You don't pay for a subscription to reward the editors. You do it because occasionally someone will say something so insightful you want to review everything else he's ever written here.
It seems to me that there is no possible way that systemd causing the system to hang on the use of the standard kernel debug parameter can be seen as useful for the purpose of systemd. This then would be Kay trying to force Linus to adopt his kernel namespace idea, breaking stuff in Linux that goes back many, many years.
When your app is going to be used by a billion people, potentially dozens of times a day, every extra millisecond it takes to load costs a man year. Every extra K it consumes costs a terabyte. You should pretend your work will be so popular if you want it to be so popular.
If we are going to use the heat transfer capacity of the oceans for a global climate thermal transfer model - and I think we should - then surface air temperatures fade to irrelevance. The oceans and ice have such an immense energy sink capacity that the MOC probably has not fully adjusted to Holocene epoch temperatures yet. I agree there is much to learn about this.
In the meantime if the IPCC doesn't want people pointing out that their reports are internally inconsistent, they might consider updating their report so that the model information presented is visually consistent with the historical data observed in the same report. Perhaps this could be achieved by widening the error bars on the model to include variances of the scale of ENSCO, if that was in fact not included in the model. It is such a tiny disagreement that it is probably not significant, but if the present moment is an outlier explaining why deserves nothing less than a footnote at least. Otherwise it reads "These models, which we show not to be correct,..."
No, I read the whole report having got word before it showed up here. When I got to the graphs this struck me as odd. 1)The models for climate are the basis for all the risks and dangers in the report. 2)The models include points of time that overlap with observed, measured historical data in the report. 3)The most recent observed data in the report is not predicted by either of the models in the same report. I certainly did not expect to open up an IPCC report and see this. I am not using motivated reasoning: I am pointing out that the report warns of risks based upon models that disagree with the observed data in the report itself. It goes on at great length about analysis of outcomes based on models that it shows to be incorrect. It just doesn't get much plainer than that.
I will guess "less energy than required to melt the 30 million cubic kilometers of ice that melted between 15k and 7k years ago, raising sea levels 120 meters at a rate of 3m/century."
Admins have unlimited mod points, and there is a dedicated advocate for one side of this issue among them. In these threads she uses the privilege relentlessly.
If the projection doesn't even account for fairly well understood phenomena like La Niña then it is not very good, is it? You would think a decent model would include that.
I like to think that since the likelihood of a historical observation is almost 100%, those values belong between the error bars. But maybe that's just me.
In a report primarily about predicting outcomes, the fact that the report itself shows that observed reality disagrees with the predictions presented is pretty fundamental.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the firmware mods include a proxy server...
You don't pay for a subscription to reward the editors. You do it because occasionally someone will say something so insightful you want to review everything else he's ever written here.
Those toxic polluters in government actually made their STREETS themselves out of extra-thick oil.
100% of US nuclear reactors have a spent fuel problem: there is nowhere to dispose of it.
Do you know what a postulate is?
It is thinking like this that fuels my insomnia.
It is the photographer who owns the copyright, not the subject.
It seems to me that there is no possible way that systemd causing the system to hang on the use of the standard kernel debug parameter can be seen as useful for the purpose of systemd. This then would be Kay trying to force Linus to adopt his kernel namespace idea, breaking stuff in Linux that goes back many, many years.
When your app is going to be used by a billion people, potentially dozens of times a day, every extra millisecond it takes to load costs a man year. Every extra K it consumes costs a terabyte. You should pretend your work will be so popular if you want it to be so popular.
Do you find your views on blended/mixed license models evolving over time? Is it time to lay down the pitchforks some of the time?
There should be a high speed IO board that supports another Ethernet port come out for it. That is a pretty common desire for a board like this.
If we are going to use the heat transfer capacity of the oceans for a global climate thermal transfer model - and I think we should - then surface air temperatures fade to irrelevance. The oceans and ice have such an immense energy sink capacity that the MOC probably has not fully adjusted to Holocene epoch temperatures yet. I agree there is much to learn about this.
In the meantime if the IPCC doesn't want people pointing out that their reports are internally inconsistent, they might consider updating their report so that the model information presented is visually consistent with the historical data observed in the same report. Perhaps this could be achieved by widening the error bars on the model to include variances of the scale of ENSCO, if that was in fact not included in the model. It is such a tiny disagreement that it is probably not significant, but if the present moment is an outlier explaining why deserves nothing less than a footnote at least. Otherwise it reads "These models, which we show not to be correct, ..."
Lots of nifty things to do with a board like this. I have a 16 channel servo controller that would go great with it.
Since it has SATA ports that should not be a problem. Firmware compatibility problems are more likely.
No, I read the whole report having got word before it showed up here. When I got to the graphs this struck me as odd. 1)The models for climate are the basis for all the risks and dangers in the report. 2)The models include points of time that overlap with observed, measured historical data in the report. 3)The most recent observed data in the report is not predicted by either of the models in the same report. I certainly did not expect to open up an IPCC report and see this. I am not using motivated reasoning: I am pointing out that the report warns of risks based upon models that disagree with the observed data in the report itself. It goes on at great length about analysis of outcomes based on models that it shows to be incorrect. It just doesn't get much plainer than that.
I will guess "less energy than required to melt the 30 million cubic kilometers of ice that melted between 15k and 7k years ago, raising sea levels 120 meters at a rate of 3m/century."
Admins have unlimited mod points, and there is a dedicated advocate for one side of this issue among them. In these threads she uses the privilege relentlessly.
If the projection doesn't even account for fairly well understood phenomena like La Niña then it is not very good, is it? You would think a decent model would include that.
This is part of the strategy to discourage argument.
I like to think that since the likelihood of a historical observation is almost 100%, those values belong between the error bars. But maybe that's just me.
In a report primarily about predicting outcomes, the fact that the report itself shows that observed reality disagrees with the predictions presented is pretty fundamental.
Or maybe you could read pages 38 and 39 of the executive summary of this report from the IPCC, which would be the second link in the summary.
Well if I am not to believe the BS from the IPCC because it doesn't reflect reality we don't need TFA, do we?
Pages 38 and 39 of the second link in the fine summary.
The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?