Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately.
While I agree with most of your post, what you describe here is not science. That approach turns science on its head. The scientific method begins with a reasoned hypothesis, followed by a prediction based on the hypothesis, and an experiment to prove or disprove this prediction. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.
The most non-science part of Climate "science" is the regular refrain that "There's a consensus, therefore, anthropogenic global warming is proven." If anyone so much as expresses doubt about this form of proof, that person is attacked. I believe this sums up my opinion of that succinctly.
I don't think it's realistic at this point to expect much change from the government. Unarmed black men die by cop in the streets and that's all part of the plan it seems. Even the black president appears to do nothing but pay lip service to the problem. Internet freedom seems downright secondary when unarmed kids are being shot by cops regularly.
To the point, I think what we are witnessing is the end of what we currently understand as the internet. Net neutrality wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the ISP monopolies in the first place. NSA spying and weakening encryption standards leaving the whole system backdoored. DMCA is the icing on the cake, destroying free speech one github repo at a time.
I fully expect wireless mesh networks to be the next generation of internet. People will laugh about the days when we were so stupid to trust Facebook servers with so much as a password. They will of course, use something similar to SSH, where the client holds the key and the password. The idea that one company could have stood as a gatekeeper between you and your pizza order from the shop on the corner will seem like pure stupidity.
It is stupidity. There's absolutely no reason those pizza order packets need to travel thousands of miles from my handset, up to a cloud server, where it's intercepted and inspected by the NSA before it is passed down another wire belonging to another ISP who's going to charge a fee or slow the order down, just to reach a pizza shop a mile or two down the road. (assuming that pizza shop didn't get an illegitimate DMCA takedown over a photo of a cheese pizza). It is simply ridiculous when every square mile of modern civilization is saturated with wireless radios. I'm sitting in range of 16 wifi access points right now. Everyone I know carries a phone with not only wifi, but bluetooth, and LTE too.
This is dumb. And when enough of us developers step back, and think, and see how very dumb it is... we will create a new solution. The dim witted management in the form of government will proceed to try to screw up our new internet as best they can, until they succeed and we start the process all over again.
I think you missed a memo. While it may be that most of the heat does go into the oceans, not enough of it has been going in there to explain the recent global warming 'pause' that climatologists are unable to explain.
lol. Says the moron who couldn't figure out Acrobat runs on neither ChromeOS or Linux.
You go ahead and take several screenshots of partial pages and then go into an image editor to stitch them together though. Hey, maybe you can even break out your iPhone and take pictures of your screen. That'll be even better, because you'll add an extra step or two between you and a final product.
Many states have locked PDF forms that can only be filled with Adobe Acrobat. The PDF can't even be saved once filled, so an electronic backup is out. The only backup available is a printed one. You're not going to be able to fill and print them on a Chromebook, even with Linux.
Sorry. I don't trust other people with my tax returns.
Is computer illiterate? Buy her or pops a Chromebook and they can't do their taxes on it.
Anyway, computer illiterate parents are not the market where Chromebooks are selling. Most are landing in the hands of computer illiterate children via schools looking for a "cheap laptop." Schools love them. They are inexpensive and low maintenance. You don't need IT with Chromebooks and that's exactly what schools want to hear. Too bad the kids can't really use Chromebooks to learn anything about computers.
20 years ago, Microsoft sold US education policy makers on the concept that "learning computers" meant learning the MS Office suite. That has produced a generation which is completely deficient in general computer knowledge. Tech giants are now flailing around trying to encourage kids to code now, because of the rarity of truly educated computer users.
Chromebooks will be the final nail in the coffin for US tech labor. "Computer people" in the US will be even more rare. Doing anything beyond web browsing and email is difficult on a Chromebook. I've used one as a daily driver for more than a year now. My C720 is my only laptop. I've installed Chrubuntu and chroots using Crouton. I've done Android development on it. You might think that would serve as proof that kids *can* use them to learn, but it is not the case.
My productivity has easily been a quarter of what it was on a 'real' laptop. I rarely do anything in linux on it, because every time I boot it up, I have a chrome window with my top 8 websites staring at me. Oh, hey, let me check the news on (HN | CNN | Slashdot | etc) really quick before I start work. 3 hours later, I'm bored with laughing at stupid pictures on imgur and wondering what it was I had planned to work on today. Even when you do want to work, the hardware is cheap, so everything takes just a little longer. Let me switch back to chrome and check email really quick while this thing compiles... Okay, that was funny cat picture... well, will you look at the time! I guess I will work some tomorrow instead.
And then there's the problem with Chrome's habit of autoupdating itself. Every auto update has the potential to hose your chroot environment. Meaning, oops, that autoupdate just blew your afternoon. Time to spend several hours reinstalling ubuntu and all the developer tools that took ages to set up properly.
In short, I wouldn't recommend a Chromebook as a real computer any more than I'd recommend an iPad. It is not a producer device. It's designed to allow passive consumption of whatever garbage lies on the web. I'll be getting myself a new 'real' laptop for xmas.
To which such people are you referring as voting for?
He didn't bring up republicans. You did. He merely indicated he didn't vote for Obama. As far as anyone knows, when he voted for "the right people" he voted for himself.
I'm seriously sick of you fuckers with your D/R myopia.
Because it's already too late. Even if we stopped CO2 production entirely, today, all of this stuff would still happen.
Got any proof of that? Last I checked, there were metric fucktons of CO2 disappearing into unknown sinks. If "the real climate scientists" can't even tell us where all the CO2 is going, how do you know it's too late for remediation efforts?
I got an idea. Let's make a post about it on/. and let the relationship geniuses there tell us what's wrong with it.:P
It's a dating site. If you don't come back and pay them/look at ads, they die. Of course it's broken. It's supposed to be. Look at these numbers. Much different from 1970, before dating sites came along and ruined everything. The "dating" sites are ensuring all you ever do is have bad dates. If you get luck and find a partner, you're the exception, not the rule.
Why would you insist on turning this into LBGT vs CIS rather than acknowledge the real name policy is just plain dumb? I sense a closet homo who feels guilty about jerking off to tranny porn:) That goes for all of you who modded this up as well.
The policy adversely affects writers, artists, actors, and about eleventy brazillion other legit reasons to use a pseudonym.
The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
Wait. Do my ears deceive me? You are denying a well known scientific observation because it doesn't fit with your AGW doctrine? You think the OCO-2 sat is a 280 million dollar conspiracy to debunk AGW? Denier! Denier!! dave420 is in a denier of teh science!!11!ONE!
You guys are idiots. You want to know why there are so many people who are skeptical about AGW? Look in the mirror. If you don't know anything about climate science, keep your opinions to yourselves please. You aren't helping your side of the argument. Here's a quick list of papers I found with google. You could find hundreds more in no time at all.
[1] Broecker, W. S. et al., 1979: Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget, Science, 206:409-418
[2] Siegenthaler, U. and H. Oeschger, 1978: Predicting future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, Science, 199:388-395
[3] Siegenthaler, U. and J. L. Sarmiento, 1993: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the ocean, Nature, 365:119-125
[4] IPCC (1994) Climate Change 1994, Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios eds. J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meria Filho, J. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, B. A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain
[5] Joos F., 1994: Imbalance in the budget, Nature, 370:181-182
[6] Hesshaimer V., M. Heimann and I. Levin, 1994: Radiocarbon evidence for a smaller oceanic carbon dioxide sink than previously believed, Nature, 370:201-203
[7] Broecker, W. S. and T. Peng, 1994: Stratospheric contribution to the global bomb radiocarbon inventory: Model versus observation, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8:377-384
[8] Dale, V. H. and H. M. Rauscher, 1994: Assessing impacts of climate change on forests, Climatic Change 28:65-90
[9] Kheshgi, H. S., A. K. Jain and D. J. Wuebbles, 1996: Accounting for the missing carbon sink with the CO2 fertilization effect, Climatic Change, in print
[10] Hulme, M., S. C. B. Raper and T. M. L. Wigley, 1995: An integrated framework to address climate change (ESCAPE) and further developments of the global and regional climate modules (MAGICC), Energy Policy, 23:347-355
[11] Manne, A., R. Mendelsohn and R. Richels, 1995: MERGE: A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies, Energy Policy, 23:17-34
[12] Peck, S. C. and T. J. Teisberg, 1994: Optimal carbon emissions trajectories when damages depend on the rate or level of global warming, Climatic Change, 28:289-314
[13] Keller, A. A. and R. A. Goldstein, 1994: The human effect on the global carbon cycle: response functions to analyze management strategies, World Resources Review, 6:63-87
[14] Hudson, R. J. M., S. A. Gherini and R. A. Goldstein, 1994: Modeling the global carbon cycle: nitrogen fertilization of the terrestrial biosphere and the "missing" CO2 sink, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8:307-333
[15] Dregne, H., M. Kassas and B. Rosanov, 1991: A new assessment of the world status of desertification, Desertification Control Bulletin, UNEP, 20:6-18
I wonder... do you actually believe your spiel or do you just keep copy/pasting it to karma whore? Last time, I pointed out that there are significant unknown sinks of CO2. Yet here you are, lobbing the same half truths at the audience. So, tell us oh wise one... if you were in charge of the planet today, what would you do to reduce atmospheric CO2, given that the real climate scientists don't even know where it is all going now? I'd love to hear your plan, glorious leader.
Slashdot Mirror
She missed the "reasoned hypothesis" step.
And you missed the scientific experiment step. Your assertion that (hypothesis + prediction + observation = science) is wrong.
Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately.
While I agree with most of your post, what you describe here is not science. That approach turns science on its head. The scientific method begins with a reasoned hypothesis, followed by a prediction based on the hypothesis, and an experiment to prove or disprove this prediction. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.
The most non-science part of Climate "science" is the regular refrain that "There's a consensus, therefore, anthropogenic global warming is proven." If anyone so much as expresses doubt about this form of proof, that person is attacked. I believe this sums up my opinion of that succinctly.
nobody is removing projects or any IP from Github
In this specific instance perhaps, but I wouldn't say nobody. Remember Popcorn Time?
I don't think it's realistic at this point to expect much change from the government. Unarmed black men die by cop in the streets and that's all part of the plan it seems. Even the black president appears to do nothing but pay lip service to the problem. Internet freedom seems downright secondary when unarmed kids are being shot by cops regularly.
To the point, I think what we are witnessing is the end of what we currently understand as the internet. Net neutrality wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the ISP monopolies in the first place. NSA spying and weakening encryption standards leaving the whole system backdoored. DMCA is the icing on the cake, destroying free speech one github repo at a time.
I fully expect wireless mesh networks to be the next generation of internet. People will laugh about the days when we were so stupid to trust Facebook servers with so much as a password. They will of course, use something similar to SSH, where the client holds the key and the password. The idea that one company could have stood as a gatekeeper between you and your pizza order from the shop on the corner will seem like pure stupidity.
It is stupidity. There's absolutely no reason those pizza order packets need to travel thousands of miles from my handset, up to a cloud server, where it's intercepted and inspected by the NSA before it is passed down another wire belonging to another ISP who's going to charge a fee or slow the order down, just to reach a pizza shop a mile or two down the road. (assuming that pizza shop didn't get an illegitimate DMCA takedown over a photo of a cheese pizza). It is simply ridiculous when every square mile of modern civilization is saturated with wireless radios. I'm sitting in range of 16 wifi access points right now. Everyone I know carries a phone with not only wifi, but bluetooth, and LTE too.
This is dumb. And when enough of us developers step back, and think, and see how very dumb it is... we will create a new solution. The dim witted management in the form of government will proceed to try to screw up our new internet as best they can, until they succeed and we start the process all over again.
Like how Iran hacked and downed a military drone in their territory?
I don't recall anybody ever predicting "the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather".
You must be new here :)
Re: RCMP.
What anonymity?
-- NSA
In reality, most of the heat goes in the oceans
I think you missed a memo. While it may be that most of the heat does go into the oceans, not enough of it has been going in there to explain the recent global warming 'pause' that climatologists are unable to explain.
lol. Says the moron who couldn't figure out Acrobat runs on neither ChromeOS or Linux.
You go ahead and take several screenshots of partial pages and then go into an image editor to stitch them together though. Hey, maybe you can even break out your iPhone and take pictures of your screen. That'll be even better, because you'll add an extra step or two between you and a final product.
I'll just print them, thanks.
Screenshot what? A blank form? You can't even fill the form on a Chromebook because it requires Acrobat Reader.
Many states have locked PDF forms that can only be filled with Adobe Acrobat. The PDF can't even be saved once filled, so an electronic backup is out. The only backup available is a printed one. You're not going to be able to fill and print them on a Chromebook, even with Linux.
Sorry. I don't trust other people with my tax returns.
Is computer illiterate? Buy her or pops a Chromebook and they can't do their taxes on it.
Anyway, computer illiterate parents are not the market where Chromebooks are selling. Most are landing in the hands of computer illiterate children via schools looking for a "cheap laptop." Schools love them. They are inexpensive and low maintenance. You don't need IT with Chromebooks and that's exactly what schools want to hear. Too bad the kids can't really use Chromebooks to learn anything about computers.
20 years ago, Microsoft sold US education policy makers on the concept that "learning computers" meant learning the MS Office suite. That has produced a generation which is completely deficient in general computer knowledge. Tech giants are now flailing around trying to encourage kids to code now, because of the rarity of truly educated computer users.
Chromebooks will be the final nail in the coffin for US tech labor. "Computer people" in the US will be even more rare. Doing anything beyond web browsing and email is difficult on a Chromebook. I've used one as a daily driver for more than a year now. My C720 is my only laptop. I've installed Chrubuntu and chroots using Crouton. I've done Android development on it. You might think that would serve as proof that kids *can* use them to learn, but it is not the case.
My productivity has easily been a quarter of what it was on a 'real' laptop. I rarely do anything in linux on it, because every time I boot it up, I have a chrome window with my top 8 websites staring at me. Oh, hey, let me check the news on (HN | CNN | Slashdot | etc) really quick before I start work. 3 hours later, I'm bored with laughing at stupid pictures on imgur and wondering what it was I had planned to work on today. Even when you do want to work, the hardware is cheap, so everything takes just a little longer. Let me switch back to chrome and check email really quick while this thing compiles... Okay, that was funny cat picture... well, will you look at the time! I guess I will work some tomorrow instead.
And then there's the problem with Chrome's habit of autoupdating itself. Every auto update has the potential to hose your chroot environment. Meaning, oops, that autoupdate just blew your afternoon. Time to spend several hours reinstalling ubuntu and all the developer tools that took ages to set up properly.
In short, I wouldn't recommend a Chromebook as a real computer any more than I'd recommend an iPad. It is not a producer device. It's designed to allow passive consumption of whatever garbage lies on the web. I'll be getting myself a new 'real' laptop for xmas.
1. Climate change is mostly man-made;
AC claims climate barely changed before man evolved. Who is woowoo anti-science again?
To which such people are you referring as voting for?
He didn't bring up republicans. You did. He merely indicated he didn't vote for Obama. As far as anyone knows, when he voted for "the right people" he voted for himself.
I'm seriously sick of you fuckers with your D/R myopia.
Your examples are flawed. There isn't a database with a complete record of all license plate movements.
LOL. I stopped reading here. You are so naive. There are multiple different databases with a complete record of all license plate movements.
Because it's already too late. Even if we stopped CO2 production entirely, today, all of this stuff would still happen.
Got any proof of that? Last I checked, there were metric fucktons of CO2 disappearing into unknown sinks. If "the real climate scientists" can't even tell us where all the CO2 is going, how do you know it's too late for remediation efforts?
So does this mean they go to jail for perjury?
I got an idea. Let's make a post about it on /. and let the relationship geniuses there tell us what's wrong with it. :P
It's a dating site. If you don't come back and pay them/look at ads, they die. Of course it's broken. It's supposed to be. Look at these numbers. Much different from 1970, before dating sites came along and ruined everything. The "dating" sites are ensuring all you ever do is have bad dates. If you get luck and find a partner, you're the exception, not the rule.
its*
From the king of ignorant fucksticks:
"If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place." -- Eric Schmidt
And yet, even G+ repealed it's real name policy.
Why would you insist on turning this into LBGT vs CIS rather than acknowledge the real name policy is just plain dumb? I sense a closet homo who feels guilty about jerking off to tranny porn :) That goes for all of you who modded this up as well.
The policy adversely affects writers, artists, actors, and about eleventy brazillion other legit reasons to use a pseudonym.
The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
Wait. Do my ears deceive me? You are denying a well known scientific observation because it doesn't fit with your AGW doctrine? You think the OCO-2 sat is a 280 million dollar conspiracy to debunk AGW? Denier! Denier!! dave420 is in a denier of teh science!!11!ONE!
You guys are idiots. You want to know why there are so many people who are skeptical about AGW? Look in the mirror. If you don't know anything about climate science, keep your opinions to yourselves please. You aren't helping your side of the argument. Here's a quick list of papers I found with google. You could find hundreds more in no time at all.
I wonder... do you actually believe your spiel or do you just keep copy/pasting it to karma whore? Last time, I pointed out that there are significant unknown sinks of CO2. Yet here you are, lobbing the same half truths at the audience. So, tell us oh wise one... if you were in charge of the planet today, what would you do to reduce atmospheric CO2, given that the real climate scientists don't even know where it is all going now? I'd love to hear your plan, glorious leader.
What happens when you shut the air conditioner off in your house?
I save the fucking planet, that's what. :)