It looks to me like something in the neighborhood of 5 journal articles on global cooling (not a single idiot on the cover of Time magazine as you assert) were published from 67-74 out of a total of maybe 14 on the subject of global temperature change. More early on in the decade and falling off.
Revisionist history aside, both the journal articles as well as media articles, tv interviews etc. exist. No one is claiming that all climatologists agreed (any more than they all agree today), but there was a clear message to the public set forth by a very vocal portion of the community at that time that we were approaching the next ice age.
Please elucidate me as to how each point has been debunked? Saying it has been debunked and actually doing so are far different things. The points I make are fairly simple and I am curious as to how they are invalid.
1. The earth has been both hotter and cooler than it is now and man has survived. (pretty sure this is historical fact; glaciers covering most of north America and palm trees found under the glacier ice covering most of Antarctica)
2. Climatologists cannot practice hard science because of the limitations they are forced into due to the nature of the planet. (pretty sure this is easily provable fact, go look up the scientific method, real scientists should also be able to support this, most climatologists will probably also agree that they do not practice the scientific method rigorously)
3. Past climate models have been wildly inaccurate. (sorry, I know this one is a fact, if you disagree you are a reality denier)
4. Climate change debate is now an emotional and political issue (not sure how you debunk this one, what with politicians calling each other climate deniers and trying to pass legislation pertaining to CO2 emissions).
Why only look at the last 20k years? Is that how old the planet is? The sun? Is that how long life has existed on the planet? Good gravy talk about cherry picking. I enjoy xkcd as much as the next person, but that is just bad critical thinking. Go back 500k years at least, if not more and see what the global temperatures have looked like. The link is in the original post.
Also, as I said in the original post, what is the consequence of waiting 100 years? So the temperature goes up a couple of degrees and the oceans rise a foot or two (maybe, or more water gets stored in the air/plants/crops grow more and capture more; plants are 95% CO2 and H20 and are typically growth limited by the availability of CO2). Spend a few hundred million on seawalls and pumping stations around areas where ocean encroachment is a problem and it is a non issue for civilization.
In a couple hundred years it will be more apparent if there is actually a problem worth fixing, or if it was no big deal. Hell, we may run out of fossil fuels in 50 years, so it may become a moot issue. The bottom line is you don't tank the economy and destroy mans ability to cope with what amounts to a minor climate change, you cope and adapt as needed. If we had to, the US could capture 100% of our CO2 emissions each year by burying the plant matter and extra food from our agriculture at full production. Is it better to feed starving children in Africa who will die without food, or to bury food in the dirt to "save the planet" from the theoretical and minor threat of global warming?
As far as the climatologists go, the old guard of professors and mentors trains the new guard, and they are savage to anyone who doesn't follow in their lock step group think. Just do a google search for climatologists who have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the herd. PhDs typically enter the work force when they are ~28, not 40, so those who had just started working in the field in 1979 (the tail end of the ice age scare) would be 65 or just retiring this year and would have been leading the departments for the last 20 years.
The El Nino, La Nina cycle was observed by a guy who gave it a name over a century ago. (FTFY)
Hurricane and Typhoon season were also identified centuries ago. Try not to conflate science with observations that any layman can make after living in an area for a few dozen years. Describing a phenomena and giving it a name in no way correlates to science or the scientific method. Observing warmer ocean temperatures correlate to more rainfall is an extremely basic observation of correlation, nothing more.
If they had mathematical models 100 years ago that accounted for all the variables and could predict the next 10 El Nino/La Nina cycles accurately, that would be closer to the realm of a science. As far as I am aware, we still can't do that (we just track ocean temperatures and predict for the current/coming year that it will be El Nino/La Nina, which again is just observing cause and effect, we do not know why sometimes the ocean currents shift warm waters further from the equator, nor can we predict 10 cycles in advance of when it will happen.
Nice AC post there. I assume that since you have put forth no logical arguments you agree with everything that I said? It appears that you do, but you didn't like the experience, and like a petulant child, you are throwing a tantrum.
As I said in the original post, climatology is not a science. It is in it's infant stages and it is the study of the climate on earth (hell, 15 years ago we couldn't even accurately predict the weather two days out reliably). It is not engaged in making and testing hypotheses like a true science because to a large degree, that cannot be done, as no one has yet to figure out how to make a population of similar planets to test hypotheses on. If you were familiar with the scientific method, you would understand this. Clearly you do not.
Further, you attempt to discredit my expertise in the field of thermodynamics (the underlying science that drives the global temperature) by comparing a thermal engineer, who utilizes applied, proven thermodynamics science on a daily basis to produce products that work as intended, to a politician with an MD? That is conflation of the worst kind, and reveals you complete lack of understanding of the issue. Please take your high school diploma elsewhere.
As far as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, they took away the rights of the people for the greater good (it didn't work out that way, but that was the initial rationalization and intent, regardless). I consider myself a classical environmentalist (I want clean air and clean water). However, the frothing at the mouth environuts want to dramatically infringe on your constitutional rights for some abstract global warming threat that I pretty effectively debunked in my prior post. This puts them in the same boat, whether you happen to like it or not.
As a thermal engineer who has looked at this issue fairly rigorously, I have come to the following conclusions on the climate change debate. Before I begin, I caution the reader that, though you may not like the facts or the sources, I suggest you avoid the logical fallacy "Damning the Source." The facts are easily discoverable and if you want to have a serious opinion on the debate, you need to do your homework (or else you are what is known as a useful idiot).
1. The climate changes: Go look at the global temperatures for the last 500k years or so. It has been both cooler and warmer than it is now, without the burning of fossil fuels. The climate has been changing for millennia and we have survived. There has been no earth shattering apocalypse. From a physics perspective, the earth rejects heat to space as a function of the absolute temperature of the planted (~288K) to the fourth power. A small change in temperature significantly increases heat rejection, making it hard for multiplicative-order changes in the emissivity of the earth (what the global warming people worry about) to significantly change the amount of heat rejected, thus elevating the temperature.
2. The global warming "scientists" are the same "scientists" who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us. The reality is they are not scientists as they do not practice the scientific method, as it is impossible on a global scale and a sample of one, and many of the thermal interactions that they put into their models have not been tested or proven using the scientific method, they are educated guesses at best. They are either researchers, physics modelers, or mathematicians, but they are not scientists by definition. The public in large part has caught on to this in practice if not in theory, which is why "scientists" are not that well respected these days. True scientists should form a guild or association to guard the name more jealously, just as engineers (applied science experts) do (you can be heavily fined or even imprisoned for impersonating a civil, mechanical or structural engineer, depending on the state). The climate charlatans should be banned from the title of scientist and forced to use one of the above.
3. The climate change models have been wildly wrong for the last 30 plus years. Go back and dig out some of the old models predictions. These have been wrong at every turn. They may be getting better, but only time will tell. Based on past performance, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially if billions of dollars or the health of the economy are on the line.
4. The climate change debate is now deeply intertwined with emotions, politics and research grant money on one side, and businesses and the general population on the other side. It is being fueled by politicians who see an opportunity to vilify their opposition, moral narcissists/intellectual snobs who make themselves feel better by believing that they take the moral high road and/or are smarter than their fellow citizen (hint: statistically they are smarter than some, dumber than others) and PhD's who are too stupid to get out of the rain (i.e. no common sense) but need their grant money, so they feed the pro global warming politicians more models showing warming/doom and gloom/etc. to get the next grant. It is a vicious cycle, and until we defund public research into global warming, we will continue to have this incestuous loop. I am not advocating banning climate change research, only the tax payer funding of it as a weapon for one political group to use against another, especially when intellectual fraud has been proven and the past product of the research has been junk models that have been proven inaccurate over time.
Unless when his video card CATOD it weakened the power supply (overheated the voltage regulators, pulled excessive current, etc.) and it was just dying a slow death after that.
You are completely wrong here. First off, Windows is marketed as a business tool, and MS has spent millions in advertising to convince the business world that Windows is reliable and well supported.
Further, you are conflating mission critical safety applications, like avioncis, with manufacturing operations, like a CNC machine or bottling plant. Mission critical safety applications, where there is risk of great bodily harm or death go through a much more rigorous set of criteria than a piece of manufacturing hardware or a plant controller. For mission critical safety applications, ever line of code is scrutinized, every piece of hardware is tested for function and reliability and the entire system is rigorously tested for every possible failure mode.
This would be prohibitively expensive for most industrial automation applications, which are concerned mainly with making everything work properly. The few safety critical areas are relegated to safety rated hardware that overrides the industrial automation controller to protect life and limb.
Microsoft marketed and sold Windows as a business OS, and they marketed it with the expectation of continuous reliability and security updates until the stated end of support/end of life. They then deceptively used the Windows update pathway to force a new, incompatible OS with spyware, paid ads and forced updates on their paying customers. If that results in business losses, I am pretty sure that even a jury of non-technical people can follow the logical liability train back to MS and award damages.
The medical experts that sided with the family included the girls primary physician at Tufts Medical Center who knew her well and was treating her successfully, as well as many other MD experts in the same field who were unpaid and who reviewed and agreed with his diagnosis.
They were MDs, not homeopaths.
The state sided initially with the hospital and thus they are as criminally liable for her injury, deprivation of her meds for mitochondrial disease, 16 months of physical and psychological torture, as well as treating the parents like they had abused their daughter. She went in with the flu, but was otherwise functional, with videos just prior of her skating and hanging out with friends.
The quacks at the hospital locked her in a psych ward for 16 months. After 16 months without meds the hospital had nearly killed her, which is why they finally returned custody to the parents, because if she had died someone would have been facing manslaughter at least if not 2nd degree murder. When she was finally released she could not stand, sit or walk on her own and had other severe symptoms of the untreated mitochondrial disease. She has also had to have multiple surgeries to correct some of the damage.
Since your google is broken, here are some links. I know it sounds like Stalinist Russia, but this actually happened in the US a couple of years ago...
If you have kids and didn't know about this story, you need to wake up and pay attention to the people and politicians who are trying to take away your rights as a citizen and as a parent. It is some scary shit.
I have been buying iPhones since the 3GS (recording videos was when I jumped in). The 3GS is still going strong as one of the kids iPod touches. However, I won't be buying any more iPhones after my 6 plus unless and until they listen to actual customers (or customers who aren't also total morons). The iPhone 7 is clearly designed by a committee who really had two driving motives: make Apple more money and make it waterproof.
I want things like: Waterproof without removing basic, essential features in lieu of $150 proprietary earbuds (or open source your standard so anyone can produce products for the device/use it however they want.) Wireless charging a battery that gives me a week of phone in standby. solid, reliable phone call quality and connection Solid, reliable wifi connection that plays nice with other devices 500GB storage and a micro SD slot for hot swappable storage A screen that can be dropped 3 feet and not shatter like a damn Fabrige Egg (think sapphire screens) Cool sensors and features that let my phone replace other things I carry or use regularly. (a pair of cameras on opposite ends of one face for 3D imaging, a laser pointer, a projected full size keyboard, IR thermal camera, etc.)
Things I don't want: Regular glass lenses on the cameras and screen (iPhone 7) Super thin, super light, weak phone that dies at noon or breaks at the drop of a hat.
News Flash: Monopolies buy politicians to protect their monopoly! Masses shocked! Film at 11.
Seriously though, this is no surprise. These monopolies have been making money hand over fist for decades on delivering Cable TV or phone service to a captive audience. They now see their internet business slowly cannibalizing their cable TV business (analog cable is already dead here, there is no reason all content cannot be streamed online) or completely eliminating their phone service ($120 for Ooma and never pay another $25/mo phone bill? Done deal.)
These companies have an outmoded 15 plus year old built out infrastructure for net access that they paid for with government grants and they have been raking in the profits all those years with minimal overhead. Now they see Google fiber and they know that they will actually have to compete or they will be completely out of business. However, monopolistic interference is often easier and cheaper than competition. Sheri Weiner needs to have some FBI agents come by for a visit and open a corruption investigation into her. Letting a monopoly write your legislation should be illegal.
IMO this is all Valve's fault. They allowed DH and other crapware "developers" to game the Greenlight system. I assume somewhere in the Greenlight legal agreement between Valve and the developer, there is a clause where the developer agrees not to cheat the Greenlight system. If I were Valve, I would dig into this, find the evidence that I am sure is there (the games are obvious garbage and no gamer would vote to put them on the marketplace). With that evidence in hand (IP addresses, sock puppet steam accounts, etc) Valve should take them to court and vigorously bankrupt the shit out of them and then rinse and repeat with the other companies that are doing the same thing. Once word gets around that Valve will release the hounds if you are just flipping content, the risk/reward will take care of any temptation to do this going forward.
I keep thinking about it, but honestly, unless you are 6 feet away from a 55" or larger screen, it doesn't look $700 better to me. The curved TV thing was just a gimmick (again, only useful if you sit close to a giant screen, 3D with glasses is a gimmick. If they can make a comfortable Oculus or PSVR that doesn't make me sick after 30 minutes that is where I am going next.
Instead of ignoring the fact that we all have biases, do what Fox news did successfully for a long time and get both viewpoints to weigh in. The happy medium needs to be found. If FB had say 6 editors, 3 liberals and 3 conservatives they could have a voting system. Any topic that the software determines is a trending story goes to these 6 editors. Each editor gets a vote up or down. In theory they are only supposed to vote down click bait, trolling, and false stories. A vote of 4 or more down kills the story. If the 3 liberals cant differentiate between truth or fact, you fire them and hire 3 more liberals until you find 3 that are both liberal and smart enough to be able to differentiate BS from reality. (Say what you will about conservatives, they typically have better BS detectors.)
One easy way that lawmakers could slap down this kind of practice across the board is pass a law making it illegal for companies to require employees to train H1Bs as a part of an involuntary severance package. Your knowledge is your own. You already contributed to the company, and if you are competent enough to train your replacement, you shouldn't be replaced in the first place.
To keep the law simple, if you train an H1B to do your job and are let go within 2 years without cause, the company has broken the law and owes the employee 5 years pay restitution with full benefits for 5 years and a $500k fine to the state. The 2 year time limit can be extended indefinitely if it can be shown that management was conspiring to circumvent the law. If the H1B replacements are so much better, they should be able to pick it up as they go.
Also within the law make it a felony to attempt to subvert the above law, such that management at the company is criminally liable if it can be proven that steps were put into place to circumvent the above law.
We the people need to get a grip on this country or we are going to end up a banana republic. If we could only figure out how to get a referendum process in place at the national level such that the people could pass laws irrevocable by congress or the courts (essentially constitutional amendments, above the crap that congress churns out) we would be in such better shape.
We could pass a common sense law that security researchers could register as such with the FBI (or even maybe a private non-profit security professional organization; US Cyber Security Society or some such) and then pretty much attempt to penetrate any system that they want, with the additional caveat that they send the results and any evidence back to the company/entity tested. They would also be free to disseminate information about the hack, but not anything sensitive from the servers they penetrated to the pubic as a news/informative service. In much the same way reporters are specially protected, they should be protected as the public has a right to know if there are gaping security holes in their banks, their ballot boxes etc...
It is spelled GREED not courage. Courage would be releasing their custom bluetooth standard along with open sourcing the head phone design so that it can be easily copied by other manufacturers and become the industry standard. Nice try though Apple...
This exactly. There is never a good reason to geo tag your family photos. This feature should be off by default and have a pop up warning every time you use your camera if it is enabled. Companies like Facebook and Google love the geo tagging because it lets them further spy on their users, but for the rest of us it is just a bad idea...
Solar powered drones that can stay aloft indefinitely, loaded with thousands of rounds of microbullets fired via railgun recharged by said solar cells. Or a high power density laser diode array recharged by the solar cells. Either is not far out of our reach.
Meh. The reality is that every time we innovate, it displaces workers. Not too many people in the fields picking cotton any more, still lots of jobs. Not many people digging ditches any more. Still lots of jobs. The reality is that there is an ever growing demand for everything, and typically because automation has a high entry cost, these things are gradually introduced into the market. There are still plenty of people working at banks, even though they now use ATMs (and now online banking) to handle routine transactions, and as a bonus, customers don't have to wait in long lines to do their business.
Typically, as we automate, the value of the human wage goes up due to competition. If you make $50k a year, your dollar goes farther because as companies automate those things, they have to compete with other companies and so the overall price goes down. And yes, menial, mindless tasks the world over are on the chopping block, but the solution to all of this is already well known, and if we do develop a labor glut, it is a very simple fix. The government simply eliminates salaries for all but management within companies, and you reduce the work week from 40h to 4 days and 32h and make OT pay 3x base rate. In order for companies to get the job done competitively, they will be forced to hire more employees. This was done in the past several times. During the industrial revolution, people were working 60-80h/week, including children. They passed child labor laws, effectively reducing the labor force, and passed the 40h work week, further reducing the available per person labor.
The flip side of this is we must at the same time pass tarrifs similar to what Trump is proposing so we don' t force our workers to compete with third world hellholes on an even footing. And we make it un-economical for our companies to offshore with those same tarrifs. We also put hard caps and/or significantly reduce H1B and illegal workers, as those also undercut the legit worker and create unnatural workforce glut. We don't need universal base income or other socialist schemes, just enact some common sense after decades of selective insanity.
That was a great TNG episode, and not too far out of our reach even now. Imagine a swarm of 50,000 solar powered 100lb flying wing drones capable of staying aloft indefinitely that are mass produced and cost $5000 each. Leave your soldiers at home and deploy them over a war zone with orders to kill anything that fires at them, wears the enemy uniform or matches other criteria using bullets fired from 5000 feet up (firing in a vertical dive with software ballistic correction for crosswinds after the first shot should give pinpoint accuracy). Give each drone 200 rounds of ammunition and an on-board explosive charge. With the right targeting system, you can reduce the cost to kill an entire army of soldiers to $0.50/kill with an initial investment of $250M, which is pennies for the military. The swarm of drones could kill 5M enemies before reloading or being used as cruise missiles. Further, any aircraft engaging the swarm gets blown up by 20-30 simultaneous kamikazi attacks and the drone's explosive charges. You can take out non-hardened targets like cars and buildings with the same method. I guarantee you that Iran and China are both working on this now, as it is an effective means for them to challenge the US for air supremacy.
If something like that were to go haywire, you could create a massive no-go kill zone for years.
You can go buy alcohol, that kills brain cells, but also kills your liver. We're in the process of legalizing MJ and that definitely kills brain cells, but is worse than cigarettes for your lungs. The droud (Ringworld series by Larry Niven, direct electrical stimulation of the pleasure centers of the brain) is the logical progression. Those who want to check out of reality can do so for pennies a day and their bodies stay perfectly healthy to be used as organ farms later on to pay for the cost of their living expenses.
Except they weren't cheating, you may not like it, but Apple did noting illegal, which is why it is called a loophole, not cheating on taxes. The fault is really Ireland's, and everyone knows it, but the EU is pissed at all the lost revenue and so they are trying to change the law retroactively, which is BS. If whoever gets into the white house next has a clue about business, they will offer Apple to pull home all of its profits abroad and we will get a nice cash infusion into our banking system. Tax haven countries like Ireland should be censured by the rest of the world such that there are export taxes on money going to the tax shelters equal to the gains made by moving the money there, problem solved.
Just more confirmation that Windows 7 will be my last windows version, ever. When Windows 7 stops getting security updates/gets crippled by MS update I will go Ubuntu/SteamOS for my desktop and console for my gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks to me like something in the neighborhood of 5 journal articles on global cooling (not a single idiot on the cover of Time magazine as you assert) were published from 67-74 out of a total of maybe 14 on the subject of global temperature change. More early on in the decade and falling off.
Revisionist history aside, both the journal articles as well as media articles, tv interviews etc. exist. No one is claiming that all climatologists agreed (any more than they all agree today), but there was a clear message to the public set forth by a very vocal portion of the community at that time that we were approaching the next ice age.
Please elucidate me as to how each point has been debunked? Saying it has been debunked and actually doing so are far different things. The points I make are fairly simple and I am curious as to how they are invalid.
1. The earth has been both hotter and cooler than it is now and man has survived. (pretty sure this is historical fact; glaciers covering most of north America and palm trees found under the glacier ice covering most of Antarctica)
2. Climatologists cannot practice hard science because of the limitations they are forced into due to the nature of the planet. (pretty sure this is easily provable fact, go look up the scientific method, real scientists should also be able to support this, most climatologists will probably also agree that they do not practice the scientific method rigorously)
3. Past climate models have been wildly inaccurate. (sorry, I know this one is a fact, if you disagree you are a reality denier)
4. Climate change debate is now an emotional and political issue (not sure how you debunk this one, what with politicians calling each other climate deniers and trying to pass legislation pertaining to CO2 emissions).
Why only look at the last 20k years? Is that how old the planet is? The sun? Is that how long life has existed on the planet? Good gravy talk about cherry picking. I enjoy xkcd as much as the next person, but that is just bad critical thinking. Go back 500k years at least, if not more and see what the global temperatures have looked like. The link is in the original post.
Also, as I said in the original post, what is the consequence of waiting 100 years? So the temperature goes up a couple of degrees and the oceans rise a foot or two (maybe, or more water gets stored in the air/plants/crops grow more and capture more; plants are 95% CO2 and H20 and are typically growth limited by the availability of CO2). Spend a few hundred million on seawalls and pumping stations around areas where ocean encroachment is a problem and it is a non issue for civilization.
In a couple hundred years it will be more apparent if there is actually a problem worth fixing, or if it was no big deal. Hell, we may run out of fossil fuels in 50 years, so it may become a moot issue. The bottom line is you don't tank the economy and destroy mans ability to cope with what amounts to a minor climate change, you cope and adapt as needed. If we had to, the US could capture 100% of our CO2 emissions each year by burying the plant matter and extra food from our agriculture at full production. Is it better to feed starving children in Africa who will die without food, or to bury food in the dirt to "save the planet" from the theoretical and minor threat of global warming?
As far as the climatologists go, the old guard of professors and mentors trains the new guard, and they are savage to anyone who doesn't follow in their lock step group think. Just do a google search for climatologists who have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the herd. PhDs typically enter the work force when they are ~28, not 40, so those who had just started working in the field in 1979 (the tail end of the ice age scare) would be 65 or just retiring this year and would have been leading the departments for the last 20 years.
The El Nino, La Nina cycle was observed by a guy who gave it a name over a century ago. (FTFY)
Hurricane and Typhoon season were also identified centuries ago. Try not to conflate science with observations that any layman can make after living in an area for a few dozen years. Describing a phenomena and giving it a name in no way correlates to science or the scientific method. Observing warmer ocean temperatures correlate to more rainfall is an extremely basic observation of correlation, nothing more.
If they had mathematical models 100 years ago that accounted for all the variables and could predict the next 10 El Nino/La Nina cycles accurately, that would be closer to the realm of a science. As far as I am aware, we still can't do that (we just track ocean temperatures and predict for the current/coming year that it will be El Nino/La Nina, which again is just observing cause and effect, we do not know why sometimes the ocean currents shift warm waters further from the equator, nor can we predict 10 cycles in advance of when it will happen.
Nice AC post there. I assume that since you have put forth no logical arguments you agree with everything that I said? It appears that you do, but you didn't like the experience, and like a petulant child, you are throwing a tantrum.
As I said in the original post, climatology is not a science. It is in it's infant stages and it is the study of the climate on earth (hell, 15 years ago we couldn't even accurately predict the weather two days out reliably). It is not engaged in making and testing hypotheses like a true science because to a large degree, that cannot be done, as no one has yet to figure out how to make a population of similar planets to test hypotheses on. If you were familiar with the scientific method, you would understand this. Clearly you do not.
Further, you attempt to discredit my expertise in the field of thermodynamics (the underlying science that drives the global temperature) by comparing a thermal engineer, who utilizes applied, proven thermodynamics science on a daily basis to produce products that work as intended, to a politician with an MD? That is conflation of the worst kind, and reveals you complete lack of understanding of the issue. Please take your high school diploma elsewhere.
As far as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, they took away the rights of the people for the greater good (it didn't work out that way, but that was the initial rationalization and intent, regardless). I consider myself a classical environmentalist (I want clean air and clean water). However, the frothing at the mouth environuts want to dramatically infringe on your constitutional rights for some abstract global warming threat that I pretty effectively debunked in my prior post. This puts them in the same boat, whether you happen to like it or not.
As a thermal engineer who has looked at this issue fairly rigorously, I have come to the following conclusions on the climate change debate. Before I begin, I caution the reader that, though you may not like the facts or the sources, I suggest you avoid the logical fallacy "Damning the Source." The facts are easily discoverable and if you want to have a serious opinion on the debate, you need to do your homework (or else you are what is known as a useful idiot).
1. The climate changes: Go look at the global temperatures for the last 500k years or so. It has been both cooler and warmer than it is now, without the burning of fossil fuels. The climate has been changing for millennia and we have survived. There has been no earth shattering apocalypse. From a physics perspective, the earth rejects heat to space as a function of the absolute temperature of the planted (~288K) to the fourth power. A small change in temperature significantly increases heat rejection, making it hard for multiplicative-order changes in the emissivity of the earth (what the global warming people worry about) to significantly change the amount of heat rejected, thus elevating the temperature.
http://www.climate4you.com/ima...
2. The global warming "scientists" are the same "scientists" who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us. The reality is they are not scientists as they do not practice the scientific method, as it is impossible on a global scale and a sample of one, and many of the thermal interactions that they put into their models have not been tested or proven using the scientific method, they are educated guesses at best. They are either researchers, physics modelers, or mathematicians, but they are not scientists by definition. The public in large part has caught on to this in practice if not in theory, which is why "scientists" are not that well respected these days. True scientists should form a guild or association to guard the name more jealously, just as engineers (applied science experts) do (you can be heavily fined or even imprisoned for impersonating a civil, mechanical or structural engineer, depending on the state). The climate charlatans should be banned from the title of scientist and forced to use one of the above.
3. The climate change models have been wildly wrong for the last 30 plus years. Go back and dig out some of the old models predictions. These have been wrong at every turn. They may be getting better, but only time will tell. Based on past performance, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially if billions of dollars or the health of the economy are on the line.
http://cdn.thefederalist.com/w...
4. The climate change debate is now deeply intertwined with emotions, politics and research grant money on one side, and businesses and the general population on the other side. It is being fueled by politicians who see an opportunity to vilify their opposition, moral narcissists/intellectual snobs who make themselves feel better by believing that they take the moral high road and/or are smarter than their fellow citizen (hint: statistically they are smarter than some, dumber than others) and PhD's who are too stupid to get out of the rain (i.e. no common sense) but need their grant money, so they feed the pro global warming politicians more models showing warming/doom and gloom/etc. to get the next grant. It is a vicious cycle, and until we defund public research into global warming, we will continue to have this incestuous loop. I am not advocating banning climate change research, only the tax payer funding of it as a weapon for one political group to use against another, especially when intellectual fraud has been proven and the past product of the research has been junk models that have been proven inaccurate over time.
And from wha
Unless when his video card CATOD it weakened the power supply (overheated the voltage regulators, pulled excessive current, etc.) and it was just dying a slow death after that.
You are completely wrong here. First off, Windows is marketed as a business tool, and MS has spent millions in advertising to convince the business world that Windows is reliable and well supported.
Further, you are conflating mission critical safety applications, like avioncis, with manufacturing operations, like a CNC machine or bottling plant. Mission critical safety applications, where there is risk of great bodily harm or death go through a much more rigorous set of criteria than a piece of manufacturing hardware or a plant controller. For mission critical safety applications, ever line of code is scrutinized, every piece of hardware is tested for function and reliability and the entire system is rigorously tested for every possible failure mode.
This would be prohibitively expensive for most industrial automation applications, which are concerned mainly with making everything work properly. The few safety critical areas are relegated to safety rated hardware that overrides the industrial automation controller to protect life and limb.
Microsoft marketed and sold Windows as a business OS, and they marketed it with the expectation of continuous reliability and security updates until the stated end of support/end of life. They then deceptively used the Windows update pathway to force a new, incompatible OS with spyware, paid ads and forced updates on their paying customers. If that results in business losses, I am pretty sure that even a jury of non-technical people can follow the logical liability train back to MS and award damages.
The medical experts that sided with the family included the girls primary physician at Tufts Medical Center who knew her well and was treating her successfully, as well as many other MD experts in the same field who were unpaid and who reviewed and agreed with his diagnosis.
They were MDs, not homeopaths.
The state sided initially with the hospital and thus they are as criminally liable for her injury, deprivation of her meds for mitochondrial disease, 16 months of physical and psychological torture, as well as treating the parents like they had abused their daughter. She went in with the flu, but was otherwise functional, with videos just prior of her skating and hanging out with friends.
The quacks at the hospital locked her in a psych ward for 16 months. After 16 months without meds the hospital had nearly killed her, which is why they finally returned custody to the parents, because if she had died someone would have been facing manslaughter at least if not 2nd degree murder. When she was finally released she could not stand, sit or walk on her own and had other severe symptoms of the untreated mitochondrial disease. She has also had to have multiple surgeries to correct some of the damage.
Since your google is broken, here are some links. I know it sounds like Stalinist Russia, but this actually happened in the US a couple of years ago...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
If you have kids and didn't know about this story, you need to wake up and pay attention to the people and politicians who are trying to take away your rights as a citizen and as a parent. It is some scary shit.
I have been buying iPhones since the 3GS (recording videos was when I jumped in). The 3GS is still going strong as one of the kids iPod touches. However, I won't be buying any more iPhones after my 6 plus unless and until they listen to actual customers (or customers who aren't also total morons). The iPhone 7 is clearly designed by a committee who really had two driving motives: make Apple more money and make it waterproof.
I want things like:
Waterproof without removing basic, essential features in lieu of $150 proprietary earbuds (or open source your standard so anyone can produce products for the device/use it however they want.)
Wireless charging
a battery that gives me a week of phone in standby.
solid, reliable phone call quality and connection
Solid, reliable wifi connection that plays nice with other devices
500GB storage and a micro SD slot for hot swappable storage
A screen that can be dropped 3 feet and not shatter like a damn Fabrige Egg (think sapphire screens)
Cool sensors and features that let my phone replace other things I carry or use regularly. (a pair of cameras on opposite ends of one face for 3D imaging, a laser pointer, a projected full size keyboard, IR thermal camera, etc.)
Things I don't want:
Regular glass lenses on the cameras and screen (iPhone 7)
Super thin, super light, weak phone that dies at noon or breaks at the drop of a hat.
News Flash: Monopolies buy politicians to protect their monopoly! Masses shocked! Film at 11.
Seriously though, this is no surprise. These monopolies have been making money hand over fist for decades on delivering Cable TV or phone service to a captive audience. They now see their internet business slowly cannibalizing their cable TV business (analog cable is already dead here, there is no reason all content cannot be streamed online) or completely eliminating their phone service ($120 for Ooma and never pay another $25/mo phone bill? Done deal.)
These companies have an outmoded 15 plus year old built out infrastructure for net access that they paid for with government grants and they have been raking in the profits all those years with minimal overhead. Now they see Google fiber and they know that they will actually have to compete or they will be completely out of business. However, monopolistic interference is often easier and cheaper than competition. Sheri Weiner needs to have some FBI agents come by for a visit and open a corruption investigation into her. Letting a monopoly write your legislation should be illegal.
IMO this is all Valve's fault. They allowed DH and other crapware "developers" to game the Greenlight system. I assume somewhere in the Greenlight legal agreement between Valve and the developer, there is a clause where the developer agrees not to cheat the Greenlight system. If I were Valve, I would dig into this, find the evidence that I am sure is there (the games are obvious garbage and no gamer would vote to put them on the marketplace). With that evidence in hand (IP addresses, sock puppet steam accounts, etc) Valve should take them to court and vigorously bankrupt the shit out of them and then rinse and repeat with the other companies that are doing the same thing. Once word gets around that Valve will release the hounds if you are just flipping content, the risk/reward will take care of any temptation to do this going forward.
I keep thinking about it, but honestly, unless you are 6 feet away from a 55" or larger screen, it doesn't look $700 better to me. The curved TV thing was just a gimmick (again, only useful if you sit close to a giant screen, 3D with glasses is a gimmick. If they can make a comfortable Oculus or PSVR that doesn't make me sick after 30 minutes that is where I am going next.
Aaaaand now we have yet another flying camcorder for the crooks and peeping Toms to invade your privacy and harass your family with... Awesome! /sarc
Instead of ignoring the fact that we all have biases, do what Fox news did successfully for a long time and get both viewpoints to weigh in. The happy medium needs to be found. If FB had say 6 editors, 3 liberals and 3 conservatives they could have a voting system. Any topic that the software determines is a trending story goes to these 6 editors. Each editor gets a vote up or down. In theory they are only supposed to vote down click bait, trolling, and false stories. A vote of 4 or more down kills the story. If the 3 liberals cant differentiate between truth or fact, you fire them and hire 3 more liberals until you find 3 that are both liberal and smart enough to be able to differentiate BS from reality. (Say what you will about conservatives, they typically have better BS detectors.)
One easy way that lawmakers could slap down this kind of practice across the board is pass a law making it illegal for companies to require employees to train H1Bs as a part of an involuntary severance package. Your knowledge is your own. You already contributed to the company, and if you are competent enough to train your replacement, you shouldn't be replaced in the first place.
To keep the law simple, if you train an H1B to do your job and are let go within 2 years without cause, the company has broken the law and owes the employee 5 years pay restitution with full benefits for 5 years and a $500k fine to the state. The 2 year time limit can be extended indefinitely if it can be shown that management was conspiring to circumvent the law. If the H1B replacements are so much better, they should be able to pick it up as they go.
Also within the law make it a felony to attempt to subvert the above law, such that management at the company is criminally liable if it can be proven that steps were put into place to circumvent the above law.
We the people need to get a grip on this country or we are going to end up a banana republic. If we could only figure out how to get a referendum process in place at the national level such that the people could pass laws irrevocable by congress or the courts (essentially constitutional amendments, above the crap that congress churns out) we would be in such better shape.
We could pass a common sense law that security researchers could register as such with the FBI (or even maybe a private non-profit security professional organization; US Cyber Security Society or some such) and then pretty much attempt to penetrate any system that they want, with the additional caveat that they send the results and any evidence back to the company/entity tested. They would also be free to disseminate information about the hack, but not anything sensitive from the servers they penetrated to the pubic as a news/informative service. In much the same way reporters are specially protected, they should be protected as the public has a right to know if there are gaping security holes in their banks, their ballot boxes etc...
It is spelled GREED not courage. Courage would be releasing their custom bluetooth standard along with open sourcing the head phone design so that it can be easily copied by other manufacturers and become the industry standard. Nice try though Apple...
This exactly. There is never a good reason to geo tag your family photos. This feature should be off by default and have a pop up warning every time you use your camera if it is enabled. Companies like Facebook and Google love the geo tagging because it lets them further spy on their users, but for the rest of us it is just a bad idea...
Solar powered drones that can stay aloft indefinitely, loaded with thousands of rounds of microbullets fired via railgun recharged by said solar cells. Or a high power density laser diode array recharged by the solar cells. Either is not far out of our reach.
Meh. The reality is that every time we innovate, it displaces workers. Not too many people in the fields picking cotton any more, still lots of jobs. Not many people digging ditches any more. Still lots of jobs. The reality is that there is an ever growing demand for everything, and typically because automation has a high entry cost, these things are gradually introduced into the market. There are still plenty of people working at banks, even though they now use ATMs (and now online banking) to handle routine transactions, and as a bonus, customers don't have to wait in long lines to do their business.
Typically, as we automate, the value of the human wage goes up due to competition. If you make $50k a year, your dollar goes farther because as companies automate those things, they have to compete with other companies and so the overall price goes down. And yes, menial, mindless tasks the world over are on the chopping block, but the solution to all of this is already well known, and if we do develop a labor glut, it is a very simple fix. The government simply eliminates salaries for all but management within companies, and you reduce the work week from 40h to 4 days and 32h and make OT pay 3x base rate. In order for companies to get the job done competitively, they will be forced to hire more employees. This was done in the past several times. During the industrial revolution, people were working 60-80h/week, including children. They passed child labor laws, effectively reducing the labor force, and passed the 40h work week, further reducing the available per person labor.
The flip side of this is we must at the same time pass tarrifs similar to what Trump is proposing so we don' t force our workers to compete with third world hellholes on an even footing. And we make it un-economical for our companies to offshore with those same tarrifs. We also put hard caps and/or significantly reduce H1B and illegal workers, as those also undercut the legit worker and create unnatural workforce glut. We don't need universal base income or other socialist schemes, just enact some common sense after decades of selective insanity.
That was a great TNG episode, and not too far out of our reach even now. Imagine a swarm of 50,000 solar powered 100lb flying wing drones capable of staying aloft indefinitely that are mass produced and cost $5000 each. Leave your soldiers at home and deploy them over a war zone with orders to kill anything that fires at them, wears the enemy uniform or matches other criteria using bullets fired from 5000 feet up (firing in a vertical dive with software ballistic correction for crosswinds after the first shot should give pinpoint accuracy). Give each drone 200 rounds of ammunition and an on-board explosive charge. With the right targeting system, you can reduce the cost to kill an entire army of soldiers to $0.50/kill with an initial investment of $250M, which is pennies for the military. The swarm of drones could kill 5M enemies before reloading or being used as cruise missiles. Further, any aircraft engaging the swarm gets blown up by 20-30 simultaneous kamikazi attacks and the drone's explosive charges. You can take out non-hardened targets like cars and buildings with the same method. I guarantee you that Iran and China are both working on this now, as it is an effective means for them to challenge the US for air supremacy.
If something like that were to go haywire, you could create a massive no-go kill zone for years.
You can go buy alcohol, that kills brain cells, but also kills your liver. We're in the process of legalizing MJ and that definitely kills brain cells, but is worse than cigarettes for your lungs. The droud (Ringworld series by Larry Niven, direct electrical stimulation of the pleasure centers of the brain) is the logical progression. Those who want to check out of reality can do so for pennies a day and their bodies stay perfectly healthy to be used as organ farms later on to pay for the cost of their living expenses.
Except they weren't cheating, you may not like it, but Apple did noting illegal, which is why it is called a loophole, not cheating on taxes. The fault is really Ireland's, and everyone knows it, but the EU is pissed at all the lost revenue and so they are trying to change the law retroactively, which is BS. If whoever gets into the white house next has a clue about business, they will offer Apple to pull home all of its profits abroad and we will get a nice cash infusion into our banking system. Tax haven countries like Ireland should be censured by the rest of the world such that there are export taxes on money going to the tax shelters equal to the gains made by moving the money there, problem solved.
Just more confirmation that Windows 7 will be my last windows version, ever. When Windows 7 stops getting security updates/gets crippled by MS update I will go Ubuntu/SteamOS for my desktop and console for my gaming.