I'm sure this won't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything.
One mistake wouldn't. But the rate at which "mistakes" are piling up is becoming troubling, to say the least.
Again, this isn't a error in the science-- it isn't even in the basic science report, the Working Group One report. It is an error in a report summarizing the predictions.
You may have to dig in a bit more than the summary, but this as not just a typo.
No, if you keep drilling down and keep focused on the question "where did the date 2035 come from, when the correct number is 2350?"-- the answer is, a typo got made, and it was picked up and repeated.
Now, indeed, there were other errors there-- they were quoting tertiary references, and citing the primary reference as the source, for example. This is bad writing, and bad editing.
But it's not actually bad science, because it has nothing to do with the science-- this is an error in reporting the results of the science, which has little to do with the validity of the science itself. (Keep in mind that it wasn't even the report on the basic science-- that would be the working group one report, the Physical Basis of Climate Change.)
Gpasp, there was a TYPO in a summary report, and the editing process didn't catch it.
A typo.
In a summary report. Not in an actual scientific paper. Not even in the _science_ summary (which is IPCC working group 1 report, "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change"-- this was the WG-2 report.).
Yes, it's an annoying typo-- 2350 is significantly different from 2035. Nevertheless, note that the error is NOT in any of the science papers-- it was in a summary report. It should have been edited better (especially as, it turns out, one of the reviewers actually pointed out the error, but his correction didn't make it in), but bad editing in the summary says absolutely nothing about the science. And, in fact, the scientists pointed it out and published the correction in a major venue.
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.
All of you who have never had a typo show up uncorrected, feel free to kvetch.
Well, asterisks are used for italics while underscore characters are used for underscored font. So if you use underscore for emphasis, you'd be right. I think of italics as emphasis, myself,
/. supports html, though, so you could just use italics.
I'm not usually one of the people who complains about moderation, but that does seem a little harsh. If this post really is "troll," then I would think the parent post (saying that Apple's one button mouse was a "fairly large mist-step") should also be moderated as a troll.
(Well, yes, I guess this is a variant of the old "but he started it!" defense.)
...but Apple's been known to make fairly large mis-steps before in other areas (camera in the nano, not the Touch; Apple TV; Newton; one-button mouse; etc)
For the record, I don't see the problem with the one-button mouse.
I suppose it's a problem for people with just one hand, but given that you have control and command and option keys on the keyboard, I've never seen why it's important to put more buttons on the mouse.
The actual article says:
"these privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.
The difference is that winter is coming, and the sun gets low on the horizon. We can, if we chose, dig in on one side so that we tilt toward the sun, which means that we will get more solar energy, and so the solar powered rover will survive the winter.
(We've tilted the rover into the sun every winter so far-- if we don't, this will be the first winter we've tried to survive without tilting into the sun)
Really? Ok, you're you're ahead of 99 of the people making comments. I will memorize your user name and put you on my mental "people who actually know what they're talking about" list.
The IPCC "physical basis" report is, indeed, non-technical, but i's probably as good an overview of the science at a non-technical level as you're likely to find-- you can start chasing down the references if you want the details.
Because it's a waste of time, that's why. Offering evidence to a denialist ostrich
Not every climate skeptic is a denialist ostrich. Many of us can be converted with patience, lucidity and openness.
Frankly, not that I've noticed.
Here's a question: have you actually ever read the IPCC report on the physical basis for climate change? I don't mean, have you read the critiques of it written by other people who are telling you not to bother reading it. I don't even mean, have you read the summary for policy makers. I mean, have you actually read the report?
When I buy a day pass to Disneyland, I expect that I can go on the Haunted Mansion ride 15 times in a row if I want to.
Except that if you go to Disneyland, your bandwidth (i.e., the number of times you can go on the Haunted Mansion ride) is throttled by the lines. (*queues, for the Brits among us).
And, the more popular the ride, the more it is throttled.
This not an example of a content-neutral system-- it is an example of usage that is throttled directly proportional to how popular content is.
Hence the provisions in your legal system to disqualify a judge based on a potential conflict of interest,
Right. And, because this is a legal system, there need to be defined standards of what is a potential conflict of interest.
...worse off is the fact that a social networking site is the basis to decide if a conflict of interest exists..
It is not the basis for making the decision. It is a basis.
who has friends on there facebook list they barely know? I'm sure more than a few of you.
The law is that judges should not have a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest.
This is good. I don't want judges to have conflicts of interest, and I don't want them to even have appearances of conflict of interest. Judges should be disinterested.
This seems weird, but it does actually make sense.
Frankly, if I had to go before a court, I definitely would be very perturbed if the opposing lawyer was a friend of the judge-- yes, even a "facebook friend."
...because bandwidth isn't a scarce, consumable resource as water or electricity is.
Yes, in the real world-- the one we live in-- it actually is. You don't "consume" it, but you sure can use it up.
If the utility offers "as much data as you like during off-hours"-- that would be one thing. But in the real world, no, nobody has an infinite amount of bandwidth.
Telescopes are a lot more fun if you know enough about the sky to find your way around (although these days, with so many high-tech telescopes that have "go to", that's not quite so important as it was.)
Nevertheless, if you're going to eventualy get a telescope, start out by getting a planisphere and maybe a book on learning the constellations, and then promise "I'll get you a telescope as soon as you can go outside at night and identify fifteen constellations, and name fifteen bright stars."
Oh, yes-- and if you live in a city, forget it completely. Buy a good pair of binoculars to look at the moon instead. (Which, actually, is also a lot of fun).
When you're paying a monthly fee to use that service, it should not matter how much or how little you use it. ISPs have no right to bitch and moan about high bandwidth users.
That's not logical. It makes sense that people who use more should pay more. Why shouldn't the people who use more, pay more? If I use more water, I pay a higher water bill; if I use more electricity, I pay a higher electric bill.
It seems that the problem is that word "unlimited." If the sales pitch says that you're buying "unlimited" internet, then you've got an argument that they're doing false advertising when they then say "...but that doesn't mean unlimited".
The amount of power they used in mere minutes during this experiment could have powered millions of homes and businesses for a significantly longer period of time.
About a minute worth of googling shows that the site draws a peak load of about 180 MW when it's running, of which about 120 MW is for the LHC itself. And it doesn't run all the time.
Typical homes are about 2 kW or so, give or take, so that's hardly enough to power "millions of homes and businesses".
Population of Europe is abour 830 million, by the way, so LHC represents approximately zero percent of the energy consumption of Europe (to two significant figures).
... we're missing critical information in the report. The keep mentioning "levels of methane" but they don't tell us what these levels are
The usual sources quote about 10 parts per billion of Methane in the atmosphere. Michael Mumma of Goddard Space Flight Center, with earthbound telescopes, says he's detected up to 200 parts per billion near the equator. Recent observations suggest that the methane is released in plumes, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane [space.com].
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure this won't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything.
One mistake wouldn't. But the rate at which "mistakes" are piling up is becoming troubling, to say the least.
Again, this isn't a error in the science-- it isn't even in the basic science report, the Working Group One report. It is an error in a report summarizing the predictions.
You may have to dig in a bit more than the summary, but this as not just a typo.
No, if you keep drilling down and keep focused on the question "where did the date 2035 come from, when the correct number is 2350?"-- the answer is, a typo got made, and it was picked up and repeated.
Now, indeed, there were other errors there-- they were quoting tertiary references, and citing the primary reference as the source, for example. This is bad writing, and bad editing.
But it's not actually bad science, because it has nothing to do with the science-- this is an error in reporting the results of the science, which has little to do with the validity of the science itself. (Keep in mind that it wasn't even the report on the basic science-- that would be the working group one report, the Physical Basis of Climate Change.)
Gpasp, there was a TYPO in a summary report, and the editing process didn't catch it.
A typo.
In a summary report. Not in an actual scientific paper. Not even in the _science_ summary (which is IPCC working group 1 report, "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change"-- this was the WG-2 report.).
Yes, it's an annoying typo-- 2350 is significantly different from 2035. Nevertheless, note that the error is NOT in any of the science papers-- it was in a summary report. It should have been edited better (especially as, it turns out, one of the reviewers actually pointed out the error, but his correction didn't make it in), but bad editing in the summary says absolutely nothing about the science. And, in fact, the scientists pointed it out and published the correction in a major venue.
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.
All of you who have never had a typo show up uncorrected, feel free to kvetch.
Pretty good information about high-altitude skydiving here: Speed of a Skydiver
/. supports html, though, so you could just use italics.
I'm not usually one of the people who complains about moderation, but that does seem a little harsh. If this post really is "troll," then I would think the parent post (saying that Apple's one button mouse was a "fairly large mist-step") should also be moderated as a troll.
(Well, yes, I guess this is a variant of the old "but he started it!" defense.)
...but Apple's been known to make fairly large mis-steps before in other areas (camera in the nano, not the Touch; Apple TV; Newton; one-button mouse; etc)
For the record, I don't see the problem with the one-button mouse.
I suppose it's a problem for people with just one hand, but given that you have control and command and option keys on the keyboard, I've never seen why it's important to put more buttons on the mouse.
the headline says:
INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US
The actual article says: "these privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.
The headline seems to be wrong.
> How do stacked circuits do a better job of dissipating heat...
They don't, nor does the article claim that they do.
Darn, where's that "-1: did not read as far as the last line of the summary" moderation option when I need it???
(We've tilted the rover into the sun every winter so far-- if we don't, this will be the first winter we've tried to survive without tilting into the sun)
Frankly, the only reason USA didn't do the same
Men who Stare at Goats!
If the government truly wants to encourage competition, they would provide funding to under-performing companies and startups.
Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst. You know, I'm sure that there's a flaw in that idea somewhere.
we should be moving on to one-time pads anyway (Which are theoretically unbreakable absent social engineering or major design flaw
Unfortunately, the bad flaw of one-time pads is that they can be copied.
have you actually ever read the report? Assessment report: The physical science basis
I have actually.
Really? Ok, you're you're ahead of 99 of the people making comments. I will memorize your user name and put you on my mental "people who actually know what they're talking about" list.
The IPCC "physical basis" report is, indeed, non-technical, but i's probably as good an overview of the science at a non-technical level as you're likely to find-- you can start chasing down the references if you want the details.
Nevertheless, from the point of view of America alone, it might be nice if we stopped sending billions of dollars to countries that hate us.
Because it's a waste of time, that's why. Offering evidence to a denialist ostrich
Not every climate skeptic is a denialist ostrich. Many of us can be converted with patience, lucidity and openness.
Frankly, not that I've noticed.
Here's a question: have you actually ever read the IPCC report on the physical basis for climate change? I don't mean, have you read the critiques of it written by other people who are telling you not to bother reading it. I don't even mean, have you read the summary for policy makers. I mean, have you actually read the report?
Assessment report: The physical science basis, for what it's worth.
When I buy a day pass to Disneyland, I expect that I can go on the Haunted Mansion ride 15 times in a row if I want to.
Except that if you go to Disneyland, your bandwidth (i.e., the number of times you can go on the Haunted Mansion ride) is throttled by the lines. (*queues, for the Brits among us).
And, the more popular the ride, the more it is throttled.
This not an example of a content-neutral system-- it is an example of usage that is throttled directly proportional to how popular content is.
Hence the provisions in your legal system to disqualify a judge based on a potential conflict of interest,
Right. And, because this is a legal system, there need to be defined standards of what is a potential conflict of interest.
...worse off is the fact that a social networking site is the basis to decide if a conflict of interest exists..
It is not the basis for making the decision. It is a basis.
who has friends on there facebook list they barely know? I'm sure more than a few of you.
The law is that judges should not have a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest.
This is good. I don't want judges to have conflicts of interest, and I don't want them to even have appearances of conflict of interest. Judges should be disinterested.
Instead of trying to hide the friendship, it should be forced to be public.
Point.
Frankly, if I had to go before a court, I definitely would be very perturbed if the opposing lawyer was a friend of the judge-- yes, even a "facebook friend."
...because bandwidth isn't a scarce, consumable resource as water or electricity is.
Yes, in the real world-- the one we live in-- it actually is. You don't "consume" it, but you sure can use it up.
If the utility offers "as much data as you like during off-hours"-- that would be one thing. But in the real world, no, nobody has an infinite amount of bandwidth.
Nevertheless, if you're going to eventualy get a telescope, start out by getting a planisphere and maybe a book on learning the constellations, and then promise "I'll get you a telescope as soon as you can go outside at night and identify fifteen constellations, and name fifteen bright stars."
Oh, yes-- and if you live in a city, forget it completely. Buy a good pair of binoculars to look at the moon instead. (Which, actually, is also a lot of fun).
When you're paying a monthly fee to use that service, it should not matter how much or how little you use it. ISPs have no right to bitch and moan about high bandwidth users.
That's not logical. It makes sense that people who use more should pay more. Why shouldn't the people who use more, pay more? If I use more water, I pay a higher water bill; if I use more electricity, I pay a higher electric bill.
It seems that the problem is that word "unlimited." If the sales pitch says that you're buying "unlimited" internet, then you've got an argument that they're doing false advertising when they then say "...but that doesn't mean unlimited".
The amount of power they used in mere minutes during this experiment could have powered millions of homes and businesses for a significantly longer period of time.
About a minute worth of googling shows that the site draws a peak load of about 180 MW when it's running, of which about 120 MW is for the LHC itself. And it doesn't run all the time.
Typical homes are about 2 kW or so, give or take, so that's hardly enough to power "millions of homes and businesses".
Population of Europe is abour 830 million, by the way, so LHC represents approximately zero percent of the energy consumption of Europe (to two significant figures).
... we're missing critical information in the report. The keep mentioning "levels of methane" but they don't tell us what these levels are
The usual sources quote about 10 parts per billion of Methane in the atmosphere. Michael Mumma of Goddard Space Flight Center, with earthbound telescopes, says he's detected up to 200 parts per billion near the equator. Recent observations suggest that the methane is released in plumes, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane [space.com].