Yeah, that stuff's reasonable science. The problem is, so far no-one's proposed an alternative explanation that results in anything more than minor adjustments to the models.
The problem is that most people say something like "but what about the sun?!???!one" and ignore the fact that the actual data we have/disproves/ that proposal -/that/ is denial, and it has nothing to do with the reasonable science that it piggybacks on.
ummmmmm . . . . the graph you linked to (didn't do any analysis of the raw data) shows the 2008 minima as being the second lowest on record, only beaten by 2007. The more accurate data apparently agrees with the gist of what the data in question had to say, disagreeing only in the detail.
Tell me, why do you people always assume that the scientists doing this work are incompetent or evil?
Agreed that that's what TFA says, but how could they possibly KNOW that the problem only started a few weeks ago. They were unaware of the problem until they begain receiving emails from people disputing the numbers for something that was obviously wrong.
I don't know, maybe they could compare the two datasets that they have (the one they were using to maintain historical context, and the more accurate one that only has seven years of history)?
Why do you morons/always/ seem to assume that the people doing this kind of research are idiots?
That was, of course, the sound of his point going past.
Parents insisting on antibiotics even when the kid has a viral infection -> kids with lots of antibiotics in their system more often than necessary -> bacteria experiencing greater pressure (and greater opportunities) to develop resistance to those antibiotics.
You asked for a case where a climatologist made predictions which were then supported by evidence - I gave you one. If you want to change the goalposts feel free, but don't try and claim that's good debating technique.
It's been called global climate change for a/long/ time - I recall seeing that term since the early 90s, particularly in the serious scientific media. The popular media has probably stuck with global warming for so long because it's a simple term that their audience can "understand" - I imagine they're now changing to 'climate change' because of things like the IPCC making that the more generally accepted description.
Claiming that this is 'rebranding' driven by the 'fact' that the globe isn't warming is a pretty good indication that you haven't been reading on this subject for very long.
Look up the/extremely/ successful effort to control the prickly pear in Australia before you go off on the idea of engineering complex biological systems . . .
Okay, I think you're simply trolling here - either that or you're a total moron.
I've no idea what "13[789]" is supposed to mean; there is the daytime port at 13/tcp, but I don't know what services run on 789/tcp or 13789/tcp. approximately 65536 ports could map out the "contents" of each individual host you're allowed to access in this manner, given a few conditions, and it would only map out the ports for one particular protocol (TCP, in this case). those conditions might be various firewall and routing rules affecting the reverse path.
This is what makes me think you're a moron. You aren't capable of reading that string and going "Oh, he means ports 137, 138 and 139, as in a shell glob or a regex class"? Those being the NETBIOS ports, commonly open on Windows boxes or boxes that run some kind of SMB server. NETBIOS generally runs over UDP, but also supports TCP; 443 was a typo/thinko for 445, which is the CIFS/SMB port, also open on most Windows boxes and anything running an SMB server - good choices for mapping out a network with a minimum of packets.
You also have some issues with understanding the way that routers implementing NAT work, apparently - given your reading comprehension problems, that's probably understandable.
Also, what's with double quoting my nick and tacking on my userid? Are you trying to suggest I'm not really who I say I am? Some kind of sock-puppet or something?
The problem with voting below the line is that it's/so complicated/. Without extensive research about/all/ the candidates I can't say with any certainty how to number them, and if I/don't/ number them correctly in order then it's an invalid vote.
What's needed is/optional/ preferential voting - number only the candidates that you want to include in your preferences, and anyone else can be left blank. That way you're not forced to vote for someone you really don't want to see elected, and it's much/much/ easier to vote on a complex ballot.
The Australian government isn't great (but then, I've rarely come across anyone who really/liked/ their government), but Australia's electoral system is (arguably) the best in the world. The processes we use are far more successful than most other examples around the world, and regardless of any arguments about the validity of things like instant runoff voting we run our electoral system exceptionally well.
The US would do well to adopt the Australian model for running its elections - the crap with voting machines and so forth would be easily resolvable, and hey, you'd get reliable verdicts on the major ballots within hours of polls closing.
Network/port address translation is/not/ a security system. It is/not/.
A NAT box is two things: an address translation system, and a/router/. The router is just the same as any other router - if you send it a packet with a destination address that it knows how to route, it will forward it along to that destination, regardless of any NAT rules you might have in place. If you send it a packet addressed to 192.168.1.23 from the public side, and that address is routable as far as the NAT box is concerned,/it will forward it on/. I could sit on the public side of that NAT box and spam it with connection requests on common ports (443? 22? 13[789]?) - ~65000 packets could map out the contents of the NATed network without ever hitting the NAT rules. NAT would have supplied/zero/ security, even through obscurity.
In order to provide security the NAT box has to refuse to forward those packets, unless they meet one of the NAT rules. Oh, look - it's suddenly become a/firewall/.
Now change that scenario to an IPv6 router: you could indeed set it up such that anyone outside could send anything they wanted into the site network, but that would be the same as the NAT box. Alternatively, you could set it up to block incoming traffic unless it matches certain rules - a firewall, and in fact/exactly the same/ firewall as existed on the NAT box. The only difference is that the machines behind the IPv6 firewall are publically addressable, meaning that they can be used for/anything/ a public Internet host can, assuming they're granted permission by the firewall. No futzing around with DNAT and non-standard ports, just simple, reliable operation, exactly the way the Internet was originally designed.
/Now/ do you see why people keep saying that NAT has nothing to do with security? Any security you get from sitting behind a NAT box is entirely due to the firewall that is almost always implemented alongside the NAT. And/that/ can be replicated on the non-NATed network, without replicating the management headaches that NAT introduces.
</rant>
Now that I've got that off my chest, I'll concede that it's rather more difficult to get an rfc1918 address across the public Internet to your NAT box than it is to get a publically routable IPv6 address there (modulo the limited IPv6 availability, of course). That said, with the increasing prevalence of wireless networking it's becoming easier and easier, and even without that it's possible that rfc1918 addresses won't be dropped by intervening routers (ironically, increasing use of NAT will likely make that more of an issue, as companies demand the ability to route their NATed traffic across semi-public WANs). So, although there/are/ some valid arguments that NAT combined with rfc1918 addressing provides significant security benefits, they're not as great as people generally like to think, and they're a lot less reliable than a firewall which doesn't make/any/ assumptions about address routability.
Education and broad life experience moves people away from conservatism, and things like having children move people towards conservatism - where people start out on the spectrum depends on their parents (for the most part).
There's a fascinating study (more specifically about authoritarian tendencies, but the conservatism/liberalism aspect is discussed as well) at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/. It's fairly long, but it's quite readable and it's/very/ informative.
Engine braking saves fuel for a couple of reasons: firstly, coasting (particularly in a modern electronic fuel injected car) will consume minimal fuel - at worst idle fuel consumption, or zero in an EFI engine (the engine is turned over by the wheels, so why bother injecting anything?).
That applies when you're simply braking, too, though - the thing that really causes engine braking to save fuel compared to normal braking is that it's a lot gentler. You lose speed slower, which means you'll start slowing down sooner, which lowers your average speed and fuel consumption. Also, gentler braking will tend to smooth out traffic flow, particularly if you're allowing plenty of following distance, which means that you may not need to slow down as much, and the people behind you may not need to slow down as much.
Engine braking isn't really a fuel saving technique, though - for the most part it's just a good driving technique.
But what does that have to do with evolution? Evolution doesn't say anything at all about how life started: all it talks about is how life progressed from that point.
OTOH, as someone else pointed out, WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane, and IT imploded right after its new owner was overheard on a cell phone by several people and a television news crew saying the words 'pull it', which is construction industry jargon for 'ignite the explosives'.
Alternatively, the guy could have been talking about pulling out the teams of firefighters that were trying to put out massive fires in WTC7, in order to avoid the kind of fatalities that happened in the two main towers.
I highly recommend looking at this site: http://911myths.com/. It's got a/lot/ of extra info on top of the crap you get fed in things like Loose Change, including many many snippets of video footage, pictures (taken from different angles to the ones shown by most of the conspiracy theorists), and lots and lots of examples of 911 conspiracy theories being based on highly selective evidence, dubious editing and egregious misquoting of people. Well worth the couple of days of intermittent reading it takes to go through the site.
I've seen some convincing (and surprisingly simple) modelling of the collapses using conservation of momentum which suggests that the floors below the collapse retarded the fall by only a few seconds, through momentum transfer between the moving upper floors and the intact floors below..
I'm not sure if you're trolling or being subtly sarcastic, but you might want to consider that Stallman and the Free software movement predates/all/ of your examples by nearly ten years . . .
Sure, it couldn't have worked out badly as it happened, but it demonstrates that this kind of event/does/ occur and that it could easily be mistaken for a nuclear explosion.
What if its trajectory had been just right to have it impact three hours earlier? The timing was completely random, so it could have gone either way (or any other way).
Youtube gives the lie to your assumption of guilt. It's a damned good demonstration that there's a/hell/ of a lot of video content people want to share that isn't infringing on someone else's copyright (unless you stretch the bounds of copyright to the point of absurdity).
(not that I am or ever have been a hippie, but anyone claiming that they lost or that they sold out has no understanding of the/insanely/ enormous social and cultural changes that have happened in the last fifty years)
If you like NeXT so much, why not try WindowMaker and GNUStep? They're far from dead, even if you don't hear about them much outside their communities these days.
You still have all the same options that you had before, even on Ubuntu - they're just not the defaults.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that stuff's reasonable science. The problem is, so far no-one's proposed an alternative explanation that results in anything more than minor adjustments to the models.
The problem is that most people say something like "but what about the sun?!???!one" and ignore the fact that the actual data we have /disproves/ that proposal - /that/ is denial, and it has nothing to do with the reasonable science that it piggybacks on.
himi
ummmmmm . . . . the graph you linked to (didn't do any analysis of the raw data) shows the 2008 minima as being the second lowest on record, only beaten by 2007. The more accurate data apparently agrees with the gist of what the data in question had to say, disagreeing only in the detail.
Tell me, why do you people always assume that the scientists doing this work are incompetent or evil?
himi
I don't know, maybe they could compare the two datasets that they have (the one they were using to maintain historical context, and the more accurate one that only has seven years of history)?
Why do you morons /always/ seem to assume that the people doing this kind of research are idiots?
himi
*whooosh*
That was, of course, the sound of his point going past.
Parents insisting on antibiotics even when the kid has a viral infection -> kids with lots of antibiotics in their system more often than necessary -> bacteria experiencing greater pressure (and greater opportunities) to develop resistance to those antibiotics.
himi
You asked for a case where a climatologist made predictions which were then supported by evidence - I gave you one. If you want to change the goalposts feel free, but don't try and claim that's good debating technique.
himi
Hey, I can think of at least /one/ type of carbon-rich rock . . . you know, the one people /burn/? Coal? Yes, it's a rock.
And like the other person replying to this noted, all those things with 'carbonate' in the name might be able to give you a hint.
Idiot.
himi
Oh hey, it was pretty simple to find evidence to support my claim:
http://205.247.101.11:90/kids/10,340,342/search/dGreenhouse+effect,+Atmospheric+--+Bibliography./dgreenhouse+effect+atmospheric+bibliography/-3,-1,0,E/frameset&FF=dgreenhouse+effect+atmospheric+california&3,3,
(result from a google search for a particular California government report, P500-91-007V1, that I found referenced in a news group posting from 1991).
So, still think the scientists are rebranding themselves?
himi
It's been called global climate change for a /long/ time - I recall seeing that term since the early 90s, particularly in the serious scientific media. The popular media has probably stuck with global warming for so long because it's a simple term that their audience can "understand" - I imagine they're now changing to 'climate change' because of things like the IPCC making that the more generally accepted description.
Claiming that this is 'rebranding' driven by the 'fact' that the globe isn't warming is a pretty good indication that you haven't been reading on this subject for very long.
himi
Ask and ye shall receiveth:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Not good enough? Get back to me in another twenty years.
himi
Look up the /extremely/ successful effort to control the prickly pear in Australia before you go off on the idea of engineering complex biological systems . . .
himi
Okay, I think you're simply trolling here - either that or you're a total moron.
I've no idea what "13[789]" is supposed to mean; there is the daytime port at 13/tcp, but I don't know what services run on 789/tcp or 13789/tcp. approximately 65536 ports could map out the "contents" of each individual host you're allowed to access in this manner, given a few conditions, and it would only map out the ports for one particular protocol (TCP, in this case). those conditions might be various firewall and routing rules affecting the reverse path.
This is what makes me think you're a moron. You aren't capable of reading that string and going "Oh, he means ports 137, 138 and 139, as in a shell glob or a regex class"? Those being the NETBIOS ports, commonly open on Windows boxes or boxes that run some kind of SMB server. NETBIOS generally runs over UDP, but also supports TCP; 443 was a typo/thinko for 445, which is the CIFS/SMB port, also open on most Windows boxes and anything running an SMB server - good choices for mapping out a network with a minimum of packets.
You also have some issues with understanding the way that routers implementing NAT work, apparently - given your reading comprehension problems, that's probably understandable.
Also, what's with double quoting my nick and tacking on my userid? Are you trying to suggest I'm not really who I say I am? Some kind of sock-puppet or something?
Definitely a troll, or a complete moron.
himi
The problem with voting below the line is that it's /so complicated/. Without extensive research about /all/ the candidates I can't say with any certainty how to number them, and if I /don't/ number them correctly in order then it's an invalid vote.
What's needed is /optional/ preferential voting - number only the candidates that you want to include in your preferences, and anyone else can be left blank. That way you're not forced to vote for someone you really don't want to see elected, and it's much /much/ easier to vote on a complex ballot.
himi
The Australian government isn't great (but then, I've rarely come across anyone who really /liked/ their government), but Australia's electoral system is (arguably) the best in the world. The processes we use are far more successful than most other examples around the world, and regardless of any arguments about the validity of things like instant runoff voting we run our electoral system exceptionally well.
The US would do well to adopt the Australian model for running its elections - the crap with voting machines and so forth would be easily resolvable, and hey, you'd get reliable verdicts on the major ballots within hours of polls closing.
himi
Okay, I'm a little sick of seeing this argument.
Network/port address translation is /not/ a security system. It is /not/.
A NAT box is two things: an address translation system, and a /router/. The router is just the same as any other router - if you send it a packet with a destination address that it knows how to route, it will forward it along to that destination, regardless of any NAT rules you might have in place. If you send it a packet addressed to 192.168.1.23 from the public side, and that address is routable as far as the NAT box is concerned, /it will forward it on/. I could sit on the public side of that NAT box and spam it with connection requests on common ports (443? 22? 13[789]?) - ~65000 packets could map out the contents of the NATed network without ever hitting the NAT rules. NAT would have supplied /zero/ security, even through obscurity.
In order to provide security the NAT box has to refuse to forward those packets, unless they meet one of the NAT rules. Oh, look - it's suddenly become a /firewall/.
Now change that scenario to an IPv6 router: you could indeed set it up such that anyone outside could send anything they wanted into the site network, but that would be the same as the NAT box. Alternatively, you could set it up to block incoming traffic unless it matches certain rules - a firewall, and in fact /exactly the same/ firewall as existed on the NAT box. The only difference is that the machines behind the IPv6 firewall are publically addressable, meaning that they can be used for /anything/ a public Internet host can, assuming they're granted permission by the firewall. No futzing around with DNAT and non-standard ports, just simple, reliable operation, exactly the way the Internet was originally designed.
/Now/ do you see why people keep saying that NAT has nothing to do with security? Any security you get from sitting behind a NAT box is entirely due to the firewall that is almost always implemented alongside the NAT. And /that/ can be replicated on the non-NATed network, without replicating the management headaches that NAT introduces.
</rant>
Now that I've got that off my chest, I'll concede that it's rather more difficult to get an rfc1918 address across the public Internet to your NAT box than it is to get a publically routable IPv6 address there (modulo the limited IPv6 availability, of course). That said, with the increasing prevalence of wireless networking it's becoming easier and easier, and even without that it's possible that rfc1918 addresses won't be dropped by intervening routers (ironically, increasing use of NAT will likely make that more of an issue, as companies demand the ability to route their NATed traffic across semi-public WANs). So, although there /are/ some valid arguments that NAT combined with rfc1918 addressing provides significant security benefits, they're not as great as people generally like to think, and they're a lot less reliable than a firewall which doesn't make /any/ assumptions about address routability.
himi
Education and broad life experience moves people away from conservatism, and things like having children move people towards conservatism - where people start out on the spectrum depends on their parents (for the most part).
There's a fascinating study (more specifically about authoritarian tendencies, but the conservatism/liberalism aspect is discussed as well) at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/. It's fairly long, but it's quite readable and it's /very/ informative.
himi
Engine braking saves fuel for a couple of reasons: firstly, coasting (particularly in a modern electronic fuel injected car) will consume minimal fuel - at worst idle fuel consumption, or zero in an EFI engine (the engine is turned over by the wheels, so why bother injecting anything?).
That applies when you're simply braking, too, though - the thing that really causes engine braking to save fuel compared to normal braking is that it's a lot gentler. You lose speed slower, which means you'll start slowing down sooner, which lowers your average speed and fuel consumption. Also, gentler braking will tend to smooth out traffic flow, particularly if you're allowing plenty of following distance, which means that you may not need to slow down as much, and the people behind you may not need to slow down as much.
Engine braking isn't really a fuel saving technique, though - for the most part it's just a good driving technique.
himi
But what does that have to do with evolution? Evolution doesn't say anything at all about how life started: all it talks about is how life progressed from that point.
himi
OTOH, as someone else pointed out, WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane, and IT imploded right after its new owner was overheard on a cell phone by several people and a television news crew saying the words 'pull it', which is construction industry jargon for 'ignite the explosives'.
Alternatively, the guy could have been talking about pulling out the teams of firefighters that were trying to put out massive fires in WTC7, in order to avoid the kind of fatalities that happened in the two main towers.
I highly recommend looking at this site: http://911myths.com/. It's got a /lot/ of extra info on top of the crap you get fed in things like Loose Change, including many many snippets of video footage, pictures (taken from different angles to the ones shown by most of the conspiracy theorists), and lots and lots of examples of 911 conspiracy theories being based on highly selective evidence, dubious editing and egregious misquoting of people. Well worth the couple of days of intermittent reading it takes to go through the site.
himi
I've seen some convincing (and surprisingly simple) modelling of the collapses using conservation of momentum which suggests that the floors below the collapse retarded the fall by only a few seconds, through momentum transfer between the moving upper floors and the intact floors below..
Ah, here it is: http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
The simplicity and elegance of the model is part of what makes it believable.
himi
I'm not sure if you're trolling or being subtly sarcastic, but you might want to consider that Stallman and the Free software movement predates /all/ of your examples by nearly ten years . . .
himi
Sure, it couldn't have worked out badly as it happened, but it demonstrates that this kind of event /does/ occur and that it could easily be mistaken for a nuclear explosion.
What if its trajectory had been just right to have it impact three hours earlier? The timing was completely random, so it could have gone either way (or any other way).
himi
Youtube gives the lie to your assumption of guilt. It's a damned good demonstration that there's a /hell/ of a lot of video content people want to share that isn't infringing on someone else's copyright (unless you stretch the bounds of copyright to the point of absurdity).
himi
Word.
/insanely/ enormous social and cultural changes that have happened in the last fifty years)
(not that I am or ever have been a hippie, but anyone claiming that they lost or that they sold out has no understanding of the
himi
If you like NeXT so much, why not try WindowMaker and GNUStep? They're far from dead, even if you don't hear about them much outside their communities these days.
You still have all the same options that you had before, even on Ubuntu - they're just not the defaults.
himi
What's to say he knew he was gay before he signed up?
himi