The biggest missing solution: - Windows server support. There are some expensive solutions, not sure how well they work.
I've been using the Bitvise sshd server on Windows for about 10 years with no problems. It's free for noncommercial personal use and $100 (plus $20 per year for upgrades) per host for a full license if you're using it for business or commercial purposes. This doesn't seem "expensive" to me, but YMMV of course.
Climate models may one day mature to something beyond the basket of hypotheses they are now, but none of them have yet been successful in predicting climate data, except where the null hypothesis also predicted that data.
Wrong. Manabe and Wetherald predicted in the 1960s that greenhouse warming would cause the stratosphere to cool when the troposphere warmed, whereas increasing solar intensity (the null hypothesis) would cause both the stratosphere and the troposphere to warm simultaneously.
The observed temperature trends agree with the greenhouse warming predictions and disagree with the brightening sun predictions.
Subsequent modeling work predicted dozens of ways in which the greenhouse warming and brightening sun would produce different patterns (e.g., greenhouse gases would cause nighttime temperatures to warm more than daytime temperatures, whereas increasing the brightness of the sun with no change in the greenhouse effect would cause days to warm more than nights). And today when we look at the patterns of observed warming, they overwhelmingly agree with the greenhouse warming predictions and disagree with the brightening sun predictions.
I don't think I understand what you mean by "air gapping."
Are you saying that employees should not be able to send email to computers located outside the company's headquarters, receive email from computers outside the company's headquarters, and or read their email without physically going to the corporate headquarters (e.g., no checking business email from the road, branch offices, or home)? If that's what you mean by "air gapping" it doesn't sound practical.
I notice they leave out the part where it returns to the atmosphere through tree rot.
You can preserve the wood in dry or anaerobic conditions to prevent rot after the tree is harvested, but that would take extra effort and energy.
However, it's not unreasonable to imagine that in 100 years the energy for doing that sort of thing might be available from renewable or nuclear sources.
Also, if you replant a new tree where the old tree stood, the new tree could absorb the CO2 emitted by the old tree's rot. But you would have to understand that the replacement tree is just preserving the sequestration that the older tree accomplished, not adding any new sequestration if the old tree is allowed to rot. Thus, if we were to go on using fossil fuels there would be a tradeoff between the energy and effort required to preserve old wood and the land required to keep expanding the forests.
Last I checked, planting a few trees won't affect CO2 levels. Plankton does almost all of the co2 conversion.
Where did you check? According to this paper, far from doing "almost all of the CO2 conversion," plankton does less than half: "the global net primary production from phytoplankton is given as 45–50 Gt C/year. This may be compared with current published estimates for land plants of 45–68 Gt C/year and for coastal vegetation of 1.9 Gt C/year."
The US greenhouse gas emissions are equivalent to about 6 billion metric tons per year of carbon dioxide. Each tree you plant offsets about 1 metric ton of CO2 over its lifetime, so that means we need to plant 6 billion trees every year.
If we figure that the trees would be planted at an average stand density of 200 per acre, that comes to 30 million acres of new forest that we'd have to plant every year, or 47,000 square miles. To put this in perspective, this means covering an area the size of Pennsylvania with new forest every year.
On another note: Some people point to algae or plankton. Globally, land plants remove 45-68 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year, compared to 45-50 billion tonnes removed by phytoplankton, so it's not true that plankton remove more carbon than land plants.
Complaining in the form of feedback is perfectly acceptable.
Absolutely. Successful businesses generally prefer customers to complain than to have them leave without saying anything. Complaints provide data they can use to improve their service and retain customers. Of course, you can't please everyone, and sometimes you choose not to make changes to please dissatisfied customers because they're too costly or they would displease even more customers, but with the complaints you have more information to make those choices.
There was a good book on this topic many years ago, and it holds up nicely more than 40 years later: A.O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
You just confirmed that it is being used and that it has useful data. Studying it are using it and as you bring up it has been used to prove that his conclusions about twins where wrong. In fact his data proves the exact opposite, that twins separated at birth do not show similar intelligence and school results.
Of course thats not the use he intended but it's still useful.
Huh? Mengele's twin research had nothing to do with intelligence of twins separated at birth. It involved mutilating twins (e.g., injecting chemicals into their eyes to try to change the eye color) or killing and dissecting them.
There was no systematic scientific design. Just sadism pretending to be science. What useful information, intended or unintended, has anyone found in his data?
Not to Godwin a discussion, but same argument for the research the Nazis did on twins. Some of it is good, useful information. But nobody will touch it because of its source.
ORLY? All the scholarship I have read about the twin research concludes that there was no serious effort at science and that the data that were collected were useless. Do you have any citations to support your assertion that the twin research produced any good scientifically useful data?
The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be.
If it's absolute, then we have to interpret the second amendment as permitting individuals to possess weapons of mass destruction. If we don't allow the government to restrict me from keeping nuclear bombs, large amounts of nerve gas, and big vats of anthrax in my garage, we've reached the kind of reductio ad absurdum of Constitutional construction that Justice Jackson criticized in his dissent in Terminiello : "There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
The only time when the idea of free speech should be trumped, is when there is intent to cause harm, like yelling bomb or fire in a crowded area, or shining a laser pointer at an air plane or person.
How can you prove that I intend harm when I yell "bomb" in a crowded arena? I might say that it was just a joke or that I was performing a rap that I call, "There's a bomb in this arena."
Consider a kid who calls in a bomb threat to a school and says that he didn't mean harm; he was only pulling what he thought was a harmless prank. Would that be a legitimate excuse, if the jury believes that he only meant it as a harmless prank?
We're losing polar ice and there are other changes too. How much will that affect the albedo?
Albedo is currently 30%. Losing ice cuts the albedo (this is known as the "ice-albedo feedback"), but not anywhere like from 30% to 7%. Clouds provide a lot of albedo and they're not going anywhere.
55 million years ago, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum, the sun was almost as bright as today, there was about 4 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today (basically, there was a carbon infusion into the atmosphere roughly equivalent to us burning all known coal reserves), and there was no permanent ice on Antarctica or Greenland, but there was no runaway greenhouse effect. We can also calibrate the strength of the ice-albedo feedback from its contribution to Pleistocene ice age cycles, during which as much as 30% of the earth's land mass was covered with ice and snow.
Don't get me wrong: Global warming is a very real and serious threat. But there is no plausible way it could possibly produce a boil-the-oceans-dry runaway greenhouse effect like we see on Venus. If you're looking for a good scientific treatment, see David Archer's textbook "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" for an introductory-level treatment or Raymond Pierrehumbert's book, "Principles of Planetary Climate" for a very rigorous calculus-based Ph.D. level treatment. Also, Andrew Ingersoll, who discovered the runaway greenhouse effect, has a good primer, "Planetary Climates." Realclimate.org also has a good short and clear treatment.
we'll be looking at a full on runaway greenhouse effect such as devastated Venus.
Nope. The Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit says that a Venus-style runaway greenouse is not possible on earth because the sun isn't bright enough unless you brought the albedo down below about 7%.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
