Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Microsoft Confirms It Is Dropping Windows 8.1 Support 1

Submitted by snydeq
snydeq (1272828) writes "Microsoft TechNet blog makes clear that Windows 8.1 will not be patched, and that users must get Windows 8.1 Update if they want security patches, InfoWorld's Woody Leonhard reports. 'In what is surely the most customer-antagonistic move of the new Windows regime, Steve Thomas at Microsoft posted a TechNet article on Saturday stating categorically that Microsoft will no longer issue security patches for Windows 8.1, starting in May,' Leonhard writes. 'Never mind that Windows 8.1 customers are still having multiple problems with errors when trying to install the Update. At this point, there are 300 posts on the Microsoft Answers forum thread Windows 8.1 Update 1 Failing to Install with errors 0x80070020, 80073712 and 800F081F. The Answers forum is peppered with similar complaints and a wide range of errors, from 800F0092 to 80070003, for which there are no solutions from Microsoft. Never mind that Microsoft itself yanked Windows 8.1 Update from the corporate WSUS update server chute almost a week ago and still hasn't offered a replacement.'"

Comment: Coincidence? (Score 3, Interesting) 70

by uassholes (#46489049) Attached to: The Earth As a Gravitational Wave Detector
December 27, 2004 at 21:30:26 UT, a burst of gamma rays from SGR 1806-20 passed through the Solar System. The burst was so powerful that it had effects on Earth's atmosphere, at a range of about 50,000 light years.
At 00:58:53 UTC on Sunday, 26 December 2004, an undersea megathrust earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean which caused a tsunami which killed 250,000 people.

Comment: Re:So (Score 1) 469

by uassholes (#38116030) Attached to: Climate Panel Says To Prepare For Weird Weather
As usual the media are twisting the report into an end of the world horror story, when in fact it's anything but:

There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. Projected precipitation and temperature changes imply possible changes in floods, although overall there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods. Confidence is low due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex, although there are exceptions to this statement.

To be sure, there are some paragraphs in which they have medium or high confidence of this or that, for instance more people are killed by natural disasters when they occur in poor countries. Well, smack my ass and call me a monkey, good thing the UN spent millions on a showy conference in Africa to tell us that. It was in Africa of course, because that's where they want the rich countries making all the CO2 to send trillions of dollars. That is the purpose of the UN (if most of the members were honest enough to tell you).

Opportunities exist to create synergies in international finance for disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change, but these have not yet been fully realized (high confidence)

You can see the report for yourself here: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

Comment: Re:Global climate != Local weather (Score 1) 571

by uassholes (#34745590) Attached to: Our Lazy Solar Dynamo — Hello Dalton Minimum?
I did not interpret the graph that way and was confused by what you said, but now I have finally RTF summary for the graph and see that they make a caveat that the 2004 temperature is based on only one year, but the rest of the chart has a resolution of 300 years! So, any fluctuations in the past that might have risen above the 2004 value have been lost due to the smoothing.

Too bad. Not very useful for making your claim.

Wikipedia claims "In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day" during the Holocene climatic optimum (my emphasis), but admit that the optimum did not occur at the same time in the northern and southern hemispheres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

PS. Good catch regarding the speleotherm data, but the graph based on it sure looks a lot like the one you linked to on Wikipedia, and both indicate a general downward trend (with the Medieval Warm Period as a slight deviation), and in fact, looking Wikipedia's 5 million year chart, there is clearly a long term downward trend during this current ice age, as well.

Comment: Re:Quantity, not quality, is often prioritised. (Score 1) 453

by uassholes (#34738306) Attached to: Why Published Research Findings Are Often False

Whether the conclusions of those are true or false is not something that hiring committees will delve into too much

Rightly so. False conclusions are good for science, as long as they're honest. The pursuit for something new will eventually lead to the correct answer.

It's good that the protagonist of the article (Schooler) recognizes and admits the problem.

The people above who are focussing on pharma are missing the point, which is also the failure of the article. The author carefully avoids widening the perview which might then include other sciences which are hot topics these days.

Comment: Re:Global climate != Local weather (Score 1) 571

by uassholes (#34737394) Attached to: Our Lazy Solar Dynamo — Hello Dalton Minimum?

Rather than trusting a political organization or whoever wrote that in Wikipedia, I prefer to look at the data myself. A zip file containing speleotherm data has thoughtfully been provided here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/

When I look at his graph, it sure looks like it's getting colder to me.

In addition, the following paper makes it clear that the warming since 1800 is a "rebound" from the little ice age with a multi-decadal oscillation superposed, and that we have now entered a downward swing in said oscillation, yet the underlying linear "rebound" continues.

(PDF)
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf&paperID=3217

And this paper has an explanation for the power spectra of the temperature oscillations which fit the data better than CO2 based models:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639

Comment: Re:Global climate != Local weather (Score 1) 571

by uassholes (#34732150) Attached to: Our Lazy Solar Dynamo — Hello Dalton Minimum?

I have no argument about what you point out. Mainly, because it doesn't seem relevant in light of the facts. Namely that our current temperature is almost back up to what it was 1000 years ago, but not yet back to what it was 5000 years ago. Apparently we are still below the average temperature for our current interglacial period. There are all kinds of implications here.

  • The Earth has been cooling since about the time of Christ. Shouldn't the people who claim CO2 is the boogey man explain that trend first?
  • We're starting to warm back up to conditions in which civilization best flourished: The Holocene Thermal Maximum allowed the beginning of civilization and agriculture, the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, and the Mediaeval Warm Period were times of plenty and advancement. Considering how well humanity did in warmer times than this, a finer grained assessment of the risk vs. rewards should be made, as opposed to a Hollywood scare treatment for the ignorant masses. That reeks of an ulterior motive.
  • And given the most of the Holocene has been warmer, any life forms which take longer than 10,000 years to evolve obviously have no problem with warmer temperatures than now, so what's with the crap about polar bears becoming extinct?

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...