Anthony is traveling and offline for another day or too. So [insert witty ctm like comment here] here’s another open thread for fun and amusement.
Anthony is traveling and offline for another day or too. So [insert witty ctm like comment here] here’s another open thread for fun and amusement.
Food and fuel shortages imminent as new ice age dawns:
http://www.helium.com/items/2051424-food-and-fuel-shortages-imminent-as-new-ice-age-dawns
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Links from Iceagenow
Chris Reeve says: (January 1, 2011 at 8:15 am) Ring in the New Year by Committing to Read Something which You May Not Already Agree With.
I am not sure if I can agree with you, Chris; but your prose sings and inspires me to think and consider — and that is enough, in itself, to cause me to say thanks for writing.
Chris Reeve said:
Of the three you mentioned, Apple is the only Silicon Valley startup and IBM has been around for something like 100 years.
What was wrong with Cisco, Intel, Google, Veritas, …
Just sobered up.
Thanks for the ride WUWT!
Just in case nobody has done it yet………………….
Happy Warmest Ever New Year !!!
Roger L.;
But … we liked you better hammered!
😉
Happy New Year, or, as the Chinese will say next month (3rd): Gung Ho Fat Choi!
Is this article about global warming without even mentioning it?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
David Thomasq says:
“Is this article about global warming without even mentioning it?”
Is it about the Scientific Method without even mentioning Karl Popper?
The writer mentions the squishy-touchy-feely Kuhn instead. Typical New Yorker drivel.
Besides, as usual they get it backwards. The climate null hypothesis, against which the alternate CO2=CAGW hypothes must be measured, has withstood all attempts at falsification. Thus, CAGW is bunkum.
Smokey;
Actually, it does mention Popper: “While Karl Popper imagined falsification occurring with a single, definitive experiment—Galileo refuted Aristotelian mechanics in an afternoon—the process turns out to be much messier than that. Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests.”
It looks like the only ultimately valid Scientific Law is ‘Regression to the Mean’, and the Means are a lot less clearcut than we thought.
To Brian H and Smokey — I like Jonah Lehrer’s last three sentences, sobering though they be:
“Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”
Brian H,
You’re right, somehow I missed Popper.
And since this is an open thread…
http://www.economist.com/node/17722650
Hello. I know that I’m very late on this thread, but there was something that I wanted to get off my chest.
On November 26th 2010 the BBC released the following:
Met Office says 2010 ‘among hottest on record’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368
Here’s how the article begins:
The question is, why was this article published? Why was this news? If a similar article had been published in January then I could understand how it might be considered to be a news story. Once all the data is in for the year then it would seem reasonable to write a story on how the year’s temperatures compared to previous years.
But to publish an article in November about the possibility that 2010 would be one of the hottest on record is odd, to say the least.
So why was it published? The answer is depressingly obvious. The article was published three days before the start of the Cancun United Nations Climate Change Conference.
I’m slightly puzzled as to why this has not met with greater uproar. We have here a crystal clear example of the BBC and the Met Office trying to influence politicians. The publicly funded BBC, and the publicly funded Met Office are seen here clearly trying to push forward a political agenda.
As a tax payer, and a TV licence fee payer, I’d like to know how this is legal.
The Google Andriod 2.1 Zenithink andriod tablet PC on Sourcing Gate
I Figured I should start a Thread for this tablet since it didn’t have one just for the Zenithink zenithink
I searched the forum and it was mentioned in 5 threads but nothing just for the tablet itself.
Zenithink be a Shanzhai laptop company with a focus on the Anyka AK88 chipset. From2009, then started selling Windows CE microtablets for 3xx Yuan, and reaped good profits. Since they wanted to enter the higher-end MID (mobile internet device) product sector, but did not have chipset manufacturing capabilities, they resorted to Remark chips, purchasing Shanghai Tsinghuaic IX2X0 series CPUs, and proceeded to stamp their own logos on the CPUs to be shipped. However, these chips, did not contain A8 Cortex, but ARM11 with a coreclock of 800MHz and supporting 1080p hardware decoding. Right now the chipset only supports MP4 1080p hardware decoding, and does not actually support any other formats! Since ARM Cortex A8 processors process data at an efficiency of double of ARM11, this is clearly an act of trickery and deception in advertising.
The Tsinghuaic IX2X0 chipset is a legitimate chipset being developed by Tsinghuaic. They are selling at 650-700 Yuan from factory batches per 1000 units. Zenithink remarked the CPUs and started selling the same spec’ed devices for 850-900 Yuan with their false A8 Cortex advertising. In doing so, they are making large sums of money by deceiving end customers.
The chipset is okay, but anything from Zenithink or labeled Zenithink is a dud. Orphan is a simple rebranding company and doesn’t really make anything. Tsinghuaic isn’t even really done testing their chipset, so whatever is on the market right now contains a chipset that is still in beta development, combined with hardware from a hoax of a company. .If you wannt to know more you can kink the sourcinggate