If we could do real-time super-resolution in 2015, then it makes sense to me that, with some processing time, cell phone cameras in 2015 will render 3D-model textures and models.
The ensuing arguments about "stealing" IP will be interesting once this feature is combined with 3D printers.
One thing I've never quite understood is the supposed motivation for God's decision to frustrate these early skyscraper builders. It hardly seems like much of a sin to me, though by Old Testament standards, being scattered across the Earth and being made to speak a different language seems to be getting off easy. Any/. Xians want to have a crack at answering?
Can you really look at this information, then confidently declare that human actions are the main determinant of climate change?
Well, no, because that graph is over such a large timescale that it doesn't show the human effect on climate! Have a look at one that does and then confidently declare that human actions aren't making a huge difference.
CO2 is going up at the same time the Climate changes. That DOES NOT mean that CO2 is causing the Climate change.
No it doesn't. Necessarily. But it's the prime candidate. Basic physics suggests that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to a greenhouse effect.
So today, since CO2 is entering the atmo and the temp is going up a bit, all our models focus on that. It's bad science pure and simple.
You have a complete lack of understanding of how science works.
It's worse science because anyone who looks at other data, like the increased output of the Sun, they are pointed at and called Heretic!
Because no one has yet found a decent correlation, and no one has found any evidence that increased CO2 concentrations isn't the main culprit.
For a "science" the study of Global Climate change is far, far too editorialized in scientific journals, look at how Lomborg was treated in regards to the Skeptical Environmentalist
"Too editorialized"? What the hell do you mean? Do you have even the faintest idea how scientific journals operate?
Lomborg was a hack, a "scientist" with a background in politics who was treated far more gently than he deserved.
I'm inclined to believe that it's a largely natural process, and we might have sped it by an insignificant amount; the cause, though, is a bit moot.
I love the way totally uninformed people think they can just decide what to believe in the same way they can choose what flavour of ice-cream they want for dessert.
Of course, you could listen to what the experts in the field who have done the research have to say about it.
Yeah, it annoys me. How do they know where the "tipping point" is? Seems pretty arrogant to make such a claim when we understand so VERY little about the planet's various systems work.
Yes, very fucking arrogant do actually do the research and then report on what their results point to! What do you suggest, that all climatologists just throw their hands up, admit defeat and decide the climate is not understandable?
And of course it wouldn't be arrogant to dismiss these scientists' work out of hand with no explanation! I think it's a fair bet that you haven't read their work. Hell, I bet you haven't even RTFA.
We really have a huge lack of evidence about global warming.
No we don't. This is known as "argument by assertion". What, out of the current masses of evidence for human-influenced climate change do you disagree with?
The earth is warming yes, but are we causing it?
Yes. You're welcome.
The eart has gone to drastic changes over the course of several million years.
Leaving aside your spelling and grammar mistakes, your point is? The Earth has undergone changes over millions of years, yes, but the current changes can be measured over decades.
Within the past 10,000 years, glaicers have formed and receeded in northern Europe and North America. Not too long ago, Chicago was covered in ice. It's why there is so much good farm land up near Indiana.
Non sequiturs.
The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption.
No you didn't spell it right and I have no idea what you might be referring to.
On top of this, many geologists believe that we are currently in an Ice Age and we're on the cooling side of it!
First, evidence for this statement? Second, if they did, that would surely be more of an argument that it is our species' influence that is heating up the Earth.
I have always wondered why we should put any stock in the long-term predictions of climate models, when we can't even produce accurate weather forecasts beyond about two weeks.
If you toss two coins, it's very difficult to predict how many heads you'll get. On the other hand, if you toss a thousand coins, you can say fairly confidently that you'll get close to 500 heads.
It's the same principle: in many systems, long term effects are much easier to predict that short term effects.
Re:Waiting for apps isn't annoying, focus stealing
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Any idea if it also ensures that the app is launched on the virtual desktop that you started from, rather than jumping up wherever you happen to be when it finally loads?
In other words, Bush saved thousand, if not tens of thousands of lives. The deaths can be put squarely on the government of Louisiana and New Orleans.
Whoah, whoah. That's a hell of a claim. Just because Bush made the call does not mean a mandatory evacuation would not have been made otherwise.
Not that things couldn't have been done faster -- they could have. But Bush is getting way too much of the blame here. The feds are not designed to move fast, combined with the fact that it was an incredible mess, and it doesn't help when people are shooting at the rescuers.
The feds are not designed to move fast? Who gives a shit? People were dying, and nothing was being done. Bush et al could and should have had supplies cached well before the hurricane even hit, and they should have been evacuating people as soon as the hurricane cleared. Who cares where in the chain of command the fuckup occurred? It's ultimately Bush's responsibility, and he failed. Miserably.
And the rescuers, or whoever was in charge, are a bunch of fucking pussies. The small chance of an injury to a few people, based on some vague reports of shots, simply does not begin to stack up against tens of thousands of people dying of dehydration.
But in all seriousness, take a look at what's going on down there. There is an insane amount of looting and anarchy, stores are being looted, people are hoarding anything they can find. Hell, even reports of horrible crimes such as rape have been going around, because there is no way to control a mob the size of a city...
Who gives a fuck about tellies getting nicked when people are dehydrating to death? You don't need to control the city, just fly in supplies and fly people out!
It's a theory, but all the evidence supports it. You will not of course observe evolution of a highly complex organism such as a mammal from a single-celled organism within a human observable time frame.
Notice the part about "but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability" ?
Your claim was not that global warming was not due to human influence, but that it might not be occurring. At least you seem to have dropped that absurd position.
Also, measured warming is 0.8 degrees (C) in 100 years. Yes, it's warming, but that's not really terribly dramatic.
It is not the warming itself that is so dramatic, but the rate of warming. The rate of increase over the last century is apparently the most rapid warming in the planet's entire history. If it continues at the same rate over the next century or two, we're in big trouble.
All I'm saying is that there is some doubt that humans are causing global warming, and the extent to which the climate is changing. If that makes me ridiculous in your eyes, then that's OK by me.
There is indeed doubt as to the extent to which climate change is occurring: it's very difficult to predict. However, the general trends are apparent.
There is practically no doubt that humans are contributing to global warming. There is some doubt as to the extent to which we are responsible; however, the experts in the field overwhelmingly think it's largely down to us. The warming is very well correlated with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The only comparitive reference I found was from the government of Romania:
Red herring. You can only compare countries of similar economic status. The US GDP is $2128 per ton of CO2 produced, whereas the same ratio for the EU is $3781. Such comparisons are quite crude though -- the only relevant statistic is total CO2 produced.
Perhaps if this were an isolated case, this graph would mean very little, but there are many cities in the US experiencing long term temperature declines.
Hence the term "climate change" rather than global warming. Changes in local temperatures may be downwards, but overall the world is heating up dramatically. Not even the most sceptical scientist would deny this and you make yourself look ridiculous if you do.
And not the EU as a whole: The rate of increase has slowed however; it takes some time to turn policy around. I'm confident the EU will get there. Even if they don't, they can make up the shortfall through emissions trading.
Carbon intensity has been dropping 14.52% per decade 1950-2000 in the US, even with cheap gas during much of that time.
I said the US was bad at it because the ratio of GDP:CO2 emissions is about half that of the EU countries.
As for the difference between the US and the EU in GDP/CO2, I honestly don't know what could cause that large a difference. A couple possible contributors: The US is bigger, and the major population centers are on opposite sides of the country, so fuel costs for shipping are higher. Also, large consumer automobiles are far more common in the US than the EU. (Note that I'm all in favor of measures to encourage the use of smaller cars in the US.)
Also, fuel is much more lightly taxed in the US, the US has much lighter penalties for polluting, the US has only rudimentary public transport systems between (and in) most cities, public consciousness about CO2 emissions is lower, etc. etc.
However, the numbers for China and India, both of which have about three times the GDP growth rate of the US or EU, should be of much more concern.
They are of great concern, and are a major motivation for Kyoto. Without some form of international agreement, then they can produce as much CO2 as they like (like the US does currently). Once they are producing CO2 levels at similar levels per capita as the US, we're fucked.
The increased oil consumption of these two countries is largely responsible for the increase in oil prices this year, yet neither one is considered even an Annex I country under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol, meaning they are both exempt from the CO2 reduction requirements.
Kyoto is an attempt to restrict their growth. As soon as those countries are producing enough CO2 to become an Annex I country, they face restrictions on emissions -- so they have an incentive to restrict growth in CO2 emissions. To say China and India are exempt from the protocol is disingenuous.
Kyoto isn't perfect but it's a lot better than no treaty.
The US (apart from Australia) is the only country of note in the world who hasn't signed the treaty. And it would probably find it the easiest to implement.
I've spent my life working in the statistical modeling field and have an extensive background in numerous scientific and damn near every engineering field (see profile)
Can I see a list of your publications?
Current models are all over the place as to what they predict and in almost every case what they predict isn't even close by an order of magnitude to what has happened in that past.
That's not to say that we can't do more to reduce carbon emissions, but with temperatures falling in some places, there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation:
In general, there is a self righteous feeling amongst non-Americans (especially from pro Kyoto treaty Europeans), but keep in mind please that very few European nations are even meeting their Kyoto targets:
Early days yet; the target date is 2010. You might notice that those countries are at least cutting emissions (unlike the US), so they are making an attempt to comply with Kyoto; also, countries can buy carbon credits (as I believe the Netherlands has already done so) which the article fails to take into account.
Kyoto is a 'first step', but many nations supporting that first step aren't actually taking it, making it "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." [Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5]
Shakespeare is a less convincing source of authority than Michael Crichton.
The real key is reducing our economic carbon intensity (generating more money with fewer carbon emissions). We in the United States are already doing that quite well.
Citation please. The US is actually quite bad at this.
The reason the US didn't sign Kyoto is because developing nations were made exempt from the conditions of the treaty. They were made exempt because they were viewed as being less able to afford such changes.
Developing nations were not made exempt from the treaty, so your argument is false.
A better measure of what's being done with one's energy consumption isn't per-capita, it's per-dollar-GDP.
Well I think China still comes out ahead (it's close though). However, lets look at the difference between the USA and EU:
USA GDP in US$: 12,438,873,000,000 EU GDP in US$: 13,926,873,000,000
USA CO2 emissions (tons) = 5,844,042,000 EU CO2 emissions (tons) = 3,682,755,000
USA GDP($):1 ton CO2 = 2128 EU GDP($):1 ton CO2 = 3781
So the USA is much less efficient than the EU countries.
S/he wasn't whinging. Darkwhite was merely stating what it would take for him or her to use the Gimp; entirely acceptable in a discussion-oriented website in a story about the Gimp's interface.
Since the Gimp developers have asked for evaluation by OpenUsability, that would seem to me to be a solicitation for comments by the app's users about its interface.
Slashdot Mirror
If we could do real-time super-resolution in 2015, then it makes sense to me that, with some processing time, cell phone cameras in 2015 will render 3D-model textures and models.
The ensuing arguments about "stealing" IP will be interesting once this feature is combined with 3D printers.
One thing I've never quite understood is the supposed motivation for God's decision to frustrate these early skyscraper builders. It hardly seems like much of a sin to me, though by Old Testament standards, being scattered across the Earth and being made to speak a different language seems to be getting off easy. Any /. Xians want to have a crack at answering?
Can you really look at this information, then confidently declare that human actions are the main determinant of climate change?
Well, no, because that graph is over such a large timescale that it doesn't show the human effect on climate! Have a look at one that does and then confidently declare that human actions aren't making a huge difference.
CO2 is going up at the same time the Climate changes. That DOES NOT mean that CO2 is causing the Climate change.
No it doesn't. Necessarily. But it's the prime candidate. Basic physics suggests that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to a greenhouse effect.
So today, since CO2 is entering the atmo and the temp is going up a bit, all our models focus on that. It's bad science pure and simple.
You have a complete lack of understanding of how science works.
It's worse science because anyone who looks at other data, like the increased output of the Sun, they are pointed at and called Heretic!
Because no one has yet found a decent correlation, and no one has found any evidence that increased CO2 concentrations isn't the main culprit.
For a "science" the study of Global Climate change is far, far too editorialized in scientific journals, look at how Lomborg was treated in regards to the Skeptical Environmentalist
"Too editorialized"? What the hell do you mean? Do you have even the faintest idea how scientific journals operate?
Lomborg was a hack, a "scientist" with a background in politics who was treated far more gently than he deserved.
I'm inclined to believe that it's a largely natural process, and we might have sped it by an insignificant amount; the cause, though, is a bit moot.
I love the way totally uninformed people think they can just decide what to believe in the same way they can choose what flavour of ice-cream they want for dessert.
Of course, you could listen to what the experts in the field who have done the research have to say about it.
Yeah, it annoys me. How do they know where the "tipping point" is? Seems pretty arrogant to make such a claim when we understand so VERY little about the planet's various systems work.
Yes, very fucking arrogant do actually do the research and then report on what their results point to! What do you suggest, that all climatologists just throw their hands up, admit defeat and decide the climate is not understandable?
And of course it wouldn't be arrogant to dismiss these scientists' work out of hand with no explanation! I think it's a fair bet that you haven't read their work. Hell, I bet you haven't even RTFA.
We really have a huge lack of evidence about global warming.
No we don't. This is known as "argument by assertion". What, out of the current masses of evidence for human-influenced climate change do you disagree with?
The earth is warming yes, but are we causing it?
Yes. You're welcome.
The eart has gone to drastic changes over the course of several million years.
Leaving aside your spelling and grammar mistakes, your point is? The Earth has undergone changes over millions of years, yes, but the current changes can be measured over decades.
Within the past 10,000 years, glaicers have formed and receeded in northern Europe and North America. Not too long ago, Chicago was covered in ice. It's why there is so much good farm land up near Indiana.
Non sequiturs.
The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption.
No you didn't spell it right and I have no idea what you might be referring to.
On top of this, many geologists believe that we are currently in an Ice Age and we're on the cooling side of it!
First, evidence for this statement? Second, if they did, that would surely be more of an argument that it is our species' influence that is heating up the Earth.
I have always wondered why we should put any stock in the long-term predictions of climate models, when we can't even produce accurate weather forecasts beyond about two weeks.
If you toss two coins, it's very difficult to predict how many heads you'll get. On the other hand, if you toss a thousand coins, you can say fairly confidently that you'll get close to 500 heads.
It's the same principle: in many systems, long term effects are much easier to predict that short term effects.
Any idea if it also ensures that the app is launched on the virtual desktop that you started from, rather than jumping up wherever you happen to be when it finally loads?
In other words, Bush saved thousand, if not tens of thousands of lives. The deaths can be put squarely on the government of Louisiana and New Orleans.
Whoah, whoah. That's a hell of a claim. Just because Bush made the call does not mean a mandatory evacuation would not have been made otherwise.
Not that things couldn't have been done faster -- they could have. But Bush is getting way too much of the blame here. The feds are not designed to move fast, combined with the fact that it was an incredible mess, and it doesn't help when people are shooting at the rescuers.
The feds are not designed to move fast? Who gives a shit? People were dying, and nothing was being done. Bush et al could and should have had supplies cached well before the hurricane even hit, and they should have been evacuating people as soon as the hurricane cleared. Who cares where in the chain of command the fuckup occurred? It's ultimately Bush's responsibility, and he failed. Miserably.
And the rescuers, or whoever was in charge, are a bunch of fucking pussies. The small chance of an injury to a few people, based on some vague reports of shots, simply does not begin to stack up against tens of thousands of people dying of dehydration.
But in all seriousness, take a look at what's going on down there. There is an insane amount of looting and anarchy, stores are being looted, people are hoarding anything they can find. Hell, even reports of horrible crimes such as rape have been going around, because there is no way to control a mob the size of a city...
Who gives a fuck about tellies getting nicked when people are dehydrating to death? You don't need to control the city, just fly in supplies and fly people out!
Shouldn't that make the price go down (economies of scale)?
It's a theory, but all the evidence supports it. You will not of course observe evolution of a highly complex organism such as a mammal from a single-celled organism within a human observable time frame.
What originally I wrote was: "there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation"
Ah, I assumed you meant *both* global warming and human causation of it. And you have to admit "wiggle room" is more than a little vague.
It is not the warming itself that is so dramatic, but the rate of warming" No, the measured rate of warming is about 0.8 degrees C per century
I meant the higher orders of the increase.
Looking at the graph to which you linked, there were other time periods when warming moved similarly. Say about 550AD-600AD
Well I did say over a century.
We can handle that over the next 100 years no problem.
Not with no problem. We're already facing severe problems even if we don't increase emissions at all.
The REAL threat is a runaway acceleration caused by increased CO2 concentrations, and the climactic impact that those changes may have
Agreed.
Do I think it's worth making some effort to make sure that this doesn't happen? Heck Yes.
Like Kyoto? It's a brave attempt and saying "it sucks" doesn't help.
Notice the part about "but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability" ?
Your claim was not that global warming was not due to human influence, but that it might not be occurring. At least you seem to have dropped that absurd position.
Also, measured warming is 0.8 degrees (C) in 100 years. Yes, it's warming, but that's not really terribly dramatic.
It is not the warming itself that is so dramatic, but the rate of warming. The rate of increase over the last century is apparently the most rapid warming in the planet's entire history. If it continues at the same rate over the next century or two, we're in big trouble.
See this graph for a summary of the last 2k years.
All I'm saying is that there is some doubt that humans are causing global warming, and the extent to which the climate is changing. If that makes me ridiculous in your eyes, then that's OK by me.
There is indeed doubt as to the extent to which climate change is occurring: it's very difficult to predict. However, the general trends are apparent.
There is practically no doubt that humans are contributing to global warming. There is some doubt as to the extent to which we are responsible; however, the experts in the field overwhelmingly think it's largely down to us. The warming is very well correlated with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The only comparitive reference I found was from the government of Romania:
Red herring. You can only compare countries of similar economic status. The US GDP is $2128 per ton of CO2 produced, whereas the same ratio for the EU is $3781. Such comparisons are quite crude though -- the only relevant statistic is total CO2 produced.
We'll scrub CO2 from the atmosphere to build our carbon products!
And the energy to do this will come from...?
Perhaps if this were an isolated case, this graph would mean very little, but there are many cities in the US experiencing long term temperature declines.
Hence the term "climate change" rather than global warming. Changes in local temperatures may be downwards, but overall the world is heating up dramatically. Not even the most sceptical scientist would deny this and you make yourself look ridiculous if you do.
And not the EU as a whole:
The rate of increase has slowed however; it takes some time to turn policy around. I'm confident the EU will get there. Even if they don't, they can make up the shortfall through emissions trading.
Carbon intensity has been dropping 14.52% per decade 1950-2000 in the US, even with cheap gas during much of that time.
I said the US was bad at it because the ratio of GDP:CO2 emissions is about half that of the EU countries.
My sources were all from Wikipedia.
As for the difference between the US and the EU in GDP/CO2, I honestly don't know what could cause that large a difference. A couple possible contributors: The US is bigger, and the major population centers are on opposite sides of the country, so fuel costs for shipping are higher. Also, large consumer automobiles are far more common in the US than the EU. (Note that I'm all in favor of measures to encourage the use of smaller cars in the US.)
Also, fuel is much more lightly taxed in the US, the US has much lighter penalties for polluting, the US has only rudimentary public transport systems between (and in) most cities, public consciousness about CO2 emissions is lower, etc. etc.
However, the numbers for China and India, both of which have about three times the GDP growth rate of the US or EU, should be of much more concern.
They are of great concern, and are a major motivation for Kyoto. Without some form of international agreement, then they can produce as much CO2 as they like (like the US does currently). Once they are producing CO2 levels at similar levels per capita as the US, we're fucked.
The increased oil consumption of these two countries is largely responsible for the increase in oil prices this year, yet neither one is considered even an Annex I country under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol, meaning they are both exempt from the CO2 reduction requirements.
Kyoto is an attempt to restrict their growth. As soon as those countries are producing enough CO2 to become an Annex I country, they face restrictions on emissions -- so they have an incentive to restrict growth in CO2 emissions. To say China and India are exempt from the protocol is disingenuous.
Kyoto isn't perfect but it's a lot better than no treaty.
The US (apart from Australia) is the only country of note in the world who hasn't signed the treaty. And it would probably find it the easiest to implement.
Secondly, global warming is not a theory. It is a fact.
No, it is a theory supported by computer models that may or may not have any relation to reality.
You don't need to look at any models. Just look at the data!
I've spent my life working in the statistical modeling field and have an extensive background in numerous scientific and damn near every engineering field (see profile)
Can I see a list of your publications?
Current models are all over the place as to what they predict and in almost every case what they predict isn't even close by an order of magnitude to what has happened in that past.
Citations please.
That's not to say that we can't do more to reduce carbon emissions, but with temperatures falling in some places, there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation:
That graph doesn't mean anything. Have a look at some global ones
In general, there is a self righteous feeling amongst non-Americans (especially from pro Kyoto treaty Europeans), but keep in mind please that very few European nations are even meeting their Kyoto targets:
Early days yet; the target date is 2010. You might notice that those countries are at least cutting emissions (unlike the US), so they are making an attempt to comply with Kyoto; also, countries can buy carbon credits (as I believe the Netherlands has already done so) which the article fails to take into account.
Kyoto is a 'first step', but many nations supporting that first step aren't actually taking it, making it "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." [Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5]
Shakespeare is a less convincing source of authority than Michael Crichton.
The real key is reducing our economic carbon intensity (generating more money with fewer carbon emissions). We in the United States are already doing that quite well.
Citation please. The US is actually quite bad at this.
The reason the US didn't sign Kyoto is because developing nations were made exempt from the conditions of the treaty. They were made exempt because they were viewed as being less able to afford such changes.
Developing nations were not made exempt from the treaty, so your argument is false.
A better measure of what's being done with one's energy consumption isn't per-capita, it's per-dollar-GDP.
Well I think China still comes out ahead (it's close though). However, lets look at the difference between the USA and EU:
USA GDP in US$: 12,438,873,000,000
EU GDP in US$: 13,926,873,000,000
USA CO2 emissions (tons) = 5,844,042,000
EU CO2 emissions (tons) = 3,682,755,000
USA GDP($):1 ton CO2 = 2128
EU GDP($):1 ton CO2 = 3781
So the USA is much less efficient than the EU countries.
One scientists study... or a group of scientists work... should be taken with a grain of salt.
How about hundreds of studies?
could easily be "to some means of determining if the player is in danger of losing the game."
This sounds a bit awkward if used repeatedly.
or even better "to some means of determining if they're in danger of losing the game."
Inelegant. The player is not plural so should not be referred to as "they".
If it helps, I was looking for a residential broadband provider and they've just been crossed off my list.
S/he wasn't whinging. Darkwhite was merely stating what it would take for him or her to use the Gimp; entirely acceptable in a discussion-oriented website in a story about the Gimp's interface.
Since the Gimp developers have asked for evaluation by OpenUsability, that would seem to me to be a solicitation for comments by the app's users about its interface.