I like how you think that "scientific papers from 1965 to 1979" somehow dispute the 'global cooling scare' of the 1980's.
There was no global cooling scare in the 1980's. As my first cite should have made you aware, the person to which I was responding also managed to get the decade wrong.
Belial6 wrote: You also need to keep in mind that "Environmentalists" did not call out Al Gore when he spouted complete BS. They implicitly accepted him as their spokes person.
It seems that the climatologists who had viewed the filmed found it to be rather accurate at the time.
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors. (source)
But some scientists were concerned about some details.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, professor of meteorology and oceanography at the University of Miami.
Steig disputed Gore's statement that you can visibly see the effect that the United States Clean Air Act has had on ice cores in Antarctica. "One can neither see, nor even detect using sensitive chemical methods any evidence in Antarctica of the Clean Air Act," he said...
John Nielsen-Gammon from Texas A&M University said the "main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."
Belial6 wrote: When that blew up, they tried to distance themselves.
I don't know that too many climatologists distance themselves from the film because of some alleged "blow up". They likely distance themselves from it because it's become too highly politicized, which takes away from the science itself. Or perhaps it less accurately reflects our current understanding of the issue.
I've never heard anybody claim the increase in CO2 wasn't human made, only that man kind wasn't necessarily responsible for any warming.
These are contradictory. To claim the former and not the latter, you have to be ignorant of the infrared absorption property of carbon dioxide, which has been known for at least a century now.
Ask yourself one simple question: if the weather service cannot predict accurately what the weather is going to be like in 2 weeks, why should we believe that they will know what the weather will be like in 10 years or 20 or 50?
You missed the global cooling scare of the 80s, don't forget that one. Back then we were headed for another ice age.
That was never actually a thing, except in the media:
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. (source)
Peer-reviewed scientific literature overwhelmingly referred to warming, even back then:
A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). (source)
When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.
What about a click? It's possible for a gun to run out of ammo, but no one uses that as an argument against guns in general. Gun owners take preventative measures to prevent such a situation. I'm not sure why a battery would be any different.
As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.
It's obviously not the law-abiding citizens that people fear, otherwise no one would own or advocate guns for self defense in the first place.
When you need a gun, you need it very badly, and you need it right away. What you do NOT need is something that won't fire if its battery is dead.
Or is out of ammo. But no one seems to think that's an argument against guns in general. Why? Because they've learned to check their weapon and ammo supply regularly. I'm not sure why checking a battery level is the unbearable burden it's made out to be.
The vulnerability was found specifically because the source code was available and someone other than the owners went looking for problems.
I keep seeing people claim this. Codenomicon didn't discover the bug by looking at the source, but I can't find any information about how Neel Mehta discovered the bug.
Except that someone did discover the bug, when they were looking at the code because it was open source.
I don't know how Google's Neel Mehta discovered the bug, but Codenomicon didn't discover it by looking at the code.
“We developed a product called Safeguard, which automatically tests things like encryption and authentication,” [Codenomicon's CEO, David Chartier] said. “We started testing the product on our own infrastructure, which uses Open SSL. And that’s how we found the bug.”
Some old icons in the industry are now past their prime. Blizzard, Bioware, and id, longstanding favorites of mine, have all sold out. I'll no longer expect anything great from them, although I'm always willing to be surprised. Instead, younger and hungrier development shops will take their place... maybe ArenaNet and Bungie.
Uhh... Bungie is only 3 months younger than Blizzard. If you want to be pedantic, though, Blizzard Entertainment proper is actually the younger studio.
The batch of PB given away/thrown away won't affect those who shop at CostCo, so what exactly does the sentence above add, except to negate the preceding ones?
I'm thinking that was the entire point. The first two sentences are the AC's offering of a possible reason why Costco may have decided to do what they did. The third sentence highlights why that reasoning is stupid.
Uhh... The reason there was no noticeable impact from the Y2K bug was because people actually heeded the warnings and fixed the most serious problems. The same goes for that devastating SARS epidemic; it never happened because dedicated people worked hard to prevent it.
So they found that the people most actively promoting climate change were in agreement with climate change. Big surprise.
Are we to infer, then, that you believe a large majority of climatologists don't believe in ACC and are, for some reason, refusing to set the record straight by collectively pointing out flaws in the already-published literature?
Slashdot Mirror
I like how you think that "scientific papers from 1965 to 1979" somehow dispute the 'global cooling scare' of the 1980's.
There was no global cooling scare in the 1980's. As my first cite should have made you aware, the person to which I was responding also managed to get the decade wrong.
Belial6 wrote: You also need to keep in mind that "Environmentalists" did not call out Al Gore when he spouted complete BS. They implicitly accepted him as their spokes person.
It seems that the climatologists who had viewed the filmed found it to be rather accurate at the time.
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors. (source)
But some scientists were concerned about some details.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, professor of meteorology and oceanography at the University of Miami.
Steig disputed Gore's statement that you can visibly see the effect that the United States Clean Air Act has had on ice cores in Antarctica. "One can neither see, nor even detect using sensitive chemical methods any evidence in Antarctica of the Clean Air Act," he said...
John Nielsen-Gammon from Texas A&M University said the "main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."
Belial6 wrote: When that blew up, they tried to distance themselves.
I don't know that too many climatologists distance themselves from the film because of some alleged "blow up". They likely distance themselves from it because it's become too highly politicized, which takes away from the science itself. Or perhaps it less accurately reflects our current understanding of the issue.
I've never heard anybody claim the increase in CO2 wasn't human made, only that man kind wasn't necessarily responsible for any warming.
These are contradictory. To claim the former and not the latter, you have to be ignorant of the infrared absorption property of carbon dioxide, which has been known for at least a century now.
It's weather folks. It is always changing.
Ask yourself one simple question: if the weather service cannot predict accurately what the weather is going to be like in 2 weeks, why should we believe that they will know what the weather will be like in 10 years or 20 or 50?
weather != climate
You missed the global cooling scare of the 80s, don't forget that one. Back then we were headed for another ice age.
That was never actually a thing, except in the media:
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. (source)
Peer-reviewed scientific literature overwhelmingly referred to warming, even back then:
A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). (source)
Yes but a key part of the show was nobody else could cook blue meth. Walt had power over the drug dealers because he could give them something unique.
If all it took was an additive, the story would not have worked.
The hook wasn't the color; it was the purity. Walt and Jessie already had a hit product before they started using methylamine and turned it blue.
When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.
What about a click? It's possible for a gun to run out of ammo, but no one uses that as an argument against guns in general. Gun owners take preventative measures to prevent such a situation. I'm not sure why a battery would be any different.
As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.
It's obviously not the law-abiding citizens that people fear, otherwise no one would own or advocate guns for self defense in the first place.
This gun interlock supposedly has a 10 inch range. Why is no one commenting on that?
Possibly because using two hands is part of a proper gun stance.
When you need a gun, you need it very badly, and you need it right away. What you do NOT need is something that won't fire if its battery is dead.
Or is out of ammo. But no one seems to think that's an argument against guns in general. Why? Because they've learned to check their weapon and ammo supply regularly. I'm not sure why checking a battery level is the unbearable burden it's made out to be.
You're missing the bigger picture. After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.
The NRA already strongly advocates for remote kill switches in the form of other gun owners.
Try leaving the car in a garage for a few years and see how reliably it starts.
If you're not checking on your gun regularly, you're not a responsible gun owner.
What if the watch runs out of batteries?
Same problem as, "What if your gun runs out of ammo?". How do gun owners mitigate that problem? They check their weapon regularly.
What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?
You've just leveled the field. Either he's going to flee or you can throw the gun away and subdue him.
Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.
You've successfully wrested a gun from his control and he's going to kick your ass?
The bug was found by code review, twice independently in a short period of days.
Codenomicon didn't discover the bug due to a code review (source). I can't find any information on how Neel Mehta discovered the bug, though.
The vulnerability was found specifically because the source code was available and someone other than the owners went looking for problems.
I keep seeing people claim this. Codenomicon didn't discover the bug by looking at the source, but I can't find any information about how Neel Mehta discovered the bug.
Except that someone did discover the bug, when they were looking at the code because it was open source.
I don't know how Google's Neel Mehta discovered the bug, but Codenomicon didn't discover it by looking at the code.
“We developed a product called Safeguard, which automatically tests things like encryption and authentication,” [Codenomicon's CEO, David Chartier] said. “We started testing the product on our own infrastructure, which uses Open SSL. And that’s how we found the bug.”
Source
Some old icons in the industry are now past their prime. Blizzard, Bioware, and id, longstanding favorites of mine, have all sold out. I'll no longer expect anything great from them, although I'm always willing to be surprised. Instead, younger and hungrier development shops will take their place... maybe ArenaNet and Bungie.
Uhh... Bungie is only 3 months younger than Blizzard. If you want to be pedantic, though, Blizzard Entertainment proper is actually the younger studio.
I'm thinking that was the entire point. The first two sentences are the AC's offering of a possible reason why Costco may have decided to do what they did. The third sentence highlights why that reasoning is stupid.
Uhh... The reason there was no noticeable impact from the Y2K bug was because people actually heeded the warnings and fixed the most serious problems. The same goes for that devastating SARS epidemic; it never happened because dedicated people worked hard to prevent it.
Half-Life 3D?
So they found that the people most actively promoting climate change were in agreement with climate change. Big surprise.
Are we to infer, then, that you believe a large majority of climatologists don't believe in ACC and are, for some reason, refusing to set the record straight by collectively pointing out flaws in the already-published literature?
Maybe if you face the prospect of earning $20 million dollars you should also face the risk of losing $20 million dollars personally.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
—Ambrose Bierce
I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.
Why are you limiting the data set to just readers of Slashdot? That's exceptionally dishonest.
Candy Crush Saga isn't just the title of their game, it's a description of their business.