Are authors supposed to come up with a system for translating their books as well? Or reading their books via whatever your electric device of choice is?
They already have. Many books are being translated and sold in other countries, and they are available as e-books.
Also, somehow we've managed to find books for a very long time without shoveling money into the gullets of Google.
Not very effectively. I live in a densely populated country, and going to a well stocked library and actually finding a book that I want takes the better part of a day. In addition, when I borrow a book from a library I get the full text, and don't have to pay the author anything. At least when people find a book on Google, there's a better chance they'll end up buying a copy.
We'd go to a thing called a "library" where books were actually purchased, thus the author actually getting paid.
The number of books sold to libraries is so small that the authors could perhaps buy a cup of coffee with their profits.
We'd look through these "books" and find the information we needed.
Yes, and we also went to record stores to listen to music, and we'd buy folded paper maps, and we'd look up phone numbers in the yellow pages.
As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service
So, why didn't the authors and/or publishers set up a system for finding books ?
How often did you though? A potential sale, as slashdot loves to point out to the music industry is NOT a sale.
The chance of someone buying a book after seeing a page or two show up on google books is bigger than them buying the same book without seeing that preview.
I'm just not sure a system that benefits you and google but not the authors is the best solution to the problem here.
If producers already take the effort to make a better master for vinyl, why don't they just release the same master on digital format ? The extra cost is negligible.
"We have looked at X and determined that there is nothing to worry about. But if you give us more money, we can confirm with even greater certainty that there is really nothing to worry about."
but not a great deal of evidence is the assertion that solar forcing is not responsible for a majority of the global warming since 1850.
A great deal of warming happened after 1970, and we have excellent measurements of the solar forcing in that period. On average, solar forcing went down as temperatures went up.
Sure, you would be free to disagree with the consensus and show evidence, but you aren't going to get significant funding to do so.
That makes no sense. As demonstrated by their lack of solutions, it's clear that politicians have no interest to deal with the AGW problem. Paying someone to make it go away would be a perfect solution.
[4] These bricks are then transported to a local treatment facility to kill any microbes (similar to the radiation treatment we (used to) use on canned goods), then stored, or more likely, buried for a long long time.
Basically, your plan is to turn plant matter into coal, and bury that, while at the same time digging up other coal to burn.
What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?
There are surely fairly wide error bars around the CO2 sensitivity value. So, what's the best response to that ? Do we sit and wait until we've reduced the errors bars ? Do we weigh all the estimates, and do a risk/cost assessment ? Do we start by phasing out fossil fuels, since they'll become scarce anyway ?
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
So what is it about the science of climate change that you cannot verify yourself ?
Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
Slashdot Mirror
we generally didn't go to record stores to listen to music...we went there to buy records. ;)
We listened to albums in the store to decide if it was worth buying.
Are authors supposed to come up with a system for translating their books as well? Or reading their books via whatever your electric device of choice is?
They already have. Many books are being translated and sold in other countries, and they are available as e-books.
Also, somehow we've managed to find books for a very long time without shoveling money into the gullets of Google.
Not very effectively. I live in a densely populated country, and going to a well stocked library and actually finding a book that I want takes the better part of a day. In addition, when I borrow a book from a library I get the full text, and don't have to pay the author anything. At least when people find a book on Google, there's a better chance they'll end up buying a copy.
We'd go to a thing called a "library" where books were actually purchased, thus the author actually getting paid.
The number of books sold to libraries is so small that the authors could perhaps buy a cup of coffee with their profits.
We'd look through these "books" and find the information we needed.
Yes, and we also went to record stores to listen to music, and we'd buy folded paper maps, and we'd look up phone numbers in the yellow pages.
As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service
So, why didn't the authors and/or publishers set up a system for finding books ?
How often did you though? A potential sale, as slashdot loves to point out to the music industry is NOT a sale.
The chance of someone buying a book after seeing a page or two show up on google books is bigger than them buying the same book without seeing that preview.
I'm just not sure a system that benefits you and google but not the authors is the best solution to the problem here.
It does benefit the authors.
If producers already take the effort to make a better master for vinyl, why don't they just release the same master on digital format ? The extra cost is negligible.
As in, in order to get a real AI, it will need to have this fuzzy logic.
I think the key is that sloppy arithmetic is much faster, while still being good enough.
The Earth's temperature isn't static and never was. Get over it
That's like saying it's not a problem if your house is on fire, because there used to be an active volcano in the same spot.
Speech — including lies — is protected by the First Amendment.
It may be protected, but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any legal consequences.
"We have looked at X and determined that there is nothing to worry about. But if you give us more money, we can confirm with even greater certainty that there is really nothing to worry about."
"No thank you, that'll be enough"
If Netflix picks up part of the tab, they'll move the cost to their customers.
Just because a problem is hard, doesn't justify that sort of short cut.
What's your alternative ?
but not a great deal of evidence is the assertion that solar forcing is not responsible for a majority of the global warming since 1850.
A great deal of warming happened after 1970, and we have excellent measurements of the solar forcing in that period. On average, solar forcing went down as temperatures went up.
Sure, you would be free to disagree with the consensus and show evidence, but you aren't going to get significant funding to do so.
That makes no sense. As demonstrated by their lack of solutions, it's clear that politicians have no interest to deal with the AGW problem. Paying someone to make it go away would be a perfect solution.
That's strange. People with a career in climatology don't get money and power to fix things, they just get to report on the problem.
In most cases, politicians follow the consensus opinion from scientists. That seems like a smart thing to do, and has nothing to do with communism.
[4] These bricks are then transported to a local treatment facility to kill any microbes (similar to the radiation treatment we (used to) use on canned goods), then stored, or more likely, buried for a long long time.
Basically, your plan is to turn plant matter into coal, and bury that, while at the same time digging up other coal to burn.
um........ why? Would the situation be any different if the science discovered it's not primarily caused by human activity?
Yes, because the solution depends on the cause. If CO2 had no effect on global temperature, there would be no need to reduce it.
Big investments are often done with somebody else's money. It's a lot easier that way.
Of course, we wouldn't use lithium batteries for large scale storage. Instead, we'd use cheap molten salt batteries.
If these models have to be judged over longer timespans, then you cannot know that they are true yet. Yet you behave as if they are true.
As the saying goes: all models are wrong, but some are useful. The question is how much do we stand to gain or lose by waiting vs acting now ?
What value TCR/ECR actually is is the ultimate 64 trillion dollar question that heavily influences what is a sensible policy response to CO2 caused global warming (mitigate, adapt or do SFA)?
There are surely fairly wide error bars around the CO2 sensitivity value. So, what's the best response to that ? Do we sit and wait until we've reduced the errors bars ? Do we weigh all the estimates, and do a risk/cost assessment ? Do we start by phasing out fossil fuels, since they'll become scarce anyway ?
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot
Fortunately, we can just sit back and watch it happen by itself.
Show them the data in a way mere mortals can understand. Appeal to their belief structure. That's really the only way to make a real difference.
That has already been done many times. But you can't convince anybody that has vested interest in not listening.
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
Basically, if you want a career in climatology, you pretty much have to believe global warming, even when the evidence isn't nearly that conclusive.
That's strange, considering we would all benefit a lot from it not being true.