea level. That means ice has absolutely melted. Just not as much as the alarmists would have us believe.
We can take GW seriously without getting hysterical about it. What we're seeing is SLOW melting and SLOW sea level rise.
So... in your view successful iOS apps should be taxed and their proceeds spread around to less successful apps... so black people can eat?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say... so I'm guessing. But due understand you're talking nonsense. This thread is about how most iOS apps don't sell and only a handful are successful. That's all it's about. If you want to get get political about it... that's fine... but you'll basically be declaring yourself to be a nutcase.
The oft repeated phrase refers to all malware actually. You're insistence on specificity ignores the context of the comment and entirely fails to understand the larger point.
In your attempt to sound relevant and clever you've simply come off as arrogant and clueless.
email servers wouldn't be chewy... that's the sort of thing that would be in the castle keep. Though obviously you'd want to fragment the system by department so the advertisement department wouldn't compromise something else... as an example.
it's a good point but really I don't see why we're giving users the ability to do that at all.
I think a good it department should be able to run almost entirely on security whitelists. And that outbound connection isn't included in the whitelist.
Port 80 is only to approved URLs through an internal DNS server. Email is only through the corporate email server. Etc.
If they want to talk to a machine on the internet that the IT department hasn't vetted they can issue a ticket and the IT dep will get to it.
Again, we're talking about enterprise and government solutions where security is critical and there is an implicit assumption that electronic espionage is a fact... and could cost the company everything.
Call this what you will but after years of enduring their "but macs don't get viruses" comments I'm rather pleased they're joining the rest of the computing world.
Linux can enjoy the same when it gets the same kind of consumer market share.
I'm binary with stuff like that. My humor is on or off. Sorry... It has no dimmer switch.. I tend to switch it off when I get analytical and switch it on when I get bored.
Oh, I'm sure someone else has had similar ideas. I just think these should be applied systemically when protecting high profile systems.
Have the outer defenses strong enough to ward off all the casual attackers and then just let the more dangerous guys in so you can track them rather then letting them learn the limitations of your system let them think they evaded detection.
My suggestion is that it be intentionally soft at least in appearence. The notion would be that it wouldn't be that hard to get in. Hard enough maybe to keep out the casual or inexperienced hacker. But not so tough as to give a pro a headache. But at the same time you set it up so that while it doesn't forbid little tricks to get in it has a disproportionally sophisticated detection and logging system. So it notices when there is an intrusion even if it isn't stopping it. I think that would help the security guys respond to and understand when they're having an intrusion. THey can also respond to it actively as opposed to responding in an automated way. So maybe they figure out something of the nature of this hacker from the logging. And then they either waste their time while the connection is traced through web of proxies. Or they actively give the hacker bad information. Maybe they see where he's looking and get ahead of him... and give him something they think he'll be attracted to but isn't a risk to the company.
It's just an idea... Never mind me... Just seems the IT crew runs into problems because they get blindsided. And a system that made it more likely that they'd be actively engaged with an intruder would probably stop most of the data loss. But I could be wrong.
We're moving towards cloud computing already and at the corporate level especially where security becomes that paranoid I think requiring everyone to RDP into a virtualized environment is entirely legitimate. So sure... it will be on their system... But their system will inherently not be low security if they access to those files.
Come on, I thought this was site for IT wonks.:-)
First rule of computer security is PHYSICAL security. You can have all the fancy encryption and passwords you like but most of that stuff is meaningless if they can get their grubby paws on the actual machine. So make that difficult by physically putting it in the server room as an aggregate of a larger library of virtualized personal desktop environments. Have fun trying to get at it in there.
And then with appropriately anal firewall rules you can allow them access to the internet while not really compromising your internal network because everything sits behind so many layers of abstraction.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. To counter that, I'd point out that most free floating sea ice is seasonal and reforms and melts throughout the year. There are down years and up years but total ice cover in the northern hemisphere has actually been fairly consistent since the 1970s when we started taking pictures of it from space. You can review the pictures yourself if you like. The difference between 1970 and 2010 isn't remarkable.
It is harping on details but science is about details. If we don't harp on all the little details then it's very hard to make any kind of argument one way or the other.
Science is details. As to an atlas not being a scientific discourse... it is a respected reference work that is cited as evidence and reviewed throughout the world by laypeople and experts. So while it's not a peer review paper it's actually read by more people then a peer review and likely more critically analyzed. Thus if anything it's probably a more authoritative picture of things then any peer review. After all the peer review is often read by as few as 50 to 100 actual experts. An atlas is examined by thousands of experts and possibly hundreds of thousands of laypeople with varying degrees of knowledge. Tell a man that lives in a given place that the lake near his home has a different name and he'll correct you. He might not know anything else or contribute otherwise to the atlas but he will know that and together the collective knowledge of all the laypeople is probably superior to any one expert even if it might take hundreds of lay people to collectively has the same grasp as any one of them.
Exactly. Which is why simply looking at sea level rise is a good check on alarmism. It's freely available information with hundreds of years of records. We also have a very good understanding of the relationship between melting and sea level rise. As a result, whenever we see some article or paper about glaciers disappearing we need only calculate the mass of those glaciers, take the percentage they've cited as melted, and then determine how much that would increase ocean depth.
When we see something nutty like 15 percent of greenland or half of the canadian ice pack... we just need to check "did the oceans rise by several feet in the last few years?"... No? Then the report is wrong. QED.
I can't think of any other empirical and verifiable way to deal with these frequently vague and poorly sourced reports that seem more interested in stirring political action or inspiring donations then actually investigating the science.
So they say but the actual amount of sea level rise is negligible. No one is evacuating anything over 18 cm.
Whatever... it isn't half the Canadian ice sheet or 15 percent of Greenland as these alarmist articles keep claiming. That was my point. If you want to say it's 18 cm... that's plausible.
I'm assuming you know how water works... so to answer your question... yes... and a duh. :-)
There are some minor differences due to tide which is mostly the moon but that's happening to the whole world all the time and couldn't mask a global increase of a few feet in sea level rise.
The atlas makers relied on a US data set that they misinterpreted. They inferred that a reduction in 15 percent of the area of the ice was equal to 15 percent of the volume of the ice. A very very stupid mistake... and they're paying for it.
I'll just point out the corresponding lack of sea level rise. I'm going to have to put this in the same category as the atlas maker that said 15 percent of Greenland's ice melted. If that had actually happened the oceans would have gone up by feat. That hasn't happened so 15 percent of greenland's ice didn't melt. Likewise if this ice pack is so significant in canada there must be a corresponding rise in sea level.
Over the last century we've had a rise of about 8 cm in sea level. That means ice has absolutely melted. Just not as much as the alarmists would have us believe.
We can take GW seriously without getting hysterical about it. What we're seeing is SLOW melting and SLOW sea level rise.
So... in your view successful iOS apps should be taxed and their proceeds spread around to less successful apps... so black people can eat?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say... so I'm guessing. But due understand you're talking nonsense. This thread is about how most iOS apps don't sell and only a handful are successful. That's all it's about. If you want to get get political about it... that's fine... but you'll basically be declaring yourself to be a nutcase.
I know, right... The first thing I thought when I saw this headline was the class warriors were going jump all over this...
Your unprovoked and childish hostility has been noted. Thank you participating.
The oft repeated phrase refers to all malware actually. You're insistence on specificity ignores the context of the comment and entirely fails to understand the larger point.
In your attempt to sound relevant and clever you've simply come off as arrogant and clueless.
Regards.
okay captain strawman, I didn't say words didn't have meaning. I said that in this context the distinction is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(language_use)#Verbal_context
That's so you can bone up on what context means... it's a word and apparently a difficult concept to master.
It will have to be added in the next version... I think the issue is hardware based and not even a firmware update would help.
you can respond anonymously.... so... you're being pretty mysterious by refusing to answer on the grounds that you don't want to be identified.
email servers wouldn't be chewy... that's the sort of thing that would be in the castle keep. Though obviously you'd want to fragment the system by department so the advertisement department wouldn't compromise something else... as an example.
it's a good point but really I don't see why we're giving users the ability to do that at all.
I think a good it department should be able to run almost entirely on security whitelists. And that outbound connection isn't included in the whitelist.
Port 80 is only to approved URLs through an internal DNS server. Email is only through the corporate email server. Etc.
If they want to talk to a machine on the internet that the IT department hasn't vetted they can issue a ticket and the IT dep will get to it.
Again, we're talking about enterprise and government solutions where security is critical and there is an implicit assumption that electronic espionage is a fact... and could cost the company everything.
in the context of my post there's no relevant distinction.
Your sad attempt to "burn" me might have had some impact if you actually addressed my point instead of simply going for a cheap knock down.
Call this what you will but after years of enduring their "but macs don't get viruses" comments I'm rather pleased they're joining the rest of the computing world.
Linux can enjoy the same when it gets the same kind of consumer market share.
I'm binary with stuff like that. My humor is on or off. Sorry... It has no dimmer switch.. I tend to switch it off when I get analytical and switch it on when I get bored.
Oh, I'm sure someone else has had similar ideas. I just think these should be applied systemically when protecting high profile systems.
Have the outer defenses strong enough to ward off all the casual attackers and then just let the more dangerous guys in so you can track them rather then letting them learn the limitations of your system let them think they evaded detection.
My suggestion is that it be intentionally soft at least in appearence. The notion would be that it wouldn't be that hard to get in. Hard enough maybe to keep out the casual or inexperienced hacker. But not so tough as to give a pro a headache. But at the same time you set it up so that while it doesn't forbid little tricks to get in it has a disproportionally sophisticated detection and logging system. So it notices when there is an intrusion even if it isn't stopping it. I think that would help the security guys respond to and understand when they're having an intrusion. THey can also respond to it actively as opposed to responding in an automated way. So maybe they figure out something of the nature of this hacker from the logging. And then they either waste their time while the connection is traced through web of proxies. Or they actively give the hacker bad information. Maybe they see where he's looking and get ahead of him... and give him something they think he'll be attracted to but isn't a risk to the company.
It's just an idea... Never mind me... Just seems the IT crew runs into problems because they get blindsided. And a system that made it more likely that they'd be actively engaged with an intruder would probably stop most of the data loss. But I could be wrong.
Exactly. Let robber into the vault and let him walk away with a sack... he doesn't have to know he's carrying bundles of newspaper clippings.
Sadly I'm not in your esteemed in crowd so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Care to share or are you having fun being mysterious?
Not if you disable local file storage.
We're moving towards cloud computing already and at the corporate level especially where security becomes that paranoid I think requiring everyone to RDP into a virtualized environment is entirely legitimate. So sure... it will be on their system... But their system will inherently not be low security if they access to those files.
Come on, I thought this was site for IT wonks. :-)
First rule of computer security is PHYSICAL security. You can have all the fancy encryption and passwords you like but most of that stuff is meaningless if they can get their grubby paws on the actual machine. So make that difficult by physically putting it in the server room as an aggregate of a larger library of virtualized personal desktop environments. Have fun trying to get at it in there.
And then with appropriately anal firewall rules you can allow them access to the internet while not really compromising your internal network because everything sits behind so many layers of abstraction.