If you're really concerned about security on your individual systems, don't send critical system information externally. Otherwise the vulnerable applications were already vulnerable before and after sending, and if your messages are being intercepted, you've got bigger security issues already.
Your search just yields evidence of really substantial diminishment in arctic sea ice over the course of the last half century, which leads me to believe that you've been training google to reinforce your biases.
That doesn't prove much of anything at all. Other than that you like to call people liars.
How do you tell the difference between someone who has taken to denying factually reality to antagonize others and one who does so out of self-delusion?
Come on, re-read the summary. If they selected based on cloud accuracy, that makes cloud coverage the primary variable and temperature a secondary one. The ones that try to predict clouds do worse at temperature.
That is to say, I have no idea what you're even trying to say, other than going for a chance to misuse the word "cretin"
The real questions would be the kind answered with study of climate data, you know, wide-scale, multi-measure temperature assessments. The fake question would be "how much does ice at one point near the Antarctic matter?"
Melodrama would be blowing up angrily when your idiotic point is compared against an obvious parallel.
I gave my real answer, actually. It was "I don't know." Which is appropriate because climate data has no relevant to day-to-day weather. And I illustrated that point with a similar question.
Rather than address the main point, you compared me to nazis(not wanting to damage the economic output of the world by excessive emissions is ethically identical to genocide), made up claims I've never made, and made yourself sound like a crazy person.
If you can't recognize single incident evidence as more than just being a smart ass than you don't understand the idea of evidence. You flap your lips a lot but you never say much. Step up or shut up.
Doubling down. Okay. If bank of America's stock is down today against yesterday, what does that say about where the DJI will be next year?
Congratulations, if you said anything at all, you're an idiot who jumps to conclusions.
I'm just going to assume it's the following things in equal measure:
A. Poorly written satire, where "thank goodness for the NSA" is a repeated statement made by forest creatures, ironically unaware of their own doom they weave. B. The positions of the satirical critics are 100% holy and just, but no one believes them. C. Believe in the NSA, not apathy is the driving force of its existence in the story. And.. D. The moral reinforces my biases.
The ice caps do not expand overnight. How is it an isolated event?
Instead, alarmists use isolated events as evidence for their position, and decry those who want the raw data and point out that the overall trend is a cooling, not warning - which goes against ALL theories (that we are coming out of an ice age, that man is causing global warming, that the sun is getting hotter)
Now, I can't deny the presence of people who went "Katrina was caused by global warming," but their being wrong doesn't excuse you ignoring incredibly reliable data from people who know what they're talking about. No more than idiots blathering about super-volcanoes "being due" excuse people who deny the existence of plate tectonics.
You can always find someone hyperbolic and wrong to disagree with, it doesn't make your position right.
No, actually, it's called climate change, at least originally, because that was a euphemism developed by a conservative think tank to make the results sound more palatable. It's called climate change now, because not all parts of the globe would warm. Unpredictability is just weather being weather, and has very little to do with climate at all.
A. These people aren't dead thanks to a 20th century technology available to bail them out. The only reason they went on a ship and not on a helicopter in the first place was because it would have been wastefully expensive to do so.
B. People sometimes die for much more mundane dreams.
And here we have exactly what's wrong with this debate. An utter ignoramus declaring that very intelligent, specifically informed people who have spent decades refining a process to get useful data are "clowns" on the basis that another process that was designed to yield better results on a different variable doesn't yield results quite as accurate on the primary variable.
Congratulations on being everything wrong with science discussion.
How does the moon count as a revival, when there are currently multiple multi-year old robots exploring the surface of another planet? I don't like nationalism, but why would Jade Rabbit count as more relevant than Opportunity or Curiosity?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're really concerned about security on your individual systems, don't send critical system information externally. Otherwise the vulnerable applications were already vulnerable before and after sending, and if your messages are being intercepted, you've got bigger security issues already.
Your search just yields evidence of really substantial diminishment in arctic sea ice over the course of the last half century, which leads me to believe that you've been training google to reinforce your biases.
That doesn't prove much of anything at all. Other than that you like to call people liars.
Let's make it so it's even harder to tell who's bribing their way into power in Washington.
So, since your whole argument depends on someone having said something they didn't say, it kinda makes you look both like a douche and a moron.
How do you tell the difference between someone who has taken to denying factually reality to antagonize others and one who does so out of self-delusion?
No, that's stupid, like really stupid. There's nothing about these models that should be anywhere near that temporally localized.
Come on, re-read the summary. If they selected based on cloud accuracy, that makes cloud coverage the primary variable and temperature a secondary one. The ones that try to predict clouds do worse at temperature.
That is to say, I have no idea what you're even trying to say, other than going for a chance to misuse the word "cretin"
The real questions would be the kind answered with study of climate data, you know, wide-scale, multi-measure temperature assessments. The fake question would be "how much does ice at one point near the Antarctic matter?"
Melodrama would be blowing up angrily when your idiotic point is compared against an obvious parallel.
Well, yay for corporate censorship combined with misleading headlines, then.
I gave my real answer, actually.
It was "I don't know." Which is appropriate because climate data has no relevant to day-to-day weather. And I illustrated that point with a similar question.
Rather than address the main point, you compared me to nazis(not wanting to damage the economic output of the world by excessive emissions is ethically identical to genocide), made up claims I've never made, and made yourself sound like a crazy person.
If you can't recognize single incident evidence as more than just being a smart ass than you don't understand the idea of evidence. You flap your lips a lot but you never say much. Step up or shut up.
Doubling down. Okay. If bank of America's stock is down today against yesterday, what does that say about where the DJI will be next year?
Congratulations, if you said anything at all, you're an idiot who jumps to conclusions.
I'm just going to assume it's the following things in equal measure:
A. Poorly written satire, where "thank goodness for the NSA" is a repeated statement made by forest creatures, ironically unaware of their own doom they weave.
B. The positions of the satirical critics are 100% holy and just, but no one believes them.
C. Believe in the NSA, not apathy is the driving force of its existence in the story. And..
D. The moral reinforces my biases.
That sure is something actual climate scientists have said, and not some kind of elaborate strawman you set up for yourself to attack.
Yep.
Now, statistically There has been a small increase in drought severity and frequency in the northern hemisphere as some oceanic changes occur, which has some limited, but measurable fallout. But that doesn't mean any given drought is climate change.
Except that the data in question isn't of the whole environment, and all its components. Science doesn't have an everythingology to study that.
I don't know. When do economic models predict I'll win the lottery?
The ice caps do not expand overnight. How is it an isolated event?
Instead, alarmists use isolated events as evidence for their position, and decry those who want the raw data and point out that the overall trend is a cooling, not warning - which goes against ALL theories (that we are coming out of an ice age, that man is causing global warming, that the sun is getting hotter)
Now, I can't deny the presence of people who went "Katrina was caused by global warming," but their being wrong doesn't excuse you ignoring incredibly reliable data from people who know what they're talking about. No more than idiots blathering about super-volcanoes "being due" excuse people who deny the existence of plate tectonics.
You can always find someone hyperbolic and wrong to disagree with, it doesn't make your position right.
No, actually, it's called climate change, at least originally, because that was a euphemism developed by a conservative think tank to make the results sound more palatable. It's called climate change now, because not all parts of the globe would warm. Unpredictability is just weather being weather, and has very little to do with climate at all.
That's certainly believable. Call B in my reply overzealous then. But A stands just fine with that caveat.
Look at me, I don't understand science, and I call people doing their jobs in dangerous environments a vacation.
From a person who has never seriously done any difficult labor in their life, so much you can smell it.
Care to cite this data? The OP is bringing a hell of a lot more evidence to the conversation than you are.
The fact that you think they had any evidence at all is far more a reflection on you than me.
Yes, and the ice dispenser in my freezer is also supporting evidence for your position, as long as we're not going to look at useful aggregate data.
A. These people aren't dead thanks to a 20th century technology available to bail them out. The only reason they went on a ship and not on a helicopter in the first place was because it would have been wastefully expensive to do so.
B. People sometimes die for much more mundane dreams.
And here we have exactly what's wrong with this debate. An utter ignoramus declaring that very intelligent, specifically informed people who have spent decades refining a process to get useful data are "clowns" on the basis that another process that was designed to yield better results on a different variable doesn't yield results quite as accurate on the primary variable.
Congratulations on being everything wrong with science discussion.
Oh god, the marketing-speak is coming from inside the open source developers. Get out! Get out now!
How does the moon count as a revival, when there are currently multiple multi-year old robots exploring the surface of another planet? I don't like nationalism, but why would Jade Rabbit count as more relevant than Opportunity or Curiosity?