OS/2 was originally a partnership between IBM and MS, MS almost scuttled it by pulling out of the deal half way through development and releasing NT instead. Personally I think MS's involvement was a ploy to try to stop IBM entering the PC O/S market while at the same time gaining access to their OS2 engineers.
I don't think they are talking about geothermal, they are talking about infrared that is radiated back into space at night from ground/water heated by the sun during the day.
Many people can't handle uncertainty. The theory is sound, more heat = more turbulance. What the IPCC has basically said is that the records are not good enough for a robust statistical conclusion either way. However it should be noted that for over a decade now the acctuaries who calculate risk factors for large reinsurers have been adding a premium for AGW damages. Their main concern is higher tidal surges during storms, such as we saw with Katrina and Sandy.
Yes, unlike Antony Watts, Monckton and other "deniers", Pielke sometimes has the balls to put his ideas into a published paper. He is "a" scientists disagreeing with the conclusions of Science in the proper way. IMO his ideas don't amount to a hill of beans but his critsizims do have the welcome affect of strengthening the existing arguments. At the end of the day, robust debate is how Science is supposed to work.
What Watson did to win at Jeopardy doesn’t seem to have that much of a connection to decoding which genome sequences affect protein pathways
Consider that Watson is programmed to learn and then tutored by experts in a particular domain. The are two types of experts, experts in the subject under question and experts in the behaviour of Watson. Also consider that Watson has been at "medical school" for the past year or so, and if allowed, could in all likelihood pass the test for a license to practice medicine in the US.
Watson is first and foremost a pattern seeking engine and both very dissimilar tasks can be boiled down to seeking an arbitrary pattern in very large data sets. It's algorithm is similar to how the human brain is thought to work, the right side throws up gazillions of relationships it finds in its sensory data, the left side tries to pick out the ones that have meaning in the current context. Watson does the right brain task first and generates a pile of random relationships it finds in the data that can somehow (however tenuously) be linked to the question, most will be badly out of context and irrelevant. It then performs the left brain task and pares down the pile of relationships using the current context, confirmed facts (axioms), and statistics until it finds the most probable answer(s).
As someone who earned his CS degree 20-odd years ago I find Watson to be an impressive achievement, it walks all over previous attempts in both bound and un-bound problem spaces. I showed the game-show stunt to the (Business degree qualified) wife who said, "It's looking up the answers. What's the big deal?", I really think that most people simply don't "get it" and are much more impressed by the talking monitor gimmick.
You may not have long to wait before Watson is in your phone. The Watson that won Jeopardy was huge, it required 20 tons of equipment just to keep it cool, recently Watson has now been squashed into a 50kg "bar fridge" server. IBM have said they will start leasing instances of Watson to third party developers sometime this year. I've been watching Watson with interest for some time now and despite the cheesy corporate videos I think Watson is indeed the game changer IBM claims it to be.
non-communication of important findings from one specialty to another.
No cross training required, she claims to be a doctor, IIRC the prime directive of the medical profession is - "First do no harm". If she still wants to rid the world of "evil" after contemplating that oath, then she should at least have the courtesy to start by healing her own mind first.
Of course not, however you need more than just vague accusations, how about some actual evidence? Who are these greedy scientists and why do the criticisms sound like a creationist conspiracy theory? Who is paying for this "propaganda", what personal benefit do they gain from convincing people AGW is real? Why are these particular criticisms only raised on particular subjects such as AGW, evolution, and lung cancer? How is it that other scientists such as people hunting exo-planets are never accused of inventing planets "for the grant money"? Could it be because the findings from some branches of science threaten the power and purse of the rich and careless?
Is that your idea of science? "My cause is the right one, therefore it shouldn't ever be challenged."
The "cause" of science it to seek truth knowing you will never attain it. The "cause" of the billionaire neo-luddites is to make sure that critical thinking doesn't catch on with the general public.
securing grants, currying favor from academic mentors, generating press, enlisting public support, and so on.?
What exactly is wrong with any of that, does it not just add up to an ambitious scientist? Is the ambition of seeking the truth a bad thing in your eyes, or do you only see tax dollars going in one end and a "rich scientist" (lol) saying something you don't like coming out the other end?
What about all the pro-global warming propaganda
The pseudo-skeptic's reverse charge of propaganda from scientists is pure nonsense, sensationalism and exaggeration in the press is not "propaganda". Look at the technological wonder of the modern world around you for god's sake, propaganda is more than a mere lie, it a powerful psychological tool that convinces you that despite the futuristic world you find yourself in - (some) Science doesn't work.
Diesel cars are not the problem in the EU, the fuel sold in the EU for diesel cars is cleaner than the stuff sold in the US for trucks (less sulphur content). The EU/US emission standards are almost identical and were implemented at basically the same time. Geography make some cities worse than others, an inversion layer over any city will choke it after a few days. Some cities such as LA are particularly prone to inversion layers, others such as Chicago are known for their prevailing winds and don't suffer so much from undispersed smog.
Six million people commute to and from Manhattan island every week day, mainly by taxi and subway, moving that many people is impressive by anyone's standards. The bicycle stand at the Amsterdam train station is also impressive in its scale.
No, Brandis doesn't need an excuse for this behaviour, he was like this before Snowden was born. His predecessor (and mentor) from the Howard government was Ruddock, Ruddock was the guy who threw out the Magna Carta in order to make a political prisoner out of David Hicks, it was the most shameful act of any Aussie AG I have witnessed in the last 50 odd years. I will be very surprised if Brandis does not sink even lower than Ruddock (assuming that's possible).
People who thirst for the power that comes with the role of AG should somehow be banned from applying for the job.
Why start this generation with massive debt that you might not be able to pay off?
That was the point of the first statement you were arguing against, the student loan thing in the US is what he wants to "fix". Believe it or not there are countries where you don't need take out a massive loan to get a degree. Here in Oz the government pays 75%, you pay the rest as a small weekly surcharge on your income tax, but only after it reaches a certain level. If you don't gain financially from the degree when you go back into the work force, it costs nothing. Of course if everyone had a degree then they would be worthless, so rather than limit student numbers with the cost of entry, the universities in Oz limit numbers on ability alone.
And it isn't reasonable to think that having radioactive material being spewed into the ocean like that is all-right.
Nobody said it was "all-right" or "safe", the OP said it was "safer" and AFAIK common-sense plus all the evidence from the various Pacific nuke tests supports that claim. Survival is about risk minimization, no activity is totally safe, there is no efficient way to safely dispose of nuclear waste, especially when it has already escaped into the environment, better to help wash it into the ocean than try to keep it on the beach.
If you older than the average collage kid it's very likely you have a drawer/box full of different chargers collected over the decades. You have absolutely NFI what device any of them attach to or why you bother keeping them. In fact I'm sure that if you gathered them all up on a global scale it would cause a drop in the price of copper.
I think it's a GoodThing(TM) and most likely inevitable in the long run, after all most countries have standards for conceptually similar things such as wall sockets. Why should the common task of recharging a $50 device need a special $75 plug. Vacuum cleaners don't come with a proprietary plug that needs an adapter to plug into the wall, In fact now I think about it, my drawer full of orphaned mutant chargers all have the same mains plug attached to the other end, it's the same type as the plug on the vacuum cleaner, for all practical purposes it's the only type of mains plug you will find useable in Australia.
Difficult to get rid of the abstract part since a name is by definition an abstract identifier. Not sure what a non-abstract name would look like. Wacky just a qualitative opinion but it is true that some names are more easily remembered than others, which names are more easily remembered varies depending on the persons life experience, all people remember lyrical names and phrases much more easily than tongue twisters and phone numbers. However once mastered, a tongue twister is hard to forget.
Yahoo - In pre-internet Australia the word "yahoo" was slang for a hyperactive idiot. The lead role in the movie Young Einstein was played by an Aussie comedy actor who stage name is "Yahoo Serious" (a contradiction in terms).
Whatsapp - is a play on "What's up?".
Tumblr - I will give you that one, it's missing an 'e'.
harvesting is all handled with heavy equipment in corn production. You can't do that with tomatoes
I picked tomatoes and various other commercial vegetable crops in the early 80's (Australia), even back then they had mechanical harvesters. Hand picked tomatoes were the "cream of the crop", you pick them for about 2-4 weeks when the crop starts ripening, they are early to market and good quality so the farmer gets top dollar. However once the contract date* comes up for the entire crop to be harvested they were mechanically harvested and ended up in cans and/or sauce bottles. Same with peas, a 1980's era pea harvester could pick the peas, pod them, wash, snap freeze, and bag them. Again "shop peas" were picked by hand and sold with their pods intact before the crop was at the optimum point for mechanical harvesting.
* - Large commercial vegetable crops are often sold on contract before they are even planted. The thing about tomatoes (other than copper coloured hands from the chemicals on them), is that a heavy summer downpour will cause a ripe tomato to swell to the point it's skin bursts. When such a scenario occurs all the mechanical harvesters are in full demand since everyone wants their tomato crop picked before it turns into tomato sauce and simply drips onto the ground. The farmer doesn't wait days/weeks for a harvester turns up. While it is raining he will be recruiting as many pickers as he can at a higher dollar rate per bin. From my experience the extra dollars did not make up for the futility of trying to fill a half ton wooden vegetable bin with tomato jelly.
As to TFA, unless they set up the whole plot as a hydroponic farm there's no way it's going to significantly reduce the food bill for ~1500 people. However I think that's the wrong way to look at the project, TFA compares the farm to a public park, pool or golf course in conventional towns, it's nice if such amenities can pay for their own upkeep but profit (in dollar terms) is not the goal. If nothing else the people in the community who use it will gain a much greater appreciation of where their food comes from and just how much planning, hard work and patience is involved in growing something edible and eating it before some other critter does.
I see you bought a nice bunch of cherries from Anthony Watts.
Sadly the only thing it proves is your (and Judith Curry's) lack of education on the subject of statistics. Note I am actually being generous here by assuming that Curry doesn't understand her mistakes.
Weather forcasts are NOT based on trends found in any data set, they are based on the laws of physics and chemistry, they use the same "finite element analysis" techniques found in numerical wind tunnels and other engineering models that are used to build everything from bridges to aircraft. Archival data is used to test the "skill" of the model by making "hindcasts" and comparing them to the instrumental record.
Climate is basically the long term statistics of weather - meaning a hundered year trend in temprature is a climate statistic, not a weather trend. Climate models and weather models are more or less the same thing using different spacial and temporal parameters, climate statistics such as temprature trends are a completely seperate line of evidence to climate modelling.
My city (Melbourne, Oz) is on the upper edge of the southern ocean's "roaring forties", there are a few windmills dotted around the state but for some reason we are still fully reliant on brown coal for electricity, a mine that feeds the coal plants recently caught fire and burnt for a month resulting in the town of Morwell being partially evacuated due to the toxic cloud from the fire. Looking at it from a purely logical POV, it's fucking insane!
The US is a paradox. From the very beginning of talks in the late 80's US foreign policy has sought to derail any coordinated global effort to curb GHG emissions, often being the sole roadblock to progress, yet at the same time they have (on a per capita basis) built more wind power capacity than anyone else?
It appears that bird deaths is a major problem point for the renewable energy source
No it is not a "major problem", can we drop please that bullshit meme, smaller (fast spinning) windmills and windmills built on migration paths do kill birds and this was a minor problem in the early days that closed down a few mills. Modern windmills sited with a bit of forethought are no more likely to kill birds than a stationary skyscraper.
Minor problem* - The number of birds killed by flying into windmills and other large buildings pales into insignificance when you consider the impact of domestic cats on birds.
During the 80's I worked at a large nylon factory (1200 employees), they had two large HV transformers side by side under a chicken wire cage to keep humans and animals out. Somehow a possum (about the size of a racoon) found itself on the inside of the cage and was electrocuted, the shock threw it from one transformer to the other shorting out both. Damage bill was $50K plus a couple of days lost production.
You had a good factual point, then you ruined it with the political crap - by that I mean when has Gore ever called anyone "evil" for using electricity?
Slashdot Mirror
OS/2 was originally a partnership between IBM and MS, MS almost scuttled it by pulling out of the deal half way through development and releasing NT instead. Personally I think MS's involvement was a ploy to try to stop IBM entering the PC O/S market while at the same time gaining access to their OS2 engineers.
I don't think they are talking about geothermal, they are talking about infrared that is radiated back into space at night from ground/water heated by the sun during the day.
Many people can't handle uncertainty. The theory is sound, more heat = more turbulance. What the IPCC has basically said is that the records are not good enough for a robust statistical conclusion either way. However it should be noted that for over a decade now the acctuaries who calculate risk factors for large reinsurers have been adding a premium for AGW damages. Their main concern is higher tidal surges during storms, such as we saw with Katrina and Sandy.
Yes, unlike Antony Watts, Monckton and other "deniers", Pielke sometimes has the balls to put his ideas into a published paper. He is "a" scientists disagreeing with the conclusions of Science in the proper way. IMO his ideas don't amount to a hill of beans but his critsizims do have the welcome affect of strengthening the existing arguments. At the end of the day, robust debate is how Science is supposed to work.
What Watson did to win at Jeopardy doesn’t seem to have that much of a connection to decoding which genome sequences affect protein pathways
Consider that Watson is programmed to learn and then tutored by experts in a particular domain. The are two types of experts, experts in the subject under question and experts in the behaviour of Watson. Also consider that Watson has been at "medical school" for the past year or so, and if allowed, could in all likelihood pass the test for a license to practice medicine in the US.
Watson is first and foremost a pattern seeking engine and both very dissimilar tasks can be boiled down to seeking an arbitrary pattern in very large data sets. It's algorithm is similar to how the human brain is thought to work, the right side throws up gazillions of relationships it finds in its sensory data, the left side tries to pick out the ones that have meaning in the current context. Watson does the right brain task first and generates a pile of random relationships it finds in the data that can somehow (however tenuously) be linked to the question, most will be badly out of context and irrelevant. It then performs the left brain task and pares down the pile of relationships using the current context, confirmed facts (axioms), and statistics until it finds the most probable answer(s).
As someone who earned his CS degree 20-odd years ago I find Watson to be an impressive achievement, it walks all over previous attempts in both bound and un-bound problem spaces. I showed the game-show stunt to the (Business degree qualified) wife who said, "It's looking up the answers. What's the big deal?", I really think that most people simply don't "get it" and are much more impressed by the talking monitor gimmick.
You may not have long to wait before Watson is in your phone. The Watson that won Jeopardy was huge, it required 20 tons of equipment just to keep it cool, recently Watson has now been squashed into a 50kg "bar fridge" server. IBM have said they will start leasing instances of Watson to third party developers sometime this year. I've been watching Watson with interest for some time now and despite the cheesy corporate videos I think Watson is indeed the game changer IBM claims it to be.
non-communication of important findings from one specialty to another.
No cross training required, she claims to be a doctor, IIRC the prime directive of the medical profession is - "First do no harm". If she still wants to rid the world of "evil" after contemplating that oath, then she should at least have the courtesy to start by healing her own mind first.
hyperbole that equates controlled use of energy resources to industrial accidents
Melting the north pole may not an accident but it is certainly an environmental disaster of unprecedented proportions.
Should that be exempt from criticism?
Of course not, however you need more than just vague accusations, how about some actual evidence? Who are these greedy scientists and why do the criticisms sound like a creationist conspiracy theory? Who is paying for this "propaganda", what personal benefit do they gain from convincing people AGW is real? Why are these particular criticisms only raised on particular subjects such as AGW, evolution, and lung cancer? How is it that other scientists such as people hunting exo-planets are never accused of inventing planets "for the grant money"? Could it be because the findings from some branches of science threaten the power and purse of the rich and careless?
Is that your idea of science? "My cause is the right one, therefore it shouldn't ever be challenged."
The "cause" of science it to seek truth knowing you will never attain it. The "cause" of the billionaire neo-luddites is to make sure that critical thinking doesn't catch on with the general public.
securing grants, currying favor from academic mentors, generating press, enlisting public support, and so on.?
What exactly is wrong with any of that, does it not just add up to an ambitious scientist? Is the ambition of seeking the truth a bad thing in your eyes, or do you only see tax dollars going in one end and a "rich scientist" (lol) saying something you don't like coming out the other end?
What about all the pro-global warming propaganda
The pseudo-skeptic's reverse charge of propaganda from scientists is pure nonsense, sensationalism and exaggeration in the press is not "propaganda". Look at the technological wonder of the modern world around you for god's sake, propaganda is more than a mere lie, it a powerful psychological tool that convinces you that despite the futuristic world you find yourself in - (some) Science doesn't work.
It's complicated. Basically there are between 4 and 7 continents depending on where and when you grew up.
Diesel cars are not the problem in the EU, the fuel sold in the EU for diesel cars is cleaner than the stuff sold in the US for trucks (less sulphur content). The EU/US emission standards are almost identical and were implemented at basically the same time. Geography make some cities worse than others, an inversion layer over any city will choke it after a few days. Some cities such as LA are particularly prone to inversion layers, others such as Chicago are known for their prevailing winds and don't suffer so much from undispersed smog.
Six million people commute to and from Manhattan island every week day, mainly by taxi and subway, moving that many people is impressive by anyone's standards. The bicycle stand at the Amsterdam train station is also impressive in its scale.
This is fallout from the Snowden leaks.
No, Brandis doesn't need an excuse for this behaviour, he was like this before Snowden was born. His predecessor (and mentor) from the Howard government was Ruddock, Ruddock was the guy who threw out the Magna Carta in order to make a political prisoner out of David Hicks, it was the most shameful act of any Aussie AG I have witnessed in the last 50 odd years. I will be very surprised if Brandis does not sink even lower than Ruddock (assuming that's possible).
People who thirst for the power that comes with the role of AG should somehow be banned from applying for the job.
Why start this generation with massive debt that you might not be able to pay off?
That was the point of the first statement you were arguing against, the student loan thing in the US is what he wants to "fix". Believe it or not there are countries where you don't need take out a massive loan to get a degree. Here in Oz the government pays 75%, you pay the rest as a small weekly surcharge on your income tax, but only after it reaches a certain level. If you don't gain financially from the degree when you go back into the work force, it costs nothing. Of course if everyone had a degree then they would be worthless, so rather than limit student numbers with the cost of entry, the universities in Oz limit numbers on ability alone.
And it isn't reasonable to think that having radioactive material being spewed into the ocean like that is all-right.
Nobody said it was "all-right" or "safe", the OP said it was "safer" and AFAIK common-sense plus all the evidence from the various Pacific nuke tests supports that claim. Survival is about risk minimization, no activity is totally safe, there is no efficient way to safely dispose of nuclear waste, especially when it has already escaped into the environment, better to help wash it into the ocean than try to keep it on the beach.
If you older than the average collage kid it's very likely you have a drawer/box full of different chargers collected over the decades. You have absolutely NFI what device any of them attach to or why you bother keeping them. In fact I'm sure that if you gathered them all up on a global scale it would cause a drop in the price of copper.
I think it's a GoodThing(TM) and most likely inevitable in the long run, after all most countries have standards for conceptually similar things such as wall sockets. Why should the common task of recharging a $50 device need a special $75 plug. Vacuum cleaners don't come with a proprietary plug that needs an adapter to plug into the wall, In fact now I think about it, my drawer full of orphaned mutant chargers all have the same mains plug attached to the other end, it's the same type as the plug on the vacuum cleaner, for all practical purposes it's the only type of mains plug you will find useable in Australia.
wacky abstract names
Difficult to get rid of the abstract part since a name is by definition an abstract identifier. Not sure what a non-abstract name would look like. Wacky just a qualitative opinion but it is true that some names are more easily remembered than others, which names are more easily remembered varies depending on the persons life experience, all people remember lyrical names and phrases much more easily than tongue twisters and phone numbers. However once mastered, a tongue twister is hard to forget.
Yahoo - In pre-internet Australia the word "yahoo" was slang for a hyperactive idiot. The lead role in the movie Young Einstein was played by an Aussie comedy actor who stage name is "Yahoo Serious" (a contradiction in terms).
Whatsapp - is a play on "What's up?".
Tumblr - I will give you that one, it's missing an 'e'.
nerds give the things [snip] unuseful names - That's because many nerds understand a name doesn't tell you anything about the widget you're looking at.
harvesting is all handled with heavy equipment in corn production. You can't do that with tomatoes
I picked tomatoes and various other commercial vegetable crops in the early 80's (Australia), even back then they had mechanical harvesters. Hand picked tomatoes were the "cream of the crop", you pick them for about 2-4 weeks when the crop starts ripening, they are early to market and good quality so the farmer gets top dollar. However once the contract date* comes up for the entire crop to be harvested they were
mechanically harvested and ended up in cans and/or sauce bottles. Same with peas, a 1980's era pea harvester could pick the peas, pod them, wash, snap freeze, and bag them. Again "shop peas" were picked by hand and sold with their pods intact before the crop was at the optimum point for mechanical harvesting.
* - Large commercial vegetable crops are often sold on contract before they are even planted. The thing about tomatoes (other than copper coloured hands from the chemicals on them), is that a heavy summer downpour will cause a ripe tomato to swell to the point it's skin bursts. When such a scenario occurs all the mechanical harvesters are in full demand since everyone wants their tomato crop picked before it turns into tomato sauce and simply drips onto the ground. The farmer doesn't wait days/weeks for a harvester turns up. While it is raining he will be recruiting as many pickers as he can at a higher dollar rate per bin. From my experience the extra dollars did not make up for the futility of trying to fill a half ton wooden vegetable bin with tomato jelly.
As to TFA, unless they set up the whole plot as a hydroponic farm there's no way it's going to significantly reduce the food bill for ~1500 people. However I think that's the wrong way to look at the project, TFA compares the farm to a public park, pool or golf course in conventional towns, it's nice if such amenities can pay for their own upkeep but profit (in dollar terms) is not the goal. If nothing else the people in the community who use it will gain a much greater appreciation of where their food comes from and just how much planning, hard work and patience is involved in growing something edible and eating it before some other critter does.
I see you bought a nice bunch of cherries from Anthony Watts.
Sadly the only thing it proves is your (and Judith Curry's) lack of education on the subject of statistics. Note I am actually being generous here by assuming that Curry doesn't understand her mistakes.
Weather forcasts are NOT based on trends found in any data set, they are based on the laws of physics and chemistry, they use the same "finite element analysis" techniques found in numerical wind tunnels and other engineering models that are used to build everything from bridges to aircraft. Archival data is used to test the "skill" of the model by making "hindcasts" and comparing them to the instrumental record.
Climate is basically the long term statistics of weather - meaning a hundered year trend in temprature is a climate statistic, not a weather trend. Climate models and weather models are more or less the same thing using different spacial and temporal parameters, climate statistics such as temprature trends are a completely seperate line of evidence to climate modelling.
My city (Melbourne, Oz) is on the upper edge of the southern ocean's "roaring forties", there are a few windmills dotted around the state but for some reason we are still fully reliant on brown coal for electricity, a mine that feeds the coal plants recently caught fire and burnt for a month resulting in the town of Morwell being partially evacuated due to the toxic cloud from the fire. Looking at it from a purely logical POV, it's fucking insane!
The US is a paradox. From the very beginning of talks in the late 80's US foreign policy has sought to derail any coordinated global effort to curb GHG emissions, often being the sole roadblock to progress, yet at the same time they have (on a per capita basis) built more wind power capacity than anyone else?
It appears that bird deaths is a major problem point for the renewable energy source
No it is not a "major problem", can we drop please that bullshit meme, smaller (fast spinning) windmills and windmills built on migration paths do kill birds and this was a minor problem in the early days that closed down a few mills. Modern windmills sited with a bit of forethought are no more likely to kill birds than a stationary skyscraper.
Minor problem* - The number of birds killed by flying into windmills and other large buildings pales into insignificance when you consider the impact of domestic cats on birds.
During the 80's I worked at a large nylon factory (1200 employees), they had two large HV transformers side by side under a chicken wire cage to keep humans and animals out. Somehow a possum (about the size of a racoon) found itself on the inside of the cage and was electrocuted, the shock threw it from one transformer to the other shorting out both. Damage bill was $50K plus a couple of days lost production.
You had a good factual point, then you ruined it with the political crap - by that I mean when has Gore ever called anyone "evil" for using electricity?