I have a paper that says different. Both model-based and measurement-based analysis yield similar, comparitive results and effects stemming from the radiation diffusive properties of aerosolized particulates in the atmosphere - including SO2, H20, etc. Read this, then get back to me. Summary:
A layer of suspended aerosols will radiate most of its energy back into the atmosphere ABOVE the layer and into space... Even with a dark layer, the net effect is a surface cooling. It's pretty easy to design an experiment to prove this.
And reducing the direct radiation to the surface also produces measurable effects on crop yields, which can and have been analyzed. This provides a seperate, falisifiable experimental concordance.
its absorption and reemission profile will have changed unless they've kept the glass dome sealed and either evacuated or filled with some inert gas. Even at that level there could be a change in absorptive and emissive properties from surface phenomenon.
You don't think atmospheric scientists studying the effects of aerosolized pollution are fully aware of the limitations of their instruments and have incorporated some fudge factors and compensatory effects into the deductions? Why not check out some real science concerning the issue, look at how they correct for and acknowledge measuring instrument deficiencies, and how they reach their conclusions?
Plants get their energy from the sun's light. Insufficient light means no plants. No plants means no food. (Meat isn't plants, but it's powered by plants, so no plants, no meat either.)
Of course global dimming will lead to reduced global crop yields. Couple this with soil exhaustion, desertification, declining aquifers, and increasing cost of natural gas (and hence scarcer, more expensive fertilizer production) we see why global crop yields have been falling for several years now, despite advances in biotech and irrigation technologies.
The reduction in crop yields is especially severe in China, which is now importing an ever-larger share of the world's wheat and grain exports. This is driving inflationary pressures in foodstuffs, with follow-through pressures on crop-derived foods, such as grain-fed animals. In short (and coupled with increasing oil costs, partly driven also by China's voracious appetite), this is why pizza cheese prices are skyrocketing, with important implications for late-night open-source development
Longer term, this might be an ideal time to lock in some wheat and pork-belly futures at low prices...
This sounds like a well-done homage to the original techno debunking book: Theodore Roszak's The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking. This masterly work traces the wild-eyed yarns of techno-fetishists and their singularity fantasies right back to the dawn of the cimputer age. It's especially noteworthy for debunking lots of the 1950s and 1960s predecessors to the current crop of techno fetishists that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and that are usually held up as examplars.
I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. And what year was that? And where was Windows at that time? That is the line that obviously marks you as a troll.
And it is this ignorance that marks you, indelibly, as both a newbie and someone congenitally and strangely unable to use Google. Ever heard the phrase "Those who do not know history..."?
I've never heard of a mac worm, a root exploit that's actually been carried out against a mac, and so forth.
Very few people these days have even ever *seen* a Mac operating (outside of their boutique retail stores), let alone heard about them. The reason Macs have generally escaped the dubious attentions of bored script kiddies and social engineers is because the market share of OSX is so damn small that it's not really worth messing with.
I'd see an increase in attacks targetted at OSX in fact as evidence that Apple was growing their market share. I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. The popular perception of "security" on the BSD/Mach-based OSX comes about not through inherent invulnerability and system-hardening but is a simple product of benign neglect by the world at large.
Apple doesn't owe it to their customers to explain security holes. Why would they weaken their position so? Just keep quiet about it and fix it.
The reason Macs have generally escaped the dubious attentions of bored script kiddies and social engineers is because the market share of OSX is so damn small that it's not really worth messing with.
I'd see an increase in attacks targetted at OSX in fact as evidence that Apple was growing their market share. I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. The popular perception of "security" on the BSD/Mach-based OSX comes about not through inherent invulnerability and system-hardening but is a simple product of benign neglect by the world at large.
up to this point, there has still been 0 serious security problems in OS-X.
The reason Macs have generally escaped the dubious attentions of bored script kiddies and social engineers is because the market share of OSX is so damn small that it's not really worth messing with.
I'd see an increase in attacks targetted at OSX in fact as evidence that Apple was growing their market share. I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. The popular perception of "security" on the BSD/Mach-based OSX comes about not through inherent invulnerability and system-hardening but is a simple product of benign neglect by the world at large.
we are soon enough lost in a forest of our own verbal undoings.
And by the way, here is what another great writer said on the seeming absurdity of willing economic determinism without acceptable frames of reference:
If there existed the universal mind that projected itself into the scientific fancy of Laplace -- a mind that could register simultaneously all the processes of nature and of society -- such a mind could, of course, a priori draw up a falutless and exhaustive ecoonomic plan. The plan is checked and in considerable measure realized through the market. Economic accounting is unthinkable without market relations.
Opportunity cost means exactly what the textbooks say it means, and no more. Any attempt to pick apart the term beyond what is given us is an exercise in futility.
I disagree. As I have pointed out, the same words can stand for different things depending on worldview. "Opportunity cost" can be problematized through the use of certain paradoxes, as can use-value. This is because every ideology has limits to its descriptive domain. Let's agree to differ.
you're ignorant of the meaning of the term "opportunity cost."
I never said that. I never implied that. I did invite some people to explain what it was they were talking about when they used that term. But I do note some people in this discussion seem to be using an essentialist definition of "opportunity cost", while others are using a subjectivist relationist version of "opportunity cost". This is the perils of conversing in a language which where similar signs and sounds can stand for different things and complex terms are used out of context and stripped of their historical context. It also identifies quite well which people are hewing to a either a Hegelian worldview or a Kantian worldview.
However, saying simply "moron" and "stupid" and "ignorant" as rejoinders when asked to defend your position seems to me profoundly less useful than even Sam Johnson's answer to Bishop Berkeley on the subject of essentialism versus subjectivism.
you've publicly demonstrated not only that you're ignorant (by agreeing with the original post)
Firstly, I've actually written some college-level economics and business texts, and devised standardized testing on the subject, so I am aware of quite a few of the angles. Wikipedia does a good job considering its limited interface and non-pedagogical nature, but it's more like Cliff Notes and imparts largely superficial understanding rather than creating active knowledge.
Secondly, your analysis of what I wrote is flawed and you impute to me sentiments that are not manifest in what I wrote. I have not stated agreement or disagreement. I opined that the original AC's argument was reasonably well constructed proceeding, as it does, from an implicit agreement with idea of the labour theory of value, and the response to it lacked rhetorical integrity. Now, you can counter the AC's argument using some of the ideas of some of the various schools of neoclassical economics, especially the more culturally-based subjectivist constructionist approaches, but nobody seems to have done that.
I'd explain for you, but I suspect this is closer to the truth: You're stupid.
Is that really the best you can do? I suspect, rather, that you have no deep understanding of economic theory and this is evidenced by your inability to explain in simple terms some core concepts of the ideology.
My simple test is this: if someone cannot explain to me what they mean in simple terms then they do not really understand what they are thinking about.
I could teach a parrot to say some economic terms, I could even teach a parrot to say "Google it!", but I doubt I could teach a parrot to explain economics to me.
Does that make you feel more or less than a parrot?
they could pay $250 for a cutting-edge 4GB iPod Mini will make them the envy of their technologically inferior friends
I paid $72 (new!) for a 20GB Archos about which I have no illusions as to hype factor but whose low price makes it an envied object by many of my friends. Maybe I have cheap friends?
My "cutting-edge" Archos plays video, features speaking-voice menu prompts and playlists, unlimited bookmarking, and supports a robust plugin architecture with games and PDA functions.
If and when the iPod Linux project manages to definitively crack open the closed iPod box then there will get some cool "cutting edge" add-on apps and functions, but until then for me it's a closed uninteresting box very far from the "cutting edge".
The AC made a good argument. Your response lacks detail and finesse. Unless you can present a refutation, I'll have to conclude that in fact you are talking about yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a paper that says different. Both model-based and measurement-based analysis yield similar, comparitive results and effects stemming from the radiation diffusive properties of aerosolized particulates in the atmosphere - including SO2, H20, etc. Read this, then get back to me. Summary:
Damn straight! The interested reader is directed here:
And reducing the direct radiation to the surface also produces measurable effects on crop yields, which can and have been analyzed. This provides a seperate, falisifiable experimental concordance.
The interested reader is directed here:
You don't think atmospheric scientists studying the effects of aerosolized pollution are fully aware of the limitations of their instruments and have incorporated some fudge factors and compensatory effects into the deductions? Why not check out some real science concerning the issue, look at how they correct for and acknowledge measuring instrument deficiencies, and how they reach their conclusions?
The interested reader is directed here:
Instead of getting your "facts" from Fox Lies, why not check out some real science concerning the issue?
The interested reader is directed here: Earlier here.
Yes, other people have looked at the problem of aerosolized pollution reducing crop yields. The interested reader is directed here:
The reduction in crop yields is especially severe in China, which is now importing an ever-larger share of the world's wheat and grain exports. This is driving inflationary pressures in foodstuffs, with follow-through pressures on crop-derived foods, such as grain-fed animals. In short (and coupled with increasing oil costs, partly driven also by China's voracious appetite), this is why pizza cheese prices are skyrocketing, with important implications for late-night open-source development
Longer term, this might be an ideal time to lock in some wheat and pork-belly futures at low prices...
The interested reader is directed here:
I don't get it. Doesn't the iTunes GUI just blatantly copy the old "Z" and Z-alike maxi modes of Media Center?
This sounds like a well-done homage to the original techno debunking book: Theodore Roszak's The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking . This masterly work traces the wild-eyed yarns of techno-fetishists and their singularity fantasies right back to the dawn of the cimputer age. It's especially noteworthy for debunking lots of the 1950s and 1960s predecessors to the current crop of techno fetishists that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and that are usually held up as examplars.
shouldering the bandwidth cap some third-world internet users have to suffer
Yes, we really feel bad for you poor USians with your antiquated telephone systems and limited, expensive broadband.
(signed)
Your Korean, Chinese, Canadian, Finnish, and Japanese Bandwidth Overlords
And it is this ignorance that marks you, indelibly, as both a newbie and someone congenitally and strangely unable to use Google. Ever heard the phrase "Those who do not know history..."?
http://www.google.com/search?q=morris.worm+bsd
Morris Worm
I've never heard of a mac worm, a root exploit that's actually been carried out against a mac, and so forth.
Very few people these days have even ever *seen* a Mac operating (outside of their boutique retail stores), let alone heard about them. The reason Macs have generally escaped the dubious attentions of bored script kiddies and social engineers is because the market share of OSX is so damn small that it's not really worth messing with.
I'd see an increase in attacks targetted at OSX in fact as evidence that Apple was growing their market share. I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. The popular perception of "security" on the BSD/Mach-based OSX comes about not through inherent invulnerability and system-hardening but is a simple product of benign neglect by the world at large.
Apple doesn't owe it to their customers to explain security holes. Why would they weaken their position so? Just keep quiet about it and fix it.
The reason Macs have generally escaped the dubious attentions of bored script kiddies and social engineers is because the market share of OSX is so damn small that it's not really worth messing with.
I'd see an increase in attacks targetted at OSX in fact as evidence that Apple was growing their market share. I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. The popular perception of "security" on the BSD/Mach-based OSX comes about not through inherent invulnerability and system-hardening but is a simple product of benign neglect by the world at large.
up to this point, there has still been 0 serious security problems in OS-X.
The reason Macs have generally escaped the dubious attentions of bored script kiddies and social engineers is because the market share of OSX is so damn small that it's not really worth messing with.
I'd see an increase in attacks targetted at OSX in fact as evidence that Apple was growing their market share. I note that first big Internet-wide worm attack affected mostly BSD machines. The popular perception of "security" on the BSD/Mach-based OSX comes about not through inherent invulnerability and system-hardening but is a simple product of benign neglect by the world at large.
we are soon enough lost in a forest of our own verbal undoings.
And by the way, here is what another great writer said on the seeming absurdity of willing economic determinism without acceptable frames of reference:
If there existed the universal mind that projected itself into the scientific fancy of Laplace -- a mind that could register simultaneously all the processes of nature and of society -- such a mind could, of course, a priori draw up a falutless and exhaustive ecoonomic plan. The plan is checked and in considerable measure realized through the market. Economic accounting is unthinkable without market relations.
Opportunity cost means exactly what the textbooks say it means, and no more. Any attempt to pick apart the term beyond what is given us is an exercise in futility.
I disagree. As I have pointed out, the same words can stand for different things depending on worldview. "Opportunity cost" can be problematized through the use of certain paradoxes, as can use-value. This is because every ideology has limits to its descriptive domain. Let's agree to differ.
you're ignorant of the meaning of the term "opportunity cost."
I never said that. I never implied that. I did invite some people to explain what it was they were talking about when they used that term. But I do note some people in this discussion seem to be using an essentialist definition of "opportunity cost", while others are using a subjectivist relationist version of "opportunity cost". This is the perils of conversing in a language which where similar signs and sounds can stand for different things and complex terms are used out of context and stripped of their historical context. It also identifies quite well which people are hewing to a either a Hegelian worldview or a Kantian worldview.
However, saying simply "moron" and "stupid" and "ignorant" as rejoinders when asked to defend your position seems to me profoundly less useful than even Sam Johnson's answer to Bishop Berkeley on the subject of essentialism versus subjectivism.
you've publicly demonstrated not only that you're ignorant (by agreeing with the original post)
Firstly, I've actually written some college-level economics and business texts, and devised standardized testing on the subject, so I am aware of quite a few of the angles. Wikipedia does a good job considering its limited interface and non-pedagogical nature, but it's more like Cliff Notes and imparts largely superficial understanding rather than creating active knowledge.
Secondly, your analysis of what I wrote is flawed and you impute to me sentiments that are not manifest in what I wrote. I have not stated agreement or disagreement. I opined that the original AC's argument was reasonably well constructed proceeding, as it does, from an implicit agreement with idea of the labour theory of value, and the response to it lacked rhetorical integrity. Now, you can counter the AC's argument using some of the ideas of some of the various schools of neoclassical economics, especially the more culturally-based subjectivist constructionist approaches, but nobody seems to have done that.
1 Terabyte disk space seems a little rediculous
My media server has >1TB of disk space. I call it "comfy".
I'd explain for you, but I suspect this is closer to the truth: You're stupid.
Is that really the best you can do? I suspect, rather, that you have no deep understanding of economic theory and this is evidenced by your inability to explain in simple terms some core concepts of the ideology.
My simple test is this: if someone cannot explain to me what they mean in simple terms then they do not really understand what they are thinking about.
I could teach a parrot to say some economic terms, I could even teach a parrot to say "Google it!", but I doubt I could teach a parrot to explain economics to me.
Does that make you feel more or less than a parrot?
that's the perspective I'm using when I call it that.
You are smarter than the average bear.
Look up some terms regarding loss, specifically "opportunity cost".
When I check Google or Wikipedia I see too many big words. What's your version?
they could pay $250 for a cutting-edge 4GB iPod Mini will make them the envy of their technologically inferior friends
I paid $72 (new!) for a 20GB Archos about which I have no illusions as to hype factor but whose low price makes it an envied object by many of my friends. Maybe I have cheap friends?
My "cutting-edge" Archos plays video, features speaking-voice menu prompts and playlists, unlimited bookmarking, and supports a robust plugin architecture with games and PDA functions.
If and when the iPod Linux project manages to definitively crack open the closed iPod box then there will get some cool "cutting edge" add-on apps and functions, but until then for me it's a closed uninteresting box very far from the "cutting edge".
moron
The AC made a good argument. Your response lacks detail and finesse. Unless you can present a refutation, I'll have to conclude that in fact you are talking about yourself.
It's called BitTorrent and 1TB of server.