He is trapped in a logical fallacy. Because Richard Lindzen worked on one of the IPCC reports, he thinks he has to be credible to us, and anything he says has to.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Think about it this way; what if some extreme alarmist scientist that also worked on an IPCC report predicted an imment apocalypse on some tv show or in a book? Is there any reason to give more weight to his opinions than Lindzens?
Credibility is derived from the scientific process, not the personae.

So he is paying for bitcoins with more bitcoins.


And you think that makes any sense? What you describe is basically that he is lending bitcoins from miners. That by itself, sounds plausible.  Until you do the math and realize he is paying 15% interest per day. You can get a loan from the bank for less than that per year, and put that money on your MtGox account and buy bitcoins as needed. He needs to do that anyway, the only difference is that he can get away with a smaller initial amount at MtGox (and a bigger one ultimately since he needs more bitcoins than he would without loaning).  Thats assuming hed need a loan, that thought would frighten me, if he cant afford to put a few 100 dollar on his mt gox account.

Im not saying he is going to screw his miners and steal their coins, only that he is lying about his goals.


Irrelevant. Did you read what I wrote? assume its plain impossible in SA to buy bitcoins with fiat money. How then he is going to get the bitcoins to pay the 15% bonus? He is paying that in bitcoins. If he were paying for the hashrate with paypal, then maybe it might make some sense (and be HUGELY dangerous for the miners), but he isnt. He is paying for bitcoins with 15% more bitcoins. That means he needs to convert more fiat in to bitcoins than he would otherwise. IE, makes no sense for his stated reason.

I dont even know why you feel this is worth debating, given whats already said about it, given its 15 years old. Its clear what the goal of the petition is: stop Kyoto. Back then youd find many proponents of that, even among those that didnt dispute AGW. Its not like Kyoto was perfect. But the first phrase makes it clear this is NOT about assessment of science, but a political statement.

Anyway, lets parse the text (which has been modified frequently, even after people "signed it"); "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment". Id like to see evidence of that?
" hinder the advance of science and technology, "
This can be argued, though the exact opposite can be argued just as well. Again Id like to see solid scientific evidence for this. Its a hollow and meaningless phrase IMO.
"and damage the health and welfare of mankind." Welfare, for some ppl, probably yes. Health? show me the evidence.

"
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"

Please note, even back then, they were apparently not denying human impact on the climate. Only that they found the evidence for it causing catastrophic heating unconvincing. In 1995 that might have been accurate. Even today, one might say its unproven, depending how you define catastrophic, and how you factor in likelyhoods, but the evidence has certainly increased dramatically. Even in 2001, so 11 years ago, scientific american polled some of the signatories, and found 2/3 would no longer sign that statement. How many do you think today?

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Hugely misleading statement. but on the face of it, certainly true. Some plants and some animals in some environments will definitely benefit for some time. But then thats true for most ecological disasters.

Thats about all the time I want to waste discussing a political pamphlet signed 15 years ago by mostly non climate scientists the majority of whom no longer seem to support it today. If thats the best skeptics can come up with, there seems to be precious little skepticism.

I am not. By all means read and learn. But its nonsensical to give more weight to your own conclusions which are inevitably based on a tiny subset of all the available science (and likely, with very limited ability to properly parse the science) than to the IPCC report. What the IPCC does, is not producing science but reviewing science, what you seem to be doig, and that by itself is a monumental task thats carried about by 100s of our brightest scientists. To put it mildly, a single layman is not likely to make a more accurate assessment.

This is a problem that governments also faced. They solved it by creating the largest and most rigid ever attempt to synthesize all the available science on a particular topic, in this case, climate change. Its called the IPCC. There isnt a better way to find out what "the climate scientists" are saying. If you really think you can do better on your own, feel free, but its laughable.

Dont understand what you are saying here. Why would a pool operator sell his hashing power >115%? I can imagine pool ops buying hash rate above market value to test software, or help kickstart a new pool, but those would be really really small markets. Ive seen Dr Haribo rent some hashing power to test the new backend of bitminter, but it only takes an hour or so to get results.

This makes no sense. Its what the SA guy (clipse?) claims, but think about. He is paying miners with bitcoins.  Not only that, he is paying them more bitcoins that the hashrate can normally provide. How does that help obtain bitcoins? It doesnt, he has to buy or otherwise obtain more bitcoins to pay his miners, so its a net bitcoin loss. If he has problems buying bitcoins, buying hashrate this way only makes the problem bigger.

As for actual uses: pool hopping proportional pools like Deepbit is one likely candidate. Deepbit delays stats by an hour, but since they are so big, Im sure just looking at the blockchain would let you guess with reasonable confidence when they mined a block. I wouldnt be surprised if you could hop it.

Woot! 7950s and 7970s are hitting the market, and as I had hoped, causing 58x0 cards to come on the market and prices to plummet. I just got a deal on a 5850 for 70 euro and Im negotiating a 5870 for ~90.

Now if only powersupplies would drop in price too. I am still using piles of older 500-700W PSUs, leftovers or psus that somehow found their way to my house, but despite generally being A-brands like antec, most of them cant even power 2 overclocked cards;  this is getting tedious and the cable salad is not good for my zen/karma/whatever. Since I have several unused PCIe slots its all too tempting to spend my money on more cards, but meh.. a new PSU most come next now.

Im eyeing a Tagan 1000W for a good price, I know its not Antec, but does anyone have experience with that brand?  I can buy it for like 1/3 the price of an equivalent Antec, and reviews dont seem bad at all.

Actually there is (besides fans obviously). Its called electro migration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration

In the long run it will ruin any chip, but that long run could be extremely long indeed. Or just a few months, there is no telling.

That said, without overvolting and while keeping temps reasonable, going by forum reports and a wet finger, you are probably looking at a failure rate of something on the order of 5-10% per year. Perhaps more for 5970s, they seem to be more fragile particularly if you dont take proper care of VRM cooling.

I was responding to a specific statement by bitcoinbitcoin113, not to "libertarian agw deniers" in general.

As for that latter group, most sane libertarians arent saying we should get rid of governments and regulations entirely and there is a role for it to tackle problems the free market can not; agw would be one those, admittedly, a big one since even big government proponents will find it hard to come up with appropriate and effective solutions. FWIW, Ive seen some reasontv clips with die hard libertarians who had no problem admitting the effectiveness of certain government regulation particularly when it comes to pollution. The example quoted IIRC was lead free fuels.

If the catholic church can come around to accept a round earth and evolution despite what the bible says, I am confident rational libertarians can accept scientific evidence for agw.  And if they can come up with free market solutions to help solve the problem, everyone wins because despite not being a die hard libertarian myself, I also have precious little faith in governments solving it.

Good. Now that you have solved the stale problem, perhaps you can tackle the block finding algorithm?

Or if you prefer, from the synthesis report for policy makers:

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4 growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2}

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings


Well, read it for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

Read more carefully

Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans. Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.

It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis technique.

Further evidence has accumulated of an anthropogenic influence on the temperature of the free atmosphere as measured by radiosondes and satellite-based instruments. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion. The combination of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere has likely led to an increase in the height of the tropopause. It is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the general warming observed in the upper several hundred meters of the ocean during the latter half of the 20th century. Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies.


...

Overall consistency of evidence. Many observed changes in surface and free atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature and sea ice extent, and some large-scale changes in the atmospheric circulation over the 20th century are distinct from internal variability and consistent with the expected response to anthropogenic forcing. The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system as well as the magnitude and pattern of warming within and across the different components supports the conclusion that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely (<5%) to be the result of internal processes. Qualitative consistency is also apparent in some other observations, including snow cover, glacier retreat and heavy precipitation.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html

ffmpeg is the way to go. But if you must have a gui, you can transcode the video in VLC as well.
Here is a tutorial:
http://www.videolan.org/doc/streaming-howto/en/ch02.html

Its entirely possible your card simply wont overclock any further. There are no guarantees, its not because many people can overclock way beyond that, that your card can. There is a reason these cards are sold as 800 MHz parts, and not as 900 MHz parts.

Drivers have nothing to do with it btw.

If your temperatures are good, as I would expect with a twinfrozr, you could try increasing the voltage a tiny bit (if your card supports it), but be aware this will greatly reduce power efficiency and its not good for reliability either.

Not a biggie I think, but use screen. Then whatever session you are running over ssh wont close down if you close the shell.
simply run
To detach the screen press control+a and then d
although just closing the shell will do the same, and not stop the script.
to reattach a screen
screen -r

http://youtu.be/j2AvU2cfXRk

and another quite brilliant one on European Debt Crisis :
http://youtu.be/I5QwKEwo4Bc

Ill throw in my 2 cents, even if Im too late

In a democracy, on most complex financial/economic/political/etc issues, ordinary voters "are not qualified" either. But they do vote, as they should; they vote representatives who are supposed to know these issues better. I think the same goes here, I may not understand all the technical ins and outs of BIP16, but I know what its about and to put it very simple, to me it boils down to, do I trust Gavins judgment above Lukes?
I think thats actually quite a reasonable approach to follow. You can decide to put faith in a pool op, or actively decide which pool you will join that supports you POV. Its almost like political parties .

To continue my parallel with democracy; non voters dont get counted. I dont see why we should count them here (unless maybe there was a way to vote "undecided"). This process is new, so we should give it some time otherwise  it may cause a bit of a panic initially, but if you make votes binding and ignore the non voters, Im sure quickly miners and pools will get more involved and more interested in whats going on to make sure they cast the right votes. If they dont, their votes are simply ignored, i see no reason to allow non voters to halt the development of bitcoin.

Yeah, among other things its short for "will of the aryan nation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wotanism

On most cards the "assembly" is really a duct forcing the air through the heatsink fins. Looking at the pictures of your card, it doesnt seem to be the case, the fans blow right through the cooler dont they? If so, should not be a problem removing the shroud and mounting whatever other fans on it with tieraps or anything. Get creative .