Re: Ying Yang?
@AC
Clarkson good; Fry bad?
Posts by dan1980
2933 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Aug 2013
Page:
NASA aborts third attempt at finally settling man-made CO2 debate
Wednesday 2nd July 2014 06:14 GMT
Re: Look for results in the same file as lost IRS emails.
I mean, I know it's a popular line here that global warming is a vast, money-making machine for all and sundry but the idea that NASA would waste more than 6 years $750m is bold.
I get the feeling you were not seriously suggesting internal sabotage so much as using the failures as a way to make your point but, taking it at face value, is it not equally possible that those who make money pumping CO2 into our atmosphere sabotaged the missions because they knew "full well" that their publicly-professed position was wrong?
The most likely answer is that it's just plain complex to do this and failures happen.
Wednesday 2nd July 2014 05:40 GMT
Re: Japan already has a CO2 monitoring satellite
@FrankSW
Reading the link, I don't see how it's ironic. Developed nations off-shore production to cheaper nations.
One reason is that in more developed nations there are tighter regulations and environmental controls, which reduce emissions but push up costs of manufacturing. Thus they relocate manufacturing to locations without these restrictions.
Take Australia - we export pig iron to China and then import steel. One effect, other than a loss of jobs and a missed opportunity to sell a high-value product instead of a low-value one, is that the pollution involved in steel production is 'offshored' to China.
The only point I'm trying to make is that it's hardly ironic.
Wednesday 2nd July 2014 04:41 GMT
Re: @Crazy guy
@James Pickett
If you can find someone who doesn't believe that climate change happens naturally then I would suggest you try to steer the discussion towards the latest trends in velcro shoes, digital watches and clip-on ties.
One big problem is the conflation of global warming and climate change.
Global warming is pretty much settled - it's happening.
The big questions are around what changes to the climate that warming will cause. This is where 'deniers' and 'skeptics' roam free. They see a prediction that sea levels will rise by X over Y period but instead they only rise by 0.7X. Or they see a prediction that there will be more storms but a study finds instead that there are a similar number of storms but some of these are more intense. Or that there will be a certain amount of land ice loss from a certain area but this was offset by larger-than expected sea ice gain in another area.
And so on.
Of course, there are many natural cycles affecting climate - not all of which we understand or even know about, and it all feeds back in on itself as well. This makes it difficult for scientists to accurately predict what the effect will be of the warming that is occurring as sometimes these previously unknown factors will influence the results.
This was seen relatively recently where a new factor was discovered, with increased winds causing more ocean mixing and thus 'hiding' the extra heat energy lower in the water column than was being measured. The increased heat energy was still there, it was just not where it was thought to be. It didn't mean the radiative forcing effect of CO2 was in anyway diminished, it just meant that the effect on the climate on the surface was less than expected.
There are two facts here, which are that humans are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide increases the amount in heat energy retained/reflected back into onto the Earth. There really isn't any doubt in the scientific community about those two facts.
Some argue that carbon dioxide doesn't have as profound an effect as is though and others say that negative forcings (aerosols, albedo from land clearing, etc...) are balancing it out. Neither of those things change the fact that CO2 is a positive forcing component.
From there, the questions are to find out exactly how much heat energy is being added/kept in the system and what effects that will have on the climate. It may end up producing just a subtle shift before settling into a new equilibrium, though this may be hotter, or it may push things over the edge into a feedback loop.
Wednesday 2nd July 2014 03:33 GMT
Re: Might need more of these
It's the 'no true Scotsman' argument and there's jut no point arguing with people who deploy it.
It's an attempt to win the point by re-defining the terms - no real scientist would support AGW.
To that, we add a bit of crackpot defence, which is that mainstream science knows the problems but are keeping it all quiet and bullying anyone brave enough to ask the questions or 'tell the truth'. Complete woo.
The amusing thing about such claims is that it is just assumed that non-anthropogenic global warming is a brave theory that will eventually reach acceptance once the evil lords of science can be overthrown. The truth is that that was the view held by most people originally and AGW has presented enough evidence to supplant it, just as the Big Bang theory supplanted the Steady State theory, which was the heavy-weight of the day.
Sydney wallows in cesspit of WiFi obsolescence and ignorance
Wednesday 2nd July 2014 06:26 GMT
How did they control for free WiFi, such as is offered throughout the city at cafes, pubs, fast food outlets, museums and libraries*, shopping centres and in businesses - as an isolated system for guest access?
* - The Australian Museum, Museum of Sydney and MCA all had public WiFi when I was last there, as does the State Library, Customs House Library and likely all the other city Libraries.
British and European data cops probe Facebook user-manipulation scandal
Wednesday 2nd July 2014 02:00 GMT
". . . none of the data used was associated with a specific person’s Facebook account . . ."
Maybe the results weren't matched to names but you were still dicking around with 'specific users' and that's the main problem.
Specific people were part of an experiment that, by the standards of those conducting the research, was not conducted with 'informed consent'. They can point to T&Cs all they like but a long stream with generic language about 'improving services' cannot possibly be considered adequate for a psychological experiment.
Remaining Snowden docs will be released to avert 'unspecified US war' – Cryptome
Tuesday 1st July 2014 11:49 GMT
Re: Potty Trouble is
Ahhh!!!!
First Matt agrees with Trevor and now I am agreeing with Matt!
On Matt's first point - that some in the Islamic world want a war with 'the West' - I would add that a good portion of those people not only believe that an Islamic state is ordained by heaven, but are willing (even eager) to die to help fulfil that goal.
The argument that a jihadi wouldn't risk bringing the ire of the rest of the world down on Islam simply doesn't work when discussing people for whom a martyr's death is not merely a price to pay but a goal in itself.
Now, those organising and leading these groups may well make more sober assessments but if they've done their job well enough in convincing their followers that a martyr's death is desirable, how will you prevent them from seeking that which you have promised them will be glorious?
Tuesday 1st July 2014 10:24 GMT
'In fact, I'd go as far to say as that we have more to fear from what is undertaken by private companies than government agencies, precisely because they do have a greater level of oversight and morals which are stronger than "Well can we get sued for this and if we do get sued, do we make more money than we're likely to lose"'
What I think you're saying is that private corporations are more problematic because they only follow rules they absolutely have to.
Good reasoning but the bit you fail to notice is that, whatever the motives, the rules governing corporations are, by and large, available to the general public. Contrast this with what is now known without a doubt to be he case with our governments, which is that the 'rules' governing them are kept secret from the public.
Representative Democracies work on a basic principle, which is that our elected representatives are empowered to make decisions on our behalf. When the head of the NSA is able to lie to those elected representatives, in what way do you have a democracy at all?
Tuesday 1st July 2014 10:12 GMT
Re: Cryptome
If the idea is that people must be prepared to give up a bit of liberty for a bit of security, doesn't it follow that it is an equally valid choice if people want to give up a bit of safety for a bit of liberty? That was, after all, the very point of the American Revolution (as well as similar struggles around the world), wasn't it?
No one wants to put lives at risk for nothing*, but if this is a trade (liberty for security) that is made for us, enmasse and without our consent, then how are people to make their governments understand that we don't want the trade being made for us.
I mean, you can't have an open discussion with the government because they have consistently hidden their activities and then lied to us about it. How can you tell your government how you wish to be governed if they won't tell you what they are doing and don't ask your permission before doing it?
It's a minefield and there are difficult decisions that have to be made, but this situation is one of our governments' making and there are people out there desperate to find a way to make their leaders understand. Not everyone shares their position but however incensed anyone here may be that someone would release information that threatens security, you have to understand that there are other people just as incensed that the government destroys their civil liberties.
* - At least no one worth listening to.
Tuesday 1st July 2014 02:51 GMT
Re: Trouble is
@Trevor Pott
Between you and Russell, I think I'm starting to prefer Matt's posts!
Tallying up my drinking and general bad-living, I reckon I just might miss the worst of the world being created. It's the weakest possible position but, it might make the shortness of this existence slightly less upsetting, on balance.
Speed of light slower than we thought? Probably not
Tuesday 1st July 2014 11:30 GMT
Re: Silly question...
At low relative speeds, Einstein's equations effectively reduce down to the Newtonian formulation of mass acting on mass. This works fine for celestial bodies moving at tiny fractions of c - the Earth, for example orbits the sun at ~1/1000 c. Of course, Newton's model can't account for light because light moves at 100% of c!
Thus, light is not affected by gravity as modelled by Newton but that model was explained by Einstein as essentially a special case of the larger picture, which is General Relativity.
Tuesday 1st July 2014 11:10 GMT
Re: Silly question...
@frank ly
Within General Relativity, gravity is not really a force in the same way as, say, the electro-magnetic force - it is more a result of the curvature of spacetime by massive bodies.
Essentially, the Newtonian idea of the 'force' of gravity is (under Einstein) simply a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime, as influenced by mass or, more precisely, the 'stress-energy tensor', which is effectively a combination of mass, energy and momentum.
In other words, the curvature of spacetime that results in the apparent 'bending' of light is gravity.
Of course, Neutrinos are affected by gravity too! (And would be even if they were massless.)
Tuesday 1st July 2014 08:18 GMT
I think the conjecture is that the photons were emitted at the same time as the neutrinos but were slower to reach us.
If so, that's not saying so much that the 'speed of light' - as a constant - is not quite as big a number as was thought but saying that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is no longer the ultimate speed limit. I.e. - neutrinos move faster than the 'speed of light'.
Revising a measurement is one thing, but saying that that measurement no longer represents what you thought it did is quite another.
Is that the gist?
Keep monopoly or make network expensive, NBN Co warns
Tuesday 1st July 2014 08:56 GMT
Re: Rural subsidy?
It's an ideological divide - classic left-vs-right. The Labor plan most definitely subsidised things a lot, but that is the very point of a social democracy. The Coalition plan is moving toward a more free-market ideal.
It's my strong belief that the Coalition would rather the NBN not exist at all but it was already started and, broadly, a popular idea. So, they couldn't simply run on a platform of "axe the NBN". What we are seeing is a government trying to deploy its right-wing ideals while still working within the rough framework of a left-wing service.
Tuesday 1st July 2014 03:23 GMT
Right-o
So, first we have a promise of a FTTP network, then we have a change of government and they axe that idea, telling us 640KB ought to be enough for everyone*. Now, we have consternation that private companies are stepping in to roll out their own FTTP networks and thus making the cut-down FTTN offerings of the NBN seem less enticing.
The first thing to point out is that this is the 'free market' at work. This magical mechanism is touted by the coalition as a panacea to any and all ills. If a government service is having problems, privatise it and let the free market sort it out. Right down to basic utilities and infrastructure.
The coalition always claims that privatisation will push prices down so what are they worried about? Or does that only work for power, water, roads, transport, health and student loans,?
The second is that 'cherry picking' is precisely what is happening under the new NBN regime. Only installing high-quality/speed services in areas where it is cheaper to do so is functionally the same as only installing them where it is more lucrative - both are about adding more subscribers for lower outlay.
The last thing would be to ask why the Malcolm & Tony's Broadband extravaganza has anything to fear from these competing offerings. After all, they have asserted that people simply don't need and won't use the bandwidth of a FTTP link so presumably anyone signing up to a third-party service will be grossly over-paying based on what they actually need. Again with the free market, surely those people would gravitate towards the service that best fits their needs, which would of course be the NBN.
* - Doesn't really matter if that was ever said . . ."
BBC offers briefest of teasers for the next Doctor Who
Western Australia considers ban on R18+ games
Tuesday 1st July 2014 07:59 GMT
Re: Dumb
Of course, but then these kinds of things have nothing, really, to do with 'protecting the children' and everything to do with foisting the prudery of a small but comparatively loud group onto the rest of us.
What they really want is to prevent everyone from playing these games, just as those same people would love to prevent adults from looking at pornography.
The existing laws that restrict sales of adult material (and substances) to minors are there to protect children from inappropriate games and movies and drinks. If they aren't working as well as people would like then the correct answer is to look at how those laws are being applied.
A law can only be effective if it is enforced* so before you decide to slap a new law on, make sure the ones you have are actually being used properly. Yes, sometimes the laws require work to enforce but that is the price you pay for laws that are FAIR.
I liken this to the alcohol laws in NSW. They see a problem - that there is 'alcohol-fueled violence' (I hate that term) so they make new laws and new restrictions - bottleshops closing at 10pm, lock-outs at 1am, last-drinks at 3am - rather than asking themselves why the existing laws and regulations aren't working.
The correct question to ask is: "how are people getting SO drunk at pubs?". That would lead to an examination of the methods aimed at preventing that happening and you'd soon find that RSA was failing, with pubs selling alcohol to people clearly well past their threshold.
Instead they talk about 'pre-loading' - boozing-up before going out. Huh? If someone gets to a pub already over the top then they shouldn't be served. End of story
Unfortunately, monitoring and enforcing these laws and regulations takes effort and, moreover, a genuine desire to achieve the best outcome for all. Neither governments nor police forces really care for that. Far easier to put ridiculous blanket laws in place that affect EVERYONE. It also ties in nicely with the very vocal tut-tut, mum-sy, 'youth of today', something-has-to-be-done crowd that seems to have unfettered access to our politicians.
* - At least with enough regularity and severity that it acts as a deterrent.
Tuesday 1st July 2014 04:29 GMT
". . . the document asks “whether the current regime adequately protects children and young people from harm caused by exposure to adult or inappropriate content”."
Okay, I think I've figured out where you've gone wrong. The 'regime' is not supposed to protect children from such things, parents are.
Easy mistake to make. Apparently . . .
Classifications are there to help inform parents so they can make (more) educated decisions about content they haven't seen yet, without having to sit through it first. There are also numerous 'guilty mum' sites around the web that review all manner of content including books, TV shows, movies, websites and video games and provide information for other parents to use when deciding whether something is suitable for their child.
Given that R18+ games (and movies) aren't legally available to children, banning them entirely is effectively saying that the government doesn't trust parents to, well, parent.
I am don't have kids myself, but on behalf of all my friends who do and indeed on behalf of my parents, fuck right off.
Yes, kids, if determined, will get hold of such content but if they really are that determined, they will do so regardless of whether you make it illegal in Australia or not. Just as kids can and do get hold of other restricted content or indeed substances. Banning something nearly never works - at least not the way its intended to.
Ban a game and kids will download it just to say they've played it. This happened back when I was a teenager and we'd talk up games that were clearly not that great - I remember Phantasmagoria as one - just because they were banned.
Conformist Google: Android devices must LOOK, WORK ALIKE
New South Wales' prime plod pushes data retention, again
Tuesday 1st July 2014 03:59 GMT
Re: Facepalm
+ 1 bajillion.
If you are asking the public to give up their privacy and civil liberties then you should have a clear, quantifiable safety that you are purchasing in exchange.
Anything like this is a matter of a cost vs gain. Different people will attach different values to both sides of that equation and so it comes out as a good trade for some people and a bad one for others.
One of the main problems is that the people who make the decisions tend to be skewed towards viewing privacy as not overly valuable and the risk being protected against being overly terrible.
Either that or they are just liars. Maybe 'and'.
There's also the problem that some of these people stand to gain more than the average person and thus the equation is badly unbalanced. The Prime Minister (whoever it is at the time - it's not partisan) stands to gain a pat on the head from the US President if such laws get implemented. In doing so, he'd be passing-on the pat on the head he got from the powerful lobby groups.
Tuesday 1st July 2014 00:29 GMT
"The commissioner also said it was “perplexing” that consumers would give up privacy for discounts but not for policing."
First, I think those people are wrong to do so but it's irrelevant because it is their choice, on an individual level. I can choose to have a loyalty card or not, I can choose to use 'points' systems, I can choose to install a vendor's app and I can choose whether to use my phone to check QR codes.
Personally, I find it "perplexing" that Commissioner Scipione can't see the difference between systems that allow each person to make an individual judgment about the value and cost and then opt-in to or ignore at their will and a regime forced upon everyone whether they want to pay the costs or not.
"Scipione believes that bad PR, rather than the nature of the proposals, lies behind public resistance to his preferred model, telling the Trans-Tasman Business Council that the “angst” was caused by “the communication gap”."
Just like how, when Instagram made a grab for users' photos, the "angst" was just because users' were "confused". And just like the NSA - they're really very ethical and wouldn't dream of overstepping - it's just a bad public image that's the problem. Trust us . . .
"Calling it a “conversation that needs to be had”"
I agree, but only if you have that "conversation" with the public. Which won't happen and, even if it does, won't do any good because Scipione and the others who are pushing this agenda just don't want to believe that the public don't want it - it's just "bad PR", remember . . .
App maker defends selling S.F. parking spots as a free speech issue
Monday 30th June 2014 02:45 GMT
Re: MonkeyParking creates two classes, those "in" and those "out".
@D.A.M.
Parking spaces are most definitely not a 'human right'.
What you are missing or outright ignoring, however, is that free public parking spaces are, essentially, paid for by tax payers in the first place.
That means that it is a civic right that the residents have already paid for.
And anyway, whether the spaces are free or not is largely irrelevant. The important point is that, as a public resource, it should be available to everyone on equal terms. If it costs $5/hr then fine - it must cost $5/hr for everyone.
Saddle up for the Tour de Firmware
Monday 30th June 2014 12:51 GMT
Re: Missed some
Here's the thing: there is a certain percentage of humans who are arrogant and inconsiderate. Some of them drive cars, some of them ride bikes, some of them walk; most of them do at least two, if not all three.
While (thankfully) these people are not in a majority, cyclists will complain LOUDLY about the small percentage of drivers who are dicks and drivers will complain LOUDLY about the small percentage of cyclists who are dicks. Pedestrians will mutter under their breath about both.
Whichever way you split it, the simple but unfortunate truth is that there are people in this world who seem to feel better the pettier and more vindictive they are.
Monday 30th June 2014 12:04 GMT
Re: What a waste . . .
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.
I guess you're the other kind.
Of course, we could just refer to some of your posts for insight into this topic:
"That reminds me...of the time I fired someone for riding a bike to work. News just in: your childish hobby is not a protected class." (link.)
Followed by:
"I tried to be reasonable. I told him I'd hire him back if he bought a car like a normal person." (link.)
Monday 30th June 2014 11:36 GMT
Re: What a waste . . .
@unwarranted triumphalism
Mate, I realise my humour isn't for everyone but you obviously have the most dismal view of your fellow posters if you saw my post and jumped to 'hypocrisy' rather than the alternative.
Personally, I usually try to give people at least the benefit of the doubt - especially when I don't know them. Go back and re-read my post and tell me if 'hypocrisy' is really the interpretation you're going with. If that's what you're sticking with, well, I'll accept that I'm funnier in my head than in writing but to be honest I think it says more about your uncharitable nature than my apparently unamusing writing style
Though, to be fair we do have something in common - our chosen handles do describe us each aptly. (My name is Dan and I'm thirty-four years old. It's not a good username but I never intended to hang around here.)
Monday 30th June 2014 11:18 GMT
Re: What a waste . . .
@Khaptain
Thanks mate . . .
I was going to put a joke icon but I just felt it would be condescending. I guess I gave everyone on this site the compliment of assuming they were intelligent and worldly enough to at least understand when someone has their tongue firmly in their cheek. I was wrong but I'm an optimist, damn it; I'll keep giving people here the benefit of the doubt.
For those who need it spelled out explicitly, I was agreeing with my countryman on the techie obsession with spending what, to many of our partners seems exorbitant quantities of money and then adding and swapping and tweaking away happily until we've got things just the way we want them, then adding and swapping and tweaking some more.
In other words, while our specific hobbies might differ - Simon with his bike, me with my guitars and others with their hifis or gaming PC rigs or RC helicopters and planes - us techies share a common bond. Even though I don't share Simon's passion for his hobby, I understand it and my partner would, upon sitting down with Simon's partner, very quickly recognise that we are of the same stripe.
So, to be explicit once again, I salute you Simon and your passion to strive for the incremental improvements that many dismiss as not worth the effort but us techies pursue with undiminished enthusiasm.
And it seems to me that you're equal third, not fourth!
Monday 30th June 2014 08:09 GMT
What a waste . . .
I will never understand you people. Such an expensive and pointless hobby engaged in by grown men and women who play at being professional sportspeople.
Now, if you bought a couple of guitars, hand-wired (scatter-wound, of course) pickups, vintage amps (with NOS Mullard and RCA valves) and boutique pedals* to play at home while the SO gives you a string of weary looks; that I can understand. But that is entirely different. Entirely.
Indeed, all this talk of carbon fibre and titanium for a 5% improvement is nuts. Far better to put your money into silver solder and a 60's Celestion Blue or a set of Fanes.
* - Mounted on a professional pedal board with custom-made patch cables and expensive buffering and switching equipment. Of course.
NSW government agencies bend over and take it from telcos
Foxconn CEO: 'Suicides weren't our fault'
Today in IT news: iPad Fleshlight a reality
Qld Health payroll worker charged over fake overtime claims
Facebook 'manipulated' 700k users' feelings in secret experiment
Sunday 29th June 2014 23:54 GMT
Re: "our goal was never to upset anyone"
@Sampler
Yeah - that's the way I read it too.
Studies like this are always problematic as there's no real way to conduct it without keeping people in the dark. When a new drug is being tested it will go through double-blind tests against a placebo. Participants are fully aware that they may be taking a placebo but it works because there is no way to tell if you are in the control group or not.
With an experiment like this, telling people the parameters of the study would expose the whole thing. Sure, it's possible that all your friends are just sad all the time but if you notice that your feed is now a bit less or more upbeat than normal then you're going to have a pretty good idea which group you are in.
So, this research is near impossible to conduct while still getting informed consent. The question has to be asked, then, whether the research is valuable enough to warrant what has happened. I would suggest not. It's important that science not simply settle for 'common sense' answers but I don't think it would be too detrimental to our understanding of emotions if we just assume that people exposed to predominantly negative information take on some of that negativity themselves.
After all, advertising works so it's really not a stretch at all to assume that 'emotional advertisement' works too.
Retiring Reg hack explains how bass playing = tech reporting
Saturday 28th June 2014 07:25 GMT
@moiety
I'm giving you an upvote (guitar humour is rare on a tech site) even though he did say it was a fretless bass (i.e. an artefact of Satan)*.
* - I have nothing against fretless instruments except that I can't play them and so I assume, naturally, that anyone who can has sold their soul to the dark lord in exchange for that ability. Just look at Les Claypool - there's no way to describe that man's playing except ungodly. Maybe there is an equivalently powerful divine gift of fretless bass playing . . . Mo Foster, perhaps?
'Our entire corporation cannot send or receive emails from Outlook'
Saturday 28th June 2014 01:13 GMT
Re: There are always trade-offs
@MachDiamond
Absolutely! That's of course in complete contrast to most cloud services.
If your local IT monkey goes under, you can get another in. Again, it's about the flexibility.
With my clients I always fall back on car analogies. In this case, explain on-site systems to clients as being like car ownership - they come with responsibilities and on-going costs and when things go wrong it can sometimes be expensive to fix but the flexibility of owning your own car is unequalled.
There's no direct analog for a cloud provider but I tend to contrast it with the GoGet type cars that are parked all-around the city. They are fantastic and you can use them much time a personal car most of the time but there's always the possibility that one won't be available when you really need it!
Aereo has to pay TV show creators? Yes. This isn't rocket science
Friday 27th June 2014 19:05 GMT
Re: A rather more compelling argument
@Ileres
You are 100% correct.
When the precursors to today's cable providers arrived on the scene, they went through this same process. The courts of the day ruled that they were not in breach of any copyright. Based on the laws as written, that was the correct decision.
The laws were then updated to deal with the new technology and the decisions eventually overturned.
The laws need to be updated again but I feel that no one really wants to. It's a minefield now, with many different services using different methods to store and 'transmit' data and no one wants to put too much on paper about it because they are worried about what effect it will have on existing products that they don't intend to ban.
Breyer, in his opinion, said that the ruling was narrow and couldn't really be applied elsewhere but the very fact that he felt it necessary to explicity mention reducing hte scope shows that he acknowledges that the ruling could very well be used as precedent to apply to all manner of similar and not-so-similar services.
The test they have devised cannot be used by a start-up to judge whether their proposed new technology infringes or not - they essentially have to ask themselves: would the Supreme Court view this service as bearing an "overwhelming likeness" to cable providers.
Friday 27th June 2014 18:25 GMT
Re: @dan1980
@Bob Camp
My apologies - I got lazy in the course of my repeated long-winded rants. Yes, Cablevision, as a cable service does of course pay retransmission fees under the 'retransmission-consent' agreements it makes with the television stations.
Where I have been referring to "Cablevision" through my posts, I was specifically meaning their RS-DVR service.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
