having the wisdom to tell what's crap and what might be crap
Reminds me of an article I read about seagulls, both parent birds spend up to two years teaching their offspring what they can and can't eat at the local tip. Despite their efforts a significant number still die trying to eat plastic bags, batteries, bottle tops, etc.
Jebus do you people not understand the word "save"? In your example you have spent $80K. Aside from that some very effective measures don't even need capital expenditure, for example, the giant multi-national I work for has saved millions by implementing simple things such as getting people to turn their desktop off before going home, teleconferencing in preference to flying, etc. When you have 180K employees these two simple measures alone will add up to millions in savings.
The house will not pay your bingo call - you have dismissed the study itself out of hand and "based on zero actual evidence" have picked the answer you want to be true, So the only question now is - are you a self-loathing hippie, or just a garden variety hypocrite?
I believe the GP meant to say water is the "universal solvent", meaning anything will dissolve in it given enough time. As to missing plastic, there is no beach on the planet where you can pick up a handful of sand that does not contain tiny particles of plastic, it's already in the food chain since plastic dust is everywhere. I understand that waste plastic is a huge problem for wildlife but once it has degraded into dust and dispersed it appears to be benign from an environmental POV.
Aside from that, most sausage skins in the western world are made from plastic, it's been that way for decades.
If there are such "important cases" happening as you have claimed, it should be easy to provide an example of one of these "unsung heroes" facing a 50yr sentence, right?
.. he killed himself because of a mental state that seemed to preclude any option other than suicide.
He was bullied into suicide by believable threats of a 50yr prison sentence from authority, just as surely as that 13yr girl was bullied into suicide by a grown woman on facebook a few years ago. The authorities did everything they could to hang that woman even using facebook terms of services against her, and so they should, it is after all their job. But where are the rabid prosecutors that are taking Swartz's tormentors to task? Why have the authorities not pulled out every trick in the book to hang those official bullies with the same fervor and determination they did when pursuing an uneducated, immature soccer mom?
US treasury bonds are still "safer than gold", they are backed by the US government who in turn controls the US military, and power trumps gold any day of the week.
As per the definition, there is no time period where weather ceases to be weather. Therefore climate is just weather over a longer period then we normally use, but that doesn't mean it is no longer weather.
If you enquire a bit deeper I think you will find there is a mathematical distinction between the two, discovered by Lorenz. The distinction is that weather is mathematically chaotic, the long term statistics of weather (ie: climate) is not, "long term" is generally accepted to be at least 30yrs. This mathematical fact means that (all else held equal) a 100yr climate prediction is inherently more certain than a 10 day weather prediction, even if the exact same modeling software is used to make both predictions. This is because you are actually measuring different things, the temperature next Tuesday is weather, a global climate prediction can never make an accurate prediction as to what it will be for pretty much the same reason Tuesday's weather prediction for New York says nothing about today's global average temperature. - The maths won't allow it.
Sort of, but no. Climate is technically the statistics of weather. Weather is mathematically chaotic (ie: turbulent), Climate is remarkably stable on the scales from decades to millennia (ie: not chaotic), the exception being El-Nino which is an example of large scale climatic turbulence, as is Jupiter "Red Spot".
Humans are doing a good job of smiting themselves.
BTW: Gaia is the original name for the biosphere, it was coined by the father of Earth sciences, the original meaning subsequently distorted beyond recognition by "spiritualists" and right-wing nuts alike. So much so that the strawman arguments between these groups is about something that even Lovelock himself does not recognise.
Any generatortor will need maintenance, the real question is; is the maintinace cost preventing you from paying off the capital investment, and the answer for both is an obvious - no.
The FF popoganda normally ignores that and talks about "base load" as if it is somehow essential. This is total bullshit since no city will ever have a flat demand curve, base load means you must fire up gas turbines during demand peaks and pump water up hill during demand troughs, exactly the same as needs to happen for any solar/wind/wave/tide farm. By definition a flat supply curve will only ever match a wavy demand curve at the points where the demand changes between under and over supply. Solar actually does a better job at maching the demand curve in specific senarios such as a hot day when air-conditioners are working overtime.
Coal assets, mines, railways, ports, have been steadily losing value recent years, they are now worth roughly 40% less than they were a decade ago and are in danger of becoming "stranded assets" (google it). The "world's largest coal port" being planned for Queensland is now looking unlikely to go ahead due to major investment funds withdrawing from the project, HSBC, Dueches Bank, Bank of Scotland, et-al. This is not because of the enviroment, it's because the current price of coal makes it uneconomical in hard dollar terms.
Add the above economic dificulty to the fact it's now cheaper for India to build solar farms than it is to import coal from Australia. The new Indian PM has declared he will use solar power to provide electricity to 400M people. The new Aussie PM is attempting to keep climate change off the agenda at the G20. Coal is Australia's #1 export and (as with Canada), it makes up a big chunk of our GDP). Wich succinctly explains why the conservative governments in both those countries are climate "skeptics".
The technological tide is turning the energy economics of the 20th century on it's head, ignoring future miricale breakthroughs such as fussion power, renewables we be ubiquitous in 20yrs because they make economic sense now and the number$ are still improving at a rapid pace. It's not that far-fetched to see an impending deflation of enrgy prices in the 2020's if the trend continues.
Does it matter what the source is, so long as it presents a testable claim?
Yes. Stubbornly refusing to withdraw a claim when multiple independent tests have already found it to be false is the definition of a denier. It's the reason why we laugh at flat earther's and (the original) April fools.
To test Watts' claim simply calculate three trends from his data, one for his "worst" 100 stations, one for his "best" 100 stations and one for the full set of ~1100 stations, if his claim has merit there will be signifcant differences in the three trends. So go ahead, you test his claims if you doubt, I've already done so on many occasions, that's what science is about.
BTW: When you find his claims don't hold water, don't be tempted to post a video about it on youtube because he will issue a false DCMA to try and shut you up.
Despite the fact that the founders (collectively) had an extremely high level of scientific literacy for their day, technological progress moved at glacial speeds so I doubt they even thought about it.
That's why they included the process of constitutional amendment.
More likely they were guided by Natural Philosophy's aversion to claims of absolute truth.
Re: They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone r
on
That Toy Is Now a Drone
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves
That's the way wars worked before WW2, one of my distant ancestors donated 22 Viking boats and 300 paid soldiers to William the conqueror's invasion force and sailed across the English channel with him, his reward? - Wales (the country, not the animal). In fact this is how modern democracy first appeared, rich merchants basically forced the crown to sign the Magna Carta by withdrawing financial supports for the crown's military adventures. Even during and after WW2, rich merchants still own the means of production for military hardware. The one sign of hope is that for most (but not all) rich merchants - war is bad for business in the modern world.
Indeed and if as an adult you have never contemplated suicide then you're in a very small minority, the moment you start thinking it would be easy is when it gets dangerous. The decision to go through with it is more often than not a fleeting moment of "clarity" that comes after the feeling of absolute despair. It often does not last long enough to find a convenient bridge, train, whatever. Also throwing yourself in front of a train or jumping means you have to overcome a hard wired instinct that prevents you from doing it
I would wager that people who buy guns to kill themselves will usually not do it on the same day they buy the gun, the delay is too long unless you do it in the store or the car park. It doesn't really matter why the gun is in the dresser, the important point is pulling a loaded gun from a dresser and squeezing the trigger easily fits into that fleeting moment and does not invoke the same level of instinctual resistance as laying on the tracks patiently waiting for the train to hit you.
Like any powerful tool you need to weigh up the pros and cons of having a gun in your home. If you buy a gun for self defense then be aware that statistics show the gun is more likely to harm a friend than a foe and that anyone in the home may be tempted to abuse it when not "thinking straight". And if you don't think that the last bit applies to you and your family then you're so utterly immature that you shouldn't be allowed to boil water, let alone wave a hand gun around.
Of course they don't but that's not the point. The point is that a hand gun is an extremely effective and efficient tool, sure a person can still hang themselves or whatever but every other method takes more preparation, meaning the person has more time to change their mind. Same deal with assaults, a bullet wound is 7X more likely to kill than a stab wound. So sure, "guns don't kill people", but they do enable people to kill themselves or others in a highly efficient manner that leaves no time for second thoughts. Let's face it, that's why hand guns were invented in the first place and it is also why people who fear their fellow countrymen think guns are a useful form of self defense.
A wall such as the one proposed would act as a mountain range diverting prevailing winds upwards, this is the very reason "tornado alley" exists in the first place, the storm cells are the physical manifestation of turbulence created by mountains. If you want to keep tornados out with a wall, the wall will need to rise above the troposphere, ie: the cruising altitude of a passenger jet (~5 miles). And even then, you would get atmospheric currents rising into the stratosphere that resembled the equatorial Hadley cells, which are responsible for both monsoons and the sub tropical desert zones.
This physicist obviously hasn't thought this through and is looking only at the height of the tornado, however as a thought experiment it's truly worthy of a full xkcd "what if" analysis.
That's a laudable policy but totally impractical outside of greenfield development, especially if you use OSS or some other third party code in your product. In my world, if you can persuade developers not to add more warnings to the existing spaghetti ball you're doing well. I currently manage and maintain a large cvs repository and automated build system for ~25 developers. When a developers chooses to use (say) sqlite, they do not spend days trying to rid sqlite of compiler warnings and neither do I. Doing so would be a waste of time, it does nothing for quality and it would make regular updates to the latest version of (say) sqlite much more expensive than need be.
If it is code written by an in-house developer and the first iteration is warning free then you have an opportunity to set "warnings as errors" and keep that one binary warning free. Keeping everything warning free is a good coding habit to teach students, I used to do it myself when I taught C to 2nd year uni students back in the 90's, but let's not pretend that's how the real world operates.
So let's face it, the "unshippable" rule is an academic exaggeration that is aimed at teaching good habits, a concept any competent "drill sergeant" would recognise, but the real world is a "messy place" and applying the same rule to a commercial software house is at a minimum, financially irresponsible dogma.
Re:Title: It's rarely got anything to do with laziness, if you use the same source for windows and a couple of flavours of *nix, then more often than not the original code was written using a different compiler/linker that had a different set of "lint" rules and an arbitrary warning level setting.
Slashdot Mirror
having the wisdom to tell what's crap and what might be crap
Reminds me of an article I read about seagulls, both parent birds spend up to two years teaching their offspring what they can and can't eat at the local tip. Despite their efforts a significant number still die trying to eat plastic bags, batteries, bottle tops, etc.
Of course it is, but it's how you use it that counts.
Jebus do you people not understand the word "save"? In your example you have spent $80K. Aside from that some very effective measures don't even need capital expenditure, for example, the giant multi-national I work for has saved millions by implementing simple things such as getting people to turn their desktop off before going home, teleconferencing in preference to flying, etc. When you have 180K employees these two simple measures alone will add up to millions in savings.
The house will not pay your bingo call - you have dismissed the study itself out of hand and "based on zero actual evidence" have picked the answer you want to be true, So the only question now is - are you a self-loathing hippie, or just a garden variety hypocrite?
I believe the GP meant to say water is the "universal solvent", meaning anything will dissolve in it given enough time. As to missing plastic, there is no beach on the planet where you can pick up a handful of sand that does not contain tiny particles of plastic, it's already in the food chain since plastic dust is everywhere. I understand that waste plastic is a huge problem for wildlife but once it has degraded into dust and dispersed it appears to be benign from an environmental POV.
Aside from that, most sausage skins in the western world are made from plastic, it's been that way for decades.
If there are such "important cases" happening as you have claimed, it should be easy to provide an example of one of these "unsung heroes" facing a 50yr sentence, right?
He was bullied into suicide by believable threats of a 50yr prison sentence from authority, just as surely as that 13yr girl was bullied into suicide by a grown woman on facebook a few years ago. The authorities did everything they could to hang that woman even using facebook terms of services against her, and so they should, it is after all their job. But where are the rabid prosecutors that are taking Swartz's tormentors to task? Why have the authorities not pulled out every trick in the book to hang those official bullies with the same fervor and determination they did when pursuing an uneducated, immature soccer mom?
US treasury bonds are still "safer than gold", they are backed by the US government who in turn controls the US military, and power trumps gold any day of the week.
As per the definition, there is no time period where weather ceases to be weather. Therefore climate is just weather over a longer period then we normally use, but that doesn't mean it is no longer weather.
If you enquire a bit deeper I think you will find there is a mathematical distinction between the two, discovered by Lorenz. The distinction is that weather is mathematically chaotic, the long term statistics of weather (ie: climate) is not, "long term" is generally accepted to be at least 30yrs. This mathematical fact means that (all else held equal) a 100yr climate prediction is inherently more certain than a 10 day weather prediction, even if the exact same modeling software is used to make both predictions. This is because you are actually measuring different things, the temperature next Tuesday is weather, a global climate prediction can never make an accurate prediction as to what it will be for pretty much the same reason Tuesday's weather prediction for New York says nothing about today's global average temperature. - The maths won't allow it.
Sort of, but no. Climate is technically the statistics of weather. Weather is mathematically chaotic (ie: turbulent), Climate is remarkably stable on the scales from decades to millennia (ie: not chaotic), the exception being El-Nino which is an example of large scale climatic turbulence, as is Jupiter "Red Spot".
Humans are doing a good job of smiting themselves. BTW: Gaia is the original name for the biosphere, it was coined by the father of Earth sciences, the original meaning subsequently distorted beyond recognition by "spiritualists" and right-wing nuts alike. So much so that the strawman arguments between these groups is about something that even Lovelock himself does not recognise.
Any generatortor will need maintenance, the real question is; is the maintinace cost preventing you from paying off the capital investment, and the answer for both is an obvious - no.
The FF popoganda normally ignores that and talks about "base load" as if it is somehow essential. This is total bullshit since no city will ever have a flat demand curve, base load means you must fire up gas turbines during demand peaks and pump water up hill during demand troughs, exactly the same as needs to happen for any solar/wind/wave/tide farm. By definition a flat supply curve will only ever match a wavy demand curve at the points where the demand changes between under and over supply. Solar actually does a better job at maching the demand curve in specific senarios such as a hot day when air-conditioners are working overtime.
Coal assets, mines, railways, ports, have been steadily losing value recent years, they are now worth roughly 40% less than they were a decade ago and are in danger of becoming "stranded assets" (google it). The "world's largest coal port" being planned for Queensland is now looking unlikely to go ahead due to major investment funds withdrawing from the project, HSBC, Dueches Bank, Bank of Scotland, et-al. This is not because of the enviroment, it's because the current price of coal makes it uneconomical in hard dollar terms.
Add the above economic dificulty to the fact it's now cheaper for India to build solar farms than it is to import coal from Australia. The new Indian PM has declared he will use solar power to provide electricity to 400M people. The new Aussie PM is attempting to keep climate change off the agenda at the G20. Coal is Australia's #1 export and (as with Canada), it makes up a big chunk of our GDP). Wich succinctly explains why the conservative governments in both those countries are climate "skeptics".
The technological tide is turning the energy economics of the 20th century on it's head, ignoring future miricale breakthroughs such as fussion power, renewables we be ubiquitous in 20yrs because they make economic sense now and the number$ are still improving at a rapid pace. It's not that far-fetched to see an impending deflation of enrgy prices in the 2020's if the trend continues.
Does it matter what the source is, so long as it presents a testable claim?
Yes. Stubbornly refusing to withdraw a claim when multiple independent tests have already found it to be false is the definition of a denier. It's the reason why we laugh at flat earther's and (the original) April fools.
To test Watts' claim simply calculate three trends from his data, one for his "worst" 100 stations, one for his "best" 100 stations and one for the full set of ~1100 stations, if his claim has merit there will be signifcant differences in the three trends. So go ahead, you test his claims if you doubt, I've already done so on many occasions, that's what science is about.
BTW: When you find his claims don't hold water, don't be tempted to post a video about it on youtube because he will issue a false DCMA to try and shut you up.
Indeed. Watts' opinion on anything climate related is about as relevant and enlightening as Fred Phelps opinion on gay bars.
That's why they included the process of constitutional amendment.
More likely they were guided by Natural Philosophy's aversion to claims of absolute truth.
rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves
That's the way wars worked before WW2, one of my distant ancestors donated 22 Viking boats and 300 paid soldiers to William the conqueror's invasion force and sailed across the English channel with him, his reward? - Wales (the country, not the animal). In fact this is how modern democracy first appeared, rich merchants basically forced the crown to sign the Magna Carta by withdrawing financial supports for the crown's military adventures. Even during and after WW2, rich merchants still own the means of production for military hardware. The one sign of hope is that for most (but not all) rich merchants - war is bad for business in the modern world.
I didn't use Aereo
Neither do I, in fact I had to read this far down the comments to figure out what the hell it was, no hints in the summary.
Most suicide is premeditated
Indeed and if as an adult you have never contemplated suicide then you're in a very small minority, the moment you start thinking it would be easy is when it gets dangerous. The decision to go through with it is more often than not a fleeting moment of "clarity" that comes after the feeling of absolute despair. It often does not last long enough to find a convenient bridge, train, whatever. Also throwing yourself in front of a train or jumping means you have to overcome a hard wired instinct that prevents you from doing it
I would wager that people who buy guns to kill themselves will usually not do it on the same day they buy the gun, the delay is too long unless you do it in the store or the car park. It doesn't really matter why the gun is in the dresser, the important point is pulling a loaded gun from a dresser and squeezing the trigger easily fits into that fleeting moment and does not invoke the same level of instinctual resistance as laying on the tracks patiently waiting for the train to hit you.
Like any powerful tool you need to weigh up the pros and cons of having a gun in your home. If you buy a gun for self defense then be aware that statistics show the gun is more likely to harm a friend than a foe and that anyone in the home may be tempted to abuse it when not "thinking straight". And if you don't think that the last bit applies to you and your family then you're so utterly immature that you shouldn't be allowed to boil water, let alone wave a hand gun around.
Tools don't instigate anything.
Of course they don't but that's not the point. The point is that a hand gun is an extremely effective and efficient tool, sure a person can still hang themselves or whatever but every other method takes more preparation, meaning the person has more time to change their mind. Same deal with assaults, a bullet wound is 7X more likely to kill than a stab wound. So sure, "guns don't kill people", but they do enable people to kill themselves or others in a highly efficient manner that leaves no time for second thoughts. Let's face it, that's why hand guns were invented in the first place and it is also why people who fear their fellow countrymen think guns are a useful form of self defense.
If you read it carefully jcr was actually suggesting the OP should harm himself rather than rely on others to attack him.
Yes, I think it's the same sack of shit that was involved in directing funds to the IRA in the 80's.
Roundabouts are all over major UK highways, they work rather well if you know how to drive.
I suspect this is where they they have been dumping those diamonds.
A wall such as the one proposed would act as a mountain range diverting prevailing winds upwards, this is the very reason "tornado alley" exists in the first place, the storm cells are the physical manifestation of turbulence created by mountains. If you want to keep tornados out with a wall, the wall will need to rise above the troposphere, ie: the cruising altitude of a passenger jet (~5 miles). And even then, you would get atmospheric currents rising into the stratosphere that resembled the equatorial Hadley cells, which are responsible for both monsoons and the sub tropical desert zones.
This physicist obviously hasn't thought this through and is looking only at the height of the tornado, however as a thought experiment it's truly worthy of a full xkcd "what if" analysis.
That's a laudable policy but totally impractical outside of greenfield development, especially if you use OSS or some other third party code in your product. In my world, if you can persuade developers not to add more warnings to the existing spaghetti ball you're doing well. I currently manage and maintain a large cvs repository and automated build system for ~25 developers. When a developers chooses to use (say) sqlite, they do not spend days trying to rid sqlite of compiler warnings and neither do I. Doing so would be a waste of time, it does nothing for quality and it would make regular updates to the latest version of (say) sqlite much more expensive than need be.
If it is code written by an in-house developer and the first iteration is warning free then you have an opportunity to set "warnings as errors" and keep that one binary warning free. Keeping everything warning free is a good coding habit to teach students, I used to do it myself when I taught C to 2nd year uni students back in the 90's, but let's not pretend that's how the real world operates.
So let's face it, the "unshippable" rule is an academic exaggeration that is aimed at teaching good habits, a concept any competent "drill sergeant" would recognise, but the real world is a "messy place" and applying the same rule to a commercial software house is at a minimum, financially irresponsible dogma.
Re:Title: It's rarely got anything to do with laziness, if you use the same source for windows and a couple of flavours of *nix, then more often than not the original code was written using a different compiler/linker that had a different set of "lint" rules and an arbitrary warning level setting.