Greg F

Don't you know ... laws are for the little people. They don't apply to the aristocracy.

Cite?

Fixed it for you. Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry! All birdog seems to be able to prove is that he/she is a mouthpiece for leftest propaganda.

There ... fixed it for ya.

For a historical perspective, a comparison of results between the EU's Title II style regulation and the U.S. hands off policy. http://internetinnovation.org/images/misc_content/Impact_of_Title_II_Regulation_on_Comms_Investment_-_FINAL.pdf

I would suggest those that think this ill named 'net neutrality' is a good thing you need to read this: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem And this: http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/1 If the classification of ISP's to Title II telecommunications services is allowed to stand I know of one, maybe two, small ISP's in my area that will be put out of business. There is no way these small ISP's will be able to afford to pay for the regulatory reporting and compliance requirements for being a Title II telecommunications service.

It sucks even more when those that don't like the results of research engage in character assignation. Not surprising, the documents that these stellar NYT's reporters supposedly relied on don't even support what they claim. A comment by Phil sums up the whole thing nicely: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/#comment-1867096

A paper published about a blog focused on the science came to similar conclusion: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/paper-on-climate-scepticism-published/ The paper is pay walled but there is a draft preprint version that is worth a read.

You mean climate change evidence like this? Only in America do we accept the word of someone with credentials when the evidence that proves they are full of it is staring us right in the face.

It was directed at your misuse of the word 'amplification' in a previous post: They are not amplifying the sound, which would imply adding energy, they are just controlling where that energy goes.

See item 1 from my previous post: 1. They provided a back reflector for the performer. Same physics as Nervous Guy posted: One more thing, sound is just another form of energy. They are not amplifying the sound, which would imply adding energy, they are just controlling where that energy goes.

From Sound System Engineering by Don and Carolyn Davis: The theater at Epidaurus that seated 14,000.

While I agree that political considerations drove the decision my personal experience assumed that the NASA managers would have science or engineering degrees. If my assumption was incorrect then you would have a valid point of a "shallow understanding of the engineering". So I did a bit of research to see if my assumption was ill advised. From the record of the investigation and a bit of searching I found the following about the managers responsible for the decision to launch for both NASA and Morton Thiokol (the engineering firm that designed the rocket booster). Morton Thiokol Management 1) Jerald Mason - Senior executive who encouraged Lund to reassess his decision not to launch. Had a degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Ohio State University. 2) Bob Lund - Engineering Vice President was also an Engineer. 3) Joe Kilminster - Engineer in a management position who initially supported the engineering recommendations but changed the recommendation after a heated discussion with the two NASA managers. 4) Alan McDonald - Director of the Solid Rocket Motors project- refused to sign the official launch authorization and appealed to NASA management not to launch. NASA Management - Marshall Space Flight Center 1) Larry Mulloy - manager of the space shuttle solid rocket booster program. challenged the engineers' decision not to launch. He has a B.S. in engineering from Louisiana State University. 2) George Hardy - deputy director of science and engineering. He Was also project engineer on the Saturn 1B booster. His degree was from Georgia Institute of Technology B.C.E. in civil engineering. An interesting read concerning the disaster. The section "The Night Before the Launch" I think is most relevant. All the managers involved had the requisite educational background and experience to understand the issue at hand so I will have to disagree that they had a "shallow understanding of the engineering". Richard Feynman during his testimony demonstrated with a very simple experiment that the rubber O-ring material at 32 degrees F lost its resiliency. Feynman demonstrated the low temperature problem with the O-ring's in a way that even a politician could understand. I think it is hard for people to understand why someone would plow ahead ignoring the obvious evidence right in front of them (or lack thereof). Some years back I was working in R&D at a small company that manufactured industrial instrumentation. I was responsible for the complete redesign of a measurement probe and the associated code for the probe. When the initial design was done my manager (who was also an engineer by the way) called the design elegant. We then proceeded to test the design, the results were beyond expectations. The new design was an order of magnitude better then the old design. Except for one little detail, every once in a while the data would just get weird for a few minutes. It would go days without a glitch and then all of a sudden weird data. You know what we did? We ignored the bad data. My manager and I, wanting to move on to other parts of the design so we created our own herd of two and marched happily on to newer things. Just weeks away from product release we proceeded to final testing. And guess what? The weird data we had wished away reared its ugly head. The potentially of loosing your job is a powerful incentive to wake you up to reality that there is some inconvenient data that you better damn well fix. After 3 days of mind numbing review of the code I found a bug. Problem fixed. Big relief. It is impossible to teach the knowledge you gain from experience. When I was a young man I knew intellectually that every human is prone to ignoring inconvenient facts. I also knew when I was young, or I should say I thought I knew, that I was an exception. The experience above (which is by no means the only one) made me acutely aware that I can be very stupid. That I was not an exception. That I was just like everybody else. What I know from experience is if there are no consequences it becomes very easy to ignore inconvenient facts. So what are the consequences for being wrong in climate science? The only consequences I see is when one stops following the herd.

Actually they are not as Judith Curry points out in her post The 52% Consensus. It would also be a good idea to read Dr. Curry's response to the AMS Statement on Climate Change. So you are apparently unaware of confirmation bias and by extension the reason for the scientific method. For some reason you appear to believe that scientist are immune to such things in spite of overwhelming historical evidence that they are not. How is that the rocket scientist at NASA, who were aware of the vulnerable of the rubber O-rings to failure at low temperatures, allowed the launch of the space shuttle Challenger? The late Dr. Thomas Gold touched on the subject in his essay "New Ideas in Science". Dr. Gold had developed an interest in the workings of the inner ear, specifically tinnitus (ringing in the ear) after WWII. The theories at the time all involved some passive mechanism none of which could adequately explain the phenomenon. Dr. Gold proposed a active mechanism that explained the effect which was simply ignored by the so called experts. It was more than 30 years later that Dr. Gold theory was finally acknowledged to be correct. Dr. Gold referred to this ignoring evidence as the "herd instinct". A quick excerpt: . The late Richard Feynman in his Caltech commencement address in 1974 (Cargo Cult Science) warns scientist to not fool themselves. He gives this historical example: That was 1974 and indeed climate science does indeed suffer from that disease as evidenced by the graph of models vs. reality I posted previously. Scientists are human. They like all other humans are subjected to confirmation bias. If they weren't there would be no need for the scientific method. Consensus is not science, it is politics. The scientific method simply says if the theory doesn't match nature then the theory is wrong.

Gatorman's team blue religion doesn't allow him to see how government money creates perverse incentives while at the same time those same perverse incentives are perfectly clear to him when the money comes from a private company. As I said before, People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science. The fact that the majority of the Council of the AMS are either employed by the government or a university seems to have escaped gatorman's notice. It doesn't appear gatorman noticed that the majority of the Council members rely on taxpayers money for their financial well being. That the members of the Council individually act in their own self interest, and they all share the same self interest (extracting money from the taxpayers), does not constitute a conspiracy. Virtually every large organization is hierarchical and the AMS is no different. In a hierarchy the people at the top hold the power and have no incentive to share that power with the people underneath them. They will be especially reluctant to include those under them if they perceive their self interest would be threatened. At the same time it is not uncommon for the top of a hierarchy to use the people below them to give the appearance of support from a much larger group than actually exists. Gatorman completely misses the point that the AMS document he links to constitutes the views of maybe 30 out of 14,000 members. That the broader membership isn't allowed a say in what is released doesn't appear to bother gatorman as long as the document supports his ignorant world view. Finally. Gatorman is not at all interested in the fact the climate models are crap. He is so intellectually dishonest his response to me completely ignores discrepancy between the models and reality I posted. That reality pretty much destroys the AMS document which gatorman treats as some type of holy scripture.

If true Belichick should receive a Sean Payton type suspension.

Here we have a textbook case of projection from a individual defending gator who is the quintessential team blue cheerleader.

If they were relying on the science they wouldn't ignore the fact the that the climate models are crap. It should also be pointed out that papers like the one you liked to from the AMS are not approved by the 14,000 members. In fact statements released by the AMS represent the views of ruling Console of the AMS as indicated by their bylaws. http://ametsoc.org/policy/statementpolicy.pdf Funding for climate science is for the most part government money. If there is no crisis the government funding dries up in very short order. People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science.

That of course is the solution. Just put up some windmills to surround the stadium and intercept the incoming birds. Everybody knows that birds getting killed by windmills is a-okay because they are green.

I have a hard time accepting the continuous data massaging to cool the historical past. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/policy-based-evidence-tampering-at-nasa/

His downfall will be the NFL doesn't allow bounce passes.

Time limited but I thought I would share a few thoughts. That is not a lot at all. Are you sure your provider isn't limiting your bandwidth? Is there a GUI interface with a web browser on your server? If there is you need to do a speed test to determine what your actual bandwidth is. One option is speedtest.net. Is the RAID controller hardware RAID or software RAID (commonly called fakerraid)? I would be 95% certain the bottle neck is either your Internet connection speed or your storage. RAID 1 is mirrored disks which means writes take twice as long (compared to a single disk) since you have to write to 2 disks. RAID 1 is not appropriate for a database. RAID 10 is the preferred configuration for databases as the write speed is considerably faster (provided you have a hardware raid card, not fakerraid). RAID 10 also is protected from a single disk failure (and sometimes 2 depending on which drives fail). RAID 10 requires at least 4 disks. Do not even consider SSD's. Most of them are not certified for use in a RAID configuration and the enterprise SSD drive prices would shock you. One more thing, RAID is not a backup plan. All that said, the first thing I would investigate is one of the web hosting companies since you are basically hosting a web site. The first year is usually dirt cheap. This site is not a significant challenge for any of the web hosting companies for either bandwidth or storage. The concerns of your server being a virtual machine are unfounded as far as I am concerned. The stupid commercial about some video going viral and slowing your web site to a crawl is marketing fear mongering. The server farms used by web hosting companies don't put your server (guest) on one hardware server (host) and just leave it there. They load balance the work load on the physical servers by constantly migrating the guest servers. When Johnny’s hamster video goes viral guess what ... you will never even know it. One more thing to consider. This sites busiest time is game day. What do you think are the busiest days for most corporate web sites? I am willing to be it isn't Sunday. My advice, which may not be worth a lot, is to first determine where the weakness is in the present setup. Shotgun approaches to fixing things are usually not very efficient financial wise. Second, get off the rented server. At $180 per month for 48 GB of RAM you will have paid for the ram in a few months. Running an Internet site on a single hardware server is well past its expiration date. I wouldn’t even consider hosting a web site on a single server and I am a system admin.

Luck has thrown 3 pick 6's in 3 different games this year. The only game of those the Colts lost was to the Steelers (51 to 34). I find it interesting the OP failed to mention the number of pick 6's Luck threw and what other QB's had to put it in context. Here is a list of teams with 2 or more pick 6's. 4 pick 6's - Rams, Jaguars 3 pick 6's - Saints, Jets, and Falcons 2 pick 6's - Eagles, Redskins, Bills, and Raiders I am pretty sure all 3 pick 6's for the Saints were on Breese. Perhaps the OP would like to tell us which QB's for all the above teams threw those pick 6's.

Considering they have to still play Brady and Manning I think it unlikely.