The fact that the distros are competing among themselves as much as with Windows is disturbing;
No - not true - plain wrong!
Competition is what is making OSS software great.
Competition is what is lacking in the M$ world. Not only that, but forking is great - it breeds more competition. If the blood of battle between the distros disturbs you, you may have become a socialist by listening to too much NPR. OSS is NOT about everyone getting along - it is about freedom to choose and use the best of the best. It is all about competition between software coders. Lets have more of it!
While there is other evidence that that conflicts with the retreating ice - it is also quite possible that it is the continuation of the end of the little ice age melt you are seeing here and not global warming.
Even if I could give you the point that surface temperatures are rising slightly, there is no evidence that the cause is due to CO2 rather than increases in water vapor from irrigation.
Can you see that ice retreating could be a natural phenomena not related to the 0.06% increase in CO2? Specific surface water vapor is said to haveincreased almost 5% in the same time frame. Science requires controling for one variable at a time. Any of this COULD be true - but it is only a belief and not science.
Is that change due to CO2 or the water vapor (Water vapor is a MORE potent green house gas than CO2)? Was the difference significant? Is the effect significant to someone who's income is tied to there having to be such a problem? Is the effect significant to the general population?
Was the effects of natural solar variations figured in?
And what was the natural vairation before the 1950's?
What are the error bands on these numbers?
Why do you FEEL that a 0.31C is significant?
Why is this number published to a 100th of a degree when the measurements from the 50's were only accurate to 1Deg C?
What is the change in temperature of water below 300m?
Statistics gathered about an open system is not science. What reason do you have to think that these numbers are caused by a 0.06% increase in CO2 instead of the 4-5% increase in specific water vapor caused by irrigation?
What would happen to the "scientist's" jobs if there was not a significant effect?
The data invalidates the computer models that all this nonsense is based on.
There is a difference between science and belief. Science is not based on "group think". Science is not based on opinion polls. Science is based on reality. - in controlled experiments - not statistics gathered in an open system. What would a panel of PC Scientists have concluded about Copernicus? Would their being in the majority make them correct?
These "scientists" are claiming this is scientific when there is at least one confounding variable. Specific water vapor has increased almost 5% where CO2 is only gone up 0.06% in the same time frame. In case you don't know, water vapor is a MORE potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
The insignificant increase in less accurate surface temperature measurments can be attributed to the increase in crop irrigation. The effect of CO2 would not be limited to just the lowest atmosphere.
Uhh... you might want to look at this data from NASA before you say that.
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Am I blind? Because all I see is noise?
To see a trend that is below the noise and then say that it's correlation with increase of CO2 (0.06% increase) is causing more of an effect than the increase in H2O vapor (almost 5%) is not science. Two trends being in the same direction have a 50% probability of being true. Also, a correlation does not show cause and effect.
Is the 0.06% increase in CO2 the cause of the increase in brest cancer?
Re:Driving a Truck Through This One
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
Well said.
I doubt the numbers are even in the ball park. 10% is something that would have had profound effect.
It also is counter to the measurements that show cooling in the upper atmosphere, yet warming only very near the ground.
Remember where the "global warming" stuff is coming from: People who confuse two, one-time trends with a correlation, and confuse a correlation with cause and effect, and then fail to point out that water vapor from irrigation has changed absolute humidity several% when CO2 has only changed 0.06%.
Looks like I should follow Feynmans example and bite my tongue too - someone rated this as flame-bait? I've followed the physics for 30 some years now and had connections with people working at Fermi and Los Alamos. I have nothing against handicapped people, I do have something against people promoting someone simply because of his handicap. I have no disdain for Hawkins. I do have disdain for those who gave him extra credit to further some weird PC movement. I've said too much and will say no more.
He's a pop culture icon only because he wrote a book...
Wrong. Sadly he was elevated and given awards because he was handy-capped. Richard Feynman bit his tongue when ever asked about Hawkings. His elevation and dilution of physics is a classic example of what is wrong with PC/affirmative action.
AC Propulsion claims the vehicle has efficiency equivalent to 70 mpg (and zero emissions)
Well lets start with the zero emissions. It is a lie - there are emissions at the plant where the electricity is generated and where the batteries are manufactured (AND disposed). Every car crash of one of these new Li battery chemistries could become a mini super fund site.
And now efficiency - in the real world we generate electricity at a certain thermal efficiency loss then we transport it to ones house at a loss then the battery is charged with a certain loss and then stored with a loss and discharged with a loss. The real efficiency is
P*k1*k2*k3*k4*k5 = D
or
Pk=D
Where O is the original power and the kx s are the efficiencies of each transformation or storage (all less than zero) and D is the delivered power. The second equation shows that the kx s all combined into one coefficient. In all the electric/hybrid car stories no one ever states these numbers because they suck.
And lastly remember energy density:
I appreciate the wishful thinking of the hydrogen folks, but ask any hazardous material team about how dangerous hydrogen is - it has an invisible flame front - is explosive over a huge range of air/H2 concentrations, rots it's metal containment system. Besides, having a volume energy density that is about 1/4th that of gasoline.
One big problem is part and parcel of its evelopment modeL: Because there's no single entity setting and enforcing standards, the highly touted benefits of "choice" often become a crapshoot of conflicting libraries, packaging schemes, and software compiled by God-Knows-Who in God-Know-Where.
In the soviet block people didn't even have to deside which political party to join - saved lots of thinking and worry.
Really, you must realize that in the end the develpopment systems that win will be much better because of compitition. Is having to look at choices and be part of teh marketplace of ideas too much to ask in exchange for getting software that will end up with the bugs out of it in the end?
Try Delphi/Kylix for a development system (cross platform windows/Linux) - so your code will be ready to go when Linux goes mainstream over the next years.
We should not use the PC version of this technologies name - it was originally called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, but changed because of that evil word nuclear.
While I (and the majority of the open source community) agree that OSS (Open source software) should not be rammed into place, yet I am saddened that CCAGW has missed the mark with your press release.
If the government simply mandated the requirement of Open standards for the default file type of application purchased, there would suddenly be competition in the market place besides the open source community (Yes, it is ironic that there is more competition there than in the commercial world.) This would result in huge savigs in the total cost of government. There is also a reason to use open standard documents in government as proprietary documents require the citizen to use one particular vendors software to interact with a public document.
Server market for Linux has increased because it simply works better. It is a fact that COLO's(CO LOcated servers ISPs) charge more to let someone locate a Microsoft Server than Linux server because on the greatly increased amount of visits that the owners of Microsoft servers have to make than those running Linux.
The Linux desktop is still behind, but that should not be confused with the TCO of servers, where Linux servers are much cheaper.
There is one more effect in Open Source software that you seem unaware of. Commercial software (which we sell), is released when enough of the bugs are out of it to be sell-able. Major bugs are sometime fixed after the release, but minor bugs often never get fixed. This is quite different in OOS where someone will get annoyed enough with a minor bug to go dig into the source code and fix it - sending the fix to the author who then puts it in release.
The result of these bugs getting fixed means that the FINAL software is better than the commercial product, but sometimes develops slower. To not take advantage of this better software is wasteful.
If you have further questions please feel free to contact me.
Slashdot Mirror
No - not true - plain wrong!
Competition is what is making OSS software great.
Competition is what is lacking in the M$ world. Not only that, but forking is great - it breeds more competition. If the blood of battle between the distros disturbs you, you may have become a socialist by listening to too much NPR. OSS is NOT about everyone getting along - it is about freedom to choose and use the best of the best. It is all about competition between software coders. Lets have more of it!
I just switched from Redhat to Debian this week.
I predict that debian will have it's new installer out in 2004 and it will be rock solid.
Inattentive driving is already against the law. Why do they keep making needless laws?
While there is other evidence that that conflicts with the retreating ice - it is also quite possible that it is the continuation of the end of the little ice age melt you are seeing here and not global warming.
Even if I could give you the point that surface temperatures are rising slightly, there is no evidence that the cause is due to CO2 rather than increases in water vapor from irrigation.
Can you see that ice retreating could be a natural phenomena not related to the 0.06% increase in CO2? Specific surface water vapor is said to haveincreased almost 5% in the same time frame. Science requires controling for one variable at a time. Any of this COULD be true - but it is only a belief and not science.
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
This link is good - I don't think it is a
Tested in preveiw - if you still can't get this page let me know I can e-mail it to you.
CO2 induced global warming is not a scientific fact - as the earth is an open system with confounding variables.
I'm not religios and I don't beleive in Global warming either.
Was the difference significant?
Is the effect significant to someone who's income is tied to there having to be such a problem?
Is the effect significant to the general population?
Was the effects of natural solar variations figured in?
Should we then ban irrigation?
What are the error bands on these numbers?
Why do you FEEL that a 0.31C is significant?
Why is this number published to a 100th of a degree when the measurements from the 50's were only accurate to 1Deg C?
What is the change in temperature of water below 300m?
Statistics gathered about an open system is not science. What reason do you have to think that these numbers are caused by a 0.06% increase in CO2 instead of the 4-5% increase in specific water vapor caused by irrigation?
What would happen to the "scientist's" jobs if there was not a significant effect?
There is a difference between science and belief. Science is not based on "group think". Science is not based on opinion polls. Science is based on reality. - in controlled experiments - not statistics gathered in an open system. What would a panel of PC Scientists have concluded about Copernicus? Would their being in the majority make them correct?
These "scientists" are claiming this is scientific when there is at least one confounding variable. Specific water vapor has increased almost 5% where CO2 is only gone up 0.06% in the same time frame. In case you don't know, water vapor is a MORE potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
The insignificant increase in less accurate surface temperature measurments can be attributed to the increase in crop irrigation. The effect of CO2 would not be limited to just the lowest atmosphere.
I think you should look at the data before you speak - I just don't think there is enough signal in the noise to get excited.
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Which planet are you talking about?
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Uhh... you might want to look at this data from NASA before you say that.
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Am I blind? Because all I see is noise?
To see a trend that is below the noise and then say that it's correlation with increase of CO2 (0.06% increase) is causing more of an effect than the increase in H2O vapor (almost 5%) is not science. Two trends being in the same direction have a 50% probability of being true. Also, a correlation does not show cause and effect.
Is the 0.06% increase in CO2 the cause of the increase in brest cancer?
I doubt the numbers are even in the ball park. 10% is something that would have had profound effect.
It also is counter to the measurements that show cooling in the upper atmosphere, yet warming only very near the ground.
Remember where the "global warming" stuff is coming from: People who confuse two, one-time trends with a correlation, and confuse a correlation with cause and effect, and then fail to point out that water vapor from irrigation has changed absolute humidity several% when CO2 has only changed 0.06%.
Only thing - I never seem to see anything go pass vaporware mode.
Looks like I should follow Feynmans example and bite my tongue too - someone rated this as flame-bait? I've followed the physics for 30 some years now and had connections with people working at Fermi and Los Alamos. I have nothing against handicapped people, I do have something against people promoting someone simply because of his handicap. I have no disdain for Hawkins. I do have disdain for those who gave him extra credit to further some weird PC movement. I've said too much and will say no more.
Look at it this way - why not put our efforts where they give back to us in the best way?
Wrong. Sadly he was elevated and given awards because he was handy-capped. Richard Feynman bit his tongue when ever asked about Hawkings. His elevation and dilution of physics is a classic example of what is wrong with PC/affirmative action.
I worked out a microwave interference problem - it was the switching power supply that was causing it. Needed more common mode filtering.
My 80 year old father just switched - he can browse, and email without problems - so he's happy.
I just tried SUSE - just had too many problems and they are tring to redesign too many things. It failed at NFS amoung other things.
I also tried Mandrake - better, needs work.
Not sure where to go right now - looks like RedHat is planning on cashing in - time to move to a new distro.
Well lets start with the zero emissions. It is a lie - there are emissions at the plant where the electricity is generated and where the batteries are manufactured (AND disposed). Every car crash of one of these new Li battery chemistries could become a mini super fund site.
And now efficiency - in the real world we generate electricity at a certain thermal efficiency loss then we transport it to ones house at a loss then the battery is charged with a certain loss and then stored with a loss and discharged with a loss. The real efficiency is
P*k1*k2*k3*k4*k5 = D
or
Pk=D
Where O is the original power and the kx s are the efficiencies of each transformation or storage (all less than zero) and D is the delivered power. The second equation shows that the kx s all combined into one coefficient. In all the electric/hybrid car stories no one ever states these numbers because they suck.
And lastly remember energy density:
I appreciate the wishful thinking of the hydrogen folks, but ask any hazardous material team about how dangerous hydrogen is - it has an invisible flame front - is explosive over a huge range of air/H2 concentrations, rots it's metal containment system. Besides, having a volume energy density that is about 1/4th that of gasoline.
Gasoline 9000 Wh/l
LNG 7216 Wh/l
Propane 6600 Wh/l
Ethanol 6100 WH/l
Liquid H2 2600 Wh/l
Lithium 250 Wh/l
Flywheel 210 Wh/l
Liquid N2 65 Wh/l
Lead Acid 40 Wh/l
Compr Air 17 Wh/l
Hydrogen 2.7 Wh/l
Come on folks you are smarter than this!
In the soviet block people didn't even have to deside which political party to join - saved lots of thinking and worry.
Really, you must realize that in the end the develpopment systems that win will be much better because of compitition. Is having to look at choices and be part of teh marketplace of ideas too much to ask in exchange for getting software that will end up with the bugs out of it in the end?
Try Delphi/Kylix for a development system (cross platform windows/Linux) - so your code will be ready to go when Linux goes mainstream over the next years.
That is a 4 x 8 foot at todays current dot pitch. Display technology is really holding the whole thing back.
I will always call it by it's proper name NMR
While I (and the majority of the open source community) agree that OSS (Open source software) should not be rammed into place, yet I am saddened that CCAGW has missed the mark with your press release.
If the government simply mandated the requirement of Open standards for the default file type of application purchased, there would suddenly be competition in the market place besides the open source community (Yes, it is ironic that there is more competition there than in the commercial world.) This would result in huge savigs in the total cost of government. There is also a reason to use open standard documents in government as proprietary documents require the citizen to use one particular vendors software to interact with a public document.
Server market for Linux has increased because it simply works better. It is a fact that COLO's(CO LOcated servers ISPs) charge more to let someone locate a Microsoft Server than Linux server because on the greatly increased amount of visits that the owners of Microsoft servers have to make than those running Linux.
The Linux desktop is still behind, but that should not be confused with the TCO of servers, where Linux servers are much cheaper.
There is one more effect in Open Source software that you seem unaware of. Commercial software (which we sell), is released when enough of the bugs are out of it to be sell-able. Major bugs are sometime fixed after the release, but minor bugs often never get fixed. This is quite different in OOS where someone will get annoyed enough with a minor bug to go dig into the source code and fix it - sending the fix to the author who then puts it in release.
The result of these bugs getting fixed means that the FINAL software is better than the commercial product, but sometimes develops slower. To not take advantage of this better software is wasteful.
If you have further questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Karl Schmidt