Why not just put all the terrorist sites on the same Series of Tubes, then stick a giant cork in there whenever they start contradicting our carefully constructed narrative?
All those articles mentioned are actually just blog posts. The article hopes you will lose interest and not actually look those papers up in your closest university library. Because they will not be there.
The link you posted has been analyzed and shredded to pieces already, so please update your bookmarks:
Though even when it was around, the News did not seem a whole lot different. There was still censorship and bias in the choice of which stories to run, and the editors decided how to frame the "multiple perspectives" on a single story. Which is kind of incredible, if you think about it.
I was thinking today, listening even to NPR is really distracting. What gets sold for news these days should be called "machine gun journalism". The solution is to listen to national news only when it affects you personally, which is probably on average about once a year. Listen to local stations that inform people (not editorialize) about local issues. The SAME issues until they either stagnate or change. Of course, nothing like that exists any more in the United States. It was back in the 1980's that the FCC struck down the Fairness Doctrine.
Temperatures are measured across the globe and they are all averaged together. Over the past couple of decades, this number has been trending upward, just like measurements of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have been trending upward.
Any other questions that Google could have easily answered for you? Maybe put in a little effort to show that you are not trolling?
I understand where you're coming from, I like the predictable nature of math and logic too. The problem with the physical world is that we can't measure everything to provide a precise answer; we might get a few significant digits at best. To get full mathematical precision, we would need to measure what's going on over the entire planet at a microscopic scale, which is not only unrealistic, but we'd probably interfere with the Earth's processes if we tried. Plus, CO2 is not the only, single factor; the atmosphere is composed of an incredible array of gases. Plus, the Earth's atmosphere is leaky in ways that we don't fully understand. Plus, cloud cover can change the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the ground and the atmosphere, and cloud cover is extraordinarily hard to predict or model.
The best analogy I can offer is that no matter how hard we try, the picture will always be slightly out-of-focus. This doesn't make the resulting picture useless. It's in focus enough to see important relationships. Here is a paper that goes a little deeper into the relationship between CO2 and global average temperature:
You waited 30 seconds to reply to my post. That suggests you're not being very open-minded, and I'm wasting my time. Look at what I wrote again. There will never be 100% proof. Just like I will never be 100% certain about why you're asking the question.
There's an overwhelming amount of evidence. Look again at the NASA link in my original post. Many scientific observations are tied together into a coherent picture. It's spelled out there pretty clearly, in simple English, with references if you want to dig deeper. If you want to dispute what's presented there, please provide details in your reply.
Are we really 100% completely sure that the reason is humans and that it could have been avoided?
Do you have any training in science? Because it's not designed to offer indisputable proof. I can't prove indisputably that you are being serious. I don't expect to ever have 100% proof of that.
Scientists? Which Scientists? What equipment did they use. Where is their raw data collected from pre-industrial times?
Answer: there isn't any. You are lying. The claim isn't being made through measurements from the pre-industrial age. It is arrived at by MODELING. More misleading crap.
Really? Here is a graph you should really have a look at. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels have not been at current levels in the past 650,000 years.
Looking at the article, there are Pclass, Ptable, Pname... there's no real documentation explaining them, but it's probably just a reminder to the programmer that the variable represents a "Pointer to" something.
It's frowned on today to put a variable's type in the name (look up Hungarian Notation), but in the old days, C allowed implicit type casting, which meant that the compiler would not blink if you assigned a non-pointer variable to a pointer variable. It made for some...interesting bug hunting back in the day.
I don't know if it was CFront, but the first C++ programs I wrote were for homework assignments in the late 1980's. The compiler output was unreadable, of course, because it wasn't compiling my code. It was compiling a C++ to C translation of my code. All I really knew was that there was a problem with my program *somewhere* at the line, or above it, where the first error message appeared. It was an exercise in agony management.
I remember thinking, "what an awful language!" at the time. Of course that changed eventually; I remember Borland's C++ compiler being especially good at producing helpful error messages.
I agree it's efficient and fun to come up with special shortcuts with individual people. It's a way to forge a unique relationship with a unique person. It's kind of fun to come up with the rules together, or watch the process unfold on its own.
But I don't like the idea of a machine learning algorithm trying to figure this out for me and apply it across a broad spectrum of people. That feels...kind of gross, and all the fun of forming personal idiosyncrasies with individual people is taken right out.
Right on! Seriously though, I'd love to have a discussion, if not here then through an "Ask Slashdot" topic, on what all of this extra free time that automation gives us, is for? I feel like it's hitting some kind of tipping point for me, where I actively avoid automation, so that I can have an actual interaction with an actual human being once in a while. It still pains me that these credit card machines exist, which force me to stop talking with the nice checkout person while I figure out how to navigate through the stupid questions on the screen. I avoid self-checkout services. I actively look for reasons to talk to people.
I don't use social media, which is perhaps a big part of why I feel the way I do. Anyone else feel "unclean" by having to turn to social media for their personal relationships?
You're misquoting and hiding behind historical details.
The Southern establishment switched from Democrat to Republican in the 1960's in response to the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson (Texas) supporting Civil Rights. The parent post was not about party affiliation 50 years ago. It was about today's party affiliations.
NASA could focus on actual Science, like sending unmanned missions into space and collecting data, as opposed to manned missions. This seems like a much more cost-benefit way to spend taxpayer money. Let the private companies fund the projects with questionable value.
From my reading of the English sections of their paper (someone had fun with LaTeX equations in that one), I see worst-case running times for problems where it is assumed an Oracle (a subroutine) can provide the answer to a certain question in constant time, or at least a low-complexity amount of time. The running times are given *with respect to an Oracle*, meaning that the running time of the Oracle is not considered in the worst-case running time.
It is known that for certain specific kinds of problems, the best-known Oracle runs in exponential time (or space, but this is equivalent to time). But that doesn't mean there aren't other, interesting problems where an Oracle could be more efficient.
This Wikipedia article on a certain kind of Oracle mentioned in the paper provides some information:
Then there was the debacle of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, the oil embargo where gas prices doubled and there were lines waiting for gas.
I have always marveled at how the hostage crisis ended as soon as Reagan was elected, and at how OPEC magically decided to turn the oil spigot back on at around the same time.
In my mind, it shows how a small group of super-wealthy oil magnates wielded enormous influence over a national election.
Has this kind of hijacking of democracy been going on forever (on a smaller scale), or just in the past century?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just put all the terrorist sites on the same Series of Tubes, then stick a giant cork in there whenever they start contradicting our carefully constructed narrative?
All those articles mentioned are actually just blog posts. The article hopes you will lose interest and not actually look those papers up in your closest university library. Because they will not be there.
The link you posted has been analyzed and shredded to pieces already, so please update your bookmarks:
https://greenfyre.wordpress.co...
Gather around, kids, and hear the story about the time, before 1987, when News actually meant something special...
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Though even when it was around, the News did not seem a whole lot different. There was still censorship and bias in the choice of which stories to run, and the editors decided how to frame the "multiple perspectives" on a single story. Which is kind of incredible, if you think about it.
Don't feed the News Troll. They want your painties in a twist.
My guess: "As you get older, news is more and more likely to make you gag."
Thanks for posting that.
I was thinking today, listening even to NPR is really distracting. What gets sold for news these days should be called "machine gun journalism". The solution is to listen to national news only when it affects you personally, which is probably on average about once a year. Listen to local stations that inform people (not editorialize) about local issues. The SAME issues until they either stagnate or change. Of course, nothing like that exists any more in the United States. It was back in the 1980's that the FCC struck down the Fairness Doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Social Interaction Pros and Cons (help me out here):
Pros: Snacks and munchies you can actually share.
Cons: The Level 15 Wizard has been wearing the same clothes for two weeks.
Others?
Interesting logic, but who's supposed to arbitrate disputes, if there is no bigger entity? Just let the winner be the one who kills first?
I prefer the current system, since I prefer to spend my money on something other than the biggest weapons and highest walls.
Temperatures are measured across the globe and they are all averaged together. Over the past couple of decades, this number has been trending upward, just like measurements of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have been trending upward.
Any other questions that Google could have easily answered for you? Maybe put in a little effort to show that you are not trolling?
There are several different ways of measuring it, but they all are trending upward.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/...
I understand where you're coming from, I like the predictable nature of math and logic too. The problem with the physical world is that we can't measure everything to provide a precise answer; we might get a few significant digits at best. To get full mathematical precision, we would need to measure what's going on over the entire planet at a microscopic scale, which is not only unrealistic, but we'd probably interfere with the Earth's processes if we tried. Plus, CO2 is not the only, single factor; the atmosphere is composed of an incredible array of gases. Plus, the Earth's atmosphere is leaky in ways that we don't fully understand. Plus, cloud cover can change the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the ground and the atmosphere, and cloud cover is extraordinarily hard to predict or model.
The best analogy I can offer is that no matter how hard we try, the picture will always be slightly out-of-focus. This doesn't make the resulting picture useless. It's in focus enough to see important relationships. Here is a paper that goes a little deeper into the relationship between CO2 and global average temperature:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
You waited 30 seconds to reply to my post. That suggests you're not being very open-minded, and I'm wasting my time. Look at what I wrote again. There will never be 100% proof. Just like I will never be 100% certain about why you're asking the question.
There's an overwhelming amount of evidence. Look again at the NASA link in my original post. Many scientific observations are tied together into a coherent picture. It's spelled out there pretty clearly, in simple English, with references if you want to dig deeper. If you want to dispute what's presented there, please provide details in your reply.
Are we really 100% completely sure that the reason is humans and that it could have been avoided?
Do you have any training in science? Because it's not designed to offer indisputable proof. I can't prove indisputably that you are being serious. I don't expect to ever have 100% proof of that.
Scientists? Which Scientists? What equipment did they use. Where is their raw data collected from pre-industrial times?
Answer: there isn't any. You are lying. The claim isn't being made through measurements from the pre-industrial age. It is arrived at by MODELING. More misleading crap.
Really? Here is a graph you should really have a look at. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels have not been at current levels in the past 650,000 years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
I needed the "No Carrier" reminder and then I got the joke...Wow, yes I remember those days.
Looking at the article, there are Pclass, Ptable, Pname... there's no real documentation explaining them, but it's probably just a reminder to the programmer that the variable represents a "Pointer to" something.
It's frowned on today to put a variable's type in the name (look up Hungarian Notation), but in the old days, C allowed implicit type casting, which meant that the compiler would not blink if you assigned a non-pointer variable to a pointer variable. It made for some...interesting bug hunting back in the day.
I don't know if it was CFront, but the first C++ programs I wrote were for homework assignments in the late 1980's. The compiler output was unreadable, of course, because it wasn't compiling my code. It was compiling a C++ to C translation of my code. All I really knew was that there was a problem with my program *somewhere* at the line, or above it, where the first error message appeared. It was an exercise in agony management.
I remember thinking, "what an awful language!" at the time. Of course that changed eventually; I remember Borland's C++ compiler being especially good at producing helpful error messages.
I agree it's efficient and fun to come up with special shortcuts with individual people. It's a way to forge a unique relationship with a unique person. It's kind of fun to come up with the rules together, or watch the process unfold on its own.
But I don't like the idea of a machine learning algorithm trying to figure this out for me and apply it across a broad spectrum of people. That feels...kind of gross, and all the fun of forming personal idiosyncrasies with individual people is taken right out.
Right on! Seriously though, I'd love to have a discussion, if not here then through an "Ask Slashdot" topic, on what all of this extra free time that automation gives us, is for? I feel like it's hitting some kind of tipping point for me, where I actively avoid automation, so that I can have an actual interaction with an actual human being once in a while. It still pains me that these credit card machines exist, which force me to stop talking with the nice checkout person while I figure out how to navigate through the stupid questions on the screen. I avoid self-checkout services. I actively look for reasons to talk to people.
I don't use social media, which is perhaps a big part of why I feel the way I do. Anyone else feel "unclean" by having to turn to social media for their personal relationships?
You're misquoting and hiding behind historical details.
The Southern establishment switched from Democrat to Republican in the 1960's in response to the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson (Texas) supporting Civil Rights. The parent post was not about party affiliation 50 years ago. It was about today's party affiliations.
"With great power comes great responsibility." They will never reveal how much they know, as it would give them greater responsibility.
What if they actually knew, in great detail, when certain acts of terror were going to happen? That would make them complicit in these crimes.
Unlike NASA's mission to the moon, there are non-government entities that are now funding missions to Mars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.space.com/28215-elo...
NASA could focus on actual Science, like sending unmanned missions into space and collecting data, as opposed to manned missions. This seems like a much more cost-benefit way to spend taxpayer money. Let the private companies fund the projects with questionable value.
From my reading of the English sections of their paper (someone had fun with LaTeX equations in that one), I see worst-case running times for problems where it is assumed an Oracle (a subroutine) can provide the answer to a certain question in constant time, or at least a low-complexity amount of time. The running times are given *with respect to an Oracle*, meaning that the running time of the Oracle is not considered in the worst-case running time.
It is known that for certain specific kinds of problems, the best-known Oracle runs in exponential time (or space, but this is equivalent to time). But that doesn't mean there aren't other, interesting problems where an Oracle could be more efficient.
This Wikipedia article on a certain kind of Oracle mentioned in the paper provides some information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have wondered more and more over the years whether the traditional CS curriculum is still relevant.
So many software libraries exist that take care of the low-level details these days.
Then there was the debacle of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, the oil embargo where gas prices doubled and there were lines waiting for gas.
I have always marveled at how the hostage crisis ended as soon as Reagan was elected, and at how OPEC magically decided to turn the oil spigot back on at around the same time.
In my mind, it shows how a small group of super-wealthy oil magnates wielded enormous influence over a national election.
Has this kind of hijacking of democracy been going on forever (on a smaller scale), or just in the past century?