That seems insane. It is like asking someone to draw a map, without being able to actually visit the place that needs to be mapped.
Funny that you say that. As we all know Columbus discovered America (leaving earlier civilzations out of it for the moment).
Only he didn't. He thought he was in India. Later he thougt that he had discovered a new group of Islands. Who did first prove that an entire new continent was found (and gave his name to it)? Amerigo Vepucci. Did he physically visit the continent he 'discovered'? Yes! But only after he had deduced from information of others that there must be a new continent.
So you new role (and adapting to a new role is hard, so think about it) is not to go on a bold new expedition but to sift through the information you request from the different teams and build a global picture from that.
Also a concern for me is: you talk only about network, virtualization, databases etc. While an EA is also much involved in the design of the application landscape, data architecture of large projects, reporting infrastructure etc.
So, if you take the leap, let go of the low level control and widen you horizon.
Indeed. And this answer is a part of why doing something about global warming (i.e. reducing CO2 emissions) is considered cheaper than do nothing and face the consequences.
Mind you that the 1m increase in sea level is probably already comming even if we stop all CO2 emisssions now. The emission reductions is just to avoid worse (FTA if the ice sheet on Greenland would melt entirely that would result in a 6m rise of the sea level - that's not something you can solve with some dykes)
Not only that, but the bill for dealing with the consequences of global warming (higher dikes, loss of crops, defence against new diseases, irrigation facilities and dams, damage from more frequent and more violent hurricanes...) will be higher than the costs of switching to non CO2 energy sources...
The F-35A replaces the F-16 by having stealth and a useful range. [...] The F-16 found a new lease on life when the strapped an external fuel tank and targeting pod on it to give it enough range to be a bomb truck, but the extra weight of that fuel makes it shit for manoeuvrability. So the F-16 can either have range and shit manoeuvrability, or great manoeuvrability and a useless range. The F-35A has both, plus stealth, plus better infrared/optical sensors so it doesn't need a targeting pod..
Hence the significance of the article. It seems that an empty F-35 (no weapons) is still no match for an F-16 with the external fuel tank strapped on...
Well, can't comment on the author. But let's look at your 3 points. 1. It's a strike fighter: there we agree. What is the problem? That it is supposed to repace all other aircrafts. So it must be able to dogfight too. Sure it has a longer range but in this example the F-16 had additional tanks so that should even it up. Only it didn't. And yes the A10 can't dog fight and isn't designed for it. But the A10 doesn't need to because it was meant to be supported by F-16, F18 and F-15 aircrafts that would do everything else except close air support and hitting 'hard targets'. The F-35 is supposed to do all this by itself...
2. Indeed BVR is gaining ground and is getting more and more important. Question is: do you want to send out your pilots in an aircraft that can't dogfight? Especially if you know that it is slower than most enemy aircrafts? That means that it could be hunted down and killed without any way to escape.
3. I can't comment on the costs of the current air fleet in the US. I do know that my country (Belgium) and our close neighbour (the Netherlands) are both struggeling to find some way to make it appear as if the f-35 is affordable. On the other hand they are looking at 'synergies' like defending the combined airspace with only half the fighters in order to be able to pay for it. The cost of the f-35 is significantly higher than that of the competition (according to our media).
I can't argue about the detail of air combat, since I'm a laymen. But the way I read the article the complaint about the nose-rate was only secondary. I had the impression that the pilot was mostly complaining about a lack of engine power. And that this in combination with energy bleeding quite heavily in sharp turns and manouvers put him at a distict disadvantage. I would imagine that if you find your aircraft underpowered that this would mean you cannot choose your engagement conditions. The other is faster and accelerates faster which means that if he is upon you, you have no way to escape.
Yep. Question is not if you WANT to dogfight (you don't). Rather the question is: do you want to send your pilots into battle with an aircraft that is hopless in case it NEEDS to do dogfighting...
I just read the gist of the verdict (advantage of speaking Dutch). It is NOT a contractual dispute. And it is NOT about interference with politics. It is solely based on the prudence principle. The Dutch state should do more to shield it's people from the consequences of global warming.
The idea behind this ruling is that the consequences of doing nothing or doing not enough are clear and sufficiently scientifically proven. And thus the Dutch government should act upon it. Saying 'but we are only a small country' and 'this has only sense in a broader agreement' doesn't cut it. The Dutch government should take it's responsibility and do it's part.
Therefore the court orders a reduction of 25% by 2020, which is what the IPCC puts forward as the minimum reduction necessary to keep the global warming under 2 degrees celcius. And keeping it below that level would keep (again according IPCC) the consequences at an acceptable level.
So, let met get this straight. There are satellite measurements of the ice mass on antartica and they show the ice mass is melting.
And all you have to say is: there is enough ice. See those scientists are getting stuck in it. See? There you have it. Everything is fine!
What kind of leadership are people like you looking for? Someone that will give you a fresh diaper when you are shitting your pants because bad things are happening? Or someone who actually does something about it?
They'll just do what Apple did, like Windows 10.4 Tiger, Windows 10.5 Leopard, Windows 10.6 Snow Leopard, etc.
Yep. Only, if MS is still MS, they'll choose some other animal that THEY think is at least as good as the big cats. Like a bear or something.
Windows Grizzly. Not too bad. Windows Koala. Well, let's hope people find it cute. Windows Brown. That's it. They did it again. Those that keep their thoughts away from excrements will think about an electric razor.
Apparently, your version of science is a "summary for policy makers", derived by "author teams" based on "expert judgment" found in working panel reports of a self-selected group of people interested in the topic and making lots of unstated and untested assumptions. Thank you, but I prefer to base my decision on actual science, not that kind of pseudo-science.
Well. Calling a document that has been produced by the top scientists in a particular area (without being paid for it) 'pseudo science' because you don't like the conclusions is not science.
BTW there is also a full version of the report which refers to the full version of the underlying reports of the 3 workgroups which in their turn refer to the underlying scientific articles. But if the first didn't convince you I have little doubt that you will categorize the rest as 'pseudo-science' too.
All this can be found in the IPCC reports (link). They have a section "For policy makers" which explains in laymens terms exactly (with probabilities and all) what will happen most likely, how big the risks are (and how certain we are of these risks) and what is the best course of action (and why). And yes doing nothing is more costly (damage to argriculture, building higher dikes, more storms, more deseases, people on the run) than actually doing something about it. So, there you have it. All your questions answerd...by science.
Republicans scare me as well, but so too do the Democrats. Who thought turning over even more health care to the insurance companies was a good idea? They're the slimeballs who screwed it up in the first place. And try to get Democrats to understand the problem we'll have paying for all entitlements when they come due. They look at you like you are from Mars, claiming, by the way, the SS trust fund has x dollars in it. Really?[...]
I'm not an American, so I don't know the details. But if you are talking about making sure that everyone has healthcare insurance, that seems simply common sense. Because in healthcare there is no choice. If someone gets ill it's better to do something about it sooner than later. If you wait till later it will get much worse (life threatening) at which moment the medical costs will be much higher. And those costs need to be paid too. So by making sure everyone has access to healthcare all the time you save everyone a big bunch of money! Don't believe me? Compare the amounts the US is spending on healthcare per gross domestic product compared to other developed coutries (tip: it's much higher) Link to WHO. And that while all this money is used to pamper a few very rich on one hand and to perform the basic life threatening procedures on the rest.
Let's hope not. The ITER project (link for which this simulation is intended, is planning to have first plasma in 2020. Which means that the simulation, when run in 2018, will be just about in time for making last ajustments in the steering of the magnes and other anti EMP measures that are in place.
To me this seems like a classic case of a big player playing a game of extorsion with a small supplier. It's as old as the street. Typical example: big retail player (think Wall Mart) says to small supplier: OK this is your big break. You can start delivering your product (say canned beans) to us. The initial order will be around 100 tons/month at 5c per kilo. The small supplier can't believe his luck and starts investing in its production facilities massively to be able to cope with the enourmous volumes. As they are nearing the delivering time big player says: wait. We need actually 500 tons but only at 3,5c per kilo. The supplier has 2 choices: comply but the price will never cover the extra investments for the even higher volumes. Or not comply and that means immediate bankrupcy. Of cource in this case the big player has made a mistake. The idea is to make demands that are feasable.
So in my opinion it's Microsoft being ruthless and stupid all over again like in good old times...
Ok. Then I have misread you. Your first post seemed to suggest that we shouldn't do anything about climate change because it would never work (and reading it back I see some nuance but it still strikes me as such).
The idea that a worldwide CO2 taks could be forced certainly appeals to me. I do not, however, share your revulsion for using CO2 numbers from governments. In fact since CO2 doesn't stop at the borders it will hard to make a model that accurately calculates the CO2 produced in a country (Belgium, e.g. where I live is only about 250 miles from one end to the other and it has the German Ruhr Industrial site, one of the biggers industry concentrations in Europe, close by).
And last but no least: I don't think I ignore the facts around global warming and I am in favor of any measure that could counteract it. Just to be clear: I think we SHOULD make a CO2 taks, that we HAVE to invest in solar and wind power and we MUST massively invest in fusion power. In my Original post I was being sarcastic...
Taxpayer-funded climate worriers wouldn't have a job if they disagreed with him.
From the IPCC website "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva"
Even if America went to ZERO EMISSIONS TODAY, it would not change anything.
Firstly: that's not true. Even though China has a much higher population than the US, the emissions per person in the US are that much higher that the US emits almost as much CO2 as China.
Secondly: The US, as one of the countries with the highest emissions should lead the efforst instead of standing back (or even blocking agreements).
Last but not least: you seem to say: I know climate change is real, I know we caused it. I jus't can't be bothered to actually do something about it. Because that may involve CO2 taxes (OH NO!!), or investing in Solar and Wind power (UGH) or even massively investing in fusion (e.g. the Iter project) (!!!!!)
No. Let's just keep going as we are today. I prefer to close my eyes. When things go wrong we 'll just hope for the best...
IPCC Synthesis report (link) P.4 (very first chapter): "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. "
So there IS an increased energy storage in the climate system according the IPCC. Which stands to reason: temprature increase (where before there was none) without a higher energy absorbtion is termodynamically nonsense.
It's a 30 page document that is a simple and clear exposé of the current state of climate science on global warming. You can read what the current observations on climate change are, what it's causes are, how this will affect us, what the risks are, how we can mitigate these risks.
On every statement there is a confidence level and every statement refers to a longer more elaborate report that explains the science behind it in more detail. And if that is not enough: this second report (about 100 pages) refers to the reports of the different workgroups (physical evidence, impact of climate change and how to mitigate the impact). These reports of those workgroups are often more than 1000 pages and refer directly to actual publications and scientific studies.
So either you read the first part and you are convinced, or keep reading...
but the BBC should have stepped in and provided him with a chance to see a therapist and get some help
What makes you think that the BBC or anybody else can tell Jeremy Clarkson what to do?
All jokes aside: people who mess up their life (if all this information is actually correct) and then start on other people's lives must be stopped. Immediately.
Well, I don't know about everyboldy else. But in my case this is certainly false.
I love top gear and Jeremy Clarckson is the heart of it. That being said it was clear to me that he was an asshole and that the success of the show had only made it worse.
One should separate fact and fiction. The presenter from the human being: presenter: suberb, definitely has 'it'; human being: is he really??
This seems a bit extreme to me. I think the execise part is the poster story is actually the most important part. After all: you live years taking in more calories than you need without growing fat. So clearly your body has a mechanism to regulate how much of the intake is converted to fat. It seems that exercise and a healty lifestyle keep this mechanism healty too.
So, I wouldn't go too extreme on the food part and just make sure you live, eat and sport healthyly.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems insane. It is like asking someone to draw a map, without being able to actually visit the place that needs to be mapped.
Funny that you say that. As we all know Columbus discovered America (leaving earlier civilzations out of it for the moment).
Only he didn't. He thought he was in India. Later he thougt that he had discovered a new group of Islands. Who did first prove that an entire new continent was found (and gave his name to it)? Amerigo Vepucci. Did he physically visit the continent he 'discovered'? Yes! But only after he had deduced from information of others that there must be a new continent.
So you new role (and adapting to a new role is hard, so think about it) is not to go on a bold new expedition but to sift through the information you request from the different teams and build a global picture from that.
Also a concern for me is: you talk only about network, virtualization, databases etc. While an EA is also much involved in the design of the application landscape, data architecture of large projects, reporting infrastructure etc.
So, if you take the leap, let go of the low level control and widen you horizon.
Indeed. And this answer is a part of why doing something about global warming (i.e. reducing CO2 emissions) is considered cheaper than do nothing and face the consequences.
Mind you that the 1m increase in sea level is probably already comming even if we stop all CO2 emisssions now. The emission reductions is just to avoid worse (FTA if the ice sheet on Greenland would melt entirely that would result in a 6m rise of the sea level - that's not something you can solve with some dykes)
Don't listen to the article. Everything is allright. No arguments needed. It just is.
Everything is fine.
IT'S FINE!
Not only that, but the bill for dealing with the consequences of global warming (higher dikes, loss of crops, defence against new diseases, irrigation facilities and dams, damage from more frequent and more violent hurricanes...) will be higher than the costs of switching to non CO2 energy sources...
The F-35A replaces the F-16 by having stealth and a useful range. [...] The F-16 found a new lease on life when the strapped an external fuel tank and targeting pod on it to give it enough range to be a bomb truck, but the extra weight of that fuel makes it shit for manoeuvrability. So the F-16 can either have range and shit manoeuvrability, or great manoeuvrability and a useless range. The F-35A has both, plus stealth, plus better infrared/optical sensors so it doesn't need a targeting pod..
Hence the significance of the article. It seems that an empty F-35 (no weapons) is still no match for an F-16 with the external fuel tank strapped on...
Well, can't comment on the author. But let's look at your 3 points.
1. It's a strike fighter: there we agree. What is the problem? That it is supposed to repace all other aircrafts. So it must be able to dogfight too. Sure it has a longer range but in this example the F-16 had additional tanks so that should even it up. Only it didn't. And yes the A10 can't dog fight and isn't designed for it. But the A10 doesn't need to because it was meant to be supported by F-16, F18 and F-15 aircrafts that would do everything else except close air support and hitting 'hard targets'. The F-35 is supposed to do all this by itself...
2. Indeed BVR is gaining ground and is getting more and more important. Question is: do you want to send out your pilots in an aircraft that can't dogfight? Especially if you know that it is slower than most enemy aircrafts? That means that it could be hunted down and killed without any way to escape.
3. I can't comment on the costs of the current air fleet in the US. I do know that my country (Belgium) and our close neighbour (the Netherlands) are both struggeling to find some way to make it appear as if the f-35 is affordable. On the other hand they are looking at 'synergies' like defending the combined airspace with only half the fighters in order to be able to pay for it. The cost of the f-35 is significantly higher than that of the competition (according to our media).
I can't argue about the detail of air combat, since I'm a laymen. But the way I read the article the complaint about the nose-rate was only secondary. I had the impression that the pilot was mostly complaining about a lack of engine power. And that this in combination with energy bleeding quite heavily in sharp turns and manouvers put him at a distict disadvantage.
I would imagine that if you find your aircraft underpowered that this would mean you cannot choose your engagement conditions. The other is faster and accelerates faster which means that if he is upon you, you have no way to escape.
Yep. Question is not if you WANT to dogfight (you don't). Rather the question is: do you want to send your pilots into battle with an aircraft that is hopless in case it NEEDS to do dogfighting...
I just read the gist of the verdict (advantage of speaking Dutch). It is NOT a contractual dispute. And it is NOT about interference with politics.
It is solely based on the prudence principle. The Dutch state should do more to shield it's people from the consequences of global warming.
The idea behind this ruling is that the consequences of doing nothing or doing not enough are clear and sufficiently scientifically proven. And thus the Dutch government should act upon it. Saying 'but we are only a small country' and 'this has only sense in a broader agreement' doesn't cut it. The Dutch government should take it's responsibility and do it's part.
Therefore the court orders a reduction of 25% by 2020, which is what the IPCC puts forward as the minimum reduction necessary to keep the global warming under 2 degrees celcius. And keeping it below that level would keep (again according IPCC) the consequences at an acceptable level.
So, let met get this straight. There are satellite measurements of the ice mass on antartica and they show the ice mass is melting.
And all you have to say is: there is enough ice. See those scientists are getting stuck in it. See? There you have it. Everything is fine!
What kind of leadership are people like you looking for? Someone that will give you a fresh diaper when you are shitting your pants because bad things are happening? Or someone who actually does something about it?
Lalala. Can't hear you.
And by the way: there was lots of ice where I live!
They'll just do what Apple did, like Windows 10.4 Tiger, Windows 10.5 Leopard, Windows 10.6 Snow Leopard, etc.
Yep. Only, if MS is still MS, they'll choose some other animal that THEY think is at least as good as the big cats. Like a bear or something.
Windows Grizzly. Not too bad.
Windows Koala. Well, let's hope people find it cute.
Windows Brown. That's it. They did it again. Those that keep their thoughts away from excrements will think about an electric razor.
Apparently, your version of science is a "summary for policy makers", derived by "author teams" based on "expert judgment" found in working panel reports of a self-selected group of people interested in the topic and making lots of unstated and untested assumptions. Thank you, but I prefer to base my decision on actual science, not that kind of pseudo-science.
Well. Calling a document that has been produced by the top scientists in a particular area (without being paid for it) 'pseudo science' because you don't like the conclusions is not science.
BTW there is also a full version of the report which refers to the full version of the underlying reports of the 3 workgroups which in their turn refer to the underlying scientific articles. But if the first didn't convince you I have little doubt that you will categorize the rest as 'pseudo-science' too.
All this can be found in the IPCC reports (link). They have a section "For policy makers" which explains in laymens terms exactly (with probabilities and all) what will happen most likely, how big the risks are (and how certain we are of these risks) and what is the best course of action (and why). And yes doing nothing is more costly (damage to argriculture, building higher dikes, more storms, more deseases, people on the run) than actually doing something about it.
So, there you have it. All your questions answerd...by science.
Republicans scare me as well, but so too do the Democrats. Who thought turning over even more health care to the insurance companies was a good idea? They're the slimeballs who screwed it up in the first place. And try to get Democrats to understand the problem we'll have paying for all entitlements when they come due. They look at you like you are from Mars, claiming, by the way, the SS trust fund has x dollars in it. Really?[...]
I'm not an American, so I don't know the details. But if you are talking about making sure that everyone has healthcare insurance, that seems simply common sense. Because in healthcare there is no choice. If someone gets ill it's better to do something about it sooner than later. If you wait till later it will get much worse (life threatening) at which moment the medical costs will be much higher. And those costs need to be paid too.
So by making sure everyone has access to healthcare all the time you save everyone a big bunch of money! Don't believe me? Compare the amounts the US is spending on healthcare per gross domestic product compared to other developed coutries (tip: it's much higher) Link to WHO.
And that while all this money is used to pamper a few very rich on one hand and to perform the basic life threatening procedures on the rest.
Let's hope not. The ITER project (link for which this simulation is intended, is planning to have first plasma in 2020. Which means that the simulation, when run in 2018, will be just about in time for making last ajustments in the steering of the magnes and other anti EMP measures that are in place.
To me this seems like a classic case of a big player playing a game of extorsion with a small supplier.
It's as old as the street. Typical example: big retail player (think Wall Mart) says to small supplier: OK this is your big break. You can start delivering your product (say canned beans) to us. The initial order will be around 100 tons/month at 5c per kilo. The small supplier can't believe his luck and starts investing in its production facilities massively to be able to cope with the enourmous volumes.
As they are nearing the delivering time big player says: wait. We need actually 500 tons but only at 3,5c per kilo.
The supplier has 2 choices: comply but the price will never cover the extra investments for the even higher volumes. Or not comply and that means immediate bankrupcy.
Of cource in this case the big player has made a mistake. The idea is to make demands that are feasable.
So in my opinion it's Microsoft being ruthless and stupid all over again like in good old times...
Ok. Then I have misread you. Your first post seemed to suggest that we shouldn't do anything about climate change because it would never work (and reading it back I see some nuance but it still strikes me as such).
The idea that a worldwide CO2 taks could be forced certainly appeals to me. I do not, however, share your revulsion for using CO2 numbers from governments. In fact since CO2 doesn't stop at the borders it will hard to make a model that accurately calculates the CO2 produced in a country (Belgium, e.g. where I live is only about 250 miles from one end to the other and it has the German Ruhr Industrial site, one of the biggers industry concentrations in Europe, close by).
And last but no least: I don't think I ignore the facts around global warming and I am in favor of any measure that could counteract it. Just to be clear: I think we SHOULD make a CO2 taks, that we HAVE to invest in solar and wind power and we MUST massively invest in fusion power. In my Original post I was being sarcastic...
Taxpayer-funded climate worriers wouldn't have a job if they disagreed with him.
From the IPCC website "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva"
So they are not taxpayer-funded...
Even if America went to ZERO EMISSIONS TODAY, it would not change anything.
Firstly: that's not true. Even though China has a much higher population than the US, the emissions per person in the US are that much higher that the US emits almost as much CO2 as China.
Secondly: The US, as one of the countries with the highest emissions should lead the efforst instead of standing back (or even blocking agreements).
Last but not least: you seem to say: I know climate change is real, I know we caused it. I jus't can't be bothered to actually do something about it. Because that may involve CO2 taxes (OH NO!!), or investing in Solar and Wind power (UGH) or even massively investing in fusion (e.g. the Iter project) (!!!!!)
No. Let's just keep going as we are today. I prefer to close my eyes. When things go wrong we 'll just hope for the best...
IPCC Synthesis report (link) P.4 (very first chapter): "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. "
So there IS an increased energy storage in the climate system according the IPCC. Which stands to reason: temprature increase (where before there was none) without a higher energy absorbtion is termodynamically nonsense.
Remember this Synthesis report (Summary for Policymakers
It's a 30 page document that is a simple and clear exposé of the current state of climate science on global warming. You can read what the current observations on climate change are, what it's causes are, how this will affect us, what the risks are, how we can mitigate these risks.
On every statement there is a confidence level and every statement refers to a longer more elaborate report that explains the science behind it in more detail. And if that is not enough: this second report (about 100 pages) refers to the reports of the different workgroups (physical evidence, impact of climate change and how to mitigate the impact). These reports of those workgroups are often more than 1000 pages and refer directly to actual publications and scientific studies.
So either you read the first part and you are convinced, or keep reading...
but the BBC should have stepped in and provided him with a chance to see a therapist and get some help
What makes you think that the BBC or anybody else can tell Jeremy Clarkson what to do?
All jokes aside: people who mess up their life (if all this information is actually correct) and then start on other people's lives must be stopped. Immediately.
Well, I don't know about everyboldy else. But in my case this is certainly false.
I love top gear and Jeremy Clarckson is the heart of it. That being said it was clear to me that he was an asshole and that the success of the show had only made it worse.
One should separate fact and fiction. The presenter from the human being: presenter: suberb, definitely has 'it'; human being: is he really??
This seems a bit extreme to me. I think the execise part is the poster story is actually the most important part.
After all: you live years taking in more calories than you need without growing fat. So clearly your body has a mechanism to regulate how much of the intake is converted to fat. It seems that exercise and a healty lifestyle keep this mechanism healty too.
So, I wouldn't go too extreme on the food part and just make sure you live, eat and sport healthyly.
Just my 2 cents....