Having read the tread, I can understand Con's frustration; presented with a scheduler that is supposed to make the desktop experience more fluid, Ingo ran a bunch of server-style benchmarks on it which, to everyone's astonishment, didn't perform as well as a scheduler designed with server loads in mind.
I look forward to trying out Con's scheduler, once I get my dead disk replaced...
Geek marriage is not that different to any other marriage. Three pointers:
Talk to each other. When something bugs you, talk about it early, not when you're at the walking out stage. It will make things easier. And make time to just talk to each other about whatever.
Cherish each other. Count how lucky you are to have your wife. Regularly. Focus on what's good.
Sex. Lots of it. I know this sounds incredibly daft, but don't forget sex in your relationship. I know at least one geek couple (not me, BTW) who ran into serious trouble because she was always playing online games, he was always designing new gadgets and somehow they just never ended up in bed together. Both of them wanted it, but it never actually happened. Make it happen, or you will start looking elsewhere for it, and that is very nearly the end of your marriage.
Although this change the earth's albedo noticeably, it doesn't deal with the problem, and leaves some nasty side-effects, such as:
1. Acidification of oceans. If atmospheric CO2 doesn't decrease, neither does CO2 dissolved in oceans. This means coral still dies etc etc.
2. Rising sea levels. In fact, it makes it worse. Because the albedo is only change in temperate and tropical zones (there are no roofs or roads at the poles) and because the greenhouse effect continues unabated, the temperature at the poles continues to increase even though the temperature at the equator drops. Cue melting ice-cap apocalypse etc etc.
Eclipse is brilliant for Java development - there is nothing quite like it I have found.
When it comes to C++, things are a bit stickier. The infrastructure is there for good code complete and refactoring tools, but they are currently (last I looked, a few months ago) too slow to be really usable and just a bit erratic. Code completion that sometimes throws up the wrong answers is much more frustrating than no code completion at all, and code completion that regularly takes significantly longer than typing the expression manually is worse again.
As seems to be the rule with all things eclipse: If it almost works in this version, it will work in the next version, and it will be fast the version after that.
A 1MW turbine is now quite a small one - even the Chinese 'copy me' builders are focused on 1.5MW turbines, and most new development is in the 4-5MW range. These are still for onshore turbines, and I think we should expect larger ones to be developed for offshore applications.
So within 10 years we could well be seeing turbines in the 10-20MW range being erected. Sure, that's still 50,000 to 100,000 windmills to get 1TW, but it's starting to get into the realms of reality.
Man, did you tip tape head cleaner on your weeties this morning? Let me spell it out: If they included Opera or Safari or Firefox 3.1 in the tests, then they wouldn't have a nice headline about how IE is fastest. This is known as "marketing" and is only OK because you can make lots of money out of it.
The OP reasons that a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy can be broken down into two independent components: Is there an 'expectation'? And is that expectation 'reasonable'?
The reason this is not valid is that the broken-down version has a subtly subjective aspect that the combined expression lacks. Does the user have an expectation of privacy in context X? "Just ask them: Do you?" The question has become an entirely subjective one posed to the defendant, and it amounts to, 'Did you expect that your access to illegal content would remain undiscovered?' Well, duh, of course he did. The point of the law is not whether the defendant had an expectation of privacy, but whether our society has a reasonable expectation that such things will remain private.
Having broken the question down in an invalid way, he still makes a mess of the second part of it: "It seems absurd to say that a user's expectation of privacy for their identity online [...] is 'unreasonable'." Well done, that man, a top piece of reasoning, indeed. Taken together, these two would produce the following courtroom scene:
Lawyer: "Did you have an expectation of privacy when you murdered ninety-three people in central park?" Defendent: "Yes." Lawyer: "Well, it seems absurd to say that your expectation of privacy was unreasonable; after all, you wouldn't have done it if you'd expected people to be watching. OK, right to privacy established!"
You can't rely on the defendant's expectations and ideas about reasonableness.
Agreed. The whole thing reads like a junior high school book report, probably one getting C+ or B-. It is padded out by repeating the same idea and gushes far more than is seemly over its subject. The whole thing could be summed up as:
The airline industry is wonderful and love the environment to bits.
Greenies are a bunch of self-serving propagandists who will tell any lie that comes to hand to smudge the reputation of the airline industry, which is wonderful and loves the environment to bits.
This book does a great job of showing up the lies of the greenies, who are self-serving propagandists who will tell any lie that comes to hand to smudge the reputation of the airline industry, which is wonderful and loves the environment to bits.
People should read this book, because believing lies is bad and it does a great job of showing up the lies of the greenies, who are self-serving propagandists who will tell any lie that comes to hand to smudge the reputation of the airline industry, which is wonderful and loves the environment to bits.
In summary, the airline industry is wonderful and loves the environment to bits by the amazing job they do developing more efficient jet engines, and people should read this book, because believing lies is bad and it does a great job...
I don't think many of you realise it, but this is very much an American discussion. The whole privacy/trespass thing is an Americanism, and the rest of us *already* think you're "paranoid weirdos" (joke, joke).
Seriously, though, in England and Wales there is an established legal Right to Wander; so long as I don't do damage, I can wander wherever I like. Am I tresspassing? The owner can do nothing about it unless I do damage. Am I invading their privacy by taking photos of their property? Tough.
This is not a failure of the law; it is a balance of the rights of the public versus the rights of individual property owners. My rights as a member of the public trump theirs as property owners, in this case.
The real complaint about trials was that the Admiralty courts were given jurisdiction over the offences concerned. These were fairly summary courts where a conviction was pretty much assured. "Trial by jury" was a foreign concept, and the rules of evidence were not as favourable to the defendent as those in the regular criminal courts. So a trial was available, but perhaps not a fair trial.
Part of the problem, of course, was that most of the defendents were patently guilty under the law as it stood. The law was very unpopular and so juries were unlikely to convict, so the law was moved to a jurisdiction where a jury was not necessary.
I'm studying piano now [admitedly I'm still newb-like] but I don't see the point in fraud. I play because I like the sound and the ability to vent feelings [both positive and negative] through the instrument. Faking it would just defeat the purpose of playing in the first place.
This is why you will be a musician and she was not.
Musician.n. Person with no money. To be avoided in any situation where you might be required to buy a drink.
> Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute > keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to avoid self-incrimination are the relevant cornerstones of democracy here.
Journalists wish that freedom of speech could be interpreted as the freedom of journalists to do whatever they want, but journalists are subject to the law just like the rest of us.
Here's a guy who's seen something a court is interested in hearing about. If he'd just seen it, or even just video-taped it, he'd be just another Joe like the rest of us, and we'd all agree he was guilty of contempt of court for refusing to talk. But because he happened to post some of his video to the internet, now he's a "journalist" with, apparently, an absolute right to tell a court to get lost.
The efficient operation of an equitable, impartial system of justice is another cornerstone of democracy, one journalists seem to conveniently "forget" when it suits them, like when they sympathise with the criminals.
Now the details of whether he's telling a court to get lost or a US Attorney are immaterial. He's been served a perfectly normal run-of-the-mill subpoena just like thousands of others who aren't journalists and who therefore don't have the benefit of a large, influential industry who see some self-interest in the case. If for, instance, it was a politician who was refusing to testify or produce evidence, the very self-same keystone-of-democracy-that-they-are media would be howling for his blood. Why should someone have special privileges in a court room simply because they publish?
RTFA. Antarctica is cooling by 0.7C per decade, and the West Antarctica ice mass is increasing by 26.8 billion tons per year. Similar is true of Greenland.
ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change "consensus" is to be proven true False!!!!!. The first article considers the first six of the listed propositions and draws the conclusions shown. The second article will consider the remaining four propositions.
Note that what we are proving here is not global warming but the existence of a consensus view in-line with the UN's 2001 report.
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False Strawman, science rarely acheives 100% consensus
See above. He is not requiring these for proof of global warming, but the existence of a consensus.
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely I would say likely given recent studies which I don't believe he referenced (just the hockey stick stuff we have all heard about
All very well to say "I would say likely given..." but he actually has seven pages of discussion of this, based on published articles and quotes from repected persons from relevant organisations, considering the question of whether the MWP happened or not, and whether the UN has tried to hide it in some way.
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False Strawman, multiple factors could be at play without invalidating "greenhouse global warming"
That is not denied; RTFA. Note that when he says "insignificant" even the UN (who he is attacking) attribute >10% of warming to solar irradiance; the argument is about whether 10% or 50% is nearer the mark.
4. That the last century's increases in temperature are correctly measured.Unlikely He may have a point about the tree-ring heat/c02 correlation but multiple methods have been used I beleive.
Yes, a number of them are, in fact, discussed in the paper. Among the points discussed are urban heat-islands, patchiness of records, lack of geographical spread, declining numbers of weather stations, the cooling of the antarctic and Greenland... you did actually read the paper, didn't you?
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.Not proven Strawman, multiple factors do not invalidate each other
Again, it is the consensus that is being attacked, not the existence of warming. Of course multiple factors do not invalidate each other; but if the greenhouse effect is in fact responsible for only 20% of the warming going on, then that is a very different thing to it being 80%.
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely Who knows, anyone saying likely/unlikely does not understand chaotic systems
Oh, wait, just let me tear down the entire edifice of scientific methodology... Of course you can say something is likely or unlikely - what do think a hypothesis is? What's more, the conclusion is reasoned and based on data. His prior conclusion is that the MWP (1050 - 1400) was substantially warmer than now. Since humanity lived through that period without much noticing it, it is a reasonable thing to conclude that we will do so again.
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.Unlikely Who knows, see above
See the reasoning on the prior point. Even if continued greenhouse-effect warming leads to a substantial rise in temperature, it is unlikely to reach the levels of the MWP, which, as I said, we lived through.
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely They would make a difference in carbon levels...
Strawman. Deliberately misunderstand what he's saying, and of course you can make him look silly.
The author also cites eleven studies spanning four continents in the southern hemisphere to conclude that the MWP was global, not a purely European/Northern thing.
Um, I think you are confusing the artic with the antarctic and Greenland. There have been recent claims of ships arriving at the north pole to find only water, although the explanations of why this is so vary.
* Monckton mentions that there is a direct correlation between number of sunspots and grain prices falling, attributing it to the fact that more sunspots mean that the sun is hotter. Actually, that's wrong. Sunspots are cooler regions on the surface of the sun (3800 K vs 5400K on the rest of the surface), which means that the sun is actually radiating *less* energy in the visible and infrared spectrum. So his entire point completely falls apart with this basic item of astrophysics.
It does nothing of the sort. He cites five separate studies showing a sharp rise in total solar irradiation (TSI) in the past century, significantly in excess of the UN report's estimate. The link between rising earth temperature and rising TSI is not disputed; the question is how much of a rise in TSI has occurred. He cites wide and convincing evidence that it is quite significant in global warming.
* Monckton categorically states that the temperature of the oceans has decreased, without using sources. From what I know though, temperatures have increased.
RTFA. From TFA:
A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.
To call this a claim "without using sources" is disingenuous at best, bloody stupid at worst. Any journal search for "Lyman, 2006" will probably turn it up, or, alternatively, you could refer to the section of his paper titled "References" where you will find this:
LYMAN, John M., Willis, J.K., and Johnson, G.C. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 33: L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.
There are also his 10 points which he thinks needs to be proven for Global Climate Change to be true, and what he thinks of them.
RTFA. From TFA (or rather the paper it references):
ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change "consensus" is to be proven true.
He is not claiming all ten of these need to be established for global warming to be proven, rather that they need to be established to show that the UN's report constitutes a consensus. If you are prepared to misquote someone like this then of course you can tear them down.
I assume you read the paper before you quoted it, but your conclusion from it is a bit far-reaching for my liking:
In summary, MM05 [McKitrick and McIntyre] show that the normalization employed by MBH98 [Mann] tends to bias results toward having a hockey-stick-like shape, but the scope of this bias is exaggerated by the choice of normalization and errors in the RE critical value estimate. Those biases truly present in the MBH98 temperature estimate remain important issues...
This paper, at most, shows that there were a few defects in the measures of how biased Mann's analysis was; the bias is not questioned.
DSL speed drops logarithmically (roughly) with distance from the connection point (exchange).
Lots of ISPs seem to use Java applets for their speed test. The connection is often faster than the java...
Cable is shared with other users.
Often your ISP is just reselling someone else's DSL connection. In this case, they don't control the network between your front door and theirs, they have to take what they are given.
DSL is (I believe) an ATM network. You are trying to route TCP/IP over it. The overhead involved is significant (up to 20% of physical layer traffic).
Now, I live in inner-suburban Adelaide, South Australia. I subscribe to a 24Mbps ADSL provider. They own the equipment at the exchange. However, because I am a couple of miles from the exchange, I only see about 12Mbps (I know, isn't it awful? sob sob, poor me...) The physical condition of the copper between your front door and the exchange can also have a big effect on performance; here I seem to be lucky again.
In general, the 802.11b link between my laptop and router is waaaay slower than my DSL.
Slashdot Mirror
Having read the tread, I can understand Con's frustration; presented with a scheduler that is supposed to make the desktop experience more fluid, Ingo ran a bunch of server-style benchmarks on it which, to everyone's astonishment, didn't perform as well as a scheduler designed with server loads in mind.
I look forward to trying out Con's scheduler, once I get my dead disk replaced...
Geek marriage is not that different to any other marriage. Three pointers:
Although this change the earth's albedo noticeably, it doesn't deal with the problem, and leaves some nasty side-effects, such as:
1. Acidification of oceans. If atmospheric CO2 doesn't decrease, neither does CO2 dissolved in oceans. This means coral still dies etc etc.
2. Rising sea levels. In fact, it makes it worse. Because the albedo is only change in temperate and tropical zones (there are no roofs or roads at the poles) and because the greenhouse effect continues unabated, the temperature at the poles continues to increase even though the temperature at the equator drops. Cue melting ice-cap apocalypse etc etc.
Eclipse is brilliant for Java development - there is nothing quite like it I have found.
When it comes to C++, things are a bit stickier. The infrastructure is there for good code complete and refactoring tools, but they are currently (last I looked, a few months ago) too slow to be really usable and just a bit erratic. Code completion that sometimes throws up the wrong answers is much more frustrating than no code completion at all, and code completion that regularly takes significantly longer than typing the expression manually is worse again.
As seems to be the rule with all things eclipse: If it almost works in this version, it will work in the next version, and it will be fast the version after that.
A 1MW turbine is now quite a small one - even the Chinese 'copy me' builders are focused on 1.5MW turbines, and most new development is in the 4-5MW range. These are still for onshore turbines, and I think we should expect larger ones to be developed for offshore applications.
So within 10 years we could well be seeing turbines in the 10-20MW range being erected. Sure, that's still 50,000 to 100,000 windmills to get 1TW, but it's starting to get into the realms of reality.
Man, did you tip tape head cleaner on your weeties this morning? Let me spell it out: If they included Opera or Safari or Firefox 3.1 in the tests, then they wouldn't have a nice headline about how IE is fastest. This is known as "marketing" and is only OK because you can make lots of money out of it.
Amen to that. Where have all my mod points gone?
The OP reasons that a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy can be broken down into two independent components: Is there an 'expectation'? And is that expectation 'reasonable'?
The reason this is not valid is that the broken-down version has a subtly subjective aspect that the combined expression lacks. Does the user have an expectation of privacy in context X? "Just ask them: Do you?" The question has become an entirely subjective one posed to the defendant, and it amounts to, 'Did you expect that your access to illegal content would remain undiscovered?' Well, duh, of course he did. The point of the law is not whether the defendant had an expectation of privacy, but whether our society has a reasonable expectation that such things will remain private.
Having broken the question down in an invalid way, he still makes a mess of the second part of it: "It seems absurd to say that a user's expectation of privacy for their identity online [...] is 'unreasonable'." Well done, that man, a top piece of reasoning, indeed. Taken together, these two would produce the following courtroom scene:
Lawyer: "Did you have an expectation of privacy when you murdered ninety-three people in central park?"
Defendent: "Yes."
Lawyer: "Well, it seems absurd to say that your expectation of privacy was unreasonable; after all, you wouldn't have done it if you'd expected people to be watching. OK, right to privacy established!"
You can't rely on the defendant's expectations and ideas about reasonableness.
You get the picture.
I don't think many of you realise it, but this is very much an American discussion. The whole privacy/trespass thing is an Americanism, and the rest of us *already* think you're "paranoid weirdos" (joke, joke).
Seriously, though, in England and Wales there is an established legal Right to Wander; so long as I don't do damage, I can wander wherever I like. Am I tresspassing? The owner can do nothing about it unless I do damage. Am I invading their privacy by taking photos of their property? Tough.
This is not a failure of the law; it is a balance of the rights of the public versus the rights of individual property owners. My rights as a member of the public trump theirs as property owners, in this case.
The real complaint about trials was that the Admiralty courts were given jurisdiction over the offences concerned. These were fairly summary courts where a conviction was pretty much assured. "Trial by jury" was a foreign concept, and the rules of evidence were not as favourable to the defendent as those in the regular criminal courts. So a trial was available, but perhaps not a fair trial.
Part of the problem, of course, was that most of the defendents were patently guilty under the law as it stood. The law was very unpopular and so juries were unlikely to convict, so the law was moved to a jurisdiction where a jury was not necessary.
By 'yet another Chernobyl' I assume you mean the second one.
Oh no, not bacteria that produce ethanol! Help! The world will end!
Wait a minute...
This is why you will be a musician and she was not.
Musician. n. Person with no money. To be avoided in any situation where you might be required to buy a drink.
> Well, it could be because journalism and a free press are one of the absolute
> keystones of a democracy, without which we'll quickly lapse into totalitarianism.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to avoid self-incrimination are the relevant cornerstones of democracy here.
Journalists wish that freedom of speech could be interpreted as the freedom of journalists to do whatever they want, but journalists are subject to the law just like the rest of us.
Here's a guy who's seen something a court is interested in hearing about. If he'd just seen it, or even just video-taped it, he'd be just another Joe like the rest of us, and we'd all agree he was guilty of contempt of court for refusing to talk. But because he happened to post some of his video to the internet, now he's a "journalist" with, apparently, an absolute right to tell a court to get lost.
The efficient operation of an equitable, impartial system of justice is another cornerstone of democracy, one journalists seem to conveniently "forget" when it suits them, like when they sympathise with the criminals.
Now the details of whether he's telling a court to get lost or a US Attorney are immaterial. He's been served a perfectly normal run-of-the-mill subpoena just like thousands of others who aren't journalists and who therefore don't have the benefit of a large, influential industry who see some self-interest in the case. If for, instance, it was a politician who was refusing to testify or produce evidence, the very self-same keystone-of-democracy-that-they-are media would be howling for his blood. Why should someone have special privileges in a court room simply because they publish?
And, sometimes, this guy turns up.
RTFA. Antarctica is cooling by 0.7C per decade, and the West Antarctica ice mass is increasing by 26.8 billion tons per year. Similar is true of Greenland.
Note that what we are proving here is not global warming but the existence of a consensus view in-line with the UN's 2001 report.
See above. He is not requiring these for proof of global warming, but the existence of a consensus.
All very well to say "I would say likely given..." but he actually has seven pages of discussion of this, based on published articles and quotes from repected persons from relevant organisations, considering the question of whether the MWP happened or not, and whether the UN has tried to hide it in some way.
That is not denied; RTFA. Note that when he says "insignificant" even the UN (who he is attacking) attribute >10% of warming to solar irradiance; the argument is about whether 10% or 50% is nearer the mark.
Yes, a number of them are, in fact, discussed in the paper. Among the points discussed are urban heat-islands, patchiness of records, lack of geographical spread, declining numbers of weather stations, the cooling of the antarctic and Greenland... you did actually read the paper, didn't you?
Again, it is the consensus that is being attacked, not the existence of warming. Of course multiple factors do not invalidate each other; but if the greenhouse effect is in fact responsible for only 20% of the warming going on, then that is a very different thing to it being 80%.
Oh, wait, just let me tear down the entire edifice of scientific methodology... Of course you can say something is likely or unlikely - what do think a hypothesis is? What's more, the conclusion is reasoned and based on data. His prior conclusion is that the MWP (1050 - 1400) was substantially warmer than now. Since humanity lived through that period without much noticing it, it is a reasonable thing to conclude that we will do so again.
See the reasoning on the prior point. Even if continued greenhouse-effect warming leads to a substantial rise in temperature, it is unlikely to reach the levels of the MWP, which, as I said, we lived through.
Strawman. Deliberately misunderstand what he's saying, and of course you can make him look silly.
RTFA, then look at eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period, get a clue, then come back... oh, wait, this is Slashdot. Oh well.
The author also cites eleven studies spanning four continents in the southern hemisphere to conclude that the MWP was global, not a purely European/Northern thing.
Um, I think you are confusing the artic with the antarctic and Greenland. There have been recent claims of ships arriving at the north pole to find only water, although the explanations of why this is so vary.
Now, I live in inner-suburban Adelaide, South Australia. I subscribe to a 24Mbps ADSL provider. They own the equipment at the exchange. However, because I am a couple of miles from the exchange, I only see about 12Mbps (I know, isn't it awful? sob sob, poor me...) The physical condition of the copper between your front door and the exchange can also have a big effect on performance; here I seem to be lucky again.
In general, the 802.11b link between my laptop and router is waaaay slower than my DSL.
The Mighty BOFH! All the advice you need (and plenty you don't) is contained therein.
Especially since the link is to someone who has gay attraction, but thinks it would be wrong to act on that. So he doesn't. Is it a choice, or not?