Does anybody remember how Chaos Theory was first postulated?
It began with a weather simulation computer model.
The operator halted the program to do some other work on the computer, typed in some parameter values that were close to the values present when the program was halted, and resumed the computation.
Low and behold, within a few minutes the pattern was completely different than it had been in previous iterations.
This is when they discovered that minor changes in the starting conditions could lead to drastic differences in the outcome. This observation was later christened the "Butterfly Effect."
The crux of Chaos Theory is that some systems will NEVER be predictable because there are so many variables that it is impossible to know all the starting conditions.
If a computer model can't even predict weather more than a few days out, how is it that it can predict weather a hundred years from now?
People who believe in global warming are religious zealots, true believers.
They don't require any scientific facts, just pseudo-scientific hysteria.
The novel references the same bogus computer models that are cited by global-warming proponents such as Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, Kevin Knobloch of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and John Passacantando of Greenpeace, USA. They predict melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and other catastrophes. They are as reliable as a deck of Tarot cards. Here again, scientific data amply demonstrates that, though the temperatures in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at 2.2 degrees Celsius since 1987, there has been no affect on the ice in those nations that has actually been accumulating, not melting. The same is happening in Antarctica.
"...global warming is a hoax... specifically designed to harm the lives and the economy of people living in industrialized nations..."
Were you one of those anarchists up in Seattle a couple of years ago?
What you don't realise is that the every serious scientist knows that global warming is occuring now.
I showed you that the "Hockey Stick" data supposedly demonstrating global warming was FABRICATED.
Why would "serious scientists" need to FABRICATE DATA?
Climate is chaos. If those computer models can predict climate, they can predict the stock market. Make a couple of million bucks with your "computer model" and I will agree that it works.
But you have no proof that it works, and the fact that the guys who wrote it aren't making a killing in the stock market proves it doesn't work.
So only scientists who believe in global warming are serious. What arrogance.
Usability Guidelines: Usability testing measures the suitability of the software for its users, and is directed at measuring the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments or contexts of use.
The purpose of software is to solve a problem.
The method used for effective problem solving never really changes.
Simple Carbohydrates versus Complex Carbohydrates
on
Sleep Less, Eat More?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you are right, sugar is a carbohydrate, but in normal everyday usage when the word carbohydrate is used, complex carbohydrates are implied.
Nobody says "simple carbohydrates." They say "sugar."
All of the fad diets that actually worked over the past two or three decades have one thing in common: DON'T EAT SUGAR.
The "Eat to Win" diet of the '80s was a high carbohydrate, low protein, moderate fat diet that worked. The guy who invented it was Martina Natrilova's trainer, and it worked for her.
The Atkins diet is just the opposite, low carbohydrate, moderate fat and high protein, and it works too.
Both these diets work as long as the dieter actually follows them.
The one thing they have in common is DON'T EAT SUGAR. Don't drink sugary caffeinated beverages. Don't eat ice cream. Don't eat candy bars. Don't eat donuts.
The really bad thing is that eating sugar makes you hungry.
It's not rocket science, but it's harder than Hell to give up sweets if you have a sweet tooth.
We have some choice in how that cost is paid, but it always needs to be paid.
With open source software, for the price of the lines of code that you wrote, you get an entire operating system or application written by collaborative coders.
Now that Linux exists through the open source process, there are a lot of Linux experts making a decent living selling their Linux skills to employers.
I see. Rather than assuming what is ours by overthrowing the current order of things, we should play in submission to its distorted ethics and oppressive laws?
What you mean by "the current order of things is capitalism," and you obviously think that some sort of socialism would be Utopia.
Answer this one question: If socialism is so good, why were 100,000,000 people murdered by socialist governments in the 20th century?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody remember how Chaos Theory was first postulated?
It began with a weather simulation computer model.
The operator halted the program to do some other work on the computer, typed in some parameter values that were close to the values present when the program was halted, and resumed the computation.
Low and behold, within a few minutes the pattern was completely different than it had been in previous iterations.
This is when they discovered that minor changes in the starting conditions could lead to drastic differences in the outcome. This observation was later christened the "Butterfly Effect."
The crux of Chaos Theory is that some systems will NEVER be predictable because there are so many variables that it is impossible to know all the starting conditions.
If a computer model can't even predict weather more than a few days out, how is it that it can predict weather a hundred years from now?
People who believe in global warming are religious zealots, true believers.
They don't require any scientific facts, just pseudo-scientific hysteria.
I was right.
You are a true believer, a person of faith.
You keep referring to the same unsubstantiated opinions and claim them as fact.
Are all Limeys as religious as you?
It explains and proves nothing except that I've presented you with facts
Facts?
A computer model is not a "fact."
It is a mathematical formula committed to software.
What are your academic credentials?
What qualifies you to be an expert on climate?
If you have no credentials, you are just a true believer, a religious fanatic whose only reason for believing is blind faith.
PS - if the standard of living in the UK is so high, why do you all have Austin Powers teeth?
That pretty much explains it, and proves the point.
The entire purpose of Kyoto is to punish the United States and transfer its wealth to other countries.
Of course you would be all for it.
You are a religious fundamentalist, but your religion is radical environmentalism seasoned with a little class envy.
Global Warming Fiction vs. Facts
The novel references the same bogus computer models that are cited by global-warming proponents such as Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, Kevin Knobloch of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and John Passacantando of Greenpeace, USA. They predict melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and other catastrophes. They are as reliable as a deck of Tarot cards. Here again, scientific data amply demonstrates that, though the temperatures in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at 2.2 degrees Celsius since 1987, there has been no affect on the ice in those nations that has actually been accumulating, not melting. The same is happening in Antarctica.
"...global warming is a hoax... specifically designed to harm the lives and the economy of people living in industrialized nations..."
Were you one of those anarchists up in Seattle a couple of years ago?
I showed you that the "Hockey Stick" data supposedly demonstrating global warming was FABRICATED.
Why would "serious scientists" need to FABRICATE DATA?
Climate is chaos. If those computer models can predict climate, they can predict the stock market. Make a couple of million bucks with your "computer model" and I will agree that it works.
But you have no proof that it works, and the fact that the guys who wrote it aren't making a killing in the stock market proves it doesn't work.
So only scientists who believe in global warming are serious. What arrogance.
Weren't Java applets designed to do all the things you mentioned?
If applets failed, what reason is there to believe this technology will fare an better?
You can make a computer model predict ANYTHING YOU WANT by selecting the variables you choose to base your calculations upon.
Computer models can't even accurately predict next week's weather, but you insist that a computer model can predict climate in a hundred years?
I bet you believe in astrology, too.
You don't need a computer model to correlate "global warming" with periods of solar activity.
Furthermore, the temperature data upon which global warming theory is founded was selectively culled to yield the desired result:
CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES
Climatologists Blast McCain's Hearings on 'Global Warming'
Show me a link that lists these climatologists.
How hard to comprehend is that?
Do you understand the words I am using?
"Documentation?"
Then why are you impressed by the statement "lots of (social) scientists BELIEVE global warming is happening?"
All you global-warming alarmists have is shrill fear-mongering and name calling.
Don't look now, but people are beginning to notice.
My previous link says they (physical scientists) don't believe global warming is happening.
You can read my documentation for my statement.
Where is yours?
Not very, when the vast majority of "scientists" whose opinion is being cited are SOCIAL Scientists.
I really don't believe economists and sociology professors know as much about climate as meteorolgists and geologists.
...thank God the FBI is doing its job.
The purpose of software is to solve a problem.
The method used for effective problem solving never really changes.
Yes, you are right, sugar is a carbohydrate, but in normal everyday usage when the word carbohydrate is used, complex carbohydrates are implied.
Nobody says "simple carbohydrates." They say "sugar."
All of the fad diets that actually worked over the past two or three decades have one thing in common: DON'T EAT SUGAR.
The "Eat to Win" diet of the '80s was a high carbohydrate, low protein, moderate fat diet that worked. The guy who invented it was Martina Natrilova's trainer, and it worked for her.
The Atkins diet is just the opposite, low carbohydrate, moderate fat and high protein, and it works too.
Both these diets work as long as the dieter actually follows them.
The one thing they have in common is DON'T EAT SUGAR. Don't drink sugary caffeinated beverages. Don't eat ice cream. Don't eat candy bars. Don't eat donuts.
The really bad thing is that eating sugar makes you hungry.
It's not rocket science, but it's harder than Hell to give up sweets if you have a sweet tooth.
The only charitable organization I contribute to is the Salvation Army.
They have feet on the ground everywhere in the world, and they don't squander your money. It actually makes it to victims of disaster and poverty.
...if we can save the life of just one airliner, it will be worth it.
Don't leave home without it.
With open source software, for the price of the lines of code that you wrote, you get an entire operating system or application written by collaborative coders.
Now that Linux exists through the open source process, there are a lot of Linux experts making a decent living selling their Linux skills to employers.
That's how the cost is paid.
What you mean by "the current order of things is capitalism," and you obviously think that some sort of socialism would be Utopia.
Answer this one question: If socialism is so good, why were 100,000,000 people murdered by socialist governments in the 20th century?
That's the kind of infantile attitude that *makes* you a serf.