The curious thing about this is that the US leads the world in high technology companies in many areas.
Perhaps average adult scores don't matter that much. The distributions might be more important. Perhaps in the US there are enough really smart people to create Unix, C, SQL and many other things.
Also, for the record, I'm a non-American who has lived in the US and Europe. It's fascinating that to an outsider the US doesn't appear to have a surplus of intelligence and yet dominates in IT and many other scientific fields.
Gordon's Paper has been thoroughly investigated by Roger Pielke Jnr at the Breakthrough Institute.
Gordon's smoothing of growth fails to show the variability and creates a picture of trends that are not really there. A quote from the article linked above: In short, there is no evidence of a stair step reduction in the growth rate of US per capita GDP in either dataset. The US BEA and Census data shows essentially no change (a linear trend, blue line, shows a statistically insignificant downward tick) whereas the Maddison data shows a bit of an increase (red line). The data is sensitive to the time period chosen – for instance, from 1970 the BEA/Census data shows an increase in the annual rate of per capita GDP growth. I can find no evidence of a post-1950 secular decline in per capita economic growth in the United States, and in fact, there is evidence that growth rates have accelerated a bit from 1970.
Ironically the troll at the top of the comment tree is correct.
The growth in renewable is actually primarily in biofuels, the majority of which is corn ethanol, which is produced, as Paul Gigot pointed out, by combining corn and taxpayer dollars.
Here is what climate scientist Edward Cook wrote regarding the accuracy of dendroclimatology:
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).
Here is what Phil Jones said in his BBC interview regarding the Medieval Warm Period:
There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
So Phil Jones is unsure if the MWP was global in extent and Edward Cook thinks we have very little idea at all. Perhaps the certainty in wikipedia is overstated.
The US cap and trade on sulphur dioxide emissions was passed in 1990. Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[15][16] However, this was significantly less successful than conventional regulation in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[17]
S02 emissions were also falling from a peak in the late 1970s toward the 1990s, in other words the US S02 trading scheme was on an already declining path and was less successful than more direct European approaches.
S02 emissions trading was also local and not between countries which is another area where the proposed Green House Gas emissions trading schemes fall down. A corrupt county can just 'create' permits and then sell them. This has already happened with European and other schemes.
A tax would be a much more honest, much more transparent scheme than an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). ETS type solutions are attractive largely because politicians don't have to say they are a new tax, they can be easily gamed by giving out free permits and Enron style firms (including Enron itself before it went bankrupt) see a potential bonanza.
You're right about controls. The current smart phones have poor controls. Buttons are heaps better. The on screen joysticks for smartphones don't cut it.
With blue tooth you can have dedicated controls as an add on. The n900 can use the wiimote.
The iphone is a fine device. But your statement wildly overstates impact and improvements of the iphone over other phones.
In 1997 a reasonable phone looked like the 1997 Nokia 3110. By 2007 Nokia had the N95
In the 10 years till 2007 mobile phones, before the iphone had the following improvements:
The 1999 and further Blackberries that changed mobile devices massively, possibly more than the iphone by giving people good mobile communications. Barack Obama was not addicted to updating facebook on his iphone, it was Blackberry.
mp3 players
net browsers, albeit not as good as the iphone's
gigabyte flash storage
mulit-megapixel cameras.
But yeah, other than that, there hadn't been that much improvement....
Below is an exact answer to part of the question of 3 reputable climate scientists who disagree with the consensus. The original was moderated to -1. If you are moderating and moderate views that you disagree with down even when they explicitly answer the question posed you are a lousy moderator.
So here again. 4 reputable climate scientists who disagree with what is above:
Richard Lindzen Pat Michaels Roy Spencer Roger Pielke Snr
Look at the list of those who disagree on wikipedia and check the Senate Minority list for hundreds more.
here are 4 reputable scientists who disagree with the consensus:
Richard Lindzen Pat Michaels Roy Spencer Roger Pielke Snr
There is a whole page of them on that most hidden of sites, wikipedia. The page of scientists who oppose the consensus is worth looking at for getting some names. Then go and see what they say, wikipedia falls over on this because there is an edit war that is dominated by alarmists, so it can be difficult to see what they actually say themselves.
There is also a list of 650 or so scientists who disagree with global warming alarmism, the Senate Minority list has them.
They may be wrong, but there are way more than 3 scientists who are prepared to go on the record and speak out against global warming alarmism.
True, part of it probably is the way I read. However it seems to be the way quite a few people are.
That's true about some jokes working better in print. Douglas Adam's books have great jokes about ideas and words that work better in print than in other media.
But, in general, the devices available live appeal more. The big point is that the parent post was unfairly marked as a troll when the guy was probably was expressing his point of view and a point of view that is probably held by quite a few people here.
This is no troll. Humour in books doesn't work as well as it does on film, TV or live.
There are few books I've found to be really funny, and I read 30+ books a year. Douglas Adams' books along with say Catch-22 and maybe Running with Scissors are about the only ones that come to mind.
Humour works better when you can have the jokes delivered with timing. I've found audio books make some books much funnier when it's done well.
Even film has it's weaknesses for humour. Film tends to want a narrative to drive things and there often isn't enough time for character development. TV is better. I'd prefer The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Yes Prime Minister, Drop the Dead Donkey, Faulty Towers and Monty Python to most comedy films any day.
And what's really great about slashdot is that it is also classic slashdot for people like you and others to come in with figures and good information and very correctly point out that the claim is BS.
So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?
If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible. It's worth spending money to find this out. Bjorn Lomborg, who is loathed by most environmentalists recommends spending more on alternative energy research. Anthorny Watts would probably approve spending more on this kind of fusion research.
Surely if the US and the Europe, that would collectively spend about 700 Bn a YEAR on defence are serious about alternative energy this should be funded more.
We as Chinese will feel unsafe until our technology is superior to yours. We cannot yet sleep safely at night.
As your economy, due to shocking mis-management and two unwise wars is already effectively depends on our savings we don't think that overtaking your military technology will be too tough in the next 50 years.
We believe that we must be ready for any contingency. With 4 times as many people and sustained 7 percent plus growth rates we will approach, catch and overtake you.
It's surprising that no one here on slashdot has pointed out that a major difference between the html and gopher was that gopher services had to get a licence from the University of Minnesota while http servers could be constructed without a licence.
Free open software with free open standards is what got the web going.
Second Life is not really popular. Linden Labs have brilliant PR people who have managed to get far, far more press for Second Life than it deserves.
Check The Register on what the refer to as sadville. In particular check out the phony economics of sadville. At the bottom of that page there are links to a number of other articles about it.
Clearly there are some people who get something out of it, but they are a pretty small bunch in the scheme of things. Compared to the MMOs and online gaming for the FPSs it's pretty small.
You are absolutely right that this story shouldn't be posted.
However, just out of curiosity I checked the PSP's sales and read up on on the PSP. The PSP is the eighth best selling console of all time. It's surprisingly successful for a device that is often thought of as a failure compared to the DS.
Daniel Pipes founded Campus Watch an organisation dedicated to making sure that Americans only get a rabidly pro-Israel view in a McCarthyesque way, i.e. lists of those who disagree with his own fascist views.
He favours profiling and internment of Muslims in the United States.
The Daniel Pipes entry at sourcewatch is quite a read.
Slashdot Mirror
The curious thing about this is that the US leads the world in high technology companies in many areas.
Perhaps average adult scores don't matter that much. The distributions might be more important. Perhaps in the US there are enough really smart people to create Unix, C, SQL and many other things.
Also, for the record, I'm a non-American who has lived in the US and Europe. It's fascinating that to an outsider the US doesn't appear to have a surplus of intelligence and yet dominates in IT and many other scientific fields.
Gordon's Paper has been thoroughly investigated by Roger Pielke Jnr at the Breakthrough Institute.
Gordon's smoothing of growth fails to show the variability and creates a picture of trends that are not really there. A quote from the article linked above:
In short, there is no evidence of a stair step reduction in the growth rate of US per capita GDP in either dataset. The US BEA and Census data shows essentially no change (a linear trend, blue line, shows a statistically insignificant downward tick) whereas the Maddison data shows a bit of an increase (red line). The data is sensitive to the time period chosen – for instance, from 1970 the BEA/Census data shows an increase in the annual rate of per capita GDP growth. I can find no evidence of a post-1950 secular decline in per capita economic growth in the United States, and in fact, there is evidence that growth rates have accelerated a bit from 1970.
Ironically the troll at the top of the comment tree is correct.
The growth in renewable is actually primarily in biofuels, the majority of which is corn ethanol, which is produced, as Paul Gigot pointed out, by combining corn and taxpayer dollars.
This is far from the first electric bus setup.
Around 100 years ago something similar was tried in London. The service collapsed in 1909.
With a bus fleet BTW you can do as they did 100 years ago and just swap out battery packs alleviating the need for long recharging times.
Here is what climate scientist Edward Cook wrote regarding the accuracy of dendroclimatology:
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).
From the climategate emails
Here is what Phil Jones said in his BBC interview regarding the Medieval Warm Period:
There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
So Phil Jones is unsure if the MWP was global in extent and Edward Cook thinks we have very little idea at all. Perhaps the certainty in wikipedia is overstated.
The US cap and trade on sulphur dioxide emissions was passed in 1990.
Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[15][16] However, this was significantly less successful than conventional regulation in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[17]
S02 emissions were also falling from a peak in the late 1970s toward the 1990s, in other words the US S02 trading scheme was on an already declining path and was less successful than more direct European approaches.
S02 emissions trading was also local and not between countries which is another area where the proposed Green House Gas emissions trading schemes fall down. A corrupt county can just 'create' permits and then sell them. This has already happened with European and other schemes.
A tax would be a much more honest, much more transparent scheme than an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). ETS type solutions are attractive largely because politicians don't have to say they are a new tax, they can be easily gamed by giving out free permits and Enron style firms (including Enron itself before it went bankrupt) see a potential bonanza.
You're right about controls. The current smart phones have poor controls. Buttons are heaps better. The on screen joysticks for smartphones don't cut it.
With blue tooth you can have dedicated controls as an add on. The n900 can use the wiimote.
The iphone is a fine device. But your statement wildly overstates impact and improvements of the iphone over other phones.
In 1997 a reasonable phone looked like the 1997 Nokia 3110. By 2007 Nokia had the N95
In the 10 years till 2007 mobile phones, before the iphone had the following improvements:
But yeah, other than that, there hadn't been that much improvement....
Kilimanjaro has been retreating since the 1800s.
C02 in the atmosphere has only been shooting up since the 1950s. Pre-industrial C02 levels were about 2.8 parts per 10 000. As opposed to 4 or so now.
If these things pre-date C02's big increase this indicates a large role for natural climate variations.
This is what many skeptic say.
Below is an exact answer to part of the question of 3 reputable climate scientists who disagree with the consensus. The original was moderated to -1. If you are moderating and moderate views that you disagree with down even when they explicitly answer the question posed you are a lousy moderator.
So here again. 4 reputable climate scientists who disagree with what is above:
Richard Lindzen
Pat Michaels
Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Snr
Look at the list of those who disagree on wikipedia and check the Senate Minority list for hundreds more.
here are 4 reputable scientists who disagree with the consensus:
Richard Lindzen
Pat Michaels
Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Snr
There is a whole page of them on that most hidden of sites, wikipedia. The page of scientists who oppose the consensus is worth looking at for getting some names. Then go and see what they say, wikipedia falls over on this because there is an edit war that is dominated by alarmists, so it can be difficult to see what they actually say themselves.
There is also a list of 650 or so scientists who disagree with global warming alarmism, the Senate Minority list has them.
They may be wrong, but there are way more than 3 scientists who are prepared to go on the record and speak out against global warming alarmism.
True, part of it probably is the way I read. However it seems to be the way quite a few people are.
That's true about some jokes working better in print. Douglas Adam's books have great jokes about ideas and words that work better in print than in other media.
But, in general, the devices available live appeal more. The big point is that the parent post was unfairly marked as a troll when the guy was probably was expressing his point of view and a point of view that is probably held by quite a few people here.
Yeah, thanks, I have tried Pratchett and didn't like it. I keep meaning to read some more again and give it another chance.
Spaced is great. As are Black Books, The IT Crowd and The Inbetweeners.
This is no troll. Humour in books doesn't work as well as it does on film, TV or live.
There are few books I've found to be really funny, and I read 30+ books a year. Douglas Adams' books along with say Catch-22 and maybe Running with Scissors are about the only ones that come to mind.
Humour works better when you can have the jokes delivered with timing. I've found audio books make some books much funnier when it's done well.
Even film has it's weaknesses for humour. Film tends to want a narrative to drive things and there often isn't enough time for character development. TV is better. I'd prefer The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Yes Prime Minister, Drop the Dead Donkey, Faulty Towers and Monty Python to most comedy films any day.
Spot on.
And what's really great about slashdot is that it is also classic slashdot for people like you and others to come in with figures and good information and very correctly point out that the claim is BS.
That's why people stick around.
Exactly. The US is spending 2.6% of GDP on R & D. It is number two in the G7. Obama has said he wants to bring the spending up to 3.0%.
So the Europeans and the US governments say they are firmly convinced of dangerous anthropogenic global warming but they won't spend 15 Bn over 10 years to speed this up?
If fusion could be made to work for 2-3 times the cost of coal electricity massively reducing C02 emissions without massively cutting energy usage would be possible. It's worth spending money to find this out. Bjorn Lomborg, who is loathed by most environmentalists recommends spending more on alternative energy research. Anthorny Watts would probably approve spending more on this kind of fusion research.
Surely if the US and the Europe, that would collectively spend about 700 Bn a YEAR on defence are serious about alternative energy this should be funded more.
Steven Chu where are you?
We as Chinese will feel unsafe until our technology is superior to yours. We cannot yet sleep safely at night.
As your economy, due to shocking mis-management and two unwise wars is already effectively depends on our savings we don't think that overtaking your military technology will be too tough in the next 50 years.
We believe that we must be ready for any contingency. With 4 times as many people and sustained 7 percent plus growth rates we will approach, catch and overtake you.
You may not be able to sleep safely in future.
Or we could work out ways to get along.
It's surprising that no one here on slashdot has pointed out that a major difference between the html and gopher was that gopher services had to get a licence from the University of Minnesota while http servers could be constructed without a licence.
Free open software with free open standards is what got the web going.
Tiobe maintains a list that is updated every month that tells a different story.
For January 2009, rounded; Java, 19%; C, 16%; C++, 10%; VB, 9%; PHP, 10%.
Second Life is not really popular. Linden Labs have brilliant PR people who have managed to get far, far more press for Second Life than it deserves.
Check The Register on what the refer to as sadville. In particular check out the phony economics of sadville. At the bottom of that page there are links to a number of other articles about it.
Clearly there are some people who get something out of it, but they are a pretty small bunch in the scheme of things. Compared to the MMOs and online gaming for the FPSs it's pretty small.
You are absolutely right that this story shouldn't be posted.
However, just out of curiosity I checked the PSP's sales and read up on on the PSP. The PSP is the eighth best selling console of all time. It's surprisingly successful for a device that is often thought of as a failure compared to the DS.
Considering it's Apple it's called "committing an act of heresy" or "being excommunicated".
Daniel Pipes founded Campus Watch an organisation dedicated to making sure that Americans only get a rabidly pro-Israel view in a McCarthyesque way, i.e. lists of those who disagree with his own fascist views.
He favours profiling and internment of Muslims in the United States.
The Daniel Pipes entry at sourcewatch is quite a read.
Yeah. All that false god ever got them was 95% of the desktop operating system market.....
Microsoft did have a multi-platform extensible OS, Xenix but it wasn't what the market wanted.
You never know, perhaps their monopoly will be broken, but you would not bet on it.