In the IEEE article, it was stated that the cathode problem has not yet been solved. Can you elaborate on this? Were the lab experiments conducted without a cathode?

Flamebait? I was thinking funny, but maybe my sense of the ha ha's is different.

And a fourth that it was Al Gore who reinvented the universe.

I wouldn't draw any conclusion from it except that there wasn't any significant trend in OHC over that five year period as per the Argo network. One caveat would be that there could be instrumentation/analytical errors. Another is that OHC could be increasing with a superimposed cyclical pattern and that this period measured the peak to trough of that cycle.

We'll have a clearer picture in another 20-30 years.

Except Ocean Heat Content, as measured by the Argo network, did not show any significant trend for the period 2004-2008.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/comment-on-the-skeptical-scientist-weblog-regarding-their-post-pielke-sr-and-scientific-equivocation-dont-beat-around-the-bush-roger/

Hi. I have a very stupid question for someone working in the field of entanglement.

Spin is measured as up or down, but presumably the spin is actually at some angle in between. So the up or down measurement is rounding the actually spin. Is the resulting rounding error of any significance? Is the accumulation of rounding errors on multiple measurements of any significance? Or, as is most likely, is this a nonsensical question?

Thanks

In Canada, the RCMP's Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) for Information Technology is a popular approach. It categorizes threats according to impact (grave, serious, less serious) and likelihood (high, medium, low) and prioritizes the threats from 1 to 9. Here's the link to the guide:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tsb/pubs/it_sec/index_e. htm

This approach is process oriented and not focused on specific technologies. The date on the guide is 1994 and it is still in common use, so it has stood the test of time.

I once attended a TRA workshop and the instructor was in favor of a "keep it simple" approach. He cited the complexity of other approaches as being unnecessary, unproductive, uncomprehendible and unsellable. ROI wasn't used to justify the implementation of safeguards.

If ROI is necessary, then you will have to estimate the future cash outlays for safeguard implementation and the future savings from the increased security. The ROI is the discount rate at which the net present value of these outlays and savings is zero. Estimating cash outlays should be fairly objective, whereas estimating future savings would be assumption based. These assumptions would have to be believable.

Alternatively, you could demonstrate that the minimum ROI criteria will be met by stating that the safeguard will provide "at least" a certain amount of savings. Either way you won't be held accountable for achieving these actual savings as they can't be measured. You could, however, be held accountable for future security breaches. That's why a TRA approach that is consensus based is useful from a CYA perspective.