Of course there can be more than one process at work, e.g. fishing and warming. Perhaps read the paper and see what they are really talking about. As far as the abstract states, the authors were working to isolate the effect of warming alone on fish stocks.
Maybe, just maybe, read the abstract at least before posting. They modeled different fish populations and temperature sensitivity to arrive at the conclusions.
In college I found that I could turn up familiar music* and block out random, distracting noise from the hallway, the neighboring room, and the basketball court outside my window and focus very well on engineering and math homework. Because the music was so familiar it was not noise or a distraction, but completely predictable. (*Led Zeppelin, Rush, The Police, Pink Floyd...)
You don't get it. A 1.3C warning is the global average, but you need to look at the duration of extreme temperatures that affect insect or other animal life cycles. It's quite possible, and expected, that there is a limit to how far temperatures can go for how long before a species has trouble at some stage. For example, a few hours at, say, 100F might not b a problem, but eight hours might be.
Massive escalation of the war on malaria? Right. That's only very recent, even if "massive." The lack of bugs on winshields has been noticed (by me and many others) since the 1990s, and that's true for the long term insect counts in Europe, as well. In any case, as with most systems it's likely many causes, not a single one.
The BBC article said the army doesn't want to shoot at it for fear of stray shots into populated areas. It seems the military would have developed some better ways to deal with drones by now than shooting with bullets, such as chain shot that used to be used to take out rigging, or some kind of AA burst that would be relatively haarmlessvaw if it falls straight down, etc. Instead they're talking about trying to hunt down the operator as the only viable option.
This is why science works and why "do science." Our instincts are often incorrect, and the scientific method helps us learn more about what actually might be going on.
Okay, let's discuss. a) Local is not global. b) Global warming leads to more variation, not uniform warming. Look at the polar vortex, for example. That was predicted by models beforehand, as well. c) Warming leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which leads to higher precipitation, including snow when the conditions are right. In other words, you have to show that what is being seen in the global trends and the cherry picked odd local events are both inconsistent with global warming and easily explained by something else. Good luck.
Towns and cities used to be built much better for pedestrians and kids to walk to school. Go look at areas built up in the 1900's through about 1930 before cars became the defacto mode of transportation. I grew up in such a town of about 30,000 people outside a major city. ALL the students in the district walked to school. There was no bussing except for field trips.
You sound very sure of yourself. One counter point: The dips in the jet stream that are called "the polar vortex" were predicted a few years before they started happening. Maybe you should read up on or or talk with people in the climate science field and see what they are really up to.
Yeah, but people say all sorts of stuff. That has nothing to do with accumulating and analyzing data, comparing models to history, making predictions, etc.
There is a difference between something "causing a storm" and "making storms more severe." There are few people if any saying climate change drives or causes new storms that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. But it's pretty obvious, and has been discussed for a long time now, that global warming means more heat and therefore more water and more energy in the atmosphere, which make storms more severe.
What alternative are you proposing? As it stands, your posts are just a rant against income taxes, with some correlations stated but not causation proved.
The audio shows the Atari COO not being certain of what a particular engineering board would support as far as working with other off-the-shelf hardware. This is a nothing story. First, the COO is not the CTO or the V.P. of Engineering or the system lead designer. Why would anyone expect the COO to know _anything_ about an engineering prototype?
Here's another with a 0.79mm^2 32-bit MCU... The point is, it's not hard these days to make a "computer" under 1mm^2. It's just a matter of deciding what is needed.
"A Sub-cm3 Energy-Harvesting Stacked Wireless Sensor Node Featuring a Near-Threshold Voltage IA-32 Microcontroller in 14-nm Tri-Gate CMOS for Always-ON Always-Sensing Applications"
Published in: IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits ( Volume: 52, Issue: 4, April 2017 )
Abstract:
"An energy-harvesting wireless sensor node (WSN) integrates a 14-nm, 0.79-mm2, 32-b Intel Architecture core based near-threshold voltage (NTV) microcontroller (MCU) that provides 17-W/MHz always-ON, always-sensing (AOAS) capability. The MCU implements four independent voltage-frequency islands, managed by an integrated power management unit and features a subthreshold voltage capable on-die oscillator and 42-nm fin-pitch, 8.3-pA leakage-per-bit SRAM...."
This seems a bit silly without a common definition. The IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits is probably full of things like this. Note that an 8- or 16-bit microcontroller core only requires about 12kgates (NAND2 equivalent), and in 65nm or 40nm CMOS that fits in something like 200um x 200um, and adding a few data registers, a small program RAM or ROM, a ring oscillator for clocking and some ESD IO pad cells would keep the whole thing well under 1mm x 1mm. In one minute of Googling I found this example:
"The programmable processors occupy 0.055 mm2 each, contain no algorithm specific hardware, and operate up to an average maximum clock frequency of 1.78 GHz at 1.1 V."
in
"KiloCore: A 32-nm 1000-Processor Computational Array," IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits ( Volume: 52, Issue: 4, April 2017 )
Did you not read the part about all the automated instructions to IT and Security that no manager could halt? That's where the "system" was in charge and not the humans.
"It's a security FEATURE, not bug, that accounts lapse automatically when someone's employment is terminated."
No, it's a bug in the company's "systems and procedures." His employment was not terminated by anyone except the system. No manager wanted him terminated.
No, most of your argument is wrong. His blog states he was in month 8 or 9 of a 3 year contract. As it turns out, no-one in the company even wanted his contract terminated. So, yes, the automated systems did effectively terminate his contract as far as the systems were concerned, but that is not what the company intended. Most likely the company did not properly terminate the contract because it did not provide notice, so there might be some room for legal redress, but he probably doesn't want to annoy them if he likes working there. It sounds like he doesn't understand his own contract terms and the need to stay on top of things like that.
I think you are correct. His contract should have a termination clause that requires notice in writing. If he never received notice, then it was not terminated correctly and he is due at least the money for time he spent trying to work.
This part of his blog post does not add up. Perhaps that's because he doesn't understand his own contract. Instead of "when my contract expired," it should probably read, "when the new system did not see my contract as active."
"I was on a 3 years contract and had only worked for 8 months. [My manager] had been laid off. He was to work from home as a contractor for the duration of a transition. I imagine... he decided not to do much work after that. Some of that work included renewing my contract in the new system....
When my contract expired, the machine took over and fired me."
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there can be more than one process at work, e.g. fishing and warming. Perhaps read the paper and see what they are really talking about. As far as the abstract states, the authors were working to isolate the effect of warming alone on fish stocks.
Wrong study. Try again. And the one you refer to did show an increase in ocean temperatures, just not as much.
Maybe, just maybe, read the abstract at least before posting. They modeled different fish populations and temperature sensitivity to arrive at the conclusions.
In college I found that I could turn up familiar music* and block out random, distracting noise from the hallway, the neighboring room, and the basketball court outside my window and focus very well on engineering and math homework. Because the music was so familiar it was not noise or a distraction, but completely predictable. (*Led Zeppelin, Rush, The Police, Pink Floyd...)
You don't get it. A 1.3C warning is the global average, but you need to look at the duration of extreme temperatures that affect insect or other animal life cycles. It's quite possible, and expected, that there is a limit to how far temperatures can go for how long before a species has trouble at some stage. For example, a few hours at, say, 100F might not b a problem, but eight hours might be.
It's all things put together, rarely just one cause, but AGW could be the straw that breaks the camel's (beetle's?) back.
Massive escalation of the war on malaria? Right. That's only very recent, even if "massive." The lack of bugs on winshields has been noticed (by me and many others) since the 1990s, and that's true for the long term insect counts in Europe, as well. In any case, as with most systems it's likely many causes, not a single one.
If the plane's brakes are off, then it's not that hard... It's _meant_ to roll, and it's light weight.
The BBC article said the army doesn't want to shoot at it for fear of stray shots into populated areas. It seems the military would have developed some better ways to deal with drones by now than shooting with bullets, such as chain shot that used to be used to take out rigging, or some kind of AA burst that would be relatively haarmlessvaw if it falls straight down, etc. Instead they're talking about trying to hunt down the operator as the only viable option.
This is why science works and why "do science." Our instincts are often incorrect, and the scientific method helps us learn more about what actually might be going on.
Okay, let's discuss. a) Local is not global. b) Global warming leads to more variation, not uniform warming. Look at the polar vortex, for example. That was predicted by models beforehand, as well. c) Warming leads to more moisture in the atmosphere, which leads to higher precipitation, including snow when the conditions are right. In other words, you have to show that what is being seen in the global trends and the cherry picked odd local events are both inconsistent with global warming and easily explained by something else. Good luck.
Towns and cities used to be built much better for pedestrians and kids to walk to school. Go look at areas built up in the 1900's through about 1930 before cars became the defacto mode of transportation. I grew up in such a town of about 30,000 people outside a major city. ALL the students in the district walked to school. There was no bussing except for field trips.
That is a very concise summary of the problem with charters that can skip out on the requirements that public schools must operate under.
You sound very sure of yourself. One counter point: The dips in the jet stream that are called "the polar vortex" were predicted a few years before they started happening. Maybe you should read up on or or talk with people in the climate science field and see what they are really up to.
Yeah, but people say all sorts of stuff. That has nothing to do with accumulating and analyzing data, comparing models to history, making predictions, etc.
There is a difference between something "causing a storm" and "making storms more severe." There are few people if any saying climate change drives or causes new storms that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. But it's pretty obvious, and has been discussed for a long time now, that global warming means more heat and therefore more water and more energy in the atmosphere, which make storms more severe.
What alternative are you proposing? As it stands, your posts are just a rant against income taxes, with some correlations stated but not causation proved.
The audio shows the Atari COO not being certain of what a particular engineering board would support as far as working with other off-the-shelf hardware. This is a nothing story. First, the COO is not the CTO or the V.P. of Engineering or the system lead designer. Why would anyone expect the COO to know _anything_ about an engineering prototype?
Here's another with a 0.79mm^2 32-bit MCU... The point is, it's not hard these days to make a "computer" under 1mm^2. It's just a matter of deciding what is needed.
..."
"A Sub-cm3 Energy-Harvesting Stacked Wireless Sensor Node Featuring a Near-Threshold Voltage IA-32 Microcontroller in 14-nm Tri-Gate CMOS for Always-ON Always-Sensing Applications"
Published in: IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits ( Volume: 52, Issue: 4, April 2017 )
Abstract:
"An energy-harvesting wireless sensor node (WSN) integrates a 14-nm, 0.79-mm2, 32-b Intel Architecture core based near-threshold voltage (NTV) microcontroller (MCU) that provides 17-W/MHz always-ON, always-sensing (AOAS) capability. The MCU implements four independent voltage-frequency islands, managed by an integrated power management unit and features a subthreshold voltage capable on-die oscillator and 42-nm fin-pitch, 8.3-pA leakage-per-bit SRAM.
Well, define local storage. Data registers or data RAM count, I think. Perhaps you mean non-volatile memory?
This seems a bit silly without a common definition. The IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits is probably full of things like this. Note that an 8- or 16-bit microcontroller core only requires about 12kgates (NAND2 equivalent), and in 65nm or 40nm CMOS that fits in something like 200um x 200um, and adding a few data registers, a small program RAM or ROM, a ring oscillator for clocking and some ESD IO pad cells would keep the whole thing well under 1mm x 1mm. In one minute of Googling I found this example:
"The programmable processors occupy 0.055 mm2 each, contain no algorithm specific hardware, and operate up to an average maximum clock frequency of 1.78 GHz at 1.1 V."
in
"KiloCore: A 32-nm 1000-Processor Computational Array," IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits ( Volume: 52, Issue: 4, April 2017 )
Did you not read the part about all the automated instructions to IT and Security that no manager could halt? That's where the "system" was in charge and not the humans.
"It's a security FEATURE, not bug, that accounts lapse automatically when someone's employment is terminated."
No, it's a bug in the company's "systems and procedures." His employment was not terminated by anyone except the system. No manager wanted him terminated.
No, most of your argument is wrong. His blog states he was in month 8 or 9 of a 3 year contract. As it turns out, no-one in the company even wanted his contract terminated. So, yes, the automated systems did effectively terminate his contract as far as the systems were concerned, but that is not what the company intended. Most likely the company did not properly terminate the contract because it did not provide notice, so there might be some room for legal redress, but he probably doesn't want to annoy them if he likes working there. It sounds like he doesn't understand his own contract terms and the need to stay on top of things like that.
I think you are correct. His contract should have a termination clause that requires notice in writing. If he never received notice, then it was not terminated correctly and he is due at least the money for time he spent trying to work.
... he decided not to do much work after that. Some of that work included renewing my contract in the new system. ...
This part of his blog post does not add up. Perhaps that's because he doesn't understand his own contract. Instead of "when my contract expired," it should probably read, "when the new system did not see my contract as active."
"I was on a 3 years contract and had only worked for 8 months. [My manager] had been laid off. He was to work from home as a contractor for the duration of a transition. I imagine
When my contract expired, the machine took over and fired me."