Messages

1126

Quake / Re: FreeBSD server

« on: August 04, 2008, 09:57:46 AM »

Too bad. That spells the death of a mod. If a developer is going to stop supporting his code, at least he should put the source up somewhere so that others can carry on.

1127

Politics / Re: another terrorist attack

« on: August 04, 2008, 06:17:18 AM »

Air-burst nukes have parachutes that deploy at certain altitudes and speeds on reentry.
This slows them down so altimeter triggers work better and timing is not as critical.
They are high speed, since soft landing is not the goal but they slow the terminal velocity.

Long-term, whether Iran builds a successful bomb or not, the great danger will be the radioactive waste they are going to produce even in a peaceful nuke program. Strontium 90, Cesium 137 are byproducts of Uranium enrichment and Plutonium production. All these can be made to produce a dirty bomb or just cause problems at the production sites. Just look at our own production sites (Hanford, Rocky Flats) for example.

One can hope that they will have a convenient accident and all their engineering and scientific people will be caught in it and set them back a couple of decades. Either that or a nice Chernobyl event will destroy their production for 10,000 years.

God is Freight.

1128

Quake / Re: FreeBSD server

« on: August 03, 2008, 05:52:11 PM »

Is Lithium still maintained by anyone or is the source code available? Leaks and bugs can be fixed.

1129

/dev/random / Re: Large Hadron Collider

« on: August 03, 2008, 05:42:45 PM »

Antimatter is created and destroyed routinely in particle accelerators. High energy particle collisions yield a host of secondary particle anti-particle pairs that fly off in various directions and spiral around in the detectors depending on their mass and charge. Most of them last only micro or nanoseconds before they collide with another particle in the detector and are absorbed or annihilated. Mutual annihilation of matter/antimatter usually emits photons or other particles that are absorbed in tertiary reactions in the detector.

Unfortunately, it takes far more energy to create and contain antimatter than it yields in return.

The some of the materials exposed to high energy reactions in particle accelerators also become radioactive and eventually contribute to the volume of radioactive waste that must be contained and disposed of.

The best place for Safe Nuclear Power remains 94 million miles away in a nice gravitationally-confined sphere available for free.

1130

Trouble Shooting / Re: R1Q2 troubles

« on: August 03, 2008, 08:29:53 AM »

No.

Try this:

Put -nopathcheck on the command line you use to launch r1q2. This will require changing it in the program you use to launch it or in the desktop shortcut.

1131

Trouble Shooting / Re: R1Q2 troubles

« on: August 02, 2008, 10:38:42 PM »

Install Quake2 in \quake2 on any drive. Don't install it in a deep path like c:\program files\idsoftware\quake2

The message is caused by a safety check of the path to your Quake2 installation to prevent buffer overflows.



There are two problems:
1
Quake2 defines MAX_OSPATH as 128 characters.
R1ch subtracts MAX_QPATH (64 bytes) from it to obtain 64 characters that he will allow for a path to the current directory of the game. This is needed to establish the buffer size for Quake 2 to access the file system and I suppose the 50/50 split was deemed reasonable.

2
All old mods and many current ones use this same 128 character limit from "q_shared.h" so the buffer must be fixed at that size or it could potentially break (crash) most mods.

The fundamental error is that under Windows NT systems: NT, XP, Vista, the true MAX_PATH constant defined for the OS is 260 characters and that is the constant that Quake 2 code should have used in the first place.

I believe the MAX_PATH for Windows 95/98 was 256 as that was the standard in C90/99 at that time.

To top it all off, Linux can use values from 256 to 4096 depending on flavor and vintage and it's called PATH_MAX in <linux/limits.h> with the additional limit that NAME_MAX is 255 or thereabouts.



Anyway, move your Quake 2 installation and you will be fine.

1132

Politics / Re: global warming - it's really pissing me off

« on: July 31, 2008, 02:19:32 AM »

Mars and Venus have nearly identical CO2 composition yet their temperatures are orders of magnitude different. The reason? Barometric pressure... the density of the atmosphere and the distance from the sun. Earth is VERY low in CO2 compared to Mars or Venus yet is very moderate compared to them. Clearly there is something else going on besides CO2 content.

OK....

 - Space is cold.  CHECK.
 - The sun is hot.  CHECK.
 - Distance from the sun matters.  CHECK.

 -> Therefore the concentration of greenhouse gasses in Earth's atmosphere cannot be responsible for shifting the global average temperature by a few degrees?  DOES NOT FOLLOW.

Just 'cause planets closer to the sun are hotter, and planets further from the sun are cooler, regardless of their atmospheric composition, does not seem to imply much of anything about whether greenhouse gasses could contribute to a few degrees of warming here on Earth?

You forgot:

4. Greenhouse effect is bad.

Frankly, I have my doubts the effects would reach the level of catastrophe projected by some doomsayers.  (Kind of like how some claimed Y2K would shut down global commerce.)  But that's just me talking as a skeptic, not as a climate scientist--which I am assuredly not.


Regards,

But you are lumping GHG's together and then isolating man's contribution of CO2 to the effect when the major and dominant component is water vapor, not CO2. This is the fallacy (as I see it) of AGW; that man's CO2 emissions are responsible for "bad" climate changes. The correlation between man's CO2 and "climate change" is far from clear as the temperature logs demonstrate chaotic changes probably dominated by local effects rather than CO2 effects.

It can even be shown that NWS monitoring stations are poorly maintained, have undergone local construction of roads, parking lots, housing, air conditioner airflow and all manner of man-made heat effects that skew and invalidate the data sets for the last 40 or 50 years. To assert that "climate change" as represented by these records is "representative" of the planet is absurd.

The other fallacy is that anything man does to alter climate is "bad" and status quo of the climate is "good". Or to assume that some condition of the past 200 or 400 years was "normal" and today's climate is "abnormal". Which climate is "good"? The little ice age? The ice age of 30,000 years ago? Do we want to bring back the wooly mammoth and saber tooth cat? They probably saw their global climate change as "bad" too.

Yes, man should minimize his impact But that includes the footprint of his technology and his infrastructure. Roads, buildings, power usage, irrigation, all examples of major impactors on microclimates and all "essential improvements" in somebody's life and you will have trouble convincing someone who doesn't have modern conveniences to do without them while you enjoy them. Go tell the Chinese and Indonesians they don't need cars and highways because of AGW while the rest of the world keeps theirs. I don't think you will be convincing them anytime soon.

1133

Politics / Re: global warming - it's really pissing me off

« on: July 31, 2008, 01:50:03 AM »

The greenhouse effect is as follows: the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface.

You contradicted an encyclopedic definition..... lol. Greenhouse gases ABSORB this infrared radiation. I just don't understand why you would take all that time to type all of that when your initial argument was well... dead wrong.

The quote above is garbage. I either didn't even say what you're saying that I did, or it's information that doesn't even address what I said and you're pretending that it does. Sorry, but this is not a good way to prove a point.

Fallacy by ad hominem attack. According to you, I don't know what I am talking about but you do, therefore you are right and I am wrong. There is no futher point in responding to you.

The points were about the fallacies of your logic.

The IR is absorbed and reradiated by the surface. This reradiated energy is absorbed and reradiated by the water vapor and other GHG's. Water accounts for 36% of Greenhouse warming where CO2 accounts for 9%. Water also account for 99% of the night time retention of surface heat where CO2 is negligible. (Cloudy nights vs clear nights.) This is why low humidity climates (deserts) are colder at night and day/night temperature swings are greater.

Venus' high temperature is only partially cause by CO2. The major contributor is the thick layer of sufuric acid clouds. The Galileo probe showed the clouds absorb 2.3 micron IR very strongly.


Notice the absorption/emission characteristic of H2O vs CO2. Notice the areas under the curves, the greater the area the greater total contribution. Who's the dominant component? H2O (water) OBVIOUSLY. Beware the deadly Dihdrogen Oxide layer!
 

1134

Politics / Re: global warming - it's really pissing me off

« on: July 30, 2008, 05:14:40 PM »

It's the WATER doods!

1135

Politics / Re: global warming - it's really pissing me off

« on: July 30, 2008, 05:11:52 PM »

“Human activity is rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, causing the global average temperature to rise.”

My problem with that statement is HUMAN ACTIVITY

DWxchzrles, what if we break that statement down into its component parts?  Do you agree, disagree, or still have a problem with any of the following?

1. Atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses is increasing. (Regardless of how.)

2a. An increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases historically corresponds to a rise in global average temperature.

2b. An increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is a cause of rise in global average temperature.

3a. Human activity produces greenhouse gasses.

3b. Human activity produces greenhouse gasses in sufficient quantity to contribute to some change in global average temperature.


I'm going to guess that you would agree with at least 1, 2a, and 3a...?  How about 2b and 3b?


Regards,

You forgot:

4. Greenhouse effect is bad.

1136

Politics / Re: global warming - it's really pissing me off

« on: July 30, 2008, 05:07:23 PM »

We've already established that the greenhouse effect exists. It is an ACTUAL process and not a theory. The whole principle behind this process is that it has a warming effect. To be exact, the definition of this FACTUAL process is as follows:

The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface.

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. (it also occurs on both venus and mars in addition to earth)

The Greenhouse mechanism is VERY different from the Infrared absorption/emission process that keeps this planet warm.

Composition of Venus atmosphere:
Surface pressure 9.3 MPa
Composition ~96.5% Carbon dioxide
~3.5% Nitrogen
.015% Sulfur dioxide
.007% Argon
.002% Water vapor
.0017% Carbon monoxide
.0012% Helium
.0007% Neon
trace Carbonyl sulfide
trace Hydrogen chloride
trace Hydrogen fluoride

Surface temp.
                    min            mean         max
   Kelvin                          735 K
   Celsius                     461.85 °C
 
Compostion of Martian atmosphere:
Surface pressure 0.7–0.9 kPa
Composition 95.72% Carbon dioxide

2.7% Nitrogen
1.6% Argon
0.2% Oxygen
0.07% Carbon monoxide
0.03% Water vapor
0.01% Nitric oxide
2.5 ppm Neon
300 ppb Krypton
130 ppb Formaldehyde
80 ppb Xenon
30 ppb Ozone
10 ppb Methane
 
Surface temp.
                    min            mean         max
   Kelvin       186 K          227 K       268 K
   Celsius     −87 °C       −46 °C       −5 °C
 
Compostion of Earth atmosphere:

Surface pressure 101.3 kPa (MSL)
Composition 78.08% Nitrogen (N2)
20.95% Oxygen (O2)
0.93% Argon
0.038% Carbon dioxide
About 1% water vapor

Surface temp.
                    min            mean         max
   Kelvin       184 K         287 K        331 K
   Celsius     −89 °C       14 °C        57.7 °C

 
Mars and Venus have nearly identical CO2 composition yet their temperatures are orders of magnitude different. The reason? Barometric pressure... the density of the atmosphere and the distance from the sun. Earth is VERY low in CO2 compared to Mars or Venus yet is very moderate compared to them. Clearly there is something else going on besides CO2 content.
 

We have known about it for quite sometime now. We have also known that certain gases, 'greenhouse gases', are what fuels this effect. FALSE ANY atmosphere will keep heat in near the surface, it doesn't have to be a greenhouse gas.

So, we undoubtedly (far from undoubtedly) know what role greenhouse gases play in the greenhouse effect. We also know that the greenhouse effect intensifies with larger amounts of greenhouse gases (see venus). Now, lets apply this definition to reality. (the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface)

In current times, greenhouse gas levels have risen tremendously in the atmosphere(fact). The whole principle behind global warming, is that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases enhance the greenhouse effect(which we've already established is possible, see venus).

Maybe it will help to look at it as a proportional equation (it is an equation, and proportional being that the greenhouse effect exists). This is in the form of input = output (chemistry).

Greenhouse gases / Greenhouse effect = Warming effect on the planets surface (again, a fact)

False. The primary effect is from solar irradiance on the surface at about 1100 W/m^2 on earth. Walk barefoot on asphalt on a hot summer afternoon and you will begin to understand. Also look up Specific Heat of water and you will understand why lakes freeze and the oceans are cool.

Greenhouse gas effects are not linear equations. They are 2nd or 3rd order differential equations of at least 5 or 6 terms, barometric pressure, temperature, spectral absorbtion, obscuration, altitude, turbulences, shear wind effects, a host of other factors that we have no clue about.

I'm not saying that Global warming follows the exact proportionality of the example equation that I just provided. But what I am saying is that it is UNDENIABLE that there is a proportional, increasing relationship between greenhouse gases and the warming of earth's surface with the aforementioned facts being true.

Proportionality is NOT proven. The temperature graphs so far cited and displayed here do not support the proportionality. The CO2 data do not correlate well with temperature data.

Fallacy. Begging the question.
Greenhouse gases cause global warming, therefore global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.

Fallacy by authority. These are facts, they are undeniably facts because I affirm them to be undeniable.
Therefore I conclude my conclusion is true.


If the Sun winked out this minute..... well 8.5 minutes ago, the Earth would be immediately plunged into the black coldness of space. In a matter of 12 or 15 hours the temperature of the surface would approach 15 K or colder. The water vapor would freeze out of the air in 36 hours, the Nitrogen and Oxygen would liquify in a week. In a month the surface would be 4 K or less, the atmosphere would be a layer of liquids on top of frozen water and rock. All the heat would have radiated from the surface and the very quickly transparent atmosphere. It's the atmosphere's infrared opacity that keeps the surface warm. The only warm spots would be volcanic floes powered by tidal forces and Earth's internal heat.

1137

Politics / Re: another terrorist attack

« on: July 28, 2008, 12:57:37 AM »

This sums it up nicely:

"Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.


We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.


In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.

Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=77D37794-BF74-4BD5-9AD4-D8736FDC82BB

1138

Politics / Re: another terrorist attack

« on: July 27, 2008, 08:04:19 PM »

Islam: The Religion of Peace? (And a big stack of dead bodies)

1139

/dev/random / Re: My life flashed before my eyes...

« on: July 27, 2008, 08:02:06 PM »

If they paid for an FBI report and to have you bonded they paid for a credit check. The fees charged by the CRA's are very small to banks, IIRC, on the order of $10 or $25, small change compared to running NCIC or FBI on you. Most places have an account with Experian or TRW and they can do it in about 5 minutes or less. A bank can run your credit report cheaper than you can... up until the federally mandated free annual one became law.

Ever test driven a car at the dealership? Did they make a copy of your drivers license before you went on the road with the salesman? Guess what the back office at the dealer was doing while you were checking out that spiffy new car... they were running your credit to see if you had spiffy credit to buy the car. It is also the basis for the interest rate and/or down payment on the loan they will offer you should you decide to buy it.

One customer I attend does BI's on anyone coming to the facility for longer than a couple of weeks. We're talking full DoD clearances, etc. They have you sign a FCRA disclosure form where you must agree to allow them to run a credit check. They are more concerned with that aspect of the forms than any other. The DoD stuff can be run no matter what and they do, but you better sign this here FCRA form or else.

1140

poetry / essays / short stories? / Re: Quotes

« on: July 26, 2008, 09:23:41 PM »

I had nothing left to double up with. I limit myself to a certain amount of cash in hand when we hit town. Once the cash is gone, that's it. Time to hit the shows or dinner and chase the wife upstairs or head home. Best I ever did was two $100 jackpots one night on a $1 progressive slot machine cluster. Total winnings paid for the trip plus $47. Second best was $90 jackpot on a quarter machine the first night in Vegas while attending CES. Dropped another $400 the rest of the weekend. Where'd that guy go with the "Quit while your ahead" advice?