"The press release is out, and the usual serial bloviators are rushing to trumpet the news. July 2012 was the hottest ever on record! “Yikes! We’re gonna roast! Global Warming!”
"The press release is out, and the usual serial bloviators are rushing to trumpet the news. July 2012 was the hottest ever on record! “Yikes! We’re gonna roast! Global Warming!”
"Missouri was the most anomalously hot state in July, yet measured maximum temperatures were only sixth hottest on record – five degrees cooler than 1934."
"Warrenton, Missouri is located right at the hottest of the hot in July, 2012.
Certain processes in Nature are irreversible. Take for example breaking a glass by smashing it on the floor into millions of bits and pieces of varying sizes. It's not possible to put it back together again as you'll always miss some pieces and it won't ever be the same. Cells are like that. When you starve them of oxygen at death they break up. They disintegrate. They are eaten by microbes fairly quickly. The decay process beings within minutes of death. Read the linked article for the gory in-depth details. These processes are irreversible in the same way that the broken glass reassembly is irreversible. The difference is that you're sentient and living and once the critical systems and cells in your body undergo this irreversible process there is no turning back. You can't alter the laws of Nature. So enjoy your life while you can and do the best you can to make a positive difference in the world.
The car is a metaphor which you clearly missed.
We do not have a spirit that survives past the end of our life. What people call "spirit" is merely your consciousness or your feeling of being alive, when your cells dies that dies with you.
You're not talking about an open mind, you're letting your brain fall out of the hole you call an open mind. The laws of Nature prevent any afterlife for you other than bugs eating your corpse.
Logic isn't enough, evidence of science is also required. Read the linked article.
Yes the laws of Nature disprove the entire notion of a disembodied "spirit".
Death is not a flight, it's not a trip, it's not a journey, it is the obliteration of you where you cease to exist the moment your brain cells have died.
"What happens after you die? Nature is a harsh mistress indeed.
What happens after death is very clear, your body rots as it’s being recycled by Nature and “you” are permanently and utterly obliterated you cease to be no magical heaven, no roasting hell, you just cease to be when your brain stops working that’s it nothing more.
What happens when you take something apart, such as a car? As you begin to remove non-critical pieces it’s still a car, you can take the roof off and it’s still a car, you can take the hub caps off and it’s still a car, you can even take the doors off and it’s still a car; taking the wheels off and while it’s still a car it’s now a disabled car but at some point as you remove parts – critical parts – it’s no longer a car; and if as you take those parts off the car and destroy them so there is no chance of putting it back together either that’s what happens with humans and other living things at some point a critical component or critical components are removed or cease functioning that are critical for it to be alive and that’s it that is the moment you cease to be – when your brain stops functioning, just like a car ceases to be.
Now to be sure, did the car go to “car heaven”? Nope, it simple ceased to be, it vanished it’s car-ness is no more it existed from the point that it’s critical parts made it a car and was a car while it was a car and then it ceased to be after it was disassembled at that critical moment when enough parts where removed that it ceased to be
Enjoy being alive. It is all that matters. Everything else is meaningless.
There is no mystery about death. Only people who don’t want to face it or those that don’t like it make it mysterious and invent alleged gods and being saved by jesus to a futile pitiful attempt to defy the objective reality of Nature in it’s harshness and cold fact of obliterating end of life.
Science wins over mythology. If after reading the attached article/document you still believe in the resurrection of jesus you know that you’re highly delusional and denying the facts of life in the objective reality of Nature.
BE. Even BE kind to others. For no other reason than the shocking horror of our own ceasing to be.
Here is the science:"
"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."
That is an expected result since at the heart of the scientific method is being skeptical. So those that are more skeptical of unsubstantiated and wild claims of impending Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapture are actually following the scientific method much better than those that merely believe the science just because a scientist makes a claim.
"The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions."
Then the people who conducted the study don't actually comprehend the principles of science nor the scientific method but instead where looking for a political outcome as evidenced by their use of the notion of "consensus".
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science
“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” – Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
“if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period. – Richard Feynman
As Mother Nature isn't obeying the AGW's supporters claims of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture by not warming these past twelve years the hypothesis of AGW has been falsified in the objective reality of Nature.
In any event, it's nice to see that even in this study the scientific method tends to prevail over the preconceived confirmation bias of those involved.
"is polluting the air good for you or not? The answer is obviously, no,"
Open a biology text book once in a while, you'll find that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential nutrient for plant life.
"The development of a new front-end was started out of a need -- a need for a compiler that allows better diagnostics, better integration with IDEs, a license that is compatible with commercial products, and a nimble compiler that is easy to develop and maintain. All of these were motivations for starting work on a new front-end that could meet these needs."
Interesting that computer "the format of data files" are not copyrightable!
"the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection."
Evidence for CAGW: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/Suggestions_scr.jpg.
"Some feeding" should be "Stop feeding".
"actually be helping" should be "actually helping".
Sure the CO2 increases. Sure there is Temperature increase and decrease... and a long term slight linear+cyclic upward trend since the end of the Little Ice Age... no doubt about either of those... the problem that exists is that when you correlate both they don't correlate at all. Nada. Also the temperature trend, linear+cyclic, stays the same before and after the 1950's when CO2 started increasing... exactly the same temperature trend so that is a serious problem for those promulgating CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW.
Also all the climate models haven't been able to predict the temperature standstill for the last 12+ years. Not one. And if you know the scientific method then you'll get the following statement:
“if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” - Richard Feynman
What is missing is the actual evidence that the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere is having any significant effect at all. Sure there might be a wee bit of warming from it but so what?
Also "might", "may", "could", and other conditional words are not scientific words with any accuracy at all. Some feeding your brain mind poop from the media and doomsday claims from scientists who haven't yet produced any serious evidence that CO2 is a problem. Also learn that CO2 is an essential life giving nutrient and that we use 900 ppm to 1400 ppm of CO2 in greenhouses to grow plants bigger and faster. Plants for the most part love CO2. Biological fact. In fact a study found that from 1980 to 1999 plants grew by 6% as seen by satellites.
The amazing irony is that the extra CO2 is actually be helping green the planet.
" Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature
Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?
The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre . *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.*
*Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.
Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* "
As I said: "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a display system and process whereby the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer predominately operate on a floating point format. Vertex information associated with geometric calculations are specified in a floating point format. Attributes associated with pixels and fragments are defined in a floating point format. In particular, all color values exist as floating point format. Furthermore, certain rasterization processes are performed according to a floating point format. Specifically, the scan conversion process is now handled entirely on a floating point basis. Texturing, fog, and antialiasing all operate on floating point numbers. The texture map stores floating point texel values. The resulting data are read from, operated on, written to and stored in the frame buffer using floating point formats, thereby enabling subsequent graphics operations to be performed directly on the frame buffer data without any loss of accuracy.
Many different types of floating point formats exist and can be used to practice the present invention. However, it has been discovered that one floating point format, known as "s10e5," has been found to be particularly optimal when applied to various aspects of graphical computations. As such, it is used extensively throughout the geometric, rasterization and frame buffer processes of the present invention. To optimize the range and precision of the data in the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer processes, this particular s10e5 floating point format imposes a 16-bit format which provides one sign bit, ten mantissa bits, and five exponent bits. In another embodiment, a 17-bit floating point format designated as "s11e5" is specified to maintain consistency and ease of use with applications that uses 12 bits of mantissa. Other formats may be used in accordance with the present invention depending on the application and the desired range and precision."
Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.
An array of 16 bit floating point numbers as pixel elements? That's not innovative in any universe.
Having used a plethora of languages over many decades every language sucks the big one big time except for assembly language and the new language I'm developing of course. When developing a new language you pretty much need an attitude like that to get over the morass that everyone - including more likely than not, you, although I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - throw at language and system developers.
Assembly just sucks because it's so focused on the pesky details but it does so elegantly since it's the real hardware level so it doesn't suck big time. Assembly is the most powerful language after all as it is what is really happening (baring bugs in the processor). Now you might claim that micro-code is the real hardware but who ever programs in THAT today? Oh right the CPU, GPU, ASIC and FPGA guys. Ah whatever that's hardware not a general purpose programming language.
This new language - more than a language, it's a system - has new features that will knock your socks off. Like the core ideas of Lisp, Smalltalk, Erlang, Clojure but without all the horrifying warts that make your mind do crazy mental gymnastics just to solve problems and write awesome and fast compiled safe parallel native code.
If you're like most programmers then you'll love this new language. It's got it all, the homoiconic aspects of Lisp where programs are data and data are programs; it's got the uniform message passing paradigm of Smalltalk but improved so that every operation is a message including all meta operations, thus it also has all the distributed message passing capabilities of Erlang without the cryptic functional goo that lacks even basic notions of objects; it's got Clojure beat hands down which is easy since to know Clojure is to know the nine gates of hell, it thumps Clojure by providing a different paradigm where the user doesn't have to become a cryptozologist digging through the bizarre Clojure primitives just to get on with their work; all in all, it's a huge advance. Oh, and with it's improved Full Block Closures it can do things and meta things that functional languages and Smalltalk never dreamed of.
One of the biggest benefits is that it provides a means of doing multi-core multi-node native threading in a safe parallel programming environment for the bulk of common parallel operations within one program, across multiple programs and even across distributed nodes with many programs running. It can even do so efficiently.
Every aspect of the language and it's system is written in itself including all of the execution engine which provides not only homoiconic aspects but also Mobius Loop aspects when the language and it's system evolve via generational rewriting to the next level - which is really where the message passing meta operations on all parts of the language/system come into play and shine. You can't have a language/system that evolves itself if it can't rewrite all of it's parts and just about all languages fail at that.
Oh, it's not a virtual machine since it actually uses the full power of the computer hardware it's running on with it's intimate direct native code connection to the CPU and GPU and other hardware it's running on. Virtual Machines suck big time, in part because their machinery is hidden in inaccessible primitives providing a locked in frozen in time binary; in part because byte codes are pathetic primitives. This new language provides the interactive feel of Dynamic Languages with Full Interactive Development Environments (e.g. Smalltalk like Integrated Development Environment but without the VM). Naturally it's a fully dynamic language.
The long term end goal for this language is for it to disappear utterly leaving only the system aspect being what the users interact with as a fully evolved object networked messaging system is a much more powerful means of programming than using a set of ASCII (or UNICODE) characters in a linear stream as we do now. In the future text based programming (even with a full IDE like Smalltalk's which can't be beat today) will become obsolete and this language and it's system aim to accomplish that.
Facing reality it must also connect with the horrifying existing computing operating system ecosystem (Window, Unix, *BSD, Mac, iOS, bla bla bla) so parts of the libraries deal with connecting with system calls and DLLs and shared libraries. Shivers.
Now maybe you're not interested in any or all of the above which is fine, you don't have to use this - not named here - in development and evolving language/system. Not all languages are for all people.
Constructive comments are always welcome. What do you need to have in your programs that you want to create?