In this we agree. Cryptocoin mining, no matter which coin you mine, is not profitable for anyone except really large players. Coin difficulties increase with overall network hashing rates, so any hashing power you have is effectively reduced every time the difficulty rises. This is something that people don't take into consideration when they go and buy those big ASIC rigs for $10,000 thinking that they're reach break even in a month. Honestly, if the machines were that profitable then the companies making them would just keep them and mine on their own, as it would be more profitable than just selling the hardware.

If anyone reading this is planning on getting into mining, thoroughly research the subject and make sure you correctly calculate projections.

Well, now that money == speech politicians are deaf to all but the wealthiest.

We have legalized bribery and all but legalized corruption with ever more sweeping powers being granted to the executive in an effort to ensure "peace and security". This does not bode well.

Yeah, because I can't count how many times we've gone to war over some other country's solar panels, overthrown democracies to secure their wind power farms for ourselves, and ruthlessly crushed third world nations for their geothermal resources. I mean it's not like Exxon makes more money in one year than all green-power companies combined or anything. If it wasn't for the billions of dollars of tax payer money flowing into the pockets of oil companies as subsidies, why the fossil fuel industry would just shrivel up and die.

Oh, and there is a rainbow colored talking platypus eating raspberry cake behind you. He seems to think you're more disconnected from reality than he is.

We all live in prisons. It's just that ours has better marketing. :)

Reading is a useful skill. Practice it. The research cites their sources and methods. Feel free to disagree and put forward your own work to show why they're wrong.

You're citing Judith Curry and WUWT in a climate discussion. You may as well cite The Onion and The Weekly World News. They have almost as much credibility, and are a hell of a lot more entertaining.

This isn't a math problem. It's an oceanography problem. Oceans are not well mixed entities. If you add a bunch of freshwater to the ocean it does not become instantly mixed. Reducing salinity in the top 3 meters of the ocean would have significant climatological impacts.

Nah, Wyoming saw how stupid Kansas is and are now trying to take the crown. They have a ways to go, but this is an excellent start.

Your problem began when you turned the code over to an inexperienced CS graduate. You don't need to be a good software engineer or even a good programmer to get a degree in computer science. I wish people would stop conflating the two, especially the people in the HR department. :P

You needed a SOFTWARE ENGINEER. Worse, you needed an experienced software engineer familiar with the domain. Instead you handed it over to a fresh graduate who maybe had one or two courses on engineering. What exactly did you expect to have happen?

And what about you? Did you give them a good set of requirements? Did you have frequent reviews? Or did you just drop it in his/her lap and say "make it better"? There's a lot of missing details on exactly how you participated in the process. Again, if you weren't actively giving feedback into the process then you shouldn't be surprised when it isn't what you wanted.

The failure in this case is yours. Next time you need work done, I suggest actually getting the right person for the job and not some cheap fresh grad who happens to have "computer" in their degree description.

And the scientific community is a good 20 years away from effectively utilizing such goodies the steering committee has accepted because software maintainability is often a secondary concern. Scientists aren't software engineers and very few of them I've worked with want to bother becoming one. If the code works, that's enough for them.

The way scientists write code, it doesn't matter what language they use it will still come out an undecipherable mess. You'll have a quintuply nested loop populating an array call tlnb1 in a function called abn that takes 8 arguments named t1 to t8. The only documentation will be a single comment just before the loop that says "This should work now".

If you're going to be working with scientific code you'll need at least a Master's degree in software archaeology and software anthropology.

The science is fake? You're right. People like Fourier back in the 1820's just started the whole "Global Warming" thing because he wanted to get rich of green energy. I suppose Ahrennius developing the first global climate model in the late 1890's and quantify the possible anthropogenic effects on global temperature was to further capitalize on the big "Green Energy" cash cow.

Maybe Al Gore invented a time machine and went back in time and had a little chat with some of these famous "scientists" in the 1800's just to help line his pockets. After all, what's developing a time machine compared to creating the internet.

And while your being a complete idiot, HAARP is controlling your brain, the Black Night Satellite is real and was sent from Alpha Centauri to gather Krispy Kreme Donuts, and the Lochness Mosnter isn't really a monster, he just needed the money.

Honestly, you act like global warming is some brand spanking new theory developed out of nothing with no supporting evidence. The theory of global warming was first proposed close to 200 years ago, and scientists from as far back as the early 1900's have been warning that unchecked human activities could result in an altered climate. It existed long before Al Gore and Green Energy, or even before the photovoltaic effect was put down on paper.

You have a brain. Use it. You can verify the effects of greenhouse gases with basic high school math and physics. Fourier did it before the invention of the fucking light bulb, let alone calculators and computers.

Pretty much confirms what I already knew: I have to drive hours in order to find even a decent dark sky site. That's why my 10" SCT and 6" refractor have been gathering dust in my garage for the past 7 years. :P

Another step down the slope. I'm pretty sure, at least on Slashdot, everyone saw this coming. And it's just going to get worse. Unless you got the money to buy politicians...I mean express your free speech (I always get those confused) then nothing is going to stop our decline.

Global warming is a scientific result from the study of climate and the physics/chemistry governing the climate system. Fourier came up with Greenhouse theory in the 1820's and the first climatological model to show anthropogenic global warming was developed by the father of of physical chemistry Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800's, long before computers came on the scene.

No scientific method? No controlled experiments? Have you ever cracked open anything other than an elementary school textbook? And you seriously wonder why scientists don't bother listening to people like you? "The last 200 years of physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry is all bullshit," is basically what you're saying, and has as much credibility as a prostitute preaching abstinence.