So are you doubting the physics of greenhouse gasses, or doubting whether we are dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?

whether we are dumping greenhouse gasses in sufficient quantities into the atmosphere

And water vapour has a much greater effect on the greenhouse issue. But of course you can't tax water vapour...

So neither and both. I don't think there is enough actual science one way or another. Maybe in another thousand or so years of measurements, and proof that computer models actually can predict the real world.

We know how much carbon man has put into the atmosphere, and we know the physics of how that leads to global warming. The measured increases in global temperature are corroboration that the physics is right.

There is no proof that we are actually having an impact. Yes we dump large amounts of pollutants, and it certainly looks bad when you stand next to a smoke stack, but studies have shown that CO2 rises AFTER the temperature rises, not the other way around. Also, water vapour has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2.

The real problem is that we have no way to actually test any of this. If would be nice to have a planet that ages at a 100 fold rate so that we can perform experiments. But we only have this one planet to try to form a theory. Try to use the same methodology in ANY other discipline and you would be laughed at.

The measured increases in global temperature are corroboration that the physics is right.

What about the warm period in the middle ages? When it was hotter than now, and Greenland was actually green? Then it got cooler and the Vikings had to leave or starve. Now its getting warmer again.

Yes, yes, the curve is said to be steeper than normal, but what is normal? Historical data is much to vague to nail that down.

BTW, the rhetoric is so prevalent that intelligent discussion is almost impossible. One side calls the other either deniers or alarmists whenever either side tries to question anything.

The Earth gets hotter, the Earth gets cooler.

But do WE have an impact on this variation. That is the question.

That seems like an odd reaction - it's the TV network that sold those ads

I think the network bowed to pressure from some marketing group. And behind them is the company trying to get more exposure.

I dumped everything to do with Mastercard when they started advertising over top of TV programs. Cut up credit cards, moved bank accounts, and so on.

NOTHING more annoying than to be watching a show and some stupid graphic shows up at the bottom of the screen.

And while I am at it, how lame does a show need to be to be continuously advertised at the bottom of the screen. I never watch those either.

This is still just 2D.

When 3D becomes common, the s/w will be able to "peek" behind the object, then extrapolate the background.

Hmmm, I am not sure if you are only dangling a hook to see if anyone bites. However...

Nothing wrong with the earth. However it is the only place where humanity exists. If we get hit by an extinction level event (ELE), be it an asteroid, super volcano, or whatever, then that is that. We need to have a plan B. And forget about the moon or Mars. We do not have the know-how to create a self-sufficient environment there or anywhere else. We need a nice friendly planet in the Goldilocks zone.

And destruction is inevitable. An ELE WILL happen. It is just a matter of time. The earth has had a lot of near misses lately, one of which was only discovered after it had passed us. So forget about mounting some faint hope expedition. If you can't see it coming...

59 more days, just 59 more....

First I format the drive.

Then I install an OS copy that I got from Microsoft

Then I install the drivers I d/l from the machine site.

And I make an image (in case the app install fails badly).

I install the basic applications I use.

I make the recovery image.

Once in a while I format the drive and re-image using the recovery image.

Well yes, but "million" sounds more impressive.

If you own a Web site, then you are forced to install this.

Otherwise how could you know what insightful comments have been posted against your web pages.

And then, of course, you will be tempted to comment on other pages.

Exponential growth!

Unless someone (including Ohm) pipes up with a plausible means for identifying the original subjects, I call BS on Ohm's "law."

Is EVERYTHING anonymized? Did you leave in real eye colour, hair colour, height, sex and so on? Did you anonymize city names? States?

Enough correlation and you can start matching to real people. I did some similar work, including free form entry fields. For a name of "Prince" which was anonymized to, say, "NAME001" and "Albert" to NAME002", the city name "Prince Albert" became "NAME001 NAME002". A little reading around the free form text and you could equate NAME001 to Prince, then go back through the name column and make the changes. I had to put in an exception list for common phrases (slow as hell).

Any sort of real analysis of information must include real world information. You cannot hide everything. And once you have real information you can start correlation. Do this across enough data and you can find real people and suddenly you know that Joe Blow has cancer and you can reject him for health insurance.

This is not new.

The look of disappointment on the faces of the major news anchors was priceless and underscored their severe lack of understanding of technology.

It was if someone had said that a bridge needs repairs (the experts can see the rot), the billions were spent fixing the bridge and when the first person crossed the bridge it did not collapse. Then they whine that there is no sensational story, that the bridge would not have fallen anyway and why was the money spent, what a waste?

I hate news people. I find them shallow, news bite hunting morons.

I believe your headline should have been "Chicks Tweet".

So in Britain they would be known as "Tweety Birds"?

2009.08.12 16:32