Change the wireless channel on the WiFi router. Try channels one by one until you find one with good signal coverage. Use a less popular channel where you won't run into interference from neighbors and your signal strength problems will be solved. As easy as 1, 2, 3,
Inaccurate unscientific ramblings, sound bites and clichés do not support your argument. That not only goes for hkmwbz but also Soulskill (the author of this topic who so brazenly declares the science is all but settled), JD, Shavano and Blueg3 below. Global Warming / Climate Change is NOT scientific fact, it is THEORY presently being developed and there is still much to learn. Blind supporters of global warming make outrageous claims and forget that all of this is THEORY which must be backed up with evidence. There are no 'denialists' - that is not even a word! You offer NO LINKS to scientific studies to back up your outrageous claims, so I will.
Urban Heat Islands are definitely real, especially in rapidly growing countries like China. See this paper published by the Journal of Geophysical Research:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/new-paper-uhi-alive-and-well-in-china/
So hkmwbz you are certifiably wrong there. Then you persist with your clichés
there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans.
Really? Show us your evidence. Where are your links? What is definitely an undisputed scientific fact is how little scientists know and how much they are still learning today.
Then we have JD (below) making ridiculous statements like:
The current imbalanced rise in CO2 is much more troubling because studies show that plants do NOT like massive levels of CO2 unless they come combined with massive levels of O2.
JD what makes you think CO2 is presently imbalanced? Where is the evidence for your statement? Do you actually know what the present percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is??? It presently is around 0.039445%. Do you have any idea how the increase in CO2 has increased during the last 50 years? It has increased from 0.032 to 0.0395, or by approximately 25%. Here is the data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Look at that graph. Its a fairly straight line over a period of 50 years. Fairly straight line despite the dramatic jump in CO2 emissions since the mid-1800's (PDF). Even though human population has more than doubled during the last 50 years! Even though the number of cars has increased 800% from 122 Million in 1960 to over 1 Billion today. And yet somehow our planet's climate just keeps on balancing things out and the rate of increase of CO2 is fairly constant. But wait, JD definitely said "imbalanced rise".
JD continues:
CO2 rises alone, without any other alteration to the environment, will cause plant growth to decline and is eventually toxic.
Really? Where is your scientific evidence? The reality is CO2 is a fertilizer to plants. Plants LOVE CO2, even without a corresponding rise in O2 (wrong again). Even in high concentrations CO2 continues to act as a fertilizer. Here are some links from climate change advocates which you seem to blindly trust:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect
http://www.good.is/post/rick-santorum-thinks-carbon-dioxide-isn-t-harmful-to-plants-tell-that-to-a-plant/
http://plantsinaction.science.uq.edu.au/edition1/?q=content/case-study-13-1-co2-cyanide-and-plant-defence
The studies in toxicity of plants were conducted at levels 0.075% carbon monoxide - nearly double today's levels. Realize that based on the present straight line growth in CO2 levels it would require 175-225 years to reach the levels in these studies when solar and battery power should be fully mature long before then. All the studies show a small decrease in proteins in some plants (around 7% according to one study quoted by the Duke professor) and a constant or small increase in the levels of cyanide - again, in some plants. This means that animals which feed on plants with increased cyanide will develop a resistance for cyanide, animals which already have a higher resistance to cyanide will prosper and we as humans will develop new ways to remove cyanide from the food we eat. It also means that crop yields will increase allowing us to feed our planet reaches a population of 9 billion, which is not a bad thing. Plant growth will definitely not decline and food we eat will not become toxic. JD you are wrong again.
Then we have Shavano and blueg3 make the following wonderful statements commenting about 'deniers':
No they're not honest scientific dissenters. The evidence is that they shift from one unsupported hypothesis to another as their ideas are disproven by data and careful analysis.
No, in science, you modify your model and conclusions based on changing evidence. The difference here is that you're holding your conclusion constant and changing the reason you claim it's true every time your reason is found to be untrue.
Wait. Are you talking about the dissenters or the global warming alarmists? Because there remains some question as to global warming and the increase in temperature during the last 14 years (see figure 3). Global Warming Alarmists always seem to be changing their theory to explain why the dramatic temperature increases they predicted should have happened during the past decade have not happened. Oh wait, that is called the 'scientific process' and that is what SHOULD be happening. But supporters of global warming / climate change are violently intolerant of scientists who continue to question the foundation of the global warming / climate change theory. Hence the acronym used in this Slashdot entry - 'Climate Dissenters'.
When you take the dramatic jump in CO2 emissions since the mid-1800's (PDF) and the history of global warming during the last 100 years there is a huge disconnect. Since 1998 global temperatures have risen by 0.3C. During the preceding 20 years (1979-1998) temperature change was flat. Before that, during the preceding 36 years (1940-1976) the temperature actually fell by about 0.1C. Before that, for the preceding 200 years (1740 – 1940), the overall trend in global temperature was mainly neutral – with periodic warming, followed by cooling, and then again warming. If what all these global warming scientists are saying is true shouldn't we have seen dramatic temperature increases much earlier - like during the 1960's and 1970's?
The reality is that global warming / climate change and its human causation is a theory. I am not suggesting that pollution is a good thing and I support many environmental issues. What I detest is arguments which are based on clichés and sound bites like "the vast majority of scientists agree" while ignoring scientific fact. If Soulskill, hkmwbz, JD, Shavano, blueg3, etc. are representative of these 'scientists' who agree that global warming is a fact then that statement is meaningless because the links above have shown that these slashdotters / scientists are incorrect.
Perhaps the world is just going through another weather cycle. Perhaps the increase in CO2 is causing some climate change. Perhaps other factors are simultaneously causing temperatures to fall (also read the entry by rgbatduke below but he too left out his references). But whether our weather is effected by human beings or whether the changes occurring our bad for our planet are still questions that science has yet to answer. The costs associated with carbon emission reduction are also difficult to quantify. Is lowering carbon emissions worth the harm to the world economy which will more heavily affect the poor? Alarmists need to reign in their passion, read more, take more science courses, ask more questions and help invent the technology which can help humans kick our fossil fuel habit. Scientifically.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
