Most of the Chinese population live in the countryside. That lovely place with advanced infrastructure, lots of employment possibilities, top medical care and high quality education that makes Nowhereville, Wyoming look like NYC
What to do with the masses? I don't know. Why don't we focus first on not overpopulating our planet in the first place?
Of course, it's still full of people. In antient times we could have them pushing stones to form a pyramid, today, there are so many call center and WoW farms and captcha farms that can be done.
People still need to build roads and buildings and etc. And restock shelves and fix things.
About the education racket: well, people don't need to go to Harvard for a liberal arts degree, really... But what about states Bar associations, AMA, etc, etc... Corporatism is entrenched in more than corporations.
there's a strong moral risk: if you can both buy a company's debt, and insurance in case they don't repay it, why not keep doing that endlessly ? you make money both ways, nobody is really interested in the underlying debt quality, and bankers make fat commissions on both sides of every deal.
oh, wait...
If you do that, you end where you started.
Mathematically, the insurance price is derived from risk.
The money is on selling insurance, of course. Still, most of the time, nothing happens. And of course there are a lot of investors willing to buy insurance for crap and compromising themselves even more.
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong, but there are other factors, mostly unknown, that affect the climate.
Is the climate changing? I don't doubt it.
But I can't support an alarmist position and extrapolation of data based on the limited knowledge we have of climate.
Scientists don't deny that there are other unknown factors affecting the climate. But they have already established that these unknown factors play only minor role.
Well, they can't know for sure. You can't say an unknown factor will only have a minor effect...
When you take all the factors that we know about and feed records of these factors into climate simulation, the resulting temperature graph will match real measurements almost perfectly. Any significant discrepancy between the model and real measurements would point at some unknown major factor. But right now, there isn't one.
Makes sense if we consider some things: - climate change up until now has been small. So we're "in the linear zone" - some other effects may exist, especially if they kick in with a higher difference temperature (of course we know somethings from past ice ages, etc)
For example, we don't consider effects like ice thawing and reducing pressure over volcanic terrain. We can't quantify that. Effects from smog, increased plant/algae consumption of CO2 because of higher concentrations, etc
Most things are only discovered when they happen effectively. Note: I'm not against reducing CO2 emissions, on the contrary.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
There is no need to worry. Anti-consensus articles have no trouble seeing the light of day even when they are chock full of specious reasoning. Anti-consensus scientists have no trouble getting funding (e.g. Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, Chritie, McIntyre, McKitrick). These articles are thoroughly examined and debunked every time. (See here for an example of scientific discourse on these issues.)
Yeah, you just proved my point.
Seeing the light of the day? Anyone can submit something to ArXiv or I dunno, the "there is no global warning journal brought to you by Big Oil". That's not the point.
What I'm saying is when someone suggests a discrepancy all the "real scientists" go 'Al Gore' on them. It's easy to build consensus removing dissenting voices.
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong, but there are other factors, mostly unknown, that affect the climate.
Is the climate changing? I don't doubt it.
But I can't support an alarmist position and extrapolation of data based on the limited knowledge we have of climate.
When it's a new article against Global Warming, it's ok to use fallacies like "the author has a track record of using bad models"
Either facts stand for themselves or they don't.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
Of course by that I don't mean every loony financed by oil companies (such as this case seems to be).
How about we wait for the NASA data, I guess I can trust that.
My modern sound system has a big power transformer (in fact it's about 70% of the weight of the system)
Output amplifier uses around 40v.
One of the reasons some amplifiers sound like crap is, you guessed, a switching power supply. (even with proper filtering I'm a little bit skeptical, unless it runs at a very high frequency)
Older speakers may play a part (they're usually better as well), unless of course, you are using the same speakers for all the systems. But if you're using the old speakers on the new systems, you may lose power, since some new systems use 4ohm/6ohm spekaers.
It's probably a little bit of everything, maybe the equalization plays a part (modern sound systems are more biased towards bass)
Also, the power stage of the amplifier may be better (but [citation needed] I wouldn't be surprised if it was the opposite).
But I guess modern 'sucktitude' is attributable to several issues:
(before the deficiencies of CD mixing or mp3 encoding) - Sound comes out of a digital player using a 1-bit DAC. A consumer 1-bit DAC can't beat a 16-bit DAC PERIOD. It's like comparing the image quality of a webcam to a DSLR (a 1-bit DAC can beat a 'proper' DAC if using a very high frequency). - sound circuit: Most modern amplifiers use 1 or 2 chips (being one power chip). Very high gain (and very high feedback). Problem is, all this feedback mathematically woudn't mean anything, in practice it does. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback_amplifier) Of course it reduces distortion, but it adds some distortion (not mentioned in the article, because of the characteristics of the feedback line and of the amplifier itself), also it 'shoehorns' the signal to be perfect, eliminating some of the distortions in lower-gain older amplifiers. - power stages also contribute with a certain distortion (the 'louder' it is the more distorted it is. That, or very inefficient class-A output)
Now we're back around, full-circle, to where you still haven't explained why you have software installed if you don't like said software. I suggested masochism because it is a theory that neatly explains the facts.
Simple, because removing it removes things I don't want removed
Water filtration/purification techniques (think of decanting using solar power) Wiring generators, lighting systems, or similar Making old computers usable again
Depends on the problems they have at the region, if you don't have to dodge bullets that's a start
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, CDS (or any kind of swap or derivative) are not insurance in the 'strict sense' of the word, like car insurance.
But everything that's bought/acquired/engaged to minimize a risk can be called insurance.
Of course, if it works as intended is a different problem altogether.
Actually they probably are real, since this attack was done with LOIC, a "voluntary PLEASE SUE ME I don't understand the concept of ip spoofing ".
fixed that for you
Most of the Chinese population live in the countryside. That lovely place with advanced infrastructure, lots of employment possibilities, top medical care and high quality education that makes Nowhereville, Wyoming look like NYC
You have a point
What to do with the masses? I don't know. Why don't we focus first on not overpopulating our planet in the first place?
Of course, it's still full of people. In antient times we could have them pushing stones to form a pyramid, today, there are so many call center and WoW farms and captcha farms that can be done.
People still need to build roads and buildings and etc. And restock shelves and fix things.
About the education racket: well, people don't need to go to Harvard for a liberal arts degree, really... But what about states Bar associations, AMA, etc, etc... Corporatism is entrenched in more than corporations.
exactly.
there's a strong moral risk: if you can both buy a company's debt, and insurance in case they don't repay it, why not keep doing that endlessly ? you make money both ways, nobody is really interested in the underlying debt quality, and bankers make fat commissions on both sides of every deal.
oh, wait...
If you do that, you end where you started.
Mathematically, the insurance price is derived from risk.
The money is on selling insurance, of course. Still, most of the time, nothing happens. And of course there are a lot of investors willing to buy insurance for crap and compromising themselves even more.
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to buy it without a speculator. That's what they do, they sell these instruments.
it's a bet if you speculate for or against something that someone else owns.
If this was something specific, yes, but it's usually a combination of bets.
The amount of financial instruments, and derivatives of derivatives has gone beyond the level of ridiculous, no doubt about that.
But we always think the other guy is the speculator and we are the investors.
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong, but there are other factors, mostly unknown, that affect the climate.
Is the climate changing? I don't doubt it.
But I can't support an alarmist position and extrapolation of data based on the limited knowledge we have of climate.
Scientists don't deny that there are other unknown factors affecting the climate. But they have already established that these unknown factors play only minor role.
Well, they can't know for sure. You can't say an unknown factor will only have a minor effect...
When you take all the factors that we know about and feed records of these factors into climate simulation, the resulting temperature graph will match real measurements almost perfectly. Any significant discrepancy between the model and real measurements would point at some unknown major factor. But right now, there isn't one.
Makes sense if we consider some things:
- climate change up until now has been small. So we're "in the linear zone"
- some other effects may exist, especially if they kick in with a higher difference temperature (of course we know somethings from past ice ages, etc)
For example, we don't consider effects like ice thawing and reducing pressure over volcanic terrain. We can't quantify that.
Effects from smog, increased plant/algae consumption of CO2 because of higher concentrations, etc
Most things are only discovered when they happen effectively. Note: I'm not against reducing CO2 emissions, on the contrary.
Interesting links, thanks, but I guess the whole CO2 discussion is somewhere inside them
I'll take a look later
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
There is no need to worry. Anti-consensus articles have no trouble seeing the light of day even when they are chock full of specious reasoning. Anti-consensus scientists have no trouble getting funding (e.g. Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, Chritie, McIntyre, McKitrick). These articles are thoroughly examined and debunked every time. (See here for an example of scientific discourse on these issues.)
Yeah, you just proved my point.
Seeing the light of the day? Anyone can submit something to ArXiv or I dunno, the "there is no global warning journal brought to you by Big Oil". That's not the point.
What I'm saying is when someone suggests a discrepancy all the "real scientists" go 'Al Gore' on them. It's easy to build consensus removing dissenting voices.
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong, but there are other factors, mostly unknown, that affect the climate.
Is the climate changing? I don't doubt it.
But I can't support an alarmist position and extrapolation of data based on the limited knowledge we have of climate.
No, you see...
When it's a new article against Global Warming, it's ok to use fallacies like "the author has a track record of using bad models"
Either facts stand for themselves or they don't.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
Of course by that I don't mean every loony financed by oil companies (such as this case seems to be).
How about we wait for the NASA data, I guess I can trust that.
A fresh install of Linux should do the trick.
I think this is meant against Apple OR maybe Sun/Oracle.
3rd option would be against XBOX
My modern sound system has a big power transformer (in fact it's about 70% of the weight of the system)
Output amplifier uses around 40v.
One of the reasons some amplifiers sound like crap is, you guessed, a switching power supply. (even with proper filtering I'm a little bit skeptical, unless it runs at a very high frequency)
Holy crap!
I didn't know what a D class amp was, and I'm stunned. It's a nice idea though. For anything else other than sound.
This is selling noise, not sound. Fits the music played there, I guess...
Older speakers may play a part (they're usually better as well), unless of course, you are using the same speakers for all the systems. But if you're using the old speakers on the new systems, you may lose power, since some new systems use 4ohm/6ohm spekaers.
It's probably a little bit of everything, maybe the equalization plays a part (modern sound systems are more biased towards bass)
Also, the power stage of the amplifier may be better (but [citation needed] I wouldn't be surprised if it was the opposite).
Or the Yamaha meter is lying.
Sound quality is not a secret.
But I guess modern 'sucktitude' is attributable to several issues:
(before the deficiencies of CD mixing or mp3 encoding)
- Sound comes out of a digital player using a 1-bit DAC. A consumer 1-bit DAC can't beat a 16-bit DAC PERIOD. It's like comparing the image quality of a webcam to a DSLR (a 1-bit DAC can beat a 'proper' DAC if using a very high frequency).
- sound circuit: Most modern amplifiers use 1 or 2 chips (being one power chip). Very high gain (and very high feedback). Problem is, all this feedback mathematically woudn't mean anything, in practice it does. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback_amplifier)
Of course it reduces distortion, but it adds some distortion (not mentioned in the article, because of the characteristics of the feedback line and of the amplifier itself), also it 'shoehorns' the signal to be perfect, eliminating some of the distortions in lower-gain older amplifiers.
- power stages also contribute with a certain distortion (the 'louder' it is the more distorted it is. That, or very inefficient class-A output)
You also have the right to only answer questions about haircuts from the 70s
Now we're back around, full-circle, to where you still haven't explained why you have software installed if you don't like said software. I suggested masochism because it is a theory that neatly explains the facts.
Simple, because removing it removes things I don't want removed
Well, fixed that and now PA is gone.
Great! Now it makes sense
But I supposed this is for a 2nd stage Kepler observation, (unless it's already in its field)
You apparently never tried to see what happens when you add an unknown option to /etc/pulse/daemon.conf
It's weird to have Kepler to investigate it
Exactly because Kepler looks at the star, and through its variations detects planets.
No star, what's Kepler supposed to do?
Also, it doesn't zoom on the subjects, it examines several at once.
By all means point Hubble at the Nebula, not Kepler, unless I'm missing something
"Privatization" is a scam. It does not work, it will never work.
I don't believe there are people this retarded in the world.
You're welcome to move to Cuba, the perfect country for you...
Doesn't matter
If it can be used for cargo, NASA will gladly pay the money
Of course, the more it can be used to send humans the better.
Some suggestions:
Water filtration/purification techniques (think of decanting using solar power)
Wiring generators, lighting systems, or similar
Making old computers usable again
Depends on the problems they have at the region, if you don't have to dodge bullets that's a start