Furthermore, Siberia would be one of the regions for which climate change would indeed be a regional warming - it is already heating up much faster than any other part of the globe, and if it keeps doing so, it will become much more prospective for human settlement and agriculture, and in short-term perspective provide for easier access to the vast natural resources of the region.
Wait... so you're saying that for some people a little global warming would not be a bad thing? How do Canadians feel about it?
It's hard to get modded off topic in a politics thread. The moderator looking to mod people off topic isn't even going to come in here as he'd have to mod almost the entire thread.
Your ggparent post stated that the copyright czar position was created by Congress. It was, and the President has the authority to fill it by appointment but Congress can't compel him to do so any more than they could compel him to appoint members of his cabinet. Your comment:
More crap being blamed on Obama yet again on Slashdot?
Would be correct - the blame is being fixed on President Obama. Unfortunately for the political message you're trying to convey fixing the blame on the Executive is in this case is appropriate. The buck stops there.
My comment goes further to point out that quite topical concerns people have about this Summit are well founded in facts, with citation. This is given as in a dialog where people exchange ideas freely, taking turns working their points of question.
Now, since your post contained the text:
What does this have to do with with my comment?/offtopic
I hope I've cleared up both of those issues for you.
I'm going to have to yield on the Larrabee question. Asked and answered.
The events at Computex are widely reported. That just happened to be the quickest link in Google. As to the credibility of the reports, well, they could be better. Maybe in a few years we'll know what really happened here.
The ARM netbook style machine is disruptive and people want it - so it seems likely to happen, to me. No doubt Intel will respond with low power chipsets in time.
Windows Mobile has run on ARM forever. Its not exactly the dominant OS.
Agreed. Now that we have Android and ARM chips are reaching reasonable performance levels, PDAs might have a chance - only they'll mostly be phones, eBook readers, tablets and media players now, an appliance for every need. I hope some marketing guru doesn't start freaking out about how ebook readers are cannibalizing sales of gaming laptops.
Talk about dominance, Qualcoms chip sets and software are way, way more proprietary and closed than anyting from MSFT.
I don't deal with Qualcomm at this level. I'll take your word for it. I wonder how Google got them to give up enough IP to make the G-Phone?
He's stuffed the Justice department with RIAA lawyers. I'm not going to agree with him on intellectual property, though I don't dislike his policies generally. I guess you can't have everything. By the time he's out of office this problem seems likely to go away no matter what he does - technology doesn't stop just because media moguls want it to.
Well in that case... you're probably right about Larrabee. Microsoft's scheduler isn't ready for this hardware, but OS-X has Grand Central Dispatch so it would behoove Microsoft for it to not come out yet. But it does seem more likely that Intel's unable to get it to work or can't get the SDK ready than that someone convinced them it was a bad idea.
I thought this was clear. The AGW is made up. All of the authorities except the CRU show you where they put the AGW in, and the CRU is stonewalling. If you find in your analysis an alarming curve that you put in there yourself, you're not entitled to expect other people to become alarmed. The sky is not falling. 0.2C per century, in addition to being a reasonable expectation for the climate of the age, is also outside the precision of the measurements.
Perhaps I'm frustrating you because I don't bow and scrape to your dendro-sciency authority. Excuse me, but you're going to have to come with something more convincing.
I say that if you take out the adjustments you get an observed rise in global temperatures on the order of 0.2C per century - a number not out of line for an interglacial age. In addition, you get no AGW signal at all - but trends in the data reflect historic events: periods of drought, etc, that are not identifiable in the corrected data.
I've figured out why I repost to you so much. I friended you and you friended me, and you're a subscriber which puts all of your posts at +3 and makes your posts full rather than abbreviated according to my preference settings. If you post in a thread that I'm interested in your post is always fully expanded, and I'm always interested in the threads you post in and you always say interesting stuff that I usually disagree with. I was starting to worry.
Now don't feed the troll. Not only can he not hear you - he's a script. There is no real person behind his ranting. It's part of some twisted CS PhD candidate's thesis. He's no more a person than the Frosty Piss troll, the NAMBLA troll, the Nigger troll, or any of the others. They're part of the slashdot background radiation, and in a sense they're a sort of Turing test. Slashdot is actually a large part of the research into cracking CAPTCHA technologies and in human machine interaction, in addition to the amusing forums we enjoy. You can validate this by looking for some context between your post and his reply.
It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game.
And if he's not a script then he's really scary and we should probably not give him attention lest we find him on our porch one day.
The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century.
.5C is the AGW signal over that time span. Their adjustments arethe cause for alarm.
This document used to be linked from their climate page only two weeks ago. Now it's not. I wonder why. I'm sure it has nothing to do with what's going on in Copenhagen.
Of course I expect you to reply that this is regional data (it isn't) or that NOAA isn't reliable. I don't expect you to get your head around the idea that if your corrections to the underlying data are the indica that are your report, you have scientifical issues. Maybe there's something good on TV.
I don't have any proofs yet. I've downloaded a good chunk of raw data and am processing it for my own amusement. I've collected about 100GB so far. It's all out there for you to read if you want to. I don't expect my proofs to mean anything to you as I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately a compact binary representation of the temperature data can be done in 20GB, and that's not too much for one machine to fit into memory any more (I have servers with 96GB each). As part of my hobby I'm designing a daemon that loads the raw data into a memory array and answers database queries on it. It could be a year before I have my own stuff to share, but it sure is fun!
In the meantime, here's that link to a non-reliable source you asked for. If you look at figure 5 you should be able to pick out the dust bowl drought era (1930-1945) and the rapid decline (1935-1970) that had a few scientists in 1975 concerned about an impending ice age - both events well supported by the historical record and not subject to scientific reinterpretation. Neither of these events is visible in the adjusted data. Then there's the fact that the cataclysmic rise in temperatures halted a decade ago for no apparent reason - itself a refutation of AGW. That's why their graphs stop in 2000.
Of course this link actually restates original work by Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian environmentalist.
If you look at the AGW alarmists' own chart of corrections (difference between raw and final) you can see that the AGW signal is imposed by the corrections and not by the data. It's as simple as that. They're telling you they made it up. Further, updates have been made in the last six months to modify the "raw" data to show the AGW signal. Fortunately archival copies are available of historical raw data and this isn't going to fool anybody.
As a final note, not one of the climate studies uses the actual daily mean temps, even where they were observed. Instead they use the average of the extremes, which isn't accurate to 3 degrees in 99% of cases. That puts the error bars around the observations at a far larger scale than the observed phenomena. It's flat made up.
Yeah - and the part that's not numbers is the only part that supports the AGW hypothesis. It's not supported by the raw data except in the cases where over the past year the raw data has been adjusted to do so, which makes it not "raw".
By The Way: this is not a request for an interview. I would rather clean septic tanks than work for your company, and the local septic company is always hiring (FlowHawks).
RAND is a cover for non-open. It used to work before the lawyers got ahold of it. Let me school you:
There is one and only one measure of openness now: You can implement it without a license, or you can't. That's it. You want to be interoperable, or you want to control who can interact with your interface. The control is the limiting factor and it's the difference between useful and not.
It's sad but true. If we stay here comfy in our/. home,/. becomes a parking space for what we know and outside of here ignorance reigns. In addition to being a troll magnet,/. becomes an ivory tower. That's bad. We need to go out from here and disabuse the idiots of ZDNET and CNET of their general idiocy. That we are smart here does no good if the common cause becomes "Up with dumb"! The only cure is for us to go out to all those other spaces and comment something other than "you're a 'tard", useful information for the common folk like "Don't drill for water in your neighbor's septic tank."
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, Siberia would be one of the regions for which climate change would indeed be a regional warming - it is already heating up much faster than any other part of the globe, and if it keeps doing so, it will become much more prospective for human settlement and agriculture, and in short-term perspective provide for easier access to the vast natural resources of the region.
Wait... so you're saying that for some people a little global warming would not be a bad thing? How do Canadians feel about it?
He likes you, but he's got questions about your post. You should ask for clarification.
It's hard to get modded off topic in a politics thread. The moderator looking to mod people off topic isn't even going to come in here as he'd have to mod almost the entire thread.
Your ggparent post stated that the copyright czar position was created by Congress. It was, and the President has the authority to fill it by appointment but Congress can't compel him to do so any more than they could compel him to appoint members of his cabinet. Your comment:
More crap being blamed on Obama yet again on Slashdot?
Would be correct - the blame is being fixed on President Obama. Unfortunately for the political message you're trying to convey fixing the blame on the Executive is in this case is appropriate. The buck stops there.
My comment goes further to point out that quite topical concerns people have about this Summit are well founded in facts, with citation. This is given as in a dialog where people exchange ideas freely, taking turns working their points of question.
Now, since your post contained the text:
What does this have to do with with my comment? /offtopic
I hope I've cleared up both of those issues for you.
I'm going to have to yield on the Larrabee question. Asked and answered.
The events at Computex are widely reported. That just happened to be the quickest link in Google. As to the credibility of the reports, well, they could be better. Maybe in a few years we'll know what really happened here.
The ARM netbook style machine is disruptive and people want it - so it seems likely to happen, to me. No doubt Intel will respond with low power chipsets in time.
Windows Mobile has run on ARM forever. Its not exactly the dominant OS.
Agreed. Now that we have Android and ARM chips are reaching reasonable performance levels, PDAs might have a chance - only they'll mostly be phones, eBook readers, tablets and media players now, an appliance for every need. I hope some marketing guru doesn't start freaking out about how ebook readers are cannibalizing sales of gaming laptops.
Talk about dominance, Qualcoms chip sets and software are way, way more proprietary and closed than anyting from MSFT.
I don't deal with Qualcomm at this level. I'll take your word for it. I wonder how Google got them to give up enough IP to make the G-Phone?
He's stuffed the Justice department with RIAA lawyers. I'm not going to agree with him on intellectual property, though I don't dislike his policies generally. I guess you can't have everything. By the time he's out of office this problem seems likely to go away no matter what he does - technology doesn't stop just because media moguls want it to.
In this case the particular lawyers are the Justice Department. Oh my, isn't that convenient?
Well in that case... you're probably right about Larrabee. Microsoft's scheduler isn't ready for this hardware, but OS-X has Grand Central Dispatch so it would behoove Microsoft for it to not come out yet. But it does seem more likely that Intel's unable to get it to work or can't get the SDK ready than that someone convinced them it was a bad idea.
About Snapdragon I'm not so sure...
Link
I thought this was clear. The AGW is made up. All of the authorities except the CRU show you where they put the AGW in, and the CRU is stonewalling. If you find in your analysis an alarming curve that you put in there yourself, you're not entitled to expect other people to become alarmed. The sky is not falling. 0.2C per century, in addition to being a reasonable expectation for the climate of the age, is also outside the precision of the measurements.
Perhaps I'm frustrating you because I don't bow and scrape to your dendro-sciency authority. Excuse me, but you're going to have to come with something more convincing.
This is not a bookmark.
Even without internet access the device has interesting applications.
I say that if you take out the adjustments you get an observed rise in global temperatures on the order of 0.2C per century - a number not out of line for an interglacial age. In addition, you get no AGW signal at all - but trends in the data reflect historic events: periods of drought, etc, that are not identifiable in the corrected data.
that I warned Y'all about this long ago.
Aw, shucks.
I've figured out why I repost to you so much. I friended you and you friended me, and you're a subscriber which puts all of your posts at +3 and makes your posts full rather than abbreviated according to my preference settings. If you post in a thread that I'm interested in your post is always fully expanded, and I'm always interested in the threads you post in and you always say interesting stuff that I usually disagree with. I was starting to worry.
Now don't feed the troll. Not only can he not hear you - he's a script. There is no real person behind his ranting. It's part of some twisted CS PhD candidate's thesis. He's no more a person than the Frosty Piss troll, the NAMBLA troll, the Nigger troll, or any of the others. They're part of the slashdot background radiation, and in a sense they're a sort of Turing test. Slashdot is actually a large part of the research into cracking CAPTCHA technologies and in human machine interaction, in addition to the amusing forums we enjoy. You can validate this by looking for some context between your post and his reply.
It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game.
And if he's not a script then he's really scary and we should probably not give him attention lest we find him on our porch one day.
Well what you and I think doesn't seem to matter, because vested interests trump observation and analysis both. link.
The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century.
link.
.5C is the AGW signal over that time span. Their adjustments are the cause for alarm.
This document used to be linked from their climate page only two weeks ago. Now it's not. I wonder why. I'm sure it has nothing to do with what's going on in Copenhagen.
Of course I expect you to reply that this is regional data (it isn't) or that NOAA isn't reliable. I don't expect you to get your head around the idea that if your corrections to the underlying data are the indica that are your report, you have scientifical issues. Maybe there's something good on TV.
I don't have any proofs yet. I've downloaded a good chunk of raw data and am processing it for my own amusement. I've collected about 100GB so far. It's all out there for you to read if you want to. I don't expect my proofs to mean anything to you as I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately a compact binary representation of the temperature data can be done in 20GB, and that's not too much for one machine to fit into memory any more (I have servers with 96GB each). As part of my hobby I'm designing a daemon that loads the raw data into a memory array and answers database queries on it. It could be a year before I have my own stuff to share, but it sure is fun!
In the meantime, here's that link to a non-reliable source you asked for. If you look at figure 5 you should be able to pick out the dust bowl drought era (1930-1945) and the rapid decline (1935-1970) that had a few scientists in 1975 concerned about an impending ice age - both events well supported by the historical record and not subject to scientific reinterpretation. Neither of these events is visible in the adjusted data. Then there's the fact that the cataclysmic rise in temperatures halted a decade ago for no apparent reason - itself a refutation of AGW. That's why their graphs stop in 2000.
Of course this link actually restates original work by Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian environmentalist.
If you look at the AGW alarmists' own chart of corrections (difference between raw and final) you can see that the AGW signal is imposed by the corrections and not by the data. It's as simple as that. They're telling you they made it up. Further, updates have been made in the last six months to modify the "raw" data to show the AGW signal. Fortunately archival copies are available of historical raw data and this isn't going to fool anybody.
As a final note, not one of the climate studies uses the actual daily mean temps, even where they were observed. Instead they use the average of the extremes, which isn't accurate to 3 degrees in 99% of cases. That puts the error bars around the observations at a far larger scale than the observed phenomena. It's flat made up.
Hollywood accounting.
Most children are unrepentant sociopaths.
Yeah - and the part that's not numbers is the only part that supports the AGW hypothesis. It's not supported by the raw data except in the cases where over the past year the raw data has been adjusted to do so, which makes it not "raw".
That would be lovely. Sorry about the ranting. You'll note that at 3am on a Saturday I can sometimes get a little dumb.
I'll get you a direct email some way.
By The Way: this is not a request for an interview. I would rather clean septic tanks than work for your company, and the local septic company is always hiring (FlowHawks).
RAND is a cover for non-open. It used to work before the lawyers got ahold of it. Let me school you:
There is one and only one measure of openness now: You can implement it without a license, or you can't. That's it. You want to be interoperable, or you want to control who can interact with your interface. The control is the limiting factor and it's the difference between useful and not.
I have nothing to add here except that your lack of "getting it" is provably deliberate. You're a lawyer, aren't you?
It's sad but true. If we stay here comfy in our /. home, /. becomes a parking space for what we know and outside of here ignorance reigns. In addition to being a troll magnet, /. becomes an ivory tower. That's bad. We need to go out from here and disabuse the idiots of ZDNET and CNET of their general idiocy. That we are smart here does no good if the common cause becomes "Up with dumb"! The only cure is for us to go out to all those other spaces and comment something other than "you're a 'tard", useful information for the common folk like "Don't drill for water in your neighbor's septic tank."