Well the initial mistake here wasn't that hard to make, I've seen it happen all the time. Once I had an on-site interview with a certain large engineering firm who works primarily as a defense contractor (though I'm assuming the guys who work on calibrating missiles are not the same ones who typed these forms), and at the end we were asked to fill out forms to get reimbursed for our travel expenses. On the form, it listed the cost they would pay per mile you traveled, and the value was listed as a fraction of a cent instead of a fraction of a dollar. Of course they recognized the problem immeadiently and fixed it and we ended up getting reimbursed with a rate at a fraction of a dollar. So the problem here is that at least 4 customer service reps (the three on the phone and the one whose email is in his blog) can't see how that is a mistake.
I'm listening to it right now, and he (the Verizon guy) just said.002 cents per kilobyte. "Sents per kilobyte" doesn't make any sense. Plus he has asked several times "dollars or cents". Its possible they initially meant "sent" instead of "cent" and then just got confused, though that still wouldn't make a whole lot of sense (I almost wrote 'cents') since don't these plans usually also charge you for data received?
Someone brought a copy of that in when I was taking "Intro to Computer Science" in high school. We had a good laugh, and from then on just blamed Stroustrup whenever something went wrong with our program.
If thats the game I think it is (and after a few minutes on Google, I'm pretty sure it is), I'm almost tempted to go out and buy a game boy advance just to play the re-release. We didn't own a copy of it, but one of our friends did and he brought it over all the time.
A couple of years ago I got a NES emulater and got addicted to the origional Mario Bros for a while. Then it was Contra. Then it was The Legend of Zelda. Then it was Tecmo Super Bowl (the best part was playing the Chiefs and running with Christian Okoye). Then it was Mario 3. Then I deleted the whole thing because it was distracting me from my school work.
These are the same games that entertained us for so long when we were kids, why would they cease to be fun now? Just because you have now seen nicer graphics on modern game systems, now you can't enjoy the simple fun of those old games?
"CNN is reporting on a study that shows that not only did Americans buy more fuel efficient vehicles in 2005 (although sadly this trend reversed itself in the later half of 2006)"
Where is this number coming from? The only mention in the article of 2006 is
Sales of vehicles with lower gas mileage "have begun to slump, with monthly, seasonally adjusted sales reportedly declining nine of the 12 months ending September 2006," CERA said. "Weakness is most pronounced for the heavier class of SUVs."
which seems to indicate that the trend continued (at least until 3 months ago).
"Really? Just what percentage of people in VA or MD live within walking distance of a metro?"
Very few due to the fact that VA and MD are large states of which just a small corner can even be considered within the DC metropolitan area (you might want to lose the idea that all either state consists of are Washington suburbs, especially if you ever visit southern VA or the Baltimore metro). Regardless, there are apartments in both states that are close to the metro, so if walking to the subway was your largest concern you could find a place to live in either state.
Uh, I am from the area, and I know of plenty of people in areas like Arlington who rarely drive anywhere (of course Arlington used to be part of the district until they joined the Commonwealth, so it might as well be part of the city). There is nothing 'unsustainable' about living in Virginia (or Maryland for that matter).
Just calc seems a little lacking in terms of a cs education. No set theory, linear algebra, numerical methods, algorithm analysis, vector geometry, or discrete math? Are you sure there are no other math electives you have to choose from, or math classes offered by the CS department you have to take?
Maybe I should just be happy that I attended one of the apparently few universities that respected mathematics...
I can tell you at my university (Virginia Tech), we were required to take DiffEQ. In fact, you get a free Math minor when you major in CS. I ended up moving that up to a second major without many extra classes. Granted they have moved things around in the past few years when they split up the college of arts and sciences and moved CS to the school of engineering, but I just checked their curriculum and all the math is still required.
Most people I've heard from who work at EA like their jobs. There are plenty of jobs out there that require one to work more hours for less pay than an EA developer. Yes, an occasional spouse may write an angry letter or two (but $5 say the husband was really not working that long and just getting some action on the side), but if you are passionate about developing video games, its probably a great place to be. Granted I'm not sure how you can be passionate about something as meaningless as developing a video game, but thats just me.
Yes, thats true if you are looking for a job within the gaming industry. But he was asking about jobs outside the game industry and in that case, you absolutely do not want a degree that just says "I got into this field because I like video games, and I'm going to leave your boring company as soon as I get an offer from EA".
"Well, of course they do. In general the agenda of scientists is to do science, while the agenda of politicans is to do politics. Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that scientists themselves are unswayed by political sentiments, and would never support one side for political and not scientific reasons."
The people throwing around the exaggerated comments about the certainty of global warming are not usually the climatologists (in fact their wordings are usually that it is a threat, not a certainty). Its the media and politicians who misread (or more likely don't read at all) the reports to say what they want them to say. Not too many outside of the worlds of politics and the media are arguing things like 'global warming (at least in the form of human produced greenhouse gases) is a certainty' or 'global warming can never happen'. Most people are merely either arguing that it is a very real threat, or expressing skeptisim on the conclusions that are being drawn. But of course neither the media nor policians can accept such shades of gray.
And I wouldn't go as far as saying people are being motivated to lie about the issue. Most people honestly believe what they are saying. They just have different interpretations of the facts.
"The only thing I described as a "verifiable fact" is the claim that "significant amounts of Antarctic ice that have never been thawed in recorded human history are now gone". At the same time I provided a link to a BBC article describing particular patches of ice that are gone."
How are you defining 'significant'? The sections that are melting are tiny compared to the area increasing. Yes, some ice is melting while other ice is growing. Thats how its been on this planet for billions of years.
"You'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced without being provided with compelling evidence (or any evidence at all). This is not to say I'm confident that the Gulf Stream will stop: at this point I am skeptical of most universal claims on this subject (but especially those of people with an agenda to push, like most of those who claim it's not happening)."
Yeah, because those who claim that it is happening never have an agenda...
"You have not demonstrated any evidence that this part which is growing is substantially larger than the portions which have thawed."
Uh, want to check a map? Eastern Antarctica (also known as Greater Antarctica, roughly the part east of the Transantarctic mountains) is much bigger. Yes, its possible that little detail was not in the link I gave you, as I have read other source on the subject.
"in any case, because weather is a chaotic system, it's entirely possible that a rise in global mean temperature could cause ice quantities to grow someplace"
Yes, in fact many argue that the rate of which the eastern sheet grows will increase should human induced climate change cause massive shifts in the Earth's climate (more precipitation down South). This is why your argument that Antarctica is melting is rarely used these days. Because your "verifiable fact" is not only false, but would disprove most climate models. I was not arguing that climate change is impossible (even though that is what many people interpret any argument that goes against their almost religious convictions on the subject), but rather that your interpretation of the facts is incorrect.
"just as some people are predicting that the net effect of global warming will be the cooling of Europe though the collapse of the Gulf Stream"
Don't believe everything you hear in Hollywood movies. That argument has pretty much been refuted. Any change caused by the collapse of the Gulf Stream would be minor and likely offset by the warming that caused it in the first place.
"All it means is that the chunks of ice breaking off are bigger so survive longer, and that the ocean currents are in the right direction to bring them to New Zealand. If there were lots of them for a sustained period, it might cause local cooling in the area, but otherwise the local temperature isn't all that relevant."
Hmm, I guess the disclaimer didn't work, people do think this was caused by global warming (despite the fact that the phenomenon is common enough to have happened decades ago).
Yes, global warming can cause many different diverse effects in the world. However, that doesn't mean that every phenomenon we see in nature was caused by global warming.
"New Zealand's latitude is roughly the same as the South of France, Spain and into Morocco, to put it into perspective for people in the Northern Hemisphere (though Europe is in a warm current, so the equivalent latitude in East Coast US might be a better indicator of ocean temperature - probably centered somewhere around Washington DC I think)."
More like Maine. But you need to check your current maps again, the East coast is also in a warm current. So a better comparision would end up being off the coast of Washington State, not DC. And if there was a source of ice as big as Antarctica in the North Pacific, they may well see icebergs near their coast every couple of decades.
It happened decades ago, which means it isn't that rare at all. Yes, global warming could have many diverse effects on the climate around the world (in fact, one would be that the ice in Antartica would increase rather than decrease due to increased precipitation), but it still shouldn't be the default explanation for any weather-related phenomenon.
Yes, I was referring to the regional climate that must have gotten cooler if icebergs are making it much further north than would normally be expected.
"Oh, for God's sake. It's a verifiable fact that significant amounts of Antarctic ice that have never been thawed in recorded human history are now gone. See for example this article"
Thats a small part of the Antarctic ice sheet. The East Antarctic sheet is actually growing.
"Though if you seriously think every person complaining about global warming is too stupid to know when it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere, then I don't think it's worth expending much effort talking to you."
No, not every person. Most do understand the complexities of the planet's climate. However, some do not. If their first reaction to hearing about icebergs in the region was to think it must be global warming, then they probably do not understand how the seasons work.
"It's pretty clear that the author does not imply that this would have anything to do with global warming. "
Yes, I was mocking the need for that comment.
"My point is that it is possible global warming could have caused this and should not be ruled out"
So you are going to go through life assuming anything unusual having to do with weather was caused by global warming? Thats not a very scientific approach.
"I know you were sarcastic, but you used it to insult those who are worried about global warming. Why should I not strike back?"
Actually, I was mocking the submitters of the article.
Haha, my apologies, that wasn't very clear, at least not if you fail to read the previous remark (and since this is/., you cannot count on anyone to take anything in context). I'll rephrase. I don't know if New Zealand is far north enough for it to be rare that one wouldn't expect icebergs to make it that far, but if it is, wouldn't that mean that the climate would have had to get cooler in order for the ice to make it that far?
Slashdot Mirror
Well the initial mistake here wasn't that hard to make, I've seen it happen all the time. Once I had an on-site interview with a certain large engineering firm who works primarily as a defense contractor (though I'm assuming the guys who work on calibrating missiles are not the same ones who typed these forms), and at the end we were asked to fill out forms to get reimbursed for our travel expenses. On the form, it listed the cost they would pay per mile you traveled, and the value was listed as a fraction of a cent instead of a fraction of a dollar. Of course they recognized the problem immeadiently and fixed it and we ended up getting reimbursed with a rate at a fraction of a dollar. So the problem here is that at least 4 customer service reps (the three on the phone and the one whose email is in his blog) can't see how that is a mistake.
I'm listening to it right now, and he (the Verizon guy) just said .002 cents per kilobyte. "Sents per kilobyte" doesn't make any sense. Plus he has asked several times "dollars or cents". Its possible they initially meant "sent" instead of "cent" and then just got confused, though that still wouldn't make a whole lot of sense (I almost wrote 'cents') since don't these plans usually also charge you for data received?
Someone brought a copy of that in when I was taking "Intro to Computer Science" in high school. We had a good laugh, and from then on just blamed Stroustrup whenever something went wrong with our program.
If thats the game I think it is (and after a few minutes on Google, I'm pretty sure it is), I'm almost tempted to go out and buy a game boy advance just to play the re-release. We didn't own a copy of it, but one of our friends did and he brought it over all the time.
A couple of years ago I got a NES emulater and got addicted to the origional Mario Bros for a while. Then it was Contra. Then it was The Legend of Zelda. Then it was Tecmo Super Bowl (the best part was playing the Chiefs and running with Christian Okoye). Then it was Mario 3. Then I deleted the whole thing because it was distracting me from my school work.
These are the same games that entertained us for so long when we were kids, why would they cease to be fun now? Just because you have now seen nicer graphics on modern game systems, now you can't enjoy the simple fun of those old games?
"CNN is reporting on a study that shows that not only did Americans buy more fuel efficient vehicles in 2005 (although sadly this trend reversed itself in the later half of 2006)"
Where is this number coming from? The only mention in the article of 2006 is
which seems to indicate that the trend continued (at least until 3 months ago).And my point is that the idea that you can live in Virginia or Maryland instead (which would end up solving your problem) is not "unsustainable".
"Really? Just what percentage of people in VA or MD live within walking distance of a metro?"
Very few due to the fact that VA and MD are large states of which just a small corner can even be considered within the DC metropolitan area (you might want to lose the idea that all either state consists of are Washington suburbs, especially if you ever visit southern VA or the Baltimore metro). Regardless, there are apartments in both states that are close to the metro, so if walking to the subway was your largest concern you could find a place to live in either state.
Uh, I am from the area, and I know of plenty of people in areas like Arlington who rarely drive anywhere (of course Arlington used to be part of the district until they joined the Commonwealth, so it might as well be part of the city). There is nothing 'unsustainable' about living in Virginia (or Maryland for that matter).
Did someone misread the month and think this story is about something that happens Novemeber 23, or tomorrow?
Just calc seems a little lacking in terms of a cs education. No set theory, linear algebra, numerical methods, algorithm analysis, vector geometry, or discrete math? Are you sure there are no other math electives you have to choose from, or math classes offered by the CS department you have to take?
Maybe I should just be happy that I attended one of the apparently few universities that respected mathematics...
I can tell you at my university (Virginia Tech), we were required to take DiffEQ. In fact, you get a free Math minor when you major in CS. I ended up moving that up to a second major without many extra classes. Granted they have moved things around in the past few years when they split up the college of arts and sciences and moved CS to the school of engineering, but I just checked their curriculum and all the math is still required.
Most people I've heard from who work at EA like their jobs. There are plenty of jobs out there that require one to work more hours for less pay than an EA developer. Yes, an occasional spouse may write an angry letter or two (but $5 say the husband was really not working that long and just getting some action on the side), but if you are passionate about developing video games, its probably a great place to be. Granted I'm not sure how you can be passionate about something as meaningless as developing a video game, but thats just me.
Yes, thats true if you are looking for a job within the gaming industry. But he was asking about jobs outside the game industry and in that case, you absolutely do not want a degree that just says "I got into this field because I like video games, and I'm going to leave your boring company as soon as I get an offer from EA".
"Well, of course they do. In general the agenda of scientists is to do science, while the agenda of politicans is to do politics. Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that scientists themselves are unswayed by political sentiments, and would never support one side for political and not scientific reasons."
The people throwing around the exaggerated comments about the certainty of global warming are not usually the climatologists (in fact their wordings are usually that it is a threat, not a certainty). Its the media and politicians who misread (or more likely don't read at all) the reports to say what they want them to say. Not too many outside of the worlds of politics and the media are arguing things like 'global warming (at least in the form of human produced greenhouse gases) is a certainty' or 'global warming can never happen'. Most people are merely either arguing that it is a very real threat, or expressing skeptisim on the conclusions that are being drawn. But of course neither the media nor policians can accept such shades of gray.
And I wouldn't go as far as saying people are being motivated to lie about the issue. Most people honestly believe what they are saying. They just have different interpretations of the facts.
"The only thing I described as a "verifiable fact" is the claim that "significant amounts of Antarctic ice that have never been thawed in recorded human history are now gone". At the same time I provided a link to a BBC article describing particular patches of ice that are gone."
How are you defining 'significant'? The sections that are melting are tiny compared to the area increasing. Yes, some ice is melting while other ice is growing. Thats how its been on this planet for billions of years.
"You'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced without being provided with compelling evidence (or any evidence at all). This is not to say I'm confident that the Gulf Stream will stop: at this point I am skeptical of most universal claims on this subject (but especially those of people with an agenda to push, like most of those who claim it's not happening)."
Yeah, because those who claim that it is happening never have an agenda...
Here is the article.
"You have not demonstrated any evidence that this part which is growing is substantially larger than the portions which have thawed."
Uh, want to check a map? Eastern Antarctica (also known as Greater Antarctica, roughly the part east of the Transantarctic mountains) is much bigger. Yes, its possible that little detail was not in the link I gave you, as I have read other source on the subject.
"in any case, because weather is a chaotic system, it's entirely possible that a rise in global mean temperature could cause ice quantities to grow someplace"
Yes, in fact many argue that the rate of which the eastern sheet grows will increase should human induced climate change cause massive shifts in the Earth's climate (more precipitation down South). This is why your argument that Antarctica is melting is rarely used these days. Because your "verifiable fact" is not only false, but would disprove most climate models. I was not arguing that climate change is impossible (even though that is what many people interpret any argument that goes against their almost religious convictions on the subject), but rather that your interpretation of the facts is incorrect.
"just as some people are predicting that the net effect of global warming will be the cooling of Europe though the collapse of the Gulf Stream"
Don't believe everything you hear in Hollywood movies. That argument has pretty much been refuted. Any change caused by the collapse of the Gulf Stream would be minor and likely offset by the warming that caused it in the first place.
"All it means is that the chunks of ice breaking off are bigger so survive longer, and that the ocean currents are in the right direction to bring them to New Zealand. If there were lots of them for a sustained period, it might cause local cooling in the area, but otherwise the local temperature isn't all that relevant."
Hmm, I guess the disclaimer didn't work, people do think this was caused by global warming (despite the fact that the phenomenon is common enough to have happened decades ago).
Yes, global warming can cause many different diverse effects in the world. However, that doesn't mean that every phenomenon we see in nature was caused by global warming.
"New Zealand's latitude is roughly the same as the South of France, Spain and into Morocco, to put it into perspective for people in the Northern Hemisphere (though Europe is in a warm current, so the equivalent latitude in East Coast US might be a better indicator of ocean temperature - probably centered somewhere around Washington DC I think)."
More like Maine. But you need to check your current maps again, the East coast is also in a warm current. So a better comparision would end up being off the coast of Washington State, not DC. And if there was a source of ice as big as Antarctica in the North Pacific, they may well see icebergs near their coast every couple of decades.
It happened decades ago, which means it isn't that rare at all. Yes, global warming could have many diverse effects on the climate around the world (in fact, one would be that the ice in Antartica would increase rather than decrease due to increased precipitation), but it still shouldn't be the default explanation for any weather-related phenomenon.
Yes, I was referring to the regional climate that must have gotten cooler if icebergs are making it much further north than would normally be expected.
"Oh, for God's sake. It's a verifiable fact that significant amounts of Antarctic ice that have never been thawed in recorded human history are now gone. See for example this article"
Thats a small part of the Antarctic ice sheet. The East Antarctic sheet is actually growing.
"Though if you seriously think every person complaining about global warming is too stupid to know when it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere, then I don't think it's worth expending much effort talking to you."
No, not every person. Most do understand the complexities of the planet's climate. However, some do not. If their first reaction to hearing about icebergs in the region was to think it must be global warming, then they probably do not understand how the seasons work.
"It's pretty clear that the author does not imply that this would have anything to do with global warming. "
Yes, I was mocking the need for that comment.
"My point is that it is possible global warming could have caused this and should not be ruled out"
So you are going to go through life assuming anything unusual having to do with weather was caused by global warming? Thats not a very scientific approach.
"I know you were sarcastic, but you used it to insult those who are worried about global warming. Why should I not strike back?"
Actually, I was mocking the submitters of the article.
More like John Kerry. It referred to the climate whose temperature would have had to gone down for icebergs to last that far north, not New Zealand.
Haha, my apologies, that wasn't very clear, at least not if you fail to read the previous remark (and since this is /., you cannot count on anyone to take anything in context). I'll rephrase. I don't know if New Zealand is far north enough for it to be rare that one wouldn't expect icebergs to make it that far, but if it is, wouldn't that mean that the climate would have had to get cooler in order for the ice to make it that far?
Don't know that New Zealand is that far north, but if it is, wouldn't that mean it must be cooler?