Here's the bad news: "global warming" doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. It means that if you average the temperature over all the places on Earth, over the course of a year, that that number comes out very slightly higher.
In a "warmer" globe, there's a high probability you will get colder in the winter. Much, much colder. That's because the weather patterns that keep extremely cold confined to the Arctic break down. So while you're freezing your ass off in December or January, the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland will be hosting the warmer air mass that would normally be where you live.
And if you average those out, it's for practical purposes a wash. Except nobody is experiencing the "average", everyone gets extremes, but different ones.
No, this is what you've been *told* that they've done.
The ClimateGate thing was the University of East Anglesey dealing with a problematic proxy dataset. It has no effect on the global instrumental record, just on estimates of temperatures in the pre-industrial era.
It's clearly irreversible by now, but that doesn't mean all is lost. We still have an opportunity to affect the magnitude and rate of change, not only in the more optimistic models, but in the middle-of-the-road models as well.
A difference between +2C and +1.5C is the difference between coral reefs going extinct, and losing 70% of them. It's the difference between losing 8% of wild plant species and losing 16%. It's the difference between 9% reduction in wheat yield and a 16% reduction. It's the difference between experiencing destructive flooding every other year or every ten years.
The rate of change makes a difference too. Changes that are catastrophic when experienced over a lifetime are historical curiosities when they occur across generations. "This used to be a farming community" is a very different statement depending on whether "used to" means twenty years ago, or a hundred.
We're stuck paying the piper now, but the amount we pay him is still up for grabs, and with the time value of money the NPV of that sum could be vastly less or vastly more.
Oh, we'll be hearing about the "pause since 2016", like the so-called pause after 1998. 2016 was, like 1998, a massive outlier, which means they'll be using it for their basis of comparison.
Well, what about a bike locked to a parking meter? Is that free to take?
IIRC, these things have motion alarms that will sound if someone attempts to move them without unlocking them, which is an attempt at least by their owners to secure them.
The issue here isn't abandoning stuff, nor is it using public spaces for profit, which you generally can do if the activity is not expressly forbidden. The issue is using public spaces in a way that inconveniences other users.
If you can get away with that, making the public pay your costs is a good way to turn a marginal business into a profitable one. Dock-based bike systems work pretty well in dense city areas like Manhattan, but such a solution involves expenses like building the docks and coordinating with local officials to minimize inconvenience to other city street users. Just ignoring the inconvenience and making everyone else deal with your shit means more money in your pocket.
I think you're missing the point of the back door. Sure, it doesn't enable the attacker to anything he couldn't otherwise do right now, but you don't necessarily want to do anything right now. This could be because the machine doesn't have the information you want to steal yet, or because you want to interfere with something the user may be involved with in the future (e.g., conducting a military or political campaign).
The problem is just because you can get in now doesn't guarantee that the system won't get patched later, or passwords updated, or malware files scanned. Any kind of vulnerability you leave behind could simplify your job later.
doesn't mean they shouldn't, and not making it available creates a risk in situations where they suddenly discover they need it yesterday.
As a designer you frequently put things into a product that customers never asked for. Sometimes, yes, it is a waste of time. But if you don't bring expertise to the table the customers don't have, then what are they paying you for?
Sure, Apple has nothing to be ashamed of (at least in *this* situation), but that doesn't mean they have nothing to apologize for.
There's a whole scope of application for apologies that involves keeping everything running smoothly despite peoples' unreasonable hurt feelings. I know that for a lot of people apologizing when you've done nothing wrong is inconceivable, but it's often cost-effective, because an apology doesn't really cost you anything.
Hemp is actually quite nice. Spun into a fiber it is a lot like cotton, but silkier.
Now I can't speak for *everyone* on the left, but most of the solutions don't involve making everyone where hemp, or transfer money to to the government. That's a straw man. The most prominent solution is a market-based solution which does not transfer wealth the government, but between capitalists, namely, cap and trade. That's what the left has been proposing while the right has had its head in the sand.
Since Non-Hodgkin's is by definition any cancer of lymphocytes that is not Hodgkin's, it's unlikely to be "beaten" any time soon because it's not just one thing. Collectively, though, 10 year survival rates for Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas run from 36% to 71% depending on your risk factors (age, how early the cancer is diagnosed). There's been a lot of progress on Hodgkins' too: 10 year survival is up to around 80%.
You are equivocating here. There's a big difference between distributing an authentic weather report and a spreading false information about voting requirements in order to deprive people of their political rights. That's just depicable and nobody should make light of it.
As for intentionally inaccurate reports of long lines, that's just as reprehensible, and it were up to me I'd horse whip anyone caught doing that. I'm not sure what Facebook can do about that in real time, but it doesn't mean they should ignore that. They certainly have the resources to try.
You want me to believe that "any day now" wind and solar will displace coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, we've been trying to do that for decades now and it's not happening very quickly.
Last year Scotland generated more than 2/3 of its electricity from renewables. Across the UK the share of renewables in electricity generation has increased exponentially since around 2000. In 2013 that amounted to about 14.9% across the entire UK; in the last quarter of data available for the UK as a whole in 2017, that figure was 29.8%. Meanwhile coal's share has plummeted from about 45% in 2012 to less than 10% last year, in part because of natural gas, but also because of the sharp rise in renewables.
Now there's a huge gulf between generating 68.1% of your electricity from renewables, as Scotland just did, and 100%. And electricity is just one form of energy distribution; there's vehicles and heating to be considered. But what seems intuitively credible to you isn't really a good guide to what is possible.
That's the main reason most of us chose to work in technology, not just to bang out minor variations of what's been done in the past, but to be part of achieving extraordinary things.
Renewables are a tremendous economic opportunity, which is why a Tory government is onboard. Some people are going to make a lot of money, if they can get their head out of the sand. Meanwhile we're getting rumblings of energy retaliation from the Saudis if western government sanction them for murdering journalist Jamal Khashoggi. You can talk all you want about sovereignty, but if a kingdom of 32 million people controls the lifeblood of your economy, your sovereignty is just flags and martial music and parades.
Well, this is the reason so many people focus on extremely unlikely consequences, like human extinction or the complete collapse of civilization. You just can't get most people to focus on the likely consequences, even some pretty serious ones, because twenty or thirty years in the future they seem trivial. Some people can't get their asses in gear unless they're facing catastrophe.
If complete catastrophe were likely, then even the people bankrolling the denialist movement would be concerned. But it's not. There will still be beer, coffee, beef and holiday resorts in a world that's 2C warmer, and if those things cost a lot more, they're counting on making enough money now by externalizing their costs that it wont' matter to them.
It's basically a scheme to transfer wealth, one that exploits most peoples' present bias.
In mathematics as an educational subject, learning each topic is to an unusual degree dependent on having a high degree of mastery of the prior topics. This means that in a mass educational system where students are put into a big room with a lot other students, missing a couple of topics can start an avalanche effect, the end result is the disaster of a person who "just can't do mathematics".
Any normally intelligent human being should be able to do math at a level which is quite rare in our society. The problem is that our educational system only produces mathematically literate adults as statistical outliers.
As for understanding and working with other people, it's only relatively recently that educators have figured out that teaching this should be on their agenda, and that remains controversial, so by in large student performance isn't measured and students aren't evaluated on their mastery of people skills.
This is the fallback of the science denialist: everything's just an opinion, and science is just another position.
Science isn't just another opinion; it's the opinion best supported by evidence. Widely accepted climate models are reasonable extrapolations from what we know. They do not predict the future -- they can't foretell a strong El Nino year (yet) or a strike from a comet. But they show the direction the Earth *currently* is heading in.
Well, that's just another kind of "literacy" too. Everyone I think struggles with the fact that other people are different than they are; but I think quite a few people don't have any idea how different other people can be in their education and abilities.
So you're saying that the point is, if one replaces the term "10 percent" with "10 per hundred," people would understand the question better?
Yes. I know it sounds weird, but it's really what you automatically do without planning when you approach a problem. But even if you're pretty good at math, having the problem stated in a slightly different way can help you when you're tackling problems that are hard for you. It's what a professor automatically does when a lot of students get stuck on a problem set question: he restates the problem in a way that enables the students to relate it to things they've already learned.
Nobody is saying that 1-in-10 is mathematically different than 10%. It is heuristically more helpful to people with less mathematical competence.
When you're good at math, you naturally line up all the "givens" in a problem. You go over each one an interpret what it means, "So that means if I had 100 people, ten of them would prefer vanilla to chocolate..." It's like a wood carver examining a block of wood to find a good place to start cutting. You do this so automatically it seems intuitive to you, but it's actually the result of long training and practice.
To people who aren't as well trained in math, the "givens" look like an impenetrable wall of text, because the individual bricks in the wall don't instantly convey useful information to them. Well, of course they don't; you have to *think* about them, and the less accustomed you are to numbers, the more work it is for you for less certainty of reward.
But if you put a picture into peoples' heads, you give them an immediate handhold on the problem. It's not difficult for a mathematically fluent person to make his own handhold, but it is a stumbling block for a lot of people.
Perhaps you fall into the masochist class of authors, then.
... but you repeat yourself.
However we appear to be talking in circles. There has yet to be devised an HMI that is as suitable for the entry of bulk text as the qwerty keyboard or a derivative of it. Nothing currently extant is even remotely as capable.
No, we're talking past each other. I agree there has yet to be devised any suitable entry method for doing this. That does not mean that such a thing is impossible. Nor would an improved text entry need to be just as good as QWERTY to be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the bad news: "global warming" doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. It means that if you average the temperature over all the places on Earth, over the course of a year, that that number comes out very slightly higher.
In a "warmer" globe, there's a high probability you will get colder in the winter. Much, much colder. That's because the weather patterns that keep extremely cold confined to the Arctic break down. So while you're freezing your ass off in December or January, the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland will be hosting the warmer air mass that would normally be where you live.
And if you average those out, it's for practical purposes a wash. Except nobody is experiencing the "average", everyone gets extremes, but different ones.
No, this is what you've been *told* that they've done.
The ClimateGate thing was the University of East Anglesey dealing with a problematic proxy dataset. It has no effect on the global instrumental record, just on estimates of temperatures in the pre-industrial era.
When you cheat taxes you rely on the finance guy you hire to do the smart stuff. Or in the case of Donald Trump, you rely on the guy Fred Trump hired.
It's clearly irreversible by now, but that doesn't mean all is lost. We still have an opportunity to affect the magnitude and rate of change, not only in the more optimistic models, but in the middle-of-the-road models as well.
A difference between +2C and +1.5C is the difference between coral reefs going extinct, and losing 70% of them. It's the difference between losing 8% of wild plant species and losing 16%. It's the difference between 9% reduction in wheat yield and a 16% reduction. It's the difference between experiencing destructive flooding every other year or every ten years.
The rate of change makes a difference too. Changes that are catastrophic when experienced over a lifetime are historical curiosities when they occur across generations. "This used to be a farming community" is a very different statement depending on whether "used to" means twenty years ago, or a hundred.
We're stuck paying the piper now, but the amount we pay him is still up for grabs, and with the time value of money the NPV of that sum could be vastly less or vastly more.
Oh, we'll be hearing about the "pause since 2016", like the so-called pause after 1998. 2016 was, like 1998, a massive outlier, which means they'll be using it for their basis of comparison.
Well, what about a bike locked to a parking meter? Is that free to take?
IIRC, these things have motion alarms that will sound if someone attempts to move them without unlocking them, which is an attempt at least by their owners to secure them.
The issue here isn't abandoning stuff, nor is it using public spaces for profit, which you generally can do if the activity is not expressly forbidden. The issue is using public spaces in a way that inconveniences other users.
If you can get away with that, making the public pay your costs is a good way to turn a marginal business into a profitable one. Dock-based bike systems work pretty well in dense city areas like Manhattan, but such a solution involves expenses like building the docks and coordinating with local officials to minimize inconvenience to other city street users. Just ignoring the inconvenience and making everyone else deal with your shit means more money in your pocket.
Well, if you want guarantees, hacking isn't for you.
I think you're missing the point of the back door. Sure, it doesn't enable the attacker to anything he couldn't otherwise do right now, but you don't necessarily want to do anything right now. This could be because the machine doesn't have the information you want to steal yet, or because you want to interfere with something the user may be involved with in the future (e.g., conducting a military or political campaign).
The problem is just because you can get in now doesn't guarantee that the system won't get patched later, or passwords updated, or malware files scanned. Any kind of vulnerability you leave behind could simplify your job later.
doesn't mean they shouldn't, and not making it available creates a risk in situations where they suddenly discover they need it yesterday.
As a designer you frequently put things into a product that customers never asked for. Sometimes, yes, it is a waste of time. But if you don't bring expertise to the table the customers don't have, then what are they paying you for?
Sure, Apple has nothing to be ashamed of (at least in *this* situation), but that doesn't mean they have nothing to apologize for.
There's a whole scope of application for apologies that involves keeping everything running smoothly despite peoples' unreasonable hurt feelings. I know that for a lot of people apologizing when you've done nothing wrong is inconceivable, but it's often cost-effective, because an apology doesn't really cost you anything.
Hemp is actually quite nice. Spun into a fiber it is a lot like cotton, but silkier.
Now I can't speak for *everyone* on the left, but most of the solutions don't involve making everyone where hemp, or transfer money to to the government. That's a straw man. The most prominent solution is a market-based solution which does not transfer wealth the government, but between capitalists, namely, cap and trade. That's what the left has been proposing while the right has had its head in the sand.
A 2C rise in global temperature would INCREASE agricultural land and reduce the % of people who die from cold.
(a)Nope and (b) Yep, but more people die from heat and drought.
Since Non-Hodgkin's is by definition any cancer of lymphocytes that is not Hodgkin's, it's unlikely to be "beaten" any time soon because it's not just one thing. Collectively, though, 10 year survival rates for Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas run from 36% to 71% depending on your risk factors (age, how early the cancer is diagnosed). There's been a lot of progress on Hodgkins' too: 10 year survival is up to around 80%.
What a ray of sunshine you are.
You are equivocating here. There's a big difference between distributing an authentic weather report and a spreading false information about voting requirements in order to deprive people of their political rights. That's just depicable and nobody should make light of it.
As for intentionally inaccurate reports of long lines, that's just as reprehensible, and it were up to me I'd horse whip anyone caught doing that. I'm not sure what Facebook can do about that in real time, but it doesn't mean they should ignore that. They certainly have the resources to try.
You want me to believe that "any day now" wind and solar will displace coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, we've been trying to do that for decades now and it's not happening very quickly.
Last year Scotland generated more than 2/3 of its electricity from renewables. Across the UK the share of renewables in electricity generation has increased exponentially since around 2000. In 2013 that amounted to about 14.9% across the entire UK; in the last quarter of data available for the UK as a whole in 2017, that figure was 29.8%. Meanwhile coal's share has plummeted from about 45% in 2012 to less than 10% last year, in part because of natural gas, but also because of the sharp rise in renewables.
Now there's a huge gulf between generating 68.1% of your electricity from renewables, as Scotland just did, and 100%. And electricity is just one form of energy distribution; there's vehicles and heating to be considered. But what seems intuitively credible to you isn't really a good guide to what is possible.
That's the main reason most of us chose to work in technology, not just to bang out minor variations of what's been done in the past, but to be part of achieving extraordinary things.
Renewables are a tremendous economic opportunity, which is why a Tory government is onboard. Some people are going to make a lot of money, if they can get their head out of the sand. Meanwhile we're getting rumblings of energy retaliation from the Saudis if western government sanction them for murdering journalist Jamal Khashoggi. You can talk all you want about sovereignty, but if a kingdom of 32 million people controls the lifeblood of your economy, your sovereignty is just flags and martial music and parades.
Well, this is the reason so many people focus on extremely unlikely consequences, like human extinction or the complete collapse of civilization. You just can't get most people to focus on the likely consequences, even some pretty serious ones, because twenty or thirty years in the future they seem trivial. Some people can't get their asses in gear unless they're facing catastrophe.
If complete catastrophe were likely, then even the people bankrolling the denialist movement would be concerned. But it's not. There will still be beer, coffee, beef and holiday resorts in a world that's 2C warmer, and if those things cost a lot more, they're counting on making enough money now by externalizing their costs that it wont' matter to them.
It's basically a scheme to transfer wealth, one that exploits most peoples' present bias.
I have to assume you are willfully ignoring the word "average".
In mathematics as an educational subject, learning each topic is to an unusual degree dependent on having a high degree of mastery of the prior topics. This means that in a mass educational system where students are put into a big room with a lot other students, missing a couple of topics can start an avalanche effect, the end result is the disaster of a person who "just can't do mathematics".
Any normally intelligent human being should be able to do math at a level which is quite rare in our society. The problem is that our educational system only produces mathematically literate adults as statistical outliers.
As for understanding and working with other people, it's only relatively recently that educators have figured out that teaching this should be on their agenda, and that remains controversial, so by in large student performance isn't measured and students aren't evaluated on their mastery of people skills.
This is the fallback of the science denialist: everything's just an opinion, and science is just another position.
Science isn't just another opinion; it's the opinion best supported by evidence. Widely accepted climate models are reasonable extrapolations from what we know. They do not predict the future -- they can't foretell a strong El Nino year (yet) or a strike from a comet. But they show the direction the Earth *currently* is heading in.
Well, that's just another kind of "literacy" too. Everyone I think struggles with the fact that other people are different than they are; but I think quite a few people don't have any idea how different other people can be in their education and abilities.
So you're saying that the point is, if one replaces the term "10 percent" with "10 per hundred," people would understand the question better?
Yes. I know it sounds weird, but it's really what you automatically do without planning when you approach a problem. But even if you're pretty good at math, having the problem stated in a slightly different way can help you when you're tackling problems that are hard for you. It's what a professor automatically does when a lot of students get stuck on a problem set question: he restates the problem in a way that enables the students to relate it to things they've already learned.
Nobody is saying that 1-in-10 is mathematically different than 10%. It is heuristically more helpful to people with less mathematical competence.
When you're good at math, you naturally line up all the "givens" in a problem. You go over each one an interpret what it means, "So that means if I had 100 people, ten of them would prefer vanilla to chocolate..." It's like a wood carver examining a block of wood to find a good place to start cutting. You do this so automatically it seems intuitive to you, but it's actually the result of long training and practice.
To people who aren't as well trained in math, the "givens" look like an impenetrable wall of text, because the individual bricks in the wall don't instantly convey useful information to them. Well, of course they don't; you have to *think* about them, and the less accustomed you are to numbers, the more work it is for you for less certainty of reward.
But if you put a picture into peoples' heads, you give them an immediate handhold on the problem. It's not difficult for a mathematically fluent person to make his own handhold, but it is a stumbling block for a lot of people.
Read the caption on the graph carefully. It shows the average September sea ice extent, not the minimum likely
Perhaps you fall into the masochist class of authors, then.
... but you repeat yourself.
However we appear to be talking in circles. There has yet to be devised an HMI that is as suitable for the entry of bulk text as the qwerty keyboard or a derivative of it. Nothing currently extant is even remotely as capable.
No, we're talking past each other. I agree there has yet to be devised any suitable entry method for doing this. That does not mean that such a thing is impossible. Nor would an improved text entry need to be just as good as QWERTY to be useful.