A topologist and an engineer walked into a bar.
The engineer kicked the shit out of the topologist for using the same words to mean different things than engineers use them to mean.

So read the rest of the post. FFS.

Solar cells on every house is great as long as there is local storage in every house too.

Wind power is great as long as there is good power distribution infrastructure: It's always blowing somewhere.

Nuclear power is great as long as you address operational safety and waste storage, both of which are addressable if you do engineering rather than politics. Part of that is again, good infrastructure so you can build the nukes in good places for nukes.

It's easy to point at any single generation or harvesting technology and identify it's flaws as a sole solution. However there are many technologies and combined together they form a robust and comparatively clean solutions.

Wow, that's a lot. I wonder why they allow so much power per outlet?

Because of all those damn industrial vaccuum cleaners.

If there was any data to suggest the ACT tests are statistically valid (they test the thing you think they test) or reliable (they would get the same result if you tested again) then the correlation may be a clue to something. However when the underlying test is neither valid nor reliable, the correlation it shows doesn't even show you there is correlation.

Layout tools, Schematic capture, logic simulators, analog and mixed signal simulators, P&R, floorplanning etc, etc.
The all have a GUI that needs to be used.

What's notable is that with all these tools, the specific ones I use in the company I work for making big-ass chips, precisely none of them work on a windows desktop. You either run them locally or remotely on a Linux desktop. As time goes on they tend to drop support for older unixes. I don't know anyone who runs these on anything except Linux these days and windows is just a platform to run X or VNC to get to the desktop of the Linux box running the tools.

Actually, no. You're falling for the false-consensus effect. There are a whole lot of different "denier" opinions, but yours is not one of them. You are making false cause with people who actually think that you're a deluded global warming apologist. The people who are correctly labelled as deniers are those who actually deny that global warming is happening. Generally, they deny that the greenhouse effect exists, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or they deny that man is producing significant amounts of CO2.

The people, like you, who claim that the models are overstating future warming and that unchecked global warming won't dangerous are luke-warmers, not deniers.

Let me explain a bit here. Water vapor is effectively constantly at saturation in the atmosphere, evaporation and precipitation keep it relatively well balanced. The major factor that determines how much water vapor is in the atmosphere is temperature. So, it's a feedback effect, water vapor amplifies the warming caused by other factors such as CO2 and Milankovitch cycles. Additionally, CO2 gets the lion's share of attention because it's a long lasting gas and we produce a lot of it. It will likely take centuries for CO2 levels to fall back to pre-industrial levels even if we cut emissions to zero right now. Other, more potent gases, tend to have half-lifes that are measured in years instead of decades or centuries and we produce orders of magnitude smallers amounts of them. So while CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, we produce a lot of it and some of the other gases, like water vapor, amplify it's effect.

There's this thing called the internet. Perhaps, you've heard of it? It would be quite easy for all these supposed scientists who supposedly are being censored to form their own website (or journal even) and publish the papers that are supposedly being censored.

Of course, that actually has been attempted a couple of times, but on every occurence that I know of, it turned out the papers were rejected because the paper was fundamentally flawed, not because of the claimed political oppression. It turns out scientific journals want you to use facts, logic, and math. Who knew, right?

It's so much easier to claim that you're being oppressed than to admit you wasted months because you made some basic math errors.

You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?

If so, then we should congratulate you and you win this one, if not, then's he right and you lose.

Well if it does, they can just give up and go to the baker on foot.

1) Screw software, hardware is where it's at.

2) Hard topics pay well: DSP, information theory, crypto, information coding, etc.

Yes. They have good bread and public transit.

>Sounds grea

It's following the lead set in the SuperValu article a couple of days ago.

>rather than trying to break into the standalone desktop OS market.

It's there and dominant in a whole host of industries. The western world would collapse if Linux ceased being available on the desktop. For example we couldn't make chips.

I don't think you design chips do you?