No we haven't - we've simply had 11 years since the warmest year on record. Incidentally, if your statement is true then this one must be too: "we've had more than 9 years of warming".
If you through a ball hard enough STRAIGHT UP then it could escape the Earth's gravity well, if you through it at the right angle (lets say 45 degrees for arguements sake) and at the right speed then you could indeed put that ball into orbit.
Actually you cannot launch a projectile into orbit from the earth's surface without some additional sideways force after release. Throwing any ball will send it into an elliptical orbit around the earth's centre but the length of the minor axis will always be less than the earth's diameter. So the ball released at 45 degrees will at some point hit the earth again, also at an angle of 45 degrees. This of course ignores air friction etc.
It's not ambiguous but it's a lot easier for a human to parse something like the following:
for (node = list->ss; node; node=node->ss);
Another advantage of the latter is that if that section of code is buggy it's clear what the author intended whereas for the original anyone debugging the code will need to consider whether there's a simple 1 character typo e.g.
for (ss=ss->ss; ss; ss=ss->ss);
could also make sense depending on context.
And the source code was used for what exactly? To create a graph perporting to be something else presented to the world? Or perhaps it was one of many analyses used internally as part of an investigation? I've had a look at some of the code and it's not clear - but perhaps you know more?
The raw data you are referring to is tree ring data that is known to be a poor proxy for temperature for certain periods - to me the correction looks like nothing more than trying to plot a best estimate of temperature over timescales where it is known that proxy data is unreliable.
Though I feel the content of the leaked emails, code and data raise enough questions to warrant an investigation (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview), it does seem to me that there are some people who are keen to question the abundant evidence for climate change, but at the same time are perfectly willing to accept very inconclusive evidence to attack the CRU scientists.
Unless my thinking is completely screwed up, I'd think the chance of finding a collision across say 5-6 completely different hash algorithms would be quite slim.
I wouldn't regard it as slim. For a hash equal in length to an SMS (assume 160 characters) and a file size of 20GB, the number of collisions would be approximately (2^20000000000)/(2^1280).
You can be pretty sure quite a few of those would be blu-ray movies!
If you decide to go to Greenwich, try taking the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from near the Tower of London. They use computer-controlled, driverless trains and as it's mainly overground there are great views of Canary Wharf (the UK's financial centre).
It's because the UK's e-crime unit is part of the Metropolitan Police. I guess it doesn't make sense for each police authority to have it's own e-crime unit.
The contest might be trusted, but not wanted by the administrator of the machine.
I agree - this separation is the norm in just about any corporate environment I've come across. There may be good reasons for staggering the roll-out of trusted software within an organization including: user training issues, ensuring compatibility with other software, making sure hardware is up to scratch etc.
This policy change removes the ability of admins to manage the roll-out of software to multiple users.
I find it difficult to believe that people can take something like this so seriously to the point they will end their lives. If these people do exist it's very sad that there are people out there who have no way of evaluating information to decide what's real or not. It must make their lives very difficult.
Most of the solar radiation we collect will eventually end up as heat anyway - it's just that we'll use it to do something useful before it ends up as heat.
Though I don't disagree with the gist of what you are saying, the same could be said of any type of ownership. For example ownership of land is really just ownership of certain rights to use that land within a legal framework and in most countries those rights are limited, otherwise it would not be possible to force the compulsory purchase of land.
Like copyright, ownership of physical property and goods has no real meaning outside of a legal framework. The difference as I see it is that the legal framework regarding physical goods is one that the majority of people feel generally comfortable with, but even then there are still arguments about how long these rights should exist (e.g. the arguments for and against inheritance/estate taxes).
It's not the particular mathemetical formulae that are important but the fact that very complex structures can be created from very simple formulae. Our understanding of computer-generated fractals in the last 20 years or so has given science an insight into how common fractals are in nature. It's not coincidental that fractal images such as these often remind us of structures we see in nature.
Of course it's for Adobe to fix. Flash has no business trying to execute content that the web server has said is image/gif or image/jpeg. It's similar to if a server sends out do_bad_stuff.c with a content type of text/plain - it's the client's problem if this gets compiled and run.
Though it may be good practice to scan through every file uploaded to a server, a web server should be able to rely on clients to correctly use the MIME type sent with the content.
However, you don't normally run a Flash object by clicking on a link to it. When you link to/embed an external resource within HTML, you can specify the content-type within the HTML. Think <link rel="stylesheet" href="..." type="text/css"> for including a stylesheet. This tells the browser not just where it is, but also what it is. This effectively overrides whatever content-type the server sends. It's very often used with <object> or <embed> tags to give the browser an idea of what the object is so it knows whether or not it can handle it before it requests it. It also enables you to put content on servers which don't have a mime-type configured for that file extension and still have them work.
If Flash is using the type attribute to override the content type returned by the server then it's broken:
Also the real purpose of the attribute is to prevent unnecessary downloads of content that user agents may not support, not to indicate how content should be processed after it's downloaded.
A 15A device only draws 15A current, even in a 30A socket. A 30A socket just has thicker wires and a bigger fuse than a 15A socket, so there isn't a problem.
This situation is not a good example of rehabilitation being seen as more important than punishment - in fact it's the opposite.
This person could be expected to take longer to rehabilitate than average so the sentence should be longer if that was the overriding concern. It's looking at criminal acts in terms of morality that leads to reduced sentences like this.
If we just look at empirical facts, the probability of finding life twice in the same solar system is not huge.
I'm interested as to how you come up with this conclusion - what are the facts that indicate a low probability?
As far as I am aware we know very little about abiogenesis - all we have are a few models describing how life might have started and until we know more, how can we say whether the probability of life on Mars at some point is low or high?
The reason we care about whether life existed on Mars is that it might tell us a bit more about how life started on Earth. There's really so little we know about conditions on Mars round about the time life started on Earth but it might be reasonable to assume there were some similarities - certainly there is strong evidence of significant amounts of water at some time.
Unless you think that the creation of life was a magical and/or incredibly unlikely event on Earth, there are good reasons for thinking that finding life on Mars might not be so unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
But we have had more than 10 years of cooling.
No we haven't - we've simply had 11 years since the warmest year on record. Incidentally, if your statement is true then this one must be too: "we've had more than 9 years of warming".
These graphs show why some are so keen to use 1998 as a starting point to demonstrate (incorrectly) that global temperatures are decreasing: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14527/dn14527-4_629.jpg
If you through a ball hard enough STRAIGHT UP then it could escape the Earth's gravity well, if you through it at the right angle (lets say 45 degrees for arguements sake) and at the right speed then you could indeed put that ball into orbit.
Actually you cannot launch a projectile into orbit from the earth's surface without some additional sideways force after release. Throwing any ball will send it into an elliptical orbit around the earth's centre but the length of the minor axis will always be less than the earth's diameter. So the ball released at 45 degrees will at some point hit the earth again, also at an angle of 45 degrees. This of course ignores air friction etc.
As this summary has been tagged with 'science' I'd expect scientific terms to be used.
Are these mirrors actually liquid at room temperature, or perhaps the submitter meant 'cool' rather than 'freeze'?
It's not ambiguous but it's a lot easier for a human to parse something like the following:
for (node = list->ss; node; node=node->ss);
Another advantage of the latter is that if that section of code is buggy it's clear what the author intended whereas for the original anyone debugging the code will need to consider whether there's a simple 1 character typo e.g.
for (ss=ss->ss; ss; ss=ss->ss); could also make sense depending on context.
Why make it more difficult than it needs to be?
And the source code was used for what exactly? To create a graph perporting to be something else presented to the world? Or perhaps it was one of many analyses used internally as part of an investigation? I've had a look at some of the code and it's not clear - but perhaps you know more?
The raw data you are referring to is tree ring data that is known to be a poor proxy for temperature for certain periods - to me the correction looks like nothing more than trying to plot a best estimate of temperature over timescales where it is known that proxy data is unreliable.
Though I feel the content of the leaked emails, code and data raise enough questions to warrant an investigation (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview), it does seem to me that there are some people who are keen to question the abundant evidence for climate change, but at the same time are perfectly willing to accept very inconclusive evidence to attack the CRU scientists.
Electricity and Heat are two very different things
True, but I'd have to say that electricity, and your understanding of electricity, are also two very different things.
Unless my thinking is completely screwed up, I'd think the chance of finding a collision across say 5-6 completely different hash algorithms would be quite slim.
I wouldn't regard it as slim. For a hash equal in length to an SMS (assume 160 characters) and a file size of 20GB, the number of collisions would be approximately (2^20000000000)/(2^1280). You can be pretty sure quite a few of those would be blu-ray movies!
According to Wikipedia that's equivalent to the kinetic energy of 7 flying mosquitoes.
In the UK we've gone over to the metric system - how many wasps is this?
I'd think a lot of kids would just click on a dolphin icon just because this represents something "good".
Shouldn't the icon be something that the average kid knows to be representative of "bad"? Like spinach or something?
If you decide to go to Greenwich, try taking the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from near the Tower of London. They use computer-controlled, driverless trains and as it's mainly overground there are great views of Canary Wharf (the UK's financial centre).
The Docklands Light Railway, London, UK
It's because the UK's e-crime unit is part of the Metropolitan Police. I guess it doesn't make sense for each police authority to have it's own e-crime unit.
PCeU - Police Central e-crime Unit
This is someone's workstation or netbook, not a Vax in 1985 with 120 users on it.
But that workstation or netbook might be behind a corporate firewall on a network with 120 other users.
The contest might be trusted, but not wanted by the administrator of the machine.
I agree - this separation is the norm in just about any corporate environment I've come across. There may be good reasons for staggering the roll-out of trusted software within an organization including: user training issues, ensuring compatibility with other software, making sure hardware is up to scratch etc.
This policy change removes the ability of admins to manage the roll-out of software to multiple users.
The recoil doesn't have the same energy, but it will have the same momentum.
I find it difficult to believe that people can take something like this so seriously to the point they will end their lives. If these people do exist it's very sad that there are people out there who have no way of evaluating information to decide what's real or not. It must make their lives very difficult.
Most of the solar radiation we collect will eventually end up as heat anyway - it's just that we'll use it to do something useful before it ends up as heat.
Though I don't disagree with the gist of what you are saying, the same could be said of any type of ownership. For example ownership of land is really just ownership of certain rights to use that land within a legal framework and in most countries those rights are limited, otherwise it would not be possible to force the compulsory purchase of land.
Like copyright, ownership of physical property and goods has no real meaning outside of a legal framework. The difference as I see it is that the legal framework regarding physical goods is one that the majority of people feel generally comfortable with, but even then there are still arguments about how long these rights should exist (e.g. the arguments for and against inheritance/estate taxes).
It's not the particular mathemetical formulae that are important but the fact that very complex structures can be created from very simple formulae. Our understanding of computer-generated fractals in the last 20 years or so has given science an insight into how common fractals are in nature. It's not coincidental that fractal images such as these often remind us of structures we see in nature.
Of course it's for Adobe to fix. Flash has no business trying to execute content that the web server has said is image/gif or image/jpeg. It's similar to if a server sends out do_bad_stuff.c with a content type of text/plain - it's the client's problem if this gets compiled and run.
Though it may be good practice to scan through every file uploaded to a server, a web server should be able to rely on clients to correctly use the MIME type sent with the content.
This isn't the way these tags are supposed to work - see my earlier post.
However, you don't normally run a Flash object by clicking on a link to it. When you link to/embed an external resource within HTML, you can specify the content-type within the HTML. Think <link rel="stylesheet" href="..." type="text/css"> for including a stylesheet. This tells the browser not just where it is, but also what it is. This effectively overrides whatever content-type the server sends. It's very often used with <object> or <embed> tags to give the browser an idea of what the object is so it knows whether or not it can handle it before it requests it. It also enables you to put content on servers which don't have a mime-type configured for that file extension and still have them work.
If Flash is using the type attribute to override the content type returned by the server then it's broken:
"If the value of this attribute differs from the HTTP Content-Type returned by the server when the object is retrieved, the HTTP Content-Type takes precedence." from http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-type-OBJECT
Also the real purpose of the attribute is to prevent unnecessary downloads of content that user agents may not support, not to indicate how content should be processed after it's downloaded.
I think your equation's wrong. It should be:
random mutation + natural selection = something that appears to be designed to some people
A 15A device only draws 15A current, even in a 30A socket. A 30A socket just has thicker wires and a bigger fuse than a 15A socket, so there isn't a problem.
This situation is not a good example of rehabilitation being seen as more important than punishment - in fact it's the opposite.
This person could be expected to take longer to rehabilitate than average so the sentence should be longer if that was the overriding concern. It's looking at criminal acts in terms of morality that leads to reduced sentences like this.
If we just look at empirical facts, the probability of finding life twice in the same solar system is not huge.
I'm interested as to how you come up with this conclusion - what are the facts that indicate a low probability?
As far as I am aware we know very little about abiogenesis - all we have are a few models describing how life might have started and until we know more, how can we say whether the probability of life on Mars at some point is low or high?
The reason we care about whether life existed on Mars is that it might tell us a bit more about how life started on Earth. There's really so little we know about conditions on Mars round about the time life started on Earth but it might be reasonable to assume there were some similarities - certainly there is strong evidence of significant amounts of water at some time.
Unless you think that the creation of life was a magical and/or incredibly unlikely event on Earth, there are good reasons for thinking that finding life on Mars might not be so unlikely.