You mean where people artificially tried to change the environment and now are losing the battle?
Artificially changing the environment is almost the definition of civilisation. That's what humans do, no? Even by putting on a coat you do that. And yes, next to climate change, there can also be other reasons that people have to retreat in this battle.
I just don't buy iPhones because I don't agree with the poor working conditions in Apple factories.
Very principled of you, AC! So which brand of phone do you buy then?
A theory is supposed to make predictions that can be tested. Have any testable predictions been made that have since been proved true?
Yes of course. In this case the theory is just elementary high-school chemistry and physics. Burn something -> more CO2 in atmosphere -> more heat absorbed -> global warming.
Anyone filling a greenhouse (the real ones with the transparent roofs) with CO2 routinely uses this theory on a small scale. Successfully. This is not controversial.
Another discovery we made this winter is that AGW produces more precipitation in places where that would be bad (Boston, Buffalo, Bangladesh) and at the same time less precipitation in places where that would be bad (California, Australia). We never knew that the global climate system had a brain capable of forming moral judgements about different parts of the planet.
How about: in all those places people had learned over the centuries to live with the climate, but now that the climate is changing, those people have problems. Isn't that a far more rational explanation?
Yes, but the fact that the data matches the theory...
That's not at all surprising, because the theory was developed to explain the data.
So what? The theory does what it is supposed to do: explain the data.
And you think someone on a suicide death dive with 200 people into a mountain is going to sit there quietly, breathing *normally*? Unless they are a complete and utter psychopath they will surely be in a heightened emotional state, crying, screaming, blaming anyone and everyone, not casually watching the altimeter spin down.
This is the main reason I have my doubts about this theory. The world is a large and strange enough place that it can happen, but it doesn't seem plausible on the face of it.
Then I have fantastic news for you: not all that new money is used to boost diversity!
Don't believe me? Just read the summary.
Happy now?
If only Bill Gates was a Billionaire, then he could spend money to implement his ideas instead of criticizing others.
I fail to see why he deserves this. He is asked what he thinks went wrong with the Ebola crisis. He gives a very sensible answer. That's called discussion. It is essential for a functioning society, and there is far too little of it, as opposed to scare-mongering and partisan sniping.
Perceived and real evils from Mr. Gates' past are irrelevant to this discussion. The man has a sensible opinion, he is in a position to know about the subject, so his contribution to the discussion is valuable. If someone disagrees he should refute the arguments rather than the person.
Perhaps because gates primary focus has been charity and philanthropy for almost as long as he was in the microcomputer game.
Yeah, and his efforts have been similarly helpful....
Agreed, both are very respectable efforts, although not perfect in hindsight.
I think it is best to think of this as a scale model, just like those Eiffel towers some people have built out of matchsticks. Yes, it is not a real tower, because it is not really, err, towering, but it is still an Eiffel tower.
The only difference is that this was done for training purposes (i.e. not let newbees burn CPU time on the expensive real supercomputer cluster), rather than as a hobby.
It is also interesting what is driving the change. It is not big government programs, like carbon markets (which have been a corrupted failure) and subsidies, or international agreements (the biggest gains are in countries that were non-signatories to climate change agreements).
Any documentation to back up these claims? Nobody expected miracles from the carbon markets, but as far as I can tell they did make a difference. Subsidies not having an impact seems highly unlikely, and even if your last claim is true it does not mean that the international agreements did not have an impact; directly and indirectly.
Much bigger factors have been shale gas replacing coal, more efficient ICEs, and more efficient use of electricity (LED/CFL lights, variable speed motors, LCDs replacing CRTs).
There have been pretty big carrots and sticks from governments all over the world to get to more efficient ICEs, so claiming government programs did not have an impact seems counterfactual to me. Similar for LED/CFL lights, and at least to some degree CRTs->LCDs (and I doubt this is a big splash in the pool). Variable-speed motors as a big reason for more efficiency seems, err, whimsical.
It's a vendor-specific training course for a vendor-specific development/operational environment. Over the course of history, many enlightened salespeople have understood that free training courses (note: free "training courses", not free "education") improve brand awareness and market share.
I fail to see the problem. Of course Microsoft gets something out of this deal. So? Brand awareness and market share are just as important for many of the academic partners,why do you think they are offering these MOOC courses?
Every edX course has to be evaluated on its own merits anyway. What is wrong with Microsoft offering a C# language course next to Java and Python courses from other sources?
And they picked as their provider a company that has a list of many thousands of students, but who are themselves playing second fiddle to their competitors -- ie. Coursera and Udacity.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I rate edX much higher than Coursera and Udacity. Better platform, and generally much better courses. And Udacity is in practice not free.
I do not believe in the corporate sponsorship of education. A teacher cannot be a billboard.
Then you're also in favour of demolishing the William Gates building at several universities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... I suppose? Purity is very nice, but in the real world some compromises are necessary now and then.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
