There was a TAPR paper a year ago from guys who did chirp-mode radar on HF and plotted the entire surface of the earth via ionosphere skip. OK, it was low resolution, but very impressive.
Yes. SDRs have been used for NMR, CAT, and radar besides the usual communication stuff. One of the issues is whether they will turn from transmit to receive fast enough. If not, you might need two, or one of those cheap stick receivers and a converter.
Baofeng won't do all of the nice digital codecs and apps we would like you to be able to do. Indeed, it does just about what a Motorola tube taxicab radio could do in 1954. We have a lot of new stuff for you to do.
It would be possible to use it in a short-range transmit mode or as a receiver without a ham license. That said, I spend several years of my life helping to get rid of the Morse Code test for radio hams, so that smart folks like you could just take technical tests to get the license. They aren't that difficult. It might be worth your time.
In 1981, I worked in the NYIT Computer Graphics Lab as a disk operator, paid $2.15 per hour. We were creating the field of feature film computer graphics, but of course I was just a disk operator. I had never taken any computer courses, and indeed any math beyond algebra, and my bad grades got me into NYIT, which was open admissions as far as I know.
There were 8 or so other operators, mostly computer science students from C.W. Post University which was next-door to NYIT. By being admitted to Post, studying computer science, etc., they had all of the advantages.
And there was Rogue. Rogue was a text adventure program. And we had lots of terminals to run it upon.
While I was waiting for the next operator call, I read all of the documentation on Unix and C that existed in the world. There wasn't much of it back then. I started to hack Unix. I got a job as assistant systems programmer.
The other operators played Rogue.
I eventually moved on to Pixar, and various other interesting things. Perhaps those other guys have had great rewarding careers, but I don't hear much of them.
The rules say they can refuse a shipment that they believe to be illegal, and notify law enforcement, too.
Yes. The problem here is establishing when a tool is one for violating the law, and when is it just a tool. And courts can place much credence upon the creator's own explanation of the tool, which is damned incriminating, IMO.
So, what bothers me about this is the extent to which it impairs the transport of other similar tools, not this particular one.
I am no fan of firearms and would take them out of your (not cold and dead) hands if I could. That said, isn't FedEx a common carrier? There are rules for such things.
This is a "we'll all have flying cars" sort of paper by people who could not make flying cars but were convinced that they'd be here any moment.
Strong AI is the first "computer program" that has the potential to automate the act of creativity. Everything less can be a compiler, a pattern recognizer, an Uber driver, and in general a tool that does what it is told.
And we are not particularly closer to Strong AI than when it was first theorized.
I would be more impressed with a paper by people who could actually make the software these guys theorize about, rather than sophomoricaly discussing it.
That's actually what it's like at "Mojave Spaceport". Hangers of small aviation practicioners and their junk. Gary Hudson, Burt Rutan, etc. Old aircraft and parts strewn about. Left-over facilities from Rotary Rocket used by flight schools. A medium-sized facility for Orbital. Some big facilities for BAE, etc. An aircraft graveyard next door.
SS2 has not completed testing and it is probable that there will be a need for redesign of one or more components. So, this is a really bad time to have the hand-off. Publicity isn't a good reason.
There is no reason that we have to pick one and abandon work on the others. I don't see that the same resources go into solving more than one, except that the meteor and volcano problem have one solution in common - be on another planet when it happens.
The clathrate problem and nuclear war have the potential to end the human race while it is still on one planet, so we need to solve both of them ASAP.
Sure, there are going to be mediating forces in the environment. Melting is an obvious one. The positive feedbacks have been getting the most attention because they are really scary. It appears that there are gas clathrates in the ground and under water that can come out at a certain temperature. The worst case is that we get an event similar to Lake Nyos, but with a somewhat different mechanism and potentially many more dead. The best case is a significant atmospheric input of CO2 and methane that we can't control.
I don't think I have to discount Trenberth. He's trying to correct his model, he isn't saying there is no warming.
McKitrick is an economist out of his field. Trenberth and Fasullo cite many of their other papers and the publications to which they were submitted, but it seems mostly not accepted. But their conclusion seems to be that there were other times in recent years that the rate of warming decreased for a time only for it to return to its previous rate. I only see the abstract for Kosaka and Xie, but they state "the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."
No number is larger than any other number. Quantities are larger than other quantities. Numbers are symbolic entities that can represent a quantity, or not.
I imagine that the major financial companies make this part of their economic modeling. Most of them do publish weather-related and climate-related advisories regarding commodity and company price trends, etc. How detailed do they get? The wouldn't tell and I am the wrong kind of scientist to ask. Can we make a government or public one? Yes, the level of detail is the big question.
Oh, do I have to qualify that for you, like the hottest outside of a period of Milankovitch Forcing? Gee, maybe the Earth's orbit changed, like back then, and we just didn't notice.
Let's take a look at one of the references you cited:
A section of a draft IPCC report, looking at short-term trends, says temperatures are likely to be 0.4 to 1.0 degree Celsius (0.7-1.8F) warmer from 2016-35 than in the two decades to 2005. Rain and snow may increase in areas that already have high precipitation and decline in areas with scarcity, it says.
Well, I am trying to get through to you. You wrote that the hiatus was widely acknowledged by scientists! It's like talking with someone who believes in god - they have no facts, and no facts will convince them, and they create their own "science" which is nothing of the sort to bolster their viewpoint. So, I tried another another argument. But let's go back to the first. Nobody credible believes in a hiatus.
Calling names isn't going to advance your argument.
Orbital models only have two variables when there are two bodies. In reality we are always dealing with an n-body problem. Regarding atmospheric models, we have weather, which is too chaotic to forecast, and climate, which should not be.
We could sit back 100 years and see what is happening then, so that we have lots of good data points, but potentially at the cost of widespread famine, death, etc.
We have excellent reasons to stop releasing sequestered carbon even if we ignore global warming.
If they can pull more people out of poverty, what the U.S. does won't matter to China and India because their domestic markets will be larger than the United States. Currently they have even worse social inequity than we do, and the poor performance of their own markets forces their own people to look elsewhere for work.
Yes, I'm also a solid Democrat. But this has been a long time coming and IMO it's even in line with Obama's recent agenda on the Middle Class! The problem with the guest worker programs is that they devalue the local workers by diluting the market for them. The effect is to create a sort of "disposable worker" from our own citizens.
Now, of course jobs can be sent overseas too, but if the alternatives are to have foreign workers work at home, or in the U.S., neither choice is a win for our own citizens.
It continues to seem silly to have such a thrust on STEM education in the U.S. when the job market for STEM workers consistently goes to overseas hires, whether they are here or in their home nations. We need to work on the job-export issue as well.
Nothing in that article disputes the confidence that the past decade was hottest. It simply disputes which year in that decade was the worst. Nor does it dispute that the trend is increasing temperature per year.
Well, we have perfectly good reasons to stop releasing sequestered carbon (by burning oil for fuel) even if we are to ignore the atmospheric output of the process. We have to work progressively harder to get a given energy input. Technological advances that allow us to extract additional sequestered carbon, like fracking, are not infinite in nature. Eventually we must reach an energy balance between the energy required for extraction and the source of energy extracted. So changes in the direction of reducing release of sequestered carbon and finding other energy inputs to society, or reducing the need for those inputs, are called for regardless of whether it is going to get too warm.
Decreasing doesn't mean reversing. And we have physical observation of ice melting, and releases of previously-sequestered gases on sea bottoms, underground, etc. These things all take a heat input. What happens when those buffers are spent and there is nothing to sink the heat input?
Slashdot Mirror
There was a TAPR paper a year ago from guys who did chirp-mode radar on HF and plotted the entire surface of the earth via ionosphere skip. OK, it was low resolution, but very impressive.
Yes. SDRs have been used for NMR, CAT, and radar besides the usual communication stuff. One of the issues is whether they will turn from transmit to receive fast enough. If not, you might need two, or one of those cheap stick receivers and a converter.
Baofeng won't do all of the nice digital codecs and apps we would like you to be able to do. Indeed, it does just about what a Motorola tube taxicab radio could do in 1954. We have a lot of new stuff for you to do.
Yeah, I have a KX3 and a CrankIR. I run FreeDV on them.
It would be possible to use it in a short-range transmit mode or as a receiver without a ham license. That said, I spend several years of my life helping to get rid of the Morse Code test for radio hams, so that smart folks like you could just take technical tests to get the license. They aren't that difficult. It might be worth your time.
More recently Public Defender Arrested While Defending Client and Video Shows Defense Attorney's Arrest Inside Courthouse. Obviously the police were way out of line and charges against the Attorney were dropped. I don't know if she will pursue the officers in court.
:-)
In 1981, I worked in the NYIT Computer Graphics Lab as a disk operator, paid $2.15 per hour. We were creating the field of feature film computer graphics, but of course I was just a disk operator. I had never taken any computer courses, and indeed any math beyond algebra, and my bad grades got me into NYIT, which was open admissions as far as I know.
There were 8 or so other operators, mostly computer science students from C.W. Post University which was next-door to NYIT. By being admitted to Post, studying computer science, etc., they had all of the advantages.
And there was Rogue. Rogue was a text adventure program. And we had lots of terminals to run it upon.
While I was waiting for the next operator call, I read all of the documentation on Unix and C that existed in the world. There wasn't much of it back then. I started to hack Unix. I got a job as assistant systems programmer.
The other operators played Rogue.
I eventually moved on to Pixar, and various other interesting things. Perhaps those other guys have had great rewarding careers, but I don't hear much of them.
Yes. The problem here is establishing when a tool is one for violating the law, and when is it just a tool. And courts can place much credence upon the creator's own explanation of the tool, which is damned incriminating, IMO.
So, what bothers me about this is the extent to which it impairs the transport of other similar tools, not this particular one.
I am no fan of firearms and would take them out of your (not cold and dead) hands if I could. That said, isn't FedEx a common carrier? There are rules for such things.
OK. People go crazy about sports. But this breathless commentary is a bit over the top.
This is a "we'll all have flying cars" sort of paper by people who could not make flying cars but were convinced that they'd be here any moment.
Strong AI is the first "computer program" that has the potential to automate the act of creativity. Everything less can be a compiler, a pattern recognizer, an Uber driver, and in general a tool that does what it is told .
And we are not particularly closer to Strong AI than when it was first theorized.
I would be more impressed with a paper by people who could actually make the software these guys theorize about, rather than sophomoricaly discussing it.
That's actually what it's like at "Mojave Spaceport". Hangers of small aviation practicioners and their junk. Gary Hudson, Burt Rutan, etc. Old aircraft and parts strewn about. Left-over facilities from Rotary Rocket used by flight schools. A medium-sized facility for Orbital. Some big facilities for BAE, etc. An aircraft graveyard next door.
SS2 has not completed testing and it is probable that there will be a need for redesign of one or more components. So, this is a really bad time to have the hand-off. Publicity isn't a good reason.
There is no reason that we have to pick one and abandon work on the others. I don't see that the same resources go into solving more than one, except that the meteor and volcano problem have one solution in common - be on another planet when it happens.
The clathrate problem and nuclear war have the potential to end the human race while it is still on one planet, so we need to solve both of them ASAP.
Sure, there are going to be mediating forces in the environment. Melting is an obvious one. The positive feedbacks have been getting the most attention because they are really scary. It appears that there are gas clathrates in the ground and under water that can come out at a certain temperature. The worst case is that we get an event similar to Lake Nyos, but with a somewhat different mechanism and potentially many more dead. The best case is a significant atmospheric input of CO2 and methane that we can't control.
I don't think I have to discount Trenberth. He's trying to correct his model, he isn't saying there is no warming.
Thanks.
McKitrick is an economist out of his field. Trenberth and Fasullo cite many of their other papers and the publications to which they were submitted, but it seems mostly not accepted. But their conclusion seems to be that there were other times in recent years that the rate of warming decreased for a time only for it to return to its previous rate. I only see the abstract for Kosaka and Xie, but they state "the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."
No number is larger than any other number. Quantities are larger than other quantities. Numbers are symbolic entities that can represent a quantity, or not.
I imagine that the major financial companies make this part of their economic modeling. Most of them do publish weather-related and climate-related advisories regarding commodity and company price trends, etc. How detailed do they get? The wouldn't tell and I am the wrong kind of scientist to ask. Can we make a government or public one? Yes, the level of detail is the big question.
Oh, do I have to qualify that for you, like the hottest outside of a period of Milankovitch Forcing? Gee, maybe the Earth's orbit changed, like back then, and we just didn't notice.
Let's take a look at one of the references you cited:
It sounds like we have reason to be alarmed.
Well, I am trying to get through to you. You wrote that the hiatus was widely acknowledged by scientists! It's like talking with someone who believes in god - they have no facts, and no facts will convince them, and they create their own "science" which is nothing of the sort to bolster their viewpoint. So, I tried another another argument. But let's go back to the first. Nobody credible believes in a hiatus.
Calling names isn't going to advance your argument.
Orbital models only have two variables when there are two bodies. In reality we are always dealing with an n-body problem. Regarding atmospheric models, we have weather, which is too chaotic to forecast, and climate, which should not be.
We could sit back 100 years and see what is happening then, so that we have lots of good data points, but potentially at the cost of widespread famine, death, etc.
We have excellent reasons to stop releasing sequestered carbon even if we ignore global warming.
If they can pull more people out of poverty, what the U.S. does won't matter to China and India because their domestic markets will be larger than the United States. Currently they have even worse social inequity than we do, and the poor performance of their own markets forces their own people to look elsewhere for work.
Yes, I'm also a solid Democrat. But this has been a long time coming and IMO it's even in line with Obama's recent agenda on the Middle Class! The problem with the guest worker programs is that they devalue the local workers by diluting the market for them. The effect is to create a sort of "disposable worker" from our own citizens.
Now, of course jobs can be sent overseas too, but if the alternatives are to have foreign workers work at home, or in the U.S., neither choice is a win for our own citizens.
It continues to seem silly to have such a thrust on STEM education in the U.S. when the job market for STEM workers consistently goes to overseas hires, whether they are here or in their home nations. We need to work on the job-export issue as well.
Nothing in that article disputes the confidence that the past decade was hottest. It simply disputes which year in that decade was the worst. Nor does it dispute that the trend is increasing temperature per year.
Well, we have perfectly good reasons to stop releasing sequestered carbon (by burning oil for fuel) even if we are to ignore the atmospheric output of the process. We have to work progressively harder to get a given energy input. Technological advances that allow us to extract additional sequestered carbon, like fracking, are not infinite in nature. Eventually we must reach an energy balance between the energy required for extraction and the source of energy extracted. So changes in the direction of reducing release of sequestered carbon and finding other energy inputs to society, or reducing the need for those inputs, are called for regardless of whether it is going to get too warm.
Decreasing doesn't mean reversing. And we have physical observation of ice melting, and releases of previously-sequestered gases on sea bottoms, underground, etc. These things all take a heat input. What happens when those buffers are spent and there is nothing to sink the heat input?