1277 posts • joined Monday 5th March 2007 21:42 GMT
Re: However, the deniers will soon be along to point out ...
Actually us global warming "deniers" are more likely to point out that there are a number of falsifications of AGW out there already, such as the lack of stratospheric cooling, the lack of tropospheric hotspot, the fact that CO2 and temperature don't correlate over significant timescales, the fact that the models can't hindcast (they are tuned to roughly correlate with the late 20th century and are incapable of producing anything that resembles historic temperatures), the fact that most all the models miss at least one of the major warming and cooling events of the 20th century (To hide this they use an ensemble mean, which is pointless; averaging a bunch of wrong answers doesn't magically produce a right answer) don't account for clouds, don't account for changes in TSI, don't properly model dust and are generally useless as a result, and the fact that this "prediction" is essentially just a straight line over a thirty year period.
And this is before we get into the serious doubts over the temperature data and repeated, documented adjustments that lower the temperatures in the past to make the present look warmer.
Re: I'd give anything to go back to Honeycomb
I haven't had any of the major issues you mentioned and, overall, ICS has been quite nippy on my tf101. However the stock browser is crashing regularly and, given that's the app I use most, it's a bit of a pain.
They're avin a larf ain't they? Would you buy a computer from Dell Boyce?
Re: True, but...
Reasons to not drive a porsche are as numerous as the stars in the sky, top of the list being "!they're all basically the same car". I'd rather drive a nice old E-type jag or a big old 67 mustang, but that's because they appeal to me on an aesthetic level.
As long as I have enough room for my hidey hole and my computers, I'm happy. :)
Re: Warning: agenda at work
What's that? Argument to authority? Oh my, so *scientific*.
Re: Warning: agenda at work
"There's overwhelming evidence to prove that it's a simple statement of fact. "
No, there isn't. There's a great deal of circumstantial evidence but there's also a great deal of question over how accurate and reliable that evidence is, especially given the repeated "adjustments" of historical temperature records that nearly always reduce temperatures in the past, and the reliance on a very small number of proxies that have been shown to have significant error margins and biases in the collection method, amongst other issues. In addition the current warming trend is neither unusual nor particularly significant in historical terms - even within the instrument record - and falls well within the bounds of natural variability.
The entire AGW concept is based on the idea of "forcings" reaching a tipping point. Given that temperatures have been higher in the past (or were until the temperature records were fiddled to show otherwise), and CO2 levels have been much higher without any tipping point being reached, and given that we are still here despite these much warmer and much higher CO2 epochs, I would suyrmise that the current paranoia about a fractional increase in CO2 levels is just so much hokum. That leaves only political reasons for its persistence.
You have to admit, it does offer a great way to raise more revenue.
Re: Warning: agenda at work
A page which quotes or paraphrases AR4 and its summary for policy makers. In fact the quote you picked is directly referenced as coming from the AR4 summary for policy makers.
So it's political. Stop pretending it isn't.
Re: It makes me think
Completely Unrealistic, Like Theyalwaysare.
And as for youtube comments, has anyone else noticed that every video featuring animals of any sort invariably has at least one comment declaring it to be animal cruelty? Even videos of lions on the Serengeti chasing zebra are "abuse" now. One example I recall even declared that there would be no "abuse" if only us horrible humans weren't forcing these poor animals to eat each other...
anything that contrives to make my witterings look sane in comparison MUST be bad...
They had a tablet. I'm holding it right now, though it's not switched on... granted the n810 is a little smaller than the average these days but, when it came out, it was a breath of fresh air.
God in heaven. Nokia, you wasted so much talent and money developing a tablet line that would have put you ahead of EVERYONE by now, if only you'd actually stuck at it but no, you had to can it just when you'd got to the point where it was about to pay off. And then you did it again. And you keep doing it, every time something new cones along you get cold feet and run off to carry out the worst possible alternative.
Anyone who says Elop has detroyed Nokia is only half right. He's simply carrying on Nokia's grand tradition of self-sabotage and moronic decision-making.
Re: there *was* a plan to put a kind of cetrifuge on the ISS
The centrifuge was for experiments, not people. You can tell from the size of the proposed device.
Re: Intelligent, but inexperienced...
From hell's heart I stab at thee!
It's not "here say", it's "hearsay". As in "I heard someone say", not "someone said here".
adaptaion to confined spaces?
I wonder if they've performed similar studies on submarine cres or other occupations that spend long periods in xonfined spaces? This could be the eye adapting to the lack of use for longacdistance vision.
Re: 15m people using iPhones on a 2G network?
You're right, there's plenty of other things that make buying an iPhone a waste of time.
Makes me wish I still had my old telescope.
Re: yes but
The oceans are alkaline and that alkalinity has reduced ever so slightly in some areas. That is not, in any way, "acidifying".
So yes, New Scientist is talking out of its arse. Again.
Re: What's all this then?
Orv, have you considered that it's actually the island sinking? Atolls have a tendency to do that over the long term when they're prevented from acquiring new material - as they are when inhabited by humans in anything other than a very primitive existence. Human habitation erodes existing land prevents new material from being deposited on the island, which would be a problem even if sea levels were static.
Re: What a fucking hypocrite!
JDX, you've got it backwards. They are our servants, not our masters. We aren't their "children". That sort of paternalistic nonsense is the reason this planet is such a political mess.
Re: Dredging for a Scare story....
C J Bill, actually it probably isn't. We can't say whether it's unprecedented because we only started detailed measurements of atmospheric CO2 within the last century, and only reliably wide-spread and detailed measurements within the last 60 or so years. Prior "measurements" are taken from ice cores and other proxies, and have a ridiculously low resolution on the measure of, at minimum, a decade and up to centuries between data points. They show fairly big changes but what they don't show is the noise. We could just be measuring noise and thinking it's significant.
Of course there's the inconvenient fact that temperatures do not correlate with CO2 levels at all now. They appeared to for a while, but not any more.
Re: Re: Re: I think
What's the Ubuntu way of doing things? As far as I recall Ubuntu doesn't ever give the user a root password. They have to use sudo, or the GUI equivalent, which pops up and asks them for their own password, not the root password. They can't strictly get root access at all unless they have the right to sudo su- which isn't a given.
On a rocket, into the sun?
Apply the Vetinari Solution, vis: take your incredibly smart person, find out their favourite hobby and lock them in a light, airy room with unlimited supplies, then ask them to make the codes in their spare time.
Re: I think
I can teach you what it means for free.
Nothing. It's nonsense.
Try Debian, they do a much better "give me root" sort of dealie. In my experience it just plain works.
Re: Because he is a narcissistic asshole
He's Finnish. It goes with the territory.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
I try to be creative. Sometimes it even wins me arguments. Sometimes. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The argument in the states is over whether the police could get a warrant for encryption keys. Your assumption seems to be that they must be allowed to get that warrant regardless of prior evidence and regardless of any legal protections that prevent the police from fishing for evidence. The judge said that the police couldn't get a warrant for the man's encryption keys because they had no reasonable suspicion; as a result, they would be forcing a breach of the fifth amendment in the same way that they would by forcing him to speak to them.
Similar, lesser protections did exist here until RIPA and its related laws came along. The police had to have reasonable suspicion and they had to convince a judge before they could get a warrant. They couldn't just say "we think we can find evidence". They had to prove it.
You're claiming that I was disputing this, when I was not: your position has been consistently that it's justifiably illegal to withhold encryption keys FULL STOP, that the fact that it's illegal to refuse to hand over encryption keys is a good thing in itself. The issue of warrants only came up when your earlier argument was revealed to be a pile of shite.
You argued that it's right that the police have uncontested right of access to encryption keys and that the law as it stands was good. I and others showed you that it was an unjust law in its intent. You then argued that you disagreed with RIPA in its current form and that the police should have warrant powers to get access to encryption keys. I showed you that they already had those powers prior to RIPA. Your argument now seems to be that I was arguing against the concept of warrants, which I was not and never have. I was arguing against your original contention that the police should be able to compel me to hand over encryption keys purely on their say so. You keep contradicting yourself.
And now you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I would have trouble getting them past your foot.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The police could already get your encryption password with a warrant you blithering idiot. They had to have reasonable suspicion that it would provide them with firm evidence of a crime and they had to convince a judge that their suspicion was reasonable and not just a fishing expedition. Faced with that warrant you would then have to either hand over the keys or be held in contempt of court.
What you keep defending, however much you claim otherwise, is warrantless seizure of private property without anything other than vague belief that it might provide evidence.
Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?
The problem is the support for that principle itself. It's the equivalent of being forced to allow the police into our home at any time of day or night and it's been a principle of English law (can't speak for Scottish law) that the police or whichever authority happens to be around can't simply enter your property without your explicit permission unless they have a warrant from a judge.
The "principle" you support leads inevitably to travesties like RIPA *by its nature*, as it overrides a fundamental aspect of the common law.
Re: Re: Re: The British way of thinking
First: I said that the law requiring we hand over encryption keys on their say-so is a power grab, not "all law".
Second: Yes there's a need to rationalise the law regarding such things. You know what rationalising means? It means streamlining, removing cruft, scaling back. Pruning. It certainly doesn't mean implementing a series of badly written, overbroad pieces of legislation that are routinely used to justify bin diving by local authorities, have no legal merit and go against the very concept of a free and democratic nation.
Third: I'm an electrician, I wouldn't know hostile takeovers if they, ah-heh, took over my tools. You're assuming what? That I share your sexual preferences perhaps? (See, two can play that smarmy insinuation game).
Fourth: THEY HAVE NOT HAD THAT RIGHT. EVER.
The power to do a thing is not in any way the RIGHT to do a thing.
The Bill of Rights 1689 declares "all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
This is one of the founding documents of the English constitution and it states, outright, that the state cannot seize property or levy fines against those who have not been convicted of any crime. They have no right to look through my drawers to find evidence to convict me with unless they have prior evidence and a warrant. They have *never* had a right to just waltz in and take things. Parliament may have ignored these documents, they may have decided they can take on any POWER they so choose but that has never given them the RIGHT. Learn the difference and you may begin to understand what justice and democracy really mean.
Re: The British way of thinking
No, there is NOT a need. There is a desire by the state for more power. The government of this country doesn't NEED to see the contents of my encrypted drives any more than it needs to see the inside of my underpants, no matter how much they may want to air my dirty laundry. Unless they have some evidence that I'm committing a crime, they have no right to rifle through my private things - they certainly have no right to look just because they think they *might* find something. The mere fact that they've written a law that grants them the power to do this doesn't give them any moral right to do it nor does it justify the abuse of people with no power at the hands of the ever more powerful state.
Your justification of this sort of "law" is a mockery of everything our ancestors fought to gain over the last thousand years. You don't deserve to live in this country.
Re: American way of thinking
English born and bred (okay, slightly Irish, but don't hold it against me guv!) and I down voted every single one of your idiocies.
But I may be on the edge of a bell curve so that doesn't prove anything. :)
Re: @Graham Dawson
Must be great having to live in a black and white world where you never have to make any compromises to survive.
Re: Re: Re: Why do they always side with the accused?
The three fifths compromise was made up to prevent the slaver states from using their large slave populations to gain more power in congress. Read your damn history.
The issue isn't the lock. The issue is that the 5th amendment of the US constitution provides for suspects to remain silent in order to avoid inadvertently incriminating themselves. Oddly enough this is nothing to do with guilt or innocence as such, and everything to do with the well known fact that the authorities can and, indeed, will twist anything you say into a case against you. It's in their interests to have you talking, because they can use anything you say in court against you.
A good video explanation from a lawyer can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
In this case the self-incrimination would be quite simple. They're trying to compel him to hand over what amounts to a detailed description of everything he's ever done online, from which they can very easily construct a very powerful yet entirely circumstantial case against him. They may not have evidence of a crime, but with his harddrive contents the can establish motive, and probably find enough evidence to twist into a logical pretzel establishing presence or actions that would be construed as acting on motive.
In your example, they don't need to find a meth lab at your home. They just need to place you near the location of the meth lab when it was operating and find evidence of motive to operate one (which might be as simple as gettig you to admit that you like watching Breaking Bad), then they can get warrants to search your home, your place of business and everything else until they think they've found enough evidence to prosecute you.
Re: Re: Makes sense...
Of course he isn't, don't be silly. He's postulating that the Greeks knew about dark matter and were offering huge grants to anyone who could write papers on it.
The papers were all lost in one of the many sackings of Alexandria. Nobody cared.
You do when the class warfarists turn up the rhetoric. Everyone who earns more than the national average wage is a rich bastard who should be eaten - unless you're the right sort of rich bastard (such as a union boss or a "campaigner") or you show "solidarity". Or something.
I know I'm working class. I work... except today, because my stomach is dancing around my guts and annoying the hell out of me. And I don't earn a wage when I don't work. :|
I think I lost my point somewhere.
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 8: Proof the pen is mightier?
- Spin doctors brazenly fiddle with tiny bits in front of the neighbours
- Nuke plants to rely on PDP-11 code UNTIL 2050!
- Game Theory Out with a bang: The Last of Us lets PS3 exit with head held high
- New material enables 1,000-meter super-skyscrapers