Canvas in HTML5 is dog slow. It's unusable for anything more than simple animations or board games. So Apple doesn't fear losing their control of the platform much.
Flash, on the other hand, is pretty powerful. Especially for low-power devices.
Oh, and I doubt that WebGL will be implemented on iPhone, because it has potential to make HTML5 just as powerful as Flash.
He's not that smart a technologist. Seriously, it took them 6 years to add closures (they'll be in JDK 7 which is due in 2011) and other trivial changes. WTF?
Look at Anders Hejlsberg at Microsoft for a good example of technical leadership. Under his guidance.NET evolved from a carbon copy of Java to a quite interesting framework with unique features.
I'm seriously glad that I've switched my new project to.NET. At least, I can use a language with real generics, type inference, closures, lamdas and LINQ. It really feels uber-cool to use these features instead of writing reams of stupid Java code. Oh, and having a GUI framework which doesn't suck.
The last thing China wants now is the strong yuan. That will immediately make China less competitive with domestic factories. In fact, US is currently trying to pressure China to strengthen yuan.
If US dollar collapses it will be a catastrophe for China. But not because their reserves will be worth nothing, but because US will stop pumping resources into the Chinese market.
Really? Let's assume that pulsars are accurate to 10^-1
Cesium clocks got down to 1 part in 10^9 accuracy by 1954. By 1960 the cesium standard was ratified (1 second = 9 192 631 770 hyperfine transitions of Cs-133 atom between ground states) which had 10 significant digits.
By 1967 commercial atomic clocks of that precision were on the market and laboratories were developing the rubidium standard (which can give you 1 in 10^15 parts precision).
Pulsars were first discovered in 1967. And since the rate of pulsars is so low, you have to integrate their signals for several years to get comparable precision (which is written in the paper). And consider that neutron stars can experience sudden glitches which can not be modeled or predicted.
So no, I think atomic clocks were at least as good as pulsars from the start.
Considering that we're using atomic clocks to detect the rate of _spin_ _down_ of several neutron stars (and of course, starquakes and glitches), claiming that neutron stars are somehow superior is just stupid.
For example, to move files to the trashbin Explorer first sends 'delete' command to check that it has enough privileges to proceed and then _cancels_ the pending 'delete' command to stop file from actually being destroyed.
Not exactly. Traditional microkernels turned out to be too slow and complex because of high overhead of context switching and complexity of distributed algorithms.
Microsoft is planning to replace context switches with statically-checked managed code. Managed code by its nature can work WITHOUT memory protection at all. And unmanaged code (aside from some thin driver-support code) can be nicely segregated into virtual machines.
It's actually quite a clever approach, not without its problems, of course.
Sorry for long answer. Forgot to write a reply right away.
You can look at early IPCC publications (from 1990). For example. Hansens's paper gives pretty good predictions which are statistically significant by now:
THE VOLT IS BY FAR THE EASIEST TO DRIVE, THE MOST RESPONSIVE & THE MOST EXCITING CAR I’VE EVER DRIVEN!!! It’s impressive from the getgo! Just a touch of the accelerator starts the car rolling without even the slightest hesitation or jerkiness like I’ve come to expect from any ICE-powered car. From a replay of the video I shot, I blurted out, “Oh man!.talk about torque!!!“ at the first nudge of the Volt’s ‘go pedal’. We turned the first short-radius corner so sharply that my new HD video camera, on its normally very-secure dash mounting rig went careening across the dash —and as I grabbed for it the Volt ignored my ‘panic antics’ and continued smoothly around the sharp turn on the wet, slick pavement with no detectable leaning or sliding —it felt like it was on rails!
This climate model probably won't really help you that much if you want to get as close to precise values as possible. NCEP/NCAR CDAS is a general model, after all, you'll need more specific and precise heat transfer models for that.
I did not work with these models personally, so I can't give you good advice.
Though if you want to model heat transfer in oceans - feel free to call me:)
"So, to clarify... superconductors will NEVER work at room temperature... at least according to the laws of physics as we understand them."
Why not? At 133K atoms move around quite a lot, so there might not be a strict requirement for temperature.
In fact, superconductivity-like phenomena (delocalized electrons in aromatic hydrocarbons, for example) are observed in some molecules for up to 500C (yes, that's about 700K).
"I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data."
Raw data is easily obtainable. But I'm not going to jump through hoops to find you every single dataset. There are so many datasets that it's impossible to put them on a single page.
Also, learn to read dataset names. 9641C_201003_RAW.MAX contains raw unadjusted monthly data. I.e. they are not adjusted for urbanization effects and broken sensors. Since it's a MONTHLY measurement made of multiple daily measurements, they must be averaged, thus the word 'mean'.
You can ask NOAA for daily datasets for all weather stations, but they are huge and are not necessary for climate projections.
Though it should be noted, that one side-effect of increased CO2 concentrations is increased resistance to droughts. It won't help to counteract all effects of climate change, but still it's welcome.
PS: this is also the main reason why tree-ring proxies stopped working after 50-s.
"That meant we had to account for things like planet-shine and Earth albedo in our thermal control designs so that we didn't bake our electronics."
? Several percent of difference is not going to fry your electronics, probably.
"That is, show me a model where I can input a historical data set that terminates in 1900 and have it accurately predict, to a statistically significant degree, most of the climate happenings up through 2000."
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/wesley/reanalysis2/ - you're welcome. Of course, you'll need to provide real data on CO2 concentration. If you predict climate for 20-th century based on 19-th century's CO2 concentration you're going to fail miserably.
"As such, the climate model for absorption of CO2 should give the same results as other models in other fields that calculate radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere (models that have been used and improved continuously for decades before climate scientists started thinking about things)."
They do. The basic radiative balance equations are bog standard.
Though plants are not really limited by carbon's availability. They are limited by photosynthesis efficiency (which does not depend on CO2 concentration).
Slashdot Mirror
Canvas in HTML5 is dog slow. It's unusable for anything more than simple animations or board games. So Apple doesn't fear losing their control of the platform much.
Flash, on the other hand, is pretty powerful. Especially for low-power devices.
Oh, and I doubt that WebGL will be implemented on iPhone, because it has potential to make HTML5 just as powerful as Flash.
Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas except for animations approved personally by Steve Jobs.
He's not that smart a technologist. Seriously, it took them 6 years to add closures (they'll be in JDK 7 which is due in 2011) and other trivial changes. WTF?
Look at Anders Hejlsberg at Microsoft for a good example of technical leadership. Under his guidance .NET evolved from a carbon copy of Java to a quite interesting framework with unique features.
I'm seriously glad that I've switched my new project to .NET. At least, I can use a language with real generics, type inference, closures, lamdas and LINQ. It really feels uber-cool to use these features instead of writing reams of stupid Java code. Oh, and having a GUI framework which doesn't suck.
Also, read the recent Gosling's keynote speech http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=59733 - it's all about EJB3. He has nothing noteworthy except yet one more 'enterprisey' API standard. Fail.
Nope.
The last thing China wants now is the strong yuan. That will immediately make China less competitive with domestic factories. In fact, US is currently trying to pressure China to strengthen yuan.
If US dollar collapses it will be a catastrophe for China. But not because their reserves will be worth nothing, but because US will stop pumping resources into the Chinese market.
Me too. I disabled AdBlock for Slashdot, Phoronix, DailyKos and some other sites.
I have no real problems with ads, if they are not intrusive. And in fact, they were quite helpful a few times.
Really? Let's assume that pulsars are accurate to 10^-1
Cesium clocks got down to 1 part in 10^9 accuracy by 1954. By 1960 the cesium standard was ratified (1 second = 9 192 631 770 hyperfine transitions of Cs-133 atom between ground states) which had 10 significant digits.
By 1967 commercial atomic clocks of that precision were on the market and laboratories were developing the rubidium standard (which can give you 1 in 10^15 parts precision).
Pulsars were first discovered in 1967. And since the rate of pulsars is so low, you have to integrate their signals for several years to get comparable precision (which is written in the paper). And consider that neutron stars can experience sudden glitches which can not be modeled or predicted.
So no, I think atomic clocks were at least as good as pulsars from the start.
How?
The speed of spindown is far less than the rate of typical pulsar. You just won't get enough precision to detect spin down and glitches.
Considering that we're using atomic clocks to detect the rate of _spin_ _down_ of several neutron stars (and of course, starquakes and glitches), claiming that neutron stars are somehow superior is just stupid.
No, I specifically meant _outer_ electrons.
Inner electrons do not (greatly) affect the chemical properties of elements.
Nope. Not at these atomic numbers.
Outer electrons start to move at appreciable fraction of speed of light, so relativistic effects begin to affect chemical properties.
A good example of relativistic effect - color of gold and copper.
No, they have it since long ago.
For example, to move files to the trashbin Explorer first sends 'delete' command to check that it has enough privileges to proceed and then _cancels_ the pending 'delete' command to stop file from actually being destroyed.
Not exactly. Traditional microkernels turned out to be too slow and complex because of high overhead of context switching and complexity of distributed algorithms.
Microsoft is planning to replace context switches with statically-checked managed code. Managed code by its nature can work WITHOUT memory protection at all. And unmanaged code (aside from some thin driver-support code) can be nicely segregated into virtual machines.
It's actually quite a clever approach, not without its problems, of course.
Raw data are the measurements directly from sensors. They really are not useful, because of different sensors types and biases.
I bet, you can get absolutely raw data. But its utility will be zero - you'll need to do sensor-specific adjustments for each model used.
Sorry for long answer. Forgot to write a reply right away.
You can look at early IPCC publications (from 1990). For example. Hansens's paper gives pretty good predictions which are statistically significant by now:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Oh, use HadAT0, then. I forgot that HadAT is adjusted (high atmosphere modeling not my field).
It's as close to raw data as it gets.
In a city cycle? I doubt it.
Also, a diesel Volt can probably get 70MPG.
And the main advantage of Volt, of course, is its plugin hybrid ability. You can charge it overnight and never use any gasoline at all.
Read the recent review of electronics-laden electric GM Volt:
http://gm-volt.com/2010/04/02/gm-volt-reader-test-drives-the-nasaman-report/
THE VOLT IS BY FAR THE EASIEST TO DRIVE, THE MOST RESPONSIVE & THE MOST EXCITING CAR I’VE EVER DRIVEN!!! It’s impressive from the getgo! Just a touch of the accelerator starts the car rolling without even the slightest hesitation or jerkiness like I’ve come to expect from any ICE-powered car. From a replay of the video I shot, I blurted out, “Oh man! .talk about torque!!!“ at the first nudge of the Volt’s ‘go pedal’. We turned the first short-radius corner so sharply that my new HD video camera, on its normally very-secure dash mounting rig went careening across the dash —and as I grabbed for it the Volt ignored my ‘panic antics’ and continued smoothly around the sharp turn on the wet, slick pavement with no detectable leaning or sliding —it felt like it was on rails!
_AND_ it will get 50mpg on ICE.
Ok, now I understand.
This climate model probably won't really help you that much if you want to get as close to precise values as possible. NCEP/NCAR CDAS is a general model, after all, you'll need more specific and precise heat transfer models for that.
I did not work with these models personally, so I can't give you good advice.
Though if you want to model heat transfer in oceans - feel free to call me :)
"So, to clarify... superconductors will NEVER work at room temperature... at least according to the laws of physics as we understand them."
Why not? At 133K atoms move around quite a lot, so there might not be a strict requirement for temperature.
In fact, superconductivity-like phenomena (delocalized electrons in aromatic hydrocarbons, for example) are observed in some molecules for up to 500C (yes, that's about 700K).
"I look in the raw data section and low and behold, there is no raw data linked to for the stratosphere. Damn. Guess I'll have to settle for processed data."
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2.html - go crazy.
Etc.
Raw data is easily obtainable. But I'm not going to jump through hoops to find you every single dataset. There are so many datasets that it's impossible to put them on a single page.
Several major datasets are cataloged here:
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/
Also, learn to read dataset names. 9641C_201003_RAW.MAX contains raw unadjusted monthly data. I.e. they are not adjusted for urbanization effects and broken sensors. Since it's a MONTHLY measurement made of multiple daily measurements, they must be averaged, thus the word 'mean'.
You can ask NOAA for daily datasets for all weather stations, but they are huge and are not necessary for climate projections.
You can grab them directly from here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
It even has a nice README: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/readme.txt
So stop being an idiot and jumping at everything without even trying to assume that not every climate scientist is an idiot.
Yup.
Though it should be noted, that one side-effect of increased CO2 concentrations is increased resistance to droughts. It won't help to counteract all effects of climate change, but still it's welcome.
PS: this is also the main reason why tree-ring proxies stopped working after 50-s.
"That meant we had to account for things like planet-shine and Earth albedo in our thermal control designs so that we didn't bake our electronics."
? Several percent of difference is not going to fry your electronics, probably.
"That is, show me a model where I can input a historical data set that terminates in 1900 and have it accurately predict, to a statistically significant degree, most of the climate happenings up through 2000."
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/wesley/reanalysis2/ - you're welcome. Of course, you'll need to provide real data on CO2 concentration. If you predict climate for 20-th century based on 19-th century's CO2 concentration you're going to fail miserably.
"As such, the climate model for absorption of CO2 should give the same results as other models in other fields that calculate radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere (models that have been used and improved continuously for decades before climate scientists started thinking about things)."
They do. The basic radiative balance equations are bog standard.
Also, provide concrete citations.
Even though Newton's gravity predicts that Moon causes tides, I can't go to Moon using these predictions.
Therefore, gravity does not exist.
Ok, I agree mostly.
Though plants are not really limited by carbon's availability. They are limited by photosynthesis efficiency (which does not depend on CO2 concentration).
So high CO2 does not directly benefits plants.