Your comment says a lot about your age. Fact is most people are not on Facebook.
If we're talking about the United States and Canada... you're wrong. The population of the United States and Canada is 357 million people. According to this site, 222 million people in the United States and Canada use Facebook. Even subtracting for some people having two or more accounts-- apparently, most people in the US and Canada are on Facebook.
You do understand that an average of 4.5 hours a day means that out of six people, one has the set on 24 hours a day, and the other nine have it on for an hour a day. And I know some of those people who have the thing on 24 hours a day. I don't think that they even know where the off switch is-- I don't think they even know that it has an off switch
K-12 teachers and schools can upload and access unlimited education and classroom resources such as videos, tests, projects, games, lesson plans with their peers across the country for free of charge.
Where the money is coming from is a good question. Amazon is anticipating making a profit here, of course. But it's not coming from school district funds.
Let me remind everyone here that there are always two failure modes of a simple component, type 1 and type 2. A switch can fail open-circuit or short-circuit; a lock can fail locked or open, and a password failure can be either "will let people in who shouldn't be allowed to get in" or "won't let people in who need to get in".
You can alway take one failure rate to zero by making the other failure rate 100%. Reducing the rate of type 1 errors tends to increase the rate of type 2 errors, and vice versa.
Basically, the hospital workers are voting "there are too many errors of the type "can't get in when we need to", and we need a work-around to prevent this."
First, if you want to search "Hillary indictment" but you're so lazy that you complain if Google doesn't finish typing after you have typed the first nine letters of the search, you're seriously lazy.
Second, when I type "Hillary in" to the google search box, its first suggested autocompletion is "Hillary indictment" and the second is "Hillary indictment news". So, your google seems to be different than mine.
So, basically, the lawyers get a fee of millions, but they have made it so hard to actually register for the fifty-five dollar rebate that pretty much all the users will get: zero.
That is to say, the common definition for the word 'steal' includes copying something on a computer you do not have the right to.
No, it does not. The common definition requires taking something away so that the original owner no longer has accessed to it.
No, it doesn't. Stealing means taking something that does not belong to you. If you steal my ideas, you've stolen them.
You are basically saying "I don't believe intellectual property is property, and I will redefine the language so that in the way I use it it is not property."
Point to accurate modeling (with reasonable error bars) of cloud feedback that supports your point. (source)
A good place to start would be the IPCC report. The quick summary: cloud feedback is, indeed, the largest single source of uncertainty in the models. But that is incorporated in the error bars.
Again: the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything. The way science progresses is by increasingly more accurate models.
Huh? You do know that the "greenhouse effect" is a radiative physics effect, and the physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not identical to the way a glass greenhouse works (which is by allowing energy in the form of light in, but suppressing convection). On a greenhouse on the surface of the Earth, heat transfer is in the form of convection and radiation (and to a small extent, conduction). For the Eartt radiating to space, of course, convection stops at the top of the atmosphere.
You assert we can't model this and we can't model that, but actually, yes, we can, and do. There is a billion-dollar public information campaign funded by fossil fuel companies telling you that we don't understand climate. Stop listening to them. There are error bars in the modeling, of course, but these error bars are accounted for in the literature. The fact that we don't know everything does not mean that we don't know anything.
You read it again, and this time pay attention to which part is actual data.
The text I quoted in italics is verbatim from the link you posted: According to the article, the prediction was 1.25 degrees; the measurement 1.1 degrees.
The 0.6 number is a different number, extrapolated from data that can't be directly compared to the prediction (in fact, it doesn't even include 1958.)
Quoting that article, "But is that the whole story? I dove into the WABAC Machine known as Nexis and dredged up a couple of other news reports recounting Hansen's testimony. A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, "Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." "
["0.5 degrees to 2 degrees" translates to 1.25 degrees plus or minus 0.75 degrees.]
the article continues:
So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958? According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report in 2009, "U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2F over the past 50 years." Two degrees Fahrenheit is just over 1.1 degrees Celsius, which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen.
So, as I read what that article says, Hansen predicted 1.25 plus or minus 0.75 degrees temperature rise, and according to the article you just quoted, the data showed 1.1 degrees temperature rise.
I can't see how you conclude "Hmm, looks like the effect of CO2 isn't as bad as we thought." Looks like his prediction was right on the target.
The "scientists" are looking at ~120 years of data and make predictions reaching thousands of years into the future.
Nope. The scientists are applying the physics of infrared heat transfer to the atmosphere of the Earth.
This is a pretty well known subject-- in fact, you have to have the greenhouse effect, or else the Earth would have an average temperature below freezing. We know the greenhouse effect of trace gasses in the atmosphere is real.
The denialists are basically saying "well, the physics of heat transfer may be well known, but when you apply it to the carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere, somehow it's now different."
Holy fuck. I think you've made one bad assumption after another.
To the contrary, I didn't make any assumptions at all. I was pointing out that using the assumptions that they stated in the article quoted, their time scales were seriously wrong.
To be specific, they (not I) wrote "According to the astronomers, signals from Earth would need to reach half of all the solar systems in the Milky Way in order to be picked up by an intelligent life form".
If that's their assumption, it will be 50,000 years before we get a reply-- not 1500. Yes, you can criticize that assumption. Go take it up with them, not me.
The Solar System is 25,000 light years from the center of the galaxy. So, it takes 25,000 years for signals from Earth to reach half of the solar systems in the galaxy... and another 25,000 years for them to respond.
No. It's not the bandwidth-- it's just that video is too damn slow. I can skim a text post in a second, maybe two. If I slow down to read it, maybe fifteen seconds tops. If I have to watch a video from every person on my friends list-- I just won't.
Reading through the long Reddit thread, it looks as if the "telemetry" call saves the telemetry data locally; it does not seem to export it. So it's hard to call it "inserting backdoors". From https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/c...
[–]flashmozzg 68 points 1 month ago Apparently it's only VS15 feature. It logs at least when your app is executed. You can access logs via logman and tracerpt. Some investigation was done here recently: (lang: Russian) https://habrahabr.ru/post/2813...
[–]sammiesdog[S] 30 points 1 month ago Are the logs a local feature (i.e. stays on the user's computer)? And can it be disabled?
[–]flashmozzg 29 points 1 month ago Seems to be that way. At least right now they only keep main invoked/returned, exit/abort called and such. Nothing serious. The suggested way to disable it is adding this to your project:
OIG can issue reports and opinions, but the office cannot make rules, only the OLC (Office of Legal Council) can do that.
This was not the Office of the Inspector General (((OIG))); this was the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. From the article: Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment says a lot about your age. Fact is most people are not on Facebook.
If we're talking about the United States and Canada... you're wrong. The population of the United States and Canada is 357 million people. According to this site, 222 million people in the United States and Canada use Facebook. Even subtracting for some people having two or more accounts-- apparently, most people in the US and Canada are on Facebook.
http://www.statista.com/statis...
You do understand that an average of 4.5 hours a day means that out of six people, one has the set on 24 hours a day, and the other nine have it on for an hour a day.
And I know some of those people who have the thing on 24 hours a day. I don't think that they even know where the off switch is-- I don't think they even know that it has an off switch
And the money for this is coming from where?
Not even reading the article, just the summary:
K-12 teachers and schools can upload and access unlimited education and classroom resources such as videos, tests, projects, games, lesson plans with their peers across the country for free of charge.
Where the money is coming from is a good question. Amazon is anticipating making a profit here, of course. But it's not coming from school district funds.
Let me remind everyone here that there are always two failure modes of a simple component, type 1 and type 2. A switch can fail open-circuit or short-circuit; a lock can fail locked or open, and a password failure can be either "will let people in who shouldn't be allowed to get in" or "won't let people in who need to get in".
You can alway take one failure rate to zero by making the other failure rate 100%. Reducing the rate of type 1 errors tends to increase the rate of type 2 errors, and vice versa.
Basically, the hospital workers are voting "there are too many errors of the type "can't get in when we need to", and we need a work-around to prevent this."
Speaking of Google, you might want to use it and search for "finding a sense of humor."
I typed "finding" in to google, and it autocompleted finding dory, finding nemo, finding neverland, finding carter, and finding bigfoot.
I'm to lazy to finish typing "..a sense of humor." If google won't autocomplete it for me, I figure I don't need to know anyway.
First, if you want to search "Hillary indictment" but you're so lazy that you complain if Google doesn't finish typing after you have typed the first nine letters of the search, you're seriously lazy.
Second, when I type "Hillary in" to the google search box, its first suggested autocompletion is "Hillary indictment" and the second is "Hillary indictment news". So, your google seems to be different than mine.
So, basically, the lawyers get a fee of millions, but they have made it so hard to actually register for the fifty-five dollar rebate that pretty much all the users will get: zero.
Horray for America.
Autocomplete blacklist?
So, he's complaining that if you want to search for "Crooked Hillary," you have to type the whole phrase, it won't complete it for you?
Oh, your aching fingers, evil google making you have to type another seven whole characters. I am so sorry you have to do all that extra work.
By the way, it's not really news. Here's Boing-boing in 2010: http://boingboing.net/2010/09/... (pointing to a list at 2600.com: http://www.2600.com/googleblac... )
No, it does not. The common definition requires taking something away so that the original owner no longer has accessed to it.
No, it doesn't. Stealing means taking something that does not belong to you. If you steal my ideas, you've stolen them.
You are basically saying "I don't believe intellectual property is property, and I will redefine the language so that in the way I use it it is not property."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal?s=t
Point to accurate modeling (with reasonable error bars) of cloud feedback that supports your point. (source)
A good place to start would be the IPCC report. The quick summary: cloud feedback is, indeed, the largest single source of uncertainty in the models. But that is incorporated in the error bars.
Again: the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything. The way science progresses is by increasingly more accurate models.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... if you're interested.
Huh?
You do know that the "greenhouse effect" is a radiative physics effect, and the physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not identical to the way a glass greenhouse works (which is by allowing energy in the form of light in, but suppressing convection).
On a greenhouse on the surface of the Earth, heat transfer is in the form of convection and radiation (and to a small extent, conduction). For the Eartt radiating to space, of course, convection stops at the top of the atmosphere.
You assert we can't model this and we can't model that, but actually, yes, we can, and do. There is a billion-dollar public information campaign funded by fossil fuel companies telling you that we don't understand climate. Stop listening to them.
There are error bars in the modeling, of course, but these error bars are accounted for in the literature. The fact that we don't know everything does not mean that we don't know anything.
You read it again, and this time pay attention to which part is actual data.
The text I quoted in italics is verbatim from the link you posted: According to the article, the prediction was 1.25 degrees; the measurement 1.1 degrees.
The 0.6 number is a different number, extrapolated from data that can't be directly compared to the prediction (in fact, it doesn't even include 1958.)
You are right! Falsifiable science. Let's see how those disaster scenarios played out from 30 years ago...
Quoting that article, "But is that the whole story? I dove into the WABAC Machine known as Nexis and dredged up a couple of other news reports recounting Hansen's testimony. A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, "Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." "
["0.5 degrees to 2 degrees" translates to 1.25 degrees plus or minus 0.75 degrees.]
the article continues:
So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958? According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report in 2009, "U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2F over the past 50 years." Two degrees Fahrenheit is just over 1.1 degrees Celsius, which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen.
So, as I read what that article says, Hansen predicted 1.25 plus or minus 0.75 degrees temperature rise, and according to the article you just quoted, the data showed 1.1 degrees temperature rise.
I can't see how you conclude "Hmm, looks like the effect of CO2 isn't as bad as we thought." Looks like his prediction was right on the target.
The "scientists" are looking at ~120 years of data and make predictions reaching thousands of years into the future.
Nope. The scientists are applying the physics of infrared heat transfer to the atmosphere of the Earth.
This is a pretty well known subject-- in fact, you have to have the greenhouse effect, or else the Earth would have an average temperature below freezing. We know the greenhouse effect of trace gasses in the atmosphere is real.
The denialists are basically saying "well, the physics of heat transfer may be well known, but when you apply it to the carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere, somehow it's now different."
No, actually, it's not.
Holy fuck. I think you've made one bad assumption after another.
To the contrary, I didn't make any assumptions at all. I was pointing out that using the assumptions that they stated in the article quoted, their time scales were seriously wrong.
To be specific, they (not I) wrote "According to the astronomers, signals from Earth would need to reach half of all the solar systems in the Milky Way in order to be picked up by an intelligent life form".
If that's their assumption, it will be 50,000 years before we get a reply-- not 1500. Yes, you can criticize that assumption. Go take it up with them, not me.
I keep audio turned off on my machine for exactly this reason.
The Solar System is 25,000 light years from the center of the galaxy. So, it takes 25,000 years for signals from Earth to reach half of the solar systems in the galaxy... and another 25,000 years for them to respond.
Because the advertiser could care less about creating a native experience that the target eyeballs might care about.
https://xkcd.com/1576/
No.
It's not the bandwidth-- it's just that video is too damn slow.
I can skim a text post in a second, maybe two. If I slow down to read it, maybe fifteen seconds tops. If I have to watch a video from every person on my friends list-- I just won't.
Reading through the long Reddit thread, it looks as if the "telemetry" call saves the telemetry data locally; it does not seem to export it. So it's hard to call it "inserting backdoors".
From https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/c...
That's early. You usually start downsizing only after a business starts up.
OIG can issue reports and opinions, but the office cannot make rules, only the OLC (Office of Legal Council) can do that.
This was not the Office of the Inspector General (((OIG))); this was the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
From the article: Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch.
Right. Except that your data does not show that.
So, again: you're talking about sociology and demographics; I'm talking about economy and populations.
Fair enough. So. Based on sociological and demographic data the rate of population growth decreases as prosperity increases.