Precisely that, is what peer-reviewed scientific journals are for. Have you been reading them?
Why can I not find them on the IPCC website? Instead they present marketing documents which simply do not make a convincing case to someone who has been trained in experimental procedure.
Cats cause global warming. Cats lie in sun and absorb heat. Before man, cats lived in the forests where the forest canopy prevented very much light from reaching them, and they were not able to absorb heat and contribute to global warming. Since the industrial revolution, people have accepted cats into their homes where they can lie next to the windows in sunbeams absorbing vast amounts of radiation. In the last half of the twentieth century, man provided cats with canned and dried foods that allowed cats to lie in sunbeams for longer periods of time thereby accelerating global warming. In the last decade, "scientifically balanced" catfoods were developed that improved cats health and increased the heat absorption of cats significantly. We need to kill all the cats and bury or eat the corpses to prevent Felinogenic Global Warming. Join the AntiFGW society today! Eat a cat for humanity! I know this is ridiculous, but it goes almost as deep as your argument.
Your logic is so flawed that it boggles the mind.
You are stating a hypothesis that explains the statistically based conclusion of AGW scientists, but you are not stating the theory. This has no more validity than the arguments of Creationists who likewise cite only information that seems to support their so-called theory. Both suffer from having "a slight scientifically orientation".
The warmest decade on record occurred long before man evolved. Solar cycles are eleven years, that makes it pretty difficult to fit a decade in the minimum half of the cycle. I suspect that you are in fact referring to the solar minimum of 2008-2009. In which case your statement is just plain wrong, it is more correctly that the solar minimum occurred in the warmest decade in recent history. Claiming causality where it clearly does not exist is simply lying.
Refering to Figure 2.1b: "We do not show standard errors for the CRU land data using the Jones et al. (1997b) method as tests suggest that these may not be reliable for land data on its own." The standard errors are "an inconvenient truth". The method is apparently suitable any time it supports the prejudices of the author. "Thick solid curve - as in (a). Two standard error uncertainties are centred on the CRU curve and are estimated using an optimum averaging method (Folland et al., 2001) and include uncertainties due to urbanisation but not due to uncertainties in thermometer exposures." This violates proper experimental procedures; one does not exclude any uncertainties - EVER. That is serious bad science.
p21 - "Sea ice around Antarctica shows little change – a fact, which is still not fully understood." Yet the changes in sea ice in the Arctic apparently are since they match the authors' preconceptions.
p22 - "Especially mountain glaciers are considered to be 'unique demonstration objects' concerning ongoing climate change." Unique as in something different and non-representative of the truth. A Ginsu knife cutting through a soft drink can is quite impressive but has little to do with how well it will cut meat compared to another knife that may not cut the can.
p22 - "Glacier extent (length, area) may have reached 'warm' limits of pre-industrial (Holocene) variability ranges and is far out of equilibrium conditions at many mid- and low-latitude sites." Restated - glaciers are no smaller than they were in pre-industrial times; somehow it doesn't sound particularly ominous when stated in this equally
p22 - "Complex air/ocean/ice interactions make attribution to exact causes difficult but 'warming' as a general cause appears to be evident." Why the quotation marks around "warming"? Evident means that it looks that way to a casual observer, but not necessarily to an educated one. Note the lack of "anthropogenic", and that exact causes are not known.
p25 - "Global scale surface temperature is recorded by an instrumental record of 150 years and reconstructed from palaeo data over several centuries. Both compare well with climate model simulations if driven with estimates of external forcing..." "If driven with estimates of external forcing" being the operable phrase. The estimates of the external forcing functions were developed in response to the model and not independently, so of course the models are "accurate". Anyone can "predict" a horse race after the fact, and tell you which horse was in the lead at any point; they can even make up rules to explain the lead changes, but if these models are so good, why aren't these great modelers making money at the track, could it be that there is more money to be made in "studying" climate change? You think I'm making this shit up? Here is the sentence that follows: "Information about the expected responses to external forcing, so called ‘fingerprints’, is usually derived from simulations by climate models..." The hockey stick results from applying none of the corrections for volcanic eruptions and other temperature lowering events in predictions. Eyjafjallajökull and Mount St Helens could result in significant downward revisions to the predictions.
p26 - "Thus, concise, exact, and intuitively understandable language needs to be crafted that helps express this range of attribution results." Translation: "We need to use the same words that a marketing person would choose", too bad "new" and "improved" aren't suitable. The appropriate conclusion, one that a scientist would make, is that the models need to be improved before they are the basis for making policy decisions. I am not saying we should do nothing - just do things for other, more tangible and rational reasons. Reduce fossil fuel consumption because we should save our reserves since it is easier to make plastic out of oil than anything else, or because you hate sending money to Arab terrorists and Venezuelan revolutionaries.
p26 - On precipitation models: "... the magnitude of the observed change is larger (significantly so) than that of the multi-model mean fingerprint, raising questions about instrumental data and climate model realism." The models don't predict th
I absolutely agree that it appears the Cuccinelli is on a witch hunt. But shouldn't he have been taken down by other AGW supporters for his bad science? They instead have moved in lock step to silence critics.
Proponents of AGW are supposed to be scientists, not politicians. Infrastructures and policies are the domain of politicians. When scientists enter into that arena they cease to be disinterested observers and become legitimate targets for criticism by every hack as well as scientists who do not agree with their conclusions.
Apple want to force as much vendor lockin as possible, and cross-platform tools are the bane to any company trying to force an OS lock-in. Lock-in is great for apple, the iphone, and ipad.
Its terrible for everyone and everything else, including the actual iphone consumers!
Pardon me if I seem obtuse, but you have made a lot of sweeping claims without any supporting information. I do not dispute the claims, per se, but I reject them on the basis that you have provided no evidence of their validity.
Why is vendor lock-in bad? Is there a scriptural basis for this conclusion, or was it a revelation? It seems to me that it only affects the vendor and those who choose to be locked-in; while it doesn't strike me as a good thing, I do not understand what the harm is. Is this harm long term or short term? If some developers choose to do something that harms them (presuming you can establish that) how does it hurt others who choose not to be locked-in? How doe it affect the consumer of the product? How does it hurt Apple's competitors? How does it hurt consumers of Apple's competitor's products? How does it hurt people who do not use products of Apple or those of its competitors?
You remind me of the buggy whip maker blaming Ford.
Modern tools like Flash have increased the quality and ease of software development because they provide common functionality support at a very high level.
"Common functionality" is short for "lowest common denominator functionality".
While there are a few holes in the Flash provider itself, those are not comparable to the damage done by developers who have to reinvent the wheel every time. Consumers don't give a damn what something was written in, and Flash has been one of those technologies consumers have glommed onto en masse. Apple shutting down Flash and comparable frameworks is Apple's fault and nobody else's, and it's bad for everyone.
Developers frequently claim that they know the best tools. Please explain how a this "modern tool" that cannot deal with Apple's touchscreen interface is appropriate for development on iAnything at all. It is impossible to develop a program using flash that requires any real user interaction that is consistent with the standard user interface. It is time to raise the bar.
As a freshman I went to my chemistry class six times - first day of class and 5 tests. I got the highest grade in the class of about 300 thanks to having a great teacher in high school (Thank you, Mr Saieed). If I had gone more I would have eventually picked up what the instructor was saying and certainly would have scored much lower. Under this system of monitoring attendance they would undoubtedly conclude that I must have cheated, rather than that the instructor was incompetent and I already knew the material.
Unless the administration can provide compelling reasons why monitoring will benefit students, it should not be done. What is the state going to do when merchants or others start reading the RFIDs and using the information for their own nefarious purposes? Personally I would take it a challenge to screw with the University, clone the tags of mine and several dozen friends, put them in faraday cages and magically appear and disappear all over campus.
Thanks. If Canon, et. al., want their licenses to prevail would they not have to put their license on the outside of the box? It sounds to me that this could be the biggest class action lawsuit ever.
I did not buy my camera to use for commercial purposes, but I certainly did not agree never to use it for such.
If Eli Whitney's cotton gin were still covered by patents, the business model would probably be to license based on the bales of cotton ginned in addition to the fee for each machine - in this way a self contained commune would still have to pay royalties based on how much they used the machine. The value of the cotton ginned would be a poor metric since the user could sell the cotton at a loss, or the cotton could end up in hundred dollar bills. If I chose to put my gin on display in a museum or a gin repair school, would Whitney be able to impose a new previously undisclosed licensing fee based on the revenues of my museum or school?
Photography and movie making are artistic endeavors; the contribution of the codec toward that end is not significant and license fees should not be based on the value of the product, but on the number of frames or length of the film or similar measure. Would anyone think it appropriate for the manufacturer of film or paints to make money from the photographs or paintings created by others? How would the manufacturer deal with collecting on second sale?
Since the consumer is obligated to meet the terms imposed in a license agreement, isn't the manufacturer obligated to disclose the full terms? Failure to disclose fees outside of the original terms strike me as unconscionable, and basing those fees on the commercial value of the end product doubly so.
One question for the lawyers out there. If the license agreement is between Canon and me, and I violate that agreement, how does MPEG-LA have any standing to negotiate with me for fees?
0 to F is 10 numbers. Regardless of the base it is always 10. (10 =1+1 in binary, 10 = 1+7 in octal, 10 = 1+9 in decimal, 10 = 1+F in hexadecimal) The whoosh was deafening as it went over your head.
Take the population of SlashDot regulars, multiply by something between two and ten. That is how many people care about proprietary standards. Most of those will abandon their unwilliness for shiny ^h^h^h^h^h any halfway compelling reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely that, is what peer-reviewed scientific journals are for. Have you been reading them?
Why can I not find them on the IPCC website? Instead they present marketing documents which simply do not make a convincing case to someone who has been trained in experimental procedure.
Cats cause global warming. Cats lie in sun and absorb heat. Before man, cats lived in the forests where the forest canopy prevented very much light from reaching them, and they were not able to absorb heat and contribute to global warming. Since the industrial revolution, people have accepted cats into their homes where they can lie next to the windows in sunbeams absorbing vast amounts of radiation. In the last half of the twentieth century, man provided cats with canned and dried foods that allowed cats to lie in sunbeams for longer periods of time thereby accelerating global warming. In the last decade, "scientifically balanced" catfoods were developed that improved cats health and increased the heat absorption of cats significantly. We need to kill all the cats and bury or eat the corpses to prevent Felinogenic Global Warming. Join the AntiFGW society today! Eat a cat for humanity! I know this is ridiculous, but it goes almost as deep as your argument.
Your logic is so flawed that it boggles the mind.
You are stating a hypothesis that explains the statistically based conclusion of AGW scientists, but you are not stating the theory. This has no more validity than the arguments of Creationists who likewise cite only information that seems to support their so-called theory. Both suffer from having "a slight scientifically orientation".
The warmest decade on record occurred long before man evolved. Solar cycles are eleven years, that makes it pretty difficult to fit a decade in the minimum half of the cycle. I suspect that you are in fact referring to the solar minimum of 2008-2009. In which case your statement is just plain wrong, it is more correctly that the solar minimum occurred in the warmest decade in recent history. Claiming causality where it clearly does not exist is simply lying.
He was the primary author of: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm
Refering to Figure 2.1b: "We do not show standard errors for the CRU land data using the Jones et al. (1997b) method as tests suggest that these may not be reliable for land data on its own." The standard errors are "an inconvenient truth". The method is apparently suitable any time it supports the prejudices of the author. "Thick solid curve - as in (a). Two standard error uncertainties are centred on the CRU curve and are estimated using an optimum averaging method (Folland et al., 2001) and include uncertainties due to urbanisation but not due to uncertainties in thermometer exposures." This violates proper experimental procedures; one does not exclude any uncertainties - EVER. That is serious bad science.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change Report - September 2009: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/expert-meeting-detection-anthropogenic-2009-09.pdf
p21 - "Sea ice around Antarctica shows little change – a fact, which is still not fully understood." Yet the changes in sea ice in the Arctic apparently are since they match the authors' preconceptions.
p22 - "Especially mountain glaciers are considered to be 'unique demonstration objects' concerning ongoing climate change." Unique as in something different and non-representative of the truth. A Ginsu knife cutting through a soft drink can is quite impressive but has little to do with how well it will cut meat compared to another knife that may not cut the can.
p22 - "Glacier extent (length, area) may have reached 'warm' limits of pre-industrial (Holocene) variability ranges and is far out of equilibrium conditions at many mid- and low-latitude sites." Restated - glaciers are no smaller than they were in pre-industrial times; somehow it doesn't sound particularly ominous when stated in this equally
p22 - "Complex air/ocean/ice interactions make attribution to exact causes difficult but 'warming' as a general cause appears to be evident." Why the quotation marks around "warming"? Evident means that it looks that way to a casual observer, but not necessarily to an educated one. Note the lack of "anthropogenic", and that exact causes are not known.
p25 - "Global scale surface temperature is recorded by an instrumental record of 150 years and reconstructed from palaeo data over several centuries. Both compare well with climate model simulations if driven with estimates of external forcing ..." "If driven with estimates of external forcing" being the operable phrase. The estimates of the external forcing functions were developed in response to the model and not independently, so of course the models are "accurate". Anyone can "predict" a horse race after the fact, and tell you which horse was in the lead at any point; they can even make up rules to explain the lead changes, but if these models are so good, why aren't these great modelers making money at the track, could it be that there is more money to be made in "studying" climate change? You think I'm making this shit up? Here is the sentence that follows: "Information about the expected responses to external forcing, so called ‘fingerprints’, is usually derived from simulations by climate models ..." The hockey stick results from applying none of the corrections for volcanic eruptions and other temperature lowering events in predictions. Eyjafjallajökull and Mount St Helens could result in significant downward revisions to the predictions.
p26 - "Thus, concise, exact, and intuitively understandable language needs to be crafted that helps express this range of attribution results." Translation: "We need to use the same words that a marketing person would choose", too bad "new" and "improved" aren't suitable. The appropriate conclusion, one that a scientist would make, is that the models need to be improved before they are the basis for making policy decisions. I am not saying we should do nothing - just do things for other, more tangible and rational reasons. Reduce fossil fuel consumption because we should save our reserves since it is easier to make plastic out of oil than anything else, or because you hate sending money to Arab terrorists and Venezuelan revolutionaries.
p26 - On precipitation models: "... the magnitude of the observed change is larger (significantly so) than that of the multi-model mean fingerprint, raising questions about instrumental data and climate model realism." The models don't predict th
I absolutely agree that it appears the Cuccinelli is on a witch hunt. But shouldn't he have been taken down by other AGW supporters for his bad science? They instead have moved in lock step to silence critics.
Proponents of AGW are supposed to be scientists, not politicians. Infrastructures and policies are the domain of politicians. When scientists enter into that arena they cease to be disinterested observers and become legitimate targets for criticism by every hack as well as scientists who do not agree with their conclusions.
You can't "fix" the photo tickets. The politicians found out they were not above the law so they remedied the situation.
Apple want to force as much vendor lockin as possible, and cross-platform tools are the bane to any company trying to force an OS lock-in. Lock-in is great for apple, the iphone, and ipad. Its terrible for everyone and everything else, including the actual iphone consumers!
Pardon me if I seem obtuse, but you have made a lot of sweeping claims without any supporting information. I do not dispute the claims, per se, but I reject them on the basis that you have provided no evidence of their validity.
Why is vendor lock-in bad? Is there a scriptural basis for this conclusion, or was it a revelation? It seems to me that it only affects the vendor and those who choose to be locked-in; while it doesn't strike me as a good thing, I do not understand what the harm is. Is this harm long term or short term? If some developers choose to do something that harms them (presuming you can establish that) how does it hurt others who choose not to be locked-in? How doe it affect the consumer of the product? How does it hurt Apple's competitors? How does it hurt consumers of Apple's competitor's products? How does it hurt people who do not use products of Apple or those of its competitors?
Isn't it great when summer falls on a weekend!
No, I think I'll continue to blame Apple.
You remind me of the buggy whip maker blaming Ford.
Modern tools like Flash have increased the quality and ease of software development because they provide common functionality support at a very high level.
"Common functionality" is short for "lowest common denominator functionality".
While there are a few holes in the Flash provider itself, those are not comparable to the damage done by developers who have to reinvent the wheel every time. Consumers don't give a damn what something was written in, and Flash has been one of those technologies consumers have glommed onto en masse. Apple shutting down Flash and comparable frameworks is Apple's fault and nobody else's, and it's bad for everyone.
Developers frequently claim that they know the best tools. Please explain how a this "modern tool" that cannot deal with Apple's touchscreen interface is appropriate for development on iAnything at all. It is impossible to develop a program using flash that requires any real user interaction that is consistent with the standard user interface. It is time to raise the bar.
He sat on the king by "accident".
And tell them its cream filled.
As a freshman I went to my chemistry class six times - first day of class and 5 tests. I got the highest grade in the class of about 300 thanks to having a great teacher in high school (Thank you, Mr Saieed). If I had gone more I would have eventually picked up what the instructor was saying and certainly would have scored much lower. Under this system of monitoring attendance they would undoubtedly conclude that I must have cheated, rather than that the instructor was incompetent and I already knew the material.
Unless the administration can provide compelling reasons why monitoring will benefit students, it should not be done. What is the state going to do when merchants or others start reading the RFIDs and using the information for their own nefarious purposes? Personally I would take it a challenge to screw with the University, clone the tags of mine and several dozen friends, put them in faraday cages and magically appear and disappear all over campus.
Do not confuse laws of science and physics with those ecomonics and other fields. Murphy's Law trumps all others.
being a roadie will either be the worst job in history ... or one of the easiest.
Giving up would be okay. Politicians don't give up; they do the opposite of what they promise.
Not to the right, simply polarized. Hubert Humphrey looks pretty moderate these days too.
Thanks. If Canon, et. al., want their licenses to prevail would they not have to put their license on the outside of the box? It sounds to me that this could be the biggest class action lawsuit ever.
I did not buy my camera to use for commercial purposes, but I certainly did not agree never to use it for such.
If Eli Whitney's cotton gin were still covered by patents, the business model would probably be to license based on the bales of cotton ginned in addition to the fee for each machine - in this way a self contained commune would still have to pay royalties based on how much they used the machine. The value of the cotton ginned would be a poor metric since the user could sell the cotton at a loss, or the cotton could end up in hundred dollar bills. If I chose to put my gin on display in a museum or a gin repair school, would Whitney be able to impose a new previously undisclosed licensing fee based on the revenues of my museum or school?
Photography and movie making are artistic endeavors; the contribution of the codec toward that end is not significant and license fees should not be based on the value of the product, but on the number of frames or length of the film or similar measure. Would anyone think it appropriate for the manufacturer of film or paints to make money from the photographs or paintings created by others? How would the manufacturer deal with collecting on second sale?
Since the consumer is obligated to meet the terms imposed in a license agreement, isn't the manufacturer obligated to disclose the full terms? Failure to disclose fees outside of the original terms strike me as unconscionable, and basing those fees on the commercial value of the end product doubly so.
One question for the lawyers out there. If the license agreement is between Canon and me, and I violate that agreement, how does MPEG-LA have any standing to negotiate with me for fees?
0 to F is 10 numbers. Regardless of the base it is always 10. (10 =1+1 in binary, 10 = 1+7 in octal, 10 = 1+9 in decimal, 10 = 1+F in hexadecimal) The whoosh was deafening as it went over your head.
Take the population of SlashDot regulars, multiply by something between two and ten. That is how many people care about proprietary standards. Most of those will abandon their unwilliness for shiny ^h^h^h^h^h any halfway compelling reason.
I am certain that there are 10 numbers. Don't you love ambiguity?
We (the US) were part of Britain; we fought a war starting in 1776; we won; we took the language as spoils of war. It's ours now.
They didn't tell any parents anything, they told McDonald's. Very Insightful.
Smart Media is not Secure Digital. While 128 MB is a lot more than 1.4 MB, why would one trade one obsolete media for another?