Ok, so why not just be specific? “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago.
And have you looked into the records? satellite surface temps and high resolution recording have not been around for very long. 1880 methods were very crude and narrowly scoped.
> “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago.
I'm a journalist who has published "highest/lowest on record" statistics tens, if not hundreds of times, and I've never heard of anyone thinking it means "since Herodotus" or anything like that.
How would readers know the reference point unless you inform them. Of course they will defer to colloquialisms . In some cases 5000 years , some 1000 years . With something as broad and impactful as this, they certainly assume more than 150 years .
You both have a point, reading further provides context as to which record is being talked about.
There are, of course, many records - newspaper records, human logged records of conditions that day, and human created records of proxy data - ice cores, dendrochronology, cosmic ray induced crystal formation in beach sand, etc.
and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange.
i'm literally in the middle of trying to parse a couple of papers that examine the methodology of at least the NOAA homogenization model.
did you know there's only eight sensors, globally, that we have data for >95% of the last 100 years, that are labelled as "fully rural"? so this means that 99.9% of the stations must therefore be, at least, more likely to be adjusted, doesn't it? The entire premise that UHI is irrelevant because they "normalized" the 99.9% and it showed it was irrelevant is... i don't know, it's something, though.
I agree it's suspicious. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'm trying to understand the e2e process. i.e. divide 1880-present into Epochs and understand what %-age of coverage, resolution & how precise were the instruments
after you do all of that, see if you can find pictures of the stations, the little structure the old ones were in are called "CRS" which stands for Cotton Region Shelter. these were the old liquid-in-glass style thermometers. The new ones have multi-plate radiation shields to house the thermistor and protect it from direct sunlight while allowing airflow. i guess some people say they look like a beehive, but they're a cylinder.
so the CRS ones could be put anywhere. the new MMTS sensors had a pre-cut length of cable for installation, as the base unit was to be situated indoors.
So CRS could be out in the middle of a field, where the MMTS are generally within 30' of a building.
Maybe we should throw out all the MMTS data?
Now, though, someone finally realized, and they're installing wireless MMTS - minimum-maximum temperature sensor, tells the min and max over the last 24 hours, and you record those numbers once per day, at a specific Time-of-Observation. Changing the time-of-observation requires de-biasing the data, too!
i agree that the apparatus varies tremendously over the decades. Real science is hard work and I applaud environmental scientists for their efforts. We need to be careful about qualifying "raw data" since software engineers usually stop at a textfile and forget about the origins.
This is probably an area where SDR's with send capability could in theory be prosecuted as a jamming device. Whether it's been interpreted that way or enforced ever is unknown to me. A purpose built device advertised as a jammer would absolutely be a problem.
Oh also, the 1934 communications act is supposed to prohibit US/state governments from using such devices as well, but they've ignored the law. Some companies in the 2000's challenged it for use in their buildings and afaik lost the cases. My experience dates from that same time range when they were sort of accepted as de jure illegal but there wasn't de facto enforcement.... also networks use more bands now so a jammer covering more frequency ranges would be needed. back then they could do 3 ranges (850mhz-ish, 1900mhz-ish, 2100mhz-ish), now there would be way more like 3.7ghz down to 600mhz. Ignoring mmwave, that's not going to be in your bathroom.
> Actually, just being in possession of such a device in the US isn't legal.
Wait, SDR devices are not legal in the US? That doesn't sound plausible.
My "computerized legal advisor" says:
> There’s no rule from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that forbids individuals or hobbyists from buying, importing, or owning SDR hardware in the United States. You can legally purchase and have them.
> Radios that transmit need FCC equipment authorization (such as certification or Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity) before they can be marketed in the U.S. if they are capable of operating in ways that could cause interference. That’s primarily a manufacturer obligation, not something that restricts private ownership.
> Owning a device is fine, but you must not transmit illegally. Sending signals on unauthorized frequencies or at unauthorized power levels can lead to fines, equipment seizure, and other penalties.
Owning lockpicks when you're caught burgling a house? You're extra screwed.
Owning an SDR? Fine!
Owning an SDR and getting caught using it to illegally disrupt communications? You're extra screwed.
Yes, you can absolutely own an SDR, and transmit with it on legal frequencies. If you're busted using it to break the law, then it's strong evidence that you went out of your way to deliberately, premeditatedly break it, and that makes for a bad day.
Yeah. I was reassuring the parent of my post that they’re right, it’s legal to own an SDR. You can still get in extra trouble for breaking the law with it, but it’s perfect fine to have and use one otherwise.
Sure, but my original question was what happens if two people are caught with an SDR unit, and authorities can't prove who (of the two people) used their unit to do the jamming.
Not a lawyer. My guess: if they’re together, they’d both be charged, as if they robbed a store as a team. If they’re not, neither would be charged, as each would have a brilliant defense.
> (a) Violation with willful and knowing intent
Any electronic, electromagnetic, radio frequency, or similar device, or component thereof, used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled, possessed, offered for sale, sold, or advertised with willful and knowing intent to violate section 301 or 302a of this title, or rules prescribed by the Commission under such sections, may be seized and forfeited to the United States.
Guess what? You don’t have to be a fucking lawyer to know how to read.
So much confident incorrectness. It says you can’t do those things with a device that’s marketed as being a jammer. Any radio can be used as a jammer, just not sold for that specific purpose.
So yes, you can own an SDR, slop and/or reading comprehension notwithstanding.
Oh, I had that in my old office building, everyone but me was buying and selling fruit and they were dealing while shitting in the communal bathrooms. Really weird when you just want to defecate and suddenly someone yells into their phone YES I'LL BUY EVERYTHING.
Technical debt goes hard, I had a discussion with a facilities guy why they never got around to ditch the last remnants of token ring in an office park. Fortunately in 2020 they had plenty of time to rip that stuff out without disturbing facility operation. Building automation, security and so on often lives way longer than you'd dare planning.
Everyone is forgetting the no delay is per application and not a system configuration. Yep, old things will still be old and that’s ok. That new fangled packet farter will need to set no delay which is a default in many scenarios. This article reminds us it is a thing and especially true for home grown applications.
That is so incredibly smart. I have a very common gmail address (initial + last name) and literally hundreds of people use this mail address and I would love to resolve the countless issues I can witness from getting the mails alone, but I essentially have no chance at all.
Usually these ISPs are part of or under the municipal utility provider. So if they lose money, it first gets offset by profits from other utilities and eventually yes, the taxpayer will step in, directly or indirectly. No big deal. No one is complaining about subsidies for water or power lines in rural areas, neither should they when it comes to internet. Remember: These ISPs were founded because the market was already failing to provide decent offers or any at all.
I've been in banking for quite some time of my life and hands down, there is no country in the world that makes bankers with let's say questionable skills in risk assessment and decision making more afraid. Millions in fines, maybe more? Zero fucks given. Messing with regulators in Singapore? Not worth it. Wouldn't be surprised if they send or have sent people out to tell the somewhat gory stories of the canings in Singapore.
Personally, I don't believe in preventive effects of draconian punishment, but I also don't believe in cokeheads. Being a cokehead in Singapore means risking facing the mandatory death sentence for posession of more than 30g of cocaine, which depending on the habit is a months supply max for some.
I would respectfully disagree. While Singapore likes to “kill the chicken to teach the monkey” they absolutely are examples of kid gloves.
The recent corruption case of a Minister taking gifts of hundreds of thousands resulted in a few months custodial sentence for the Minister and nothing for the rich “donor”.
Massive money laundering scam? Stiff punishment for the foreigners and kid gloves for the local lawyers and bankers who facilitated it all.
Singaporeans constantly complain about how being rich in Singapore protects from actual punishment.
>depending on the habit is a months supply max for some
People with substance abuse problems are generally the "get more every day or two" type not the "have a month's supply on hand" type.
And I really believe more in corporal punishment for a lot of things than the maze of fines, legal costs, and probation which really seems more like complicated inconvenience.
For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going. It would be particularly good for any fraud that nets you, say over a million dollars. Only for the kinds of crimes that have significant victims.
> For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going.
This is obscene. It is torture. If you torture people, they usually confess, regardless of innocence or guilt.
I wouldn't mind public torture for violent crimes (hey, if it is acceptable to torture the victim, what is it unacceptable to torture the criminal?), but the part that when they apologize they get a 50% discount is stupid.
Either the punishment is appropriate, or not. If it is inappropriate, change it. If it is appropriate, don't give a 50% discount for saying "sorry" when told to. First, it means nothing; no one reasonable will think that the "sorry" was sincere. Second, if once in a while an innocent person is incorrectly sentenced, you insist that they either apologize for something they didn't do, or get 2x the punishment an actually guilty criminal would get.
What is the police force isn't completely honest and has a tendency to incriminate say black men?
What if the police force isn't particularly competent?
What if the man was framed?
Cruel and unusual punishment is regarded as sadistic; and how and who decides what is okay or not? I would not be wholly surprised to find the definition of "violent crime" becoming a political football.
What happens if you get an Islamic Government in? cutting off hands is okay?
What about also when people find themselves in desperate situations through no fault or their own and turn to crime to survive? we should torture them?
I'm not defending any of those people. Mussolini was a monster who used gas in Ethiopia and many other things, yes. But that wasn't the topic. Fascist Italy didn't do "racist scapegoating" and blame internal problems on people of other races.
Then deliver the news and have constructive discussions.
For what it's worth is well accepted among most fascism historians that racism, at least in the sense of adopting racial laws and such came late, and mostly as a byproduct of the German alliance.
As for what did Italy do itself before that, if you're referring to the wars in Africa, that has nothing to do with fascism, and the two biggest colonial powers at the time were both very sane democracies.
reply