Yeah, I did took chemistry courses for the first 2 years of my physics degree, so I know what carbon dioxide is. I also typo-ed "actually" as "actual".
Broadly speaking, I'm skeptical about fragile natural balances, given the continuously changing climate of Earth, stretching as far back as we can measure it.
I'm skeptical that this particular climate is somehow miraculously the best of all, given that it's by mere chance we are alive at this point.
And humanity is the most adaptable of all creatures, living in the frozen tundra, and in the Sahara, and everywhere in between. So I'm not particularly worried.
We need more objective science, and less scare-mongering.
You can see we'd be historically at a peak in C02 (over the time scale of hundreds of thousands of years) even if there were no humans at all. Also, that graph will act as somewhat of an average. C02 will wiggle up and down a lot more if you could zoom in to the scale of decades.
Yes, most assuredly C02 and temperature are correlated. But in which direction is the causation? One posits ice ages trapping C02 through sealing the biomass in. And vice versa.
Also, you can see that yes, climate changes all the time. You don't need humans (as much as the IPCC tries to downplay pre-industrial temperature changes in their bizzare weightings).
Also, you can see that there are natural feedback mechanisms at work which prevent extremes. So I think it says a lot.
As much fun as it is, and as much money as it generates for pork-barrel states, I don't think there's an enormous amount of point ferrying multi-passengers to LEO. I think we've explored it many, many decades ago.
But the shuttle kept doing it (it had to be used for something). At ridiculous expense. With massively complex maintenance. Entirely replacing one system (Saturn V-esque rockets) utterly pointlessly, not save a dime (quite the reverse). Starving genuine innovation (unmanned vehicles) of funding.
NASA are replacing the shuttle style of launching. What does that tell you?
The shuttle is a testament to failure as much as Saturn V was a testament to success and courage.
So, no mods, it wasn't "flamebait" - the shuttle really is a piece of shit.
I think everyone saw it happening at some point, because it always has happened at some point, all the way throughout financial history.
And the primary point is this: you make money on the whole if you follow the herd, and do what others are doing. And these people have made a lot of money. There has been no failure from (most of) their individual points of view, merely from an overall economic point of view that includes the rest of us.
The fundamental issues is these programs *didn't* fail whatsoever from the view point of most of those who programmed them, and who used them.
They by and large individually have done very well for themselves
, albeit at the expense of fucking up the economy for the rest of us.
And they have done so by being reckless because they all were being reckless - they make their money by acting like the rest of their herd acts. (And now they're all being overly prudent, because they're all being overly prudent).
You're omitting many geniuses from hundreds of years ago, because you're maybe more familiar with recent ones.
Eg. Boyle, Hooke, Kepler, Leibniz etc..
Also, how about a single genius who has radically changed our understanding of the universe and physical law since the Standard Model (1970s)?
There are none. Not because of a lack of talent, but because the physics we still don't know is much harder to find out (cf the massive effort that has gone into String Theory from many, many researchers, and which has still yet to make any empirically verifiable predictions).
Writing is an art, and with any art-form there are huge numbers of highly talented people willing to do it for free.
And probably larger numbers who are shit and also want to do it for free.
Ergo, it's not a question of payment, it's a question of the games companies sifting through a lot of writers to find good cheap ones (because I'd bet a lot of money there are many of these out there).
Given the degree of effort historians and archaeologists today put into finding as much information as possible from times past, including minutia about how ordinary people lived their lives, you're obviously flat out wrong.
Surely the actual numbers of game programmer positions is relatively small, and it's a very lucrative and "cool" industry, hence games companies should be having no problems finding sufficient numbers of sufficiently talented programmers?
Ergo, no need for them to start funding their own universities, and no needy for shitty games degrees from shitty colleges (other than making a profit for those colleges).
Did the the computer models actually say that? And even if they did, there were no bugs from the POV of those with power in these companies - those at the top made a fortune from bonuses.
Yeah, hence it's kind of retarded to just use a simplistic left/right divide to encapsulate all politics.
Authoritarian/libertarian, interventionist/isolationist and nationalistic/non-nationalistic are all distinct from economics. Which is what right/left should denote.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I did took chemistry courses for the first 2 years of my physics degree, so I know what carbon dioxide is. I also typo-ed "actually" as "actual".
Broadly speaking, I'm skeptical about fragile natural balances, given the continuously changing climate of Earth, stretching as far back as we can measure it.
I'm skeptical that this particular climate is somehow miraculously the best of all, given that it's by mere chance we are alive at this point.
And humanity is the most adaptable of all creatures, living in the frozen tundra, and in the Sahara, and everywhere in between. So I'm not particularly worried.
We need more objective science, and less scare-mongering.
You can see we'd be historically at a peak in C02 (over the time scale of hundreds of thousands of years) even if there were no humans at all. Also, that graph will act as somewhat of an average. C02 will wiggle up and down a lot more if you could zoom in to the scale of decades.
Yes, most assuredly C02 and temperature are correlated. But in which direction is the causation? One posits ice ages trapping C02 through sealing the biomass in. And vice versa.
Also, you can see that yes, climate changes all the time. You don't need humans (as much as the IPCC tries to downplay pre-industrial temperature changes in their bizzare weightings).
Also, you can see that there are natural feedback mechanisms at work which prevent extremes. So I think it says a lot.
Sacrilege !
How can you tax a nuclear fireball? How can you use a nuclear fireball to increase your fame and power? How do you use it to reap more grant money?
Evil time travelling humans must also be behind all cyclical warming events stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg
The horror. The horror.
Plants (and therefore most life by weight) don't seem to view C02 as a "shitty pollution". Actual, precisely the opposite.
As much fun as it is, and as much money as it generates for pork-barrel states, I don't think there's an enormous amount of point ferrying multi-passengers to LEO. I think we've explored it many, many decades ago.
But the shuttle kept doing it (it had to be used for something). At ridiculous expense. With massively complex maintenance. Entirely replacing one system (Saturn V-esque rockets) utterly pointlessly, not save a dime (quite the reverse). Starving genuine innovation (unmanned vehicles) of funding.
NASA are replacing the shuttle style of launching. What does that tell you?
The shuttle is a testament to failure as much as Saturn V was a testament to success and courage.
So, no mods, it wasn't "flamebait" - the shuttle really is a piece of shit.
I wouldn't, because it's a piece of shit of a spacecraft.
I think everyone saw it happening at some point, because it always has happened at some point, all the way throughout financial history.
And the primary point is this: you make money on the whole if you follow the herd, and do what others are doing. And these people have made a lot of money. There has been no failure from (most of) their individual points of view, merely from an overall economic point of view that includes the rest of us.
The fundamental issues is these programs *didn't* fail whatsoever from the view point of most of those who programmed them, and who used them.
They by and large individually have done very well for themselves , albeit at the expense of fucking up the economy for the rest of us.
And they have done so by being reckless because they all were being reckless - they make their money by acting like the rest of their herd acts. (And now they're all being overly prudent, because they're all being overly prudent).
Canada is and was in NATO, so probably would have gotten thoroughly nuked in the event of US/Soviet all out war.
Plus, I'd wager the Soviets viewed it as de facto a part of the US (no offense).
You're omitting many geniuses from hundreds of years ago, because you're maybe more familiar with recent ones.
Eg. Boyle, Hooke, Kepler, Leibniz etc..
Also, how about a single genius who has radically changed our understanding of the universe and physical law since the Standard Model (1970s)?
There are none. Not because of a lack of talent, but because the physics we still don't know is much harder to find out (cf the massive effort that has gone into String Theory from many, many researchers, and which has still yet to make any empirically verifiable predictions).
Writing is an art, and with any art-form there are huge numbers of highly talented people willing to do it for free.
And probably larger numbers who are shit and also want to do it for free.
Ergo, it's not a question of payment, it's a question of the games companies sifting through a lot of writers to find good cheap ones (because I'd bet a lot of money there are many of these out there).
No, 1 PB = 12 LoC, so 1 LoC = 0.0833... PB
Also, I'd like to make some kind of swimming pool reference.
No, because energy isn't ever lost in quantum mechanical bound systems in their ground state.
Surely the major problem is lost/damaged storage media.
I don't think there are many important files that people can't now read because of lack of documentation.
But plenty of stuff has been physically lost, e.g. loads of usenet posts from the early 80s.
Given the degree of effort historians and archaeologists today put into finding as much information as possible from times past, including minutia about how ordinary people lived their lives, you're obviously flat out wrong.
Er, he stated that an "internet" that someone sent him didn't arrive because it was blocked in a tube, in that little speech of his.
He really didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about. But that didn't stop him thinking he had something important to say, of course.
He and all others who act like that deserve ridicule.
Surely the actual numbers of game programmer positions is relatively small, and it's a very lucrative and "cool" industry, hence games companies should be having no problems finding sufficient numbers of sufficiently talented programmers?
Ergo, no need for them to start funding their own universities, and no needy for shitty games degrees from shitty colleges (other than making a profit for those colleges).
Yes, there are indeed. For example, the current US government. The idea of Turkey joining the EU seems to be a wet dream for them, for some reason.
And your suggestion is in turn the third oldest according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_video_game"
Did the the computer models actually say that? And even if they did, there were no bugs from the POV of those with power in these companies - those at the top made a fortune from bonuses.
The 32x and the mega-cd thingie killed Sega. The dreamcast was a actually a really good console.
But I can't be arsed to read the article and find out if he was responsible for those two abortions.
Yeah, hence it's kind of retarded to just use a simplistic left/right divide to encapsulate all politics.
Authoritarian/libertarian, interventionist/isolationist and nationalistic/non-nationalistic are all distinct from economics. Which is what right/left should denote.
Because the names countries give themselves are somehow accurate?
A good rule of thumb during the cold war was that any country with "democratic" in the title was the exact opposite.
Liberal, OTOH, cherish the prospect of being raped?