Wouldn't it be better to write in a language where simple things DON'T need commenting? Otherwise you're coding twice, once in Perl and once in English (probably).
I did look at many of the arguments. Obviously I can't know enough in my short investigation to draw any conclusions, I have encountered some interesting information. The claim that back radiation breaks the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. Two radiating bodies do exchange energy, even with a temperature difference between them. The second law merely states that the HEAT will only move in one direction. My opinion is that the climate scientists are simply saying the amount of cooling near the surface is reduced by the existance of an atmosphere, and that the amount is labeled "back radiation". I don't have a great deal of faith in the models, and there seems to be a whole lot of non-scientific discourse going on. I have no idea how much effect 400ppm co2 has, but it seems reasonable it will have some effect. I believe the science will win out in the end. The radiation from earth, including its atmosphere, is being measured by satelites, and the radiation from earth at ground level is easy to measure, in many environments. So I'm sure we have a good measure of the difference. It's just a shame that so much energy goes into disrupting the science. Hardly a surprise, though given the hype and the vested interests. Thanks for your patience with my questions.
Linux does have a function to allow pages to be moved on demand, but clearly that's up to the application, and no longer an automated OS facility, and my point still stands.
Moving pages isn't very cheap, so doing so too often will do much more harm than good.
But the worst part is many (most?) pages are shared, either among threads or processes. The best performance comes from specializing - I.e. not relying on the os.
OSes have algorithms that perform well, or at least reasonably, in the general purpose case. Optimizing for a specific case can save a lot of cycles. When those cycles are multiplied, as they often are in HPC, it can result in a huge performance gain. This goes for networking, concurrency, memory allocation, and numa accesses. Actually, current OSes have next to nothing to base numa decisions on, so they do a horrible job.
I was asking for evidence in addition to what's reported in the media so you can help me learn something - I've read media reports but I haven't seen any models for myself. I'm not making assumptions about you and your knowledge, I was asking for references. The same for the question about agw - I want something to read, preferably a study. And I asked a question about your belief regarding a connection between co2 and gw. You didn't answer. If your answer is "no connection has been demonstrated", that's fine - you just haven't said so.
I'm curious about this. I don't know the models in question.
But as for the question of thermodynamics, isn't it true that the claim is simply that increasing the co2 in the atmosphere decreases the amount of heat radiated into space?
The co2 isn't the source of the heat, which is mostly the sun.
You seem to be saying that the co2 cannot increase the temperature of the earth beyond the temperature of the co2. But saying this is tantamount to saying mirrors cannot work.
E.g. if there were a perfect mirror in space, and no heat could leave earth then theoretically the earth could reach the temperature of the sun, even though the mirror isn't the source?
I don't recall reading your other posts either. I'm curious what evidence there is that global warming isn't anthropomorphic?
Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an anthropomorphic effect?
Do you think there is no link between atmospheric co2 and heat leaving earth and/or global warming?
Is there also evidence that the climate scientists haven't accounted for thermodynamics in their models beyond what's been reported in the media?
You cannot create your own parallel science. Something is either scientific or it's not: if it's supported by evidence then it's scientific, otherwise it isn't. A theory is correct precisely up to the point it agrees with reality, and no further. If someone believes in something without evidence, then that's faith not science. If it is supported by evidence, then it's science. If it contradicts accepted theory then some test will differentiate between them, and it's possible that one theory fits reality better in some situations, and another in others.
But there is no "individual science". Young earth simply doesn't fit a vast body of evidence, and there is a complete lack of evidence in favor. Belief in it is neither "parallel science" nor faith, it's ignorance.
Twin primes are primes that differ by exactly 2, e.g. 11 and 13. The twin prime conjecture is the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such pairs.
I've personally encountered a lot of bigotry in the south. Am I not allowed to say so, or to notice?
When I meet an individual from the south, I don't assume they are racist or bigoted.
Being prejudiced would be assuming they are. Noting that there is a lot of racism in the south is not. Indeed, he also noted a lot of Christianity in the south - I supposed that's prejudiced too?
How can you have motion without time? Time was so important to Newton he invented a short notation for the derivative with respect to time: an over dot.
From that excerpt from Wikipedia it's clear that atheism doesn't fit that definition of relgion.
And I have googled atheism. I haven't seen a "plethora of similar dogma". I have seen discussions of other religion's dogma. I asked you for some "atheist dogma" and the response was hardly a plethora. Again, what dogma?
Lots of things probably don't exist, but that doesn't make such conjecture dogma.
Exactly how was I preaching? I merely gave my view.
So you're suggesting that atheists get together in groups, keep discussing dogma, whch consists of repeating the phrase "god doesn't exist.", and on the basis of these activities and the existence of said dogma we have ourselves a religion.
You have truly opened my eyes.
Personally, having read much real dogma, I've found all of it absurd, preposterous, illogical, unfounded, self contradictory, immoral and backward. I think such magical thinking does a significant disservice to humanity. Having seen no evidence or reasonable argument for the existence of any god I assume there isn't one. Hence I call myself an atheist. On the other hand, I can't rule it out. I suppose some might call me an agnostic, but that misses the point. I find the existence of god to be highly unlikely - such a being should leave plenty of evidence and I've seen no credible evidence at all. If I were to be given some credible evidence I'd change my mind to align with the available facts. I don't think that's true of religious people. As for whether I have religion, I think if someone were to ask me if I were religious and I answered "yes" I'd be rather significantly misleading them.
Of course people care when others label them. What utter nonsense. And atheists don't gather in groups and share atheist dogma. Give us some examples of atheist dogma that get preached.
That's not logic at all. It merely comes down to the definition of religion. Your saying that if I answer "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" then I'm religious. If that's true then answering "no" to the following questions must also make you religious: Do you believe in Thor? Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns? Do you believe a 3 tonne fruit cake will, at some point in the future, appear above your head, fall from the sky and crush you to death? Do you believe the Higg's boson exists? Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Deciding that something is pretty unlikely due to lack of evidence doesn't make you religious, but is does, if that something is god, make you an atheist.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderation is not voting - which is why the labels aren't "agree" and "disagree".
There's a difference between Larry Ellison and God:
God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison.
That's exactly my point. Perl is unreabable IMO.
I avoid commenting. Most code is obvious without comments - except in Perl.
Wouldn't it be better to write in a language where simple things DON'T need commenting?
Otherwise you're coding twice, once in Perl and once in English (probably).
I did look at many of the arguments. Obviously I can't know enough in my short investigation to draw any conclusions, I have encountered some interesting information.
The claim that back radiation breaks the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. Two radiating bodies do exchange energy, even with a temperature difference between them. The second law merely states that the HEAT will only move in one direction. My opinion is that the climate scientists are simply saying the amount of cooling near the surface is reduced by the existance of an atmosphere, and that the amount is labeled "back radiation".
I don't have a great deal of faith in the models, and there seems to be a whole lot of non-scientific discourse going on. I have no idea how much effect 400ppm co2 has, but it seems reasonable it will have some effect. I believe the science will win out in the end.
The radiation from earth, including its atmosphere, is being measured by satelites, and the radiation from earth at ground level is easy to measure, in many environments. So I'm sure we have a good measure of the difference.
It's just a shame that so much energy goes into disrupting the science. Hardly a surprise, though given the hype and the vested interests.
Thanks for your patience with my questions.
Thanks
Linux does have a function to allow pages to be moved on demand, but clearly that's up to the application, and no longer an automated OS facility, and my point still stands.
Moving pages isn't very cheap, so doing so too often will do much more harm than good.
But the worst part is many (most?) pages are shared, either among threads or processes. The best performance comes from specializing - I.e. not relying on the os.
A single Sandy Bridge system will outperform many dozen Raspberry PIs.
OSes have algorithms that perform well, or at least reasonably, in the general purpose case.
Optimizing for a specific case can save a lot of cycles. When those cycles are multiplied, as they often are in HPC, it can result in a huge performance gain.
This goes for networking, concurrency, memory allocation, and numa accesses.
Actually, current OSes have next to nothing to base numa decisions on, so they do a horrible job.
Lol. Good point. Anthropogenic, maybe?
I was asking for evidence in addition to what's reported in the media so you can help me learn something - I've read media reports but I haven't seen any models for myself. I'm not making assumptions about you and your knowledge, I was asking for references.
The same for the question about agw - I want something to read, preferably a study.
And I asked a question about your belief regarding a connection between co2 and gw. You didn't answer. If your answer is "no connection has been demonstrated", that's fine - you just haven't said so.
I'm curious about this. I don't know the models in question.
But as for the question of thermodynamics, isn't it true that the claim is simply that increasing the co2 in the atmosphere decreases the amount of heat radiated into space?
The co2 isn't the source of the heat, which is mostly the sun.
You seem to be saying that the co2 cannot increase the temperature of the earth beyond the temperature of the co2. But saying this is tantamount to saying mirrors cannot work.
E.g. if there were a perfect mirror in space, and no heat could leave earth then theoretically the earth could reach the temperature of the sun, even though the mirror isn't the source?
I don't recall reading your other posts either. I'm curious what evidence there is that global warming isn't anthropomorphic?
Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an anthropomorphic effect?
Do you think there is no link between atmospheric co2 and heat leaving earth and/or global warming?
Is there also evidence that the climate scientists haven't accounted for thermodynamics in their models beyond what's been reported in the media?
You cannot create your own parallel science. Something is either scientific or it's not: if it's supported by evidence then it's scientific, otherwise it isn't.
A theory is correct precisely up to the point it agrees with reality, and no further.
If someone believes in something without evidence, then that's faith not science. If it is supported by evidence, then it's science. If it contradicts accepted theory then some test will differentiate between them, and it's possible that one theory fits reality better in some situations, and another in others.
But there is no "individual science". Young earth simply doesn't fit a vast body of evidence, and there is a complete lack of evidence in favor. Belief in it is neither "parallel science" nor faith, it's ignorance.
Hmmm, I see I wrote it backwards. Yes, I meant it's unlikely that P equals NP.
So you're simply talking about NP-P?
Exactly what does it mean for a problem to be "intermediate between P and NP"?
AFAIK P is a subset of NP. It may, although unlikely, be a proper subset.
Actually, a lot of the really talented people go to finance.
Whether they help humanity on the whole is debatable.
Twin primes are primes that differ by exactly 2, e.g. 11 and 13.
The twin prime conjecture is the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such pairs.
It's impossible for every teacher to always have better computer skills than their students..
None of my teachers ever came close.
I've personally encountered a lot of bigotry in the south. Am I not allowed to say so, or to notice?
When I meet an individual from the south, I don't assume they are racist or bigoted.
Being prejudiced would be assuming they are. Noting that there is a lot of racism in the south is not. Indeed, he also noted a lot of Christianity in the south - I supposed that's prejudiced too?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_notation
How can you have motion without time?
Time was so important to Newton he invented a short notation for the derivative with respect to time: an over dot.
From that excerpt from Wikipedia it's clear that atheism doesn't fit that definition of relgion.
And I have googled atheism. I haven't seen a "plethora of similar dogma". I have seen discussions of other religion's dogma. I asked you for some "atheist dogma" and the response was hardly a plethora. Again, what dogma?
Lots of things probably don't exist, but that doesn't make such conjecture dogma.
Exactly how was I preaching? I merely gave my view.
So you're suggesting that atheists get together in groups, keep discussing dogma, whch consists of repeating the phrase "god doesn't exist.", and on the basis of these activities and the existence of said dogma we have ourselves a religion.
You have truly opened my eyes.
Personally, having read much real dogma, I've found all of it absurd, preposterous, illogical, unfounded, self contradictory, immoral and backward. I think such magical thinking does a significant disservice to humanity.
Having seen no evidence or reasonable argument for the existence of any god I assume there isn't one. Hence I call myself an atheist.
On the other hand, I can't rule it out. I suppose some might call me an agnostic, but that misses the point. I find the existence of god to be highly unlikely - such a being should leave plenty of evidence and I've seen no credible evidence at all.
If I were to be given some credible evidence I'd change my mind to align with the available facts. I don't think that's true of religious people.
As for whether I have religion, I think if someone were to ask me if I were religious and I answered "yes" I'd be rather significantly misleading them.
Of course people care when others label them.
What utter nonsense.
And atheists don't gather in groups and share atheist dogma.
Give us some examples of atheist dogma that get preached.
That's not logic at all. It merely comes down to the definition of religion.
Your saying that if I answer "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" then I'm religious.
If that's true then answering "no" to the following questions must also make you religious:
Do you believe in Thor?
Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Do you believe a 3 tonne fruit cake will, at some point in the future, appear above your head, fall from the sky and crush you to death?
Do you believe the Higg's boson exists?
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Deciding that something is pretty unlikely due to lack of evidence doesn't make you religious, but is does, if that something is god, make you an atheist.