Time's important to everyone. For most it's quality, not quantity.
It's not what he's saying but the way he's saying it that makes him neurotic. Caring about 1 second in driving, and putting "my life" in capitals. Seems like he's going red in the face and mashing the keyboard.
Most people get to a maturity in driving, when they realise that pushing every second, doesn't make much difference to time available. It just makes them miserable or leads to a heart attack or violence.
This despite the inconvenient fact that my views are entirely in line with the scientific consensus on global warming. IPCC AR5.
The reality is the paper is correct, the models are wrong
Unlike you, the paper doesn't make the mistake of believing that models are right or wrong. Simply that they are works in progress, and will at all stages be improved upon, Like every other model used for prediction in every other field.
As I said, the problem is what you think the paper is saying, rather than what it actually is saying.
How many times have we been told that there is going to be an Apple TV? Not just the set-top box of that name, but a thing with an actual screen.
How many times have we been told that Apple were going to release a games console?
As to the point that Apple enter markets where others have failed. Well that's true sometimes, but it's not a rule. Sure, the iPod and iPad fit that description. But the iPhone and the Mac don't.
There's certainly been some solid information that they are working on health monitoring. And some lesser information that they are working on wearables. But these things may not result in a product that they think worthy of bringing to market. And even if it does it may not be a watch.
Lets just stop talking about "the iWatch" as if this is a real product. It's nothing more than a rumour.
Nor does it revolve around the asshat in front of me obsessing pointlessly about MPG and getting in my way to do so.
He's not trying to tell you what to do.
Look, you have no say over the legal driving of the car in front. Thinking that you do will only lead to road-rage and heart attack. Overtake him if you can and want to, otherwise follow. And take a chill pill. Your arrogance and impatience make you a bad driver.
Good riddance. It's fun having a single April fool's story, and having to spot it. Having all the stories be complete nonsense for a day, and thus losing all the real news for that day, was a pain in the arse.
"Renaissance "The first well-documented use of a diamond ring to signify engagement was by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in imperial court of Vienna in 1477, upon his betrothal to Mary of Burgundy. This then influenced those of higher social class and of significant wealth to give diamond rings to their loved ones." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
If cars are slowing down so that they can hit the next light green instead of red, then there will be some cars further back that are slowed down instead that hit the light red instead of green.
No. The system is advising you so that you can go through the next green without having stopping first. There is nothing to be gained by those behind you to have you arrive at the red signal and stop, before starting again. That would actually mean you went through the green light later (having to start moving from a stop), and so would be more likely to delay the people behind you and make them more likely to hit a red.
"As quickly as possible to the next waypoint" is incredibly wasteful of fuel.
regenerative braking is the answer to that problem.
Sure, for the minority with EVs at the moment, that is a mitigating factor. But it will always be more efficient to drive to minimise the braking in the first place.
Why is the opinion of the person behind me my problem? If he's a tailgater, he'll probably tailgate at any speed. And if we are travelling at a slower speed, that's then safer for me.
Does the China system only countdown to the next green? Or does it also countdown to the next red.
The former is a good thing, and is a parallel to the technology in TFA. The latter is a bad thing that would encourage speeding to beat the red. So I hope it isn't that.
As to the fancy car-to-car technology - autonomous cars are coming. Stepping stone technologies such as these will inevitably come along before full autonomy. That's the way to judge them - skate to where the puck is going rather than where it is.
As you get older your priorities may well change. Playing at being a cyborg might become less interesting, and the reality of not being immortal, and possible chronic health conditions may make health monitoring products more attractive.
There are many sorts of people that make a market, and we all change what sort of people we are as we age.
Unfortunately Google think that they can just brow-beat and market their way around an engineering and design problem in this instance.
I'm not so sure. Glass seems to be taking an awful long time to come to market. They seem to be aware most people want nothing to do with it. I can see it being dropped even before it's publicly released.
If you usually travel by public transit, having headphones is almost a necessity. Then again, I'll see people just sit there and do nothing for the entire transit trip.
I find music pumped directly into my head stops me thinking. I'd far rather think.
The iWatch will be the precedent to decide if Apple is Apple without Steve Jobs.
And of course one of the possibilities is that Apple will chose not to do a watch. Apple is known to reject many more ideas than actually turn into products.
I wish people would stop talking about a rumour as if it were an actual product.
Maybe, I don't know, reducing the climate sensitivity?
That's right. You don't know.
And I repeat -- you may not care about the 15 year "hiatus" because you have safely put the goalposts for falsifying predictions of 2.5C or greater total climate sensitivity out there beyond reach
No, I don't care about 15 years, because since long before 1998, I've been well aware that climate requires 30 years of weather averaging. Anything less than that and the weather noise starts to override the climate signal. At only half of the 30 years, a 15 year period says nothing.
And the fact that the AR5 has a box to address the claims of those that think 15 years is enough to judge climate doesn't mean that they accept it is. Any more than me addressing your claims means I accept them.
Not only is 15 years not enough to judge a climate trend, we know perfectly well why the cherry picked start point of 1998 was an outlier. i.e. Why the noise was like that - because of the weather event of El Nino in 1998.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not possible for you to disagree with my premise and be right, since I was explicitly talking about what they do for me, not you.
Time's important to everyone. For most it's quality, not quantity.
It's not what he's saying but the way he's saying it that makes him neurotic. Caring about 1 second in driving, and putting "my life" in capitals. Seems like he's going red in the face and mashing the keyboard.
Most people get to a maturity in driving, when they realise that pushing every second, doesn't make much difference to time available. It just makes them miserable or leads to a heart attack or violence.
In that case it definitely can't rotate around sjbe. :-)
Heh. The reality is you're anti-science.
This despite the inconvenient fact that my views are entirely in line with the scientific consensus on global warming. IPCC AR5.
The reality is the paper is correct, the models are wrong
Unlike you, the paper doesn't make the mistake of believing that models are right or wrong. Simply that they are works in progress, and will at all stages be improved upon, Like every other model used for prediction in every other field.
As I said, the problem is what you think the paper is saying, rather than what it actually is saying.
How many times have we been told that there is going to be an Apple TV? Not just the set-top box of that name, but a thing with an actual screen.
How many times have we been told that Apple were going to release a games console?
As to the point that Apple enter markets where others have failed. Well that's true sometimes, but it's not a rule. Sure, the iPod and iPad fit that description. But the iPhone and the Mac don't.
There's certainly been some solid information that they are working on health monitoring. And some lesser information that they are working on wearables. But these things may not result in a product that they think worthy of bringing to market. And even if it does it may not be a watch.
Lets just stop talking about "the iWatch" as if this is a real product. It's nothing more than a rumour.
No! This is wrong. There is strong empirical evidence that accidents are reduced.
Then I'd be interested to see it. Link?
a split second decision to either hit the brake hard or floor it.
See that doesn't happen to people who aren't speeding already.
Nor does it revolve around the asshat in front of me obsessing pointlessly about MPG and getting in my way to do so.
He's not trying to tell you what to do.
Look, you have no say over the legal driving of the car in front. Thinking that you do will only lead to road-rage and heart attack. Overtake him if you can and want to, otherwise follow. And take a chill pill. Your arrogance and impatience make you a bad driver.
Again, why is your neurosis the problem of the person driving the car in front?
The universe doesn't revolve around you.
What's wrong is your incorrect summary of that paper, and your inability to find anyone actually arguing with the paper itself.
Good riddance. It's fun having a single April fool's story, and having to spot it. Having all the stories be complete nonsense for a day, and thus losing all the real news for that day, was a pain in the arse.
You are the denier. You are anti-science. You are unable to accept that your beliefs might not be true.
Except for the rather inescapable fact that I am the one accepting the consensus of climate scientists.
It'd be as stupid to say that people that accept evolution are deniers and anti-science.
"Renaissance
"The first well-documented use of a diamond ring to signify engagement was by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in imperial court of Vienna in 1477, upon his betrothal to Mary of Burgundy. This then influenced those of higher social class and of significant wealth to give diamond rings to their loved ones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
"De Beers... was founded in 1888"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
If cars are slowing down so that they can hit the next light green instead of red, then there will be some cars further back that are slowed down instead that hit the light red instead of green.
No. The system is advising you so that you can go through the next green without having stopping first. There is nothing to be gained by those behind you to have you arrive at the red signal and stop, before starting again. That would actually mean you went through the green light later (having to start moving from a stop), and so would be more likely to delay the people behind you and make them more likely to hit a red.
"As quickly as possible to the next waypoint" is incredibly wasteful of fuel.
regenerative braking is the answer to that problem.
Sure, for the minority with EVs at the moment, that is a mitigating factor. But it will always be more efficient to drive to minimise the braking in the first place.
Why is the opinion of the person behind me my problem? If he's a tailgater, he'll probably tailgate at any speed. And if we are travelling at a slower speed, that's then safer for me.
Why is your desire to put your foot down, and your misapprehension that you'll save much journey time by doing so a hyper-miler's problem?
They send me to sleep. Literally, I play them when I'm in bed and fall asleep far faster than without them. Again, it's because they stop me thinking.
Does the China system only countdown to the next green? Or does it also countdown to the next red.
The former is a good thing, and is a parallel to the technology in TFA. The latter is a bad thing that would encourage speeding to beat the red. So I hope it isn't that.
As to the fancy car-to-car technology - autonomous cars are coming. Stepping stone technologies such as these will inevitably come along before full autonomy. That's the way to judge them - skate to where the puck is going rather than where it is.
As you get older your priorities may well change. Playing at being a cyborg might become less interesting, and the reality of not being immortal, and possible chronic health conditions may make health monitoring products more attractive.
There are many sorts of people that make a market, and we all change what sort of people we are as we age.
Unfortunately Google think that they can just brow-beat and market their way around an engineering and design problem in this instance.
I'm not so sure. Glass seems to be taking an awful long time to come to market. They seem to be aware most people want nothing to do with it. I can see it being dropped even before it's publicly released.
The kind of person that thinks wearing some electronic spectacles is equivalent to being Copernicus is indeed a Glasshole.
If you usually travel by public transit, having headphones is almost a necessity. Then again, I'll see people just sit there and do nothing for the entire transit trip.
I find music pumped directly into my head stops me thinking. I'd far rather think.
The iWatch will be the precedent to decide if Apple is Apple without Steve Jobs.
And of course one of the possibilities is that Apple will chose not to do a watch. Apple is known to reject many more ideas than actually turn into products.
I wish people would stop talking about a rumour as if it were an actual product.
Clearly you couldn't actually find a post which was denying that paper in order to attach a reply.
Fail.
Maybe, I don't know, reducing the climate sensitivity?
That's right. You don't know.
And I repeat -- you may not care about the 15 year "hiatus" because you have safely put the goalposts for falsifying predictions of 2.5C or greater total climate sensitivity out there beyond reach
No, I don't care about 15 years, because since long before 1998, I've been well aware that climate requires 30 years of weather averaging. Anything less than that and the weather noise starts to override the climate signal. At only half of the 30 years, a 15 year period says nothing.
And the fact that the AR5 has a box to address the claims of those that think 15 years is enough to judge climate doesn't mean that they accept it is. Any more than me addressing your claims means I accept them.
Not only is 15 years not enough to judge a climate trend, we know perfectly well why the cherry picked start point of 1998 was an outlier. i.e. Why the noise was like that - because of the weather event of El Nino in 1998.