Genuinely curious, when do you think it's useful to run games in background tabs? And I thought they just added "click-to-flash", rather than preventing you from viewing flash content entirely, which seems totally reasonable. That's a decision that saves memory/energy with the option of still using flash, and anything that gets the abomination known as flash off the web sooner is a good thing.
I believe the "tab purging" only happens on iOS, not on MacOS. However, as the OP notes, Safari has had the timer throttling on background tabs for years.
What the FUCK are you talking about? All the numbers have been released in copious detail over and over, as well as the sources for their models/trend estimators. Stop fucking lying you ignorant jackass. Here's the NOAA data for January (the second hottest on record) if you're actually serious.
1 cubic parsec is (according to Google) 2.93799895 × 10^49 cubic meters. 1 Olympic-size swimming pool has 2500 cubic meters of volume.
Diving, that gives 1.1751996 x 10^46 Olympic-size swimming pools.
Cubic *giga*parsec, so presumably you're off by a factor of 1e27. But what's 1e27 Olympic pools between friends...
If what you were saying was true, a republican Congress would not have been re-elected
I haven't seen the figures for 2014, but the only reason Republicans won a congressional majority in 2012 was due to massive, unchecked gerrymandering.
As
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
demonstrates, the Ds won ~1.5E6 more votes than the Rs, yet the Rs have 33 more seats.
Of course, this is probably even more true in the Senate, where a voter in Wyoming has something like an order of magnitude more influence than one in say California.
Isn't this what impact factor metrics like the H-index (and improved versions) are designed to address? Those take into account the "quality" of a given paper, as measured by its citation count, as well as the number of papers (productivity). Of course, the citation count may not be an accurate measure of quality, I guess. It's probably simplistic, but certainly better than just counting papers published.
Not certain if the fact that Ayn Rand was a devoted admirer of serial killer William Hickman falls into the "hypocrisy" or "logical outcome" category, but it's quite disturbing either way. Benefiting from SS/Medicare after terming those who do "parasites" is barely worth a footnote in comparison.
Read all about it here:
http://bit.ly/X4hpUehttp://bit.ly/12I8mz3
Excerpt:
The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged , John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market , Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead : "He was born without the ability to consider others." (The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' favorite book -- he even requires his clerks to read it.)
Income tax rates are mostly irrelevant when it comes to much of the income of the "rich", including the "idle rich" and trust fund babies. The capital gains tax in the 50s was 25%. The estate tax was 77% on estates > $10E6. Both have been gutted today, with little evidence that either "helps the economy". They certainly "help" the deficit.
You probably know this, and are just ignoring this in your confirmation-biased little mind.
No. The *sea ice* around Antarctica, which changes seasonally, has been showing a build-up for a variety of reasons, but the land ice mass, which is what's really important in terms of sea levels, has been decreasing. See here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).
Interesting--I'm sleepy enough that I can't do justice to your post, but do you know how many of these hypothetical ZFS improvements/better approaches cannot be done in a straightforward manner because of say NetApp patents? (NetApp sued Sun, as I recall).
Interesting, thanks. It sounds like the cache controller/circuitry surrounding the cache itself emitted "particles", from that post. But then it goes on to talk about humidity etc. Plus, they mention about a 1% CPU time effect, but if you flush the cache you could be affecting other processes' performance too and it's not clear if that's taken into account. Weird. Did they replace it with "mirrored SRAM" which they say is the only real fix ("not available on midrange systems"), or just another box with tuned up scrubbing parameters and what not?
Assuming the measurements are accurate. Arriving at a global mean temperature is voodoo enough, but when you place your surface temperature measuring stations beside air conditioning unit exhaust vents you have to wonder if the temperatures even reflect reality. Most of these stations surveyed have a margin of error in recording temperatures of more than 2C... while your measured catastrophic increase is 0.6C?? Next stop, measuring your member with an unmarked ruler. "Hey, it's about a foot long. Really!!"
I certainly agree that some of the surface measurement sites are situated poorly. However, given that "changes in borehole temperatures (Section 2.3.2), the recession of the glaciers (Section 2.2.5.4), and changes in marine temperature (Section 2.2.2.2), which are not subject to urbanisation, agree well with the instrumental estimates of surface warming over the last century" and that there is no statistically significant difference between the records from rural and urban surface temperature stations ("While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92C/century) However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant.", as detailed in the IPCC report, it doesn't, well, appear to be statistically significant. Oh, and could we omit the petty attempts at vulgar "humor"?
We're now glossing over point 2 and making broad assumptions. Nevermind that "To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." [Source] Hmmm... what's the phrase I'm looking for here... something about correlation and causation.
Perhaps you ought to take a look at this study. I quote: "The answer: This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low." "Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age."
"Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate."
May want to update your talking points...though I rather suspect you'll regurtitate the same set the next time a climate change discussion comes up here.
"
This last one brings us to the ultimate death blow to the global warmers' argument. The warming we've experienced since the last glacial period has brought us grasslands, forests, jungles.... When the next glacial period comes, the planet will be covered mostly by icy tundra and extreme deserts again. Warming has only made this planet MORE habitable to us. I've got 12000 years of proof that warming is good. What do you have to the contrary?"
Dude...are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not just sea levels rising due to glacial melt, though that alone is problematic (though there's this thing called empathy where some humans sympathise with the plights of other humans...something you apparently lack). Potential consequences also include droughts, heat waves, disruption of various ecosystems, increased oceanic acidification due to greater CO2 absorption (up to a limit) and so many others. If you were genuinely interested, I could go into the details.
"I'm more interesting in overwhelming scientific evidence, myself. Come back when find some of that."
The links I provided in my original comment describe the evidence in great detail. If you're actually interested in the evidence, and you're genuinely interested in learning more, here's a list of common questions and answers from the UK Met Office. As for here on slashdot, I'm more interested in a substantive discussion backed with citations than vacuous posturing. I suspect your comment falls in the latter category--come back when you have some of the former.
Right, random moron mouthing off on slashdot with the usual "correlation not equal to causation" bromide (which you didn't phrase accurately) must be believed over the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change. Regarding solar output variability and the recent rise in average global temperatures: read this.As for "I don't understand where these people are coming from saying that warmer temperatures are bad", try asking the people in coastal areas and island nations such as Tuvalu, who have already been displaced, what they feel.
I'm not familiar with the various and sundry conspiracy theories surrounding "Chappaquiddick", but the wikipedia article claims that it was a certain Joseph Flanagan, attorney for Mary Kopechne's parents/family, who prevented the autopsy. How does that fit in (and I'm curious, it's not a rhetorical question) with the claims of sinister machinations by Kennedy?
And here are citations for Halliburton's and Cheney's involvement with "axis of evil" fulcrum Iran:
First, from Fox News of all places.
An excerpt:
While he headed the Houston-based oil services and construction company, Cheney strongly criticized sanctions against countries like Iran and Libya. President Clinton cut off all U.S. trade with Iran in 1995 because of Tehran's support for terrorism....
Much of Halliburton's business with Iran comes through Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., a subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands and based in the United Arab Emirates. Halliburton Products & Services opened a Tehran office in early 2000, before Cheney left Halliburton to become Bush's running mate.
You sir, are a fucking idiot. The grandparent's post was a joke, and the hunting incident is the least of the problems "liberals" (well really, anyone with a modicum of sense) have with the likes of Dick Cheney. How about 2 DUIs (so between GWB and Cheney, we have a team with 3 DUIs), draft evasion, Halliburton's ties to Iran when Cheney was at the helm, pressuring intelligence agencies to jazz up reports to fit your own world view (see the Downing street memo), and so many others? Not that I expect a rational reply...
Cite your "plenty of evidence" please. The overwhelming scientific consensus (and none of that nonsense about a vast scientific conspiracy to obtain grant money please) is that the ongoing climate change is anthropogenic. And, given your statement about hummers, I assume you don't believe that automobile emissions contribute to smog as well?
A very pretty piece of hyperbole--if only it were true that the AGW hypothesis is "mere statistical noise". Do continue sticking your head in the stand and (no doubt) driving your hummer. Your children, if any, will pay for your indulgence.
You are mistaken--even in 2002, many had expressed severe doubts about the supposed purchase of Yellowcake (an intermediary in uranium enrichment) referred to by George Tenet and Colin Powell. Also see the Downing Street memo (perhaps you've heard of it?) Here's an excerpt:
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Note the bit about *facts being fixed around the policy*. This is an official classified report by a senior UK official. The Brits had serious reservations about the intelligence. But they are inextricably allied to the US, so they had to compromise. Perhaps you're genuinely compassionate about the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam--I can sympathise with that. But are you really so naive as to believe that the motivation of this administration in invading Iraq was compassion? Geopolitical influence perhaps, a feeding frenzy for contractors with political ties (induced by lobbyists...surely you haven't been ignoring all those reports) maybe; if compassion was the motivator, why aren't we in Darfur where there is an ongoing genocide that has claimed 400K lives? Why is it that Iraq's infrastructure is still shot to hell several years after "mission accomplished"? Sorry, but you *are* toeing the party line--one pre-1991 container of sarin and some inert munitions (the US Army has *lost* track of more munitions than any so-called WMDs)
Have you seen the Bush 60 minutes interview? This is Bush on the WMDs you insist were found:
"We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. "
Where are your hundreds and thousands of WMDs? Nonsense.
See also this interview with a CIA agent
He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
Slashdot Mirror
Genuinely curious, when do you think it's useful to run games in background tabs? And I thought they just added "click-to-flash", rather than preventing you from viewing flash content entirely, which seems totally reasonable. That's a decision that saves memory/energy with the option of still using flash, and anything that gets the abomination known as flash off the web sooner is a good thing.
I believe the "tab purging" only happens on iOS, not on MacOS. However, as the OP notes, Safari has had the timer throttling on background tabs for years.
What the FUCK are you talking about? All the numbers have been released in copious detail over and over, as well as the sources for their models/trend estimators. Stop fucking lying you ignorant jackass. Here's the NOAA data for January (the second hottest on record) if you're actually serious.
Discovering trolling has now become a problem with non-trivial cognitive load
1 cubic parsec is (according to Google) 2.93799895 × 10^49 cubic meters. 1 Olympic-size swimming pool has 2500 cubic meters of volume. Diving, that gives 1.1751996 x 10^46 Olympic-size swimming pools.
Cubic *giga*parsec, so presumably you're off by a factor of 1e27. But what's 1e27 Olympic pools between friends...
If what you were saying was true, a republican Congress would not have been re-elected
I haven't seen the figures for 2014, but the only reason Republicans won a congressional majority in 2012 was due to massive, unchecked gerrymandering. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... demonstrates, the Ds won ~1.5E6 more votes than the Rs, yet the Rs have 33 more seats. Of course, this is probably even more true in the Senate, where a voter in Wyoming has something like an order of magnitude more influence than one in say California.
Isn't this what impact factor metrics like the H-index (and improved versions) are designed to address? Those take into account the "quality" of a given paper, as measured by its citation count, as well as the number of papers (productivity). Of course, the citation count may not be an accurate measure of quality, I guess. It's probably simplistic, but certainly better than just counting papers published.
I've read almost all of his Culture work, and a couple of his mainstream books (Complicity was fun). A great loss, he will be missed.
Brilliant! Thanks for the laugh :)
Income tax rates are mostly irrelevant when it comes to much of the income of the "rich", including the "idle rich" and trust fund babies. The capital gains tax in the 50s was 25%. The estate tax was 77% on estates > $10E6. Both have been gutted today, with little evidence that either "helps the economy". They certainly "help" the deficit. You probably know this, and are just ignoring this in your confirmation-biased little mind.
No. The *sea ice* around Antarctica, which changes seasonally, has been showing a build-up for a variety of reasons, but the land ice mass, which is what's really important in terms of sea levels, has been decreasing. See here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).
Hmm, where do you get the negative interest rate for 10 year T-bonds? http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield has them at 1.6% today. Or are you factoring in inflation?
Interesting--I'm sleepy enough that I can't do justice to your post, but do you know how many of these hypothetical ZFS improvements/better approaches cannot be done in a straightforward manner because of say NetApp patents? (NetApp sued Sun, as I recall).
Interesting, thanks. It sounds like the cache controller/circuitry surrounding the cache itself emitted "particles", from that post. But then it goes on to talk about humidity etc. Plus, they mention about a 1% CPU time effect, but if you flush the cache you could be affecting other processes' performance too and it's not clear if that's taken into account. Weird. Did they replace it with "mirrored SRAM" which they say is the only real fix ("not available on midrange systems"), or just another box with tuned up scrubbing parameters and what not?
Sounds like an interesting story--what was the Ultra II 450 cache bug? Cursory google("ultra II 450 cache/errata") didn't come up with anything.
I certainly agree that some of the surface measurement sites are situated poorly. However, given that "changes in borehole temperatures (Section 2.3.2), the recession of the glaciers (Section 2.2.5.4), and changes in marine temperature (Section 2.2.2.2), which are not subject to urbanisation, agree well with the instrumental estimates of surface warming over the last century" and that there is no statistically significant difference between the records from rural and urban surface temperature stations ("While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92C/century) However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant.", as detailed in the IPCC report, it doesn't, well, appear to be statistically significant. Oh, and could we omit the petty attempts at vulgar "humor"?
We're now glossing over point 2 and making broad assumptions. Nevermind that "To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." [Source] Hmmm... what's the phrase I'm looking for here... something about correlation and causation.
Perhaps you ought to take a look at this study. I quote: "The answer: This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low." "Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age." "Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate."
May want to update your talking points...though I rather suspect you'll regurtitate the same set the next time a climate change discussion comes up here.
" This last one brings us to the ultimate death blow to the global warmers' argument. The warming we've experienced since the last glacial period has brought us grasslands, forests, jungles.... When the next glacial period comes, the planet will be covered mostly by icy tundra and extreme deserts again. Warming has only made this planet MORE habitable to us. I've got 12000 years of proof that warming is good. What do you have to the contrary?"
Dude...are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not just sea levels rising due to glacial melt, though that alone is problematic (though there's this thing called empathy where some humans sympathise with the plights of other humans...something you apparently lack). Potential consequences also include droughts, heat waves, disruption of various ecosystems, increased oceanic acidification due to greater CO2 absorption (up to a limit) and so many others. If you were genuinely interested, I could go into the details.
"I'm more interesting in overwhelming scientific evidence, myself. Come back when find some of that." The links I provided in my original comment describe the evidence in great detail. If you're actually interested in the evidence, and you're genuinely interested in learning more, here's a list of common questions and answers from the UK Met Office. As for here on slashdot, I'm more interested in a substantive discussion backed with citations than vacuous posturing. I suspect your comment falls in the latter category--come back when you have some of the former.
Right, random moron mouthing off on slashdot with the usual "correlation not equal to causation" bromide (which you didn't phrase accurately) must be believed over the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change. Regarding solar output variability and the recent rise in average global temperatures: read this.As for "I don't understand where these people are coming from saying that warmer temperatures are bad", try asking the people in coastal areas and island nations such as Tuvalu, who have already been displaced, what they feel.
I'm not familiar with the various and sundry conspiracy theories surrounding "Chappaquiddick", but the wikipedia article claims that it was a certain Joseph Flanagan, attorney for Mary Kopechne's parents/family, who prevented the autopsy. How does that fit in (and I'm curious, it's not a rhetorical question) with the claims of sinister machinations by Kennedy?
An excerpt:
And something more current regarding Halliburton's current relationship with Iran.You sir, are a fucking idiot. The grandparent's post was a joke, and the hunting incident is the least of the problems "liberals" (well really, anyone with a modicum of sense) have with the likes of Dick Cheney. How about 2 DUIs (so between GWB and Cheney, we have a team with 3 DUIs), draft evasion, Halliburton's ties to Iran when Cheney was at the helm, pressuring intelligence agencies to jazz up reports to fit your own world view (see the Downing street memo), and so many others? Not that I expect a rational reply...
Cite your "plenty of evidence" please. The overwhelming scientific consensus (and none of that nonsense about a vast scientific conspiracy to obtain grant money please) is that the ongoing climate change is anthropogenic. And, given your statement about hummers, I assume you don't believe that automobile emissions contribute to smog as well?
A very pretty piece of hyperbole--if only it were true that the AGW hypothesis is "mere statistical noise". Do continue sticking your head in the stand and (no doubt) driving your hummer. Your children, if any, will pay for your indulgence.