Nice sweeping statement. Like to quote your sources on that one? The UK for one is certainly on target to meet its Kyoto obligations. The fact you painted with such a broad brush makes me doubt the validity of your point.
Although the posting notes that the company has notified several thousand Californians, don't take this as suggesting that the damage is limited to Californians. From the article:
"California law requires firms to disclose such incidents to the state's consumers when they are discovered. It is the only state with such a requirement but such data thefts are rarely limited to a single geographic area."
Time to start lobbying some other states' legislatures, perhaps.
Please feel free to show the evidence that the U.S. government is significantly more scared of its populations than other national governments. Feel free to work in references to legislation such as the Patriot Act, where appropriate. Or any legislative issues where gun ownership made a difference.
"About 1.7 million species are known - we suspect there are anything from 10-30 million species on Earth," explained Dr Richard Lane, director of science at London's Natural History Museum.
Wednesday saw the announcement at the London conference of a project to get comprehensive barcode data on all known fish types - currently thought to number 15,000 marine and 8,000 freshwater species.
The current project is looking to catalogue the world's 10,000 known bird species, the 15,000 marine and 8,000 freshwater fish and the 8,000 kinds of plants in Costa Rica.
Is this based on an anti-reductionist belief on your part, or is this just a gut feeling?
First off, yes you can do some interesting inter (and intra) species comparisons; you say an organism is more than "a little DNA", but all proteins are clearly encoded by DNA (or RNA in the case of some simpler life-forms, and certainly the vast bulk of a species' distinctive characteristics are down to DNA.
However putting that to one side; your comment is not really relevant to the project in question - they are not attempting to 'compare' species, they are attempting to produce a unique key for each species.
I just had a look and downloaded the Mac client. Now, I'm probably very very stupid, but the service was as intuitive as a fish with a pig in its mouth.
For goodness sake, get someone to rewrite the 'What is Radiotime' page to succintly and clearly explain what it is and how you use it.
Declare yourself dial free. Free from predetermined programming times. Free from simply local choices. Now you can have radio when you want it, where you want it...with RadioTime."
Is not what I want when I'm trying to comprehend something in 30 seconds.
Yes, but you are using an example of a notorious memory hog (Photoshop). For people using every day productivity apps, 256 is perfectly workable, if not particularly snappy.
I think slow as molasses is overdoing it. My wife has a G3 iBook with 256Mb, it works just fine. I wouldn't call it snappy. But I wouldn't call it molasses.
Well, there are tremendous efforts going on to persuade S. American governments to halt deforestation, as I'm sure you are well aware. The fact is that the 'easy', high return causes of greenhouse emissions are always going to be targeted first.
The U.S is the no.1 global emitter of CO2, producing about 25% (I think - check) of total output, and one of the biggest per -capita outputs (small arab states dependent on desalination for water are bigger per-capita contributers).
It is really no wonder that the U.S figures get a lot of attention. As to how much leeway you give developing states, well that's why Kyoto got so much flak - it's end game states that in the long term everyone should be entitled to produce the same amount of carbon - hence China and India get to expand output slightly, while the U.S and Western Europe and Australia get to make swingeing cuts.
Sadly, the BBC's once excellent Horizon series seems to have shilled out to misrepresenting real science in the interests of sensationalism and keeping Soho's post-production CGI and compositing shops in work; the jury on Real Climate is still out (see the two detailed articles there) but it seems likely that (a) the supposed amazing new research is in fact not terribly new and is already taken account of in the computer models; and (possibly) (b) that Dr Peter Cox, a highly respected climatologist, was deliberately misrepresented..
It seems to me that you are taking a pop at the documentary without actually presenting any information as to its inaccuracies.
Well, actually I am attempting to be pretty rational about this thanks. I'm not saying that economic growth should be slammed into reverse. And have you actually looked at the recommendations of the report? (I linked to them) , they attempt to be rational and produce a balanced set of proposals that will maintain some economic growth.
In terms of climate models; the only way they can be 'proven' is when the predicted catastrophe happens, so I will err on the side of 'well supported'.
Yes, and that is one part of the problem. We are doing quite well in reducing particulate emissions. The problem is that it *appears* that said emissions might have been hiding the greenhouse effects of carbon emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice sweeping statement. Like to quote your sources on that one? The UK for one is certainly on target to meet its Kyoto obligations. The fact you painted with such a broad brush makes me doubt the validity of your point.
Although the posting notes that the company has notified several thousand Californians, don't take this as suggesting that the damage is limited to Californians. From the article:
"California law requires firms to disclose such incidents to the state's consumers when they are discovered. It is the only state with such a requirement but such data thefts are rarely limited to a single geographic area."
Time to start lobbying some other states' legislatures, perhaps.
Made me laugh. Thanks
And your local weather is relevant to the issue of global warming, because?
That's right, it isn't.
Please feel free to show the evidence that the U.S. government is significantly more scared of its populations than other national governments. Feel free to work in references to legislation such as the Patriot Act, where appropriate. Or any legislative issues where gun ownership made a difference.
Quite a few, according to this interesting, skeptical report
Apologies for the duff 2nd para there, I tried to redux in para 3.
Must....learn...to...preview.
From the BBC coverage:
"About 1.7 million species are known - we suspect there are anything from 10-30 million species on Earth," explained Dr Richard Lane, director of science at London's Natural History Museum.
Wednesday saw the announcement at the London conference of a project to get comprehensive barcode data on all known fish types - currently thought to number 15,000 marine and 8,000 freshwater species.
The current project is looking to catalogue the world's 10,000 known bird species, the 15,000 marine and 8,000 freshwater fish and the 8,000 kinds of plants in Costa Rica.
So a way to then
Is this based on an anti-reductionist belief on your part, or is this just a gut feeling?
First off, yes you can do some interesting inter (and intra) species comparisons; you say an organism is more than "a little DNA", but all proteins are clearly encoded by DNA (or RNA in the case of some simpler life-forms, and certainly the vast bulk of a species' distinctive characteristics are down to DNA.
However putting that to one side; your comment is not really relevant to the project in question - they are not attempting to 'compare' species, they are attempting to produce a unique key for each species.
Consider the Windows 95 -> 98 -> ME fork and the NT -> 2000 -> XP fork.
Would Microsoft consider that a mistake?
Assuming, you are not trolling, you've done something very odd to your set-up.
1. There has only been one been one security update issued this year so far (Jan 27)
2. The Wireless LAN doesn't require a local user to be logged in to be activated.
3. Dozens of ways to lock it solid? Have you checked you don't have a hardware fault?
It sounds to me as if it would be worth checking your hardware (use the test disk supplied) and reinstalling the OS from scratch).
>I think Apple would have had a much healthier 1990s.
Ah, but what processor would it be using now? Would IBM have opened up its RS/6000 chip-set to produce the PowerPC line? I doubt it.
I just had a look and downloaded the Mac client. Now, I'm probably very very stupid, but the service was as intuitive as a fish with a pig in its mouth.
For goodness sake, get someone to rewrite the 'What is Radiotime' page to succintly and clearly explain what it is and how you use it.
"Your workout...your commute...your talk...your radio.
Declare yourself dial free. Free from predetermined programming times. Free from simply local choices. Now you can have radio when you want it, where you want it...with RadioTime."
Is not what I want when I'm trying to comprehend something in 30 seconds.
How about adding Update: This is clearly a snake-oil scam, sorry for posting it.
Why should I read the review, I have a G3 iBook running 10.3.7 in 256Mb sitting here next to me... I can *see* how snappy it is or isn't.
Yes, but you are using an example of a notorious memory hog (Photoshop). For people using every day productivity apps, 256 is perfectly workable, if not particularly snappy.
I think slow as molasses is overdoing it. My wife has a G3 iBook with 256Mb, it works just fine. I wouldn't call it snappy. But I wouldn't call it molasses.
If course, she doesn't run Photoshop or anything.
Well, there are tremendous efforts going on to persuade S. American governments to halt deforestation, as I'm sure you are well aware. The fact is that the 'easy', high return causes of greenhouse emissions are always going to be targeted first.
The U.S is the no.1 global emitter of CO2, producing about 25% (I think - check) of total output, and one of the biggest per -capita outputs (small arab states dependent on desalination for water are bigger per-capita contributers).
Some figure are here.
It is really no wonder that the U.S figures get a lot of attention. As to how much leeway you give developing states, well that's why Kyoto got so much flak - it's end game states that in the long term everyone should be entitled to produce the same amount of carbon - hence China and India get to expand output slightly, while the U.S and Western Europe and Australia get to make swingeing cuts.
Ah, right understood.
Now, presumably the scrubbing rate is constant, yes? You see where this is going?
This is a counsel of despair. I don't believe global environmental catastrophe is inevitable. As long as people think and act.
Israel, the Australian outback and Antarctica apart from a few others. Check the programme transcript for details.
Let's look at your post, shall we:
Sadly, the BBC's once excellent Horizon series seems to have shilled out to misrepresenting real science in the interests of sensationalism and keeping Soho's post-production CGI and compositing shops in work; the jury on Real Climate is still out (see the two detailed articles there) but it seems likely that (a) the supposed amazing new research is in fact not terribly new and is already taken account of in the computer models; and (possibly) (b) that Dr Peter Cox, a highly respected climatologist, was deliberately misrepresented..
It seems to me that you are taking a pop at the documentary without actually presenting any information as to its inaccuracies.
Well, actually I am attempting to be pretty rational about this thanks. I'm not saying that economic growth should be slammed into reverse. And have you actually looked at the recommendations of the report? (I linked to them) , they attempt to be rational and produce a balanced set of proposals that will maintain some economic growth.
In terms of climate models; the only way they can be 'proven' is when the predicted catastrophe happens, so I will err on the side of 'well supported'.
"Did I say, 30% over the whole planet?"
My apologies - my original posting *did* rather imply that (thwacks self on head).
Yes, and that is one part of the problem. We are doing quite well in reducing particulate emissions. The problem is that it *appears* that said emissions might have been hiding the greenhouse effects of carbon emissions.