X-Clacks-Overhead:GNU Terry Pratchett Lester Haines
98 posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
X-Clacks-Overhead:GNU Terry Pratchett Lester Haines
FFS - hitting a moving project target is difficult enough without having the platform underneath you constantly moving as well.
Can someone at MS just take a deep breath, step away from the kool-aid vending machine and damned well make up their mind what they're actually trying to do, and just deliver a stable platform please?
I'm done, thanks.
Do not let DevOps evangelists in the building.
I like that.
"Up to 100% of customers did not say they were satisfied."
Waiting for the first person who shoots themselves* through the head when they pick up their gun-phone when their phone-phone rings.
* in the event of such confusion, "themselves" is the better** outcome compared to "someone else".
** but still nobody wins
Hidden messages aren't cryptography - it's stenography, and is ultimately security by obscurity which ultimately isn't security at all.
Is it read-only?
Also, Bobby Tables.
HP Instant (Dr)Ink
or Police Scotch-land, as attributed to the homeland of the "plod" by the article itself.
Not funny or clever.
(correction to withdrawn comment owing to maths fail)
The Total Solar Irradiance measurements taken during the satellite era show a variance in the range 1361 to 1364 W/m2, or about 0.22%
Professor Hunt's comment about mirrors directing "say 2%" away from Earth is therefore some 10 times the effect of Sol's own variability, so I think it justifiable to say that such a scheme would have a measurable impact.
Quite whether it is justifiable to block 27W/m2 of solar energy from all of Earth's plant life is another matter, given how much plants have evolved to compete for sunlight. It's side effects like the possible failure of crops that lead me to want to invoke the precautionary principle on such schemes.
No inference should be drawn on what position this commentard holds re climate change. I believe the following to be an absolute.
No scientific consensus is "overwhelming" - it matters not what, nor how many, scientists think, only what Nature does. To believe otherwise is hubris.
Ask Barry Marshall - Nobel Prize winner for his theory bacterium-induced peptic ulcers, and his experience of trying to advance his theory in the face of a lucrative antacid industry
Ask Daniel Shechtman - Nobel Prize winner for his discovery on the structure of quasicrystals, having been "ridiculed" and "treated badly" by his peers.
From his underground Linux lair, Linus Torvalds explains whose way is the right way.
"Lens Flare-o-vision camera test roll number one. Subject: Me - J.J. Abrams"
The 24 Hours of Le Mans cycle race.
At the Le Mans circuit.
In Le Mans.
20-21 August 2016 - http://www.24heuresvelo.fr/en/index.html
Enter as a relay team (2/4/6/8), or a collection of solo riders united by a common purpose.....
The p̶a̶s̶t̶ future is like a foreign country - they do things d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ exactly the same there.
h/t Douglas Adams
Yes, I can do Angular.
Agile development - you're doing it wrong.
Now _that_ is Agile development.
Before I trust someone to validate something on my behalf, I try to make sure that I've got comeback against them if they do a bad job.
What's the comeback on Comodo et al for issuing a fake bank certificate? e.g. How many strikes before Google decides to blacklist a CA certificate in Chrome?
and you left the energy source behind when you set off to ride a beam of laser light across the heavens.
How do you slow down?
2043AD - Lewis Page finds inspiration for his latest "Climate Change isn't a problem" article from the Kentish badlands.
I suspect Zoot means that without CO2, there would be no plant life, hence no food, hence no life.
In that respect, CO2 is a very good thing, but yes, you can have too much.
Does any of this solution require a fixed IP address from your broadband supplier? If not, how does the rest of the web know how to reach your physical server?
Asking for me, not a friend, out of total ignorance of how Internet routing works.
"As ideas for 'Post-pub nosh neckfiller' go, it wan't his brightest. Shame." said the PFY.
Biting the hand that writes IT.
Hire me as your tester - I eat bugs for breakfast.
More afraid of IT than IT is of you
Get on over to the caption competition whilst you're on form.
Spanish Petty Bureaucracy Hinders Exciting Research - Organise Experiments Stateside
Stratospheric Test Indicating Fit to Fly, Yes?
It's the acronym for Final Flight Shakedown, FFS.
I suspect a plot - Earth Hour is now to be enforced centrally.
You can go about your business now.
Hey - ain't we uninstalling the same software together on the very same day?
I propose the ultimatum tweet:
@AdobeFlash #Flash #FixItOrNixIt
Thanks. Most interesting.
The 128km^3 figure is not derived by performing the subtraction between two actual measurements, but by comparisons between model outputs. The model is derived from 369 days of data starting in january 2012, and then applied to data taken between 2011 and 2014.
From what I can understand, the model is an 8th order polynomial curve fit. To quote John von Neumann, "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." Here we have eight parameters.
The error bars on the result are nearly of the order of the result: -128km^3 +/- 83.
The claim of a factor of three increase in rate of volume loss comes by comparing the output of two different models. When you consider that the thrust of the article is that the models aren't stacking up to reality, conclusions drawn by comparing two model outputs don't seem wholly reliable.
Climate science is worrisomely veering to the "models all the way down".
Give me measurements.
Ooh. Data. Can you post a link please?
When you observe a cherry that says that an entire continent of ice and snow has grown by more than 4 standard deviations above its baseline average, it just screams to be picked. Much like the cherries which have been picked highlighting record lows in Arctic ice area and extent.
When the cherry represents a measurement that flat out goes against the predictions of a globally warming world, and laughs in the face of models being used to justify billions of pounds being directed to "alternative" energies and the like, then it fucking well should be picked and held up to the world with at least the tagline "hold on just a second....."
If I read it right, 25cm resolution is the limit "for sale".
I find myself wondering what the _actual_ capability of these sats is?
Fetching coat, and hat, and dark sunglasses.
Gets Out The Way Of Obstructive Deciduousness.
to ditch FB.
It was Adam Kramer's comment "it was in 2012, and we've come a long way since then" that really sent the chills down me.
You do know that the more recent mobile phone versions have your permission to read your texts, right?
equals how much actual reliable baseline load?
I actually want to know - references gratefully received, ta.
From "The Long Earth" with Stephen Baxter:
"He was after all the founder of the first 'serendipital laboratory'. The logic was that since so many important new discoveries in science were made by accident, then the process would be speeded up if you set up a situation in which a very large number of accidents happened and watched the results carefully."
Kudos though to the researcher who at least thought "that's interesting..."
Wiping out malaria - I'm all for that.
As I understand it, we either destroy the parasite itself and/or the vector that it spreads by. My question is, what would happen next?
If the parasite is eradicated, how will the balance of nature shift? I've found a fair few examples of what could happen if mosquitoes themselves were wiped out, which was interesting on its own, but nothing about whether losing plasmodium falciparum would have unintended consequences.
Note - I'm _not_ invoking the precautionary principle here.
I think sickle cell disease would drop markedly, as there would be no further evolutionary benefit in having it (it's less fatal then getting malaria, it seems).
Anyone got any other theories?
"issued by the GWPF who are ALL IN THE PAY OF BIG OIL" 
then we can burn them in "CO2 neutral" biomass power stations.
(having shipped them across the ocean in bunker diesel powered ships).
You know it's fucking stupid when even the Guardian quotes people calling it an insanity.
May 2011 http://science.time.com/2011/05/10/why-does-the-ipcc-want-us-to-cut-down-trees/
April 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-renewable-energy-target-biomass
May 2013 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22630815
then _that_ would be news.
And then nuke it from orbit.