Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: It was a comittee! (Score 1) 399

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#48045641) Attached to: Why did Microsoft skip Windows 9?

I know this because I was there!
All the high brass of the Windows platform were in the room. Thinking about the name for the next Windows.

After minutes and minutes of hard work ('if you go by the book minuts may seem like hours') they still couldn't figure it out.

In desperation they decided to abandone the Windows name (forgetting that most of them had Windows in their function title 'Windows brand manager'' etc.)
I believe there was alcohol involved (at least there was for me, which explains why my memory is not entirely reliable on this).
After several hours (!) of mulling this over they came with the following propositions to replace the 'Windows' brand.
* Air - sounds good but they feared a lawsuite from Apple.
* Floor - ok but a tad too obvious
* Fenestra - Sounds good but do they really think the rest of the world doesn't know latin???
* Ground - Doesn't sound quite right. ...
* Coffee stain (don't even ask)

When the meeting was adjourned (they ran out of drinks) only one conclusion was clear: Bill the intern was going to make the report.

In desperation Bill mentioned in his report that they were 'kind of looking for a Windows X'. And unwittingly resolved the whole issue.

Comment: Do I know you? (Score 2) 232

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47925079) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?

So you worked on that project too then?
Seriously, are some of the fears you mentioned not present in almost every project? My experience is that the more a project goes wrong the more the 'forces' mentioned above tend to make things worse. In that case only strong leadership that holds on to a clear vision and keeps the team away from 'the blame game' is the only way out.
If not: run. Don't walk away. Run.

Comment: Re:Time for new terminology (Score 1) 635

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47924725) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

Great post!
What I often do is refer to the IPCC's documents website. They have 3 major workgroups. WGI is about the physical science. In their 5th Summary for Policymakers (SPM) they explain in 28 pages what the evidences for global warming are how the climate models stack up against the prediction.
In WG II they discus the impact of the global warming on our planet and our way of life (economie, argriculture, sea level rising, storms...)
In the WGIII they try to see what we could do to limit the damage.
Each of the WG has a fifth SPM document (available from the main page of the website) of about 30 pages that give scientifically founded answers in laymen terms to the most common denier question: are we sure there is global warming? Are we sure it is man-made? Are we sure there will be a big impact?

Comment: Re:Dynamic CO2 Absorption (Score 1) 427

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47870407) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

From the IPPC WG1 (which deals with the physical science behind the global warming) SPM report (Summary for Policymakers): "The ocean has absorbed
about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4)"
So the oceans compensate, to a large extend, for the emissions in CO2. But the acidification is not without risk and the ocean is likely not to do that for ever. Hence the importance of this new measurement. It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end. That would mean that the CO2 levels are about the rise much more quickly the coming years.

A.k.a. very bad news (but you won't care about it I guess).

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47860255) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

I respond to your post because it seems to me you are still suseptible for reason-based arguments.

If you look for evidence or as the GP states a 'textbook' you could simply start with the latest IPPC reports. Start with the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) (find the 5th report of WG1 the physical science basis, WG2 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG3 Mitigation of Climate Change here, here and here respectively. All these links can be found on the main page of the IPPC http://www.ipcc.ch

In it you will find the answers to the most common questions asked by deniers: how big is the evidence for global warming? How sure are we that the warming is the result of human activity? What are the consequences? And last but not least: what can we do to reduce the impact?

If you are unconvinced by the figures, maps, graphs and plain language of these documents: they copiously refer to the full report (also available from the main page) where you can readup on the background for each and every conclusion they make. Still not conviced? The full report refers on it's turn to underlying publications etc. And if you're this deep down into the matter that you feel you can question the validity of individual publications: contact the authors and put forward you questions to them.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47860113) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.

I think the parent post was more along the lines that science can say that the sudden rise of CO2 has serious impact on the climate. So a cut in CO2 emision IS necessary. The means for doing that (tax carbon emissions, subsidize electric vehicles) is a political decision.

But if we simply go on buring fossile fuels we can't say that science didn't warn us that this is extremely dangerous.

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354

Working...