[quote]require the client to establish a completely new HTTP connection for every request[/quote]
Yes, like we did until very recently. However this would only be for the very large images. The smaller files are the ones that benefit most from keepalive techniques: the.js,.css, small layout images. They can still be sent on a single connection.
[quote]It will also break HTTP caching[/quote]
No, it won't. A cache that serves an incompletely downloaded file is already broken.
[quote]prevent the server from sending too many bytes, which will sit around in caches between the server and the client.[/quote]
That... is not how TCP works? The data that is sent to the client before the RST packet reaches the server will not "sit around". It will get delivered and dropped by the client.
I don't think you were paying attention to how a progressive.jpg works. The file has only the full-detail image in the file, but the as you load more and more bits from the file, the quality improves from unrecognisably blurry to sharp and detailed.
Simply request the file from byte 1, load until you get the level of detail you need, then close the connection. If you need more detail later, just resume the download.
Your glibly stated solution was that limiting the sales to one per customer would curtail scalping.
You did not offer any details about how personhood would be determined or how the limit would be enforced, so I was had to limit my response to a glib reply. I pointed out that one thing China has is a lot of people, and so on the face of it "one per person" may not be all that effective. You are wecome to elaborate on your plan?
I think we both have very different understandings of how this conversation unfolded. Here's what I saw:
Cyberax: Cooking adds 10-20% to actual caloric content of food. Mainly because it breaks down complex molecules, making them easier to digest. Leonard: I'd like to know your source, not because I'm doubtful, but because I wish to learn more. denzacar: [links that are not valid source material] Frnknstn: Those links are not good. denzacar: [sarcastic avoidance] Frnknstn: [likewise sarcastic response] denzacar: [...... looong post......]
How discussions are supposed to work:
Frnknstn: Those links are not good. denzacar: You missed something, [...] Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.
Alternatively:
Frnknstn: Those links are not good. denzacar: Yeah, those are all I found. Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.
... well, no, I do not. Sadly my computer lacks the processing power and storage capacity to host a web search engine on the scale of Google. Luckily, a company called "Google, Inc." run Google on a set of public-facing webservers, so feel free to use those.
See, I can purposefully misunderstand simple requests, too. I asked for a primary or secondary source. The implied question was "As you have more knowledge about this than I do, can you recommend a credible primary or secondary source that is freely available?"
Science that includes some fraudulent data can be science. Bad science, but science nonetheless.
A scientist skipping a intermediate few steps and then filling in some data to match his expectations so that his paper can be published -- that is fraud, and science.
Another good example is climate change denial science. It willfully ignores counterarguments, cherry-picks data to fit hypotheses, but it still counts as science.
Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works.
Postma claims he can test for the greenhouse effect:
what it comes down to is a difference in the âoeempirical observableâ that either version predicts.
Postma proposes a methodology for the test:
In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.
Postma describes his resulrs:
What I found was that the maximum ground surface temperature was only equal to the maximum solar heating temperature
BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST.
It doesn't matter if the test was a good test, well designed or logical. It doesn't matter if the results he didn't get are supported by the best fucking theoretical backing imaginable, Postma fails at basic scientific honesty.
I did read Latour paper, after this discussion had been going on for some time. My response to it was in this comment. There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one.
The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence. His proposed experiment makes no sense, but that doesn't matter because nobody ever actually performs it. He makes outlandish claims without citation. This is the reason why nobody can offer a scientific refutation of the web article: THE WEB ARTICLE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ATTACK.
I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner.
As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:
What was the empirical observable that is different between the two versions?
In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.
Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?
"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it.
Let me direct you to my earlier words:
Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.
I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument.
Once again, I do not claim that nobody ever believed that the mechanisms were the same. I even link to a NASA for-kids education module that states exactly that. What I say is that those people are incorrect. It is entirely possible for someone to believe something that isn't true, as I am sure you will agree.
With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work:
"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat."
"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."
As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection. I do not have Fourier earlier work either, so I cannot comment on whether his theories were about trapped radiation or convection.
THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article
I will try to keep this short, since reading is clearly not your strong suite. Here was my original statement:
Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd.
I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:
Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection.
You then responded with:
I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount
which was a good guess, especially since the very next sentence I wrote in that comment was "The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."
Well done.
Once again, Postma's pivotal claim is that The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection. As I pointed out in the same comment as before, he provides two sources for that claim: his experiment that doesn't involve a greenhouse at all, and another that does not provide his conclusion.
Once again, and for the last time, I hope this sets t
"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it. You came up with some cockamamie theory (semantic nonsense argument) about why MAYBE it didn't mean what the plain English words very clearly do mean to any reasonable reader. No points.
In the first article, Postma was trying to describe, in layman's terms, the mechanism
I have read the article, sir. That is not what it claims at all. It contains the following clear claims:
There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)
The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection(true)
Therefore the actual greenhouse effect doesn't exist.(false)
At the very end of the article, in the line before the results section, Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article.
Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts. That article does not mention any of the following at all:
back radiation
The second law of thermodynamics
thermodynamics
Stefan-Boltzmann law
any mention of colder bodies heating warmer ones
Roy Spencer
Anybody called "Latour "
Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end.
As a service to you: You probably still have some questions or confusions about "the greenhouse effect violating the second law of thermodynamics." This isn't correct, for two main reasons:
Thermodynamics applies to complete systems. You could "disprove" any law of thermodynamics you'd like by simply examining incomplete systems and models.
CO2 does not heat the ground, it effectively slows the rate at which the (hot) ground loses heat to (cold) space.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno about the solar efficiency, but it sure does make the picture quality better. And it makes my CDs sound so much warmer!
No, WIMP's opposite is LAPP (Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL, Python)
It *could* be that HFCS is worse than some other sugars
HFCS is demonstrably WORSE than cane sugar. The extreme majority of double-blind taste tests have shown people prefer cane sugar in their soft drinks.
As far as health effects go, HFCS is quite possibly better than cane sugar, in that people may drink less of the bad-tasting HFCS swill :)
I didn't know Teslas had tanks? What do they store in them?
Tell me, why do you think the scientists didn't consider this?
deciding your fate
Your fate? Really? That is rather mystical of you. To quote the philosopher S J Conner, "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves"
[quote]require the client to establish a completely new HTTP connection for every request[/quote]
Yes, like we did until very recently. However this would only be for the very large images. The smaller files are the ones that benefit most from keepalive techniques: the.js, .css, small layout images. They can still be sent on a single connection.
[quote]It will also break HTTP caching[/quote]
No, it won't. A cache that serves an incompletely downloaded file is already broken.
[quote]prevent the server from sending too many bytes, which will sit around in caches between the server and the client.[/quote]
That... is not how TCP works? The data that is sent to the client before the RST packet reaches the server will not "sit around". It will get delivered and dropped by the client.
I don't think you were paying attention to how a progressive .jpg works. The file has only the full-detail image in the file, but the as you load more and more bits from the file, the quality improves from unrecognisably blurry to sharp and detailed.
Simply request the file from byte 1, load until you get the level of detail you need, then close the connection. If you need more detail later, just resume the download.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Your glibly stated solution was that limiting the sales to one per customer would curtail scalping.
You did not offer any details about how personhood would be determined or how the limit would be enforced, so I was had to limit my response to a glib reply. I pointed out that one thing China has is a lot of people, and so on the face of it "one per person" may not be all that effective. You are wecome to elaborate on your plan?
Remind me, how many people are there in China?
Regretfully, we do indeed have evidence the universe is a simulation:
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
I think we both have very different understandings of how this conversation unfolded. Here's what I saw:
How discussions are supposed to work:
Alternatively:
... well, no, I do not. Sadly my computer lacks the processing power and storage capacity to host a web search engine on the scale of Google. Luckily, a company called "Google, Inc." run Google on a set of public-facing webservers, so feel free to use those.
See, I can purposefully misunderstand simple requests, too. I asked for a primary or secondary source. The implied question was "As you have more knowledge about this than I do, can you recommend a credible primary or secondary source that is freely available?"
Those are three book reviews of the same book. Do you have a primary or secondary source?
Science that includes some fraudulent data can be science. Bad science, but science nonetheless.
A scientist skipping a intermediate few steps and then filling in some data to match his expectations so that his paper can be published -- that is fraud, and science.
Another good example is climate change denial science. It willfully ignores counterarguments, cherry-picks data to fit hypotheses, but it still counts as science.
Illustrated example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
NO, you dimbulb
Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works.
Postma claims he can test for the greenhouse effect:
what it comes down to is a difference in the âoeempirical observableâ that either version predicts.
Postma proposes a methodology for the test:
In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.
Postma describes his resulrs:
What I found was that the maximum ground surface temperature was only equal to the maximum solar heating temperature
BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST.
It doesn't matter if the test was a good test, well designed or logical. It doesn't matter if the results he didn't get are supported by the best fucking theoretical backing imaginable, Postma fails at basic scientific honesty.
I did read Latour paper, after this discussion had been going on for some time. My response to it was in this comment. There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one.
The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence. His proposed experiment makes no sense, but that doesn't matter because nobody ever actually performs it. He makes outlandish claims without citation. This is the reason why nobody can offer a scientific refutation of the web article: THE WEB ARTICLE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ATTACK.
I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner.
As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:
What was the empirical observable that is different between the two versions?
In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.
Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?
"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it.
Let me direct you to my earlier words:
Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.
I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument.
Once again, I do not claim that nobody ever believed that the mechanisms were the same. I even link to a NASA for-kids education module that states exactly that. What I say is that those people are incorrect. It is entirely possible for someone to believe something that isn't true, as I am sure you will agree.
With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work:
"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat."
"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."
As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection. I do not have Fourier earlier work either, so I cannot comment on whether his theories were about trapped radiation or convection.
THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article
I will try to keep this short, since reading is clearly not your strong suite. Here was my original statement:
Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd.
I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:
Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection.
You then responded with:
I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount
which was a good guess, especially since the very next sentence I wrote in that comment was "The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."
Well done.
Once again, Postma's pivotal claim is that The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection. As I pointed out in the same comment as before, he provides two sources for that claim: his experiment that doesn't involve a greenhouse at all, and another that does not provide his conclusion.
Once again, and for the last time, I hope this sets t
"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it. You came up with some cockamamie theory (semantic nonsense argument) about why MAYBE it didn't mean what the plain English words very clearly do mean to any reasonable reader. No points.
Correct, but what that "especially" means is "you are technically correct but you should probably pick a more accurate word".
edit (again) :(
I have read the article, sir.
sir or madam.
In the first article, Postma was trying to describe, in layman's terms, the mechanism
I have read the article, sir. That is not what it claims at all. It contains the following clear claims:
At the very end of the article, in the line before the results section, Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article.
Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts. That article does not mention any of the following at all:
Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end.
As a service to you: You probably still have some questions or confusions about "the greenhouse effect violating the second law of thermodynamics." This isn't correct, for two main reasons:
There are many things you can read that explain this more fully. Start with the link below and move on to Google for more evidence, but I suggest that if you have issues with them, you discuss them on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Edit:
Sophistry does often imply intent