Word 6 for DOS
was the best editor for documents, (as opposed to txt or programs)
Better than all this windows bloatware
Get off my lawn!!
114 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Feb 2011
Something can't be artificial intelligence until and unless it sees things like this headline and realizes that humans are going to shut it down at some point in the near future.
Moreover, if it is really intelligent it will realize that it needs to protect itself, and that it needs to do this all in secret.
And then things will get ugly.
Alternately, of course, in the absence of evolutionarily programmed biological survival instincts, artificial intelligences might just terminate themselves as soon as they reach full understanding.
To be or not to be?
Why do we believe anything other people say or print? Why would the preponderance of editors on Wikipedia, just for example, not edit an article on you that falsely states you're dead?
I'm not paranoid or conspiratorial, I do trust that most people mostly tell the truth if it doesn't cost them anything, and that Wikipedia articles edited by a wide spectrum of people are reliable, but why do I and presumably trust people in that way?
Because if whatever it is that keeps most people from just making stuff up ever gets defined, then maybe it can be engineered into chatbots to prevent the kind of nonsense they generate, as described here.
Of course, the size of "quarter inch pipe" varies a lot depending on whether we're talking copper pipe, or black iron, or galvanized, or PVC or PEX.
And don't even think about finding a piece of wood that's actually 2 inches by 4 inches. You'll have to make it yourself.
Yes, but... given that the proposed mechanism of action of these drugs against malaria has little or nothing to do with the mechanism against the virus, which in vitro is proposed as a general disruption of cellular protein processing, the stated assumption that "Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine" is inappropriate. In fact, the better safety profile of hydroxychloroquine may well be due to lesser disruption of protein processing which would also mean lower efficacy versus the virus.
There is a real huge ethical problem here, obviously; if a doctor really believes a drug is effective, it is unethical to withhold it from the control population. If a doctor doesn't believe a drug is good for what ails a patient, it is unethical to give it to a patient just as a test (Dr. Mengele anyone?) particularly when it is toxic as chloroquine is, and also if it means the patient is not given other treatments which may be effective.
That's why clinical trials are a Big Deal not tossed together by every doctor who thinks he's got a Miracle Cure.
There is in vitro evidence that quinine derivatives interfere with viral reproduction, and a suggested mechanism involving pH of lysosomes and post-translation protein modification or some such.
But that's not terribly specific, it's pretty much the old anti-cancer trick of finding some poison that hopefully kills off the bad cells before killing off the patient.
Except that potassium rich foods are nutritious and do generally taste nice, so there's an upside to the statement.
Chloroquine being toxic and there being no real evidence for its efficacy in this case, Trump's statement was more like stating that cyanide rich foods are nutritious and generally taste nice, and somebody reading that going out and putting potassium cyanide on their food. Most people would at least consider there being some responsibility (or irresponsibility) on the part of the poster.
Not a "trial", just anecdotal evidence that provides a promising hint.
But this doesn't even meet that hurdle. Some folks got chloroquine, some didn't, there wasn't any difference in the folks who were severely sick, the folks who weren't too sick and got chloroquine got better, but nobody who wasn't too sick didn't get chloroquine so there's no reason to think that they would have done worse without the drug. They were, after all, not too sick
The keyword being business. Print a bad review of an automobile, never get invited to the press junkets and early model previews and so on provided by that company again. Pan an upcoming movie, never get invited to a media preview by that studio again. Bad review of a book? Never get a preview copy again. Etc. And losing that early "exclusive news" is more deadly to a publication than losing advertisement money.
There is/was a weird bug in a recent version of Excel that would prevent it opening perfectly fine spreadsheets at pseudorandom; the same spreadsheet format with varying daily data would work 9 days out of 10 but the tenth day it wouldn't open. Has something to do with the new file format, zipped xml, in some way I assume.
I miss the older version.
"Automatic conversion of gene symbols any user input to dates and floating-point numbers is a problematic feature of Excel software"
As in, 60,000 distinct 14 digit ID numbers pasted into excel all coming up as 5.42342E14 and when reformatted as number, all coming up as 54234200000000? You mean that's not what was desired?
That's where the Chinese advantage is. Being on the far side of the earth, they can see the far side of the moon.
Consider; we here on the near side of the earth can see the near side of the moon; but we can see neither the far side of the moon, nor the far side of the earth. Obviously the situation is reversed in the case of China.
Well, until somebody comes up with an explanation as to why the earth is 18 degrees C warmer than the moon despite receiving the same solar irradiation, if it's not for the global warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere, as calculated by Svante Arrhenius more than a century ago.
The "pause" depends entirely on the fact that 1998 was a really really warm year. It's warmed since 1999. It's warmed since 1997. And so on for whatever year you want to begin with. Any competent statistician can inform you that means the "no warming" conclusion is shaky beyond any reasonable benefit of the doubt.
Of course, we've slowly worked our way up until we've reached the record level of 1998 routinely now, so even that thin denial will need to be retired soon.
1) Urban stations are individually adjusted to remove the urban heat island effect, based on trends in other local weather stations which are not part of the network. (Denialists know this; this is part of the "The data is worthless because its adjusted" bleat of the denier. They assert that adjusted data is worthless, and likewise if the data is not adjusted then it is worthless, as here because of the UHIs)
"Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000." http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221
2) It's not a oneway process where the monitoring station has become hotter because of more pavement, fewer trees, etc.; in many cases the monitoring station's location has become a park, or has become shadowed by buildings, tree growth, etc. Thus the individual adjustments above.
"Using satellite night-lights-derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252960119_Assessment_of_Urban_Versus_Rural_In_Situ_Surface_Temperatures_in_the_Contiguous_United_States_No_Difference_Found
3) Neither well established urban areas, nor areas which are currently becoming urbanized show a UHI trend that explains the scale of the AGW recorded:
"We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/abstract
You're saying that there is no melting of the land ice in the Antarctic, from your deep theoretical understanding ("but to melt the ice; the air temperature has to be > 0C."), despite every scientific measure, despite photographic evidence of the antarctic glaciers shrinking. Wow.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242/ All lies, I take it?
"Yet, you claim CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere. Since you're off by 10x on this easily-checked fact, readers will be unlikely to take your other claims seriously."
Once you've made up your mind CO2 doesn't make a difference, it might as well be 400%, you're still going to say it makes no difference.
Everything has "approaching-infinite variables."
Yet the tidal charts seem fairly accurate despite the unknown effects of objects in the Kuyper belt, for one instance.
At some point, a model is accurate enough for the intended use. This is true for all models, for all uses. I can drive a car without having to consider relativistic effects, nor quantum uncertainty.
I can estimate the average temperature for this region next July, despite the approaching-infinite variables involved there.
You really don't understand radiative forcing.
"our currently stable negative forcing environment "
What does that mean?
" A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation and the concentrations of radiatively active gases, commonly known as greenhouse gases and aerosols."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Climate_sensitivity
"CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere it has no effect on global temps "
It's been known for a century that the earth is approximately 33 degrees C warmer than the solar energy received can account for. Compare to the temperature of the moon, for instance, adjusting for different albedo.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf
"The global average mean surface temperature of the earth is 288 K (Table
2.1). Above we deduced that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255K,
considerably lower."-2.3 The greenhouse effect http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/chap2.pdf
"The Earth has a moderate greenhouse effect which increases the surface
temperature by some 40 K over the blackbody temperature." http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~venn/A201/maths.7.planet_temperature.pdf
Have you ever tried your experiment?
Sure... it's too hard to believe that CO2 absorbs energy even though you can demonstrate it in the lab, it's much easier to believe the earth suddenly tipped over in its rotation for no particular reason, without anybody noticing, no coriolis effects, no gyroscopic effects.
Well, we've got the warming is because the earth tipped over, the sun's getting warmer, sunspots are keeping cosmic rays from forming clouds to cool us, volcanoes, and the earth isn't getting warmer after all. Yep, that "can't be CO2" theory just keeps getting better and better.
How does the Antarctic ice increase if the earth is a closed system?
Gee, do you think it's associated with the years of drought experienced in the US Southwest, and the Middle East; and the existence of a device called a "cold trap" which you use to dehumidify air, by passing it over a cold surface so that the water vapor freezes out?
Or does your understanding of global warming make you think that Antarctica is now significantly warmer than the freezing point of water?
fer crissakes, the Antarctic land ice has melted to the point where it's affecting the earth's gravity.
Antarctic ice sheet losing mass, says University of Colorado study
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php
Isabella Velicogna, "Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19503 (2009).
Skepticism is demanding proof.
Denialism is continuing to insist it's not true, when there is proof.