Sorry. Show me a model made between 1995 and 2010 that fits the observed data of the last decade.
The calculation done in 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald-- it's summarized in any textbook about atmospheric science. This was the first numerical calculation of the global greenhouse effect; their calculated response value is still near the center of the consensus value used today. Send me your email address and I'll send you a jpeg comparing the model and the data.
Not one single fits.
Incorrect. In fact, all of them fit, but I like to sue the Manabe calculation because it has the longest run of comparison of theory to experiment. The National Academy of Sciences study of 1979.
....Of course now Lovelock is declared to be a nut, an extremist, on the alarmist edge. But before he was:
[long list of completely irrelevant stuff]
Not a single thing you list has anything whatsoever to do with climate science. Nothing.
List one single paper in which he contributes significant work to climate science. There aren't any. He's a colorful popularizer, but he's a biologist, not a climate scientist.
That's the whole problem-- people keep paying attention to popularizers and colorful characters and other people who have loud mouths. Ignore them. Pay attention to the actual science.
Yes, but Lovelock is a nut; he was on the alarmist edge. Always was. The "Gaia" model is a cool thing to talk to the public about, but it's not real science.
The mainstream climate scientists are not and have not been mispredicting the rate of climate change. If you look at the data from models from 1979 (the National Academy of Science study), or even the models from 1967 (the Manabe greenhouse-effect calculation)-- the actual data fits the model very nearly exactly.
The lesson to take home is that denying climate change is wrong, but exaggerating it is also wrong. Pay attention to the real scientists, and try not to give the fringe too much credance. Look at the data.
Agree. I don't watch videos on the web, and especially not videos of people talking.
(I might watch a video if I were first convinced that visuals (and motion) was needed to convey the information-- but that would require first that there is a text site, saying something like "and here's an animation showing it in action.").
SoC has been emerging as a more common term in the last 5 or 6 years meaning System on a Chip.
Don't be silly. That would be SoaC. Clearly, if you acronymize the "on", you have to acronymify the "a" as well. The acronominalization standards demand it. Why, if you abandon all rules for acromynificationizing, there would be chaos!
Yes, he shouldn't need to Google since he should know what a SoC is since this is supposed to be a site for technological literate people not reddit rejects.
Indeed.
"SoC" is short for "State of Charge," which is, basically, the status of a battery.
I'm not sure what this has to do with C-code. Maybe these chips they're talking about are used to make battery controllers that use SoC monitoring.
The amount of carbon in the paper itself is negligible (even if it is sequestered rather than incinerated) compared to the CO2 produced in the papermaking process..
Nice thought, but the study referenced in the original article states the opposite: that the amount of carbon spent producing the paper is much less than the mass of the paper itself.
Growing trees to turn into newspapers which you then toss into a landfill is a really lousy way of sequestering carbon.
I see no support for that statement. Sequestering is sequestering. Newspapers, corn cobs, grass clippings, old Readers Digests-- it's all the same.
Nice thought, except when you actually read the article, there is no support for that statement.
The referenced study did not count the carbon sequestered as a negative contribution to the atmospheric carbon.
They list the weight of an average newspaper at 0,2 kg, and they list the atmospheric carbon emitted in producing it as 0.254 kg per thousand kilograms of newspaper (table 3.1, page 11), which comes to 0.025% of the weight of the newspaper. If even a tenth of percent of the mass of the newspaper ends up as sequestered in landfills, it sequesters four times the carbon emitted in producing it, and then print newspapers are atmospheric carbon sinks, not carbon sources.
It's so counterintuitive that I would really like to check the data to see if they accounted for all the factors.
Newspapers are made from wood, which takes carbon out of the air. When you put the newspaper in a landfill, it takes hundreds of years to decay, so basically you are sequestering carbon-- a net reduction of carbon from the atmosphere.
The trees they make paper from are typically fast-growing trees planted on land dedicated for this purpose, by the way-- they don't cut down old-growth forest for paper. (Actually, much of the paper produced is made from "waste" -- the tree parts from logging and sawmill operations that can't be made into lumber.)
I'm curious as to why so many people seem to be jumping out of the woodwork and complaining about this. It's not even remotely a novel claim.
Because people are not saying "It is a plausible hypothesis that autism is due to environmental factors." They are saying "Autism is due to environmental factors."
That is very plausible, even likely. But it is not demonstrated.
Autism is something medical science has identified for a very long time. It's not the rate of diagnosis that has increased, it is the rate of affliction.
It would be useful to know if there's more autism by some objective measure, or just more diagnosis. I've heard it pointed out that children who are diagnosed as autistic get a very large amount more attention, private tutoring, and such, in many school systems.
I've been saying for a long time now if companies would just implement lockout policies we wouldn't have any of these issues.
It would help some (less annoying than a lockout policy is just to implement a delay that increases with number of failed attempts). However, the dictionary attacks that are worrisome come from a hacker stealing the password hash tables, and are done offline, trying to decrypt the hash, not simply repeated attempts to log in. These won't be prevented by lockout policies (although they will be prevented by making sure that the hash tables don't get stolen)
Say you have a 4 word password and you publish your 2048 word dictionary on the internet, entitled "come at me". Is that more or less secure than a random 8 character password(upper, lower, numbers, 40 symbols)
The point of the xkcd, which you apparently didn't actually read, was that in the real world user-chosen "hard-to-remember" passwords are NOT eight random characters chosen from the set upper, lower, numbers, 40 symbols. The entropy is vastly less than you calculate.
(I would not call "random 8 character password(upper, lower, numbers, 40 symbols)" a "hard to remember" password in any case. Those are "completely impossible to remember, absolutely must be written down" passwords.)
So you didn't bother to RTFA before posting that. They're trying to show that the easier to remember password may be easier to crack with a dictionary attack.
And you didn't bother to read the xkcd before posting that. It showed with calculations that the commonly used "hard to remember" password has lower entropy than a much easier to remember multiword phrase. For reference, "higher entropy" means "harder to crack with a tailored brute force attack."
In any case, though, the actual first thing you need to do is to make sure you never reuse a password on two different systems. And the xkcd for that is http://xkcd.com/792/
Have you ever tried to distinguish navy from black under incandescent? Pretty hard, isn't it. But walk outside and it's obvious. Ever seen an alexandrite ring? Nice green color in daylight. Funny it's yellow-orange under incandescent.
But we're finally trying to improve the lightbulb again. Thanks, energy crisis.
I'm not sure that they know what they're talking about when they say the "bluish 'white' light" of LEDs. Maybe five years ago white LEDs had a blue tint, but these days you can buy consumer LED bulbs in about any color temperature you like, including the "warm" light indistinguishable from incandescents.
I was reading Margaret Sanger quotes that seemed to say the opposite, but either I was misreading the quotes, misreading the subtext of the quotes, or else she contradicted herself.
Most notably A Land out of Time and the epic Ringworld.
Strong agreement here, but start with Neutron Star (collection of short stories) before you do Ringworld
(Crashlander, a much later story collection that includes many of the same stories as Neutron Star, will also do as a prequel to Ringworld. I like Neurton Star slightly better, but either one is fine.)
Robert E Howard and all the original Conan books are pretty good (well, if you like the old stuff, which it seems you do!). Maybe you were looking for something more obscure, though.
Make sure that the Howard books you read are actually by Robert E. Howard, though. Avoid anything by some other author continuing the series, or by "Robert E. Howard and xxx," or "Inspired by Robert E. Howard," or "completed by YY based on an unfinished story by Howard".
With that said, the Howard books do have a bit of the '30s feel to them, but if you like that style, they're the original.
Do you approve of Planned Parenthood? Its founder was big on eugenics - that's why she founded PP.
Depends on what you mean by "eugenics"-- the word has changed a little in connotation since the 1930s.
Sanger was an advocate of parenthood by choice, and opposed to anybody who wanted to make decisions on childbearing for other people. So, if you think of eugenics as meaning forced sterilization and involuntary contraception, no, she was fiercely opposed to that.
She did, however, believe that availability of contraception would mean that poor people would have fewer children, and that this would benefit both society and the gene pool (and, for that matter, benefit the poor people themselves, who would split their wealth a smaller number of ways). This was considered eugenics at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
No Model Fits This Data.
Sorry. Show me a model made between 1995 and 2010 that fits the observed data of the last decade.
The calculation done in 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald-- it's summarized in any textbook about atmospheric science. This was the first numerical calculation of the global greenhouse effect; their calculated response value is still near the center of the consensus value used today. Send me your email address and I'll send you a jpeg comparing the model and the data.
Not one single fits.
Incorrect. In fact, all of them fit, but I like to sue the Manabe calculation because it has the longest run of comparison of theory to experiment. The National Academy of Sciences study of 1979.
....Of course now Lovelock is declared to be a nut, an extremist, on the alarmist edge. But before he was:
[long list of completely irrelevant stuff]
Not a single thing you list has anything whatsoever to do with climate science. Nothing.
List one single paper in which he contributes significant work to climate science. There aren't any. He's a colorful popularizer, but he's a biologist, not a climate scientist.
That's the whole problem-- people keep paying attention to popularizers and colorful characters and other people who have loud mouths. Ignore them. Pay attention to the actual science.
Yes, but Lovelock is a nut; he was on the alarmist edge. Always was. The "Gaia" model is a cool thing to talk to the public about, but it's not real science.
The mainstream climate scientists are not and have not been mispredicting the rate of climate change. If you look at the data from models from 1979 (the National Academy of Science study), or even the models from 1967 (the Manabe greenhouse-effect calculation)-- the actual data fits the model very nearly exactly.
The lesson to take home is that denying climate change is wrong, but exaggerating it is also wrong. Pay attention to the real scientists, and try not to give the fringe too much credance. Look at the data.
No. Transcript or GTFO.
Agree. I don't watch videos on the web, and especially not videos of people talking.
(I might watch a video if I were first convinced that visuals (and motion) was needed to convey the information-- but that would require first that there is a text site, saying something like "and here's an animation showing it in action.").
Ah, what does google know? Real nerds use DuckDuckGo.
SOC = Special Operations Consulting - Security Management.
Quack!
Not sure if serious.
according to the moderation, "5, funny."
SoC has been emerging as a more common term in the last 5 or 6 years meaning System on a Chip.
Don't be silly. That would be SoaC. Clearly, if you acronymize the "on", you have to acronymify the "a" as well. The acronominalization standards demand it. Why, if you abandon all rules for acromynificationizing, there would be chaos!
Yes, he shouldn't need to Google since he should know what a SoC is since this is supposed to be a site for technological literate people not reddit rejects.
Indeed.
"SoC" is short for "State of Charge," which is, basically, the status of a battery.
I'm not sure what this has to do with C-code. Maybe these chips they're talking about are used to make battery controllers that use SoC monitoring.
The amount of carbon in the paper itself is negligible (even if it is sequestered rather than incinerated) compared to the CO2 produced in the papermaking process. .
Nice thought, but the study referenced in the original article states the opposite: that the amount of carbon spent producing the paper is much less than the mass of the paper itself.
Growing trees to turn into newspapers which you then toss into a landfill is a really lousy way of sequestering carbon.
I see no support for that statement. Sequestering is sequestering. Newspapers, corn cobs, grass clippings, old Readers Digests-- it's all the same.
Nice thought, except when you actually read the article, there is no support for that statement.
The referenced study did not count the carbon sequestered as a negative contribution to the atmospheric carbon.
They list the weight of an average newspaper at 0,2 kg, and they list the atmospheric carbon emitted in producing it as 0.254 kg per thousand kilograms of newspaper (table 3.1, page 11), which comes to 0.025% of the weight of the newspaper. If even a tenth of percent of the mass of the newspaper ends up as sequestered in landfills, it sequesters four times the carbon emitted in producing it, and then print newspapers are atmospheric carbon sinks, not carbon sources.
It's so counterintuitive that I would really like to check the data to see if they accounted for all the factors.
Newspapers are made from wood, which takes carbon out of the air. When you put the newspaper in a landfill, it takes hundreds of years to decay, so basically you are sequestering carbon-- a net reduction of carbon from the atmosphere.
The trees they make paper from are typically fast-growing trees planted on land dedicated for this purpose, by the way-- they don't cut down old-growth forest for paper. (Actually, much of the paper produced is made from "waste" -- the tree parts from logging and sawmill operations that can't be made into lumber.)
Autistic people are _extremely_ bright -- their brain just doesn't spend much of its processing power on the "Social Customs" of society.
Some autistic people are extremely bright.
Not all autistic people are Rain Man.
I'm curious as to why so many people seem to be jumping out of the woodwork and complaining about this. It's not even remotely a novel claim.
Because people are not saying "It is a plausible hypothesis that autism is due to environmental factors." They are saying "Autism is due to environmental factors."
That is very plausible, even likely. But it is not demonstrated.
Autism is something medical science has identified for a very long time. It's not the rate of diagnosis that has increased, it is the rate of affliction.
That is an assertion.
Is there any actual evidence for this assertion?
It would be useful to know if there's more autism by some objective measure, or just more diagnosis. I've heard it pointed out that children who are diagnosed as autistic get a very large amount more attention, private tutoring, and such, in many school systems.
I've been saying for a long time now if companies would just implement lockout policies we wouldn't have any of these issues.
It would help some (less annoying than a lockout policy is just to implement a delay that increases with number of failed attempts). However, the dictionary attacks that are worrisome come from a hacker stealing the password hash tables, and are done offline, trying to decrypt the hash, not simply repeated attempts to log in. These won't be prevented by lockout policies (although they will be prevented by making sure that the hash tables don't get stolen)
Say you have a 4 word password and you publish your 2048 word dictionary on the internet, entitled "come at me". Is that more or less secure than a random 8 character password(upper, lower, numbers, 40 symbols)
The point of the xkcd, which you apparently didn't actually read, was that in the real world user-chosen "hard-to-remember" passwords are NOT eight random characters chosen from the set upper, lower, numbers, 40 symbols. The entropy is vastly less than you calculate.
(I would not call "random 8 character password(upper, lower, numbers, 40 symbols)" a "hard to remember" password in any case. Those are "completely impossible to remember, absolutely must be written down" passwords.)
So you didn't bother to RTFA before posting that. They're trying to show that the easier to remember password may be easier to crack with a dictionary attack.
And you didn't bother to read the xkcd before posting that. It showed with calculations that the commonly used "hard to remember" password has lower entropy than a much easier to remember multiword phrase. For reference, "higher entropy" means "harder to crack with a tailored brute force attack."
In any case, though, the actual first thing you need to do is to make sure you never reuse a password on two different systems. And the xkcd for that is http://xkcd.com/792/
Have you ever tried to distinguish navy from black under incandescent? Pretty hard, isn't it. But walk outside and it's obvious. Ever seen an alexandrite ring? Nice green color in daylight. Funny it's yellow-orange under incandescent.
Incandescent lamps shift colors.
So? Compared to sunlight, incandescents make some pigments look funky.
If the spectrum isn't identical to sunlight, any light bulb will render some colors differently.
But we're finally trying to improve the lightbulb again. Thanks, energy crisis.
I'm not sure that they know what they're talking about when they say the "bluish 'white' light" of LEDs. Maybe five years ago white LEDs had a blue tint, but these days you can buy consumer LED bulbs in about any color temperature you like, including the "warm" light indistinguishable from incandescents.
Wait, what about four-thirds pi, the constant that relates the volume of a sphere to the radius???
Using 2pi as the so-called "constant" is two-dimensional chauvinism!
I stand corrected.
I was reading Margaret Sanger quotes that seemed to say the opposite, but either I was misreading the quotes, misreading the subtext of the quotes, or else she contradicted herself.
(Or all of the above.)
Most notably A Land out of Time and the epic Ringworld.
Strong agreement here, but start with Neutron Star (collection of short stories) before you do Ringworld
(Crashlander, a much later story collection that includes many of the same stories as Neutron Star, will also do as a prequel to Ringworld. I like Neurton Star slightly better, but either one is fine.)
Robert E Howard and all the original Conan books are pretty good (well, if you like the old stuff, which it seems you do!). Maybe you were looking for something more obscure, though.
Make sure that the Howard books you read are actually by Robert E. Howard, though. Avoid anything by some other author continuing the series, or by "Robert E. Howard and xxx," or "Inspired by Robert E. Howard," or "completed by YY based on an unfinished story by Howard".
With that said, the Howard books do have a bit of the '30s feel to them, but if you like that style, they're the original.
Do you approve of Planned Parenthood? Its founder was big on eugenics - that's why she founded PP.
Depends on what you mean by "eugenics"-- the word has changed a little in connotation since the 1930s.
Sanger was an advocate of parenthood by choice, and opposed to anybody who wanted to make decisions on childbearing for other people. So, if you think of eugenics as meaning forced sterilization and involuntary contraception, no, she was fiercely opposed to that.
She did, however, believe that availability of contraception would mean that poor people would have fewer children, and that this would benefit both society and the gene pool (and, for that matter, benefit the poor people themselves, who would split their wealth a smaller number of ways). This was considered eugenics at the time.
"...which were even investigated by MythBusters."
Not to mention the more well known science show, South Park.