Alright, fair enough. So what do you think the chances are that the warming will be more than predicted in those models (at least, in the graphs that were actually released).
Once it's 'downloaded' locally, then only uploading the changed shouldn't be too hard using rsync (or similar). There are probably other tools you can use too. I'm going to experiment more with this later, but this is a good idea, thanks for brainstorming it with me. I wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't suggested it!
Only 5 year olds are impressed by whirring, popping up, animated things.
Well, I like them too. The problem is when they get in the way of actual functionality. "Form follows function," attractiveness is lesser than getting stuff done.
You didn't even read the paper. It's not random forcings, the model takes into account volcanos. No one would write a paper saying, "Models are wrong because we had more volcanos than expected." This paper doesn't say that either, it says the problems are due to "systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."
Next time you should actually read the paper before replying.
wget downloads over http. It might have ftp options too, I don't know. Once you build your website in Wordpress, and say you have it running on port 8000, you can run something like this:
It will recursively download all the files statically into a directory in your current directory. Then you can upload that to AWS or wherever. You could even make it a cron job, so it updates every hour or something.
If the client insisted on using Wordpress dynamically from the internet, you could give them an internal URL (or better, one only accessible through VPN), then have the cron job check.
And what do you think the consensus is? That climate models are correct? Can you even describe the consensus in your own words, or do you just parrot things you don't understand?
The GP linked to an actual scientific paper, written by scientists. You are the one here vomiting unfounded assertions. Would you care to join the scientists and admit that the models are wrong?
Good point. The most likely case at this point seems to be "not much to worry about."
The reasonable course of action would be to continue improving our technology, like electric cars (which are coming along quite nicely), and stop with the propaganda that global warming is going to kill us. Because it's not.
I linked to the actual paper. Learn To Read. The models are wrong: many papers have shown over the past few years. You don't realize it because you attack strawmen instead of reading the actual paper I linked to.
I'd like to see more "generative" systems that generate static HTML from a CMS and uploaded automatically and periodically via a one-way FTP connection. (The internal draft may be dynamic.) It's harder to hack static HTML. I know generative CMS's exist, but they never caught on for some reason.
Actually I'll bet this would be rather easy to do with wget or curl or something.
"Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.
Well, we can actually put a number on it, and in fact the paper does (if you'd actually read it, which you didn't), here is a quote from the paper:
"The
probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-
first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)."
So there it is. Fully quantified at 9% for your enjoyment.
Even vandalism is not possible with the particular vulnerability I linked to. The headlines were all hyperbole. 'Security' companies try to make any exploit they find seem as bad as possible to raise the profile of their company. That's why you see exploits with logos, too.
The flaws in Wordpress are often over-stated. Sometimes you'll get a headline about a horrible Wordpress flaw, like this one that hurt over a million installations. Then you dig in, and actually you needed a rarely used feature to be enabled, and even then, it didn't allow you to inject SQL, at best it allowed you to see more images in your query than you should have. So the actual damage was very minimal.
I do like your idea of a statically generated site. That is a good way to avoid security flaws in many of Wordpress' use cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the porn mags on the top self,
Those are there, and they're expensive, and I seriously wonder who's buying them, but someone must be doing it.
So do you admit there are systemic deficiencies in the models or not? If you do not, then you've misunderstood the paper.
rsync does that quickly and well (faster than sftp), and it will do incremental updates, too.
Alright, fair enough. So what do you think the chances are that the warming will be more than predicted in those models (at least, in the graphs that were actually released).
Sites for medium or large orgs can have several thousands of files.
Several thousand files is nothing on a modern CPU, and you know it. Even diff -rq [directory] will quickly scan through a hundred thousand files.
That would be the best idea ever. Of course, Apple will never do it, they want to keep their system locked down for some reason.
If it's static, it's trivial :)
Once it's 'downloaded' locally, then only uploading the changed shouldn't be too hard using rsync (or similar). There are probably other tools you can use too. I'm going to experiment more with this later, but this is a good idea, thanks for brainstorming it with me. I wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't suggested it!
Here's a graph. See for yourself.
Which one, this one?
Only 5 year olds are impressed by whirring, popping up, animated things.
Well, I like them too. The problem is when they get in the way of actual functionality. "Form follows function," attractiveness is lesser than getting stuff done.
Priorities are important.
If it doesn't sell alcohol and cigarettes, it's not going to replace the corner store.
Also, I've known too many "ex-Googlers" to see that as an endorsement.
You didn't even read the paper. It's not random forcings, the model takes into account volcanos. No one would write a paper saying, "Models are wrong because we had more volcanos than expected." This paper doesn't say that either, it says the problems are due to "systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."
Next time you should actually read the paper before replying.
wget downloads over http. It might have ftp options too, I don't know. Once you build your website in Wordpress, and say you have it running on port 8000, you can run something like this:
wget -r -np -k http://localhost:8000/
It will recursively download all the files statically into a directory in your current directory. Then you can upload that to AWS or wherever. You could even make it a cron job, so it updates every hour or something.
If the client insisted on using Wordpress dynamically from the internet, you could give them an internal URL (or better, one only accessible through VPN), then have the cron job check.
And what do you think the consensus is? That climate models are correct? Can you even describe the consensus in your own words, or do you just parrot things you don't understand?
The climate models are wrong. Peer reviewed, actual science.
The GP linked to an actual scientific paper, written by scientists. You are the one here vomiting unfounded assertions. Would you care to join the scientists and admit that the models are wrong?
Good point. The most likely case at this point seems to be "not much to worry about."
The reasonable course of action would be to continue improving our technology, like electric cars (which are coming along quite nicely), and stop with the propaganda that global warming is going to kill us. Because it's not.
Second, if I am understanding properly, it may mean that it is going to be worse.
Not likely. Every model vastly overpredicted the amount of warming.
And the error in the models is lower than the degree to which they are correct.
What are you even talking about? The confusion you are in indicates you didn't actually read the paper.
You linked to the daily caller.,
I linked to the actual paper. Learn To Read. The models are wrong: many papers have shown over the past few years. You don't realize it because you attack strawmen instead of reading the actual paper I linked to.
I'd like to see more "generative" systems that generate static HTML from a CMS and uploaded automatically and periodically via a one-way FTP connection. (The internal draft may be dynamic.) It's harder to hack static HTML. I know generative CMS's exist, but they never caught on for some reason.
Actually I'll bet this would be rather easy to do with wget or curl or something.
"Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.
Well, we can actually put a number on it, and in fact the paper does (if you'd actually read it, which you didn't), here is a quote from the paper:
"The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty- first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)."
So there it is. Fully quantified at 9% for your enjoyment.
Even vandalism is not possible with the particular vulnerability I linked to. The headlines were all hyperbole. 'Security' companies try to make any exploit they find seem as bad as possible to raise the profile of their company. That's why you see exploits with logos, too.
The flaws in Wordpress are often over-stated. Sometimes you'll get a headline about a horrible Wordpress flaw, like this one that hurt over a million installations. Then you dig in, and actually you needed a rarely used feature to be enabled, and even then, it didn't allow you to inject SQL, at best it allowed you to see more images in your query than you should have. So the actual damage was very minimal.
I do like your idea of a statically generated site. That is a good way to avoid security flaws in many of Wordpress' use cases.
While we're on the topic, a new study just came outhttp://dailycaller.com/2017/06...">fully admitting the models are wrong. They've over-predicted the amount of warming we've seen, compared to reality. Here's a link to the paper.
So it's reasonable to assume that the worst predictions from AGW are not going to happen.