They settled a lawsuit with a DIFFERENT Canopy comapny, not SCO. As part of that settlement, they bought UNIXWare licences. Canopy (not SCO) attached one TRANSPARENT, FREE 'linux IP' licence to each of those UNIXWare licences.
These are licences that CA didnt want, dont currently want, and for whcih they didnt pay one single solitary cent.
AND CA is going out of their way to point out that they have more Linux machines than they have UNIXWare licences. Essentially, they are waving a flag in front of SCO/Canopy, saying "Naah, naah, we have unlicenced boxes, what are you going to do about it."
SCO is in a sticky position unless they can produce approximataly that entire million lines of code.
If they say they have it, but dont produce it, they are in contempt of court in their own case.
If they say thay dont have it, in statements before the court, they are then loading IBMs guns for them in the Lanham Act counterclaim.
where we have substantial mechanization of agriculture, and we use lots of fertilizer and herbicide and pesticide and supplemmental irrigation, are not necessarily the same characteristics that will give greater productivity in 3rd world agricultural systems.
Not to mention that, as stated elsewhere here, there isnt a shortage of food. The US consumes about 3000 calories daily per capita. That means if we simply didnt consume the 1000 or so calories of excess food that is making so many of us fat, we could feed one person quite well for each two americans. That is food for about 125 million people, just by giving up US consumption waste and overeating.
Factor in all the meat we eat, at about a 10x reduction in calories going from feed to meat, and all the fallowed land we use to keep down excess production, and the Unites States alone could take care of a several hundred million hungry people in the world while actually making our own food consumption patterns healthier
for a visible-light space telescope.
heh new scope planned for 2011 is an infrared scope.
Losing Hubble means we will be without a visible-light space scope for as far forward as we can see. The Webb IR scope has many experiments planned in tandem with the visible light capabilites of the Hubble.
Not to mention, we currently have 200 million in Hubble modules built and sitting ready to go up, and abandoning Hubble means throwing them (and the money) into the trash can.
And the "enough data" argumentis absurd. Cancer researches ahve benerated enough dat to keep us busy for decades, but stopping resaerch woud be crazy. Losing the Hubble means that when the analysis of that data suggests a new experiment, we wont be able to do it, or will be limited to earth-bound scopes with a narrow wavelength window and atmospheric turbulence issues to deal with.
they delivered 60 pages of something to IBM, and we dont get to see that. This affidavit is a list of the things they couldnt provide.
The director thing is inexcusable, and likely to get them dinged. But the rest, if you read carefully, seems to be referring indirectly to things they DID provide to IBM. They could (emphasis on the uncertainty) have 60 pages of solid compliance in there, and this affidavit simply be referring to the parts they cant give because they dont have it.
But even if so, it is damning in the face of their past statements.
a 30% increase in the concentration of an important component in the atmosphere, one centrally involved in regulating the temperature of the planet, in only a century, is a major abrupt anthropogenic change in the environment of the planet.
The only argument now is, what OTHER changes are likely to occur because of that one.
"One more thing; Most of the models I have looked at indicate that the enviroment of the part of the world I am from, will actualy return to more historicaly normal conditions. This could include the expansion of a very special subtype of the sonoran that is rare in the US, though was not so 10K years ago. This would include the expansion of the range of some realy cool species"
It would also include, in many of those models, the reduction of a good chunk of some of the most productive farmland on the planet. And dramatic, potentially near order-of-magnitude, reduction in Calofornia's water supply.
Human economies are tied to the land very tightly, in a lot of ays we don't often think about. The potential economic effects of changing the potential uses of that land are enormous.
24 hour weather reports, at their heart, consist of looking 24 hours 'upwind' and seeing what is happening there. They get refined by looking at factors that mogh steer teh weather differently than over the past, and that might change the state of that particualr observed weather.
Climate predictis are entirely differnt, and one hell of a lot more reliable. I can pretty absolutely predict that the climate in Death valley is gonna be hot and dry in the summer, that the climate in December in Northern California is gonna consist of periods of cold and dry interspersed with periods of cold and damp, and so on.
and ugly world.
It is true that losing the coastal lowlands, and watching much of the most productive farmland on the planet turn to desert, and losing much of the diversity and teh inhabitants of the outdoors that so many of us value quite highly, wouldn't (necessarily) doom us.
By the same token, having my arms, legs, and genitals amputated wouldn't (likely) kill me, either, but it is still a thing I would do a lot to avoid.
remember equilibrium?
It doesn't matter if the absolute amount of carbon generated by fossil fuels is small. The amount added to the absolute emmision quantity doesnt much matter. What matters is the amount added to the difference between global emisions and global absorption, and that difference is extremely small. In fact, for steady-state atmospheric CO2 concentrations that difference is zero.
Dumping those billions of tons of carbon into an equilibrium steady state (more or less) shifts the equilibrium concentration, and the new equilibrium can be etermined by calculation from knowing all the contributors to that equilibrium, or by measurement of the new equilibrium. Our current models are trying to identify all the elements and predict the new eq. We get to sit and wait to see if by observation.
Why do so many seem to think that global climatologists dont know this stuff? Its not like they havent already calculated, measured, or estimated the absolute emmision and absorption of every identified source or sink they can find.
They are climate predictions.
I don't know if its going to rain next weak, but I know pretty precisely that 8 years out of 10, we get between 20 - 35 inches of rain in my back yard. I know with a pretty high degreee of certainty that if I drive to Barstow in July, I don't need to bring a raincoat, but if I drive to Seattle, I should. I dont't know what the wind will be at the golden gate at 3pm on the 21 of July, but I can bet with very high accuracy that it will be running the current daily state of a cucle between lows of 5-8 knots, and highs of 25-30 knots, on about a 7-10 day rough cycle.
What I dont understand, is why people who can't understand the difference between weather and climate feel qualified to comment on the global warming issue.
is ot evidence that this computer model IS bunkum.
A computer model is simply a way to predict the consequences of large amounts of complex data, too complex to calculate on paper. Before being able to offer informed comment on whether this model is bunk, or is valid, you need to learn what the data is that enters the model, and the assumption that are made, and the methodology being implemented, and the data being used.
Yes, Virginia, models are based on data; that alone means that they arent just "computer-generated squish." Any more than the models that can relatively precisely predict the locations of the planets in 37 years, 14 days, 11 minutes and 7 seconds, based on their kknown locations and states right now, are "computer-generated squish."
Me, I plan to go read the actual Science paper (Nature? I'm blanking) and learn what their assumptions were and the stated limitations of their model. But offhand, when deciding whether there is enough here to invest in continue looking at the issue, I'd certainly trust a peer-reviewed paper in one of the top-rated journals on the planet, over the offhand opinions of someone who considers models per se to be "computer-generated squish."
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't buy anything.
They settled a lawsuit with a DIFFERENT Canopy comapny, not SCO. As part of that settlement, they bought UNIXWare licences. Canopy (not SCO) attached one TRANSPARENT, FREE 'linux IP' licence to each of those UNIXWare licences.
These are licences that CA didnt want, dont currently want, and for whcih they didnt pay one single solitary cent.
AND CA is going out of their way to point out that they have more Linux machines than they have UNIXWare licences. Essentially, they are waving a flag in front of SCO/Canopy, saying "Naah, naah, we have unlicenced boxes, what are you going to do about it."
Lanham Act counterclaim
SCO is in a sticky position unless they can produce approximataly that entire million lines of code. If they say they have it, but dont produce it, they are in contempt of court in their own case. If they say thay dont have it, in statements before the court, they are then loading IBMs guns for them in the Lanham Act counterclaim.
with examples as to how much excess production we have sitting this side of that distribution issue.
where we have substantial mechanization of agriculture, and we use lots of fertilizer and herbicide and pesticide and supplemmental irrigation, are not necessarily the same characteristics that will give greater productivity in 3rd world agricultural systems. Not to mention that, as stated elsewhere here, there isnt a shortage of food. The US consumes about 3000 calories daily per capita. That means if we simply didnt consume the 1000 or so calories of excess food that is making so many of us fat, we could feed one person quite well for each two americans. That is food for about 125 million people, just by giving up US consumption waste and overeating. Factor in all the meat we eat, at about a 10x reduction in calories going from feed to meat, and all the fallowed land we use to keep down excess production, and the Unites States alone could take care of a several hundred million hungry people in the world while actually making our own food consumption patterns healthier
for a visible-light space telescope. heh new scope planned for 2011 is an infrared scope. Losing Hubble means we will be without a visible-light space scope for as far forward as we can see. The Webb IR scope has many experiments planned in tandem with the visible light capabilites of the Hubble. Not to mention, we currently have 200 million in Hubble modules built and sitting ready to go up, and abandoning Hubble means throwing them (and the money) into the trash can. And the "enough data" argumentis absurd. Cancer researches ahve benerated enough dat to keep us busy for decades, but stopping resaerch woud be crazy. Losing the Hubble means that when the analysis of that data suggests a new experiment, we wont be able to do it, or will be limited to earth-bound scopes with a narrow wavelength window and atmospheric turbulence issues to deal with.
they delivered 60 pages of something to IBM, and we dont get to see that. This affidavit is a list of the things they couldnt provide. The director thing is inexcusable, and likely to get them dinged. But the rest, if you read carefully, seems to be referring indirectly to things they DID provide to IBM. They could (emphasis on the uncertainty) have 60 pages of solid compliance in there, and this affidavit simply be referring to the parts they cant give because they dont have it. But even if so, it is damning in the face of their past statements.
a 30% increase in the concentration of an important component in the atmosphere, one centrally involved in regulating the temperature of the planet, in only a century, is a major abrupt anthropogenic change in the environment of the planet.
The only argument now is, what OTHER changes are likely to occur because of that one.
"One more thing; Most of the models I have looked at indicate that the enviroment of the part of the world I am from, will actualy return to more historicaly normal conditions. This could include the expansion of a very special subtype of the sonoran that is rare in the US, though was not so 10K years ago. This would include the expansion of the range of some realy cool species" It would also include, in many of those models, the reduction of a good chunk of some of the most productive farmland on the planet. And dramatic, potentially near order-of-magnitude, reduction in Calofornia's water supply. Human economies are tied to the land very tightly, in a lot of ays we don't often think about. The potential economic effects of changing the potential uses of that land are enormous.
24 hour weather reports, at their heart, consist of looking 24 hours 'upwind' and seeing what is happening there. They get refined by looking at factors that mogh steer teh weather differently than over the past, and that might change the state of that particualr observed weather. Climate predictis are entirely differnt, and one hell of a lot more reliable. I can pretty absolutely predict that the climate in Death valley is gonna be hot and dry in the summer, that the climate in December in Northern California is gonna consist of periods of cold and dry interspersed with periods of cold and damp, and so on.
and ugly world. It is true that losing the coastal lowlands, and watching much of the most productive farmland on the planet turn to desert, and losing much of the diversity and teh inhabitants of the outdoors that so many of us value quite highly, wouldn't (necessarily) doom us. By the same token, having my arms, legs, and genitals amputated wouldn't (likely) kill me, either, but it is still a thing I would do a lot to avoid.
remember equilibrium? It doesn't matter if the absolute amount of carbon generated by fossil fuels is small. The amount added to the absolute emmision quantity doesnt much matter. What matters is the amount added to the difference between global emisions and global absorption, and that difference is extremely small. In fact, for steady-state atmospheric CO2 concentrations that difference is zero. Dumping those billions of tons of carbon into an equilibrium steady state (more or less) shifts the equilibrium concentration, and the new equilibrium can be etermined by calculation from knowing all the contributors to that equilibrium, or by measurement of the new equilibrium. Our current models are trying to identify all the elements and predict the new eq. We get to sit and wait to see if by observation. Why do so many seem to think that global climatologists dont know this stuff? Its not like they havent already calculated, measured, or estimated the absolute emmision and absorption of every identified source or sink they can find.
They are climate predictions. I don't know if its going to rain next weak, but I know pretty precisely that 8 years out of 10, we get between 20 - 35 inches of rain in my back yard. I know with a pretty high degreee of certainty that if I drive to Barstow in July, I don't need to bring a raincoat, but if I drive to Seattle, I should. I dont't know what the wind will be at the golden gate at 3pm on the 21 of July, but I can bet with very high accuracy that it will be running the current daily state of a cucle between lows of 5-8 knots, and highs of 25-30 knots, on about a 7-10 day rough cycle. What I dont understand, is why people who can't understand the difference between weather and climate feel qualified to comment on the global warming issue.
is ot evidence that this computer model IS bunkum. A computer model is simply a way to predict the consequences of large amounts of complex data, too complex to calculate on paper. Before being able to offer informed comment on whether this model is bunk, or is valid, you need to learn what the data is that enters the model, and the assumption that are made, and the methodology being implemented, and the data being used. Yes, Virginia, models are based on data; that alone means that they arent just "computer-generated squish." Any more than the models that can relatively precisely predict the locations of the planets in 37 years, 14 days, 11 minutes and 7 seconds, based on their kknown locations and states right now, are "computer-generated squish." Me, I plan to go read the actual Science paper (Nature? I'm blanking) and learn what their assumptions were and the stated limitations of their model. But offhand, when deciding whether there is enough here to invest in continue looking at the issue, I'd certainly trust a peer-reviewed paper in one of the top-rated journals on the planet, over the offhand opinions of someone who considers models per se to be "computer-generated squish."