"They count on the fact that most people won't use their full quota because there's no way they could deliver what they promise to every user without ending up WAY in the red."
bio-char. As for old growth forests, 30yrs ago I was literally cutting them down for a living, the area is now a national park.
It's much smarter to prune than mow. The pin in the map link is where I worked in the early eighties the policy was to cut individual trees (mountain ash) marked by the parks authority. If you scoll north over the border where the rules were different you will see a giant bald patch created by woodchiping during the 70's. The last time I drove through the bald patch (1990's) it was covered with tree stumps standing a few feet high on a ball of roots because the soil had long since washed away.
Yes, the ideas in TFA are "spherical cows" they deliberately ignore cost and politics. This is what marketing calls "brain-storming", except whith scientists there's a good chance of some actual brains in the storm. When you think about it even simple things done on a large scale like mixing char into top soil or burning fossil fules can be justifyably labeled "geoengineering".
Can humans as a species figure out a non-apocalyptic, pragmatic solution to the tradgedy of the commons? - Who knows but I hope so!
The wind is the main factor in a fire like this. The fire front in Australia's Black saturday fires was running at 120 km/h. Embers were causing spot fires 20km away. It was a true firestorm in the sense that it made it's own weather.
Yep the firefighters lives come before property. 150 firefighters are not going to stop a major fire if things get nasty, Black Saturday had 100,000 people fighting it and it took weeks to get it under control.
My point was not about the suitability of windows for a particular job, the GP and I are specifically disputing your first claim which was -"Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".
However the POINT of my post was that you ignored what the GP said and simply changed the claim to something completely different (ie: something that made sense).
In otherwords I agree with your second claim and disagree with your first but your post gives the impression you think there's only one claim.
I don't object to hyperbole (why would I come here if I did:). However when someone correctly calls you on said hyperbole (the GP who questioned you), I think it's only polite to fess up and acknowledge they're right when subsequently explaining the grain of truth behind the hyperbole. IMHO failing to do so makes you look like an arrogant arsehole.
"Windows cannot provide the mm accuracy in the same ROM size that DOS can" is a very different claim to your original claim that "Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".
Windows drivers have access to 100 nanosecond timer ticks, accuracy is not a problem but like any general purpose O/S it is not well suited to embedded RT applications due to bloat and scheduling algorithms designed for...well... general purpose use.
The poms should be proud of the BBC site, the yanks should be proud of NOAAA/NASA sites. I know I'm proud of Australia's ABC/SBS/CSIRO efforts. If you are going to have state owned media/research, those organisations are excellent exaples of how they should operate. It's more than likely they cost tony-taxpayer less than a subscription to one of Murdoch's rags.
"but in your everyday life you probably use at least 50 (and that's if you shower quickly and use low-volume toilets)"
It's probably quite a bit more than 50L per person. Here in Melbourne Australia we have strict laws on water use due to the "permenant drought", ( eg: no washing of cars, no sprinklers/garden hoses ). The govt have a public awareness campaign to try and get everyone to limit their use to 155L/day of mains supply by taking 3 minute showers, using the half flush button, etc.
"Dumbing-down your arguments for the ignorant masses merely causes the astute amateurs to dig in their heels."
An astute amature should have no problems differentiating the physical behaviour of glass and CO2 regardless of what the label for the behaviour happens to be.
"what does an *Intergovernmental Panel* have to do with science?"
The IPCC "does science" by performing the most tedious and thankless part of the scientific method - "peer rieview". It's a serious contender for the largest, most thourough peer-review execises ever undertaken by mankind.
The contents of it's reports read like the soylent green oceanic survey, observations show it's two decades of forecast have proven to be on the conservative side, insurance companies have been including thier forecast risks into your bill for the last decade.
Every single one of it's 2500 UNPAID authours are scientists in a related discipline and the 2500 scientists that wrote the last report will be different from the next 2500. Most of the scientists are senior scientists representing, (rather than simply working at), a scientific intituition such as NAS, NASA, MET, WMO,CSIRO,etc,etc.
It's aim is to provide poltitians with the science for their (one would hope) science-based policy decisions. It publishes it's detailed financial reports on the web and is funded to the princely sum of $5-6 million a year by ~300 individual nations representing every colour of the political rainbow.
Besides, the greenhouse effect is basic science. On Venus you can plug in the numbers and come up with a tempratue, problem is the Earth's biosphere screws with the equations by throwing in all sorts of subtle feedbacks (most of them bad). This is known as climate's sensitivity. Unfortunately the geological record and the disappearance of the Artic ice indicates the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 and an increase of 2degC above current temps is very likely to be an ApocalypticSenario(TM).
Could they be wrong? - Of course they could, they're scientists!!
Are the consensus skeptics offering better science? - not that I have seen, most don't even bother to publish other than via their own websites/pop-science books. Theier arguments are rarely any more convincing than creationists, it's sort of poetic that their sponsors are calling for a monkey trial,
No, this group is like a union for business, it speaks what a handfull of it's members think.
Most corporates are actually calling for regulatory certainty, they are sick of the vaugeness in their planning that is caused by politicians bickering. They want to know what environment their business will be operating in 5-10yrs from now when the projects they are starting today become operational.
A coal fired plant itself is a 50yr engineering/business investment. Those corporates without a major interest in coal would happily throw the coal industry under the bus and feed from the corpse to build alternative 50yr engineering/business investments. In fact the insurance giants have already taken a bite, they have been working climate change forecasts/observations into their actuary tables for about a decade now.
Yes, that would be a type of paradox called an existential paradox. No, the universe is not "full of" existential paradoxes. Dead or alive Schrodinger's cat is still Schrodinger's cat.
"Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing."
Bullshit! - Anyone who calls someone an "evolutionists" is simply too dogmatic and religiously biased to contribute to a rational conversation and therefore is not worth listening to.
"Hallelujah. Some time during the 20th century (or maybe the late 19th century) we decided that we knew mostly anything about everything, and we "froze" our conception of what is possible or impossible."
What a load of crap, compare the military technology used in WW1, WW2 and Iraq. During WW1 it was thought the sun was made from coal and that people would not be able to breath in an open top vehicle that exceeded 60mph.
"It doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, it doesn't matter if 1,000 people report the same thing, because we're reasonable people, and as such we all know what's possible from what's impossible, and that what's impossible is impossible, and it will never change."
Some things ARE impossible in this universe, for example A cannot be not-A. However, regardless of wether something is or isn't possible, 1000 personal anecdotes is NOT EVIDENCE.
Your entire post and that of the OP is a strawman built around conflating the terms "impossible" and "unsupported by evidence", I rarely if ever hear a scientist say something is impossible. "Bigfoot" is certainly not impossible but like most of the phenomena you list in your post, the reported sightings have been investigated to death and have alaways found to be "unsupported by evidence".
In fact most of the phenomena on your list would qualify for JREF's million dollar prize if anyone was able to produce said evidence. Offering a $1,000,000 for evidence contray to the "mainstream" sure doesn't sound like science has stopped investigating strange reports with an open mind.
Slashdot Mirror
"They count on the fact that most people won't use their full quota because there's no way they could deliver what they promise to every user without ending up WAY in the red."
Meh, banks do the same thing with your deposits.
"sounds like an all night party for old bong smoking pot bellied losers."
No, no all night parties, but shooing stray kids off the lawn can get a bit noisy.
bio-char. As for old growth forests, 30yrs ago I was literally cutting them down for a living, the area is now a national park.
It's much smarter to prune than mow. The pin in the map link is where I worked in the early eighties the policy was to cut individual trees (mountain ash) marked by the parks authority. If you scoll north over the border where the rules were different you will see a giant bald patch created by woodchiping during the 70's. The last time I drove through the bald patch (1990's) it was covered with tree stumps standing a few feet high on a ball of roots because the soil had long since washed away.
"that instead becomes rain in Australia"
Nope, someone stole ours as well.
Ted talk: How to build a rain-forest
"this is the next logical step."
Yes, the ideas in TFA are "spherical cows" they deliberately ignore cost and politics. This is what marketing calls "brain-storming", except whith scientists there's a good chance of some actual brains in the storm. When you think about it even simple things done on a large scale like mixing char into top soil or burning fossil fules can be justifyably labeled "geoengineering".
Can humans as a species figure out a non-apocalyptic, pragmatic solution to the tradgedy of the commons? - Who knows but I hope so!
"But it is in the realm of possibility."
The wind is the main factor in a fire like this. The fire front in Australia's Black saturday fires was running at 120 km/h. Embers were causing spot fires 20km away. It was a true firestorm in the sense that it made it's own weather.
Yep the firefighters lives come before property. 150 firefighters are not going to stop a major fire if things get nasty, Black Saturday had 100,000 people fighting it and it took weeks to get it under control.
Aussie translation: Munchie munchie twisties.
You missed my point.
My point was not about the suitability of windows for a particular job, the GP and I are specifically disputing your first claim which was -"Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".
:). However when someone correctly calls you on said hyperbole (the GP who questioned you), I think it's only polite to fess up and acknowledge they're right when subsequently explaining the grain of truth behind the hyperbole. IMHO failing to do so makes you look like an arrogant arsehole.
However the POINT of my post was that you ignored what the GP said and simply changed the claim to something completely different (ie: something that made sense).
In otherwords I agree with your second claim and disagree with your first but your post gives the impression you think there's only one claim.
I don't object to hyperbole (why would I come here if I did
"Windows cannot provide the mm accuracy in the same ROM size that DOS can" is a very different claim to your original claim that "Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".
...well... general purpose use.
Windows drivers have access to 100 nanosecond timer ticks, accuracy is not a problem but like any general purpose O/S it is not well suited to embedded RT applications due to bloat and scheduling algorithms designed for
"The line between local and remote seems to be pretty concrete and fine to me."
Indeed, for those having trouble spotting it, it's the line with the flashing green light next to it.
The poms should be proud of the BBC site, the yanks should be proud of NOAAA/NASA sites. I know I'm proud of Australia's ABC/SBS/CSIRO efforts. If you are going to have state owned media/research, those organisations are excellent exaples of how they should operate. It's more than likely they cost tony-taxpayer less than a subscription to one of Murdoch's rags.
"Joking aside; a little farther and these meetings could been seen as illegal collusion."
I hope not, this slashdot screw microsoft meeting has only just started.
"but in your everyday life you probably use at least 50 (and that's if you shower quickly and use low-volume toilets)"
It's probably quite a bit more than 50L per person. Here in Melbourne Australia we have strict laws on water use due to the "permenant drought", ( eg: no washing of cars, no sprinklers/garden hoses ). The govt have a public awareness campaign to try and get everyone to limit their use to 155L/day of mains supply by taking 3 minute showers, using the half flush button, etc.
"Dumbing-down your arguments for the ignorant masses merely causes the astute amateurs to dig in their heels."
An astute amature should have no problems differentiating the physical behaviour of glass and CO2 regardless of what the label for the behaviour happens to be.
What's stopping Watt's from publishing? - The global Gore conspiracy or the fact he's wrong.
"what does an *Intergovernmental Panel* have to do with science?"
The IPCC "does science" by performing the most tedious and thankless part of the scientific method - "peer rieview". It's a serious contender for the largest, most thourough peer-review execises ever undertaken by mankind.
The contents of it's reports read like the soylent green oceanic survey, observations show it's two decades of forecast have proven to be on the conservative side, insurance companies have been including thier forecast risks into your bill for the last decade.
Every single one of it's 2500 UNPAID authours are scientists in a related discipline and the 2500 scientists that wrote the last report will be different from the next 2500. Most of the scientists are senior scientists representing, (rather than simply working at), a scientific intituition such as NAS, NASA, MET, WMO,CSIRO,etc,etc.
It's aim is to provide poltitians with the science for their (one would hope) science-based policy decisions. It publishes it's detailed financial reports on the web and is funded to the princely sum of $5-6 million a year by ~300 individual nations representing every colour of the political rainbow.
Besides, the greenhouse effect is basic science. On Venus you can plug in the numbers and come up with a tempratue, problem is the Earth's biosphere screws with the equations by throwing in all sorts of subtle feedbacks (most of them bad). This is known as climate's sensitivity. Unfortunately the geological record and the disappearance of the Artic ice indicates the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 and an increase of 2degC above current temps is very likely to be an ApocalypticSenario(TM).
Could they be wrong? - Of course they could, they're scientists!!
Are the consensus skeptics offering better science? - not that I have seen, most don't even bother to publish other than via their own websites/pop-science books. Theier arguments are rarely any more convincing than creationists, it's sort of poetic that their sponsors are calling for a monkey trial,
... rates number 11 in this handy list of psuedo-skeptical arguments
No, this group is like a union for business, it speaks what a handfull of it's members think.
Most corporates are actually calling for regulatory certainty, they are sick of the vaugeness in their planning that is caused by politicians bickering. They want to know what environment their business will be operating in 5-10yrs from now when the projects they are starting today become operational.
A coal fired plant itself is a 50yr engineering/business investment. Those corporates without a major interest in coal would happily throw the coal industry under the bus and feed from the corpse to build alternative 50yr engineering/business investments. In fact the insurance giants have already taken a bite, they have been working climate change forecasts/observations into their actuary tables for about a decade now.
...an old fashioned monkey trial will assist in exposing the roach nest to the harsh light of public scrutiny.
Yes, that would be a type of paradox called an existential paradox. No, the universe is not "full of" existential paradoxes. Dead or alive Schrodinger's cat is still Schrodinger's cat.
"Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing."
Bullshit! - Anyone who calls someone an "evolutionists" is simply too dogmatic and religiously biased to contribute to a rational conversation and therefore is not worth listening to.
"Hallelujah. Some time during the 20th century (or maybe the late 19th century) we decided that we knew mostly anything about everything, and we "froze" our conception of what is possible or impossible."
What a load of crap, compare the military technology used in WW1, WW2 and Iraq. During WW1 it was thought the sun was made from coal and that people would not be able to breath in an open top vehicle that exceeded 60mph.
"It doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, it doesn't matter if 1,000 people report the same thing, because we're reasonable people, and as such we all know what's possible from what's impossible, and that what's impossible is impossible, and it will never change."
Some things ARE impossible in this universe, for example A cannot be not-A. However, regardless of wether something is or isn't possible, 1000 personal anecdotes is NOT EVIDENCE.
Your entire post and that of the OP is a strawman built around conflating the terms "impossible" and "unsupported by evidence", I rarely if ever hear a scientist say something is impossible. "Bigfoot" is certainly not impossible but like most of the phenomena you list in your post, the reported sightings have been investigated to death and have alaways found to be "unsupported by evidence".
In fact most of the phenomena on your list would qualify for JREF's million dollar prize if anyone was able to produce said evidence. Offering a $1,000,000 for evidence contray to the "mainstream" sure doesn't sound like science has stopped investigating strange reports with an open mind.