Didn't they sell a million of them last month? That's about 25% of netbook sales (48million in a year would be about 4 million a month). That doesn't sound like a small fraction to me.
I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. I am talking about parametrization, which is done in all climate models (and pretty much all computer models in general, really).
The point is, they generate and validate these parameters by calibrating the model. If you used the data to generate the model, you can't then go back and say that you "predicted" the past data with it. The only way to know how accurate these models are is watching how closely they predict the climate over the next couple decades.
Of course, when the climate varies from the model, we will amend the model to more accurately explain the data. Do you see what I mean when I say it's more like a speedometer than a schedule?
The second link you posted there clearly refutes your claim (but you do have to actually read it to realize that). How you got modded to +5 is beyond me. You moderators need to actually click and read stuff before you endorse it like this.
Also, these graphs show what we (by that I mean people actually involved in computer modeling, since you obviously have no knowledge of it) call a calibration period. When you are constructing a model, you have a number of theoretically justified, but generally unmeasurable variables. So what you do is you take past data and you start with reasonable values and you adjust the variables until you you get a result that fits your data as closely as possible. Of course, the calibration should be a good fit, if it's not that means that either your model is totally wrong, or you've botched the calibration.
You can't claim that calibration confirms your model is correct, as a clever person can surely come up with an equation to fit any data by this method. Only time will tell how accurate these models are. Even if the model is correct, models like this are not rigorous, they tell you where the trends are headed, they do not predict the future. Think about it like this: if you read your speedometer and it says you are going 60mph that doesn't mean you will be 60 miles away in an hour, even though x = v*t is a perfectly valid model for your position over time.
In the US an iPad is more than twice as expensive as a netbook. Netbooks start at $230, but the iPad Starts at $500.
My brother has an iPad, and it is nothing like a netbook, so I don't know why people compare them. Right now the iPad is in a class of it's own. Don't point me to some slate computer with a desktop OS. The iPad is built from the ground up to be what it is. That's true of no other tablet computing product on the market today.
I lost my key about a month ago, but when I found I was still able to gain access to my apartment without it I decided not to replace it. One less thing to worry about.
The difference is that beavers don't just build a home, they also make radical changes to their natural environment which puts them in an entirely different class. It's comparable to the way we build dams for flood control (except . . the other way around) or plant crops to grow food. The changes they make expand their habitat rather than simply providing shelter.
It would be a stretch, however, to imagine that an engineer would accept global climate models as "good enough" since they are basically wild-ass guesses that have no ability whatsoever to model climate as far as we know.
No kidding, I can't believe how lightly the whole issue it taken.
The fundamental issue is this, carbon dioxide adsorbs infrared radiation better than the stable constituents that make up the majority of our atmosphere (other than water, of course) so increasing the concentration of CO2 should increase the temperature of the atmosphere (on average, since having a stable climate means there needs to be an equilibrium between radiant energy received and radiant energy emitted).
But, from there we basically know nothing. Moreover the effects of water vapor and weather might mean a reduction temperature, or simply no change, or a much larger effect than we expect. Basically, they have no clue what will happen and they are using unreliable computer models to sell the worst-case scenario in order to justify reductions in CO2 emissions. To me, that is disgusting. They ought to say that the unknown effects of increasing CO2 concentrations warrant efforts to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions and leave it at that. Anything else is fundamentally dishonest (not to mention completely unscientific).
I suspect you're the kind of personality that thrives on feeling like you're in control and have the moral high ground.
I suspect you're the kind of personality that that likes to feel smug about your vastly superior understanding of the world and talk down to others.
That's all I really wanted to say, but as long as I'm typin' I want you to know that the government won't save you. You love to make fun of other people's plans, but the government is also a complicated system of plans carried out by individuals. It would be nice if we would look after one another out of love and mutual respect for each other, rather than trying force compassion with unfeeling systems and laws. I know I'm dreaming.
You have your definition of open standards, and I have mine. You are just another worthless self-important little open-source troll, but I'm Steve Jobs. So you can go fuck yourself and I'll be deciding the future of video on the internet.
But I guess Steve doesn't see the writing on the wall for software patents. There are only so many lawyers in the world (too many, really) and there aren't nearly enough for this bullshit.
Sure, but you can only use the power when it's generated. That's why everyone says "Wind can't solve our world's energy problems," because the wind is not always blowing.
It seems like there is a potential for unforeseen consequences, though I can't think of how it could possibly go wrong. I work in environmental cleanup, so I mostly deal with unforeseen consequences.
One thing's for sure, if you change your mind about burying it that deep for some reason, you probably won't be able to dig it back up.
Besides, rockets are cool, and if it explodes in the atmosphere, you immediately know there's a problem. If you bury it, you have to wait thousands of years before you realize something's gone wrong.
That said, your idea is definitely a much safer means of disposal.
If you're talking about powering the whole country, it's hundreds of tons every year. And a few hundred years is a long time. The US is only few hundred years old. Maybe we could put it on a rocket and shoot it into space? Everything up there is constantly bathed in cosmic radiation anyway.
If you use the power to electrolyze water, store it under pressure, then burn it in a combined cycle plant you can get about 50% of your energy back. Is there any reason not to do that?
This is not true, any more than a solution containing chloride contains chlorine. Think about table salt, is is a gas, or a solid? It is extremely toxic, or relatively harmless? And yet, it contains a significant amount of chloride, which is most certainly not the same thing chlorine. Another clue is that it's acceptable to have fluoride in your water, but not fluorine. The valence state of an ion has a huge effect on it's chemical reactivity.
How hard is it not to do violence to others? It doesn't seem that hard. I can see how careless words slip out from time to time, but "oops, I shot you in the face" I don't think so. Unless it really is an accident, you can not claim you were acting in good faith.
Surely you don't believe that faith in Jesus Christ has the effect of magically removing the human capacity for violence.
People tend to think of faith wrongly in the context to religion. They confuse it with "belief". Believing that something is wrong, but doing it anyway, is not faith.
It's better to think of faith in the context of being faithful in a relationship, or being faithful to a promise you've made. In that context it is impossible to have faith in Jesus but also do violence to your neighbor, because Jesus spoke out strongly against violence.
How about if I just pay the gardener $100 to trim the hedges and mow the lawn, and then not worry about how long he spends doing it. This hourly wage thing is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't they sell a million of them last month? That's about 25% of netbook sales (48million in a year would be about 4 million a month). That doesn't sound like a small fraction to me.
I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. I am talking about parametrization, which is done in all climate models (and pretty much all computer models in general, really).
The point is, they generate and validate these parameters by calibrating the model. If you used the data to generate the model, you can't then go back and say that you "predicted" the past data with it. The only way to know how accurate these models are is watching how closely they predict the climate over the next couple decades.
Of course, when the climate varies from the model, we will amend the model to more accurately explain the data. Do you see what I mean when I say it's more like a speedometer than a schedule?
The second link you posted there clearly refutes your claim (but you do have to actually read it to realize that). How you got modded to +5 is beyond me. You moderators need to actually click and read stuff before you endorse it like this.
Also, these graphs show what we (by that I mean people actually involved in computer modeling, since you obviously have no knowledge of it) call a calibration period. When you are constructing a model, you have a number of theoretically justified, but generally unmeasurable variables. So what you do is you take past data and you start with reasonable values and you adjust the variables until you you get a result that fits your data as closely as possible. Of course, the calibration should be a good fit, if it's not that means that either your model is totally wrong, or you've botched the calibration.
You can't claim that calibration confirms your model is correct, as a clever person can surely come up with an equation to fit any data by this method. Only time will tell how accurate these models are. Even if the model is correct, models like this are not rigorous, they tell you where the trends are headed, they do not predict the future. Think about it like this: if you read your speedometer and it says you are going 60mph that doesn't mean you will be 60 miles away in an hour, even though x = v*t is a perfectly valid model for your position over time.
A product does not need to be revolutionary to be amazing and unique. The iPad is both.
In the US an iPad is more than twice as expensive as a netbook. Netbooks start at $230, but the iPad Starts at $500.
My brother has an iPad, and it is nothing like a netbook, so I don't know why people compare them. Right now the iPad is in a class of it's own. Don't point me to some slate computer with a desktop OS. The iPad is built from the ground up to be what it is. That's true of no other tablet computing product on the market today.
I lost my key about a month ago, but when I found I was still able to gain access to my apartment without it I decided not to replace it. One less thing to worry about.
Like surf boards or dirt bikes or gaming consoles? How long 'till they share the same fate?
People buy toys. . .
The difference is that beavers don't just build a home, they also make radical changes to their natural environment which puts them in an entirely different class. It's comparable to the way we build dams for flood control (except . . the other way around) or plant crops to grow food. The changes they make expand their habitat rather than simply providing shelter.
It would be a stretch, however, to imagine that an engineer would accept global climate models as "good enough" since they are basically wild-ass guesses that have no ability whatsoever to model climate as far as we know.
No kidding, I can't believe how lightly the whole issue it taken.
The fundamental issue is this, carbon dioxide adsorbs infrared radiation better than the stable constituents that make up the majority of our atmosphere (other than water, of course) so increasing the concentration of CO2 should increase the temperature of the atmosphere (on average, since having a stable climate means there needs to be an equilibrium between radiant energy received and radiant energy emitted).
But, from there we basically know nothing. Moreover the effects of water vapor and weather might mean a reduction temperature, or simply no change, or a much larger effect than we expect. Basically, they have no clue what will happen and they are using unreliable computer models to sell the worst-case scenario in order to justify reductions in CO2 emissions. To me, that is disgusting. They ought to say that the unknown effects of increasing CO2 concentrations warrant efforts to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions and leave it at that. Anything else is fundamentally dishonest (not to mention completely unscientific).
Why was it annoying?
If you didn't feel compelled to read and understand my comment, why did you feel compelled to respond?
I suspect you're the kind of personality that that likes to feel smug about your vastly superior understanding of the world and talk down to others.
That's all I really wanted to say, but as long as I'm typin' I want you to know that the government won't save you. You love to make fun of other people's plans, but the government is also a complicated system of plans carried out by individuals. It would be nice if we would look after one another out of love and mutual respect for each other, rather than trying force compassion with unfeeling systems and laws. I know I'm dreaming.
He should have said:
But I guess Steve doesn't see the writing on the wall for software patents. There are only so many lawyers in the world (too many, really) and there aren't nearly enough for this bullshit.
Sure, but you can only use the power when it's generated. That's why everyone says "Wind can't solve our world's energy problems," because the wind is not always blowing.
It seems like there is a potential for unforeseen consequences, though I can't think of how it could possibly go wrong. I work in environmental cleanup, so I mostly deal with unforeseen consequences.
One thing's for sure, if you change your mind about burying it that deep for some reason, you probably won't be able to dig it back up.
Besides, rockets are cool, and if it explodes in the atmosphere, you immediately know there's a problem. If you bury it, you have to wait thousands of years before you realize something's gone wrong.
That said, your idea is definitely a much safer means of disposal.
If you're talking about powering the whole country, it's hundreds of tons every year. And a few hundred years is a long time. The US is only few hundred years old. Maybe we could put it on a rocket and shoot it into space? Everything up there is constantly bathed in cosmic radiation anyway.
If you use the power to electrolyze water, store it under pressure, then burn it in a combined cycle plant you can get about 50% of your energy back. Is there any reason not to do that?
What is DWA? Driving While Asshole?
This is not true, any more than a solution containing chloride contains chlorine. Think about table salt, is is a gas, or a solid? It is extremely toxic, or relatively harmless? And yet, it contains a significant amount of chloride, which is most certainly not the same thing chlorine. Another clue is that it's acceptable to have fluoride in your water, but not fluorine. The valence state of an ion has a huge effect on it's chemical reactivity.
I just read the last word in you post as "dismemberment".
How hard is it not to do violence to others? It doesn't seem that hard. I can see how careless words slip out from time to time, but "oops, I shot you in the face" I don't think so. Unless it really is an accident, you can not claim you were acting in good faith.
People tend to think of faith wrongly in the context to religion. They confuse it with "belief". Believing that something is wrong, but doing it anyway, is not faith.
It's better to think of faith in the context of being faithful in a relationship, or being faithful to a promise you've made. In that context it is impossible to have faith in Jesus but also do violence to your neighbor, because Jesus spoke out strongly against violence.
How about if I just pay the gardener $100 to trim the hedges and mow the lawn, and then not worry about how long he spends doing it. This hourly wage thing is nonsense.