it definitively shows that the only remedy is to block all ads because the content providers, ad networks, and other facilitators, cannot be trusted to not serve malware to the end user.
I'll go beyond that: if you browse the net without adblock, you are irresponsible. If you help someone with their computer, and don't set up adblock, you are irresponsible. If you are a sysadmin and don't have adblock on your computers by default, you are irresponsible and should be fired.
We have all these promises of what AI is going to accomplish (here's an explanation of driverless levels, level 4 means you'll be able to sleep in the back seat of the car. Our technology isn't close to that point yet). Even if driverless technology existed at that level right now (it doesn't), it would still take them a couple years of engineering before everything worked well enough to release.
But with all these promises, if they aren't delivered, there could easily be another AI backlash into winter.
First of all, nobody is "siphoning money" from the U.S. and shutting down its economy to give the spoilers to some filthy foreigners.
I disagree with calling them "dirty foreigners," there is a lot of talks of money transfers from rich to poor countries lol. "One part of the agreement pledges US$30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per year by 2020." Previous talks have broken up partly over that. Cui bono I don't know.
OK, you're either an idiot, or ignorant, (or both) because not only did you not read my post, you lack basic knowledge of AGW theory.
The energy has to go *somewhere*
Again, as is clearly established by science, a doubling of CO2 will cause ~1 degree of warming. That amount of warming isn't worrisome. You're dumb as a brick because you didn't even read the post you're responding to.
And no reputable client scientist makes that claim.
Never say 'no' because those are directly from James Hansen, who is arguably the most reputable climate researcher, and certainly was the most powerful climate scientist for decades.
It turns out OOP can be a pretty good tool for name-space management in many cases, but it has stunk at domain modelling. Domain modelling is how OO was "sold" to us for roughly the last 2 decades, and this was a fat mistake that turned many prematurely gray.
Yeah lol, that's basically all it is, just a big namespace.
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going?
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
1) The insane people. No more explanation.
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
3) Those who claim that the predictions are unsupported by science. Thus John Christy and Richard Lindzen accept (along with the scientific community) that doubling CO2 will produce a.7-1.3 increase in global temperatures, but they reject as unfounded scientifically the various conjectural feedbacks that will bring the increase to anywhere from 2 - 15 degrees (as you can see from that range, there is a large amount of uncertainty there). They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
You are right that Nasa adjusted the temperatures, but in this case, it doesn't matter, because multiple temperature measuring methods concur that July was very warm. See for example
FWIW if you have fewer than 8 items, bubble sort is faster than quicksort or mergesort.
In 1956 there was a PhD thesis published at Stanford that 'proved' Quicksort was the fastest sort overall. Knuth later said that such a thesis would not have passed when he was at Stanford.
I stopped doing that one day when I looked at the disassembly of my function and realized the compiler was optimizing my code to have multiple returns.
Slashdot Mirror
it definitively shows that the only remedy is to block all ads because the content providers, ad networks, and other facilitators, cannot be trusted to not serve malware to the end user.
I'll go beyond that: if you browse the net without adblock, you are irresponsible. If you help someone with their computer, and don't set up adblock, you are irresponsible. If you are a sysadmin and don't have adblock on your computers by default, you are irresponsible and should be fired.
You can't just count the number of comparisons, mate. There's more to it than that.
yeah
We have all these promises of what AI is going to accomplish (here's an explanation of driverless levels, level 4 means you'll be able to sleep in the back seat of the car. Our technology isn't close to that point yet). Even if driverless technology existed at that level right now (it doesn't), it would still take them a couple years of engineering before everything worked well enough to release.
But with all these promises, if they aren't delivered, there could easily be another AI backlash into winter.
If we keep emitting CO2 it will end civilization. People can only breath so much CO2 and still function.
So......is there even enough oil in the ground to raise CO2 levels that high?
First of all, nobody is "siphoning money" from the U.S. and shutting down its economy to give the spoilers to some filthy foreigners.
I disagree with calling them "dirty foreigners," there is a lot of talks of money transfers from rich to poor countries lol. "One part of the agreement pledges US$30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per year by 2020." Previous talks have broken up partly over that. Cui bono I don't know.
Fuck this place sucks so fucking bad.
Don't take downmodding seriously in AGW stories, your karma is more than good enough.
Something that helps put it into perspective is realizing that continental drift moves faster than the current sea level rise.
The energy has to go *somewhere*
Again, as is clearly established by science, a doubling of CO2 will cause ~1 degree of warming. That amount of warming isn't worrisome. You're dumb as a brick because you didn't even read the post you're responding to.
And no reputable client scientist makes that claim.
Never say 'no' because those are directly from James Hansen, who is arguably the most reputable climate researcher, and certainly was the most powerful climate scientist for decades.
Yeah, you're right, I guess there is a discrepancy there.
It was heavily promoted for a while in the 90s. cout is a prime example.
It turns out OOP can be a pretty good tool for name-space management in many cases, but it has stunk at domain modelling. Domain modelling is how OO was "sold" to us for roughly the last 2 decades, and this was a fat mistake that turned many prematurely gray.
Yeah lol, that's basically all it is, just a big namespace.
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
Unless a bunch of other people all want to rent cars on the same day, like on Thanksgiving.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going?
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
.7-1.3 increase in global temperatures, but they reject as unfounded scientifically the various conjectural feedbacks that will bring the increase to anywhere from 2 - 15 degrees (as you can see from that range, there is a large amount of uncertainty there). They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
1) The insane people. No more explanation.
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
3) Those who claim that the predictions are unsupported by science. Thus John Christy and Richard Lindzen accept (along with the scientific community) that doubling CO2 will produce a
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
Good question. His goal is to get to high-volume, affordable cars
Yes it is, and yes we do.
Well, if you timed it, then you know.
You are right that Nasa adjusted the temperatures, but in this case, it doesn't matter, because multiple temperature measuring methods concur that July was very warm. See for example
A couple years ago Elon stated that he was focusing on decreasing cost instead of increasing range, precisely because of this sort of thing.
I'll be honest, I really like Objective-C. It's my favorite OO language, other than Smalltalk (which is brilliant).
Here is an example of some clear, easy to read, written-to-the-highest-standard MUMPS code for your inspection.
Tcl is such a great language.
FWIW if you have fewer than 8 items, bubble sort is faster than quicksort or mergesort.
In 1956 there was a PhD thesis published at Stanford that 'proved' Quicksort was the fastest sort overall. Knuth later said that such a thesis would not have passed when he was at Stanford.
I stopped doing that one day when I looked at the disassembly of my function and realized the compiler was optimizing my code to have multiple returns.
And tbh it's not that efficient anyway, but the programmer who wrote it doesn't know because he didn't time it........