Now, if you want to argue that a law such as causality has only limited validity, you should at bare minimum be able to show that one can build a consistent model of reality without it
REDUCTION OF OXYGEN CONTENT TO BELOW TWO PARTS PER MILLION WITHIN FIFTY KILOMETER RADIUS OF SOURCE AFTER DIATOM BLOOM MANIFESTS AEMRUDYCO PEZQEASKL MINOR POLLUTANTS PRESENT IN DEITRICH POLYXTROPE 174A ONE
SEVEN FOUR A COMBINES IN LATTITINE CHAIN WITH HERBICIDES SPRINGFIELD AD45 AD FOUR FIVE OR DU PONT ANALAGAN 58 FIVE EIGHT EMITTING FROM REPEATED AGRICULTURAL USE AMAZON BASIN OTHER SITES OTHER LONG CHAIN MOLECULAR SYNERGISTS POSSIBLE IN TROPICAL ENVIRONS OXYGEN COLUMN SUBJECT TO
CONVECTIVE SPREADING RATE ALZSNRUD ASMA WSUEXIO 829 CMXDROQ VIRUS XM-PRINTING STAGE RESULTS 3 THREE WEEK DELAY IF DENSITY OF SPRINGHELD AD45 AD FOUR FIVE EXCEEDS 158 ONE FIVE EIGHT PARTS PER MILLION THEN ENTERS
MOLECULAR SIMULATION REGIME BEGINS IMITATING HOST CAN THEN CONVERT PLANKTON NEURO JACKET INTO ITS OWN CHEMICAL FORM USING AMBIENT OXYGEN CONTENT UNTIL OXYGEN LEVEL FALLS TO VALUES FATAL TO MOST OF THE HIGHER
FOOD CHAIN WTESJDKU AGAIN AMMA YS ACTION OF ULTRAVIOLET SUNLIGHT ON CHAINS APPEARS TO RETARD DIFFUSION IN SURFACE LAYERS OF THE OCEAN BUT GROWTH CONTINUES LOWER DOWN DESPITE CONVECTIVE CELLS FORMING
WHICH TEND TO MIX LAYERS IN XMC AHSU URGENT MADUDLO 374 ONLY SEGMENT AMZLSOUDP ALYN YOU MUST STOP ABOVE NAMED SUBSTANCES FROM ENTERING OCEAN LIFE CHAIN AMZSUY RDUCDK BY PROHIBITIONS OF FOLLOWING SUBSTANCES
CALLANAN B471 FOUR SEVEN ONE MESTOFITE SALEN MARINE COMPOUND ALPHA THROUGH DELTA YDEMCLW URGENT YXU CONDUCT TITRATION ANALYSIS ON METASTABLE INGREDIENTS PWMXSJR ALSUDNCH
but sending information back wouldn't change the time we are in now, it would simply cause a split, an alternate time line to occur, and nothing would change at the time we are in now.
Did God tell you this? Are you time traveler? How could you possibly know that?
You are free to ignore whoever you wish to ignore. However I believe that the AGW crowd have a flawed understanding of what science actually consists of. I happen to believe that science requires comparing an idea against the real world. I "deny" that comparing ideas against a computer model is science.
This lack of confidence in computer models is I believe a fundamental distinction between those who believe that AGW is "undeniable" and those who believe the hypothesis should be questioned as much as any other unproven idea. Unproven, that is, by comparing the idea with meatspace observations rather than computer simulations that are intended to be 100% perfect replacements for the real world.
Has some warming occured in the last century based on temperature measurements? Yes. Probably. By a small amount. Less than 1 degree. Does that mean it will continue over the next century or accelerate? That is simply unknown at this time. The only way to know is to wait and take more measurements. Anything else is no better than guessing. It's certainly not how science is done. It is not a viable method to ascertain how closely your idea matches the reality out there in the complexity of the real world.
Or questioning climate science the same way people use to question that the world was round.
From the perspective of the scientific method there was nothing wrong with being skeptical of the earth being round. In fact it isn't round. It's not flat, but neither is it mathematically circular or spherical. Science is all about asking questions and being suspicious of any easy answers.
It's about the idea that a "skeptic" leaves the door open to all possibilities, but "deniers" have already closed the door.
From what I have seen of the people who question that AGW is 100% proven and undeniably going to cause the end of all mammalian life in less than a century or so at least on slashdot you are beating on a strawman.
I do not consider AGW theory to be even remotely proven and yes I have looked at the so called "evidence". However I would never argue that AGW is impossible. That would be silly. The basic mechanism is sound, but it might take 10,000 years or 100,000 years or the small effect may be overwhelmed by other factors.
The climate of an entire planet is extremely complex and cannot be accurately 'modeled' with a naive computer program. Just like we cannot build a model of the universe in a computer and use it as a substitute for testing our hypothesis in meatspace to see what happens. Science is about testing hypothesis by actually trying stuff out to see what happens. Testing ideas against nature itself. Testing ideas against naive assumptions inherent to computer simulations is not science. When it comes to climate "science" this would mean waiting to see what happens.
At least so far the effect does not seem extraordinarily great. In a few hundred years we can again take measurements to see how things are going. Or however long it takes to see a noticeable and arguably dangerous warming effect. So far the rise has not been dangerous. There is nothing inherently bad about a rise of 1 degree over a century. Just as there is nothing inherently good about a drop of 1 degree over a century. Nor is a 100% perfectly stable temperature inherently good.
The theory is plausible. The effect is plausible. Now AGW just needs to be actually demonstrated in meatspace. It's just a matter of being patient. There is no shortcut when trying to test long term theories. You have to wait. Writing a computer program to accurately mimic a natural process is not a shortcut. At the very least first you would have to demonstrate that your model is 100% accurate and again that requires waiting many years to compare the model's predictions against observations.
If you can prove that all those climate scientists are wrong and climate change is not happening
IOW proving a negative. You do realize that is impossible right? How convenient for you.
I see. So only scientists are allowed to be skeptical of ideas and theories. That is good to know. Thank you. I hope you do not deny the existence of God. You have no right to do that unless you are a priest. Only priests are qualified.
Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright
There is an easy solution. Take away this thing you refer to as "copyright". Afaik such a thing does not exist in nature. In fact it is highly unlikely that the thing an owner asserts the 'rights' to is not even original. It itself is derived from other people's ideas. You cannot own an idea. You cannot own information. Information just is. The best you can do is keep it secret. That is just the nature of reality.
Libertarians also believe that no one would willingly ever sell an unsafe untested product, because that would harm their business.
Bullshit. I'm a Libertarian and I believe no such thing. Corporations are evil because people are evil and corporations are just a bunch of irresponsible, short sighted people who will choose profit over pretty much any other value. Profit at any price. Corporations are indistinguishable from what we would call a 'sociopath' if it were an individual. Although, unlike governments, they at least usually stop short of actual acts of violence.
As a libertarian I believe in the free market not because it is perfect in every way. There is no perfect system. But because I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I think genuine freedom is worth the price of not being able to reign in bad/evil corporations as quickly as in this case.
That is of course when the system actually works and it doesn't always.Things don't usually turn out like this. This is not a typical outcome of the system. Generally the government has a cozy relationship with large corporations like this and lets them get a away with all kinds of evil and greedy shit.
So the system worked this time. Yay. Before we all start celebrating consider the bullshit extension they are getting on nothing more than a coated pill. Until fucking 2025. That makes *no* sense and is obviously an abuse of the system. Extended release pills should not be grounds for a patent extension unless maybe the process used is more effective than any done currently, but then the novel process itself would qualify for the patent. Not the actual drug which is no longer 'novel'. It's a perfect example of how governments and corporations are often partners.
3.5" toshiba drives are pretty much WD with Toshiba's firmware and branding.
I'd been wondering if Toshiba was really making them. I have 3 of those 7200 rpm 3 TB drives that were so cheap last year and one has just started becoming unreliable. So a 1 in 3 failure rate in about a year. That's probably pretty good by today's standards. Now I switched the Toshiba over to duty as a parity drive to protect the others. Good to know that they are actually WD.
Yeah the helium worries me. It's such a small molecule. You need a really good enclosure to keep those things contained. And it would be such a convenient excuse for all of these companies to have a sort of guaranteed post warranty failure that they could time about as well as an hourglass full of sand. They might last as long as the warranty period plus 6 months though. Probably their testing shows that is how long it *should* take for enough helium to leak out. As if these TB class drives don't have enough failure modes.
Google seagate drives bad firmware how to update
Google "7200.11" & "firmware update" & "didn't work for me" & "my driver serial number" & "doesn't qualify"
You mean you got hit by the 7200.11 bug and didn't do any research into it to discover that it's a firmware issue with a simple fix?
So you bought the Seagate company line about that? Either you never owned one of those drives or you were one of the lucky few that was eventually helped by the firmware fix. Although why you would wait around for many months for the 'simple fix' when you could get a refurb replacement immediately I don't know.
This is why a good PR firm is worth its weight in gold. It's okay to have a catastrophic production failure as long as you can retroactively convince the ones who didn't get burned that it was all just a big misunderstanding and was easily fixable with a simple firmware update. If only Hitachi had done so well with their infamous Deathstar drives.
So you believed their propaganda. Go back to the Seagate forums from that time and I think you will see that the so called "firmware fix" only fixed a small percentage of the problems with those drives. There was another fix that helped some people (more than with the firmware update) that involved removing the pc board of the drive and hacking the hardware yourself. I believe a soldering iron may have been required in addition to a particular sort of cable. I can't remember exactly but it was not a fix that most people would be able to apply and often it didn't work anyway. I had a 1.5 TB 7200.11 that I had been keeping for ages to eventually buy the cable and apply the fix but by the time I got around to maybe doing it 1.5 TB was a very small drive and I didn't care so much about the lost data anymore.
I had 6 7200.11s. Both 1 TB and 1.5 TB. Most failed in less than 6 months and then their replacements failed too. None of them work today. Not a single one. And your firmware fix could not be applied to any of my drives because it was not a firmware problem. At least with my drives. Yes a small percentage of 7200.11s did have firmware problems, but mostly it was a hardware unreliability problem. The click of death as well as drives that just refused to stay online for long. They'd just drop out. And all kinds of 'delayed write' errors etc. Those were not caused by poorly written firmware. They were 100% authentic hardware problems and Seagate shipped out countless new drives to replace the things on warranty which would seem like a rather expensive thing to do if all they had to do was update the firmware. But maybe you will say even seagate "didn't do any research" and was unaware of the "simple fix" you speak of.
Despite your convenient assumption about lots of 7200.11 owners being unaware of the too little and far too late 'fix' of a firmware update that didn't even work for most owners, I suspect that most found out about it when their drives started failing. A simple google search for '7200.11' and 'clicking noise' would eventually have gotten hits for the so called 'fix'. Of course it took Seagate forever and a day to even come up with that. I don't think they have ever even admitted that there was any sort of problem with the drives and by the time they came up with your so called "simple fix" most owners had already been burned pretty badly by their decision to go with Seagate. Before my 7200.11 I had been a big fan of Seagate. Nearly all my drives were Seagates. Now I don't care what name is on the drive. They are all incredibly unreliable. I have better luck with their refurb replacements usually.
Seagate discs for consumers have been pretty much bullet proof according to what I've been able to find.
You don't work for Seagate do you, AC? That is a very careful and strange phrasing, "according to what I've been able to find". Almost as if you have never owned a Seagate drive before.
I've had a very high percentage of Seagate drives fail on me, but after drives made the jump to 1 TB all manufacturers became unreliable. Well pretty much. Samsung was the most reliable based on my experience but they were bought by Seagate (for over a billion dollars).
So, although I won't say Seagate makes or has made the least reliable drives, neither have they been particularly reliable at least since the time 1 TB drives were first introduced, but back then everyone else was pretty reliable too.