Thank you, 10 minutes into the morning and you've made my day. I feel no need to visit any other article or website after reading that. Hmmm, what to do, what to do.
There was less plant mass because a large portion of the planet north of the 40th parallel was under a mile of ice. Even God can't grow a tree under a mile of ice.
Completely agree. I was a fairly regular attendee at SANS, LISA, Usenix type conferences from about 90 to 99. Now I almost never go. If I need to know something 30 minutes of Google is more than sufficient.
For a while going just to meet with vendors was useful but even that's old hat. 10-20 years ago most of the vendors front line were technically knowledgeable now they're just stock MBA sales teams talking about their forward looking expanding market to maximally leverage their virtual synergy. Again if I want to know about a companies product simply googling: Manufacturer product [options, comparison, performance, complaints, price, issues, bugs] (pick one from list) will tell me all I need to know.
As far as bars, there's one down the street and my wife would almost certainly frown on meeting women so what's the point of a conference.
I can't even imagine attending a conference with topics like 'Remote Team Management' so possibly I'm too much of a Luddite to answer the original question effectively.
Why would you prove that which is pretty much known to be false. The retreat was likely caused by the combination of substantially less plant mass and steady state volcanic activity which slowly rose CO2 levels. The rapid acceleration of melt off was aided by establishment of the thermohaline circulation which warmed the NW coast of Europe and the NW coast of North America.
I think you're making up the issue of one side telling the other side to shut up with respect to scientific debate.
The points you raise about the gulf stream or other models are valid points of debate but they don't refute the sign of the vector they're haggling over the scalar and veracity of models. As an example Copernicus' model was shown to be wrong by Newtons model which in turn was shown to be wrong. The fact that they were fundamentally wrong didn't change that fact that their predictive abilities were *mostly* right. The error was in parts per 100, 1000 or million.
Many of the other points are pseudo math/science or ad hominem and serve no purpose, still saying "You're wrong" is not the same as saying "shut up".
Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?
The term and certainly the concept of 'climate change' is not new, what's new is the claim that it's new. There's been a recent (last 6 months) surge of folks saying 'oh ho now it's climate change'. It's been well understood that the warming models predicted global warming and local change. The globe doesn't have climate, locales have climate. Many places like England will likely become much colder with increased ice melt if the thermohaline cycle stops.
O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?
Most likely CO2 build up from volcanic activity that wasn't scrubbed from the atmosphere due to substantially decreased vegetation. Hard to grow trees under a mile of ice. Shifts in oceanic currents, particularly the thermohaline circulation from ice melt which changed the salinity likely helpded drive the rapid shift out of the ice age once the CO2 build up started the process.
It's studies of the ice age ending that contributed to many of the current models, it's hardly a mystery and hardly an aspect that hasn't been taken into account.
Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.
The mean population of the earth was substantially less prior to 1800's than it is now. Burning wood doesn't contribute to CO2, burning sequestered carbon like coal or oil does. That didn't happen in any quantity prior to 1900.
Errrm... because it's such god-damned good science ? Your logic escaped me there. If it was bad science then it might be reasonable to ask why are people so convinced we need to do something.
It's entirely possible the models and theories are wrong. On the other hand if they're right, and there is not good evidence they're wrong, then waiting an arbitrary time to react results in an inability to react effectively.
If there really are flaws with the science that debate needs to be had but so far nobody really has found any. All the debate from the non-climate change side is ad hominem. Al Gore flies a plane, scientists are in it for the money etc clap trap.
If somebody has a vaguely rigorous model that shows there's not a problem I'd love to see it.
1) That paper is nearly a year old so the logic that "Now finally counter arguments can be heard" seems a bit specious.
2) That paper is a complete crock of unrefereed shit. I read 92-94 which are the conclusions and was so confused I went and read the earlier portions. There are numerous fallacies in their assumptions and they get some pretty fundamental thermo issues flat wrong.
If you look at the actual code instead of some blog you'll see the reference to the adjusted value is commented out and never used in the plotting call.
; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey) ;;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20 ; filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21 ; oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1 ; plot,[0,1],/nodata,xstyle=4,ystyle=4
Without revision control one can't say for certain but there's no evidence any adjusted data made it into a paper. There's only evidence that a single piece of code from the thousands of modeling sims had at one time an adjustment that was commented out.
A lot of their information is considered sensitive, particularly engine modeling and telemetry.
The question of mission creep is certainly valid. In this case though I suspect it's simplest/best for NASA to do it themselves. Frequently outsourced cloud computing at this level looks good financially but simply isn't practical when you translate white paper speak:
extensible, flexible, segmented, secure, etc into reality
use our API and like it, you can have 8 or 16GB mem/node, somebody else is using the cluster you get these 0 to N nodes now, sorry about your data getting out
The right approach here (and one that NASA appears to be taking) is sharing of knowledge on how best to build a flexible cluster environment. It's OK for everyone to have a wheel, we just need to quit deciding if it should be round or not.
I have to say I cringed reading some of the Nebula pages. They're definitely written by somebody trying to sell the project to the rest of NASA. That's the real danger, not that NASA develops it's own cloud but that NASA is so departmentalized that nobody uses it and each sub-section develops their own.
Yeah I had one of those. Thermodynamics from the chem side instead of physics side (both departments had a thermo class, my advisor felt I should take both, joy).
The class met Tuesdays and Wednesdays 8am to 9:30. It had 3 rolling chalk boards, each board had 6 panels. At 8am he'd walk in and start writing, rolling the board as he filled a panel. Once he finished a board he'd move to the next.
He never said much and if he did he said it facing the board. God that was a miserable class.
Wow, I'm old. I never really stopped and thought about just how horrid modern class rooms have become, I certainly never pictured some twit droning on from a canned Power Point.
On the upside you'll be properly prepared for any number of meetings.
That's not implied at all except by the personal statements of the Sgt who has no say in the matter.
The GPS data *was* right and it showed one thing conclusively, the teenager had been driving in excess of 45mph during some fraction of the last 30 seconds. The GPS is not capable of making statements about your current speed, it can only state your average speed since the last data point.
To go from a stop to averaging 45mph would require a top speed in excess of 45mph. All you can do is bracket his speed with the GPS not specify it, there are too many unknowns. 1) How long was he stopped at the light from the last ping to when it turned green 2) What was his rate of acceleration 3) After reaching top speed was his speed constant
If he sat at the red light an additional 8 seconds and then instantaneously began moving at 62mph he'd average 45mph over the previous 30 seconds. (62mph for 22seconds is ~= 45mph for 30 seconds).
If he took 12 seconds to accelerate to 62 mph he'd average 45mph over 30 seconds.
GPS data will be perfectly permissible in court, your civil rights haven't been trampled.
I started to clarify in my initial post but didn't feel like it. We don't *autopatch* anything. We apply applicable patches after testing.
It doesn't change the initial point about not really stressing about announced vulnerabilities. Nothing I can do till they get around to patching it, at which point we'll test and release, though not in this case since we blessedly have no shockwave reqs.
I find it harder and harder to really give a shit anymore. All of our systems (linux, Windows,OSX) all have various automatic patching schemes. Once the vendor gets around to fixing their crap (Adobe in this case) we'll ingest the patch and move on.
Once upon a time I monitored the various security announcement lists but ultimately it didn't matter. Most of this crap has become mission critical so turning it off isn't an option, fixing it yourself is rarely and option so you're left with wait and patch solution.
I guess it's kind of free'ing. I no longer stress about it and focus on more relevant issues.
Points (made above) about non-x86 processors are doomed aside, the Si-cortex had an interesting interconnect design. Their kautz graph based interconnect was fairly (at least to me) innovative.
Personally I'm sorry to see them go, we never had a chance to benchmark our software on their system but I was suspicious it might have behaved very well per $. Even if the underlying system disappears their interconnect ideas may survive.
Properly done welds meet the requirements. If the requirement is that the resulting joint be stronger than the original material that's generally possible, particularly with steel.
There are only two kinds of welded joints that are weaker than the parent material: 1) Joints whose spec called for them to be weaker 2) Improperly welded joints.
That's not how project management works. The visit date is still the same, you just have two less years to implement.
Oh we'll need to cut your implementation budget by 20% as well to account for some unexpected metal price fluctuations and fully fund the HR and Fiscal department re-baselining.
After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.
I'd be interested in hearing of a problem that can be posited now but can't be solved in a reasonable amount of time (say a few days) with that much computational power. I'm sure there are mathematical oddities or encryption schemes that can chew up all free cycles but it doesn't seem like raw computation is the limiting factor for most problems.
Long before then it's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any *interesting* problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, 10 minutes into the morning and you've made my day. I feel no need to visit any other article or website after reading that. Hmmm, what to do, what to do.
There was less plant mass because a large portion of the planet north of the 40th parallel was under a mile of ice. Even God can't grow a tree under a mile of ice.
Completely agree. I was a fairly regular attendee at SANS, LISA, Usenix type conferences from about 90 to 99. Now I almost never go. If I need to know something 30 minutes of Google is more than sufficient.
For a while going just to meet with vendors was useful but even that's old hat. 10-20 years ago most of the vendors front line were technically knowledgeable now they're just stock MBA sales teams talking about their forward looking expanding market to maximally leverage their virtual synergy. Again if I want to know about a companies product simply googling: Manufacturer product [options, comparison, performance, complaints, price, issues, bugs] (pick one from list) will tell me all I need to know.
As far as bars, there's one down the street and my wife would almost certainly frown on meeting women so what's the point of a conference.
I can't even imagine attending a conference with topics like 'Remote Team Management' so possibly I'm too much of a Luddite to answer the original question effectively.
Why would you prove that which is pretty much known to be false. The retreat was likely caused by the combination of substantially less plant mass and steady state volcanic activity which slowly rose CO2 levels. The rapid acceleration of melt off was aided by establishment of the thermohaline circulation which warmed the NW coast of Europe and the NW coast of North America.
I think you're making up the issue of one side telling the other side to shut up with respect to scientific debate.
The points you raise about the gulf stream or other models are valid points of debate but they don't refute the sign of the vector they're haggling over the scalar and veracity of models. As an example Copernicus' model was shown to be wrong by Newtons model which in turn was shown to be wrong. The fact that they were fundamentally wrong didn't change that fact that their predictive abilities were *mostly* right. The error was in parts per 100, 1000 or million.
Many of the other points are pseudo math/science or ad hominem and serve no purpose, still saying "You're wrong" is not the same as saying "shut up".
Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?
Because there are much simpler explanations.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0230.shtml
The term and certainly the concept of 'climate change' is not new, what's new is the claim that it's new. There's been a recent (last 6 months) surge of folks saying 'oh ho now it's climate change'. It's been well understood that the warming models predicted global warming and local change. The globe doesn't have climate, locales have climate. Many places like England will likely become much colder with increased ice melt if the thermohaline cycle stops.
O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?
Most likely CO2 build up from volcanic activity that wasn't scrubbed from the atmosphere due to substantially decreased vegetation.
Hard to grow trees under a mile of ice. Shifts in oceanic currents, particularly the thermohaline circulation from ice melt which changed the salinity likely helpded drive the rapid shift out of the ice age once the CO2 build up started the process.
It's studies of the ice age ending that contributed to many of the current models, it's hardly a mystery and hardly an aspect that hasn't been taken into account.
Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.
The mean population of the earth was substantially less prior to 1800's than it is now. Burning wood doesn't contribute to CO2, burning sequestered carbon like coal or oil does. That didn't happen in any quantity prior to 1900.
Errrm ... because it's such god-damned good science ? Your logic escaped me there. If it was bad science then it might be reasonable to ask why are people so convinced we need to do something.
It's entirely possible the models and theories are wrong. On the other hand if they're right, and there is not good evidence they're wrong, then waiting an arbitrary time to react results in an inability to react effectively.
If there really are flaws with the science that debate needs to be had but so far nobody really has found any. All the debate from the non-climate change side is ad hominem. Al Gore flies a plane, scientists are in it for the money etc clap trap.
If somebody has a vaguely rigorous model that shows there's not a problem I'd love to see it.
Two points.
1) That paper is nearly a year old so the logic that "Now finally counter arguments can be heard" seems a bit specious.
2) That paper is a complete crock of unrefereed shit. I read 92-94 which are the conclusions and was so confused I went and read the earlier portions. There are numerous fallacies in their assumptions and they get some pretty fundamental thermo issues flat wrong.
If you'd like to read physicists (not climatologist) opinion of the paper go here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-300667.html
If you look at the actual code instead of some blog you'll see the reference to the adjusted value is commented out and never used in the plotting call.
; ;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow ;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
;
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21
;
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
plot,[0,1],/nodata,xstyle=4,ystyle=4
Without revision control one can't say for certain but there's no evidence any adjusted data made it into a paper. There's only evidence that a single piece of code from the thousands of modeling sims had at one time an adjustment that was commented out.
It's just a ruse. I've ripped the little label off of every mattress I've ever owned and they never once filed charges.
A lot of their information is considered sensitive, particularly engine modeling and telemetry.
The question of mission creep is certainly valid. In this case though I suspect it's simplest/best for NASA to do it themselves. Frequently outsourced cloud computing at this level looks good financially but simply isn't practical when you translate white paper speak:
extensible, flexible, segmented, secure, etc into reality
use our API and like it, you can have 8 or 16GB mem/node, somebody else is using the cluster you get these 0 to N nodes now, sorry about your data getting out
The right approach here (and one that NASA appears to be taking) is sharing of knowledge on how best to build a flexible cluster environment. It's OK for everyone to have a wheel, we just need to quit deciding if it should be round or not.
I have to say I cringed reading some of the Nebula pages. They're definitely written by somebody trying to sell the project to the rest of NASA. That's the real danger, not that NASA develops it's own cloud but that NASA is so departmentalized that nobody uses it and each sub-section develops their own.
Yeah I had one of those. Thermodynamics from the chem side instead of physics side (both departments had a thermo class, my advisor felt I should take both, joy).
The class met Tuesdays and Wednesdays 8am to 9:30. It had 3 rolling chalk boards, each board had 6 panels. At 8am he'd walk in and start writing, rolling the board as he filled a panel. Once he finished a board he'd move to the next.
He never said much and if he did he said it facing the board. God that was a miserable class.
Wow, I'm old. I never really stopped and thought about just how horrid modern class rooms have become, I certainly never pictured some twit droning on from a canned Power Point.
On the upside you'll be properly prepared for any number of meetings.
This could be a GOD-SEND to pilots in both military and civil use!
God already had his crack at developing our senses, now it's our turn.
That's not implied at all except by the personal statements of the Sgt who has no say in the matter.
The GPS data *was* right and it showed one thing conclusively, the teenager had been driving in excess of 45mph during some fraction of the last 30 seconds. The GPS is not capable of making statements about your current speed, it can only state your average speed since the last data point.
To go from a stop to averaging 45mph would require a top speed in excess of 45mph. All you can do is bracket his speed with the GPS not specify it, there are too many unknowns.
1) How long was he stopped at the light from the last ping to when it turned green
2) What was his rate of acceleration
3) After reaching top speed was his speed constant
If he sat at the red light an additional 8 seconds and then instantaneously began moving at 62mph he'd average 45mph over the previous 30 seconds. (62mph for 22seconds is ~= 45mph for 30 seconds).
If he took 12 seconds to accelerate to 62 mph he'd average 45mph over 30 seconds.
GPS data will be perfectly permissible in court, your civil rights haven't been trampled.
I started to clarify in my initial post but didn't feel like it. We don't *autopatch* anything. We apply applicable patches after testing.
It doesn't change the initial point about not really stressing about announced vulnerabilities. Nothing I can do till they get around to patching it, at which point we'll test and release, though not in this case since we blessedly have no shockwave reqs.
I find it harder and harder to really give a shit anymore. All of our systems (linux, Windows ,OSX) all have various automatic patching schemes. Once the vendor gets around to fixing their crap (Adobe in this case) we'll ingest the patch and move on.
Once upon a time I monitored the various security announcement lists but ultimately it didn't matter. Most of this crap has become mission critical so turning it off isn't an option, fixing it yourself is rarely and option so you're left with wait and patch solution.
I guess it's kind of free'ing. I no longer stress about it and focus on more relevant issues.
Because it's not to code. A bathrooms outlets must be on a circuit unto themselves.
Technically dark magic. [-5 overly pedantic]
Points (made above) about non-x86 processors are doomed aside, the Si-cortex had an interesting interconnect design. Their kautz graph based interconnect was fairly (at least to me) innovative.
Personally I'm sorry to see them go, we never had a chance to benchmark our software on their system but I was suspicious it might have behaved very well per $. Even if the underlying system disappears their interconnect ideas may survive.
Properly done welds meet the requirements. If the requirement is that the resulting joint be stronger than the original material that's generally possible, particularly with steel.
There are only two kinds of welded joints that are weaker than the parent material:
1) Joints whose spec called for them to be weaker
2) Improperly welded joints.
That's not how project management works. The visit date is still the same, you just have two less years to implement.
Oh we'll need to cut your implementation budget by 20% as well to account for some unexpected metal price fluctuations and fully fund the HR and Fiscal department re-baselining.
The resulting storage of 1,000,000 people typing away on slashdot will eventually encode a monkey.
Must be a White Sox fan.
After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.
I'd be interested in hearing of a problem that can be posited now but can't be solved in a reasonable amount of time (say a few days) with that much computational power. I'm sure there are mathematical oddities or encryption schemes that can chew up all free cycles but it doesn't seem like raw computation is the limiting factor for most problems.
Long before then it's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any *interesting* problems.