Scientists agree (or at least all published papers in the field), which can only suggest bias?!?
That's not what I said. I said a survey of a small number of articles published over a 11 year period does not ON IT'S FACE support the conclusion that 'scientists agree.' The report says not only is there consensus, but that the consensus is 100%. This simply is not true. There ARE dissenting reports out there, but they were either not found or ignored by the author of that article that you are using to assert the notion of 100% consensus.
In broad strokes, yes there is only one conclusion.
Bull. I've seen results in which other proxies, such as a pure random driver, generated the hockey stick graph that is used as the primary basis for the anthropomorphic part of the arguement. Highly qualified statisticians have argued that at it's most fundamental level, the analysis of the tree ring and some core data is flawed; using proxies to form correlations is WRONG. Yet ALL the anthropomorphic-based conclusions rely on such analysis of the available data.
Look. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong on it's face, but there ARE serious problems with the data itself, the analysis of the data and the weight of the conclusion given. Maybe the current climate change models are correct; but the issues listed above must be properly addressed, not swept under-the-rug before I, and bunch of other trained SCIENTISTS buy into it. In short, as it is now, it is little more than crappy pop-science.
Scientists certainly are arguing over the complexities and scientists and statistitians certainly are "uncomfortable" with a variety of things, however ALL of that is over trying to measure the history and measure what has already happened and attempting to predict the magnitude and nature and the side effects of future change.
Ah, so you acknowledge what I've been saying. The problem is that the conclusions of "earth getting warmer" and "humans causing it" and the current models generally in use to make predictions RELY on the potentially faulty analysis of that historical data. Simply put, the whole arguement rests on the hockey stick that correlates CO2 with global temperature. As it stands no, NO SUCH CORRELATION EXISTS.
Let me state that again. At the current state of analysis, no such correlation exists. The proxy analysis is flawed, and any resulting correlation is fortuitous. When you say it is fact that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere causes a certain effect on the global climate, you are completely ignoring other mechanisms - carbon sinking in the deep oceans for example which are not well understand at all. Or, how about methane-hydrate's role? Or how about variations in solar output (I've seen this one in the literature, and it is pretty much shown to be anti-correlative, but the point is, the global climate does not rely SOLELY on CO2 concentration). Etc.
The fact is that it is happening. Any politician or industry PR efforts to deny it are silly and harmful.
Whether Global Warming is real is a scientific question, not a political question.
Oh yes it most certainly *IS* a political question. First, that Global Warming is happening is not the issue. The issue is the cause. The earth HAS undergone huge fluctuations in temperature over it's history. Ice ages come and ice ages go.
At stake is the role of humans. Much research funding depends on this; that's the bias I mentioned earlier. If it were shown tomorrow in dramatic but inconclusive fashion that AGW did not exist, a whole bunch of research dollars would dry up. A bunch of folks would find themselves without a relatively easy avenue to funding and would have to scramble to find a basis to study their pet system.
The basics of Golbal Warming are in the "beyond any reasonable doubt" catagory.
That's just plain nuts. If that were true, you and I would not be having this discussion. In ess
Two very, very different beasts. The earth orbit issue is one direct observation of periodic motion. This measured values are a directly input into Kepler's Law. The correlations about climate change are based on proxy data, and that is causing quite a few scientists and statistician's 'discomfort.' In fact, one modeled the 'hockey' stick graph using other proxies besides CO2 concentration. There may be more to consider than JUST pollution, or JUST CO2, etc. The data is not conclusive of only ONE conclusion.
Thanks for playing, though. That was a fun analogy attempt.:)
A survey of articles is not evidence of consensus. It is evidence of editorial policy. The article you site asserts that 928 articles were published between 1993 and 2003 and that ALL of them were written by researcher drawing the same conclusion. There are many scientific peer reviewed journals that publish articles on climate and atmospheric science. I seriously doubt that ALL, 100% as your statement asserts, of those publishing scientists have this single, very specific belief/conclusion from ALL the data they have.
A search of Google Scholar on the search terms "climate change" results in 734,000 hits. I don't know what time period that spans, and many of them would indeed support your assertion, but it makes a survey consisting of 928 articles statistically insignicant if your hypothesis is 100% consensus.
To disprove your assertion, that ALL scientists have this belief, I need only provide one single dissenting opinion. Not counting my own personal acquaintance, which includes researchers and former researchers in Physical Chemistry, here are a couple of contra-sources, just for consideration:
Steve McIntyre's Site - basically geared toward discounting the statistical existence and/or importance of the 'hockey stick' temperature graph. Specifically, this is a discussion of the statistical errors involved in using multiple proxies (like tree rings, ice cores, etc) to model correlations.
Climate Audit site - this is key to address your point; this site has a lot of scientists/researchers who dissent from populist view of anthropomorphic climate change, at least based on the current models. There is some important, and sometimes subtle, stuff here.
The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change - simply emphasizes that rapid climate change HAS occured historically and that human causes are not required; note that the swings in temperatures, etc, are MUCH larger than the 1-5 C shifts many take as catastrophic.
Some have asserted that the AGW phenomenon is an example of Pathological Science. Note specifically the criteria:
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
There are claims of great accuracy.
Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
(note: please don't respond with why you might think these sites or conclusions are 'wrong;' my point in posting them is to discount the notion that EVERYBODY on the issue agrees with one, specific conclusion - it is the consensus issue I am trying to nullify)
Further, I propose that 'climate change' research is a money-maker right now, and almost guaranteed to generate funding from the federal agencies. This also possibly introduces a bias in the publication statistics.
Finally, I would say that 100% consensus in science is a bit dangerous. As Albert Einstein said, once you 'know' something, you stop 'understanding.' Honest debate on this issue is good and maintains scientific integrity.
the keyword "climate change" yielded 928 peer-reviewed papers, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF WHICH disputed the conclusion that global warming is caused by man-made changes to the atmosphere.
In all fairness, in the absence of additional data, this statement on it's face only suggests a bias in editorial policy. I find it hard to believe that with something this complicated that there are not SOME 'dissenting' papers.
Maybe I'll start my own journal - the Journal of Anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming just to see if I get any submissions (from legit data crunchers, not nut jobs with an agenda).
You just read that ice is increasing. Where? I once heard that I shouldn't believe everything I hear or read. I looked into it, and it has turned out to be true.
But YOU are believing what you have read about anthropogenic global warming; please be consistent.
There's lots of people going around lying about the Greenhouse we're making.
There sure are. And they are mostly people that don't understand jack squat about chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid behavior. The ones that DO understand these things, know the system is very, very complicated and is not so easily explained.
Most climate experts agree that the climate is becoming more chaotic, with pollution making it worse.
Bah. I don't believe this statement; if you'd like to convince me otherwise, show me some data wherein you've polled a MAJORITY of climate scientists as to their present understanding, beliefs and conclusions about the current data.
What I DO believe is that most climate experts that you choose to listen to say this. Further, I also believe that those that believe the climate is becoming "more chaotic" (compared to when, the entire earth's history?...if that's their assertion, they are plain wrong and there is a WEALTH of data to show very dramatic, short time scale HUGE shifts in climate) would vastly disagree on a mechanism for that change.
I've read your posts to others, and from the tone of your message compared to theirs, I conclude that you don't want to actually UNDERSTAND this issue; that would require listening to contra-evidence, and giving it very careful consideration. Calling people names, jumping on politically radical bandwagons and hurling accusations are not forms of debate; they are techniques of oppression.
I spent an easy 3 hours trying to figure out what was wrong because I wanted to learn it.
That's the key point: you spent the time trying to understand what was wrong (a very good thing). I don't pretend that everything installs without a hitch in Linux. But nor does that happen in Windows when one is considering 'freebie' software. And the 'average' Windows user (as that term is used to differentiate Windows user from Linux user) would probably just give up - not spend the time to learn it and make it work.
but usability wise... we would all do well for ourselves to hire some usability engineers more often.
True enough.:)
Hang in there with Linux; as you climb the learning curve, you may likely find your productivity sore and find yourself missing Windows less and less. As I often tell folks just learning Linux, you have to keep in mind the years it took you to learn Windows as well as you know it before you discount Linux as taking too long to learn.
"a computer that doesn't take me 6 hours to install an app on because I don't have to download source, configure, make, make install, and HOPE that nothing goes wrong on the way".
An old, tired, specious argument that has long molded in the grave. There's yum, apt-get, emerge, etc, and they seem to work pretty good. I install a LOT of code from source, some really, really big stuff too, and I typically don't spend 6 hours running config, make, make install. One of the biggest apps I installed from source was the 3-D modeling package k3d, and it did not take 6 hours to install. Freebie code on Windows has often given me install problems, too. That's the nature of free-as-in-lunch no matter what the platform.
But let's consider compiling from source vs. binary packages for just a moment. The advantage to taking the extra time/effort to install from source is final code optimized for your machine; in some cases, this can make a HUGE difference. With binary-only distribution, you get either the lowest common denomenator (code compiled for a Pentium, for example) or very bloated code that contains optimizations for many combinations. There's no way for the developer to know at compile time what architecture will run the code. With the end-user compiling for his own box, he can get the performance without the bloat (and probably better performance, too). gcc, for example, provides the -march= switch that influences micro-op scheduling in the execution units, and I've seen the explicit inclusion of this switch alone improve performance by 18%. In intensive computing, those 18%'s add up, and mean the difference between productive working code and junk code.
Admittedly, this is not "joe-sixpack" stuff. I'll get back to 'average user wants to install some software.'
I was reading some online documentation for Ruby on Rails (or something related to it) the other day, and saw one of the funniest things I've seen online in a long time. The author was describing the install process on Windows and referred to "One Click Install, during which you will have to click OK several times" (not an exact quote).
Now, consider the following rpm installation scenario that I use very often:
Download package
In Konqueror, click the package icon.
Type root password (admittedly an extra step compared to most Windows installs, but I'd argue a good one)
In resulting Window, click OK to one or two prompts
use program at will
Now honestly, how is that much different from package installation on Windows?
Then that's a dumb-ass way to count system stats. What's wrong with process accounting, like psacct? If it's 'number of times lauched,' it should be reported as 'number of times launched,' not how often a program is used (which implies, to me at least, as well as the GP apparently, CPU USE).
This is part of MY problem with Windows in general. Too much just does not make sense, so that you have to know what things "really mean."
You don't need to run your own mailserver. There's just no valid reason to do so.
Says you.
Is that really what we want the Internet to be? I thought the idea was to make information flow as freely (as in unhindered) and reliably as possible? Now you are proposing that there are services I CANNOT/SHOULD NOT run on the 'Net because YOU don't think I have a valid reason to do so?
How's this for a valid reason to run my own mail server: I own a business and I want the flexibility to configure things best for my situation. I don't have to pay/depend on anyone outside my own organization to get done what I want done. I want virtual users mapped a certain way. Done. I want aliasing done a certain way? Done.
Problem #1: I don't get my mail via my main ISP; my in-mail and out-mail goes via different providers. Surely not talking about my ISP monitoring my POP3 traffic to a server they don't own or manage? The plan you describe is very tunnel visioned in terms of business set-ups. Oh, what about all the intermediate providers that route the mail; there is a load on their systems too, why don't they get a cut?
Problem #2: I get involved in some projects for which we send a LOT of email back and forth between client, contractor(s) and subcontractors. So, even at $0.03 per shot, that needlessly drives up the cost of the project. This means the client has to pay a higher bill, which in turn probably means they charge more for their product.
How are going to predict at the start of a project how many emails this project is going to take? We could flat-rate the cost, but imo that just adds a needless line-item to the proposal.
Problem #3: My ISP currently invoices me for service; you are going to add to the complexity of their accounting system (and overhead on their systems keeping track of who got what email) to manage all this, for PENNIES a shot, and the net result is I pay the ISP a higher monthly rate. What about auditing? What if I show I received 500 legit emails a month and they show I only got 400?
No thanks, I'd just prefer continue hitting "Delete" on phishing email when they do get past the antispam measures in place.
And the benefits you get from a cable like that are insane. Costs/pound to launch things into space become negligible. Transit to the Moon becomes cheap and fast, because the end of the cable is actually moving faster than orbital velocity.
Neglible cost to get mass into space...really?
And how do you know this? It has not been built yet. This kind of speculation sounds good in a sales pitch, but probably are not all that realistic. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if all the hype turns out to be true in about 50 years, but right now, I think a fair amount of honest skeptism is in order.
Rockets are expensive, extremely dangerous (how long ago was the last fatal disaster? Just a few years), pollute the atmosphere, etc. It costs $10,000 to launch 1 pound of cargo into orbit with rocket technology
Okay, so what if that is just the cost of doing business in space? Just to play devil's advocate, we don't KNOW that the space elevator will be less costly or less dangerous. There are hidden 'costs' in any engineering project of that magnitude.
I think it is cool if you want to support R&D in a new technology; do it for the purety of research. But I am tired of the old "$cool_new_way will be cheaper and safer." It's a specious arguement that rarely comes to pass, and that's why we hear a lot of headline announcements every year, with little follow-up later.
They say our solar system is centered 'round the sun, Nine planets, large and small, parading by. But somewhere out in space, There's another shining face That you might see some night up in the sky. Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl, A solar system Ms. from a future world, She travels like a rocket with her comet team And there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen, No, there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.
She's been to the sun, it's a lot of fun, It's a hot spot, it's a gas! Hydrogen and helium in a big, bright, glowing mass. It's a star, it's a star! So Janet got an autograph!
Mercury was near the sun so Janet stopped by, But the mercury on Mercury was much too high, so Janet split for Venus but on Venus she found She couldn't see a thing for all the clouds around. Earth looked exciting, kind of green and inviting, So Janet thought she'd give it a go. But the creatures on the planet looked so very weird to Janet, She didn't even dare to say hello.
It's a bird, it's a plane! Why, it must be a UFO, but it was: Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl, A solar system Ms. from a future world, She travels like a rocket with her comet team And there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen, No, there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.
Mars is red and Jupiter's big And Saturn shows off its rings. Uranus is built on a funny tilt And Neptune is its twin, And Pluto, little Pluto is the farthest planet from our sun.
They say our solar system is not alone in space. The universe has endless mystery. Some future astronaut May find out that what he thought Was a shooting star instead turned out to be...
Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl, A solar system Ms. from a future world, She travels like a rocket with her comet team And there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen, There's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.
But the reality is not everyone can do physics or calculus. Or chemistry. I've taught or tutored all three, and some people just don't get it. Just like I cannot freehand draw to save my life. Not everyone can do everything.
I think it is less 'weeding out' than trying to hold some standard of acceptable performance.
What percentage of discovered bugs do you think are actually found by looking at the source code of a program?
All of them?
I know your point: that the INITIAL discovery and exploit is not typically found by looking at the code. But to fix vulnerable code, one must FIND and edit it. The point is, once an exploit is discovered, there are many people who can locate the faulty code and fix it fast.
Open Source is a good thing. Really, what is the down side of source code availability?
As for "When the electricity (in the Brown's Gas) is released by the 'flame,' it comes out as electricity and the water 'implodes' to it's original liquid form, with no heat and no expansion first."
As you said, pure rubbish. It does explode first to produce water vapor, and the condensation of water vapor to liquid water does liberate large quantity of heat.
Multiply a kilowatt or so per square meter insolation by the size of the ocean, take seven percent of that, and get back to me on whether you think it's enough.
So, you're basically going to build this to cover the entire ocean? Either that or you've got a heck of an equilibrium problem, there.
To say that Windows "just works" for the average user is not consistent with the very large base of call-in help desks and even radio shows dedicated to answering questions regarding Windows problems. It might work INITIALLY for the 'average' user, but that is not to say it is more maintenance free.
To me, long term maintainability is the selling point of Linux. I'll concede Linux is in general harder to set up, but only because the end-user is not typically setting up Windows; it is preinstalled (and configured). If you hide that initial set-up at the vendor, then the user would see Linux as a much easier to use machine LONG TERM. That is, I'd argue that once set up, Linux is far more reliable, more durable and much, much easier to extend into areas the user wants to take the computer after the initial set-up.
Ultimately, to each his own. I have a family member who will not, under any circumstances, even look at Linux. He does not care if it can do x, y or z better. Do I continue to try to "sell" Linux to him? No way. His box - his choice of OS.
But, that is not to say that I firmly believe he has more computer headaches than I do in maintaining his systems. And mine are doing much more complicated things.
"With GPS, the displacements are measured second by second," said Bock, who also presented at the American Geophysical Union conference. "Within 70 seconds you have a good idea of the final deformation." In addition to predicting tsunamis, he thinks GPS modules could be used to monitor the activity of volcanoes and landslides in real time. [emphasis mine]
I thought GPS was already used extensively in volcano studies.
Read up on the work of Wallace Broecker, C.E.P. Brooks, Andrew Ellicott Douglass, Hans Suess and Reid Bryson to name a few. Rapid climate changes are well documented in the historical record.
Ecological change is usually on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
Bull puckey. I suggest you read Spencer Weart's excellent article in Physics Today. Seems there is a whole heap of data to support the notion that a lot of ecological change occurs on very short time scales (oceanic currents, de/re-forestation due to climate alterations, etc).
In this article, pay particular attention to the part where he outlines the history of climatologists around 1900 or so. Specifically, they bought the belief that all geological/climatological change was slow, and ignored much compelling evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, that band of scientists has shaped the training of many in our age.
Umm. yes, reading the WHOLE page (specifically, look at the screenshot page) IS rather important to interpreting more than just the graphic rendered on the screen. This interface is like remote desktop or VNC on steroids.
If you consider the fourth dimension an abstraction of what is "behind" the 3D graphics, then I am simply saying that I agree with his calling this a 4D interface. It might be more about seeing the big picture, and less about seeing one tree in the forest.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists agree (or at least all published papers in the field), which can only suggest bias?!?
That's not what I said. I said a survey of a small number of articles published over a 11 year period does not ON IT'S FACE support the conclusion that 'scientists agree.' The report says not only is there consensus, but that the consensus is 100%. This simply is not true. There ARE dissenting reports out there, but they were either not found or ignored by the author of that article that you are using to assert the notion of 100% consensus.
In broad strokes, yes there is only one conclusion.
Bull. I've seen results in which other proxies, such as a pure random driver, generated the hockey stick graph that is used as the primary basis for the anthropomorphic part of the arguement. Highly qualified statisticians have argued that at it's most fundamental level, the analysis of the tree ring and some core data is flawed; using proxies to form correlations is WRONG. Yet ALL the anthropomorphic-based conclusions rely on such analysis of the available data.
Look. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong on it's face, but there ARE serious problems with the data itself, the analysis of the data and the weight of the conclusion given. Maybe the current climate change models are correct; but the issues listed above must be properly addressed, not swept under-the-rug before I, and bunch of other trained SCIENTISTS buy into it. In short, as it is now, it is little more than crappy pop-science.
Scientists certainly are arguing over the complexities and scientists and statistitians certainly are "uncomfortable" with a variety of things, however ALL of that is over trying to measure the history and measure what has already happened and attempting to predict the magnitude and nature and the side effects of future change.
Ah, so you acknowledge what I've been saying. The problem is that the conclusions of "earth getting warmer" and "humans causing it" and the current models generally in use to make predictions RELY on the potentially faulty analysis of that historical data. Simply put, the whole arguement rests on the hockey stick that correlates CO2 with global temperature. As it stands no, NO SUCH CORRELATION EXISTS.
Let me state that again. At the current state of analysis, no such correlation exists. The proxy analysis is flawed, and any resulting correlation is fortuitous. When you say it is fact that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere causes a certain effect on the global climate, you are completely ignoring other mechanisms - carbon sinking in the deep oceans for example which are not well understand at all. Or, how about methane-hydrate's role? Or how about variations in solar output (I've seen this one in the literature, and it is pretty much shown to be anti-correlative, but the point is, the global climate does not rely SOLELY on CO2 concentration). Etc.
The fact is that it is happening. Any politician or industry PR efforts to deny it are silly and harmful.
Whether Global Warming is real is a scientific question, not a political question.
Oh yes it most certainly *IS* a political question. First, that Global Warming is happening is not the issue. The issue is the cause. The earth HAS undergone huge fluctuations in temperature over it's history. Ice ages come and ice ages go.
At stake is the role of humans. Much research funding depends on this; that's the bias I mentioned earlier. If it were shown tomorrow in dramatic but inconclusive fashion that AGW did not exist, a whole bunch of research dollars would dry up. A bunch of folks would find themselves without a relatively easy avenue to funding and would have to scramble to find a basis to study their pet system.
The basics of Golbal Warming are in the "beyond any reasonable doubt" catagory.
That's just plain nuts. If that were true, you and I would not be having this discussion. In ess
Two very, very different beasts. The earth orbit issue is one direct observation of periodic motion. This measured values are a directly input into Kepler's Law. The correlations about climate change are based on proxy data, and that is causing quite a few scientists and statistician's 'discomfort.' In fact, one modeled the 'hockey' stick graph using other proxies besides CO2 concentration. There may be more to consider than JUST pollution, or JUST CO2, etc. The data is not conclusive of only ONE conclusion.
:)
Thanks for playing, though. That was a fun analogy attempt.
A search of Google Scholar on the search terms "climate change" results in 734,000 hits. I don't know what time period that spans, and many of them would indeed support your assertion, but it makes a survey consisting of 928 articles statistically insignicant if your hypothesis is 100% consensus.
To disprove your assertion, that ALL scientists have this belief, I need only provide one single dissenting opinion. Not counting my own personal acquaintance, which includes researchers and former researchers in Physical Chemistry, here are a couple of contra-sources, just for consideration:
(note: please don't respond with why you might think these sites or conclusions are 'wrong;' my point in posting them is to discount the notion that EVERYBODY on the issue agrees with one, specific conclusion - it is the consensus issue I am trying to nullify)
Further, I propose that 'climate change' research is a money-maker right now, and almost guaranteed to generate funding from the federal agencies. This also possibly introduces a bias in the publication statistics.
Finally, I would say that 100% consensus in science is a bit dangerous. As Albert Einstein said, once you 'know' something, you stop 'understanding.' Honest debate on this issue is good and maintains scientific integrity.
the keyword "climate change" yielded 928 peer-reviewed papers, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF WHICH disputed the conclusion that global warming is caused by man-made changes to the atmosphere.
In all fairness, in the absence of additional data, this statement on it's face only suggests a bias in editorial policy. I find it hard to believe that with something this complicated that there are not SOME 'dissenting' papers.
Maybe I'll start my own journal - the Journal of Anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming just to see if I get any submissions (from legit data crunchers, not nut jobs with an agenda).
You just read that ice is increasing. Where? I once heard that I shouldn't believe everything I hear or read. I looked into it, and it has turned out to be true.
But YOU are believing what you have read about anthropogenic global warming; please be consistent.
There's lots of people going around lying about the Greenhouse we're making.
There sure are. And they are mostly people that don't understand jack squat about chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid behavior. The ones that DO understand these things, know the system is very, very complicated and is not so easily explained.
Most climate experts agree that the climate is becoming more chaotic, with pollution making it worse.
Bah. I don't believe this statement; if you'd like to convince me otherwise, show me some data wherein you've polled a MAJORITY of climate scientists as to their present understanding, beliefs and conclusions about the current data.
What I DO believe is that most climate experts that you choose to listen to say this. Further, I also believe that those that believe the climate is becoming "more chaotic" (compared to when, the entire earth's history?...if that's their assertion, they are plain wrong and there is a WEALTH of data to show very dramatic, short time scale HUGE shifts in climate) would vastly disagree on a mechanism for that change.
I've read your posts to others, and from the tone of your message compared to theirs, I conclude that you don't want to actually UNDERSTAND this issue; that would require listening to contra-evidence, and giving it very careful consideration. Calling people names, jumping on politically radical bandwagons and hurling accusations are not forms of debate; they are techniques of oppression.
I spent an easy 3 hours trying to figure out what was wrong because I wanted to learn it.
:)
That's the key point: you spent the time trying to understand what was wrong (a very good thing). I don't pretend that everything installs without a hitch in Linux. But nor does that happen in Windows when one is considering 'freebie' software. And the 'average' Windows user (as that term is used to differentiate Windows user from Linux user) would probably just give up - not spend the time to learn it and make it work.
but usability wise... we would all do well for ourselves to hire some usability engineers more often.
True enough.
Hang in there with Linux; as you climb the learning curve, you may likely find your productivity sore and find yourself missing Windows less and less. As I often tell folks just learning Linux, you have to keep in mind the years it took you to learn Windows as well as you know it before you discount Linux as taking too long to learn.
An old, tired, specious argument that has long molded in the grave. There's yum, apt-get, emerge, etc, and they seem to work pretty good. I install a LOT of code from source, some really, really big stuff too, and I typically don't spend 6 hours running config, make, make install. One of the biggest apps I installed from source was the 3-D modeling package k3d, and it did not take 6 hours to install. Freebie code on Windows has often given me install problems, too. That's the nature of free-as-in-lunch no matter what the platform.
But let's consider compiling from source vs. binary packages for just a moment. The advantage to taking the extra time/effort to install from source is final code optimized for your machine; in some cases, this can make a HUGE difference. With binary-only distribution, you get either the lowest common denomenator (code compiled for a Pentium, for example) or very bloated code that contains optimizations for many combinations. There's no way for the developer to know at compile time what architecture will run the code. With the end-user compiling for his own box, he can get the performance without the bloat (and probably better performance, too). gcc, for example, provides the -march= switch that influences micro-op scheduling in the execution units, and I've seen the explicit inclusion of this switch alone improve performance by 18%. In intensive computing, those 18%'s add up, and mean the difference between productive working code and junk code.
Admittedly, this is not "joe-sixpack" stuff. I'll get back to 'average user wants to install some software.'
I was reading some online documentation for Ruby on Rails (or something related to it) the other day, and saw one of the funniest things I've seen online in a long time. The author was describing the install process on Windows and referred to "One Click Install, during which you will have to click OK several times" (not an exact quote).
Now, consider the following rpm installation scenario that I use very often:
Now honestly, how is that much different from package installation on Windows?
Then that's a dumb-ass way to count system stats. What's wrong with process accounting, like psacct? If it's 'number of times lauched,' it should be reported as 'number of times launched,' not how often a program is used (which implies, to me at least, as well as the GP apparently, CPU USE).
This is part of MY problem with Windows in general. Too much just does not make sense, so that you have to know what things "really mean."
You don't need to run your own mailserver. There's just no valid reason to do so.
Says you.
Is that really what we want the Internet to be? I thought the idea was to make information flow as freely (as in unhindered) and reliably as possible? Now you are proposing that there are services I CANNOT/SHOULD NOT run on the 'Net because YOU don't think I have a valid reason to do so?
How's this for a valid reason to run my own mail server: I own a business and I want the flexibility to configure things best for my situation. I don't have to pay/depend on anyone outside my own organization to get done what I want done. I want virtual users mapped a certain way. Done. I want aliasing done a certain way? Done.
Problem #1: I don't get my mail via my main ISP; my in-mail and out-mail goes via different providers. Surely not talking about my ISP monitoring my POP3 traffic to a server they don't own or manage? The plan you describe is very tunnel visioned in terms of business set-ups. Oh, what about all the intermediate providers that route the mail; there is a load on their systems too, why don't they get a cut?
Problem #2: I get involved in some projects for which we send a LOT of email back and forth between client, contractor(s) and subcontractors. So, even at $0.03 per shot, that needlessly drives up the cost of the project. This means the client has to pay a higher bill, which in turn probably means they charge more for their product.
How are going to predict at the start of a project how many emails this project is going to take? We could flat-rate the cost, but imo that just adds a needless line-item to the proposal.
Problem #3: My ISP currently invoices me for service; you are going to add to the complexity of their accounting system (and overhead on their systems keeping track of who got what email) to manage all this, for PENNIES a shot, and the net result is I pay the ISP a higher monthly rate. What about auditing? What if I show I received 500 legit emails a month and they show I only got 400?
No thanks, I'd just prefer continue hitting "Delete" on phishing email when they do get past the antispam measures in place.
And the benefits you get from a cable like that are insane. Costs/pound to launch things into space become negligible. Transit to the Moon becomes cheap and fast, because the end of the cable is actually moving faster than orbital velocity.
Neglible cost to get mass into space...really?
And how do you know this? It has not been built yet. This kind of speculation sounds good in a sales pitch, but probably are not all that realistic. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if all the hype turns out to be true in about 50 years, but right now, I think a fair amount of honest skeptism is in order.
Think about losses; don't you think it would just be more efficient to use the energy you are proposing for lifting to just propel along the ground?
Rockets are expensive, extremely dangerous (how long ago was the last fatal disaster? Just a few years), pollute the atmosphere, etc. It costs $10,000 to launch 1 pound of cargo into orbit with rocket technology
Okay, so what if that is just the cost of doing business in space? Just to play devil's advocate, we don't KNOW that the space elevator will be less costly or less dangerous. There are hidden 'costs' in any engineering project of that magnitude.
I think it is cool if you want to support R&D in a new technology; do it for the purety of research. But I am tired of the old "$cool_new_way will be cheaper and safer." It's a specious arguement that rarely comes to pass, and that's why we hear a lot of headline announcements every year, with little follow-up later.
Or, if you are a little older:
They say our solar system is centered 'round the sun,
Nine planets, large and small, parading by.
But somewhere out in space,
There's another shining face
That you might see some night up in the sky.
Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl,
A solar system Ms. from a future world,
She travels like a rocket with her comet team
And there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen,
No, there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.
She's been to the sun, it's a lot of fun,
It's a hot spot, it's a gas!
Hydrogen and helium in a big, bright, glowing mass.
It's a star, it's a star! So Janet got an autograph!
Mercury was near the sun so Janet stopped by,
But the mercury on Mercury was much too high, so
Janet split for Venus but on Venus she found
She couldn't see a thing for all the clouds around.
Earth looked exciting, kind of green and inviting,
So Janet thought she'd give it a go.
But the creatures on the planet looked so very weird to Janet,
She didn't even dare to say hello.
It's a bird, it's a plane! Why, it must be a UFO, but it was:
Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl,
A solar system Ms. from a future world,
She travels like a rocket with her comet team
And there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen,
No, there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.
Mars is red and Jupiter's big
And Saturn shows off its rings.
Uranus is built on a funny tilt
And Neptune is its twin,
And Pluto, little Pluto is the farthest planet from our sun.
They say our solar system is not alone in space.
The universe has endless mystery.
Some future astronaut
May find out that what he thought
Was a shooting star instead turned out to be...
Interplanet Janet, she's a galaxy girl,
A solar system Ms. from a future world,
She travels like a rocket with her comet team
And there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen,
There's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.
But the reality is not everyone can do physics or calculus. Or chemistry. I've taught or tutored all three, and some people just don't get it. Just like I cannot freehand draw to save my life. Not everyone can do everything. I think it is less 'weeding out' than trying to hold some standard of acceptable performance.
Different flow regime. A (quite) subsonic golf ball spins in flight, and the dimples are there to keep adjacent air attached as it spins.
What percentage of discovered bugs do you think are actually found by looking at the source code of a program?
All of them?
I know your point: that the INITIAL discovery and exploit is not typically found by looking at the code. But to fix vulnerable code, one must FIND and edit it. The point is, once an exploit is discovered, there are many people who can locate the faulty code and fix it fast.
Open Source is a good thing. Really, what is the down side of source code availability?
About Brown's Gas:
Brown's Gas Information and Eagle Research
As for "When the electricity (in the Brown's Gas) is released by the 'flame,' it comes out as electricity and the water 'implodes' to it's original liquid form, with no heat and no expansion first."
As you said, pure rubbish. It does explode first to produce water vapor, and the condensation of water vapor to liquid water does liberate large quantity of heat.
Multiply a kilowatt or so per square meter insolation by the size of the ocean, take seven percent of that, and get back to me on whether you think it's enough.
So, you're basically going to build this to cover the entire ocean? Either that or you've got a heck of an equilibrium problem, there.
To say that Windows "just works" for the average user is not consistent with the very large base of call-in help desks and even radio shows dedicated to answering questions regarding Windows problems. It might work INITIALLY for the 'average' user, but that is not to say it is more maintenance free.
To me, long term maintainability is the selling point of Linux. I'll concede Linux is in general harder to set up, but only because the end-user is not typically setting up Windows; it is preinstalled (and configured). If you hide that initial set-up at the vendor, then the user would see Linux as a much easier to use machine LONG TERM. That is, I'd argue that once set up, Linux is far more reliable, more durable and much, much easier to extend into areas the user wants to take the computer after the initial set-up.
Ultimately, to each his own. I have a family member who will not, under any circumstances, even look at Linux. He does not care if it can do x, y or z better. Do I continue to try to "sell" Linux to him? No way. His box - his choice of OS.
But, that is not to say that I firmly believe he has more computer headaches than I do in maintaining his systems. And mine are doing much more complicated things.
From TFA:
k .html
s sen_etal2002c.pdf
"With GPS, the displacements are measured second by second," said Bock, who also presented at the American Geophysical Union conference. "Within 70 seconds you have a good idea of the final deformation." In addition to predicting tsunamis, he thinks GPS modules could be used to monitor the activity of volcanoes and landslides in real time. [emphasis mine]
I thought GPS was already used extensively in volcano studies.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Monitoring/GPS/framewor
No specific mention of real time data whacking in that link? A quick Google, and we find this, for example:
http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/publications/jan
Read up on the work of Wallace Broecker, C.E.P. Brooks, Andrew Ellicott Douglass, Hans Suess and Reid Bryson to name a few. Rapid climate changes are well documented in the historical record.
Ecological change is usually on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
Bull puckey. I suggest you read Spencer Weart's excellent article in Physics Today. Seems there is a whole heap of data to support the notion that a lot of ecological change occurs on very short time scales (oceanic currents, de/re-forestation due to climate alterations, etc).
In this article, pay particular attention to the part where he outlines the history of climatologists around 1900 or so. Specifically, they bought the belief that all geological/climatological change was slow, and ignored much compelling evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, that band of scientists has shaped the training of many in our age.
Umm. yes, reading the WHOLE page (specifically, look at the screenshot page) IS rather important to interpreting more than just the graphic rendered on the screen. This interface is like remote desktop or VNC on steroids.
If you consider the fourth dimension an abstraction of what is "behind" the 3D graphics, then I am simply saying that I agree with his calling this a 4D interface. It might be more about seeing the big picture, and less about seeing one tree in the forest.
I think the fourth dimension is the net resources "behind" the image you see on your screen. At least that's how I interpreted the description.