No, that's history. Science needs to predict. That's what science is. That's why your doctor can tell you what is wrong with you, and how to fix it. That's why you know that if you hit a light switch and the light doesn't come on, then you need to change the light bulb. Science is independent of time - past, present or future. A scientific hypothesis is valid here on Earth or on Mars or under the sea, 1000 years ago or 10000 years in the future.
Forty years is nothing. Look back a million years and you will see that the Earth has been hotter than this in the past. You are making assumptions about a huge system based on a microscopic data set. Statistically that means that your assumptions are probably garbage.
Take your head out of your ass
u mad bra?
try learning the slightest bit about how science actually works
Funny, considering I have a doctorate, a masters and a bachelor's in science fields. Yeah I admit that I'm not a meteorologist or "climate scientist", but hey physics and biology should teach one how the scientific method works and what experimentation means. You are doing the equivalent of taking a patient's blood pressure in between heart beats and screaming that the patient is dead. Call me when your model correctly predicts the next ice age and then perhaps I'll take you seriously. Until then observe and record.
There is a report confirming temperature trends. Why do you insist on reading more into it than that? I agree with you that anyone who denies climate change needs to have their head examined. The climate is changing and the Earth is warming. There are major changes happening in the ocean. None of that, however, can prove scientifically that the driving force behind all this is human activity. Even if it sounds right. Even if it's logical that we humans must have some impact on the global climate, I am talking about undeniable, verifiable, reproducible proof which is what science is all about. An article that confirms that the average temperatures are not made up does not prove anything, other than the temperatures were not made up.
The model is not the science, it's the hypothesis. Retrospective means nothing. Any model can be matched to historical data - that's what models do. Prospective is where it's at. It's only true when you can predict the future to a high degree of accuracy. No that's incorrect - it's never true. It's only not false. I understand science better than you do, but by all means resort to personal attacks.
But you can make a model do absolutely anything. So how can you say that a model has any real meaning? The model IS the hypothesis, it has not been proven. Again, the only way we will know is AFTER the hypothesis has been rejected or not, when real world data begins to deviate from the model. Or not. But now we stand at the beginning and all there is is speculation.
when the Western world threw all its intellectual might into solving a single problem
That is an insult to everyone who had a brain in the late 1930's to mid 1940's. The problems and solutions were myriad and they were being solved everywhere from the Russian steppes to German bunkers to Japanese trenches to Bletchley Park to the French countryside. There was more than just the bomb you know.
Once again the end is not justified by the means. If shooting everyone you don't like made the world a better place, you think you would be justified in doing this? It is entirely possible to avoid deception and do things for the right reasons, and not trick people into doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Especially when you stand to personally profit from this, like Mr. Gore.
As with all religions, the bullshit is usually inserted right at the beginning and thus corrupting everything else that is derived from that.
the warming we see is consistent with anthropogenic climate change models
There is no such thing as an "anthropogenic climate change model". Either you are working with real data or you are not. Therefore it should not be a surprise that a study that looks at real data correlates strongly with another study that looks at real data. The whole "anthropogenic" question is a side-issue and has nothing to do with real world data. It's more what that data implies. However the implication has not been proven. In fact the only real proof we are likely to see is when all our steps to correct our anthropogenic causes fail miserably - then we will know that we were not to blame.
So Apple's 70 billion dollar cash reserves just happened by magic, huh? They are actually working on razor thin margins? Man, I know a guy in the music business who needs an accountant...
I think that the notion that having an idea and filing it should automatically result in monetary compensation (directly or via the legal system and damage suits) is a dangerous one. There is a world of difference between having an idea and actually developing an idea and bringing it to market. The current system assumes that ideas are rare (which they are not - creativity is all around us) and should be rewarded. The reality should be that someone who invests in the R&D, product development and marketing behind the idea should not be penalized and deserves some sort of protection. However the current system completely fails to address this.
Problem with fashion is the name means more than the look itself.
And in tech, brand means nothing, right? Tell that to all the people buying overpriced Apple smart-phones, tablets and MP3 players. Tell it to businesses who pay $10k+ for Oracle licenses. Tell it to people who pay $400+ per license for Microsoft Office software and $200+ for a new iteration of an OS. There is branding in tech, too.
But this is already apparent from human nature. Usually the ones who scream loudest about something are the ones who are the most guilty of it. It takes a thief to know a thief, after all.
Apple was already developing a GUI back in the late '70s.
Something that Xerox had already done and brought to market in the early 70's (1973) you mean? Do you have any idea what an Apple II was in the mid to late 1970's? There was nothing "graphical" about it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
All the inconvenience of airport travel, coming soon to a town near you. Oh they will start with the truckers but whoever said the slippery slope is not real: watch. Dear God America, you tell the world about how you are the champion of democracy and freedom and then you go an pull shit like this. And you wonder why no one believes you?
It's only a loan if they pay it back. However that doesn't look good. But look on the bright side, for 400+ million dollars the company created 900 or so jobs. So, about half a million dollars per job, you're happy with that are you? Government efficiency.
This is what every company does
No, other car companies make money. Besides GM I mean.
2. Spend it on expensive lawyers to defend your "brand" overseas in the UK despite having sold less than 2000 cars in the whole world since the company started.
3. ???
4. Er, profit? It will take off any minute now. I promise.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here - got a 3TB WD drive and installed it last week. Same drive has gone up 40%.
So write a book about it, become a consultant, and charge them money for telling them how to avoid trouble.
I pity the guy who ends up with your recycled IP address, though.
Better yet, live in a country that recognizes that IP addresses do not correlate to specific people.
Eh, I got a free trial of WoW with a video card I bought but didn't have time to grind as the program kept crashing.
to determine the current IP address of identified and targeted Skype user (if the user is currently active)
Moral of the story - make sure you are logged off from Skype before file sharing.
The replication of reality is the science.
No, that's history. Science needs to predict. That's what science is. That's why your doctor can tell you what is wrong with you, and how to fix it. That's why you know that if you hit a light switch and the light doesn't come on, then you need to change the light bulb. Science is independent of time - past, present or future. A scientific hypothesis is valid here on Earth or on Mars or under the sea, 1000 years ago or 10000 years in the future.
Take your head out of your ass
u mad bra?
try learning the slightest bit about how science actually works
Funny, considering I have a doctorate, a masters and a bachelor's in science fields. Yeah I admit that I'm not a meteorologist or "climate scientist", but hey physics and biology should teach one how the scientific method works and what experimentation means. You are doing the equivalent of taking a patient's blood pressure in between heart beats and screaming that the patient is dead. Call me when your model correctly predicts the next ice age and then perhaps I'll take you seriously. Until then observe and record.
There is a report confirming temperature trends. Why do you insist on reading more into it than that? I agree with you that anyone who denies climate change needs to have their head examined. The climate is changing and the Earth is warming. There are major changes happening in the ocean. None of that, however, can prove scientifically that the driving force behind all this is human activity. Even if it sounds right. Even if it's logical that we humans must have some impact on the global climate, I am talking about undeniable, verifiable, reproducible proof which is what science is all about. An article that confirms that the average temperatures are not made up does not prove anything, other than the temperatures were not made up.
The model is not the science, it's the hypothesis. Retrospective means nothing. Any model can be matched to historical data - that's what models do. Prospective is where it's at. It's only true when you can predict the future to a high degree of accuracy. No that's incorrect - it's never true. It's only not false. I understand science better than you do, but by all means resort to personal attacks.
But you can make a model do absolutely anything. So how can you say that a model has any real meaning? The model IS the hypothesis, it has not been proven. Again, the only way we will know is AFTER the hypothesis has been rejected or not, when real world data begins to deviate from the model. Or not. But now we stand at the beginning and all there is is speculation.
when the Western world threw all its intellectual might into solving a single problem
That is an insult to everyone who had a brain in the late 1930's to mid 1940's. The problems and solutions were myriad and they were being solved everywhere from the Russian steppes to German bunkers to Japanese trenches to Bletchley Park to the French countryside. There was more than just the bomb you know.
Once again the end is not justified by the means. If shooting everyone you don't like made the world a better place, you think you would be justified in doing this? It is entirely possible to avoid deception and do things for the right reasons, and not trick people into doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Especially when you stand to personally profit from this, like Mr. Gore.
the warming we see is consistent with anthropogenic climate change models
There is no such thing as an "anthropogenic climate change model". Either you are working with real data or you are not. Therefore it should not be a surprise that a study that looks at real data correlates strongly with another study that looks at real data. The whole "anthropogenic" question is a side-issue and has nothing to do with real world data. It's more what that data implies. However the implication has not been proven. In fact the only real proof we are likely to see is when all our steps to correct our anthropogenic causes fail miserably - then we will know that we were not to blame.
So Apple's 70 billion dollar cash reserves just happened by magic, huh? They are actually working on razor thin margins? Man, I know a guy in the music business who needs an accountant...
I think that the notion that having an idea and filing it should automatically result in monetary compensation (directly or via the legal system and damage suits) is a dangerous one. There is a world of difference between having an idea and actually developing an idea and bringing it to market. The current system assumes that ideas are rare (which they are not - creativity is all around us) and should be rewarded. The reality should be that someone who invests in the R&D, product development and marketing behind the idea should not be penalized and deserves some sort of protection. However the current system completely fails to address this.
Problem with fashion is the name means more than the look itself.
And in tech, brand means nothing, right? Tell that to all the people buying overpriced Apple smart-phones, tablets and MP3 players. Tell it to businesses who pay $10k+ for Oracle licenses. Tell it to people who pay $400+ per license for Microsoft Office software and $200+ for a new iteration of an OS. There is branding in tech, too.
But this is already apparent from human nature. Usually the ones who scream loudest about something are the ones who are the most guilty of it. It takes a thief to know a thief, after all.
Apple was already developing a GUI back in the late '70s.
Something that Xerox had already done and brought to market in the early 70's (1973) you mean? Do you have any idea what an Apple II was in the mid to late 1970's? There was nothing "graphical" about it.
The word "unreasonable" helps too.
How about this mission statement:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
All the inconvenience of airport travel, coming soon to a town near you. Oh they will start with the truckers but whoever said the slippery slope is not real: watch. Dear God America, you tell the world about how you are the champion of democracy and freedom and then you go an pull shit like this. And you wonder why no one believes you?
This is what every company does
No, other car companies make money. Besides GM I mean.
1. Receive half a billion dollars in federal grant money.
2. Spend it on expensive lawyers to defend your "brand" overseas in the UK despite having sold less than 2000 cars in the whole world since the company started.
3. ???
4. Er, profit? It will take off any minute now. I promise.
Or just keep track of the cumulative, and divide the member.LiarProbability by it, then multiply by 100 to give you a percentage...
OK, a 14 year old going out with a 13 year old. It's not impossible - I myself was sexually active at age 14.