At the time, I saw some people claiming that 300bps was all people really needed, since as text it was about 300 wpm, and most people couldn't read that fast.
I like the way you set up your response plans, but you're going to be significantly more expensive than someone who doesn't do it right.
The owner of a very small business needs to decide who he or she will hire for the IT support. You're charging more, probably pushing more infrastructure than the owner was expecting, and claiming that bad things can happen if he or she goes with the other guy, who is assuring (probably sincerely) the owner that nothing's wrong with his approach. Very small businesses tend not to have people who can tell which of you is right and which is BSing. Businesses make wrong choices for vital functions all the time, and recover or don't. I don't see that making the wrong decision in one of several areas is the business's fault.
Not all computers have IN/OUT instructions, or shift instructions that do more than one bit. I believe there have been computers where MOV wouldn't be applicable, since they were stack-based, although I've never worked with one. I don't think you can come up with conditional instructions that will translate to all computers I've used. Without them, the set of instructions you can freely translate isn't even Turing-complete.
If you can escalate yourself to admin rights if you have the ability to run arbitrary code, and you're sufficiently confident to throw it out as a general truth, then Windows security sucks anyway.
Huh? When you go into the Army, they make sure that you have a rifle and know how to use it when you need one. They don't rely on you having a gun and knowing how to use it.
If I'm not in uniform and subject to military discipline, and not carrying a weapon, I'm not covered by the Hague Conventions, and any fighting I do against any enemy is illegal anyway. Anyone in the military who forces me to fight in such circumstances is committing a war crime.
You are permitted to fight on your own before the US Armed Forces intervene, provided you carry arms openly and fight according to the laws of war (more or less; nobody follows them strictly). Once the Army shows up, it can presumably draft you and issue you a uniform, but it's not going to be real happy about new recruits fighting with nonstandard weapons.
The whole Clinton thing was irrelevant, and it was very obvious who you were talking about.
I understand that Clinton could have been prosecuted, but in fact nobody has given me the name of anyone who did what she did and was prosecuted. Your briefings seem to have been more strict than the justice system, which is reasonable. I don't know the story of the video guy, but I'd have to verify it before I trusted what you say about it.
As far as who you are and who you know affecting how you're treated, well, duh. Police can shoot people dead for no reason and not get tried and convicted, for a glaring example.
Other countries seem to have little difficulty getting enough police officers while holding them accountable. Is the US a sink of barbarism, that you say we can't?
Running a mail server without a DNS entry is normally dumb. Filters tend to reject email from such a server, and users have been told to distrust such.
I'm talking about the Bible, not theologians, and I'm assuming that the Bible is read intelligently. Lots of theologians are perfectly comfortable with evolution as how God made plants and animals, which suggests that it isn't against the Bible per se.
To get the best idea of what's going to happen, pay attention to the scientists. Journalists are notorious for making up or exaggerating stuff when the truth won't sell copies. (BTW, when the CO2 levels were that high, the Sun was significantly less bright.)
The best approach will involve encouraging renewable energy, which will involve some wealth transfer. Seriously, why the opposition to spending a few billion bucks on the less fortunate when it helps us all?
The 97% study was of papers in climate science that might be expected to address or rely on the issue. Other papers are irrelevant here. There were papers that were on global warming, papers that mentioned it, papers that didn't mention it but seemed to accept it, and a very few dissenters. People have looked at the study since then, and it appears to be mostly valid.
WTF is the NIPCC? Did they come up with any arguments that aren't either unsubstantiated libel or the same lame arguments that have been refuted over and over by those who actually pay attention to these things?
"Settled science" is a useful phrase, meaning that approximately everybody in the field takes it for granted and uses it as assumptions in their work. People who use it properly know that settled science can become unsettled, although that doesn't happen often. Examples of settled science include part of the theory of evolution, Special Relativity, the photon theory of light, and the basic facts of human activity causing surface temperatures to rise..
I don't know that the luminiferous aether ever fell into that category. People based a lot of physics on it, but it had internal problems. A medium that transmitted waves at light-speed would have to be very rigid, while not slowing bodies passing through it, so lots of people were uncomfortable with theory. I don't know that the Steady State theory was ever comfortably accepted either.
Life: The surface of the planet as a whole is getting hotter. Record lows in one area are completely consistent with that.
Life: Too short a time to tell if hurricanes are going down, and what seems to have gone down most is hurricanes that hit the US. In any case, this is one detail that might have been gotten wrong.
Life: Plenty of droughts. It may rain more where you are, but there's been plenty of severe droughts in recent years.
Life: Nobody's saying scientists who disagree should be discredited as scientists. There are a lot of non-scientists who deny it, based on little or no evidence, and they can't be discredited as scientists because they aren't in the first place. They're fanatics, in the sense that they will believe anything necessary to validate their baseless belief.
There are skeptics, and these can be argued with. There are a lot of denialists in the US, and they cannot be. Any evidence in favor of AGW is dismissed as dishonest scientists using forged data, and that attitude is not rational, but can only be understood by psychological and social and political drivers. How do you convince someone using facts and reason when they're going to deny any inconvenient fact, to the extent of libel and character assassination, and ignore reason?
The basic science is very simple. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it has been predicted for well over a century that increasing its presence in the air will warm things up. Carbon dioxide levels have gone up from about 280ppm to over 400, and it's because of us. This is plausible if you make some simple calculations (one ppm of carbon dioxide is something like eight billion tons, and we burn more fossil fuels than that), and the isotopic concentrations make it clear. The planet is warming up, and one obvious sign is the Northwest Passage.
The world has not had scientists for thousands of years. The closest things it had were philosophers and engineers, and for thousands of years they've known that the world isn't flat, and even had a decent estimate of its diameter. It took longer to find out about the stars and relativity, but that was because of the difficulties in getting experimental evidence. It took the invention of the telescope to find something orbiting another planet, and heliocentrism was preferred at that time because the calculations were simpler. If you want to say that science is unaware of things there's no evidence for, or in the case of relativity no evidence that it's possible, fine. Climate scientists do have observational evidence, so that doesn't apply.
Nobody's trying to shut up skeptics. People try to shut up denialists, with good reason. The fact that climate scientists dissent is clearly a good thing; it shows that legitimate dissenters can make themselves heard. BTW, Wikipedia says that, in 2012, Lindzen agreed that we're putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, that it's a greenhouse gas, and that the world is getting warmer. He may well have been convinced he was wrong by the evidence. It's an occupational hazard in science. Dyson is not, in any sense of the word, a climate scientist, and expresses skepticism about how mature the subject is. He is aware of how we're warming up the planet, he just distrusts projections and thinks it will be a lot less harmful than most climate scientists think.
Let's see...the question is not whether the climate is changing but how fast. It normally doesn't make large global changes in decades or centuries.
Your opinion of the politics involved is irrelevant to the truth. In fact, it's really really hard to run a global scientific conspiracy, and the data has been verified all over the place.
What we know: global temperature has been rising really fast. There's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it got there by people burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so if there's more in the atmosphere you'd expect the global temperature to go up.
Nature does tend to create equilibrium, but not necessarily the one we want. It certainly isn't the pre-industrial one, since carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from about 280 parts per million in 1850 to over 400 today. There are things that do sequester excess carbon dioxide, and they're overwhelmed by the rate we're releasing it. (If you like, you can verify that we're putting significant numbers of parts per million of carbon dioxide into the air. It requires a few quick facts and a very basic knowledge of chemistry.)
You're making up the stuff about more evaporation bouncing all the excess heat; if that were the case, we'd still have pretty much the same global temperature as in 1850. Storms turn thermal energy into kinetic energy to some extent, true, but when the storm is over the kinetic energy is gone, and kinetic energy has a habit of winding up as heat.
I'm not concerned here with the motives of the people who wrote the Bible. I'm concerned with the motives of the people who interpret it and spread their interpretations around. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Bible has anything in it against climate scientists in relation to global warming. It says nothing about how the various species were created, for that matter.
I fail to see your point. You seem to be saying that things would be better if we went back to the good old days when people used email for their online communications. It may be true, but I don't see that it's relevant to what should be done now.
Slashdot Mirror
At the time, I saw some people claiming that 300bps was all people really needed, since as text it was about 300 wpm, and most people couldn't read that fast.
I like the way you set up your response plans, but you're going to be significantly more expensive than someone who doesn't do it right.
The owner of a very small business needs to decide who he or she will hire for the IT support. You're charging more, probably pushing more infrastructure than the owner was expecting, and claiming that bad things can happen if he or she goes with the other guy, who is assuring (probably sincerely) the owner that nothing's wrong with his approach. Very small businesses tend not to have people who can tell which of you is right and which is BSing. Businesses make wrong choices for vital functions all the time, and recover or don't. I don't see that making the wrong decision in one of several areas is the business's fault.
Not all computers have IN/OUT instructions, or shift instructions that do more than one bit. I believe there have been computers where MOV wouldn't be applicable, since they were stack-based, although I've never worked with one. I don't think you can come up with conditional instructions that will translate to all computers I've used. Without them, the set of instructions you can freely translate isn't even Turing-complete.
If you can escalate yourself to admin rights if you have the ability to run arbitrary code, and you're sufficiently confident to throw it out as a general truth, then Windows security sucks anyway.
Huh? When you go into the Army, they make sure that you have a rifle and know how to use it when you need one. They don't rely on you having a gun and knowing how to use it.
If I'm not in uniform and subject to military discipline, and not carrying a weapon, I'm not covered by the Hague Conventions, and any fighting I do against any enemy is illegal anyway. Anyone in the military who forces me to fight in such circumstances is committing a war crime.
You are permitted to fight on your own before the US Armed Forces intervene, provided you carry arms openly and fight according to the laws of war (more or less; nobody follows them strictly). Once the Army shows up, it can presumably draft you and issue you a uniform, but it's not going to be real happy about new recruits fighting with nonstandard weapons.
The whole Clinton thing was irrelevant, and it was very obvious who you were talking about.
I understand that Clinton could have been prosecuted, but in fact nobody has given me the name of anyone who did what she did and was prosecuted. Your briefings seem to have been more strict than the justice system, which is reasonable. I don't know the story of the video guy, but I'd have to verify it before I trusted what you say about it.
As far as who you are and who you know affecting how you're treated, well, duh. Police can shoot people dead for no reason and not get tried and convicted, for a glaring example.
Other countries seem to have little difficulty getting enough police officers while holding them accountable. Is the US a sink of barbarism, that you say we can't?
Running a mail server without a DNS entry is normally dumb. Filters tend to reject email from such a server, and users have been told to distrust such.
I'm talking about the Bible, not theologians, and I'm assuming that the Bible is read intelligently. Lots of theologians are perfectly comfortable with evolution as how God made plants and animals, which suggests that it isn't against the Bible per se.
Liar.
To get the best idea of what's going to happen, pay attention to the scientists. Journalists are notorious for making up or exaggerating stuff when the truth won't sell copies. (BTW, when the CO2 levels were that high, the Sun was significantly less bright.)
The best approach will involve encouraging renewable energy, which will involve some wealth transfer. Seriously, why the opposition to spending a few billion bucks on the less fortunate when it helps us all?
The 97% study was of papers in climate science that might be expected to address or rely on the issue. Other papers are irrelevant here. There were papers that were on global warming, papers that mentioned it, papers that didn't mention it but seemed to accept it, and a very few dissenters. People have looked at the study since then, and it appears to be mostly valid.
WTF is the NIPCC? Did they come up with any arguments that aren't either unsubstantiated libel or the same lame arguments that have been refuted over and over by those who actually pay attention to these things?
Why don't you check your facts?
"Settled science" is a useful phrase, meaning that approximately everybody in the field takes it for granted and uses it as assumptions in their work. People who use it properly know that settled science can become unsettled, although that doesn't happen often. Examples of settled science include part of the theory of evolution, Special Relativity, the photon theory of light, and the basic facts of human activity causing surface temperatures to rise..
I don't know that the luminiferous aether ever fell into that category. People based a lot of physics on it, but it had internal problems. A medium that transmitted waves at light-speed would have to be very rigid, while not slowing bodies passing through it, so lots of people were uncomfortable with theory. I don't know that the Steady State theory was ever comfortably accepted either.
Are these actual scientists? (The oceans are going away over the next billion years, BTW.)
Life: The surface of the planet as a whole is getting hotter. Record lows in one area are completely consistent with that.
Life: Too short a time to tell if hurricanes are going down, and what seems to have gone down most is hurricanes that hit the US. In any case, this is one detail that might have been gotten wrong.
Life: Plenty of droughts. It may rain more where you are, but there's been plenty of severe droughts in recent years.
Life: Nobody's saying scientists who disagree should be discredited as scientists. There are a lot of non-scientists who deny it, based on little or no evidence, and they can't be discredited as scientists because they aren't in the first place. They're fanatics, in the sense that they will believe anything necessary to validate their baseless belief.
There are skeptics, and these can be argued with. There are a lot of denialists in the US, and they cannot be. Any evidence in favor of AGW is dismissed as dishonest scientists using forged data, and that attitude is not rational, but can only be understood by psychological and social and political drivers. How do you convince someone using facts and reason when they're going to deny any inconvenient fact, to the extent of libel and character assassination, and ignore reason?
The basic science is very simple. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it has been predicted for well over a century that increasing its presence in the air will warm things up. Carbon dioxide levels have gone up from about 280ppm to over 400, and it's because of us. This is plausible if you make some simple calculations (one ppm of carbon dioxide is something like eight billion tons, and we burn more fossil fuels than that), and the isotopic concentrations make it clear. The planet is warming up, and one obvious sign is the Northwest Passage.
The world has not had scientists for thousands of years. The closest things it had were philosophers and engineers, and for thousands of years they've known that the world isn't flat, and even had a decent estimate of its diameter. It took longer to find out about the stars and relativity, but that was because of the difficulties in getting experimental evidence. It took the invention of the telescope to find something orbiting another planet, and heliocentrism was preferred at that time because the calculations were simpler. If you want to say that science is unaware of things there's no evidence for, or in the case of relativity no evidence that it's possible, fine. Climate scientists do have observational evidence, so that doesn't apply.
Nobody's trying to shut up skeptics. People try to shut up denialists, with good reason. The fact that climate scientists dissent is clearly a good thing; it shows that legitimate dissenters can make themselves heard. BTW, Wikipedia says that, in 2012, Lindzen agreed that we're putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, that it's a greenhouse gas, and that the world is getting warmer. He may well have been convinced he was wrong by the evidence. It's an occupational hazard in science. Dyson is not, in any sense of the word, a climate scientist, and expresses skepticism about how mature the subject is. He is aware of how we're warming up the planet, he just distrusts projections and thinks it will be a lot less harmful than most climate scientists think.
Let's see...the question is not whether the climate is changing but how fast. It normally doesn't make large global changes in decades or centuries.
Your opinion of the politics involved is irrelevant to the truth. In fact, it's really really hard to run a global scientific conspiracy, and the data has been verified all over the place.
What we know: global temperature has been rising really fast. There's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it got there by people burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so if there's more in the atmosphere you'd expect the global temperature to go up.
Nature does tend to create equilibrium, but not necessarily the one we want. It certainly isn't the pre-industrial one, since carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from about 280 parts per million in 1850 to over 400 today. There are things that do sequester excess carbon dioxide, and they're overwhelmed by the rate we're releasing it. (If you like, you can verify that we're putting significant numbers of parts per million of carbon dioxide into the air. It requires a few quick facts and a very basic knowledge of chemistry.)
You're making up the stuff about more evaporation bouncing all the excess heat; if that were the case, we'd still have pretty much the same global temperature as in 1850. Storms turn thermal energy into kinetic energy to some extent, true, but when the storm is over the kinetic energy is gone, and kinetic energy has a habit of winding up as heat.
In what way does it flatly contradict the Bible? Nothing in Genesis says how God created plants and animals.
I'm not concerned here with the motives of the people who wrote the Bible. I'm concerned with the motives of the people who interpret it and spread their interpretations around. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Bible has anything in it against climate scientists in relation to global warming. It says nothing about how the various species were created, for that matter.
Any civilization that's seafaring at all will realize that the Earth's not flat. Measuring the radius of curvature is more difficult.
I fail to see your point. You seem to be saying that things would be better if we went back to the good old days when people used email for their online communications. It may be true, but I don't see that it's relevant to what should be done now.