And if you think "minor" changes like that can't have drastic effects on ecosystems you obviously have not read enough research on the topic to make your opinion count for anything. Same with your opinion on whether the THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE RESEARCHERS may have actually thought to consider natural causes before doing YEARS OF RESEARCH and coming to the firm conclusion that it's due to man-made causes.
Ah but you see, the argument is that this time it's the dominant species' fault. So let the climate alarmists be consistent, take the blame like the higher human beings they claim to be and at long last shut the fuck up. Meanwhile the rest of us can adapt to the change like nature expects us to do or die trying.
Do you think evolution works like an X-Men comic? Are you expecting to grow gills, or absorb infrared radiation in the next couple of decades?
Most climate "alarmists" (aka scientists) are not worried about "harming Gaia" or somesuch bullshit (though *you* were the one to anthropomorphize "nature", which doesn't "expect" anything, so I'm not sure what that's all about). They are pointing out that yes, many of the changes ARE the dominant species fault, and are collectively blaming that species of which they are members. And they are hoping that the data they provide will help this species - through technology, and not fantasy - better understand just *how* to adapt (both by reducing the change and compensating for it) to what's happening.
Of course the world won't end. But if you don't think it's a good idea to plan ahead and try to reduce potential disaster to the human race long term, you might as well just restate your position as "fuck everyone else". But then don't be surprised when everyone else tells you to go fuck yourself...
So why not anticipate the work required and be proactive instead of reactive?
The wealthy first-worlders will weather it, I'm sure, but personally I'd like to see the struggling third world countries avoid any major disasters due to a climate changing faster than they can adapt to it.
I think the point being made is that if it happened without us being here at all, there must be causes that we have no control over. If there are causes that we cannot control, it would be folly to waste the time and money trying to control what we cannot.
It most definitely does not mean just because it happened before there is no way we can control it. China has started noticeably modifying their rainfall in certain areas. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. The lands around the Nile, Colorado, Yellow and many other rivers were subject to regular large and "uncontrollable" flooding until systems of dams and reservoirs were developed.
It might not be *easy*, but claiming something is technologically impossible just because we don't have a solution yet is ridiculous. And that's why it is also ridiculous to ignore the data on this issue while there may still be time to figure out solutions.
It really doesn't matter what the record would have been before the advent of human civilization for the purposes of this discussion.
Once it's outside a range of temperature that the human species has adapted itself to (via evolution or technology) it's going to be a big f-ing problem for a lot of people, and admitting that now is a better idea than denying it until it's too late to come up with solutions.
Considering ice ages take thousands of years to lower the temperature by a few degrees, and we are going to raise it by that much in a few hundred, I'm pretty sure it's not the ideal solution. Sort of like setting fire to your car may not be the best way to get the ice off the windshield...
There have been many significant climate changes over the billions of years since the Earth was formed. And you know what? They have usually been *really* bad for the dominant species at the time.
Feel free to try to download your encrypted files from Megaupload now. Another reason not give a convicted criminal's business your data - you may not get it back. (I assume most/. users would be smart enough not to use it for a sole location of their important data, but apparently many customers were not so savvy...)
Many of those customers actually paid for increased storage or bandwidth. And what did many of those give to Megaupload to pay the fee? Wait for it... their credit card info. Right back into "bad move" territory...
I hope they weren't important files... you were basically trusting your data to a guy who has been convicted of credit card fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement.
He has been going around spending craploads of money on parties, cars, etc, for years before Megaupload, etc, were every founded. Wonder where that money came from...
With all of that impressive grammar, bizarre capitalization, and gay slurs in one sentence I think you should probably apologize to your mom and thank her for the selfless chore of driving you from Jr. high to soccer practice every day.
You were still 100% wrong about Google not caring at all, though. They have an entire freaking website about it and have put more money and lobbying (what really gets things done in US politics) into stopping it than most other companies.
AGAIN, these are in NO way engines designed and tuned for *efficiency*.
I'm talking about the VW/Audi or Ford 4 cylinder engines that are tuned to get decent power at ~30MPG. Or the BMW N54 in the 335i that does 9psi and gets over 330HP and ~25MPG. Of course if you tune a V8 to get 550HP like in the E63 it's going to burn more fuel. My whole point is you don't HAVE to tune for power, you can use a turbo for efficiency instead (doesn't the name "EcoBoost" somehow *subtly* hint that was Ford's goal?:)
Yeah, but that's why most of the newer fuel-efficient turbo engines (BMW, VW/Audi, Ford, etc) use direct injection and a relatively low boost pressure. It's not just theoretical, it's the principle behind some of the best small displacement, high powered, fuel efficient gasoline engines these days:)
Turbochargers are not just used to increase power, and don't *require* more fuel being injected. They reuse energy that would have been wasted in the exhaust to allow more air (and thus more oxygen) into the cylinder to burn more of the fuel already provided. Look at plenty of European engine designs or Ford's EcoBoost engine for examples.
That said, I doubt any of them use E85 (and a lot of the European engines are turbodiesels, of course) - but those that can run on 87 octane gasoline (like the EcoBoost) use direct injection and can run with *less* fuel injected, not more. Which was my original point (not some debate on E10, E85, etc) - it's not just the total energy in the fuel that matters, but how efficiently you use it.
It's not just about total energy, it's about useful energy extracted.
Turbos usually require higher octane so that there won't be premature ignition under the extra pressure. They also get more power/efficiency out of the same fuel as they are driven by reusing exhaust gases. So it's entirely possible that a lower-energy, higher octane fuel can get better mileage with an efficient turbocharged engine...
No, but there was an interesting story about a demo/interview where Belladonna learned to use a "uniquely shaped" remote control (sadly I missed that year...)
1) Setting up and maintaining hardware seems like work to me. I was there for 7 days (2 days before the conference even started). I worked 6-8 hours a day at the conference after putting in 4 80 hour work weeks beforehand (7 days a week with 2 days off in December, which would be 12/25 and 12/31) actually getting our product working for the demos. I think I deserved every one of those free meals.
2) Hello, this is LAS VEGAS. People have been known to go out and have a good time there once in a while. Try it some time. That's why Las Vegas gets all of those conferences, duh.
Without people like me at CES hack bloggers pretending to be journalists like you wouldn't have any new products to write about. If anything, I'm the one actually creating something new, and you are the peripheral hanger-on providing little added value...
Last time I went (technically as an exhibitor, but I was mostly setting up and mantaining hardware for demos) I ate for free at 4-5 ridiculously expensive restaurants. The final night we managed to spend over $200 per person at N9NE, hit two different clubs, hung out with some really interesting/bizarre "attendees" of the *other* conference (AVN) at the Venetian, and somehow managed to stumble back to the hotel room at 7am just in time to catch a cab to the airport. THAT'S how you do CES...
Re:It's been the case for years...
on
Who Goes To CES?
·
· Score: 1
The name on my friend's CIS badge a few years ago was "I. P. Freely". He registered online, and when he got there they gave him his badge, no question asked.
Honestly, they *want* as many random people to show up as possible so they can say "this year CES attracted over 150,000 visitors." If those number drastically decline exhibitors may be less likely to attend and pay the absurd prices for booth space, equipment rentals, Internet access, private meeting rooms, ridiculous required union labor rates for setup, etc.
Sorry, but pretty much nothing you said makes any sense...
1) value to society has nothing to do with "a right to steal something"... 2) no special laws need be enacted to fund anything, copyright has protected this for over 200 years. 3) If you want to WATCH a $200M movie, pay for THAT out of your own "pocket money". Why in hell do you feel like you should be able to take their work for free?? 4) see #1 - special effects, acting abilities, etc have nothing to do with the argument, another straw man. You aren't obligated to help anyone make money if it's a bad movie - just don't watch it if you think it's a bad movie, jeez. 5) back again to *your* definition of worthwhile art that should be "protected". How arrogant.
Are you joking? Twitter is one of the most infamous companies in Internet history for their horribly unreliable backend. Remember the fail whale?
They have fixed most of those problems by now, but a company like Google or Facebook that designs for scalability from the start could duplicate their backend fairly easily (and honestly they more or less already have in many ways).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not worried about misspellings as much as the fact your entire post is a giant straw-man. Special native American dance? Really?
The drastically oversimplified correlation was that the 1C "slight rise" in temperature was perfectly aligned with the modern industrial era: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png Causation? Not by itself. But there are plenty of other research in that area as well.
And if you think "minor" changes like that can't have drastic effects on ecosystems you obviously have not read enough research on the topic to make your opinion count for anything. Same with your opinion on whether the THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE RESEARCHERS may have actually thought to consider natural causes before doing YEARS OF RESEARCH and coming to the firm conclusion that it's due to man-made causes.
Ah but you see, the argument is that this time it's the dominant species' fault. So let the climate alarmists be consistent, take the blame like the higher human beings they claim to be and at long last shut the fuck up. Meanwhile the rest of us can adapt to the change like nature expects us to do or die trying.
Do you think evolution works like an X-Men comic? Are you expecting to grow gills, or absorb infrared radiation in the next couple of decades?
Most climate "alarmists" (aka scientists) are not worried about "harming Gaia" or somesuch bullshit (though *you* were the one to anthropomorphize "nature", which doesn't "expect" anything, so I'm not sure what that's all about). They are pointing out that yes, many of the changes ARE the dominant species fault, and are collectively blaming that species of which they are members. And they are hoping that the data they provide will help this species - through technology, and not fantasy - better understand just *how* to adapt (both by reducing the change and compensating for it) to what's happening.
Of course the world won't end. But if you don't think it's a good idea to plan ahead and try to reduce potential disaster to the human race long term, you might as well just restate your position as "fuck everyone else". But then don't be surprised when everyone else tells you to go fuck yourself...
So why not anticipate the work required and be proactive instead of reactive?
The wealthy first-worlders will weather it, I'm sure, but personally I'd like to see the struggling third world countries avoid any major disasters due to a climate changing faster than they can adapt to it.
I think the point being made is that if it happened without us being here at all, there must be causes that we have no control over. If there are causes that we cannot control, it would be folly to waste the time and money trying to control what we cannot.
It most definitely does not mean just because it happened before there is no way we can control it. China has started noticeably modifying their rainfall in certain areas. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. The lands around the Nile, Colorado, Yellow and many other rivers were subject to regular large and "uncontrollable" flooding until systems of dams and reservoirs were developed.
It might not be *easy*, but claiming something is technologically impossible just because we don't have a solution yet is ridiculous. And that's why it is also ridiculous to ignore the data on this issue while there may still be time to figure out solutions.
It really doesn't matter what the record would have been before the advent of human civilization for the purposes of this discussion.
Once it's outside a range of temperature that the human species has adapted itself to (via evolution or technology) it's going to be a big f-ing problem for a lot of people, and admitting that now is a better idea than denying it until it's too late to come up with solutions.
Comparing a "mini ice age" to a *real* ice age is like comparing the Mt. St. Helens eruption to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs...
And Florida produces some of the most bland, tasteless, fertilizer and pesticide-laced oranges, tomatoes, and strawberries in the world...
Considering ice ages take thousands of years to lower the temperature by a few degrees, and we are going to raise it by that much in a few hundred, I'm pretty sure it's not the ideal solution. Sort of like setting fire to your car may not be the best way to get the ice off the windshield...
There have been many significant climate changes over the billions of years since the Earth was formed. And you know what? They have usually been *really* bad for the dominant species at the time.
Feel free to try to download your encrypted files from Megaupload now. Another reason not give a convicted criminal's business your data - you may not get it back. (I assume most /. users would be smart enough not to use it for a sole location of their important data, but apparently many customers were not so savvy...)
Many of those customers actually paid for increased storage or bandwidth. And what did many of those give to Megaupload to pay the fee? Wait for it... their credit card info. Right back into "bad move" territory...
I'm sure that's what the sites he stole credit card info from thought, as well...
I hope they weren't important files... you were basically trusting your data to a guy who has been convicted of credit card fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement.
He has been going around spending craploads of money on parties, cars, etc, for years before Megaupload, etc, were every founded. Wonder where that money came from...
With all of that impressive grammar, bizarre capitalization, and gay slurs in one sentence I think you should probably apologize to your mom and thank her for the selfless chore of driving you from Jr. high to soccer practice every day.
You were still 100% wrong about Google not caring at all, though. They have an entire freaking website about it and have put more money and lobbying (what really gets things done in US politics) into stopping it than most other companies.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
AGAIN, these are in NO way engines designed and tuned for *efficiency*.
I'm talking about the VW/Audi or Ford 4 cylinder engines that are tuned to get decent power at ~30MPG. Or the BMW N54 in the 335i that does 9psi and gets over 330HP and ~25MPG. Of course if you tune a V8 to get 550HP like in the E63 it's going to burn more fuel. My whole point is you don't HAVE to tune for power, you can use a turbo for efficiency instead (doesn't the name "EcoBoost" somehow *subtly* hint that was Ford's goal? :)
Yeah, but that's why most of the newer fuel-efficient turbo engines (BMW, VW/Audi, Ford, etc) use direct injection and a relatively low boost pressure. It's not just theoretical, it's the principle behind some of the best small displacement, high powered, fuel efficient gasoline engines these days :)
Turbochargers are not just used to increase power, and don't *require* more fuel being injected. They reuse energy that would have been wasted in the exhaust to allow more air (and thus more oxygen) into the cylinder to burn more of the fuel already provided. Look at plenty of European engine designs or Ford's EcoBoost engine for examples.
That said, I doubt any of them use E85 (and a lot of the European engines are turbodiesels, of course) - but those that can run on 87 octane gasoline (like the EcoBoost) use direct injection and can run with *less* fuel injected, not more. Which was my original point (not some debate on E10, E85, etc) - it's not just the total energy in the fuel that matters, but how efficiently you use it.
It's not just about total energy, it's about useful energy extracted.
Turbos usually require higher octane so that there won't be premature ignition under the extra pressure. They also get more power/efficiency out of the same fuel as they are driven by reusing exhaust gases. So it's entirely possible that a lower-energy, higher octane fuel can get better mileage with an efficient turbocharged engine...
Yeah, but this way you can get free airfare, hotel room, meals, and be paid for looking at slightly thinner TVs...
No, but there was an interesting story about a demo/interview where Belladonna learned to use a "uniquely shaped" remote control (sadly I missed that year...)
1) Setting up and maintaining hardware seems like work to me. I was there for 7 days (2 days before the conference even started). I worked 6-8 hours a day at the conference after putting in 4 80 hour work weeks beforehand (7 days a week with 2 days off in December, which would be 12/25 and 12/31) actually getting our product working for the demos. I think I deserved every one of those free meals.
2) Hello, this is LAS VEGAS. People have been known to go out and have a good time there once in a while. Try it some time. That's why Las Vegas gets all of those conferences, duh.
Without people like me at CES hack bloggers pretending to be journalists like you wouldn't have any new products to write about. If anything, I'm the one actually creating something new, and you are the peripheral hanger-on providing little added value...
You are clearly not doing it right, then.
Last time I went (technically as an exhibitor, but I was mostly setting up and mantaining hardware for demos) I ate for free at 4-5 ridiculously expensive restaurants. The final night we managed to spend over $200 per person at N9NE, hit two different clubs, hung out with some really interesting/bizarre "attendees" of the *other* conference (AVN) at the Venetian, and somehow managed to stumble back to the hotel room at 7am just in time to catch a cab to the airport. THAT'S how you do CES...
The name on my friend's CIS badge a few years ago was "I. P. Freely". He registered online, and when he got there they gave him his badge, no question asked.
Honestly, they *want* as many random people to show up as possible so they can say "this year CES attracted over 150,000 visitors." If those number drastically decline exhibitors may be less likely to attend and pay the absurd prices for booth space, equipment rentals, Internet access, private meeting rooms, ridiculous required union labor rates for setup, etc.
Sorry, but pretty much nothing you said makes any sense...
1) value to society has nothing to do with "a right to steal something"...
2) no special laws need be enacted to fund anything, copyright has protected this for over 200 years.
3) If you want to WATCH a $200M movie, pay for THAT out of your own "pocket money". Why in hell do you feel like you should be able to take their work for free??
4) see #1 - special effects, acting abilities, etc have nothing to do with the argument, another straw man. You aren't obligated to help anyone make money if it's a bad movie - just don't watch it if you think it's a bad movie, jeez.
5) back again to *your* definition of worthwhile art that should be "protected". How arrogant.
Are you joking? Twitter is one of the most infamous companies in Internet history for their horribly unreliable backend. Remember the fail whale?
They have fixed most of those problems by now, but a company like Google or Facebook that designs for scalability from the start could duplicate their backend fairly easily (and honestly they more or less already have in many ways).