Social Security, the easiest social contract we have to hold and uphold, has been RAIDED - 4T and counting, already GONE. There is no money saved and accruing interest and keeping up with inflation. It's all paid for out of the general fund with loans from China and the rich in this country who are just sucking the life out of all of us. Medicare, medicaid - way worse shape - was there ever a trust fund that was funded for those programs?

What about the social contract the nation has with me? I consider it long since broken!

So, sorry, I'm playing along with your stupid contract charade right now because I have to. (Where else am I going to live, right?) But I yearn for the collapse to come. End the immoral thievery.

I've been wondering if it were possible to have raised virtual keyboard keys/reconfigurable tactile surfaces on smartphone screens. Looks like someone's figured out how to do it. I'd love to see the virtual keyboard key go flush with the display when I "press" it and then raise itself again when my finger comes up.

This professor needs to commercialize the concept.

A fair response, and a long and reasoned one at that. Thank you.

You are correct, it was complete conjecture (fancy, even) when I wondered if the sun's energy could have potentially been lower and that would have been a factor in the LIA. I didn't intend my statement to be otherwise.

On the climate studies and one-dimensional sun representation, I would say I'm more of a skeptical lawyer than a scientist, yes. That's fine, scientists are boring and the world needs more agitators like me. The bar for AGW is higher already, and I've hardly lifted finger-to-key. :D

Good lord, I love the dickens out of you. You just stared that smug weenie down, gave him squinty-eye, and then made him heel like it was nothin'!

Seriously, I love you in a platonic cuddling sort of way, almost!

The sun's the largest energy input into our climate system. Again, this is not a theory that I need to prove due to clear evidence.

Your 'No.' is quite certain, you're quite set in your ways. Some sort of ... er proof for your alternate theories might be useful.

Shouldn't I be skeptical when I hear "No, the sun's energy output not being predictable isn't a problem" when I know the sun is the largest input? Shouldn't you be skeptical too??

But I'm not even allowed to wonder aloud in your book. I said,

The sun's output did matter in the Little Ice Age.

I mean, that's a fact. The sun has to be there for there to be climate, so indisputable. Then, I said,

Sol doesn't put out constant energy,

Again, true. I am clearly a master of observation. Finally, the line that you doomed me to AGW hell with,

perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling.

By your reaction, you would have thought I just stabbed grandma and called her names. How can either of us prove or disprove that supposition? We don't have any data from the 1600's on solar output. I KNOW THAT! Can't a guy ask a question or think aloud 'round here without getting their head cut painfully from their torso?

And how was my statement a theory at all? Don't I need to posit something or some such for there to even be a theory?? You've hanged me over something I didn't try to do, which was, to prove anything! (Sheesh, getting on my case, so dang serious...)

And hey, I was just being honest about myself when I say I'm no climate scientist, no need to be such a sourpuss. But, do you claim to be some sort of expert? (NASA badge number, please.) Or, do you just pig out on pop-science junk food from hard hitting news sources like Newsweek and The Huffington Post like everyone else in your position seems to? You are what you eat, I suppose.

I lay here, prostrate, on the AGW altar at East Anglia - ready to be sacrified by you to Gaia!! I am ready for the TRUE knowledge floodgates to open and wash over me like a melting glacier fresh water tidalwave!! Oh, swoon!

Look at how much fun we're having! I'm laughing pretty hard rereading what I wrote to you, hehe. Whee, it's so late.

Is it a theory that the sun does not put out constant levels of energy? There's nothing bold about that, there's recorded data to back my statement up.

"The sun isn't predictable" is actually a huge problem for climate research, no? Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion, I don't claim to be climate scientist. I welcome your skepticism of my skepticism.

Please, educate me.

The sun's hot. Some days it's hotter than others. Some years, it puts out more energy than others. The solar cycle is not yet precisely predictable. Anytime you hear about a "surprising" this or that about the sun's output, don't just scratch your head and shrug. ANY fluctuation in predicted solar cycles/output should trigger loud klaxxon bells in the heads of the AGW disciples, but instead it's just crickets or shrugged shoulders. I'll leave the speculation on why there's crickets and not klaxxons to the reader.

See, in the real world, it is important that the sun's energy is not behaving like some static constant or not always falling into some reasonable range. I reject any computer climate simulation du jour that treats the sun's output as a one dimensional number/table/whatever.

And yeah, flamebait me down to -1, I only need snarky R3d M3rcury to read this... :P

... and we don't really understand how they work now.

The sun's output did matter in the Little Ice Age. Sol doesn't put out constant energy, perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling.

This climate system of ours is more complex and dynamic than the AGW devotees are willing to admit.

The lack of dynamism and live connections between peers is what discourages me from considering Freenet. The ability to engage in commerce is the first thing I'll be looking for. Simply archiving and transmitting static documents encourages only the "niche" uses of the network that you described. Seems like it would mostly negative effects; not something I would care to support.

A wireless grid network needs a new standard that starts with connecting wireless routers and getting them to share data. If wireless routers began to support grid networking in their firmware, then we'd solve the chicken or egg problem I think you're describing where no one would setup a Freenet-enabled wireless router because no other compatible routers will ever be in range.

But, say there was an innocent new 802.x spec that new routers all began to support that happened to interconnect routers and make it possible to route traffic across the wireless grid between peers as well as the internet - then over years, as network hardware is purchased and equipped by normal citizens, the foundation for the grid would be established.

So I suppose the chicken or egg problem is: how could we go about establishing that router P2P interconnect standard such that new wireless routers will automatically become peers if another compatible router is in range? Is there a use case that could be satisfied that would allow for such a new networking style to become commonplace?

SuricouRaven,

Piggybacking on Comcast's network isn't a long term workable situation, you'll always be a slave to the man. Control your means of production: adapt Freenet to run on wireless routers that can interconnect and form a zero-administration P2P network grid.

If you can pull that off, then I'd host a hotspot, a TB of storage, and even give you a CPU to play with.

Can I stream arbitrary data between endpoints using Freenet, or can I only host and request static resources on Freenet? I also require streaming encrypted data between peers over the usually-connected grid.

Cheers,
Dave