Posts by Will Malven

21) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU life expectancy (Message 1056818) Posted 17 Dec 2010 by Will Malven Post: This is true for me, for sure. I bought a GTX 460 768mb in September and I'm already salivating at the new 570's. Lately I've been getting the replacement itch within a year of buying a new board. The one before this one was a 9800 GTX+ and I had it less than a year. Hello, my name is Will and I'm an upgrade-aholic. :)
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Crap II.... (Message 1050280) Posted 21 Nov 2010 by Will Malven Post: Enjoyed reading this thread. I started with a TI 99/4A, but my first programming experience was on a IBM 360 and Fortran IV back in '75. Graduated to a Commodore 128 because it had CPM just about the time DOS became the universal standard. /rolleyes My first PC was a 386/25 with a whopping 2 megs memory and a monstrous 80 meg HD. Win 3.0 and DOS 4 or 5. I like Win 7 better than anything prior, but it does require some adjustment moving from XP. One good source for help is at Seven Forums http://www.sevenforums.com/ If you need help you will find it there. Will
23) Message boards : Politics : CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc (Message 972386) Posted 20 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Again DENY DENY DENY and DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT Hmmm...you must have been reading the "Climategate" e-mails.
24) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 972385) Posted 20 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: How provincial of you... Well...considering that, of the last 25 comments (not counting my own), 24 were made by individuals displaying an American flag (including you) and that I was responding specifically to Skildude who apparently lives in the DFW area of Texas, I thought that the comment was appropriate. Nice attempt at diversion though.
25) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 972284) Posted 20 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Skildude - I'm not a climatologist and you aren't anyone that is important enough to prove anything to. This isnt a "What's my line" this is science. Mistrust of science and mistrust of gov't are factors in Conservative ploys to keep the populous ill-informed or uninformed. Scientists typically don't have agendas. Scientists that work for Tobacco or Coal companies understand that they are supposed to create information supporting their bosses point of view. If you are anywhere near 40 years old you'll know that seasons are screwier than ever winters are warmer and lighter. I don't need empirical data to figure that one out. Nice dodge. No you're not a climatologists, you are a Kool Aid drinker; a faithfull adherent to the religion of AGW as espoused by your messiah Algore and his faithful (but not to meticulous in adhering to truth) apostles Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri. As for the winters being warmer and lighter...yeah I hardly noticed this one at all. /roll eyes Seasons vary year to year, decade to decade, century to century, millenia to millenia, etc. It's called "change" (you probably voted for it last election so you should know the word). The Medieval Warming period allowed crops to grow in Greenland for decades...must have been all those SUV's people were driving back then. The deniers are as frustration [sic] as bible pounders when it comes to evolution. This is science not some hack telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad, that they want us driving carriages or walking to work. When in reality they are saying stop being an ass and get rid of the 10 mph gas guzzling SUVs. Insist that your local and state gov'ts invest in mass transit. Heck we dont even carpool anymore Nice straw man. No one (at least no one I have seen here) is "telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad." What is being said is that they are human and subject to all the same human foibles to which the rest of us subject. We are also saying that a fair number of them in positions of power are using their power to prevent the open and fair discussion of AGW and that those individuals have a vested interest in doing so. End the myth of AGW and the money pipeline for AGW research dries up and they will then be forced to find a new source of funding for research in new more promising areas of science. It is not the business of government to dictate to people what they should or should not be driving or consuming...and that is not the sole thing they are attempting to do. They are attempting to prevent 3rd world economies from enjoying the same right to advance that the rest of us have enjoyed. They are attempting through legislation to dictate what industries produce and where they should focus their resources. They are attempting to use the tax code to take control of private industry. We have a Constitution, perhaps you should read it sometime. We liive in a nation which by law has a limited government and in which the rights and liberties of the people are paramount. The government is limited in what it may or may not do. A 6000 pound SUV delivering a 150 pound person to work at an office is such a waste of resources. At last a statement of reason with which I can agree. The only difference is that I believe in the individuals right to do so if he or she so chooses, rather than the government dictating to them whether or not the can.
26) Message boards : Politics : CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc (Message 971457) Posted 19 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: No a real scientist is unbiased and hopefully observant. Actually scientists always conduct experiments to "prove" their theories. Evidence for or against a theory has to be examined for anomylous results. Remember that theories are works in progress. They are NOT rules. Evolution is a theory because it isnt perfect, but it is a very good model for understanding what is happening. Global warming is also a theory. A theory that has a lot of physical evidence to support it. 1 month of faked info doesnt really belay the fact that things are happening globally. Well that lets out your boys right there. There has been no objectivity in the pro-AGW side for decades...every since they figured out it was a gravy-train.
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Panic Mode On (28) Server problems (Message 971362) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: I was getting ready to re-link to Cosmology@home, but if things are about to break, then I guess I'll just be patient.
28) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 971310) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: I googled " increased CO2 increased crop yield" Here is the first thing on the list noticed that increased temps and decreased moisture add up to more than a 50% less growth in open air trials than was expected by the closed/controlled experiments predicted. So no it doesn't help. Since we are dealing with more than just a single problem. Increased temps, melt polar ice, which cools the oceans, that produce fewer clouds, which produce less rain, which creates dry conditions which produce less crops, which means we need to drain more aquifers,if available, to sustain our current level of crop production. There in a nutshell. All the while we are using the Oxygen we need to breath to stay alive to move ineffienct vehicle around and producing even more CO2, which as some don't realize, will eventually sufficate oxygen breathing animals including humans. You have yet to have proven that increased CO2 levels cause global warming. Increased temps, decreased moisture levels, melted polar ice, etc. are all part of the global warming paradigm...but of course we already know that no global warming has occurred in the past 15 years as per Phil Jones' confession. YOu want to base government policy for the environment on assumptions that are now proving to have been false...and falsified. Increased CO2 leads to greater vegetation growth...the by-product of plant respiration is O2, something you apparently slept through in your general science classes. Animals produce CO2 as they breathe in oxygen and burn the carbon compounds that comprise our food, plants take in CO2 and through the process of photosynthesis consume the carbon and "exhale" oxygen. Basic biology 101. The whole premise of AGW is taking coincidental occurrences warmer global temperatures (based on faulty data collected using poor scientific technique) and increased CO2 levels (which lag those temperature increases by 800 years) and conflating that coincidence with causality. Bad logic, bad science. You want to know what causes global warming...look to the sun, not to the least significant greenhouse gas present in our atmosphere.
29) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 971179) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: "Carbon dioxide concentrations analyzed by a portable gas chromatograph ranged from less than 1% in healthy forest, a typical figure for forest soils, to more than 90% at several locations within tree-kill areas. Where CO2 concentrations exceeded 30%, most trees were dead."-- 4repuglyconsToo... Uhhh...geo...perhaps you should have read the whole article. The that CO2 was magmatic, not man made. It in the soil, not in the air. The trees were asphixiated by the soil, not by CO2 content in the air. A higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere generally causes greater growth...which I sure you know can be verified by any home grower of pot who uses cylinders of CO2 to increase the yield and quality of their crop.
30) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 971173) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: What agenda do the energy concerns have in this country. I can tell you. Continued and increased use of fossil fuels. No, not quite, it is continued and increased profitablility. They are (or should be) only interested in turning a profit. It doesn't matter what the source of that profit is, as long as they get a return on their investment. "Green" sources of energy will be developed as soon as it becomes profitable or economically tenable for businesses to pursue them. Far from being the big monolithic beasts you seem to believe them to be, the oil industry is constantly researching other means of generating energy. Shell has invested million is research on fuel cell technology. If they were as monolithic as you believe, such an investment would not make sense. However they are as far sighted as anyone else and see the potential of such an energy source for transportation. When it becomes financially viable, the technology will be made available. You seem to believe that being in academia is somehow enobling and being in business-seeking to make a profit-is somehow evil, a point of view I find amusing...someone who generates a commercial product and generates wealth is evil whereas someone who is basically a leech, deriving his income from taxes and the sweat of someone elses brow is noble. I veiw them as being basically the same. Each is providing a product for a customers. However, only one is contributing to the greater wealth and well being of society in general.
31) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 971166) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Please explain the agenda a scientist might hold? more funding? Say it isn't so!!! You appear to hold scientists above the general human population. Let me quickly disabuse you of this mistaken belief. Scientists and professors are mere mortals. They have mortgages that must be paid. They have children who must be fed with dental bills which must be seen to and tuitions that must by prepared for. They are no more or less venal than any other human being, but in addition to that they are as suceptible to their own vanities and beliefs as any other soul. It doesn't require sinsister intentions to be self deceiving. Bias is a naturally occurring character trait of all human beings...even scientists. It requires effort to eliminate it from your work and if you are entirely convinced of the recititude of your theories, then you may subconciously excuse anomalous data points with nothing but the best intentions. That is why the scientific method is so rigorous; that is why the goal of every scientist should be to disprove his own theories through experimentation, not prove them. That is why, when the data causes a model to fail, the answer isn't to tweak the model, it is to discover exactly why your theory falls apart or why the model is in error. I have known and dealt with a great many professors and scientists in my life and when I was young I was somewhat star struck with them, but as I have lived and worked with them, come to know them, I now see them as they really are, fallible, human beings with all the foibles of every other human being, with just a touch more arrogance and vanity because of their advanced degrees. A PhD is not proof of greater intelligence it is proof or greater persistence. You have not lived until you witness the emotional explosion with occurs when a lowly technician (degreed or undegreed) shows a PhD chemical engineer why and how their calculations or assumptions are wrong. It is a humbling experience that all PhD's should experience. It makes them far more willing to accept other people's ideas and more likely to question their own infallibility. I have great respect of both scientists and professors, but I see them as they are rather than as the world of academia would have us see them.
32) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 971087) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Is the first part of your denial held in your belief that we are not polluting the world on an ever greater industrial scale? ML1, Nice strawman attack. We are not discussing pollution, we are discussing the production of CO2 and whether or not it is causing global warming. Here's a clue, CO2 is not a pollutant it is a naturally occurring molecule...you produce it everytime you exhale. You will find it in your Perrier and your beer. As I said to Skildude, do at least attempt to stay on subject. Diversion is an old technique of those who are unable to defend their own stance.
33) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 971086) Posted 18 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Nice dodge Skildude...the brown you see in the air is not CO2 and has no relationship to AGW...do at least attempt to stay on subject. Please explain the agenda a scientist might hold? more funding? Say it isn't so!!! More funding indeed...and power. AGW was never about improving the climate, it has always been about political power and funding of research. No secret there. I believe its been the Academics that have been under constant fire for their work. A ludicrous statement. The academics have been in the catbird's seat for decades on this issue. Even today you will not find any in the mainstream media discussing Professor Jones' confession. There has been no honest debate on the subject for the past decade. All who are brazen enough to question the concept in academia are blackballed and ignored by the press...or worse mocked for not having published any "peer reviewed" articles which we now have proof was the intent of said academics. What utter hypocrisy to criticize scientists for not doing something you (you in the general sense) have made every effort to prevent. AS for the "green" technology and industry, when there is sufficient demand for them, they will appear without the assistance of any government edict. The free market has been the sole source of technological advancement in society. They are the producers of products and jobs, governments are consumers of wealth not creators. Governments are impediments to progress, not expiditers. Consigning developing nations to permanent 3rd world status to advance a false cause is a detestible act; an arrogant act by elitist politicians and academics. AGW is about control of the people, not about solving any presumed (and non-existent) climatological problem. The so-called sience of anthropogenic global warming (or climate change) is rife with corruption and bad scientific technique. The data don't support the claims and the models are so filled with "fudge factors" and backfilling as to be entirely useless. Again I say show us the data. Tell your boys at NASA to stop blocking access to the raw data. Let's have a little bit of sunlight in those cloistered halls. The truth will out.
34) Message boards : Politics : CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc (Message 970899) Posted 16 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Poor Phil Jones...boohoohoo. The man has not faced nearly as much pressure from the skeptics as they have received from the true believers. Careers have been destroyed by your side simply because someone voiced doubt about what is now proving to have been a con-job from the outset. Hansen has been nailed several times for diddling the numbers on temperatures. Question, if the data are so compelling, then why are he and NASA fighting tooth and nail to prevent the release of their data? I thought that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" for corruption. Seems the left are changing their tune now. Hansen's most egregious attempt was the "mistake" of cutting and pasting the temperature data for September 2008 into the October slot, thus leading to one of the greatest single month increases in annual temperatures recorded. Any scientist worth his salt would have seized upon such an anomalous finding and rigorously examined the data to determine if it was accurate, but so convinced were the researchers at Goddard of their own infalliblity that such an eventuality never even occurred to them. It required the intervention of an outside body to discover this "mistake." A real scientist is a skeptic first. He doesn't attempt to prove his theories, he conducts experiments to disprove his theories and if he is lucky ends up proving them by default. This is the antithesis of the approach used by AGW advocates. Here are a few gems from the "Climate gate" discussions on the computer modeling: In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added: I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh. I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage! One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up â€“ but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada! Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop ***footing around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project. Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?... As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model. One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources." Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!**" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!" http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5761180.shtml I know it's difficult for people like you to admit that you've been had by a con-man especially when that con-man is a former US Senator who has made $Millions off of his scam. You assume that your are too intelligent to be duped, your arrogance radiates from your every post, so it is a very bitter pill to swallow that one of your superior intellect could be so easily fooled. But now we can see who the real "deniers" are...those who deny reality as an ever growing body of evidence deconstructs this monument to human hubris laughingly called "Anthropogenic global warming." Embrace the truth and it shall set you free.
35) Message boards : Politics : Funny video about obamas new budget. (Message 970772) Posted 15 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Here's an active link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weGtoY-Vlik&feature=sub
36) Message boards : Politics : Funny video about obamas new budget. (Message 970770) Posted 15 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Outstanding! Tell your brother he did a great job, very funny. Obama...Chump Change and No Hope.
37) Message boards : Politics : The Day The World Failed (Message 970769) Posted 15 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: . Suppress the oppposition with noise so they can't hear the truth anymore. Hey Skildude, it wasn't the skeptics that shut out all dissent, I was your side. It isn't the skeptics who doctored the data, it was your side. It wasn't the skeptics who tried to drown out all opposition, it was your side. It wasn't the skeptics who adopted the language anecdotal evidence and placed it into their official report, it was your side. It is the AGW fanatics who have attempted to portray anyone who questioned the rationality of those who claim the activities of man can significantly affect global climate as the equivilent of holocaust deniers in their attempt to shut off all debate. Now that Phil Jones has all but admitted that AGW is a total fabrication, it is your side that is again launching into ad hominem attacks against those who agree. Models are nothing but models and if the data you are putting in them are skewed from the outset, then the results are skewed. Temperature data have long been skewed by the urban location of a majority of the monitors...GIGO MOdels are designed by those who have an agenda...to prove the existence of global warming caused by man...small wonder they prove what their designers assumed. The first step for an addict is to admit you have a problem. Repeat after me: "We admitted we were powerless over global climate and that the solar system is unmanageable." You want "junk science," I give you Mann made global warming. "Hide the decline."
38) Message boards : Politics : CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc (Message 970691) Posted 15 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fboiCncc World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece So much for the myth of Mann made global warming. Seems the more sunlight that gets poured into the shadowy world of academic "scholarship" and so-called "peer-reviewed" scientific articles (peer-censored is more apropriate) the more the myth falls apart. That's why Hansen is fighting so hard to prevent the release of NASA's data. "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, Mere anarchy is loosed on the world." It is the purist hubris to believe that man can affect global climate. Time to fumigate the rat's nest. AGW was never about the climate, it is and always has been a political tool devised to acrue and hold power.
39) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Raccoon Update II - The Critter Cafe is Open (Message 970687) Posted 15 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Thank-you for the welcome Angela. No, no name, just cute little fellow. Hadn't seen hide nor hair of him since, just thought I would share the photos. I occassionally see an adult roaming around our neighborhood, one of which likes to visit our bird feeder, but with two large dogs in the house and a number of feral cats roaming the neighborhood, it's not a very 'possum friendly area. Southern boy, so I know about 'possums. It's actually pretty amazing; living in the suburbs of Houston and we have raccoons, oppossums, squirrels, feral cats, and of course the ubiquitous rats as well as various birds including hawks and owls (never seen it, but have heard it at night). Life will find a way...even in the city. Cheers, Will
40) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Raccoon Update II - The Critter Cafe is Open (Message 970630) Posted 14 Feb 2010 by Will Malven Post: Just discovered this thread...story. Some time ago, there was a loud series of "BANG"'s outside of my house (probably from a large empty truck hitting the speed bumps) and my cat took off like a bolt of lightning hit him. ...I finally found him. He was in a most ingenious hiding place: "No see I here!" Sadly, Charlie is no longer with me, but last year I had a nightime visitor. Okay he's homely, but I still thought he was cute: He showed up every night for about a week eating the bugs that were attracted to the light from my window. Then I never saw him again. He was about five inches long not counting his tail. (I say him, but of course I have no way of knowing if it was him or her) 'Possums need love too.

Previous 20 · Next 20

©2024 University of California

SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.