Seriously the entire message with this ilk of 'solution' is:
"Hey people you can keep doing things just the way you always have, we the [engineers, scientists, politicians] have a silver bullet. Trust us."
There is no climate problem, there _is_ a problem with our rampant disregard for the limits of our resources and the grossly wasteful way we use them. The real problem how we treat our planet regardless of what the atmosphere is doing. Anyone waving a threat in your face without addressing the real issue is just looking for profit or power.
Served in the Navy and was at sea in the mid-Atlantic on two occasions when the Concorde flew overhead. On each occasion it sounded and felt like we had fired a round from our 5" forward turret. It was _loud_ and shook things up. There's no way it would be acceptable over a populated land mass.
You could look at the whole propagation of the ransomware as an attention getter, a brilliant advertising campaign that has netted the creator(s) many millions worth of advertising and street-cred. Wouldn't you hire this person/company now for your security needs, good or bad? Awesome.
It sounds like it's something along the lines of nodejs and npm. But frankly, the wording on anything about leaves the reader wondering, "Doesn't this already exist?"
People don't care. Government doesn't care. Not here not anywhere except maybe some students in a university course. The rest are oblivious or if aware they think it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. Who is affected by BIG PUBLISHING's stranglehold? Researchers that are not in an institution that pays subscription fees or that are behind an embargo/firewall etc. That's really not a lot of people in the big picture. And what alternatives are there for those researchers in this day and age? Well, get in touch with the author of the paper of interest and ask for a copy. Why not? Alternatively, why don't all authors make pre-prints available on their home pages? A publisher/publication typically requires a maximum 6-8 pages but every researcher has to trim the fat to achieve that. So publish the 'full' version on a home page and in arxiv.
Why is this modded to 'troll'? Was it because the modders read the details of the model used like the assumptions made and the degree of error in the predictions? Well, no it's not because those details aren't available. By extension, the predictions also aren't science because 'science' allows open review. The best one could say is that yeah, if Ethiopia gets hotter their coffee production could suffer. But we already knew that right? And as the post correctly points out, maybe it won't get hotter.
Think of the task, a small surface area (chip) that needs to shed a lot of heat by radiation. How quickly and how much energy (heat/infrared radiation) can the small surface pass to the surrounding atmosphere (fridge interior)? There's actually a physical limit to the amount of radiation from a perfect black body and a chip is not a perfect black body. So for a small low temp chip set, a computer in a fridge would be fine. For a modern high performance GPU, not so much. What a fan and liquid coolant do is move the energy from the chip to a much larger surface area complemented by convection (moving air between the plates).
Must be. Why i've not seen anyone use a flowchart since they were forced to in school. No sir, the _best_ way to code is just sit down with an idea and start banging out code. 'cause that's just the best way and everyone can do it. Yup, bang away run the code look at the errors correct them bang away run look... repeat until you get something that works as hoped once. Thinking about your code before coding? For absolute ninnies, not even noobs. And if you doubt the quality of the product well my friend you just have a browse through github or through the reams of quality apps in the app stores.
Besides you're hinting at something like turning documentation into code and that's just frickin' heresy. Ain't nobody got time for documentation if you're following the preceding coding process properly. Documentation is for the next sucker who looks at your code and who cares about them? Dumb question, dumb idea, now shut up with the questions and bang out some code loser.
This is as it should be. If you are arguing for government to deal with climate change then you are abdicating _your_ responsibilities in regard to climate change. Lobby your local government to make changes. Lobby your local companies to make changes. Turn away from corporations and their products that don't help with climate change. Do without the second and third family vehicle. Use mass transit. Turn off your air conditioning more often. Use public pools instead of getting one of your own. Turn off electrical and electronic devices you aren't using. Waste less. When we the people take responsibility for our climate and environment, then we'll see change. Leave it to government and all you will get is 'hot air' and higher taxes.
Trapping seems like a non-productive and destructive technique. It's also highly localized and possibly 80% of bugs in those areas now recognise the traps or conversely, all the bugs lacking the IQ to avoid the traps have been caught and hence removed from the gene pool.
As a side note: of the few entomologists that I've met, they all catch and kill bugs. So the story is kind of like hearing hunters complain about how there is less game in an area. "We've been shooting deer here for years. But these past few years there seem to be fewer of them around."
The math and physics _do_ restrict what is possible. There are limited frequencies available and bandwidth requirements limit what is usable and by how many. Mathematics (specifically information theory) quantifies the limits on the exchange of information and performance in noise.
In a vacuum, in the absence of any electromagnetic noise, in the presence of infinite number of frequencies, with error-free 1-bit encoding of all information, and a limitless supply of free energy to power transceivers, then vast mesh networks are possible. Start by dealing with each of those assumptions in turn and you begin to see what is holding back mesh networks long before you even start considering the economics and politics of implementation.
I'll go a step further: You're no longer exchanging a view, you are tacitly indicating that the correspondance is now one way: "me (and the boss) to you". Cc'ing any senior means you are at best a 'toady' sucking up to the senior or a 'bully' using the senior's e-presence to quell any discussion.
The action also has side effects. It can clog a senior's inbox losing useful correspondance in the 'noise' of all the frivolous Cc's.
Forcing publicly financed science to be made... public. Demanding that results be replicable?
In what universe are these things wrong? Finally some measure of a move to try to ensure that any policies that are spawned are actually based on real science.
More proof that biology is not science. The persistent underestimation of where life can exist, how intelligent various form of life are, questions of feeling pain or emotion... it just signals that biology is nothing more than an observational practice with no first principles and deeply flawed fundamental assumptions about almost every aspect of the field.
Yes, depending where the sun appeared to be when you were born affects the structure of your brain. Also, there appears to be an additional 12 year cycle affecting brain structure. For instance, people born in the coming year will have personalities similar to those of a rooster.
Yes, before someone in any institution starts shooting their mouth off to the press their supervisors should know. Why? Because the _agency_ not the individual making the remarks (communicating with the public === speaking to the media) will bear the brunt of whatever the outcome of the interview is. The 'ban' isn't a ban per se, it's a requirement to properly advise the organization of the person's intent to tacitly speak on behalf of the organization. Nothing wrong with that and those who don't want to follow the process are just lazy.
Besides, the scientists can still publish so what's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously the entire message with this ilk of 'solution' is:
"Hey people you can keep doing things just the way you always have, we the [engineers, scientists, politicians] have a silver bullet. Trust us."
There is no climate problem, there _is_ a problem with our rampant disregard for the limits of our resources and the grossly wasteful way we use them. The real problem how we treat our planet regardless of what the atmosphere is doing. Anyone waving a threat in your face without addressing the real issue is just looking for profit or power.
Served in the Navy and was at sea in the mid-Atlantic on two occasions when the Concorde flew overhead. On each occasion it sounded and felt like we had fired a round from our 5" forward turret. It was _loud_ and shook things up. There's no way it would be acceptable over a populated land mass.
You could look at the whole propagation of the ransomware as an attention getter, a brilliant advertising campaign that has netted the creator(s) many millions worth of advertising and street-cred. Wouldn't you hire this person/company now for your security needs, good or bad?
Awesome.
It sounds like it's something along the lines of nodejs and npm. But frankly, the wording on anything about leaves the reader wondering, "Doesn't this already exist?"
People don't care. Government doesn't care.
Not here not anywhere except maybe some students in a university course.
The rest are oblivious or if aware they think it doesn't matter.
And maybe it doesn't. Who is affected by BIG PUBLISHING's stranglehold? Researchers that are not in an institution that pays subscription fees or that are behind an embargo/firewall etc. That's really not a lot of people in the big picture.
And what alternatives are there for those researchers in this day and age? Well, get in touch with the author of the paper of interest and ask for a copy. Why not?
Alternatively, why don't all authors make pre-prints available on their home pages? A publisher/publication typically requires a maximum 6-8 pages but every researcher has to trim the fat to achieve that. So publish the 'full' version on a home page and in arxiv.
Why is this modded to 'troll'? Was it because the modders read the details of the model used like the assumptions made and the degree of error in the predictions? Well, no it's not because those details aren't available. By extension, the predictions also aren't science because 'science' allows open review.
The best one could say is that yeah, if Ethiopia gets hotter their coffee production could suffer.
But we already knew that right?
And as the post correctly points out, maybe it won't get hotter.
How was this funded when there has been a similar product in the app store for years ie. SleepCycle.
Think of the task, a small surface area (chip) that needs to shed a lot of heat by radiation.
How quickly and how much energy (heat/infrared radiation) can the small surface pass to the surrounding atmosphere (fridge interior)? There's actually a physical limit to the amount of radiation from a perfect black body and a chip is not a perfect black body.
So for a small low temp chip set, a computer in a fridge would be fine.
For a modern high performance GPU, not so much.
What a fan and liquid coolant do is move the energy from the chip to a much larger surface area complemented by convection (moving air between the plates).
Must be. Why i've not seen anyone use a flowchart since they were forced to in school. No sir, the _best_ way to code is just sit down with an idea and start banging out code. 'cause that's just the best way and everyone can do it. Yup, bang away run the code look at the errors correct them bang away run look ... repeat until you get something that works as hoped once. Thinking about your code before coding? For absolute ninnies, not even noobs. And if you doubt the quality of the product well my friend you just have a browse through github or through the reams of quality apps in the app stores.
Besides you're hinting at something like turning documentation into code and that's just frickin' heresy. Ain't nobody got time for documentation if you're following the preceding coding process properly. Documentation is for the next sucker who looks at your code and who cares about them? Dumb question, dumb idea, now shut up with the questions and bang out some code loser.
Make the responsibility local and hence much more accountable.
This is as it should be. If you are arguing for government to deal with climate change then you are abdicating _your_ responsibilities in regard to climate change.
Lobby your local government to make changes.
Lobby your local companies to make changes.
Turn away from corporations and their products that don't help with climate change.
Do without the second and third family vehicle.
Use mass transit.
Turn off your air conditioning more often.
Use public pools instead of getting one of your own.
Turn off electrical and electronic devices you aren't using.
Waste less.
When we the people take responsibility for our climate and environment, then we'll see change. Leave it to government and all you will get is 'hot air' and higher taxes.
Contrary to the article, Amiga On the Lake is NO LONGER a reseller of A-EON products as indicated here.
Trapping seems like a non-productive and destructive technique. It's also highly localized and possibly 80% of bugs in those areas now recognise the traps or conversely, all the bugs lacking the IQ to avoid the traps have been caught and hence removed from the gene pool.
As a side note: of the few entomologists that I've met, they all catch and kill bugs. So the story is kind of like hearing hunters complain about how there is less game in an area. "We've been shooting deer here for years. But these past few years there seem to be fewer of them around."
All the algorithm did was collect expert opinions (we don't even know if they were weighted).
Is a survey "AI"? No. And neither was this.
The math and physics _do_ restrict what is possible. There are limited frequencies available and bandwidth requirements limit what is usable and by how many. Mathematics (specifically information theory) quantifies the limits on the exchange of information and performance in noise.
In a vacuum, in the absence of any electromagnetic noise, in the presence of infinite number of frequencies, with error-free 1-bit encoding of all information, and a limitless supply of free energy to power transceivers, then vast mesh networks are possible. Start by dealing with each of those assumptions in turn and you begin to see what is holding back mesh networks long before you even start considering the economics and politics of implementation.
Seriously. Nobody knew this?
I'll go a step further: You're no longer exchanging a view, you are tacitly indicating that the correspondance is now one way: "me (and the boss) to you". Cc'ing any senior means you are at best a 'toady' sucking up to the senior or a 'bully' using the senior's e-presence to quell any discussion.
The action also has side effects. It can clog a senior's inbox losing useful correspondance in the 'noise' of all the frivolous Cc's.
Forcing publicly financed science to be made ... public.
Demanding that results be replicable?
In what universe are these things wrong? Finally some measure of a move to try to ensure that any policies that are spawned are actually based on real science.
... or any other personal confidential data. Or maybe company IP. There's a pretty broad legal use-case if you think about it.
Did not know know of this implied criteria for language design which by extension means any new language must not confuse JAVA programmers.
And the language certainly can't be functional ... because _that_ confuses Java programmers.
Conclusion: we should all just use JAVA. ... no thank you.
More proof that biology is not science. The persistent underestimation of where life can exist, how intelligent various form of life are, questions of feeling pain or emotion ... it just signals that biology is nothing more than an observational practice with no first principles and deeply flawed fundamental assumptions about almost every aspect of the field.
So when he acquired them they were worth ~ $500 ... and sold for ~$136. Must have read that wrong, yeah?
meets the deadline with code that meets specs and QC. Anything else is fluff.
Yes, depending where the sun appeared to be when you were born affects the structure of your brain. Also, there appears to be an additional 12 year cycle affecting brain structure. For instance, people born in the coming year will have personalities similar to those of a rooster.
Yes, before someone in any institution starts shooting their mouth off to the press their supervisors should know. Why? Because the _agency_ not the individual making the remarks (communicating with the public === speaking to the media) will bear the brunt of whatever the outcome of the interview is. The 'ban' isn't a ban per se, it's a requirement to properly advise the organization of the person's intent to tacitly speak on behalf of the organization. Nothing wrong with that and those who don't want to follow the process are just lazy.
Besides, the scientists can still publish so what's the problem?