It's not about "blame". It's about predicting what will happen if we engage in a particular activity. The warming due to humans burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago, and we're now observing that predicted warming. We now have confirmation that burning fossil fuels causes warming, so we know we can lessen the warming by burning fewer fossil fuels.
If you know that germs cause disease, you can improve sanitation and lessen disease. It has nothing to do with "blaming" germs!
First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons. No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman.
All fructose is processed by the liver in the same way as alcohol. That includes fruit juice.
All this changes in the presence of fiber. If you eat a piece of fresh fruit, the fiber in the fruit changes the way the fructose from the fruit is absorbed so it's not such a huge shock to the liver.
The bottom line is that if you eat carbohydrates, you should make sure it's with plenty of fiber. In other words, eat pieces of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, just as nutritionists have been telling us for years. On food labels, I look for a % USRDA of fiber greater than or equal to the % USRDA of carbohydates, or grams of fiber at least 1/10 the grams of carbohydrate. It makes you feel more full with less food and prevents the sugar rush and crash from your liver absorbing the carbs too quickly.
In addition, you can also use the Plugin Check to make sure you have the most recent versions of plugins to decrease the risk of attack. And don't forget to turn on DEP for all programs and services on Windows.
A bigger problem is that there are very few useful problems that are practical to calculate on a distributed botnet of that fashion. It's been tried and failed before, more than once - most real-world problems involve large databases of confidential data, which is obviously inappropriate for a network like this on multiple levels.
Probably a bigger problem is that not many useful problems are "embarrassingly parallel". The nodes performing the computations need fast communication between other nodes in most parallel algorithms. The distributed algorithms that can be farmed out to idle computers need no communication with other nodes -- they perform work on the unit they were given and send the results back when they're done.
Using energy more efficiently isn't a solution in itself, but it can be part of a solution. If you can cut energy use by just 30%, that's 30% fewer nuclear power plants we'll need to build.
Yes, of course, no one even mentions energy efficiency, which is why the Obama administration has been pushing for more energy efficient lighting, applicances, homes, automobiles, and industry. But don't tell anyone I mentioned it. It's a secret!
If it's at all like Higher-Order Perl, it certainly isn't some new breakthrough paradigm. It's LISP re-invented. I hope the author understands LISP (or better yet, Scheme) so he doesn't re-invent it poorly.
You may remember in January there was a flaw in Internet Explorer that Microsoft knew about for several months before they delivered a patch. Before the patch was delivered, the flaw was widely exploited by Operation Aurora.
Now, you're trying to equate those fuckups to Mozilla holding back on releasing a patch for two weeks when there's no sign that the vulnerability is being exploited at all? In case you can't see what the difference is, Microsoft delays patches far longer and gives black hats far more opportunity to exploit the vulnerabilities. How do you think all those botnets get created?
Uh, no. Mozilla has already developed the security patch. It was written days after the details of the vulnerability were disclosed to them. You can download a beta version of Firefox 3.6.2 which has the patch. The question was why they are not immediately releasing the final version of Firefox 3.6.2. Is there some reason to rush?
Where did I say Microsoft was Satan? You're not just making up outrageous lies about me to try to win a stupid argument when you have no relevant evidence on your side, are you?
there's not much sign that attacks are taking place.
Is there any sign that this vulnerability is being exploited? If not, what's the rush? As the article says,
Consumers don't have to worry about access to legacy applications but swapping browsers willy-nilly in response to flaws doesn't make a great deal of sense even then because all browsers are subject to security flaps from time to time.
56.5% is "most"? Since when is "most" just over half?
All my life, most has meant anything more than half and less than all. Do you have a different definition of most? Out of curiosity, what does some mean to you? To me, it means anything more than none, although I would typically say most to mean more than half and all to mean every one without exception.
In mass media, we call it sensationalism. Newspapers, magazines, and TV reporters present people who proselytize the most extreme viewpoints as evidence of a controversy about this and a controversy about that, even where no such "controversy" exists. They aren't making up that there are people having an argument, but they go out of their way to cherrypick the extremists that are at the opposite extreme ends of any issue. Have you noticed all the reports about Toyotas recently? Remember all the hype about the so-called Firefox memory leaks?
I hope the Chinese haven't watched that old Twilight Zone episode The Monsters are Due on Maple Street. I guess the episode isn't so much about people attacking those who have supplies as much as people attacking those they are suspicious of, but whatever gets the job done, huh?
Yes, of course if you cherrypick only scientific studies that agree with what you want to believe, yes, you can prove nearly anything you like. This is because even if the study has been designed properly, has been carried out properly, and the results have been analyzed properly, about 5% of the time the conclusion will be incorrect. You can nearly always find a study that shows or a scientist who asserts whatever you care to believe. You need to look at all the available evidence, including evidence that disagrees with what you want to believe, if you want to have the best chance at getting to the bottom of the matter.
The problem is confirmation bias. The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers. When the U.S. found a paper written by a Chinese researcher that talked about using computers to attack the U.S. power system, they thought they found someone who was threatening U.S. security. In other words, when they found "evidence" that looked on the surface that it was what they were looking for, they jumped to the conclusion they had found it.
This is just the same as the "quote mining" we've seen from, say, intelligent design supporters who are continually on the lookout for evidence that evolution is wrong. It's also the reason that the hacked CLU emails are being misinterpreted to mean that AGW is a hoax. If you set out looking for evidence to support your idea, you need to make sure you also look for evidence that supports the opposite of your idea, and make sure you are interpreting the evidence you find correctly and neutrally.
If the vulnerability were publicly (fully) disclosed, perhaps Mozilla would rush a fix out the door. As far as I know, there has been limited disclosure of the vulnerability to only a few parties, and I haven't heard that the vulnerability is being exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not the only one.
Anyone can just hit Undo, and the work is back within seconds. What's to be disappointed about?
It's not about "blame". It's about predicting what will happen if we engage in a particular activity. The warming due to humans burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago, and we're now observing that predicted warming. We now have confirmation that burning fossil fuels causes warming, so we know we can lessen the warming by burning fewer fossil fuels.
If you know that germs cause disease, you can improve sanitation and lessen disease. It has nothing to do with "blaming" germs!
First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons. No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman.
Second, 20,000 years ago we didn't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean. Over the next century, these millions of people will be displaced, or the land they're on will be protected, at a cost of trillions of dollars. If we can avoid it by spending much less money, say, only one trillion dollars, it makes economic sense to do so.
Spending a trillion dollars sounds almost scary, except when you put in into context of saving several trillion dollars.
All fructose is processed by the liver in the same way as alcohol. That includes fruit juice.
All this changes in the presence of fiber. If you eat a piece of fresh fruit, the fiber in the fruit changes the way the fructose from the fruit is absorbed so it's not such a huge shock to the liver.
The bottom line is that if you eat carbohydrates, you should make sure it's with plenty of fiber. In other words, eat pieces of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, just as nutritionists have been telling us for years. On food labels, I look for a % USRDA of fiber greater than or equal to the % USRDA of carbohydates, or grams of fiber at least 1/10 the grams of carbohydrate. It makes you feel more full with less food and prevents the sugar rush and crash from your liver absorbing the carbs too quickly.
In addition, you can also use the Plugin Check to make sure you have the most recent versions of plugins to decrease the risk of attack. And don't forget to turn on DEP for all programs and services on Windows.
BOINC is an academic platform to do exactly what you describe.
Probably a bigger problem is that not many useful problems are "embarrassingly parallel". The nodes performing the computations need fast communication between other nodes in most parallel algorithms. The distributed algorithms that can be farmed out to idle computers need no communication with other nodes -- they perform work on the unit they were given and send the results back when they're done.
Using energy more efficiently isn't a solution in itself, but it can be part of a solution. If you can cut energy use by just 30%, that's 30% fewer nuclear power plants we'll need to build.
Yes, of course, no one even mentions energy efficiency, which is why the Obama administration has been pushing for more energy efficient lighting, applicances, homes, automobiles, and industry. But don't tell anyone I mentioned it. It's a secret!
If it's at all like Higher-Order Perl, it certainly isn't some new breakthrough paradigm. It's LISP re-invented. I hope the author understands LISP (or better yet, Scheme) so he doesn't re-invent it poorly.
Microsoft has still not issued a patch for their Charset Inheritance Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability that was found three years ago. The flaw exists in the current version of IE 8.
You may remember in January there was a flaw in Internet Explorer that Microsoft knew about for several months before they delivered a patch. Before the patch was delivered, the flaw was widely exploited by Operation Aurora.
Now, you're trying to equate those fuckups to Mozilla holding back on releasing a patch for two weeks when there's no sign that the vulnerability is being exploited at all? In case you can't see what the difference is, Microsoft delays patches far longer and gives black hats far more opportunity to exploit the vulnerabilities. How do you think all those botnets get created?
Uh, no. Mozilla has already developed the security patch. It was written days after the details of the vulnerability were disclosed to them. You can download a beta version of Firefox 3.6.2 which has the patch. The question was why they are not immediately releasing the final version of Firefox 3.6.2. Is there some reason to rush?
Where did I say Microsoft was Satan? You're not just making up outrageous lies about me to try to win a stupid argument when you have no relevant evidence on your side, are you?
Is there any sign that this vulnerability is being exploited? If not, what's the rush? As the article says,
All my life, most has meant anything more than half and less than all. Do you have a different definition of most? Out of curiosity, what does some mean to you? To me, it means anything more than none, although I would typically say most to mean more than half and all to mean every one without exception.
What cherrypicking are you talking about? There is a consensus on AGW, with most climate studies showing AGW is happening and none showing AGW is not. That's why 97% of active climatologists agree that AGW is happening. I'm sure some climatology studies have been debunked -- there are several studies in physics that have been debunked in recent years, yet strangely I haven't heard anyone saying that physicists shouldn't be taken seriously.
In mass media, we call it sensationalism. Newspapers, magazines, and TV reporters present people who proselytize the most extreme viewpoints as evidence of a controversy about this and a controversy about that, even where no such "controversy" exists. They aren't making up that there are people having an argument, but they go out of their way to cherrypick the extremists that are at the opposite extreme ends of any issue. Have you noticed all the reports about Toyotas recently? Remember all the hype about the so-called Firefox memory leaks?
Hey, it sells ads!
Helping your fellow human beings, perhaps?
I hope the Chinese haven't watched that old Twilight Zone episode The Monsters are Due on Maple Street. I guess the episode isn't so much about people attacking those who have supplies as much as people attacking those they are suspicious of, but whatever gets the job done, huh?
Yes, of course if you cherrypick only scientific studies that agree with what you want to believe, yes, you can prove nearly anything you like. This is because even if the study has been designed properly, has been carried out properly, and the results have been analyzed properly, about 5% of the time the conclusion will be incorrect. You can nearly always find a study that shows or a scientist who asserts whatever you care to believe. You need to look at all the available evidence, including evidence that disagrees with what you want to believe, if you want to have the best chance at getting to the bottom of the matter.
The problem is confirmation bias. The U.S. has been concerned that the Chinese are going to threaten U.S. security by using computers. When the U.S. found a paper written by a Chinese researcher that talked about using computers to attack the U.S. power system, they thought they found someone who was threatening U.S. security. In other words, when they found "evidence" that looked on the surface that it was what they were looking for, they jumped to the conclusion they had found it.
This is just the same as the "quote mining" we've seen from, say, intelligent design supporters who are continually on the lookout for evidence that evolution is wrong. It's also the reason that the hacked CLU emails are being misinterpreted to mean that AGW is a hoax. If you set out looking for evidence to support your idea, you need to make sure you also look for evidence that supports the opposite of your idea, and make sure you are interpreting the evidence you find correctly and neutrally.
If the vulnerability were publicly (fully) disclosed, perhaps Mozilla would rush a fix out the door. As far as I know, there has been limited disclosure of the vulnerability to only a few parties, and I haven't heard that the vulnerability is being exploited.
Because the vulnerability was not disclosed to Mozilla at first.
The flaw was disclosed to Mozilla only recently (perhaps just a few days ago), and there is already a patched build available.