×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

How Close Are We To Engineering the Climate?

Tenebrousedge Re:Been a pleasure "dusting you" again...apk (319 comments)

You're a jerk in addition to a complete psycho for posting the same damn thing so many times. If you can refrain from spamming and trolling my every post, I might think about replying. You have a long history of harassing people who disagree with you; it's a bad habit that will get you in trouble some day.

about three weeks ago
top

How Close Are We To Engineering the Climate?

Tenebrousedge Re:Models and Fundamentals (319 comments)

This simplistic zero-feedback model proves nothing. Other things besides the amount of CO2 affect net radiation flux, and many of those other things are affected by CO2.

No, it proves that per basic laws of physics (Stefan-Boltzmann), all other things being equal, increased CO2 produces warming. There are indeed many things that affect net radiation flux, most notably H2O. Basic calculations and laboratory testing, indicate that water has a positive feedback effect on temperature changes due to an increased partial pressure of CO2. Please show evidence or a mechanism that would cancel out the CO2+H2O forcing.

about three weeks ago
top

How Close Are We To Engineering the Climate?

Tenebrousedge Reality Check (319 comments)

The fact that CO2 absorbs IR under controlled conditions in your basement means essentially nothing.

Why? Propose a mechanism. If what you're saying is true, there has to be an effect to counter the CO2+H2O forcing. It has to be a large effect since the positive feedback is strong. That should make it easy to find. Go ahead, find the evidence, show us what we're missing.

... look at the increase over the last decade where warming has flatlined while CO2 substantially increased.

I am not aware that the warming has done any such thing, and most of the warmest years on record fall in the last decade. The multi-decadal trend is upwards, in close agreement with theoretical predictions.

Come back to us after you look up what percentage of the earths atmosphere is CO2...

Now here's a fact in search of an argument. Either you're disputing easily-observed facts about CO2, solar irradiance, and radiative physics, or you have to admit that CO2 causes warming. Specifically, all other things being equal, a doubling of CO2 results in about 4 W/m^2 of warming. Since I know you're not going to dispute basic laws of physics, we're back to the top of this post, where you find the term that makes a bunch of positive feedbacks go negative, but only on this planet, and only when it's convenient, and contrary to observations.

about three weeks ago
top

How Close Are We To Engineering the Climate?

Tenebrousedge Re:Models and Fundamentals (319 comments)

Unfortunately, the real world rarely displays such predictability.

Nonsense. If the world was not predictable, neither science nor engineering would be possible. You're not being empirical, and waffling about unpredictability isn't equivalent to refuting evidence.

Let's flip this around. In order to disprove global warming, you need to invalidate one of the aforementioned observations. First, that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Second, that solar output is relatively constant. Thirdly, that the Earth can only lose heat by radiation. Fourth, that the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. Given all of those, global warming must be occurring.

The final factor in radiative forcing is water vapor. In laboratory environments it is trivial to prove that there is a significant positive feedback cycle combined with CO2-induced forcing. In order for an increase of CO2 to have a net-zero or net-negative effect, there needs to be an equally strong negative feedback cycle. So far there is no evidence of such a thing.

Your degree in physics seems not to have taught you to be empirical. This is not a chain of reasoning which can be discarded by refusing to accept its axioms, this is a chain of observation, repeatable and testable, which requires countering evidence to refute. Every aspect of AGW has been subject to repeated empirical testing, no different from any other field of science. It may surprise you to know that the same principles of heat transfer are used to predict and explain the atmospheric conditions of other planets and even stars. Do you also dispute those results? What aspect of this planet defies empiricism? And more directly to the point, what part of our heat transfer equations is so small to have been heretofore unobserved and yet so large as to cancel out the enormous increase in atmospheric carbon?

I'm afraid that I can't accept sophistry about predictability as an explanation; please provide evidence or an observable mechanism.

about three weeks ago
top

How Close Are We To Engineering the Climate?

Tenebrousedge Models and Fundamentals (319 comments)

You have no idea what you're talking about. You can prove AGW in your basement — that is, depending on what parts of empirical reality you take issue with. Proving that CO2 absorbs IR is trivial. Proving that CO2 levels are rising is less trivial, but possible, and hopefully not in dispute. Proving that Earth is surrounded by vacuum is would be difficult but again hopefully not in dispute. Determining the variation (negligible) of solar irradiance is best done from space, but you might be able to get a good enough measurement from Earth.

The above would be sufficient to prove the fundamentals of global warming. There's only one major heat input, and only one way for heat to escape Earth. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere must correspond to a rise in temperature; it's very simple physics. Attributing the rise in CO2 to humans is pretty simple and two-pronged: one, we know pretty much how much fossil fuels are being consumed, and two, there's a huge difference in oxygen isotope ratios.

That's not all though. Unless everything that is known about radiation is wrong, as previously mentioned, a rise in CO2 means a rise in temperature. This can actually be calculated fairly exactly: 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling, corresponding to about 1 degree C change in global temperature. No one cares about this. However, we have lots of this "water" stuff lying around, and it's a way better greenhouse gas than CO2, and the amount of water that can be in the air increases exponentially with temperature. At first glance, this leads to a runaway positive feedback cycle. At second glance, there are reasons why it does not do that, but despite years of research, there does not seem to be any factors that can lead to a negative feedback cycle. The exact degree of forcing is a matter of research.

Realize that science started investigating this problem at least a hundred years before computer modeling existed. If computers were the only evidence people would be more skeptical. In point of fact, they were more skeptical; it has taken more than a century to muster convincing evidence that humans could affect the climate at all. At this point arguing against AGW is equivalent to arguing against evolution or heliocentrism; literally everything we know about atmospheric and radiative physics would have to be wrong in order for it to be untrue. It's actually a lot easier to prove the fundamentals of the theory than it would be to try to prove evolution.

Talking about computer modeling in the context of proving AGW is like talking about epidemiological models in the context of proving the germ theory of disease. You have the relationship backwards, and you're missing the actual evidence entirely.

about three weeks ago
top

Inside Cryptowall 2.0 Ransomware

Tenebrousedge DNS Server, not hosts (181 comments)

Hosts is of dubious efficacy compared to an actual DNS server.

Advantages:

  • Pattern matching (*.adserver.yahoo.com)
  • Works for all devices on the local network
  • You can use real DNSBLs
  • You can use real DNSWLs
  • You can combine whitelists and blacklists: deny *.yahoo.com; allow mail.yahoo.com
  • You can return NXDomain instead of a possibly-valid IP address
  • It's generally faster and more resource efficient than hosts

APK is delusional and fundamentally doesn't understand DNS. Don't be APK.

Hosts by default is cached in memory by Windows, which if you have a huge hosts file is going to eat up a ton of memory. Unless it's paged to disk, or if you've disabled the DNS client service, and in that case you will be hitting the disk with every request. This is unlikely to be faster than a local network request. Also if you've disabled the client service (this is almost a requirement for an APK-style hosts file), you have disabled indexing, so you have to read the file line-by-line to figure out if a domain is a match, for each request. Any sites not in your list require reading the entire file.

If you care about security, you should run your own local DNS server. You should also use an ad blocker, which will prevent many requests to ad networks from even being made. The hosts file is for temporary and machine-specific DNS changes, like if you're developing a website and need http://test.local/ to point to your local web server. It's better to have an actual domain registered and and a subdomain, but it's not a big deal. Hosts is a bad solution for almost anything else. Having a program to manage your hosts file is just writing a really shitty, stupid DNS server.

I know I'm going to be trolled for weeks — again — for saying this, but someone has to.

about three weeks ago
top

What Isn't There an App For?

Tenebrousedge Dead Man Switches for the Terminally Stupid (421 comments)

This app would come with a feature that completely erases itself and any record that you even considered using it.

Why? I don't think this is possible, at least without root.

This kicks in if you don't positively identify that you are still alive and coherent every 6 hours. The lawyers would make sure this feature is present.

Because who needs sleep, right? What situations do you see this being useful for, other than paranoiacs with too little to do? What real-life situation is going to be that time-critical?

Since you might be using this app in the wilderness...

Where there are typically no data services, and emergency situations are frequently lethal within much less than six hours.

...while you are foraging, there are some sister apps you might like; one that estimates if you can jump that ravine, and another that tells you if there are enough handholds on that cliff face for climbing...

I've seen some slot canyons that were jumpable, but nothing I'd call a ravine. Having a loaded pack pretty much screws those sorts of ideas anyway. Your best bet for these apps would be something that just says, "No, you can't do that." to any given situation.

However, there is room for an app that would tell you about climbing routes in the local area. The hard part would be getting a database that had that information, and the other hard part would be making it useful to people beyond the reach of data services.

about three weeks ago
top

What Isn't There an App For?

Tenebrousedge Cloud IDEs (421 comments)

Better idea: Use an online IDE. I've been using Cloud9, and it keeps its state between sessions, up to and including running terminal programs. It's even open-source (to some degree) so you can install it on your private server. Syncing IDE files from place to place is not a very good solution, it's better to either have a central server to remote into. The cloud services can be good ways to take the server management off your hands. It has many of the same drawbacks as a remote desktop, but RD has heavier bandwidth requirements, and possibly other software-related issues.

about three weeks ago
top

2014: The Year We Learned How Vulnerable Third-Party Code Libraries Are

Tenebrousedge Poe's Law (255 comments)

I'm sorry, one or both of us (depending on how that error is scored) has fallen victim to Poe's Law. If high-paying jobs are a result of egotism I may have to try it some day. For the present I suppose I'll have to send off for another batch of <sarcasm> tags.

about three weeks ago
top

2014: The Year We Learned How Vulnerable Third-Party Code Libraries Are

Tenebrousedge Signed, Every Developer Ever (255 comments)

No, you should feel contrite that you are daring to report a bug in software that is obviously perfect. There are two classes of software error: hardware error, and user error. In the first case, you shouldn't have bought that in the first place, so it reduces to the second case. Our QA process will take advantage of this breakthrough, but the documentation will not be updated.

about a month ago
top

Happy Public Domain Day: Works That Copyright Extension Stole From Us In 2015

Tenebrousedge Revolutionary Idea (328 comments)

Poe's Law.

These are all actually equally crazy ideas, but there's a lot of nutcases going around clamoring for the first one. "Copyright should be limited to the original creator's natural life." Simple question: why?

Second question: why do we have to wait for the government to fix this? I suppose there's a pretty good reason to have a maximum copyright duration so Disney doesn't immediately realize their dreams of indefinite copyright, but there shouldn't be anything wrong with licensing a work so that it reverts to the public domain in a more reasonable time frame. Creative Commons and other permissive licenses have been making slow progress towards an open culture, shouldn't this be the next step?

about a month ago
top

Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

Tenebrousedge Re:Wheel Group (118 comments)

I very much appreciate the information and the correction, and I am sure that others do as well.

Don't mind me, I'm just gonna be curling into a ball and hoping that it's all over soon.

about a month ago
top

Ars Reviews Skype Translator

Tenebrousedge Microsoft Marketing (71 comments)

how can you possibly not link to an a/v demo or review of this, in the thread OR in the review???

So they could sneak in a subtle advertisement for Surface tablets. The reviewer does not seem to have been allowed to take his own photos or video, given that the photo credit is for Microsoft.

Also, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." The article states clearly that this did not work outside of conditions that were carefully controlled by Microsoft. On that note, the writer exclusively covers Microsoft news.

All in all, this should be treated as a press release, not a review.

about a month ago
top

Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

Tenebrousedge Re:Wheel Group (118 comments)

Apologies. It's been a while since I installed debian, and I was misled by my google searches. Ubuntu-derived distros do this, and it seems Gnome/gdm does not allow root login by default. You are correct.

So, it seems I'm smoking bad google searches.

about a month ago
top

Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

Tenebrousedge Wheel Group (118 comments)

Debian derived distros disable the password on the root account by default, and only use the wheel group. RedHat distros set a root password during install, but also require the creation of a non-root user; this user is added to the wheel group. What Linux systems have you been using that are not RedHat or Debian derived?

about a month ago
top

Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

Tenebrousedge Transgender Persons (465 comments)

Our culture has evolved over thousands of years. There is a reason things are the way they are, and you don't get to start throwing away well established cultural norms just for the sake of change.

You seem to have the idea that evolution represents a forward march of progress, but that it should have stopped thirty years ago (when you were last comfortable with it). These ideas seem to conflict with each other.

Because forums are for discussions and conversations. People can communicate ideas and get responses. Millennial's use of social media is solely about inflating their egos. They use things like Instagram and Twitter where they sprout their useless opinions, never once listening to anyone but themselves. Ever seen a group of Millennials at the mall? They're all on their damned phones, taking pictures and posting them to social media, barely interacting with each other. Older generations use Facebook to communicate, Millennials use it to keep everyone updated about their meaningless lives, never once listening to anyone else. It's all about them, their selfies, and generating "likes."

Every generation that has experienced new media forms has complained about them, and the new cultural norms that have resulted from their use. I don't know what you think you're adding to anyone's life by being upset about this.

This is not a new issue; this is not a Millenial invention.

Weird how this has never come up before in my life until Millennials started getting involved in politics. Try asking if a man should be allowed in the lady's room twenty years ago and no one would understand why the hell you'd even ask that question.

Human biology does not necessitate having different facilities for different genders' waste elimination. Almost all households don't bother with it. That they exist in public is purely a social phenomenon. We had separate facilities for blacks, too, at one point. There are biological differences between the sexes, but those don't necessarily correlate strongly to gender identity. Biology doesn't have the neat divide between these things that you imagine there is. One hopes that eventually humans will stop confusing pooping with having anything to do with either sex or gender. (It will still be polite to leave the seat down).

Myself, I have a measure of compassion for the poor bastard who has to make a Sophie's choice whenever they want to take a shit in public. I wish I could convey to you the terror and shame that this situation involves for differently gendered people.

You have to consider that there is no cure for "feeling like a woman". In all sincerity, it's wonderful that you've never felt like you had the wrong body. Having your brain tell you that your body is wrong in some way is a continual torment. Faced with the options of self-mutilation and a lifetime of social consequences, or a lifetime of body dysphoria, many people choose death.

It is easier and cheaper not to cater to the physically handicapped. Yet we build ramps and elevators, we put braille on signs, we allow service animals practically everywhere, and we accept that it is reasonable for these accommodations to be made -- that people with disabilities have a right to the same quality of life as anyone else. In this case the only accommodation being asked is being able to use a public bathroom in peace, although it would be great if we could work on not publicly humiliating these people as well. If our society is getting to the point of having to discuss transgender rights, that can only be a good thing.

There is one piece of good news for you: no one is seeking to abolish your freedom to be a bigot. What you're noticing is simply that most people are not sufficiently misanthropic to perpetuate your views.

about a month and a half ago
top

Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

Tenebrousedge CO2 Emissions Estimates (329 comments)

Here is the paper I mentioned, and here is the USGS's take on the matter. From what I understand there are a number of ways to estimate human CO2 output, one being to add up all the fossil fuels that are being consumed globally, which is likely not terribly accurate but we're still talking about two or three orders of magnitude difference. Another estimation method uses carbon isotope ratios. I get the impression that estimating volcanic emissions is somewhat difficult, but there's a fair amount of continuous monitoring for various reasons. Terrence Gerlach, a vulcanologist with the USGS, seems to have done quite a bit of research into the subject. The nice thing about scholarly publications is that they have to tell you where the numbers come from; if one wants to find out more about either part of the estimates then you just follow the references.

In summation, parts of the estimates come from direct measurements and the other parts seem to be estimates based on fossil fuel consumption. I am sure that there's a whole world of study out there for estimating various factors.

As an aside, humans are still far from matching or exceeding the most violent outgassings that have resulted from the formation of Large Igneous Provinces. I believe the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps released about 3 orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity has liberated. While our current burn rate would have us match those outgassings in about a thousand years, I don't believe that our fossil fuel reserves are projected to last that long. However, Large Igneous Provinces generally took millions of years to form, not hundreds; there is every reason to believe that what we are doing to the planet is unprecedented. On the other other hand, we're mostly skipping the problems with particulate matter and sulfides that came along with volcanic eruptions. For what it's worth.

about a month and a half ago
top

Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

Tenebrousedge Glad you asked (329 comments)

questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.

No, this is fairly easily measurable; we're dwarfing natural processes. Aside from natural seasonal variation the biggest natural contributor to atmospheric CO2 is volcanic activity, and the rate at which we're releasing carbon is completely unprecedented. You can figure it as equivalent to 1-2 Yellowstone supervolcano eruptions every year, or two Pinatubos per day. (the article quotes from a paper that I belive is available online but I can't find it at the moment).

The models are well-defined on the lower limit due to the physics of radiation; 3.7 W/m^2 increase per doubling of CO2 is a straightforward result of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. That is equivalent to about 1 degree C global temp, and no one is worried about that. The issue is that water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas and you may have noticed that there's quite a bit of it lying around. Furthermore, air can hold exponentially more water vapor as it heats up. There's a lot of variation possible in the feedback loops but negative feedback is really unlikely.

Personally, I find the most useful way to approach the subject is to take a look at the history of climate science. Thousands of scientists did not wake up one day and accept the movement of the continents, neither did they accept that humans could have any affect on the climate without strong proofs. The Discovery of Global Warming goes over the history of global warming and has useful insights into what exactly a climate model is, and how even one-dimensional models can still tell us useful things even if their long-term predictions are not all that accurate

For a more detailed look into the science, you might check out Science of Doom, but a textbook on atmospheric physics may be more useful. Unfortunately, beyond the basics it starts to get complicated in a real hurry; unless you really want to start diving through papers and textbooks you will probably be best served by the IPCC report.

about a month and a half ago

Submissions

Journals

Tenebrousedge has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?