We'll see, won't we. Too bad Dr Spencer can't take his graph back before 1979. I suspect it would break down pretty fast if he could.
Problem is, there aren't any satellite measurements prior to 1979 - most of the "data" used in climate change study are from proxies and are notoriously sketchy and variant.
I'd pay more attention to those things if they actually posed a physical mechanism for them. Right now it just looks like statistical manipulation to me.
That's what a lot of it is. Predicting temperature changes to hundredths of a degree accuracy when your proxies and thermometer measurements are accurate to a degree or more is just statistical wanking...
Interesting plot of global warming but it uses a 3rd order polynomial fit for the trend, instead of a straight line. What's the trend of the polynomial curve (which actually fits the data better than a straight line)? It's sinusoidal, and we're at the peak. This also fits with the prediction model by Prof. Don Easterbrook - who's been right about the warming in the 90s, flat-line in the 2000s and our start of a cooling trend.
No, they don't lose the ability to enforce the patent. They may lose the ability to recoup damages for past infringements, but that in no way limits your ability to assert your patent in current and future actions. That is quite different from Trademarks where failure to assert can cost you loss of ability to assert in the future as well. There is NO loss or limitation of patent rights if you do not assert your rights; at most you may lose past infringement damages, but you will not lose any future rights.
So he removed the posts, as the GP contended? Because that's different than a SINGLE ban... And radically different than the wholesale bans and post removals and "memory hole" actions carried out at "RealClimate"...
We had folks telling us we'd have heating for the entire decade - and it didn't happen. We have Hansen on record as saying if warming doesn't kick back in by 2013 then all models need to be seriously re-evaluated. This isn't statistics, this is models simply not fitting the real world - no randomness about it.
Read Spencer's own blog, where three or four other climatologists tear his claims apart. But do it quick. Spencer, I suspect, won't let any post that isn't from like minded ideologues survive long.
No, it's places like "RealClimate" that does the banning and scrubbing of posts; Roy - like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre - will leave the posts up. They value dissent and questioning, as opposed to the enforced orthodoxy of places like "RealClimate".
Lemme guess, we're going to hear more about Al Gore, the pseudo-skeptics' favorite whipping boy.
No, just that the consensus in 2000 to 2003 was that we'd continue warming and have ever-increasing amounts of hurricanes. And neither has happened. Now that reality has deviated from what the models said should happen, we should suspect the models are wrong and go back and look at the conclusions from those models...
If you want to collect damages, you need to take action, and within a few years of your learning of the infringement; however, failing to take action in no way diminishes your future ability to sue for infringement and future damages - only those that have happened in the past. You don't lose the right to assert your patent in the future, but you do lose the ability to collect damages for past infringements.
Nope. See section III of this informative document from FDML. Laches applied to patents may limit your ability to collect on previous infringements, but do not limit your ability for any and all actions and penalties from the filing of the suit and forward. At most, you may give up the right to enforce past infringements, but you still have the right to stop all current and future infringements.
That would be about 5% of Samsung's revenue. Of course, that would eliminate about 75% of Apple's revenue. Yeah, I think I know who'd lose out on that one...
Apple (lawyers) are saying (lawyers don't actually get irate as long as they get paid and the court time lasts longer and longer) that the patents were part of a standard. That Motorola et al purposely made their patents part of a standard, and are now using them to extort concessions out of Apple. This is unfair, because there is no way to work around the patents: you can't use a GSM network without using Motorola patents. So when the standard was made, all players agreed to license their patents for a reasonable cost.
If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it.
Sorry, that's not true. If to do not enforce a copyright or trademark you can lose it, but patents are not that way; it is at the sole discretion of the patent holder whether or not to enforce their rights, and you can enforce them as you like - preferred for some, never for others different terms and conditions. And if you choose not to enforce them, then you do not lose your patent or any strength of enforcement for the future.
No, the Samsung Galaxy Tab looks exactly like a Samsung media player from March 2006. It's Apple that's clearly copying - flat, black front, rounded corners metal sides - clearly Apple was inspired by the Samsung product, given that it was out 3 years before the iPad, and a year before the iPhone...
I think that Samsung probably influenced the design of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung circa March 2006. Looks a lot like the iPad - flat, black, rounded corners, silver edges - and it plays media like pictures, movies and music. So it's more of a case of the Samsung Galaxy Tab building on earlier Samsung ID, and Apple copying Samsung.
.
1. That is irrelevant to the GP's point and my response.
2. If you believe food stamps are a good stimulus, then why don't we put everyone on food stamps and really get the economy revving? There's something lost in the Government's analysis and that's called the lost opportunity that makes it a net loser to the economy as a whole. How else can you explain increasing food stamp expenses and a GDP that's crashing back to recession?
It wasn't "just fine," after the end of agrarianism it was pretty awful for most people, until it reached the point in the 1920's where a few people owned everything, and by the 1930's millions of families couldn't put food on the table.
We have 45.8 million people on food stamps, unable to put food on the table. That's 15% of the US population. Apparently the regulation you'd like to see hasn't done any better, but it sure has blown our debt and deficit all to hell...
In the Northeast, we don't get hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes. In California, you don't get much snow or ice, or sub-zero temperatures (or tornadoes).
Snow, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, big deal. When you get a volcano, then you get something you can talk about.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but there will be a Groupon offering shortly...
We'll see, won't we. Too bad Dr Spencer can't take his graph back before 1979. I suspect it would break down pretty fast if he could.
Problem is, there aren't any satellite measurements prior to 1979 - most of the "data" used in climate change study are from proxies and are notoriously sketchy and variant.
I'd pay more attention to those things if they actually posed a physical mechanism for them. Right now it just looks like statistical manipulation to me.
That's what a lot of it is. Predicting temperature changes to hundredths of a degree accuracy when your proxies and thermometer measurements are accurate to a degree or more is just statistical wanking...
Mixology. At least you'll be the hit of the frat parties - and in a few years you can develop a keg tap that'll pour beer at a 10 meter distance.
Sorry, dropped the image link. I snapped that photo in the HSBC in downtown Bangkok last August.
Id say either Chinese or Hindi, seeing as China or India will be where all of our jobs are going to eventually end up anyhow...
Mandarin isn't really needed anymore...
Interesting plot of global warming but it uses a 3rd order polynomial fit for the trend, instead of a straight line. What's the trend of the polynomial curve (which actually fits the data better than a straight line)? It's sinusoidal, and we're at the peak. This also fits with the prediction model by Prof. Don Easterbrook - who's been right about the warming in the 90s, flat-line in the 2000s and our start of a cooling trend.
No, they don't lose the ability to enforce the patent. They may lose the ability to recoup damages for past infringements, but that in no way limits your ability to assert your patent in current and future actions. That is quite different from Trademarks where failure to assert can cost you loss of ability to assert in the future as well. There is NO loss or limitation of patent rights if you do not assert your rights; at most you may lose past infringement damages, but you will not lose any future rights.
So he removed the posts, as the GP contended? Because that's different than a SINGLE ban... And radically different than the wholesale bans and post removals and "memory hole" actions carried out at "RealClimate"...
We had folks telling us we'd have heating for the entire decade - and it didn't happen. We have Hansen on record as saying if warming doesn't kick back in by 2013 then all models need to be seriously re-evaluated. This isn't statistics, this is models simply not fitting the real world - no randomness about it.
Read Spencer's own blog, where three or four other climatologists tear his claims apart. But do it quick. Spencer, I suspect, won't let any post that isn't from like minded ideologues survive long.
No, it's places like "RealClimate" that does the banning and scrubbing of posts; Roy - like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre - will leave the posts up. They value dissent and questioning, as opposed to the enforced orthodoxy of places like "RealClimate".
Does the journal make sure that there are always skeptics reviewing papers that support AGW?
Lemme guess, we're going to hear more about Al Gore, the pseudo-skeptics' favorite whipping boy.
No, just that the consensus in 2000 to 2003 was that we'd continue warming and have ever-increasing amounts of hurricanes. And neither has happened. Now that reality has deviated from what the models said should happen, we should suspect the models are wrong and go back and look at the conclusions from those models...
If you want to collect damages, you need to take action, and within a few years of your learning of the infringement; however, failing to take action in no way diminishes your future ability to sue for infringement and future damages - only those that have happened in the past. You don't lose the right to assert your patent in the future, but you do lose the ability to collect damages for past infringements.
Nope. See section III of this informative document from FDML. Laches applied to patents may limit your ability to collect on previous infringements, but do not limit your ability for any and all actions and penalties from the filing of the suit and forward. At most, you may give up the right to enforce past infringements, but you still have the right to stop all current and future infringements.
That would be about 5% of Samsung's revenue. Of course, that would eliminate about 75% of Apple's revenue. Yeah, I think I know who'd lose out on that one...
Apple (lawyers) are saying (lawyers don't actually get irate as long as they get paid and the court time lasts longer and longer) that the patents were part of a standard. That Motorola et al purposely made their patents part of a standard, and are now using them to extort concessions out of Apple. This is unfair, because there is no way to work around the patents: you can't use a GSM network without using Motorola patents. So when the standard was made, all players agreed to license their patents for a reasonable cost.
That sounds suspiciously like something Apple is doing with HTML5 and the W3C standards. Maybe Apple is literally getting a taste of their medicine?
If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it.
Sorry, that's not true. If to do not enforce a copyright or trademark you can lose it, but patents are not that way; it is at the sole discretion of the patent holder whether or not to enforce their rights, and you can enforce them as you like - preferred for some, never for others different terms and conditions. And if you choose not to enforce them, then you do not lose your patent or any strength of enforcement for the future.
No, the Samsung Galaxy Tab looks exactly like a Samsung media player from March 2006. It's Apple that's clearly copying - flat, black front, rounded corners metal sides - clearly Apple was inspired by the Samsung product, given that it was out 3 years before the iPad, and a year before the iPhone...
I think that Samsung probably influenced the design of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung circa March 2006. Looks a lot like the iPad - flat, black, rounded corners, silver edges - and it plays media like pictures, movies and music. So it's more of a case of the Samsung Galaxy Tab building on earlier Samsung ID, and Apple copying Samsung.
It's not like Samsung had a picture and media playing frame back in early 2006 that looks just like an iPad. Or more like a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
1. That is irrelevant to the GP's point and my response.
2. If you believe food stamps are a good stimulus, then why don't we put everyone on food stamps and really get the economy revving? There's something lost in the Government's analysis and that's called the lost opportunity that makes it a net loser to the economy as a whole. How else can you explain increasing food stamp expenses and a GDP that's crashing back to recession?
It wasn't "just fine," after the end of agrarianism it was pretty awful for most people, until it reached the point in the 1920's where a few people owned everything, and by the 1930's millions of families couldn't put food on the table.
We have 45.8 million people on food stamps, unable to put food on the table. That's 15% of the US population. Apparently the regulation you'd like to see hasn't done any better, but it sure has blown our debt and deficit all to hell...
In the Northeast, we don't get hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes. In California, you don't get much snow or ice, or sub-zero temperatures (or tornadoes).
Snow, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, big deal. When you get a volcano, then you get something you can talk about.
Signed,
Seattle Resident
Real geeks enter their media one hex digit at a time...
Now you know why you should always weigh your software against a duck...