Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
Now, tell me how human activity is modifying our climate change from normal conditions.
While they speculate that humans have had an impact on the climate, no where in the article does it state that humans are the cause, or even the major contributor, to the increase in greenhouse gasses.
This article only states that 928 scientists think the increase in greehouse gasses are to blame for climate change. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's great and all, but it just proves the point that the models aren't working reliably. Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate? Or is the model based off of incorrect data and assumptions?
Let's get to the point where we can reproduce past climate events based on the data we have, then start making predictions.
If we have no way of knowing if we are making it worse, how do you measure the amount we can make it better?
We KNOW we are 100% capable of completely destroying nearly all life on this planet. The goal should be to find a balance between humans and the rest of the environment.
Sounds like you have connections to info that might persuade me to rethink my position. Please shoot some links into this thread for a reply, even if they aren't URLs.
I never said that we should ignore all this and just go about our business. Not once.
I did mention that I do conserve, and encourage others to do the same. I used to work with atmospheric research scientists, and while they all had differing opinions about "global warming", none of them would even think of giving up their SUVs (and I did ask, "Why not lead by example if you believe in your research?").
I am 100% for the improvement of our current climate models. Just because we don't know 100% what's going on with our planet, doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to see where we're going.
If there were no humans, the planet would still get warm, then cold, and back. Meteors would still slam into us occasionally, volcanoes would still blow up every once in a while.
If humans hadn't pumped tons of CO2 into the atmo, would we already be well into the beginning of another ice age? Can any model tell us that answer?
I used to work with some research scientists who did nothing but atmospheric research. I didn't see any of them giving up their SUVs.
Exactly. I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before. We've also had glaciers down to the Ohio River (in the USA) before too. Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda. My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause. It's all politics, FUD, and money at the moment.
I used to support a small research company (30+ employees), and we only had one Windows system in the entire building for situations like this. Didn't take too much to maintain.
I can see how it would affect smaller research groups, or individuals doing research (why spend money on a system you won't use for actual research?). I think it's a dumb move to require a Windows system to deal with government issued grants and funding.
Maybe someone should get a grant to fix this system, so it's open to all?;-)
If you had to pick one single aspect that separates a "smart phone" from a "phone", the best indicator would probably be the ability to run arbitary software. Smart phones can do it: Treo, Symbian, WindowsCEPocketLiteWhatever, and various Japanese ones can all run user-installed software. Dumb phones can't; they just run a closed OS and usually just run that same software until the user throws away the phone and gets a new one.
Running Java apps isn't the same as installing software under the PDA OS on a smart phone. You don't need network access to run stuff on a Treo, you would on a dumb phone.
The difference between shelling out $600 for an iPhone and $600 for a super iPod is you don't have to keep shelling out $80+ a month for an iPod.
This is NOT going to sell nearly as well as the iPod. Not even close. It's a cripped phone from the factory, which is 100x worse than what you normally get from Cingular or Verizon in the US (at least you can FIND unlocked phones for those carriers, even if you have to pay full retail).
I don't think ALL of the US carriers are scared of a device like the iPhone. I have a Treo 700p through Verizon, and have every capability the iPhone has plus a hell of a lot more (Documents2Go, AIM client, SSH client, a handful of games) simply because I can install third party applications. It's also on one hell of a fast data network (EVDO) with excellent fallback capabilities (1X and 14.4K).
The specs of the phone don't make sense for a brand new, top of the line, GSM phone. It's worthless outside of the USA. The camera isn't anything special, no 3G for Europe.
This is an expensive consumer oriented device, and definately not a business ready gadget. It has zero advantages over the Motorola Q, which sells for 1/5th the price. Apple is not going to see the number of people they had hoped buy this phone, it's just too expensive up front and over time with the required contract for the everyday user, IMHO.
In the case of the MS Home Server, it will (supposedly, according to the interview I saw about Home Server) automatically configure your UPnP router to allow direct access to the system from the internet. With that, I don't think you can immediately rule out viruses or worms. Even if you block off the 'net, what about when your desktop gets nailed by a virus or worm?
You will be able to install applications/services, so you can still build up cruft.
Given MS's track record, I'm not convinced this product will really stand up to the use (or abuse) the average consumer is capable of throwing at it.
If he really meant 50kW, then solar power is totally out of the picture.
It'd take up a hell of a lot of land area to set up, and have to be trucked in on several flatbed semis.
If it really is 50W, then one or two good sized panels should do it. Still way more expensive than a gas generator, and much more impractical for short term use.
I drive 130+ miles a day for work, five days a week. All of my relatives are out of state. This car is PERFECT for me.
What's kinda funny is if the specs don't change and this car is produced as is (yeah, I know, quite a stretch), it really is a perfect set up for my situation: Run the batteries down while on the highway (40 miles), and by the time I've reached the office (the last 25 miles), the engine has just finished (or came close to) topping off the batteries for my trip home.
I would LOVE to see exactly this type of car produced.
Rather than amend the Clean Air Act to give Diesels a fighting chance, we defer to gas hogs and sophisticated catalysts.
Eh? You are unaware of the new diesel engine and fuel regulations here in the USA, I take it? We're getting much cleaner fuel, which should mean it will be easier to import those sweet European diesel powered vehicles. The only question is whether the European cars will be able to pass our safety requirements.
The EPA is also switching the way they rate vehicles fuel economy, which means we'll get betters numbers for MPG figures on newer vehicles.
And, sophisticated catalysts aren't necessarily a bad thing if it means less harmful emissions from the vehicle.
Your rant isn't nearly as informed as it could be, and I get the sense that you really don't know much about the industry.
I do not want to hear about global warming as the cause of all the melting ice in Greenland if we're going over there and effectively microwaving the place to get pretty pictures of what's underneath.
In all seriousness, you're right on the money. I'm in one of those families with the minivan (21-25mpg) and the compact car (35-40mpg).
There are plenty of SUVs that get good mileage for what they are, and even more luxury cars that get absolute crap for fuel economy. I know a guy at work with an Audi A8 that gets worse fuel economy than my parents' Chevy Suburban LT 4x4.
That's exactly the problem these days. Not enough people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve liberty, and too many willing to just throw away our rights so they can be comfortable or find some bit of convenience.
I've used a Sensaphone in the past for a small data center, and it worked great. Never went down, never had problems, never had a false alarm. They've been around for a very long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, tell me how human activity is modifying our climate change from normal conditions.
While they speculate that humans have had an impact on the climate, no where in the article does it state that humans are the cause, or even the major contributor, to the increase in greenhouse gasses.
This article only states that 928 scientists think the increase in greehouse gasses are to blame for climate change. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's great and all, but it just proves the point that the models aren't working reliably. Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate? Or is the model based off of incorrect data and assumptions?
Let's get to the point where we can reproduce past climate events based on the data we have, then start making predictions.
Sorry if I'm being too realistic.
And you think I'm missing some kind of point?
If we have no way of knowing if we are making it worse, how do you measure the amount we can make it better?
We KNOW we are 100% capable of completely destroying nearly all life on this planet. The goal should be to find a balance between humans and the rest of the environment.
Sounds like you have connections to info that might persuade me to rethink my position. Please shoot some links into this thread for a reply, even if they aren't URLs.
I never said that we should ignore all this and just go about our business. Not once.
I did mention that I do conserve, and encourage others to do the same. I used to work with atmospheric research scientists, and while they all had differing opinions about "global warming", none of them would even think of giving up their SUVs (and I did ask, "Why not lead by example if you believe in your research?").
I am 100% for the improvement of our current climate models. Just because we don't know 100% what's going on with our planet, doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to see where we're going.
If there were no humans, the planet would still get warm, then cold, and back. Meteors would still slam into us occasionally, volcanoes would still blow up every once in a while.
If humans hadn't pumped tons of CO2 into the atmo, would we already be well into the beginning of another ice age? Can any model tell us that answer?
I used to work with some research scientists who did nothing but atmospheric research. I didn't see any of them giving up their SUVs.
Exactly. I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before. We've also had glaciers down to the Ohio River (in the USA) before too. Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda. My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause. It's all politics, FUD, and money at the moment.
I used to support a small research company (30+ employees), and we only had one Windows system in the entire building for situations like this. Didn't take too much to maintain.
;-)
I can see how it would affect smaller research groups, or individuals doing research (why spend money on a system you won't use for actual research?). I think it's a dumb move to require a Windows system to deal with government issued grants and funding.
Maybe someone should get a grant to fix this system, so it's open to all?
Ah... I thought you were referring to your quote at the end. I see where the issue is now. My bad. :-)
Running Java apps isn't the same as installing software under the PDA OS on a smart phone. You don't need network access to run stuff on a Treo, you would on a dumb phone.
Eh? Weren't you correct in your original post?
I don't see where he did call the RAZR a smart phone. It's a dumb phone, just like the iPhone.
The difference between shelling out $600 for an iPhone and $600 for a super iPod is you don't have to keep shelling out $80+ a month for an iPod.
This is NOT going to sell nearly as well as the iPod. Not even close. It's a cripped phone from the factory, which is 100x worse than what you normally get from Cingular or Verizon in the US (at least you can FIND unlocked phones for those carriers, even if you have to pay full retail).
I don't think ALL of the US carriers are scared of a device like the iPhone. I have a Treo 700p through Verizon, and have every capability the iPhone has plus a hell of a lot more (Documents2Go, AIM client, SSH client, a handful of games) simply because I can install third party applications. It's also on one hell of a fast data network (EVDO) with excellent fallback capabilities (1X and 14.4K).
The specs of the phone don't make sense for a brand new, top of the line, GSM phone. It's worthless outside of the USA. The camera isn't anything special, no 3G for Europe.
This is an expensive consumer oriented device, and definately not a business ready gadget. It has zero advantages over the Motorola Q, which sells for 1/5th the price. Apple is not going to see the number of people they had hoped buy this phone, it's just too expensive up front and over time with the required contract for the everyday user, IMHO.
In the case of the MS Home Server, it will (supposedly, according to the interview I saw about Home Server) automatically configure your UPnP router to allow direct access to the system from the internet. With that, I don't think you can immediately rule out viruses or worms. Even if you block off the 'net, what about when your desktop gets nailed by a virus or worm?
You will be able to install applications/services, so you can still build up cruft.
Given MS's track record, I'm not convinced this product will really stand up to the use (or abuse) the average consumer is capable of throwing at it.
If he really meant 50kW, then solar power is totally out of the picture.
It'd take up a hell of a lot of land area to set up, and have to be trucked in on several flatbed semis.
If it really is 50W, then one or two good sized panels should do it. Still way more expensive than a gas generator, and much more impractical for short term use.
I drive 130+ miles a day for work, five days a week. All of my relatives are out of state. This car is PERFECT for me.
What's kinda funny is if the specs don't change and this car is produced as is (yeah, I know, quite a stretch), it really is a perfect set up for my situation: Run the batteries down while on the highway (40 miles), and by the time I've reached the office (the last 25 miles), the engine has just finished (or came close to) topping off the batteries for my trip home.
I would LOVE to see exactly this type of car produced.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-28835788
Eh? You are unaware of the new diesel engine and fuel regulations here in the USA, I take it? We're getting much cleaner fuel, which should mean it will be easier to import those sweet European diesel powered vehicles. The only question is whether the European cars will be able to pass our safety requirements.
The EPA is also switching the way they rate vehicles fuel economy, which means we'll get betters numbers for MPG figures on newer vehicles.
And, sophisticated catalysts aren't necessarily a bad thing if it means less harmful emissions from the vehicle.
Your rant isn't nearly as informed as it could be, and I get the sense that you really don't know much about the industry.
I do not want to hear about global warming as the cause of all the melting ice in Greenland if we're going over there and effectively microwaving the place to get pretty pictures of what's underneath.
Might be best to lay off the Taco Bell before sleeping.
As a full-time Illinois tax payer, I can say that barely ANY of my money is well spent in this state. This place sucks.
However, I'll happily chip in my couple of cents to cover the morons who ended up losing this lawsuit if it means other states get the hint.
Your motorcycle only gets 48mpg? ;-)
In all seriousness, you're right on the money. I'm in one of those families with the minivan (21-25mpg) and the compact car (35-40mpg).
There are plenty of SUVs that get good mileage for what they are, and even more luxury cars that get absolute crap for fuel economy. I know a guy at work with an Audi A8 that gets worse fuel economy than my parents' Chevy Suburban LT 4x4.
Time to get priorities straight, people.
That's exactly the problem these days. Not enough people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to preserve liberty, and too many willing to just throw away our rights so they can be comfortable or find some bit of convenience.
All you need is this:
http://www.sensaphone.com/sensaphone-1104.html
I've used a Sensaphone in the past for a small data center, and it worked great. Never went down, never had problems, never had a false alarm. They've been around for a very long time.