Let me introduce you to a fellow I learned about in school. He was a Russian scientist, who happened to use dogs in his physiology research. His name was Ivan Pavlov, and in 1904 he won the Nobel Prize for Physiology & Medicine.
"Classical conditioning (also Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a process of behavior modification in which an innate response to a potent biological stimulus becomes expressed in response to a previously neutral stimulus; this is achieved by repeated pairings of the neutral stimulus and the potent biological stimulus that elicits the desired response. Classical conditioning was made famous by Ivan Pavlov and his experiments conducted with dogs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
But fortunately, I quickly realized that this would actually be, in fact, quite counter-productive, and that it would be both easier and more effective to leave your blathering unhindered, for all to see and to judge for themselves.
Seriously -- the basic theory is well over a century old. Even the first rough calculations are well over a century ago (and they have since proven to be well in the ballpark).
And since then, no countervailing phenomena have been found, that would provide a sustainable reason to believe that the otherwise straight-forward, entirely predictable consequences of some very basic physical chemistry would somehow fail to (is somehow failing to) produce the straight-forward, entirely predictable consequence.
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retained, hence global warming, and climate change, sea-level rise, etc, as a result of that warming.
The observed data (what a coincidence! Who would'a thunk!) is that this has in fact been happening, and is continuing to happen at an accelerating rate -- a rate that hasn't been observed in the history of the human species, let alone human civilization. And the last time the planet saw similar changes, it came with one of the greatest ecosystem upheavals in the paleological record (and paleontologists, for some reason, refer to these events as "great extinctions").
Appealing to things like some magical "Solar Mysteries" is at this point either rank ignorance or the most cynical deception.
But some people still want us to dismiss this all as "just a 'theory'" (Hint: in science, a "theory" is not just some idle speculation).
So yeah -- at this point, "AGW Skeptiks" are pretty much on par with "Scientific Creationists" and anti-vaxxers. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them, and there's a lot of it. The big holdouts are known ideologues, religious cranks, and well-paid PR professional bamboozlers (gosh... guess who's paying those guys -- or better, don't guess; it's on record).
So yeah: "not another one", please. Pretty please? Pretty please... with a cherry on top?
Look, it's really quite simple, even if you don't understand the science:
1) the conclusions of the world's scientists (climatologists, physical chemists, oceanographers, paleontologists, etc, etc.) based on many, many decades of scientific inquiry, which when is all said and done essentially confirms that the naturally expected consequences of physics and chemistry first identified (and even roughly calculated) back in the mid and late 1800's, do in fact hold up when investigated in greater detail and with superior technological resources,
2) the world's scientific community is utterly dominated and completely run by a bunch of fools who can't reliably do basic math -- but yet manage to thoroughly hoodwink national governments and international research institutions in order to maintain an uncertain trickle of departmental funding
3) there's a vast global conspiracy of the world's scientists, acting on behalf of political cabals and all the world's governments, to promulgate a phony "Global Warming" scare for Nefarious Purposes (that all those vastly differing national governments can not merely agree on, but actively co-operate on (efficiently and effectively, yet!) and successfully keep secret, and against which aforesaid evil machinations the word's brave, embattled, badly disadvantaged coal and petroleum industries are our only hope.
Go ahead; take your pick.
If you still find this issue at all difficult to discern, perhaps you could try to properly acquaint yourself with the actual, "real deal" genuine, scientific basis underlying this matter -- but I'm not sure you'll find that approach productive, either.
That assumes that patents are of any real use in figuring out how to accomplish anything (rather than being a legally obfuscated wall of verbiage, in which it is difficult to even ascertain what the patent actually practices, and that they're useful to anyone trying to figure out how to do something -- or even whether their own invention would infringe on some patent, somewhere.
In most fields, those days are long gone -- and that's part of the problem.
... I used to be proud that Canada was a "world leader". I'm ashamed that this practice hasn't been brought to heel long ago (or at least, by the last election).
I don't care what your natural political affiliations happen to be... no voter with a lick of common sense should be voting for a government that has clearly demonstrated a pronounced willingness to brush aside verifiable facts it doesn't like, implemented policies to suppress those facts (and credible sources of the same) -- and confirmed its unwavering commitment to continue such a strategy.
>> no real powers > Sums up the UN quite nicely. While well meaning, these exercises are farcical.
Well, get away from the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, and look instead towards the various, other UN institutions -- the UN Organizations are where the real work gets done.
I especially like the WHO, myself, but other UNOs do useful and valuable work, as well, (even the "controversial" ones like the IPCC).
There's a lot to criticize at the UN -- especially at the top of the pyramid, which gets the lion's share of the press. But that's because the participants at the top are mostly busy playing politics, rather than focusing on their alleged purpose. Down on the actual work-floor, the motivations and focus (and even effectiveness) are often much improved.
Yeah -- but the simple fact that we're yak-ing here, on a site like Techdirt, rather than playing the latest hot game that requires a graphics card more powerful (and more expensive) all by itself than the typical user's computer, is probably taken as a sign that our opinions (and gaming tastes) aren't really worth considering.
the Techdirt forum/comments board *desperately needs* another option/button in addition to "insightful" and "funny" -- namely "unintentionally funny" (or maybe just "unintentionally", as I suppose that there are occasionally "unintentionally insightful" comments, as well).
Sure... Remember, Microsoft wielded its market position to force the OEMs to adopt UEFI and Secure Boot, in the first place.
And now Microsoft is going the extra mile to "relax" the UEFI/Secure Boot requirement so that it's up to the OEM whether or not UEFI/Secure Boot is implemented properly -- or merely well enough to run Windows, but prevent the user (a.k.a. owner) from running some competing operating system on their own hardware.
(They tried to do this with Windows 8, but there was enough blow-back that Microsoft made a tactical retreat, required a proper implementation (at least officially -- in practice, deficient implementations didn't hinder the granting of Microsoft certification or participation in Windows 8 Logo "co-marketing" programs.)
Not so much UEFI, but the UEFI Secure Boot module, which under Microsoft's currently proposed Windows 10 Hardware Certification requirements, will let the OEM decide whether the hardware's owner is allowed to decide what operating system shall be permitted to run on that computer. And also, of course, that decision will be formally/theoretically out of Microsoft's hands, and *entirely* up to the OEM (yeah, suuuuure).
The cards sold do have the full 4GB of memory. Due to an odd structure of the crossbar, only 3.5GB of that gets full bandwidth. The driver software uses the odd 0.5GB for structures that aren't accessed as frequently.
That's not an entirely exculpatory clarification... In other words a half GB was only partially usable. If I bought a house advertised to have four bathrooms -- but one of those bathrooms turned out to be just an outhouse in the back garden, I'd feel quite put upon.
"That is not the normal way government works. Sadly, in my experience, it isn't whether you're excellent work is on time, but whether you sit in your desk during your scheduled "duty" day and look busy. I've seen people read the newspaper all day, but so long as they looked like they were doing work, they were good. "
Plenty of that in the private sector, too, actually. It's not even just a "white collar" problem.