With Linux you have to recompile the kernel, perform a hardware patch between two delicate components using baling wire, do the hokey-pokey and sacrifice a chicken to Satan. THAT'S why its secure.
Note to Linux fanboys - yes, I was being sarcastic.
I don't participate much in the bore-a-thon dick-measuring contest called "Windows v Linux" on/. but for the record, its crap reporting to claim that Windows 7's "SoftAP" is a "rogue" which allows "ghostriding" while Linux's "802.11s mesh networking" is somehow better because it pre-dates Windows 7 when it allows the same problem which needs to be policed.
I have lots of criticisms of Windows generally and I run XP and Kubuntu, but SoftAP is a network management issue for corporate networks, not a "rogue".
The way/b/ behaves on 4chan, eventually it will affect the rest of us.
The difference between 4chan and Slashdot is that Slashdot knows the meaning of responsibility to the Internet community, to the people who depend on the Internet for unfiltered news and communication, who depend on software that isn't hacked or compromised. Not all slashdotters know or appreciate that fact. Its only a matter of time before someone (Stephen Conroy?) uses/b/ as an excuse to promote massive and intrusive filtering of the Internet **to protect the children**
Spamming the shit out of Verizon might feel good to the pimple-squeezers of 4chan, but picking a fight with a large ISP like Verizon by DDOSing would be a disaster for the Internet.
So what? I've got a 64MB Toshiba Portege that runs Win98 and DSL. What is it useful for? I gave the thing to my 6 year old so that she can run TuxPaint.
Yes its cheap. No it doesn't do anything much useful.
At best its a thin client for Google's online software. Its not a supercomputer because it doesn't do anything that a supercomputer would do.
*sigh* - this is what is wrong with the whole "debate" - This statement is essentially a lie based on a truth, and it takes about half a page of explanation to explain why this is, but it takes only a few seconds to repeat the lie somewhere else.
Yes, and with the billions available to climate alarmism, you'd better believe that lies travel many times around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
I'll attempt to use less than a page:
(1) Yes, during the climate changes caused by Milankovitch cycles, CO2-levels trail the start of temperature rise by 800 years, the reason being that CO2 is not the cause of these climate changes, the shape of the earth's orbit is the cause. However, there is a feedback loop which kicks in as temperatures rise, which causes the ocean to exhale CO2. This CO2 then causes further warming, increasing the total warming considerably beyond what would be expected if the only effect where the orbit changes themselves.
*sigh* The ice core records show no sign of the acceleration of temperature rise due to carbon dioxide enrichment.
None at all. Its a persistent myth that carbon dioxide levels affect climate when all of the physical evidence shows a response, but no feedback.
So the "trailing" of CO2 in these cases in no way disproves CO2 as a possible causal agent in climate change...
No it doesn't but it doesn't show that CO2 IS a causal agent either. It's an argument from silence that is the main fallacy
2) On the other hand, there have been warming events in the past that cannot be explained by Milankovitch-cycles, and there the CO2-rise (possibly due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) appears to be the causal agent, and does not trail the temperature change.
Now you're making things up. There have been much warmer periods in Earth's past, but they have occurred when CO2 levels have been much higher (many times higher) than they are today. But the cause and effect of CO2 on climate has never been established.
We cannot measure the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature that far back to see whether the lag holds. It's another argument from silence (or ignorance).
But for the last 750,000 years CO2 has lagged temperature rise. Just deal with it.
Massive vulcanism would mainly cause large temperature falls due to SO2 and dust particles which overwhelm any putative CO2 warming.
Yes, there are plenty of places where sea level is falling. Want something more dramatic? The area around Hudson's Bay is experiencing quite rapid sea level fall, and that has been the case for thousands of years (you can see the stranded beaches along the coast for many kilometres inland). Why? Because the land is rising faster than the global sea level is, and the mechanism in this case is the removal of the weight of the glaciers that used to exist around Hudson's Bay. This sort of effect is true of all sorts of places in the world: the land moves up and down due to local and regional tectonics. All you've discovered is that if you cherry pick appropriate places, you can find contrary examples to the global trend. It's the same thing for glacier advance and retreat. But if you look at the average trend, it's flagrantly obvious which way sea level is going: up.
It's flagrently obvious that you didn't do the pre-reading. The sea levels at the Maldives were higher (~20cm) between 1790 and the 1970s than they are today. The actual measurements show no meaningful sea-level rise since. Citation: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
Sea levels have been rising since the trough of the Little Ice Age (early 17th Century), but they are still lower than they were during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum.
It's not the end of the world. But I'm sure that's not much consolation to people living in, say, Holland.
I've lived in Holland. Not only do they measure sea-level rise, but Holland is sinking because of the isostatic rebound of countries to the north as well as local effects of compaction of the soil due to the building above them. The Dutch continue to do what they always do - remodel the land, make sure the dykes are strong - a constant civil engineering project going back hundreds of years during which time sea level has remorselessly risen.
Fail. New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming [newscientist.com]
Epic fail. New Scientist does not dispute that carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise EVERY SINGLE TIME. It offers a pathetic analogy instead of an explanation. Calling it a myth when its entirely correct shows how out of touch Nature is with actual science.
Fail. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075). [wikipedia.org]
Epic fail. The pH of the oceans is in constant flux and cannot be absolutely constant.
Fail. The very best (very expensive!) meters have an accuracy of ±0.002 pH units. [cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!)
Epic fail. Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time. The problem is not that the meters can masure to this accuracy its the fact that sea water's pH varies by at least 0.1 pH on very short timescales. YOU'VE CONFUSED NOISE WITH SIGNAL DUMBASS.
The CIA disagree with you: "Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching" [cia.gov] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table [cia.gov]
You should discuss Tim Lambert, a crackpot who has spawned a new verb: to be Lamberted is to be dishonestly attacked by someone with an extreme agenda.
McIntyre asked for data which should have been disclosed. We now know that the obstruction was entirely deliberate and may well have been illegal.
The data that McIntyre had was not public, nor until the Climategate information came along, could it be confirmed to being used to construct the HADCRUT3 dataset.
How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging? The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370? The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2? The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?
*sigh*
1. The Arctic polar cap has been shrinking since the satellite era began (1979) at the end of a period of cooling (1940-1978). The Antarctic Cap has been growing during that time.
2. The hard empirical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~280 ppm to over 370ppm. But there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.
3. The oceans are not acidifying. The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments.
4. Widespread deforestation is a problem. Desequestering carbon might be a problem or a solution. It does not follow that desequestering carbon is a bad thing since human caused CO2 emissions are only 3% of the natural flux.
Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?
Soaring food prices were and are caused by ignorant assholes like you voting for people to grow corn for ethanol instead of for people. What did you fucking expect? Cheaper food?
Cities and islands are not flooding. The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since. Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.
What will it take? Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world.
Unfortunately the blog of Tim Lambert, a crackpot who fancies himself as an expert on DDT, malaria, statistics and climate change (and gets them all hopelessly wrong) is not a useful source about the supposed mistakes of Steve McIntyre.
Everyone in climate science knows about Steve McIntyre, and as you can read in the ClimateGate emails, some climate scientists were so petrified of his analysis that they talked about deleting primary data and defying FOIA requests in order to prevent him seeing that data.
Unlike the first, all of the other theories have stood the test of time and are backed up by unimpeachable evidence. The evidence for AGW is very much a faith issue where the actual data has been confabulated to produce a particular result.
As I thought. You're not reading sources at all. You're simply hiding from reality.You're the real denier
The lead author of the chapter on Asia, Dr Murari Lal, has admitted that the story about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was known by him to be false when it was made but it was deliberately left in to put pressure on politicians.
The problem is, the deniers believe that even one error in a summary report means that the science is wrong, while the scientists are all aware that, yes, it's a bitch, but indeed, sometimes typos creep through.
The problem is that gullible idiots like you make unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the scientific evidence based on no more than faith. And every piece of evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored.
The problem isn't with the "deniers" who are pointing all of these problems out. The "deniers" don't deny climate change or even global warming. They just deny the right of censorious assholes like you to claim that climate change is a) unprecedented and b) caused by man-made fossil fuels without actual engineering-quality reports showing either of these things to be true or even likely. They aren't the ones in denial - it's you.
But you'll ignore it all because it comes from "deniers" and you'll invoke preposterous conspiracy theories involving fossil fuel companies while ignoring the cosying up of nearly entire fossil fuel industry with the alarmists.You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of the scientist who made the original bad claim on Himalayan Glaciers claiming millions from the European Union to investigate the problem that he knows doesn't exist. You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of Rajendra Pachauri and his willingness to fill his pockets with cash all the while exhorting everyone else to embrace the New Poverty of enforced energy rationing to Save the Earth from Global Warming that no-one knows is even happening to any great extent nor even a serious problem that can be "fixed".
Those aren't typos. The entire climate science story is falling apart as scientists investigate clear evidence of fraud, conscious manipulation of evidence in order to deceive and junk science.
The "deniers" are not the problem - its the neo-creationists like you who keep waving away that "there's nothing to be seen here - move along" while the Global Warming Hysteria explodes behind you.
There will be atheists begging the Catholic Church to sue them for blasphemy. All of this when the stock of the Catholic Church is at its lowest with recent reports on child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
With Linux you have to recompile the kernel, perform a hardware patch between two delicate components using baling wire, do the hokey-pokey and sacrifice a chicken to Satan. THAT'S why its secure.
Note to Linux fanboys - yes, I was being sarcastic.
I don't participate much in the bore-a-thon dick-measuring contest called "Windows v Linux" on /. but for the record, its crap reporting to claim that Windows 7's "SoftAP" is a "rogue" which allows "ghostriding" while Linux's "802.11s mesh networking" is somehow better because it pre-dates Windows 7 when it allows the same problem which needs to be policed.
I have lots of criticisms of Windows generally and I run XP and Kubuntu, but SoftAP is a network management issue for corporate networks, not a "rogue".
Never question the commitment of Apple fanbois to do whatever Steve Jobs tells them to do.
The way /b/ behaves on 4chan, eventually it will affect the rest of us.
/b/ as an excuse to promote massive and intrusive filtering of the Internet **to protect the children**
The difference between 4chan and Slashdot is that Slashdot knows the meaning of responsibility to the Internet community, to the people who depend on the Internet for unfiltered news and communication, who depend on software that isn't hacked or compromised. Not all slashdotters know or appreciate that fact. Its only a matter of time before someone (Stephen Conroy?) uses
Spamming the shit out of Verizon might feel good to the pimple-squeezers of 4chan, but picking a fight with a large ISP like Verizon by DDOSing would be a disaster for the Internet.
So what? I've got a 64MB Toshiba Portege that runs Win98 and DSL. What is it useful for? I gave the thing to my 6 year old so that she can run TuxPaint.
Yes its cheap. No it doesn't do anything much useful.
At best its a thin client for Google's online software. Its not a supercomputer because it doesn't do anything that a supercomputer would do.
That is one fugly netbook with very limited memory. I might buy one as a play computer for my two year old. Otherwise - its a fail.
I must have skipped the pre-worship but as far as I can see, the iPad is an iPod Touch with a bigger screen. Did I miss anything out?
It's not a tablet computer because its been deliberately crippled, its an appliance just like the iPod Touch.
If the fanboys want a real Apple Tablet then its already out there and its only partially made by Apple: the Modbook
Most of HADCRUT3 data was (and is) freely available
Then why did Phil Jones say he'd rather delete the data than disclose it?
Answer me that.
Most isn't good enough. It's like Hwang woo Suk claiming that most of his results were freely available.
*sigh* - this is what is wrong with the whole "debate" - This statement is essentially a lie based on a truth, and it takes about half a page of explanation to explain why this is, but it takes only a few seconds to repeat the lie somewhere else.
Yes, and with the billions available to climate alarmism, you'd better believe that lies travel many times around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
I'll attempt to use less than a page: (1) Yes, during the climate changes caused by Milankovitch cycles, CO2-levels trail the start of temperature rise by 800 years, the reason being that CO2 is not the cause of these climate changes, the shape of the earth's orbit is the cause. However, there is a feedback loop which kicks in as temperatures rise, which causes the ocean to exhale CO2. This CO2 then causes further warming, increasing the total warming considerably beyond what would be expected if the only effect where the orbit changes themselves.
*sigh* The ice core records show no sign of the acceleration of temperature rise due to carbon dioxide enrichment.
None at all. Its a persistent myth that carbon dioxide levels affect climate when all of the physical evidence shows a response, but no feedback.
So the "trailing" of CO2 in these cases in no way disproves CO2 as a possible causal agent in climate change...
No it doesn't but it doesn't show that CO2 IS a causal agent either. It's an argument from silence that is the main fallacy
2) On the other hand, there have been warming events in the past that cannot be explained by Milankovitch-cycles, and there the CO2-rise (possibly due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) appears to be the causal agent, and does not trail the temperature change.
Now you're making things up. There have been much warmer periods in Earth's past, but they have occurred when CO2 levels have been much higher (many times higher) than they are today. But the cause and effect of CO2 on climate has never been established.
We cannot measure the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature that far back to see whether the lag holds. It's another argument from silence (or ignorance).
But for the last 750,000 years CO2 has lagged temperature rise. Just deal with it. Massive vulcanism would mainly cause large temperature falls due to SO2 and dust particles which overwhelm any putative CO2 warming.
Yes, there are plenty of places where sea level is falling. Want something more dramatic? The area around Hudson's Bay is experiencing quite rapid sea level fall, and that has been the case for thousands of years (you can see the stranded beaches along the coast for many kilometres inland). Why? Because the land is rising faster than the global sea level is, and the mechanism in this case is the removal of the weight of the glaciers that used to exist around Hudson's Bay. This sort of effect is true of all sorts of places in the world: the land moves up and down due to local and regional tectonics. All you've discovered is that if you cherry pick appropriate places, you can find contrary examples to the global trend. It's the same thing for glacier advance and retreat. But if you look at the average trend, it's flagrantly obvious which way sea level is going: up.
It's flagrently obvious that you didn't do the pre-reading. The sea levels at the Maldives were higher (~20cm) between 1790 and the 1970s than they are today. The actual measurements show no meaningful sea-level rise since. Citation: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
Every earth scientist knows about isostatic rebound, but do they know about the Fairbridge Curve? Citation: http://www.idm.gov.vn/nguon_luc/Xuat_ban/2001/17_18/A1_B9.JPG Figure 2.
Sea levels have been rising since the trough of the Little Ice Age (early 17th Century), but they are still lower than they were during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum.
It's not the end of the world. But I'm sure that's not much consolation to people living in, say, Holland.
I've lived in Holland. Not only do they measure sea-level rise, but Holland is sinking because of the isostatic rebound of countries to the north as well as local effects of compaction of the soil due to the building above them. The Dutch continue to do what they always do - remodel the land, make sure the dykes are strong - a constant civil engineering project going back hundreds of years during which time sea level has remorselessly risen.
Another idiot who can't crack a book. You don't need karma points - you need a science education.
Fail. New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming [newscientist.com]
Epic fail. New Scientist does not dispute that carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise EVERY SINGLE TIME. It offers a pathetic analogy instead of an explanation. Calling it a myth when its entirely correct shows how out of touch Nature is with actual science.
Fail. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075). [wikipedia.org]
Epic fail. The pH of the oceans is in constant flux and cannot be absolutely constant.
Fail. The very best (very expensive!) meters have an accuracy of ±0.002 pH units. [cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!)
Epic fail. Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time. The problem is not that the meters can masure to this accuracy its the fact that sea water's pH varies by at least 0.1 pH on very short timescales. YOU'VE CONFUSED NOISE WITH SIGNAL DUMBASS.
The CIA disagree with you: "Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching" [cia.gov] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table [cia.gov]
Unfortunately for the CIA, actual measurements ON THE GROUND at the Maldives show a fall in sea level of 20 cm in the 1970s and stasis since: see http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm and http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
So you can't crack a book on science and you have no clue how climate parameters are measured and collated. Go to the back of the class.
You are amazing. Are there more just like you?
Discounting evidence is what humans do best.
I can think of several cities that are sinking and will soon be underwater: London, Bangkok ...
You should discuss Tim Lambert, a crackpot who has spawned a new verb: to be Lamberted is to be dishonestly attacked by someone with an extreme agenda.
McIntyre asked for data which should have been disclosed. We now know that the obstruction was entirely deliberate and may well have been illegal.
The data that McIntyre had was not public, nor until the Climategate information came along, could it be confirmed to being used to construct the HADCRUT3 dataset.
How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging? The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370? The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2? The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?
*sigh*
1. The Arctic polar cap has been shrinking since the satellite era began (1979) at the end of a period of cooling (1940-1978). The Antarctic Cap has been growing during that time.
2. The hard empirical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~280 ppm to over 370ppm. But there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.
3. The oceans are not acidifying. The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments.
4. Widespread deforestation is a problem. Desequestering carbon might be a problem or a solution. It does not follow that desequestering carbon is a bad thing since human caused CO2 emissions are only 3% of the natural flux.
Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?
Soaring food prices were and are caused by ignorant assholes like you voting for people to grow corn for ethanol instead of for people. What did you fucking expect? Cheaper food?
Cities and islands are not flooding. The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since. Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.
What will it take? Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world.
Unfortunately the blog of Tim Lambert, a crackpot who fancies himself as an expert on DDT, malaria, statistics and climate change (and gets them all hopelessly wrong) is not a useful source about the supposed mistakes of Steve McIntyre.
Everyone in climate science knows about Steve McIntyre, and as you can read in the ClimateGate emails, some climate scientists were so petrified of his analysis that they talked about deleting primary data and defying FOIA requests in order to prevent him seeing that data.
None of that has ever happened on Climate Audit. In fact, Steve McIntyre has said that he thinks that CO2 may well be a serious problem.
But why let that get in the way of a cheap shot?
Unlike the first, all of the other theories have stood the test of time and are backed up by unimpeachable evidence. The evidence for AGW is very much a faith issue where the actual data has been confabulated to produce a particular result.
As I thought. You're not reading sources at all. You're simply hiding from reality.You're the real denier
The lead author of the chapter on Asia, Dr Murari Lal, has admitted that the story about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was known by him to be false when it was made but it was deliberately left in to put pressure on politicians.
Dr Syed Hasnain, the man who made the original claim about glaciers, now works for Rajendra Pachauri and applied for grants from the EU to study the problem he knew fine well did not exist.
Conflict of interest? Scandalous misappropriation of funds?
Naah. It's just a typo. A storm in a teacup.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
The problem is, the deniers believe that even one error in a summary report means that the science is wrong, while the scientists are all aware that, yes, it's a bitch, but indeed, sometimes typos creep through.
The problem is that gullible idiots like you make unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the scientific evidence based on no more than faith. And every piece of evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored.
The problem isn't with the "deniers" who are pointing all of these problems out. The "deniers" don't deny climate change or even global warming. They just deny the right of censorious assholes like you to claim that climate change is a) unprecedented and b) caused by man-made fossil fuels without actual engineering-quality reports showing either of these things to be true or even likely. They aren't the ones in denial - it's you.
The smell from underneath the IPCC bandages is pretty bad. The proxy reconstructions of past climate have been shown to be heavily cherry-picked and badly done statistics, the measurement of surface temperatures by NOAA and NASA appears been heavily manipulated to show warming, as has the temperature records from the Climate Research Unit relied upon for the calibration of climate models - and is the subject of several independent investigations for possible scientific fraud in the US and the UK.
But you'll ignore it all because it comes from "deniers" and you'll invoke preposterous conspiracy theories involving fossil fuel companies while ignoring the cosying up of nearly entire fossil fuel industry with the alarmists.You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of the scientist who made the original bad claim on Himalayan Glaciers claiming millions from the European Union to investigate the problem that he knows doesn't exist. You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of Rajendra Pachauri and his willingness to fill his pockets with cash all the while exhorting everyone else to embrace the New Poverty of enforced energy rationing to Save the Earth from Global Warming that no-one knows is even happening to any great extent nor even a serious problem that can be "fixed".
Those aren't typos. The entire climate science story is falling apart as scientists investigate clear evidence of fraud, conscious manipulation of evidence in order to deceive and junk science.
The "deniers" are not the problem - its the neo-creationists like you who keep waving away that "there's nothing to be seen here - move along" while the Global Warming Hysteria explodes behind you.
And yes, I'm a liberal. A very angry liberal.
And they said romance is dead!
You are a management genius. All of our economic problems would be solved if there were more people like you.
There will be atheists begging the Catholic Church to sue them for blasphemy. All of this when the stock of the Catholic Church is at its lowest with recent reports on child abuse by Catholic priests and seminarians and the resignations of four bishops as a result.